The Bible, and therefore preterism, is true and correct [Archive]

Mike Beidler

6th June 2002, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Autumn
I appreciate all of your references.

The Kingdom of God is here and was not ushered in with visible sign. The Kingdom of God is the Holy Spirit and rules in every Christian. However, in Matthew 24:30 "And then at last, the sign of the coming of the Son of Man will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the nations of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man arrive on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
When did this happen?

From Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter 5, Section 3, "The Signs That Preceded The Destruction"

Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one-and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence."

If I'm not mistaken, Christ is to come with his "holy ones," or angels, and the "trump of God" will sound with the voice of an archangel.

That's if you want to get physically literal about it. On the other (spiritual, yet equally literal) hand, God came numerous times against other nations (e.g., Babylon, Edom, etc.) and the judgment of God against them is described in very similar apocalyptic language. The whole notion of "coming on the clouds" and darkening the sun, reddening the moon, and collapsing the stars, was non-literal language that ALL the ancient nations (incl. Israel) understood to mean that political upheaval was extremely near ... that the end of whatever political/socio-economic/religious system was experiencing the judgment of God was "at hand" and will happen "soon" and very "quickly."

It is indisputable that those judgments against those ancient nations (described in Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc.) were fulfilled in history. Yet nowhere do we find historical documentation of those "signs in the sky," or a literal "coming on the clouds." So why do you expect the same literalism when it came to the judgment upon Israel?

(I will concede that it is possible the records of those nations' destructions -- accompanied by literal, physical fulfillments of the apocalyptic language -- may have been lost over the ages. But if you believe this to be the case, then you surely can't discount the accounts Josephus recorded.)

Mike Beidler

6th June 2002, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Autumn
In Luke 17:34-35 it speaks of people being raptured and others being left behind.

Luke only speaks of a taking away (presumably to judgment) and a leaving behind. I do not see a physical rapture here.

If Christ came in 70 AD then isn't His reign of 1000 years over and isn't Satan's as well? [/B]

:::using my best Ed McMahon voice::: THAT IS CORRECT, SIR!

coastie

6th June 2002, 09:19 PM

Luke only speaks of a taking away (presumably to judgment) and a leaving behind. I do not see a physical rapture here.

There are so many holes in this that you are not considering, sir.

First of all, if Satan is already in the lake of fire, why is there still so much sin in the world? If Jesus has already has his thousand year reign, why is there no historical record of him from A.D. 70 to 1070?

Who was the anti-christ? Explain the chain fo events leading to and after Israel as fitting to biblical context. None of these things can be historically backed up.

However, if you do not take the Bible literally, to what point do you stop interpretting your own meaning? The individual's interpretation fo the Bible has lead to many many detestable acts by people who claimed to be Christina and do things in the name of (their interpretation of) the Bible.

Eventually, what is the value of the Bible if all things can be interpetted one way or another? It has no substantiated moral value at that point. Show me biblically where the Bible draws the line at personal interpretation and maybe then I will consider your inferrences to have value in spiritual claims as contraversial as these.

Zach

davo

6th June 2002, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by coastie
...if you do not take the Bible literally, to what point do you stop interpretting your own meaning? ...Show me biblically where the Bible draws the line at personal interpretation and maybe then I will consider your inferrences to have value in spiritual claims as contraversial as these.

Zach

G'day Zach :) Do you beleive this verse literally, without putting your interpretation on it:

John 6:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

If you answer YES -then literally only those who saw Jesus does this promise apply to -what about the rest of us?

If you answer NO -but qualify your "no," then you are giving us your interpretation. Now interpretations are ok so long as you don't ignore context or established theological theme. We all know that "in believing" we see Jesus -a spiritual reality [not just post death], but rejecting dealing with scriptures, just because in your eyes "litrality" is not adhered to only shows your own misunderstanding and bias [IMO].

davo

Auntie

6th June 2002, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by parousia70

The Bible, and therefore preterism, is true and correct.

And therefore preterism is the authority in all Bible interpretation.

And therefore preterism usurps all church authority, Catholic and Protestant alike.

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

And therefore all churches, Catholic and Protestant alike, teach false doctrines--except preterist churches.

And therefore, the millions and millions of churches/believers have all been deluded for 1000's of years, and somehow they all just "missed" this MAJOR event of Christ's 2nd Coming.

coastie

6th June 2002, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by davo

G'day Zach :) Do you beleive this verse literally, without putting your interpretation on it:

John 6:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

If you answer YES -then literally only those who saw Jesus does this promise apply to -what about the rest of us?

If you answer NO -but qualify your "no," then you are giving us your interpretation. Now interpretations are ok so long as you don't ignore context or established theological theme. We all know that "in believing" we see Jesus -a spiritual reality [not just post death], but rejecting dealing with scriptures, just because in your eyes "litrality" is not adhered to only shows your own misunderstanding and bias [IMO].

davo

Davo... the verse is not exclusionary brother. It doesn't say that those of us who do not see Him are not going to heaven.

Zach

davo

6th June 2002, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by coastie
Davo... the verse is not exclusionary brother. It doesn't say that those of us who do not see Him are not going to heaven.

Zach

Beautiful! -thanks for interpreting that for me :clap:

davo

parousia70

6th June 2002, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Thunderchild

Hebrews 8:13 seems to be a mis-type. I can't find any correlation with a reference to the temple.

You are correct. I meant to type Hebrews 9:8, but Davo did a fine Job of drawing a corelation anyway!

I have edited the original post to reflect this correction, Thank you for pointing it out.

coastie

6th June 2002, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by davo

Beautiful! -thanks for interpreting that for me :clap:

davo

That is not the same type of interpretation. I am not giving the text new meaning through explaining what it says. That is clearly what Mr. Beidler was doing. Giving the text new meaning through personal interpretation.

parousia70

6th June 2002, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by coastie

There are so many holes in this that you are not considering, sir.

First of all, if Satan is already in the lake of fire, why is there still so much sin in the world?

Here's a few holes you seem to be overlooking yourself ;)

Perhaps you could point me to the scripture that says in order for sin to be in the world, Satan has to be "working it" or "behind it" somehow. Take your time.

From everything I have found, scripture testifies that the heart of man is wicked above all else (Satan included),(Jeremiah 17:9) and that man is fully capable of sin all by himself, and he sins when he is drawn away by his own lusts(James 1:14).
Nothing in scripture suppports the kind of "Flip Wilson" theology you seem to be implying here (The Devil made me do it). In fact scripture is clear that Sinners continue to dwell in the New Heavens and earth. (Isaiah 65:17-23, Revelation 21 & 22))

Originally posted by coastie
If Jesus has already has his thousand year reign, why is there no historical record of him from A.D. 70 to 1070?

