|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 25, 2010 18:32:55 GMT -5
In order to prove full-preterism, you must prove that every prophecy was fulfilled by 70AD. But to prove partial-preterism and refute full-preterism, all you need to do is show a single verse that teaches there will be a Second Coming/final judgment/physical resurrection. Is there at least one passage that teaches this? Yes, there are several such passages.
In Acts 17:30-32 & 24:24-25, Paul warns Felix and the Athenians that there is a day of judgment coming, and they should therefore repent. The day of judgment cannot be 70AD, for why would they care if God is going to have the Romans defeat the Jews?
That Acts 17:31 is talking about the final judgment, the day of physical resurrection and not 70AD, is futher made clear by their reaction. They sneer at the mention of the resurrection of the dead. The Greek indicates the dead are plural, not singular, therefore they are not objecting to the resurrection of Jesus, but the physical resurrection of all people on that day. Thus, Jesus' bodily resurrection was proof of a coming bodily resurrection for everybody else (the same point Paul makes in 1 Cor. 15:1-28). The Greeks would have no problem believing in a spirit afterlife, but they did reject the idea of a physical afterlife.
We see additional support in Matt. 11:21-24, Matt. 12:41-42, & Luke 11:31-32. Jesus talks about people who had already been killed and judged long ago, and yet they will (future tense) "rise up" and "stand up" next to people from a different time "at the judgment."
1 Corinthians 15
Now concerning 1 Cor. 15. Has anyone ever read 1 Cor. 15 and, without first having an adherence to the 70AD theory, concluded just from reading it that it talked about the death of a covenant and the rising of another? Seriously? The full-preterist' interpretation of 1 Cor. 15 is incredibly convoluted and does not flow from the natural reading of the text.
1 Cor. 15 talks about the physical resurrection of dead bodies, as that is the natural reading of the text. Being Greeks, there was a rejection of the physical resurrection just as there was in Athens (1 Cor.15:12 & Acts 17:32).
That Paul is talking about a physical resurrection is confirmed again in 1 Cor. 15:35-36. Paul responds to the questions in v. 35 with an insult! This indicates Paul understood those questions to mock his teaching on the resurrection (much like Acts 17:32). The questions in v.35 can be considered mockery in that they imply how gruesome resurrected bodies would be. I have never, ever, ever heard a full-preterist explain how these questions could be considered mockery in view of a "spirit resurrection." And that is because it can only be considered mocking a physical resurrection.
The final nail in full-preterism's coffin, in regards to 1 Cor. 15, is the fact that Paul's explanation of the resurrection body is almost verbatim that of Josephus', and in the same context (see "An Extract Out of Josephus' Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades"). Both Paul & Josephus were arguing with Greeks, trying to prove to Greeks who do not believe in a physical afterlife that our bodies will be physically raised.
Their explanations on the resurrection body is too similar to be by chance, so what is the connection? Josephus was never a Christian, but both Josephus and Paul were trained as Pharisees. Hence Paul is teaching the resurrection the exact same way he was taught as a Pharisee. Paul wouldn't do that if he taught a "spirit resurrection," because that isn't what the Pharisees believed. Paul retained the Pharisee's teaching about the resurrection body because the Pharisees got it right. Paul acknowledges that he is in agreement with what the Pharisees and the average Jew of that day believed (Acts 23:6-9, 24:14-15, 26:4-8).
We have a record of Jesus arguing with the Sadducees about the resurrection (since the Sadducees denied the resurrection), but no arguments between Jesus & the Pharisees (because they in agreement on this particular doctrine). Martha, like most Jews of her day, believes in the physical resurrection at the final judgment (John 11:24). Notice that Jesus doesn't correct her, but He indicates that He will be the One through whom that resurrection comes, and thus is in agreement with her view.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11
At this point, full-preterism is sunk, because it can't explain Acts 17:30-32, nor 1 Cor. 15:35-36. But maybe there is a tiny ray of hope. 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11 appears to connect the day of resurrection with the judgment in 70AD, as well as tying 1 Thess. 4:13-18 with 1 Cor. 15:50-58. But in order for full-preterism to keep its head above water, it must prove that 1 Thess. connects the day of resurrection with 70AD and the last part of 1 Cor. 15. On the other hand, to sink full-preterism, the partial-preterist does not need to prove, but merely provide a plausible interpretation of 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11 that makes a distinction between the resurrection and 70AD.
That 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11 is composed of 2 sections, rather than one, can be concluded by the transitional phrase found at the beginning of 1 Thess. 5:1. Further support comes from the fact that both 1 Thess. 4:13-18 & 1 Thess. 5:1-11 both end with a line about how these sections ought to encourage you. Thus you have a plausible argument that there are two sections here: one about the resurrection, and one about 70AD.
Let's assume that Jesus' Olivet Discourse in Matthew, Mark, & Luke deal entirely with 70AD. Is there any language that would indicate 1 Thess. 4:13-18 is talking about 70AD? You have the "coming of the Lord," and the blast of a trumpet. But there have been many "comings of the Lord" in judgment throughout history. And the trumpet is a symbol of judgment, so the language does not necessitate it is talking about the same thing that the Olivet Discourse is. In fact, 1 Thess. 4:16 uses a phrase not used at all in the Olivet Discourses - "the Lord Himself will descend." Thus, this could very well be seen as an indicator that Jesus will literally descend from Heaven in His body - which He will do in the final judgment, but not in 70AD.
On the other hand, you see major connections in the language of the second section - 1 Thess. 5:1-11 - and the Olivet Discourse. This creates another distinction between the two sections.
