Greek Slam Dunk on Full Preterism

Well, I promised my wife the computer, but let me get this in for now. I think you need to consider the issue of "root fallacy", John. D.A. Carson wrote well on this (Was it in "Exegetical Fallacies"?:

"One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy pre-supposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word".

So much for now. Lets stick with the Bible.

 

Why, yes, you are the only one with the Greek books. I suppose my Wallace is just handy for slamming down on roaches.

I will get back to this but, for now, I really do have to get off the computer and do husbandly things and let her on here. Of course you will suspect that too. But I don't care.

 

You don't mind if this thread degenerates into an anti-Preterism thread. You just don't want me to trash dispensationalism like you do Preterism. OK, I'll humor that.

The word you brought up is an interesting one, for sure (the Greek word, not "obfuscate"). But I think your conclusions are unwarranted. But before I get to that I need to also add that there are other occurrences that should also be dealt with, and that is the very closely related epiphaino, to appear, to show oneself. It is convenient for our discussion that two instances of this word are found in close proximity to one of your epiphaneas, although not a passage that you referred to:

Titus 2:11-13
11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, 12 teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,


And Titus 3:4-5
4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

These three occurrences (two verbs and one noun) of the same root word can help us to understand Paul's intended usage. The first time it is grace that is appearing, the second is Christ's appearance, and the third is the "kindness and love of God". I suspect that at this point you know where I am going with this and you might say that they are different words (technically, you are right) and should not be considered together. But they are just as much alike as "discuss" and "discussion". Very closely related.

Clearly the other two uses of the word show that epiphaneia can also have a non-physical aspect. God's grace and His love and kindness have appeared. They are definitely real, but they are spiritually apprehended. I say the same thing for the second coming of Christ.

You say this is a slam-dunk. I think it is an air ball. You have not proven your case.

 

It would appear to me Tom, that using your line of reasoning, taken to it's logical conclusion would indicate that Jesus had already returned (as promised in John ch 14, Acts ch 1) before Paul wrote Titus.

Regardless, you fail to address the questions in the OP, which of course is becoming your trademark.

 

Along the same lines, I have asked for a full exegesis of the following passage:

1 Thessalonians 4

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.​

Don't know if this passage was ever explained by Tom (or any other full preterist) but I waited quite a while and it didn't happen. But I may not have spotted it. Forgive me Tom, if I missed it.​

If so, please point me to the response Tom.​

Thanks
HankD​

 

So, "discussing" and "discussion", likewise, would be totally different words. Well, if you are going to go to those incredible lengths to shore up your doctrine, I guess I will leave it. Anyone who is convinced by your "different words" response is welcome to your conclusions.

I have dealt with Paul's usage of the terms - just not the particular passages that you roped off as exhibit A. You remind me of the kid who says "Pick a card. Any card....Not that card!"

I left alone your naked assertion about Paul's conclusion on a physical coming of Christ. A real leap in logic that is not warranted by the texts that you strung together. But I guess we see what we need to see.

 

Hi Hank. I think I answered this elsewhere, but I will have to look for it. My time is limited today because we are getting ready to move. A lot of my books are in boxes and I am in the middle of a yard sale to boot.

At any rate, before I tackle this - assuming I haven't already - I want to address another point raised by someone else about physical fulfillments of some OT prophecies necessarily requiring physical fulfillments of all prophecies. I disagree with this but cannot get into it now.

 

No problem Tom, thanks.
HankD

 

It is simple. The reason the vast majority of folks reject preterism is because everybody knows Jesus did not return in his physical body in 70 A.D. and set up his millennial kingdom. If he had, it would be in every history book, it would be undeniable. The whole wide world would know it.

So, they have to argue that Jesus came in some sort of spiritual, ghostly body.

But nobody is buying it.

 

Your labeling these occurrences as personification are not valid. (And yes, I know all about that, you could've spared yourself this little detour). I think what we have here is your being so tree-aware you cannot fully comprehend the forest.

I stand by my earlier comments.

 

Yes, and you can add an "s" to "needles" and come up with "needless". Which is what this answer is. This is another example of not seeing the forest for the trees. If you really, really think that the two words are different then I am not going to convince you otherwise.

At any rate, I am pretty much done with this part of the discussion unless
you come up with something substantive.

This is not quite the same thing. There are word families that have branched off into somewhat different meanings. But even here you have to reach farther out to get your different wards. The ones I mentioned were all within about a chapter of Titus, reflecting Paul's conscious use IMO of a similar word on three occasions.

Most of this I did not contest because they are either irrelevent or artificial or both. Or they are drawn from authorities within your own narrow corral of sources.

 

1 Thess.4 is certainly one of the passages that we need to go to understand the second coming. There are some interesting details here that many might have missed. Here is the passage:

"13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.

14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

18 Therefore comfort one another with these words."

First of all we have the personal pronouns and immediate references:
"We who are alive and remain". Clearly, the inspired apostle expected some of those he was writing to (possibly including himself) to be alive for this event. I have yet to read a believable response to this problem: The inspired apostle was either wrong or misleading - according to the futurist view.

And this is only one of several indications in this passage of Paul writing to those 1st century Thessalonians.

Another thing that is overlooked is the phrase "by the word of the Lord". This not just a mention of Paul's inspiration, but a reference to a specific instruction from the Lord. Now, is there a certain passage in the Bible we can turn to that has similar instruction as this?

Yes, Matt. 24 and 25. Compare 1 Thess. 4 and 5 with Matt. 24 and 25. The following (in green) is from Joseph Canfield. I had started making my own list when I noticed his was much more complete. No need reinventing the wheel:

I Thess. 4-5 & Matt. 24-25

1. Christ Himself returns 4:16 24:30

2. from heaven 4:16 24:30

3. with a shout 4:16 24:30 (in power)

4. Accompanied by angels 4:16 24:31

5. With trumpet of God 4:16 24:31

6. Believers gathered 4:17 24:31, 40-41

7. In clouds 4:17 24:30

8. Time Unknown 5:1-2 24:36

9. Will come as a thief 5:2,4 24:43

10. Unbelievers unaware of

impending judgment 5:3 24:37-39

11. Judgment comes as

travail upon expectant

mother 5:3 24:8 (RV)

12. Believers not decided 5:4-5 24:4 ff.

13. Believers to watch 5:6 24:42

14. Warning against

drunkenness 5:73 24:49

This will be all for now. Much more could be said. For now let it suffice that the fact that Matt. 24 - 25 fits so neatly into those passages of 1 Thess. causes serious problem for, not only dispensational paradigms, but all futurist ones.

 

No, it is not a personification. What more can I say? I cannot convince you against what you have trained yourself to see.

I think what Logos and I are saying is really on target. You are so enmeshed on the close-up view of the Greek, that you are overlook those things in Scripture that even a child - unless he were carefully taught otherwise - would understand. Note please: I am not calling you stupid, only that you have been greatly prejudiced toward a certain way of looking at the Bible. You have been raised on Dispensationalism and that is what you see. Everywhere.