Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

[parousia70]

And it took Christ's ascension to the Father in heaven that day along with his return to earth to prove to the disciples that the atonement sacrifice He had offered in heaven's temple had been accepted by God the Father.

Again, how does that Square with Hebrews 9? Why does the writer of Hebrews specify that Christ was, at that time, performing the very task you claim He already completed decades earlier? (Hebrews 9:24)

The entire scriptural teaching of the typology of the OT priest going into the Holy of Holies to offer the sacrifice, then emerging out of the Holy of Holies to announce its acceptance by God, typifies the ascension and subsequent "2nd coming" of Christ. (Hebrews 9:28)

You view appears to have subverted this typological teaching, by inserting a secondary, preliminary ascension and secondary, preliminary "non 2nd coming 2nd coming return" not recorded in scripture, that somehow preliminarily accomplishes this task - kinda-sorta, only for Jesus to have to ascend yet again to repeat the same task over yet again, (perhaps in a greater, more effecacious, more fulfilling way?) which the wirter of Hebrews specifically says "can not be". (Hebrews 9:25-26)

 

[claninja]

We know from the parable of Lazarus and the rich man that not all spirits go back to the same place. Ecclesiastes is a poetic rather than a theology book. It says:

Ecc 3:19 For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same ruah, and humans have no advantage over the animals, for all is vanity.20 All go to one place, all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.21 Who knows whether the human ruah goes upward and the ruah of animals goes downward to the earth?

If you translate ruah into "spirit," you get an obvious theological problem. Humans and animals have the same spirit? And we don't know whether human spirit goes upward and animal spirit goes downward? Clearly this is not correct biblical teaching and it is best to translate ruah into "breath." Then we come to the verse you quoted:

Ecc 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the ruah returns to God who gave it.

In agreement with the NRSVue, ruah should be translated as "breath." The breath returns to God. Ecclesiastes is not a theology book. It does not describe the "spirit." Otherwise, we have a theology that is akin of Buddhism and is nowhere supported in the Bible. Again, refer to the parable of Rich and Lazarus.


Yes, 1Pe 3:18-19 clearly describes the descent of Christ's spirit into Hades.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered for our sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but raised to life in the spirit. 19 In the spirit also he went to preach to the spirits in prison,

Christ's spirit was not abandoned to Hades but rather, accompanied by those who were saved from Hades, ascended into Paradise.

Luk 23:43 He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Eph 4:8 Therefore, it is written,

“When he ascended to the heights,
he took prisoners into captivity
and gave gifts to men.”
9 Now the word “ascended” implies that he also descended into the lower regions of the earth.

I agree Ecclesiastes is a poetic book. So is much of the OT. Ecclesiastes is a book that starts pessimistic and ends more optimistic. Hence 3:9 is pessimistic about the spirit returning to God upon death, while 12:7 is optimistic about the spirit returning to God upon death. The LXX uses the Greek word pneuma in 3:9 and 12:7, which is consistent with the NT describing both Christ and Stephen giving up their “pneuma” to God. The idea of the “pneuma” or “life” going back to God isn’t something new that happened after Christs death. That always happens.

As we agree Christ descended to hades upon death. His resurrection ensured he wasn’t abandoned there and that his flesh never saw decay.

acts 2:31 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

and we know Christ and the thief didn’t ascend to paradise that day because Christ literally told Mary he had not yet ascended to the father in John 20:16-18. Therefore I disagree with your argument that Christ said “truly I say to you “comma” today you will be with me in paradise”. Instead I would argue Christ used the Hebrew idiom: “truly I say to you today “comma”, you will be with me in paradise”.

 

[Andrewn]

That's not what Paul said. He wrote that "if Christ be NOT RAISED, your faith is in vain: ye are yet in your sin." (! Corinthians 15:17). It took Christ's resurrection to help fulfill the Day of Atonement sacrifice.

This is fine.

And it took Christ's ascension to the Father in heaven that day along with his return to earth to prove to the disciples that the atonement sacrifice He had offered in heaven's temple had been accepted by God the Father.

No, you seem to be thinking of heaven's temple as a place on a different planet.

The curtain was torn when Christ was on the cross, and heaven and earth merged together. When the veil was torn, Christ's sacrifice was already presented in the heavenly realm. Christ as God was both in heaven and earth simultaneously. His body was not transferred to a planet called heaven. It was still on the cross. But it was the heavenly realm that came to earth.

 

[Andrewn]

The LXX uses the Greek word pneuma in 3:9 and 12:7, which is consistent with the NT describing both Christ and Stephen giving up their “pneuma” to God. The idea of the “pneuma” or “life” going back to God isn’t something new that happened after Christs death. That always happens.

The Greek "pneuma" can also mean either "breath" or "spirit." So using it in the LXX is not proof that "spirit" is the correct meaning. Christ and Stephen, and I'm sure other saints as well, giving up their "pneuma" to God signified their belief in God's sovereignty and salvation. The same could not be said about all spirits. Many / most spirits still end up in Hades. If Ecc 12:7 really means that all spirits go to God, that would be a unique statement without support anywhere else in the Bible. Actually, in the OT no one, not even the saints expected their spirits to be with God after death hence it is written:

Rev 14:13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write: Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will find rest from their labors, for their deeds go with them.”

