Total Posts:562|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Partial Preterism vs Full

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

Since I am not arguing against partial preterism, my only goal will be to show how some of these prophecies have not been fulfilled in order to deny the validity of Full Preterism. Anyone advocating Full Preteism will need to show how the example I provide has been fulfilled using a consistent hermeneutic. I think the big difference between partial and full Preterism is the physical return of Jesus Christ (or at the very least a visible return). Full Preterism, believing all prophecy has been fulfilled, must accept that this event has already occurred.

To avoid the first, and most obvious, objection we need to consider if this prophecy is correctly interpreted. Let us build this up from what the Bible tells us. First, Christ is said to have physically resurrected from the dead into a physical body after his crucifixion. There are multiple accounts of individuals witnessing Jesus after his resurrection including 500 witnesses in one instance (1 Corinthians 15:6). Additionally, Thomas physically interacted with Jesus in another (John 20:27). From this we can conclude that the authors of the Bible wished to convey Jesus was resurrected into a physical body. Next, in full view of some of the apostles Jesus ascended into the heavens (Acts 1:9). Crucially, as the apostles were watching him disappear from sight into the clouds, an angel appears and tells them, "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11) Finally, multiple passages tell us Jesus will return quickly and publicly:

Revelation 1:7 - Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him.
Matthew 24:27 - For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

In conclusion, it is fair to say, that the authors of the Bible intended to convey Jesus literally died, literally rose from the dead, literally visited the Earth for 40 days, literally ascended to heaven, and will literally return in the same way quickly and visibly. This did not happen in 70AD with the destruction of the temple, and it has not happened since. Full preterists accept this exegesis with exception to a physical/visible return. They believe Jesus returned "in judgement" in 70 AD, which is to say, figuratively. This is not a consistent (or honest) method of interpretation. Additionally, the siege of Jerusalem (the return of Christ according to full preterists) did not occur quickly (like lightning). The Roman siege of Jerusalem took 7 months, and by most any standard, that would be very slow and not at all like lightning. So, in spite of what the Bible tells us, Preterists have injected their own ideas into the Bible.

I accept partial preterism to be more reasonable than full preterism since (in this case) it uses a consistent hermeneutic, acknowledges that history records no return of Christ, and avoids eisegesis.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 11:30:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Good luck with getting an intelligent conversation out of this, when you've actually railed against my efforts to make the religious section into a place where that is possible.

Bulprof, you can take over from here. Skepticalone asked for it.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 3:41:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 11:30:18 AM, Wylted wrote:
Good luck with getting an intelligent conversation out of this,

O ye, of little faith...

when you've actually railed against my insincerety.

Fix'd that for ya. ;-)

Bulprof, you can take over from here. Skepticalone asked for it.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PGA
Posts: 4,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 3:46:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

Since I am not arguing against partial preterism, my only goal will be to show how some of these prophecies have not been fulfilled in order to deny the validity of Full Preterism. Anyone advocating Full Preteism will need to show how the example I provide has been fulfilled using a consistent hermeneutic. I think the big difference between partial and full Preterism is the physical return of Jesus Christ (or at the very least a visible return). Full Preterism, believing all prophecy has been fulfilled, must accept that this event has already occurred.

To avoid the first, and most obvious, objection we need to consider if this prophecy is correctly interpreted. Let us build this up from what the Bible tells us. First, Christ is said to have physically resurrected from the dead into a physical body after his crucifixion. There are multiple accounts of individuals witnessing Jesus after his resurrection including 500 witnesses in one instance (1 Corinthians 15:6). Additionally, Thomas physically interacted with Jesus in another (John 20:27). From this we can conclude that the authors of the Bible wished to convey Jesus was resurrected into a physical body. Next, in full view of some of the apostles Jesus ascended into the heavens (Acts 1:9). Crucially, as the apostles were watching him disappear from sight into the clouds, an angel appears and tells them, "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11) Finally, multiple passages tell us Jesus will return quickly and publicly:

Revelation 1:7 - Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him.
Matthew 24:27 - For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

In conclusion, it is fair to say, that the authors of the Bible intended to convey Jesus literally died, literally rose from the dead, literally visited the Earth for 40 days, literally ascended to heaven, and will literally return in the same way quickly and visibly. This did not happen in 70AD with the destruction of the temple, and it has not happened since. Full preterists accept this exegesis with exception to a physical/visible return. They believe Jesus returned "in judgement" in 70 AD, which is to say, figuratively. This is not a consistent (or honest) method of interpretation. Additionally, the siege of Jerusalem (the return of Christ according to full preterists) did not occur quickly (like lightning). The Roman siege of Jerusalem took 7 months, and by most any standard, that would be very slow and not at all like lightning. So, in spite of what the Bible tells us, Preterists have injected their own ideas into the Bible.

