|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Mar 10, 2010 12:16:54 GMT -5
Theo, The Judge who was already standing at the door in those days was about to come upon Israel in judgment. This testimony when it came would prove to the whole world that Jesus is the Judge of all men. Once that occurred all men would know they faced the same judgment in the day of their death. With no more gathering in death to sleep in the hadean realm, men would find themselves alive to bow the knee to Christ where they would face the judgment and the 2nd death. This is the resurrection of the dead to which the Athenians had no clue they must face. The one in which Christ had been the first to rise. And not only rise from the dead but who also ascended to the throne of God as the Judge of men. Paul's discourse to these men is that they might now know the unknown God they intended to worship, by knowing the truth of the matter they now faced because of their idolatry. To the Jew first and then the Gentile, also applies to the judgment - as well as the resurrection. Both of which could be known in the earth that it had come by the signs that were given. Which is why men must repent now - in this life. Where in scripture will you find signs for a future 2nd coming? And who is going to come to warn you beforehand the time is now nigh? John the baptist already came to announce the day of the Lord. Where will you find another prophet like him that is to come? Because The Prophet who Moses spoke of which John announced was the Lamb of God has already made His earthly appearance - and that according to the scriptures which spoke about Him. If the Olivet Discourse is not Jesus' teaching about that last day which came upon Israel, then there must be some other distinct passage that the whole world must hear! Since that is the message we ought to be able to preach and teach the world who needs to be warned it is coming soon... While I wait for your answer, I am getting out my old end of the world sign so I can add the scripture to it...Let me know if you find it!  |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Mar 11, 2010 13:19:23 GMT -5
The Lord is no respecter of persons, he rescued us from the street called futurist, and set our feet on a street called preterist/biblist! True, and God still forgive those that sin ignorantly and repent, including saved futurist, preterist, biblist or whatever... 1 John 1:8 If WE say that We have no sin, We deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If WE confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive US our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Didymus, John spoke those words to saved people, agree or disagree? ;D Blessings to you, Sower~ Yes, John wrote to saved people. So, even saved people are not beyond sin. But, we still need to repent.  |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 11, 2010 17:27:43 GMT -5
MoGrace2U, you still have not addressed my argument. Paul told the Athenians that they needed to repent before the day of judgment comes. Once that day comes, there will be no more opportunity to repent.
Paul is not talking about the day that each of his hearers will die, for he says the whole world will be judged on the same day.
The whole world was not judged in 70AD, only the Jews of that time and place who rejected Jesus.
So we see that the day of judgment mentioned in Acts 17:31 is not the day you die, and it is not 70AD.
So I ask you, what day is that day of judgment, when the whole world will be judged together? When all nations and generations will be raised up, and be judged together on the same day? See Matt. 11:22-24 & Matt. 12:41-42, in addition to Acts 17.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 11, 2010 17:45:55 GMT -5
Maybe the "day" of judgment is an era that began with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Isn't that the sense of the word "day" in this verse:
(Mark 2:20 NASB) "But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.
"in that day" is not referring to a single day, but the time after the bridegroom is taken away.
John 16:25-26 NASB
(25) "These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father.
(26) "In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I will request of the Father on your behalf;
Again, does "in that day" refer to one specific day, or to a time period that will commence after a certain event?
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 11, 2010 21:04:23 GMT -5
Again, does "in that day" refer to one specific day, or to a time period that will commence after a certain event? I do not believe so. In the passages you cite, the phrase "in that day" is used. Phrases like "in that day," or "back in the day," can easily be understood to refer to an undefined period of time. But that isn't the way "day" is used in Acts 17:31. There, Paul refers to " a day," which indicates a single day. Not only is it "a day," but it is a day that has been "fixed." The word is istemi, and according to Thayer's, it means to make firm, fix, establish, to cause a person or thing to keep his or its place, to establish a thing, cause it to stand, to uphold or sustain the authority or force of any thing, to ratify, confirm, to appoint. Compare Acts 17:31's description with other passages that deal with the final, world-wide judgment. John 11:24 "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." The resurrection is physical, because it was not enough for Jesus to merely raise a dead person to prove his words in John 11:25-26. He had to raise someone dead four days, when the body has begun to rot, in order to prove He was the One who would raise up the dead and rotted bodies on the last day. Jesus' words in John 11:25-26 is another way of saying what is found in 1 Thess. 4:16-17 & 1 Cor. 15:51-52. 1 Thess. 4:13-18 obviously refers to the same thing as 1 Cor. 15. How long does it take for this resurrection to occur? " In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye." It will happen at "Christ's coming, then comes the end." There is no sign of a gap of time nor of an ongoing period of time. " The end" comes the same day as the resurrection, since death and Hades (the realm of disembodied spirits) are defeated when all people are transformed and raised in immortal bodies. Thus there is no more physical death, and no more need for Hades (a place for spirits separated from their bodies). Matt. 11:22-24 refers to a day when the people of Tyre, Sidon, Sodom, & the Jews of Jesus' day will all be judged "in [the] day of judgment." Matt. 12:41-42 says people that are long dead will rise up (be resurrected) with the Jews of Jesus' day "at the judgment." There are multiple passages that describe the judgment of the whole world, all nations, all generations, on the same day, at the very same judgment, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 12, 2010 10:37:53 GMT -5
Again, does "in that day" refer to one specific day, or to a time period that will commence after a certain event? Bev Hi Bev! For the last few years I have been teaching myself to critically examine what I believe, and mellontes has been a person that has really helped to put that in full effect for me. So here is my criticism (as in 'critique', not in the negative sense); what is the difference between referring to "that day" as an extended period and the dispensational claim that the "last days" refer to an extended period? |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Mar 12, 2010 11:40:44 GMT -5
