|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Preterism, Rev. 1 - 12/11/2007 10:29:16 AM
|
|
|
ta_mosquito
Posts: 11448
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: from MN, now in Ontario :D
Status: offline
|
MODERATOR'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
Uriah - please email community@salemwebnetwork.com before posting further.
Please allow time for a response. Do not set up any new accounts or post under another handle.
Thank you!
Tricia
Forums Moderator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism, Rev. 1 - 12/13/2007 7:26:08 PM
|
|
|
sooner
Posts: 132
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
Sooner,
I have been looking for some texts and cannot find them. Maybe you can.
Regarding "a day like no other" and similar phrases are found throughout the Bible. Quite often the phrase refers to many different events and not to one single prophesied event or one single event in history.
Would you have a list of references where that or similar phrases are used?
Refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in the 6th century BC.
Eze 5:9 And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations.
I think this is an example of what you're looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism, Rev. 1 - 12/14/2007 8:17:50 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1760
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
It is. I'll comment more later.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism, Rev. 1 - 12/14/2007 1:55:47 PM
|
|
|
beano
Posts: 16
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
|
Eze. 5:9 speaks of the Tribulation, the time of Jacob's trouble.
quote:
5:9 ".......I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again"
"The time of the end" is the "time of wrath" is the Tribulation (Dan. 11:35; 36c; 40).
quote:
Dan. 12:1 - "At that time" of Jacob's trouble "There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then" The time of the end is just before the resurrection of Daniel's people, v.2.
Mat. 24:21 is also the time of the end:
quote:
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now -- and never to be equaled again.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism, Rev. 1 - 12/14/2007 3:42:46 PM
|
|
|
sooner
Posts: 132
Joined: 8/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: beano
Eze. 5:9 speaks of the Tribulation, the time of Jacob's trouble.
quote:
5:9 ".......I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again"
"The time of the end" is the "time of wrath" is the Tribulation (Dan. 11:35; 36c; 40).
quote:
Dan. 12:1 - "At that time" of Jacob's trouble "There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then" The time of the end is just before the resurrection of Daniel's people, v.2.
Mat. 24:21 is also the time of the end:
quote:
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now -- and never to be equaled again.
John Gill
Eze 5:9 - And I will do in thee that which I have not done,.... In any other nation, or to any other people; not in the old world, when the flood was brought upon the world of the ungodly; not in Sodom and Gomorrah, when they were destroyed by fire from heaven; not in Egypt, when he inflicted his plagues on Pharaoh and his people; nor among the Canaanites, when they were drove out of their land for their abominations:
and whereunto I will not do any more the like; at least not of a long time; and, besides, this may not only refer to the siege of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, but also by the Romans:
Adam Clarke
Eze 5:9 -
I will do in thee that which I have not done - The destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was one of the greatest calamities that ever fell on any nation or place before; and that by the Romans under Titus exceeded all that has taken place since. These two sackages of that city have no parallel in the history of mankind.
Albert Barnes
Eze 5:9 -
Compare Mat_24:21. The calamities of the Babylonian were surpassed by the Roman siege, and these again were but a foreshadowing of still more terrible destruction at the last day.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism, Rev. 1 - 12/15/2007 1:00:22 PM
|
|
|
parousia70
Posts: 163
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
I have been looking for some texts and cannot find them. Maybe you can.
Regarding "a day like no other" and similar phrases are found throughout the Bible. Quite often the phrase refers to many different events and not to one single prophesied event or one single event in history.
Would you have a list of references where that or similar phrases are used?
GC,
Jesus is utilizing in Matthew 24:21 the common Old Testament figure of speech: "ever was/nor ever shall be." Scripture tells us in 1 Kings 3:12 that there was "no king like Solomon before or after him." Such statements are then repeated in 2 Kings 18:5-6 of Hezekiah and in 2 Kings 23:25 of Josiah. Obviously, they can't all be the greatest King there ever was nor ever shall be. (And, of course, Jesus Christ surpasses even Solomon -- Matt. 12:42). Furthermore, this same Old Testament idea of "never will be again" is employed of various judgments that have already been fulfilled such as locusts in Egypt (Ex. 10:12-15; cf. Joel 1:1-4), a cry in Egypt (Ex. 11:6), and judgment upon O.T. Israel (Ez. 5:9; Joel 2:2). The Ezekiel 5:9 passage is especially instructive to us, for it states that the Babylonian conquest of Israel (sixth-century BC) would be the greatest judgment God had ever brought upon a nation, past or future. Therefore, we recognize that the expression "ever was/nor ever shall be" is a common Hebraic idiom meaning "very great" or "very much."