But what about the "we" passages in 1 Cor. 15:51 & 1 Thess. 4:15? Doesn't this indicate that Paul expected at least some of them to be alive when the resurrection occurs? Not necessarily. Unlike 70AD, there were no warnings nor indications of when the final judgment will come. Jesus provided warnings for 70AD, for Christians needed to know when to flee the city in order to avoid that judgment. But Christians need no warnings for the final judgment, for Christians ought to be walking in the light every day, and thus have nothing to fear or avoid in the final judgment. Paul doesn't know when that day will come. It might come in their lifetimes, it might not. Paul is writing personal letters to dear friends of his, and "we" is more personal than saying "those." Besides, it is possible that the "we" merely refers to Christians in general, rather than any particular group of Christians.
Finally, would having 2 sections, one on the resurrection followed by another section on 70AD make sense? Yes it would. The "dead in Christ" that 1 Thess. 4:13-18 deals with likely includes Christian martyrs, for Acts, 1 Thess. & 2 Thess. mention they came under intense persecution, both from Jews and Gentiles. Being near Athens & Corinth, where people denied the physical resurrection, the Thessalonians were concerned that those who had died and rotted would miss out on the transformation on the final day. Thus Paul reiterates that the dead will be raised/transformed along with the living (see 1 Cor. 15:51).
Having comforted the Thessalonians that God will take care of the martyrs, Paul comforts them again in 1 Thess. 5:1-11 by also reminding them that God will "take care" of those who are persecuting and killing them. Thus the topics and transition make sense and flows naturally in the letter.
Conclusion
So we have seen that Acts 17:30-32 & 1 Cor. 15:35-36a, among other passages, establishes the partial-preterist's position, and refutes full-preterism, and 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11 cannot be proven to refute partial-preterism.
This being the case, I recommend that all readers reject full-preterism. Not only is full-preterism demonstrably false, rejecting full-preterism might even be a matter of salvation. Ephesians 4:4 says that all Christians are to be united in the "one hope." Certainly that "one hope" includes the resurrection of the dead (which we've just proved is physical). Thus to deny the physical resurrection might place you outside of the body of Christ, costing you your salvation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 25, 2010 21:17:28 GMT -5
Theo, what books would you recommend someone read if you wanted them to be convinced of partial-preterism over full preterism?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 26, 2010 10:54:58 GMT -5
Hi Theophilus,
What is your take on the "last days," "latter days," and the "time of the end" mentioned in the Old Testament?
Is it planetary destruction (or something related) or the end of Judaism and temple worship?
To me, if one misses this concept, other concepts based upon these "last days" will be skewed as well - including the timing of the resurrection of the dead. And once you understand the timing, you will be able to grasp the nature...
|
|
|
|
Post by bryan729 on Feb 26, 2010 14:40:00 GMT -5
I remember when I first got into preterism, I was partial for about two months, and I felt as though I was haught between two opinions. Once I got past the resurrection, and a final coming of the Lord I was good to go. Partial preterism is a good start, but I wouldn't park it there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 26, 2010 15:43:33 GMT -5
I remember when I first got into preterism, I was partial for about two months, and I felt as though I was haught between two opinions. Once I got past the resurrection, and a final coming of the Lord I was good to go. Partial preterism is a good start, but I wouldn't park it there. Hi Bryan, The key, love for truth, coupled with the willingness to go wherever truth leads. Many think they love the truth, however, when it conflicts with their doctrine and church teachings, they put on the brakes, choosing to stay parked in the comfort zone. Blessings, The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 26, 2010 16:00:37 GMT -5
I remember when I first got into preterism, I was partial for about two months, and I felt as though I was haught between two opinions. Once I got past the resurrection, and a final coming of the Lord I was good to go. Partial preterism is a good start, but I wouldn't park it there. Hi Bryan, The key, love for truth, coupled with the willingness to go wherever truth leads. Many think they love the truth, however, when it conflicts with their doctrine and church teachings, they put on the brakes, choosing to stay parked in the comfort zone. Blessings, The Sower~ Couldn't agree with you more, sister |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 26, 2010 23:13:07 GMT -5
Theo, what books would you recommend someone read if you wanted them to be convinced of partial-preterism over full preterism? I don't own any books on eschatology. I do have some on the way, though. A few days ago, I called a preacher friend of mine that has been in the midst of the whole preterist controversy since the 70s. He has been wrestling with partial/full-preterism himself for nearly 4 decades now. He said some of the books he has read have been worthless, but he is going to mail me several of the better ones from both sides. What is your take on the "last days," "latter days," and the "time of the end" mentioned in the Old Testament? Is it planetary destruction (or something related) or the end of Judaism and temple worship? To me, if one misses this concept, other concepts based upon these "last days" will be skewed as well - including the timing of the resurrection of the dead. And once you understand the timing, you will be able to grasp the nature... I haven't done a thorough study of the "last days" in the OT, but off the top of my head, I think they generally have to do with the church age. I believe the old heavens and earth refer to the things of Judaism, and the new heavens and earth have to do with the things of Christianity, rather than the physical universe, if that is what you mean. But getting back to my point about partial-preterism, the "last days" can mean whatever you say they mean, and that still would do nothing to disprove partial-preterism. To prove partial-preterism, all I have to do is demonstrate that a single prophecy has not been fulfilled, and that would defeat full-preterism, due to the nature of the two theories. I remember when I first got into preterism, I was partial for about two months, and I felt as though I was haught between two opinions. Once I got past the resurrection, and a final coming of the Lord I was good to go. Partial preterism is a good start, but I wouldn't park it there. The resurrection and the Second Coming is really the only difference between the two preterist camps! And I will agree with you at least on this much, swallowing the full-preterist take on the resurrection is definitely the hardest part of that theory. My preacher friend, who grew up in a preterist church, and who's dad was a full-preterist, he would probably be a full-preterist himself except he just can't get past 1 Cor. 15. As he says, if Paul wrote that chapter intending to teach what the 70AD people say it teaches, then Paul can't write!  |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Feb 26, 2010 23:22:06 GMT -5
The very first statement in this thread is this. "In order to prove full-preterism, you must prove that every prophecy was fulfilled by 70AD." Why is this the case? Why must everything be proven? Why can't you accept it by faith? Faith in the man who said to the apostles, while yet disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Why must this be proven? This statement was made by the same man who said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." Both of these statements were made the same man. Can you have faith in him? Can you trust that man to have spoken the truth?
