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!

More on preterism

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Kelier, May 25, 2002.

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

    Kelier New Member

    4 Who " defines " the theory or theories of "Preterism"?

    The definitions in this category vary, as there is not, to my knowledge, a "Confession of Faith" or anything similar which serves as a "standard" or "symbol." What is available are the writings of certain men, and consequently miscellaneous differences on "interpretations." Books by J. Stuart Russell, John L. Bray, Max King, and the materials available on various websites are somewhat "representative" of much of modern Preterism.

    5 Where did "Preterism" come from?

    A basic "guiding principle"of Preterism is that uninspired men are capable of discerning and declaring the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. The first instance of the "exercise" of this alleged capability, as it relates to prophecies such as those in Daniel, was by the Jewish author(s) of the books of Maccabees in the Apocrypha. It was alleged that Antiochus Epiphanes and his "pig" fulfilled the "abomination of desolation" (1 Maccabees 1).

    6 Was Antiochus and the pig the fulfillment of Daniel?

    NO — Jesus placed Daniel's "abomination of desolation" beyond His own lifetime (Matthew 24:15). This is the only reference to Daniel in the New Testament; if we are bound to the record of the Bible, we must reject the Jewish theory. There was no "prophet" on the scene during the time of the Maccabees (1 Maccabees 4:46), and it was not a prophet who proclaimed that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled. Perhaps no other single idea has done more to mislead people about Daniel than the theory about Antiochus and the pig.

    7 Isn't this theory often contained in commentaries and in the notes of "Reference Bibles"?

    YES — it is borrowed from Jewish sources which concocted the "historical fulfillment" theory and drafted a "parallel" of certain historical events which were supposedly a "match" to Daniel. But it is "full of holes," and many of them are cited by Keil & Delitzsch in their commentary on Daniel. The purpose served by the Jewish "chronology" is elimination of prophecies by Daniel on the Second Coming of Christ.

    8 What is the source of the " A.D.70 " theory?

    This theory arose as a result of the theories of Josephus, the Pharisee Priest who wrote under the authority of the Roman Emperor Titus. Despite the fact Josephus believed in the Maccabees' view about Antiochus in relation to fulfilling the prophecies of Daniel, when he wrote the history of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, he abridged his view to "make room" to incorporate Titus and the Romans as "also" fulfilling Daniel (Josephus Kregel Pub., pg. 227).

    Flavius Josephus

    The Jewish Pharisee priest who was the"Puppet" historian paid by the Roman Emperor TITUS to write the story of Rome's conquest of Jerusalem — in which he was the first "Preterist" to proclaim the Romans a "Fulfillment" of Daniel's Prophecies. He is the "Authority" for MODERN PRETERISM.

    9 How did Josephus' theories on Daniel become associated with Christian teachings?

    Later "church" writers, such as Eusebius, adopted the view of Josephus that the Romans "fulfilled" writings by Daniel, and associated the "abomination of desolation" (Matthew 24:15) with this idea. Eusebius appealed to Josephus as "history" for the fulfillment of the "abomination of desolation," making Daniel and Matthew 24:15 apply to A.D.70. The "forty year" theory as a "time frame" may also have been "fathered" by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History pgs. 86-87, 93-94).

    The writings of "Saint" Jerome on Daniel also contributed to the confusion on the prophecies of Daniel, as many writers followed the ideas of this fourth century author.

    10 To what extent is the Preterism of Josephus accepted?

    Daniel Whitby is an example of the "stock" placed upon the writings of Jospehus by those who view A.D.70 as of prophetic significance. A "footnote" in Whiston's translation of Josephus, states: "Dr. Whitby well observes, no small part of the evidence for the truth of the Christian religion does depend upon the 'completions' of the prophecies, and it is believed 'Josephus' history' furnishes a record of 'their exact completions' " (pg. 589) [emphasis mine].

    In the "Introduction" to Josephus, the writer says, "But for the variations in Josephus, he might imperceptibly have been set up as equal to writers chosen by God to describe his ways and doings. The Antiquities would have become a substitute for the Bible..." (pg. xv) [emphasis mine].

