Deathisdefeated

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

This is the fourth and last of my questions regarding the preterist understanding of resurrection and is to some extent not an exegetical question.

2000 years of Christian history has understood the resurrection as a biological, physical reanimation. When resurrection is redefined, are we not then creating a new Christianity that has not been in existence? If we are indeed starting something new are we not thereby denying the very faith we claim to hold to? For the faith that has been passed down the generations in faith for a physical resurrection?

Simply put: What is answer to the charge that preterism cannot be true because it denies what has been believed from the beginning?

Views: 414

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Only have a second here...in regards to your last paragraph, I personally don't see that as an adequate, scriptural exegesis of the passage. Your description is not what we read about concerning Jesus' body. If we hold to Jesus' resurrection as the pattern (which I don't), then "raised in honor" means exact same imperfect fleshly body (with holes and scars and such) and therefore contradicts Paul.

We are assuming many things here, such as (1) what the church teaches since 400 AD is what Paul taught (this IS an assumption based on a stringed together theory of assumptions), and (2) what went without saying between Paul and the Corinthians (I would say, anyone who plugs in 400 AD worldviews, 1500 AD worldviews, or 2000 AD worldviews, is not using 50 AD worldviews). The onus is on you and me to try to understand what went without saying. I don't trust the men who made creeds. I don't follow creeds. I know that upsets many, but it is my choice in obeying Sola Scriptura. I trust the Spirit to guide me, not fallible men (and I'm not saying I have all the right answers because the Spirit gave them to me, just that I humble myself before the Lord as his servant and prayerfully ask for understanding. My understanding has changed and evolved over the years, and I'm sure it will continue. I see that as the Spirit leading me into deeper understanding as he feels fit to lead me.)

Blessings,

Jerel

It seems to me that the core of your point about historicity can be summarized with this quote:

"If the church has always taught something wrong, then Paul's audience never understood him."

For a simple answer, I'd point you to Ed Stevens.  If the message wasn't passed on after Paul's generation then there would be inevitable confusion.

But, I'm not completely convinced that this would be necessary to explain the loss of doctrinal clarity.  Keep in mind that no one wrote anything about Christian doctrine (that we have a reference or example of) for about 40 years after the canon of scripture was closed in 70AD.  Presuming that John the Apostle was in fact martyred as Jesus predicted, this means that there were also no Apostles living in that time.  If you don't accept this, then there was only one Apostle living in this time and he wrote nothing that we've ever heard of.  The bottom line here is that since an average life span in that era was about 55 (for those who lived to about 15, though it was closer to 25 if you include all people born), you have about two full generations of people being born since the last input from Apostles and the first writings assuming Ignatius is legitimate (some would say no, which extends this period for up to another 20 years).  Given such a gap and given that the majority of the church was likely martyred or scattered during the Neronic persecution it's no wonder that error has crept in.  You can add to this that by the time Christian commentators started writing Stoicism was in decline and was being replaced by Platonism and Neoplatonism.  Those systems had a different understanding of matter and spirit, and are correctly criticized for introducing error into Christian doctrine.  Ironically, the people criticizing them build a lot of their doctrine on those systems, but that's for another day.

Your response might be that the Creeds have helped to keep us straight.  Let's look at the Nicene creed of 325 and the modification of it from 381.  In that creed there was very thin commentary made on eschatology (I'll use the Wikipedia listing for this as a reference since it's accurate as far as I can tell and easily accessible).  In the first edition this is the sum total of what we'd normally see as eschatology,

"From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead."

More interestingly, in 381 the following was added,

"from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end."

The kingdom that would have no end was the millennial kingdom from Rev. 20:4 and Daniel 7:18.  They added this line because they wanted to make it heretical for chiliasts to teach a literal, but limited, 1,000 year period on earth.  So, BTW, the next time you run into a futurist who expects a literal 1,000 year reign on earth but who also is a fan of Creeds you may want to point out to him that his eschatology was declared heretical in 381 AD in Constantinople.  Getting back to my point, the problem, then, is what to do with the Amillennialism that was being taught at the time?  They would have claimed that the kingdom had arrived and was seen in the expansion of the church (Eusebius, etc.).  Well, since they are relying on these same passages and declaring them to be in effect as of the first century (the date of initiation not being completely clear) they are saying that the kingdom that will have no end was already in effect.  This would be the only orthodox way to understand the 381AD addition (and is my position).  The problem is how to end the millennium according to traditional Amillennialism.  I suggest that one of the reasons that they have always been vague on the topic is that it turns out there are no scriptural grounds for the end of their Amillennial reign.

