Any full preterists?

[Eric B]

As for the first post, there is agreement that there is a transition period, where they have a downpayment on the promises. You say it is AD30-70. But the Holy Spirit came right after Christ left (AD30~33), and I see no difference between the following forty years, and the 1930+ years afterwards. We are still in the transition period those passages describe. That is basically what I have been arguing. Just as you say, we in a sense "have" it, but then not completely. The thing that is lacking is the full "redemption" of our physical bodies from death to life. Our souls have that now, but not our bodies. And we are still plagued by sin, even though God does not count it against us. That is the transition. In part, but one day, the whole. In no way is this life as it is the whole. We still see through a glass darkly. We still must believe by "faith" rather than absolute sight (i.e. "see[ing] Him as He is"). That was this current state Paul referred to. Not some limbo state that changed after he wrote, but before now. As I have said before, "salvation" is threefold: from the penalty of sin,(we have this now) the power of sin (we have this now, but carnal Christians do let themselves get pulled back under it), and the presence of sin. That last is what we do not have yet, and is what I believe all those references to future "salvation" are referring to. We will no longer be "positionally perfect", or righteous by imputation, but in reality.
there is only one "glory" of Christ, but we have it dimly now (since we are still imperfect), but in whole one day. Even you mentioned something about "eternity", and you would probably acknowledge that that is when we will be finally "saved" from the presence of sin, free from [physical] death and decay, literally "citizens" of Heaven, etc. So you would still have this last stage of redemption, in which would be a final completion. That whole problem is, that your view piles what we believe are all of the biblical teachings on this onto this life, and I do not even see where there is any scripture left from your view to even give us any such hope. You have made it sound like this life is "IT".

The fact that Paul describes in Romans such things as "this body of death", and how he would do right, but sin works in him, etc. is perhaps the ultimate proof that that is the same age (of transition) we are in. For that is precisely our experience now (though in another thread, we are debating so-called 'catholists' about perfect obedience being necessary, and I'm trying to get one person to admit that either righteousness is imputed to him, or confess he is in fact,
"perfect" now). Yet, in the actual resurrection of the body, then we will be truly perfect. That is what I have always gotten from those scriptures, and it points to this being the transition. Christians were waiting for the redemption of the body, not the destruction of the OT Temple. (which had been destroyed before). Another big proof of all of this is the verse you quoted:

Hebrews 12:11 - All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.

We are still disciplined (often through trials, etc), in order to bring righteousness. But none of us can say we have been perfected in it. Only "positionally", we can, but God doesn't train us for a positional status that He just gives by grace. No, He is training us for ACTUAL "righteousness", and we can attain more, but never be perfect in actuality. And the fact that we still all have to go through this discipline shows that we are in the same exact state as they, and are all waiting for the same thing. But one day, we will attain it ACTUALly, and this requires the actual resurrection of our bodies. Then, we will need no more training.
Once again, everything I read in those passages, (in terms of the promises and forward hope compared with what we have now) I and many others will say we is very much apart of our experience.

Jeremiah 33 describes the new covenant this way:
Jeremiah 33:16 - In those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: the Lord is our righteousness. (Verses 19-21 show that it is the new covenant that Jeremiah is describing)

Jerusalem (neither literal or spiritual) does not dwell in safety. (Many of us here do, but we are not the only Christians). And it would be quite a stretch to say that our salvation is "dwelling safely". These prophecies are speaking in earthly terms, and to translate them all into salvation in thi life, not even eternity yet) is stretching them a bit too far.
I do not see the New Covenant mentioned in those verses. It contrasts Him who speaks from the Earth with Him who speaks from Heaven. I know you could probably draw some parallel, but it is not a clear denotation of the New covenant.

They were free of it's burden of slavery, but until the first tabernacle was removed, the way into the Holy Place and complete access to God was not disclosed.
The Christians of the time were in a unique position: They were living not just between covenants, but in the end times of the Old Covenant which coincided with the beginning of the New.

Co-existing covenants?

Paul compared the old and new covenants with Hagar and Sarah (Galatians 4:21-31). The children of the first covenant are represented by Ishmael, while the children of the new covenant are represented by Isaac, the first being in bondage and the second being free. For years, they existed in Abraham's household together, but "he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now." (v29)

Now read verse 30: "But what does the Scripture say? 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son of the free woman.'"

So, the two covenants were to exist together, in tension, until the first was cast out.
What were the pre-AD70 Christians waiting for? For the children of the covenant under bondage to be cast out, so that they could become full heirs!

Hebrews 8:13 - When He said, "A new covenant," He made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready (near) to disappear.

And that was represented through the tearing of the veil. That is the only event given such significance.
As far as speaking of the "passing" of the "old" being future, remember, this is drawing us to what the OT passage (Jeremiah) was saying. It was Jeremiah who recorded God as saying "Behold...I will make a new covenant...". To Jeremiah it was future, and the old was ready to pass away, and this is what the writer of Hebrews is relaying to us.

 

[Eric B]

Zechariah 12:10 - I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplications, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him...

Who will look upon Him? The house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. This defines who 'they' are: They will look upon Me, whom they pierced.

Rev 1:7 is a 1st century event.

Actually, looking this up just now, John 19:34 applies Zechariah to the very crucifixion itself.
Well, they did look upon Him then, most did not mourn for Him or receive the Spirit, so what I think this shows is that all of that ultimately is fulfilled in parts, or plurally. Still, no such act of conversion and mourning for Him "as for a son" (not for their own pain) is seen in AD70.

But it was John who was to do these things. It doesn't say john will start them and someone else will finish it. Unless you believe John will return in the future.

Possible. But the prophetic name is Elijah, not John, so while John may be a partial fulfillment of it, someone else can complete it. It may not directly say John will start, someone else will complete, but that is what is implied when Christ says on one hand, Elijah is here, but on the otherm he still "shall" come, and the record of later scripture is that the Jews as a whole rejected him and did not turn the the Lord.

There were many Jews who believed.

But not enough to fulfill these prophecies. Overall, as I have said, the almost consensus of Israel toward Christ was that of rejection. The NT says this all over, and the theme is that God has turned to the Gentiles now. In the future, God shall restore Israel for the final fulfillment of these promises.

So how much Jewish blood do they have to have? Who knows, you and I may have an ancestor who was a Pharisee. You more likely than me though.

Those in the 1st century who were half Jews were looked on as scum, let alone ones today who may only be 1/50th Jew. When it says all Israel will be saved, who is Israel? Religious Jews in Israel, Religious Jews world-wide, anyone living in Israel at the time whether jew or Gentile? How about non-practicing Jews living in Israel? What about converts to Judaism, are they included? How will they be divided by tribes when their bloodlines are so mixed? No-one knows who is of what tribe, all the records were destroyed in the Temple in AD70.
In order for your view to be true, there must be Jews living today who are racially pure and direct descendants of those in the 1st century.

There probably are a lot who are apure or almost pure. Once again, while there was mixing going on, a lot more of the Jews are more than a mere 1/50th, or proselytes. (proselytes were already allowed by God in the OT if they were circumcised and obeyed the Law, in which they would have full breeding rights in Israel. So they were already physically not pure, but then genetic purity never was God's point all along)
There have always been Jews there, as acknowledged by the pagans, Christians and Muslims. Never were they thinned out to the extent you are suggesting.

If God is not done with the physical Jews, there must be some, at least 144000, still around. Yet look at the people living there today, some look european and others eastern and some in between. I find it very difficult to believe there are any "full-blooded" Jews living today who kept thei bloodline pure after 2000 years.

Titus 3:9 "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies , and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. "

1 Tim. 1:4 " Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies , which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: (so do)."

