Preterism-phony as a Ford Corvette

[robycop3]

How do you determine if something is "clearly symbolic" or not?
It should be obvious.

Can you point me to any scripture which tells us to interpret scripture literally "unless it's clearly symbolic"?
That's common sense, if we BELIEVE Scripture.

Does your approach line up with what Paul said here:

1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

OF COURSE it does. The Holy Spirit (not "ghost") causes to easily discern literal from symbolic.

 

[robycop3]

I'm glad you insist on what the scripture says, so now, all you have to do is show me where it actually says they will see His return from Hades. Why does your doctrine need to assume things not stated?

Because it's obvious those who pierced Him are all long-dead, & their souls are in hades. Where else would they see His return from?

 

[robycop3]

Are “this generation” “soon” “time is near” examples of literal or symbolic?

Depends on the viewpoint. The generation that sees these things begin will see them all. And from GOD'S view, 'soon' could mean thousands of years to us. That must be the case, as "those things" haven't happened yet.

 

[Hammster]

Depends on the viewpoint. The generation that sees these things begin will see them all. And from GOD'S view, 'soon' could mean thousands of years to us. That must be the case, as "those things" haven't happened yet.

What matters is how the original hearers understood it. If you got a personal letter from an apostle who said these things would soon take place, with warnings to your church, would you take it literally, or would you spiritualize it?

 

[robycop3]

What matters is how the original hearers understood it. If you got a personal letter from an apostle who said these things would soon take place, with warnings to your church, would you take it literally, or would you spiritualize it?

I'd do as I do now-WATCH. What will be, will be-when God wills it.

 

[Hammster]

I'd do as I do now-WATCH. What will be, will be-when God wills it.

And that’s why you have a false understanding. You aren’t supposed to watch. You are supposed to GO.

 

[Timtofly]

And that’s why you have a false understanding. You aren’t supposed to watch. You are supposed to GO.

Go is the response to receiving the Gospel message. The response to the Second Coming is to be ready and not found unprepared.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Because it's obvious those who pierced Him are all long-dead, & their souls are in hades. Where else would they see His return from?

While they were still alive in the first century when Jesus came just like He and the disciples said He would many times over.
Acts 1: 9And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. (Jesus is no longer visible to them as He was taken by a cloud)

(Here He's still going up in a cloud out of their sight when the angels show up) 10And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” (He was hidden in a cloud out of their sight when He went into heaven.
And the following proves that by saying He is coming with the clouds. That is clearly how they would see Him.
Rev 1:17Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
Nowhere does it say He's coming in the flesh.
Here's how He says those who pierced Him would see Him.
Matthew 26:64Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

 

[Timtofly]

Nowhere does it say He's coming in the flesh.
Here's how He says those who pierced Him would see Him.

He left in the flesh. Why would He not return in the Flesh?

Jesus will be on earth just as He was on earth the first time. Why is this truth hidden from the majority of Bible scholars? All spiritual blindness will be removed at the Second Coming. If people claim we are not blind spiritually now, they are not seeing the point we actually are. All eyes will see Jesus both physically and spiritually. Adam's spiritual separation will be over.

 

[robycop3]

While they were still alive in the first century when Jesus came just like He and the disciples said He would many times over.
Acts 1: 9And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. (Jesus is no longer visible to them as He was taken by a cloud)

He came immediately after His resurrection. That's a LOT different from His full, permanent, physical return in great power & glory. He rose into the cloud; clouds don'e move on their own, the wind moves them. He simply entered into it, same as an aircraft does today.

(Here He's still going up in a cloud out of their sight when the angels show up) 10And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” (He was hidden in a cloud out of their sight when He went into heaven.
And the following proves that by saying He is coming with the clouds. That is clearly how they would see Him.
Rev 1:17Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
Nowhere does it say He's coming in the flesh.
Here's how He says those who pierced Him would see Him.
Matthew 26:64Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Yes, He will come ON the clouds, not in them, where He couldn't be plainly seen.

 

[robycop3]

And that’s why you have a false understanding. You aren’t supposed to watch. You are supposed to GO.

My understanding is correct, according to Scripture & history. The pret view is false.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Rev 1:17Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.
Nowhere does it say He's coming in the flesh.

Sorry, Ed Parenteau, but it does.

"When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him..." (Matthew 25:31)

"...when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8)

"...and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matthew 24:30).

"Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of Man cometh." (Matthew 24:44).

All these designations of the returning Christ (and more that I have not listed) emphasize His human type of body form. That is because Christ never relinquished that glorified, resurrected body form when He passed into the heavens in a cloud out of sight of the disciples. Hebrews 7 clearly emphasizes that Christ's retention of that glorified human body form as our divine / human high priest was a duplicate of Melchizedek - the deathless high priest order.