MoGrace2U, you still have not addressed my argument. Paul told the Athenians that they needed to repent before the day of judgment comes. Once that day comes, there will be no more opportunity to repent. Paul is not talking about the day that each of his hearers will die, for he says the whole world will be judged on the same day.The whole world was not judged in 70AD, only the Jews of that time and place who rejected Jesus. So we see that the day of judgment mentioned in Acts 17:31 is not the day you die, and it is not 70AD. So I ask you, what day is that day of judgment, when the whole world will be judged together? When all nations and generations will be raised up, and be judged together on the same day? See Matt. 11:22-24 & Matt. 12:41-42, in addition to Acts 17. You mean the day when God no longer winks at the sin of idolatry? That day is here, don't you know? Jesus is Lord! |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Mar 12, 2010 11:55:57 GMT -5
The Lord is no respecter of persons, he rescued us from the street called futurist, and set our feet on a street called preterist/biblist! True, and God still forgive those that sin ignorantly and repent, including saved futurist, preterist, biblist or whatever... 1 John 1:8 If WE say that We have no sin, We deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If WE confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive US our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Didymus, John spoke those words to saved people, agree or disagree? ;D Blessings to you, Sower~ Yes, John wrote to saved people. So, even saved people are not beyond sin. But, we still need to repent. True! The Sower~ |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Mar 12, 2010 14:56:21 GMT -5
Again, does "in that day" refer to one specific day, or to a time period that will commence after a certain event? Bev Hi Bev! For the last few years I have been teaching myself to critically examine what I believe, and mellontes has been a person that has really helped to put that in full effect for me. So here is my criticism (as in 'critique', not in the negative sense); what is the difference between referring to "that day" as an extended period and the dispensational claim that the "last days" refer to an extended period? Good point, Morris. Bev |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 12, 2010 17:43:44 GMT -5
You mean the day when God no longer winks at the sin of idolatry? That day is here, don't you know? Jesus is Lord! I want to make sure I understand you correctly. 1. Are you saying that the "day" that was "fixed," as found in Acts 17:31, refers not to a day, but to a period of time that began in 70AD and continues on, presumably for billions of years until the universe experiences heat death? 2. Are you saying that, until the first century, God didn't condemn and judge idolatry among the Gentiles? |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 15, 2010 9:02:42 GMT -5
Hi Bev! For the last few years I have been teaching myself to critically examine what I believe, and mellontes has been a person that has really helped to put that in full effect for me. Morris, I would steer clear of Mellontes. Why? Consider the link he provided earlier: preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/question-by-a-partialpreterist?xg_source=activity&id=4171784%3ABlogPost%3A8906&page=1#commentsIn it is a post from a "William Bell." In Bell's post, Bell says this (emphasis added): What Bell is saying is that the redemption, the atonement for sin, wasn't completed until 70AD when the Temple was destroyed. What this means is that atonement was not completed at the cross in 30AD! NO!Bell, presumably compelled by the false doctrine of full-preterism, is led to believe Heb. 9:8 is referring to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. There is only one problem with this interpretation - the context. Heb. 9:3-5, Hebrews is clearly describing the Holy of Holies as prepared on the Day of Atonement, the day when the High Priest makes atonement for the sins of God's people. So in Heb. 9:7-8 is dealing with not the whole Temple, but the Holy of Holies, that which is beyond the veil. The veil separated God from man. As long as that veil remained standing, the work of salvation had not yet been completed. But when was the work of salvation completed? In 30AD, at the cross of Christ. According to Matt. 27:51 & Mark 15:37-38, the veil that separated man from God was torn apart, removed! What was Jesus' cry? "It is finished!" John 19:30. Jesus didn't say "It will be finished within this generation!" He didn't say "It will be finished when the Temple is torn down!" He said it was finished, PERIOD. There was nothing else to add. The path to the Holy of Holies, the work of salvation, was all completed at the cross of Christ. 70AD, the destruction of the earthly Temple, in no way completed the atonement for sin, it was already done. That is why, in Heb. 10:19-22, pre-70AD, the Hebrew writer says that Christians at that time, while the Temple was still standing, they already had confidence to enter into the Holy of Holies. What Bell says could not be done until 70AD, Hebrews said it was already done. Therefore, the Hebrew writer could not be talking about the destruction of the Temple, but the destruction of the veil. Where does that confidence and permission to enter into the presence of God come from? "By a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil." What is the "new and living way" which brings us through the veil, into the Holy of Holies? "His flesh," that is the body of Christ on the cross. Compare Bell's (and presumably mellontes') view with GalatiansIn Galatia, there were false teachers who preached the cross wasn't enough. Rather, they said the cross + circumcision = salvation. Read Galatians, Paul's response to this! Paul responds that, if anyone holds to this teaching, they "have been severed from Christ," they "have fallen from grace!" Gal. 5:4. In Gal. 6:14-15, Paul says "But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." It isn't the cross + something, it isn't the cross + 70AD, it is the cross alone. It is about being a "new creation." Paul was already a new creation, he didn't have to wait until 70AD, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature [creation], the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." Paul became a new creature, a new creation, was reborn, born again, born of the water and the Spirit, being crucified with Christ and dying with Christ when he was baptized into Christ (Acts 22:16), all of which was before 70AD! What is mellontes' response to all this? "Thank you everyone for your answers and comments!" Including Bell's blasphemous comment! But mellontes does have one question about Bell's comment. Not about how his interpretation undermines the cross of Christ, but merely a question about the Roman empire: "The Roman Empire existed for quite some time afterward...unless I have missed something here... " Are you kidding me?! Bell said: It isn't clear to me whether Bell is directing this sentence to the cross, or the day of judgment mentioned in Acts 17:31. I have already addressed Matthew 24 & 25 in a thread here in its own thread. Matt. 23:35 isn't talking about the judging of all generations previous to 70AD, it is only talking about the judgment of one generation, that generation (see Matt. 23:36). Abel & Zechariah are the first and last righteous people murdered in the Holy Land, as recorded in the OT. What Jesus was saying was that all of the curses from the breaking of the Old Covenant, as