I accept partial preterism to be more reasonable than full preterism since (in this case) it uses a consistent hermeneutic, acknowledges that history records no return of Christ, and avoids eisegesis.

Just up my alley! Thank you for bringing up the subject!

These are some of the subtopics that are quite relevant to our topic of dating the NT for it ties in. As I have said before I could be wrong on this count of full Preterism and am willing to discuss the topic and put forth my argument. Annanicole actually challenged me to a debate on this topic but I did not want to endanger perhaps the only ally I have (in my mind, perhaps not hers) in this entire forum, since most people think my views are radical it seems. I have put forth a position that is not accepted by the majority of Christians and my presuppositional approach to apologetics attempts to tear down worldview strongholds.

Most are not even aware of Preterism and since the visible return of Christ is built into the Apostles Creed they think the matter is settled and heretical to think otherwise but more to the question is what the Bible teaches.

I want to develop the theme in my next posts as I try to answer your excellent concerns.

I have some errands to do so I will work on it when I get spare time.

Peter
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 4:22:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 3:46:12 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

Since I am not arguing against partial preterism, my only goal will be to show how some of these prophecies have not been fulfilled in order to deny the validity of Full Preterism. Anyone advocating Full Preteism will need to show how the example I provide has been fulfilled using a consistent hermeneutic. I think the big difference between partial and full Preterism is the physical return of Jesus Christ (or at the very least a visible return). Full Preterism, believing all prophecy has been fulfilled, must accept that this event has already occurred.

To avoid the first, and most obvious, objection we need to consider if this prophecy is correctly interpreted. Let us build this up from what the Bible tells us. First, Christ is said to have physically resurrected from the dead into a physical body after his crucifixion. There are multiple accounts of individuals witnessing Jesus after his resurrection including 500 witnesses in one instance (1 Corinthians 15:6). Additionally, Thomas physically interacted with Jesus in another (John 20:27). From this we can conclude that the authors of the Bible wished to convey Jesus was resurrected into a physical body. Next, in full view of some of the apostles Jesus ascended into the heavens (Acts 1:9). Crucially, as the apostles were watching him disappear from sight into the clouds, an angel appears and tells them, "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11) Finally, multiple passages tell us Jesus will return quickly and publicly:

Revelation 1:7 - Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him.
Matthew 24:27 - For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

In conclusion, it is fair to say, that the authors of the Bible intended to convey Jesus literally died, literally rose from the dead, literally visited the Earth for 40 days, literally ascended to heaven, and will literally return in the same way quickly and visibly. This did not happen in 70AD with the destruction of the temple, and it has not happened since. Full preterists accept this exegesis with exception to a physical/visible return. They believe Jesus returned "in judgement" in 70 AD, which is to say, figuratively. This is not a consistent (or honest) method of interpretation. Additionally, the siege of Jerusalem (the return of Christ according to full preterists) did not occur quickly (like lightning). The Roman siege of Jerusalem took 7 months, and by most any standard, that would be very slow and not at all like lightning. So, in spite of what the Bible tells us, Preterists have injected their own ideas into the Bible.

I accept partial preterism to be more reasonable than full preterism since (in this case) it uses a consistent hermeneutic, acknowledges that history records no return of Christ, and avoids eisegesis.

Just up my alley! Thank you for bringing up the subject!

These are some of the subtopics that are quite relevant to our topic of dating the NT for it ties in. As I have said before I could be wrong on this count of full Preterism and am willing to discuss the topic and put forth my argument. Annanicole actually challenged me to a debate on this topic but I did not want to endanger perhaps the only ally I have (in my mind, perhaps not hers) in this entire forum, since most people think my views are radical it seems. I have put forth a position that is not accepted by the majority of Christians and my presuppositional approach to apologetics attempts to tear down worldview strongholds.

Most are not even aware of Preterism and since the visible return of Christ is built into the Apostles Creed they think the matter is settled and heretical to think otherwise but more to the question is what the Bible teaches.

I want to develop the theme in my next posts as I try to answer your excellent concerns.

I have some errands to do so I will work on it when I get spare time.

Peter

Great! I look forward to it.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I agree with you on this one, although I rarely use such terms as "full preterism" and "partial preterism." One reason is that every Chrsitian is a partial preterist in some respect.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 5:16:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
To avoid the first, and most obvious, objection we need to consider if this prophecy is correctly interpreted. Let us build this up from what the Bible tells us.

I'm going to have to develop this theme. It may take a few posts. I'm extremely long winded. Please forgive me.

What does the Bible actually tell us on this subtopic?

First, Christ is said to have physically resurrected from the dead into a physical body after his crucifixion. There are multiple accounts of individuals witnessing Jesus after his resurrection including 500 witnesses in one instance (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Truly, I do not deny Jesus returned in a physical body and stayed with the disciples many days. We are told of such physical appearances in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts as well as else where. So this is not denied. Jesus was true to His word in John 2 when He said:

19 ..., "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.


