PDA

View Full Version : Date Setting again???? Jack Vanimpe is at it again!



TheForgiven
02-20-2009, 08:27 PM
Jack Van Impe at it again? According to his new studies, or recent studies based on old theories from historical figures such as Sir Isaac Newton, December 21st 2012 may be the time of the Rapture, and the beginning of the Millennium! :Date_Setting:

Here's a short clip from good ole Jack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f3aRnkgOWs

He's a perfect example of why the Futurist position is so difficult to embrace, yet extremely difficult to avoid. I've followed this man for nearly two decades, and it's always something new with him.

Now he covers himself by saying that it's not "His date" that is being set, but what historical figures have set based on their theories. Yet, he's selling a book which talks the "possible" day of Christ's glorious return, on 21 December 2012.

:pop2:

I'll never understand how people cling to teachers such as this. From one fallacy to the next, one failed prediction to the next, like the Duracell battery, he keeps going, and going, and going.....and changing, and changing, and changing. Same old theory, different time and setting. Isn't this a clear sign of a false prophet?

What say you all?

Joe

CWH
02-21-2009, 04:37 AM
Hi Joe,

It is not changing and changing but reviewing and reviewing. Just like the Duracell battery or the cell phone, it needs to upgrade continuously, coming out with a better product each time.

That's something exciting about the Futurist position. It's like a jigsaw puzzle and slowly as the jigsaw fits, a clearer and clearer picture emerged. If the jigsaw doesn't fit, we need to try until we get the correct jigsaw that fits. The Futurist position is not a "dead" position; it's a lively position. It is in this way how we could understand the scripture better as time progresses. It's like scientific research, if a concept fails, try another until the correct concept is proven.

God Blessed.

TheForgiven
02-21-2009, 07:49 AM
Hi Joe,

It is not changing and changing but reviewing and reviewing. Just like the Duracell battery or the cell phone, it needs to upgrade continuously, coming out with a better product each time.

That's something exciting about the Futurist position. It's like a jigsaw puzzle and slowly as the jigsaw fits, a clearer and clearer picture emerged. If the jigsaw doesn't fit, we need to try until we get the correct jigsaw that fits. The Futurist position is not a "dead" position; it's a lively position. It is in this way how we could understand the scripture better as time progresses. It's like scientific research, if a concept fails, try another until the correct concept is proven.

God Blessed.

Hello brother Cheow. I appreciate your response. At least we finally have someone who agrees that the Futurist position operates much like the Preterist position. We try as best as we can to fit the pieces of the puzzle together, and it's exciting to do so. The difference of course is what Futurist try piecing together, we (Preterist) believe we have, and are more consistent. That's not to say that our puzzle is perfect, to say the least. Probably far from it. Although confident, I'm quite certain that our position holds the first century at heart more than the futurist position.

What I mean is this. The Apostles all gave clear time statements that seemed to indicate they expected the return of Christ to happen within their life time (generation). Like the futurist of today, they saw things happening in their time that gave them clues to a nearly completed puzzle. Now, in our generation (and in nearly all generations) someone is using pieces of a puzzle that fit their perspective, their generation, and their predictions. With that, let me ask a simple question.

If the Apostles were trying to put pieces of the puzzle together, like the Futurist, Preterist, and Historicist do, would you say then that the Apostles were wrong? I know this question sounds like a trap, but it's not. I'm merely asking you if you believe (or any other Futurist) that the first century Church was mistaken into thinking that Christ would come in their time frame? Because the Futurist position holds to the theory that Christ has not yet come, therefore must admit that the first century Church (primarily the Apostles) were all mistaken and misinterpreted the signs of their time.

I'd say it's logical (using common sense) to presume that the Apostles (and their disciples) were much less prone to error than our modern day Evangelist's.

What say you all?

Joe

basilfo
02-21-2009, 11:36 PM
Hi Joe,

It is not changing and changing but reviewing and reviewing. Just like the Duracell battery or the cell phone, it needs to upgrade continuously, coming out with a better product each time.

Hi Cheow,
I must be honest with you and in brotherly love, point out the flaws in the method of interpretation that you have subscribed to.

The folks who "upgrade continuously" must provide the reason that their previous position was in error. But they never do. Then they should toss out the flawed logic and interpretive method that brought them to that incorrect conclusion. But they never do.

This is like doing arithmetic, getting the wrong answer, then just popping out another answer without seeing if your understanding of math is flawed. That's foolish and will NEVER produce the correct answer. Just a stream of wrong answers.


That's something exciting about the Futurist position. It's like a jigsaw puzzle and slowly as the jigsaw fits, a clearer and clearer picture emerged. If the jigsaw doesn't fit, we need to try until we get the correct jigsaw that fits.

Biblical interpretation is not a guessing game. As I explained in a previous post, there are fundamental principles to be used to arrive at the correct interpretation. Without these guidelines, I could say a verse means just about anything - because my thinking is based on pure opinion.



The Futurist position is not a "dead" position; it's a lively position. It is in this way how we could understand the scripture better as time progresses. It's like scientific research, if a concept fails, try another until the correct concept is proven.

God Blessed.

If only futurists like Jack Van Impe used a method "like scientific research"!! The difference is that when scientists' concept fails, they review their approach and method and correct the errors. Jack doesn't do that because he is not driven by the truth, he is driven by ratings and book sales.

There is another fool named Harold Camping who has run "Family Radio" for over 50 yrs. He does his call-in answer program daily and constantly states that the rapture will occur on May 21, 2011. He is as old as dirt, so he might not make it personally to that date. But you can bet I will be listening to his show on May 22, 2011 to hear his explanation of why he was wrong.....again.
THAT will be good entertainment.

Biblical interpretation is serious business and has tremendous impacts on our view of the world, our treatment of others, and the effectiveness of our presentation of the Gospel. If our explanations of "end times" don't hold up to scrutiny, it will be easy for unbelievers to dismiss anything else we say concerning the Lord. That is very bad.

I pray you think on these things Cheow. Peace to you,

Dave

basilfo
02-21-2009, 11:49 PM
The Apostles all gave clear time statements that seemed to indicate they expected the return of Christ to happen within their life time (generation). Like the futurist of today, they saw things happening in their time that gave them clues to a nearly completed puzzle.

Hi Joe,
I know what you are trying to say Joe, but in your effort to be the nice guy that you are, you understated the above. It is not one group of folks (the apostles) seeing things and concluding "it is the last hour" (according to John), and another group (today's futurists) reading newspapers concluding the same things.