    11 What about more "modern" Preterists; how do they view Josephus?

    One finds modern Preterist sources relying heavily upon the writings of Josephus, so far as they can allege a "physical" type of "evidence;" but in the absence of physical evidence of the more substantial and important events (such as the Return, Bodily Resurrection, and Judgment), the "interpretation" becomes another sort, and it is alleged that these took place "invisibly," or in some "spiritual" sense. Josephus makes no report of "seeing" Jesus, the Resurrection, and the Judgment, so it is necessary for Preterists to make the prophecies to have an "unseen" fulfillment. And this you must accept "by faith."

    So the "hermeneutic" of Preterism is geared to writings by a Pharisee Priest (who was not a believer in Jesus Christ) as being the "rule" by which to determine prophetic fulfillments, and where there is no "physical" evidence, then one must resort to the "spiritual" sense. This parallels the usual "adjustment" of interpretation made by "predictors" whose "predictions" have failed, and some other "sense" is then adopted. Preterists simply do it in a "retrospective" manner.

    12 Does Preterism allege "Scriptural" support?

    Preterism begins with the presupposition that the Return of Christ took place in A.D.70, then it proceeds to impose this idea upon the Bible teaching of the "imminence" of the Return. Imminence becomes "prediction" in the mind of the Preterist! Thus, any Scripture that implies the imminence of the Return of Christ is applied by the Preterist to A.D.70, in accordance with the presupposed theory.

    13 What is the basic error in their approach?

    A basic error involves skirting of the fact that (1) Jesus said He did not "know" the time of His Return, and (2) that it was "not for you to know" the times or seasons for the events which the Father has put "in His own power" (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2; Acts 1:8; Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). Preterist interpretations rest upon the assumption that Jesus did in fact know when He would return, and that He "predicted" an alleged "time frame" for His coming; Preterism also imposes "prediction" into the teachings of the Apostles, as if they knew the "times' and seasons" were within a "time frame".

    14 What are primary verses to which Preterists appeal?

    The ones which are the "sugar-sticks" are all in Matthew — 10:23, 16:28, & 24:34.

    15 Please comment on Matthew 10:23.

    Matthew 10:23 is obviously referring to the "coming" of Jesus into the "cities" of Israel where He sent the disciples (see Matthew 11:1). The disciples were sent on a "short" mission to "cities of Israel," and they would not finish it before Jesus had also "come" to preach in those "cities." The Preterist view would have this mean that the Second Coming would occur before the disciples had completed this "short" mission! In fact, they would still be on this mission up to A.D.70!

    16 Please comment on Matthew 16:28.

    Matthew 16:28 could only be the "coming" described in 17:1-9, as Peter relates in 2 Peter 1:16-18. The Preterist view that this refers to a "coming" in A.D.70 makes this a "prediction," which would mean that Jesus did know when He would return. What Jesus did know (and state) was that only "some" (Peter, James, John) would see the "Transfiguration," which they did. Preterists teach that only John was alive in A.D.70, which would mean he alone would have "seen" the Coming, clearly contradicting what Jesus said — "some".

    17 Please comment on Matthew 24:34.

    Matthew 24:34 has the word "generation," which the Preterists insist is a "40 year period of time," or "time frame," when in fact, it refers to the "progeny" that is traced as far back as Cain, and the case of the slaying of Zacharias in 2 Chronicles 24 (Matthew 23:35).

    The Preterists make a play on "the Greek," when in fact, the Greek words derive from the same word and all are defined to mean "progeny" by the New Analytical Greek Lexicon. The word is not referring to a "period of time." The Preterist view again is based on the error that Jesus knew when He would return and was making a "prediction," clearly contradicting Scriptures which teach otherwise.

    18 What about other verses?

    Other than these verses, on writings by the Apostles it is necessary for Preterists to allege that the Apostles knew the "times and seasons," and were making "predictions." With such erroneous presuppositions, all of the verses that teach the "imminence" of the Return are viewed erroneously as being predictions.