Preterists differ on what the 1000 years referrs to, however the original Greek for "thousand ,"Chilioi", means "plural of uncertain affinity", In fact the early Church officially condemned "millennialism" as Heresy.

I believe that the "millennium" was fulfilled in the time between the ascention and 70 AD, but was representative of the consumation of the Davidic Monarchy, lasting from King David, first in the lineage, to Christ the King, Last and eternal King. A time period of 1000 years.

Originally posted by coastie
Who was the anti-christ?

No such thing as "The" antichrist.
Antichrist is a church heresy that manifested among the apostles' flocks in the 1st century. This heresy proved to St. John that the final hour of the last days had come upon him (1 John 2:18-19).

"Antichrist" is a heresy. It is a heresy that affected Christians among the apostles' first century flocks, and was a sign of the final hour of the last days (1 John 2:18-19). The christians who were affected by this spirit "went out from" (i.e. "left") the apostolic congregations to chase the heresy and teach it to many others. These apostate Christians were called "many deceivers" in 2 John 1:7:

"For MANY DECEIVERS are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:7)

"As you have heard that antichrist would come, even now there are MANY ANTICHRISTS, by which we know it is the last hour. They WENT OUT FROM US, but they were not OF us..."(1 John 2:18-19).

They had left the apostles flocks after being in them for some time. These apostate christians are mentioned again in 1 John 4:1-3, where St. John also calls those under the heresy of antichrist "MANY FALSE PROPHETS." Surely Matt 24:11,24 and Acts 20:29-30 were coming to pass in the mind of St. John as a sign of the impending end.

IN SUM
Antichrist is not a world-ruler secular leader dude that has power over the world, or even one single nation. Antichrist is a heresy, or a spirit of heresy that manifested among MANY Christians in the apostles' flocks in the 60s AD causing them to deny that one had to have Jesus to have the Father (1 John 2:22-24) and causing them to proclaim that Jesus never actually came in real human flesh (1 John 4:2-3; 2 John 1:7).

It never ceases to amaze me how much mythology has been built up over 2000 years on this idea of a Mr. Antichrist world ruler dude. No such thing exists anywhere in the bible, yet so many Christians buy into it hook, line, and sinker -- thanks to Hal Lindsey, J. Hagee, LaHaye, and other so-called "prophecy experts."

Originally posted by coastie
However, if you do not take the Bible literally, to what point do you stop interpretting your own meaning?

Sir, I contend you are no literalist. You rely on spiritualization and allegory to formulate your own personal interpratation.

Case in point:
Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave Him to show His servants things which must shortly take place.

Allegorization and spiritualization is the only way one can stretch "Shortly" into 2000+ years.

Peace,
P70

Mike Beidler

6th June 2002, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by coastie
First of all, if Satan is already in the lake of fire, why is there still so much sin in the world?

James 1:14-15 says, "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death."

If Jesus has already has his thousand year reign, why is there no historical record of him from A.D. 70 to 1070?

Show me in Revelation 20 where it says Jesus physically reigned on earth. Also, where are the thrones located? This should give you an idea from where the beheaded saints reign from. And if they reign with Christ, then Christ must also with them in this location.

As for the 1000 years, can you prove to me using the book of Revelation that I should take this number literally? Is the dragon literal? Is the chain with which Satan is bound literal? Is there an actual key to the Abyss? Do you take everything in Revelation literally?

Who was the anti-christ? Explain the chain fo events leading to and after Israel as fitting to biblical context. None of these things can be historically backed up.

Before I answer that question, can you prove to me that the Antichrist (using that very term) is a single person?

However, if you do not take the Bible literally, to what point do you stop interpretting your own meaning?

Oh, I do take the Bible literally. But what you're wanting me to do is ascribe physical wings to God, right? (See Psalms 17:8; 36:7; 57:1; 61:4; and 91:4.) Before you go slapping a particular interpretation on a particular verse or passage, you need to identify what type of literature you're reading. What type of literature is Revelation?

The individual's interpretation fo the Bible has lead to many many detestable acts by people who claimed to be Christina and do things in the name of (their interpretation of) the Bible.

Sounds like you want an infallible interpreter. Check your local listings for the nearest Catholic Church or Kingdom Hall.

Eventually, what is the value of the Bible if all things can be interpetted one way or another? It has no substantiated moral value at that point.

Again, you want a Bible that can't be twisted to fit someone's agenda, right? Too bad. Even Peter and Paul confronted this problem: "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16, NASB).

But I ask you this: what makes your view superior to mine?

Show me biblically where the Bible draws the line at personal interpretation and maybe then I will consider your inferrences to have value in spiritual claims as contraversial as these.

2 Peter 1:20-21 says, "Above all, you do well if you recognize this: no prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet's own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (NET, www.netbible.org). I simply believe what the Bible says because God spoke it into existence through his prophets and apostles. If Jesus said He was coming back while the present generation was still alive, then I believe that He did. It's up to me to prove, through history, that He did exactly that.

Now my challenge to you is this: prove to me that Jesus meant some other generation than the one he was speaking to.

davo

6th June 2002, 11:05 PM

Well coastie, looking at your post #9: If you were the devil, which interpretation would you rather be correct: an interpretation that says he's [Satan] running amuk -tempting, harassing and basically beating up on God's children -and not only that, there's worse to come!

OR

an interpretation that says Jesus totally defeated Satan and slam-dunked him into the Lake of Fire when He came in His Parousia near 2000 years ago!

If you were the devil -which would you want to be true???

If you want to argue about SIN -argue with St Paul, he said sin came into the world through Adam.

This worlds problem is SIN -not Satan, it's DOUBT -not the Devil. The heart of man is evil and corrupt ABOVE ALL else -Jer 17:9.

Paul also said: "give no place to the devil" -"futurism" virtually gives him equal billing with God :( . While he's tempting you there, he's whispering in my ear here [omnipresent???? :( ] The truth is: "each one is drawn aside by his own desires and enticed..." We don't need the devil for us to sin -we do it by ourselves.

Fortunately for us Christ's salvation IS complete and we have eternal forgiveness.

davo

coastie

6th June 2002, 11:15 PM

Whoa whoa... I started replying to P70's and all of the sudden I have two more... sheesh, I'm getting ganged up on here! :)

I can't take on the three of yours posts here. Pick one for me to concentrate on here.