Even so, AD 66-70 was the greatest Day-of-the-Lord event in Israel's history, and was, unquestionably, the one Christ's followers spoke of mere decades before it transpired. This was the same Day of the Lord concerning which the apostles stated they would remain alive unto its passing (1 Thess 5:2-4,23; Phil 1:6,10; Heb 10:25,36-39; 1 Cor 1:7-8; 1 Cor 5:5). Due to the covenantal significance of the event, that Day of the Lord's vengeance (cf. Luke 21:20-22; Isa 61:2; Jer 46:10) can never be repeated. There is no equal to the level of devastation millions of Messiah-rejecting Jews endured as they were violently excommunicated out of covenant with God (Matt 21:40-45; Acts 3:22-24).
P70
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism, Rev. 1 - 12/15/2007 5:23:35 PM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 1760
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
GC,
Jesus is utilizing in Matthew 24:21 the common Old Testament figure of speech: "ever was/nor ever shall be." Scripture tells us in 1 Kings 3:12 that there was "no king like Solomon before or after him." Such statements are then repeated in 2 Kings 18:5-6 of Hezekiah and in 2 Kings 23:25 of Josiah. Obviously, they can't all be the greatest King there ever was nor ever shall be. (And, of course, Jesus Christ surpasses even Solomon -- Matt. 12:42)....
Sooner,
I know that. But I have doing an awful lot of reading lately and could not remember the references. While I am pretty biblically literate, preterism is a different area of study for me. Like many people I was taught pre-mill pre-trib. dispensationalism. So looking at things differently causes me to reorient and reclassify the terms and idioms I have read.
_____________________________
Larry
Sure we're under the law, everybody knows that!
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb 10:13)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism, Rev. 1 - 12/15/2007 6:18:22 PM
|
|
|
parousia70
Posts: 163
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GrahamCracker
quote:
GC,
Jesus is utilizing in Matthew 24:21 the common Old Testament figure of speech: "ever was/nor ever shall be." Scripture tells us in 1 Kings 3:12 that there was "no king like Solomon before or after him." Such statements are then repeated in 2 Kings 18:5-6 of Hezekiah and in 2 Kings 23:25 of Josiah. Obviously, they can't all be the greatest King there ever was nor ever shall be. (And, of course, Jesus Christ surpasses even Solomon -- Matt. 12:42)....
Sooner,
I know that. But I have doing an awful lot of reading lately and could not remember the references. While I am pretty biblically literate, preterism is a different area of study for me. Like many people I was taught pre-mill pre-trib. dispensationalism. So looking at things differently causes me to reorient and reclassify the terms and idioms I have read.
GC, I'm not Sooner, but thanks for the compliment!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism, Rev. 1 - 12/15/2007 9:52:16 PM
|
|
|
beano
Posts: 16
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
parousia70
Jesus is utilizing in Matthew 24:21 the common Old Testament figure of speech: "ever was/nor ever shall be."
Therefore, we recognize that the expression "ever was/nor ever shall be" is a common Hebraic idiom meaning "very great" or "very much."
Very good, the commentary of Albert Barnes agrees with you:
quote:
Albert Barnes
Eze 5:9 -
Compare Mat_24:21. The calamities of the Babylonian were surpassed by the Roman siege, and these again were but a foreshadowing of still more terrible destruction at the last day.
quote:
parousia70
Furthermore, this same Old Testament idea of "never will be again" is employed of various judgments that have already been fulfilled such as locusts in Egypt (Ex. 10:12-15; cf. Joel 1:1-4), a cry in Egypt (Ex. 11:6), and judgment upon O.T. Israel (Ez. 5:9; Joel 2:2).
"locusts in Egypt (Ex. 10:12-15; cf. Joel 1:1-4)" - Correct, these locusts "are grasshoppers of the family Acrididae, having short antennae and commonly migrating in swarms that strip the vegetation from large areas."
