Preterism-phony as a Ford Corvette

[Hammster]

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?

Or this:


“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
— Daniel 7:13

 

[robycop3]

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 ?

Yes, the 10 kings will come outta the peoples & nations that made up the old Roman empires. The beast's empire will at first be made mostly from those peoples. Let us remember there are descendants of Romans thruout Europe & western Asia, as well as north Africa. Actually, they're all over the world, but I believe the beast/antichrist will arise in Europe.

 

[robycop3]

Did it mean return in Isaiah 19?

Depends on your view.

 

[robycop3]

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.

I don't have to. YOU have to DISprove it.

This is just another bunny trail trying to lead away from the fact that the prophesied eschatological events haven't yet occurred.

 

[robycop3]

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.

Armies ofter traveled with a retinue in those days. Even as recently as the American Civil War, such retinues followed the armies oft-times. There were a fre families, sutlers (travelling merchants), prostitutes, etc.

 

[robycop3]

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?

Depends on your view.

 

[Jipsah]

I don't have to. YOU have to DISprove it.

That's what I always tell people who insist that I'm not rightwise born king of all England.

 

[Hammster]

Depends on your view.

Here’s your view.

He came INVISIBLY to Egypt, whether on a cloud or not.

 

[jgr]

I don't have to. YOU have to DISprove it.

This is just another bunny trail trying to lead away from the fact that the prophesied eschatological events haven't yet occurred.

You've entirely lost track of what this dialogue was about, so I'll just lay it to rest before you confuse yourself further.

 

[parousia70]

the prophesied eschatological events haven't yet occurred.

Depends on your view.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Armies ofter traveled with a retinue in those days. Even as recently as the American Civil War, such retinues followed the armies oft-times. There were a fre families, sutlers (travelling merchants), prostitutes, etc.

I see, so therefore you can change whatever words inspired by the Holy Spirit you want to as long as your doctrine needs it. Can everyone do that, or just you?

 

[Ed Parenteau]

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).

How on earth can you possibly think that if your body returns to the dust of the earth, that that somehow contradicts the "Law of Conservation of Mass". The atoms that make up your body have been here since the creation. When you die, they'll return and be recycled over and over again. Ecclesiastes 12:7 and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

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.

So, why did Paul make that dichotomy? As to a spiritual body, I guess we have to stick with Deuteronomy 29:29“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

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.

Building is obviously a metaphor to illustrate the comparison of our lowly bodies to our spiritual bodies. You wouldn't claim a spiritual house is a physical house, would you. 1 Peter 2:4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. It is not "redemption of our bodies", but redemption of our body. Paul says the same thing here:Ephesians 1:14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. In both cases the noun: genitive feminine singular is used. The body of Christ is His possession.

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.

In chapter 7, the disciples weren't with Jesus. He was in Jerusalem at the feast of tabernacles when he told the crowd that the Holy Spirit was not yet given. It certainly seems to me He was talking about Pentecost after He was glorified in the presence of the Father in response to Jesus's prayer when He ascended into heaven and sat down at His right hand.
John 17:1Jesus spoke these things; and raising His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, so that the Son may glorify You, 2just as You gave Him authority over all mankind, so that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4I glorified You on the earth by accomplishing the work which You have given Me to do. 5And now You, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world existed.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The atoms that make up your body have been here since the creation. When you die, they'll return and be recycled over and over again

If you have no problem with the idea of the atoms of a person's body being "recycled over and over again", then you should have no issue with each believer's body being recycled into its own body once more. If John the Baptist said that God could make children of Abraham from the rocks of the River Jordan, then He has no difficulty in determining which atoms taken from the ground belong in which person's body. "Known unto God are all His works.

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

This part of the story is true, but fortunately for the saints, that is not the end of the story. We have been given the "earnest" of the Spirit while in this life as a down-payment promise of the future "redemption of our body", whether it is scattered into the four winds or not.