Mike Beidler

6th June 2002, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by coastie
Whoa whoa... I started replying to P70's and all of the sudden I have two more... sheesh, I'm getting ganged up on here! :)

I can't take on the three of yours posts here. Pick one for me to concentrate on here.

Hmmmmmm ... you replied to MY posting and accused me of quite a bit. I suggest you pick on me for a while. :wave:

coastie

6th June 2002, 11:36 PM

LOL... I prefer the term "discuss with you" to "pick on you". ;) I need some time though, I'm low on resources when I'm at work. :sigh:

solo66 man

7th June 2002, 12:01 AM

As you all have agreed, I believe, you are saying it is all a matter of interpretation. You preterists have some very good points and are almost convincing. I am not one to be up on prophesy and the like. But I have a need to throw a monkey wrench of sorts into your arguement of times, time and timing.
Let me just present these few verses to see what your response is.
Psalm 90

3 You turn men back to dust,
saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men."

4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

And,

2 Peter 3

7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

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

9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

As you can see, looking at time as is presented here, your accounting of time is quite different than God's.
So, you seperate understanding the prophesy in the bible from the spiritual view. I suggest you rethink your position as is evidenced in Genisis. God told Adam that if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would surely die. By your logic, as soon as they ate from the tree, they would have faced a certain physical death.
But is clear it was a spiritual death. It is this way throughout the bible. This tells me that the spiritual interpretation you consider false is true or not false.

Auntie

7th June 2002, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by parousia70

Perhaps you could point me to the scripture that says in order for sin to be in the world, Satan has to be "working it" or "behind it" somehow.

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

1st John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

Mike Beidler

7th June 2002, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

1st John 3:8
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.

No argument there. Satan certainly fathered sin, but it does not make him the direct cause of sin in our lives. As human beings with a fallen nature, we need no prompting from the Devil. The seed is not the same as the father.

Mike Beidler

7th June 2002, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by solo66 man
Psalm 90

3 You turn men back to dust,
saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men."
4 For a thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night.

This is simply stating that God is outside of time and the creator of it. No connection to prophecy.

2 Peter 3

7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Although most people would say that this verse teaches that God is the creator of time, and thus outside of it, I believe it may be connected to Revelation 20. :idea:

Peter wrote this letter toward the end of his life during the reign of Nero and there is a distinct possibility that it was written after Revelation (if one holds to the position that Revelation was written during the reign of Nero as well). If so, Peter may be attempting to assuage those individuals who were confused over the nature of the Millennium and its proper length. The scoffers may have had an understanding that they were in the last days, but the generation Christ spoke of that would witness his return in judgment was almost gone. (Many commentators believe that the "fathers" in 2 Peter 3:4 was a reference to those first Christians who died :sick: after Christ's death and resurrection, e.g., James, Stephen, etc.)

These scoffers :mad:, mentioned in 2 Peter 3:3, believing Christ's prophecy to be on the brink of failure, began to follow after their own lusts and mock the church. Peter may have been attempting to convince them that the Millennium (Jesus' "long time" :sleep:; see Matthew 25:19) was soon to end and Jesus' return was imminent. Essentially, Peter was holding up a sign that read: THE END IS COMING! hoping to bring them "to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

I suggest you rethink your position as is evidenced in Genisis. God told Adam that if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would surely die. By your logic, as soon as they ate from the tree, they would have faced a certain physical death.
But is clear it was a spiritual death. It is this way throughout the bible. This tells me that the spiritual interpretation you consider false is true or not false.

You make a profound distinction between physical and spiritual death, one that is key in tackling the correct understanding of man's "resurrection" and/or "rapture." :clap:

Man, I love these smilies!!!!

coastie

7th June 2002, 12:37 AM

James 1:14-15 says, "But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death."

KJV reads "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust and is enticed." (closest simlar translation is "trapped")Did he entice himself? Hmmmm.

"Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." I don't see how that portion proved your point though.

In reference to your assertions... Chew on this for a little while:Mat 13:37-40

He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked (one);
The enemy that sowed them is the devil ; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Show me in Revelation 20 where it says Jesus physically reigned on earth. Also, where are the thrones located? This should give you an idea from where the beheaded saints reign from. And if they reign with Christ, then Christ must also with them in this location.

Rev 20:4

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and [I saw] the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

I will allow others to get what they want out of this, but it sure appears to me that those people would be the one's (just like you and I) who did not accept the mark of the beast.

The one's be-headed would be whom, by your interpretation?
I see no where that it says that they are saints.

What do you think the mark of the beast is/was?

20:1 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shal go out to deceive the four quarters of the Earth, Gog and Magog to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

How do you explain this away?

As for the 1000 years, can you prove to me using the book of Revelation that I should take this number literally?

That's tautology, can you prove to me that it shouldn't be? :P

Is the dragon literal?

The Bible says what the dragon is

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years."

Is there an actual key to the Abyss?

How would I know? I assume so since the Bible says there is. Maybe it isn't a key like we know a key to be, but then again, maybe it is an old skeleton key or something.

Do you take everything in Revelation literally?

Not the part about the Dragon :)... because the Bible tells me otherwise. I don't question God, he let's me know what I need to know.

Before I answer that question, can you prove to me that the Antichrist (using that very term) is a single person?

1 john 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, where of ye have heard that it (hey look, that's a singular word); and even now it is in the world.

What type of literature is Revelation?

The infallible word of God that needs no help from us for it to have meaning. :)(Yes I understood the question)

Sounds like you want an infallible interpreter. Check your local listings for the nearest Catholic Church or Kingdom Hall.

We all do the best we can, whether you are right or wrong is ultimately up to God, I'm just trying to help.

What is that supposed to mean about the "Catholic Church, of Kingdom Hall"?

But I ask you this: what makes your view superior to mine?

Why do you use the term Superior? Is that a little sarcastic jab? No I do not believe that the church's (not mine) beliefs are superior... just correct.

prove to me that Jesus meant some other generation than the one he was speaking to.

I'd say that the fact that he didn't return is proof enough wouldn't you?

Defender of the Faith 777

7th June 2002, 12:56 AM

Like a said, I'm a way-newbie, and so I'll post questions already asked if you don't mind.

If we're living in New Jerusalem, isn't Satan supposed to be in the abyss, the demons in the lake of fire?

Aren't we supposed to dwell with God here?