As we agree Christ descended to hades upon death. His resurrection ensured he wasn’t abandoned there and that his flesh never saw decay. acts 2:31 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Yes, we agree about this.

and we know Christ and the thief didn’t ascend to paradise that day because Christ literally told Mary he had not yet ascended to the father in John 20:16-18.

Christ and the thief did not ascent physically to paradise at that time.

Therefore I disagree with your argument that Christ said “truly I say to you “comma” today you will be with me in paradise”. Instead I would argue Christ used the Hebrew idiom: “truly I say to you today “comma”, you will be with me in paradise”.

This is an argument that SDAs and JWs use. Other Christians believe that the spirit is conscious after death. Christ and the thief did indeed ascend to Paradise that day in their spirit or soul.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No, you seem to be thinking of heaven's temple as a place on a different planet.

Hardly. We are given to understand in scripture that God dwells in the "third heaven". This "third heaven" is opposed to our earthly atmosphere, or the starry realm of outer space as the first and second heavens. This "third heaven" we are told has a temple in it (the "True tabernacle" of Hebrews 8:2), which has an ark of the covenant in it (as described in Revelation 11:19). Christ had to be anointed by God on the day of His resurrection as a high priest over this heavenly temple. He could then sprinkle His own blood on the mercy seat in heaven's temple and have it accepted by God.

This was NOT done in Jerusalem's temple on earth, which was only a "shadow" of what was going to be done with the heavenly things. Hebrews 8:4 makes this very plain, that if Christ were on earth, He would not be a priest. His high priesthood set up at His resurrection-day ascension was vastly superior to the earthly priesthood, since He would serve as a deathless high priest intercessor of that "True tabernacle" which the Lord pitched, and not man.

The curtain was torn when Christ was on the cross, and heaven and earth merged together. When the veil was torn, Christ's sacrifice was already presented in the heavenly realm.

That was the outer veil that was torn, not the inner veil to the holy of holies. And no, that was not the time when Christ's blood was physically taken to heaven and applied on heaven's mercy seat. That act had to be done by a RESURRECTED Jesus Christ after His being anointed by God as a high priest in heaven's temple.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Again, how does that Square with Hebrews 9? Why does the writer of Hebrews specify that Christ was, at that time, performing the very task you claim He already completed decades earlier? (Hebrews 9:24)

Christ's high priesthood is an ongoing role that is called "deathless", since the resurrected Christ who was anointed our high priest will never die again a second time. It is an intercessory role. This does not mean He is offered multiple times. It means He has become the human / divine representative "bridge" by which we have access to the Father and can be "accepted in the beloved". That "bridge" only needed to be built one time, but it is used continually thereafter.

The entire scriptural teaching of the typology of the OT priest going into the Holy of Holies to offer the sacrifice, then emerging out of the Holy of Holies to announce its acceptance by God, typifies the ascension and subsequent "2nd coming" of Christ. (Hebrews 9:28)

You are describing the Full Preterist position: that the process for the antitype Atonement sacrifice was not to be completed until Christ's "second coming", which they claim was a "spiritual" one in AD 70. I understand how they arrive at that conclusion, but I don't agree with it.

You view appears to have subverted this typological teaching, by inserting a secondary, preliminary ascension and secondary, preliminary "non 2nd coming 2nd coming return" not recorded in scripture, that somehow preliminarily accomplishes this task

That resurrection-day ascension is recorded in scripture, because Christ told Mary not to touch Him, because He had not yet ascended to the Father. But she was to go tell the disciples that "I ascend unto my Father...". Later that morning after Christ returned to earth, touching the Savior was permitted and even encouraged later that evening. You just choose to apply this ascension in a different time setting than the immediate sense. Even you yourself have granted that this can be interpreted the way I am doing, as well as the possibility of this ascending action taking place later on.

That "Present Indicative Active" tense used for "I ascend" in John 20:17 is the very same tense used in the verse saying "...and I give (Present Indicative Active) unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish..." This is not a delayed giving: Christ's "sheep" possess eternal life immediately upon Him giving it to them. As a result, they would never perish. I maintain that it was also an immediate ascending to the Father just after Christ spoke to Mary.

 

[Andrewn]

Christ had to be anointed by God on the day of His resurrection as a high priest over this heavenly temple. He could then sprinkle His own blood on the mercy seat in heaven's temple and have it accepted by God.

This is a big error.

That was the outer veil that was torn, not the inner veil to the holy of holies.

This is an even bigger error.

Pastor explains significance of veil being torn at Christ's death

Question: What is the significance of the veil being torn at Christ's death? - Margie Randall, Houston, Texas Answer: The veil was the heavy curtain in the Temple at Jerusalem which was torn when …

www.progress-index.com

What was the significance of the temple veil being torn in two when Jesus died? | GotQuestions.org

What was the significance of the temple veil being torn in two when Jesus died? Did the temple veil being torn in two signify that we now have direct access to God?

www.gotquestions.org

Where Does the Bible Say the Veil Was Torn?

The New Testament states that the veil was torn in the temple after Jesus died, an odd little detail that doesn't seem to mean much at first. Once you see where that veil came from and what it signified, this event becomes hugely important.

www.christianity.com

 

[3 Resurrections]

This is a big error.

