• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Futurists vs Preterists

Discussion in 'Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum' started by Willis Deal, Apr 12, 2002.

  1. Invalid

  2. Valid

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    That passage is about the raising of our BODY (singluar) that God's People would be liberated out of the Law and made sons of God, receiving His adoption. It is about being saved, which still had not happened -- that's the point of verses 8:24-25.
     
  2. postrib

    postrib Well-Known Member

    508
    +0
    Christian
    As they will when the temple is rebuilt in Jerusalem, but the Old Covenant is no longer in effect:

    "There is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof" (Hebrews 7:18).

    "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Hebrews 7:12).

    "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9).

    "There is no more offering for sin" (Hebrews 10:18).

    Paul in no way did this for himself, but only so that he might save some of the old-law-loving Jews: "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" (1 Corinthians 9:20). As elsewhere he circumcised Timothy only for the sake of the old-law-loving Jews: "Him [Timothy] would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek" (Acts 16:3). When Paul was among Gentile believers, he did not keep the law, as neither did Peter: "When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Galatians 2:11-14)

    Ever since Jeremiah's prophecy (Hebrews 8:6-13).

    The Mosaic covenant was abolished on the cross:

    "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man" (Ephesians 2:15).

    "If the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished" (2 Corinthians 3:7-13).

    "That which is abolished."

    "Now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:6).

    "Before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster" (Galatians 3:23-25).

    I believe "the 1st resurrection" (Revelation 20:6), that is, the resurrection and changing of all "they that are Christ's" (1 Corinthians 15:23) into their immortal bodies, will occur at a single point in time, at the "last trump" (1 Corinthians 15:52), at the 2nd coming of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:23, Revelation 19:11-20:6), and it will include those "beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands" (Revelation 20:4), which refers back to the events of Revelation 13.

    Because neither Revelation 13 nor Revelation 19, that is, neither the tribulation nor the 2nd coming, have happened yet, neither can the resurrection have happened yet.

    "I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God" (Galatians 2:19). "Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ... Now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:4, 6).
     
  3. Willis we keep telling you over and over again to stop trusting the ideas and that which is written by men and start believing what is written in the Bible. Isaiah 59:1-2 (NKJV) Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, That it cannot save; Nor His ear heavy, That it cannot hear. 2 But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear.

    This Scripture illustrates our lesson. It isn't that what the Bible says is so difficult to understand; a child can comprehend these words of Isaiah.
     
  4. I don't have anything. Are you now saying the Devil told the truth and God is a lier? The Devil told Adam and Eve "You will not surely die.(Genesis 3:4) God told Adam and Eve "you will die in that day" Just who told the truth here. You view makes God a lier because Adam and Eve did not die physical on that day. Sin death separates unless you can show me where Adam and Eve were not put out of garden?

    Separation from the body does not separate us from God. Our spiritual condition has very little to do with our physical body. The Bible does speak of physical death when it says" Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of His saints (Psalms 116:15) That doesn't sound like something the Lord is trying to save us from, does it?
     
  5. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    The standing temple and priesthood during the time of Paul and the first followers of Jesus was the Holy Spirit's sign that the way into the holiest of all (Heaven's Temple where Jesus was) was NOT YET MADE MANIFEST WHILE THE FIRST TABERNACLE WAS STILL STANDING (Heb 9:7-8). Christ was the only one allowed to enter:

    "But Christ, being come an high priest of good things TO COME...by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place" (Heb 9:11-12).

    Now, wouldn't another standing temple in Jerusalem appointed by God signify yet again that the way into Heaven's Temple is closed to believers? Of course it would (Heb 9:7-8). And, if you say that the "so-called future Temple" isn't Holy in Jehovah's eyes, then how can it be profaned or made into an abomination? So if it IS going to be Holy in Jehovah's eyes then it signifies that believers are closed out of Heaven's Temple. If it IS NOT going to be holy in Jehovah's eyes then neither can any Abomination occur there since it is just as profane as the Islamic Dome of the Rock Temple or any buddhist temple.


    The Jerusalem Church led by St. James were those "old law-loving jews" and proud of it (Acts 21:20). Paul kept his vows and the blood sacrifices in Acts 21:18-26 to display to James and the rest of the Jerusalem Church that he indeed had not ceased from "walking orderly and keeping the law" (Acts 21:24). Paul heeds James command that he prove his loyalty to the Law of Moses by going into the Temple and conducting the purification of himself and James' men -- they did so according to the Mosaic Law specified in Numbers 6:13-21.