It is obvious from other passages that it was His physical body because He asked Thomas to touch Him and see it was Him. Thomas even put his fingers in the nail holes Jesus received during the crucifixion as you pointed out below. So we know He was resurrected in a physical body. There is no doubt about it. As you mentioned, five hundred eyewitnesses saw Him, He appeared to Peter and the others, ate with them, and so on.

Jesus was the first fruits risen from among the dead as per 1 Corinthians 15:20 onward and elsewhere. Another thing I find interested about His resurrection is the distinction between flesh and blood (for the life as per the OT Scriptures, the Old Covenant, was in the blood) and flesh and BONE. His body has been changed and can appear through locked doors. It is first sown a physical body but it is raised a spiritual body.

If you follow the dialog of 1 Corinthians 15 you will understand more of what I am alluding to,

35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" 36 You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; 37 and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
The Mystery of Resurrection

50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57 but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.


There are many points that can be made from this passage, like at His coming (return, second coming) the dead in Christ will be raised, when a body dies it is changed just like when a seed dies and goes into the ground it changes from what it was to something more grand, etc. There are many points that can be picked on and I highlighted some of the more interesting phrases.

I could spend many posts just expanding on those highlighted verses. For instance Paul says here that "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law" but we have "the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." Although Paul's body had not been changed yet he could say that through the transforming grace of the Lord Jesus Christ he was a new creature, the old had gone the new had come and that his reward was waiting in heaven for him. And that is another point I want to emphasis, our eternal home is not on earth but in heaven, a heavenly realm, not an earthly one. Jesus kept preaching on His kingdom, a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. He said that His kingdom was not of this world.

Notice that sin is what causes separation from God, spiritual death, and that sin is made known through the Law. It was a school teacher to lead men to Christ. Now notice Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-18:

17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.


He came to fulfill the Law and the prophets. He came to undo what the first Adam did. Sin caused that spiritual separation from God. Jesus came to restore that relationship. It is removed for those in Christ. That is why in John 4:23-24 He says that those who worship God must worship in spirit and in truth. We have to be restored spiritually to that relationship with God. Jesus came to restore that relationship. He said that not one letter, not the smallest iota would disappear from the Law until all was accomplished. Everything that man was incapable of doing through the Law was accomplished by Christ Jesus. Man was again brought into the presence of God through faith in Him and resurrected from the dead. Even though Paul, in his ailing physical body could say he was a new creation in Christ Jesus he was still awaiting the completion of that transaction. He was still looking ahead/forward to his heavenly home, just as we are told in Hebrews 11 that the OT saints were. During the 40 years from Jesus' ascension to His Second Coming there existed side-by-side two covenants, the Old and the New Covenant. (Hebrews 8:13) There was always this eager expectation of the greater reality still to come and in which those who placed their faith in Christ were promised and also sealed in the Holy Spirit. At conversion they were given a new nature and seated at the right hand of Christ in the heavenly realms and they now awaited His soon return.

Continue ->
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I agree with you on this one, although I rarely use such terms as "full preterism" and "partial preterism." One reason is that every Chrsitian is a partial preterist in some respect.

I agree. Even the most hardcore futurist still accepts the OT has been partially fulfilled, but, as far as I am aware, these terms are most commonly being used as defined in the OP.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 5:46:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I agree with you on this one, although I rarely use such terms as "full preterism" and "partial preterism." One reason is that every Chrsitian is a partial preterist in some respect.

I agree. Even the most hardcore futurist still accepts the OT has been partially fulfilled, but, as far as I am aware, these terms are most commonly being used as defined in the OP.

At any rate, I suppose I would be classed as a "partial preterist" based upon the common use of the term. I believe that much of NT prophesy was fulfilled either on Pentecost with the establishment of the kingdom of God (the church), or else in the destruction of the Jewish civil state in AD 66-70.

Beyond that, there is yet to be fulfilled the literal return of Christ, a time when all in their graves will hear His voice. However, there is not the slightest hint that Christ will set foot on earth again.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:00:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 5:46:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I agree with you on this one, although I rarely use such terms as "full preterism" and "partial preterism." One reason is that every Chrsitian is a partial preterist in some respect.

I agree. Even the most hardcore futurist still accepts the OT has been partially fulfilled, but, as far as I am aware, these terms are most commonly being used as defined in the OP.

At any rate, I suppose I would be classed as a "partial preterist" based upon the common use of the term. I believe that much of NT prophesy was fulfilled either on Pentecost with the establishment of the kingdom of God (the church), or else in the destruction of the Jewish civil state in AD 66-70.

Beyond that, there is yet to be fulfilled the literal return of Christ, a time when all in their graves will hear His voice. However, there is not the slightest hint that Christ will set foot on earth again.