The apostles taught that "the coming of the Lord and our gathering together to Him" (in Paul's case) was about to occur not because they "saw things happening in their lifetimes". They taught that because they were instructed as such by Jesus Himself in the Olivet discourse and every other time He spoke of the timing. They were later instructed by the Holy Spirit on the timing of the Parousia when they wrote ALL their Gospels/letters/epistles!

The apostles heard it from Jesus' own mouth and were divinly inspired by the Holy Spirit when writing each word of the NT. Date setters today must twist clear text like "soon", "at hand", "the time is near", "shortly take place", "at the door", "I am coming quickly", "last hour", "for us", "upon whom the ends of the ages have come", "in these last days", etc.

Just wanted to amplify what you were saying brother.

Peace to you,
Dave

TheForgiven
02-22-2009, 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by TheForgiven View Post
The Apostles all gave clear time statements that seemed to indicate they expected the return of Christ to happen within their life time (generation). Like the futurist of today, they saw things happening in their time that gave them clues to a nearly completed puzzle.
Hi Joe,
I know what you are trying to say Joe, but in your effort to be the nice guy that you are, you understated the above. It is not one group of folks (the apostles) seeing things and concluding "it is the last hour" (according to John), and another group (today's futurists) reading newspapers concluding the same things.

The apostles taught that "the coming of the Lord and our gathering together to Him" (in Paul's case) was about to occur not because they "saw things happening in their lifetimes". They taught that because they were instructed as such by Jesus Himself in the Olivet discourse and every other time He spoke of the timing. They were later instructed by the Holy Spirit on the timing of the Parousia when they wrote ALL their Gospels/letters/epistles!

The apostles heard it from Jesus' own mouth and were divinly inspired by the Holy Spirit when writing each word of the NT. Date setters today must twist clear text like "soon", "at hand", "the time is near", "shortly take place", "at the door", "I am coming quickly", "last hour", "for us", "upon whom the ends of the ages have come", "in these last days", etc.

Just wanted to amplify what you were saying brother.

Peace to you,
Dave

Exactly! :thumb: What I meant was that the Apostles (although hearing the signs directly from the Lord) confirmed the signs and events that were happening some 30+ years after Christ. When Peter was very old, he knew that his death was near. In the same way, when the tensions were growing difficult all throughout Israel, and the Romans were growing tired of the trouble in Jerusalem (because of the factions), Peter (and all the Church) knew that the time of the end was upon them.

The time statements made throughout the New Testament by the Apostles indicated that they anticipated the near return of Christ.

So you and I are in full agreement.

Joe

Richard Amiel McGough
02-24-2009, 05:41 PM
There is another fool named Harold Camping who has run "Family Radio" for over 50 yrs. He does his call-in answer program daily and constantly states that the rapture will occur on May 21, 2011. He is as old as dirt, so he might not make it personally to that date. But you can bet I will be listening to his show on May 22, 2011 to hear his explanation of why he was wrong.....again.
THAT will be good entertainment.

Hi Dave,

Way back in 1993 I got interested in listening to Camping because I knew he was wrong and was fascinated by how he justified his delusions. Then I forgot about him till last year when I somehow bumped into him on the radio, and was quite surprised to find that he was "doing it again" with his predictions for the rapture on May 21, 2011 and the subsequent end of the world on October 21, 2011. Only now his tone has changed. Now he declares that anyone who does not believe his private interpretation is actually denying the Bible and is almost certainly "not saved" and so will suffer extra torment during the 153 days of the "Day of Judgment"! Indeed, he said that is the purpose for the "Day of Judgment" - to especially punish those who disagree with Harold Camping! I'm not kidding! He really said it! He's as looney as they come. He denies any possibility whatsoever that he is wrong, and says, in the classic style of 88-Reasons-Whisenant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant) that if his predictions are wrong, then it is the BIBLE that would be wrong! His delusions are dwarfed by his arrogance.

I was thinking of starting a thread called "Harold Camping - Anatomy of a Delusion."

Richard

basilfo
02-25-2009, 12:46 PM
Hi Richard,
Yeah, he's way out there. His bizarre echatology also says that the 'church age' ended years ago (90's maybe?) and there is no salvation occuring in the "congregations" today. He gets it from the Rev text "come out of her".

He's a certified kook, and I can't wait to hear him wiggle out of his firm prediction on May 22, 2011.

There is no problem with being wrong. I'm sure I'll be wrong someday. :eek:
The problem is not going back and correcting the methods that brought you to the wrong conclusion in the first place.

Chuck Smith (founder of the mega church Calvary Chapel) did the old fig tree calculation and came up with a 1981 rapture (1948+40yrs=1988 'coming' - 7yr trib = 1981 rapture). Then of course, when it didn't happen, he didn't question his hermeneutic approach, he just changed the starting date to 1967. Well, 2001 rapture didn't happen, so that's strike 2.

But he never said, "Hmmm, perhaps the budding of the fig tree AND ALL THE TREES doesn't mean what I thought it meant." He now uses the 'genea'=Jewish race and the ever-stretching generation (perhaps even 100 yrs long!).

It's up to each of us to 'search the Scriptures to see if it is so'. I'm glad God has given me a spirit to seek His truth and let the chips fall where they may - even if it means giving up an end times view I thought was correct for 40 yrs. It's refreshing!

Peace to you,
Dave

Richard Amiel McGough
02-25-2009, 02:03 PM
Hi Richard,
Yeah, he's way out there. His bizarre echatology also says that the 'church age' ended years ago (90's maybe?) and there is no salvation occuring in the "congregations" today. He gets it from the Rev text "come out of her".

Hey Dave,

He's very specific. His inventions are extremely meticulous and precise, like an engineer gone mad. He says that the church age ended on May 21, 1988. Ha! His writings are full of outrageous statements that are completely unsupported by anything in the Bible, yet he constantly declares that these are "what the Bible teaches." He also says that God wrote the Bible in a very complicated way so that NO ONE could understand it until the "time of the end" when God would open "our" (read Harold Camping's) eyes. He constantly likens himself to Jonah .....



He's a certified kook, and I can't wait to hear him wiggle out of his firm prediction on May 22, 2011.

The word "kook" is too kind. I really hope he lives till may 22, 2011 so he can see the blasphemy of his errors. He's all the way gone. I was reviewing his stuff to find the exact dates he set, and found this (http://www.familyradio.com/graphical/literature/church/new/churchage_08.html#ch8_19) "explanation" of why we "know" that Matthew 24 was not fulfilled in 70 AD:


While it is true that the temple was destroyed in A.D. 70, it is not true that not one stone was left upon another. The present Western Wall together with the temple foundation still exist today. These structures were an essential part of the temple buildings.
So Christ's reference to the destruction of the Temple was "not fulfilled" because the wailing wall stands? Why then did he talk about the destruction of the Temple at all? This is shear madness! It utterly destroys all meaning of the text.



