|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 27, 2010 17:07:28 GMT -5
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? What I said, I said in sincere, sober, measured terms. As far as being judged by my own standard, I have already done that. I do believe the doctrine of resurrection probably is a matter of salvation, which is precisely why I was so distressed when trying to determine the truth. My wife couldn't understand why I couldn't just take a break from my studies. If a Christian believes a fellow believer is in error that leads to the loss of salvation, should the Christian be silent? I didn't carelessly go about saying things like "You're all heretics and are gonna burn in Hell, yeehaw!" If my measured language is so offensive to you, perhaps you should consider Proverbs 28:1. I can't even count the times I've been labeled a heretic, a legalist, preaching a salvation of works, blah blah blah because I believe what the Bible teaches about water baptism. I have studied that issue backwards and forwards, so that stuff doesn't bother me. 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? Well, Paul dealt harshly with people over disputes related to the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:36a, 1 Tim. 1:18-20, 2 Tim. 2:16-18). We don't have enough information to determine the exact nature of Hymenaeus' teaching about the resurrection, but Paul thought it was very serious. In Ephesians 4, Paul mentions 7 things that all Christians are to be united upon - one of which is the "one hope," which almost certainly includes the resurrection of the dead. So while I do not know it is a matter of salvation, it might very well be. 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. Well, technically, Paul is saying that he has been crucified with Christ. Just messin' with you in good fun.  Baptism isn't just a symbolic, spiritual resurrection, it also means I will one day be literally raised up with a resurrection body just like His. For when you are baptized, you are sealed by the Holy Spirit, to be physically raised up in glory. Just as the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead, so the Spirit will one day raise me up by giving life to my mortal body. The life has to be physical, as the Christian already has spiritual life. And if that is not the case then Jesus' comments to Martha (John 11:25-26) make no sense whatsoever. John 11 doesn't make any sense unless there is a physical resurrection still to come. John himself points out that he was very selective in what he included in his Gospel (John 20:30-31, John 21:25). In fact, we know he was very selective, for even though he records long dialogues from John the Baptist and Jesus, there is no mention whatsoever of the coming destruction in 70AD. And we know from the other Gospels that John the Baptist and Jesus talked about these things all of the time. This goes to show that John was not interested in talking about 70AD in his Gospel. Instead, he was focused on refuting the gnostic heresy - which taught the physical creation was bad, that Jesus wasn't flesh and blood, that He didn't have a physical resurrection body, and denied the physical resurrection altogether. So while John wasn't interested in talking about 70AD, he was very interested in talking about the resurrection of the dead. In fact, the only reference to the destruction of the Temple isn't about the Temple, but the physical body/resurrection of Jesus! John 2:19-22 Although Jesus resurrected several people from the dead in His ministry, from what is written, the resurrection of Lazarus is the only one that Jesus used to teach that He is the resurrection and the life. This is in context dealing with the "resurrection on the last day," and is in context of dealing with physical death. Jesus is preparing to teach that He is the source of this particular resurrection, and He illustrates it not by raising just a dead person, but deliberately waiting until the person was dead four days. Jesus was very particular about this, and John went to great length to point this out. Why? Because it is a direct refutation to the same kind of people who would mockingly ask the questions of 1 Cor. 15:35. The full-preterist cannot explain it. A "spirit resurrection" won't cut it. The context won't allow it. Look, maybe there was a spirit resurrection in 70AD. I'm not saying there wasn't. What I am saying is that a spirit resurrection in 70AD cannot explain all of the relevant passages. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 27, 2010 17:22:16 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? You are right, I made a mistake. When I said it referred to the church age, I was thinking it began in 30 AD at Pentecost, and leading up to 70AD. That is what I meant to say when I said "the church age," but obviously that isn't what I actually typed. But notice that my objection to full-preterism isn't concerned with the "last days" passages, which I do believe ended with 70AD. It is based upon passages that don't use the phrase "last days": Acts 17:30-32, 1 Cor. 15, etc. And while I assume I'm agreeing with you that "latter days," "last days," "last time," "last times," & "last hour" are referring to the same thing, beginning at 30AD and approaching 70AD, I believe those are distinguished from the Gospel of John's "the last day," due to the context of John and the fact that I haven't found that precise phrase used anywhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Feb 27, 2010 17:25:53 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 Excellent. Thank you, Theo! Bev |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 27, 2010 17:31:51 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. No, you don't have to admit anything, but it would show some maturity, courage, and integrity if you would. As it is, the facts are abundantly clear about Hebrews 11:1, even if you won't acknowledge it. 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. didymus, I don't have to prove anything to you. There is One who will judge me, and you ain't the One. As you yourself have said, "You may not realize this, but God makes the final judgement..." If I see you showing these wonderful people the respect that is due them. Do you have any idea how many of God's saints you have already smeared by attacking the churches of Christ? And you talk to me of respect?!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. Exactly. Having moved a lot, all across this country, there is nothing more exciting than moving to a new part of the country and that first visit to the closest church of Christ. You never know what you're going to run into! |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 27, 2010 17:40:40 GMT -5
What'd you think? Great book, no? But once4all, we've already had a couple of threads where we have gone over the whole chapter at length, and all we did was go in circles. For the sake of brevity, all I ask of you, or anyone on this forum, is how does Paul's insult in 1 Cor. 15:36 make sense? It makes perfect sense if he is arguing for a physical resurrection, but no sense if he is arguing for a spirit resurrection. If you can't explain the insult, then that is proof you don't understand what is really being asked in 1 Cor. 15:35. And if you don't understand the question, then you are prone to misunderstanding the answer, too. Will someone please answer this question? Pretty please? With sugar on top? |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Feb 27, 2010 17:59:53 GMT -5
I am outnumbered something like 10 to 1 and I still can't get an answer to my points that refute full-preterism! Since no one will argue for full-preterism's take on Acts 17:30-32, I will. I have found a couple of responses to this passage, and will put forth the argument myself, to show why it won't work.
