Questions about preterism

[Phoenix]

"If the plain sense makes good sense then it is nonsense to look for any other sense."

Os - That's an absolute gem.

 

[OldShepherd]

OS, are you waiting for riders on horses? Dragons? Women in deserts? Are you looking for a literal thousand years of no deception? Should the devil, who was cast into a bottomless pit ever get out? How is it that he can be cast into something that doesn't end, but yet he gets out after a thousand years? Is it not possible that this vision (which Daniel also glimpsed) is using "A thousand years" as merely a long time? After all, if Daniel saw the same thing, why does he speak only of seasons and times (see esp. 7:12)?

[size=+1][font=georgia, times new roman][p]What I am waiting for is an answer to my question, which I have asked at least three times already, not sarcasm. What rule do you use to determine which verses are literal and which verses are symbolic, metaphorical, allegorical, spiritual, etc? I have already given my rule.

[p]Are riders on horseback a physical impossibility? Women in the desert?[/size][/font]

[p]"Is it not possible that this vision (which Daniel also glimpsed) is using "A thousand years" as merely a long time? After all, if Daniel saw the same thing, why does he speak only of seasons and times (see esp. 7:12)?" [size=+1][font=georgia, times new roman]Is that your answer? Did Daniel see the "same" thing? You have rejected the thousand years being literal only to respond with questions.

Symbolism is absolutely necessary when speaking of things we cannot relate to. And the vision of John is peppered with things we cannot relate to. So to take the thousand years as simply a thousand years is to tempt bringing the entire vision down to earthly understanding and not to rise to it in the Holy Spirit. It is possible that the thousand years is a thousand years, but to be consistent, it should not be set in stone.

[p]I agree that there IS symbolism, types, shadows, allegories, etc. in the scriptures and all those literary devices have meanings. So what is the meaning of the thousand years other than it could, maybe, mean simply a long time?

[p]See Rev 1:3, God intended for us to understand the Apocalypse, not ignore the majority of it because for some the literal meaning does not agree with their presuppositions and assumptions. And yes, I do have presumptions and assumptions. I assume that the historical church has been correct in its faith and practices. And as I said I interpret the scriptures literally, as the church has done for 2000 years, unless it is impossible to do so. For example, you mentioned a dragon, which I believe the scriptures show is a metaphor for Satan.[/size][/font]

• 
  Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

 

[OldShepherd]

GW:
Old Shep:
That the Messiah would have twelve disciples is taught nowhere in scripture. You cannot find it in the OT. But Jesus certainly had twelve disciples.

GW:
Well, it is taught in the O.T., but that is another thread. The twelve apostles were the new twelve patriarchs for Israel--the rulers over the twelve tribes (Mt 19:28; Rev 21:12-15). That's why Jesus appointed the twelve apostles.

"That's why Jesus appointed the twelve apostles." [size=+1]I know that Jesus did in fact have twelve disciples and the apparent parallel to the twelve patriarchs, BUT that does not address my comment, "That the Messiah would have twelve disciples is taught nowhere in scripture. You cannot find it in the OT." Where is the OT scripture which prophesies that the Messiah would have twelve disciples, since you are assuming unless something is foretold in the OT it cannot occur in the NT.?[/size]

GW:
First, many symbols in the book of Revelation receive repeated emphasis--this does not change them from being symbols. A symbol is a symbol if it is used one time or many.

Next, it is significant that the "thousand years" is not taught in the OT or the gospels and epistles. Given that fact, and given that its ONLY mention is in a vision that is highly symbolic in nature, the "thousand years" becomes suspect as being symbolic.

[size=+1]See previous answer and previous post, the second sentence is irrelevant. One more time, if the thousand years is symbolic, what is it symbolic of? Base your answer on scripture. God intended for the readers to understand ALL of the Apocalypse, Rev 1:3[/size]

"The gospels and epistles explicitly teach that the resurrection, the "New Heavens/Earth," and the judgment all take place at the second coming of Christ." [size=+1]Opinion, not backed up with scripture.[/size]

"They are not separated out in any fashion by any future thousand-years period as millennialists would have it." [size=+1]Opinion, not backed up with scripture. Then explain the thousand years.[/size]