    Paul willingly took Mosaic vows upon himself (Acts 18:18) and kept the major feasts in Jerusalem:

    Acts 18:21
    But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem


    The Council of Jerusalem only dismissed gentile converts from having to follow the Law of Moses (Acts 21:25). HOWEVER, they did NOT decide to dismiss the jews from walking orderly according to Moses Law (Acts 21:20-21).


    Jesus had not yet MADE Them into one new man yet. Paul was in the act of preaching to the gentiles so that they might come into the true Israel and join them. It's was Christ's intent through Paul, but hadn't happened yet. Just a few verses later Paul clarifies:

    "the building [made up of jews and gentiles] fitly framed together IS GROWING unto an holy temple in the Lord, in whom ye also are BEING BUILT TOGETHER TO BECOME the habitation of God" (Eph 2:21-22)

    It hadn't happened yet. Christ was indeed building the Church so that it would become ONE NEW MAN by Paul's ministry (Eph 2:15-17; Eph 3:1-11).

    One last note, the Law of Moses continued right on until AD 70. Jehovah did not leave the worship at the Temple until AD 66 when the Jerusalem Church fled the city of Jerusalem according to Luke 21:20-22 and Matthew 24:15-20. Historians recorded this Luke 21:20-22 exodus:

     
  6. Willis Deal

    Willis Deal Member

    328
    +0
    Mani,

    That Adam and Eve died spiritually is what I've been taught by the church, but your frequent emphasis on taking our teaching from the bible instead of man's tradition made me realize that I've never heard this teaching defended from the word of God. I had hoped that rather than relying on tradition on this point you could prove the concept from the bible.

    Is God a liar?

    Jon 3:2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.
    Jon 3:3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days' journey.
    Jon 3:4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
    Jon 3:10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

    God prophesied a judgment on sin that would result in the destruction of Ninevah at an appointed time, just like he told Adam the result of sin would result in death on a certain day. Since God did not destroy Ninevah at the appointed time does that make God a liar? No, it does not, it shows God's mercy. But what of the judgment on Adam? Let's first go to a verse in Hebrews:

    Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

    Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

    Adam and Eve's nakedness was a symbol of their sin, and God shedding the blood of animals to provide a coat of skins covered their sin, just as sacrifice of the lamb would cover the sins of Israel, and the blood of Jesus washes away the sins of the saints. So, while I didn't find anything to indicate that Adam and Eve died spiritually, I did find where the Lord refused to carry out a judgment because of his mercy, and that physical death (of the animals) entered into the earth because of sin on the very day that sin entered in.
     
  7. postrib

    postrib Well-Known Member

    508
    +0
    Christian
    GW:
    Hebrews 9:1-10 is in the past tense ("was" standing); the old practices "stood" (verse 10) only until Christ's sacrifice (verses 11-12) made the new way presently manifest (Hebrews 10:19-22).

    I don't believe it will be appointed by God.

    The profane abomination will be what is placed in it.

    The ground of the temple mount itself can be a holy place in God's eyes as the place of Abraham's obedience in offering Isaac and as the place chosen for the temple from the time of David, without any structure built upon this ground being considered a holy place, that is, the "Rock" can remain holy even though the "Dome of the Rock" is not.

    Not his loyalty, but to satisfy their loyalty.

    Which Mosaic vows?

    He kept one feast in order to salute the church gathered there (Acts 18:21-22).

    Paul did (Galatians 2:11-14).

    He had: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" (1 Corinthians 12:13).

    I believe Luke 21:24 refers to the same treading down of Jerusalem as Revelation 11:2, which was not fulfilled by the Roman siege of Jerusalem, for John didn't prophesy Revelation 11 until more than 20 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, nor can a surrounding of a city's walls and a treading under foot of a city be equated, nor did 2 Thessalonians 2:4 or such events as described in great detail in Revelation 11 and Revelation 13 occur during the Roman siege.
     
  8. rollinTHUNDER

    rollinTHUNDER Veteran

    +8
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Hello GW,
    I would still disagree. It is not about being saved. Although you see no change physically, it is talking about a hope that was still to come, believing in something unseen, which we call faith. And you said that it had not come, which is also incorrect, verse (24)"For in this hope we were saved." It's all about our future glory that will be revealed in Christ. Don't short change yourself, take the blessing that is offered my friend !!