Full-Presterists (FPs from here after), when talking about Acts 17:30-32, typically make a big deal about how modern translators have a major bias in how they translate the word "mello." But that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter even if they do, the only thing that matters is if it is correctly translated in this particular passage. And as we will see, it is.
But let's translate it how the FPs want us to translate it. Acts 17:31 is thus translated as "because He has fixed a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
Let us further assume the judgment day that is fixed is 70AD. Does it make sense? No.
The Athenians need to repent because 70AD is coming. They need to repent in preparation for 70AD. Except they don't. For if they repent after 70AD, then they will still go to heaven when they die. The urgency of repenting before that day falls flat according to the full-preterist interpretation.
Yes, the events of 70AD are profoundly significant, but they are not at all significant in regard to creating a sense of urgency of their need to repent in preparation for 70AD.
There are only 2 reasons why they would need to repent before a given day:
1. the day they die, for there is no longer a chance for repentance. The state in which you die is the state in which you remain forever (in regards to your relationship to God).
2. the final day of judgment when all of the dead will be physically raised and go to their final destination forever.
Obviously it can't be #1, because Paul is talking about a single day where the entire world will be judged together. So Paul must be referring to #2.
If the fixed day of judgment is 70AD, then Paul's argument completely falls apart. And it can't be referring to the day of your physical death. Therefore it must be talking about the Second Coming, which is still future.
Thus the translators are justified in rendering mello as "certain" vs. "about to." And full-preterism is proven false.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Feb 27, 2010 18:39:57 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. You are thinking that I am saying that prophecy is a part of salvation. And that would be correct. But, salvation is not a part of prophecy. To illustrate this, let me say this. A tree is a part of a forest, but a forest is not a part of the tree. Does that make sense? We are not saved by prophecy, but if we are saved we will accept the truth, even the truth about prophecy. And that's because, Jesus is the truth. If you believe in Jesus, since he is the truth, you will accept the truth. And you will accept all the truth. The truth is not a buffet where you can believe this truth, but not that truth. Remeber Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Jesus is the truth, the whole truth. He is not partial truth. Prophetic truth is a part of who Christ is. So if you accept Christ, you will accept prophetic truth. Not that prophetic truth saves you, but being saved you will believe the truth, because you are in the truth. And, you share the mind of Christ. I hope that clarifies everything. Unfortunately, I disagree. When Jesus said to the Pharisees, "the kingdom is within you," he was saying, "the kingdom is in your midst," referring to himself. Actually, that's not what I said. I said, or at least I thought I said, that Jesus coming in His kingdom, and when, are an essential part of the teaching of prophecy. In other words, in essence that's what prophecy is. And the rest of the comments were addressing my attempt at humor. Let me tell you what happened. I looked in the mirror this morning, and Red Skelton was looking back at me. Let me know if you ever look in the mirror, and Phyllis Diller is looking back at you.. I could go with a three foot sub right now. But I think I'll settle for my blood pressure medication, and then a 6 foot long bed. I am really tired. Then I'll just dream about the hoagie. Then, when I wake up my pilow might be gone. Or maybe "l" part will be gone. Good night Irene, Good night Irene. I'll see you in my dreams. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 27, 2010 20:38:23 GMT -5
You are thinking that I am saying that prophecy is a part of salvation. Yes, that's my thinking! Okay! Whew! I was holding my breath, now I can exhale. Perfectly! Absolutely! I totally agree! It does, thanks! Okay! But, if the kingdom of God was Jesus, and he was in their midst, how could it be an eschatological and/or prophetic event? Sorry, if I misunderstood and/or misinterpreted what you said. I appreciate your clarifying this for me, but I stand by my statement that Jesus coming in his kingdom and being an essential part of the teaching of prophecy is not a requiresite to/for salvation. Thus, I stand by my prvious statement... that belief in the name and gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Romans 10:9,10; Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:1-12) is the only requirement for salvation. Which I enjoyed very much, and hope to see often. We have far too much hostility and too less humor. Wow! ;D I plead the fifth! Pleasant dreams, dear brother! The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Feb 27, 2010 20:50:22 GMT -5
You are right, I made a mistake. When I said it referred to the church age, I was thinking it began in 30 AD at Pentecost, and leading up to 70AD. That is what I meant to say when I said "the church age," but obviously that isn't what I actually typed. But notice that my objection to full-preterism isn't concerned with the "last days" passages, which I do believe ended with 70AD. It is based upon passages that don't use the phrase "last days": Acts 17:30-32, 1 Cor. 15, etc. And while I assume I'm agreeing with you that "latter days," "last days," "last time," "last times," & "last hour" are referring to the same thing, beginning at 30AD and approaching 70AD, I believe those are distinguished from the Gospel of John's "the last day," due to the context of John and the fact that I haven't found that precise phrase used anywhere else. I understand. You require two different "last days." It reminds me of the splitting of Matthew 24: " A" Parousia coming in 70 AD and " THE" Parousia coming sometime in the future. May I recommend looking at all the " time of the end" passages in Daniel to get an idea of all the associated events that go along with or are in close proximity with that "time of the end" event. It is well worth the study time. It is