There is no problem with being wrong. I'm sure I'll be wrong someday. :eek:
The problem is not going back and correcting the methods that brought you to the wrong conclusion in the first place.

Amen to that! We all have our share of errors.



Chuck Smith (founder of the mega church Calvary Chapel) did the old fig tree calculation and came up with a 1981 rapture (1948+40yrs=1988 'coming' - 7yr trib = 1981 rapture). Then of course, when it didn't happen, he didn't question his hermeneutic approach, he just changed the starting date to 1967. Well, 2001 rapture didn't happen, so that's strike 2.

But he never said, "Hmmm, perhaps the budding of the fig tree AND ALL THE TREES doesn't mean what I thought it meant." He now uses the 'genea'=Jewish race and the ever-stretching generation (perhaps even 100 yrs long!).

It's very sad that "evangelical" has become almost synonymous with "dispensational futurist." And this really has me thinking ... if folks can be so wrong as Chuck on things as plain and obvious as the meaning of "generation" what does that say about the rest of his teachings? Are they also uncritical expressions of mere opinion? Everything needs to be re-evaluated.

I often listen to CSN's "To Every Man An Answer" which Chuck started but now is run by Mike Kestler (I think). To listen to his interpretation of revelation is quite a hoot. Concerning things like 1/3 of the fish dying and the stars falling from heaven, he constantly says things like "If the text doesn't say mean what it says, then I don't know what it could mean." But the seven headed dragon is just a symbol of course!




It's up to each of us to 'search the Scriptures to see if it is so'. I'm glad God has given me a spirit to seek His truth and let the chips fall where they may - even if it means giving up an end times view I thought was correct for 40 yrs. It's refreshing!

Peace to you,
Dave
I am glad too.

It is good to be chatting,

Richard

TheForgiven
02-25-2009, 04:33 PM
But he never said, "Hmmm, perhaps the budding of the fig tree AND ALL THE TREES doesn't mean what I thought it meant." He now uses the 'genea'=Jewish race and the ever-stretching generation (perhaps even 100 yrs long!).

THAT, my dear brother in Christ, is my entire point as well. Many Futurist will be wrong on many of their assumptions, estimations, calculations, and what ever other "tions" they come up with. But they will NEVER acknowledge the failure, or fallacy, of their understanding.

It strikes me quite curious as to how consistent Preterist's are always regarded as "Heretics", yet they can never disprove us as being wrong. Yet their eschatology has centuries of "kooks" who keep getting it wrong, yet for some reason, that's never considered heresy; they were merely mistaken. What this basically means is that Dispensationalism is allowed to be wrong, but not its beliefs or methods; only its timing. This, for one, does a huge injustice to the first century Church because it makes it out as though the first century church got it all wrong. It also seems to justify their point of view that it's okay for Dispensational position to be wrong....just not Preterist. :lol:

Joe

TheForgiven
02-25-2009, 09:33 PM
Mark 14:

53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. 54 But Peter followed Him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. And he sat with the servants and warmed himself at the fire.
55 Now the chief priests and all the council sought testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. 56 For many bore false witness against Him, but their testimonies did not agree.
57 Then some rose up and bore false witness against Him, saying, 58 “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.’” 59 But not even then did their testimony agree.
60 And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” 61 But He kept silent and answered nothing.
Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”
62 Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

In reading the Gospel of Mark, this paragraph reads about the judgment of Christ by the priests and Scribes who rejected the idea that Jesus was the "Son of God". The verse highlighted in red results in the Jews tearing their garments and accusing Jesus of Blasphemy. I find this passage often ignored by those of the Historicst camp, as well as those of the Futurist eschatology.

Why would Christ make such a statement if indeed He did not come in the first century? What did He mean by this statement? Would there come a time when the Jews (now dead of course) would see Christ riding in the clouds of heaven, and coming in great power? Or were they missing something? Did they in fact witness His coming in power and judgment?

I state to you today, clearly and without doubt, that Jesus did come upon that Generation in the "Clouds" of heaven. It wasn't literal clouds He was referring to, and I'm certain that even the Jews understood what He meant. Certainly they didn't understand what He was talking about regarding the temple (being destroyed and rebuilt in three days). We know that Jesus was speaking of His body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, which was to be raised on the third day. Thus, showing that Christ was speaking to them with a language they didn't understand, why would it be such a difficult thing to understand what He meant by "Cloud"?

The Old Testament is riddled with figures used to describe the meaning of cloud(s). The word "Cloud" describes the power of God wrought in many significant worldly events. In some passages of the Old Testament, a massive army marching in a line of destruction is often times described as "clouds". What about what happened on Pentecost? Was that not a cloud of power when the Holy Spirit fell upon the Apostles, and they all spoke in their own language, yet the Holy Spirit interpreted their voices upon the hearers of different nationalities?

The first century is filled with a great "cloud" of witnesses that Christ had come in His Kingdom, and reigned over all the nations, defeating each one with a "cloud" of witnesses. In the same way, the first century Jews who were marked of judgment of the Great Day were surrounded by a huge cloud that surrounded the entire nation, leaving nothing behind; no food, water, or refuge; all throughout Israel, people were dying by the thousands.

From disasters, to the miraculous, all of these were clear signs that Christ had come in a Cloud of power, and great glory, delivering salvation to those who waited patiently despite persecution and affliction. To those who rejected the message, they witnessed the clouds of destruction by the massive Roman campaign against the false Jews of the flesh.

Clouds bring about rain as a blessing to the ground. But they can also bring about disaster, whether by lightning, tornado's, high winds, and floods. Figuratively speaking, that is what Christ meant when He spoke of His coming in a cloud, and believe me, they saw it happen.

Here's a hint: "You will see me sitting at the right hand of power.....and coming in the clouds of heaven..." Key words are "right hand of power" and "clouds of heaven."

Put these together, and we have a clearly defined meaning of Christ coming in clouds of power, from heaven. Sky surfing was not the intended meaning, as is wrongly misunderstood by centuries of false prophets, and failed predictions.

What say you all?

Joe

TheForgiven
02-26-2009, 07:02 AM
Matthew 26:64

Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

I wanted to discuss the highlighted words to further substantiate my post above, as quoted in the Gospel of Mark chapter 14, using Matthew's comparison.

