How I came to embrace Preterism.

[EchoPneuma]

Totally agree. Great post. It is a sad day that not even christians are interested in spending the time to know and understand their faith. If it fits on a bumper sticker or makes for an exciting fiction book then it is obviously true, but if it takes study and diligence (and, GASP, understanding your bible) then it is wrangling over words and possibly at odds with a relationship with God.

I guess I just like being weird...

Well after all...the bible says that we are to be a "peculiar" people

 

[gort]

I simply said you can't SAY that without CONTRADICTING that scripture in Hebrews. And you CAN'T. If you REALLY believe that you've already been saved (and you do) and then you say you don't believe Jesus has returned the second time, you are CONTRADICTING that scripture in Hebrews.

That scriptures says that when Jesus returns the SECOND TIME that He will come to BRING SALVATION.

So IF you believe that Jesus has brought salvation to men, then you also HAVE to believe that Jesus has returned the SECOND TIME because that is WHEN He was going to bring it. Otherwise, you are contradicting scripture.

If you believe that Jesus hasn't returned the second time, then you also have to believe He hasn't brought salvation to men yet (based on the scripture in Hebrews) and therefore, if that were true, then NONE of us would have salvation yet.

You can't have it both ways. You can't believe that you have salvation and yet Jesus hasn't come the second time. That totally contradicts what it says in that scripture in Hebrews. Our beliefs MUST line up with scripture or they are false.

That is what I said. I didn't say that you aren't saved.

I have salvation today. I was justified by faith in Christ Jesus yesterdays ago, I'm being sanctified today, and tomorrow when Jesus makes His 2nd coming, I will be glorified.

The salvation Jesus brings in Hebrews is the completeness of Salvation. The glorification part.

In this rendering of the verses, there is no contradiction.

<><

 

[EchoPneuma]

I have salvation today. I was justified by faith in Christ Jesus yesterdays ago, I'm being sanctified today, and tomorrow when Jesus makes His 2nd coming, I will be glorified.

The salvation Jesus brings in Hebrews is the completeness of Salvation. The glorification part.

In this rendering of the verses, there is no contradiction.

<><

Yeah....uh huh...you just added to the scripture. It doesn't say anything about glorification there. You have to add that to justify your belief. You have to "render" it saying something else so there is no contradiction. Tsk tsk

You see that the scripture in Hebrews totally contradicts what you believe concerning the second coming, and so you have to ADD to the scripture something that isn't there, in order to make it line up with your doctrine.

THAT is a no no.

We are to line up our doctrine with what the bible says. That is why I am a preterist today. I lined up my beliefs with what the bible says, instead of twisting and adding to the scriptures to make them say what will line up with my beliefs.

 

[katallasso]

OK....will someone here tell me what a preterist is in five paragraphs or less?

 

[gort]

Yeah....uh huh...you just added to the scripture. It doesn't say anything about glorification there. You have to add that to justify your belief. You have to "render" it saying something else so there is no contradiction. Tsk tsk

You see that the scripture in Hebrews totally contradicts what you believe concerning the second coming, and so you have to ADD to the scripture something that isn't there, in order to make it line up with your doctrine.

THAT is a no no.

We are to line up our doctrine with what the bible says. That is why I am a preterist today. I lined up my beliefs with what the bible says, instead of twisting and adding to the scriptures to make them say what will line up with my beliefs.

So are you now glorified? You are now in a new body? There is no more sin nature?

Paul spoke of justification and sanctification in his day.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1Co 1:2 to the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called out with all those in every place who call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.

So if we are both justified by faith, and sanctified, and sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption......and Jesus is going to bring salvation at the second coming, the word 'salvation' must be the "full posession" of salvation.

Paul has already spoken of the posession of justification and sanctification.

What's left but glorification?

<><

 

[Hidden Manna]

Thats right EP, it's kind of like the Prodical son who never knew what he had at home and it still was there for him to enjoy but he wasted time in the wilderness of the world.

Not knowing that Christians are saved right now is not what God wants us to believe. The first century Christians before AD70 had no choice to believe that way until the temple and city were destroyed. After that Jesus showed Himselves to be the Almighty conqueor by bringing the old system of heaven and earth to it's promised end and then created a new new heaven and earth in which the meek posses in the spiritual realm which has no end.

 

[katallasso]

I really do want to know what a preterist is.