    (25) "Who hopes for what he already has?" These scriptures are not even difficult. I totally trust in what our Lord said He will do, He will do all and even more !!
     
  9. Willis my brother you have just "impeached youself again" my friend. You said you failiar with the concept of 'spiritual death' but "not familiar" with the concept that Adam and Eve died spiritually. And what is the basis for this concept?

    Quote Willis

    I am familiar with the concept of 'spiritual death'. You contend that Adam died spiritually the day he ate the fruit. What is the basis for this concept? Is it simply that God cannot lie and therefore Adam MUST have died in some way during that 24 hour period? Because if that is all you have then you don't have anything.

    Then you ran to the word of man to see what the Bible says about death.

    Quote Willis

    By the way, die/death according to Strong's concordance comes from the hebrew muwth mooth, a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively); causatively, to kill:--X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one), (put to, worthy of) death, destroy(-er), (cause to, be like to, must) die, kill, necro(-mancer), X must needs, slay, X surely, X very suddenly, X in (no) wise.

    How because I said you run the words of men to see what the Bible says. You now say: That Adam and Eve died spiritually is what I've been taught by the church,

    I then ask you again. God told Adam and Eve the "day you eat" from the tree they would die. Satan told them they would not die. Who told the trurh here God or Satan. Your view says that God is a lier because Adam did not die physicaly on the day. Are you now saying that God was right and Adam died spiritually that day. Or are you still saying that puysical death is the point? I have never heard anyone defended that physical death concept from the word of God either :scratch:
     
  10. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    I agree that they were saved in a HOPE, but it was a HOPE and not anything more. "For what a man sees, why does he yet need to hope"?

    Paul very clearly is pointing out that they do not yet HAVE the things that they HOPED to receive. He then says: "WE WITH PATIENCE WAIT FOR IT." (Rom 8:23). What is the "IT" they are patiently waiting for? It is the following:

    (1) the manifesting of who the sons of God are (Rom 8:19)
    (2) transfer out of bondage of the Law into the glorious liberty of children of God (Rom 8:21)
    (3) the adoption/redemption as sons (Rom 8:23)


    Now, preterists already HAVE these things in posession. We are the manifested sons of God. We have no dealings with the Old law covenant. We are redeemed fully. We are adopted. Futurists do not have redemption, but a mere downpayment that someday they will have such (Eph 1:13-14; 4:30). They only have a HOPE that someday these promised things will become real. But for now they do not have them and "WITH PATIENCE WAIT FOR THEM." (Romans 8:25)
     
  11. Willis Deal

    Willis Deal Member

    328
    +0
    Only problem mani, the verses you quoted don't contain the terms, 'death', or 'resurrection'. Nobody is argueing that sin doesn't seperate us from God. You stated in a previous post that death = seperation, you supply a definition that can't be found in any dictionary or concordance and then post scripture that doesn't even contain the terms. But the clincher comes when you post a verse that actually disproves that death = seperation and knock down your own house of cards. It was very tempting not to respond to your post at all because you are doing quite a fine job of refuting yourself.

    Ok, let's step back and take you seriously for a BRIEF moment. Suppose that resurrection does equal reconciliation with God. What then of the second resurrection? Revelation tells us there is a FIRST resurrection so by necessity there must be a second resurrection.

    Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

    So if resurrection = reconcilitation are these dead reconciled to God? If reconciled why then are some cast into the lake of fire?

    Your concept of ONLY a spiritual resurrection breaks down on all sides because if it were ONLY a spiritual resurrection then there would be no point in disturbing the ground where the dead bodies are buried (as shown in Isaiah) Paul would not have used the analogy of the physical body being the seed of the resurrected body, it would have been deceptive to compare a christian's spiritual resurrection to the physical resurrection of Christ, and the second resurrection would reconcile the wicked to God and make their punishment in the lake of fire unjust.
     
  12. Willis Deal

    Willis Deal Member

    328
    +0
    In human terms harvest occurs within a few weeks of first-fruits. Since you contend that the harvest occured more than twenty years after the resurrection of Christ this proves that harvest doesn't have an attached human time frame, therefore it cannot be used as a time indicator at all.

