The Bible, and therefore preterism, is true and correct

davo · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
aaahhh.....but the KJV says:

Genesis 4: 6-7

And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be HIS desire, and thou shalt rule over HIM.

I wonder who him is?????

Your dispensational eisegesis [reading into the text] though typical and to be expected, is non-the-less astounding. Your clear [well I should say blatant] inference is that Satan is Sin -unbelievable

Lets look at the heresy of your logic and take it to its logical conclusion:

2Cor 5:21 For he hath made him [Christ] to be sin [Satan?] for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

give us a break please

davo

Mandy · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

What's your proof? Many futurists have dropped that claim like a hot rock over the past decade or so. Even Hal Lindsey abandoned that belief as recently as 1998.

Trying to connect Russia to Magog is an exercise in futility.

When 2 Timothy was written (prior to AD 70), the charge of heresy was legitimate. Since preterists believe the resurrection occured at Christ's return in AD 70, your charge of heresy does not apply. Nice try.

Just look at a map. Israel's enemies will come from the north. They will come from the uttermost parts of the north.

I wasn't charging you with anything, simply making a point of what Paul's view of preterism was.
1 Corinthians 15, 1 and 2 Thess show that Paul was teaching about the rapture and a physical resurrection of the dead.

The thing I find strange is that there is a record of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, yet no one seemed to notice that Jesus had returned. You would think that even one who was not saved would have recorded something, because as Scripture states more than once and even Jesus himself said that every eye would wee Him.

davo · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mandy
Just look at a map. Israel's enemies will come from the north. They will come from the uttermost parts of the north.

Just look at the Bible -and stick with that.

Originally posted by Mandy
1 Corinthians 15, 1 and 2 Thess show that Paul was teaching about the rapture and a physical resurrection of the dead.

A rather blanket statement but you make no case for it.

Originally posted by Mandy
The thing I find strange is that there is a record of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, yet no one seemed to notice that Jesus had returned. You would think that even one who was not saved would have recorded something, because as Scripture states more than once and even Jesus himself said that every eye would wee Him.

Maybe Jesus should have repeated himself a few times -because folk keep reading over it -surely it's not being ignored, I mean he did say it -I guess he meant it:

Luke 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

You mentioned 2Tim 2:18 -a really good verse that totally debunks your "physical resurrection" whim.

2Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

You would have to imagine that for someones faith to be overthrown by these guy's teaching, that it must have been pretty potent -especially since we're talking 1st Century saints. If the resurrection under question was in relation to a "physical resurrection" out of biological death -with reconstituted bodies popping out of graves everywhere [the common futurist expectation and teaching], as opposed to a spiritual resurrection with Christ, it is difficult to explain how anyone could believe, or have lead others to believe, that such a physical resurrection had taken place -it hardly seems logical.

You would think that if Paul ever taught a physical resurrection from biological death that the obvious would be self evident -open graves everywhere, for remember -Hymanaeus and Philetus were saying "the resurrection has already past!" And yet -total silence. Not only that -the continuation of people dying would put-paid to this silly notion that the resurrection that Paul taught was physical.

Yet in all that, Paul doesn't appeal to any of this -as what would be contradictory evidence, -being the lack of it, WERE THEY TALKING A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION. It is clear that Hymanaeus and Philetus and Paul knew and taught NOTHING of a physical resurrection. Paul ONLY rebukes them over their TIMING of the resurrection -NOT the NATURE of it -for they, like the rest of the 1st century saints understood the spiritual nature of the literal event -which for them was yet to come, but for us now -past and fulfilled.

davo

Mike Beidler · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mandy
Just look at a map. Israel's enemies will come from the north. They will come from the uttermost parts of the north.

Relative to what? What you translate as "earth" can just as easily be translated as "land." Additionally, the uttermost, northern parts of the Roman Empire at the time was Asia Minor!

I promise you this (and you can quote me on this): Russia will NEVER invade Israel in the manner of Ezekiel 38-39. Just keep my e-mail address handy and be ready to gloat when it happens.

