Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse (Revelation)

PFRS ^ | 10/03 | Tim Warner

[Frumanchu]

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

False dilemma: exclusion of any notion of change.

[HarleyD]

"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."

IOW, anyone who holds an earlier date is not "fair minded"? Rather bias don't you think given the disagreements over the past two centuries. You appear to be reasonable but your words states otherwise.

[topcat54]

This I can accept. I get confused however about the Preterist view on a visible 2nd coming. I have read a few books, and it just isn't discussed.

Which books have you been reading? A good starting point would be:

When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism by Keith Mathison

Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith Mathison

Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism Greg Bahnsen

[topcat54]

Well, setting aside for a moment your (mis)understanding of covenant theology, "covenant eschatology" is the technical name chosen by the hyper-preterists (those who teach that Christ's second coming was in AD70) to represent their views. It is not the view of virtually every person who is identified with covenant theology. In fact most folks who are in the covenant theology camp regard "covenant eschatology" (aka hyper-preterism) as a heresy.

See A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism

[topcat54]

Assuming that "1000 years" means "a really long time," how does that change the substance of the events that are predicted?

It generally doesn't, but there are things that go along with it.

Some things are just a result of our presuppositions as we approach Rev. 20. One presupposition is the question where is Christ during this "thousand years"? Contra the premil view Rev. 20 does not teach that Christ is physically located on tbe earth during the time represented by the phrase "a thousand years".

That is one substantive difference.

[P-Marlowe]

I'll be gone for a while, possibly until monday. Why don't you take a little time and scripturally refute each of my points. These areas are open to introspection. I do not claim that my position is the only position, but then not once has anyone scripturally refuted what I am being ridiculed for suggesting.

Why don't you provide scriptural evidence that Adam was mortal before the fall, that Christ's bones were even capable of being broken, in light of the fact that driving nails through his hands and feet did not accomplish the task, that a person who does not feel physical pain is not suffering from that condition because of a defect in his physical make up, or that Christ (before he laid down his own life) was even capable of being killed by any man or by some accident of nature.

I'll be back by monday to see whether or not you can scripturally refute any of those points.

[Frumanchu]

Another good read is R.C. Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus.

[Alex Murphy]

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.

See post #393, which you conveniently avoided responding to. If I sound like I'm ridiculing you, it's because I'm questioning whether I heard you right. I summarized your position, using descriptive word-pictures. Let's go over what you said, and what I said, okay?

If Jesus' visage was marred beyond recognition (a position I agree with), and that "marring" included a skin-rending scourging (no argument from me there), AND no one "sewed him up" at the resurrection, then we are forced to take your testimony to mean that when Jesus appeared to the disciples, every single wound He received was still open. That includes His skin being flayed open and missing whole sections from the scourging, and His visage still being "marred beyond recognition" from being struck in the face and his beard being pulled out (Isaiah 50:6).

Or I could summarize/harmonize all of your positions, and conclude that you think He looked like a zombie. That's not ridicule, that's brevity.And you're telling us that you never articulate a position that you can't defend with scripture.

Trust me, this is not ridicule. Ridiculing you isn't my intent--clarifying your position is, so that I'll know where my own detractor stands. Believe me, you'll know when I'm ridiculing you. Posters will go up, scale models and hand puppets will be constructed, and you'll receive a complimentary one-way ticket to Opening Night. No popcorn will be served, but free gyros and pizza and Vanilla Coke will be available at the concession stand.

I believe I backed up all my positions with scripture.

You're free to believe whatever you what, but it doesn't mean it's true. Frankly, it's your lack of a familiarity with scripture that gets you into trouble. Otherwise, you'd have remembered Buggman's "blood" verse and my "ghost" verse in advance, and never asserted that Jesus rose to appear as a bloodless walking mass of rended flesh. Your constant backpedaling, when we confront you with the rest of scripture, is clear evidence that you can't withstand scriptural cross-examination without changing your testimony.

[ksen]

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

Sure, to be like His is now.

Are you claiming that Jesus needed to have his body changed?

I'm not claiming that Jesus needed anything.

Why? Was there some flaw in his physical make up which made Him unfit for Glory?

• For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: - Rom 8:3(KJV)

Looks like Scripture clearly states that Christ was sent in the form of sinful flesh so the flesh He had during the Incarnation was the same as the flesh we have now.

And don't try to claim that I am saying that Jesus had sin, because I'm not.

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'm claiming it is not the same body He had during the Incarnation.

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.

Then you wouldn't mind posting the Scripture?

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

See Roamns 8:3 above.

