Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse (Revelation)

PFRS ^ | 10/03 | Tim Warner

[Frumanchu]

Marlowe's point, though, is that when Christ returns, HE is returning.

Actually, it certainly appeared that Marlowe's point was that if you don't believe what he believes about the nature of Christ's resurrected body then you're a heretic (see #299).

[P-Marlowe]

It seems to me that whilst we need the preterist ideas to make sense of Matthew 24, we also should expect some feedback from the early church if their theories are right.

Traditionally it appears that all of the books written by John the Apostle, (including the book of Revelation) were written AFTER AD 70. I suppose we could look to the Gospel of John, and John 1,2,& 3 for support of their positions but none of those letters or books seem to support the position.

But that does not appear to be a problem for Preterists. They all seem undaunted by the lack of evidenciary support for their position. Instead of accepting the reality of their position, they seem content with proving that none of these books were written before 70 AD and that John wrote nothing and said nothing about Christ's glorious and triumphal (and every eye shall see him) return in 70 AD for 35 years after it supposedly happened.

[HarleyD]

This is an area where I would disagree with topcat. TC believes things will continuously get better and more and more people will come to know Christ. In a way it cannot be denied that there are certainly more Christians now then there ever were, even if you were to eliminate the tares. And while we have terrible things like abortion, homosexuality, etc., things aren't nearly as bad as they were when you saw rows and rows of Christians hanging from crosses along the road. There is some validity in what TC states and I can appreciate his position. Perhaps in another 300 years most of the evil we see around us will be gone due to Christian influence.

I, OTOH, am what we have laughingly referred to as a "pessimistic" Calvinist. I believe the history of man is one of degeneration. God enlightens man (generally speaking) but that light is slowly extinguish. We saw it happen with Adam and Eve where while God was with them everything was find until one day when God was not around. We saw it happen in the days of Noah where, while Enoch was faithful people degenerated to such a point God destroyed everyone except Noah & family. We saw it happen with Lot where while he was in the present of Abraham things were prosperous until he desired the pleasures of the world. We saw it with Israel and Judah from the time of Josiah when they were excited to run into the Promise Land to Jeremiah when they ended up rejecting God and were sacrificing to Molech and worshiping the "queen of heaven". We saw how heresy quickly affected the early church.

On and on it goes. God enlightens mankind and this enlightenment is discarded for darkness. Augustine saw this very problem and it was the reason the early church fathers sealed the Bible. They knew that man would corrupt it given the chance. Augustine stated that the life of Christ was like a stone casted into a pond. The closer to the impact the more define and glorious the message. The further out the ripples of time the less define and unclear it becomes.

Whether TC is correct or I'm correct I don't know. There is no way to verify our perspectives since we are here such a short time. Of this we do know, everything works together for good for those who are chosen according to His purpose. Whether things will get better and then Christ returns or whether they degenerate and Christ returns it doesn't matter. Christ is establishing His Kingdom here and now-not at some future date. Christ will look after His own, nurture them, and will lead us home. He is the Great Shepherd and He guards those who the Father has given Him.

[xzins]

C'mon, Fru.

You know he's arguing against consistent preterism...something that I think you, too, consider heretical.

If Christ has returned like the consistent preterists claim...if the entire shooting match is over....then their extreme view means that all of Christianity was just chimera and a mind trip.

[P-Marlowe]

Actually, it certainly appeared that Marlowe's point was that if you don't believe what he believes about the nature of Christ's resurrected body then you're a heretic (see #299).

FWIW the Jehovah's Witnesses don't.

[Frumanchu]

At any rate, thank you for your reasoned and scriptural response. It is much nicer to deal with reason than ridicule.

Sometimes ridicule is the appropriate response to the ridiculous.

Frankly I was just speculating, kinda like you did with your theories on the Trinity. It appears that the same group of people that ridiculed you are now ridiculing me.

In the midst of your speculation you made the declaration that if someone didn't agree with your view of the nature of Christ's resurrected body then they were a heretic. That goes a little beyond speculation.

Still waiting for a Scriptural argument for Christ's "corruptible" flesh and "incorruptible" skeleton.

[Alex Murphy]

You know he's arguing against consistent preterism...something that I think you, too, consider heretical.

Actually, I don't know any such thing. Marlowe has consistently argued against any and all "allegorical" or preteristic interpretation of prophecy. If Xzins knows something different, then Marlowe must have FReepmailed it to him.

Of course, if this thread was specifically railing against consistent (note the change in terms) preterism, it would have ended long ago, after the sole full preterist stopped posting

[P-Marlowe]

In the midst of your speculation you made the declaration that if someone didn't agree with your view of the nature of Christ's resurrected body then they were a heretic. That goes a little beyond speculation.

Are you willing to go on record as stating that the Body that Christ took to the cross, the body that was sacrificed for our sins, the body that endured the suffering and which walked on water and which by his stripes we are healed is NOT the Body that Christ took into heaven in Acts chapter 1?

Do you have any scriptural evidence to suggest that it was in any way different (other than the scars) than the body that he used to walk upon the water?

Are you willing to go on record as stating that Jesus body was not flesh and bone? Are you suggesting the possibility that his body was changed and that what was ressurrected was perhaps spirit rather than flesh or something other than the body in which he was crucified?

What exactly is your position Fru? Do you even have one, or are you content with ridiculing mine?