"This is an established fact, and it makes a "millennium period" an impossibility.' [size=+1]Merely saying something is established fact does not make it so. According to the majority of the early church fathers, 150-200-250 AD, etc, the Parousia was yet future, and "that" is established fact. "soon" according to you means literally "soon", "this generation," means the generation to which Jesus spoke, but a "thousand years" does not mean a thousand years, a "half hour" does not mean a "half hour," etc.[/size]

"Biblical precedent. The OT prophets used apocalyptic symbols, the same ones employed by the NT prophets concerning AD 70." [size=+1]Assumption which is by no means proven.[/size]

"We need only know our Old Testment scriptures well enough so that we can recognize and understand the same symbols and idioms when they are used in the New Testament scriptures." [size=+1]Then you should have no problem telling me what the thousand years, half hour, and other "symbols" and "idioms" in Revelation mean.[/size]

"The historic Church says that "if the plain sense makes good sense then it is nonsense to look for any other sense"? Hmm... sounds very modern to me, and decidely from the dispensationalist camp." [size=+1]And instead of snide remarks you could do some research in the early church writings and prove me wrong. I'm not a dispensationalist. The only time the word is used in the NT it translates "oikonomia." [/size]

"Whatever happened to finding the biblical sense? Let scripture interpret scripture." [size=+1]Which assumes that the literal sense is not the Biblical sense. I guess nobody in the NT ever spoke in plain Greek, everything was a metaphor, allegory, figure, etc. I'm still waiting for you to let scripture interperet the thousand years and other symbols in Revelation. Or is your best shot, snide implications like this?[/size]

 

[Justme]

Hi OS,

Good to see you a bit more active on the net. I thought maybe you were not feeling well or something.

Anyway this 1000 year thing. I have been thru this discussion with a lot on the web lately, except you of course.

Who will be involved in the 1000 year reign with Christ? Some are talked about here in Rev.20

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands.

Whoever, they were they would do the 1000 years before the rest of the dead were raised.
Rev 20:5
The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.

So this puts the REST of the dead after the 1000 year reign.

There is some resurrecting going on in 1 Thess 4.

14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

These are the friends of Jesus that died before Jesus' parousia.

So these have to be some of the REST of the dead that are AFTER the 1000 years.

BUt:
5According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Those alive at the coming (parousia) are AFTER those who sleep.

The 1000 years is over, before the parousia, not during it, not after it, but 'before' the parousia.

Is it a literal 1000 years? No
Is it a reign of 1000 years on earth? No

Then of course there are still those who are blessed that DIE AFTER the coming of the son of man on the clouds.

Comments

Justme

 

[OldShepherd]

Who will be involved in the 1000 year reign with Christ? Some are talked about here in Rev.20

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands.

Whoever, they were they would do the 1000 years before the rest of the dead were raised.
Rev 20:5
The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.

So this puts the REST of the dead after the 1000 year reign.

[size=+1]I wonder if anyone is interested in the fact that each reference to a thousand years in Rev. 20:2-7 has the definite article, ta/ta, ta cilia eth. So it is NOT “a” thousand years, but “THE” thousand years. And I repeat my earlier comment, something that is mentioned six (6) times must be important, but nobody seems to be the least bit concerned about it, also God intended for readers to understand the book of Revelation.[/size]

• 
  Rev. 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

[size=+1]I am still waiting for someone from the Pre-T camp to tell/show me the scriptural meaning of the thousand years.[/size]

There is some resurrecting going on in 1 Thess 4.

14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

These are the friends of Jesus that died before Jesus' parousia.

So these have to be some of the REST of the dead that are AFTER the 1000 years.

[size=+1]This is confusing. Do these die before Jesus’ Parousia or after the 1000 years?[/size]

BUt:
5According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Those alive at the coming (parousia) are AFTER those who sleep.

The 1000 years is over, before the parousia, not during it, not after it, but 'before' the parousia.

[size=+1]So I guess according to your interpretation a thousand years is NOT a long time. The early date for the writing of Revelation is supposed to be 66-68 AD, Jerusalem fell in 70 AD, so that thousand year was actually only about 2-4 years long. It is interesting how that works out. Everything that appears to support your presuppositions is literal, e.g. “this generation,” and everything that does not, e.g. “the thousand years,” is allegorical, metaphorical, spiritual, figurative, etc. This passage in Thess., e.g. must be spiritual, or something, because Paul, who wrote it, did NOT remain alive to be caught up with the Lord.[/size]

Is it a literal 1000 years? No
Is it a reign of 1000 years on earth? No

[size=+1]Based on what, because it does not agree with your presuppositions and assumptions? If I go down to the local kingdom hall or LDS stake they will tell me the same thing about their pet scriptures. “Just believe us we’re right and everybody else is wrong.”[/size]

Then of course there are still those who are blessed that DIE AFTER the coming of the son of man on the clouds.

