Inconsistencies in the preterist view?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wasn't very familiar with preterism, so I looked it up and found this (among other sites):

http://www.lvcm.com/preterism/preteristview.htm

Preterists here will have to chime in and say if they think this is a valid presentation of the preterist view. I have no way of knowing. And this page lacked a lot of information I feel is necessary to fully evaluate the preterist view.

But I felt that this presentation was filled with inconsistencies in hermeneutics and exegesis. For one thing, much of the argument tends to pivot on this verse:

Matthew 16:27-28 (NKJV) "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

The point made is that Jesus would have had to return before some of those standing there died.

Then the presentation goes on to explain how it could be possible that there would be no more death...

Most believers today reading John's words speaking of the conditions in the New heaven and earth, "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death", understand "death" to be physical. Therefore, they look for a future fulfillment of this verse. But the immediate result of man's sin was not physical death but spiritual death -- separation from God. The Lord said to Adam, "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." He didn't die physically that day, but he did die spiritually. Time-- in the day, defines nature-- spiritual death! It is spiritual death that is destroyed in the New Covenant not physical death.

IMO, this seems to undermine the first argument. Why is it necessary to interpret the first as physical death, but permissible to explain away the second reference to death as spiritual?

Jesus could easily have been saying that some of those standing there (those who were saved) would not taste death before they saw Jesus coming into His kingdom because they were now alive spiritually once more and would not die again -- they were going to "fall asleep" (often used to described the saved who die physically).

That's just one example, but the whole argument seems to jump back and forth between literal and symbolic interpretation of the text. In general, however, it seems to take a literal view of the text to establish the foundation and then invokes a symbolic interpretation whenever it is needed to explain the contradictions and problems. IMO that's usually a dead giveaway that you have to start over and see if your premise is flawed.

So am I missing something here, or is this page simply an inadequate presentation?
 

BigEd

an adopted child of God
Feb 15, 2002
1,090
4
58
connecticut
✟9,726.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I see two major differences between furturism and preterism.

Futurism
Views timing metaphorically
Views events literally


Preterism
Views timing literally
views events metaphorically


In my mind this is truely a paradox.

I will just keep praying and keep searching the word. Either way The LORD is control of all, including the fufillment of profacy.
Just like Christ shocked the establiment of religion during his first coming, maybe he'll shake us up again.
 
Upvote 0

jenlu

Active Member
May 29, 2002
246
2
Visit site
✟625.00
npetreley...

That's a very good question...I'm not a preterist and I don't account that verse for the Second Coming (yet)...but I do account that verse for those standing there...but you bring up a very good point on why? Death there is physical and the defeat of death at the ressurrection is spiritual...Great question...There may be some Greek to help explain, but I do not have my concordance...You see...the word we may interpret world...in the Greek it may really mean: land, age, world, etc...sometimes it depends on prefixes and other times they are different words altogether...I suggest if you really are interested...find out what the greek words used in that verse and compare it to other verse's that have the same greek words and try to deduce what is meant by death there...

This is why I account that a many other verse's to the (including the tribulation verse's) first century...the indictment Jesus lays down is not just on some random nation or people for a future generation...it is on the Jewish hierarchy...I believe this is obviously shown in Matthew 23...then his disciple's talk to him about the temple then standing and he says to them, that the temple they are talking about will be utterly destroyed...That temple...not a future one...that temple was destroyed in 70AD...to me that is the only possible fulfillment of that scripture...Right after his indictment of the temple that is right before them they ask him about the end of the "age"...here is a place where many Bible's put world...but the word in Greek is "aion" meaning age...he goes on to give sign's of the end of the "age" and then boxes it all in saying "this generation shall not pass till all this takes place"... My belief is that the first generation saw the tribulation that would not be equaled...and all the signs leading up to it described in Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13...
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
Originally posted by npetreley
So am I missing something here, or is this page simply an inadequate presentation?

I would say you are missing something, and what you have presented is indeed inadequate, to this degree, you have linked together two separate thoughts to say one thing so creating a "straw-man" that logic blows over -not the an adequate way to challenge something without bringing your own case, IMO. You then went onto say:

Originally posted by npetreley
That's just one example, but the whole argument seems to jump back and forth between literal and symbolic interpretation of the text. In general, however, it seems to take a literal view of the text to establish the foundation and then invokes a symbolic interpretation whenever it is needed to explain the contradictions and problems. IMO that's usually a dead giveaway that you have to start over and see if your premise is flawed.