    Sin and death existed before the law of Moses was given. Did sin have no strength before the law? Did death have no sting before Moses? Since the law of Moses is now vanished away does sin have no power? If sin has no power why then is it so prevalent?
     
  13. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    Hebrews 9:8-9
    the Holy Spirit this evidencing that not yet hath been manifested the way of the holy [place], the first tabernacle having yet a standing; WHICH IS A SIMILE IN REGARD TO THE PRESENT TIME in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which are not able, in regard to conscience, to make perfect him who is serving, only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances -- till the time of reformation imposed upon [them]. And Christ being come chief priest of the coming good things... (YLT)

    So the writer of Hebrews is applying this to HIS TIME AT WHICH HE WRITES, for the Temple was still standing and believers in Christ as well as their unbelieving kin were still observing the Law in Jerusalem. The time of reformation was AD70 when no longer could ANY offer gifts and sacrifices which are not able to make perfect him who is serving -- that time was very near according to Hebrews 8:13. And so Christ in Hebrews 9:11 is called the Chief Priest of "THE COMING GOOD THINGS." That's future to the writer of Hebrews and not yet fully present while the Temple is standing and many are making sacrifices.


    How can you say that? You have argued that some future brick-and-mortar will be the "TEMPLE OF GOD." You are contradicting yourself.

    Again, you have already argued that it will be the TEMPLE OF GOD, the place where God lives. If God erects a new brick-and-mortar home for himself in Jerusalem then Hebrews 9:7-9 regains its meaning that the way into Heaven's Temple is again not available to believers as was the case at the time the writer of Hebrews was writing.

    Jesus taught that earthly Jerusalem was no longer going to be a "holy place" for God's people (John 4:21) since God wanted his people to worship him "IN SPIRIT AND TRUTH" instead. A future Temple of God in Jerusalem will reverse God's expressed wishes as told by Jesus in John 4:21-24. Next, St. Stephen, in response to the scribes idolatrous regard of the Temple in Acts 6:13-14, preaches the fact that God is not at all wanting brick-and-mortar temples (Acts 7:46-52)! Does God now want brick-and-mortar Temples to be his headquarters of worship? Perhaps most incriminating is Paul's definintion of earthly Jerusalem as HAGAR AND ISHMAEL in Galatians 4:22-31 -- Paul disinherits earthly Jersualem in its entirety labeling it Hagar and Mt. Sinai. Brother, the Temple Mount is no "holy place in God's eyes" as you seem to think it is or will be.

    Incorrect.

    Paul purifies himself by following through on his own Nazarite vow (Acts 18:18) right there with men from the Jerusalem Church. James asks Paul to do this SO THAT all would know that Paul walks orderly and keeps the Law (21:24) and so all will know that the rumors about Paul were NOT TRUE (21:24)!
    Paul does NOT object to James command, but instead purifies himself by offering blood sacrifices prescribed according to Numbers 6:13-21. Paul therefore SHOWED to them that the rumors WERE NOT TRUE and that Paul indeed abides by the decision made at the Jersusalem Council as defined by James in 21:25 and 21:21.

    Acts 18:18 and Acts 21:23-26 show that Paul was under the Nazarite vow of Numbers 6:1-21!

    Your presuppositions are talking here. Paul says "I must by all means keep this feast." (Acts 18:21). Paul did it to abide by the decrees reached at the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 and because he walked orderly and observed the Law throughout his lifetime (Acts 21:24-26).

    That new body, also known as the New Testament Temple of God, was BEING BUILT via Paul's ministry to the gentiles (Eph 2:19-22). Both Eph 2:19-22 and 1 Peter 1:5 and Hebrews 3:6 all show that the early believers were in process of being made into the Temple of God. They would become Christ's House IF they held fast to the end of the age (Heb 3:6). They were NOT YET made partakers of Christ (Heb 3:14). Paul's ministry was responsible for forming Christ in the first century believers so that the wall of separation would come down and the Jews and Gentiles would be ONE NEW MAN. It was at process at that time Paul was preaching.

    The "YOU" in Luke 21:20 is the apostles. So your whole presupposition is in error. John prophesies Revelation 11 in 66-68 AD when those things were already AT HAND (Rev 1:1; 1:3; 22:6-7; 22:10-11). St. John was writing during THE tribulation at the Day of the Lord against Israel (Rev 1:9-10). Indeed Thyatira's evil prophetess who was corrupting their congregation was promised to enter the GREAT TRIBULATION (Rev 2:22-23). So this is PAST, having a 1st century fulfillment.
     
