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

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

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

How Christ completed our salvation.

Discussion in 'Christianity and World Religion' started by Manifestation1*AD70, Jun 15, 2002.

  1. GTX

    GTX <font size=1><font color=gray><b>Rapid Transit Aut

    Thats a good point davo, Shaggy is not confusing us by pounding us with scripture, you guys tend to repeat or somehow computer automate your responses complete with scripture. I would like to hear in your own words why Preterism is a good teaching, Revelation was written in about 95 AD, totally discounting the 70 AD theory.

    I know, I have already went to the confusing link one of yall posted, there is a very good chance that Revelation was written after 70 AD, and even if it wasn't, there are many prophesies that just haven't happened! Plus when Christ returns everyone will know, that will be it, we will not be living in a corrupted world.
  2. GTX

    GTX <font size=1><font color=gray><b>Rapid Transit Aut

    Job 19:26 And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God:

    Job knew he would see God in a physical body. Job very clearly states that after his flesh is destroyed, he will see God in his flesh. Job knew he would be resurrected.

    The thing is, that in the NT every reference to resurrection always refers to a bodily resurrection.
  3. Mandy

    Mandy Well-Known Member

    I totally agree GTX. That verse in Job is a perfect example of the physical (future) resurrection.
  4. davo

    davo Member

    G'day aggie03 :wave:

    With the victory shout ôåôåëåóôáé [tetelestai = it is finished] echoing from his lips Jesus yielded up his spirit to God [Jn 19:30]. In the Redemptive plan of God the Cross was D-Day on Sin, Death and Satan. Christ's Parousia in AD70 was the corresponding V-Day when that which was initiated in his earthly ministry and ratified by the cross was brought to fulness and completeness i.e., perfection. The power of sin death and Satan being broken through the cross is now destroyed in the Lake of Fire.

    Covenant eschatology in no way devalues "the message The Cross" -in fact it strengthens it, proclaiming also "it is finished!" There is an important distinction to be made here regarding the redemptive work of the cross, and it is this: Salvation was established through the cross, NOT at the cross.

    The work of salvation that came through the cross was being perfected in the first century church [there is no sense of inadequacy here, the meaning is that of Heb 2:10 and 5:9], but there was an outworking to perfection of this salvation. Paul indicates this:

    Galatians 5:5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

    Paul elsewhere says: "you don't hope for what you already have." Righteousness i.e., salvation was there "hope" It was "...salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." 1Pt 1:5. And yes Paul elsewhere does speak of it in language that suggests a completed work -it was complete in a positional sense, as in they had the down-payment of it -the Holy Spirit. Yet there was to come a day [The Day of the Lord] of consummation, when that which was initiated in Christ's ministry and ratified through the cross came to completion at His Parousia in and around AD70 [as no man knew the day nor hour -though they had the signs to look for].

    Again, it is important to restate that salvation came by means or way of the Cross, not at the cross. Logic says that if salvation was total and complete at the cross, then both the Resurrection and the Parousia were not necessary -yet they are integral, and without one others become meaningless.

    The Cross was D-Day and His Parousia was V-Day!

  5. Julie


    By the shedding of His, Gods own blood!

    1 John 1:7
    But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

    Revelation 1:5
    And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

    Ephesians 2:13
    But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

    Ephesians 1:7
    In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

    Romans 5:9
    Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

    Colossians 1:14
    In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

    Colossians 1:20
    And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

    Hebrews 9:12
    Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

    Hebrews 9:14
    How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
  6. I would like to get you to respond to my question. I would like to see scripture showing the futurist view is a good teaching. So answer my question with scripture please.

    Before anyone in our day and time can assign verses in the New Testament about the Lord's return to our future, they must first prove that the (Old Testament Prophets ) clearly distinguished between two different coming of Christ. Where does the OT prophets distinguish between "a coming in redemption" versus "a coming in judgment?" This king of language is not used by the Jewish prophets. (see Isa. 35:4-6, 40:10-11, 61:1-2, 62:11, 63:1-6, 66:6-16; Zech. 14; and Mal.4:1-6)

    Please show us from the Old Testament were they ever used the language to distinguish between two different coming of Christ? Paul said he only said that which was in the Old Testament and that was the only Bible they had.

    Since you futurist belive they were wrong please show us from the Old Testament. And don't try to get out of answering my biblical question to you by said it is a computer automate responses.