Many see the words/phrase "Coming", "Clouds of Heaven" and "power" and assume that Christ riding in literal white clouds is the message Christ was exclaiming to them, as though this was to be THE demonstration of His power. What they fail to understand is that The Power of God is demonstrated through events as a whole, and not necessarily on the surface . This being the case, my question to those of the Futurist and Historicist camp is this.

Assuming Christ is to return in literal clouds (according to the Futurist and Historicist position), do you believe that his coming in clouds describes the "Power of God", as well as His "Right Hand"?

We work with our "Right Hand", although some are left handed. Christ Jesus, according to the New Testament, is the working hand of God. This working of God was made possible by the "Power of God". The word "Power" comes from the Greek word "denomas". I'll need brother Richard to demostrate his awesome knowledge of Greek to correct me if I'm wrong.

The Greek word "Denomas" is translated "power", but literally "ability". Futurist and Historicist's are looking for Christ to demonstrate His "ability" or "Power" by riding literal clouds. As awesome of a sight this would be, you really need to ask yourself if this the message Christ was exclaiming to them? He's being judged by Jews who questioned His claim that He's Messiah (Christ), and do you honestly believe that he's trying to prove He's the Messiah by predicting Himself riding clouds? I fail to see the logic behind that at all.

Look at the context of the entire chapters of Matthew 26 and Mark 14 again. What was happening? Christ was being judged by the Jews of the flesh. They were demonstrating their authority and power over Christ (which in truth came from God). They asked him, "Tell us then, are you the Christ"? He responds by saying,

"I am! Nevertheless, hereafter, you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of God, and coming in a cloud of power and great glory.."

Now think about this folks. What connection does this singe statement have in context with the entire chapter? All they asked Him was if He was the Messiah. He admits it (and they accused Him of blasphemy), and says, "Nevertheless", you shall see.......

Why did He state this? My answer is this. Christ, admitting that He is the Christ, could not be logically represented as the Christ (from the Jewish stand point) because if He were, how could He (The Messiah) be judged by mere Jewish authorities? If He's the Messiah, then what the Jews were doing to Him could not, and should not have taken place. The Jews were usurping their authority, leadership, and power over someone who claimed to be the Messiah. So in a sense, this made it look impossible that He could be the Messiah.

This is what I'm trying to say. I will insert my paraphrase to help make the verse fit contextually with the entire chapter. When they asked Him if He was the Messiah, during His trial, He responds:


"I am [the Christ, as bad as this looks now] [I]Nevertheless, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of God's [working], and coming in a cloud of power [ability and authority] with great glory!

What's He saying? I am the Messiah, as difficult as that may seem for the time being, because you are judging me with your power. But hereafter, you will see ME sitting at the righthand of THE POWER, and coming in my Kingdom. That's what He's telling them.

In short, He was telling them that although they had temporary authority over Him, they would witness HIS power and authority over THEM, when He begins to strike them down, but not without at least sending prophets to witness to them first. This single verse fits the entire context of Mark chapter 14, during His trial. Therefore, the intent of His statement wasn't to prove to them that one day they (The Jews) would witness His return in riding literal clouds. His point was, although they had power over Him during His trial, after His crucifixion and resurrection (or even including this horrible, but glorious event), they would witness His authority, power, ability, and judgment. Thus, keeping Mark 14:62 in context with the entire chapter makes sense.

In conclusion, my goal was to show that "cloud surfing" was not the intended message of Matthew 26, nor of Mark 14;62. It was to show that although they (The Jews) had power over Christ (the Messiah they rejected), Christ would have it His way once all was completed at the cross. Yet even what happened on the cross was not by their authority or power, but by the One who gave them their power over Him, just as Christ states to Pontius, "you would have no authority over me except it come from my Father, who is in heaven. Therefore, He who handed me over to you has the greater sin...." This additional verse proves my point, that Christ could not be given power and authority until He won the victory over sin. This was fulfilled at the cross, which resulted in the perpetual establishment of His Kingdom (The Church).

The first century is filled with proof that Christ came in authority, ability, power, and great glory, which exists to this day. If not, then we must assume that Christ is not yet sitting at the right hand of God. But if you admit that Christ is sitting NOW at the right hand of God, then He must have also come in His Kingdom of Power, authority, and Great glory. I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to read the book of Acts, when Stephen was being stoned. Just prior to His death, he states,


Acts 7:
54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Thus, Matthew 26:64 and Mark 14:62 was fulfilled in the first century; it IS NOT an awaited event of our day...His reign is presently active since the first century, where He sits at the right hand of God, and obviously has a Kingdom which has long been established....His Kingdom is the Church. Otherwise, you're left to believe that only a portion of Mark 14:62 was fulfilled, and only the "cloud-return" has not yet happened. But that is not what Christ said to the Jews. He said, "Here-after, you shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of God, AND coming in a cloud of power and great glory..." This is a done deal folks, and you cannot divide this verse by several 1000 years.

Sorry for the lengthy post.


What say you all?

Joe

Brother Les
02-26-2009, 03:34 PM
It's up to each of us to 'search the Scriptures to see if it is so'. I'm glad God has given me a spirit to seek His truth and let the chips fall where they may - even if it means giving up an end times view I thought was correct for 40 yrs. It's refreshing!

Peace to you,
Dave


Ohhh... I remember you, Dave...... a couple of years ago, your 'testing' every 'full'-Presterist in sight.....'now' look what has happpened to 'you'....
'stuck' right in the middle with the unOrthodox :thumb:


Blessings Dave..

(no takers over at AV on what Scripture would throw a PP into 'The Future')

Brother Les

basilfo
02-26-2009, 04:43 PM
Since the early days when I "met" you Les on Pretarch forum, I have asked a lot of questions - to all views of eschatology. And that was because this interpretation called preterism (which I had never heard of before) just blew my mind. Once I realized that the pre-trib dispy rapture view could not be supported by Scripture, I had to test each of the other views. And I still continue to do so.

Yeah Les, I should ask the same question as I did on the AV forum:

For the partial preterists (not futurists or full prets), which "coming/return/presence" verses point to a future coming? I think all PPs see Matt 24:30 parousia as past, (I would agree), so which ones explain the future coming? I've never seen a list or an exegetical presentation of those future coming verses.