We know that Romans 6:9 says that "Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." If Christ had discarded that form which He had displayed for the disciples' benefit during those 40 days before His final ascension, that would have resulted in another death of that glorified, human body form which came out of the grave, which was not even possible.

You and I recognize an AD 70 coming of Christ, but I go one step further in agreement with scripture and say that this return of Christ was in His still-existing, glorified, resurrected body form, visible to those who had pierced Him.

 

[Hammster]

Go is the response to receiving the Gospel message. The response to the Second Coming is to be ready and not found unprepared.

If you are going, you’ll be prepared. No, being ready was for the first century great tribulation.

 

[Hammster]

My understanding is correct, according to Scripture & history. The pret view is false.

Your view aligns with a view formulated in the 19th century. It misreads scripture. Better to go and make disciples of all nations, and honor the King of the universe.

 

[parousia70]

He left in the flesh. Why would He not return in the Flesh?

Because, 2 Corinthians 5:16
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no more.

How long do you say "no more" lasts?

Hardly sounds like a temporary condition to me.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Because, 2 Corinthians 5:16
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no more.

The context of this verse is teaching that Christ "died for ALL" - both Jews and Gentiles without distinction. Paul was explaining that they were not to look at any man "after the flesh"; that is, looking at them as a Jew or a Gentile, since that made no difference. Even though Paul knew Christ had descended from fleshly Israel, yet since His death and resurrection, he did not "know Christ after the flesh" by His Israelite ancestry any more, since that had no importance. If ANY man was in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, they were a "new creature", because the old things had passed away, and all things had become new.

You would like this verse to mean that Christ had discarded His fleshly human body at this point, but that's not the subject being discussed. The "flesh" mentioned here is Christ's fleshly Israelite ancestry, which Paul was teaching the Corinthians was not really of any consideration in both Jews and Gentiles being reconciled to God.

Remember Paul mentioning in Romans 11:14 that he would like to "provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them"? He was writing about those that shared his ethnic Israelite ancestry. Also, remember in Galatians 4:29 that Ishmael as "he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit"? Even then in Paul's time, this same persecution was coming from those who were "after the flesh" as ethnic Israelites against those believers who were "born after the Spirit".

 

[Timtofly]

Because, 2 Corinthians 5:16
Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no more.

How long do you say "no more" lasts?

Hardly sounds like a temporary condition to me.

Do you know all your dead loved one's?

Do you know all your offspring in the flesh, five generations removed?

None of those people will ever have fleshly bodies, just because you do not know them?

 

[Timtofly]

The context of this verse is teaching that Christ "died for ALL" - both Jews and Gentiles without distinction. Paul was explaining that they were not to look at any man "after the flesh"; that is, looking at them as a Jew or a Gentile, since that made no difference. Even though Paul knew Christ had descended from fleshly Israel, yet since His death and resurrection, he did not "know Christ after the flesh" by His Israelite ancestry any more, since that had no importance. If ANY man was in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, they were a "new creature", because the old things had passed away, and all things had become new.

You would like this verse to mean that Christ had discarded His fleshly human body at this point, but that's not the subject being discussed. The "flesh" mentioned here is Christ's fleshly Israelite ancestry, which Paul was teaching the Corinthians was not really of any consideration in both Jews and Gentiles being reconciled to God.

Remember Paul mentioning in Romans 11:14 that he would like to "provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them"? He was writing about those that shared his ethnic Israelite ancestry. Also, remember in Galatians 4:29 that Ishmael as "he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit"? Even then in Paul's time, this same persecution was coming from those who were "after the flesh" as ethnic Israelites against those believers who were "born after the Spirit".

I think that too many fail to realize that the physical and spiritual are one single creation and go to together, without canceling each other out. Having one does not forgo the other.

We exist in dead corruptible physical bodies. Those in Paradise live in permanent incorruptible physical bodies. The physical still exist always. The point is we cannot see the spiritual right now. That does not mean the spiritual is being invisible without a physical body. There are physical bodies all around us, we just cannot see them. We should not see them. Attempting to do so is of the occult, and witchcraft.

 

[robycop3]

If you are going, you’ll be prepared. No, being ready was for the first century great tribulation.

...Except that the great trib didn't then occur. That's a pret urban legend.

 

[robycop3]

Your view aligns with a view formulated in the 19th century. It misreads scripture. Better to go and make disciples of all nations, and honor the King of the universe.

No; my view is shaped by Scripture & history. The prophesied eschatological events are simply not found in history.