If what I said above makes sense to you I think you'll see that the result is that either the Creeds are limited in their utility or that at least the traditional paradigms for understanding eschatology can't be reconciled with them.

As far as the historicity of resurrection doctrine goes, I suggest you take a look at Origen.  He was declared heretical because of some of his teachings, but it turns out that his teaching on resurrection wasn't the focus of this criticism.  And, he spent quite a bit of time mocking those who were teaching a flesh and bone (or blood) biological resurrection.  He made all of the standard points about what happens to a Christian who is eaten by a lion, where the lion is then eaten by a Christian.  Who gets the flesh for their resurrection body?  These types of arguments aren't new.  In the end, he settled on a ethereal ball of light as a resurrection body.  I don't think he was probably exactly right on this point, but to say that every early major Christian author was on board with a flesh and bone (or blood) biological body is clearly overstating reality.

Which brings me at a close to N. T. Wright.  I like a lot of what he has done.  However, a great deal of it takes the expectation of 2nd Temple Judaism and chiliasts (who built on Jewish expectations) at face value.  He seems to forget that Christ repeatedly declared them to be wrong on key topics.  If you follow his works in particular you might notice that for a while he was headed straight to essentially Full Preterism (or something very similar to it) in his basic scheme.  I have seen him lecture about his end game to avoid this and it is very weak.  He basically falls back on the idea that since the chiliast view of the New Heaven and New Earth hasn't happened then we must be short of the parousia, even though all of the rest of his theology is aiming exactly in that direction.  In my opinion, he took advantage of taking the flesh and bone (if not blood) biological resurrection position in order to fall back on a similar argument.  If that resurrection hasn't happened, then he doesn't have to answer any hard questions about why.  The fact of that type of resurrection is taken at face value and other options aren't honestly considered.

Ironically, the first person I read who stipulated to Stoic dominance in 1st Century cosmology was Wright in his book on resurrection.  He admitted that their cosmology (one in which pneumas, or spiritual, was a physical property) was dominant in the 1st Century.  I won't beat that to death since Jerel has explained it well, but all of my study on those lines since has done nothing but reinforce that position.  From the point of view of the use of the language in Paul's day there is no doubt that a pneumatic body would be seen as physical, the physical body of that particular person, and invisible.  Therefore, if the physical resurrection had in fact happened to individual bodies in 70AD (or any other date), and it was a pneumatic body per 1st Cor. 15, then it would by definition have been invisible.  That's a fact of the way that they used the language in that day and I haven't seen anyone seriously try to make a contradictory case.

This is getting long, so I'll stop for now.  I hope I answered some of your questions.

Doug

DougW

For a simple answer, I'd point you to Ed Stevens.  If the message wasn't passed on after Paul's generation then there would be inevitable confusion.

Four years later and I finally come across Ed Stevens. And while I had finally settled on the simple realisation that the ANF didn't have any clearer truth than we do, Ed just had to take me further on his "documentation problem"

I understand how you say doctrine can be lost, but surely given the "expectations" of the church and what the parousia meant, how can you explain the silence?

I think the parousia us just too big to have occurred and no one ever spoke about it. So, while I had comforted myself in the realisation that the ANF's exegisis doesnt mean jack, I am now really lost as to the "documentation problem" (and havent embraced the rapture idea either).

Do you not agree that this is a real problem? Have you developed a deeper answer to the "deafening silence" other than it just got lost in translation? (Cause for me, that answer just doesnt cut it).

Have you considered a few options HERE?

Thanks Davo

The more options to consider the better, after all, a man is only as good as the options presented to him.

Jerel,

If we hold to Jesus' resurrection as the pattern (which I don't)

If believers experience the same resurrection (how ever it is defined) as Christ, does that not make Christ "the pattern"? In the preterist paradigm, does Jesus experience a resurrection different from the one experienced by believers (and I am not talking about the biological resurrection)?

We are assuming many things here, such as (1) what the church teaches since 400 AD is what Paul taught

I have already conceded that the church can and sure enough did teach things contrary to Paul.

(2) what went without saying between Paul and the Corinthians (I would say, anyone who plugs in 400 AD worldviews, 1500 AD worldviews, or 2000 AD worldviews, is not using 50 AD worldviews).