 

[gort]

Hi katallasso,

You might check out all of HiddenManna's posts.

I'm sorry, but I can't help in that department.



<><

 

[Hello There]

Preterism is starting to make more sense now, also futurism doesn't really make sense to me anymore....you see, how is it possible to reconcile the following scripture with futurism?

Matt. 10:23--Jesus said He would return in the lifetime of His disciples.


Matt. 16:27-28--Jesus said He would return with His angels to judge all men before every one standing there died.

Matt. 24:29-34--Jesus said He would return in the clouds with His angels--in that generation.

Acts 3:19--Peter said Jesus would return when all the Old Covenant prophecies were fulfilled. If the Old Prophesies have not been fulfilled, the Old Covenant is still in effect. (Matthew 5:17-18)

Romans 13:12--Paul said "the day is at hand." That was said 1900 years ago!

1 Cor. 7:28-31--Paul said "the fashion of this world is passing away," and "the time is short." Again, this was stated 1900 years ago to that generation.

Hebrews 9:28, 10:37--The writer said Christ would appear a second time for salvation and then asserted "in a very, very little while He that will come, and will not tarry." Is 1900 years a "little while?"

James 5:7-9--James urged his readers to be faithful "until the coming of the Lord," he says "The coming of the Lord is at hand," and "The judge is standing right at the door."

1 John 2:15-18--John said the world was passing away and "it is the last hour." Again, the last hour was 1900 years ago!

Revelation--this book says no less than ten times that its predictions "must shortly come to pass," were "at hand," were to happen "quickly," there would be "no more delay," etc., etc.

 

[gort]

Preterism is starting to make more sense now, also futurism doesn't really make sense to me anymore....you see, how is it possible to reconcile the following scripture with futurism?

[/font]

Hi Carl,

The preterist says Jesus made an invisible return. Does the Scriptures say it is invisible? Or does it say otherwise.....

DOes history show a 1000 year reign of Christ?

Do the 1st and 2nd century early church fathers write of Jesus' return as already happened? whether invisible or visible? CHeck Ignatius and Polycarp. They were still waiting.....

Regarding the time factor, does God work in regards to mans time or His own?

I would think had He returned, it would be quite evident from history.

fwiw

<><

 

[stauron]

I really do want to know what a preterist is.

Hello,

There are many threads out there about preterism. The simplist definition is that it is a flavor of eschatology. The word means past and denotes that most or all prophecy occurred in the first century.

That is also the simplistic definition.

It is more a hermeneutic or philosophy. If you contrast the when of scripture with the how, most forms of futurism choose to give more weight to how scripture is relevent for today and assume that prophecy must meet their guidelines for fulfillment. Since "x" didn't happen exactly how I expected it to, then it must still be waiting to be fulfilled.

Preterism takes a different tack and examines the time statements and the other whens surrounding "x" and the Old Testament background for fulfillment. Preterists then seek to understand the how in terms of the original audience. Since "x" uses the same language as Isaiah does, and Isaiah was speaking about an event that happened in his lifetime, maybe there were events that occured in the same way that fulfilled "x".

Zechariah 14 is a great example.

14:1 A day of the Lord is about to come when your possessions will be divided as plunder in your midst. 14:2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to wage war; the city will be taken, its houses plundered, and the women raped. Then half of the city will go into exile, but the remainder of the people will not be taken away. 14:3 Then the Lord will go to battle and fight against those nations, just as he fought battles in ancient days. 14:4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives which lies to the east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in half from east to west, leaving a great valley. Half the mountain will move northward and the other half southward.

Most futurists focus on verse 4 and say, well this must not have happened because the Mount of Olives is still in one piece.

The preterist will look at verse 3 and say, "just as He fought in ancient days"?, that sounds like symbolic language. God never rode into battle on a horse, nor carried a sword or armor or... So I bet that the feet and the split are likewise symbolic. Not to mention that "day of the Lord" usually means God's judgment, and almost everly reference to it in the Old Testament Scriptures refers to another nation coming and conquering the nation so judged.

That make any sense? How = futurist = changing the time statements to match expected fulfillment.

When = preterist = changing the understanding of the how to fit the time statements.

 

[stauron]

Hi Stauron,

I'm curious here.....is it a case of either or here? Either one believes that the full preterist has the correct view of things and those who are'nt merely read bumper stickers and sci-fi books?