I am basically a simple man. I don't have all knowledge that I can prove everythng the Bible teaches. But, for me, I don't need to. I trust that God is able to peserve His Word even through all that man put His Word through in the process of translation. That when the Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," I simply accept that by faith. I don't need some scientific proof. Therefore, why should I need proof, that what the Son of God said to his disciples about them not dying till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom?
Is it not written, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God"? So why is anything extrabiblical needed to prove the word of God?
What if I needed proof that George Washington existed? Would you show me history books? What if I needed proof that those history books were true? Then what would you do? What would be the ultimate proof that George Washington existed? I know, take me to his grave site? Dig up his body, and show him to me? But, how could you prove that the body you show was George Washington? Do you understand what I am saying? If I refuse to accept the truth of George Washington's existance with every scrap of proof you can find, then chances are, I just refuse to accept the truth.
The point is, if you do not accept what the Bible says by faith, no amount of extrabiblical evidence will prove anything. Therefore it is futile to even try.
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 26, 2010 23:42:51 GMT -5
Hi Bryan, The key, love for truth, coupled with the willingness to go wherever truth leads. Many think they love the truth, however, when it conflicts with their doctrine and church teachings, they put on the brakes, choosing to stay parked in the comfort zone. Blessings, The Sower~ Couldn't agree with you more, sister I agree, too! I didn't grow up in the church. I began Bible study as an adult, so I didn't have any doctrines beat into me during my formative years. I do not receive a check from any church, so I am not beholden to anyone else's beliefs, nor what they think of my beliefs. The churches I do attend are the Churches of Christ - which have no denominational head, nor any creeds, and vary a lot from church to church since they are autonomous. My only "creed" is the Bible. Even though I have spent a lot of time over the past 10 years studying the Bible, until recently I had never studied eschatology in any systematic way. Unlike those who hold to a 70AD theory, I have no set interpretation that dictates to me what any given passage must mean. I am free to interpret the passage in light of the Biblical context alone. Furthermore, over the years, I have changed my interpretation of major issues many times, and hold to a number of interpretations that are far from traditional. In fact, in the series of Bible classes I'm about to start teaching, there are several things I fear that might very well end up causing the congregation to drag me out into the church parking lot and stone me! As far as being open to the full-preterist take, notice that in my first post here, I believe I said something to the effect that "up until now, I guess I have been what you would call a partial-preterist." That is because I did not hold to any particular school of eschatology, but figured my previous views could be best summed up as "partial-preterist." I said that I was that "up until now" because upon first learning about the 70AD theory, I was greatly impressed. I found it very convincing except for a few things - 1 Cor. 15 in particular. So I started the "If the resurrection is spritual" thread - not to debate, but to try to gain a better understanding of full-preterism's take on these passages that were sticking points for me. Of course, it did end up as a debate thread, but that is how it unfolded, not how it was planned. I then came up with the idea that perhaps there was only one coming of Christ, that at the beginning of that coming, Jesus destroyed Jerusalem, and at the end of that coming, Jesus would physically raise the dead. So I was persuaded away from full-preterism. At least for awhile. But awhile later, I began to doubt this solution I had come up with, and went back to reading a bunch of preterist articles on the Internet. While I still thought there were passages that couldn't be reconciled with full-preterism, nevertheless, I was greatly troubled by 1 Thessalonians, which appeared to make the resurrection and 70AD the same event. So I was caught between the two views, and greatly distressed over it. It bothered me so, not about potentially changing a major doctrinal belief, but because I believe it might very well be a salvation issue, and that I needed to get the answer right. And I couldn't decide. If my wife had the time and the inclination to post here, she could verify that I spent several days in great dismay. I spent much time lying flat on my belly, with my face in my hands, praying, meditating, and worrying about what to believe. I remembered that I had an old preacher friend that mentioned this very issue, so I called him, which helped a lot. I then put aside my worries, and went back to studying. It was then that I realized that 1 Thessalonians did not necessarily equate the resurrection with 70AD, and I remembered several other passages that I believe refute full-preterism. So I posted some of that here. Now then, if we are done judging the hidden thoughts of others, let us return to the matter at hand. If you hold to full-preterism because of reason and evidence, then how do you respond to Acts 17:30-32? How do you explain 1 Cor. 15:35-36b? If you cannot come up with a plausible full-preterist explanation for these passages, then you are not rationally justified in holding to full-preterism. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 26, 2010 23:53:00 GMT -5
The very first statement in this thread is this. "In order to prove full-preterism, you must prove that every prophecy was fulfilled by 70AD." Why is this the case? Why must everything be proven? Why can't you accept it by faith? Well, why can't you just accept that partial-preterism is the case? You don't need proof, just believe! If a full-preterist acknowledges that even a single verse teaches a future, physical resurrection, then he has just disavowed full-preterism by definition. The Bible doesn't teach a blind faith, but that we are supposed to go where the evidence points. In John 10:31-38, Jesus basically tells His critics that, if He provides no evidence, then they are not obligated to believe Him. But if He does provide good evidence - miracles - then they are obligated to believe. Thus Biblical faith ought to be based upon reason and evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 26, 2010 23:54:12 GMT -5
Why the Gospel of John Was Written
John was written, at least in part, to combat the gnostic heresy. They believed that all things spirit were good, and all things material were bad. They believed the OT God created the physical universe, and thus was bad. They believed Jesus was the God of the NT, and was a Spirit and not flesh, and thus was a good God. Obviously, they rejected the idea of a physical resurrection.