I forgot to mention last time, if the 144,000 is literal, God will somehow, probably miraculously bring them together. He would be the one to know who they are. The fact that each tribe is mentioned to me is a clue that it is literal. Else, what meaning would it have?
No, nobody Paul was talking to (who were in ChrisT) should be getting themselves overly concerned with the geneologies, as to us, they do not have such significance. But God knows and can use them to fulfil His prophecies.

'The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race.

I am not saying anything about a "race". That is not even a biblical categorization. "racially", the Jews are often considered "Caucasian", but like you, I would agree that appearance is from mixing. If race is based on the sons of Noah, then they are Semitic. Not the only ones, of course, even though some speak of them as being contigious with "the semitic race".

Again, I find no scripture to back this view up. I'm not saying its wrong, though I believe it is, I just think its an assumption.

Physical death is definitely a "curse". Who can deny it. One of the scriptures mentioned; "death, where is thy sting" is one that supports it. While these can convey both spiritual death as wella s literal, I think it is you who are making assumption by suggesting this refers to spiritual only.

What about the New Hand E in Is 65?

I believe that was a picture of the N H & E if Israel had fulfilled here part of the covenant. (Wintness the references in this chapter and next to the dietary laws). But as Israel failed, and even reected Christ, what we are shown through all of this; the entire lesson being written is that WE must also be changed, not just the cosmos. It's man's sin that causes all of our problems, and while the Church age may have been the down-payment on all the spiritual promises, we still struggle with sin.

We rule and reign with Christ forever. Do you use Rev 21 and 22 as your view of eternity?

First, how do you take "rule" and "reign"? I know that in some sense this may be applied to us. But I was wondering how you would say the parables of talents (where the people are given actual cities to rule over) are fulfilled.

Yes, but He also said "the world will see me no more."

And it hasn't, so far. i believe that was in the immediate context. Then, a passage that I believe you cited earlier says, when Christ returns, it will be "apart from sin" (i.e suffering and dying). It will be too late for the world then, so in that sense, after Christ rose, the world will "see him no more" in the dispensation of Grace.

He earlier talked about the nature of the Kingdom. "It is within you", "it is not of this world", "do not look here or there". Dan. 2 tells us that the kingdom would come during the Roman Empire. It was clearly a spiritual Kingdom He was bringing.

Yes, that was the spiritual Kingdom. But Peter and the others asked about the physical kingdom of Israel, and Christ affirms that will be taken care of too, in the Father's timing. However, what Christ is telling them, that the spiritual kingdom is there concern now.

AD 70 was when all those who had died were brought into judgement. Matt 12: 39-42.
Everyone after this is judged at death. “It is appointed unto man once to die and then the judgement.”

So they were actually resurrected and sent to the lake of fire or heaven? What was resurrected (since according to your view, the physical body is never resurrected), and from where were they resurrected? A little caution is in order; that there has been much speculation about realms of death, but much of it is drawn more from Dante or the books of Elijah than the Bible. You cannot support a doctrine on something like that. Once again, where does the Bible expound upon eternity, since in your view, the pertinent scriptures are about the Church age? (It seems in your view, the cartoons and other secular pictures are true: You die and a "ghost" rises out of your body and goes up an escalator to heaven if good, or down to Hell if bad.) The most clear reading of the scripture is a physical resurrection (just as Christ was physically resurrected) in the yet to us future, where the saints will join Christ in the Kingdom, and then later, the wicked are raised and judged to the lake of fire. In that, it is no less true that "it is appointed man once to die, then after this, the judgment".

The trampled by the Gentiles refer to the Roman siege on Jerusalem, which lasted coincidently 3 and one half years.

Starting before AD70, I take it, right? Was the temple destroyed in the very end?

9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

Out of sight and in a cloud. See Matt 26:64

So, you are taking it as "OK, He is in the cloud now, they can't see Him, so "unseen" is how He will return. But he had to actually, physically rise through the air to reach the cloud, in "heaven" toward which they were staring. It was all literal. The focus is on the ascent, not the brief period of time He was "unseen" (He presumably was gone as soon as He went into the cloud; not that He existed that way for a time. Even if He did, then still, "cloud" would still be literal here, so why wouldn't it be literal in the places where it says He shall come in the clouds?

Actually it wasn’t a parousia. The word isn’t used in those texts.

The word isn't used, but the Holy Spirit is a "presence", and I think at least "ousia" (or a similar word) was used for the Spirit somewhere (but I can't find it right now).

 

[Grasshopper]

I must say Eric, you make me work.

As for the first post, there is agreement that there is a transition period, where they have a downpayment on the promises. You say it is AD30-70. But the Holy Spirit came right after Christ left (AD30~33), and I see no difference between the following forty years, and the 1930+ years afterwards.

Here is where I believe Preterism has its strength. The bible gives us an indication of when all these things will happen. Here are just a few.

"The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (Matt. 3:2)

"The axe is already laid at the root of the trees." (Matt. 3:10)

"His winnowing fork is in His hand." (Matt. 3:12)

"....the age about to come." (Matt. 12:32)

“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.”

“The form of this world is passing away.” (I Cor. 7:31)

“Now these things …were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” (I Cor. 10:11)

“I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is about to judge the living and the dead…” (II Tim. 4:1)

“Now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin.” (Heb. 9:26)

“You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.” (Jms. 5:8)

“…salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” (I Peter 1:5)

"For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God.” (I Peter 4:17)

“The darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining.” (I Jn. 2:8)

It is the futurist view that must "redefine" what I believe are clear time-statements.

and you would probably acknowledge that that is when we will be finally "saved" from the presence of sin, free from [physical] death and decay, literally "citizens" of Heaven, etc.

All who have died are now free of physical death. They will never die again. We have bodies awaiting us that will not decay. If being free from physical death is part of being saved, then in your view only a very small % of people throughout all of history will see this promise.

That whole problem is, that your view piles what we believe are all of the biblical teachings on this onto this life, and I do not even see where there is any scripture left from your view to even give us any such hope. You have made it sound like this life is "IT".

The promises made were spiritual not physical. Hypothetically, how would God explain it to us, physical beings confined by time and space, if He were describing a spiritual existence?

Your view has basically nothing changed. The New Covenant is no different than what the OT saints lived under. I do not believe there is much in scripture that tells us about our life in eternity.

Yet, in the actual resurrection of the body, then we will be truly perfect.

How will resurrecting "this body of death" make us perfect? Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

Christians were waiting for the redemption of the body, not the destruction of the OT Temple.

Agreed, spiritual redemption. The destruction of the Temple was the sign.

Hebrews 12:11 - All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness

The first half speaks of the burden of the Old Covenant, the second part speaks of the New Covenant. Has not righteousness been imputed to us?

Jeremiah 33 describes the new covenant this way:
Jeremiah 33:16 - In those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in safety; and this is the name by which she shall be called: the Lord is our righteousness. (Verses 19-21 show that it is the new covenant that Jeremiah is describing)

Jerusalem (neither literal or spiritual) does not dwell in safety. (Many of us here do, but we are not the only Christians). And it would be quite a stretch to say that our salvation is "dwelling safely". These prophecies are speaking in earthly terms, and to translate them all into salvation in thi life, not even eternity yet) is stretching them a bit too far.

So you either believe the New Covenant has not arrived, or there is another New Covenant waiting to be fulfilled?

15 In those days, and at that time, will I cause a Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.
16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely; and this is the name whereby she shall be called: Jehovah our righteousness.

I see the "Branch" as Jesus. However, this is one of those verses that we disagree on whether it speaks of physical or spiritual. We seem to have more than a few of these.