I would agree with what you say, there are those who believe in bumper sticker-ism.

However, I would also say there is a problem if somebody is going to tell me I'm not saved because I don't believe the 2nd coming of Christ has already happened. I would relegate this to the same degree as to what the JW will tell me, that Jesus also made an invisible return in 1914 (?)



<><

Very fair question. My comments were much broader than just preterism, as my debate over in the election/free will threads has the same flavor.

I think that everyone is saved in spite of what they believe on some level. No one has perfect knowledge of the ways of God and is therefore deficient in every way. Does anyone really understand the atonement fully? How about the trinity? What about God being born? How did Adam (created VERY good in a VERY good world) fall?

I don't think anyone has exhaustive knowledge, but christians have true knowledge.

So, I guess to actually answer your question, NO.

I am sure that many christians (not the ivory tower scholars from this august place) barely make it through the day clinging to what we would consider milk. I am not disparaging that at all.

But I am unsure of those that are content with bumpersticker-ism or those that are unwilling to plumb the depths... I know that part of that is just my temperment, but there is some amount of laziness in thought there that should be challenged.

 

[gort]

Stauron quotes:

Very fair question. My comments were much broader than just preterism, as my debate over in the election/free will threads has the same flavor.

thanx. i wanted to clarify.

I think that everyone is saved in spite of what they believe on some level. No one has perfect knowledge of the ways of God and is therefore deficient in every way. Does anyone really understand the atonement fully? How about the trinity? What about God being born? How did Adam (created VERY good in a VERY good world) fall?

We can be given a very sufficient knowledge of God through His written word, of who He is and His nature. Complete? not even. But enough to take a stance. To be a Joshua or a Caleb.

If we are given the ability to understand our sins before a Righteous God, then we can understand the atonement. We can have a picture of His Righteousness, and His Justice, and His love for man.

If we are reborn, we can get a good glimpse as to how Adam was in the Garden. Complete? no. Adam was not made with a sin nature. ANd Adam was not made a divine creature.

But I am unsure of those that are content with bumpersticker-ism or those that are unwilling to plumb the depths... I know that part of that is just my temperment, but there is some amount of laziness in thought there that should be challenged.

Then if God has put in your heart to challenge, then do so. What He puts in the heart can be heard, if one listens. As long as it strives for unity, and not schizms.

<><

 

[Hello There]

Hi Carl,

The preterist says Jesus made an invisible return. Does the Scriptures say it is invisible? Or does it say otherwise.....

DOes history show a 1000 year reign of Christ?

Do the 1st and 2nd century early church fathers write of Jesus' return as already happened? whether invisible or visible? CHeck Ignatius and Polycarp. They were still waiting.....

Regarding the time factor, does God work in regards to mans time or His own?

I would think had He returned, it would be quite evident from history.

could some preterists share their views on this?
I apologise if you've already debated thing on this thread already.

 

[EchoPneuma]

could some preterists share their views on this?
I apologise if you've already debated thing on this thread already.

Carl,
The simple fact is that Jesus SAID that He was coming back within the 1st generation. There is no other way to read the plain statements He makes.

He says to the 12 disciples after He had given them their instructions to go out all over Israel to preach the gospel "And you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes"

Then He says to some disciples who He was preaching to "Some of YOU STANDING HERE will not die until you see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom"

Then in Luke 21, when He is answering the disciple's question about when Herod's temple was to be destroyed, talks about His second coming as being at the same time....and we KNOW the temple was destroyed in 70. Then He goes on to say at the end of His answer "THIS GENERATION will not pass away until ALL these things be fulfilled.

THen look at this exchange between Jesus and the High Priest in Matthew 26:



63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."



64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future YOU will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.

Doesn't He tell the High Priest that HE will see it?

Because of all these clear statements of Jesus, preterists believe He returned when HE SAID HE WOULD. Since none of us were there, we really don't know HOW it all happened. Futurists must believe Jesus was a false prophet because they say His prophecies about His return within that first generation never happened.....that all those disciples DID die and NONE of them saw Him coming in His kingdom (like He said they would)...that the 12 disciples DID finish going through all the towns of Israel and Jesus hasn't come back yet (unlike He told them He would)....and that the first generation DID pass away and all the things HAVE NOT happened (even though Jesus said they would all be fulfilled before that generation passed away) So it makes Jesus out to be a liar.