mandatory that one determine the OT last days because it was in those last days that Christ came and did what He did... Please email me at canadianpreterist@yahoo.com with any one specific question about any Scripture and I will do my best to answer politely and kindly as possible. I don't know all things but I have come a long way since my dispensational days. Be prepared for my one follow-up question though.... Oh, yeah, when you said the following: " 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." I agree, and believe that is an excellent place to start our discussion! You don't have to publicly answer, but I would like for you to dwell upon how your view (and mine) about the heavens and earths (old and new) would that affect your understanding of the following passages: (these will be in regard to the old heaven and earth) Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew 6:10 - Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Matthew 24:34-35 - Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Luke 16:17 - And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Luke 21:32-33 - Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. 2 Peter 3:7 - But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:10 - But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.Here is one regarding the new heaven and earth: 2 Peter 3:13 - Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. Now just the old: Hebrews 1:10-11 - And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; With both and referring to each covenant: Hebrews 8:13 - In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. Revelation 21:1 - And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. (I hope you have come to realize that the " sea" is often a reference to Gentile folks (non-Jews). Those are just a few verses that give great implication... Knowing your general agreement with me on the two heavens and earth, would you be willing to associate old Jerusalem with the old heaven and earth? Would you also be willing to associate the new heaven and earth with the New Jerusalem? (Gal 4) If so, I would like to send you or respond here (makes no difference to me) as to how these relationships express a past resurrection and deal with a few texts from 1 Cor 15... Please let me know. I may have to dig a bit to find them... Blessings! |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Feb 27, 2010 23:25:35 GMT -5
Yes, that's my thinking! Okay! Whew! I was holding my breath, now I can exhale. Perfectly! Absolutely! I totally agree! It does, thanks! Okay! But, if the kingdom of God was Jesus, and he was in their midst, how could it be an eschatological and/or prophetic event? This can be answered with Scripture with no intervention from me. Matthew 5.17 states, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fufill them." (ESV) Jesus, who is the kingdom, came to fulfill the Law AND the Prophets. Fulfilling the Prophets is the essence of what eschatology is all about. It is through Christ the Prophets are fulfilled. He is the center of it all. I think we are in agree ment here as long as it is understood the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the gospel of the kingdom, are the same gospel. And part of the gospel of the kingdom is that Jesus would return with His kingdom. It is all connected. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Feb 28, 2010 16:33:36 GMT -5
This can be answered with Scripture with no intervention from me. Matthew 5.17 states, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fufill them." (ESV) Jesus, who is the kingdom, came to fulfill the Law AND the Prophets. I agree! I agree, Jesus is the center of it all! However, I still fail to see how believing that is a requiresite for salvation. I understand the gospel of Jesus Christ and the gospel of the kingdom are the same! However, I don't see it as being necessary for salvation. I was saved without knowing anything about the gospel of the kingdom, the law, the prophets or eschatology. Perhaps, the disagreement is because we are talking about two different things. You're talking about the gospel of Jesus/gospel of the kingdom, whereas, I'm talking about the gospel of salvation (Ephesians 1:13), that Paul preached (1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Romans 10:9,10). That's what I was referring to when I posted ... Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach 'any other' gospel unto you than that which we 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 that that which ye have received, let him be accursed. Paul spoke that to churches of Galatia when he learned Jewish christian agitators were circulating among the Gentile converts seeking to impose circumcision, and the burden of the Mosaic law upon them as necessary for salvation. Didymus, if it can be shown with scripture that Paul preached belief in the gospel of the kingdom was necessary for salvation, I will embrace it, otherwise I maintain it's not a requirement.  Blessings, The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 1, 2010 3:46:45 GMT -5
Sower, Answer this question, then you will have your answer. Jesus is the truth. Can you believe a partial truth, and still be saved? Can you believe what Jesus said in John 3.16, and not believe what he said in Matthew 16.28? Can you believe Jesus told the truth is one place, and lied in another, and still be saved? Answer these questions, and you will have your answer. Didymus |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Mar 1, 2010 11:20:33 GMT -5
Sower, Answer this question, then you will have your answer. Jesus is the truth. True! That depends on what it is! No! The answer is you are saved by believing on Jesus + nothing else. Didymus, remember when the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas... Acts 16:30...Sirs, WHAT must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and "thou shalt be saved" and thy house. That's all that's required. Salvation = Belief on the Lord Jesus Christ + nothing! Did he know about eschatology? I think not! However, one that truly believe on Jesus will also believe everything he said is true! The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 1, 2010 12:43:22 GMT -5
Sower,
It then comes down to this. What is meant by, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"? I believe the answer to this question, you must believe everything he did and everything he said, as much as has been revealed to us.