    But if it is accepted that Jesus did not know when He would return, and that it was not for the disciples to know, then all that is taught by Jesus and the Apostles is the imminence of the Return. And when Peter was met with an objection which related to the matter of "time" — "Where is the promise of His coming?" (as if it had been "too long" for the promise of His coming to be taken seriously), Peter's reply discounted the significance of any length of time involved, as he referred to this in relation to God's "clock" on time (2 Peter 3:8). Viewed on God's "calendar," it's hardly been "two days" since Jesus went back to Heaven. And what Peter said about this matter in his epistle is just as valid today as it was in his day.

    All from this site
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. NumberOneSon

    NumberOneSon The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

    If the guy who wrote the article is claiming that Matt. 10:23 is referring solely to the "short" mission in 11:1 then he has no choice other then to believe that everything leading up to verse 23 (Matt 10:17-22) also transpired during that "short" time. I wonder if he is willing to make so bold a claim? Did that brief mission's trip involve floggings in the various synagogues? Meetings with governors and kings? Braving extreme persecution that would require them to "endure to the end" until Jesus "came" to the city to preach?

    I understand his reasoning, but it just doesn't fit. Preterism is not based on Josephus. If he had never lived, Christians would still come to the same conclusions, with or without the history lessons. Christians would believe that Christ existed even if ancient historians had never written about Him, and Christians that believe the preterist eschatology would say the same about preterism. Josephus and Tacitus only confirm what we already knew through God's Word. The source of "70AD" theories is the Bible.

    While Jesus spoke with His disciples on the Mount, He did not know the "day or hour", but He did know it would be within their generation. There is clearly no contradiction here. Knowing that the event would be within a generation is not the same as knowing the exact day or hour of His return. I can prove this easily by a simple challenge; If I tell you that I'm going to come to your house within your generation but I do not know the day or hour in which I will do so, am I contradicting myself? Is knowing the generation the same as knowing the day or hour? Of course not.

    In Christ,

  3. Mandy

    Mandy Well-Known Member

    Jesus was referring to the time or age in which these things would transpire. He was not telling them that their generation would not pass, but the generation that saw these things.
  4. Pericles

    Pericles Christian

    Yes...Christ had a speech impediment..he couldn't simply say THAT generation... Look at the context of Matthew 24, don't just invent stuff to support your position. Adjust your thinking to scripture instead of scripture to your thinking:

    "But to what shall I compare THIS GENERATION ? It is like children sitting in the market places, who call out to the other children..." Mat 11:16

    "That is the way it will also be with THIS evil generation" Mat 12:45

    "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples , saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses" Mat 23:1

    "But woe to YOU , scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites..." Mat 23:13

    "Truly I say to YOU , all these things will come upon THIS GENERATION " Mat 23:36

    "Therefore when YOU see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains." Mat 24:15

    "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until NOW " Mat 24:21

    "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" Mat 24:34
  5. Mandy

    Mandy Well-Known Member

    I stand by my statement.

    v. 2 This prophecy was fulfilled in forty years from the time Jesus spoke it.

    v. 3-6 Jesus began to describe the world scene that would precede His second coming.

    v. 7 This verse indicates world-wide war.

    v. 9 Read Fox's Book of Martyrs for background information on Christian persecution.

    v. 14 In Revelation 14:6-7 an angel preaches the gospel to the entire world in every language.

    v. 15 Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11 are referred to in this verse.

    v. 16-20 This chapter is addressed to the Jews who will once more be God's elect nation, since the Church will be taken out by the time these come to pass (Ezekiel 39:23-29). The applications to Israel are obvious: Judea is named, people are on their housetops, they will be concerned about breaking the law of the Sabbath.

    v. 21 Revelation Chapters 6-19 have the details of the Tribulation.

    v. 22 Once again, the elect is the nation of Israel since we'll be with Christ.

    v. 24 We have seen a proliferation of false cults in recent years.

    v. 28 The word "eagles" here should be "vultures". The birds will feast on the corpses from the battle of Armageddon.

    v. 30 The people will mourn because they stubbornly rejected Jesus. The Jews will be especially sad that they did not recognize their Messiah.

    v. 32 The nation Israel is referred to symbolically as a fig tree (Jeremiah 24; Hosea 9:10; Job 1:7)

    v. 34 The generation that sees Israel bud forth and become a nation again is the generation mentioned here.

    v. 40-41 Some feel these verses refer to the Rapture of the Church; others feel they refer to people being taken away to judgment.

    v. 46 We should be doing what the Lord called us to do and wants us to do when He comes for us.

    v. 48 This philosophy is similar to those who believe the Christians will go through all or part of the Tribulation, for it produces slovenliness.