Why is there sin if this is truly the New Jerusalem from heaven?

coastie

7th June 2002, 12:59 AM

I asked that question already brother... Watch for fiery darts ;)

Auntie

7th June 2002, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

Satan certainly fathered sin, but it does not make him the direct cause of sin in our lives. As human beings with a fallen nature, we need no prompting from the Devil. The seed is not the same as the father.

Even Jesus was tempted of the devil:
Mt 4:1
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

And this verse is a clear warning to all Christians:
1st Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour

I used to have a tom cat named Rascal. He would hide in the shrubs and observe the birds, squirrels, rabbits etc. Rascal was waiting for the perfect moment to pounce on whichever creature was not paying attention to their surroundings. So which creature did Rascal always get? The one that thought Rascal was not there.

If you believe the devil is not around, perhaps he has already ensnared you, and devoured you with his lies.

Mike Beidler

7th June 2002, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um

Even Jesus was tempted of the devil

I never said Satan never tempted anyone. I'm just saying Satan's not necessary for temptation to begin.

And this verse is a clear warning to all Christians: 1st Peter 5:8
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour

Indeed, this was a very dire warning ... but to whom? Again, 1 Peter was most likely written during the reign of Nero and the "short time" that Satan had (Rev 12:12) after he was released from the Abyss (Rev 20:7). This was a warning to his immediate readers!!! According to consistent preterism, this warning no longer applies to Christians of today. Rather, we are victims of our own desires (James 1:14-15).

If you believe the devil is not around, perhaps he has already ensnared you, and devoured you with his lies.

Satan has no power over me. I'm covered by the blood of the Lamb! :bow:

Auntie

7th June 2002, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

Indeed, this was a very dire warning ... but to whom?

According to consistent preterism, this warning no longer applies to Christians of today.

According to the MILLIONS of Christians who have gone before us, this warning does apply to us today.

davo

7th June 2002, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
I used to have a tom cat named Rascal. He would hide in the shrubs and observe the birds, squirrels, rabbits etc. Rascal was waiting for the perfect moment to pounce on whichever creature was not paying attention to their surroundings. So which creature did Rascal always get? The one that thought Rascal was not there.

One can't speak for Rascal, but if we go to the Bible we see Sin, not Satan crouching in the bushes ready to pounce -or was that hiding behind the door :)

Genesis 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."

I'll take the Word any day over dear ole Rascal.

davo

gwyyn

7th June 2002, 01:58 AM

ok one minute it's satan is no longer here, and then it's satan is here

can we make up our minds????????

Mike Beidler

7th June 2002, 02:15 AM

Originally posted by coastie

In reference to your assertions... Chew on this for a little while:Mat 13:37-40

I have no problem with this passage. Satan certainly planted some pretty bad seeds. But remember ... the farmer need not be there to watch what grows.

I will allow others to get what they want out of this, but it sure appears to me that those people would be the one's (just like you and I) who did not accept the mark of the beast.

That's correct. Certain Christians (i.e., martyrs for the faith) had the distinct pleasure of entering the presence of God earlier than the rest of the dead in Christ, who (according to preterist eschatology) did not rise until AD 70.

The one's be-headed would be whom, by your interpretation? I see no where that it says that they are saints.

They have to be. Saints are what Christians are!

What do you think the mark of the beast is/was?

In the OT Law, God told the Israelites to bind His word to their foreheads and hands. Today, you can see that Orthodox Jews take this literally and wear phylacteries on their foreheads and hands with little scriptures contained in the boxes. What this did for the Jews was remind them that their actions (with their hands) and their thoughts (with their heads) had to remain captive to God's word in all instances.

The mark of the beast, I believe, was emperor worship through both thought and/or deed, corresponding with the figurative mark on the head and/or hand.

20:1 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shal go out to deceive the four quarters of the Earth, Gog and Magog to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

How do you explain this away?

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. As for the identification of Gog/Magog, it very well may refer to the return of Pharisiacal Jews from Asia Minor to persecute the Christians in Judea prior to the onset of the Jewish War against Rome. God essentially gathered the wicked Jews in order to bring about their destruction.

I just found this online. It may be of some help. http://www.preterist.org/articles-old/ezekiel_38_39.htm

1 john 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, where of ye have heard that it (hey look, that's a singular word); and even now it is in the world.

The "it" is referring to the spirit (SINGULAR!) of antichrist. It is a general sprit, like a spirit of contentiousness, or a spirit of compassion. Greek grammar demands the singular-ness of "it."

What is that supposed to mean about the "Catholic Church, or Kingdom Hall"?

Both the Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses (aka The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, who meet in churches called "Kingdom Halls") claim to be infallible interpreters of the Scriptures.

Why do you use the term Superior? Is that a little sarcastic jab?

Nope. I simply assumed you believe your views to be superior to mine just as I believe my views to be superior to yours. ;)

No I do not believe that the church's (not mine) beliefs are superior... just correct.

Ah, but a correct view is inherently superior. :P

I'd say that the fact that he didn't return is proof enough wouldn't you?

Ah, the crux of the issue. I do believe He returned already! But you fail to see that. I don't blame you. Neither did I a few months ago.

Auntie

7th June 2002, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by davo

Genesis 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."

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?????

Mandy

7th June 2002, 02:27 AM

Magog is Russia. It seems according to Scripture, in 2 Timothy to be exact, there were preterists.

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

davo

7th June 2002, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by solo66 man
...God told Adam that if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would surely die. By your logic, as soon as they ate from the tree, they would have faced a certain physical death.
But is clear it was a spiritual death. It is this way throughout the bible. This tells me that the spiritual interpretation you consider false is true or not false.

g'day solo66 :wave: -can you explain again what you're saying here -what you say about spiritual death in the garden is exactly where it's at -from the "fulfilled" position, and I naturally agree, yet the tone of your post seems to be a challenge of soughts. I may have missed something somewhere, but who's saying the "spiritual interpretation is false?"

davo

Mike Beidler

7th June 2002, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by Mandy
Magog is Russia.

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.

It seems according to Scripture, in 2 Timothy to be exact, there were preterists. 2Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

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. :P

Thunderchild

7th June 2002, 02:44 AM

Aye, sin was referred to as him. Wisdom was referred to as her - and that because the Hebrew has "he" and "she," but not "it."

Thunderchild

7th June 2002, 02:52 AM

Hmmmm. I'll copy this to Word so as I can give it proper attention.

