Preterism-phony as a Ford Corvette

Status
Not open for further replies.

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
it seems to me “entering glory” or Christ’s “glorification” upon his ascension to heaven would be different than a glorified Christ coming on the clouds “with” glory and power. So I don’t really follow your argument.


If Christ is going to come in glory, He certainly wouldn't be doing that during 70 AD. And He certantly wouldn't be arriving in that manner at His ascension, since it is not until after He arrives that He is then glorified, thus He is not arriving already glorified. In Matthew 24:30 He is arriving already glorified. Why would that not be relevant to the end of this age, that being when that coming is meaning?

If one associates the trib of those days meant in Matthew 24:29 with that of events involving 70 AD, the coming in verse 30 still can't involve that since the coming is after the trib of those days, not during it. IOW, if the trib of those days involve 70 AD, 70 AD would already be in the past when the coming meant in verse 30 takes place.
 
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
If Christ is going to come in glory, He certainly wouldn't be doing that during 70 AD

Why not? Isn't that the two-fold aspect of Christ's return, as laid out in II Thessalonians 1:7-10? Christ in "flaming fire" would take vengeance on those disobedient to the gospel, who would receive tribulation in retribution for troubling the saints, and who would be given everlasting destruction "from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (v. 9). At the same time, Christ would be "glorified in His saints", and "admired in all them that believe...in that day" (v. 10). God knows how to multi-task and accomplish two purposes at one time - both of which give evidence of His glory.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟115,462.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Then you should be able to Prove from History that 2 Samuel 22:8-16 Literally took place, since you are on record as affirming it did.
But you can't, because the events are absent from history. Yet you believe they happened anyway, so.....
These verses are part of a SONG, as the first of the chapter shows. Dave used "artist's license" thruout the song, same as songwriters do today, & have always done.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟115,462.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why not? Isn't that the two-fold aspect of Christ's return, as laid out in II Thessalonians 1:7-10? Christ in "flaming fire" would take vengeance on those disobedient to the gospel, who would receive tribulation in retribution for troubling the saints, and who would be given everlasting destruction "from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (v. 9). At the same time, Christ would be "glorified in His saints", and "admired in all them that believe...in that day" (v. 10). God knows how to multi-task and accomplish two purposes at one time - both of which give evidence of His glory.
No, He will only return once more. The rapture won't be His return, as He will call the saints to Himself in the sky.
 
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
Right. But they weren't ESCHATOLOGICAL events.
Yes, they were. You might not understand the entomology of “eschatology”, or how it can be applied throughout scripture.
 
Upvote 0

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,336.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If Christ is going to come in glory, He certainly wouldn't be doing that during 70 AD. And He certantly wouldn't be arriving in that manner at His ascension, since it is not until after He arrives that He is then glorified, thus He is not arriving already glorified. In Matthew 24:30 He is arriving already glorified. Why would that not be relevant to the end of this age, that being when that coming is meaning?

If one associates the trib of those days meant in Matthew 24:29 with that of events involving 70 AD, the coming in verse 30 still can't involve that since the coming is after the trib of those days, not during it. IOW, if the trib of those days involve 70 AD, 70 AD would already be in the past when the coming meant in verse 30 takes place.

i guess I’m still not understanding your argument, and what it has to do with Christ’s entering glory occurring at his ascension, not before
 
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

This does not contradict the bodily resurrection. All it proves is that all mankind dies, and their mortal life "continueth not" to live forever in that state.

Thy foes shall not; ultimately, and in the fullest scope of the prophecy, restored to life literally (Eze 37:1-14; Da 12:2).

I'm glad you included this Ezekiel 37:1-14 prophecy, because I was going to mention this one also. It portrays the "resurrection" of the people of Israel as a united people in the post-exilic return, after their 70 years of being scattered among the nations. God would revive Israel and Judah, using the decrees of the Persians to instigate that revival.

