A Death Blow to Full (Hyper) Preterism

[asterisktom]

Thev only thing I said was here is an article and gave the web address. From that point on the " " signs signify that these were from the article.

I was responding to the last line of yours. I assumed it was yours because there were no quotes after it. You had no closing quotes, so my misunderstanding is easy to do. This is the line:

"It appears the 95 to 96 A.D. writiting of the book of revelation is accurate if you believe the writings of these men who live in the 100 and 200 A.D. time period."

 

[asterisktom]

What do you call this?

Matthew 27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Were they ghosts?

Of course not. But we don't take isolated passages and make them normative.

But what do you call that? Are those people alive today? Was that their resurrection? And what about Lazarus? Was that his resurrection? Or were these all instructive types for us?

 

[asterisktom]

Yes, but do you believe in the literal physical return of Christ?

No, I don't.

We are so used to the physical that it is hard for us to accept that the spiritual is better. The first century Jews had the same blind spot. But Scripture teaches us that our eternal bodies are going to be spiritual. I cor 15:

"46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man."

 

[asterisktom]

wow, just...wow. That to me is such a patent denial of plain Scripture and the Gospel itself...I am actually beside myself.

Who else in the full preterist camp holds these beliefs? Who are the leaders of this teaching?

It is a patent denial of what you were taught is the Gospel.

 

[Amy.G]

Of course not. But we don't take isolated passages and make them normative.

But what do you call that? Are those people alive today? Was that their resurrection? And what about Lazarus? Was that his resurrection? Or were these all instructive types for us?

I call it a resurrection of the OT saints, just as Christ promised Martha.

John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?


Jesus was speaking to her about the physical resurrection of Lazarus. Was his body raised from the dead or just his spirit? Jesus is clearly teaching that there is a physical resurrection.

 

[asterisktom]

I call it a resurrection of the OT saints, just as Christ promised Martha.

John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?


Jesus was speaking to her about the physical resurrection of Lazarus. Was his body raised from the dead or just his spirit? Jesus is clearly teaching that there is a physical resurrection.

So then you do believe that those saints who walked into Jerusalem are still alive, and that Lazarus is still alive?

Or, if they died, then these people get two resurrections? I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I am just trying to understand your view.

I don't see how Lazarus's could be a resurrection, seeing that Christ Himself is the Firstfruits.

 

[asterisktom]

Jesus was speaking to her about the physical resurrection of Lazarus. Was his body raised from the dead or just his spirit? Jesus is clearly teaching that there is a physical resurrection.

If this is the case then clearly Lazarus is at a disadvantage since "flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of God". When Christ said, "Lazarus, come forth!" did Lazarus rise up with his blood. Well, yes.

Do you see the problem here with what you are claiming?

 

[DHK]

If this is the case then clearly Lazarus is at a disadvantage since "flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of God". When Christ said, "Lazarus, come forth!" did Lazarus rise up with his blood. Well, yes.

Do you see the problem here with what you are claiming?

Can you please quote that verse word for word with the reference.

 

[Winman]

We will have real physical bodies in the resurrection.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Job says that although his present body will be destroyed by worms, yet in his FLESH he shall see God.

 

[Grasshopper]

What you need to know is that those who hold to full preterism are an extreme minority in the evangelical world.

I am well aware of that. I think I've probably read at least some of the works of most of them.

That is why you have such a hard time finding scholars that agree with it, never mind Baptist scholars. There are some scholarly Revelation commentaries out there with the preterist view, but full preterist? I doubt it.

You are correct they are few and far between. However I would put their scholarship up against the Dispie commentaries anyday. However I'm not convinced either are correct.

So once again, I believe my OP is very relevant.
Here's the difference in allegorical interpretation and my view. The allegorical interpretation often depends on human interpretation of the given text rather than original language (as I think I've proven on this thread), and is thus nothing more than opinion. On the other hand, the grammatical historical view believes in the supreme authority of the original text, literally interpreted. Therefore, as I did with you on this thread, I would take such people to the original language as authoritative when dealing with the time statements.

I completely disagree, when you see a phrase like "coming on the clouds", you go to the OT Hebrew scriptures to see how this phrase should be interpreted. You don't ignore the OT precedence for such a phrase. Literal interpretation gives you the wrong picture.