Jesus certainly talked about the end times. Eschatology is simply the study of the end times. I personally believe what Jesus said about the end times.
But then, we have what the apostles also taught about the end times. And they were "sent out" by Christ to, "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28.19 & 20). If the apostles were to teach "all things" Christ commanded, doesn't it stand to reason that we must believe "all things" Christ commanded to be a disciple?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 1, 2010 13:00:00 GMT -5
Sower, It then comes down to this. What is meant by, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"? I believe the answer to this question, you must believe everything he did and everything he said, as much as has been revealed to us. Jesus certainly talked about the end times. Eschatology is simply the study of the end times. I personally believe what Jesus said about the end times. But then, we have what the apostles also taught about the end times. And they were "sent out" by Christ to, "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28.19 & 20). If the apostles were to teach "all things" Christ commanded, doesn't it stand to reason that we must believe "all things" Christ commanded to be a disciple? Interesting conversation to say the least and I think I understand where both of you are coming from. Didymus, may I ask you a question? What happens if someone believes something that Jesus said was referring to something other than what Jesus said? Does this make them a non-Christian? Consider that question very carefully because it would impact over 99% of our present "evangelical" audience! It is a given that "most" do not believe THE Parousia occurred in 70 AD. Now add the following: New Jerusalem as the church New heaven and earth as the ktisis of the new birth Millennium already past and lasting much less than 1,000 years. And all the other preterist principles... Is there anyone who could consider himself a Christian? What determines this? 2,000 years of preterist history??? What things were "finished" at the cross? The Parousia? The resurrection? Did not Jesus say "It is finished"? I'm sorry, but there is just too much emphasis made on understanding everything and believing everything to make "salvation" to be based on that... Did you receive eternal life the moment you believed or did you have to wait until you understood everything? Of course, the real question here is have you understood everything yet? And will anyone ever understand everything this side of eternity? And just one more thing... GO Canada GO! |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 1, 2010 13:55:13 GMT -5
Interesting conversation to say the least and I think I understand where both of you are coming from. Didymus, may I ask you a question? What happens if someone believes something that Jesus said was referring to something other than what Jesus said? Does this make them a non-Christian? Consider that question very carefully because it would impact over 99% of our present "evangelical" audience! Could you clarify this question for me? Are asking, "What happens if someone believes something that Jesus said, but was referring to something other than what Jesus said? There are many things I do not understand, but I still believe them. For example. I believe Jesus was raised from the dead, but I don't understand how. His resurrection, as far as I know, can not be explained scientifically, but I still believe it. To answer your question about eternal life. I have yet to lay hold of eternal life. Eternal life is the reward we receive in the life to come. But, through Christ, I have the hope of eternal life.  |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 1, 2010 14:09:17 GMT -5
And just one more thing... GO Canada GO! |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Mar 1, 2010 14:16:59 GMT -5
Sower, It then comes down to this. What is meant by, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ"? I agree! Didymus, I believe the answer to the question means to believe "in" your heart that Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for our sins, and rose from the dead... Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thou mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 FOR with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made "unto" SALVATION. That's salvation, plain and simple! I agree! True! I do, too! 100% of it! True! Yes, we are to believe and obey "all things" after salvation, but that doesn't save us.  Blessings, The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Mar 1, 2010 14:25:39 GMT -5
And just one more thing... GO Canada GO!Hi Mellontes, CONGRATULATIONS!  However, I am sad that we didn't win the gold!  The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Mar 1, 2010 14:26:09 GMT -5
And just one more thing... GO Canada GO!Okay, I guess I can say that too. Just for you Ted. GO Canada Go! |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 1, 2010 17:37:08 GMT -5
Could you clarify this question for me? Are asking, "What happens if someone believes something that Jesus said, but was referring to something other than what Jesus said? Example: Jesus said His Parousia event would occur in THAT first century generation (Mt 24:34). However, because people believe the Parousia did not happen back then, they say Jesus meant something else than what He said. It is said that Jesus actually meant that some FUTURE generation who sees all those signs... There are many things I do not understand, but I still believe them. For example. I believe Jesus was raised from the dead, but I don't understand how. His resurrection, as far as I know, can not be explained scientifically, but I still believe it. Was THE resurrection necessary to your belief in salvation a resurrection from physical death or spiritual death (separation from God). Most believe Christ's PHYSICAL resurrection is the prime importance. And this makes me wonder how Jesus could possibly be the FIRST to rise from the dead according to the OT if "PHYSICAL" resurrection is the meaning...