    Commentary by Chuck Smith on Matthew 24

    Answer me this:
    Was Jesus' return (second coming) physical (literal) or spiritual?
  6. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    United States
    It was Literal, but not physical.
    They are not mutually exclusive terms.

    The spiritual realm is just as literal a reality as the temporal, and arguably even more so.

    Wouldn't you agree?

    Our physical choices do not have eternal consiquences, while our spiritual ones do. Given that fact, Which choice (spritual or physical) would you say is more "literal"?
  7. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    United States
    Absolutely False

    Preterism, in fact, asserts exactly the opposite.

    Preterists affirm that only the apostles were capable and qualified to discern and declare the fulfillment of Bible prophesy, and they all believed and taught that Christ's return would take place within their 1st century generation and that they alone were living in the the last days, or end times.

    It is actually Futurism that claims uninspired men can read the newspapers today and discern and declare a specific event as the fulfillment of prophesy, and every time someone today does that, they are wrong. 100% of the time.

    I trust the apostles.
  8. Hoonbaba

    Hoonbaba Catholic Preterist

    Hi Mandy,

    Preterists assert that the first century apostles and their contemporaries indeed saw 'all these things' pass :)

  9. Hoonbaba

    Hoonbaba Catholic Preterist

    Hi Kelier,

    I don't have all the answers to all those comments, but for Matt 24:34's use of "this generation" I think the following comments by David Chilton may be of interest:

    "Some have sought to get around the force of this text by saying that the word generation here really means race, and that Jesus was simply saying that the Jewish race would not die out until all these things took place. Is that true? I challenge you: Get out your concordance and look up every New Testament occurrence of the word generation (in Greek, genea) and see if it ever means 'race' in any other context. Here are all the references for the Gospels: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 18:8; 17:25; 21:32. Not one of these references is speaking of the entire Jewish race over thousands of years; all use the word in its normal sense of the sum total of those living at the same time. It always refers to contemporaries. (In fact, those who say it means "race" tend to acknowledge this fact, but explain that the word suddenly changes its meaning when Jesus uses it in Matthew 24! We can smile at such a transparent error, but we should also remember that this is very serious. We are dealing with the Word of the living God.)." (The Great Tribulation, p. 3)

    God bless!

  10. Mandy

    Mandy Well-Known Member

    I don't believe that the word generation used in Matthew 24 was necessarily referring to race either.

    If Jesus' second coming was spiritual, then how can Acts 1:11 be explained?

    Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

    Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

    Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

    Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

    Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

    Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
  11. Hoonbaba

    Hoonbaba Catholic Preterist

    Hi Mandy,

    I don't have much time right now, so this link will probably help:


    God bless!

  12. parousia70

    parousia70 Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    United States
    Mandy, your questions are getting too easy! :p

    First, acts 1:11 says Jesus will return in "like manner as" he entered heaven.

    How did Jesus enter heaven? Hidden from the eyes by a cloud (vs 9)

    Second, the apostles were looking steadfastly "into heaven".
    Mandy, can the interior of heaven be seen with physical eyes? Lets comapre to Stephen in Acts, as he was being stoned.

    Acts 7:55-56
    But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, 56 and said, "Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!"

    Stephen "saw" into heaven wth spiritual eyes. The exact same language is used of the apostles in Acts 1.

    The apostles were "given eyes to see". They witnessed the ascention with spiritual eyes, and His return was to be in "like manner"

    Third, and probably most misinterprated term in the acts 1:11 futurist argument is "like manner as" or Grk "Tropos"

    again, by comparing scripture with scripture, we can see what "like manner as" really means:

    Matthewt 23:37
    "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together,[in like manner] as (Tropos) a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing!

    Mandy, is Jesus expressing a desire to sprout feathers and scoop all Israel under his physical breast onto a nest of hay exactly as a Hen gathers her brood?