Ephesians 1:14who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Of course it's true that collectively the believers are called the "body of Christ" in one sense. But that doesn't get rid of the fact that Paul said that in comparison to the resurrection process, God has given to each "seed" its own body.

We are told that we should glorify God in our body and in our spirit, which both belong to God because "we are bought with a price". The purchased body in this 1 Cor. 6:20 context is the flesh and bones body that each individual believer has. Since our individual bodies are Christ's purchased possession, we have no business using them to commit fornication or other sinful acts, as Paul told the Corinthians. God cares what we do with our physical bodies while in this life, and He also cares enough about them after death to change them into an incorruptible state.

In chapter 7, the disciples weren't with Jesus. He was in Jerusalem at the feast of tabernacles when he told the crowd that the Holy Spirit was not yet given. It certainly seems to me He was talking about Pentecost after He was glorified in the presence of the Father in response to Jesus's prayer when He ascended into heaven and sat down at His right hand.
John 17:1Jesus spoke these things; and raising His eyes to heaven, He said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, so that the Son may glorify You, 2just as You gave Him authority over all mankind, so that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4I glorified You on the earth by accomplishing the work which You have given Me to do. 5And now You, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world existed.

I don't think you are following my line of logic on this point. I didn't say Christ was with the disciples in John 7. That is immaterial to the connection I am making between the two texts. I am using the John 7 text to prove when Jesus was given a glorified body, which would be PRIOR to the Holy Ghost being given to indwell the disciples. And that happened for the first time on the first day of the week on Christ's resurrection day at evening - not later at Pentecost.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be stating that Jesus was not glorified until Pentecost? This misses the mark by a long shot. We have Daniel 7 giving the prophecy of the newly-resurrected Christ being brought before the Ancient of Days and given glory and dominion, and a kingdom, etc.. This was Christ's resurrection-day ascension that this Daniel 7 passage was written about - not His ascension 40 days later.

We also have Christ giving a scripture lesson to the two on the road to Emmaus that first day of the week, when He asked them "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to have entered into His glory?" In this text, Christ was speaking of His glorification as a direct follow-up to His crucifixion sufferings. He was also speaking of His glorification in that text in the past tense at that point, as an already-accomplished act.

As to a spiritual body, I guess we have to stick with Deuteronomy 29:29“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Fortunately, God didn't classify the subject of the resurrection as one of the "secret things". Indeed, Hebrews called the doctrine of "the resurrection of the dead" one of the foundational, basic things that were considered "the principles of the doctrine of Christ". The believers were to progress beyond that basic knowledge of doctrine, and go on unto perfection (Hebrews 6:1-2). Christ gave us the clear example of the 144,000 First-fruits saints resurrected in Matthew 27:52-53. These were raised from the dead to give the early church a visual, tangible demonstration of what every believer could expect to inherit in a resurrection of their own body.

 

[parousia70]

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

You assume this. You Extrapolate to support your previously held position.
As far as the men were concerned, Christ was NOT there with them untill their eyes were oepned and they knew. Yet Christ was very much there. They did not have to SEE Him in order for Him to be present, even before he "vanished", there is no reason found in the text to assume he was physically gone after they could no longer see Him. Such is purely speculation.
The text is clear. He ONLY disappeared FROM THEIR SIGHT. The text does not say "and He disappeared from the Earth" as you would need it, though you still have the insurmountable hurdle of proving Christ was incapable of such before the Cross.

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.

It's absolutely relevant. Again, absense of evidence does not equate to evidence of absense. We have no scriptural basis to conclude Christ was INCAPABLE of performing the miraculous things He did after the Cross, before the cross. None whatsoever. And every reason to believe He could. For "Of course, (as you said) as the Son of God, He could do miraculous things, which were duly recorded." we simply Have ZERO basis to conclude that the Miraculous things that were recorded were the FULL LIMIT of the Miraculous things He was CAPABLE of, and EVERY reason to believe there were NO LIMITS, as the Son of God, to His Miraculous capabilities before the Cross.
Interestingly, Matthew 4:1-8 is one nifty example of the miraculous teleportation of Christ's pre cross body.