  14. Something hit me deep in my soul as I was thinking about Willis post here. I believe Willis did NOT really know what he was "asking and doing" here but he was really asking me here "can we really trust the words of God?"

    Quote Willis. Is it simply that God cannot lie and therefore Adam MUST have died in some way during that 24 hour period? (Because if that is all you have then you don't have anything). End of Quote. In other words if all you have is the word of God to go on because God cannot lie you don't have anything for proof.

    This may have been the very same thing that Satan used on Adam and Eve. It it simply that God cannot lie that you will die in some way. (If that is all you have to believe you have nothing). Then the serpent said to the woman "you will not surely die. "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God knowing good and evil.

    In other words if you do not have any proof of "how you will die" you have nothing to believe no. But the truth is God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

    Adam had no idea how he would die because God never told him. And Satan may have used that concept to say that God was a lier. So Satan may have said will since you really don't know how you will die the truth is God knows in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God.

    Again I DO NOT believe Willis meant to say this in that way. However I DO believe it is something that God has pointed out to me.

    Now I can answer your question Willis. The Bible says it is imoppible to please God without faith.(Hebrews 11:6) Yes it is because "God cannot lie" that I believe Adam and Eve died spiritually that very day.
     
  15. parousia70

    parousia70 I'm livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +2,495
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    Hi Willis,
    Sin existed before the Law, and to answer your question, Sin had no strength before the law.
    Romans 5:13
    "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

    Before the Law, Death reigned whether one sinned or not. Sins were not the measuring stick for salvation.
    Then came the Law that gave sin the power to prevent people from achieving salvation.

    Now, in the renewed absense of the Law, Sin is once again not imputed, it is no longer the measuring stick used for salvation. It's power to prevent people from being saved has been forever obliterated, in fact, the only people who get saved are sinners!

    Unless you are a universallist or annihilationist, it would seem your objection may have more to do with the "locale" of sin and sufering than with the mere existance of it.
    Since Satan exists in the lake of fire, suffering torment forever for his sin, sin and suffering will always exist, but it's power has been eternally crushed.
     
  16. Again I tell you to stop running to the words of men and start looking in the Bible. The Holy Spirit is NOT in any dictionary or concordance. To help us understand this concept we only have to look at Scripture for evidence. Fortunately, we are not at the mercy of those man made dictionarys and concordances.


    The soul who sins shall die. (Ezekiel (18:20a) You do not haft to be a scientist to undestand that this is the same sin=death that Paul says was passed down to all men from Adam (1 Cor. 15:22) Spiritual death is an enemy because it keeps people from God. (Luke 16:19-31) God loves men and desired to be with him and be his God. This was not possible until Jesus Christ finished the work of redemption given Him by the Father. It wasn't finished until the kingdom of God came to perfection. (Remember the Lord's prayer, ...Thy kingdom come...

    The righteous dead were in Sheol, or Hades. They were not in torment as were the wicked, but that were not in the presence of God, either. To understand that this is seperation, you don't haft to be a scintist either. How is the last enemy death destroyed? Sin and death as God pointed out in Genesis are linked togather. They always have been.

    For death to be destroyed, the sin question must be completelyresolved. Jesus on the croos began the redemptive process, it did not complete it. As you should know it takes the second coming of Christ to bring in compleat salvation. (Hebrews 9:28) The last enemy, death, is destroyed. (Cor. 15:54-56) Lifehas brought it to pass. Now tell us you still don't understan any of this because it is not in any of your dictionarys or concordances. :confused:
     
  17. Brother Willis here is one for your man made dictionarys and concordances. To be dead, as used in the Bible, can mean diferent things. It can mean to be dead phyysically; it can mean to be dead spiritually; or it can have yet another meaning. What is this last definition of death that is clearly seen in the Bible? :scratch:
     
  18. postrib

    postrib Well-Known Member

    508
    +0
    Christian
    GW:
    "A figure for the time then present" (Hebrews 9:9).

    "In which were offered both gifts and sacrifices" (Hebrews 9:9).

    Hebrews 9:1-10 is in the past tense; the old practices "stood" (verse 10) only until Christ's sacrifice (verses 11-12) made the new way presently manifest (Hebrews 10:19-22).

    The old covenant was ready to vanish away by the time Jeremiah 31 was written (Hebrew 8:6-13).

    Fully present (Hebrews 10:19-22).

    Note that even after the crucifixion had annulled the temple sacrifices (Hebrews 7:18), Jesus commanded the apostles to speak to the people in "the temple" (Acts 5:20), and Paul went to "the temple" to pray (Acts 22:17) and was found "purified in the temple" (Acts 24:18, 21:26), and in a prophetic vision John measured "the temple of God" that will stand during the coming tribulation while the city of Jerusalem is being trodden under foot by the Gentiles for the 42 months of the Antichrist's rule (Revelation 11:1-2, 13:5).

    We worship in Spirit and in truth now; but the verse doesn't say earthly Jerusalem was no longer going to be a holy place, as it especially will be during the millenium: "This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar. Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts" (Zechariah 14:19-21).

    "Worship the LORD in the holy mount at Jerusalem" (Isaiah 27:13).

    Acts 18:18 was not a Nazarite vow, for Cenchrea was not "at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation" (Numbers 6:18).

    Of course, they were true (Galatians 2:11-14).

    For good reason: "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" (1 Corinthians 9:20).

    Paul went to the feast in Jerusalem in order to salute the church there (Acts 18:21-22) and possibly in order to give them the money he had collected for them from the Gentile churches (Romans 15:25-31).

    Yes, presently (1 Corinthians 12:13).

    At the time Hebrews was written believers were already made partakers of Christ (Hebrews 3:1), but they would ultimately not be partakers if they subsequently fell away (Hebrews 6:4-6).

    Jesus didn't prophesy that the apostles would necessarily see the end-time events themselves; but he did command them to pass on every single thing he taught them to those they preached to (Matthew 28:20).

    Irenaeus of Lyons (b.130) says Revelation was written by John "towards the end of Domitian's reign" (Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 30, Paragraph 3). Domitian's reign ended in 96 AD

    How did each verse of Revelation 13 and Revelation 11 and Revelation 16 shortly come to pass after 96 AD? How did the 2nd coming in Revelation 19 shortly come to pass, and how did the millenial reign and great white throne judgment of Revelation 20 and the eternal state of the new heaven and new earth and New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 shortly come to pass? To God, all these will indeed shortly come to pass, for to him a thousand years are as one day (2 Peter 3:8), but we men need "long patience" in waiting for the 2nd coming, even though it draws nearer with each passing day (James 5:7-8).

    Domitian's reign was marked by persecution to where, as Eusebius says, "even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it" (Church History, Book 3, Chapter 18). This is why John says he is a "companion in [the] tribulation" (the Greek has a "the" before tribulation), as under that persecution he was banished to "the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:9).

    Revelation 1:9-10 means John was in a spiritual trance on a Sunday. It doesn't mention Israel or "against" anything.

    Revelation 2:22 doesn't have a "the" before "great tribulation" in the Greek or in translation; Jesus could cast them into great suffering due to their fornication, probably by causing them to contract sexually transmitted diseases.

    I agree the specific events referred to in the 7 letters are past.

    Revelation doesn't say John is writing only to particular historical churches. John is writing the revelation given to him by Jesus for all Christians of things yet to happen (Revelation 1:1).

    Revelation 1:10-18 are the "things which thou hast seen," while Revelation 1:20-3:22 involves the "things which are," but Revelation 4:1 and following are "the things which must be hereafter" (Revelation 1:19). Even the seals which begin the future tribulation have not yet happened, for they may bring the death of 1/4 of the world from a war and its resulting famine (Revelation 6:8).
     
  19. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    You have corrupted the text there because it does NOT say what you would like it to. The literal translation of the greek is:

    Hebrews 9:8-9
    the Holy Spirit this evidencing that not yet hath been manifested the way of the holy [places], the first tabernacle having yet a standing; WHICH IS A SIMILE IN REGARD TO THE PRESENT TIME in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which are not able, in regard to conscience, to make perfect him who is serving (Young's Literal)


    The writer of Hebrews describes the institution of the Temple System and what it meant to them at the present time at which the writer of Hebrews was writing. It does NOT fit your theological presuppositions so you try to get it to say what you want. Doesn't work that way, friend. In fact, you have added to the scriptures at virtually every turn to prop up your futurist superstitions and ignorance about what was decided at the Jerusalem Council concerning the Law.