found in the OT, would come upon that very generation. Notice in Matthew 24 & 25, in addition to the corresponding passages in Mark & Luke, there are no references to the judging of the world, judging of all previous generations, the rapture, the resurrection of the dead, the final and total defeat over death and Hades, none of that is present in the Olivet Discourse (see my Matt. 24 & 25 thread). Why? Because none of those things happened in 70AD! All, I repeat, all of those things will happen at the Second Coming, which is still to come. Let us return to Hebrews chapter 9, particularly Heb. 9:27-28. This is not talking about 70AD, as Bell believes, but is referring to the Second Coming. People only die once, then comes the judgment. Why do people only die once? Because at the last judgment, the Second Coming, all will be raised up in immortal bodies. There will be no more physical death, there will be no more disembodied spirits, thus there death and Hades will be destroyed once and for all. What is "the judgment"? It is the day when all nations and generations will be raised up and judged together - Matt. 11:22-24, Matt. 12:41-42, Acts 17:30-32, etc. etc. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 15, 2010 10:18:50 GMT -5
Hi Bev! For the last few years I have been teaching myself to critically examine what I believe, and mellontes has been a person that has really helped to put that in full effect for me. Morris, I would steer clear of Mellontes. Why? Consider the link he provided earlier: preterismdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/question-by-a-partialpreterist?xg_source=activity&id=4171784%3ABlogPost%3A8906&page=1#commentsIn it is a post from a "William Bell." In Bell's post, Bell says this (emphasis added): What Bell is saying is that the redemption, the atonement for sin, wasn't completed until 70AD when the Temple was destroyed. What this means is that atonement was not completed at the cross in 30AD! NO!Bell, presumably compelled by the false doctrine of full-preterism, is led to believe Heb. 9:8 is referring to the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. There is only one problem with this interpretation - the context. Heb. 9:3-5, Hebrews is clearly describing the Holy of Holies as prepared on the Day of Atonement, the day when the High Priest makes atonement for the sins of God's people. So in Heb. 9:7-8 is dealing with not the whole Temple, but the Holy of Holies, that which is beyond the veil. The veil separated God from man. As long as that veil remained standing, the work of salvation had not yet been completed. But when was the work of salvation completed? In 30AD, at the cross of Christ. According to Matt. 27:51 & Mark 15:37-38, the veil that separated man from God was torn apart, removed! What was Jesus' cry? "It is finished!" John 19:30. Jesus didn't say "It will be finished within this generation!" He didn't say "It will be finished when the Temple is torn down!" He said it was finished, PERIOD. There was nothing else to add. The path to the Holy of Holies, the work of salvation, was all completed at the cross of Christ. 70AD, the destruction of the earthly Temple, in no way completed the atonement for sin, it was already done. That is why, in Heb. 10:19-22, pre-70AD, the Hebrew writer says that Christians at that time, while the Temple was still standing, they already had confidence to enter into the Holy of Holies. What Bell says could not be done until 70AD, Hebrews said it was already done. Therefore, the Hebrew writer could not be talking about the destruction of the Temple, but the destruction of the veil. Where does that confidence and permission to enter into the presence of God come from? "By a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil." What is the "new and living way" which brings us through the veil, into the Holy of Holies? "His flesh," that is the body of Christ on the cross. Compare Bell's (and presumably mellontes') view with GalatiansIn Galatia, there were false teachers who preached the cross wasn't enough. Rather, they said the cross + circumcision = salvation. Read Galatians, Paul's response to this! Paul responds that, if anyone holds to this teaching, they "have been severed from Christ," they "have fallen from grace!" Gal. 5:4. In Gal. 6:14-15, Paul says "But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation." It isn't the cross + something, it isn't the cross + 70AD, it is the cross alone. It is about being a "new creation." Paul was already a new creation, he didn't have to wait until 70AD, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature [creation], the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." Paul became a new creature, a new creation, was reborn, born again, born of the water and the Spirit, being crucified with Christ and dying with Christ when he was baptized into Christ (Acts 22:16), all of which was before 70AD! What is mellontes' response to all this? "Thank you everyone for your answers and comments!" Including Bell's blasphemous comment! But mellontes does have one question about Bell's comment. Not about how his interpretation undermines the cross of Christ, but merely a question about the Roman empire: "The Roman Empire existed for quite some time afterward...unless I have missed something here... " Are you kidding me?! Bell said: It isn't clear to me whether Bell is directing this sentence to the cross, or the day of judgment mentioned in Acts 17:31. I have already addressed Matthew 24 & 25 in a thread here in its own thread. Matt. 23:35 isn't talking about the judging of all generations previous to 70AD, it is only talking about the judgment of one generation, that generation (see Matt. 23:36). Abel & Zechariah are the first and last righteous people murdered in the Holy Land, as recorded in the OT. What Jesus was saying was that all of the curses from the breaking of the Old Covenant, as found in the OT, would come upon that very generation. Notice in Matthew 24 & 25, in addition to the corresponding passages in Mark & Luke, there are no references to the judging of the world, judging of all previous generations, the rapture, the resurrection of the dead, the final and total defeat over death and Hades, none of that is present in the Olivet Discourse (see my Matt. 24 & 25 thread). Why? Because none of those things happened in 70AD! All, I repeat, all of those things will happen at the Second Coming, which is still to come. Let us return to Hebrews chapter 9, particularly Heb. 9:27-28. This is not talking about 70AD, as Bell believes, but is referring to the Second Coming. People only die once, then comes the judgment. Why do people only die once? Because at the last judgment, the Second Coming, all will be raised up in immortal bodies. There will be no more physical death, there will be no more disembodied spirits, thus there death and Hades will be destroyed once and for all. What is "the judgment"? It is the day when all nations and generations will be raised up and judged together - Matt. 11:22-24, Matt. 12:41-42, Acts 17:30-32, etc. etc. Thank you for you kind words, Theophilus... Your theology, at least according to your own words, seems to indicate that the entire redemptive act was complete when Jesus Christ uttered the words "It is finished." This indicates a complete lack of insight on your part. I find it absolutely impossible to believe that Christ's resurrection was NOT part of His redemptive act, as you have clearly stated is not part. The sacrifice and offering of The Lamb was what was finished. There was