Acts 26:22-23 - Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. To answer your question about eternal life. I have yet to lay hold of eternal life. Eternal life is the reward we receive in the life to come. But, through Christ, I have the hope of eternal life. Okay. We differ quite a bit here. I believe I have eternal life right now because of my belief in Jesus. I do not have to wait until I shed this physical shell to obtain the eternal Life you seem to be looking for. There is nothing that speaks of physical death as a requirement to achieve eternal Life - it is all in Jesus Christ. I am immortal right now. We are now living in the "age to come." |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 1, 2010 18:30:37 GMT -5
Sower,
Are you saying we can be saved with a partial faith?
Mell,
Can you show me a Scripture where it teaches eternal life is for us while we are in the flesh?
Also, I didn't say, "age to come." I know we are in the age to come. I said "life to come."
Now excuse me, I'm not feeling well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Mar 1, 2010 20:05:07 GMT -5
Sower, Are you saying we can be saved with a partial faith? Didymus, what is partial faith? I'm saying we're saved by faith in Jesus alone. Consider what Jesus said to his disciples... John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you "all things," and bring all things to your remembarance, whatsoever I have said unto you. That ONE verse says the disciples did not know "all truth" and/ or remember all things that Jesus said unto them. Yet, we know the disciples were already saved at that time with the exception of Judas Iscariot since we know Jesus spoke only the truth (John 17:12). I hope we can agree on what the scripture teaches, if you show with scripture I'm wrong I will embrace the scripture. If Mell does not show you that scripture, I believe I can. Didymus, I'm sorry you are not feeling well, and pray you are better very soon. Christian love and blessings, The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 1, 2010 22:22:30 GMT -5
Mell, Can you show me a Scripture where it teaches eternal life is for us while we are in the flesh? Also, I didn't say, "age to come." I know we are in the age to come. I said "life to come." Now excuse me, I'm not feeling well. I hope you feel better soon... Now to answer your question. I hope you realize that your question of " Can you show me a Scripture where it teaches eternal life is for us while we are in the flesh?" is kind of tricky because you used the word " flesh." Be very careful associating " flesh" with human tissue and a reference to physical human bodies. Most often, " flesh" is used in conjunction with the old covenant body and is constantly contrasted with the "Spirit," or new covenant body. 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[/u]. [/i] Obviously, the people that believe are people who are already alive (physically). Yet the Scripture is claiming that these "alive" people have passed from death unto LIFE. One cannot possibly mistake the LIFE from that verse as having to do with anything other than ETERNAL LIFE, LIFE IN CHRIST, and NOT physical life...Unless you believe there is a third 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. Here, the context is being born of God and our relationship to each other in Christ. Note also that this verse states, in PAST TENSE terms, that the individual has passed from death unto LIFE. It is these and other verses similar to them, that clearly show that the death we need to pass from is not physical death. It is spiritual death. And these same verses show us that we can, and do obtain LIFE while presently already alive (physically). Unless of course, you think there is another third kind of LIFE... Agree, disagree? And if disagreed, I will need your Scriptural proof. I received no comment from you about Christ being the first to rise from the dead - obviously speaking about the non-physical resurrection. Don't let your present paradigm prevent you from understanding that very important utterance of Paul in Acts 26:22-23. You also did not answer the question I asked you: " Was THE resurrection necessary for your belief in salvation a resurrection from physical death or spiritual death (separation from God). " Hopefully, you will continue to maintain a spirit of interaction... Hope I have been helpful... Now, get better! |
|
|
|
Post by stephenpatrick on Mar 1, 2010 22:58:23 GMT -5
I am outnumbered something like 10 to 1 and I still can't get an answer to my points that refute full-preterism! Since no one will argue for full-preterism's take on Acts 17:30-32, I will. I have found a couple of responses to this passage, and will put forth the argument myself, to show why it won't work. Full-Presterists (FPs from here after), when talking about Acts 17:30-32, typically make a big deal about how modern translators have a major bias in how they translate the word "mello." But that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter even if they do, the only thing that matters is if it is correctly translated in this particular passage. And as we will see, it is. But let's translate it how the FPs want us to translate it. Acts 17:31 is thus translated as "because He has fixed a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." Let us further assume the judgment day that is fixed is 70AD. Does it make sense? No. The Athenians need to repent because 70AD is coming. They need to repent in preparation for 70AD. Except they don't. For if they repent after 70AD, then they will still go to heaven when they die. The urgency of repenting before that day falls flat according to the full-preterist interpretation. Yes, the events of 70AD are profoundly significant, but they are not at all significant in regard to creating a sense of urgency of their need to repent in preparation for 70AD. There are only 2 reasons why they would need to repent before a given day: 1. the day they die, for there is no longer a chance for repentance. The state in which you die is the state in which you remain forever (in regards to your relationship to God). 