So John begins his Gospel different from the other Gospels. At the beginning of the Gospel, John points out that Jesus is the Creator God who made this world. He then points out that Jesus became flesh. John makes repeated references to the day of resurrection, and that it will be a physical resurrection.
What Is Not in the Gospel of John
There are no (clear) references to the 70AD judgment/destruction in the Gospel of John. This is very striking, since the other Gospels are bursting with passages teaching about 70AD. The absence is all the more striking because John's Gospel focuses in on Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, whereas the other Gospels focus on Jesus' ministry in Galilee. John even includes many words from the fire and brimstone preacher John the Baptist, and yet no words about the 70AD judgment. Why is this?
The most likely answer is that John had already written Revelation - basically an extended version of Jesus' discourse on the 70AD judgment. Thus John does not talk about 70AD in his Gospel. That lends support to the view that the "last day" resurrection passages are not talking about 70AD, but with the Second Coming.
The Resurrection Passages
John 5:25 is probably only dealing with spiritual life, in that it does not even use the word "resurrection." Full-preterists might claim that John 5:28-29 refers to some sort of spirit resurrection by 70AD, but that cannot be proven. At least as obvious an interpretation is that it is talking about the physical resurrection on the last day, especially when one considers the context of the rest of the book.
John 6:39, 40, 44, & 54 records Jesus saying He will "raise up" His followers on "the last day." Unless I have missed some passage, I didn't see the precise phrase "the last day" used anywhere other than in the Gospel of John. The "last days," the "latter days," the "last time," the "last times," & the "last hour" are used in other places, but not "the last day." Thus "the last day" may very well refer to something different than these other references.
The Resurrection of Lazarus
It is well known that the Gospel of John is written around seven "I am" passages, and seven "signs." In John chapter 11, there is both an "I am" passage, and the "sign" that proves His "I am" statement is true. Jesus says "I am the resurrection and the life," and He then proves it by raising up Lazarus. But what kind of resurrection is Jesus talking about? The context will show that Jesus is saying that He is the source of the physical resurrection that will happen on the last day, the final judgment.
Lazarus was a close friend of Jesus. So when Mary & Martha send word to Jesus that Lazarus is sick, we would expect Jesus to head out at once to come heal Lazarus. But He doesn't. Jesus deliberately waits 2 days before heading to Lazarus. But why?
Jesus has miraculous knowledge about Lazarus. He knew that Lazarus' sickness would lead to death, and He knew when Lazarus would die. Jesus basically says that He is going to let Lazarus die, so that Jesus can raise him up, to prove a point - He has the power of resurrection within Himself. But if all Jesus wanted to do was raise Lazarus from the dead, to show His power, He didn't need to delay at all upon receiving the message of Lazarus' sickness. If Jesus had head out the instant the message was received, He still wouldn't have arrived until Lazarus had been dead for two days. So Jesus deliberately waits as long as He did so that He would show up precisely on the fourth day.
Being Dead Four Days
The fourth day is very significant. In the Hebrew mind, decomposition began on the fourth day, because in that climate, a body would typically begin to smell on the fourth day. This can be seen in John 11:39 - "Jesus said, 'Remove the stone.' Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, 'Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days.'"
This can also be seen in 1 Cor. 15:4, where Paul says the OT Scriptures say the Messiah will be raised up on the third day. But nowhere in the OT does it say the Messiah will be raised up on the third day. Or does it? Paul is referring to Psalm 16:10, where David, speaking of the Messiah, says "Nor will you allow Your Holy One to undergo decay." Since in their thinking, decay began on the fourth day, this was the equivalent of saying "The Messiah will not still be in the grave come the fourth day." Thus it naturally points to the Messiah raising up on the day before, the third day.
Jesus' point about raising Lazarus wasn't just to show that He could raise the dead, but that He could raise those who had both died and rotted. The other Gospels talk about Jesus raising people from the dead, but the Gospel of John is the only one that talks about the raising of Lazarus. Why is that? Because John was written against the gnostic heresy, which denied the physical resurrection. Thus John includes this particular miracle to show that Jesus will be able to physically raise the dead on the last day.
This receives further confirmation in John 11:24 - "Martha said to Him, 'I know he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.'" The resurrection she has in mind is physical, in that the context is dealing with Lazarus' physical death. Martha, like most of the Jews of her day, believed in a physical resurrection on the last day. Jesus implicitly acknowledges that this belief is correct, for rather than correcting her, Jesus claims that He will be the very source of that physical resurrection on the last day. And He then proves it by restoring a body that had rotted.
The Coming of the Lord in John 21:22-23
The only reference to the coming of the Lord is found in John 21:22-23. Is this coming referring to 70AD, or the Second Coming? As the context will prove, it is not talking about 70AD, but the Second Coming.
Jesus is qouted as asking "If I want him [John] to remain until I come, what is that to you?" From this, there was a saying that went through the Christian community that John "would not die." If the 70AD coming was in view here, the rumor would make no sense. They didn't say "John would not die until the coming of the Lord," but that he would not die, period. That doesn't make sense in light of the 70AD coming, but it would make perfect sense if they were talking about the Second Coming, where the Christians alive at that time will completely bypass death and be transformed into immortality (1 Cor. 15:51-52 & 1 Thess. 4:14-17).