Thank you for clarifying your position. On researching this topic, I found that the beliefs were more varied than what I had understood and expected.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PGA
Posts: 4,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:12:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Continuing:

So Jesus said not one jot, not one iota, not the smallest letter would pass from the Law (or the prophets) until all was accomplished.

So either this was fulfilled in AD 70 with the judgment on this apostate people or Jesus cannot be trusted (heaven forbid and a totally flawed thought).

What we see after AD 70 is true to what He said. There is no more temple (we have a spiritual temple as all things required physically in the OT Law have been met in Christ and are now seen in spiritual truths), no more priesthood (we have a greater priesthood after the order of Melchizedek and a greater High Priest, one who does not need to go into the temple day after day to atone for the sins of His people. He offered a greater sacrifice, one pleasing to God in the sacrifice of Himself, one that met all God's righteous requirements that the first priesthood could not), no more animal sacrifices (animal sacrifices always were a covering until the human sacrifice would make a complete atonement. Man sinned and man needed to pay the price, thus Jesus voluntarily became man to do so and fulfill all God's requirements, those not only required of Adam but those required through the Law God handed out at Sinai), no more genealogies (since they were for the purpose of pointing to the Messiah through the lineage of Judah, and also to ensuring that the first priesthood priests were from the tribe of Levi), etc. All these things perished in the destruction of the temple and city in AD 70 and this OT people were scattered to the four corners of the known world.

So Matthew 5:17-18 cannot apply after AD 70 and the sting of death, sin, was atoned for completely at the cross and the sacrifice was finished at Jesus' Second Coming.

Every High Priest went into the temple to offer the atonement for the people and the return of the High Priest signified that God had accepted the atonement. Thus His Second Coming was of vital significance in the people knowing that God had accepted His sacrifice. Hebrews 9 makes this clear. It would be good to read the whole chapter in understanding this but I want to bring forth my point from Scripture by quoting part of the chapter:

11 But when [1]Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect [l]tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 12 and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, [2]cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For [3]where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is [3]never in force while the one who made it lives. 18 Therefore even [3]the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you." 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And [4]according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 [5]For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but [6]now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 [7]so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.


Again, please pay particular attention to the underlined verses above.

[1] So here we have the High Priest presenting the sacrifice (Himself) before the throne of God above.
[2] Dead works, IMO, are the works of the Law which can never take away sin, and the sacrifice was just a covering until the perfect sacrifice could be made. It was a type or shadow of what was coming, the reality being Jesus Christ. This promise of His coming was something the OT saints looked intently into the Scriptures to find out when it would be.
[3] Your will only is acted upon at your death. The first covenant sacrifice was made with blood signifying death and atonement.
[4] This is an important point to grasp because as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15 the penalty of sin is death and sin is brought to mind by the Law.
[5] Again, the same point as in [1]. He entered a first time into the greater tabernacle or temple, the heavenly one, on behalf of atoning for His peoples sin under the New Covenant, the greater one. So up to this point you have one appearing of the High Priest, but He has not come out of the heavenly Most Holy Place, the throne of God, as of yet. This is an important concept to grasp and I hope you are understanding my points to date.
[6] The author of Hebrews (some say Paul and I agree) says NOW, at the end of the ages. I would imply from this he means the ages of the OT and other passages can be used to support this, especially the ministry of Jesus were He only mentions TWO ages, the one that is, which I also contend is the Old Covenant Age and the ONE to come, which I contend is the New Covenant Age. This can be shown in far greater detail to the point that I believe it is logical to deduce that Scripture is adamant in what is being discussed.
[7] Here we come to the vital verse. Christ goes into heaven to atone for the sins of His people and Scripture tells us in plain language that He will come again a SECOND time to bring salvation for those waiting for Him. So I hope you get the picture, the type here. The OT priest goes into the temple/tabernacle to present the offering and once accepted comes out again to signify to the people that the offering has been accepted.

I hope this point has been made evident to you. If not I can dig up the OT passages that speak of this.

Now on to my next point, your next verses.

To be continued in the next post.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 6:52:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
...From this we can conclude that the authors of the Bible wished to convey Jesus was resurrected into a physical body.

No doubt in my mind.

Next, in full view of some of the apostles Jesus ascended into the heavens (Acts 1:9). Crucially, as the apostles were watching him disappear from sight into the clouds, an angel appears and tells them, "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11) Finally, multiple passages tell us Jesus will return quickly and publicly:

In regard to His ascension Luke for one mentions this same event, IMO, in the Gospel of Luke and I am convinced that Acts is carried forward as a history of the early church by continuing with this theme from Luke - an orderly account continues.


Luke 24:44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that [1]all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high."
The Ascension

50 And [2]He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. 51 While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple praising God.