I wasn't charging you with anything, simply making a point of what Paul's view of preterism was.
1 Corinthians 15, 1 and 2 Thess show that Paul was teaching about the rapture and a physical resurrection of the dead.

Your connection of preterism with the heresy of Hymenaeus was quite clear. And since I am a preterist ...

BTW, what in the above verses makes you believe the resurrection is physical?

The thing I find strange is that there is a record of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, yet no one seemed to notice that Jesus had returned. You would think that even one who was not saved would have recorded something, because as Scripture states more than once and even Jesus himself said that every eye would wee Him.

Have you not read any Josephus???

Have you not read any of the early church fathers, some of whom believed that the entirety of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD 70?

Mandy · Jun 7, 2002

Explain 1 Corinthians 15.

2 Timothy in no way debunks the fact of the physical resurrection.
The resurrection hasn't happened yet, so no one has seen anything if indeed it is something that would be seen by the unredeemed
I do stick to the Bible, and the truths it teaches.

2 Timothy 1:10
2 Timothy was written in approx 67AD and yet, Paul wrote Jesus had abolished death! And this was before His supposed return! HIs death on the cross is what abolished death and so Revelation 21, where it says there WILL be NO MORE death, shows that it is indeed physical death that WILL BE ABOLISHED. Since Paul said through Jesus' appearing (not REAPPEARING!) through His death and resurrection, death HAD BEEN abolished.

Mike Beidler · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mandy
2 Timothy 1:10
2 Timothy was written in approx 67AD and yet, Paul wrote Jesus had abolished death! And this was before His supposed return! HIs death on the cross is what abolished death and so Revelation 21, where it says there WILL be NO MORE death, shows that it is indeed physical death that WILL BE ABOLISHED. Since Paul said through Jesus' appearing (not REAPPEARING!) through His death and resurrection, death HAD BEEN abolished.

Have you been glorified yet, Mandy? (See Romans 8:30.)

Mandy · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

Relative to what? What you translate as "earth" can just as easily be translated as "land." Additionally, the uttermost, northern parts of the Roman Empire at the time was Asia Minor!

I promise you this (and you can quote me on this): Russia will NEVER invade Israel in the manner of Ezekiel 38-39. Just keep my e-mail address handy and be ready to gloat when it happens.

Your connection of preterism with the heresy of Hymenaeus was quite clear. And since I am a preterist ...

BTW, what in the above verses makes you believe the resurrection is physical?

Have you not read any Josephus???

Have you not read any of the early church fathers, some of whom believed that the entirety of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD 70?

I don't believe I will be here when Israel is attacked. Israel will stand alone yet God will protect them. Magog is in the general location that is known today to be Russia. Russia will not be alone in attacking Israel.

There are many verses that are referring to the physical resurrection. Many in Daniel, 1 Corinthians, Revelation, in the Gospels, etc, etc.

Why on earth would I use any writings from one who was not even a Christian as a basis for doctrine? That isn't wise. So even you say SOME early church fathers believed that al was fulfilled, but that doesn't make it so. Not all church fathers were necessarily in the truth.

Mandy · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

Have you been glorified yet, Mandy? (See Romans 8:30.)

Nope and I won't be until the day of redemption.

Mike Beidler · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mandy

Nope and I won't be until the day of redemption.

But Romans 8:30 speaks of glorification in the past tense. Maybe because Paul was so confident it its future accomplishment that he spoke of it intentionally in the past tense? The same can be said of Christ revealing salvation at the cross.

parousia70 · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mandy

Nope and I won't be until the day of redemption.

If the "day of redemption" has not yet arrived, then we are not yet redeemed are we?

Mike Beidler · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mandy
I don't believe I will be here when Israel is attacked.

But you believe Christ's return to be imminent, correct?

There are many verses that are referring to the physical resurrection. Many in Daniel, 1 Corinthians, Revelation, in the Gospels, etc, etc.

For purposes of clarity, can you quote them for me?