What you fail to recognise or at least acknowledge is that absolutely every school of eschatology uses both "literal and symbolic interpretation of the text" and it would be showing one's own flawed premise in denying this. The above quote is indicative of the usual hypocritical charge brought by futurists against the preterist eschatological approach, [npetreley, I am not calling you a hypocrite].

The question is, which school has the more consistant biblical balance -I believe futurism is well lacking in this area.

I won't speak for the authors of the page you quoted from, however you can [for consistancies sake] approach both those quotes from a literal perspective. If, as most futurists pride themselves, you take Matt 16:27-28 literally then Jesus had to return in the "this generation" time frame for His statement to be true, [unless one does what what is charged of Preterists -you spiritualise it away] -now as I said, all schools literalise and spiritualise, but which is more honoring to the text -I believe the "fulfilled prophecy" approach is. Some futurists seeking to explain away the literality of these verses say: the "Coming" here mentioned was the "Transfiguration" -this however lacks credibilty as verse 27 clearly shows the Lord giving "rewards," which elsewhere in scripture is indelibly linked with the Parousia -it was promised, some would not die before... This was fulfilled in 70AD.

As for the issue of "death in the garden" you have a choice to literally believe God or Satan -God said: "on the day you eat of it you shall die!" -Satan said: "you shall not!"

npetreley, who do you believe told the truth, God or Satan? Who do you say was fathering a lie, God or Satan? Again, God said "on the day..." -did this happen as God said? YES!! Adam died "spiritually" or more precisely "covenantally." The moment Adam bit into the fruit of self determination he sinned, he separated himself from relationship with God; and broken relationship with God the Bible make plain and clear IS DEATH! The bible is chock-full of the redemptive plan of God in bringing separated humanity back to spiritual life i.e., resurrection -this He did in Christ -and it IS a completed salvation.

Again, some would hanker after a "literal" rendering of "death" in Paradise, noting a footnote in the NKJV on Gen 2:17 which says: "dying you shall die" -and consequently explain it as the literal process of physical death begining at that instant. This again is faulty [the explanation, not the NKJV footnote]. The literal Hebrew renderering reads "die die" -the is a Hebraism, a Hebrew idiom [a form of expression having a significance other than the literal one]. In the Hebrew, when a word or series of words [cf Jer 7:4] is sequentially repeated it "intensifies" that word's meaning, giving it an unequivocal definitive position of certainty.

Physical death is the manifestation of the spiritual reality.

Jesus said: "he who believes in Me shall never die," Jesus literally meant what He said -however, He didn't mean it literally -this was Nicodemus' stumbling block [and the stumbling block of many who make ignorant charges].

davo
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,532
4,826
57
Oregon
✟791,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by npetreley


Jesus could easily have been saying that some of those standing there (those who were saved) would not taste death before they saw Jesus coming into His kingdom because they were now alive spiritually once more and would not die again -- they were going to "fall asleep" (often used to described the saved who die physically).


Here's one "inconsistancy" with that interpratation.

To say that some of those standing there would taste "spiritual" death before they say they saw Jesus return, is oxymoronic in that spiritual death (the 2nd death) comes "after" the Judgement, After Christ returns.

Now, it could be argued that the unsaved are already spiritually dead until they accept Christ, and I agree, but that throws another wrench in your argument. Jesus was speaking directly to His disciples. How many of His disciples do you believe never got saved? Remember it has to be "Some" of them, not just 1 (Judas).

Jesus is speaking of Physical death here
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,532
4,826
57
Oregon
✟791,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by BigEd
I see two major differences between furturism and preterism.

Futurism
Views timing metaphorically
Views events literally


Preterism
Views timing literally
views events metaphorically


In my mind this is truely a paradox.


Big Ed, that is an excellent, although simplified take on the basic difference.

Which does the Bible support?

The Bible always uses prophetic time literally.
Any and all Time limits ordained by God for a prophesy's fulfillment are always given to be understood by how time relates to man, and not how time realtes to God.
every time, without fail, always.

In Contrast, the Bible, over and over and over and over and over, uses apocalyptic language (Stars falling, moon bleeding, earth splitting, etc..) as mataphore for disruptions in, and judgements against nations, kingdoms and principalities.

Your "paradox" really isn't, when scriptural precident is taken into account.

