Fear of Preterism

[GW]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

Anyhoo, Irenaeus also stated that the canon of Scripture was completed during the reign of Nero. That would support the early date of Revelation's composition.

Hiya Mike.

If you know where Irenaeus said that let me know. I'd like it for my notes.

Tanks,
GW

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by jenlu
Hey Back to the Future...

I know this has been covered before, but I would like to ask you...Do you believe Christ's ressurrection was physical as well as spiritual...or just spiritual...I know he was touched and handled by the disciple's, but do you believe they were just touching a shell of what really was standing before them or actual "spiritual flesh", if you will...what ya think?

Jen, If I may....
I do not believe that Jesus was resurrected in a 'glorified' body. I believe that his body was the same as the one crucified. It had no 'supernatural' powers different than before his death. Everything was the same, save the fact that it could not be put to death again.

Jesus Resurrected Body did not receive "glorification" until the ascention at the very earliest:

John 7.39. 'But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.'

Here we see that the spirit would be given when Jesus was glorified. During the forty days after his resurrection, the HS was not given. Only after the ascension was the HS given.

John 12.16. 'These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him.

In the context of this verse Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey and the people cheered. This, again, was only understood by them after his ascension and not during the 40 days.

John 17.24. ' "Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me; for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the world."

Here, Jesus expressly declared that the disciples would 'behold [His] glory' when they were with him where he was. This was not referring anytime on earth, but must be referring to after his ascension.

Acts 1.9. 'And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

Lastly, we know that 'cloud' represents the glory of god. It seems clear that it was at this moment that Jesus was glorified.

I hope this helps a little.
P70

 

[jenlu]

thanks par...

that wasn't really what I was looking for though...I've heard some things about preterism that some may believe that his ressurrection was in fact spiritual in nature, which in turn would indicate our ressurrection would be solely spiritual as well...I don't agree with this, and by the sounds of it...neither do you...I definitely believe that the Jesus the disciple's saw after the ressurrection was the same (physically) as before the crucifixtion...but it had different qualities you must admit...with His appearing and disappering and ability to appear differently and such as with the two fella's on their journey...

 

[parousia70]

Hi Jen,

I think you might be unduely seperating "Bodily" resurrection from "spiritual" resurrection.

I do not believe the two are mutually exclusive, for Scripture states that after our physical body (the seed) dies, God gives us a new body. Our physical body returns to dust,and we are clothed in our resurrection body, which is a spiritual body. (1 Corr. 15:35-50)

Christ was the only one promised that His body would not see decay.

As far as Christs "new abilities" after His resurection, I stand by my assertion because I just can't climb on board with the assumption that Christ did not have the ability to appear and disappear at will before the crusifixion.

He is God after all!

 

[Didaskomenos]

Anyhoo, Irenaeus also stated that the canon of Scripture was completed during the reign of Nero. That would support the early date of Revelation's composition.

GW and Mike -

Irenaeus stated that John was on Patmos under Domitian's reign (in fact, whether he was right or wrong, that's probably why everyone after him said that). He also included Revelation in the canon. So it's very unlikely that he said that the canon was completed before Domitian's reign unless he had a serious change of mind.

 

[jenlu]

well...

as it is, I have not explained myself that well...I thought in my original post to Back to the Future...I implied that I believed His ressurrection to be both bodily and spiritual...but thanks for the input anyway...do you think our ressurrection will be bodily and spiritual as well or just spiritual...although I think you believe our ressurrection to have past, but did that include a bodily ressurrection as well... Honest question...I know, you probably think I'm a homer...

 

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by jenlu
thanks par...

that wasn't really what I was looking for though...I've heard some things about preterism that some may believe that his ressurrection was in fact spiritual in nature, which in turn would indicate our ressurrection would be solely spiritual as well...I don't agree with this, and by the sounds of it...neither do you...I definitely believe that the Jesus the disciple's saw after the ressurrection was the same (physically) as before the crucifixtion...but it had different qualities you must admit...with His appearing and disappering and ability to appear differently and such as with the two fella's on their journey...