Therefore, I cannot be a futurist. Jesus said He would come back THEN. I believe it. If He said it....I BELIEVE IT. Now, it is just up to me to figure out HOW the signs were fulfilled and HOW it happened....but the WHEN is already established because of the CLEAR words of Jesus Himself.

Then when you read the historians Josephus and Tacitus and they recount the supernatural events that they saw surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple....it leaves no doubt. (although I had no doubt anyway because of what Jesus said).

That people like Daneel want to say that no one saw a physical Jesus hovering in the sky is a moot point. Jesus DID come back then because HE SAID SO. If it wasn't in the form or fashion that futurists THINK He should have come back, then they say it didn't happen.......making Jesus out to be a liar and false prophet.

I think it's interesting that the writings of MEN seem to hold more weight with them than the words of Jesus. Jesus said HE WAS COMING BACK THEN....but some early church fathers say He didn't....SO THEREFORE HE DIDN'T. They CHOOSE to believe the perceptions of men rather than Jesus Himself. I don't understand it.

Jesus also said in Luke 21:22 (when He was talking about the destruction of Herod's temple)
"For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written."

We know that the "all that has been written" ,up to that point, was the OT scriptures. So Jesus says that the time of punishment ending with the 70 events would fulfill ALL the OT. Look in Daniel.(which is in the OT) and you will find the resurrection of the dead also. Well, in the NT we know that the resurrection of the dead occurs at the Second Coming.

Anyway, you get the jist of it. We believe ALL prophecy has been fulfilled and that Jesus has returned...BECAUSE HE SAID SO. It's as simple as that....but then history AND the sciptures bear it out.

 

[gort]

Echopneuma quotes:

That people like Daneel want to say that no one saw a physical Jesus hovering in the sky is a moot point. Jesus DID come back then because HE SAID SO. If it wasn't in the form or fashion that futurists THINK He should have come back, then they say it didn't happen.......making Jesus out to be a liar and false prophet.

Oh...look!

Id'nt that special!



group hug, everybody!

<><

 

[Hidden Manna]

Resurrection of the Dead is another topic that is misunderstood by most because of a literial physical view of it.

This is where hyper-literalism leads us. It turns scripture into a jumbled mass of contradictions.

Let’s just start with the Old Testament. Remember, you must make your theory jive both with the old and new testaments. You will not find four resurrections in the Old Testament, only one. Moreover, you do not see the Messiah bring two different kingdoms separated by thousands of years. He only brings one, and He does it all at once.

The futuristic view has a 2000 year gap between kingdoms, resurrections, comings of the Lord, etc. anywhere in the Bible? The time statements of the Bible alone destroy the futuristic view arguments flat out. However that is not it’s only problem.

It is futurist interpretations like this that cause so many Jews and Muslims to reject Christianity. They know the Bible as well as we do. They can plainly see that there is only one kingdom one resurrection etc. They can also plainly see that the scriptures show the Messiah accomplishing his mission in a short period of time. This has always been Jewish thinking on the matter. Consequently, they reject Jesus as Messiah because He did not get the job done and it is futurist eschatology that causes them to do so.

The Old Testament prophets are not the only ones that futuristic hermeneutic contradicts. He makes Paul look like a very confused individual who is constantly changing his mind and contradicting himself.

I really can’t cover all full preterists have to say about Paul’s view of the resurrection in a few paragraphs. I would highly recommend Sam Frost’s book, “Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead.” It is excellent on the subject.

Let’s just look at a few passages.

For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:5-11)

The futurist argue that there is a spiritual resurrection for the believer then a future physical bodily resurrection. Here in Romans six Paul says that in that day they had already been united with Christ in the likeness of His death and they would someday be united with Him in the likeness of His resurrection. Therefore, since this is a future event, according to a futuristic view, this must be physical bodily resurrection Paul is talking about.

Notice how Paul says that the body of sin had been done away with already. This is obviously not the physical body. It is something spiritual. Yet, if dying with Christ has nothing to do with actually getting on the cross and dying physically, how can Paul be talking about a future bodily resurrection? Moreover, look at Paul’s emphasis on the nature of the resurrection in verses 9-11. Being united with Christ in the likeness of His death was about escaping the dominion of sin. Being united with Christ in the likeness of His resurrection is about being alive to God. Paul ends this passage, not by saying, consider your bodies as already out of the casket. He says consider your self already alive to God. Thus, even then they were participating in an event that was already but not yet.