Why on earth would I use any writings from one who was not even a Christian as a basis for doctrine? That isn't wise. So even you say SOME early church fathers believed that al was fulfilled, but that doesn't make it so. Not all church fathers were necessarily in the truth.

You asked for historical fulfillment and I gave it to you. You asked for early interpretations of Scripture and I gave it to you. BTW, I don't base my doctrine on extra-biblical literature ... rather, I confirm doctrine's accurate fulfillment with history! Doctrine is always to be proved using Scripture. Fulfillment is always to be proved using history, a category in which biblical documents are certainly to be included.

Mandy · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

But you believe Christ's return to be imminent, correct?

Yes.

For purposes of clarity, can you quote them for me?

Do a word search on resurrection. 1 Corithians speaks very clearly of the physical resurrection. For those who have died in Christ or in faith of the promise of Him, have already been "resurrected" spiritually. For it isn't speaking of just any resurrection, but the resurrection of the physically dead!!!!! I have been saved, so I have already been resurrected, brought to life, though I was dead spiritually! Yet if I die, I will be resurrected from the dead! Resurrection in Scriptures, means to stand up, which means our bodies will be resurrected!!! The greek word, Ana means the standing up of the body. Look at what Job said:

Job 19:26 And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this [body], yet in my flesh shall I see God.
The OT saints understood perfectly the resurrection meant a physical bodily resurrection!

You asked for historical fulfillment and I gave it to you. You asked for early interpretations of Scripture and I gave it to you. BTW, I don't base my doctrine on extra-biblical literature ... rather, I confirm doctrine's accurate fulfillment with history! Doctrine is always to be proved using Scripture. Fulfillment is always to be proved using history, a category in which biblical documents are certainly to be included.

Again, read 1 Corinthians 15:23-28. Jesus will come again and reign physically.

Bobcat · Jun 7, 2002

How can the world have sin if Satan is defeated? That's a good question.

A good analogy I read: Hitler has been dead since 1945, yet we still have Nazis running around.

People pointed out above that Satan is the father of sin. Is it not true that once the father (of anyone or anything) is gone his fruit or legacy lives on?

Another question about Satan: Was he ever omnipresent like God is? Satan was a fallen angel. As far as I can tell from scriptures, angels-like humans can only be in one place at one time. Was it ever possible for Satan to be in more than one place at one time?

parousia70 · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um

And therefore preterism is the truth, the way, and no one comes to Jesus except thru preterism.

The Bible, and therefore preterism, does not teach that understanding and accepting the "correct" eschaton is, in any way, criteria for salvation.

While I believe that preterism being correct is necessary for salvation, understanding and accepting it is not.

parousia70 · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by solo66 man

As you can see, looking at time as is presented here, your accounting of time is quite different than God's.

Every time God attaches a time limit to a prophesy's fulfillment, it is given to be understood by how time relates to man, and NOT how time relates to God.

Every time, without fail, always.

The timing of the prophecy is just as important as the events of the prophecy.

Think about that for a moment.

What purpose would it serve if God gave a specific prophecy of judgment to a wicked nation, telling them that He would fulfill it within a specific time frame, and warned those people of the coming judgment, if the time passages (and the whole prophecy itself for that matter) were actually for some other generation of people? What purpose would the warnings serve the nation to whom it was originally given? To be quite honest, it wouldnt serve any purpose at all. How would that nation interpret the character and nature of God? That is to say, how would those people view God if He swore that He would judge them at a certain time, and then He didnt follow through with His judgment? What would they think of God? That He cant be trusted? That He speaks empty words and threats? That He lied?

Lets look at a passage that has tremendous relevance to the subject at hand. In Ezekiel 12:21-28, it is written:

Then the word of the Lord came to me saying, "Son of man, what is this proverb you people have concerning the land of Israel, saying, The days are long and every vision fails? Therefore say to them, Thus says the Lord God, "I will make this proverb cease so that they will no longer use it as a proverb in Israel." But tell them, "The days a draw near as well as the fulfillment of every vision. For there will no longer be any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel. For I the Lord shall speak, and whatever word I speak will be performed. It will no longer be delayed, for in you days, O rebellious house, I shall speak the word and perform it," declares the Lord God. " Furthermore, the word of the Lord came to me saying, "Son of man, behold, the house of Israel is saying, The vision that he sees is for many years from now, and he prophesies of times far off. Therefore say to them, Thus says the Lord God, "None of My words will be delayed any longer. Whatever word I speak will be performed," " declares the Lord God.