[size=+1]And when is the coming of the son of man supposed to be? Or has it already happened? Is/was it literal or spiritual?[/size]

 

[Justme]

Hi OS,

You wrote:

I wonder if anyone is interested in the fact that each reference to a thousand years in Rev. 20:2-7 has the definite article, ta/ta, ta cilia eth.
***************

I don't know about others, I know I'm not interested, it changes nothing as far as I'm concerned.

The point I made is that the rest of the dead are raised after this 1000 year thing, which I see I reffered to as THE 1000 years.

Point 1 then becomes the REST OF THE DEAD are after the 1000 year reign with Christ.

From your post:
This is confusing. Do these die before Jesus’ Parousia or after the 1000 years?
***************
How is what I wrote confusing when one of my statements was:

These are the friends of Jesus that died before Jesus' parousia.

You wrote:
So I guess according to your interpretation a thousand years is NOT a long time
*****************
I've often wondered if, in human time, it is actually 45 days in this case. Daniel 12

You wrote:
Everything that appears to support your presuppositions is literal, e.g. “this generation,” and everything that does not, e.g. “the thousand years,”.................
*********************
And you are the other way around.

You wrote:
This passage in Thess., e.g. must be spiritual, or something, because Paul, who wrote it, did NOT remain alive to be caught up with the Lord.
**********************
One thing they must be is correct because they are the inspired word of God.

You wrote:
Based on what, because it does not agree with your presuppositions and assumptions?
*****************
No, based on what the verses say that I quoted to you.

You wrote:
And when is the coming of the son of man supposed to be?
**********************
It doesn't matter for this thread, all these verses tie togeher around the 'coming' and the great tribulation which is before the 'coming.'
The sequence of events would have to be in the same order whether the 'coming' was yesterday or tommorow.

So to summarize, from the bible, there iare none of my assumptions here at all:

Rev 20
6Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

After that...
5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.)

1 Thess 4
15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

Note the 'coming' here and the PRECEDE and the FALLEN ASLEEP ....

Rev 14
13Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." .............................

13Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on."

These verses tell us the order of the events which inclue THE 1000 year thing.

One explanation for the 100 years NOT being a actual 1000 years is because the bible tells us that can happen:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

It tells us that a tousand years are like a day.

Another explanation is that the reign of 1000 years, however, long it was in our time, takes place in Heaven.

So again when the coming of the son of man, parousia, is doesn't matter for this discussion, all that matters is sorting out how this 1000 years fits into the scheme of things.

Justme

 

[nikolai_42]

[size=+1][font=georgia, times new roman]*********What I am waiting for is an answer to my question, which I have asked at least three times already, not sarcasm. What rule do you use to determine which verses are literal and which verses are symbolic, metaphorical, allegorical, spiritual, etc? I have already given my rule.

Rules are not absolutely reliable when it comes to interpreting scripture. Many people have tried, for example, to determine Daniel's 3.5 times. They all used rules - many of them (some I have seen) even adhered to self-consistent, seemingly scripturally based rules (e.g. counting a year as a day to predict the general time of Christ's return). They were wrong. In Daniel's case, the only rule that seems to have predicted accurately is the year=a day. For that accurately depicts a) Christ b) His Sacrifice and c) the destruction of Jerusalem. But when translated to Revelation - it fails. So rules, in a weird sense, are made to be broken (please don't wrest that from what it's intention was!).

The Lord's times, I firmly believe, are chimed in and out by His remnant. Just as there was a line of kings on the throne, just like He never failed to have a man witnessing to His Word (ever), He also chimes in and out His times by His own. So when Christ came, there was a new age beginning. When did that age end? I don't see it as being years as men reckon, but as times in God's hands. Just as Christ told the Pharisees that they can predict the change in weather or day to night by what they see in the sky (not in what a clock says), so are the times of God known. So when I see 'a thousand years' and read things like 'a thousand years to God is like a day (and vice-versa)', I am more convinced that to determine times and seasons is not in the counting, but in the reckoning and in the discernment. For if it were possible for men to determine the Lord's times, He would have allowed it to be so. Instead, we have a froward generation who are 'wise' in their own understanding, but cannot discern the times. It's like what Isaiah found:

" Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.
For the LORD hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.
And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid."
Isaiah 29:9-14

So I cannot say that a thousand years means a thousand years, for it is not a sealed matter. Nor can I say with confidence that the Lord has returned (for I see little evidence thereof). But there is also evidence that the Lord's return is only to those that seek Him. This would show revelation (not the book, necessarily) to be a thing of God's choosing - which I believe to be true. However, it also says every eye shall see the salvation of God (which, in many senses, has happened with Christ). So if you want a commitment to any formula or rule, I have none. I see more and more the necessity of simply relying on the Holy Ghost. Learning will only get you so far (not far at all) but humility before God will get you much further.

As regards the Thousand years, I submit that WHATEVER it means, the Lord can make it so even if we see that there is no hope of fulfillment. After all, He is able to raise up descendants of Abraham from the stones.

*********{snip}

*********I agree that there IS symbolism, types, shadows, allegories, etc. in the scriptures and all those literary devices have meanings. So what is the meaning of the thousand years other than it could, maybe, mean simply a long time?

*********See Rev 1:3, God intended for us to understand the Apocalypse, not ignore the majority of it because for some the literal meaning does not agree with their presuppositions and assumptions. And yes, I do have presumptions and assumptions. I assume that the historical church has been correct in its faith and practices. And as I said I interpret the scriptures literally, as the church has done for 2000 years, unless it is impossible to do so. For example, you mentioned a dragon, which I believe the scriptures show is a metaphor for Satan.[/size][/font]

• 
  Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

God may have intended for us to understand it, but just as Daniel's book was sealed, and just as Isaiah told the people it was sealed to them (Isaiah 29:11), so is prophecy to a generation that thinks it can decipher God's 'code'. It cannot be done.

In summary, I see preterism (partial, at least) as having part of the answer (whether they realize it or not) and still having Christ returning in the future. The symbolism cannot be broken down, but it must be taken holistically - so that whatever is symbolic and whatever is literal must flow together. And only the Spirit of God can quicken our understanding. No mind of man can have it without that. All else is suggestion. I realize now that understanding (and the lack of it) is nearly entirely dependent on one's standing before God. So no matter how 'right' anyone else is or was, we cannot be correct unless we are right before God.

 

[OldShepherd]

Hi OS,

You wrote:
Everything that appears to support your presuppositions is literal, e.g. “this generation,” and everything that does not, e.g. “the thousand years,”.................
*********************
And you are the other way around.

You wrote:
This passage in Thess., e.g. must be spiritual, or something, because Paul, who wrote it, did NOT remain alive to be caught up with the Lord.
**********************
One thing they must be is correct because they are the inspired word of God.

[size=+1]Oh I agree it IS correct because it is the word of God. However, I did not base my statement on presuppositions, but on history. Paul did NOT remain alive to be caught up with the Lord, he was martyred in Rome.

Since Paul very clearly said, "we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord." 1 Thess 4:15,17, including himself twice, those statements were not intended only for his immediate audience.[/size]

 

[GW]

Paul's expectation was that he and his audience (the church at Thessalonica) would remain alive unto the Parousia event. This plain first-century expectation annihilates all such talk about "1948," and a "long church age," and "computer chips," etc. etc. -- those things are impossible options to anyone that loves the teachings and beliefs of Christ and the apostles.

Furthermore, if Paul lived unto AD 66-68 (and I think he did), then Paul did remain unto "the day when the son of man was being revealed" (Lk. 17:30-32), and then was caught up to be with the OT dead. The comparison of Luke 21:20-21, Matthew 24:16-18, and Luke 17:30-32 shows us that this time when the son of man was revealed was marked by the fleeing of the Jerusalem Church out of Jerusalem (when the Romans came to surround it).

This is also the time when the son of man came in the glory of the Father and "rewarded them according to their deeds" (see: Christ's examination of the deeds of Ephesus - Rev 2:1-2; Christ's examination of the deeds of Smyrna - Rev 2:8-9; Christ's examination of the deeds of Pergamum - Rev 2:12-13; Christ's examination of the deeds of Thyatira - Rev 2:18-19,23; Christ's examination of the deeds of Sardis - Rev 3:1-3; Christ's examination of the deeds of Philadelphia - Rev 3:7-9; Christ's examination of the deeds of Laodicea - Rev 3:14-15).