Jerusalem (neither literal or spiritual) does not dwell in safety.

I believe the New Jerusalem "church" does dwell in saftey. It will not be overthrown.

As far as speaking of the "passing" of the "old" being future, remember, this is drawing us to what the OT passage (Jeremiah) was saying. It was Jeremiah who recorded God as saying "Behold...I will make a new covenant...". To Jeremiah it was future, and the old was ready to pass away, and this is what the writer of Hebrews is relaying to us.

But the writer of Hebrews says, "Now". He is no longer quoting Jer. "NOW it is growing old and ready to vanish away."

Well, they did look upon Him then, most did not mourn for Him or receive the Spirit, so what I think this shows is that all of that ultimately is fulfilled in parts, or plurally. Still, no such act of conversion and mourning for Him "as for a son" (not for their own pain) is seen in AD70.

Rev 1:7 doesn't say they would convert. But if you believe it is still future, who are the ones who pierced Him?

Possible. But the prophetic name is Elijah, not John,

But it was John who was to do these things. It doesn't say john will start them and someone else will finish it. Unless you believe John will return in the future.

Possible. But the prophetic name is Elijah, not John, so while John may be a partial fulfillment of it, someone else can complete it. It may not directly say John will start, someone else will complete, but that is what is implied when Christ says on one hand, Elijah is here, but on the otherm he still "shall" come,

But it says in Luke that John would do these things, and Christ never implies that Elijah is still future to that day.

and the record of later scripture is that the Jews as a whole rejected him and did not turn the the Lord.
quote:

There were many Jews who believed.

But not enough to fulfill these prophecies.

So the prophecy that John would do these things is false?

(proselytes were already allowed by God in the OT if they were circumcised and obeyed the Law, in which they would have full breeding rights in Israel. So they were already physically not pure, but then genetic purity never was God's point all along)

So who is this "Israel" that will be saved? If is not based on ethnicity, is it just based on the Jewish religion of today? None keep the OT Law. Is it based on boundries? Who was Paul refering to?

The fact that each tribe is mentioned to me is a clue that it is literal. Else, what meaning would it have?

Interestingly that John hears the number but does not see them. I believe it is because the numbers have a significant meaning. 12,000 symbolizes the complete remnant of national Israel who obeyed the Gospel.

One of the scriptures mentioned; "death, where is thy sting" is one that supports it. While these can convey both spiritual death as wella s literal, I think it is you who are making assumption by suggesting this refers to spiritual only.

I Cor 15:55 O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law:
57 but thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is taken from: Is. 25:7 And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering that covereth all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations.8 He hath swallowed up death for ever; and the Lord Jehovah will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of his people will he take away from off all the earth: for Jehovah hath spoken it.9 And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is Jehovah; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation

This death was clearly done away with by Jehovah. Since we still die, it must be spiritual. As Cor. says, the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law. But God gives us victory over this sting through Jesus Christ.
This veil is found in Is 25:7 as well.

Is. 25:7 And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering that covereth all peoples, and the veil that is spread over all nations.8 He hath swallowed up death for ever; and the Lord Jehovah will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of his people will he take away from off all the earth: for Jehovah hath spoken it.9 And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is Jehovah; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

II Cor. tells us how and when the viel is removed.
II Cor14 but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ.15 But unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart.16 But whensoever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live;26 and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Clearly Jesus did away with spiritual death. I find so scripture that supports doing away with physical death.

I believe that was a picture of the N H & E if Israel had fulfilled here part of the covenant.

But would it have been a literal or metaphoric New H and E?

 

[Grasshopper]

First, how do you take "rule" and "reign"? I know that in some sense this may be applied to us. But I was wondering how you would say the parables of talents (where the people are given actual cities to rule over) are fulfilled.

I don't know that I really understand that. Perhaps it is just Christ ruling and reigning through us. Parables deal with the describing of the Kingdom. I don't take them literally.

It will be too late for the world then, so in that sense, after Christ rose, the world will "see him no more" in the dispensation of Grace.

But the world will see Him again?

Yes, that was the spiritual Kingdom. But Peter and the others asked about the physical kingdom of Israel, and Christ affirms that will be taken care of too, in the Father's timing. However, what Christ is telling them, that the spiritual kingdom is there concern now.

So you divide the Kingdom between physical and spiritual. When the Kingdom was at hand, Jesus only meant the spiritual side? Is there any OT references to the Kingdom coming in phases?

So they were actually resurrected and sent to the lake of fire or heaven? What was resurrected (since according to your view, the physical body is never resurrected), and from where were they resurrected?

Sheol was where they came from. If our old dead body is resurrected, what is this new body in II Cor. 5 for?

(It seems in your view, the cartoons and other secular pictures are true: You die and a "ghost" rises out of your body and goes up an escalator to heaven if good, or down to Hell if bad.)

So since the resurrection hasn't happened yet in your view, are there not people in Heaven today? Where are your dead?

in the yet to us future, where the saints will join Christ in the Kingdom,

Which Kingdom?

Starting before AD70, I take it, right? Was the temple destroyed in the very end?

66-70AD. It is my understanding the Temple burned in August of 70AD. So tell your sunday school class that Jesus returned in August of 70AD and see how long it takes for them to kick you out.

Even if He did, then still, "cloud" would still be literal here, so why wouldn't it be literal in the places where it says He shall come in the clouds?

I believe "coming in the clouds" was OT imagery.

Exodus 16:10 - It came about as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud.

Exodus 19:9 - The LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also believe in you forever." Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.

Exodus 34:5 - The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD.

Leviticus 16:2 - The LORD said to Moses: "Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, or he will die; for I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.”

Numbers 11:25 - Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him....

Note that in several of these passages, Yahweh is said to have “come,” He “descended,” “came down,” and “appeared.” This is language similar to that which Jesus used in reference to His own second coming. Question: was the “body” of Yahweh seen at these times or was it just that the cloud signified the presence of Yahweh? Were these manifestations of Yahweh “bodily and physical?” The answer is obvious.

Psalm 18:912 - He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet. He rode upon a cherub and flew; and He sped upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, darkness of waters, and thick clouds of the skies. From the brightness before Him passed His thick clouds, hailstones and coals of fire.

Psalm 97:23 - Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne. Fire goes before Him and burns up His adversaries round about.

Psalm 104:3 - He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind...

Isaiah 19:1 - The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

Daniel 7:13 - I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him.

Note that in the New Testament references to Jesus’ coming with clouds, the majority of scholars agree that Jesus is pointing back to this passage, referring to Himself as the “Son of Man” in Daniel. Was the main point of Jesus in doing so to assert a “physical, bodily” coming, or was it more to identify Himself with that Son of Man who was to receive glory and a kingdom that would not end or pass away (see Daniel 7:14). Preterist believe the latter.
Joel 2:12 - Blow a trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm on My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the LORD is coming; surely it is near, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness. As the dawn is spread over the mountains, so there is a great and mighty people; there has never been anything like it, nor will there be again after it to the years of many generations.
Nahum 1:3 - The LORD is slow to anger and great in power and the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet.

Zephaniah 1:1415 - Near is the great day of the LORD, near and coming very quickly; listen, the day of the LORD! In it the warrior cries out bitterly. A day of wrath is that day, a day of trouble and distress, a day of destruction and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness...

Note also that many of the references to Yahweh coming in or with the clouds have to do with His bringing judgment upon His enemies and those who rebelled against His covenant. Again, there was no physical, bodily coming of Yahweh at these times.

The word isn't used, but the Holy Spirit is a "presence", and I think at least "ousia" (or a similar word) was used for the Spirit somewhere (but I can't find it right now).