In this passage the nation of Israel said that the time statements of Gods word were irrelevant. This is exactly what the futurist claims about the time statements concerning the return of Christ in the first century. They say, just like Israel, "Those passages were not for the original audience but were for many years from now and for times far off. " But notice what God thinks about that kind of hermeneutic. God said, "None of My words will be delayed any longer. Whatever word I speak will be performed." He stated that He would say the word and He would perform it. Again, notice the implication of that statement. God Himself fulfills His word. When we try and mis-use 2 Peter 3:8-9 as a formula to interpret prophetic time, i.e., that the imminent time statements in the New Testament concerning Christs return in the first century are really "for many years from now," i.e., our time, we are saying that God will not fulfill His word! So the real issue here is not just differences of interpretation concerning eschatology, but the nature and character of God. If the futurist is correct in his interpretation and application of 2 Peter 3, then God is made out to be a liar because He will not fulfill His word when He said He would. Plain and simple. If the futurist is correct, then God Himself cannot even be trusted, and then we are lost. Why? Because, if God is dishonest concerning when He would fulfill His word, how do we know He was honest concerning the doctrines of Grace? Or anything else for that matter? Its simple. We dont. So, again, this is much more than just a difference of interpretation. Our salvation depends on God keeping every aspect of His word. Including when He was to fulfill it.

2 Peter 3:8 simply states that whether God promises to do something tomorrow, or in 1000 years makes no difference to God when it comes to fulfilling that promise. He does not forget.

2 Peter 3:8 does not say that If God promises to do something "tomorrow", that he can wait 1000 years to fulfill it, and reamin true to His promise.

parousia70 · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mandy

I wasn't charging you with anything, simply making a point of what Paul's view of preterism was.

Actually, since preterism maintains that all eschatology ws fulfiled in 70 AD, Paul was not rebuking preterism.

Hymeneaus believed the resurrection happened before 70 AD, therefore preterists do not share the Hymeneaun belief at all.

parousia70 · Jun 7, 2002

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

Honestly, I'm still studying the whole Gog/Magog war, but I'll explain to you what I know at this point in the game. The Gog/Magog war in Rev 20 is the same as the Gog/Magog war in Ezekiel 38-39. The comparisons leave me without a doubt.

Mike "Buy-dler" (avoiding a smack) is absolutely correct about this.

And this leaves the hyper-literal futurist with some insurmountable obsticles.

The weapons that the Bible says Gog and Magog use against Israel are Bows, Arrows, spears, and Javelins.

This presents the hyper-literal futurist with a dilema impossibe to overcome while maintaining that this battle is yet future.

One Israeli Jet could wipe out millions of spear weilding, arrow shooting troops. Probably in less than 8 hours. No supernatural help from God would be needed.

No nation on earth would attack Israel today armed only with Bows and arrows, spears and Javelins.

We can talk about the 200 million horses too if you'd like.........

Mike Beidler · Jun 7, 2002

Mandy:

You say that the return of Christ is imminent, yet you don't believe He will return in your lifetime. (I deduce this because most futurists believe the war described in Ezekiel 38-39 to occur either just before the rapture--a la Tim LaHaye--or sometime in the 3½-year period prior to the Antichrist's entrance into the rebuilt temple, and you stated earlier that you don't believe Israel will be attacked by Russia in your lifetime.)

So why do you think that Christ won't return anytime soon? Isn't the doctrine of imminency lost if you believe that certain signs must precede His coming?

I'm confused.

Wildfire · Jun 7, 2002

No preterism is not true and correct. It is blind and misleading.