The full-preterist might respond that, if they were incorrect about John not dying, then perhaps they were also incorrect about understanding the day of the Lord and the resurrection. First, the Gospel doesn't say they were heretics, or that they misunderstood the coming of the Lord, or the resurrection. The only thing they got wrong, as indicated by the Gospel, is that John would not die but that he would remain alive until the coming. Second, the full-preterist response is refuted by the context of Lazarus' resurrection.
But why would Christians speculate from Jesus' question about the timing of the coming of the Lord? There were no signs, warnings, or timeframe given for the Second Coming, as I have already explained in a previous post. Thus, some Christians were looking for something, anything that might give a clue as to when the Second Coming would be.
And if we are to take the full-preterist's objection seriously, we would have to believe that the "heresy" of the physcial resurrection and the "Second Coming" didn't just start with the earliest church fathers, but during the time of the Apostles themselves. But is this credible, given that we have not one single record in the NT of Jesus or the Apostles arguing against the dominant belief about the resurrection? Even though we have a record of Jesus arguing with the Sadducees about the resurrection? According to Josephus, the Pharisee's doctrinal beliefs carried much sway among the average Jew, but the Sadducees were relatively few in number, and their doctrinal beliefs were flatly rejected by the people. Instead of finding the early Christians disagreeing with the Pharisees, instead we have evidence that they in fact agreed with them on this major doctrine!
Why does the Gospel of John even bother to point out this error about the death of John? Presumably because John had just died, and the disciples of John who wrote John 21:24 didn't want his death to be reason to doubt that there would be a Second Coming, the last day, when the dead will be physically raised up.
The Gospel of John is further proof that partial-preterism is the correct position.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Feb 27, 2010 0:16:38 GMT -5
The very first statement in this thread is this. "In order to prove full-preterism, you must prove that every prophecy was fulfilled by 70AD." Why is this the case? Why must everything be proven? Why can't you accept it by faith? Well, why can't you just accept that partial-preterism is the case? You don't need proof, just believe! If a full-preterist acknowledges that even a single verse teaches a future, physical resurrection, then he has just disavowed full-preterism by definition. The Bible doesn't teach a blind faith, but that we are supposed to go where the evidence points. In John 10:31-38, Jesus basically tells His critics that, if He provides no evidence, then they are not obligated to believe Him. But if He does provide good evidence - miracles - then they are obligated to believe. Thus Biblical faith ought to be based upon reason and evidence. Didn't I read somewhere that "faith is the evidence of things not seen." By the way, I prefer the term, "Fulfilled prophecy," over "Preterism." That's not to say I object to the word, I just prefer the other. And, I don't call accepting what Jesus has said by faith being a blind faith. Can you prove what Jesus said in Matthew 16:28 is false? Either he came back in the lifetime of the apostles, or he lied. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 27, 2010 2:16:19 GMT -5
Theo, what books would you recommend someone read if you wanted them to be convinced of partial-preterism over full preterism? I don't own any books on eschatology. I do have some on the way, though. A few days ago, I called a preacher friend of mine that has been in the midst of the whole preterist controversy since the 70s. He has been wrestling with partial/full-preterism himself for nearly 4 decades now. He said some of the books he has read have been worthless, but he is going to mail me several of the better ones from both sides. Post the titles of the books he sends you (if you think about it). Thanks! Now then, if we are done judging the hidden thoughts of others, let us return to the matter at hand. If you hold to full-preterism because of reason and evidence, then how do you respond to Acts 17:30-32? How do you explain 1 Cor. 15:35-36b? If you cannot come up with a plausible full-preterist explanation for these passages, then you are not rationally justified in holding to full-preterism. One thing I notice about Acts 17:30-32 is that in verse 31 it says, "having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." To be literal, that proof is really only proof to those living at the time that Jesus was actually raised from the dead; i.e., THAT generation. We take it as proof because we believe it, but we have no eyewitnesses to confirm it. In the generation in which Jesus lived, there would be eyewitness testimony. As for 1 Corinthians 15:35-36, I think we'd need to include verses 37 and 38 because they provide additional explanation, namely that the body that is sown is not the same body that is raised. Bev |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Feb 27, 2010 5:51:15 GMT -5
Theo said, "The only reference to the coming of the Lord is found in John 21:22-23. Is this coming referring to 70AD, or the Second Coming? As the context will prove, it is not talking about 70AD, but the Second Coming." That passage says nothing about a second coming. I only see a coming. One singular coming. Jesus did not say, "till I come a second time." He simple said, "till I come." In fact, no where does the Bible talk about a second time, except one place. But that is another subject. In the passage in question there is onlt one coming. And, your explanation of this makes it sound like it was nearly impossible for any of them to die by 70 AD. Are we not talking about a time span of 35 to 40 years, from the time Jesus made those statements till 70 AD? So why is the date of 70 AD impossible? Jesus didn't say he would be alive. Still 70 AD would fit the time frame.  |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Feb 27, 2010 6:02:51 GMT -5
Theo - You attend churches of Christ. That explains a lot to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 27, 2010 10:00:56 GMT -5