Yet the metaphoric description of HOW that "resurrection" occurred nationally at that time is reflective of just how the Israelites understood a resurrection process to be accomplished. First, the scattered bones of each body came together, "bone to his bone" (no mix-up between each body's parts). Then flesh and sinews came upon those bones, wrapped in skin once more. Then it took the breath of God's Spirit to bring those bodies to a living condition. Metaphorically, it took this step-by-step process to restore Israel and Judah with a rebuilt Temple, and hearts revived to serve their God with His Spirit among them.

This Ezekiel 37 resurrection process is exactly how the individual physical remains of the saints' bodies were changed in the AD 33 resurrection, and the AD 70 resurrection. And it all took place "in the twinkling of an eye". Job knew all about having to wait until his "change" came (Job 14:14-15). God would not forget Job's dead body lying in the grave, but would "have a desire to the work of His hands".

As to the physical bodies of the wicked, (as you have said, those who were the foes of the true Israel of God), Isaiah 26:14 wrote "they shall not rise".

) For some reason people seem to think that Christ would remain forever in a body of flesh.

The reason for that is found in Hebrews 7:23-25, where the nature of Christ's high priesthood is described (established at His first ascension on His resurrection day). Christ's high priesthood was said to be after the order of Melchizedek, who had no beginning of life nor end of days. That was contrary to the Levitical high priests, who did die physically. "And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them."

Jesus today still "continueth ever" in that resurrected form that "passed into the heavens", and became a high priest that had been "perfected forevermore" (Heb. 7:28). A high priest was supposed to be one united with the people he was representing before God. If Jesus had not maintained His resurrected human / divine form, He would not have been able to represent us before the Father. Like must represent like. The acceptance of our prayers and our persons before God depends upon this.

"fulfilled in Christ's resurrection-day ascension". It doesn't say or mean that. Mark 14: 28But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”
Leviticus 23: 16You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath. Then you shall present a grain offering of new grain to the LORD. 17You shall bring from your dwelling places two loaves of bread to be waved, made of two tenths of an ephah. They shall be of fine flour, and they shall be baked with leaven, as firstfruits to the LORD.

Here, you are mixing up the Passover First-fruits sheaf handful of barley offered along with the single He-lamb, and the later Pentecost offering of two wheat loaves made with leaven. Two different harvest feast celebrations.

Romans 8:23 And not only that, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons and daughters, the redemption of our body.

This is Paul saying that the early church had among them some of those "First-fruits" of the Spirit's work of redeeming bodies from the earth. (NOT the same as the "Fruit of the Spirit" of love, joy, etc.) Paul and the church had the example present with them of these resurrected Matthew 27, 144,000 First-fruits which they could see and touch, and they were groaning as they awaited the very same change for themselves, when their own bodies would be "redeemed from the earth" after death. Paul wrote about "the glory which is about to be revealed in us" in those days (Romans being written around AD 60, and the AD 70 bodily resurrection soon to come).

This all happened at the same time:
Matthew 27: 50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and gave up His spirit. 51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. 52Also the tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;

Then
53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Christ is the first to be raised from the dead.

No, Christ was not the first to be raised from the dead. He was the first to ASCEND to the Father in a resurrected body. No resurrected person had ascended before then. THAT is the definition of being "begotten" by God as the "First-born" and the "First-begotten". As Psalms 2:7-8 predicted about Christ's ascension, "THIS DAY have I begotten thee" was the day when Christ was standing before God in His resurrected body, and was invited to ask His Father to give Him the heathen for His inheritance. Paul stated that this single "day" was fulfilled on Christ's resurrection day in Acts 13:33-34.