"a cry in Egypt (Ex. 11:6)" - Correct
"and judgment upon O.T. Israel (Ez. 5:9; Joel 2:2)" - Correct on Ez. 5:9. The locust of Joel 2:2 are not grasshoppers, they are demons from the Abyss, Rev. 9:1-11. These locust are the Lord's army that he commands in the day of the Lord (Joel 2:11). The entire book of Joel is on the day of the Lord, it's all prophecy.
quote:
parousia70
The Ezekiel 5:9 passage is especially instructive to us, for it states that the Babylonian conquest of Israel (sixth-century BC) would be the greatest judgment God had ever brought upon a nation, past or future. There are several OT prophecies alluding to the church, but this is not one of them like Isa. 65:13-15 does.
quote:
parousia70
Even so, AD 66-70 was the greatest Day-of-the-Lord event in Israel's history, and was, unquestionably, the one Christ's followers spoke of mere decades before it transpired. .
The day of the Lord does not include the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. That day is prophetic, it will begin with the fall of "Babylon the great" a Gentile nation, Rev. 14:7-8; Joel 1:15. Judgment will end when Jesus returns from heaven (Isa. 2:10, 19; 26:21; 31:4; Mic. 1:3-4). That day will continue for a thousand years when Israel is restored and the world lives in peace.
quote:
This was the same Day of the Lord concerning which the apostles stated they would remain alive unto its passing (1 Thess 5:2-4,23; Phil 1:6,10; Heb 10:25,36-39; 1 Cor 1:7-8; 1 Cor 5:5)
1 Thess 5:2-4,23 -- The day of the Lord comes like a thief to the unbeliever, it does come as surprise to believers because we are not in darkness, we belong to the day. We won't be on earth when it begins, the reason why it will not surprise us like a thief
Phil 1:6,10 -- The "day of Christ" is the day of the Rapture, not a period of time as the day of the Lord is. In the day of Christ we will be glorified, be declared blameless, boast of each other, receive rewards, receive crowns and be in the presence of the Lord (Col 3:4).
Paul's instructions to the church never has it on earth during the earthly judgments of the DOTL, he never instructs us how to prepare for it or includes the church in the context of the DOTL. The context of scripture that surrounds the day of Christ always has a heavenly theme to it, not earthly judgments of the Tribulation. Paul is the authority we consult on the church, not Jesus or the 12 apostles.
"Heb 10:25,36-39" -- "The Day approaching" (NIV) is th single day of the Rapture when we meet the Lord in the air, not his second coming to the Mount of Olives (Zec. 14:4). The church will see him in heaven, Israel will see him on earth. The church will know the day he returns for it; Israel will not know the "day or hour" of his return. Our bodies are glorified at the rapture, Israel is restored at the second coming.
The correct rendering of verse 38 is: "But my righteous one will live by faith" (NIV) -- a single person and not the plural "just" or "people" as for the KJB and others. This righteous one who lives by faith is the other Elijah that comes before the day of the Lord (Mat. 17:11-12; Mark 9:12-13).
1 Cor 1:7-8 -- "The end" for the Church is the rapture, we "eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed" when he appears to the Church in the air. The end of this age ends with God's wrath at the second coming, never is the church said to be in the "time of the end."
1 Cor 5:5 -- The second death is the final penalty of the unrighteous. The first death is the physical end of one's life on earth; the second death is spiritual and the cutting off of the soul (Mt. 10:28). If the sinful man repented and got right with God his spirit and soul would be saved from the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death, this judgment ends the Day of the Lord and the thousand years.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Preterism, Rev. 1 - 12/16/2007 12:34:58 PM
|
|
|
parousia70
Posts: 163
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: beano
quote:
parousia70
Even so, AD 66-70 was the greatest Day-of-the-Lord event in Israel's history, and was, unquestionably, the one Christ's followers spoke of mere decades before it transpired. .
The day of the Lord does not include the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem.
Oh, the Day of the Lord that the apostles spoke of is indeed the 66-70AD Jerusalem seige. Without question.
quote:
. That day will continue for a thousand years when Israel is restored and the world lives in peace.
Implicit in your "Israel is restored" theology has humans returning to a blood animal sacrifice system for atonement of sins. (Ezek 40-44)
The teaching of a reinstitution of this blood sacrificial system is a rebuke against the blood of Jesus Christ, and a cause for anathema according to the apostles. A return to this system is a falling away from salvation, according to the apostles. A falling from the grace of Jesus Christ.
quote:
quote:
This was the same Day of the Lord concerning which the apostles stated they would remain alive unto its passing (1 Thess 5:2-4,23; Phil 1:6,10; Heb 10:25,36-39; 1 Cor 1:7-8; 1 Cor 5:5)
1 Thess 5:2-4,23 -- The day of the Lord comes like a thief to the unbeliever, it does come as surprise to believers because we are not in darkness, we belong to the day. We won't be on earth when it begins, the reason why it will not surprise us like a thief
Jesus promised real living, air breathing, blood pumping 1st century Christians that day would come upon THEM:
"So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you. (Rev 3:3)
Beano, there is ONLY ONE theif's coming, and Jesus promised it would happen to Christians living in the 1st century.