The very first statement in this thread is this. "In order to prove full-preterism, you must prove that every prophecy was fulfilled by 70AD." Why is this the case? Why must everything be proven? Why can't you accept it by faith? Faith in the man who said to the apostles, while yet disciples, "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Why must this be proven? This statement was made by the same man who said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." Both of these statements were made the same man. Can you have faith in him? Can you trust that man to have spoken the truth? That's the crux of the matter! I'm with you, Didymus! Amen! |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Feb 27, 2010 10:31:57 GMT -5
This being the case, I recommend that all readers reject full-preterism. Not only is full-preterism demonstrably false, rejecting full-preterism might even be a matter of salvation. Ephesians 4:4 says that all Christians are to be united in the "one hope." Certainly that "one hope" includes the resurrection of the dead (which we've just proved is physical). Thus to deny the physical resurrection might place you outside of the body of Christ, costing you your salvation. Theo. I am so sick and tired of the heretic charge being thrown around so carelessly by those who should know better. You didn't say the word, but implied it in your above quote. Why would you write this unless you just wanted to stir the pot? Preterists believe in the resurrection of the dead, just the timing and nature in which it happened we disagree. So why does that have anything to do with my salvation? I believe that I have been raised to life everlasting through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, my creator. Please show me why I am now to be sent to eternal punishment because I do not believe now that physical bodies come together and start walking again out of the grave at some time in my future. Since you've been here you've tried to convince that partial-preterism is correct and full preterism is false. Great. I enjoy the reading, and the studies and I am glad you are here. But, like Bryan, I was finally convinced by the overwhelming evidence to leave futurism completely. But not without a very hard struggle. Matthew 7:2 says that For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. Since you've called into question the salvation of those who actually believe that "all things written have been fulfilled," and those things we believe by faith, you've knowingly placed us in the heretic category. You do realize now then the implications of the above verse as it applies to you. The verse under all of your posts, Gal.2:20 says, I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I'm going to assume that you do not have nail holes in your hands and feet, since you being crucified with Jesus Christ is spiritual, not physical. Yet Paul is very clear here. You HAVE been crucified (spiritually) with Christ. God recognizes this as actually happening as if it were a physical reality, it taking place within you, not your body but the real you, in the heavenlies. Colossians 2:12-13 says the we are "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with [him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Again, our burial with Him is spiritual in baptism, and you rising (resurrection) with Him through the faith is a spiritual reality today for us right now. I do not need to be resurrected from the dead since I already have life, the life of Christ living in me. (Gal.2:20) And if that is not the case then Jesus' comments to Martha (John 11:25-26) make no sense whatsoever. 1 Peter 4:7 says, But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. If the end of "ALL" things was at hand, as Peter said, an apostle writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to comfort the 1st century saints and speaking to them in a manner that they would understand, then, as Didymus said, by faith, we believe that ALL those things happened just as Peter said they would within the time frame "at hand" said they would. And that would include the resurrection of the dead. |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Feb 27, 2010 11:10:34 GMT -5
Very good interaction friends,
Good rebuttal, Steve - I'm proud of ya, man
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 27, 2010 11:22:59 GMT -5
Excellent post, Stephen!  The Holy Scriptures that convinced us 'all things written' were fulfilled the first century generation, also convinced us our salvation is based upon our faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and not our eschatology. Adding eschatology to the gospel of Christ, is promoting another gospel, and Apostle Paul said... Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach 'any other' gospel unto you than that which I have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if "any man" preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Bottom line, I'm not receiving any other gospel than that Paul preached (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and it does not include eschatology. The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 27, 2010 11:45:40 GMT -5
Thank you Theophilus for your response:
Here it is again:
"I haven't done a thorough study of the "last days" in the OT, but off the top of my head, I think they generally have to do with the church age. I believe the old heavens and earth refer to the things of Judaism, and the new heavens and earth have to do with the things of Christianity, rather than the physical universe, if that is what you mean."
Honestly Theo, if you don't know what the last days refer to FOR CERTAIN, then how on earth can you be certain you have the proper understanding of these same last days when spoken of in the NT?
Should you ever venture into this very necessary study, you will find out that the last days, latter days and time of the end do not refer to the church age in the least. It is to the first covenant that these things apply. The second covenant (new covenant) is incorporated during these last days or time of the end. Christ came during the last days. Elijha (John the Baptist) came before the day of the Lord. The old covenant has passed away. The new is here. The present (Mosaic) age (back then) is gone. The (Messianic) age to come is now fully in place.
Being raised from death unto life IS the resurrection!
John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
1 John 3:14 - We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
Christ's work upon Calvary was not for redeeming people from physical death but for spiritual death (separation from God). If Christ truly paid the penalty for sin FOR US, then why is it that we should pay the penalty for sin anyway - IF THE PENALTY WAS PHYSICAL DEATH!
Your resurrection and Parousia are based upon things physical. Ours is not.
When was the last time you saw a BIBLICAL temple sacrifice?