    By comparing scripture with scripture, we can see Clearly that the term "like manner as" (tropos) has more to do with "Similar in some fashion" instead of "exactly the same in every detail"

    Besides, If Jesus return would be "exactly the same in every detail" as his depatrure, only the apostles would see it, he would return as the humble servant and reward or punish no one, for that is in "like manner" as he left.

    This is so often conviently overooked by the futurists when they attempt, without any scriptural basis, to pigeonhole "like manner as" to mean "visible physical sight", while completely ignoring the other aspects of the ascention that destroy the "exactly the same in every detail" argument.

    Keep em commin Mandy, this is fun!
  13. Auntie

    Auntie THANK YOU JESUS!!

    Another heretical doctrine revealed: Not only was Jesus' so-called 2nd Coming NOT PHYSICAL, but now it seems His ASCENSION was NOT PHYSICAL EITHER!!

    Mandy, you cannot debate scripture with heretics.
  14. GW

    GW Veteran


    Hiya Mandy.

    Christ was indeed to come to them. He would do so in some similar way as when he had majestically departed from them in the Holy Spirit Shekinah cloud. Consistent with the book of Acts itself, Luke 1:11 was refering to Christ's appearing to them again as in Acts 7:55-59 and Acts 9:3-6 and Acts 10:11-16, 11:7-11.

    Next, the mention of "clouds" in the ascension of Jesus is another consistent biblical theme of the comings and goings of divine beings and saints (Dan 7:13; Rev 11:12). Yahweh was famous for his cloud-comings (Isaiah 19:1-2; 2 Sam 22:10-14; Ps. 36:5; 57:10; 68:34; 97:2-5; 104:3; 108:4; Dan. 7:13; Joel 2:2; Nahum 1:3; Zeph. 1:15). The description of Christ ascending with clouds equates him with Yahweh who "rides the heavens" and "makes the clouds his chariots" all through the O.T.

    Furthermore, we should not miss the similarity of this scene to 2 Kings 2 where Elijah was taken by a "whirlwind" and only the spiritual Elisha had been granted to see it (2 Ki 2:9-12) while the 50 men of the sons of the prophets were not able to see it.

    Finally, the nature of Christ's Parousia is confirmed by a comparison of Matt. 16:27-28 and Lk. 17:21. In Matt. 16:27-28, Jesus taught openly that His Coming was going to be "in His Kingdom." In Lk. 17:21, He taught that the coming of His Kingdom was going to be unobservable. If the coming of the Kingdom was going to be unobservable, then it follows that the Coming of the King in that Kingdom was also going to be unobservable. Also, if the coming was to be "in the glory of the Father" (Matthew 16:27) then it was to be as Father Yahweh always came to Israel. Christ's glorification returned him to his glory He had with Yahweh before the world ever began (John 17:5), and his coming to Israel at AD 70 (Matt 21:40-45) was also BY NATURE a Day of the Lord ("Day of Yahweh"). Jesus said point blank that this earthly world would never see him again (John 14:19, 17:11). He was to be seen through his universal Body, the Church (John 14:19-23, 17:20-23; Eph 1:22-23; Eph 5:30-32; 1 Cor 12:27; Rom 12:5). The TRUE temple, listed as the body of Jesus Christ in John 2:19-22, is also the eternal Church-Temple as one of the great mysteries of the Fatith (Eph 5:30-32; 2 Cor 6:16). We can't explain mysteries. We can only affirm them.
  15. Mandy

    Mandy Well-Known Member

    Jesus was seen ascending into heaven. His ascension was not hidden. Every eye will see Him when He comes again as it is written. Why didn't every eye see Him as Jesus Himself stated? Elijah being caught up can't be compared to Jesus' ascension. I think you all are putting way too much emphasis on "clouds".
    The major problem with preterism is that it spiritualizes events that have happened and will happen, that are quite obviously meant to be taken literally.
  16. GW

    GW Veteran

    Jesus said point blank that this earthly world would never see him again (John 14:19, 17:11)

    Elijah was seen going into heaven too (by Elisha).