You appear to be attacking my honesty and integrity here. I hope that's not true. I've enjoyed this discussion until now and have nothing against you.

Forgive me for my bad wording. I have nothing but respect for you and what you are doing. Let me say it this way, I believe you are blinded by your own bias as we all are at times. You insist on literalism and plain meaning of words yet when we come to the most basic of concepts (time statements) you throw it out without a thought. That I believe is an dishonest interpretive method.

Also I've never commented one way or the other on this particular issue. My focus in the OP was very narrow, even though you have consistently tried to widen it.

I've tried several times and in several ways to show that the only people who agree with your claim are those who hold to your view of eschatology. Your OP is not the death blow to full preterism, I could think of much better issues that would fill that role. Scholars throughout history have understood the coming of Christ can have a non physical meaning. My argument really isn't for full preterism( I don't hold to a specific view within preterism) it is that your OP is not a death blow to FP.

Again, I'm saying that if he was talking about a spiritual coming of Christ to destroy his country and the holy city, he would not be eagerly awaiting it.

Well, the FP would not say it is the destruction that Paul looked forward to but the spiritual ramifications of the parousia.

It's amazing that such a positive view of an increasingly evil world still exists in light of WW1, WW2, Hitler, Stalin, Mao tse Tung, Pol Pot and other mass murderers of the 20th century (the most evil century in history). I thought that view went out with the near death experience of the postmil view in WW2.

As if the world was pure before the 20th century. Would you rather live in the Middle Ages? Would you rather live in the 2nd century? Think Roman rule wasn't evil? Again, dispensationalism lead to a pessimistic world view where the Church is impotent against the world

 

[Grasshopper]

I don't believe you would be saying this if you had actually read Walvoord. I think you are thinking of someone else with this statement (and I don't deny that some popular premil authors misuse current events in their teaching). In his commentary on Rev. Walvoord doesn't speak of world events. It's a straight scholarly commentary on the text, with close to 140 sources in the bibliography. He was the scholar who was president of the famous Dallas Seminary for many years. You would be pleased that he even gives the (weak) scholarly evidence for an early date for Rev.

Walvoord was no different than Hal Lindsey in this regard:


http://www.amazon.com/dp/0310539218/?tag=baptis04-20

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1414315821/?tag=baptis04-20

Something similar happened in 1990. John F. Walvoord recycled and revised his Armageddon, Oil and the Middle East Crisis to fit with what was then considered to be the latest in the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in our day. The 1974 edition opened with this declaration: “Each day’s headlines raise new questions concerning what the future holds.”[2] As we now know, Walvoord’s book was guided by current events and not sound methods of biblical interpretation. Described as “the world’s foremost interpreter of biblical prophecy,” in 1991 he expected “‘the Rapture to occur in his own lifetime.’”[3] While Walvoord didn’t invent the prophetic speculation game, as Frank Gumerlock points out it his The Day and the Hour, he did make a ton of money playing it.*

*http://americanvision.org/1768/publishers-pushing-for-armageddon/

“And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of his book” (22:7).
“And the [angel] said to [John], ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near” (22:10).
“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done” (22:12).
“Yes, I am coming quickly” (22:20).

Anyone reading these passages for the first time would rightly conclude that whatever is being described in these verses, the event is on the horizon. In fact, it takes lengthy reprogramming by dispensationalists, who claim to interpret the Bible literally, to get people to believe time is not being discussed but only speed. Here’s how John Walvoord explains the use of “shortly: “The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden (cf. Luke 18:8; Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rom. 16:20).”[1] Of course, that’s not what Revelation 1:1 says, and neither do the verses Walvoord cites for support. In fact, dispensational author Robert Thomas writes, “but in at least two of these passages the conclusion is debatable (cf. Luke 18:8; Rom. 16:20).”[2] This does not mean that Thomas disagrees with Walvoord’s conclusion. “The strongest support for this view,” Thomas argues, “is by way of an objection to the other alternative, that the phrase means ‘soon’ and has reference to nearness of fulfillment of the events predicted. The objection is that such an alternative is impossible because a futurist approach to the book would require the events to have taken place close to John’s lifetime.”[3] So while Revelation 1:1 and 1:3 seem to indicate that the predicted events are to have taken place to John’s lifetime, don’t believe it, because it would mean that dispensationalism isn’t true. So how does Thomas get around his claim that he interprets the Bible literally? “[T]ime in the Apocalypse is computed either relatively to the divine apprehension as here and in 22:10[4] (cf. 1:3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20) or absolutely in itself as long or short (cf. 8:1; 20:2).” What does this mean? He goes on: “When measuring time, Scripture has a different standard from ours (cf. 1 John 2:18).” This is question begging in the extreme. Thomas assumes what he must prove. Consider his proof text of 1 John 2:18: “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour.” John tells his readers that it is the last hour. If it wasn’t, the Bible is totally mixed up, confusing, and means the opposite of what it actually says. And what is the evidence that it was the last hour for John and the recipients of his letter?: that “even now many antichrists have arisen.” “From this,” the fact that even now many antichrists have arise, “we know that it is the last hour.” You don’t have to me a master logician to follow John’s line of reasoning.