I Corinthians 15, is a chapter that most futurists consider a slam dunk for their interpretation. However, on the contrary, a careful examination of this passage and a little knowledge of Greek, show otherwise. In fact, Paul looks like one confused fellow if we try to force the futurist interpretation of I Cor. 15.

Even the most ardent futurist will admit that the verb tenses Paul uses in I Cor. 15 are very puzzling. Paul explains that the defeat of death and the resurrection of the dead was something already in progress in his day. If he is talking about “physical” bodily resurrection, how could this be so? Were people living longer? Rising half way out of there tombs?

For example in verses 15-16 the verbs Paul uses are present passive indicatives. This passage could therefore be translated:
…if in fact the dead are not rising. For if the dead are not rising, then Christ has not risen.

Likewise in verse 26 we see death being destroyed. In verse 35 Paul asks how the dead are being raised. (Note also here Paul uses a singular noun. Not in what bodies do they come but body. Then he does not say, in what body do we come, but in what body do they come. Why?) Paul also uses the present passive indicative tense in his seed analogy in this passage. Moreover, verse 57 should read that Christ is giving us victory. If physical death is the topic here, how could Christ be giving them victory? Were their bodies getting just a little glorified?

I Cor 15 actually makes much more sense when we take the covenantal corporate approach to its interpretation. The body here is not singular but corporate. It is not physical but spiritual. They were putting off the body of sin—the same one Paul talks about in Romans six. That corporate body was tied to the old covenant and while in that body they were dead to God. They were putting on the Body of Christ. In that body we are alive to God and freed from the power of sin and death.

If Paul is talking about bodily resurrection here, why does he in verse 46 say the natural comes first then the spiritual? If there is a spiritual resurrection followed by a physical bodily resurrection shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Then there is the problem that I Cor. 15 disagrees with II Cor 5 and other passages. If we take the futurist bodily view of the resurrection, we see some serious contradictions in Paul’s eschatology concerning the timing of the resurrection. In I Cor 15 the resurrection occurs at the Parousia. In I Cor 5 it occurs at the death of the individual believer. Which is it? Some scholars even suggest Paul changed his mind between these two letters!

So we see that the idea of many resurrections makes a mess of the scriptures. It disagrees not only with the Old Testament eschatology but it also makes Paul look a bit foolish and confused.

 

[EchoPneuma]

Oh...look!

Id'nt that special!



group hug, everybody!

<><

Well...Jesus said He was coming back in the lifetimes of those He was speaking to. Futurists say He hasn't come back yet. So what are they saying about the truthfulness of Jesus?

 

[EchoPneuma]

Excellent post Hidden Manna. Good points all.

 

[Hidden Manna]

Excellent post Hidden Manna. Good points all.

This is the area where we get blasted with the "H" word and yet our view makes sense out of scripture.

I'm not sure where the idea came from that we would be walking through walls someday with physical bodies that also will fly in the air that most have bought into including myself at one time. It must have come from Hyper Darbyism.

Paul's Change in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed 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. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 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. "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" (1 Corinthians 15:51-55)

In order to understand the change that Paul says the (first century saints) would go through (we shall all be changed) We as in Paul looked forward to be changed also. We today must understand the change according to the Bible and Paul's understanding, and not the traditional idea's of the change today.

What was this great change that the living would go through? Lest start at the beginning of the Bible. In Genesis 2:15-17 God told man concerning the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil "in the day you eat thereof you will surely die." Man and woman ate of the fruit. Did they die that day? Amazingly, most people will say "No!" because Adam and Eve did not die physically after they ate the forbidden fruit. But this is not the whole story.

And Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden the day they ate the fruit. Thus, Adam and Eve died spiritually because they were cast out of the presence of God. If Adam and Eve did not die the day they ate then Satan told the truth and God lied! God said you will die in the day you eat, Satan said you will not surely die, Genesis 3:1ff. Who told the truth to Adam and Eve? Unless one can find Adam and Eve physically dead in Genesis 2-3, then the death they died was spiritual and not physical. Death in this context means separation, sin-death, (i.e. separation from God caused by sin); not physical death.

