Greek Slam Dunk on Full Preterism

[asterisktom]

In 70 A.D. there was no descendent of David reigning on Israel throne, they have yet to have the peace described, and there is no mass grave of Gog in a place called hamongog, all of this is yet future and on the earth.

you definitely didn't answer this one.

Is not Christ the descendant of David? Yes. Is He reigning now? Yes. At that last, seventh, trump the kingdoms of this Earth became that of Christ.

I am not going to go back and answer all the dozens of verses you have strung together. What would be the purpose. Whatever I write would be ignored anyway.

No one has commented on the correlation of Matt. 24-25 to 1 Thess 4.
No one has seriously answered the "mistake" of Paul in saying that the Parousia would happen in just a short while.

Why go through all the trouble?

Yet I will say that the biggest misunderstanding people have about God and about His Word is the supremely spiritual nature of Him and His Word. He is the God of the spirits of all flesh and His dealings with us have this as its foundation. He made us, first of all, spiritual beings. Yet we are so enamored of the physical, worldly, sensual that we read the Spiritual Book with that bias.

 

[John of Japan]

Folks, notice that Tom has stopped answering my points and has stooped to attacking me personally. This means to me that I have won the debate. If he were serious about defending his position he would answer the OP and tell me at what point and in what way in 2 Tim. epifaneia (epiphaneia) changed from meaning a physical coming (Christ's 1st coming) to meaning a spiritual coming (Christ's 2nd coming, in his view).

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

I am not self-trained in language, which is what this thread is about, but have been trained by many linguists and language teachers. I was an English minor in college (with many more credits than needed), I have formal training in Latin and Hebrew, lots of undergrad and grad training in Greek, and a two year diploma from the prestigious Tokyo School of the Japanese language.

And if you yourself are not self-trained in language, and you truly believe that the sentence in question is not personification, you'll be able to explain why it is not. (And by the way, we trained linguists do not say "a personification." Just saying.)

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.

The entire premise of the OP is based on the Greek of 2 Timothy. If you don't believe the Greek is important, why in the world did you discuss it with me until this post?

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.

Nope, absolutely wrong. I was not raised on dispensationalism. (And this thread is not about dispensationalism, by the way.) My father was a Wheaton trained non-dispensational pastor, and my grandfather (a well known evangelist) was an SBC trained non-dispensationalist.

I was actually rejected the first time I applied to my mission board because I did not take the dispensational position on ecclesiology. I did not become a dispensationalist until after my college training, after working as a book editor and proof reader, and after being accepted as a missionary. I became a dispensationalist after much Bible study and prayer.

But that is all moot. The doctrine of a literal and physical 2nd coming of Christ is not just a dispensational peculiarity, it is a fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith held by premillenialists (both dispensational and historical), postmillenialists and amillenialists.

 

[asterisktom]

Folks, notice that Tom has stopped answering my points and has stooped to attacking me personally. This means to me that I have won the debate.

How have I attacked you personally? Are you serious?

If he were serious about defending his position he would answer the OP and tell me at what point and in what way in 2 Tim.

Your OP is an artificial non-issue. You put words in Pauls' mouth and then ask me to refute or defend it? No thanks.

epifaneia (epiphaneia) changed from meaning a physical coming (Christ's 1st coming) to meaning a spiritual coming (Christ's 2nd coming, in his view).
I am not self-trained in language, which is what this thread is about, but have been trained by many linguists and language teachers. I was an English minor in college (with many more credits than needed), I have formal training in Latin and Hebrew, lots of undergrad and grad training in Greek, and a two year diploma from the prestigious Tokyo School of the Japanese language.

Aha. This is where you perceive the slight. John, when I said "you have trained yourself to see" something I was not thinking about your Greek at all. I was talking about your dispensational presuppositions. That is what you have been trained in. The Greek is beside the point of my argument. See? You are so wrapped up in your Greek studies that you are in danger of losing perspective.

And if you yourself are not self-trained in language, and you truly believe that the sentence in question is not personification, you'll be able to explain why it is not. (And by the way, we trained linguists do not say "a personification." Just saying.)

"We trained linguists". Thinking of ourselves overmuch are we? I stand by my "a personification". It occurs quite often in the literature, your small coterie of Word Gods notwithstanding. Are we stooping here to niggling details because we sense having lost the debate? (See, two can play that "I won the debate card.")

