Deathisdefeated

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

Are we still orphans? Are there time text in 1 Cor 15?

If Christ has not come, then we are still waiting to be where he is.

John 14:3 “And I go and prepare a place for you, I will come
back and take you to be with me that you also may be where
I am.”

John 14:18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come
to you.

John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and
I am coming back to you.’  If you loved me, you would
be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is
greater than I." 

 

Time text for the the coming of the Kingdom.

1Co 15:50  I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 1Co 15:51  Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

 

How many Kingdoms are coming? And how would the 1st century Christians know?

 

Luk 21:20  "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.

Luk 21:31  So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Luk 21:32  Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place.

 

 

Jesus "Luk 24:44  Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."

Mar 1:15  and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

 

My challenge to my futurist friends is to show me with the scriptures that Jesus spoke of...the same scriptures Paul and all the Apostles spoke of teaches two comings one a spiritual and one a physical separated by 2,000 years and counting.

One Kingdom that came at 70AD and another at some point in the future.

 

 

Views: 75

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Great post John. I try to make the same point with my futurist friends. The fact that it was at the 2nd coming when the true Children of God would be revealed means there is a whole lot of assuming going on when Christians call themselves God's Children. Biblically, they can't do that until after the 2nd coming. 

 

Really, when you get down to it, most of Christianity borrows from a FP paradigm without even knowing it. It's no wonder atheists that know their Bibles can send most Christians for a loop. 

Micah,

Thats why they insert another coming and this is what i'm trying to get an answer to.How do they exegeticaly (new word) :) Transfer promises to OT Israel to the Church?

 

This is a big problem for the honest  futurist and I've seen some very clever tries but none that stick to the wall for long. 

 

Hey i guess in the end we'll all be Full Preterist at some point! 

John, 

 

I am with you all the way. I have asked that question to Gary DeMar over and over. Never get an answer.

John,

 

Are you suggesting there is an actual "context" and a particular audience in these verses? And, for that matter by extension, are you actually promoting a belief that all the epistles addressed to specific people may have been truly intended for them and that I am not allowed to focus on a word or two within a few verses (leaving the context of the entire epistle) to make my case that the epistles may be speaking more for me, or my progeny to come, than to them? I mean, which scholars are you buying into anyway?

 

Do you steal candy from helpless babies too? Bad boy.

:-)

Ha! Ron,

Babies these days have more money then candy! 

 

Yeah it would be nice to see our friends deal with context and audience relevancy.It's bad enough they have just throw the time text out the window.

 

Thanks for bringing some common sense humor in Ron.Really appreciate it Brother.

Thanks John. All kidding aside, I know of no scholar that would not expect to have each verse considered within its passage, each passage considered within its chapter, then on to the entire epistle and outward from there to the analogy of scripture as the most reasonable method useful to get the fullest grasp of the intended message.

 

And yes, babies do have more cash than candy these days - lol. Good one.

 

Blessings my friend.

 

First, thanks to everyone for their patience. I am very busy at work and home, and making time for posts is rare (and discouraged - everyone who knows I partake in this roll their eyes at the waste of time, including my wife; and they are probably right, I have so many good books still unread). I assume we can continue this conversation and there is not a rush. I will attempt to answer the posts directed to or in response to what I had written in another thread here.

First to Mellontes, who invited me to respond to some points he directed to Phil.

1. Phil has basically answered these, and there's practically no disagreement in the academic world. Peter, with Paul, and probably 'John' and the synoptic authors most likely expected Jesus to return (bodily, for judgment, resurrection, and the consummation, NH/NE) soon. But scholars are equally unanimous on generally what resurrection at the parousia would look like (physical individual incorruptible bodies) and they would laugh at the notion that it entailed instead an invisible transfer from 'sheol' to 'paradise' concomitant with the Roman put down of a Jewish revolt. So I guess they could be wrong on both counts, but my reading coincides with theirs and I'm normally inclined to employ Ockham's Razor. :)

The fact is, prophetic vision is always blurry (I can't recommend Sandy, Plowshares, and his case studies enough, or Caird, Imagery, but this is also covered in practically every hermeneutics text). Yes, the temple was destroyed, but there was enough left of Jerusalem and hope for a rebuilt temple after AD 70 to inspire Jewish messianism climaxing with the Bar Kokhba revolt. And there is no clear indication at all what might have historically satisfied in the 1st century the "abomination of desolation" figure/idol in the temple, as there continue among fundamentalists/literalists (preterists and dispys alike) endless and fruitless speculation. (Interestingly the actions of Hadrian after the 3rd revolt come much closer.)