Never. And why is that? Because it was all wiped out according to the promise of God in the time frame given by God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 27, 2010 11:51:52 GMT -5
Didn't I read somewhere that "faith is the evidence of things not seen." You are referring to Hebrews 11:1. But that is a mistranslation of Hebrews 11:1. The KJV renders it "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The word in question is elegchos. Elegchos has two definitions: "proof" & "conviction." Which is the correct definition in Hebrews 11:1? For that, we need to look at the context. Hebrews 11:1 is an example of Hebrew parallelism, where the writer makes the same point by stating it in two phrases worded slightly differently. Thus, the definition of elegchos matches up with the word hupostasis, which here means "confidence, firm trust, assurance." Thus elegchos, in Hebrews 11:1, should be rendered as "conviction" instead of "proof." My conclusion is corroborated by the following translations: NIV, NASB, ESV, ASV, Young's Literal Translation, NRSV etc. etc. Of all the major new translations, only the NKJV follows the KJV's mistranslation, and the NKJV isn't a new translation so much as a slave to the KJV. But even the NKJV includes the correct translation in its official footnotes. So Hebrews 11:1 does not speak about the reason for one's faith, but the need to accompany our faith with perseverance. Being convinced of the truthfulness of the Gospel, we must persevere. Hebrews explains the basis for having faith back in Hebrews 2:3-4, which states that faith is to be founded upon the evidence. didymus, Sower, will you now admit you were wrong, or would you like to double down on John 20:29?  And, I don't call accepting what Jesus has said by faith being a blind faith. Can you prove what Jesus said in Matthew 16:28 is false? Either he came back in the lifetime of the apostles, or he lied. Why would I want to do that? I believe Jesus did come back in 70AD, and there is evidence to prove it. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 27, 2010 12:08:27 GMT -5
Post the titles of the books he sends you (if you think about it). Thanks! Even if I drop off the face of the earth again, I will make sure to come back just to do that.  One thing I notice about Acts 17:30-32 is that in verse 31 it says, "having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." To be literal, that proof is really only proof to those living at the time that Jesus was actually raised from the dead; i.e., THAT generation. We take it as proof because we believe it, but we have no eyewitnesses to confirm it. In the generation in which Jesus lived, there would be eyewitness testimony. Remember, the passage in Acts is not every word spoken by Paul, but merely a skeletal outline of his sermon. His actual sermon would have been much longer, and would have elaborated upon all of the points recorded. So in what way could Jesus' resurrection have been "proof" as presented by Paul? Probably something along the lines of 1 Cor. 15:3-10. Paul could make an historical argument for the fact of the resurrection, even as Christian apologists do to this day. He would have pointed out that various things were predicted about Him by prophets centuries ago, and were fulfilled. As proof of the fulfillment, he would have appealed to the various eye-witnesses, even as he did in 1 Cor. 15, as Peter did in Acts 2, etc. But why should they believe Paul's testimony? Much like in Galatians, when Paul's credibility was put to the test, he points out that he has no earthly motivation for being a Christian. That he has lost all things, to only gain a body covered in scars, as he could demonstrate by showing his back. Having studied philosophy and logic myself, I can assure you that Jesus and Paul were perfectly logical. In fact, the Bible no where makes an error of logic in argumentation, but you can find such errors in the Koran, the Book of Mormon, etc. If you are interested in learning about Christian evidences, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is probably the best starting point. As for 1 Corinthians 15:35-36, I think we'd need to include verses 37 and 38 because they provide additional explanation, namely that the body that is sown is not the same body that is raised. We would ultimately want to include the whole chapter, but that isn't my point. We've already had a lengthy discussion over 1 Cor. 15. My point is, how can the full-preterist's interpretation explain 1 Cor. 15:36a? If it cannot, then that interpretation fails. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 27, 2010 12:14:57 GMT -5
That passage says nothing about a second coming. I only see a coming. One singular coming. Jesus did not say, "till I come a second time." He simple said, "till I come." Your semantic argument is irrelevant. I merely called it the "Second Coming" as to distinguish it from the "70AD coming." And, your explanation of this makes it sound like it was nearly impossible for any of them to die by 70 AD. Are we not talking about a time span of 35 to 40 years, from the time Jesus made those statements till 70 AD? So why is the date of 70 AD impossible? Jesus didn't say he would be alive. Still 70 AD would fit the time frame. It isn't that some people were merely saying John would still be alive at this coming, but that he wouldn't die, period, by virtue of still being alive at the coming. Such a saying can only make sense if there was a wide belief among those early Christians about a day of physical resurrection as described in 1 Cor. 15 & 1 Thess. 4 - where those Christians still alive at His coming would not die, but would bypass death altogether by being transformed into immortal bodies. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Feb 27, 2010 14:07:24 GMT -5
Excellent post, Stephen! The Holy Scriptures that convinced us 'all things written' were fulfilled the first century generation, also convinced us our salvation is based upon our faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and not our eschatology. Adding eschatology to the gospel of Christ, is promoting another gospel, and Apostle Paul said... Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach 'any other' gospel unto you than that which I have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if "any man" preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Bottom line, I'm not receiving any other gospel than that Paul preached (1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and it does not include eschatology. The Sower~ Hello Sower, Let me tell you, I have enjoyed many of what I read of you since I joined a couple days ago. In this case, we've got a bit of a difference here. Eschatology is a part of the gospel message. Do you remember what gospel Jesus preached? Did he not teach the "gospel of the kingdom"? Matthew 4.23, "Now Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness, and all kinds of diseases among the people." Certainly, part of the gospel of the kingdom would be Jesus coming in His kingdom, wouldn't you think? And when did Jesus come in His kingdom? Well, there you go. That is the essential part of eschatology, Jesus coming in His kingdom, and when. Just something to think about. All I know is when I die, I want to be propped up aside of a country jukebox so I can hear Merle Haggard, and Charley Pride, and Alan Jackson for all eternity. My flesh will not enter the kingdom of Heaven, so that is where I want flesh to go. And please, when I am propped up - "Don't rock the jukebox, I wanna hear George Jones. My heart won't be ready for the Rolling Stones..." Sorry, I think a little levity is good now and then. Besides, I am in a real corny mood, and I decided to share it with my spiritual siblings. Have a funny day. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Feb 27, 2010 14:37:50 GMT -5
Theo said in part, "didymus, Sower, will you now admit you were wrong" I can't speak for Sower, I can only speak for me. I will not admit anything to you. Nor will I engage you in any discussion. I read that you attend churches of Christ. Well, been there done that. I know how the churches of Christ are. Now certainly not all members of the church of Christ are the same. Some are actually tolerable. I have disfellowshipped on doctrinal issues. I was called a trouble maker. You see, I had the gaul to ask questions. And when those questions were about their non-existent creeds, they got offended. Soon I was out the door. And that is okay with me. So this is the last time I will respond to you unless I see that you are different. So, far I have not seen that. I've only been in here for a couple days, but the people in here has treated you with respect, and you have responded with incinuations that their salvation is in question. You may not realize this, but God makes the final judgement, not the church of Christ.