That settles it.
P70
|
|
|
|
|
RE: All Preterism All The Time - One Stop Thread - 12/19/2007 3:03:50 PM
|
|
|
cybrjewls
Posts: 1145
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fritzpw_Admin
Are the prophecies of Daniel, Revelation, etc, yet to come, or were they fulfilled in the first century? Are any prohecies yet to be fulfilled?
Is a double-fufillment of Matthew 24 possible—one in 70 AD for Jerusalem and one in the future with world-wide impact?
Is it possible to hold a full Preterist view and believe the Nicene Creed?
Discuss these and other issues that revolve around the topic of Preterism.
NOTE: If you are a Pre-terist THIS thread is the only one in which you may discuss your end-times view.
My belief is that a number of the prophecies have been fulfilled and the prophecy continues to unfold on earth. I believe that we have already had conquerors, wars, plagues, and famines as Jesus said. Therefore, I believe that we are near or at the time of the 5th seal opening as recorded in revelation where martyrdom numbers have to be fulfilled for the Testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophecy. Also, we await the final 7 year period of the war on the saints as recorded in Daniel and revelation where the 10 rulers blaspheme and go to war along with the false prophet ruler known as the anti-christ to receive the mark of the beast (animal) which is the number of a man.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: All Preterism All The Time - One Stop Thread - 12/24/2007 12:53:58 PM
|
|
|
parousia70
Posts: 163
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fritzpw_Admin
Is it possible to hold a full Preterist view and believe the Nicene Creed?
Hya Fritz!
I'm living proof that it is.
I hold a FULL preterist view of Biblical Eschatology, yet I hold a futurist view of Creedal eschatology.
All Bible eschatology was most certainly fulfilled in the events surrounding and including Jerusalem's 70AD destruction. Scripture demands it.
However, The Old Testament Temple--which was itself designed to be a microcosm of the created universe--may demonstrate, by its destruction, that the created cosmos will be brought to a new consummation. Yet even that would not be an end of God's creation, but, rather, a new outworking of it.
For sure, whatever changes God may have in store for the cosmos, the time and details have not been disclosed to men (Deut 29:29).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: All Preterism All The Time - One Stop Thread - 12/24/2007 3:24:03 PM
|
|
|
Doorkeeper
Posts: 53
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
parousia70,
Out of idle curiousity, how do you reconcile full preterism with a bodily resurrection?
_____________________________
Doorkeeper
...I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness... - Psa 84:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: All Preterism All The Time - One Stop Thread - 12/24/2007 9:35:41 PM
|
|
|
parousia70
Posts: 163
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doorkeeper
parousia70,
Out of idle curiousity, how do you reconcile full preterism with a bodily resurrection?
Can you elaborate on how exactly you define "Bodily"?
All preterists believe in a bodily resurrection.
Most, however, follow the teaching of St. Paul and don't believe that body is flesh, but is a spiritual body.
How do you define it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: All Preterism All The Time - One Stop Thread - 12/24/2007 11:58:23 PM
|
|
|
Doorkeeper
Posts: 53
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
I'm familiar with this preterist view. There are problems with believing Paul was speaking of a spiritual body and not a physical one. I thought perhaps you might a different view.
Jesus' resurrection was a physical one, so ours will be as well. In Acts it says:
Act 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should shew light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
If the resurrection of believers is only spiritual, then how could Christ be the first to rise? Wasn't Moses on the mount of transfiguration? Moses physically died but was quite alive in spirit. So if Moses appeared in spirit, then Jesus wasn't the first to be "resurrected" and the Scripture is in error.
Going back to the OT, here are verses from Job:
Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Job expected a physical, flesh resurrection, not a spiritual one.
The problems with a physical resurrection and full preterism are quite obvious. If everything already happened, then when did the resurrection occur? What happens to people alive right now?
BTW, are you saying those who wrote the Nicene Creed believed in a spiritual resurrection and not a physical one?
_____________________________
Doorkeeper
...I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness... - Psa 84:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: All Preterism All The Time - One Stop Thread - 12/25/2007 2:01:09 PM
|
|
|
parousia70
Posts: 163
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doorkeeper
I'm familiar with this preterist view. There are problems with believing Paul was speaking of a spiritual body and not a physical one.