 

[Justme]

Hi OS,
You wrote:
Paul did NOT remain alive to be caught up with the Lord, he was martyred in Rome.
****************
Yes, I also understand that Paul died around 68 AD wasn't it. I thought he wrote the letters to Timothy in 68 AD.
However, it would apply to any who remained alive until the parousia whenever that parousia was.

.......those statements were not intended only for his immediate audience................

However, they had to INCLUDE his immediate audience.

14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

Those who fell asleep would include Paul and Daniel.

5According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

So naturally if Paul could fall asleep before the coming, the rest he was writing to could as well. However, it still follows that whoever it is that is alive at the coming will not PRECEDE paul and Daniel. It also follows that the 1000 years is over before Paul and Daniel are raised, which is BEFORE you and I. (If we have lived until the coming)
#1 those of the first resurrection
#2 the REST of the dead who are asleep
#3 those alive at the coming
#4 those who die AFTER the parousia Rev 14:13

So you and I can't be involved in the 1000 year reign, that is biblically impossible. The 1000 years has to take place in Heaven, not on earth as far as I can see.
If the reign is a literal 1000 years and if you teach the parousia is in your (or my) lifetime, this 1000 year reign had to start in Heaven around the year 1000. Can you think of anything that biblically supports that?
If the parousia is in the year 2004 and you teach that the 1000 year reign is on earth we should be seeing beheaded people on earth.
For anyone who considers this great tribulation and related events is 3 1/2 years long or 7 years long, but insists that the parousia is future, it is impossible to fit the resurrections into that time using the literal 1000 years.

The most important thing here is:

Rev 14
13Then I heard a voice from heaven say, "Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on."

Said just before John sees the coming on the cloud.

Can you reconcile that with 1 Thess 4:15?

My interpretation is that the second coming of Christ occurs in the spiritual realm at the death of each indivdual and that process had it's beginning at the parousia which was in or near 70 AD.

That makes all these verses fit. What is your interpretation, using these same verses.

Justme

 

[frost]

Furthermore, if Paul lived unto AD 66-68 (and I think he did), then Paul did remain unto "the day when the son of man was being revealed" (Lk. 17:30-32), and then was caught up to be with the OT dead.

I'm confused. How was he caught up with the OT dead? You mean he went off into the air or he died a natural death then went to heaven?

I've yet to see an full-preterist interpretaion of 1 Thes 4:17 that makes sense. They make something that reads so naturally into some complicated solution. It seems to me, Paul is going out of his way here to show that those who ARE ALIVE will be caught up. Not those who are alive but who would be dead later.

17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

 

[GW]

FROST:
How was he [Paul] caught up with the OT dead? You mean he went off into the air or he died a natural death then went to heaven?

GW:
Paul was among the martyr saints that ruled and reigned with Christ in the Day of the Lord event.



FROST:
I've yet to see a full-preterist interpretaion of 1 Thes 4:17 that makes sense. They make something that reads so naturally into some complicated solution. It seems to me, Paul is going out of his way here to show that those who ARE ALIVE will be caught up. Not those who are alive but who would be dead later.


GW:
As he does elsewhere in the NT writings, Paul makes a clear distinction between the dead and the living with regard to the resurrection of the dead. Paul says in 1 Thess 4:13-17 that only the dead are raised at the Parousia. He further adds that the dead had to precede the living. So there is a key separation. Only after the dead experienced the resurrection would anyone living be able to go and join them in the heavenlies ("in the air"). Given that "resurrection of the dead" is for "the dead," the living must pass on in oder to join their loved ones in heavenly glory (be caught up). It's a very simple teaching, actually, and it makes plain sense. The "resurrection of the dead" is for the dead.

God bless,
GW

 

[OldShepherd]

Hi OS,
My interpretation is that the second coming of Christ occurs in the spiritual realm at the death of each indivdual and that process had it's beginning at the parousia which was in or near 70 AD.

That makes all these verses fit. What is your interpretation, using these same verses.

Justme

[size=+1]Yes, let's just ignore the rest of the bible and base our beliefs on one or two pet scriptures which, in isolation, seem to support what we want to believe.[/size]

 

[OldShepherd]

FROST:
GW:
As he does elsewhere in the NT writings, Paul makes a clear distinction between the dead and the living with regard to the resurrection of the dead. Paul says in 1 Thess 4:13-17 that only the dead are raised at the Parousia. He further adds that the dead had to precede the living. So there is a key separation. Only after the dead experienced the resurrection would anyone living be able to go and join them in the heavenlies ("in the air"). Given that "resurrection of the dead" is for "the dead," the living must pass on in oder to join their loved ones in heavenly glory (be caught up). It's a very simple teaching, actually, and it makes plain sense. The "resurrection of the dead" is for the dead.