What most people over look when reading the Bible is that Christ's (physical ressurrection) was for a reason. Do you know what the literal physical ressurrection was for?

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by jenlu
well...

as it is, I have not explained myself that well...I thought in my original post to Back to the Future...I implied that I believed His ressurrection to be both bodily and spiritual...but thanks for the input anyway...do you think our ressurrection will be bodily and spiritual as well or just spiritual...although I think you believe our ressurrection to have past, but did that include a bodily ressurrection as well... Honest question...I know, you probably think I'm a homer...

Heck no..these are great questions! thanks for making me think!

Let me first point out that this Doctorine is called "The resurrection of the dead.

When you ask if I believe "our" resurrection is past, I believe that The "general" resurrection of the dead saints in Hades into Gods presence in Heaven happened in 70, and the Living were "changed" in covenental status. from then on, all in Christ receive our resurrection body immediatly upon physical death and are ushered into heaven.

I believe that after the seed dies, God then gives us a new, spiritual body. We today will not have to wait in the hadean realm, apart from the presence of God, for some future date to get our resurrection bodies. Since 70, each Christian, in his own turn, receives his resurrection Body upon physical death.

That being said, I want to also point out that The resurrection is not something Jesus does as much as it is something Jesus is.

Only the dead needed resurrecting, and it was a resurrection into the presence of God. Since Christians today are in Gods presence, and will never be seperated from it, not even by death, in that sense you could say our resurretion is past, even though we do not receive our resurrection body until we shed this earthly one, which returns to dust.

I do not believe my fleshly body will "rise again" after it decays, Christ was the only one promised that, and He needed to have the same body rise again as evidence! same as the holes in his wrists and side and feet.

Christ retained His death wounds. If ours is a fleshy resurrection, and it is to be just like Christs, we, by necessity, would have to retain our death wounds Just like christ did.

Not a pretty picture.

Thankfully, unlike Christ, we will have nothing to prove with our resurrection bodies, so we do not need to retain our wounds, or even retain our flesh. Our resurrection Bodies will be like Christs glorified body, which he did nto receive until after the cloud took Him out of their sight. Tha is why John said , after he saw Jesus' risen body, that he did not know what ours would be like, but they would be like His.

John knew that Jesus resurrected Body was not Jesus "glorified" body, and that our resurrection Bodies would be like Jesus' Glorified body, not His risen Body, which was the same Body as Before the Cross.

I hope that makes some sense.
In Christ,P70

 

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by GW


Hiya Mike.

If you know where Irenaeus said that let me know. I'd like it for my notes.

Tanks,
GW

Sorry for taking so long. Been at sea and hanging out in Mazatlan, Mexico, waving Old Glory ...

I was mistaken in attributing the quote regarding the closing of the canon to Irenaeus. It was, in fact, Clement of Alexandria. For the record, here is the quote:

Miscellanies 7:17
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero."

In Miscellanies 6:13, Clement also considers the Apostle John as the author of Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation must have been written during the reign of Nero. How could Clement have made the statement in 7:17 if Revelation were written a quarter-century after Nero died?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

In Miscellanies 6:13, Clement also considers the Apostle John as the author of Revelation. If this is so, then Revelation must have been written during the reign of Nero.

No, it doesn't mean Revelation must have been written during the reign of Nero. It means that Clement believed Revelation was written during the reign of Nero. Just because Clement said it doesn't make it true.

Don't get me wrong. It may very well be true. But I just wanted to point out that, since there are other church fathers who say differently, quoting one of them isn't "proof". Some church fathers who lived closer than to the time of the actual events place John in Patmos during the reign of Domitus.

 

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by npetreley


No, it doesn't mean Revelation must have been written during the reign of Nero. It means that Clement believed Revelation was written during the reign of Nero. Just because Clement said it doesn't make it true.

Exactly. Even Irenaeus contradicted himself on more than one occasion and even had some wild ideas about Christ's age.

Which brings me back to my original question: why is the the late-date theory so dependent upon a corrupt Latin translation of the original Greek words of Irenaeus?