The text is quite clear:
1 Cor. 15: 44
It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
quote:
I thought perhaps you might a different view.
No, I share Paul's View above.
quote:
Jesus' resurrection was a physical one, so ours will be as well.
Jesus was raised with his death wounds intact.
Are you saying we will retain our wounds (if any) in our raised physical bodies?
What about those who were born without limbs? do they get limbs in their resurrected bodies? How about organ transplant recipients? Who gets which organs?
There are far more problems with the fleshly resurrection view than with Pauls teaching of a Spiritual Resurrection Body.
quote:
If the resurrection of believers is only spiritual, then how could Christ be the first to rise?
Wasn't Moses on the mount of transfiguration? Moses physically died but was quite alive in spirit. So if Moses appeared in spirit, then Jesus wasn't the first to be "resurrected" and the Scripture is in error.
If it's Physical, Then Lazarus' "resurrection" preceded Christ, and you share the same catch 22 as you are applying to me.
quote:
Going back to the OT, here are verses from Job:
Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Job expected a physical, flesh resurrection, not a spiritual one.
Doorkeeper, It's really quite easy demonstrate the problem with attempting to use this passage to “prove” the resurrection of the flesh body. Too much variation exists among translations that seem to actually put forth a specific view for the meaning of this passage. Those translations that are more ambiguous only “prove” a fleshly resurrection in a circular sense:
The resurrection of the flesh is a true doctrine; therefore Job 19:26 speaks of this event.
Job 19:26 speaks of the resurrection of the flesh; therefore, the Bible supports this doctrine.
By resorting to this passage, you are using a doctrine to prove a scriptural interpretation, and then using the interpretation wrought by this method to prove the original doctrine! C'mon doorkeeper, you know better. That is not how proper exegesis is done.
The Bible provides a more consistent interpretation of this passage. By allowing scripture to interpret scripture, we can quickly see that Job’s skin had been previously struck with boils (Job 2:1-10). It seems then, that the destruction of the skin in this passage is a reflection on this event, and that Job is saying, “even though my skin is destroyed, I shall see God.” In the case of the YLT and the Doauy-Rheims translations, one could see this as meaning, “when my skin (which has been destroyed by boils) has been restored, I shall see God.” Thus doorkeeper, there is no evidence in this passage that the incident of which Job is speaking is death. Moreover, this is in accord with the context of the verse in question itself:
[13] "He has removed my brothers far from me, And my acquaintances are completely estranged from me. [14] "My relatives have failed, And my intimate friends have forgotten me. [15] "Those who live in my house and my maids consider me a stranger. I am a foreigner in their sight. [16] "I call to my servant, but he does not answer; I have to implore him with my mouth. [17] "My breath is offensive to my wife, And I am loathsome to my own brothers. [18] "Even young children despise me; I rise up and they speak against me. [19] "All my associates abhor me, And those I love have turned against me. [20] "My bone clings to my skin and my flesh, And I have escaped {only} by the skin of my teeth. [21] "Pity me, pity me, O you my friends, For the hand of God has struck me. [22] "Why do you persecute me as God {does,} And are not satisfied with my flesh? [23] "Oh that my words were written! Oh that they were inscribed in a book! [24] "That with an iron stylus and lead They were engraved in the rock forever! [25] "As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth (Job 19:13-25, NASB).
Thus, in the very context of Job’s statement, one can see the mention of the affliction of Job’s skin.
The seeing of God in this passage need not refer to an after-death experience, for the same word is used elsewhere to refer to instances of people seeing God while still alive (“chazah,” H2372 – Exodus 24:11; Psalms 11:7; 27:4). Moreover, other words for “to see” are also used to refer to people seeing God (“nabat,” H5027 – Exodus 4:6) and to people seeing God and God appearing to them while still alive (“ra’ah,” H7200 – Genesis 16:13; 32:30; 48:3; Exodus 4:1; 24:10; 1 Samuel 3:21; 2 Chronicles 1:7; 18:18; Jeremiah 31:3 and elsewhere). Thus, considering the context of the story of Job, it is clear that this passage need not be interpreted as referring to something that would happen to Job after death. Rather, it should be understood as Job being comforted that, though he is suffering, he would see God in mercy."
quote:
What happens to people alive right now?
When we die, we are either immediately clothed in our resurrection body and ushered into Heaven to be with Christ forever, or we are cast into the LoF.
quote:
BTW, are you saying those who wrote the Nicene Creed believed in a spiritual resurrection and not a physical one?