    Obviously, I am not putting too much emphasis on "clouds." You are missing the emphasis, but no jew would have. Ascending and decending "in clouds" does NOT indicate weather clouds in scripture. See also the bright cloud of the transfituration.

    BTW, you just blew right by most of my post. Consistent with the book of Acts itself, Luke 1:11 was refering to Christ's appearing to them again as in Acts 7:55-59 and Acts 9:3-6 and Acts 10:11-16, 11:7-11.

    Jesus taught openly that His Coming was going to be "in His Kingdom." In Lk. 17:21, He taught that the coming of His Kingdom was going to be unobservable. If the coming of the Kingdom was going to be unobservable, then it follows that the Coming of the King in that Kingdom was also going to be unobservable.
  17. Mandy

    Mandy Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately I am short on time today, but I will answer your previous post tomorrow.
    I have to ask this though, do preterists believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead bodily?
  18. Hoonbaba

    Hoonbaba Catholic Preterist

    Ok...let's consider something:

    1) The bible teaches us that Christ is no longer regarded in the flesh, that he's invisible, and that he no longer be seen in the flesh. (John 14:19, John 16:16-19, 2 Corinthians 5:16-17, 1 Tim 6:15-16, 1 Tim 1:17)

    2) The bible also teaches that Jesus's going up in heaven is the same as his coming down (Acts 1:11).

    i.e. Jesus's coming = Jesus's ascension

    3) And the bible teaches that the Son of Man would come down in glory (Luke 9:26, Mark 8:38, Matt 25:31, Matt 16:17)

    3) Acts 1:9's use of 'cloud' indicates his manner in which he went up as the others stated. Let's see how Jesus would come down. Jesus specifically says that he would come and Caiaphas, the high priest would live to see His coming on 'clouds' (Matt 26:64). This is partially the reason why Jesus was accused of blasphemy, because he claimed to be equal with God (John 5:18, John 8:58). We know that God came down invisibly to judge many nations in the Old testament. Check out Jehovah's coming to O.T. Babylon in 539BC (Isa 13:10-13, 13:1, and 13:17), or Jehovah's coming to Nineveh in 612BC (Nahum 1). Or Jehovah's coming to Edom in 703BC (Isa 34:3-5), or His coming to Egypt in 572BC (Eze 32:7-11). Jehovah was not a physical person when he came down in glory. Jesus was claiming divine judgment (like the way it happened in the old testament) would fall upon the Jews in Matt 26:64 and Matt 23-24. And Jesus even says all these things would happen in the generation of the apostles (Matt 23:36, Matt 24:34). It's funny how many people believe that all of Matt 23 was fulfilled, yet they don't believe that Matt 24:3-30 wasn't fulfilled. Anyway, that's besides the point. The fact is that Jesus said he would go come down in glory, so we can believe, based on Acts 1:11 that he ascended in glory. And the bible tells us teaches this (1 Tim 3:16)

    Also this link may be useful

    God bless!

  19. Hoonbaba

    Hoonbaba Catholic Preterist

    Yes, we believe that Jesus was born in the flesh through the virgin mary, died on the cross in the flesh and rose again in the flesh 3 days later. However, we do not limit Christ to be only in the flesh...in fact we no longer regard him in the flesh (John 14:19, John 16:16-19, 2 Corinthians 5:16-17, 1 Tim 6:15-16, 1 Tim 1:17).

  20. GW

    GW Veteran

    Yes. He was the only human promised that his flesh would not see corruption (see the Messianic promise cited by Peter in Acts 2:25-31). That Messianic promise was NOT for David, but only for Jesus. Furthermore, he was then glorified and returned back to the glory he had with the Father before the world ever began (John 17:5). His SPIRITUAL body is not limited to fleshly earthly use, yet he manifested many times and in various forms to prove he was alive (Mark 16:12).

    The rest of us die and immediately go to meet God in Heaven to wear the image of the heavenly. We won't be disembodied spirits -- yet earthly flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom (1 Cor 15:49-50), so God clothes us with heavenly bodies without using our sin-tainted earthly bodies which return to dust to support future living things on the earth.

    Heaven isn't a ghost town. :)

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.