[1] So He appears tot he eleven and those with them, then on His departure leads them out to Bethany, blesses them then ascends into/to heaven.
[2] If you follow the verse back you will see that it is the eleven and those with them that this verse appeals to.

This gathering in Galilee is also mentioned in Matthew 28:16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.


Now to Acts 1.

1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. 3 To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God. 4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," He said, "you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" 7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."
The Ascension

9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."


So some of the points I want to make here.
1) The crowd consists of the eleven men plus those who were with them, not every eye as per Revelation 1:7 and John 19:37. Also every eye is in the context of this OT people which will be brought out further below from your citation of Revelation 1:7.
2) Those seeing Him go into heaven are those restricted to the physical location of Galilee. That does not even include the whole region of Israel.
3) Two men are there as He disappears into the clouds/heaven.
4) He will come in like manner as they saw Him go from THEM.

So how did He go. He went with a small group of men seeing Him, not every eye as per Revelation 1:7 or Zechariah 12:10. Scripture tells us the eleven plus those who were with them. This is a far cry from every eye.

The scene is limited to Galilee, and not every tribe of the land is known to be there.

There are two men or angels present, not what Jesus said when He came again to judge the living and the dead and discloses elsewhere regarding His Second Coming.

Matthew 16:27-28 (NASB)

27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.

28 "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."


These two verses and many more reveal that Jesus is coming with a host of angels, not two as per in the ascension.
1) His Second Coming will be a time of judgment when those who have pierced Him will mourn.
2) Some of those standing there will not die before this Second Coming.

I will continue with Revelation 1:7 on the next post.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 7:56:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Revelation 1:7 - Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him.

Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.


Since this verse is lifted from the OT and speaks of an OT fulfillment it is helpful to understand what the OT says of this verse since the verse is pointing to a prophecy that this OT people were looking for in its fulfillment.

Zechariah 12:10
"I will pour out [1]on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that [2]they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and [2]they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn.


Many points can be extracted from this passage and if you want to understand it more fully I suggest you read the whole chapter.

[1] In the context of this prophecy, which in Revelation 1, it is to be fulfilled soon, shortly, for the time is at hand, every eye applies to every eye regarding the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in fact the tribes of Israel - that LAND. It cannot be ascribed to every person on the face of the earth (which is another word for land) like the Dispensational movement has done. That is lifting the prophecy out of its context. It applied to a OT and 1st century people who do not exist in covenant relationship with God after AD 70.

[2] Those who pierce Him are brought out in the context of Zechariah as are those mourning. The LAND mourning is in reference to the land of Israel as brought out by the tribes identified below.

Please read the entire chapter of Zechariah for it speaks of "in that day" and many OT prophesies speak of "that day" or "in latter days" and so forth.

2 "Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah....12 The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; 14 all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves.

Notice the tribes spoken of in Revelation apply to the tribes of Israel, not the nations of the whole world. They are the ones Jesus attributes to piercing Him as does Peter in the Book of Acts. Zechariah applies those who pierce Him and those who mourn to the tribe of Israel, not the nations of the world.

John 19:37
And again another Scripture says, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced."


Jesus, in the Gospel of John nails it down to a specific people also.

Acts 2:36-38
36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ"this Jesus whom you crucified."


The piercing was done by the hands of the Romans yet it is attributed to this OT people for they were the ones who rejected Him and handed Him over to be crucified and pierced and put to death.

Paul also attributes Jesus' death to the Jews in his 1st letter to the Thessalonians.

2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.


Before Paul's death he attributes the murder of Jesus Christ to the Jews, his own countrymen, who handed Him over to be crucified, per the gospel accounts, and as per Jesus' warning in Matthew 23:32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers Paul, drawing from Jesus, tells them that they are filling up their measure of their sins and that wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

You can apply this to no other people and still be true to what the words of Scripture convey.

It applies all these verses to an OT people, one that does not exist after AD 70. As I mentioned before I can show how Paul uses Jesus' Olivet Discourse as a backdrop in speaking to the church of the Thessalonians. This of course is another proof that if one grants that Thessalonians was written before AD 70, and Paul was killed before this, then Matthew also has an earlier date of composition.

Revelation 1:7 draws from two OT passages and it is good to have an understanding of both before you come to conclusions for both verses are prophesies that were fulfilled in AD 70.

As Daniel 12:7 says, and as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.

The power of the holy people was their covenant relationship, a special standing, with God. If they would keep His commandments of that covenant they would be His people and He would protect and keep them safe. If they would not then He would bring all the plagues of the covenant, the curses, against them until they, the apostates, were utterly destroyed and the better covenant was put in place. Hebrews says that the time of this fulfillment was near for they had come to a better country and a better mountain - Mount Zion, not Mount Sinai where the first one was put in place.