    You constantly ignore contexts, time contexts, and especially AUDIENCE RELEVEANCE. Don't you know that those 1st century letters were not written to you or me? There's a 1st century history to the Bible that you just ignore by reading yourself into the endtimes passages as if you were back there living in the 1st century. LOL. You have a system that you are bound to maintain against what the scriptures teach. While you surely will not heed my advice, I suggest reading Milton Terry's Hermeneutics and get a copy of Young's Literal Translation to help you get the tenses of verbs down.

    Finally, the "YOU" in the Olivet Discourse is not you and me. It is Christ's apostles. Grammatically and linguistically the Olivet is to and for the apostles. There is no way around it. Brother, we are reading THEIR mail. But, if it makes you feel good to ACT as if those letters were written TO YOU and FOR YOU then have fun! Of course, none of the endtimes prophecies will ever come true in our times -- but, hey, I'm sure you have no lack of fun pretending.

    Best regards,
    GW
     
  20. The Messenger

    The Messenger Member

    103
    +0
    here is scripture stating it plainly.

    Romans 8:10-11
    But if Christ is in you, although your bodies are dead because of sin, your spirits are alive because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your MORTAL BODIES also through his Spirit which dwells in you.

    there are 2 "redemptions" one is spiritual, one is physical. we achieve spiritual redemption from sin because of the cross.

    first the spiritual redemption

    Ephesians 1:7
    In him we HAVE redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace

    Colossians 1:14
    in whom we HAVE redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

    just as scripture says, this is a redemption they already had pre 70AD.

    the redemption we do not yet have is the redemption of the body.

    Romans 8:23
    and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our BODIES.

    there are some things that need to be noted.

    in Romans 8:10 the resurrection of Christ is mentioned, we know his Body was gone from the tomb, that is well documented in the Gospels. Romans 8:10-11 right after mentioning the resurrection of Christ it says life will be givin our "mortal bodies ALSO" Romans 6:7 says "For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.]

    if our resurrection is like Christ's it will be bodily, since his spirit obviously did not die. Romans 8:10(and a plethora of other scripture) also tells us our spirits are alive because of his dwelling in us.

    the preterists defense of this is a legalistic argument, saying the change in law did not occur until 70ad, and that until that time the church was under mosaic law evidenced by Paul observing mosaic law...this is also terribly incorrect.

    first off Paul after becoming a believer, did not consider himself "under law" and spent alot of time saying so. romans 7:1-10 shows this and gives an example of this law He was "not under" was none other than one of the 10 commandments.

    Romans 7:1,4-10
    Do you not know, brethren--for I am speaking to those who know the law--that the law is binding on a person only during his life?
    Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But NOW we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.

    Paul also did not keep mosaic law because of a requirement to do so, he in fact gives his reasons why, and his own words show the preterist supposition that his keeping mosaic custom is evidence of his being under law is incorrect.

    1 Corinthians 9:20
    To the Jews I became AS a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law--though not being myself under the law--that I might win those under the law.

    the next question is when did the preisthood change? when was the new covenant ratified?

    this was pre 70ad as well, and the writer of Hebrews confirmes this:

    Luke 22:20
    And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood".

    Hebrews 9:15-18
    "Therefore he IS the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood.

    i have a question for preterists, are you in your immortal glorified body yet? if not, then has your victory over death been achieved? or is it still a promise you await the fulfilling of, just as any pre 70 ad believer?

    another mistake preterists make is they have the priest in the order of Melchiz'edek behaving in the manner of a preist in the order of Aaron. Yeshua is not bound by mosaic law concerning his priestly office, he is not an Aaronic priest.

    Hebrews 7:12
    For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.

    the writer of Hebrews also has yeshua performing his Priesthood pre 70ad, which would mean the change in law was pre 70ad as well. the first act of this was the sacrifice of blood at the cross.

    Hebrews 9:12-15
    he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God , purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Therefore he IS the mediator of a new covenant , so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant.



    so we see plainly scripture shows christ as priest at the cross, securing the new covenant enacted in 30ad, not 70ad.

    preterist are desparate to avoid the physial nature of the resurrection, simply because the bones in the tombs are phsical evidence they are wrong. this is why they try to use a legalistic argument to sidestep the phyical nature of the resurrection.












    oh and hello GW :wave:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...