Peace to you,
Dave

TheForgiven
02-26-2009, 07:11 PM
As a former PP (Partial Preterist), I can honestly answer your question brother Dave. There are no verses which speak of more than one coming. His coming was fulfilled right on schedule as proclaimed by the Prophets. The Prophets all testified that the Messiah would come and establish a Kingdom. This Kingdom would increase the size of Israel from its geographical boundaries of the past, to the modern day world-wide scale. Israel engulfs nearly the entire world, for there is no nation under heaven that has not heard of, or at least contains a fragrance of the Kingdom of Christ. There are nations which object, or reject Christianity, but this doesn't mean that Christians do not exist in those remote regions of the world. Even in countries dominated by Arabic traditions have Christians within them. I was in Turkey years ago and noticed the crucifixes were still given away in jewelry stores. Under Muslim rule, Christian jewelry is not to be sold for profit, primarily because they came from persecuted, or Martyred Christians. At least that's what I was told when I was there.

Turkey, a Muslim dominated country, houses some of the most prominent Pillars to the Greek Orthodox Church....not literal Pillars, but Christian's of high regard, or high reputation. Pope Benedict visited the highest within the Greek Orthodox Church during his first reign as the new Pope. Saudi Arabia also has Christians abiding within their territory, and for the most part, are tolerated. Of course, not without suffering some form of persecution.

Okay, I kind of went off into a tangent.....sorry about that.

To make it short and sweat, there was only one coming of Christ, and that was fulfilled in 70AD. Regarding Partial Preterist, I don't believe any exist on this forum. I may have been the only one who flirted with the idea of Partial Preterism. But brother Richard constantly defeated my arguments no matter how strong I tried to propose my points.

Full Preterism is, in my opinion, the only Biblical eschatology that fits nearly all categories without contradiction. Some passages are not easy to explain; at least for me.

I'm glad to see both of you (Dave and Brother LES) on here again. I wondered what happened to you. I'm wondering what happened to my Futurist friends.....I hope none were chased away. :confused2:

Joe

CWH
03-25-2009, 08:00 PM
Hi TheForgiven,

Looking for your futurist friends? Here I am. You are forgiven to leave the Partial Preterist group as one is entitled to their own opinion and belief. How I wish you stayed on as PP so that at least we could discuss more in tune on the end of the world and the second coming of Christ.

I never believe in Date setting especially in regards to end of the world. If the Son of God and the angels in heaven do not know the date and day of the end of the world except the God the Father, no human will ever know. I beseech everyone not to believe anyone who claims he knows the date and day of the end of the world. Such date setting should always, always be regarded as falsehood or at least as pure speculation. It saddens me to hear people doing foolish things just because someone told them that the end of the world is on this and that date.

When there is a beginning, there is always an end; the Alpha and the Omega. One day, the world will come to an end....may not be in our lifetime. I will only believe in the day of the end of the world if I see the signs described in Matthew 24 v29 "the sun will grow dark, the moon will no longer shine, the star will fall from heaven and the powers in space will be driven from their course. And then the Son of Man will appear in the sky...."

The only thing I believe in AD70 is the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans and nothing else. Talking about the belief in AD70 with the fulfillment of the scriptures, can I also classify it as a form of a date setting?

God Blessed.

TheForgiven
03-26-2009, 06:08 PM
Hi TheForgiven,

Looking for your futurist friends? Here I am. You are forgiven to leave the Partial Preterist group as one is entitled to their own opinion and belief. How I wish you stayed on as PP so that at least we could discuss more in tune on the end of the world and the second coming of Christ.

Hello brother Chow-Wee. Nice to see you again.

I don't believe the world will ever end. The prophet is told that the His righteousness would endure like the world, what He has established forever and ever. Thus, the world will never end.


I never believe in Date setting especially in regards to end of the world. If the Son of God and the angels in heaven do not know the date and day of the end of the world except the God the Father, no human will ever know. I beseech everyone not to believe anyone who claims he knows the date and day of the end of the world. Such date setting should always, always be regarded as falsehood or at least as pure speculation. It saddens me to hear people doing foolish things just because someone told them that the end of the world is on this and that date.

That is wise. Unfortunately, date setting sells great books. Makes false prophets rich.


When there is a beginning, there is always an end; the Alpha and the Omega. One day, the world will come to an end....may not be in our lifetime. I will only believe in the day of the end of the world if I see the signs described in Matthew 24 v29 "the sun will grow dark, the moon will no longer shine, the star will fall from heaven and the powers in space will be driven from their course. And then the Son of Man will appear in the sky...."

Here's a challenge friend. Show me any literal scripture that speaks of the world literally being destroyed. The end was on Daniel's people, city, and temple....not the world. There are no passages that speak of God destroyed the world. Misconceptions maybe, but no direct and literal passages speaking of the world being destroyed. The only passage that comes close is the passage by St. Peter, but that too is a misinterpretation. Peter was talking about the "Elements" of the Jews.....that is, the 12 Tribes of Israel, which is who the letter was addressed to. He was speaking about (in my opinion) the destruction of the elementary teachings they were accustomed to. The Greek word used for "elements" is not atoms, or molecules. That word is used to describe practice, teachings, and their way of life.


The only thing I believe in AD70 is the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans and nothing else. Talking about the belief in AD70 with the fulfillment of the scriptures, can I also classify it as a form of a date setting?

God Blessed.

:lol: That's a good point brother. But no, it is not the same thing. We who believe Christ kept his promise do not set the date of 70AD. WE preach what was set, was fulfilled. Predicting dates, and revealing dates are two different things.

Joe

Abigail
03-27-2009, 01:53 AM
To make it short and sweat, there was only one coming of Christ, and that was fulfilled in 70AD. Regarding Partial Preterist, I don't believe any exist on this forum.

Joe

Hi Joe

I am a partial preterist, viewing full preterism as a heresy. I havent really been following many of the discussions on the boards that closely lately as I never seem to get much spare time lately. I would'nt mind having a s-l-o-w discussion on the issue sometime in the near future.

Abigail

Rose
03-27-2009, 07:26 AM
Hi Joe

I am a partial preterist, viewing full preterism as a heresy. I havent really been following many of the discussions on the boards that closely lately as I never seem to get much spare time lately. I would'nt mind having a s-l-o-w discussion on the issue sometime in the near future.

Abigail

Hi Abigail :yo:

That is a very strong statement :eek:......why would you call a person who believes Gods Word has been fulfilled in its entirety a "Heretic"?