So you would make the point that the true second coming was at Pentecost?

 

[Ray Berrian]

The Day of Pentecost was the official beginning of the church age. If Christ returned on this most, unique day, for what purpose did Jesus return? There were only perhaps a hand full of people saved from the time of His resurrection until Pentecost. This, as I recall, was fifty days.

This is the concluding time for the Christian church/the church age. The next grand plan of the Lord will be the miraculous return of the Lord to take His people home to Heaven. [I Thess. 4:17]

There is no Biblical reason to center all eschatology around 70 A.D. Although the Israelites were killed, as we all know, many fled into surrounding nations.

Don't forget to factor into all this that God is going to open to the Israelites once again, in the future, His so great salvation. [Romans 11:23-32] This will take place during the Great Tribulation. This is why God says that Israelite witnesses [Revelation 7:4-8] will bring in an innumerable of converts to Christ during this period of time. [Revelation 7:9-17]

 

[tamborine lady]

Amen Ray!!!

Tam

 

[Eric B]

Yeah, this is a lot of work. With my early schedule, it is almost all of my online time!

Here is where I believe Preterism has its strength. The bible gives us an indication of when all these things will happen. Here are just a few.
(Matt. 3:2)(Matt. 3:10)(Matt. 3:12)(Matt. 12:32)
(I Cor. 7:31)(I Cor. 10:11)
(II Tim. 4:1) (Heb. 9:26)
(Jms. 5:8) (I Peter 1:5) (I Peter 4:17)(I Jn. 2:8)

It is the futurist view that must "redefine" what I believe are clear time-statements.

Yes, that is the strong point of preterism. But thatt's it's only strong point, and it seems to make void many other scriptures, and leave us with no teaching at all on eternity. It ignores the reality of life in this world and overspiritualizes everything into this actually being heaven. You say that God speaks to us in physical terms, but to portray this life the way all the passages on the N H & E does is to go way over any clear presentation to us.
The dualist/pluralist position, while I admit may stretch some of those passages a a bit, still seems more realistic in saying that whatever imminent fulfillments there may have been, they could have been nothing more than types of the greater fulfillment in the next world. Even then, some of them can be explained as jumping ahead to whichever "generation" happens to be living at that time. (they would still be the same "us" [i.e. Christians] as the people Jesus spoke to and Paul wrote to. It could happen any time, from right then, to our time. So it had to be preached as imminent. All of Christians of any age, "be ready" was the point.

All who have died are now free of physical death. They will never die again. We have bodies awaiting us that will not decay.

But where's the scripture teaching this? So we will have new bodies? So the resurrection is bodily, but it is a ghost form in another dimension?

If being free from physical death is part of being saved, then in your view only a very small % of people throughout all of history will see this promise.

Just like you said, once we get the new bodies, we will be free of death. But the Bible pictures bodily resurrection FROM the dead, beginning with Christ. What you are teaching is that death IS "resurrection" of ghosts to a spirit world. But that is not what the Bible says, and you have given no scriptures teaching in the subject.

The promises made were spiritual not physical. Hypothetically, how would God explain it to us, physical beings confined by time and space, if He were describing a spiritual existence?

I believe they were both spiritual and physical. For that is what we are made up of. You have Him redeeming the spiritual, and throwing the physical away. This seems to parallel a bad teaching that shares the name "dualism": that matter is evil, and only spirit good, and only spirit that God cares about. But that is totally contrary to the Gospel.
God explains a lot of spiritual things, sometimes with some physical metaphors, bust still, in the overall context, people get the meaning. Here, you have many physical details that you are claiming are all spiritual, and in the meantime, the real physical things these pictures represent is totally glossed over. (i.e. eternal "new heavens and earth" is spiritual only, so no teaching remains on eternity, and it is assumed this old earth will go on in decay forever while saints just float up to the nondescript "eternity".

Your view has basically nothing changed. The New Covenant is no different than what the OT saints lived under. I do not believe there is much in scripture that tells us about our life in eternity.

As far as this physical earth is concerned, no, nothing has changed. That is easily observable. What has changed is God's revelation of the Gospel to man, and His pouring out of His spirit, rather than working with Israel through the Law, which only condemned, but did not save. That is the big difference. Then, in eternity, God shall renew the physical world, eliminating all pain, suffering, and death.
But it's in your view where nothing has changed from the temporal world to the "eternal" world promised us in the Bible. We just gain more assurance that we are "redeemed", but to what? Pain and physical death continue; only when the body dies, do they float up to some unrevealed eternity in 'spirit' existence.

How will resurrecting "this body of death" make us perfect? Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

It won't be a "body of death" when it is resurrected! Pardon the sarcasm, but, duh! that't the whole point . You have it thrown away for good, but God created man as a physical being (with a spirit), not a spirit being trapped in an evil body, and the hope being to be freed into the spirit realm when we die. God made all matter good (Gen.1). It was corrupted by the Fall, but as apart of renewing all things, it will be redeemd along with the soul.
When Jesus and Paul speak of "flesh and blood", they mean our unredeemed, sinful nature. That is a spiritual metaphor. Jesus' actual physical body was resurrected, don't you believe? (the rejection of this, like the JW's who say it was a spirit body, is rejected as heresy. That is one of the fundamentals of the faith!)

Agreed, spiritual redemption. The destruction of the Temple was the sign.

But I don't see the destruction of the Temple ever made "the sign". The closest you can come up with is "when you see the armies surrounding Jerusalem, your redemption draws near". Even this does not say anything about the destruction of the Temple being the great moment. That is one of those that can be explained as being possible for those back then, but in practice jumping ahead to the future. I just never hear, even from Church History, "the Kingdom officially began in AD70, and was marked by the destruction of the temple". No, Christians continued to wait for the literal return of Christ, preceded by a literal antichrist, armageddon, etc.

The first half speaks of the burden of the Old Covenant, the second part speaks of the New Covenant. Has not righteousness been imputed to us?

So you're suggesting that the "discipline" here only referes to the Old Covenent? I don't think so. No, righteousness has been imputed to us. That is positional, and not conditional on opur performance. But at the same time, don't you think God wants us to have real righteousness (not just imputed in spite of ourselves)? Righteousness is both mpted, and actual, and while it is imputed to us by grace, at the same time, it is being actually developed in us through discipline. This still goes on today, and as I said, is apart of our experience. It was not just the OC.

So you either believe the New Covenant has not arrived, or there is another New Covenant waiting to be fulfilled?

Just like your "transitional period", the New Covenant is now, but it's ultimater fruition is in the New Heaven and New Earth with the resurrection of the saints to perfection, andGod's literal rule over all the earth.

I believe the New Jerusalem "church" does dwell in saftey. It will not be overthrown.

That sounds like a stretch to me. Groups of individual people dwell in safety, not the group as an entity in itself.

But the writer of Hebrews says, "Now". He is no longer quoting Jer. "NOW it is growing old and ready to vanish away."

"Now" in this case is "de", meaning "also" or "moreover"; not "nun" which means "present time". So it is continuing the previous thought.

Rev 1:7 doesn't say they would convert. But if you believe it is still future, who are the ones who pierced Him?

You were tying it in with the other scriptures that said "they would look on me whom they pierced and mourn as for one's only son", which conveys repentance and acceptance. So as I said, it is in stages. Those who physically pierced Him looked upon Him then. Their desendants (descendants are often considered the same entity as the ancestors) will one day mourn and receive Him as a whole. Those who actually pierced Him will also see Him in judgment. The latter is what Rev. 1:7 is describing.

But it says in Luke that John would do these things, and Christ never implies that Elijah is still future to that day.
So the prophecy that John would do these things is false?