Daniel 9:24 lists everything that would have to be fulfilled before the total and complete destruction. Everlasting righteousness is applied to those in Christ and it also includes resurrection to new life. It was something guaranteed with the second and better covenant and this can also be demonstrated to have been completed for this people, which is front and foremost regarding prophecy, in AD 70.

The same can be shown for the wedding feast of the Lord. God went into a covenant relationship with Israel in the OT, which is likened to a wedding between God and this people, foreshadowing the greater reality which is found in Jesus Christ and can also be brought out by Scripture I think most conclusively by some who have studied this in depth and who I have listened to in presenting this argument.

Continuing with your post points after I complete more errands.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:08:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 5:46:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I agree with you on this one, although I rarely use such terms as "full preterism" and "partial preterism." One reason is that every Chrsitian is a partial preterist in some respect.

I agree. Even the most hardcore futurist still accepts the OT has been partially fulfilled, but, as far as I am aware, these terms are most commonly being used as defined in the OP.

At any rate, I suppose I would be classed as a "partial preterist" based upon the common use of the term. I believe that much of NT prophesy was fulfilled either on Pentecost with the establishment of the kingdom of God (the church), or else in the destruction of the Jewish civil state in AD 66-70.

Beyond that, there is yet to be fulfilled the literal return of Christ, a time when all in their graves will hear His voice. However, there is not the slightest hint that Christ will set foot on earth again.

That is interesting. I always pictured the "literal return" as Jesus physically coming to earth again.

This is the time I dreaded, where I would possibly completely detach myself from perhaps my only ally on this forum, yet I'm all ears to your comments and conviction.

I welcome making this into a three person discussion for I am not aware of anyone else who has enough knowledge of the Bible in regards to this position to discuss it on this forum. No one else has signed up anyway.

I would welcome your comments on Skepticalone's first post also, especially Acts 1:7-11 which speaks to a specific group of people. I want to see how you reconcile his points also. In this way we can compare and contrast the two positions of partial and full Preterism.

Peter
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:17:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 5:16:05 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
To avoid the first, and most obvious, objection we need to consider if this prophecy is correctly interpreted. Let us build this up from what the Bible tells us.

I'm going to have to develop this theme. It may take a few posts. I'm extremely long winded. Please forgive me.

What does the Bible actually tell us on this subtopic?

First, Christ is said to have physically resurrected from the dead into a physical body after his crucifixion. There are multiple accounts of individuals witnessing Jesus after his resurrection including 500 witnesses in one instance (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Truly, I do not deny Jesus returned in a physical body and stayed with the disciples many days. We are told of such physical appearances in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts as well as else where. So this is not denied. Jesus was true to His word in John 2
It is obvious from other passages that it was His physical body because He asked Thomas to touch Him and see it was Him. Thomas even put his fingers in the nail holes Jesus received during the crucifixion as you pointed out below. So we know He was resurrected in a physical body. There is no doubt about it. As you mentioned, five hundred eyewitnesses saw Him, He appeared to Peter and the others, ate with them, and so on.

Jesus was the first fruits risen from among the dead as per 1 Corinthians 15:20 onward and elsewhere. Another thing I find interested about His resurrection is the distinction between flesh and blood (for the life as per the OT Scriptures, the Old Covenant, was in the blood) and flesh and BONE. His body has been changed and can appear through locked doors. It is first sown a physical body but it is raised a spiritual body.

You acknowledge the resurrected body of Jesus was an example of a spiritual body and it was visible and tangible. To argue that the second coming of Jesus would not involve the last known form of Jesus in spite of verses advocating exactly that, and instead will take on a form not known is injecting your own preferences into the Bible.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:20:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:08:50 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:46:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I agree with you on this one, although I rarely use such terms as "full preterism" and "partial preterism." One reason is that every Chrsitian is a partial preterist in some respect.

I agree. Even the most hardcore futurist still accepts the OT has been partially fulfilled, but, as far as I am aware, these terms are most commonly being used as defined in the OP.

At any rate, I suppose I would be classed as a "partial preterist" based upon the common use of the term. I believe that much of NT prophesy was fulfilled either on Pentecost with the establishment of the kingdom of God (the church), or else in the destruction of the Jewish civil state in AD 66-70.

Beyond that, there is yet to be fulfilled the literal return of Christ, a time when all in their graves will hear His voice. However, there is not the slightest hint that Christ will set foot on earth again.

That is interesting. I always pictured the "literal return" as Jesus physically coming to earth again.

This is the time I dreaded, where I would possibly completely detach myself from perhaps my only ally on this forum, yet I'm all ears to your comments and conviction.

I welcome making this into a three person discussion for I am not aware of anyone else who has enough knowledge of the Bible in regards to this position to discuss it on this forum. No one else has signed up anyway.