If they believed in a fleshly resurrection they would have wrote "resurrection of the flesh" instead of "resurrection of the Body. Indeed, there were several who argued for such "flesh resurrection" phraseology to combat the Gnostics, but were eventually rebuked.
Really Doorkeeper, I don't think you are as "familiar" with the preterist view as you'd like to think.
Oh...BTW, MERRY CHRISTMAS!
< Message edited by parousia70 -- 12/25/2007 2:10:12 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: All Preterism All The Time - One Stop Thread - 12/25/2007 5:06:57 PM
|
|
|
Doorkeeper
Posts: 53
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: parousia70
Jesus was raised with his death wounds intact.
Are you saying we will retain our wounds (if any) in our raised physical bodies?
What about those who were born without limbs? do they get limbs in their resurrected bodies? How about organ transplant recipients? Who gets which organs?
There are far more problems with the fleshly resurrection view than with Pauls teaching of a Spiritual Resurrection Body. Hardly. Jesus obviously left His wounds intact. If He could heal a man with a withered hand and heal the flesh of lepers, He obviously could have removed His wounds upon resurrection. This isn't a statement of what a resurrected body looks like as much as it is a statement of His own choice.
quote:
If it's Physical, Then Lazarus' "resurrection" preceded Christ, and you share the same catch 22 as you are applying to me. Actually this is wrong. The real resurrection spoken of in the Bible is not simply being raised from the dead but being raised up into a glorified body. This is the "spiritual body" that Paul is referring to. Lazarus was not raised into a glorified body therefore he was not resurrected in the sense that Christ was resurrected. Jesus was the first to do that. So there is no catch 22 here for a physical, bodily resurrection and a spiritual (non-physical) resurrection is still wrong. How do you account for Jesus being first?
quote:
By resorting to this passage, you are using a doctrine to prove a scriptural interpretation, and then using the interpretation wrought by this method to prove the original doctrine! C'mon doorkeeper, you know better. That is not how proper exegesis is done. Actually, I'm using this passage to properly interpret 1 Cor 15. In order to show that Paul was talking about a physical resurrection, the OT has a passage that shows someone expecting to be resurrected physically. I believe that you are attempting to prove an alternative view of Job 19:26 which is addressed below.
I could have also gone to Phil 3:26:
Phl 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
Jesus didn't have spirit body, He had a real, physical body after the resurrection. It wasn't a normal body because He could appear through walls. If this passage says we will have a body made His, then it will be a "glorious" physical body.
quote:
The Bible provides a more consistent interpretation of this passage. By allowing scripture to interpret scripture, we can quickly see that Job’s skin had been previously struck with boils (Job 2:1-10). It seems then, that the destruction of the skin in this passage is a reflection on this event, and that Job is saying, “even though my skin is destroyed, I shall see God.” In the case of the YLT and the Doauy-Rheims translations, one could see this as meaning, “when my skin (which has been destroyed by boils) has been restored, I shall see God.” Thus doorkeeper, there is no evidence in this passage that the incident of which Job is speaking is death. A very subtle but significant change you made in the interpretation of this passage. It doesn't say "even though my skin is destroyed", it says AFTER. You then go on to say that Job is reflecting on his condition as opposed to thinking on his future demise after his skin is destroyed. The meaning of the passage is altered with that change. If you follow the actual wording of the passage, your interpretation become very difficult. You must conclude that Job is saying that even after he has no skin, he will stand in his body and see God. After someone loses all their skin, they will die. Are you saying otherwise? This is a reach at best to say that he in this verse simply continues to discuss his suffering.
The KJV translation correctly uses "worms destroy this body" to indicate that Job is talking about his death. It's not clear how you can conclude that there is "no evidence" that this passage is talking about death when it speaks of worms destroying the body in one translation and a "skinless" Job in another. The fact that it is preceeded by mention of the Redeemer and is followed with him standing in the flesh seeing God later makes it obviously a resurrection passage on it's own. Verses 25 and 26 are clearly linked. Job is referring to God as his redeemer and Job will see Him in the latter days in his own flesh.
quote:
When we die, we are either immediately clothed in our resurrection body and ushered into Heaven to be with Christ forever, or we are cast into the LoF. What do you mean by "clothed"? If we are to have a spiritual body after death, what is there to "put on"? A spirit puts on a spirit?
quote:
If they believed in a fleshly resurrection they would have wrote "resurrection of the flesh" instead of "resurrection of the Body. Indeed, there were several who argued for such "flesh resurrection" phraseology to combat the Gnostics, but were eventually rebuked. So the Nicene creed allows for Gnostic doctrine? Is that what you are saying?