God bless,
GW

[size=+1]You are correct, Paul does make a distinction between the living and the dead. But Paul did NOT say that the living must first die. See Robertson, the words Paul used meant immediately after the resurrection of the dead, the living would be "caught up", a different word, NOT "resurrected." Paul restates this same thought in 1 Cor 15:51-52. And also in 1 Cor. 15:51-52, he uses a different word, the dead are "raised," but the living are "changed."[/size]

• 
  Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament , 1 Thess 4:17
  
  Then (epeita). The next step, not the identical time (tote), but immediately afterwards. Together with them (ama sun autoiß). Note both ama (at the same time) and sun (together with) with the associative instrumental case autoiß (the risen saints). Shall be caught up (arpaghsomeqa). Second future passive indicative of arpazw, old verb to seize, to carry off like Latin rapio. To meet the Lord in the air (eiß apanthsin tou Kuriou eiß aera). This special Greek idiom is common in the LXX like the Hebrew, but Polybius has it also and it occurs in the papyri (Moulton, Proleg., p. 14, n. 3). This rapture of the saints (both risen and changed) is a glorious climax to Paul's argument of consolation. And so (kai outwß). This is the outcome, to be forever with the Lord, whether with a return to earth or with an immediate departure for heaven Paul does not say. To be with Christ is the chief hope of Paul's life.
  
  1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
  52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

[size=+1]And once again I point out, since Paul was martyred by Rome he did NOT remain alive to be caught up with the Lord. Therefore his use of "we" was NOT restricted to himself and his immediate audience but indicated Christians of future generations, which is supported by a literal reading of Rev. 20, as the church has taught for 2000 years ±.[/size]

 

[Justme]

Hi OS,

So these one or two verses that seem to support my ideas is something.
Which out of the many verses I quoted are you talking about? When you show me the one or two that seem to support what I say, I'll lay out another dozen to back them up for you.

Do you have any comments about my points on the 1000 years as well?

Justme

 

[frost]

Paul was among the martyr saints that ruled and reigned with Christ in the Day of the Lord event.

So you're saying he died, went to Sheol like the rest of the OT dead, then went to heaven at the Parousia a few years later? Just trying to clarify what you mean.

As he does elsewhere in the NT writings, Paul makes a clear distinction between the dead and the living with regard to the resurrection of the dead. Paul says in 1 Thess 4:13-17 that only the dead are raised at the Parousia. He further adds that the dead had to precede the living. So there is a key separation. Only after the dead experienced the resurrection would anyone living be able to go and join them in the heavenlies ("in the air"). Given that "resurrection of the dead" is for "the dead," the living must pass on in oder to join their loved ones in heavenly glory (be caught up). It's a very simple teaching, actually, and it makes plain sense. The "resurrection of the dead" is for the dead.

That is definitely not a literal interpretation of this passage. If you apply the rules of full-preterism (by that I mean a literal approach "shortly means shortly," etc.) then you must admit he is saying that people who are alive and remain will be caught up, right? To say that those alive will be caught up only after they die, is to add something to the text that simply is not there.

God bless

 

[parousia70]

That is definitely not a literal interpretation of this passage. If you apply the rules of full-preterism (by that I mean a literal approach "shortly means shortly," etc.) then you must admit he is saying that people who are alive and remain will be caught up, right? To say that those alive will be caught up only after they die, is to add something to the text that simply is not there.

God bless

Frost,
The words "caught up" are the Greek word harpazo, it means: "to snatch away." This is where the word "rapture" comes from. But certainly being "caught up" means something different than a levitation of the physical body from earth up into the atmosphere of the sky. Remember, this being "caught up" happens some time after the second coming.

Harpazo could refer to the body being "caught up" but it could also refer to the Christian being "caught up" without the body. It is used this way in:

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 (NKJV) I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago; whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows; such a one was caught up (harpazo) to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man; whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows; 4 how he was caught up (harpazo) into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Paul doesn't know whether the body was involved in this man's "snatching away". The body isn't necessary, then, in the harpazo event, or Paul wouldn't have expressed this uncertainty.