more to come, but not according to you. So sad... And all this coming from someone who thinks "resurrection" is the raising of a dead corpse from the ground or from wherever it died - even corpses that have completely disintegrated! (taphonomy). I don't imagine you will ever accept the fact that resurrection means a raising from death to life WHILE A PERSON IS STILL ALIVE as in the following two passages: 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. This is why Jesus was the Resurrection and Life: John 11:25 - Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: In order to do what Jesus Christ just commanded to be done, a person must be alive when he "believes." Do you think otherwise? Your theology states that redemption can not even begin to occur until a person physically dies. My Bible states that it MUST occur BEFORE physical death, unless you believe like some Universalists who think a person can still make it into eternal life AFTER death... Our resurrection is patterned after Christ's resurrection, and if the authoritative apostles say we are raised from death unto life while we are yet alive, then THE EMPHASIS IS NOT UPON PHYSICAL RESURRECTION as all you futurists maintain... Remember what Jesus said to Martha: " ...whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (John 11:26) Are you gonna die one day Theo? According to your resurrection theology, you MUST die. Christ's view is quite OPPOSITE to yours; He says a believer will NEVER die. I believe Jesus and certainly not you... |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Mar 15, 2010 11:57:02 GMT -5
You mean the day when God no longer winks at the sin of idolatry? That day is here, don't you know? Jesus is Lord! I want to make sure I understand you correctly. 1. Are you saying that the "day" that was "fixed," as found in Acts 17:31, refers not to a day, but to a period of time that began in 70AD and continues on, presumably for billions of years until the universe experiences heat death? 2. Are you saying that, until the first century, God didn't condemn and judge idolatry among the Gentiles? The coming day of judgment was forordained before the world began. That that day had arrived which was when the dead would be raised, was revealed as here by God raising up Jesus as the Firstfruits of that resurrection. We need not be concerned of any other day than that yet to come, for that is the sign witness we have been given that the Last Day came in with Jesus' appearance into our world. That incarnate appearance both before and after the cross is proof positive when that day had arrived. Rom 4:25 - Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. Until Christ came, died and rose again, no man was yet condemned by his sins at his death. Hence the reason the day was tied to Christ. Now we can know that judgment awaits the unrepentant sinner when he dies because Jesus is the Judge to whom every knee bows, in death, to His judgment. As long as there are men who are born and die in this world, judgment continues whether in this life or the one to come. Which is why it is better to be judged now than later. That is what the good news of the gospel is all about - how your sins can be forgiven now because at death it is too late for any man to repent and bring forth any fruit that he has done so. But as believers our fruit remains, whereas no good works of the unbeliever will survive the fires of death for his elocution of the good he had done while alive. As he will have nothing to show for himself in his nakedness except his sin which remains upon him. Those Athenians who heard Paul speak the truth of who Jesus is, were now being held accountable for their idolatry. It is why Paul called such men to repentance and faith in Christ. The hearing of the gospel is the beginning of that same judgment which begins in this life (Rom 10:17). It is why His gospel is preached in all the world in every generation. Because the answer men give to 'who do men say that I Am', are the very words that will judge them. That right confession that Jesus is the Christ is the rock of faith upon which the Church is built. Which confession brings the reward of eternal life to the soul who is thus saved and receives the times of refreshing by the Spirit of Truth. Which unless such things are received in this life, will not be found by those who reject that gospel and the only Name under heaven given to men by which they must be saved. Ye must be born again! The kingdom of God is here and nothing that defiles can enter into it. So unless your sins have been wiped out beforehand, they will be all you have to show for your life when you stand before the Judge. And for those who say they didn't know Him, their works toward His brethren will show whether their hope for eternal life was genuine or not. Which you can't help but see that every religion has some idea about. Even going so far as Islam to declare in their 'scriptures' that God has no Son - shows they heard that He does! So yes, it seems clear to me that the day God fixed for the judgment of the world arrived with Christ who proclaimed it. What 70AD accomplished was when the nations would know that judgment from God had commenced and that Jesus is Lord of all, by that which came first upon Israel. Thus it is part of His testimony that we have to share in every generation that all men face this same judgment of fire. With Israel, as always, setting the example of what men can expect who forsake the true God and His Christ! |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 15, 2010 13:04:19 GMT -5
Your theology, at least according to your own words, seems to indicate that the entire redemptive act was complete when Jesus Christ uttered the words "It is finished." The sad part about the veil that was torn asunder back in 30AD is, the priests probably sewed it back up the next day. God's wrath had just been satisfied by Jesus' death on the cross, and the priests said it wasn't so. And you 70AD folks say the same thing. "Let's sew up the veil, because access to the Holy of Holies hadn't been established yet." Bell said, and apparently you agree, that the path into the Holy of Holies wasn't established until 70AD. Which is a lie. I have already proven the veil was taken care of back at the cross. You have no answer for the tearing of the veil back in 30AD, nor do you have an answer for the context of Hebrews 9 & 10. This indicates a complete lack of insight on your part. I find it absolutely impossible to believe that Christ's resurrection was NOT part of His redemptive act, as you have clearly stated is not part. Jesus was not resurrected to atone for our sins, He was crucified in order to atone for our sins. Our sins did not demand a resurrection, but a death, for the wages of sin is death. And all this coming from someone who thinks "resurrection" is the raising of a dead corpse from the ground or from wherever it died - even corpses that have completely disintegrated! (taphonomy). Ah, the same attack Paul anticipated in 1 Cor. 15:35-36. The same attack made by Sower. And now, the same attack made by you. Paul called such people fools, and I am inclined to agree with him. You seem to think God is incapable of fully restoring decayed corpses. Jesus, when responding to the Sadducees (who like you, deny the physical resurrection), said "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God." You quote from John chapter 11. You quote it out of context, much like Bell misquoted Hebrews 9. For the actual context of John 11, see an earlier post of mine in this