It looks like he is. "HE HAS come, and he SHALL come".

So who is this "Israel" that will be saved? If is not based on ethnicity, is it just based on the Jewish religion of today? None keep the OT Law. Is it based on boundries? Who was Paul refering to?

The remnants of Israel. Ethnically. They never kept the Law to God's liking anyway (that was the point) the religious and non-religious are all in the same boat.

Interestingly that John hears the number but does not see them. I believe it is because the numbers have a significant meaning. 12,000 symbolizes the complete remnant of national Israel who obeyed the Gospel.

But 12 different groups of them? Named after the actual children of Jacob (minus the tribe that was cast off, and replaced with a division of one of the other tribes)? That is too much of a detail to explain away. If you do, you must find a valid Biblical explanation of what else these specific tribal names represent. This is one way we determine whether something is literal or figurative.

 

[Eric B]

This death was clearly done away with by Jehovah. Since we still die, it must be spiritual. As Cor. says, the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the Law. But God gives us victory over this sting through Jesus Christ.
This veil is found in Is 25:7 as well.
Clearly Jesus did away with spiritual death. I find so scripture that supports doing away with physical death.

God created the world good, with neither physical nor spiritual death. Sin entered, and both types of death began. When people died, it was very unclear what happned next. Now, with the Gospel, we are given assurance of eternity through faith. So "death" as a whole has lost its "sting". Spiritual death is abolished, and physical death leads to resurrection to glory. In your system, we only have freedom from spiritual death, but then eternity is largely undefined. So we still live in a life of suffering, freed from the fear or divine judgment, granted, but we have no real promise of any benefit of this spiritual life, as all trhe scriptures on both the "judgment" we escape, as well as the "glory" that is promised, are taken and applied to this present world. Even as you have admitted, physical death is just as mysterious and shadowy as it was in the OT. When someone dies, we have no idea of who or what they are. There seem to be no promises on this in scripture. Death, then does still have its "sting"--through the physical. That's why physical death must be included in the abolition of death. But you find no scriptures on it, because you interpret all of them as being spiritual ONLY. But both go together; else all promise of eternity vanishes as well.

But would it have been a literal or metaphoric New H and E?

Literal, but not as perfect as it will be now.

I don't know that I really understand that. Perhaps it is just Christ ruling and reigning through us. Parables deal with the describing of the Kingdom. I don't take them literally.

But then once again, you have a lot of useless symbolic details, unless you can find in scripture what they represent.

But the world will see Him again?

You're getting hung up on "see Him again". Won't they all see Him in judgment? Obviously it is in the context of His first coming. As the humble Jesus, meek and mild, they will see Him no more. As coming judge, they will.

So you divide the Kingdom between physical and spiritual. When the Kingdom was at hand, Jesus only meant the spiritual side? Is there any OT references to the Kingdom coming in phases?

It's just like the coming of the Messiah. People only understood the OT references singularly, but it was in phases. First as suffering savior (which they missed), then as reigning King. Likewise, the kingdom would have the same phases as its King!

Sheol was where they came from.

So since the resurrection hasn't happened yet in your view, are there not people in Heaven today? Where are your dead?

A whole doctrine has been built on Sheol/Hades, and even many who believe in a bodily resurrection believe, like you, that people's ghosts went down to sheol, then the saints were brought up to Heaven by Christ. (at His time in the grave, or His resurrection, not the destruction of the Temple.) Your position is more consistent than theirs in answering your next question below. Then there is the idea that it is more of a sleep, and there is biblical evidence for this, but then debates go on about which language is literal, or out of ignorance --consciousness or sleep. But even though people in the OT made all sorts of statements about Sheol being an "abode" of the dead, still, ultimately, it was very cloudy, and a mystery that no one was sure of, and was not really revealed or defined. Looming behind all of these pictures of Sheol was the universal question for that dispensation: "If a man dies, shall he live again?" (Job 14:14). God's answer came in the New Testament, and that was bodily resurrection!

If our old dead body is resurrected, what is this new body in II Cor. 5 for?

The resurrected dead body IS the "new" body!!! —being "RAISED" after having been "sown" natural (death of the physical body). This is not a "spirit body" raised from out of the physical body, but rather the physical body being raised itself, and remember, this is patterned after Christ's resurrection! If His was bodily, so will ours be. If "resurrection" is spiritual only, thent hat would include Christ, and then, His "boldily resurrection" (one of the essentials of the faith) is denied! It is called a "spiritual body" (1 Cor.15:40,44), because it is now immortal and free of sin, but that is not the same as a "spirit body" as people (especially in false religion) commonly think of it.
Paul further says that the hope is "not ...to be UNclothed (disembodied), but to be FURTHER clothed, (restored body) so that mortality (death) may be swallowed up by life". (2Cor.5:4) Yes, your position may have its strongs points, but believe me, it is no mere "tradition" (as you earlier claimed) that drives our position. The weight of scripture is for a literal future resurrection to a...

Which Kingdom?

...future literal visible Kingdom.

I believe "coming in the clouds" was OT imagery.
Exodus 16:10 Exodus 19:9
Exodus 34:5 Leviticus 16:2 Numbers 11:25
Note that in several of these passages, Yahweh is said to have “come,” He “descended,” “came down,” and “appeared.” This is language similar to that which Jesus used in reference to His own second coming.

These are all literal. Moses relays what He saw. These are by no means spiritual metaphors of of an invisible "spiritual" coming. Else, why would people be afraid? How could they follow through the wildreness what could not really be seen?

Question: was the “body” of Yahweh seen at these times or was it just that the cloud signified the presence of Yahweh? Were these manifestations of Yahweh “bodily and physical?” The answer is obvious.

No, "body". It was the Logos, which was a visible manifestation (theophany) of God (but not Him in His natural form, of course, as "the Heavens cannot contain Him"). The burning bush was the same thing. Sometimes it was called a "man" or "angel". Still, something visible, which your system is denying altogether.

Psalm 18:912 He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, darkness of waters, and thick clouds of the skies. From the brightness before Him passed His thick clouds,
Psalm 97:23 - Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; Psalm 104:3 - He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind...

Isaiah 19:1 The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud
Joel 2:12 Zephaniah 1:1415 a day of clouds and thick darkness.
Nahum 1:3 In whirlwind and storm is His way, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet.

These are figurative, but the presence of figurative examples do not negate the literal ones. The fact that there were literal ones proves that they can be literal again. The figurative ones are simply by extension of the literal ones, as I had earlier said regarding the Isaiah passage on Egypt. God is "up" in the clouds. He comes in clouds sometimes. So even when He works invisibly, it can be called "in the clouds". The contexts determine which. (In two of these, "clouds" have nothing to do with God's "presence", but rather using gloomy weather as a metaphor for a time of judgment).

Daniel 7:13 - I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming

Note that in the New Testament references to Jesus’ coming with clouds, the majority of scholars agree that Jesus is pointing back to this passage, referring to Himself as the “Son of Man” in Daniel. Was the main point of Jesus in doing so to assert a “physical, bodily” coming, or was it more to identify Himself with that Son of Man who was to receive glory and a kingdom that would not end or pass away (see Daniel 7:14). Preterist believe the latter.

It was both. Why should one preclude the other. Note, in v.14 which you referred to, "...that all peoples, nations and tongues should serve Him". This is not true today. It speaks of actual domination of the physical world.

So you would make the point that the true second coming was at Pentecost?