2. the final day of judgment when all of the dead will be physically raised and go to their final destination forever. Obviously it can't be #1, because Paul is talking about a single day where the entire world will be judged together. So Paul must be referring to #2. If the fixed day of judgment is 70AD, then Paul's argument completely falls apart. And it can't be referring to the day of your physical death. Therefore it must be talking about the Second Coming, which is still future. Thus the translators are justified in rendering mello as "certain" vs. "about to." And full-preterism is proven false. Hi Theo. You're not outnumbered Theo. You're with your brothers and sisters in Christ. Good question. Why would "gentiles" need to repent before 70ad since that is the time of the judgment on Israel, but also the nations, and more than likely many of them would be around after the destruction of Jerusalem, and then could possibly come to faith in Jesus Christ. It took me a few times reading it before I understood. Maybe this might help you, maybe it won't. I sense that Paul had to have been quoting that from Psalm 9. Psalm 9:7-8 But the LORD shall endure for ever: he hath prepared his throne for judgment. And he shall judge the world in righteousness, he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness.The entire psalm is an exact picture of the destruction that took place in Jerusalem in 70AD; rebuking the nations, destroying the wicked, the casting of the enemy (Satan) into perpetual ruin, the resurrection from Hades, and the judgment of the living and the dead, and making the name of the Lord to go out throughout the entire world. All that took place at the Lord's parousia. 70AD. There are no gaps. As to why he would be addressing the gentiles on that is if those men were to die tomorrow they would be lost forever, thats all. A universal, corporate judgment did take place. The decision to not repent and follow Jesus, well then you are judged for all eternity to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:1-2 not only points to the time of Jacob's trouble, the destruction of Jerusalem, but also the resurrection and the judgment. Again, there don't seem to be any gaps here either. It all takes place at the same time. Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:Futurism brings an individual assembly line judgment into the text that isn't there. Deuteronomy 32:43 Rejoice, O ye nations, [with] his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, [and] to his people.When Israel's blood guilt is avenged, all the nations rejoice. And that judgment was set and established in 70AD. The judgment takes place for all time and all history. Every man from now on is judged based on them repenting and believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. The judgment took place. A verdict has been reached. A decision to not repent and follow Jesus, means you are then judged unworthy of everlasting life. I think Paul was saying to the Athenian's exactly what they needed to hear. Steve |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 2, 2010 0:31:35 GMT -5
Mell, Concerning eternal life, I ask you to read II Corinthians 5.1-8 There is a certain quality of life that we do not have while we are present in the body. Besides, after what I've been through the past couple hours, I sure don't want this for eternity. I am feeling better, although not completely. On days like today, I much rather be absent from the body and present with the Lord. That would truly be a reward. When I think of eternal life, this is what I think about. Capiche. Have anice day. |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 2, 2010 1:17:10 GMT -5
Sower, Faith in Jesus alone. Yes, absolutely. I agree 100% But, believing in Jesus means more than accepting his death, burial and resurrection. Because that's not all Jesus did. Jesus performed miracles, wonders and signs. He also taught and preached the gospel of the kingdom. Jesus alone, absolutely, but Jesus in totality. Jesus is not just our Saviour, he is also our Lord, he is also our King, he is also our Master. Can you reject Christ as our Master and still be saved? I think not. Do you know that the Jews accept Christ as a great prophet, but not as Messiah, and not as Saviour? Can they still be saved? Islam also accepts Christ as a great prophet. Are they saved? You see, they have partial faith in Christ. Partial faith is accepting Christ only in part. If you only accept Christ only in part, why would you be any different the Jews and the Islamicists? Now, this same Jesus who was born of a virgin, lived among the people of that time, had a public ministry in which he healed many people of their sicknesses and diseases, and taught and preached the gospel of the kingdom, went to the cross and was sacrificed for the sins of the world, was raised from the dead, acsended into Heaven, and returned in 70AD, and is now in Heaven ruling and reigning with the saints that have gone on before. So, I ask you, how much of what Christ said and did can you reject and still be saved? Well that is your question. Can you deny Christ in part, and still have a home in Heaven? Have a nice day.   |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 2, 2010 10:45:09 GMT -5