thread that goes into great detail concerning that chapter. In order to establish that Jesus is the resurrection on the last day, He feels the need to raise up a dead person to serve as a sign, to serve as the proof of that statement. But if you read it carefully, it wasn't enough to raise a dead person, He had to raise someone that had been dead no less than four days. Why four days? Because in that climate, the body began to stink on the fourth day. See my much earlier post for more detail. Thus to prove Jesus was the source of the resurrection on the last day, He had to raise not merely a dead body, but a dead body that had already decayed.By this miracle, Jesus proved that He not only could raise the dead (for He had already raised up other dead people), but that He could also raise up the dead and decayed. As far as the Gospels go, this is the only resurrection recorded of a rotted body. Obviously, if Jesus can raise up a partially decomposed body, how is it you say He cannot raise up a thoroughly decomposed body? If Jesus, who created all humans from scratch (John 1:1-3), if He created our bodies from scratch in the first place, how is it that you maintain it is impossible for Him to rebuild our bodies from scratch, if need be? The resurrection of the dead is no joke. Your theology states that redemption can not even begin to occur until a person physically dies. My Bible states that it MUST occur BEFORE physical death, unless you believe like some Universalists who think a person can still make it into eternal life AFTER death... People are spiritually made alive when, by faith, they are baptized into Christ. At this point, they receive the Holy Spirit, who will also raise their mortal bodies later - Rom. 8:10-11. Our resurrection is patterned after Christ's resurrection, and if the authoritative apostles say we are raised from death unto life while we are yet alive, then THE EMPHASIS IS NOT UPON PHYSICAL RESURRECTION as all you futurists maintain... Jesus' resurrection was a physical resurrection. Therefore, it is absolutely inconceivable that our resurrection could possibly be physical as well! Er, wait a minute... There is spiritual life, but there is also physical life. Jesus is the source of both. You continually deemphasize the importance of the physical, just like the Gnostics who John wrote his Gospel against. Are you gonna die one day Theo? Yes, unless the Second Coming comes first. According to your resurrection theology, you MUST die. Not so, see John 11:26, 1 Cor. 15:51-52, & 1 Thess. 4:15-17. Those who remain alive at the Second Coming will bypass death altogether, and be transformed into an immortal body. See my earlier post on this thread about John chapter 21. Christ's view is quite OPPOSITE to yours; He says a believer will NEVER die. Actually, He said that those who die will live even if he dies. Those who are alive (on the last day, the day of resurrection, see the context!) will never die. Because they will be transformed. I believe Jesus and certainly not you... Except the part where Jesus inspired His Apostles and prophets to record that the path to the Holy of Holies was established in 30AD instead of 70AD. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 15, 2010 13:15:22 GMT -5
So, your Gospel does not include the resurrection then...I understand now.
Just noticed this comment of yours (my emphasis added):
"Thus to prove Jesus was the source of the resurrection on the last day, He had to raise not merely a dead body, but a dead body that had already decayed."
Even despite Acts 2:31??? Wow!
See ya.
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 15, 2010 13:28:22 GMT -5
Now we can know that judgment awaits the unrepentant sinner when he dies because Jesus is the Judge to whom every knee bows, in death, to His judgment. As long as there are men who are born and die in this world, judgment continues whether in this life or the one to come. Your interpretation of Acts 17 is incompatible with what Paul says in Romans chapter 1: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them."Is Paul only applying this to the Gentiles after the resurrection of Christ? No, read on: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."So we see that idolatry was always condemned by God, even for those who never received the Law of Moses or the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Why? Because you don't need revelation to understand an idol is not a god. Common sense tells you the statue you made isn't the One who made you! Which is exactly Paul's argument in Acts 17:28-29, leading to the "overlooking ignorance" passage. What does "overlooking the times of ignorance" mean?So if your interpretation is not what Paul meant in Acts 17:30, then what did Paul mean? Compare it to 1 Tim. 1:12-14. Paul said he was shown mercy because he acted "ignorantly" in unbelief. That is, he didn't persecute Christianity because he believed it was from God, he did it because he sincerely believed Christianity went against God's will (Acts 26:9). There was no malicious intent. That doesn't mean Paul wasn't guilty before God, he was, it just means he wasn't intentionally violating the will of God like many of his Pharisee brethren did. Even though Paul was "foremost of all" sinners, nevertheless, because he sinned in ignorance, Jesus had mercy on Him and taught Him the Gospel. The exact same thing was happening there in Athens. These Athenian pagans didn't practice idolatry in spite of the Law of Moses, for they had never received it. Thus their idolatry, while sin, isn't as grave a sin as those who received the Law of Moses and still practiced idolatry. See Matt. 11:21-24. Both were condemned, but one would receive greater condemnation than the other. Even though the Athenians had sinned against God and provoked Him with their idolatry, He was still willing to share with them the Gospel of salvation, so that they might repent and be saved from the coming judgment. What 70AD accomplished was when the nations would know that judgment from God had commenced and that Jesus is Lord of all, by that which came first upon Israel. Thus it is part of His testimony that we have to share in every generation that all men face this same judgment of fire. With Israel, as always, setting the example of what men can expect who forsake the true God and His Christ! The proof Paul gives to the Athenians isn't 70AD, but the resurrection of Christ, see Acts 17:31 & Matt. 12:39-40. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 15, 2010 13:33:33 GMT -5
So, your Gospel does not include the resurrection then...I understand now. The Gospel is more than the atonement of sin, it includes the new life that comes after dying to sin. So yes, the Gospel includes the resurrection of the dead. The Gospel is the source of eternal spiritual and physical life. "Thus to prove Jesus was the source of the resurrection on the last day, He had to raise not merely a dead body, but a dead body that had already decayed." Even despite Acts 2:31??? Wow! Wow indeed! See my earlier post in this thread where I go into detail about John 11, the significance of decay on the fourth day, and what this has to say about Jesus' resurrection and Psalm 16:10, which is quoted in Acts 2:31. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 15, 2010 14:28:32 GMT -5