    Where is the scripture? :scratch:
  7. God bless you nancy hang in there. Out salvation is indeed complete :clap:
  8. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    United States
    Here is a literal translation of Job 19:25-26:

    "For [or "Yet"] I know that my Kinsman-Redeemer [or "Avenger" or "Vindicator"] is living, and at last He shall arise [or "stand"] on the dust [or "earth"]. Even after they surround [or "destroy"] my skin, yet this: From [or "without"] my flesh I shall see God...." (Job 19:25-26)

    ...and at last He shall arise [or "stand"] on the dust [or "earth"]...

    In this statement, Job could have been prophesying of a time after his death when God would vindicate and deliver him. (Job 3:21-22; 6:8; 7:5-10,15-16,21; 14:14; 16:18; 17:1,13-16) Or Job could have been prophesying of a day within his lifetime when God would vindicate and deliver him. (Job 10:9; 13:15-21; 11:20-22; 23:10; 17:9; 23:10; 29:1-25; cf. Ps. 3:7) Either interpretation is possible.

    ...Even after they surround [or "destroy"] my skin....

    Who were "they" GTX?
    "They" could have been the "worms" and "dust" that were "covering" Job's skin while he was yet alive, (Job 7:5) or they could have been the "worms" and "dust" of the grave. (Job 17:14; 21:26; 24:20) Or "they" could have been God's "troops," i.e., Job's accusers and former friends who were "encompassing" him and who could not, metaphorically speaking, get enough of his "flesh." (Job 10:17; 16:13; 19:12-20,22; 30:1-15; 31:31; Ps. 14:4; 27:2) Any of these interpretations is possible GTX.

    ...From [or "without"] my flesh I shall see God...

    GTX, Here Job could have meant, "from the vantage point of my flesh," that it to say, "looking out from my flesh I shall see God." Or Job could have meant, "from outside of my flesh," that is, "free from my flesh I shall see God." Either interpretation is possible.

    In light of the above possible interpretations, there are four basic possibilities as to the meaning of Job's prophecy:

    1. Job expected to die from his afflictions, and to be delivered and vindicated at a non-fleshly resurrection at the Last Day.

    2. Job expected to die from his afflictions, and to be delivered and vindicated in Sheol.

    3. Job expected to be vindicated and delivered from all his afflictions, and to see God within his own lifetime, before he died, while still in his flesh.

    4. Job expected to die from his afflictions, and to be delivered and vindicated in a "resurrection of the flesh" at the Last Day.

    GTX, with a little honest study on your part, you would see that, due to the difficulties in translating this prophecy, expositors and translators have rendered Job's meaning in these four different lights. Which position one takes depends not simply on one's skill as a translator or on one's understanding of the overall meaning of the book of Job, but to an extent on one's personal eschatological presuppositions.

    All preterists reject #4, which option incidentally enjoys the least amount of scholarly support, and is the only option that contradicts the preterist view. (This option is also quickly eliminated when we see that Job explicitly denies a resurrection of the flesh in Job 14:7-12.)

    [automator disengaged]
  9. And there was not a sound in all the heavens again.
    Why is it that when we ask our futurist brothers to show what they believe from the Old Testament there is on response?

    Why is there not a sound in all the heavens when we ask for scripture on these things? :scratch: Because it is just not found anywere in scripture. :eek:

    [automator disengaged] So ture. I like that.
  10. Lets get a little logical and literal: Christ did not come on the clouds of heaven or reward ever man when he was raised form the dead. Someone who knows scripture will nail you to the cross on that one. And the Bible only teaches one second coming not two. :(
  11. GTX

    GTX <font size=1><font color=gray><b>Rapid Transit Aut

    Tell me what good any scripture is if you guys are going to just say it's all spiritual, the new testament is about physical or bodily resurrection.

    Besides you guys are like a gang, and you're confusing. First it is your burden to prove somehow that the resurrection is not physical, God wouldn't make it that hard to understand, you need to trust the bible and realize it is Physical!

    If you can't see that references to resurrection in the NT are physical and bodily, then the point is moot.

    It seems like you refuse to accept that the NT is about physical resurrection, when Christ lived it was physical, when Christ died it was physical, when Christ rose after Crucifixtion it was physical, when Jesus promised to return it is written it will be physical and seen by all, see the pattern, the Resurrection is physical, and Christs return will be physical, if it wasn't why would all the resurrection scripture in the NT be only parables? Whats the point of that?