http://americanvision.org/1244/maki...site-taking-closer-look-at-time-texts-part-5/

 

[asterisktom]

We will have real physical bodies in the resurrection.

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Job says that although his present body will be destroyed by worms, yet in his FLESH he shall see God.

So you think that Job's passage somehow negates the clearer passage in 1 Cor. 15?

A good translation would have helped you here, at least as far as some of these difficulties are concerned.

There are no "worms" in the text. The KJV's italics for the words show that they felt it was implied. The NKJV does a better job, as far as I can see.

25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;

26 And after my skin is destroyed, this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God,

27 Whom I shall see for myself,
And my eyes shall behold, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

Questions come to mind as to who are the destroyers of verse 26. Some commentaries say that these could even be Job's miserable comforters. Neither do we have to insist that the end times are what we modern Christians think by that term. That term is not at all used that way in the OT.

The phrase "in my flesh" can also be translated "from my flesh" (as in "outside of my flesh"). The sense then would be, "Even though I am no longer in the flesh I will still see God."

If you look at a variety of commentaries - I mean scholarly ones from different centuries - you will find that there is a wide range of interpretation of this passages. So, then, why would you want to use this passage to help flesh out (no pun intended) your exposition of the much clearer and unequivocal 1 Cor. 15:50?
__________________
The best way to understand any problem passage in the Bible is to look within the same book first and see if we can't find helpful clues. And, sure enough, we do have such help in Job.

Having studied this out some more I believe that the Redeemer that Job was talking about and the meeting and seeing God is found in this very book. Job 42:5:

5 “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear,
But now my eye sees You."

Job states in 19:26 his confidence that things will turn out right in the end, that he will "see God". This is exactly what happened here at the end of the book.

Now if any of this looks familiar we can move on to part two...

 

[John of Japan]

This is why I am passing on this whole discussion. There is too much misunderstanding here. The spiritual interpretation of the Bible does not equate neatly to "allegorical". There is allegory in the Bible. But there is also metaphor and spiritual interpretation. Three different things. They overlap sometimes, but certainly not always.

But it is not a case of either literal or allegorical.

I don't mean to be unkind, but this post shows a great ignorance of hermeneutics. You really need to do some serious study. I've taken both undergrad and grad classes on hermeneutics, and I have 19 books in my library on the subject. I'm not mistaken on such a basic point. The allegorical method and "spiritualizing" are identical. There is no separate "spiritual" school--unless you are a Catholic (and even that is an outgrowth of the allegorical school).

In Christianity, there are two basic methods of interpretation going back to the 3rd century, when Origen originated the allegorical school. In the meantime, the grammatical-historical method was centered in Antioch, with such brilliant lights as John Chrysostom.

As for "metaphor" that is simply a figure of speech making a comparison. All interpreters recognize the symbolic nature of metaphor in the Bible, and that is not a method of interpretation, it is not allegorizing or spiritualizing.

 

[John of Japan]

This thread is now a long way from it's OP. Maybe it should be put out of its misery. :flower:

 

[asterisktom]

I don't mean to be unkind, but this post shows a great ignorance of hermeneutics.

Oh please. Of course you meant to be unkind. Its your style. You can't match content for content so you do the snide thing.