Therefore:

Futurism
Views prophetic timing metaphorically,
Views apocalyptic events temporally
Thereby throwing out scriptural precident to the contrary.


The Bible, and therefore Preterism
Views prophetic timing literally
Views apocalyptic events metaphorically.

One of the easiest things to do is let the Bible speak for itself.

One of the most difficult things to do is let the Bible speak for itself.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by davo

What you fail to recognise or at least acknowledge is that absolutely every school of eschatology uses both "literal and symbolic interpretation of the text" and it would be showing one's own flawed premise in denying this.

I wouldn't deny that at all. That's how I approach hermeneutics, as well. And as you've indicated elsewhere in your post, there are times when only one interpretation is logically possible (at least from our limited perspective -- we can think only one is possible and be wrong).

But I didn't see that presentation as exegesis based on what the text seemed to communicate. What it read like (to me, at least) was an arbitrary selection of certain texts to be literal, after which any problematic texts were resolved by treating them as symbolic or spiritual. As I said in my original post, I don't necessarily see the necessity for the first reference to death to be physical (it could be, but I don't see why it is absolutely necessary). And once you get past that point, you no longer have to adjust the other references to mean spiritual death in order to harmonize the scriptures.

But my overall point is that whenever someone does this -- starts with a debatable "necessity" of interpreting something one way or another, and then jumps back and forth between literal and spiritual to resolve the remaining conflicts, it raises a red flag for me that the premise could be flawed.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by parousia70

Here's one "inconsistancy" with that interpratation.

To say that some of those standing there would taste "spiritual" death before they say they saw Jesus return, is oxymoronic in that spiritual death (the 2nd death) comes "after" the Judgement, After Christ returns.

I really just tossed that out as an example of an alternate interpretation, but since I already did it, let me run with it just to see how far it can go.

Look at John 11:25-26

The context of John 11 is the death ("sleep") of Lazarus. Jesus says that Lazarus will rise again, and when Martha interprets this to mean Lazarus will rise again in the resurrection at the last day, Jesus CORRECTS her. "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26 and whoever lives and believes in me will never die."

It seems as if the only way to understand "...he who believes in me will live even though he dies..." must be that he will live spiritually even though he dies physically. But what about the next part? "...and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." If Jesus is talking strictly from a spiritual perspective, isn't this redundant? It seems more likely to me that he's saying that, as the example of Lazarus shows, you don't really die physically in the same way that the unbeliever dies physically.

What's the difference? Having never died physically, I can't say. ;) It would be interesting if we could ask Lazarus if he "tasted death" when he fell asleep.

My point, however, is that there may be more to this whole issue of tasting death than simply spiritual/physical.

Originally posted by parousia70

Now, it could be argued that the unsaved are already spiritually dead until they accept Christ, and I agree, but that throws another wrench in your argument. Jesus was speaking directly to His disciples. How many of His disciples do you believe never got saved? Remember it has to be "Some" of them, not just 1 (Judas).

Actually, the "Some" refers to those who would NOT taste death, not to the one who would. So this is not a problem.

By the way, for the benefit of others, here's the section in question, from Young's literal:

24 Then said Jesus to his disciples, `If any one doth will to come after me, let him disown himself, and take up his cross, and follow me,
25 for whoever may will to save his life, shall lose it, and whoever may lose his life for my sake shall find it,
26 for what is a man profited if he may gain the whole world, but of his life suffer loss? or what shall a man give as an exchange for his life?
27 `For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work.
28 Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

franklin

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism
May 21, 2002
8,103
257
Bible belt
Visit site
✟9,942.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
All of the inconsistencies in prophesy are found in futurism. The only consistant answer to all fulfilled prophesy is Preterism. So I believe the title of this thread should read, "Inconsistencies in the futurist view". And there is no need for a question mark! It is fact! Biblical fact! Futurism is the condition known as deferred hope and non-occurence. The only solution to this problem of non-occurrence is occurrence – everything Jesus promised happened exactly as and when He said it would. Preterism is the only biblically consistent view that offers this solution. What does futurism have to offer? To the un-believer it says that Christ was a failure! Preterism, Biblical teaching, proclaims that Christ was victorious!
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
Lets get a little logical and literal: "there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till..."