Now excuse me, but I have an appointment with the music bank of my computer. It's the only place I can hear my kind of music, while I enjoy a cigar. Gee, what would the righteous people of the church of Christ say about me smoking cigars? Would they tell me I'm going to a "Ring of Fire" by Johnny Cash?
I tell you, if it ain't traditional country - it ain't country.
After all I just said, I will keep an open mind. If I see you showing these wonderful people the respect that is due them. Well who knows. I might get a softer attitude toward you. And maybe, we can have some internet fellowship. With God, all things are possible.
Have a country music day.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Feb 27, 2010 15:35:14 GMT -5
All I know is when I die, I want to be propped up aside of a country jukebox so I can hear Merle Haggard, and Charley Pride, and Alan Jackson for all eternity. My flesh will not enter the kingdom of Heaven, so that is where I want flesh to go. And please, when I am propped up - "Don't rock the jukebox, I wanna hear George Jones. My heart won't be ready for the Rolling Stones..." Sorry, I think a little levity is good now and then. Besides, I am in a real corny mood, and I decided to share it with my spiritual siblings. Have a funny day. Oh Didy, Didy, Didy. You've just described the pangs of hell. I now have to ad you to my list of people to pray for. >:(That the Lord will rescue you from the sounds of country and bring you into the fold of the sweetest sounds of David Gilmour and the rip roaring licks from Jimmy Page. Though I do agree with you on the Stones. Just kidding. I can handle a little country. In January I attended a funeral service for my cousin's wife. The pastor and his wife sang, played instruments and led the entire service. His wife sang a beautiful song that she had written, and played the guitar. It was a slow, country-blues number. Her voice was heavenly and the guitar was pickin-perfect. You would have loved it. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 27, 2010 15:44:48 GMT -5
Post the titles of the books he sends you (if you think about it). Thanks! Even if I drop off the face of the earth again, I will make sure to come back just to do that.  ... If you are interested in learning about Christian evidences, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is probably the best starting point. I've read it. As for 1 Corinthians 15:35-36, I think we'd need to include verses 37 and 38 because they provide additional explanation, namely that the body that is sown is not the same body that is raised. We would ultimately want to include the whole chapter, but that isn't my point. We've already had a lengthy discussion over 1 Cor. 15. My point is, how can the full-preterist's interpretation explain 1 Cor. 15:36a? If it cannot, then that interpretation fails. 1 Corinthians 15:35-36 NASB (35) But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" (36) You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; Are we assuming the dying and raising of a physical body? Why couldn't this whole resurrection passage be spiritual? "Unless it dies." But haven't we already died? (Romans 6:8 NASB) Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, (Colossians 2:20-21 NASB) If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (Colossians 3:2-5 NASB) Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. The death that we die is a death to sin (Romans 6:6-11). "That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies." Unless you've died to sin, you cannot come to life (you have no life in you). Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. (1 John 3:15 NASB) (John 6:53-54, 57 NASB) So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. ... As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me." Christ was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit (1 Peter 3:18), and we are to put to death the deeds of the body so that we may live (Romans 8:13). That's enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 27, 2010 15:52:46 GMT -5
Hello Didymus, Thanks for telling me, I've enjoyed yours as well.  That's okay! Perhaps, we can come to an agreement, but if not we won't become enemies because of it. Yet, it's not the gospel of salvation. Yes! Yes! However, he never taught that saved anyone. Jesus taught..."For if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins" (John 8:24), and he was the way to the Father (John 14:6). Jesus always connected salvation with with himself, never an eschatological coming of his kingdom. I don't understand what you mean, please clarify. Jesus told the Pharisees..."The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:20,21). Now granted, I don't believe he was saying the Pharisees had the kingdom within them, but the inference seem to be those in Christ had the kingdom within them at that time. Agree or disagree? Jesus also told the Pharisees... Matthew 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, THEN the kingdom of God is come unto you. I think we all agree Jesus cast out devils by the Spirit of God, thus, the kingdom of God had come. If the kingdom of God had already come, how could an eschatological coming of Christ in his kingdom be an essential part of salvation? I don't understand. Besides, it's belief in the gospel and name of of Jesus that saves (John 3:16-18; Romans 10:9,10; Acts 4:12; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; 1 John 5:1-12). |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 27, 2010 15:58:22 GMT -5
Didy and Theo... Several of us here have Church of Christ backgrounds (I'm one of them). Let's not judge anyone because of what group they fellowship with (or have in the past). There is a great variety among Churches of Christ, ranging from severe sectarianism and legalism to a spirit of unity and liberalism, just as with every Christian denomination, possibly even more so with the COC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 27, 2010 16:24:04 GMT -5
Ah well, that was disappointing. I checked my mailbox today and received an envelope from my friend. He didn't mail me any books, merely a list of books! Anyway, here is the list:
Matthew 24 Fulfilled by John Bray
Nichols - King Debate
He went to this 4-day debate back in the day. Russ Nichols was the second most famous preacher in the CoC back then. He said King tore him apart. Nichols got so frustrated, the last 2 days he just got nasty and personal against King, as he recalled.
McGuiggan - King Debate
This one I would like to get a hold of. He said that McGuiggan later changed some of his interpretations after this debate, in something that he wrote later. Presumably, McGuiggan still believes in a physical resurrection, though. The only book I own by McGuiggan is his commentary on 1 Corinthians, and he makes several references to King in chapter 15.
The Parousia by James Russell
Last Days According to Jesus by RC Sproul
Book of Revelation by F. E. Wallace
|
|