The proof Paul gives to the Athenians isn't 70AD, but the resurrection of Christ, see Acts 17:31 & Matt. 12:39-40. It's okay...I understand why you won't address Acts 2:31 DIRECTLY... I am under the impression that signs were for the Jews. And if that be true, please explain how the sign from Matthew 12:39-40 would be proof to the Athenians which you yourself classify as Gentiles... Matthew 12:39-40 - But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. It is obvious by the context that the generation who saw this sign was the first century generation. It is also obvious that is concerned the first century generation of JEWS. It was reiterated again in Matthew 16:4: Matthew 16:4 - A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. This would be the same generation that Jesus spoke of in Matthew 17:17... Matthew 17:17 - Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. So far, you have an evil, wicked, adulterous, faithless and perverse generation. Was Jesus speaking about the future or was He describing the JEWS He was speaking to? Sure hope you know the answer to that one because it keeps getting better... The next time Jesus uses that nasty "generation" word is in Matthew 23, and He uses it twice. Who is Jesus addressing here? People in the future or those nasty accusing Pharisees indicative of the Jews at THAT time? Matthew 23:33 - Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Or how about here? Matthew 23:36 - Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. Yet you believe that the generation from Matthew 24:34 does NOT match the generation from Matthew 23 and the passages above. Why is that? Please explain from Scripture where Jesus now introduces a "new" meaning for "generation" and a new meaning for the pronoun "this." The disciples had been traveling with Him ever since Matthew 12 and knew fully what he mean by the generation he had been encountering...or doesn't that help you??? |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 15, 2010 14:45:48 GMT -5
Why should I steer clear of a brother in Christ? But let me clarify something, when I said that "mellontes has been a person that has really helped to put that in full effect for me", what I was referring to is that he challenged me to examine what I personally believe. I was urged to examine the many statements of nearness regarding Christ returning that I previously 'overlooked'. He has given me an opportunity to see new truths in scripture (as I see them that is) and I thank him for that. I can see the relevance of 70 AD in many passages and in some I don't. I don't consider myself a preterist. Honestly, I would have to say I am in general agreement with your post. |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 15, 2010 16:19:30 GMT -5
mellontes, I do not need to redefine "generation" or anything else.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was the defining proof to the Jews of His day.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was the defining proof to the Athenians of Paul's day (Acts 17:31 - "having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead").
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the defining proof of Christianity to this day.
How can it be proof to those in a different place and/or time? The logical argumentation on the basis of the evidence. We get a sample of Paul's argumentation in places like 1 Cor. 15:1-19, Gal. 1:10-23 & 6:17, and throughout the book of Acts.
In fact, these same arguments are still being used to demonstrate the fact of Jesus' resurrection by modern day apologists such as Gary Habermas and William Lane Craig. And such arguments are still able to win debates against skeptics even to this day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 15, 2010 16:26:29 GMT -5
Why should I steer clear of a brother in Christ? He denies that the cross was sufficient for the atonement for sin. He teaches the cross + 70AD = atonement for sin. How is that not the height of heresy? I can see the relevance of 70 AD in many passages and in some I don't. I don't consider myself a preterist. In that much, we are in complete agreement. I also believe the 70AD folks have gotten a lot of things right that many Christians have wrong. These past 2-3 months that I have been studying these things, I have learned a great deal. But even though they are, perhaps, right about more things than they are wrong, they are wrong about some very important things, things that affect salvation. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 15, 2010 21:16:11 GMT -5
Luke 21:28 – And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
Romans 8:23 – And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
Ephesians 1:13-14 – In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Ephesians 4:30 – And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both aspects of redemption appear in the first century church – the already and the not yet.
Luke 21:28 is clearly alive people waiting for redemption. Dead corpses don’t look in any direction – they are dead.
Romans 8:23 is a most argued passage. “Our body,” a plural possessive and singular object, has been used to refer to 1) the human body and 2) the corporate church – the body of Christ. This verse expresses a wait time for those having the first fruits of the Spirit. Because of this wait time, it is believed by many that it is the physical body after death that gets redeemed. Contrariwise, the wait time, which is expressed to all believers as a whole, and in conjunction with the timing of Luke 21:23, occurs at the Parousia – an event full-preterists believe occurred in 70 AD after the passing of the old covenant economy.
Ephesians 1:13-14 speaks of those sealed with the Spirit of promise much like Romans 8:23’s “firstfruit of the Spirit” “which is the earnest (or guarantee) of our (plural) inheritance UNTIL the redemption of the purchased possession.” This necessitates the question, “What is the purchased possession?” Is it the church or is it the individual believer? The answer is very important because the first view lends itself to a corporate body and the second, a singular body.
Acts 20:28 seems to represent the purchased possession as being the church:
Acts 20:28 – Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
The other references are always with a plural context and do not seem to differentiate much from individuals or a collective body.
Ephesians 4:30 merely states a future happening of redemption due to the Spirit’s sealing.
In my opinion, the NT speaks of redemption as a singular event. I do not believe there are two redemptions, one for the soul/spirit and one for the dead and decayed/decaying/disintegrated corpse. It is the personage of a person which gets redeemed, not the human tissue portion…How many times must a person be redeemed in order to be redeemed?
Here is a great verse that is often used in error to posit an emphasis upon the physical resurrection:
Romans 6:5 – For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
Paul is speaking in the past tense to his PRESENT audience. The first point he makes is their past tense “likeness of his death.” Now, it should be blatantly obvious that these folks to whom Paul is addressing were quite ALIVE and in no way had ANY likeness with Christ’s “physical” death. This one point alone is so important but it is totally ignored by the vast majority. What possible “likeness of His death” could Paul’s audience have had? It most certainly was not physical death!
And here is the kicker. Paul likens the first portion (“likeness of His death”) with the second portion (“likeness of His resurrection”). Note, if the first portion is not physical death (and it most assuredly is not), then the second portion cannot be likened to Christ’s PHYSICAL resurrection!