I would welcome your comments on Skepticalone's first post also, especially Acts 1:7-11 which speaks to a specific group of people. I want to see how you reconcile his points also. In this way we can compare and contrast the two positions of partial and full Preterism.

Peter

I do not see his comments on Acts 1
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:23:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:20:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 8:08:50 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:46:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I agree with you on this one, although I rarely use such terms as "full preterism" and "partial preterism." One reason is that every Chrsitian is a partial preterist in some respect.

I agree. Even the most hardcore futurist still accepts the OT has been partially fulfilled, but, as far as I am aware, these terms are most commonly being used as defined in the OP.

At any rate, I suppose I would be classed as a "partial preterist" based upon the common use of the term. I believe that much of NT prophesy was fulfilled either on Pentecost with the establishment of the kingdom of God (the church), or else in the destruction of the Jewish civil state in AD 66-70.

Beyond that, there is yet to be fulfilled the literal return of Christ, a time when all in their graves will hear His voice. However, there is not the slightest hint that Christ will set foot on earth again.

That is interesting. I always pictured the "literal return" as Jesus physically coming to earth again.

This is the time I dreaded, where I would possibly completely detach myself from perhaps my only ally on this forum, yet I'm all ears to your comments and conviction.

I welcome making this into a three person discussion for I am not aware of anyone else who has enough knowledge of the Bible in regards to this position to discuss it on this forum. No one else has signed up anyway.

I would welcome your comments on Skepticalone's first post also, especially Acts 1:7-11 which speaks to a specific group of people. I want to see how you reconcile his points also. In this way we can compare and contrast the two positions of partial and full Preterism.

Peter

I do not see his comments on Acts 1

Besides citing the passage he had this to say:

In conclusion, it is fair to say, that the authors of the Bible intended to convey Jesus literally died, literally rose from the dead, literally visited the Earth for 40 days, literally ascended to heaven, and will literally return in the same way quickly and visibly. This did not happen in 70AD with the destruction of the temple, and it has not happened since.


Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:23:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:08:50 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:46:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I agree with you on this one, although I rarely use such terms as "full preterism" and "partial preterism." One reason is that every Chrsitian is a partial preterist in some respect.

I agree. Even the most hardcore futurist still accepts the OT has been partially fulfilled, but, as far as I am aware, these terms are most commonly being used as defined in the OP.

At any rate, I suppose I would be classed as a "partial preterist" based upon the common use of the term. I believe that much of NT prophesy was fulfilled either on Pentecost with the establishment of the kingdom of God (the church), or else in the destruction of the Jewish civil state in AD 66-70.

Beyond that, there is yet to be fulfilled the literal return of Christ, a time when all in their graves will hear His voice. However, there is not the slightest hint that Christ will set foot on earth again.

That is interesting. I always pictured the "literal return" as Jesus physically coming to earth again.

This is the time I dreaded, where I would possibly completely detach myself from perhaps my only ally on this forum, yet I'm all ears to your comments and conviction.

I welcome making this into a three person discussion for I am not aware of anyone else who has enough knowledge of the Bible in regards to this position to discuss it on this forum. No one else has signed up anyway.

I would welcome your comments on Skepticalone's first post also, especially Acts 1:7-11 which speaks to a specific group of people. I want to see how you reconcile his points also. In this way we can compare and contrast the two positions of partial and full Preterism.

Peter

Oh, I see them (I guess). There's not much to them, really.

"Next, in full view of some of the apostles Jesus ascended into the heavens (Acts 1:9)."

True.

"Crucially, as the apostles were watching him disappear from sight into the clouds, an angel appears and tells them, "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Acts 1:11)"

True.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:28:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 6:52:09 PM, PGA wrote:

So some of the points I want to make here.
1) The crowd consists of the eleven men plus those who were with them, not every eye as per Revelation 1:7 and John 19:37. Also every eye is in the context of this OT people which will be brought out further below from your citation of Revelation 1:7.
2) Those seeing Him go into heaven are those restricted to the physical location of Galilee. That does not even include the whole region of Israel.
3) Two men are there as He disappears into the clouds/heaven.
4) He will come in like manner as they saw Him go from THEM.

So how did He go. He went with a small group of men seeing Him, not every eye as per Revelation 1:7 or Zechariah 12:10. Scripture tells us the eleven plus those who were with them. This is a far cry from every eye.

No, the angels are speaking of the manner in which he left, not the audience.

The scene is limited to Galilee, and not every tribe of the land is known to be there.

That is literal beyond what a straight reading of these passages suggest. Essentially, you agree with literal death, literal resurrection, literal ascension. You then switch your interpretation to figurative in the return, and back to a very narrow literal understanding of the audience. This is inconsistent.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:38:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:23:27 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 8:20:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 8:08:50 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:46:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

I do not see his comments on Acts 1

Besides citing the passage he had this to say:

In conclusion, it is fair to say, that the authors of the Bible intended to convey Jesus literally died, literally rose from the dead, literally visited the Earth for 40 days, literally ascended to heaven, and will literally return in the same way quickly and visibly. This did not happen in 70AD with the destruction of the temple, and it has not happened since.