[P-Marlowe]

Marlowe has consistently argued against any and all "allegorical" or preteristic interpretation of prophecy.

If it is not subject to literal interpretation at all then we must look to an allegorical interpretation. However if a prophecy is clearly subject to literal interpretation, then the literal is clearly preferred. In many cases the prophecy will have both a literal and an allegorical meaning.

Keeping that in mind, if a prophet says that something specific will come to pass and it never does and never will, then we must conclude that the prophet was a false prophet. I believe that Preterism places John the Apostle, Ezekiel and Daniel all in that category.

[Alex Murphy]

What exactly is your position Fru? Do you even have one, or are you content with ridiculing mine?

You know, you never did get around to scripturally justifying your "zombie Jesus" position. And you abandoned an earlier thread rather than explain your unusual beliefs regarding Justification and Atonement. For all your bluster, you act as if you're exempt from these little cross-examinations, Marlowe. Have a seat in the dock, and let's talk about it. I see that we have a third set of beliefs from you to to consider now....

...if a prophecy is clearly subject to literal interpretation, then the literal is clearly preferred....if a prophet says that something specific will come to pass and it never does and never will, then we must conclude that the prophet was a false prophet. I believe that Preterism places John the Apostle, Ezekiel and Daniel all in that category....

Please provide the scriptures that clearly back up your assertion. Oh, and please explain why Xzins would offer a different testimony, ie. that you're only railing against "consistant" preterism, and not any preterism per se.

[Frumanchu]

Don't forget "Terminator Jesus" ("living tissue over a metal endoskeleton").

[xzins]

I DO think that partial preterism has some real problems. Partial preterism maintains that ALL of prophecy EXCEPT the return of the Lord has occurred. Therefore, the allegorizing of nearly every prophetic passage in the bible gives me heartburn.

If there is another variety of not-quite-partial preterism, I'll entertain it except in terms of the date of the Book of Revelation. The external and internal evidence for the dating of revelation is unassailable, in my view, by a fair-minded person.

Marlowe doesn't argue against any and all allegorical interpretations of prophecy. I've been posting here for years with him. I don't really need any freepmail, although I do freepmail him at times...and many others. Maybe even you for all I know.

I would think that Marlowe would call "sheep and goats" in the prophetic passage of Mt 24-25 allegories. Probably more. I'd have to think about it.

He'd call those locust thingies that come out of the Abyss potential symbols based on further evidence. (NOT "black helicopters.:>)

Consistent preterism is heretical.

[Alex Murphy]

Don't forget "Terminator Jesus" ("living tissue over a metal endoskeleton").

"Come with me, if you want to live...I'll be back!"

[xzins]

ping to #452. Should have pinged you. Sorry.

[Alex Murphy]

Terminator Jesus

You need to read The Greatest Action Story Ever Told

[ksen]

Are you willing to go on record as stating that the Body that Christ took to the cross, the body that was sacrificed for our sins, the body that endured the suffering and which walked on water and which by his stripes we are healed is NOT the Body that Christ took into heaven in Acts chapter 1?

It's just as much His body now as our current body will be our future body in Glory.

[P-Marlowe]

You know, you never did get around to scripturally justifying.....

I believe I backed up all my positions with scripture. Just go back and read through the thread. Just because you don't agree with my position does not make my position unscriptural. It simply means that I do not interpret scripture the same as you do. I would suggest that at least one of us is wrong.

I have provided my scriptural evidence and the inferences which I have drawn from the evidence. If you don't agree, then fine. I haven't ridiculed your position, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't ridicule mine (that's probably too much to ask).

Unlike Buggman, you have yet to offer any scriptural refutation for anything I have proposed. For you, ridicule appears to be your only weapon. It seems to be the weapon of choice for my detractors on this thread.

[Lord_Calvinus]

You know, after reading this thread, I truly feel sorry for some people. They simply don't know how they look to thoughtful outsiders. They simply don't know what they say. And they are too headstrong to even be teachable.

[P-Marlowe]

It's just as much His body now as our current body will be our future body in Glory.

It is clear that our bodies will necessarily be changed...... to be like His.

Are you claiming that Jesus needed to have his body changed? Why? Was there some flaw in his physical make up which made Him unfit for Glory?

Are you claiming that the body that Jesus laid on the cross is not the same body that he caused to rise from the dead?

I had always understood (and I believe that scripture teaches) that the body that Christ took to the cross was the same body he took up to heaven.

Do you have any scriptural evidence that it wasn't? If so please provide it.

It basically comes down to this: Was Christ resurrected or recreated?

[Frumanchu]

For you, ridicule appears to be your only weapon. It seems to be the weapon of choice for my detractors on this thread.

Why is it that any word spoken against your position here is labelled "ridicule?" Seems rather abusive of the term.

I believe I backed up all my positions with scripture.

Please point me to the post where you cited Scripture in support of the fact that Christ has indestructible bones (which you define as "incorruptible"). I've asked you several times now for this and have yet to receive a response.

In fact, please provide us with the posts in which you Scripturally supported your positions that:

Adam was incorruptible before the Fall
Our desires to sin come from our physical bodies
The inability to feel pain is a sign of corruption
Pre-lapsarian Adam and pre-crucifixion Christ had indestructible bodies

My intention is not to mock or humiliate you, Marlowe. My intention is to find out what basis, beyond your own speculations, you have for the declarations you're making.