However, if the first portion speaks about death as in separation from God (spiritual death, sin death), then it is easily possible to associate this condition with those presently living – Paul’s audience, as the following two verses clearly indicate:
Ephesians 2:1 – And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Ephesians 2:5 – Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Colossians 2:13 – And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Now, the part which the anti-prets do not like. It is the second part of Romans 6:5. Paul likens the first part to the second part. The second part is strictly conditional on the first part being true – “IF we have been planted together in the likeness of His death.” The first part, as we have just demonstrated, cannot be physical death. Therefore, the expanded passage should read like this:
Option 1: For those who believe the believer’s resurrection is patterned after Christ’s physical resurrection:
“For if we have been planted together in Christ’s physical death, then we shall be also in His physical resurrection.”
Option 2: For those who believe the believer’s resurrection is an invisible, spiritual reality and having nothing to do with the human body:
“For if we have been planted together in Christ’s spiritual death, then we shall be also in His spiritual resurrection.”
We have already proven option 1 is false because there is no way they had experienced ANY type of physical death and managed to be alive. Option 2 has a few supporting verses regarding this exact type of 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.
It all depends upon the definition of death. This is one word we should NOT look up in our contemporary dictionaries. I think it is the most misunderstood word when its context is sin or resurrection.
How could Jonah's 3 day stay in the belly of a fish be a sign if the physical resurrection is the important thing. The Jews would not require a sign for something so obvious as that. Signs were things typifying that which had taken place and were not evident. How could the sign be the event?
|
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 16, 2010 10:29:34 GMT -5
Luke 21:28 – And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh. I have already dealt with this verse in my Matthew 24 & 25 thread. In it, I show how all of Matthew 24 & 25 is talking (only) about 70AD. I also show that nowhere in Jesus' Olivet Discourse - as recorded in Matthew, Mark, & Luke - does Jesus ever speak of the rapture, the resurrection, the judgment of the whole world, judging all nations & generations, or the final defeat over death & Hades. But here's a recap. Luke 21:28 corresponds to Matt. 24:31 & Mark 13:27. I have shown that, in context, the "elect" being gathered is not all the righteous, but the Jewish Christians in the vicinity of Jerusalem at the time of that judgment. They were gathered together in a place called Pella. If you want to continue to argue these points, I recommend doing it in the Matthew 24 & 25 thread. So in the context of Matt. 24:31 & Mark 13:27, it is not referring to the rapture (as found in 1 Thess. 4:13-18), but to something else. Jesus said, "straighten up and lift up your heads." "Straighten up" comes from the Greek word anakupto, which (according to Thayer's) means "to raise or lift one's self up." Metaphorically, it means "to be elated, exalted." So the elect are to cheer up, stand straight, hold their heads up high. Don't look downtrodden! Why should the elect cheer up? "Because your redemption is drawing near." The word translated "redemption" is apolutrosis, which is defined by Thayer's as "a releasing effected by payment of ransom; redemption, deliverance, liberation procured by the payment of a ransom." While this can refer to the redemption of one's spirit or body, it does not necessarily refer to this. In fact, this very same word is used in Heb. 11:35, where it clearly does not refer to spiritual salvation, nor the resurrection of the body, whether spirit or flesh. While talking about the heroes of faith, Heb. 11:35 said "others were tortured, not accepting their apolutrosis." The heroes of faith did not accept spiritual salvation? They did not accept the resurrection of life? No, they did not accept deliverance from their persecution. They preferred to be tortured and imprisoned than to betray their faith in God. So, in context, Luke 21:28 tells the Jewish Christians to cheer up, hold your heads up, because Jesus is about to deliver you from the persecution of your fellow Jews. Jesus would accomplish this by safely gathering the Jewish Christians to Pella, where they would escape harm. Meanwhile, the nonbelieving Jews would be gathered up in Jerusalem, where Jesus would have them put to the sword, never to bother or harass the Jewish Christians again. One more thing about "lifting up your heads," this is not to indicate that something was going to happen in the sky. As I've already explained in the Matthew thread, many translations mistranslate Matt. 24:30, making it sound as if something is going to appear in the sky. Which is incorrect. Lifting up your head has to do with being of good cheer, not looking for something in the sky. Hopefully I'll get around to addressing your other points soon; I need a break.  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 16, 2010 11:21:45 GMT -5
One more thing about "lifting up your heads," this is not to indicate that something was going to happen in the sky. As I've already explained in the Matthew thread, many translations mistranslate Matt. 24:30, making it sound as if something is going to appear in the sky. Which is incorrect. Lifting up your head has to do with being of good cheer, not looking for something in the sky. This is interesting. You said that nowhere in the Olivets does Jesus mention the rapture, the resurrection, the judgment of the whole world, judging all nations & generations, or the final defeat over death & Hades. I see that you have used a different definition for "whole world," "all nations" and seemingly "the defeat over death and hades," and includes a new definition for "death." According to your definition:Where does Jesus speak of judgment upon the "whole world" and what do you mean by "whole world"? Was it back then or is it still in our future? I am assuming that "all nations" is at this time too... Where does Jesus speak of a judgment upon " all generations"? Where does Jesus speak regarding the final defeat of "death and hades"? And I agree with you that Matthew 24 and 25 speak only of first century events. It would seem that 2,000 years of historic futurism are opposed to you in this regard. Some would allow some of those events, but none (except for you that I know of) say that all of Matthew 24 AND 25 deals strictly with first century events. And just sort of off hand, I never mentioned "sky" or "rapture" in my post, yet you argue anyway... |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 16, 2010 13:49:53 GMT -5
As an observer of the discussion between Theo and Mel, it would appear that neither of you are understanding what the other is saying, and then because of that, not addressing what the other is actually saying and instead addressing things that really don't need to be.
IMHO of course, but I think that if each of you made effort to see what it is the other was really trying to say, it might be more productive. It is one thing to understand and yet disagree in a discussion but an entirely another thing be arguing different things and saying the other is wrong because of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Mar 16, 2010 14:23:32 GMT -5
If one comes to the Scriptures with an already predetermined of what "death," "world, "nations," etc. signifies, then they must transfer that into the Scriptures.
The discussions aren't really about exegesis; they are about how the words get their definitions. Most just look them up in today's contemporary dictionaries. If one defines world as being the planet and all who will ever live on it, then one is doomed from the start.