I beg your pardon, but having God anoint Christ as High Priest in heaven on His resurrection-day ascension is straight out of Psalms 2:6 - the context being a Messianic Psalm about Christ's resurrection day. God wrote through the prophet David about this particular resurrection day for Christ, "Yet have I set [anointed - Hebrew] my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me Thou art my Son; THIS DAY have I begotten thee." The KJV puts the word "anointed" in the margin for this verse, and the YLT also translates it as such. Many other translations use the word "consecrated", or "installed", which denotes Christ here being put into an office as our representative.

This is an even bigger error.

Why do you think this is an error? Surely you remember Hebrews 9:1-7 describing not just one veil for the temple in front of the Holy of holies, but TWO veils. The first veil was for the "first tabernacle" space with its candlestick, the table, and the shewbread. The "SECOND veil" (Hebrews 9:3) separated this first holy place from the second tabernacle's "holiest of all" place where the ark of the covenant was. At Christ's crucifixion, the centurion and the soldiers all saw the first outer veil being torn from top to bottom. This exposed the candlestick, the table, and the shewbread to open view of the public, causing them to marvel and declare that "Truly, this was the Son of God" (Matthew 27:50-54).

There is no way that the centurion and the soldiers would have been standing between the two veils to witness the "second veil" in front of the Holy of holies being torn. What they saw was the other first, outer veil being torn which signified that we as children of God were all going to be priests. (But not high priests, since only Christ could fill that role in the Holy of holies). The second veil in front of the "holiest of all" holy place was still intact at Christ's crucifixion death, since being dead for those 3 days and nights, He had not yet ascended to the Father and fulfilled the Psalms 2 prophecy of being anointed high priest in heaven, and then sprinkling the mercy seat in heaven's temple with His blood.

 

[Andrewn]

I beg your pardon, but having God anoint Christ as High Priest in heaven on His resurrection-day ascension is straight out of Psalms 2:6 - the context being a Messianic Psalm about Christ's resurrection day.

This took place at Christ's ascension, 40 days after his resurrection. I have no reason to believe in a resurrection-day ascension. No one seems to agree w/ your interpretation of Joh 20:17, and I don't believe this point requires further discussion.

Why do you think this is an error? Surely you remember Hebrews 9:1-7 describing not just one veil for the temple in front of the Holy of holies, but TWO veils. The first veil was for the "first tabernacle" space with its candlestick, the table, and the shewbread. The "SECOND veil" (Hebrews 9:3) separated this first holy place from the second tabernacle's "holiest of all" place where the ark of the covenant was.

First, in the second temple, there was no Ark of the Covenant. Second, as Heb 9:3 shows, the veil before the Holy of Holies was called "to katapetasma." This is the same word for the veil that was torn according to Mat 27:51; Mar 15:38; Luk 23:45; Heb 10:20. The outer veil, however, was called, "to kalymma." Third, there is general agreement about this interpretation. Fourth, there is no evidence that the centurion and the soldiers all saw the veil being torn:

Mar 15:39 When the centurion who was standing facing him saw how Jesus had breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was the Son of God.”

Now let me ask you (or any other preterist) an unrelated question. What is the preterist interpretation of the 8th head in Rev 17:11? Also, Josephus talks about the brass gates and iron bars being destroyed in 70 AD. Did the sanctuary have an outer veil or a brass gate? Or did the brass gate belong to the outer court?

 

[3 Resurrections]

There is a general agreement that took place at Christ's ascension, 40 days after his resurrection. I have no reason to believe in a resurrection-day ascension. No one seems to agree w/ your interpretation of Joh 20:17.

Those in "general agreement" have forgotten that Paul testified in Acts 13:33-34 about the specific Psalm 2 context, saying that it applied to the time "...in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY have I begotten thee." Here in these Acts 12:33-34 verses, Paul linked together in time this particular resurrection day for Christ with the Psalm 2 prophecy about THIS DAY when God "anointed my king upon my holy hill of Zion." (Psalms 2:6). Paul was interpreting for us when "THIS DAY" in Psalms 2:7 was fulfilled, and when Christ was anointed by God as the high priest "king" in heaven that day of His resurrection.

First, in the second temple, there was no Ark of the Covenant.

Of course, but this has no bearing on where Hebrews 9 said the two different veils were hung.

Second, as Heb 9:3 shows, the veil before the Holy of Holies was called "to katapetasma." This is the same word for the veil that was torn according to Mat 27:51; Mar 15:38; Luk 23:45; Heb 10:20. The outer veil, however, was called, "to kalymma."

Since I am no Greek expert, I'll give due diligence to research the difference you are highlighting between these two veils. Thank you for bringing it up. I'll check it out.

Third, there is general agreement about this interpretation.

I have found that the "general agreement" is definitely not a guarantee of correct interpretation. Tradition for its own sake was often something which Christ had to fight against when He was on earth.

Fourth, there is no evidence that the centurion and the soldiers all saw the veil being torn:

I have no idea which translation you are getting your quote from. Every single version without exception that I am looking at says that the centurion and and the soldiers, seeing the earthquake and ALL the things which were happening, marveled at all of it. This means they literally saw the temple veil being torn, which could not have happened if this was the inner veil over the holy of holies. Nobody but the priests standing in between those two temple veils could have seen that happen.

Now let me ask you (or any other preterist) an unrelated question. What is the preterist interpretation of the 8th head in Rev 17:11?

At the risk of getting warned of going off topic, I can tell you who that 8th "king" was, but there is not a consensus in the preterist community of the 8th "king's" identity. Dr. Kenneth Gentry interprets it as being one of the Caesars. One of my favorite Preterist websites written by Adam Maarschalk identifies the 8th "king" as one of the Zealot leaders, but he temporarily agreed with me for a while when I submitted that the 8th "king" in Revelation 17:ll was the 8th member of the family of Annas (Mattathias ben Theophilus) who held the high priesthood position in the year AD 66.

You see, most have no idea that scripture defines the "kings of the earth" as being the high priests of the house of Israel. When Christ is given the title "King of kings", it means He is the ultimate high priest after the order of Melchizedek, superior to all other high priests who ever served.

The curious language concerning those 7 "heads" as also being "kings" in Revelation 17:10-11 fits the first-century history of the high priest "kings" of the house of Annas perfectly. This Revelation 17 Scarlet Beast was Judean in character, and was another beast entirely from the other Roman Sea Beast found in Revelation 13. No one seems to recognize that there are THREE different beasts presented in Revelation - not just two.

That Scarlet Beast was the independent kingdom nation of Israel, re-established once more in AD 66 by the Zealot rebellion. The revived Scarlet Beast was also the equivalent of the 8th "king" because Mattathias ben Theophilus (the 8th high priest coming from the house of Annas) was also the titular head of the independent kingdom nation of Israel when it re-emerged in AD 66 with him as the appointed high priest that year.

 

[Andrewn]

Here in these Acts 12:33-34 verses, Paul linked together in time this particular resurrection day for Christ with the Psalm 2 prophecy about THIS DAY when God "anointed my king upon my holy hill of Zion." (Psalms 2:6). Paul was interpreting for us when "THIS DAY" in Psalms 2:7 was fulfilled, and when Christ was anointed by God as the high priest "king" in heaven that day of His resurrection.

Christ was anointed king on the cross, and his victory was declared after his resurrection. This is the patristic tradition, and the whole event is a mystery. The book of Hebrews attempts to address questions about the atonement, but it raises as many issues as it answers. What exactly is heaven's temple anyway? This may require a new thread in a different forum.

At the risk of getting warned of going off topic,

Thank you for the answer. Actually, I think we are returning to the topic of the thread, which is preterism.

This Revelation 17 Scarlet Beast was Judean in character, and was another beast entirely from the other Roman Sea Beast found in Revelation 13. No one seems to recognize that there are THREE different beasts presented in Revelation - not just two.

From what I gather, there are 3 different views among preterists who believe that Jerusalem is the great prostitute of Rev 17.

Dr. Kenneth Gentry interprets it as being one of the Caesars.

This fits w/ the first view: the scarlet beast is the same as the beast from the sea. The 7 heads are 7 Roman monarchs. The 8th could be Vespasian who brought the empire back to life? I know you don't like this interpretation, but it is possible, and it is still consistent w/ the great prostitute being Jerusalem.

One of my favorite Preterist websites written by Adam Maarschalk identifies the 8th "king" as one of the Zealot leaders. . . . That Scarlet Beast was the independent kingdom nation of Israel, re-established once more in AD 66 by the Zealot rebellion.

This fits w/ the second view: the scarlet beast is the Herodian dynasty composed of Herod the Great + 4 sons + 2 Agrippas. I guess the 8th could be a Zealot leader.

but he temporarily agreed with me for a while when I submitted that the 8th "king" in Revelation 17:ll was the 8th member of the family of Annas (Mattathias ben Theophilus) who held the high priesthood position in the year AD 66. You see, most have no idea that scripture defines the "kings of the earth" as being the high priests of the house of Israel. When Christ is given the title "Kings of kings", it means He is the ultimate high priest after the order of Melchizedek, superior to all other high priests who ever served. The curious language concerning those 7 "heads" as also being "kings" in Revelation 17:10-11 fits the first-century history of the high priest "kings" of the house of Annas perfectly. . . . The revived Scarlet Beast was also the equivalent of the 8th "king" because Mattathias ben Theophilus (the 8th high priest coming from the house of Annas) was also the titular head of the independent kingdom nation of Israel when it re-emerged in AD 66 with him as the appointed high priest that year.

Annas + 1 son-in-law (Caiaphas) + 5 sons + 1 Grandson = 8. This third view fits perfectly.

 

[claninja]

The Greek "pneuma" can also mean either "breath" or "spirit." So using it in the LXX is not proof that "spirit" is the correct meaning. Christ and Stephen, and I'm sure other saints as well, giving up their "pneuma" to God signified their belief in God's sovereignty and salvation. The same could not be said about all spirits. Many / most spirits still end up in Hades. If Ecc 12:7 really means that all spirits go to God, that would be a unique statement without support anywhere else in the Bible. Actually, in the OT no one, not even the saints expected their spirits to be with God after death hence it is written:

Rev 14:13 Then I heard a voice from heaven say, “Write: Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on.” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “they will find rest from their labors, for their deeds go with them.”


Yes, we agree about this.


Christ and the thief did not ascent physically to paradise at that time.