    No matter who talks with you, you find a way around it, why? Do you think your the greatest scholars ever to walk the earth? Do you think your above everyone? No you have 1 track minds and not even willing to consider.

    I would never accept that Jesus is not coming back in the flesh, sorry.

    You are living in a fantasy land or so it seems.
  12. eldermike

    eldermike Pray Supporter

    With Christian love I write this to the confused and tricked:
    Satan had only one goal in tempting Jesus before Jesus began His ministry. To keep him from the cross. Every trick was for that end. How do I know this? When Peter tried to keep Jesus from the cross Jesus said: "you sound just like Satan". The cross was and is and always will be salvation. Sin separated us from God, the cross hides my sin thus I am saved. Salvation is simply the covering of my sin with the blood of Jesus. All that is required is belief in that fact. Why is this gift so hard to take?it's freely given. The reason is the enemy is still trying to keep you from the cross, He lost when Jesus went to the cross but He can still keep you from it. What would Jesus say regarding this thread? What did He say to Peter?. This stuff is not Christian, you are free to believe it, write it, even teach it, but it's about as far off track as one can go. It is exactly the same as it always has been, keep em from the cross and they will be lost. Christ lived in a body, died in a body, rose in a body, all to set me free from sin. If He returns before you respond to this I will not be here, I am saved now. I will pray.

  13. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    United States
    Jesus returned 1900 odd years before you even submitted your post, and you are still here.

    Dosen't mean you aren't saved, I'm sure you are.

    As far as "these things" not being "christian" could you be a little more specific?

    What is it exactly that is "Un christian" about believing Jesus kept His word and returned exaclty when He said He would?

    Peace in Christ,
  14. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    United States
    Ok GTX, you have made yourself very clear.
    Since you believe the NT preaches a physical return and a physical resurrection, 1 million scriptures to the contrary wouldn't make you believe otherwise.

    In Contrast, I am more than willing to let scripture determine my beliefs. no belief I now hold, have ever held or will ever hold is above "scriptural correction and reproof".

    You have made it quite clear that you feel your beliefs are immune to correction from scripture.

    Yep, you are right. Nothing, not even scriptural proof to the contrary, could make you alter your current belief.

    I'm sorry too.
  15. ArtistEd

    ArtistEd Junior Member

    You are living in a fantasy land or so it seems. [/B]

    Hi GTX,
    Since we're living in a fantasyland, would you be so kind as to explain these verses in light of what you believe as this is the most direct references that I can find about what kind of body comes after resurrection. If you know of some verses that are clearer and can contradict these, please let me know, as this is where I get my understanding from.

    35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?" 36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain--perhaps wheat or some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh F50 of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." F51 The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord F52 from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear F53 the image of the heavenly Man. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

    51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed-- 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." F54 55 "O Death, where is your sting? F55 O Hades, where is your victory?" F56 56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

    58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.
  16. GTX

    GTX <font size=1><font color=gray><b>Rapid Transit Aut

    Ok, since you know everything and you know that the scriptures are spiritual what is the scripture that carries the most weight in the Preterist belief?

    Don't bombard me with too much at once, I want to interpret 1 scripture at a time.

    If you want to.
  17. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    United States
    Wow, The scripture that carries the most weight?

    You might as well have asked me "Which m&m in the bag is the best tasting?"

    The entirety of scripture is what carries the weight that deals the death blow to futurism,
    But if you truly seek a "starting point", Luke 21:20-22 was one of the first scriptures that started me asking questions about what I'd been taught to believe, and testing it against what God's word says.

    20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

    How does the futurist interprate this passage?
  18. GTX

    GTX <font size=1><font color=gray><b>Rapid Transit Aut

    Man, I NEED an automated scripture posting method. ;)

    Hang on, I am cross referencing it with Romans chapter 9.

    Maybe I will start a new thread that deals with the preterist view and the study of each scripture, what else do we have to do? Is there a thread like that already?

    It seems that there are a LOT of preterist threads and it is just too much at once.
  19. GTX

    GTX <font size=1><font color=gray><b>Rapid Transit Aut

    Well much is said in the book of Luke.

    Well I think, the fact that the time of the Gentiles will run it's course, is suggesting that Israel will once again play a significant role in Gods plan.
  20. GTX

    GTX <font size=1><font color=gray><b>Rapid Transit Aut

    How is Jesus going to set his feet on the mount of Olives at the end of the tribulation to establish the 1000 year reign if it is not physical? After the reign will be a new heaven and a new Earth.