Some Thoughts on the Post-Incarnate Christ

[Martin Marprelate]

If it helps, you are discussing preterism.

It's not Preterism, it's Hyper-preterism.
I make it a point never to fall out with anyone over eschatology, unless he denies the physical return of Christ in glory at the end of the age (Rev. 1:7 etc.).

 

[Ben1445]

It's not Preterism, it's Hyper-preterism.
I make it a point never to fall out with anyone over eschatology, unless he denies the physical return of Christ in glory at the end of the age (Rev. 1:7 etc.).

I understand your point. The wikipedia definition below is accurate for the way I use it.

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view or belief that interprets some or all prophecies of the Bible as events which have already been fulfilled in history.

The only trouble with differentiating between plain preterism and hyper would be that you could say some(plain) or all prophecy(hyper).
But I believe some prophecy has been fulfilled. Isaiah 7:14 has been fulfilled in the past. But I’m not a preterist of any sort.

But I do agree with you on your second point. There is not much of unfulfilled prophecy that is worth a division. I don’t mind discussing it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I understand your point. The wikipedia definition below is accurate for the way I use it.

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view or belief that interprets some or all prophecies of the Bible as events which have already been fulfilled in history.

The only trouble with differentiating between plain preterism and hyper would be that you could say some(plain) or all prophecy(hyper).
But I believe some prophecy has been fulfilled. Isaiah 7:14 has been fulfilled in the past. But I’m not a preterist of any sort.

But I do agree with you on your second point. There is not much of unfulfilled prophecy that is worth a division. I don’t mind discussing it.

Yes, obviously there are numrous Messianic prophecies that have been fulfilled. The point about preterism is that it sees AD 70 as the focal point for most Biblical prophecies. That is not a view I agree with but so long as preterists hold to a physical Return of Christ in the future, I regard it as within Christian orthodoxy.

 

[JesusFan]

It's not Preterism, it's Hyper-preterism.
I make it a point never to fall out with anyone over eschatology, unless he denies the physical return of Christ in glory at the end of the age (Rev. 1:7 etc.).

And denies that all of us shall be physically resurrected at that time

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, obviously there are numrous Messianic prophecies that have been fulfilled. The point about preterism is that it sees AD 70 as the focal point for most Biblical prophecies. That is not a view I agree with but so long as preterists hold to a physical Return of Christ in the future, I regard it as within Christian orthodoxy.

Don't they though state the second Coming was AD 70, and that we shall have a spiritual resurrection at death period now?

 

[asterisktom]

It's not Preterism, it's Hyper-preterism.
I make it a point never to fall out with anyone over eschatology, unless he denies the physical return of Christ in glory at the end of the age (Rev. 1:7 etc.).

The usual ill-considered potshot. My view is Biblical Preterism, not Hyper-Preterism. Not even Full Preterism, a movement that has now been co-opted by cultists like Don Preston.

Rev. 1:7 says nothing about Him returning physically or when He returned. But I do appreciate that you at least gave us a Bible verse, a better basis for discussion.

This is from Wiki:
"A more recent reaction within Full Preterism is in adopting the term "Bible Preterism" to reassert basic Gospel doctrines such as salvation and forgiveness being available from the time of Calvary, a tenet that Don K. Preston denies, asserting these were only available in AD 70.[52]"

I also notice that, so far, no one has answered my logical challenge in post 40. I guess I am not surprised.

 

[asterisktom]

Here is a larger section from Wikipedia, distancing Biblical Preterism from Full or Hyper-Preterism:

"In recent years full preterism has divided into sub-groups. An important offshoot that differs markedly from the theology of Max King and Don K. Preston is the Individual Body View (IBV) of full preterism. The term refers to a belief in a rapture of individuals that occurred in AD 66 (not AD 70), an event that first involved an experiential change into spiritual bodies. This is counter to the Max King variant of full preterism, the Corporate Body View (CBV), which Edward E. Stevens, debating against that view, defines as "a spiritual-only change of status for a collective body, and that it had absolutely nothing to do with the resurrection of individual disembodied souls out of Hades to receive their new immortal bodies and go to heaven where their fellowship with God was eternally restored."[51] "

 

[Charlie24]

The usual ill-considered potshot. My view is Biblical Preterism, not Hyper-Preterism. Not even Full Preterism, a movement that has now been co-opted by cultists like Don Preston.

Rev. 1:7 says nothing about Him returning physically or when He returned. But I do appreciate that you at least gave us a Bible verse, a better basis for discussion.

This is from Wiki:
"A more recent reaction within Full Preterism is in adopting the term "Bible Preterism" to reassert basic Gospel doctrines such as salvation and forgiveness being available from the time of Calvary, a tenet that Don K. Preston denies, asserting these were only available in AD 70.[52]"

I also notice that, so far, no one has answered my logical challenge in post 40. I guess I am not surprised.

He ascended in a physical body but energized by the Holy Spirit not blood.

At the ascension the angel told the disciples He would return in like manner.

So why should we believe His return is not physical?

 

[Silverhair]

For those who insist that humanity inherently requires being physical, two questions concerning Christ's words about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
1. Were those three Patriarchs human at that time Jesus spoke? Yes or no.
2. Were they physical at that time that Jesus spoke? Yes or no.