If you answer NO -but qualify your "no," then you are giving us your interpretation. Now interpretations are ok so long as you don't ignore context or established theological theme. We all know that "in believing" we see Jesus -a spiritual reality [not just post death], but rejecting dealing with scriptures, just because in your eyes "litrality" is not adhered to only shows your own misunderstanding and bias

That would depend on whether the Bible itself provides (through the mentioned "proper context") a proper interpretation of what is written that goes beyond the literal. If other passages, for example, show that "seeing" means not "looking at" but "perceiving the existence of," then it is perfectly in order to give a qualified no.

davo

7th June 2002, 02:56 AM

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

7th June 2002, 03:23 AM

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. :P

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

7th June 2002, 05:03 AM

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

7th June 2002, 10:29 AM

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??? :scratch:

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? :scratch:

Mandy

7th June 2002, 10:30 AM

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

7th June 2002, 10:34 AM

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

7th June 2002, 10:48 AM

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??? :scratch:

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? :scratch:

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

7th June 2002, 10:50 AM

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

7th June 2002, 11:02 AM

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

7th June 2002, 11:05 AM

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

7th June 2002, 11:06 AM

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

7th June 2002, 12:54 PM

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 , [b]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

7th June 2002, 01:00 PM

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

7th June 2002, 01:11 PM

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

7th June 2002, 01:23 PM

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 wouldn’t 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 didn’t follow through with His judgment? What would they think of God? That He can’t be trusted? That He speaks empty words and threats? That He lied?

Let’s 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 God’s 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 Christ’s 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? It’s simple. We don’t. 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

7th June 2002, 01:37 PM

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

7th June 2002, 01:47 PM

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

7th June 2002, 03:12 PM

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. :scratch:

Wildfire

7th June 2002, 03:30 PM

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

7th June 2002, 05:27 PM

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 people’s 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 don’t 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 don’t 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

Wildfire

7th June 2002, 08:06 PM

Ozark, thank you. I do remember your question and I did respond on that thread. But please understand that my time on this forum is usually brief, so I do not know the members well enough to remember what their responses were to me.
Now, concerning what you have written; yes, I agree with part of what you have said. The kingdom of God is within us, because we are told it does not come from observation. I happen to be someone who does not take the "rapture" as being physical; many are depending on this to happen, based on the scripture you provided, and I see that as being spiritual.
However, this world will not continue on and on, with no direction from God. That is foolish thinking; because we are told that he (God) is the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. And just as there was a beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, there will be an ending, when God intercedes at his chosen and appointed time.
Jesus did not return yet; the destruction of the temple in 70AD was not the fulfillment of his prophecy. Surely, you being understanding of the carnal and the spiritual man, can see that?
Have you ever read the book of Revelation; and if so, do you not see that there will be an end to all of life in this world where we now live?
The new earth and the new Jerusalem, is promised to us by the creator himself. We are not living in that world yet. He is coming back. I hope you can try to see that, my friend.

Wildfire

Ozarkpreterist

7th June 2002, 11:06 PM

Wildfire, thank you. I understand what you are saying. At the risk of sounding like a post- millennialist, It does seem logical that something finite, as is the creation, cannot last forever. However, it is built to last a very very long time. Perhaps one of the other preterists can give us some insights on this.

One thing that bothers me about the pre-millenial view is that it seems to doom the church to failure. If the kingdom of God is indeed within us, do we not have everything we need to bring healing to the nations? I John 4:17 says concerning the church "...as He is so also are we in the world." Moreover, even if you think the Devil has not been destroyed, John still tells us in I John 4:4 that "...greater is He who is within you than he who is in the world." Paul, in Ephesians one and two speaks of the church being seated with Him in the heavenly places and as being above all rule and authority. Revelation one tells us that we have been made KINGS and priests through Christ. Even if you do not view these scriptures from a preterist perspective, it still does not look like the church is the underdog on this planet.

I don't see even in the final chapters of revelation that the church will ever make the world entirely Christian, but from the book as a whole I think we could make a good case that the kingdom of God will someday come to dominate the nations of the earth. Therefore, I do not see that the world is running out of control. Instead, I see that the kingdom of God is increasing (although, sometimes seemingly slowly) on the earth.

Ozark

davo

8th June 2002, 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Mandy
2 Timothy in no way debunks the fact of the physical resurrection.

You need to go back and read my post #43 again. Let me make it a little easier to understand:

If the 1st century saints believed the resurrection to be in the same manner that you and other 21st century futurists believe i.e., a reconstituted materialistic physical bodily resurrection, out of literal graves -remember you're saying they believed as you do in a physical bodily resurrection: then how was it possible for some to be led astray after the likes of Hymenaeus and Philetus' teaching, that the resurrection had already past? IF they believed [remember, they were Christians] in a physical resurrection as you do, all someone had to do was look around and they would have said -"well where's the evidence, no open graves, I don't see any physical change etc -NOTHING'S CHANGED!" Put simply, Paul could have appealed to all this "lack of a physical resurrection" evidence -yet he and no one else then did.

And do you know why? -because Paul and the 1st century believers WERE NOT EXPECTING A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION! So, 2Tim 2:18 that you put forward to imply that the preteristic understanding of Biblical resurrection is heresy like that of Hymenaeus and Philetus, actually proves our position to be correct and and leaves you dangling by your own noose. [still confused? read it again]

Originally posted by Mandy
The resurrection hasn't happened yet, so no one has seen anything if indeed it is something that would be seen by the unredeemed...

Say what!? Now your favourite verse -"every eye shall see...," miraculously doesn't apply any more -well, how convenient. [So what -are you now denying the resurrection at the same time as the Parousia as well?] -I love the flexibilty of dispensational theology :( [and I use "theology" with reservation] -at least you're consistent. :(

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.

Well let's quote it and see if as you say "it is indeed physical death WILL BE ABOLISHED":

2Tim 1:10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has [present tense] abolished death and brought [present tense] life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Seeing as this verse that Paul wrote is in the present tense logic says the death mentioned CANNOT be physical as you say, as people were still dying -it was spiritual death i.e., separation from God, it was this that Jesus rectified through the Cross and that was coming to fruition in their yet expected "Day of the Lord" -His Parousia.

Jesus said in-kind in Jn 8:51 "...if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death."