In Romans 5:20 we read Paul said the law was added, "that sin might abound." This does not mean that God gave the Old Law to make men sin more — man had no problem doing that on his own as we see in Genesis. But God gave the Old Law to make sin appear exceedingly sinful, to make man acutely aware of his sinfulness.

The New Testament writers likened life under the Old Covenant to death, because all those under the Law were under the curse, Gal. 3:10. Paul called the Old Testament the "ministration of death" because all it did was condemn; it could not justify, Romans 8:1-3. In chapter 7 of the same book Paul said: "I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me" vs. 9-11.

Can Paul be speaking of physical death? If so, then he was saying he was a physical dead man who was still physically writing, apparently not. Yet he said he had died. Paul's "dying" is to be equated with the old covenant. This is in the present tense. This is the law that Paul labored under created a "body of death." (Romans. 7:24) My point is that Paul calls that Old Law the Ministration of Death because it could not deliver from sin. Paul had learned that he could not earn righteousness in all of his efforts under the Law and all attempt to do so were actually death.

It is evident therefore that when Paul uses the term "the law" in 1 Corinthians 15 that his consistent use of the term should guide our understanding. Paul has not changed subjects. Is it possible to define the Old Covenant as the strength of sin? Now if the Old Law was a (ministration of death), what would deliverance change from that death be? Would it be life from the dead? Allowing the Bible to define the change as deliverance from sin, (separation from God) the Old Covenant of Death to the New Covenant of Life, in Christ we understand Paul's New Testament language of change in (1 Corinthians 15:51-55) 1 Pet. 1:23, would that not be a change from corruptibility to incorruptibility?

The apostle Paul says those who were turning to Christ from that Old Covenant were in fact "being changed or transformed (present tense) into the same image (greek eikona) from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2 Corinthians 3:18) What image were they being transformed into? It was the glory of the Lord! The change or transition from the Old Covenant to the New was a transformation into the image of Christ

Paul is plainly dealing with the same issue as Jesus, life and death. Paul strongly believed that the transformation from death, under the Old Covenant to life in Christ was a change from death to life. The subject of this change was the two covenant aeons." (ages,)

Paul has not changed subjects; he is still focused on his singular desire "the change or resurrection from, literally "out from the dead." Our modern view today denies the relationship of the Old Covenant to death and life — spiritual life. It fails to take into consideration that man stands before God in relationship to Covenant. To live under a Ministration of Death was to be a body of death, Rom. 7:24; 8:8-10. (separation from God) To be delivered from that ministration of death was to be changed into a new ministration or covenant of life. This is the Biblical concept of the change in 1 Corinthians 15:51-55.

To put it another way, since the Old Law was the Ministration of Death and the New Law of Christ is the Law of Life, the change became a reality with the full establishment of Christ's New Covenant. The first century saints were in a "already but not yet" aspect to of the change. This meant that there was a time of transition between the Old Covenant of the Law and the New Covenant a time when those coming out from that Old Law were coming into life.

When that Old Covenant of Death was completely taken away, this is called the resurrection. This is the Biblical concept of resurrection. "Christ is the end of the law to those who believe," Rom. 10:4. But the Law would pass when fulfilled and the Hebrew writer says it was at that time growing old and was ready to vanish away, Hebrews 8:13. To Paul and his readers this was a futuristic element of the change. As we have seen earlier, the Biblical definition of life and death, in the context is covenants and Jesus' redemptive work, from death caused by sin, i.e. separation from God.

Since Paul's context for the living is change, in (1 Corinthians 15:51-55) that change is life forever in the very presence God under the new covenant.
__________________

Many teach these earthly bodies will be turn into something that cannot die. However in Isaiah 65 concerning the New Heaven and Earth people still die and sinners are accursed. Just like today.
The change is life that is put in our vessels (bodies) so that we can take hold of eternal life.

Here is a verse that can help explain what the scripture is referring to from the Old Testament.

Isa 25:7 And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations.
Isa 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.
Isa 25:9 And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.

Life was found in Jesus.

Also the tears from the Law were taken away.

When they in Jerusalem came from Law to grace. (Glory to Glory).
They went from death to life.

The temple Killed, brought pain, tears, death, sorrow, etc:

Acts 2 Was the new covenant that brought life, joy, peace, salvation, etc: