Preterism-phony as a Ford Corvette

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,178
25,220
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,576.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
...Except He didn't then return, except that He is present whenever/wherever 2 or more are gathered in His name.
I’m baffled at the comprehension issue, so I’ll just assume that you aren’t completely reading what I write. I never said that coming on the clouds meant that He returned. And neither did He. So trying to twist my posts into saying that I’m saying He returned is disingenuous and unbecoming of a brother in Christ. So I respectfully ask that you stop misrepresenting what I’m saying.
 
Upvote 0

3 Resurrections

That's 666 YEARS, folks
Aug 21, 2021
1,838
294
Taylors
✟84,620.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Everything physical decays. How can we be physical and unseen at the same time?

Well, how could the physical, flesh-and-bones body of Christ simply disappear from view? Yet we know that His glorified, resurrected body was able to do this. Invisibility seems to be one of the optional characteristics of a body made incorruptible and immortal.

Then why would they want to kill him for teaching what they taught about the resurrection? He must have taught something different than their view of the resurrection, even though they both taught there would be a resurrection.

Their hatred of Paul was based on his teaching that Christ Jesus was the resurrected Messiah of their people. Also that he was including Gentiles in that same hope of the bodily resurrection. To a Jew, that was unheard of - a traitorous stand against their supposed exclusive status as God's chosen people.

Also, Christ promised that "all men" would hate the disciples for HIS name's sake. Since Paul aligned himself with Christ, that made him a target for the Pharisees' hatred, regardless of whether he agreed with their stance on the bodily resurrection or not.

Paul said it is sown a natural (physical) body, it is raised a spiritual (supernatural) body. This perishable can not inherit the imperishable

Exactly. That same body called "IT" which would be buried would be the same "IT" which would be raised in a changed, imperishable condition. A spiritual BODY is still a BODY.

A simple example would be to compare the term "spiritual body" to the term "gasoline engine". The engine is powered by gasoline; not that the engine is simply a pool of gasoline and nothing else. In the same way, the "spiritual body" is powered by the spirit; not that it is composed only of spirit and nothing else of material, physical substance.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟115,462.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I’m baffled at the comprehension issue, so I’ll just assume that you aren’t completely reading what I write. I never said that coming on the clouds meant that He returned. And neither did He. So trying to twist my posts into saying that I’m saying He returned is disingenuous and unbecoming of a brother in Christ. So I respectfully ask that you stop misrepresenting what I’m saying.
Well, then, I likewise respectfully ask you to cease saying that He CAME.
 
Upvote 0

Hammster

Psalm 144:1
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Apr 5, 2007
140,178
25,220
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟1,728,576.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Well, then, I likewise respectfully ask you to cease saying that He CAME.
I have been clear in my statement, which you’ve twisted repeatedly. My only conclusion is that you know that my point rings true and it throws a wrench into your theology. So instead of dealing with it, you have chosen to misrepresent it in hopes that no one will pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

So to recap, coming on the clouds would have brought to mind the OT references that His audience would have been familiar with. There’s no way that they would have thought it was His second coming. It would either bring up thoughts of judgement or His ascension to the throne.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟799,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, how could the physical, flesh-and-bones body of Christ simply disappear from view? Yet we know that His glorified, resurrected body was able to do this. Invisibility seems to be one of the optional characteristics of a body made incorruptible and immortal.

Absense of Evidence does not = Evidence of Absense.

It is unwarranted to assume that Christ's pre cross body, the one that already possessed the superhuman "optional characteristics" of being able to walk on water (Matthew 14:25) and pass through hostile crowds untouched (Luke 4:30), was somehow incapable of walking through walls and appearing and disappearing from peoples' sight.