_____________________________
Doorkeeper
...I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness... - Psa 84:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: All Preterism All The Time - One Stop Thread - 12/25/2007 5:59:22 PM
|
|
|
beano
Posts: 16
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
doorkeeper
The real resurrection spoken of in the Bible is not simply being raised from the dead but being raised up into a glorified body. This is the "spiritual body" that Paul is referring to. Lazarus was not raised into a glorified body therefore he was not resurrected in the sense that Christ was resurrected. Jesus was the first to do that.
Those resurrected when Christ died on the cross and later went into the city were not raised into glorified bodies (Mt. 27:52-53).
I don't think Jesus received a glorified body until he ascended to the Father.
Those asleep in Christ are resurrected first before they are glorified along with the living in Christ. The first trumpet will resurrect the dead in Christ and the second or last trumpet will glorify both the resurrected and living in the twinkling of an eye.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: All Preterism All The Time - One Stop Thread - 12/26/2007 12:06:33 AM
|
|
|
Doorkeeper
Posts: 53
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: beano
I don't think Jesus received a glorified body until he ascended to the Father. When did He ascend? He disappeared in front of the disciples on the Emmaus Road after they sat down to eat. Luke 24 says that this happened later that same Sunday. Did He ascend before this? Or do you mean that He was able to de-materialize or materialize later with the other disciples without having a glorified body?
quote:
Those asleep in Christ are resurrected first before they are glorified along with the living in Christ. The first trumpet will resurrect the dead in Christ and the second or last trumpet will glorify both the resurrected and living in the twinkling of an eye.
My reading of passages like 1 Thes 4:14-17 seem to indicate both the resurrection (to glorified bodies) and rapture are a singular event. Otherwise to me, it immediately begs the question: what happens to the saints between a bodily, non-glorified resurrection and a change to their glorified state? What do they do? Potentially millions of saints are raised and walking about on the earth if there significant time between the two. Unless I misunderstood your point here, I don't see that happening in Scripture.
_____________________________
Doorkeeper
...I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness... - Psa 84:10
|
|
|
|
|
RE: All Preterism All The Time - One Stop Thread - 12/26/2007 1:11:42 AM
|
|
|
beano
Posts: 16
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline
|
Agree on when Jesus was glorified.
On the road to Emmaus, Cleopas told Jesus that the chief priests and Jerusalem's rulers sentenced "Jesus of Nazareth' to death and crucified him. He said it was the "third day" since he was crucified and some of the women could not find his body. Jesus told Cleopas he should of known from the prophets that Jesus had to suffer those things and "then enter his glory." After suffering those things Jesus was buried for three days and then glorified when resurrected, Luke 24:17-26.
quote:
doorkeeper
My reading of passages like 1 Thess 4:14-17 seem to indicate both the resurrection (to glorified bodies) and rapture are a singular event.
The changing of our bodies is at the last trumpet in the twinkling of an eye, there needs to be at least one trumpet before it. The first trumpet resurrecting the dead is probably a fraction of a second before the last trumpet that changes our bodies.
< Message edited by beano -- 12/26/2007 2:44:24 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: All Preterism All The Time - One Stop Thread - 12/29/2007 7:54:12 PM
|
|
|
parousia70
Posts: 163
Joined: 5/29/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doorkeeper
quote:
ORIGINAL: parousia70
Jesus was raised with his death wounds intact.
Are you saying we will retain our wounds (if any) in our raised physical Too much variation exists among those translations that seem to actually put forth a specific view for the meaning of this passage.bodies?
What about those who were born without limbs? do they get limbs in their resurrected bodies? How about organ transplant recipients? Who gets which organs?
There are far more problems with the fleshly resurrection view than with Pauls teaching of a Spiritual Resurrection Body. Hardly. Jesus obviously left His wounds intact. If He could heal a man with a withered hand and heal the flesh of lepers, He obviously could have removed His wounds upon resurrection. This isn't a statement of what a resurrected body looks like as much as it is a statement of His own choice.
Your argument is fine, except you offer no evidence for why we should not further apply it to his entire body. Why could it not also have been His choice to first appear in the same body that was crucified? By your argument, He left His wounds intact for evidentiary purposes only.