And again in Jn 11:26 "And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Looking through the distorted lense of futurism you make Jesus out to be a liar -He however spoke the truth, yet you are in gross error -not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

davo

Wildfire

8th June 2002, 08:48 AM

Ozark, what you have written is something to sit and think about. Yes, I agree that there is strength among those who believe, as the disciples have instructed. Were their words of comfort written on our behalf, so that we may find comfort in this world and in times of tribulation? Do you remember what jesus said about the comforter, being the spirit of truth, whom this world cannot recieve? And if we <ask> him come to us, he will guide us to all truth and understanding?
No, I don't believe that satan has been released yet; in Revelation he comes out of the abyss/ bottomless pit at the appointed time--with wrath against those who keep the commandments of God (because his time is short). And after he (Satan) overcomes the two witnesses, who spoke against him during the great tribulation, then the time for peace will come. Jesus returns to the earth with the saints to overcome the beast/satan and restore peace.
We cannot do this without his help; but remember, that blessed are those who do his work, for greater is he in the kingdom of heaven. It is <good> to be persecuted, it is <good> to be ridiculed, because Jesus himself suffered all of these things. Do you see the pattern of this world in relation of the life of Jesus? We are living in a lukewarm time of the church; (church=people) there is little fear among many regarding God. He has become a joke on television, an angry song on the radio, a moneymaking oppurtunity. (remember Jesus overturning the tables in the temple-can you imagine what he would do today!)
We are told that in the last days there will be a thirst for God, a thirst for the Word of God. But in the world you will have <affliction> but BE OF GOOD CHEER, FOR I HAVE OVERCOME THE WORLD.

Wildfire

davo

8th June 2002, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Wildfire
We are living in a lukewarm time of the church;

That's interesting, who exactly are you meaning by "church" and what about "lukewarm'?

davo

Wildfire

8th June 2002, 10:58 AM

Hi Davo, the church has not been referred to in the bible as a building, but a group of people. The correct translation in greek of the word church was (assembly). Lukewarm means not hot or cold. Just blah, inbetween, driftng; kinda reminds me of those who are at (church) in a physical sense, but not spiritually.
I see a very laid back attitude in the world with Jesus Christ and Gods word. Yada, yada, yada. Who cares? There is little fear among men, with consequences of their actions or the breaking of his commandments.
This fast paced, busy world has no time for Christ. Whats has subsituted reading the bible to your children, is watching television. I am in no way condemning that, because I too watch tv with my kids, but I also make time to impress upon them, how <important> it is to have a strong relationship with God.
To me, there is nothing sacred left in this world. Everything has been drug out of the closet and there is nothing left hidden inside. What used to be blasphemous, sinful, and wrong is now acceptable and common among people.
Just my own thoughts.

Wildfire

Auntie

8th June 2002, 12:06 PM

Wildfire,

I really like your posts, very very much. You speak the truth, from the heart of God.

Thank you, brother Wildfire.

Mandy

8th June 2002, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by davo

You need to go back and read my post #43 again. Let me make it a little easier to understand:

If the 1st century saints believed the resurrection to be in the same manner that you and other 21st century futurists believe i.e., a reconstituted materialistic physical bodily resurrection, out of literal graves -remember you're saying they believed as you do in a physical bodily resurrection: then how was it possible for some to be led astray after the likes of Hymenaeus and Philetus' teaching, that the resurrection had already past? IF they believed [remember, they were Christians] in a physical resurrection as you do, all someone had to do was look around and they would have said -"well where's the evidence, no open graves, I don't see any physical change etc -NOTHING'S CHANGED!" Put simply, Paul could have appealed to all this "lack of a physical resurrection" evidence -yet he and no one else then did.

And do you know why? -because Paul and the 1st century believers WERE NOT EXPECTING A PHYSICAL RESURRECTION! So, 2Tim 2:18 that you put forward to imply that the preteristic understanding of Biblical resurrection is heresy like that of Hymenaeus and Philetus, actually proves our position to be correct and and leaves you dangling by your own noose. [still confused? read it again]

Say what!? Now your favourite verse -"every eye shall see...," miraculously doesn't apply any more -well, how convenient. [So what -are you now denying the resurrection at the same time as the Parousia as well?] -I love the flexibilty of dispensational theology :( [and I use "theology" with reservation] -at least you're consistent. :(

Well let's quote it and see if as you say "it is indeed physical death WILL BE ABOLISHED":

2Tim 1:10 but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has [present tense] abolished death and brought [present tense] life and immortality to light through the gospel,

Seeing as this verse that Paul wrote is in the present tense logic says the death mentioned CANNOT be physical as you say, as people were still dying -it was spiritual death i.e., separation from God, it was this that Jesus rectified through the Cross and that was coming to fruition in their yet expected "Day of the Lord" -His Parousia.

Jesus said in-kind in Jn 8:51 "...if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death."

And again in Jn 11:26 "And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?"

Looking through the distorted lense of futurism you make Jesus out to be a liar -He however spoke the truth, yet you are in gross error -not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.

davo

In 2 Timothy 1:10 Paul is speaking about spiritual death, which is why it is written in the tense it is; it is very clear and that should be very clear to a preterist since the resurrection hadn't happened yet, when 2 Timothy was written. Whereas Revelation 21, is clearly speaking of physical death, since spiritual death had already been conquered at the cross for all who have and do believe.
Look at the contrast, 2 Tim says Jesus has abolished death, it is already done, whreas in Rev 21, there shall be no more death, etc, which means there is the physical death that has yet to be dealt with, since in 2 Tim, it is made clear that spiritual death has already been abolished for the redeemed.
There is no reference in the Bible as to whether the resurrection around the time of the rapture (1Thess 4), will be noticed by anyone.

This truth is very plain to see. We who are born again will never taste spiritual death, yet many of us will die a physical death and will be raised in glory.

Wildfire

8th June 2002, 02:51 PM

Thank you auntie, you are very sweet.

Wildfire

parousia70

8th June 2002, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Mandy

This truth is very plain to see. We who are born again will never taste spiritual death, yet many of us will die a physical death and will be raised in glory.

All human beings have an "appointment" with physical death.

Heb 9:27
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.

Thats why It's called the resurrection of the DEAD.

Mike Beidler

8th June 2002, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Mandy
... in Rev 21, there shall be no more death, etc, which means there is the physical death that has yet to be dealt with, since in 2 Tim, it is made clear that spiritual death has already been abolished for the redeemed.

I'm somewhat confused. In Rev 21, are you saying that there is no more physical death? I beg to differ. If you believe that Rev 21 is the "new heavens and earth," then how do you account for physical death in the "new heavens and earth" described in Isaiah 65:17-20?