When you brought the issue of how the spiritual body was understood at that time, I never debated or objected. But the question was, WHAT was believed from the earliest? I have repeatedly said that as the gospel spread variations and error crept into it, this has NEVER been my question nor the point of debate, NEVER. But you are yet to tell me WHAT was believed about resurrection from the earliest. I have told you what I have heard was believed and unless you can correct that information, you are yet to address the issue at hand.

So these are things that you have to do: 1) correct the information I have received about how resurrection was understood from the earliest (i.e. 1st to early third century, obviously by 400AD numerous variations and errors would have crept in). EVIDENCE is required here, not theories, for we must first be clear about what the EVIDENCE tells us before we create theories.

2) If there is no EVIDENCE contrary to the belief that resurrection was defined as rescue from biological death, then you have to explain why this is so. You have to explain where the truth went, where the error came from and why the error was universally accepted.

I don't trust the men who made creeds

Amen!

I don't follow creeds.

Dr Talbot might disagree with you an that point but the issue is about an historical investigation and explanation about the doctrine of resurrection. Remember, Paul DID teach something, which also means he did not teach something else. The teachings and transmission of doctrines are not figments of our imagination but real events that happened. As such an historical investigation necessarily has implications about what Paul taught. Whatever, we believe, a historical investigations demands that we accept the theory with the greatest explanatory power, in this case, among the competing views of what Paul taught as "resurrection", one of the views will be the one with the greatest explanatory power as to the beliefs of the post apostolic generation, and I submit that the one with the most explanatory power should be the truth. We are not free to rewrite history, the evidence needs honest explanations!

Else, we should be honest enough to say "The heck with the evidence, SOLO SCRIPTURE!!!!"

I trust the Spirit to guide me, not fallible men

Im sure many Christians will say the same thing, yet the same Christians disagree on soo much. How then can you know? I try to take the path of learning as much as you can from as many as you can, being as humble as you can and as honest as you can!

DougW,

Given such a gap and given that the majority of the church was likely martyred or scattered during the Neronic persecution it's no wonder that error has crept in.

Just for clarity, are you referring to the doctrine of resurrection? It is necessary for us to always come back to the specific issue at hand i.e. the doctrine of resurrection. Keeping the discussion in generalities might keep us going round and round.

You can add to this that by the time Christian commentators started writing Stoicism was in decline and was being replaced by Platonism and Neoplatonism.  Those systems had a different understanding of matter and spirit, and are correctly criticized for introducing error into Christian doctrine.  Ironically, the people criticizing them build a lot of their doctrine on those systems, but that's for another day.

Thanks DougW, this is the type of answer I need i.e. which explains how the truth was swapped for error.

Your response might be that the Creeds have helped to keep us straight.

Somewhat, but not really. My primary question is what the surviving documents tell us about what resurrection was understood as e.g. corporate or individual?

What has your research brought forth on this question for the period before 400AD?

 you'll see that the result is that either the Creeds are limited in their utility or that at least the traditional paradigms for understanding eschatology can't be reconciled with them.

I see.

I suggest you take a look at Origen.  He was declared heretical because of some of his teachings, but it turns out that his teaching on resurrection wasn't the focus of this criticism.

Did he believe that resurrection was corporate or individual? Did he believe resurrection was rescue from biological death?

The main point being the UNITY in understanding not the DIVERSITY. Like I said, it seems to me, if everywhere Christianity spread we find a common denominator it is more likely than not, that THAT common denominator originated from the apostles themselves.

but to say that every early major Christian author was on board with a flesh and bone (or blood) biological body is clearly overstating reality.

But from your research, were they all on board about resurrection being from biological death? Is there any talk of a corporate resurrection?

If you follow his works in particular you might notice that for a while he was headed straight to essentially Full Preterism (or something very similar to it) in his basic scheme.  I have seen him lecture about his end game to avoid this and it is very weak.  He basically falls back on the idea that since the chiliast view of the New Heaven and New Earth hasn't happened then we must be short of the parousia, even though all of the rest of his theology is aiming exactly in that direction.

I definitely agree, somehow he seems just to switch off. He is usually very sharp, but on the point of new creation I simply dont understand what happens. I do take exception on his discussion of resurrection, I think as a historian, he handles it mostly well.

Therefore, if the physical resurrection had in fact happened to individual bodies in 70AD (or any other date), and it was a pneumatic body per 1st Cor. 15, then it would by definition have been invisible.  That's a fact of the way that they used the language in that day and I haven't seen anyone seriously try to make a contradictory case.