If you say yes to the first and no to the second then you should see that being physical is not required to be human.
If you say any other combination of answers, then, we would have a totally different problem.

NO & NO

They had been human when they were alive but would not be considered as presently human at the time of Jesus. To be considered human requires a combination of biological & cognitive states. A state of self-awareness. A corpse does not have these.

But since they are not at this time resurrected the the question really proves nothing.

 

[Ben1445]

For those who insist that humanity inherently requires being physical, two questions concerning Christ's words about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob:
1. Were those three Patriarchs human at that time Jesus spoke? Yes or no.
2. Were they physical at that time that Jesus spoke? Yes or no.

If you say yes to the first and no to the second then you should see that being physical is not required to be human.
If you say any other combination of answers, then, we would have a totally different problem.

Thanks for categorizing us before we answer. But it doesn’t change anything.
Yes they were human. They belong to humanity.
They have physical bodies that will be given up by the earth in the resurrection. Being separated from their bodies doesn’t make their bodies something else. There will be a physical resurrection of the bodies that were given to us as we were created. The unrighteous will be judged and the righteous will be made new.
Why would God make everyone differently than they were in physical life than what He already had done?
Why would God judge a different body than the one that erred?
Why would God redeem a body that He is not planning to use?

Revelation 20:13
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Daniel 12:2
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

And Daniel is not talking about soul sleep either, or Jesus would have to have been relaying a pretty unbelievable account of talking in soul sleep between Abraham and the rich man.

 

[Ben1445]

If someone is merely spiritually resurrected, then they must be spiritually dead. This is not the case.
It doesn’t make sense to not have a physical body being resurrected.
And once again, why would Paul wait for the redemption of the body if he should have said the replacement of the body.
We will be changed, not replaced.

 

[asterisktom]

Thanks for categorizing us before we answer. But it doesn’t change anything.
Yes they were human. They belong to humanity.
They have physical bodies that will be given up by the earth in the resurrection. Being separated from their bodies doesn’t make their bodies something else. There will be a physical resurrection of the bodies that were given to us as we were created. The unrighteous will be judged and the righteous will be made new.
Why would God make everyone differently than they were in physical life than what He already had done?
Why would God judge a different body than the one that erred?
Why would God redeem a body that He is not planning to use?

Revelation 20:13
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Daniel 12:2
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

And Daniel is not talking about soul sleep either, or Jesus would have to have been relaying a pretty unbelievable account of talking in soul sleep between Abraham and the rich man.

I am assuming, then, that you said yes to the first question and no to the second, which is that humanity at its core is spiritual. If I am reading you wrong then let me know.

"Being separated from their bodies doesn’t make their bodies something else. There will be a physical resurrection of the bodies that were given to us as we were created."
I guess you mean physical bodies. They - or we - are never separated from our spiritual bodies, our souls. We are souls with bodies, not bodies with souls. One is fitted for this world only, the other for eternity.
Where is your proof for your second sentence? There is no physical resurrection. Christians, as soon as they come to Christ, are risen spiritually with Christ, Eph. 2:6; Col. 2:12; 3:1. And those living first century saints at the Parousia were translated and taken up in the rapture. Likewise, all subsequent Christians, at our individual deaths, will also be translated from our physical bodies and made fit for the heaven, the kingdom that does not allow flesh and blood, 1 Cor. 15:50.

"Why would God judge a different body than the one that erred?
Why would God redeem a body that He is not planning to use?"
God chastises us, our bodies, in this life so that we might receive correction, Heb. 12:5-11. It is the soul that is judged. There is a distinction. Paul delivered the body of a sinning Corinthian in order to save his spirit.
God seeks to save the real person, which is the soul, or the spirit.

A good study is to look up the word "flesh" in the Bible, especially the New Testament. On one side right where the it is spoken of favorable. And on the other side unfavorably. Your chart will get lopsided very quickly.

I'm not sure how your Rev. verse speaks against my position. The Daniel verse refers to the Parousia event in the first century, the redeemed of all ages ("sleep" referring to the dead in Christ) and the unredeemed rising up to meet their separate destinies.

 

[asterisktom]

He ascended in a physical body but energized by the Holy Spirit not blood.

At the ascension the angel told the disciples He would return in like manner.

So why should we believe His return is not physical?

"In like manner" is an adverbial phrase, not adjectival. We have been so preconditioned to interpret this verse the way you just did that we forget basic grammar. If the passage had been "in like form" then you would have a case. In like manner describes how Christ was to return. With the clouds, visible, with the sound of a trumpet and a shout. And those were all fulfilled.

 

[asterisktom]

If someone is merely spiritually resurrected, then they must be spiritually dead. This is not the case.
It doesn’t make sense to not have a physical body being resurrected.
And once again, why would Paul wait for the redemption of the body if he should have said the replacement of the body.
We will be changed, not replaced.

We will be changed, not replaced, exactly. The real us - our core identity - is spiritual. When Moses and Elijah appeared at the Mount of Transfiguration they were not physical, agreed? They had spiritual bodies. But they most certainly were Moses and Elijah, true humans.