The questions that I ask are very relevant. Where specifically does Jesus talk about the things that Theophilus understands them to be? We must begin there. If it can be shown that Jesus did not speak about a final judgment upon the whole world as in planetary occupation, then everything said in exegesis to Mt 24 and 25 is pointless...
It is exactly with the same principle with the "death" that Jesus died to remove the curse of sin.
Two other questions that I have asked partial preterists (and now Theophilus) for more than two years now is:
What are the verses you use for the final parousia?
What are the verses you use for a parousia in 70 AD?
I have never yet had a response to that question and likely Theophilus will continue that tradition.
There is a reason why there is no response:
The answer is because partial-preterists assign different verses to each of those two paradigms. The overlapping is incredible!
Another answer is because they believe in two parousia events:
a parousia in 70 Ad
The parousia at the final point in history.
I just keep asking where specifically in the Bible it speaks of the final point in history and where do they get the idea that this planet or history is one day coming to an end.
Perhaps you would be willing to assist Theophilus here. I am just looking for verses and their interpretation of them regarding the basic foundation of their premise.
What would your thoughts (and Theophilus') be on this:
Major Premise:
The Parousia of the Lord would occur at the wedding of the Son.
Matt 25:1-13
Minor Premise:
But the wedding of the Son would occur at the fall of Jerusalem.
Matt 22:1-7
Conclusion:
Therefore the Parousia of the Lord occurred at the fall of Jerusalem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 16, 2010 16:25:36 GMT -5
If one comes to the Scriptures with an already predetermined of what "death," "world, "nations," etc. signifies, then they must transfer that into the Scriptures. The discussions aren't really about exegesis; they are about how the words get their definitions. Most just look them up in today's contemporary dictionaries. If one defines world as being the planet and all who will ever live on it, then one is doomed from the start. While I agree in principle, I have one observation to make, and that is that no one is exempt from this. Everyone comes to an interpretation based on their understanding of the contents of the passage. If I had one understanding and then altered that understanding, the interpretation I arrive at is still subject to my new understanding. My experience is that people use the same texts to prove their different interpretations. No one can show you a text because you have a different understanding of what the texts contain. And this works the other way as well. That is why "proof" texts don't exist. All we can do is show why we are persuaded to believe a certain way. My opinion (or rather 'feeling' at the moment as I still need much more study on this) is that scripture mentions several 'parousia', but the emphasis isn't on a 'coming' so much as it is on a 'presence'. Details? Haven't got them. ;D I think that Pentecost was another. When a person first believes is another. My opinion is that this describes the kingdom, not a 'parousia'. Same as above, this describes the kingdom foremost, not a parousia. There is a judgment in that kingdom (70 AD), but the passage is in relation to the kingdom, not the judgment itself. There was no "parousia" in those passages (strictly speaking of the word). These are concerning the kingdom and I think the message is in regard to behavior within the kingdom. I see a possible "predetermination" here; that is, a "coming" must refer to a specific second coming of Christ, even though His first was not even complete as of yet. Similarly to how you mention having an understanding or definition of "death", I am becoming more persuaded that we don't have a full understanding of "coming". |
|
|
|
Post by Theophilus on Mar 16, 2010 19:44:49 GMT -5
IMHO of course, but I think that if each of you made effort to see what it is the other was really trying to say, it might be more productive. It is one thing to understand and yet disagree in a discussion but an entirely another thing be arguing different things and saying the other is wrong because of it. I don't see this as an accurate depiction of what has been going on. This thread got started with me throwing down the gauntlet on several passages that disprove full-preterism. I basically defied anyone to try to come up with merely plausible ways these passages could be understood under a full-preterist view. What mellontes has done, is to continually bring up verse after verse, which are constantly changing. I've been playing a game of whack-a-mole. He claims the atonement wasn't completed at the cross. I decisively whack that down. Does he acknowledge it? Does he say "Good point"? Does he continue to stand by his earlier position and defend it? Nope, he just retreats to something else. He says, "pfft, how can God raise dead bodies?" I decisively refute that. Mellontes doesn't skip a beat, on to another passage. He says Luke 21:28 proves full-preterism, I then decisively whack that down, too. And so on, and so forth. Mellontes is always retreating, and I have always been chasing. I've carried on this game long enough for people to see that he has lost the debate. He can't stand his ground. All he does is throw up a bunch of verses out of context, gets whacked as I carefully explain the context, and then throws up some more. Rinse and repeat. And I still stand by my points made at the beginning of this thread. Despite the rather ridiculous claim by mellontes that I have never delineated 70AD passages from Second Coming passages, I did that at the very beginning of this thread. Passages such as John 11 & 21. Still no response. So, mellontes, if you want to claim "the last day" in John 11 refers to "the last days", then explain to me the significance of the fourth day. I'm not running, I'm standing in the same place where I started this thread. Will you continue to run, or will you finally stand your ground and take your whooping in an honorable fashion? What about Acts 17:31. None of you have yet been able to explain how the day of judgment can refer to 70AD and still make sense. Or John 21. Etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Mar 17, 2010 10:59:03 GMT -5
I don't see this as an accurate depiction of what has been going on. I know, that's why I said what I did. I read several examples of people not seeing what the another was really trying to say OR initiate discussion on a point based on assuming what the other meant. I could spend time providing these examples but I'm not going to. People can choose to look for them on their own, or simply make an increased effort to understand to other person's perspective, or ignore my observation. Either way, it is an individual exercise. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Apr 7, 2010 9:43:35 GMT -5
I find it interesting that the OP finds Josephus' myth comparable to Paul's teaching on the resurrection as being one in the same because both were Pharisee's. Josephus even commends the Greeks for believing Plato's idea that the soul is ALREADY immortal and merely passes into the spiritual realm. And if you note what else Josephus says about that Hadean realm likened to the Jewish understanding of Sheol, you will also find where Judaism is the one who originated the idea later adopted by Catholics for limbo and purgatory - which is still a part of Jewish understanding today.
First you have to discern what constitutes a Jewish fable before you embrace that as the truth!
|
|