Not having done the study nor read about the IBD view, I would suppose its a worldview question as well. From what Wright calls "the goodness of creation" I think some other points would have to be considered in which version of resurrection one finally adopts. I guess for Wright for the "natural" body to be left to decay does not affirm the goodness of creation he holds to.

Jefrey, I feel like we are going in circles here and I'm getting exasperated. I'm not sure what else to write as I feel I or others have answered all these questions already in one form or another. Your long replies are very difficult to navigate through, as there are several misunderstandings or ignoring of one premise while talking about another. I"m now out of time, my vacation time is over, and I must return to work and other things. Good luck with your studies and I pray you find the answers you are looking for.

Blessings,

Jerel

Jerel,

Thanks for all the time you put into the discussion, it is well appreciated.

You said:

I feel like we are going in circles here and I'm getting exasperated. I'm not sure what else to write as I feel I or others have answered all these questions already in one form or another.

I have to disagree on that! I started by saying the church has always taught a biological resurrection and you took exception at that. I gave reference (i.e. NT Wright) why I had thought so and I asked you to correct me if this is wrong, you have not corrected me to date. You referred to DougW and I have asked him this question specifically in my previous post and he is yet to reply. So, NO Jerel, I have not yet been answered.

We FIRST need to be clear on what the evidence says, then we can discuss how preterists deal with the evidence. Giving the example of the false teachings of the Roman Catholic, saying creeds can have errors is not addressing the question, no!

Your long replies are very difficult to navigate through

Like I said, mind numbing heaps of hyper complex spaghetti, hopefully one day I'll be better.

as there are several misunderstandings or ignoring of one premise while talking about another.

Giving specifics would go a long way in clarifying this!

Thanks again for the time, much appreciated

Jefrey,

Me addressing the RCC issue and other errors in the church and creeds, and the issue of the silence of the ante-Nicene church, IS addressing your question! You are declaring based on assumption, based on silence, that what the church teaches today is what the church has taught since the beginning, and that I need to refute that or give evidence that the church believed my view early on in order for me to be right and you to believe me. I see that whole approach as wrong. The silence of the early church can just as easily fit a viewpoint that they believed that the NT taught what we preterists say it taught, and then was corrupted through Greek philosophy and the RCC pursuit of orthodoxy, as it could fit your viewpoint that today's view is the "always" view. I am not required to provide any historical evidence to fill in the holes of silence with assumption and guessing. At the end of the day all I care about is exegesis of the text (from Genesis to Revelation) and fit it into a coherent, intelligent and workable explanation of what "resurrection" is. I ended up rejecting the traditional view of resurrection because it had too many problems and contradictions, and it had the timing off (AD70). Therefore the traditional view is wrong. Studies in history are interesting, but conclusions can't be based on them. That is where I'm at, and you won't get me to budge off that approach. So please stop creating arguments from silence and telling me I need to refute them. Doug answered your question well about NT Wright. In fact, Doug basically destroyed any notion about the historicity of a flesh and blood resurrection. But all I saw you do is ignore the power of his argument, and continue to cry out that no one is answering you. This has become very frustrating with you, Jefrey, and I am done answering you on this topic for now.

Blessings,

Jerel

They dynamic that I mentioned regarding the lack of commenatry for multiple generations after 70AD applies at least to some extent to all doctrine.  If you read the ANF collection, you'll notice that early writers are very focused on issues of sanctification for their readers.  They very seldom mention eschatology (an interesting transition from the constant references in the New Testament).  As far as corporate resurrection goes, I haven't run across anyone in the early church (Ante-Nicene) who proposed a corporate approach.  They all saw it as an individual transition of some kind.  Most of the people who wrote about it talked about it being fleshly (though they were all chiliasts as far as I can tell, and therefore heretical on their understanding of the nature of the kingdom of God), though there was also Origen's camp (he was declared a heretic by the church years later, though he had a pretty large following in his day).  I don't think that the IBD view (essentially where I'm at) has the same complex of problems that you are trying to nail down with CBV.

Thanks Doug!

Your input into this discussion in invaluable.

Jerel,

 

Thanks for interaction, it is much appreciated.

 

It seems we are speaking past each other, consider:

 

I said:

Lazarus had only been "resuscitated" not "resurrected'

 

You said:

it wasn't simply resuscitation

 

I said:

Giving the example of the false teachings of the Roman Catholic, saying creeds can have errors is not addressing the question

 

You said:

Me addressing the RCC issue and other errors in the church and creeds, and the issue of the silence of the ante-Nicene church, IS addressing your question!