This is an argument that SDAs and JWs use. Other Christians believe that the spirit is conscious after death. Christ and the thief did indeed ascend to Paradise that day in their spirit or soul.

Correct, pneuma can be mean “breath”. My intention of using the LXX was not to prove the definition of “spirit”, but to demonstrate that the word pneuma was used in the OT in regards to the “pneuma returning to God” in the same way as the NT. So the NT use of the “pneuma returning to God” is not something new that occurred when Christ died, but was also acknowledged to occur in the OT as well. In my personal opinion the phrase “pneuma returning to God”, simply means the life, or breath of life, returning to God who gave it.

Christ didn’t ascend “spiritually” or physically prior to the resurrection. He was in hades. The resurrection is how his soul was not abandoned to hades.

Acts 2:31 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Not sure what your JW or SDA argument has to do with anything? JW’s believe Christ died for the sins of humanity, do you disagree with them there as well?

 

[Andrewn]

the word pneuma was used in the OT in regards to the “pneuma returning to God” in the same way as the NT. So the NT use of the “pneuma returning to God” is not something new that occurred when Christ died, but was also acknowledged to occur in the OT as well. In my personal opinion the phrase “pneuma returning to God”, simply means the life, or breath of life, returning to God who gave it.

Everyone knows that in OT times all the dead went to Sheol, not to God. Why do you question this? There is no support for your interpretation except by mistranslating a single verse. After Christ's resurrection, it is now a different situation altogether: the saints live eternally in the presence of God.

Christ didn’t ascend “spiritually” or physically prior to the resurrection. He was in hades. The resurrection is how his soul was not abandoned to hades. Acts 2:31 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. Not sure what your JW or SDA argument has to do with anything? JW’s believe Christ died for the sins of humanity, do you disagree with them there as well?

Like JWs and SDAs you do not believe Christ's words to the repentant thief:

Luk 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

I believe in all Christ's words. Of course, I believe Christ died for the sins of humanity.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Thank you for the answer. Actually, I think we are returning to the topic of the thread, which is preterism.

Okay, I hope so. Not wanting to upset the powers that be who have to moderate this forum.

This fits w/ the second view: the scarlet beast is the Herodian dynasty composed of Herod the Great + 4 sons + 2 Agrippas. I guess the 8th could be a Zealot leader.

There is actually a 4th view that Adam Maarschalk has proposed, which has the 7 & 8th kings of Revelation 17 ALL being Zealot leaders. As of last report, I believe Adam M. still thinks that the Revelation 13 and Revelation 17 Beasts are the same entity. This is an impossibility, as I have taken some pains to try proving to him on his website. There are most definitely THREE beasts presented in Revelation: one Roman (the Sea Beast) and two Judean beasts (the Rev. 13 Land Beast and the Rev. 17 Scarlet Beast). With THREE different beasts identified, this clears up all the confusion and contradictions of which beast did what.

For the "second view" you listed above with the Beast proposed as being the Herodian dynasty, I myself once did some study on trying to find a match between the 7 kings and the 8th one as the Herodian kings, but their tenures and activities didn't match up with the description of the 7 "kings" as found in Revelation 17:10-11, and there was no 8th Herodian king. I chucked this idea after a while.

Annas + 1 son-in-law (Caiaphas) + 5 sons + 1 Grandson = 8. This third view fits perfectly.

It does fit perfectly, doesn't it? I have encountered maybe a handful of people who have recognized the same thing. This entire corrupt family of high priests descending from Annas conspired together to put Christ to death, and truly became the high priest "kings of the earth" enemies warring against the Lamb, as Revelation 19:19 says. Even the Talmud has a curse pronounced against this family of corrupt high priests from the house of Annas who extracted usurious amounts of money from their own people to support themselves. They did this via the abominable Tyrian shekel required for use in the temple (the mark of the Beast).

 

[claninja]

Everyone knows that in OT times all the dead went to Sheol, not to God. Why do you question this? There is no support for your interpretation except by mistranslating a single verse. After Christ's resurrection, it is now a different situation altogether: the saints live eternally in the presence of God.

Maybe you misunderstand me. I agree all the dead in the OT went to hades. My point was that the phrase “pneuma returns to God” doesn’t refer to the soul going to heaven, but simply means the “breath” of life returns to the Lord who gave it.

Christ gave up his “pneuma” to God (matthew 23:46) and yet he went to hades until the resurrection of his flesh (acts 2:31).

Like JWs and SDAs you do not believe Christ's words to the repentant thief:

Luk 23:43 And Jesus said to him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

I believe in all Christ's words. Of course, I believe Christ died for the sins of humanity

Now that would be a strawman. I do believe Christ and his promise to the thief of being paradise with him. I just dont believe YOUR interpretation of Luke 23:43. There were no punctuations in the original Greek. Such has been added much later.

Since Christ literally said he had not yet ascended to heaven (John 20:16-17) post his resurrection, then I disagree that the comma, in Luke 23:43, should be before today. Instead I would argue it should be after today. As you’ve chosen a highly debated “proof text” to support your position, can you provide any other clear, less debatable, scriptures to support that Christ went to paradise prior to the resurrection?