No. Christ is the Son, and the Spirit is the Spirit. Christ is present in the Spirit as He promised in John, but this is not a "return" of Christ. Just a new manifestation of His presence. What you are teaching is an another spiritual "manifestation" of Christ in addition to the Spirit, and it's this second manifestation that actually redeeems/regenerates us, not the Spirit. But the Bible does not teach this. When it says "Christ" shall return, it means the same literal presence that was here in the NT. The Spirit is here now while Christ is away, as our "downpayment".

[ May 03, 2004, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Ray Berrian]

Someone falsely said, 'No, Christians continued to wait for the literal
return of Christ . . . '

The Bible says, in I Thessalonians 2:19 & 3:13 that Paul would be receiving a reward from the hand of the Lord when Jesus would come and take the church to Heaven.

Someone falsely said, ' . . . preceded by a literal antichrist . . . '

The Bible says, that the 'beast/antichrist' will be a man and his number will be 666. [Revelation 13:17-18]

Someone falsely said, there is no literal armageddon, etc.

'The beast [Rev. 16:13] will through God's providence will meet the armies of the earth for a real 'battle' [vs. 14] called 'the battle of that great day of God Almighty. The Battle of Armageddon will take place northwest of Jerusalem in the Plain of Esdraelon which is south-west of the Sea of Galilee.

Dr. C.I. Scofield writes, 'Armageddon (the ancient hilland valley of Megiddo, west of Jordanin the Plain of Jezreel) is the appointed place for the beginning of the great battle in which the Lord, at His Second Coming in glory, will deliver the Jewish remnant besieged by the Gentile world-powers under the Beast and False Prophet [Revelation 16:13-16; Zehariah 12:1-9].

 

[Eric B]

Uh, Ray, notice, "No,[COMMA!] Christians continued to wait for...". One little mark changes the whole post. The context also should tell you that I am arguing against that position (that those things weren't literal). The preceding sentence was "I just never hear, even from Church History, 'the Kingdom officially began in AD70, and was marked by the destruction of the temple'". That is a statment I am denying. My answer to it: "No". No, what instead? "No, Christians continued to wait for the literal return of Christ, preceded by a literal antichrist, armageddon, etc."
Or perhaps it should have been a semi-colon {;}.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Dr. Charles C. Ryrie said in his book, "Basic Theology" on page 555:

'The battlefield in which the armies from east and west will meet will be the Plain of Esdraelon, the area around the mountains of Megiddo. That's why the battle is called Armageddon-(Ar) meaning mountain. This plain is about twenty miles south-southeast of (present day) Haifa, and the valley today is about twenty miles by fourteen.' {end quote}

Many battles have been fought on this flat plain north of Jerusalem. If you need a Biblical reference in can be found in Zechariah 12:11 & Revelation 16:16.

This Battle of Armageddon will take place after the Rapture and the Great Tribulation and when Jesus comes at His Second Coming, He will defend Israel and His genealogical people the Jewish national people.

Oh, yes, this battle will be a real battle in the future and preachers and laity who teach this are expounding Scripture properly.

 

[Grasshopper]

Yes, that is the strong point of preterism. But thatt's it's only strong point, and it seems to make void many other scriptures,

It only makes them void if you change the nature of those events. It seems if it didn't happen, the way you think it should have happened, then it didn't happen. Therefore futurist will change the meaning of words such as near, shortly, at hand, etc..... Now it works for them because the time problem has been eliminated.

James 5:8 Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand.

You see you must change "at hand" or else you would also be a Preterist. Matt. 16:27-28 also tells us when, but those verses are also butchered. Dozens more. Someone I read said; "let the timing determine the nature, not the nature determine the timing".

It ignores the reality of life in this world and overspiritualizes everything into this actually being heaven.

I know of no one who believes this is Heaven.

The dualist/pluralist position, while I admit may stretch some of those passages a a bit, still seems more realistic in saying that whatever imminent fulfillments there may have been, they could have been nothing more than types of the greater fulfillment in the next world.

This is why I'll never win this debate. If we flip a coin and I call heads, you call heads and tails. Anything I bring up as proof of a 1st century fulfillment you simply say yes, but it is a type of a future fulfillment. I can't win. You are much like a partial -pret. They acknowledge the Olivet Discourse was speaking of the Fall of Jerusalem, yet say it is a type. They admit Revelation was a past event and speaking of the Jewish War, yet say the only part that was "near" were chapters 1-19, the rest are future. They have all the prophecies of the OT pointing to the type and not the reality.

On a side note, you might enjoy RC Sprouls book "The Last Days according to Jesus" Interesting book.

All who have died are now free of physical death. They will never die again. We have bodies awaiting us that will not decay.

But where's the scripture teaching this?

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live;26 and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die.

Just like you said, once we get the new bodies, we will be free of death. But the Bible pictures bodily resurrection FROM the dead, beginning with Christ. What you are teaching is that death IS "resurrection" of ghosts to a spirit world. But that is not what the Bible says, and you have given no scriptures teaching in the subject.

My understanding of the resurrection is limited, but I'll share from what I understand now. When we die we receive our eternal body(2 Cor.5) immediately. We join Christ in the realm where He is at now. I do not believe our physical bodies serve any purpose after death. I do not beleive we are "physical" beings in eternity. Jesus said God is spirit. I believe we will be like Him. How? I have no idea. I would have no idea even if I wasn't a preterist. Perhaps we will be able to manifest ourselves in the physical, but I see now reason to. I believe the earth continues on and His Kingdom continues to grow throughout eternity. I don't believe in this "ghost theory" you talk about. When the soul leaves the body it is joined with an eternal body and awaits for nothing more. I”ll study more on this.

Then, in eternity, God shall renew the physical world, eliminating all pain, suffering, and death.

Ok, if your New H and E are literal physical then who are these people in verse 15?
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.
15 Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

The city in verse 14 is the New Jerusalem. Looks like some death and suffering in this New H and E.

"Now" in this case is "de", meaning "also" or "moreover"; not "nun" which means "present time". So it is continuing the previous thought.

But he was not quoting Jer. anymore. OK, he was continuing the thought, and talking about the old coveannt it is growing old and getting ready to vanish. Heb 9:8 says the Temple standing had to be destroyed before the New could be manifested.

"HE HAS come, and he SHALL come".

Matt 17:10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come?11 And he answered and said, Elijah indeed cometh, and shall restore all things:12 but I say into you, that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would. Even so shall the Son of man also suffer of them.

In verse 11 Jesus is acknowledging that the scribes were correct in their interpretation of Malachi's prophecy. In verse 12 He says Elijah, the same in 11, has come already.Jesus shoots down any possibility of a future coming of Elijah. It is the futurist position once again that forces something into the future that is unscriptual. All because "the day of the Lord" doesn't fit into what you believe it to be.

The remnants of Israel. Ethnically.

Doesn't ethnic, mean race?

But 12 different groups of them? Named after the actual children of Jacob (minus the tribe that was cast off, and replaced with a division of one of the other tribes)? That is too much of a detail to explain away.

12 tribes represent OT saints, 12 disciples represent NT saints. Interestingly just as the tribe of Daniel was replaced in the OT 12 so Judas was replaced in the NT 12. You see all 24 represented in heaven.

God created the world good, with neither physical nor spiritual death.

You still haven't shown where physical death began if it didn't exist. It is just assumed.

Sin entered, and both types of death began.

Spiritual did, because they died that day.

In your system, we only have freedom from spiritual death,

But we still have physical death in yours. Are you going to die?

but we have no real promise of any benefit of this spiritual life,

Really? No benefits in this life .

Death, then does still have its "sting"--through the physical.

Assumption. The only sting of death taught is spiritual.

That's why physical death must be included in the abolition of death. But you find no scriptures on it, because you interpret all of them as being spiritual ONLY.