I am a "full" Preterist, meaning that I believe all of the Prophecys in Gods Word have been fulfilled....because that's what the Scriptures tell me.
Matt.3:1-7 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

The book of Matt. clearly tells us that John the Baptist was preaching in the wilderness to the Pharisees and Sadducees telling THEM that the Kingdom of God was AT HAND and asking THEM who had warned THEM TO FLEE from the wrath to come (Gods judgment).....
Luke 21:20-22 'And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is near. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter there into. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

Then Luke tells us when those who are in Judea see the armies (of Rome) surrounding Jerusalem that the time of Gods vengeance (wrath) is NEAR, so that ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN MAY BE FULFILLED.

The Scriptures above seem pretty straightforward.....it's hard for me to interpret them any other way.

God Bless

Rose

Abigail
03-27-2009, 08:00 AM
That is a very strong statement :eek:......why would you call a person who believes Gods Word has been fulfilled in its entirety a "Heretic"?
Hi Rose

Full preterists as I understand from the web (where I have encountered them) deny the future bodily resurrection of the people of God.


I am a "full" Preterist, meaning that I believe all of the Prophecys in Gods Word have been fulfilled....because that's what the Scriptures tell me.
Matt.3:1-7 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

The book of Matt. clearly tells us that John the Baptist was preaching in the wilderness to the Pharisees and Sadducees telling THEM that the Kingdom of God was AT HAND and asking THEM who had warned THEM TO FLEE from the wrath to come (Gods judgment).....
Luke 21:20-22 “And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is near. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter there into. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days!

Then Luke tells us when those who are in Judea see the armies (of Rome) surrounding Jerusalem that the time of Gods vengeance (wrath) is NEAR, so that ALL THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN MAY BE FULFILLED.

The Scriptures above seem pretty straightforward.....it's hard for me to interpret them any other way.

God Bless

Rose

I too believe that all things were fulfilled (Luke 21:22), but that particular statement was relative to physical Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Abigail

Richard Amiel McGough
03-27-2009, 08:51 AM
Hi Rose

Full preterists as I understand from the web (where I have encountered them) deny the future bodily resurrection of the people of God.

Hi Abigail,

The internet is full of every variety of doctrine. There is no standard definition of what a "full preterist" believes with regards to each and every doctrine any more than there is a standard definition of what a "futurist" believes. Some are pre-mill, some are post-mill, some are amill. Most believe in the blatantly non-biblical doctrines of an "antichrist world dictator" and a "rebuilt Jewish Temple" and so on. If anyone is a "heretic" it would be the futurists who have invented a towering mountain of false and unbiblical doctrines.

The fundamental definition of a "full preterist" does not depend on how individual doctrines are interpreted by individual preterists. The fundamental definition is simply "one who believes that all the prophecies of the Bible have been fulfilled." That's it.

Now as for the "resurrection" - there is a fundamental misunderstanding around this question. Very few Christians display any understanding of this doctrine at all. No preterist who understands the Bible would ever assert that there will be no "bodily resurrection." The Bible plainly teaches that fact. The confusion comes from folks who insist that there will be a carnal bodily resurrection. This is in direct contradiction of the plain teaching of Scripture which states that there will be a spiritual bodily resurrection. The assertion that full preterists are heretics because they believe what the Bible actually teaches is absurd and merely reveals the ignorance of the accuser. (I'm not talking about you, of course, my friend! :))

The fundamental challenge is that the Bible associates the "resurrection" with the events of the first century. Folks who try to separate the resurrection from the first century end-time events are caught in a web of logical incoherence. Most "partial preterists" have no solution and so simply settle for the irreconcilable tension, and that's ok because no matter what position one takes there will be tension of some things that are not well understood. I have opted for the understanding that seems most coherent (by many orders of magnitude, in my estimation).



I too believe that all things were fulfilled (Luke 21:22), but that particular statement was relative to physical Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Abigail
Yes, but that was a central part of the integrated prophetic complex that was most certainly fulfilled in the first century. For example,
Acts 3:24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
All the prophecies were about the coming of Christ and the final judgment of the old first covenant "world." They are directly and inextricably linked together:
Malachi 4:5-6 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
This was prophecy of John the Baptist, and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem. It is confirmed by Peter:
Acts 2:17-21 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
And this is ALL confirmed in preterist interpretation of Revelation, which is the only interpretation that can accept what it actually states:
Revelation 1:1-3 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
This is just a tiny example of the absolutely overwhelming coherence of the full preterist position. In my opinion, it is the only position possible to one who has actually read and understood Scripture. Of course, I know you differ in you opinion, and I look forward to discussing it in a slow and easy fashion.

Many blessings to you Abigail,

Richard

Rose
03-27-2009, 08:59 AM
Hi Rose

Full preterists as I understand from the web (where I have encountered them) deny the future bodily resurrection of the people of God.

Hi Abigail

The future "bodily" resurrection of believers is a very unclear area of understanding which divides the Body of Christ into fragments. In speaking for myself I believe that upon the death of this physical body we are resurrected......
1 Cor 15:49- And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 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. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Death has been swallowed up in Victory.....now all who die in Christ go to be with Him, putting on our resurrected heavenly body. There is no denying of a future bodily resurrection because we all partake in it when we die....which is in each of our futures :p


I too believe that all things were fulfilled (Luke 21:22), but that particular statement was relative to physical Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Abigail

The destruction of Jerusalem was the wrath of God poured out.....there is only one "Day of the Lord" when God poured out His wrath upon an ungodly people, and that was in 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed, fulfilling the words of Christ "not one stone shall be left standing upon another".....there is no other wrath of God.

God Bless

Rose

Abigail
03-27-2009, 10:40 AM
Hi Abigail,

Now as for the "resurrection" - there is a fundamental misunderstanding around this question. Very few Christians display any understanding of this doctrine at all. No preterist who understands the Bible would ever assert that there will be no "bodily resurrection." The Bible plainly teaches that fact. The confusion comes from folks who insist that there will be a carnal bodily resurrection. This is in direct contradiction of the plain teaching of Scripture which states that there will be a spiritual bodily resurrection. The assertion that full preterists are heretics because they believe what the Bible actually teaches is absurd and merely reveals the ignorance of the accuser. (I'm not talking about you, of course, my friend! :))
Ok let's start here, because our notions seem to differ ...or maybe that is just how I am reading it. From what I read you seem to view spiritual bodily resurrection as having nothing carnal about it. Is that correct? My view of the spiritual body is that it is physical like now but will be of incorruptible flesh because it will have proceeded from spiritual generation in Christ. 1 John 3:2 'Beloved, now we are children of God and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is'. Jesus was raised physically from the dead, so why should we not assume we too will have a physical resurrection. To me the onus is on those who think flesh is out to prove that we will be just spiritual.