 

[Andrewn]

This entire corrupt family of high priests descending from Annas conspired together to put Christ to death, and truly became the high priest "kings of the earth" enemies warring against the Lamb, as Revelation 19:19 says. Even the Talmud has a curse pronounced against this family of corrupt high priests from the house of Annas who extracted usurious amounts of money from their own people to support themselves. They did this via the abominable Tyrian shekel required for use in the temple (the mark of the Beast).

You explained the Tyrian shekel in a different thread, and it does make sense.

This is an impossibility, as I have taken some pains to try proving to him on his website. There are most definitely THREE beasts presented in Revelation: one Roman (the Sea Beast) and two Judean beasts (the Rev. 13 Land Beast and the Rev. 17 Scarlet Beast). With THREE different beasts identified, this clears up all the confusion and contradictions of which beast did what.

Why is it impossible for the scarlet beast to be the same as the beast from the sea? Jerusalem / the great harlot sitting on the Roman Empire doesn't seem like an impossible interpretation to me.

How do you interpret Rev 20-22? Amellinnialists interpret Rev 20:7 to the end of the book in a futurist sense. Do you have a different interpretation?

 

[Andrewn]

Maybe you misunderstand me. I agree all the dead in the OT went to hades. My point was that the phrase “pneuma returns to God” doesn’t refer to the soul going to heaven, but simply means the “breath” of life returns to the Lord who gave it. Christ gave up his “pneuma” to God (matthew 23:46) and yet he went to hades until the resurrection of his flesh (acts 2:31).

Compare the following 2 statements:

Luk 23:46 Then Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my pneuma.” Having said this, he breathed his last.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the pneuma, 19 in which also he went and made a proclamation to the pneumasin in prison,

The pneumasin of the OT dead were in Hades. Christ's pneuma also went to Hades. I don't see how pneuma could mean "breath" here. It must mean "spirit." But Christ had committed his pneuma in God's hands. Does pneuma here refer to breath / life as you say? Is it a general expression meaning "God, do what you will with my spirit"? Or does it mean, as I interpret it, "my spirit will be returning to You God"? Indeed Christ's spirit returned to God that same day with the repentant thief. Then we do not have to propose a different meaning for pneuma in Luke and in Peter.

I do believe Christ and his promise to the thief of being paradise with him. I just dont believe YOUR interpretation of Luke 23:43. There were no punctuations in the original Greek. Such has been added much later.

This is a big debate and I will quote an answer from Bengel's Gnomen:

"[The marking of the time by the expression, to-day, is not to be referred (joined) to the verb, I say, as if the robber should have to wait for his entrance into Paradise during I know not how long periods of time. That the words were spoken to him on that day, is of itself evident (without it being necessary to say so). Jesus never used the expression, To-day I say; whereas He repeatedly used the expression, I say. Therefore we must read the words thus, To-day shalt thou be with Me in paradise. Thus the power and grace of the Lord, and also His own ready and immediate entrance into Paradise, is openly declared.—V. g. That was indeed to save, Luke 23:39(which the impenitent robber had taunted Him with, as unable to effect it).—Harm., p. 570]."

In "I say unto thee today," the word "today" is rather superfluous. Quite clearly Jesus is talking to him "today" and not "tomorrow."

Since Christ literally said he had not yet ascended to heaven (John 20:16-17) post his resurrection, then I disagree that the comma, in Luke 23:43, should be before today. Instead I would argue it should be after today.

He had not yet ascended to heaven in his resurrection body that Mary was clinging to.

As you’ve chosen a highly debated “proof text” to support your position, can you provide any other clear, less debatable, scriptures to support that Christ went to paradise prior to the resurrection?

It is possible to add Luk 23:46 (above) as proof text, but you will counter by saying that that verse is about the Lord's "breath." But this whole discussion assumes that heaven is a place above the stars. In reality, it is a timeless realm that intersects with earth. As I asked above, "What exactly is heaven's temple anyway?"

We better talk about Preterism .

 

[3 Resurrections]

You explained the Tyrian shekel in a different thread, and it does make sense.

I do appreciate that, Andrewn. Thank you so much for remembering that thread and giving it some consideration. There is too much unfounded fear today about that "mark" that was eliminated long ago in AD 66.

Why is it impossible for the scarlet beast to be the same as the beast from the sea? Jerusalem / the great harlot sitting on the Roman Empire doesn't seem like an impossible interpretation to me.

Back in 2016, I presented a short study on another website about the critical differences between all THREE beasts in Revelation at this link:

The Sea Beast....The Land Beast....and The Scarlet Beast

The Sea Beast....The Land Beast....and The Scarlet Beast

www.gracecentered.com

For a summation of some of those differences for the Sea Beast and the Scarlet Beast which I posted in that link, we have...

Different origins: The Sea Beast was presented as emerging from the sea, and the Scarlet Beast was found in the wilderness. Rome across the Mediterranean Sea had no connection with a wilderness setting, but Judea with its wilderness topography and Israel as a nation founded during their wilderness wanderings most definitely was connected with a wilderness background.

Different lifespans: The Sea Beast had a continual 666-year biographical record as of the time John was writing Revelation in AD 59 / 60. In direct contrast, the Scarlet Beast was presented with a fluctuating pattern of existence; it once "WAS", then "IS NOT" as John was writing, but was "ABOUT TO ARISE" from the bottomless pit (not the sea) and also "ABOUT TO...GO INTO DESTRUCTION" in John's near future.