And we know from the text that His post cross appearing and disappearing was solely predicated on whether the veiwers eyes were opened or shut, and not by any feature or attrubute of the risin Christ Himself.
Luke 24:31
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
458
127
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟440,704.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Scripture makes kingdoms "kings" elsewhere, starting in Genesis.
Transgender nouns? You've got to be kidding. They are always translated kings by everyone. Kings is masculine and kingdoms is feminine You've got to start asking yourself why your doctrine needs to add sentences that are not found in scripture and change words that mean one thing into words that mean something else. 1 Corinthians 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,777
3,419
Non-dispensationalist
✟359,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
But in Rev. 17:10, the 'kings' are KINGDOMS. The "6th king", the one that then was, was ROME, not Nero. And there were quite a few after Nero. After Gen. Galba ousted Nero, there were four in that year alone, counting Galba. Vespasian ended the turmoil.

No, V. 10 refers to kingDOMS. But I'll agree that the horns of the scarlet beast will be kings or rulers by whatever titles they'll have.
robycop3, the little horn, the Antichrist, the beast are all the same person right?

How many kingdoms are there in Daniel 7? Four, right?

Babylonian
Medes, Persians
Greek
Roman (the fourth)


The little horn and the ten kings come out of the Roman Empire, i.e. the fourth kingdom.

The prince who shall come in Daniel 9:26-27 will be of the Romans.

The EEC (also known as the EC) forerunner of the EU was founded by the Treaty of Rome 1957.
 
Upvote 0

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟784,067.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You're beating a dead horse. According to the dictionary, 'repeat' does NOT mean 'affirm'. Repeat means to say or write again, while affirm means PROVING it's true. In the 1930s, Goebbels often repeated Hitler's lies, but that didn't AFFIRM them; they still remained lies.

That horse is very much alive.

You've ridden it yourself.

You haven't proved the Colliers account.

But you've affirmed it by being confident that it's true.

According to the thesaurus, "repeat" is a synonym for "affirm".

Goebbels confidently claimed that Hitler's lies were true.

Confidently claiming that something is true is the definition of "affirm".

The definition of "affirm" does not include "proving".


Meanwhile, keep riding.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

3 Resurrections

That's 666 YEARS, folks
Aug 21, 2021
1,838
294
Taylors
✟84,620.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
And we know from the text that His appearing and disappearing was solely predicated on whether the veiwers eyes were opened or shut, and not by any feature or attrubute of the risin Christ Himself.
Luke 24:31
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight

If this verse was saying what you think it says, it would have instead read "And their eyes were closed...and he vanished out of their sight." This was definitely an alteration in the visibility of Christ's glorified body - not caused by, and solely dependent upon whether they could see Him or not

We are not speaking of the pre-resurrection body of Christ and its capabilities before His crucifixion. Of course, as the Son of God, He could do miraculous things during His earthly ministry, which were duly recorded. Instead, we are speaking of what capabilities His glorified, resurrected body has. Whatever the features of Christ's glorified, resurrected body, these are the same features of every believer's body in the resurrection, since we are called "joint heirs" with Christ. The body of "Christ the First-fruits" has the same qualities of the bodies of every other "harvested" body of the saints, from the "First-fruits" all the way to the last-fruits. Our share of this "inheritance" of a resurrected body is the same as Christ's share, since He is not ashamed to call Himself our "brother".
 
Upvote 0

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
458
127
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟440,704.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, how could the physical, flesh-and-bones body of Christ simply disappear from view? Yet we know that His glorified, resurrected body was able to do this. Invisibility seems to be one of the optional characteristics of a body made incorruptible and immortal.
Could you point me to the verse that says as you say: "glorified, resurrected body" so I can know what you're talking about.

Their hatred of Paul was based on his teaching that Christ Jesus was the resurrected Messiah of their people. Also that he was including Gentiles in that same hope of the bodily resurrection. To a Jew, that was unheard of - a traitorous stand against their supposed exclusive status as God's chosen people.

Also, Christ promised that "all men" would hate the disciples for HIS name's sake. Since Paul aligned himself with Christ, that made him a target for the Pharisees' hatred, regardless of whether he agreed with their stance on the bodily resurrection or not.

Exactly. That same body called "IT" which would be buried would be the same "IT" which would be raised in a changed, imperishable condition. A spiritual BODY is still a BODY.

