Eschatology Agnostics

[Lodic]

PreMil was popular among some of the ECF themselves, so way before 1830!

For the sake of our discussion, I'll assume that it may have been around as early as the 1st Century. So was Preterism. I'm pretty sure the Rapture was invented by Darby.

 

[Lodic]

1 John 3:2

There are different ways in which we may be "like Him". Note that John tells us that "it has not appeared as yet what we will be". Maybe in purity, or some other way. My point is that if we were definitely going to have a new physical body, this is where John had the opportunity to let us know.

 

[Yeshua1]

For the sake of our discussion, I'll assume that it may have been around as early as the 1st Century. So was Preterism. I'm pretty sure the Rapture was invented by Darby.

The premil position was the dominant viewpoint until time of Augustan, when his view of Amil and spiritualizing Prophecy became the norm among the Church of Rome, and hence became new main position!

 

[Yeshua1]

There are different ways in which we may be "like Him". Note that John tells us that "it has not appeared as yet what we will be". Maybe in purity, or some other way. My point is that if we were definitely going to have a new physical body, this is where John had the opportunity to let us know.

Paul stated that we shall translated/transformed in twinking of an eye, and John tells us here that we shall be just as He is, so would have same type of gloried physical body as Jesus now has!

 

[Lodic]

Paul stated that we shall translated/transformed in twinking of an eye, and John tells us here that we shall be just as He is, so would have same type of gloried physical body as Jesus now has!

While 1 Cor. 15:50-57 speaks about our resurrected bodies, it doesn't necessarily mean a physical body. Of course, it doesn't mean a spiritual body, either. All we know for sure is that our new bodies will not perish. Does it really make a difference what we believe about the nature of our resurrected bodies?

 

[Yeshua1]

While 1 Cor. 15:50-57 speaks about our resurrected bodies, it doesn't necessarily mean a physical body. Of course, it doesn't mean a spiritual body, either. All we know for sure is that our new bodies will not perish. Does it really make a difference what we believe about the nature of our resurrected bodies?

Yes, for it is a yet to happen future event, the Blessed Hope for the church!

 

[Lodic]

Yes, for it is a yet to happen future event, the Blessed Hope for the church!

That's a little like saying that I need to believe in the Rapture, for it is a (supposedly) future event. Our Blessed Hope is in Christ, not what kind of body we will have or whether He will take us all away.

 

[Lodic]

The premil position was the dominant viewpoint until time of Augustan, when his view of Amil and spiritualizing Prophecy became the norm among the Church of Rome, and hence became new main position!

What makes you think the Premil position was the dominant one? What are your sources?

 

[Yeshua1]

What makes you think the Premil position was the dominant one? What are your sources?

The scriptures, [wink wink]. and some of the more prominent ECF held to some form of it!

 

[asterisktom]

If the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70 truly was "no big deal", why did Jesus bother to predict it? You seem to have trouble grasping what Paul's comments about how there is no Jew nor Greek, male nor female, etc. in Christ. Of course these distinctions exist. Paul is saying that it doesn't matter whether you are a Jew or a Gentile, man or woman, slave or free - to be in Christ. A slave who is in Christ is actually more free than a free man without Christ, because the "free man" is still enslaved to sin.
According to Paul, the true Jew / true Israelite is the one who is in Christ. Consider just these passages from Romans - 2:26-29; 9:6-9; 10:12-13; 11:25-27. I could go on with others, but thought sticking with just one book would be easier.

If I may ask, do you believe there is one "people of God" or two?

Excellent. I was going to write pretty much the same thing. You saved me the trouble.

I understand one's theology causing one to downplay the fall of Jerusalem, but this is the first time I actually heard of it being "no big deal".

 

[Lodic]

The scriptures, [wink wink]. and some of the more prominent ECF held to some form of it!

Oddly enough, the Scriptures are why Preterists hold the view they have. Some very prominent ECF held preteristic views as well. Are we at an impasse?

 

[asterisktom]

When did the Body of Christ experience the physical resurrection then in history?

The body of Christ rose physically at the resurrection. No one is denying that.

But I assume you mean "Body" corporately. In that case I would say it never did, nor will. Not physically.

What happened in AD 70, just as Paul foretold in 1 Cor. 15:51 - 52, was the resurrection of those in the graves and the instantaneous change of those who were still alive at the time.

“We shall not all fall sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”

You cannot read that passage without coming to the conclusion that Paul was certainly waiting for an event very soon to happen.

Now, to believe the futurist scenario we must assume (choose options below):
1. Paul was mistaken, though inspired.
2. Paul was thinking of us (2000 years in the future) though he was addressing them.
3. Paul meant to write "they" (that is, us) when he wrote ""we".
4. Meant "we" in an all-time embracing sense - Christians of all ages.

But this is the least likely of all because he also said "we shall not all fall asleep", meaning that some of his readership would be alive to experience this.

If one still doubts this happened in AD 70 consider other comments of Paul, clearly and authoritatively teaching that this event was soon to happen.