I find no scripture because there aren't any. Again Rev 22:15 contains death in your eternity;.

But would it have been a literal or metaphoric New H and E?

Literal, but not as perfect as it will be now.

So Is. 65:17 was conditional? This Heaven and Earth never did nor ever will come to pass? You see what kind of fixes literal interpretation can get you into. I think you must even question yourself on this one.

You're getting hung up on "see Him again".

Because futurist insist all will see Him.

As the humble Jesus, meek and mild, they will see Him no more. As coming judge, they will.

If I try to interpret like this, I get in trouble. When Jesus said the world would see me no more He meant in the meek and mild sense not physical?

It's just like the coming of the Messiah. People only understood the OT references singularly, but it was in phases. First as suffering savior (which they missed), then as reigning King. Likewise, the kingdom would have the same phases as its King!

Jesus did not come in phases. He came when the OT prophecies said He would. Same with the Kingdom, it came when the OT prophecies said it would. Phasing in only occurs when you force a physical Kingdom into the text.

The resurrected dead body IS the "new" body!!!

The resurrected body was in the grave, not in heaven as 2 Cor 5 says. Unless you believe they meet. Is it your belief this happens at death? Or do we get the 2Cor. Body at the end of time?

 

[Eric B]

Therefore futurist will change the meaning of words such as near, shortly, at hand, etc..... Now it works for them because the time problem has been eliminated.

James 5:8 Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand.

You see you must change "at hand" or else you would also be a Preterist. Matt. 16:27-28 also tells us when, but those verses are also butchered. Dozens more. Someone I read said; "let the timing determine the nature, not the nature determine the timing".

You can argue that 40+ years was not really "at hand". While some would live to that time, many would not. Time is relative, and the sense that is being given is that to any person alive at any time, it can come at any time.
In fact, the term that many of the "at hand" and "draw near" come from is "eggizo" (1448) which means "approaches". This can mean "near" but not necessarily. Some are 1451 (eggus) which more literally tanslates "near in time", but this can be "lit. or fig." It, for instance, is "ready" in your Heb.8:13. for the sake of sonsistency, I'm not going to now suggest that "that too, then, is future" (though that was in my mind as a possibility, if you consider this present world of suffering as a holdover from "The age of the Law of sin and death").
Even "shortly (en tachos) means "a brief space of time" or "haste", and even though we take this to mean "a brief space of time from when it was written", the implication may be more like whenever it does begin, it will be brief. If it is still future to us, it will come suddenly, and we must be ready. That is the point.

But he was not quoting Jer. anymore. OK, he was continuing the thought, and talking about the old coveannt it is growing old and getting ready to vanish. Heb 9:8 says the Temple standing had to be destroyed before the New could be manifested.

"He has made the first old. Now, that which is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish...". It is clearly parallelism. He is reiterating it from Jeremiah's point of view. It was not "becoming obsolete" or "Growing old", but already was obsolete, even if the Temple was still physically standing. His whole point is that it has already been replaced by Christ, not that it has almost been replaces, but this one thing has to happen yet before we even fully have the benefits of it.

In verse 11 Jesus is acknowledging that the scribes were correct in their interpretation of Malachi's prophecy. In verse 12 He says Elijah, the same in 11, has come already.Jesus shoots down any possibility of a future coming of Elijah. It is the futurist position once again that forces something into the future that is unscriptual. All because "the day of the Lord" doesn't fit into what you believe it to be.

V.11 deals with "restoring all things". v.12 shows that he has come, but "they knew him not, but did unto him whatsoever they would", which means he did NOT (yet) "restore all things". The prophecies of Elijah did not say that He would be rejected by the people, but that He would bring them back to God. John was simply a type, and a type can be called what it typifies.

Doesn't ethnic, mean race?

Not really, but it depends on how you define "race". "Ethnic" generally is drawn according to cultures. When we speak of "ethnic groups" here, immigrants/visitors from each country are called separate "ethnic groups", and there are many within each "race".

12 tribes represent OT saints, 12 disciples represent NT saints. Interestingly just as the tribe of Daniel was replaced in the OT 12 so Judas was replaced in the NT 12. You see all 24 represented in heaven.

Still, 12000 from each group?

Because futurist insist all will see Him. If I try to interpret like this, I get in trouble. When Jesus said the world would see me no more He meant in the meek and mild sense not physical?

Don't you believe every person in the world will be judged by Him? Then all will "see" Him again. But then it will be too late. After He ascended, that would be the last the world would be able to "see and believe". After that, they would have to come in faith (i.e. believe and see -spiritually), or see Him in judgment.

Jesus did not come in phases. He came when the OT prophecies said He would. Same with the Kingdom, it came when the OT prophecies said it would. Phasing in only occurs when you force a physical Kingdom into the text.

No, they thought He would come only once and then take over the world right then. They didn't know He would have to die first and then return. For lack of better term, I called it a "phase" to match what was being discussed about the return.

 

[Eric B]

I know of no one who believes this is Heaven.

You believe it is the "New Heaven" of prophecy.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live;26 and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die.

And that is so vague. What is "never dying". What is death, then? All of the scriptures speaking of judgment and eternal life or death are applied to AD70. I'm sure if someone wanted to, you could symbolize that as well. Like, you will be classified as "righteous" when you die. Sort of like all the OT people who hoped for their name to live on through their descendants. Perhaps some sort of Nirvana or something, where the meaning of "living" is ambiguous. this sytem seems to leave all of this open to such liberties. Perhaps purgatory is true too. This is how such doctrines were able to come into the Church.

We join Christ in the realm where He is at now. I do not believe our physical bodies serve any purpose after death. I do not beleive we are "physical" beings in eternity. Jesus said God is spirit. I believe we will be like Him.

Jesus' resurrection was of His physical body. And our resurrection would be like His, for He was the firtsfruits/firstborn from the dead. What purpose did His physical body serve? Once again, I believe that is just the way God created us. Physical beings.

How? I have no idea.

Perfection. That's how. (You take this as a metaphysical meaning, while I take it spiritually.)

My understanding of the resurrection is limited, but I'll share from what I understand now. When we die we receive our eternal body(2 Cor.5) immediately.

Perhaps we will be able to manifest ourselves in the physical, but I see now reason to. I don't believe in this "ghost theory" you talk about. When the soul leaves the body it is joined with an eternal body and awaits for nothing more. I”ll study more on this.

Still, see nothing on any "eternal body" except for the scriptures on resurrection, which you say happened in AD 70. Both Corinthian passages are apart of these, but I see you're taking them to mean some other sort of body. But to repeat, our resurrection is patterend after Christ's, which was a physical body; the same as He had here, only glorified.

The resurrected body was in the grave, not in heaven as 2 Cor 5 says. Unless you believe they meet. Is it your belief this happens at death? Or do we get the 2Cor. Body at the end of time?

The passage says it was SOWN in corruption and then RAISED in incorruption. Same body, being transformed. No "joining" of any bodies! We get the new bodies at the resurrection at the same time Christ returns.

Ok, if your New H and E are literal physical then who are these people in verse 15?
Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have the right to come to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city.
15 Without are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

The city in verse 14 is the New Jerusalem. Looks like some death and suffering in this New H and E.

Again Rev 22:15 contains death in your eternity;.

They're in the Lake of Fire, which symbolically is said to be "outside". This is "eternal death", so yes, there is suffering and a type of death —spiritual; in eternity. Just not in the presence of God and the redeemed (i.e. "outside"). I believe it is another dimensional realm altogether, but of course, the Bible does not go into all of that. In your system, the city is the church, yet we do see those types of sinners "inside". Yet, they're not "really", spiritually "inside", right? To me, this conveys more of a real meaning. What good is it to warn that sinners will be outside if they can physically be inside, and not even be aware that spiritually they are outside?