A simple example would be to compare the term "spiritual body" to the term "gasoline engine". The engine is powered by gasoline; not that the engine is simply a pool of gasoline and nothing else. In the same way, the "spiritual body" is powered by the spirit; not that it is composed only of spirit and nothing else of material, physical substance.
So is the body of Christ, your dead body in Christ, your body of sin. This is the analogy Paul uses:1 Corinthians 15:44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.
Besides, your body returns to the dust of the ground with no body left to raise. Our new body is made without hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 Corinthians 1:
1For we know that if our earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made by hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For indeed, in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3since in fact after putting it on, we will not be found naked. 4For indeed, we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. 5Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave us the Spirit as a pledge.

6Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord—
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟115,462.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I have been clear in my statement, which you’ve twisted repeatedly. My only conclusion is that you know that my point rings true and it throws a wrench into your theology. So instead of dealing with it, you have chosen to misrepresent it in hopes that no one will pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

So to recap, coming on the clouds would have brought to mind the OT references that His audience would have been familiar with. There’s no way that they would have thought it was His second coming. It would either bring up thoughts of judgement or His ascension to the throne.
Well, actually, technically, His COMING would be a RETURN, as He had definitely left.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟115,462.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Transgender nouns? You've got to be kidding. They are always translated kings by everyone. Kings is masculine and kingdoms is feminine You've got to start asking yourself why your doctrine needs to add sentences that are not found in scripture and change words that mean one thing into words that mean something else. 1 Corinthians 4:6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
'Kingdom' is NOT feminine in English.

Gen. 14:5In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him came and attacked the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim,
Now, we know those kings didn't go & attack other nations singlehandedly. Here, 'kings' definitely refers to KINGDOMS. You may read much of Gen. 14 to see more of the same; the verse I quoted is representative of several others in that chapter.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟115,462.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
robycop3, the little horn, the Antichrist, the beast are all the same person right?

How many kingdoms are there in Daniel 7? Four, right?

Babylonian
Medes, Persians
Greek
Roman (the fourth)


The little horn and the ten kings come out of the Roman Empire, i.e. the fourth kingdom.

The prince who shall come in Daniel 9:26-27 will be of the Romans.

The EEC (also known as the EC) forerunner of the EU was founded by the Treaty of Rome 1957.
Right. All those empires ruled the Jews. Before the Babs, the Assyrians made the Jews pay ", protection money" while Egypt under Pharaoh Necho ruled the Jews for awhile before the Babs did. So, that accounts for the 6 'kings' of Rev. 17:10 up thru that time.
 
Upvote 0

Douggg

anytime rapture, non-dispensationalist, futurist
May 28, 2009
28,777
3,419
Non-dispensationalist
✟359,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Right. All those empires ruled the Jews. Before the Babs, the Assyrians made the Jews pay ", protection money" while Egypt under Pharaoh Necho ruled the Jews for awhile before the Babs did. So, that accounts for the 6 'kings' of Rev. 17:10 up thru that time.
In spite of that logic, it is written the ten kings and the little horn come out of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7 - the Roman Empire.

The ten kings and the little horn cannot come out of anything in Daniel 7 but the Roman Empire.

If you did not have Revelation 17:10 to manipulate, and were reading the text of Daniel 7, what kingdom do the little horn and ten kings come out of ?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟115,462.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
That horse is very much alive.

You've ridden it yourself.

You haven't proved the Colliers account.

But you've affirmed it by being confident that it's true.

According to the thesaurus, "repeat" is a synonym for "affirm".

Goebbels confidently claimed that Hitler's lies were true.

Confidently claiming that something is true is the definition of "affirm".

The definition of "affirm" does not include "proving".


Meanwhile, keep riding.
I go by a dictionary, not a thesaurus. And I merely repeated the Collier's account.

My, MY, some of you are bending over backward trying to defend a false doctrine. The ONLY defense for it is UNDENIABLE PROOF that all the events that prets SAY have already happened, HAVE already happened!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jgr

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 25, 2008
9,692
5,007
✟784,067.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I go by a dictionary, not a thesaurus. And I merely repeated the Collier's account.

