• 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.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Inconsistencies in the preterist view?

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by npetreley, Jun 19, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    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:

    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...

    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?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. GTX

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

    +1
    They will find a way to explain it away. I am hoping for a non automated response.
     
  3. gwyyn

    gwyyn Active Member

    632
    +0
    Christian
    LOL GTX you are right,
     
  4. BigEd

    BigEd an adopted child of God

    +3
    Christian
    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.
     
  5. jenlu

    jenlu Member

    246
    +1
    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...
     
  6. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    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:

    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
     
  7. parousia70

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

    +3,000
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    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
     
  8. parousia70

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

    +3,000
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
  9. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    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.
     
  10. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    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.

    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:

     
  11. franklin

    franklin Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

    +218
    Atheist
    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!
     
  12. jenlu

    jenlu Member

    246
    +1
    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...

    The Lazarus question is a good one...allow me to ponder...
     
  13. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    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
     
  14. 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. :eek:

    God is always a thousand steps ahead of the lies of men :clap:
     
  15. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +36
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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?
     
  16. Very very good didaskomenos :clap:
     
  17. franklin

    franklin Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

    +218
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
  18. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    You've lost me completely. Most of the disciples, to whom He was talking?
     
  19. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    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).
     
  20. parousia70

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

    +3,000
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...