Also of note is that they would be "caught up to meet the Lord in the "AIR" which is the greek word "Aer" used to denote the lower, denser air immediately surrounding us, or within us as our breath, as opposed to the air where clouds are and Higher. It is also used to denote the spiritual realm.

Given these two facts about the precidented biblical usage words "caught up" and "air", it is clear that ones feet would not even have to leave the ground to be personally involved in this event.

I believe this "catching away" is positional in nature. Living Christians since 70AD are indeed "together with the dead in Christ" positionally. This reality has been taught by the Church for 2000+/- years (OS take note) and is called "the communion of Saints", which, is a reality not biblically possible until "after" the parousia. An example of the very inconsistant preterism prevelant in the Church throughout her history.

We Christians today are indeed in the very company of the "dead in Christ" surrounded by such a great "cloud" of witnesses, "together with them in the air", ever with the Lord.
It is after we physically pass, that we get to take part in "the resurrection of the dead.

God Bless.

 

[parousia70]

You are correct, Paul does make a distinction between the living and the dead. But Paul did NOT say that the living must first die. See Robertson, [the words Paul used meant immediately after the resurrection of the dead, the living would be "caught up", a different word, NOT "resurrected." Paul restates this same thought in 1 Cor 15:51-52. And also in 1 Cor. 15:51-52, he uses a different word, the dead are "raised," but the living are "changed."

• 
  Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament , 1 Thess 4:17
  
  Then (epeita). The next step, not the identical time (tote), but immediately afterwards. Together with them (ama sun autoiß). Note both ama (at the same time) and sun (together with) with the associative instrumental case autoiß (the risen saints). Shall be caught up (arpaghsomeqa). Second future passive indicative of arpazw, old verb to seize, to carry off like Latin rapio. To meet the Lord in the air (eiß apanthsin tou Kuriou eiß aera). This special Greek idiom is common in the LXX like the Hebrew, but Polybius has it also and it occurs in the papyri (Moulton, Proleg., p. 14, n. 3). This rapture of the saints (both risen and changed) is a glorious climax to Paul's argument of consolation. And so (kai outwß). This is the outcome, to be forever with the Lord, whether with a return to earth or with an immediate departure for heaven Paul does not say. To be with Christ is the chief hope of Paul's life.
  
  

• 
  
  I have not found that Robertson's insistance that "epeita" means "immediatly after" jives with the scriptural usage of "epeita".
  
  Normally, when a sequence of events is described, the simple word eita "then" is used. Eita is best translated as "at that time" or "next". Eita is used to indicate an immediate sequence. For example:
  
  John 19:26-27 (NKJV) When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" 27 Then (eita)He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.
  
  This is a series of events - one immediately after the other.
  
  But in our text, the Greek word is not eita but epeita, which is essentially the same Greek word with an "epi" prefix. This has the effect of affixing the word "after" to the word "then", and the best translation becomes "after then", "after that", or "after that time",and thereby doesn't include the idea of right after.
  
  These other uses of epeita can serve to give us a clearer idea of its meaning:
  
  Galatians 1:18 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.
  In this case, the word "then" involved at least three years later.
  
  Galatians 1:21 (NKJV) Afterward (epeita) I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.
  
  Paul probably went first to the main seaport, Caesarea, and sailed from there to Tarsus, his birthplace (Acts 9:30). He probably then went from Tarsus, in the region of Cilicia, to Syria. It was a while after he left Jerusalem that he got to Syria and Cilicia.
  
  Galatians 2:1 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.
  
  Epeita here involves fourteen years.
  
  1 Corinthians 15:23 (NKJV) But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward (epeita) those who are Christ's at His coming.
  
  Epeita here is referring to a period of forty years to the preterist, 2000+ years for the futurist. The idea is: "what came at some time afterwards, after that time, not at that time."
  
  Now look at 1 Cor 15:5-8:
  
  1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (NKJV) and that He was seen by Cephas, then (eita) by the twelve. 6 After that (epeita) He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that (epeita) He was seen by James, then (eita) by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.
  
  This passage is especially instructive for us, for we see in this passage that both eita and epeita are used. In verse 15:5, we see eita, indicating that the twelve (the original apostles) saw Him immediately after Peter did, the same day. In verse 15:6, epeita is used meaning: "after that time", because the 500 didn't see Him until later. Verse 15:7, again uses epeita, meaning that some time after the 500 saw him, He appeared to James. Next, the reference is that immediately after appearing to James, He appeared to all the apostles.
  