The fundamental challenge is that the Bible associates the "resurrection" with the events of the first century. Folks who try to separate the resurrection from the first century end-time events are caught in a web of logical incoherence. Most "partial preterists" have no solution and so simply settle for the irreconcilable tension, and that's ok because no matter what position one takes there will be tension of some things that are not well understood. I have opted for the understanding that seems most coherent (by many orders of magnitude, in my estimation). Sorry to be dense but I am not sure in which way the resurrection is separated from first century events. Can you list for me one or two of the logical incoherences you have noted.



Yes, but that was a central part of the integrated prophetic complex that was most certainly fulfilled in the first century. For example,
Acts 3:24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
All the prophecies were about the coming of Christ and the final judgment of the old first covenant "world." They are directly and inextricably linked together:
Malachi 4:5-6 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
This was prophecy of John the Baptist, and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem. It is confirmed by Peter:
Acts 2:17-21 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
And this is ALL confirmed in preterist interpretation of Revelation, which is the only interpretation that can accept what it actually states:
Revelation 1:1-3 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
This is just a tiny example of the absolutely overwhelming coherence of the full preterist position. In my opinion, it is the only position possible to one who has actually read and understood Scripture. Of course, I know you differ in you opinion, and I look forward to discussing it in a slow and easy fashion.

Many blessings to you Abigail,

Richard

We are in agreement on many of these things at face value.

Abigail

Abigail
03-27-2009, 10:49 AM
Hi Abigail

The future "bodily" resurrection of believers is a very unclear area of understanding which divides the Body of Christ into fragments. In speaking for myself I believe that upon the death of this physical body we are resurrected......1 Cor 15:49- And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 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 [I]must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Hi Rose
As I said in my post to RAM, I think the distiction being made is one of 'who is your father, Adam or Christ?' . Both were physical flesh and blood people. Christ arose as flesh Luke 24:39

Richard Amiel McGough
03-27-2009, 10:58 AM
Ok let's start here, because our notions seem to differ ...or maybe that is just how I am reading it. From what I read you seem to view spiritual bodily resurrection as having nothing carnal about it. Is that correct? My view of the spiritual body is that it is physical like now but will be of incorruptible flesh because it will have proceeded from spiritual generation in Christ. 1 John 3:2 'Beloved, now we are children of God and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is'. Jesus was raised physically from the dead, so why should we not assume we too will have a physical resurrection. To me the onus is on those who think flesh is out to prove that we will be just spiritual.

I think the "spiritual body" is infinitely more real than a mere "physical body." From the post-resurrection appearances of Christ, it appears that the resurrection body can interact with standard physical objects of the world down here, but it transcends this world to, as in walking through walls, etc.

I think the strongest evidence points to a resurrection of each believer at the time of physical death. The essential point to understand is that there is no reason whatsoever to think that we should see resurrected folks running around down here any more than we see Christ, who has his resurrection body, running around down here. The resurrected saints are with Christ right now in their resurrection bodies. 2 Corinthians 5 gives good insight into this, as does Harrison's book "Raised Immortal." Have you read it? It reviews all the primary attempts to understand the resurrection. It is not a simple matter.



Sorry to be dense but I am not sure in which way the resurrection is separated from first century events. Can you list for me one or two of the logical incoherences you have noted.

Daniel 12 is a very good example. It explicitly links the resurrection with the first century:
Daniel 12:1-7 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 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. 3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. 5 ¶ Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. 6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
The Jews were scattered in the first century, and Christ linked his statement that "all things" would be fulfilled with the book of Daniel. So I am strongly convinced that all things were finished in 70 AD. This suggests that the resurrection mentioned in this context also applies to that time. I have never seen any coherent way to separate these two events by thousands of years. There are many other examples we could discuss if you are interested.




We are in agreement on many of these things at face value.

Abigail
That's good! :) I am glad there are points of agreement. My "big question" for you concerning full preterism (which is defined by the assertion that all prophecies have been fullfilled) is this:

What verses or doctrines of the Bible does full preterism deny or contradict? If the answer is "none" then how can it be a heresy?

Richard

basilfo
03-27-2009, 01:48 PM
Full preterists as I understand from the web (where I have encountered them) deny the future bodily resurrection of the people of God.

Abigail

As I think Richard clarified, most full pret's have concluded that there is no Scriptural support for a physical, flesh and bones, resurrection of the physical tissue after we breathe our last breath here on earth. This does not mean that FP's deny ANY resurrection (a common accusation), nor does it mean FP's deny that Jesus' physical body was resurrected (another false accusation). I have read thousands of posts on pret forums and many books on the preterist eschatology and never once have heard a FP endorse either of these positions. Futurists have raised this red herring for them.

I base my understanding of what type body we will have after death on the clearest Scripture I can find on the subj. In fact, it's so clear, I can't believe it's even an issue:

1 Cor 15:35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?"

That is the exact question at hand.

36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be,
Paul is contrasting the body we have now with the one we will have. No way to think the resurrected body type will be the same as our body now (flesh and blood/physical) - Paul says clearly it won't be the same body!


38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.

The "it" here is not referring to the body, but an entity to which God will give some type of "body". I believe the "it" is what is resurrected and given a type of body. It makes no sense to give the soul, which just shed it's physical body and will reside for eternity in the spiritual realm, a physical body back.

The soul is the essence of each of us, not our "body". So it seems to me that verse 38 is speaking of the resurrection of the soul, which would go into rest (See Dan 12) until the time of the end when it will be given some form of a "body". BTW, if this time of the end has not occured yet, then all souls, including Daniel's, are still at rest and have not been raised. (So much for old Aunt Tillie being "with the Lord now" as the preacher said at her funeral! She's with the Lord, but Daniel is still resting?) Sorry for the digression.

42 So also [is] the resurrection of the dead. [The body] is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.

44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

In perhaps the strangest futurist interpretation (the folks who pride themselves on "literally interpreting the Bible"), a "spiritual body" = a "physical body". One question: For the sake of arguement, if Paul wanted to teach that the resurrected body was to be "spiritual" in form, what word would futurists say he should have used to describe it?? How 'bout "spiritual"??!! If he didn't want it to be understood as spiritual, I submit to you that Paul used the worst word possible. I don't think he erred like that.

But just in case "spiritual body" wasn't clear enough, he says this:

45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual.

How can we make "and afterward the spiritual" mean "and afterward the physical"?? I don't get it.