For that matter, you can declare yourself the winner, because I am not going to rehash this particular item for the reasons stated above and earlier.

 

[HankD]

But, Hank, it was not an expectation. It was a frank assertion: "We who are alive and remain". "He didn't know"? He wrote as if he did know.

"We" - Paul, Silas, Timothy, the other Apostles, perhaps, the readers, the saints elsewhere at the time.

"who are alive" - as opposed to not dead. He means clearly that some will be alive still at the Parousia. He does not say, "It is likely that we will live to this time." or "It is hoped for that we will live to this time." No, he boldly announces in the dogmatic indicative "We who are alive and remain."

That is overstating it. See my earlier post on Clement and the others. I could also say that the early Church Fathers quickly - very quickly - lost sight of basic tenets of Christianity so as to plummet Christendom into such foreign practices as celibacy, monasticism, an overly authoritarian leadership along with many other abuses. Do we credit the ECF as authoritative on one facet of Christianity and ignore the others?

When they speak what we want we own them as "fathers". When we disagree we realize that they are just flesh and blood, prone to error.

I am quite willing to consider them along those latter lines. And also to consider all men - myself included - "liars". I am just going by what the Bible says. That is what led me to Preterism, taking Paul's and Christ's words at face value.

OK Tom, I see your point and you are sincere (as I am) I have no doubt.
You are also my brother in Christ besides being one of my favorite BB people.

But I could say the same thing using the equivalent verb tenses as Paul today in a dissertation of the Second Coming without offending anyone's sensibilities (preterists excepted).

Personally, I don't see that inspiration is violated with Paul having a firm conviction that Jesus would return in his (Paul's) own lifetime because of the passage stating that the exact date of the Second Coming is unknowable and therefore possible during the life of anyone who reads/hears the text.

I also, as well as many others, believe we are taking Christ at His word from our point of view. Too bad we can't rally around those points of commonality (Trinity, deity of Christ, Vicarious Atonement, etc).

I remember your post on Clement and while it had some virtue in the direction of preterism it seemed inconclusive to me and I believe I counter-responded with some of his other quotes.

I also realize the several problems with church fathers. The ones I cited were for the most part "orthodox" from our collective point of view.

However, at least two of these men (Ignatius and Polycarp - who knew each other) Polycarp (AD69-AD155) spoke of Christ who is coming to judge the living and the dead as well as Ignatius who spoke of His coming as future.

I cited several passages during the last round of debates.

In addition, the "orthodox" church at large was overwhelmingly looking for the bodily return of Christ. That is, before the advent of the Dark Age when all was nearly forgotten.


HankD

 

[John of Japan]

How have I attacked you personally? Are you serious?

Your OP is an artificial non-issue. You put words in Pauls' mouth and then ask me to refute or defend it? No thanks.

Oops, no, the words in question are those Paul actually wrote. I truly wish you would discuss Paul's words with me, specifically the words in the OP--straight from Scripture, the Greek NT.

"We trained linguists". Thinking of ourselves overmuch are we?

Not bragging. Just stating a fact, like I do when I fill out a resume. The fact that I'm a trained linguist does not speak to whether or not I'm good at my job. (And this is another personal attack from you.)

I stand by my "a personification". It occurs quite often in the literature, your small coterie of Word Gods notwithstanding.

Fine. Give me one single example from the literature. An English grammar book would be fine. Perrin-Smith would be good, or maybe Harbrace. I'll be waiting.

 

[asterisktom]

Oops, no, the words in question are those Paul actually wrote. I truly wish you would discuss Paul's words with me, specifically the words in the OP--straight from Scripture, the Greek NT.

Not bragging. Just stating a fact, like I do when I fill out a resume. The fact that I'm a trained linguist does not speak to whether or not I'm good at my job. (And this is another personal attack from you.)
Fine. Give me one single example from the literature. An English grammar book would be fine. Perrin-Smith would be good, or maybe Harbrace. I'll be waiting.

You'll be waiting a long time.

I am sticking a fork in this one. (hmm. Maybe that will be construed as an attack too.)

Time for bed anyway.

 

[revmwc]

Is not Christ the descendant of David? Yes. Is He reigning now? Yes. At that last, seventh, trump the kingdoms of this Earth became that of Christ.

I am not going to go back and answer all the dozens of verses you have strung together. What would be the purpose. Whatever I write would be ignored anyway.