Instead, we are speaking of what capabilities His glorified, resurrected body has.

Well, we're speaking of what capabilities His resurrected, pre ascension body had, which you assume was glorified. Respectfully, you have not demonstrated those capabilities were any different from His pre Cross capabilities.

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.

I agree with this 100%. I just disagree on the timing of that Glorification for reasons I have already detailed.

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".

Again, totally agree.
Our disagreement is not on the FACT of this, but on the TIMING.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You assume this. You Extrapolate to support your previously held position.
As far as the men were concerned, Christ waas NOT there with them untill their eyes were oepned and they knew. Yet Christ was very much there. They did not have to SEE him in order for Him to be present, even before he "vanished", there is not reason found in the text to assume he was physically gone after they could no longer see Him. Such is purely speculation.
The text is clear. He ONLY disappeared FROM THEIR SIGHT. The text does not say "and He disappeared from the Earth" as you would need it to.



It's absolutely relevant. Again, absense of evidence does not equate to evidence of absense. We have no scriptural basis to conclude Christ was INCAPABLE of performing the miraculous things He did after the Cross, before the cross. None whatsoever. And every reason to believe He could.



Well, we're speaking of what capabilities His resurrected body had, which you assume was glorified.



I agree with this 100%. i just disagree on the timing of that Glorification for reasons I have already detailed.



Again, totally agree.
Our disagreement is not on the NATURE but on the TIMING.

It seems that you guys are debating over exactly when Jesus's body was glorified? And I think you're saying you believe it wasn't glorified yet right after His resurrection, right? I would agree with that. I think it was glorified in heaven when He ascended there 40 days after His resurrection. Otherwise, the following passage would not make sense:

1 John 3:1 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.

John had obviously already seen Jesus after His resurrection before writing that. So, if Jesus's body was already glorified immediately after His resurrection then John would have already seen Him as He is. But, he described seeing Jesus as He is (presumably referring to seeing His glorified body) as a future hope that would occur when He appears, at which time we too will have glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:50-54).

 

[parousia70]

It seems that you guys are debating over exactly when Jesus's body was glorified? And I think you're saying you believe it wasn't glorified yet right after His resurrection, right? I would agree with that. I think it was glorified in heaven when He ascended there 40 days after His resurrection. Otherwise, the following passage would not make sense:

1 John 3:1 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.

John had obviously already seen Jesus after His resurrection before writing that. So, if Jesus's body was already glorified immediately after His resurrection then John would have already seen Him as He is. But, he described seeing Jesus as He is (presumably referring to seeing His glorified body) as a future hope that would occur when He appears, at which time we too will have glorified bodies (1 Cor 15:50-54).

Spot on observation SJ.
One of the many evidences I point out in a previous detailed post in an earlier conversation 3 Rez and I were having on the subject HERE

 

[robycop3]

You've entirely lost track of what this dialogue was about, so I'll just lay it to rest before you confuse yourself further.

I'm not a bit confused. I started this thread to show preterism is phony & false, & some people are trying every way to show otherwise, except providing the ONLY thing that would sustain it-PROOF THAT THE ESCHATOLOGICAL EVENTS PRETS SAY HAVE ALREAEDY HAPPENED, HAVE ALREADY HAPPENED !

 

[robycop3]

Depends on your view.

I've not seen a view yet that PROVES they have.

 

[robycop3]

I see, so therefore you can change whatever words inspired by the Holy Spirit you want to as long as your doctrine needs it. Can everyone do that, or just you?

The Holy Spirit plainly meant "kingdom" in many cases where "king" was written. That's obvious in context. The 6 kings in Rev. 17 are a good example, as there werer more than 5 rulers of Rome before Domitian, and more than 8 after him. So, the "kings" mentiones couldn't all be rulers of Rome.

 

[parousia70]

I've not seen a view yet that PROVES they have.

Well, that's not a criteria you curently use for ANY of the prophesies that you already believe have been fulfilled, so.....