Clearly appearing in the flesh served that specific purpose as well.
quote:
quote:
If it's Physical, Then Lazarus' "resurrection" preceded Christ, and you share the same catch 22 as you are applying to me. Actually this is wrong. The real resurrection spoken of in the Bible is not simply being raised from the dead but being raised up into a glorified body. This is the "spiritual body" that Paul is referring to. Lazarus was not raised into a glorified body therefore he was not resurrected in the sense that Christ was resurrected. Jesus was the first to do that. So there is no catch 22 here for a physical, bodily resurrection and a spiritual (non-physical) resurrection is still wrong. How do you account for Jesus being first?
Simple.
Moses, after appearing at the transfiguration, went back to Sheol, just like Lazarus, after being raised went back after he died again. Neither had been permanently raised out of Sheol/Hades/Abrahams Bosom, (Which is what "resurrection" is) prior to Christ. Neither were in Glorified Bodies, And I submit to you, neither was Jesus' prior to His Ascension in Acts 1.
quote:
quote:
By resorting to this passage, you are using a doctrine to prove a scriptural interpretation, and then using the interpretation wrought by this method to prove the original doctrine! C'mon doorkeeper, you know better. That is not how proper exegesis is done. Actually, I'm using this passage to properly interpret 1 Cor 15. In order to show that Paul was talking about a physical resurrection, the OT has a passage that shows someone expecting to be resurrected physically. I believe that you are attempting to prove an alternative view of Job 19:26 which is addressed below.
I could have also gone to Phil 3:26:
Phl 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
This passage speaks not of physical resurrection, but of a spiritual one, like His Body is now, Immortal, Invisible (1 Ti 1:17) Like the Body that appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus.
quote:
Jesus didn't have spirit body, He had a real, physical body after the resurrection. It wasn't a normal body because He could appear through walls. If this passage says we will have a body made His, then it will be a "glorious" physical body.
The Body that walked on water was "normal"?
Sorry DK, You'll have to give me something more before I'll buy your notion that the Body that walked on water was somehow incapable of walking through walls.
quote:
quote:
The Bible provides a more consistent interpretation of this passage. By allowing scripture to interpret scripture, we can quickly see that Job’s skin had been previously struck with boils (Job 2:1-10). It seems then, that the destruction of the skin in this passage is a reflection on this event, and that Job is saying, “even though my skin is destroyed, I shall see God.” In the case of the YLT and the Doauy-Rheims translations, one could see this as meaning, “when my skin (which has been destroyed by boils) has been restored, I shall see God.” Thus doorkeeper, there is no evidence in this passage that the incident of which Job is speaking is death. A very subtle but significant change you made in the interpretation of this passage. It doesn't say "even though my skin is destroyed", it says AFTER. You then go on to say that Job is reflecting on his condition as opposed to thinking on his future demise after his skin is destroyed. The meaning of the passage is altered with that change. If you follow the actual wording of the passage, your interpretation become very difficult. You must conclude that Job is saying that even after he has no skin, he will stand in his body and see God. After someone loses all their skin, they will die. Are you saying otherwise? This is a reach at best to say that he in this verse simply continues to discuss his suffering.
The KJV translation correctly uses "worms destroy this body" to indicate that Job is talking about his death. It's not clear how you can conclude that there is "no evidence" that this passage is talking about death when it speaks of worms destroying the body in one translation and a "skinless" Job in another. The fact that it is preceeded by mention of the Redeemer and is followed with him standing in the flesh seeing God later makes it obviously a resurrection passage on it's own. Verses 25 and 26 are clearly linked. Job is referring to God as his redeemer and Job will see Him in the latter days in his own flesh.
Doorkeeper, I didn't "Change interpratation" rather, the translators left it ambiguous. Now, your thesis seems to be based on two questionable arguments: (1) Job is speaking of physical death in the first half of this passage, and (2) in connection with this that the seeing of God is a reference to the resurrection (and therefore a resurrection of the flesh). Does this text confirm such a notion?
Take a look at some KJV-related Bible translations and how they translate this passage:
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God (American KJV).
and even after they corrupt my skin, yet this: in my flesh I shall see God (Modern KJV).
And after my skin is destroyed, this [I know,] That in my flesh I shall see God (New KJV).
Note that only the AKJV contains the reference to worms, which is indicated in the KJV as being an interpolation by the translators. The reference to worms is not found in the MKJV or the NKJV. It appears then, that the destruction of the skin found in this passage need not refer to physical death, but may refer to some other event.
It is true, that some translations seem to teach that this passage refers to physical death and the resurrection:
And though after my skin wormes destroy this bodie, yet shall I see God in my flesh (Geneva Bible).
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God (1833 Webster Bible).
Here | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