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

Huh? We will be resurrected with the same kind of resurrection had, after all He is the firstfruits from the dead, and I Cor 15 clearly says that what will rise from our graves is not what will go in it.

• And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]: - I Cor 15:37ff (KJV)

[Alex Murphy]

The first to plead his case seems just,
until another comes and examines him.

Proverbs 18:17

[Buggman]

Ah, my apologies then. I didn't mean to group you in with the hyper-preterists. I suppose they took the term as a part of pushing the "consistant" preterist (as opposed to "hyper"-preterist) label.

[57chevypreterist]

After you read topcat's articles, you may want to check out the articles here:

http://www.preterist.org/articlesmedia.asp

There are articles that deal with many of misconceptions/misrepresentations about preterism.

Blessings to you in your studies!

[57chevypreterist]

I suppose they took the term as a part of pushing the "consistant" preterist (as opposed to "hyper"-preterist) label.

Actually, preterist means "past" in fulfillment, so anyone who adheres to some sort of futurist eschatology cannot be considered "preterist". "Partial preterists", so called, are really "partial futurists"!

Or as Rush says, "words mean things"!

;o)

Blessings in Messiah!

[topcat54]

Actually, preterist means "past" in fulfillment, so anyone who adheres to some sort of futurist eschatology cannot be considered "preterist". "Partial preterists", so called, are really "partial futurists"!

But even futurists believe some things happened in the past, so then by your thinking they can be called "partial preterists".

[topcat54]

Here's a good article that outlines the discussion and confusion even within the hyper-preterist camp: Five Views of the AD 70 Rapture and After. It's not clear which of the five views is most "consistent".

[Buggman]

lol I'll let you two work that one out.

[57chevypreterist]

But even futurists believe some things happened in the past, so then by your thinking they can be called "partial preterists".

Yes, I know. And I do call them "partial preterists", except when they call me "hyper-preterist" instead of "full preterist"! LOL ;o)

[xzins]

Amen.

I'm constantly amazed at those who can wave aside centuries of historic testimony & evidence just so their modern theory can have a chance to breathe....even if only on a respirator.

[Frumanchu]

Why don't you provide scriptural evidence that Adam was mortal before the fall

Because that's not the position you espoused, Marlowe. You said that Adam was "incorruptible." Had you said "uncorrupted" I would have no disagreement with you, but "incorruptible" is entirely different. On the one hand you say Adam's body was incorruptible, then turn right around and say it was corruptible by his own sin. Either his body is incorruptible or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

that Christ's bones were even capable of being broken,in light of the fact that driving nails through his hands and feet did not accomplish the task

Are you saying that it is impossible under normal circumstances to drive a nail through one's hand or foot without breaking the bones? Are you saying that the fact that not a bone in His body was broken must necessarily be because they couldn't be broken, to the exclusion of God's bringing this prophesy about by virtue of normal secondary causes?

Normal humans have breakable bones. Unless you can make a case from Scripture that the breakability of bones is exclusively an effect of the corruption of sin in the body (and yet somehow the destruction of flesh is not), then I don't need to prove something that common sense dictates.

that a person who does not feel physical pain is not suffering from that condition because of a defect in his physical make up

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." - Rev 21:4

So will we no longer feel physical pain because we no longer have physical bodies, or because we were raised incorruptible but given defects in our physical makeup?

or that Christ (before he laid down his own life) was even capable of being killed by any man

OK, I'll play it your way. Luke 4:29-30 "29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl him off the cliff. 30 But he passed through the midst of them and went on his way."

Why bother escaping? It's not like the fall would have killed him, right?

"1After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews[a] were seeking to kill him." - John 7:1

Why did He avoid the Jews simply because they were seeking to do something He knew they couldn't do?

"59So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple." -John 8:59

Why did He hide Himself if He could not be killed?

Is He not the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world?

or by some accident of nature.

Oh come on, Marlowe. You're asking a Calvinist to look for Scriptural proof of an "accident of nature."

There are no accidents, Marlowe :)

[57chevypreterist]

I'm constantly amazed at those who can wave aside centuries of historic testimony & evidence just so their modern theory can have a chance to breathe....even if only on a respirator.

And I'm constantly amazed at those who can wave aside "scripture is to interpret scripture" just so they can interpret the scriptures using extra-biblical sources such as written historical accounts, church traditions/creeds, and personal observations.

Personally, I'm extremely glad that folks such as Martin Luther and other Reformers were willing to "wave aside centuries of historic testimony & evidence just so their modern theory can have a chance to breathe." ;o)