Ozarkpreterist

8th June 2002, 04:05 PM

Wildfire,

We tend I think to judge reality by what we can see with our eyes or by what we are personally experiencing at the time. What is happening in our "corner of the world" can even shape our eschatology. For example, Although I am originally from California, I attended collage in Texas. One of my best friends during my collage days was from New Mexico. One day I stepped out of the dorm and looked up into the most bizarre looking sky I had ever seen. Even though it was morning, it was very dark, and it had a sort of eerie green appearance. (I later found out that conditions were ripe for a tornado.) My friend who had also never seen such a thing came running up to me and said, "Don't you see! It is the end of the world!" Never mind that it was sunny 100 miles away. My friend formed his entire world view in that moment by what he could see out his own window. (Please, Wildfire, I am not talking about the moon you saw. What you saw was truly a mystery. This was not.)

I think people have judged who is prevailing the darkness or the kingdom of God by looking out the window (or looking at the TV) for a very long time. The way I understand it, in the 19th century preterism and post- millennialism were on the rise. Then came the bloodiest century ever--the twentieth. This is one reason for the rise of the "Its the end of the world!" mindset. People looked out the window said that things can't last much longer.

The "look out the window" way of judging reality can go the other way too. I live in a small town where the crime rate is so low I could probably sleep on my front porch in suit made of money (I wish I had one!) and sleep well with no fear. God is moving here, pastors are praying together. In fact a near by city has more churches per capita than any in the country. Plus, I don't just watch TV for the news. Do you realize how dramatically the kingdom of God is advancing in other parts of the world? Whole cities are coming to the Lord in many countries. In fact, more people have been saved since WWII than in the previous 19 centuries combined. From my little corner of the world, I might look out the window and say, "Ah, the kingdom is advancing, and this is a very great time to be alive. I might even say that, because of what I see, preterism must be correct!

Which view is the best to go by? NEITHER! The best thing is not to go by what we see but by what God has revealed. We as preterists believe that God has revealed in His word, Jesus, Who stands now as King over all the nations of the earth. And He has defeated sin, Satan, and death (spiritual). Moreover, God has revealed that we His church are in Him, and are thus partakers of His victory and rule. It is in this view that we stand no matter what it looks like outside. I hope this helps you understand us better.

Ozark

Mandy

8th June 2002, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by parousia70

All human beings have an "appointment" with physical death.

Heb 9:27
And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.

Thats why It's called the resurrection of the DEAD.

1 Thess. 4:17

Mike Beidler

8th June 2002, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Mandy

1 Thess. 4:17

There's a problem with that verse. It's not actually speaking of rapturing living bodies immediately after the "dead in Christ" rise from Hades, but rather our souls at death (post-AD 70). Allow me to repost a section of David B. Curtis' sermon on this very subject.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) 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.

This is the verse that the physical rapture theory comes from. A little time spent looking at the Greek words should quickly dispel many false notions.

Let's start with the first word in the verses -the word "then." This is the Greek word epeita. Normally, when a sequence of events is described, the simple word eita "then" is used. Eita is best translated as "at that time" or "next". Eita is used to indicate an immediate sequence. We see this in:

John 19:26-27 (NKJV) When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold your son!" 27 Then (eita) He said to the disciple, "Behold your mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

This is a series of events - one immediately after the other.

But in our text, the Greek word is not eita but epeita, which is essentially the same Greek word with an "epi" prefix. This has the effect of affixing the word "after" to the word "then", and the best translation becomes "after then", "after that", or "after that time", and thereby doesn't include the idea of right after.

Let's look at some other uses of epeita to get a clearer idea of its meaning:

Galatians 1:18 (NKJV) Then (epeita) after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days.

In this case, the word "then" involved at least three years later.

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

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

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

Epeita here involves fourteen years.

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

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

Now look at 1 Cor 15:5-8:

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

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

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

1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) Then (after that time) 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.

What would be the point of saying "the dead in Christ will rise first," if the living were to be also caught up and changed at almost the same time? Paul is saying that at the return of Christ the dead in Christ will be resurrected, after that time the living will be "caught up" with them in the clouds at their physical death.

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

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

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

Paul doesn't know whether the body was involved in this man's "snatching away." The body isn't necessary, then, in the harpazo event, or Paul wouldn't have expressed this uncertainty. We know that Paul didn't mean that living Christians would be caught up in their living, physical bodies at the second coming of Christ because this never happened. Christians were still around on the earth after the second coming, as history plainly tells us.

In the book, BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL: Dating the Book of Revelation -- An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-A.D. 70 Composition by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D., evidence is given that John was seen by Polycarp in the 90s. So, some twenty years after the parousia, John was still around.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 (NKJV) 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.

Paul says that those who were alive at the second coming will later be caught up together with the dead who were raised, to meet the Lord in the air.

You might ask, "What does the Bible mean when it says that we shall be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air?" Does this mean we'll be physically sucked up into the sky? What does the word "air" mean? Is it in our atmosphere or the air we breath? I think that Ephesians chapter 2 gives us an idea of what air means here.

Eph 2:2: "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience."

The word "air" is an another word for heavenly or spiritual realm. Satan was always an opponent of the scheme of redemption, as we can see throughout the Bible. He was the prince of the power of the air. In Rom. 16:20, Paul says that Satan would be crushed "shortly" under their feet (remember original relevance). Jesus now has taken over that sphere and rules in the "air" with the saints since the destruction of Jerusalem. If that is the same "air" where the saints were to meet, then there is no necessity for us to believe that the rapture was to be in the physical realm.

Paul believed that the Lord would return in his lifetime. He preached strongly about the second coming, the resurrection, and judgement, but he never spoke of a physical "rapture" for living Christians.

It is not the physical body that is raptured. It is the Christian himself who is raptured as he leaves his body behind at physical death and moves into the spiritual realm. The dead believers were resurrected when Christ returned, and all other Christians would be caught up at their physical death.

2 Corinthians 5:1 (NKJV) For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

The rapture takes place at death, when we leave our earthly house and move into our spiritual house.

In looking at the related passages of what immediately followed the parousia, we find the phrases: "Gather the elect from the four winds" in Matt. 24:31; "Each in his own turn" in 1 Cor. 15:23; "We who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17; and "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on" in Rev. 14:13. These are all equivalent, and are all applicable for us today. The process of being "snatched" or "caught away from" death and Hades and being "gathered in" straight to heaven began in A.D. 70. The "rapture" deals with a passage to the heavenly realm. All believers are all snatched away when they die. Revelation 11:18 is clear in showing an ongoing condition in the new age that began at A.D. 70_ "blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on." This gathering began with the consummation of the kingdom, after the resurrection of the dead saints out of Hades, and continues throughout this age.