You still haven't shown where physical death began if it didn't exist. It is just assumed.

I find no scripture because there aren't any.

Physical death is from decay. Decay is not apart of God's creation of everything "very good". It is apart of the curse.
Look at the other things God said in Gen.3:14-19, that still continue today. Particularly the last verse, where "dust you came from, and dust you shall return". There is your inclusion of physical death in the curse. Man used to live much longer, and then because of increasing sin, God shortened it. (6:3) And it continued to shorten.

Spiritual did, because they died that day.

This interestingly parallels this debate. Then too, the spiritual was literally "immanent", but the physical was much later.

But we still have physical death in yours. Are you going to die?

Really? No benefits in this life .

Yes, we will die (unless here at Christ's return) but as I said, yours removes the revelation of what eternal [spiritual] life really is. Therefore, as I said, what real promised benefit is given us for this "life" we have entered?

Assumption. The only sting of death taught is spiritual.

No. In a world where there is physical death, it is painful to see loved ones die. You claim this will go on forever.

So Is. 65:17 was conditional? This Heaven and Earth never did nor ever will come to pass? You see what kind of fixes literal interpretation can get you into. I think you must even question yourself on this one.

I as much as it mentions physical death and people punished for breaking the Law of Moses. Facets of not just this old earth, but also the OLD covenant.

The resurrected body was in the grave, not in heaven as 2 Cor 5 says. Unless you believe they meet. Is it your belief this happens at death? Or do we get the 2Cor. Body at the end of time?

The passage says it was SOWN in corruption and then RAISED in incorruption. Same body, being transformed. No "joining" of any bodies! We get the new bodies at the resurrection at the same time Christ returns.

 

[Eric B]

Should add:

This is why I'll never win this debate. If we flip a coin and I call heads, you call heads and tails. Anything I bring up as proof of a 1st century fulfillment you simply say yes, but it is a type of a future fulfillment. I can't win. You are much like a partial -pret. They acknowledge the Olivet Discourse was speaking of the Fall of Jerusalem, yet say it is a type.

Wasn't done like this on purpose, as if just to weasel out of it. This is the way it must be for it all to make sense. You can't take one polarity (at hand) and then ignore/reinterpret the other (change of world order, complete end of curse). They must both be true, and the more unclear or variable is interpreted in light of the more clear.

 

[eschatologist]

You are the one that calls "heads and tails" by your dual fulfillment theology. When you are confronted with scripture that without doubt refers to a soon fulfillment, yet it doesn't agree with your view, out comes the ole "DUAL FULFILLMENT!"

 

[Ray Berrian]

The Apostle Paul and other apostles believed that Christ could come for the church at any future second. This was his hope and longing in the depths of his heart. Was he wrong about the Lord's coming in his day. One would have to say yes, but this was what he looked for for God's people.

We too, are correct to look for the Lord's coming for His church as duly noted in I Thessalonians 4:17. If He does not coming in the next 100 years we too, will have looked for this blessed event. Will we have been wrong? Yes. But one day Jesus will come for His beloved people, the church, at the Rapture. Every generation of new Christians look for the blessed hope. The Day of Christ refers to Christ coming for His own saved persons.

The Day of the Lord is yet future, when Jesus will come and destroy the wicked. [Revelation 19:11-21]

 

[Eric B]

Well, I don't simply throw up "dual fulfillment" just to get around that, as I had earlier said. I believe the promises of a rea resurrection and perfect Kingdom are for me, so it can't have happened already. And as I have just shown, from even the actual language used in the text, it was not even "without a doubt". But when shown scriptures that contradict a purely spiritual application which stretches much of the meaning of concepts and contexts then out comes more "spiritual meaning", which makes even less sense.

 

[eschatologist]

This argument could go on and on, possibly erupting into the longest thread on this site. For as long as it is your belief that time is meaningless when presented in the bible, the crux of this debate is exposed. You said this:

"The Apostle Paul and other apostles believed that Christ could come for the church at any future second. This was his hope and longing in the depths of his heart. Was he wrong about the Lord's coming in his day. One would have to say yes, but this was what he looked for for God's people."

It sounds like he felt pretty sure that an event was soon to happen, not just merely from his heart! Do you believe Paul could have been mistaken by his belief that things would happen soon?! If so, then, how can you have faith in any of Paul's writings, even the whole New Testament for that matter? Also for these people who were led to believe and hope for something that they were to never se must have been crushing to their spirit. The writer of Proverbs wisely put it this way:

"Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life"(Prov.13:12). Many of these people must have felt downright sick!

Also, you repeatedly make mention of Christ coming to take away the church, or mention of the church age, which you believe will end and we will be ushered into some new age(New Age-ism today is a popular belief among so called spirtualist). Yet Paul in speaking to the church believed that the church "age" was for ever(Eph.3:21). Could Paul have been wrong again? And with your doctrine of the church being "raptured" away is contrary to what Jesus said when He prayed to the Father. For He prayed thus:

"My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one"(Jo.17:15). This sure sounds contrary to this modern day "rapture" theory! Would you say that Christ was wrong, or that God did not fulfill Jesus' wishes?

Next you say, "There is no Biblical reason to center all eschatology around 70 A.D." Well That sure was implied in Matt.16:27,28; 24:1f; Mark 13; Lu.21; etc. Besides Luke made special emphasis on this in Lu.21:22; 24:44. I am sure that it doesn't fit into your doctrinal frame, but it was the center piece event in the New Testament and Old Testament writings. Also you said "many(Jews) fled into surronding nations." I say that you need to further study your ancient history, because according to more than a few historicists, as the war began to expand many fled to the confines of Jerusalem. It was after all near the time of Passover as well. After the slaughter of many Jews, what was left were sold into slavery or put into the arenas and killed. There were still others who were deported throughout the Roman Empire, which happened again in the 139 A.D revolt.

Another says, "You can argue that 40+ years was not really at hand. Time is relative, and the sense that is being given is that to any person alive at any time, it can come at any time." 40 years "not really at hand"! And 2000 years is better? Wow!!! And to your second statement I say, "Wow, Wow and Wow!!! Can you possibly make time any more meaningless to those 1st century christians?! Do you believe that when Paul told Timothy that I hope to come and see you "soon" that Timothy had very little idea as to how to take Paul's statement? Man, you are surely walking on thin ice here! And likewise I am sure that your definition of "generation" would be just as abstract to. When you use this type of hermenuetics and this dualism doctrine and that many of the things in the Bible are cyclic, you render most all Bible understanding to be so very vague. And this is truly dangerous.

 

[Ray Berrian]

You said, '"My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect
them from the evil one"(Jo.17:15).

God will protect His people until the end of this age called the "church age." So John seventeen is correct.

You said, 'This sure sounds contrary to this modern day "rapture" theory!'

I Thess. 4:17 is not a theory; it is a Divine future reality! Yes, those who died in the faith before Paul wrote the Thessalonian epistles, held to the hope of Jesus return for the Christian church of which they were a part of it. When He comes He will raise their bodies from the dead and gather them into His Presence above.'

You said, 'Would you say that Christ was wrong, or that God did not fulfill Jesus' wishes?'

Almighty God is never wrong and the Godhead will fulfil His time-table when He is ready. No history Christian or secular speaks of the 'Lord descending from Heaven with a shout . . . '
Sorry, go and study your Bible again and come up with something more genuine than the Preterist, sad view of eschatology.

I Thess. 4:13-18. 'Comfort one another with these words.'