Different features: The Sea Beast was described as having lion, bear, and leopard features. The Scarlet Beast did not have these. Those lion, bear, and leopard features indicated that this Sea Beast had a biographical history as ancient as the Babylonian empire which the lion represented back in the Daniel 7:3-4 vision (which emerged from out of the sea). This means the Sea Beast came into existence in 607 BC when Nebuchadnezzar deported the first group of exiles from Jerusalem, such as Daniel, at the beginning of the 70-year exile (666 years before John was writing Revelation). From 607 BC on, all those pagan empires of lion, bear, and leopard expected homage in some way from the people of Israel. The Sea Beast also is not presented as having a harlot riding its back, but the Scarlet Beast does.

Different horns that behaved differently: The Sea Beast's 10 horns all had crowns (the ten emperors who had dealings with Israel before its AD 70 destruction). But none of the 10 horns on the Scarlet Beast had crowns, and their delegated power only lasted a brief "hour". The Sea Beast's 10 crowned horns did not hate the Sea Beast and destroy it. But the Scarlet Beast's 10 uncrowned horns, (the 10 generals Josephus said were chosen in AD 66 Jerusalem to prepare for the Roman/Jewish war), these all hated the harlot sitting on its back. God put that desire in those 10 horns to destroy the harlot Jerusalem which had been sitting in domination over the Scarlet Beast. This shows CIVIL WAR conditions for the Scarlet Beast and the harlot riding it, which John predicted were all "about to go... into destruction" - heads, horns, harlot and all. This total destruction resulted from that Scarlet Beast kingdom being divided against itself, meaning it could not stand for long, but was then "about to" have an end.

Different fate for the sets of heads: The wound to the single head of the Sea Beast (representing one literal mountain in the city of Rome) was healed in Revelation 13:3 (Nero's expensive "Golden House" restoration of the imperial Palatine hill grounds after the AD 64 devastating fire). In contrast, all seven of the Scarlet Beast's heads as representing literal mountains have been leveled with the ground and Babylon's mountains "are not found" in Revelation 16:20.

Different relations with Satan: The Sea Beast was given Satan's throne - Revelation 13:2 (which was in the city of Pergamos according to Revelation 2:13). This without question identifies the SEA BEAST as being ROMAN at that time, since the Roman republic was given the entire Pergamum kingdom along with its capital at Pergamos and its 40' tall alter in the temple of Zeus where Antipas was martyred ( Satan's "throne" in Pergamos). This Pergamum kingdom and its altar (Satan's throne) was handed over to the Roman Republic in 133 BC by the dying King Attalus III who had no living heir to pass his kingdom to except for his ally, the Roman Republic. Satan never gave the Scarlet Beast his throne in Pergamos, nor power, nor great authority.

Different enemies: The Sea Beast was allowed by God to make war against the saints for a period of 42 months and to "overcome them" in Revelation 13:7 by killing them. (Which Nero did from late AD 64 until just before his suicide in June of AD 68.) But in contrast, the Scarlet Beast was going to be overcome by the Lamb and His armies in Revelation 17:14 and Revelation 19:19-20.

There are even more differences between the Sea Beast and the Scarlet Beast, but this should get you started. These two Beasts had similar sets of features, but this did not make them the same Beast; it made them counterparts that mirrored each other in some respects. The Harlot Jerusalem did not ride in a dominant position over the 7 hills which Rome as the Sea Beast was built upon. However, Jerusalem did most definitely sit on her own set of 7 mountains from antiquity ("as the mountains are round about Jerusalem, so the Lord surrounds his people..." - Psalms 125:2.) Rome had Jerusalem under ITS control in that period of history - not the other way around. That's why the Scarlet Beast's 10 horns (aka, the 10 generals chosen for the war) so hated the harlot Jerusalem who had prostituted itself by the high priesthood's collaboration with Rome. They had been currying favor with the Roman governors in order to gain a secure financial advantage for themselves.

How do you interpret Rev 20-22? Amellinnialists interpret Rev 20:7 to the end of the book in a futurist sense. Do you have a different interpretation?

Yes, I most definitely do have a different interpretation.

The literal thousand years of Revelation 20's millennium was said to END with the "First resurrection" (which was in AD 33, and which included "Christ the FIRST-fruits" and the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected 144,000 "FIRST-fruits" saints rising from the dead). Those literal thousand years ran from 987/986 BC until AD 33 - a literal thousand years of Satan's deception of the nations being bound ever since the foundation stone of Solomon's temple was laid down, and lasting until Christ became the foundation stone of the True Temple not made with hands.

Revelation 20's war of "Gog" in Jerusalem is long past since the year AD 70, and the cleanup process which took 7 years to burn all the weapons and siege equipment, including the wall of circumvallation built around the entire city of Jerusalem. Also 7 months to bury Israel's dead remains in the valley of Jordan at the top of the Dead Sea.