The writer of Hebrews wrote:

Hebrews 9:27 (NKJV) And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment ...

We won't escape physical death, we all have an appointment with it. But when we do die physically, we are "raptured" into the heavenly realm, "And thus we shall always be with the Lord."

1 Thessalonians 4:18 (NKJV) Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Our hope is not to be snatched physically off the face of the earth prior to our death. Our hope is that when we do die physically, we will be "raptured" into the heavenly realm to forever dwell in the presence of the Lord. "Therefore comfort one another with these words."

davo

8th June 2002, 05:38 PM

1Cor 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

"Afterward" -meanining, later-on etc is exactly the same Greek word and tense as in 1Thess 4:17 "Then". Showing that it isn't an immediate chronological event, but as has been shown above by David Curtis.

davo

parousia70

8th June 2002, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Ozarkpreterist
more people have been saved since WWII than in the previous 19 centuries combined.

What an astounding fact! Praise God!

Mandy

8th June 2002, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Mike Beidler

There's a problem with that verse. It's not actually speaking of rapturing living bodies immediately after the "dead in Christ" rise from Hades, but rather our souls at death (post-AD 70). Allow me to repost a section of David B. Curtis' sermon on this very subject.

I could provide plenty of commentaries too, to support the rapture of the bride of Christ and that the word resurrection in Scripture always refers to a bodily resurrection, and that Christ has yet to return. Would it change your mind?

kern

8th June 2002, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Ozarkpreterist
In fact, more people have been saved since WWII than in the previous 19 centuries combined.

I am curious where you came up with this statistic. Who keeps records on how many people have been saved in the world? And how would we get records from the 300's or 400's, for instance?

-Chris

Mike Beidler

8th June 2002, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Mandy

I could provide plenty of commentaries too, to support the rapture of the bride of Christ and that the word resurrection in Scripture always refers to a bodily resurrection, and that Christ has yet to return. Would it change your mind?

Before you give your evidence, I'd still like you to answer the claims of Curtis ... is it a valid interpretation based on the original Greek?

After you answer Curtis, then you can provide me Scriptural evidence linking the resurrection with the raising of the exact same body we once had. (Jesus, IMO, is the only one whose body was not to see decay. His bodily resurrection was necessary to provide proof of His power and to give the disciples the ammunition to prove they weren't simply seeing a ghost.)

I can tell you now that there is only one verse in the entire NT that contains both "resurrection" and "body." Even then, an argument for a spiritual resurrection of the soul into a brand spankin' new body having angelic/Christ-like properties can be made.

Let the fun begin. :)

Mandy

9th June 2002, 01:45 AM

Before I answer anything, would you even take into consideration anything that I would post? Or would you just brush it off as futurist fluff?

Mike Beidler

9th June 2002, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Mandy
Before I answer anything, would you even take into consideration anything that I would post? Or would you just brush it off as futurist fluff?

I'm a Berean, Mandy! Challenge me! Show me I'm wrong! Give it your best shot if you truly believe you're right! It's all I ask.

I consider anything and everything. If you can show me the error of my preterist beliefs, then I would be indebted to you! Your posting here is NOT a waste of time or bandwidth.

Do you think I post here because I get a kick out of it? Or because I like to watch futurists squirm? I truly want people to understand the logic of preterism, the benefits of preterism, and the orthodoxy of preterism. Expect me to attempt to convert you! I expect the same from you and can ask no less.

Mandy

9th June 2002, 01:47 PM

Are you willing to listen to a series of teaching on the book of Revelation and 1 Thess 5? The teacher is David Hocking. There is plenty there that deals with the end times.

David attended Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, where he graduated with a B.A. in Bible, Greek, and Ancient History. After college David attended Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana., where he received his M.Div. degree in Biblical Studies. David also continued graduate studies and received a Doctor of Ministry degree as well as a Ph.D. degree in Biblical Studies and languages.

Mike Beidler

9th June 2002, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Mandy
Are you willing to listen to a series of teaching on the book of Revelation and 1 Thess 5? The teacher is David Hocking. There is plenty there that deals with the end times.

Sure! :)

Mandy

9th June 2002, 04:01 PM

http://www.hopefortoday.org/html/radio_program.cfm

That is the link. If you look around you will see certain topics that are about the end times. There are also some good messages on Daniel, particularly, chapters 7, 9, and 12.

Ozarkpreterist

9th June 2002, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by kern

I am curious where you came up with this statistic. Who keeps records on how many people have been saved in the world? And how would we get records from the 300's or 400's, for instance?

-Chris

Chris,

I heard this from a missionary friend of mine. I trust he knew what he was talking about. I think it does checkout pretty close if you look at the statistics. Much of this huge increase in evangelism is simply because there are simply more people to evangelize. There has been a huge population explosion just in the last century or so. The population in the 300's and 400's was steady at somewhere around 250 million or less. (It actually appears to have dropped in the 400's to less than the number of people that were alive at the time of Christ according to the chart I looked at. Does one of you history buffs know why?) Now it is 6.23 billion. Up until the later half of 19th century the population was still less than a billion.

Here are some numbers from World Evangelism Center.

Total world population 2002 6,229,803,156 (Source US government)

Total Christians in 2002 all denominations 2,050,616,000

Total Christians in 1970 all denominations 1,236,374,000

Total Christians in 1900 all denominations 558,132,000

Christians as a percentage of the world has actually decreased since 1900 from 34 1/2% to 33%. However that trend seems to have reversed just in the last several years, and Christianity is now increasing as a percentage of the total world population. Interesting huh?

This drop in percentage may make us think that the kingdom of God is in decline. However, it may actually prove the opposite. Think about which countries experienced the greatest population explosion of the twentieth century. They are for the most part traditionally non-Christian countries. The fact that Christianity only dropped a point and a half in percentage might actually show the phenomenal rate of evangelization that is happening in the world. Combine this with the evidence that Christianity may have started to increase as a percentage of world population makes the numbers even more astounding.

My missionary friend may have exaggerated a little, but not by much. The twentieth century truly was a century of evangelism. And it looks like the twenty-first century holds great promise.

Here is another telling statistic that may even help futurists and preterists love one another better.
Estimated number of Christian martyrs (1900) 34,400 (1970) 377,000 (2000) 160,000 (Perhaps the drop between 1970 and today is due to the demise of communism?) It is predicted that there will be even more than 160,000 in 2002.

Ozark