Is there any good reason for any of Jesus' followers to have thought Jesus meant anything other than the stated obvious -as per Jesus' words? Or do you all suppose that Jesus' crowd were merely His sounding board for some 2000+ years, and counting, audience. In other words, Jesus spoke straight over their heads, straight past them to somebody else. Wouldn't you think that just a little rude -I mean these were His followers.

If you were in a meeting with the boss and he said "there are some standing here who will not..." I'm seriously thinking common sense might suggest you would more than likely assume the probability that he was in all likelyhood, referring to YOU! -unless of course you're a gymnast.

davo
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by franklin
All of the inconsistencies in prophesy are found in futurism. The only consistant answer to all fulfilled prophesy is Preterism. So I believe the title of this thread should read, "Inconsistencies in the futurist view". And there is no need for a question mark! It is fact! Biblical fact!

Aman franklin. Anyway you mix it the futurist view has all the inconsistencies in prophesy. They try to say that Jesus did not mean this, or that, in one verse while they wilfully use their self-imposed blindness to forget what Jesus said to his disciples in another verse. "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man come.""

God seems to know before hand that men would say he did not mean what he said in Matthew 16:27-28 so He said it again in another way Matthew 10:23. :o

God is always a thousand steps ahead of the lies of men :clap:
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Originally posted by npetreley
It seems as if the only way to understand "...he who believes in me will live even though he dies..." must be that he will live spiritually even though he dies physically. But what about the next part? "...and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." If Jesus is talking strictly from a spiritual perspective, isn't this redundant? It seems more likely to me that he's saying that, as the example of Lazarus shows, you don't really die physically in the same way that the unbeliever dies physically.

I'm not looking at the text here, but based on your quotes, why isn't it sorta obvious that Jesus is saying, "...he who believes in me will live [eternally] even though he dies [physically]..." and "...whoever lives [i.e., anybody physically alive] and believes in me will never die [spiritually]." Why does this have anything to do with a different kind of death for believers?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by Didaskomenos


I'm not looking at the text here, but based on your quotes, why isn't it sorta obvious that Jesus is saying, "...he who believes in me will live [eternally] even though he dies [physically]..." and "...whoever lives [i.e., anybody physically alive] and believes in me will never die [spiritually]." Why does this have anything to do with a different kind of death for believers?

Very very good didaskomenos :clap:
 
Upvote 0

franklin

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism
May 21, 2002
8,103
257
Bible belt
Visit site
✟9,942.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

Aman franklin. Anyway you mix it the futurist view has all the inconsistencies in prophesy. They try to say that Jesus did not mean this, or that, in one verse while they wilfully use their self-imposed blindness to forget what Jesus said to his disciples in another verse. "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man come.""
God seems to know before hand that men would say he did not mean what he said in Matthew 16:27-28 so He said it again in another way Matthew 10:23. :o
God is always a thousand steps ahead of the lies of men :clap:

Thankyou for the uplifting and encouraging words there brother Manifest! You have said it very well in this post!
I pray that our futurist brothers that pay us a visit in our assigned forum will all be on the same page of biblical teaching one day soon! Did I say soon? :D
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by jenlu
Since "some" refers to those who would not taste death...If it was referring to spiritual death then by way of reasoning "most" would taste spiritual death and Parousia's claim still stands...in my opinion of course...

You've lost me completely. Most of the disciples, to whom He was talking?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Didaskomenos

I'm not looking at the text here, but based on your quotes, why isn't it sorta obvious that Jesus is saying, "...he who believes in me will live [eternally] even though he dies [physically]..." and "...whoever lives [i.e., anybody physically alive] and believes in me will never die [spiritually]." Why does this have anything to do with a different kind of death for believers?

It could certainly be the correct interpretation.

My only concerns would be that it seems redundant, and that it doesn't seem to fit within the context of raising Lazarus from the dead (physical death).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,532
4,826
57
Oregon
✟791,315.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by npetreley


I really just tossed that out as an example of an alternate interpretation, but since I already did it, let me run with it just to see how far it can go.

Look at John 11:25-26

The context of John 11 is the death ("sleep") of Lazarus. Jesus says that Lazarus will rise again, and when Martha interprets this to mean Lazarus will rise again in the resurrection at the last day, Jesus CORRECTS her.

He "Corrects" Her?

He never denies or corrects her belief that Lazarus will rise on the "last Day", He just helps her to understand that that the resurrection isn't something Jesus "Does", the resurrection is something Jesus "Is".

He is not contradicting or correcting any notion of a "last Day" resurrection.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.