Revelation 20:14's "Lake of Fire" defined as the "Second Death" was the second death of the city of Jerusalem and its temple by the end of AD 70 - never to rise again with any spiritual significance in God's eyes. Jerusalem's first death occurred in 586 BC, when death and hell for the first time had been sent to overcome the rulers in Jerusalem under the Babylonian conquest (Isaiah 28:15-18). Death and hell came again to plague Jerusalem from AD 66-70 (Revelation 20:14). The Scarlet Beast, the Land Beast, and the entire Satanic realm were cast into that city's "Lake of Fire" tormenting conditions until ALL of these were destroyed by the end of AD 70.

Revelation 21-22's description of the "New Jerusalem" was a spiritual reality of the New Heavens and the New Earth conditions we live in today under the New Covenant, initiated at Christ's resurrection-day ascension, and manifested openly to all without a rival as being God's kingdom on earth, once the Old physical Jerusalem, its temple, and priesthood was laid level with the ground and/or eliminated.

But according to this forum's rules, I am not allowed to say that Revelation 20:11-14 was an imminent bodily resurrection event and a judgment scheduled for a bodily return of Christ that was then presently "at hand" for John's readers (Revelation 1:3 and 22:10). John deliberately lied to his first-century readers about all of that (cough, cough, cough).

 

[claninja]

Compare the following 2 statements:

Luk 23:46 Then Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into your hands I commend my pneuma.” Having said this, he breathed his last.

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh but made alive in the pneuma, 19 in which also he went and made a proclamation to the pneumasin in prison,

The pneumasin of the OT dead were in Hades. Christ's pneuma also went to Hades. I don't see how pneuma could mean "breath" here. It must mean "spirit." But Christ had committed his pneuma in God's hands. Does pneuma here refer to breath / life as you say? Is it a general expression meaning "God, do what you will with my spirit"? Or does it mean, as I interpret it, "my spirit will be returning to You God"? Indeed Christ's spirit returned to God that same day with the repentant thief. Then we do not have to propose a different meaning for pneuma in Luke and in Peter.

You’ve provided only another highly debated “proof text” for your position.

I take Jesus being “made alive in or by the pneuma” to be in regards to his resurrection in 1 peter 3:18.

1 peter 3:18-20 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. in whichc he went and proclaimedd to the spirits in prison,20becausee they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

It seems to me that Peter says Christ died for the unrighteousness, was raised to life by the spirit, and then preached to the “spirits in prison” specifically those who were disobedient during the days of Noah. It’s a very debated and confusing passage that I wouldn’t use as a proof text for “the pneuma going to hades”. ***Regardless, this passage makes no mention of Christ ascending to heaven prior to the resurrection of his flesh.

This is a big debate and I will quote an answer from Bengel's Gnomen:

If you read further on in Bengels take on Luke 23:43, he doesn’t believe this refers to Christ’s ascending to heaven due to John 20:17 (which agrees with my position) Instead He only believes this refers to Jesus going to the good part of hades to be with the thief. So if the comma is after today, I would agree it refers to Christ going to hades to be with the thief. However, I’m more inclined to believe paradise refers to where the tree of life is in Gods abode, and so I would place the comma after today.

“This departure to Paradise differs no doubt from the ascension to heaven, John 20:17 (“I am not yet ascended to My Father”), but yet it shows that His descent to ‘hell’ (the lower regions unseen) is to be explained in a good sense.”

In "I say unto thee today," the word "today" is rather superfluous. Quite clearly Jesus is talking to him "today" and not "tomorrow."

It wouldn’t be out of any kind of normalcy for the phrase to be used “i say to you today, …..” you’ll find examples of this in the OT.

It is possible to add Luk 23:46 (above) as proof text, but you will counter by saying that that verse is about the Lord's "breath." But this whole discussion assumes that heaven is a place above the stars. In reality, it is a timeless realm that intersects with earth. As I asked above, "What exactly is heaven's temple anyway?"

I mean, how can Jesus’ spirit (pneuma) go to heaven prior to the resurrection, if he had not yet ascended to the father (John 20:17) and was in hades until the resurrection of his flesh (acts 2:31)?

We better talk about Preterism .

Absolutely

 

[3 Resurrections]

Second, as Heb 9:3 shows, the veil before the Holy of Holies was called "to katapetasma." This is the same word for the veil that was torn according to Mat 27:51; Mar 15:38; Luk 23:45; Heb 10:20. The outer veil, however, was called, "to kalymma.

As promised, I did check into this information, and found that BOTH temple veils were referred to as "to katapetasma". The "second veil" (to katapetasma) in Hebrews 9:3 would mean the FIRST outer veil of the temple would also have the same Greek word applied to it. I'm not sure where you have found that the outer veil was called "to kalymma", since what I'm reading says that this Greek term only occurs 4 times, and they are all found in 2 Corinthians 3:13,14,15,and 16. In all those 4 verses, the Greek words "to kalymma" refer to the veil over Moses' face or to the symbolic "veil" of ignorance which was over the Jews which kept them from recognizing their Messiah. None of these 4 examples of a veil called "to kalymma" applied to a temple veil.

Therefore, Hebrews 9:3 (which indicates that BOTH the first and the "second veil" have the same Greek term applied to them) lets us know that the soldiers and the centurion saw the first, outer veil (to katapetasma) of the temple being ripped apart at Christ's crucifixion - NOT the veil (to katapetasma) in front of the Holy of Holies which they would not have been able to view from their vantage point at the crucifixion site.

Back to Preterism pro or con...