2. The immediate audience for Peter, as with all the epistles and gospels, is the 1st century church (whatever the racial and ethnic makeup). However, much of what is taught to the covenant community at that time applies also to our age, especially moral imperatives that transcend cultural context.

But to the thrust of your question: No one interprets 'all things' to naturally mean 'not all things', and instead a very small thing from the Christian perspective: the end of sacrificial practice in the temple well after Christ's death and resurrection. It is pretty amazing that, after the Olivet discourse there is very little mention or care about the ongoing sacrificial system in Jerusalem in the letters of Paul, Peter, or John. Hebrews is the only thing approaching an exception, and what is the emphasis? To point to the tabernacle (not even the temple, lest the priestly contrast and supercession be lost) and its system, put to rest with the cross. As Phil alluded to earlier, one cannot miss the temple language that Jesus uses of himself (repeated and misunderstood at his trial).

So Mellontes, I think in one sense we agree - there was an expectation in early Christianity of an imminent return. Unfortunately for preterists, that does not really get you anywhere beyond liberal and conservative scholarly consensus. Arguing exegetically for uniquely full preterist perspectives - notably resurrection ("both the just and the unjust"), judgment of individuals and nations, and the consummation - is the insurmountable obstacle.

Thanks, Bro. I'll try to get to Doug soon (but in less than 40 years haha), and eventually to some hearty dialogue with Norm, including extended quotes from Robinson.
James

Hi James,

Your right there is no rush...on the contrary it would be better if we all took more time in our responses.Sometimes i think conversations get side tracked or "go south" because we try to respond too quickly and in our haste we may not take the time and do the study needed to give a better response.

But I'm confused by your comment "making time for posts is rare (and discouraged - everyone who knows I partake in this roll their eyes at the waste of time, including my wife; and they are probably right, I have so many good books still unread)"

You and Phil are probably two of the most respected opponents of Full Preterism that post here.Your both knowledgeable and respectful and i can assure you it's not a waste of time.I know your a young man with a family just like many of our members. So please don't feel rushed or that your wasting your time.

Your time and interaction are both appreciated.

Thanks

John

 

Thank you so much for your kind and encouraging words, John. You and others have always treated me with patience and respect, here and on other forums, and seeing as my perspective is antithetical to full (among other flavors of) preterism, it is a gesture filled with grace.

 

Thank you again, Brother. And peace to all those that have and continue to extend like courtesy and consideration.

James

 

James has just described why my choice is so clear between believing Christ returned to fulfill every thing that had been written in the generation of some who were standing there...and agnosticism.

Hey John,  it all comes down to God the Father being reliable or not to His word. Admitting the time texts as fueling the expectations of the first century Christians is no small matter.  If there's any confusion it surely rests on the believer and not on God himself.

 

You've seen this before, from C.S. Lewis. He understood the time texts plain enough.  But, look at the treatment of God the Father that seems to elude Lewis:

 

----from C.S. Lewis's "The World's Last Night (bold emphasis and underline are mine)

But there is worse to come.

“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them soHe shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition oferror and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt. Unless the reporter were perfectly honest he would never have recorded the confession of ignorance at all; he could have had no motive for doing so except a desire to tell the whole truth. And unless later copyists were equally honest they would never have preserved the (apparently) mistaken prediction about “this generation” after the passage of time had shown the (apparent) mistake. This passage (Mark 13:30-32) and the cry “Why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) together make up the strongest proof that the New Testament is historically reliable. The evangelists have the first great characteristic of honest witnesses: they mention facts which are, at first sight, damaging to their main contention.