 

So it seem clear we are speaking past each other, for it is naive, arrogant and disrespectful for us to accuse and counter accuse that we are simply ignoring each other. I will here try address issues I think we have not been speaking the same language.

 

Biological resurrection

I said:

When I say "physical" this is to try and be clear as possible about what I am referring to since "death", "bodily", "resurrection" etc have various meanings but what I would really be meaning is resurrection from biological death.

You said:

let's call what you are talking about, biological resurrection (reanimation of the human body to it's pre-mortem conditions).

I realise now my error. I should have been clear that I was not embracing the “reanimation of the human body to it's pre-mortem conditions” part. So when I said biological resurrection I was not addressing the issue of a "spiritual body" or reanimation of the human body to it's pre-mortem conditions  simply the biological death of it. Hence even though I am saying biological resurrection, I am not denying what DougW has said about Stoic definition of "spiritual body".

IOW your comment: Doug basically destroyed any notion about the historicity of a flesh and blood resurrection was no longer necessary as I am not opposing but actually considering it but unfortunately I had not said that clearly enough.

 

NT Wright

My question was based on the historic teaching of the church from the beginning.

You commented:

There's no way of knowing what the church believed for a hundred years after the apostles, and even then only a handful of people wrote, and they often contradicted each other. Basically nothing is written on resurrection until 3-400 years later

 

I said:

NT Wright seems to document well what the early writers taught regarding the resurrection and the questions they were engaging, so I am quite perplexed by your comments and would appreciate the light you can shed in this regard.

 

You responded

Your questions about NT Wright and the introduction of the idea of biological self same body might be better answered by Doug.

 

Doug said:

The bottom line here is that since an average life span in that era was about 55 (for those who lived to about 15, though it was closer to 25 if you include all people born), you have about two full generations of people being born since the last input from Apostles and the first writings assuming Ignatius is legitimate (some would say no, which extends this period for up to another 20 years).  Given such a gap and given that the majority of the church was likely martyred or scattered during the Neronic persecution it's no wonder that error has crept in... Which brings me at a close to N. T. Wright.  I like a lot of what he has done.  However, a great deal of it takes the expectation of 2nd Temple Judaism and chiliasts (who built on Jewish expectations) at face value... They dynamic that I mentioned regarding the lack of commenatry for multiple generations after 70AD applies at least to some extent to all doctrine.  If you read the ANF collection, you'll notice that early writers are very focused on issues of sanctification for their readers.  They very seldom mention eschatology

 

So the sum total of the replies did not refute or deny NT Wright's findings that from the 1st century, resurrection was from biological death (regardless of what a "spiritual body" is). Hence your objection seems invalid given the replies.

 

And again I said:

But you are yet to tell me WHAT was believed about resurrection from the earliest. I have told you what I have heard was believed and unless you can correct that information, you are yet to address the issue at hand.

 

But you had delegated that task to DougW and it seems the information from NT Wright is correct. For Dougw said: As far as corporate resurrection goes, I haven't run across anyone in the early church (Ante-Nicene) who proposed a corporate approach.  They all saw it as an individual transition of some kind.

 

You also said:

We are assuming many things here, such as (1) what the church teaches since 400 AD is what Paul taught (this IS an assumption based on a stringed together theory of assumptions), and (2) what went without saying between Paul and the Corinthians (I would say, anyone who plugs in 400 AD worldviews, 1500 AD worldviews, or 2000 AD worldviews, is not using 50 AD worldviews).

 

Ok, lets only look at the period BEFORE 400 AD. The EVIDENCE is clear, there are no more debates about the EVIDENCE! Lets FIRST ACKNOWLEDGE what the evidence says.

 

You repeated:

You are declaring based on assumption, based on silence, that what the church teaches today is what the church has taught since the beginning

 

Just to be clear, what I am saying is what the church has taught since the beginning is individual resurrection/ resurrection from biological death (regardless of the different understandings of “spiritual body”). This is not an assumption, this is based on EVIDENCE!

 

Implications?

Given the evidence I asked:

What is [the] answer to the charge that preterism cannot be true because it denies what has been believed from the beginning?

IF Christianity has always taught a physical resurrection [here meaning a resurrection from biological death regardless of what a “spiritual body” is], is anything which teaches contrary still Christianity?

 

You said:

if the church teaches something flat out contrary to Paul, then it is the church that is wrong not Paul

 

I responded:

To however say "It doesnt matter what the church has believed from the earliest" will not satisfy an honest inquirer who has not yet embraced full preterism

 

You concurred (or sort of) and said:

It then falls upon us to try to put ourselves in their feet with their common worldview and scriptural understanding. If Paul didn't redefine their understanding of "natural" and "spiritual" then we need to take it at face value.