  The point is, that the form of the word for "then" used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is not the form eita, meaning: "right after", but the epeita, meaning: "after that time."
  Of course, this must be harmonized with the plain and simple teaching of the "resurrection of the dead, namely that it is for the dead. You must be dead to be resurrected.
  
  

  • 1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
    52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

  
  This Change indeed ocourred in the twinkiling of an eye at the last trump and was "positional" in nature.
  See my previous post.
  
  God Bless.
  P70

 

[OldShepherd]

I have not found that Robertson's insistance that "epeita" means "immediatly after" jives with the scriptural usage of "epeita".

[size=+1]And you have had exactly how many years of Greek study, compared to Robertson's 47 years teaching post grad Biblical Greek?[/size]

These other uses of epeita can serve to give us a clearer idea of its meaning:

Galatians 1:18 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. In this case, the word "then" involved at least three years later.

[size=+1]Or Immedately after the three years.[/size]

Galatians 1:21 (NKJV) Afterward (epeita) I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.

Paul probably went first to the main seaport, Caesarea, and sailed from there to Tarsus, his birthplace (Acts 9:30). He probably then went from Tarsus, in the region of Cilicia, to Syria. It was a while after he left Jerusalem that he got to Syria and Cilicia.

[size=+1]I see "probably," twice, in your response. On what are those based? You have offered no proof that "Afterward" does not mean immediately.[/size]

Galatians 2:1 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took Titus with me.

Epeita here involves fourteen years.

[size=+1]Or immediately after the fourteen years.[/size]

1 Corinthians 15:23 (NKJV) But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward (epeita) those who are Christ's at His coming.

Epeita here is referring to a period of forty years to the preterist, 2000+ years for the futurist. The idea is: "what came at some time afterwards, after that time, not at that time."

[size=+1]Or immediately after Christ's coming. After you have acquired several years of Greek grammar, syntax, etc. then you might be qualified to correct Robertson and other Greek scholars.[/size]

Now look at 1 Cor 15:5-8:

1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (NKJV) and that He was seen by Cephas, then (eita) by the twelve. 6 After that (epeita) He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that (epeita) He was seen by James, then (eita) by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

This passage is especially instructive for us, for we see in this passage that both eita and epeita are used. In verse 15:5, we see eita, indicating that the twelve (the original apostles) saw Him immediately after Peter did, the same day. In verse 15:6, epeita is used meaning: "after that time", because the 500 didn't see Him until later. Verse 15:7, again uses epeita, meaning that some time after the 500 saw him, He appeared to James. Next, the reference is that immediately after appearing to James, He appeared to all the apostles.

The point is, that the form of the word for "then" used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is not the form eita, meaning: "right after", but the epeita, meaning: "after that time."

[size=+1]I did not see any scriptural evidence that any of these sightings was not immediately after the preceding one.[/size]

Of course, this must be harmonized with the plain and simple teaching of the "resurrection of the dead, namely that it is for the dead. You must be dead to be resurrected.

[size=+1]And your point is? How does this harmonize with Paul? Also while you were selecting verses which you think prove your view, why did you omit verses which clearly contradict you? For example, Heb 7:2,27, these events clearly follow immediately one after the other. And there are at least five other examples in the NT.[/size]

• 
  Heb 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that [epeita] also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
  
  Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then [epeita] for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

This Change indeed ocourred in the twinkiling of an eye at the last trump and was "positional" in nature. See my previous post.

[size=+1]I'm not sure how this relates to my post. My point was that Paul did NOT say everyone would die and be resurrected. He used different words for the dead and the living.[/size]

 

[parousia70]

[size=+1] After you have acquired several years of Greek grammar, syntax, etc. then you might be qualified to correct Robertson and other Greek scholars.[/size]

Irrelevant. God does not require Several years of Greek Grammar and syntax training to understand His Gospel.

[size=+1]I'm not sure how this relates to my post. My point was that Paul did NOT say everyone would die and be resurrected. He used different words for the dead and the living.[/size]

Again, Irrelevant. Paul never teaches that anyone will aviod physical death. In fact scripture states clearly that every man has an "appointment" with Physical death. (Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment")

The Judgement does not come until "after" a man dies.