Knowing your general agreement with me on the two heavens and earth, would you be willing to associate old Jerusalem with the old heaven and earth? Would you also be willing to associate the new heaven and earth with the New Jerusalem? (Gal 4) If so, I would like to send you or respond here (makes no difference to me) as to how these relationships express a past resurrection and deal with a few texts from 1 Cor 15... Please let me know. I may have to dig a bit to find them... Yes, the old heaven and earth is Jerusalem that perished in 70AD. Yes, the new heaven and earth refers to Christianity now, not heaven in the future. I'll address Daniel 12 when I answer another person below. Why would "gentiles" need to repent before 70ad since that is the time of the judgment on Israel, but also the nations, and more than likely many of them would be around after the destruction of Jerusalem, and then could possibly come to faith in Jesus Christ. Let me first make clear that while I am a partial preterist, I am "more preterist" than most partial-preterists. I actually agree with full-preterists on a lot of things. I think full-preterism gets a lot of things correct that most Christians get wrong. However, there is a physical resurrection that is yet to come. I believe that Matthew chapters 24 & 25 probably deals entirely with 70AD. So with that, all of us here has common ground to start from. The judgment talked about in Matthew 24 & 25 isn't a global judgment, but a judgment on the ancient Jewish nation. In Matt. 24:30, "all the tribes of the earth will mourn" is better translated as "all the tribes of the land will mourn." This is because the context indicates the destruction is in and around Jerusalem, but not the whole planet. So when talking about the destruction of the Jews, the word "tribe" is most likely referring to the twelve tribes of Israel. In Matt. 25:32, Jesus says "All the nations will be gathered before Him..." Again, this is still talking about the same judgment Jesus was discussing in chapter 24 - the 70AD judgment on Jerusalem. But doesn't the term "nations" imply that it is not just the Jewish nation that is being judged at that time? No. The term "nations" applies to the Jewish nation. Back in the first century, the land of the Jews was divided into different provinces of the Roman empire. Thus, the Jewish nation was split into different "nations" with different rulers (see Luke 3:1). That Matt. 25:31-46 has to do only with the Jews and not the whole world, these people are judged not on the basis of whether or not they repented from idolatry, etc., but on how they treated Jesus and His Christians. So the two groups of people are the Jewish Christians & the Jews who rejected and persecuted Christianity. There is no literal resurrection taught in Matt. 24 & 25. Matt. 24:31 is not referring to 1 Cor. 15:51-57 or 1 Thess. 4:13-18. In 1 Thess. 4:16, it says Jesus Himself will descend from heaven. But that didn't happen in Matthew 24 & 25. Matt. 24:30, which is often mistranslated, actually says "And then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven." It doesn't say that Jesus Himself will appear, but the sign that Jesus is reigning in heaven, this sign will appear. What is the sign? The impending destruction of Jerusalem, just as Jesus prophesied! So when it says in Matt. 24:30 that the Jews will "see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory," Jesus isn't saying they will literally see him, but that He is referring to Daniel 7:13. The Son of Man has already came in the clouds to receive His kingdom. The destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that Jesus had already done this and assumed the throne. If Matt. 24:31 isn't talking about the literal resurrection, then what is it talking about? The "elect" isn't talking about all of the righteous in the whole world, but in context, is referring to the "elect" in Matt. 24:24. The "elect" are those that heeded Jesus' warnings and fled the city. Thus, they were sealed/protected from the "four winds," which are the forces of destruction that would fall upon Jerusalem (see Rev. 7:1-4). There was no world-wide spirit resurrection/rapture in 70AD. As Eusebius recorded, the Jewish Christians saw the signs, and they all fled to escape that "judgment," and they all gathered together in one place, safe from the destruction of that day. I sense that Paul had to have been quoting that from Psalm 9. Psalm 9:7-8 But the LORD shall endure for ever: he hath prepared his throne for judgment. And he shall judge the world in righteousness, he shall minister judgment to the people in uprightness.It doesn't matter if Paul was citing Psalm 9. Even if he was, Acts 17:22-33 is about Paul making an argument to the Athenian pagans, to persuade them of the Gospel. Thus, whatever he says or quotes must go towards accomplishing that goal. And warning them that they must repent before 70AD just doesn't make any sense. It would ruin what was otherwise a flawless argument by Paul. The fact is, in 70AD, God didn't destroy the wicked throughout the world. He destroyed Jerusalem. After that day, Jerusalem could no longer repent, but the wicked people of Athens still could. As to why he would be addressing the gentiles on that is if those men were to die tomorrow they would be lost forever, thats all. A universal, corporate judgment did take place. The decision to not repent and follow Jesus, well then you are judged for all eternity to shame and everlasting contempt. Paul is not warning them that they need to repent in preparation of the day they die. While this is true, they do need to repent before they die, that isn't what Paul was saying. He said there is a singular day in which all of the world will be judged. Once you are judged, that is it, there is no more time for repentance. That day, that singular day, cannot be 70AD, because the Athenians still had opportunity to repent. Because they had not been judged yet.Those remaining alive after 70AD had still not been judged. You will be judged when you die or when the Lord returns bodily on the last day, whichever comes first. Consider Paul's reasoning in his sermon on Mars Hill. He says you believe there is a God out there that they didn't know about. Well, Paul agrees! He also believes there is a God out there that they don't know about. So Paul establishes a point of agreement from which to begin his argument. Perfectly logical and persuasive. Paul's next point is, if God created the world, then He exists before and apart from this world. Thus, God doesn't actually need anything from this world, which was in contrast to the pagan practices. Another logical, persuasive point. Paul quotes from one of their own writers that they believe we are the children of God. Paul agrees! But if we come from God, then that means that God didn't come from us. How can a man who creates a statue, an idol, then believe that what he just made was the very one who made him?! Paul's logic is powerful and inescapable! So