No one has commented on the correlation of Matt. 24-25 to 1 Thess 4.
No one has seriously answered the "mistake" of Paul in saying that the Parousia would happen in just a short while.

Why go through all the trouble?

Yet I will say that the biggest misunderstanding people have about God and about His Word is the supremely spiritual nature of Him and His Word. He is the God of the spirits of all flesh and His dealings with us have this as its foundation. He made us, first of all, spiritual beings. Yet we are so enamored of the physical, worldly, sensual that we read the Spiritual Book with that bias.

I have answered your questions of those verses in sevral text. Paul made no mistake, Peter stated one day to the Lord is as a Thousand years and a Thousand years as one day. To God when Paul used parousia would happen in a short time for God the Holy Spirit that inspired Paul to write it has been a very short time. You didn't trouble yourself to answer them before either. The Throne of David was it an earthly throne or heavenly. Christ is not seated on David's throne today, He is seated at the right hand of the father,

Hebrews 10:11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

Acts2: 34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

35Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

seated there till His enemies become His footstool.

 

[DHK]

Some reasons not to believe in the Preterist or full Preterist position:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever that Christ returned in 70 A.D. This supposed assertion is a denial of over 2000 years of history. It cannot be found in any history book. It as bogus as any cult assertion like the J.W.

An absolutely critical date for the Jehovah's Witnesses is 1914 AD. It is the date when, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, the time of the Gentiles ended (Watchtower, 5/1/93, page 11) and "Jesus-the heavenly warrior Michael-became King of God's heavenly Kingdom," (Watchtower 11/1/93, page 23). To arrive at this date, the Witnesses take the account in Daniel 4 and apply a 360 day year for each of the seven "times" for a total of 2520 years. They add this date to 607 B.C., their date for the fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar, and arrive at 1914 A.D., the date when Jesus supposedly returned invisibly in the heavens (The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 300), the "appointed time of the nations" ended (The Time is at Hand, page 79), and the beginning of the end of the world commenced (Watchtower 11/15/50, page 438). Please consider the following quote.

http://carm.org/1914-ad-607-bc-586-bc-and-jehovahs-witnesses

Note that the J.W.’s believe that Christ returned “invisibly” in 1914.
The Preterists believe that Christ returned (no doubt in the same way), in 70 A.D.
Is the comparison justifiable? Only if the preterist cannot give evidence that Christ came in 70 A.D. If he cannot give any evidence that Christ came in 70 A.D. his claim about the coming of Christ is no more valid than the J.W.’s claim and should be taken just as seriously.

Did Jesus come back in 70 A.D.? There is no evidence that he did. History remains silent. No reputable historian makes this claim. The answer is no.
Did Jesus promise to come back?
How did Christ come to come back? The Bible states that Christ will come as he ascended, in a literal physical body. Jesus himself made that claim. If Christ does not come, some day, in physical form then he himself will be considered a fraud and a charlatan. If the Bible can be shown to be clear on these promises, and Christ has not yet come, then those who still do not believe in his coming either live in a state of unbelief or consider Christ a fraud and a charlatan. Are the words of Christ true or false concerning his future literal coming?

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mark 8:38)
--He said he would come in the glory of his father with the holy angels. Has anyone ever witnessed this event? No.

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Matthew 24:27)

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matthew 24:29-31)

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

He will come in judgment:
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10)

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)
--He is coming in the flesh, and when he does our bodies shall changed. We shall be like him. We shall see him as he is, and be like him in physical shape, with a physical body as his is.

The above verse, 1John 3:2 leads us to another doctrine that the preterists deny, which is the resurrection body of the believer. 1John 3:2 clearly teaches that we shall have a body like Christ, like the body Christ had when he appeared to over 500 brethren, ate fish with his disciples, appeared to them behind closed doors, walked with two of them on the road to Emmaus, and then dined with them. Our bodies will be like his; not simply spirits, but bodies.

All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. (1 Corinthians 15:39-40)
--There is more than one kind of flesh. Someday we will have a body, a celestial body compared to the terrestrial body that we now have.

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)
--The event of the second coming will be sudden. Our resurrection also will be sudden. The change in our bodies also will be sudden—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. It will not be spiritual, but rather physical.

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 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. 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: 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. (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17)
--Christ will come literally, physically, and we will rise literally, physically. There is no denying this event.