49 And as we have borne the image of the [man] of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly [Man.] 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

Christ, the heavenly Man, the last Adam, is now a life-giving spirit. And v. 49 says we will "bear the image of the heavenly Man". We will also be a spirit. The kingdom of God is not about "flesh and blood". It is a spiritual kingdom, and this is taught constantly (and missed constantly by the 1st century Jews) by Jesus and the apostles. I pray that we don't miss this crucial point as well today.

Peace to you (sorry for the long post),
Dave

basilfo
03-27-2009, 02:04 PM
In addition, a resurrection, by definition needs something to resurrect. What is it that will be resurrected in 99.9999% of the dead bodies throughout history?? Their molecules have been completely distributed throughout the earth and atmosphere. Scripture never describes resurrection as "re-creation" or "regathering" of these molecules, which is what would be required in almost every case since the beginning.

If it is the physical body that will be resurrected, where is Daniel's body, or King David's body, or the guy who drown at sea 900 years ago, or the gal who was creamated and sprinkled off her favorite mountain peak?

Yes, God can do anything, but that's not the basis for forming a position on Scripture. If it was, then I submit to you that all dead elephants will be changed into pastrami sandwiches in heaven. After all, don't you believe God could do that?

Dave

Rose
03-27-2009, 03:14 PM
Hi Rose
As I said in my post to RAM, I think the distiction being made is one of 'who is your father, Adam or Christ?' . Both were physical flesh and blood people. Christ arose as flesh Luke 24:39

Yes, Christ was manifest in the flesh in His resurrected body so that all could see that He had indeed rose from the dead, it was for that purpose that He manifest Himself in the flesh and allowed His disciples to touch Him.....but do we see Him today or can we touch Him physically, no......could it be that when we are resurrected we exist in another realm, not another physical place?

Jesus had to reveal Himself as He did as a witness for all to see in this realm, when He left He didn't go to some other part of the universe.....but exists in a spiritual dimension that we are unable to see into. Jesus gave us a glimpse of eternity by manifesting Himself to us in our earthly realm.....thus reestablishing our communion with the eternal omnipotent God

God Bless

Rose

Abigail
03-27-2009, 03:38 PM
I think the strongest evidence points to a resurrection of each believer at the time of physical death. so in a way you don't believe that *all* things are yet fulfilled as you believe there is still a future resurrection.


The essential point to understand is that there is no reason whatsoever to think that we should see resurrected folks running around down here any more than we see Christ, who has his resurrection body, running around down here. The resurrected saints are with Christ right now in their resurrection bodies. 2 Corinthians 5 gives good insight into this, as does Harrison's book "Raised Immortal." Have you read it? It reviews all the primary attempts to understand the resurrection. It is not a simple matter. No, I havent read this book, but will look into doing so



Daniel 12 is a very good example. It explicitly links the resurrection with the first century:
Daniel 12:1-7 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 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. 3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. 4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. 5 ΒΆ Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. 6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? 7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
The Jews were scattered in the first century, and Christ linked his statement that "all things" would be fulfilled with the book of Daniel. So I am strongly convinced that all things were finished in 70 AD. This suggests that the resurrection mentioned in this context also applies to that time. I have never seen any coherent way to separate these two events by thousands of years. There are many other examples we could discuss if you are interested.
If you read Isaiah 29 then there are there are many points which seem to parallel this Daniel passage and also passages in Revelation. Have you any thoughts on that.

Also why could not the resurrection in this Daniel passage be referring to Christ's resurrection, if indeed it is talking about a resurrection and not just a spiritual awakening (see Isaiah 29:10).



That's good! :) I am glad there are points of agreement. My "big question" for you concerning full preterism (which is defined by the assertion that all prophecies have been fullfilled) is this:

What verses or doctrines of the Bible does full preterism deny or contradict? If the answer is "none" then how can it be a heresy?
I think just saying 'all prophecies have been fulfilled' is too general since there is fulfilled and fulfilled :lol:

TheForgiven
03-28-2009, 01:59 PM
Ok let's start here, because our notions seem to differ ...or maybe that is just how I am reading it. From what I read you seem to view spiritual bodily resurrection as having nothing carnal about it. Is that correct? My view of the spiritual body is that it is physical like now but will be of incorruptible flesh because it will have proceeded from spiritual generation in Christ. 1 John 3:2 'Beloved, now we are children of God and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is'. Jesus was raised physically from the dead, so why should we not assume we too will have a physical resurrection. To me the onus is on those who think flesh is out to prove that we will be just spiritual.

Based on my debates with those of the Dispensational teachers, it appears (in a nut shell) that the resurrection is the primary reason they deny Christ came in 70AD. There are other reasons (many other reasons) they reject a first century fulfillment, but the resurrection seems to be the largest detractor to embracing FP.

Paul clearly teaches that our current earthly bodies (tents) are temporary, and its design in in accordance to the earthly pattern as established by God. Paul also figuratively applies our earthly tents as nothing more than seeds.

In short, literal seeds are planted into the ground, and after decaying, the hardened shell becomes soft, and permits the pulp inside the seed to escape. The pulp absorbs the nutrients from the soil and eventually grows into what splendor the Lord gave it.

The same for the resurrection. It is our "spirits" that are provided a new tent; a heavenly tent not made of human hands (marriage), but of God. That is why Paul states, "What thou sowest is not the body to be, but just a seed, perhaps of mere grain or wheat...."

Our bodies decay and return to dust. Adam and Eve were created from dust, and out of dust, but that is not the resurrection. What this shows is that God is able to create from nothing. Too many teachers believe that bones buried in the grace will grow new flesh, blood vessels, and other internal organs. This presented the same problem that 1 Clement of Rome in the 2nd century, who argued with the Gnostics about this issue. The Gnostics taught that flesh was useless, or anything containing mass for that matter. They tried arguing that the natural organs of the human body, such as the stomach used to digest food, the private parts used for reproduction, would not be required in an eternal state. Clement's response was that those organ would be in the resurrected body, but a Christian trained in Holiness would not "Abuse" those organs. His response was interesting, but I don't think it was entirely correct....in my opinion anyways.

My view is our earthly tents die, and decay and return to dust. Our spirits are given heavenly tents with a splendor all in its own. A "Tent" is what's used to describe a home for our spirits. Thus, FP believe in the Resurrection; we just object the method or type of resurrection the Historicist and Futurist teach. Their focus is on flesh, blood, and bone.

Christ shows Thomas his wounds, yet I doubt that Christ was bleeding. This was to permit everyone to believe. Plus, the body of Christ served as a sacrifice for the heavenly altar.

Hope this helps.

Joseph