 

I said:

I agree completely, all the more reason to know what the early church believed, else we could be the ones in error.

 

I further said:

Surely we believe that the apostles taught the people in a way that the people understood what was being taught. Surely we believe that the true message of the apostles was know by someone other than the apostles and was transmitted to the next generation.

 

You said:

I actually do believe that Paul would have been understood by his audience... I would take exception with the idea that what the apostles taught, was clearly and unmistakably passed down from generation to generation. Within Paul's own life he was constantly clearing up misunderstandings after he himself left them!

 

Therefore I asked:

do these comments apply on the issue at hand i.e. resurrection? Did the fathers disagree about resurrection?

 

Again:

the teaching on the resurrection, it was UNANIMOUSLY understood as being physical [here meaning a resurrection from biological death regardless of what a “spiritual body” is] over the entire 2000 yrs of Christian history.

While there have been differences in various doctrines, there is uniformity on the question of resurrection, so it is not enough to point out that people have had differences and errors in other doctrines for on the issue of resurrection there is complete agreement.

The main point being the UNITY in understanding not the DIVERSITY. Like I said, it seems to me, if everywhere Christianity spread we find a common denominator it is more likely than not, that THAT common denominator originated from the apostles themselves.

 

I sharpened the answer Im looking for as:

an historical reconstruction of the development of the doctrine of resurrection accounting for the change to a belief in physical resurrection?

 

And:

What then is the explanation for the universal belief in a physical resurrection? Where did the belief come from? Where did the truth go?... 2) If there is no EVIDENCE contrary to the belief that resurrection was defined as rescue from biological death, then you have to explain why this is so. You have to explain where the truth went, where the error came from and why the error was universally accepted.

 

You said:

The silence of the early church can just as easily fit a viewpoint that they believed that the NT taught what we preterists say it taught, and then was corrupted through Greek philosophy and the RCC pursuit of orthodoxy, as it could fit your viewpoint that today's view is the "always" view.

 

My response:

Firstly I do not agree that there was silence (as per evidence from NT Wright). Secondly would Greek philosophy inspire a change from a corporate resurrection into a physical earth bound resurrection? Remember, the point is not to throw around any answer, but an answer with the greatest explanatory power. On what basis do you have this theory or is it simply idiosyncratic?

 

You further said:

At the end of the day all I care about is exegesis of the text (from Genesis to Revelation) and fit it into a coherent, intelligent and workable explanation of what "resurrection" is.

 

I had earlier commented:

If the church has always taught something wrong, then Paul's audience never understood him.

... we should be honest enough to say "The heck with the evidence, SOLO SCRIPTURE!!!!"

I fail to believe that the truth could be completely wiped out leaving no evidence, and that is the question: what does the evidence say. (Im reminded of Jehovah's witnesses who claim YHWH was used in the New Testament yet this is contrary to ALL evidence. Seventh Day Adventists also have their problem with evidence).

In as much as YEC need to find acceptable explanations to the evidence, so too those who say the resurrection was corporate.

 

You said:

Studies in history are interesting, but conclusions can't be based on them.

 

My response:

I believe that a true understanding of the Bible will be confirmed with historical investigation. (That last comment reminds me of like I said, Young Earth Creationists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists). And there should be a reasonable explanation for the available historical data. I do not favour apostasy theories which rely on silence as there is no limit to what one can added as the doctrines that were corrupted during the period of silence.

 

You said:

But all I saw you do is ignore the power of his argument, and continue to cry out that no one is answering you. This has become very frustrating with you, Jefrey,

 

My response:

I do hope this review has put all things into perspective.

How I understand what has come out of this discussion is that as per NT Wright, resurrection was understood from the 1st century as rescue from biological death, however the definition of a spiritual body was corrupted into what is now a more physical rather than an invisible one. There is no evidence of a corporate understanding of resurrection and there is no evidence based explanation as to how a corporate understanding of resurrection was swapped for individual resurrection. As such, for someone to embrace a corporate resurrection they have to say The heck with the evidence, SOLO SCRIPTURE!!!!"

Again, this does not end the story but at least if I embrace full preterism I should know what I am embracing.

RSS

Events

Forum

Adam as Israel

Started by Internet_Troll in Eschatology. Last reply by Internet_Troll Nov 5. 9 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