“It is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire.” (II Thess. 1:6-7)

Think about it: Who is getting relief, according to this passage? The 1st-century Thessalonian Christians. Is this relief and retribution twenty centuries in coming? No.

“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)

He expected this to happen soon. The Greek word rendered here "about to" is rather insipidly translated "going to", "will", etc.

But the word "mello" is a much more potent term. It refers to something imminent. Interestingly the word is translated with the proper meaning in all occurrences in the NT - except for the eschatological passages! In those passages imminency is obscured.

This inconsistent handling of the term did not escape the notice of Robert Young, the scholar who wrote Young's Concordance. He had his own translation of the Bible that, among other differences, renders "mello" correctly. Check out his work, Young's Literal Translation.

 

[asterisktom]

There are different ways in which we may be "like Him". Note that John tells us that "it has not appeared as yet what we will be". Maybe in purity, or some other way. My point is that if we were definitely going to have a new physical body, this is where John had the opportunity to let us know.

Another passage to consider along these lines is Luke 20: 34 - 36

"And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Now this begs the question: Just how are they (we) "equal to the angels"?

What are angels like? Do they have physical bodies?

 

[Yeshua1]

Oddly enough, the Scriptures are why Preterists hold the view they have. Some very prominent ECF held preteristic views as well. Are we at an impasse?

Like I said, partial preterism is allowed as an option by the Bible, but full blown version not!

 

[Yeshua1]

The body of Christ rose physically at the resurrection. No one is denying that.

But I assume you mean "Body" corporately. In that case I would say it never did, nor will. Not physically.

What happened in AD 70, just as Paul foretold in 1 Cor. 15:51 - 52, was the resurrection of those in the graves and the instantaneous change of those who were still alive at the time.

“We shall not all fall sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”

You cannot read that passage without coming to the conclusion that Paul was certainly waiting for an event very soon to happen.

Now, to believe the futurist scenario we must assume (choose options below):
1. Paul was mistaken, though inspired.
2. Paul was thinking of us (2000 years in the future) though he was addressing them.
3. Paul meant to write "they" (that is, us) when he wrote ""we".
4. Meant "we" in an all-time embracing sense - Christians of all ages.

But this is the least likely of all because he also said "we shall not all fall asleep", meaning that some of his readership would be alive to experience this.

If one still doubts this happened in AD 70 consider other comments of Paul, clearly and authoritatively teaching that this event was soon to happen.

“It is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire.” (II Thess. 1:6-7)

Think about it: Who is getting relief, according to this passage? The 1st-century Thessalonian Christians. Is this relief and retribution twenty centuries in coming? No.

“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)

He expected this to happen soon. The Greek word rendered here "about to" is rather insipidly translated "going to", "will", etc.

But the word "mello" is a much more potent term. It refers to something imminent. Interestingly the word is translated with the proper meaning in all occurrences in the NT - except for the eschatological passages! In those passages imminency is obscured.

This inconsistent handling of the term did not escape the notice of Robert Young, the scholar who wrote Young's Concordance. He had his own translation of the Bible that, among other differences, renders "mello" correctly. Check out his work, Young's Literal Translation.

From our perspective, Immanent means must happen right away, but the Bible teaches that whenever the second coming happens, it will be quickly done, immanent to those alive at that time!
And Paul surely meant that His body would put on immortal glorified form at the second coming, and John wrote his Epistles decades after AD 70, still awaiting that kind of glorofied Body!

 

[Yeshua1]

Another passage to consider along these lines is Luke 20: 34 - 36

"And Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection."

Now this begs the question: Just how are they (we) "equal to the angels"?

What are angels like? Do they have physical bodies?

We shall judge the fallen Angels, so will be higher than them, and again, we shall have the same type of Body Jesus was raised up with!

 

[Lodic]

Like I said, partial preterism is allowed as an option by the Bible, but full blown version not!

While you've made the case as to why you disagree with it, you haven't made the case why it is not a valid Biblical interpretation. There are many doctrines with which we may disagree, but those who hold to them have a Biblical case.

 

[Yeshua1]

While you've made the case as to why you disagree with it, you haven't made the case why it is not a valid Biblical interpretation. There are many doctrines with which we may disagree, but those who hold to them have a Biblical case.

The Church has always seen it as heresy, as the physical resurrection of the believer sin Christ has always been an essential doctrine of Christianity, and Paul described us as having the glorified physical bodily resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15, and john in 1 John 3:2!

 

[asterisktom]

From our perspective...

You went off the rails right here, sorry to say. We need to first see the Scripture from their perspective, the 1st century Christians. These passages were written to them, not us.

They are written for us, but not to us. Many futurists interpret these passages as if the early readers did not even exist. But it is their comfort, admonition, instruction. It is only ours after we first apply this filter.

 

[asterisktom]

and John wrote his Epistles decades after AD 70, still awaiting that kind of glorofied Body!

No, he wrote it before the Parousia. Revelation describes the Temple as still standing, and the events to happen shortly.