Many were raised out of the grave before Christ, but none ascended to the Father in their resurrected bodies until Christ "opened the matrix" as the "First-born" to have ascended to heaven. That was the day when Christ became ordained as the high priest "king", set upon God's holy hill of Zion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DavidPT

Well-Known Member
Sep 26, 2016
8,602
2,107
Texas
✟196,523.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why not? Isn't that the two-fold aspect of Christ's return, as laid out in II Thessalonians 1:7-10? Christ in "flaming fire" would take vengeance on those disobedient to the gospel, who would receive tribulation in retribution for troubling the saints, and who would be given everlasting destruction "from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (v. 9). At the same time, Christ would be "glorified in His saints", and "admired in all them that believe...in that day" (v. 10). God knows how to multi-task and accomplish two purposes at one time - both of which give evidence of His glory.

Unless Christ and the Father are one and the same, it was the Father calling for the judgment in 70 AD. According to the following it only involved the coming of His armies, not the Son's armies, the Father's armies.

Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

A certain king meant here is apparently meaning the Father if His Son meant here is meaning Jesus.

Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

If this is involving 70 AD, and it appears to be, it is the king not the son who sent forth His armies. How then, if 70 AD is meant here, can anyone insist it was the Son coming when the text indicates that it was His armies coming, not the Son's armies, but the King's armies, the Father's armies? IOW, there is no coming of the Son, in any sense, mentioned in this passage. Therefore, Jesus coming in glory in any sense has zero relevance to 70 AD based on this alone.
 
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

claninja

Well-Known Member
Jan 8, 2017
5,647
2,189
indiana
✟298,336.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Unless Christ and the Father are one and the same, it was the Father calling for the judgment in 70 AD. According to the following it only involved the coming of His armies, not the Son's armies, the Father's armies.

Matthew 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,

A certain king meant here is apparently meaning the Father if His Son meant here is meaning Jesus.

Matthew 22:7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

If this is involving 70 AD, and it appears to be, it is the king not the son who sent forth His armies. How then, if 70 AD is meant here, can anyone insist it was the Son coming when the text indicates that it was His armies coming, not the Son's armies, but the King's armies, the Father's armies? IOW, there is no coming of the Son, in any sense, mentioned in this passage. Therefore, Jesus coming in glory in any sense has zero relevance to 70 AD based on this alone.

because Christ is Lord, and the “coming of The Lord ” down from heaven in the OT (2 Samuel 22, Isaiah 19, Micah 1, etc..) involved Gods judgement by earthly armies.
 
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
Unless Christ and the Father are one and the same, it was the Father calling for the judgment in 70 AD. According to the following it only involved the coming of His armies, not the Son's armies, the Father's armies.

If Christ Himself said "I and my Father are one", that would indicate that the armies of one are the armies of the other. I think you are making a division where none exists.

Wasn't the returning Christ going to be wearing raiment dipped in the blood of His enemies? This "Word of God" would come, in righteousness making war, and "treading the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God". Nobody gets blood from the "winepress" to stain all their raiment by remaining in a far-off location. Christ was in the thick of this AD 70 judgment. It was Jesus's return that would make the tribes mourn when they would look upon Him whom they had pierced.

The Lord whom those Israelites sought would "suddenly come to His Temple". But they would not be able to abide the Day of His coming in AD 70, for He would come like a refiner's fire, thoroughly purging His "floor" - Ornan's threshing-floor site where the Temple had been built. Those Israelites were not able to stand when He appeared back then.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟115,462.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, they were. You might not understand the entomology of “eschatology”, or how it can be applied throughout scripture.
Eschatology refers to "end-time events", those immediately surrounding Jesus' return. Obviously, that time was not then!
 
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
Eschatology refers to "end-time events", those immediately surrounding Jesus' return. Obviously, that time was not then!
You just gave evidence that you don’t fully understand the meaning.
 
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
You just gave evidence that you don’t fully understand the meaning.
Nupe! Read a dictionary.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: eschatology- a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Douggg
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

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
Nupe! Read a dictionary.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: eschatology- a branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind.
Your assumption is that only includes the end of tine events. That’s not true. There are eschatological events throughout scripture.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.