The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so.

 

Mr. Lewis has the timing language down as our Lord said it, and also that of all the Apostles, in over 100 new testament verses. The Greek is emphatic regarding the "tense" of imminentness in all the new testament. C.S. Lewis understood these vereses to be the case. The issue is if one is to say, as Lewis (and Albert Schweitzer along with others), that Jesus (and Paul and all the apostles) were "wrong", and "the sponsors of a delusion", then how on earth can anyone place any confidence in anything they had to say if they were so in error on this monumental topic?

 

I cannot possibly agree with Lewis or anyone else that:
1. Jesus was wrong, and in error.
2. The Jesus was the very source of a delusion held by the apostles He commissioned.
I do believe:
1. Jesus was accurate and factual and so were those who carried His word to Israel and the nations.
2. Jesus did not instigate delusional thinking or give erroneous prophetic utterances. To do so would mean He is a false prophet and under the Mosaic Law He would be guilty of such and deserving of death (see Dueteronomy 18:18 to 22. God here tells Moses about Jesus having His words and false prophets whom do not - and their fate. Peter quotes from this passage and applies it to his own generation:
Act 3:22  For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. Act 3:23  And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Act 3:24  Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
What did Jesus say about the source of everything he did and spoke?
John 3:34  For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
John 3:35  The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. 
John 5:46  For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 
John 5:47  But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? 
John 14:23  Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 
John 14:24  He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. (see Deuteronomy 18:18)

So what does all this mean? If Jesus was right then anyone disagreeing with His statements is wrong. Why are they wrong? Because they do not understand the "nature" of what He was talking about and are confused about the issue being addressed. 
We see from the Scriptures posted above that Jesus said He said nothing other than what His Father gave Him to speak. To deny Jesus' words is to deny the Father's word who sent Him.
The Father does not give mulligans to prophets or Apostles. They say what He commands or they are to keep quiet lest they face retribution.
What did Paul say about his own teachings?
1Thes. 2:13  For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Does God need any mulligans? Does He need to apologize to those church members the Epistles were written to? God had told THEM they would see the things spoken of, so did he goof up? I do not doubt His word to them. I simply do not believe the nature of the Lord's "parousia" or "coming in glory" is remotely related to anyone's future except that of those who received the Epistles addressed to them. It was their message of hope. The nature of what was coming soon to them did happen, as the word of the Father Himself told them.
We can come to understand the true nature of things. We can know that God the Father is reliable to His own word, for:
Isa 9:7  Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.
In His grace.

Ron,

You summed things up pretty well. I think what you have laid out here is one of the biggest problems in the Church today.Like you pointed out even Christians think Jesus was mistaken.How can you expect skeptics and others to take the Bible serious if he was wrong about his return?

 

I agree with you "Jesus kept his word"

RSS

Events

Forum

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 26. 6 Replies

The parousia and judgment of nations

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Joseph Rehby Jul 6. 16 Replies

Preterist Networking

Started by Judy Peterson in Prayer Requests. Last reply by John Aug 8, 2016. 17 Replies

The 10 Tribes of Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Questions and Best Answers We Can Give!. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 22, 2016. 9 Replies

Online Teaching Elders

Started by Eohn Rhodes in Eschatology. Last reply by Doug Dec 22, 2015. 4 Replies

Who is the abomination of desolation ?

Started by Stairway To Heaven in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Dec 11, 2015. 3 Replies

Divine council

Started by Sharon Q in Eschatology. Last reply by Sharon Q Oct 3, 2015. 5 Replies

Marriage and Divorce Motif Between God and Israel

Started by Andrew Reish in Eschatology. Last reply by Brother Les Jul 5, 2015. 5 Replies

Millennium

Started by Mark Baker in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll May 4, 2015. 48 Replies

Fulfilled prophecies of Jesus

Started by joy sung in Eschatology Mar 22, 2015. 0 Replies

The End of the Old Covenat

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Jan 21, 2015. 60 Replies

© 2017   Created by Tim Martin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service