Paul moves to his conclusion. This God who had not spoken to you in the past, is speaking to you now. You must therefore repent in preparation of the judgment day to come. Why should they believe Paul? Because he provides proof by pointing to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, probably providing arguments much like he did in 1 Cor. 15 & Galatians. If the day of judgment refers to the last day, the day of physical resurrection, when there can be no repentance afterwords, then his conclusion is powerful and inescapable, just like the rest of his argument. If the day of judgment refers to 70AD, then his conclusion has no force, and the logic falls flat. Paul's argument fails precisely at the most crucial point. But this was not the case, because both Paul and the Holy Spirit were smarter than that. Their argument is sound, and therefore must be referring to the day of resurrection yet to come. Daniel 12:1-2 not only points to the time of Jacob's trouble, the destruction of Jerusalem, but also the resurrection and the judgment. Again, there don't seem to be any gaps here either. It all takes place at the same time. I think Daniel 12 is talking about the 1st century, and therefore the "resurrection" in Dan. 12:2 did happen back in those days. I also believe John 5:25-29 hearkens back to Dan. 12:2, and talked about things that happened in that first century. I do not believe that those passages teach on the literal resurrection that will happen on the last day, however. In the context of John 5, I believe Jesus is talking about a figurative resurrection, about spiritual reform and life, vs. physical life (much like Ezekiel 37). In John 5, Jesus is saying that those who hear Him, believe Him, and follow Him, are saved - spiritual life. But in addition, those who heard and believed Jesus back then would receive more than just spiritual life (and the glorious physical resurrection yet to come). They received an exodus from the land of exile and a return to "Jerusalem." This ties in with my interpretation of Matt. 24 & 25. Those Jewish Christians who were still alive in 70AD believed Jesus' warnings and fled Jerusalem (Babylon), and were brought to the (New) Jerusalem, much like what you see in the "resurrection" in Ezekiel 37. That the "resurrection" of John 5 is not the same as the resurrection talked about in John 6 & 11 is that the John 5 passage is the only reference to resurrection in John that isn't explicitly connected to "the last day." I've already posted at length earlier on this thread how the context of John 11 (and therefore John 6) point to a physical resurrection yet to come, and is not connected to 70AD, so I will not rehash that here. If you will read or reread my posts on this thread, there is more than enough to refute full-preterism. I have made several points that none of you have been able to refute. From my research, no full-preterist is able to refute them. I can't even see how it is possible for full-preterism to refute them. If what I have already posted doesn't persuade you, then nothing else I say will. But I hope that, if you can't answer my points, you will consider that maybe, maybe full-preterism is wrong. The more I study full-preterism, the more I become convinced that it is a dangerous doctrine. To deny the resurrection of our bodies and the final judgment to come is to deny the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for Paul preached the Gospel there in Acts 17. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Mar 2, 2010 12:07:16 GMT -5
Hi Didymus, I'm glad you're feeling better, and good enough to respond to my post! Great! How is that? John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jssus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen Clearly there are many things which Jesus did we're not aware of, but believing in Jesus does not require we know all those things, just our willingness to accept them based upon our faith in him. I hope that makes sense. We do that by faith, because we can't truly know Jesus in totality, that's a great mystery (1 Timothy 3:16). I agree, 100%. I think not, however, I don't think anyone that believe on Jesus as their Lord and Saviour would reject him as their Master or anything about Jesus. Yes! Not until they believe Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for their sins, and rose from the dead (Romans 10:9,10). I now understand what you mean by partial faith, and agree that's not saving faith. I don't think you can knowingly reject anything in the written record. However, I think a person can reject the part about Jesus returning in AD 70 and still be saved. Futurist are just as saved as preterist and biblist (I'm the latter), eventhough they call us heretics, and declare we're not saved because they erroneously connect salvation to eschatological belief. We dare not make the same mistake. I don't believe you can deny Jesus is the Son of God, that he died for our sins and rose from the dead, and still have a home in heaven. That's just how I see it. Thanks, dear brother! You have a nice day too! The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 2, 2010 12:45:37 GMT -5
Hi Theophilus,
I am working on a rather large response to the many things you have said in this thread. I hope to have it up later today and certainly no later than tomorrow...
In the mean time, I am wondering if you could answer these four related questions:
Will those who had an amputated leg be resurrected physically with two legs?
Will those who had one blind eye be resurrected physically with two good eyes?
Will those who had burns over 80% of their body be resurrected physically without burns?
Will those who had horrible scars be resurrected physically without these scars?
Here is one last question concerning Christ:
Can you briefly explain what is meant by the term "firstfruits" in 1 Corinthians 15:20?
1 Corinthians 15:20 - But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
Thank you...
If you don't mind, I will post my response after you answer those five questions from above. I don't think they will take much effort in answering, will they?
|
|