What does Jesus tell us, "But to take Heed, (caution-warning) lest none of you shall be decieved. For many shall come in my name, and shall decieve MANY. We are told to avoid False teachings, fables, genealogies, and looking into strange doctrines.
Why?
Because it does not come from him.

There is so much confusion among the preterists, and their beliefs. In another post someone asked, where did it (preterism) originate? and the answer was, oh that was from Jesus Christ. Sure. No I don't think so. Nowhere in the scripture- the word of God- does Jesus say he would return without the world knowing. Good Lord, have you no fear among you? The book of revelation was not meant to be taken lightly.

((Read)) Because the wise shall understand. But the foolish shall not understand. To those who are contemplating believing in this preterist nonsense: think about it. The Lord has not returned.

Wildfire

Ozarkpreterist · Jun 7, 2002

Wildfire,

I don't know if you remeber a question I asked you awhile back. I asked you if you knew the difference between being carnal and being spiritual. You gave no answer, and the thread ended. Maybe this will help you on that matter.

Jesus always spoke spiritually. Therefore, He found Himself at odds with those who were carnally minded. The carnal mind is always offended by spiritual things. Moreover, it deems spiritual matters as worthless.

We see this in John chapter six. Here Jesus encounters another group of people near the Sea of Galilee. In the first half of the chapter Jesus deals with the peoples physical needs. He sees that the people are hungry and have nothing to eat. He then multiplies a few loaves and fishes to feed a crowd of over 5,000. They loved Him. In fact, they went to great lengths to find the Lord the next day. However, the second day was different. On this day Jesus dealt with the spiritual. He said things that must be spiritually appraised such as:

Then Jesus said to them, Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven-not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever. (John 6:53-58)

This was a far cry from the free food He gave them the day before. The first day He gave them physical bread. The second day He offered Himself as true spiritual bread. How did they respond? They were offended. Again, spiritual things are always an offence to the carnal mind. If we are going to preach Jesus as one who only deals in the material, we will be loved by all. Yet, if we preach Jesus as spiritual bread and the present reality of His kingdom, we will offend people. Moreover, many will see no profit in what we are saying. This my friends is the underlying reason preterists offend certain people.

Hopefully, we can see the difference between the carnal and spiritual mind. The carnal mind deals only with the natural, putting value in only what the eyes can see or the hands can touch. It leans on its own understanding rather than seeking the mind of Christ. It lives by what it can see and discern rather than by what God reveals. The spiritual mind understands that the unseen kingdom of God is greater, and since it is eternal, it is far more valuable.

The conflict between the carnal mind and the spiritual mind is in full force today concerning matters of eschatology. Let us look at a few examples.

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

The carnal mind says this cannot have already happened because I have not yet disappeared from my moving vehicle while my driverless car goes swerving out of control.

The spiritual mind instead embraces the words of Paul.

even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:5-6)

The spiritual man understands that these words, though finished at the cross, were consummated at the Parousia. We do not need a present day rapture. We are already with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. This is a spiritual reality not a physical one. We are in His presence and His presence is in us. The separation between heaven and earth has been removed in Christ.

Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. (Revelation 21:2)

The carnal mind says that this cannot have already happened, because I dont see a great cubic city floating in the air above the earth.

The spiritual mind recognizes the new Jerusalem is the new creation, and it is very present on the earth.

The carnal mind says Jesus cannot have returned, because I dont see Him sitting on a literal throne in the literal nation of Israel. The spiritual mind recognizes that He is indeed here. He is enthroned in the midst of spiritual Israel which is the church. All this was inaugurated at the Parousia right on time just as Jesus and the apostles said it would be. No tricks or gimmicks are necessary to see this, just a spiritual mind.

Hope this helps you "see" what we preterists are talking about.

Ozark

The Bible, and therefore preterism, is true and correct

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Evolutionary Creationist

Well-Known Member

Evolutionary Creationist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Evolutionary Creationist

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Evolutionary Creationist

Well-Known Member

Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Evolutionary Creationist

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency