Basics of Bible Interpretation

I thought full blown preterist eschatology was a heresy!

 

You ought to put that in your signature line. It would save you the bother of typing it again and again.

 

This page from "Christology & Preterism discusses whether "genea" should be translated "race" or "generation."

 

Is it heresy?

 

Is it heresy to believe the words of the LORD Jesus & his Apostles? Or is it heresy to reject the words of the LORD Jesus & invent a meaning for a remote time. That is tantamount to saying the first century scoffers were right. See 2 Peter 3:3-4.

To deny the plain meaning of the words of Jesus, that he would "come in the clouds" before "this generation" passed, is certainly heresy. Jesus gave clear signs by which his hearers would see the destruction he prophesied was about to happen, so believers could flee the doomed city. History records that they did flee. He did not say he would come to earth through the clouds. His coming would be seen by the signs.

Mat. 24:32 ‘Now learn this lesson from the fig-tree: as soon as its twigs become tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.​

Verse 35 & the following verses show that after those things happened, a further final coming would take place & there would be no specific warning. Watch & pray!

 

It is heresy to deny that there will a future pohysical resurrection of all the dead and living in Christ!

 

Of course it isn't heresy - to quote our LORD Jesus -

John 6:28 ‘Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out – those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.​

That final, physical resurrection is distinct from the spiritual resurrection, aka conversion, he described as taking place even as he spoke.

24 ‘Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.​

When we were dead in trespasses & sins, we heard his voice, speaking in his Word. We believed and even now have eternal life.

Those resurrections - spiritual & physical - correspond to the two resurrections in Rev. 20, the first being spiritual, of faithful souls who at death enter heaven.

4 ..... And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God.....​

 

To deny that is yet to come a future Second coming, with a physical resurrection, is heresy!

 

Yes pfeterism in full or part is not simply wrong, its heresy.

 

Agreed. I try to give Pfeterists - Full Pfeterist or Part-Pfeterist -a wide berth.

 

You say that my FP doctrine of Christs Parousia does not constitute a legitimate coming of Christ because He did not come physically and visibly. Correct?

According to this logic, then, neither did Christ exist before the Incarnation, seeing He was at that time both invisible and spiritual.

 

Really?? You've gone off the rails. The doctrine of the preincarnate existence of Christ as one of the trinity, one who occasionally manifested Himself in preincarnate appearances, is well established in theology.

Furthermore, you are completely mistaking what I teach and have carefully delineated on the BB.
1. Christ always existed, but became human in the incarnation.
2. He remains completely human in a resurrected, perfect body.
3. To say that Christ only came spiritually and not physically in AD 70 is to separate the physical body of Christ and His spirit, something that is impossible. "The body without the spirit is dead" (James 2:26).
4. But I do not say that Christ came physically in AD 70--in fact, no one does! I say He did not come at all then, whether "spiritually" (impossible) or physically.
5. In fact, there is no evidence in church history that anyone--anyone--who was a believer in Christ in AD 70 taught that Christ came back to earth then.
6. The premillennial doctrine is not that He will ever come "spiritually," but that He will come physically someday, just as in Acts 1:11.

You see, full preterism does violence not only to eschatology, but Christology.

 

What good old A. T. missed is that v. 21 starts with gar, which is used when an explanation or reason is needed ("because"). So v. 21 is an explanation of the statement in v. 20 that the Bible must not be interpreted with a "private interpretation." That full preterism (and most of partial preterism) is not exegesis but eisegesis is apparent to all who are not already fooled.

Every time you write this kind of stuff I just shake my head. It is akin to a Ruckmanite saying, "The KJV corrects the originals."

All over the world, professional translators and language teachers (sacred and secular) blanch when someone suggests that the the translation is more authoritative than the original text. And those translators who change the meaning in the target text in the secular world get fired.

By the way, the preterist websites I've been to all have an appalling ignorance of the original languages of the Bible. I'm thinking that you did not take Greek or Hebrew at BJU. Correct?

 

Who is arguing otherwise?? I said ---"according to your logic". Read for understanding, John, not for bullets. For a person who rants a lot on communication you do a poor job of it. Communication is a two-way street.

Again, I never argued this.

 

I should not even bother to answer this innuendo but, yes. I majored in Bible.

Any other aspersions?

 

Oh, okay, so it's alright for you to completely misrepresent my position, is it?

 

It wasn't an aspersion, it was a simple observation and question. So my conclusion is that, since back in the day you must have taken about 20 credits of Greek at BJU (one semester being 5 credits then), I find it strange that you no longer appear to think it valuable in theology and exegesis. You have over and over again on various threads dismissed out of hand my points from the Greek.

 

I give up, John. You cannot omit my point about your inconsistent logic. Why discuss anymore?

 

Well, since preterism is an illogical system, and my simple logic doesn't convince you (Christ came without a body in AD 70? Really??), then you are welcome to back out.
http://christinprophecy.org/wp-content/uploads/cartoon_preterism.jpg

("Cannot omit"? What's that all about?)

 

THe repeated point is "coming on the clouds of heaven" God/Jesus is truly present veiled by clouds & seen/understood to be present by the prophesied signs of his presence. That happened repeatedly in the Old Covenant & Jesus clearly said it would happen at the destruction.