My, MY, some of you are bending over backward trying to defend a false doctrine. The ONLY defense for it is UNDENIABLE PROOF that all the events that prets SAY have already happened, HAVE already happened!

You affirmed the Colliers account. When I asked if you were confident that it was true (which is the definition of "affirm"), you said "Yes".

Without proving it.
 
Upvote 0

3 Resurrections

That's 666 YEARS, folks
Aug 21, 2021
1,838
294
Taylors
✟84,620.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Besides, your body returns to the dust of the ground with no body left to raise.

That statement contradicts the "Law of Conservation of Mass", doesn't it? Moreover, it contradicts Jesus' promise to the disciples, that even if they were put to death, "not an hair of your head shall perish" (Luke 21:18).

Corinthians 15:44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

As I said above, a "spiritual body" is STILL a kind of BODY - not spirit only, with no physical aspect to it. If you are trying to use this verse to prove that Christ, the "last Adam" dumped his physical body and reverted to only a spirit-being at His ascension, there's a problem with that. Christ was a "life-giving spirit" even BEFORE His crucifixion. During His earthly ministry, didn't Christ say, "And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish..."? Christ did not have to die before those who were believing on Him during His earthly ministry were given eternal life.

2 Corinthians 1:
1For we know that if our earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made by hands, eternal in the heavens. 2For indeed, in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3since in fact after putting it on, we will not be found naked. 4For indeed, we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. 5Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave us the Spirit as a pledge.

I'm sorry, I remember now that I never really responded to this 2 Corinthians 5:1-5 text when you brought it up on the Full Preterist forum. Possibly the way you are wanting this to read would be this way..."For we know that if our earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a spirit from God, a house not made by hands, eternal in the heavens..." But it doesn't say that. It says a "building from God" awaits us. A physical construction, not made with human hands, but one made by God Himself. If God once took the dust of the ground to construct the body of Adam, it will be nothing for Him to reassemble the dust that once made up our body, and transform that same substance into a body that can never die again - "eternal in the heavens".

If believers while in this life already have eternal life of the spirit granted to them, then what purpose is there in having the "earnest" of the Holy Spirit given to us as a promise of something further beyond that? If the physical body were to be dumped in the resurrection, we would have nothing further to anticipate in addition to what we already have. But the indwelling Holy Spirit is now given to us as a "down-payment" of something we do not yet have - i.e., the "redemption of our bodies" as in Romans 8:23, which will be given incorruptibility and immortality in the resurrection.

Could you point me to the verse that says as you say: "glorified, resurrected body" so I can know what you're talking about.

We can know that Christ had a glorified body on the day of His resurrection by comparing two texts. In John 7:39, John said that "...the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified." This puts the giving of the Holy Ghost within the believers at a time after Jesus would be glorified.

Then we go to John 19:19-22, when the newly-resurrected Jesus came to the disciples that same first day of the week at evening. He breathed on them, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Since the Holy Ghost was to be given AFTER Jesus was glorified, then if we know when the Holy Ghost was first given and breathed into the disciples, we can know that the body of Christ which came out of the grave was a glorified one; a glorified body which had "flesh and bones", and could eat, drink, disappear from view, levitate, change form, and never die again.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed Parenteau

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 26, 2017
458
127
75
San Bernardino, CA
✟440,704.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
'Kingdom' is NOT feminine in English.

Gen. 14:5In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings that were with him came and attacked the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh Kiriathaim,
Now, we know those kings didn't go & attack other nations singlehandedly. Here, 'kings' definitely refers to KINGDOMS. You may read much of Gen. 14 to see more of the same; the verse I quoted is representative of several others in that chapter.
In Greek and Hebrew it is feminine. I am certain those kings came with their armies but certainly did not come with their kingdoms which would include women and children, land and cattle, buildings and farms, etc.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Site Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,534
4,827
57
Oregon
✟799,454.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, actually, technically, His COMING would be a RETURN, as He had definitely left.

So actually, technically, you would then say his COMING to Paul on the road to Damascus and his COMING to Stephen at his stoning were BOTH RETURNS then? Since He had definitely left?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hammster
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.