I will wait for when you get a real response together. Or when someone else will. If you miss out on this basic assertion, well, I don't hold out much hope for this thread going anywhere.

 

[DHK]

Can you please quote that verse word for word with the reference.

asterisktom,
You did not answer my post, and for good reason. This was your post:

if this is the case then clearly Lazarus is at a disadvantage since "flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of God". When Christ said, "Lazarus, come forth!" did Lazarus rise up with his blood. Well, yes.

Do you see the problem here with what you are claiming?

Your supposed verse that you quoted here was 1Cor.15:50, but you misquoted it. There is no verse in the Bible that says "flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." If there is, produce it.

Here is what the verse says:
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; (1 Corinthians 15:50)
--Inherit doesn't not mean enter.
One can still enter the kingdom of God with flesh, as Jesus did; Elijah did, and others have.

Furthermore, regarding a literal coming:
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:9-11)

They saw him go up in a physical body. They were told that he will come back in like manner, in a physical body. How can it be anything other than physical?

 

[John of Japan]

I don't hold out much hope for this thread going anywhere.

Written on the 12th page. :tongue3:

 

[thomas15]

Oh please. Of course you meant to be unkind. Its your style. You can't match content for content so you do the snide thing.

I will wait for when you get a real response together. Or when someone else will. If you miss out on this basic assertion, well, I don't hold out much hope for this thread going anywhere.

This will probably get me in trouble but here goes...

You sir could make a lot more hay for your cause if you could find it in your heart to get back on topic and actually answer some questions. I for one am not impressed with your constant "snide remarks" remarks. I wish I had JOJ's gracious demeanor. He has, in my opinion been more than patient with those who take exception to his beliefs.

I normally mind my own business but this is getting out of hand.

 

[DHK]

We must understand that preterism is not fundamentally based on a mistaken view of prophecy, but this mistaken view of prophecy is based on an un-Biblical hermeneutic. A Biblical view of prophecy and its fulfillment strikes a death blow to the full (hyper) preterist doctrine.

It's very simple and I believe completely unanswerable by the preterist. Here it is. We all know that OT prophecies of Jesus Christ were fulfilled literally and precisely. I could give many, but most of you know them, I'm sure. So just a few of the most obvious ones:

Birth at Bethlehem of Ephratah (Micah 5:2 & Matt. 2:5-6)
Birth of a virgin (Is. 7:14 & Matt. 1:23)
Lived in Egypt (Hos. 11:1 & Matt. 2:14-15)
Tribe of Judah, house of David, etc. etc.

You can easily find many more with a quick Internet search, or in a good book on Biblical prophecy. The best and one of the only books on the interpretation of prophecy is The Interpretation of Prophecy, by Paul Lee Tan. Tan calls prophecy "prewritten history." And history is literal facts, not allegory.

Now since all OT prophecies of the first coming of Jesus Christ were fulfilled literally for all to see, it naturally follows that prophecies of Christ will be fulfilled literally. Any other view--any preterist view that denies a literal, physical 2nd coming of Jesus Christ is simply wrong and un-Biblical.

Oh, and by the way. Until the end of the 2nd century all church fathers, all Christian writings interpreted literally. According to Tan, Pantaenus in about 180 AD was the first to suggest allegorical interpretation (p. 48), and of course Origen was the one who popularized it in the 3rd century. Those early Christians all simply believed the literal sense of the Bible.

The OP.......

 

[asterisktom]

asterisktom,
You did not answer my post, and for good reason. This was your post:

I am going to bed, but I thought I better answer this part. I didn't answer your question because I didn't see it, quite frankly. I have a lot of responses on this thread alone and I just missed this

Your supposed verse that you quoted here was 1Cor.15:50, but you misquoted it. There is no verse in the Bible that says "flesh and blood cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." If there is, produce it.

Here is what the verse says:
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; (1 Corinthians 15:50)
--Inherit doesn't not mean enter.
One can still enter the kingdom of God with flesh, as Jesus did; Elijah did, and others have.

Your point is well taken. I did misquote it. This comes from my typing too quickly. Thanks for the correction.

Furthermore, regarding a literal coming:
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Acts 1:9-11)

They saw him go up in a physical body. They were told that he will come back in like manner, in a physical body. How can it be anything other than physical?

I am done with this part. See my earlier comments.