Well, you agree with all of except, "will literally return in the same way quickly and visibly".

His comment is based partly upon, "This Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven."

Thus, the whole thing will depend up exactly what "in like manner" means.

Translations of the phrase (hon tropon) include:

"in the same way" (NIV)
"in the same way as" (ESV)
"in like manner as" (KJV)
"just the same way as" (NASB)

It's not just any old "in the same way" or "in like manner". That would, theoretically at at least, leave the door open to all sorts of speculation. But it is to be "in the same way as ye beheld Him going into heaven."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:40:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:17:01 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:16:05 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
To avoid the first, and most obvious, objection we need to consider if this prophecy is correctly interpreted. Let us build this up from what the Bible tells us.

I'm going to have to develop this theme. It may take a few posts. I'm extremely long winded. Please forgive me.

What does the Bible actually tell us on this subtopic?

First, Christ is said to have physically resurrected from the dead into a physical body after his crucifixion. There are multiple accounts of individuals witnessing Jesus after his resurrection including 500 witnesses in one instance (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Truly, I do not deny Jesus returned in a physical body and stayed with the disciples many days. We are told of such physical appearances in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts as well as else where. So this is not denied. Jesus was true to His word in John 2
It is obvious from other passages that it was His physical body because He asked Thomas to touch Him and see it was Him. Thomas even put his fingers in the nail holes Jesus received during the crucifixion as you pointed out below. So we know He was resurrected in a physical body. There is no doubt about it. As you mentioned, five hundred eyewitnesses saw Him, He appeared to Peter and the others, ate with them, and so on.

Jesus was the first fruits risen from among the dead as per 1 Corinthians 15:20 onward and elsewhere. Another thing I find interested about His resurrection is the distinction between flesh and blood (for the life as per the OT Scriptures, the Old Covenant, was in the blood) and flesh and BONE. His body has been changed and can appear through locked doors. It is first sown a physical body but it is raised a spiritual body.

You acknowledge the resurrected body of Jesus was an example of a spiritual body and it was visible and tangible. To argue that the second coming of Jesus would not involve the last known form of Jesus in spite of verses advocating exactly that, and instead will take on a form not known is injecting your own preferences into the Bible.

The point here, in Acts, is if this is His Second Coming in which every eye would see Him (whatever that means and I have used Scripture to describe what it means - anything else is reading into the text something it does not say) then it does not conform to other passages that speak of His Second Coming. This coming in like manner does not include a myriad of angels, coming in glory, judgment, or to a great group of people. There were the eleven and those with them, confined to a specific geographical region, Galilee, not every person in the land (land of Israel) or as some interpret it, the whole world, the entire earth.

The question becomes what does "in like manner" mean? How did they see him go into heaven? In like manner regarding where, when, who saw Him, or how He appeared to them (in a physical manner), etc. The expression "in the clouds" which speaks of His Second Coming speaks of a manner in which is familiar in the OT (and I contend this OT people would have understood it better than we do today) and it never was a physical coming of God but a coming they knew was Him manifesting His presents in judgment by using armies and nations to come against a people. This is the "in like manner" the second coming would refer to I believe, not a literal physical appearance. I can well document this in further posts once I have presented more of my positional points for full Preterism.

Peter
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:42:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 7:56:16 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


Revelation 1:7 - Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him.

Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.


To be clear, the verse says "every eye will see Him", and that the tribes will mourn him. This is not necessarily the same groups of people. I believe the author means overlapping groups of people. (ie. some people will be in only one group, other will be in both groups)

I believe you misinterpret this verse, and this takes you off course.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PGA
Posts: 4,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:43:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:38:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 8:23:27 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 8:20:32 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 8:08:50 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:46:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

I do not see his comments on Acts 1

Besides citing the passage he had this to say:

In conclusion, it is fair to say, that the authors of the Bible intended to convey Jesus literally died, literally rose from the dead, literally visited the Earth for 40 days, literally ascended to heaven, and will literally return in the same way quickly and visibly. This did not happen in 70AD with the destruction of the temple, and it has not happened since.


Well, you agree with all of except, "will literally return in the same way quickly and visibly".

His comment is based partly upon, "This Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven."

Thus, the whole thing will depend up exactly what "in like manner" means.

Translations of the phrase (hon tropon) include:

"in the same way" (NIV)
"in the same way as" (ESV)
"in like manner as" (KJV)
"just the same way as" (NASB)

It's not just any old "in the same way" or "in like manner". That would, theoretically at at least, leave the door open to all sorts of speculation. But it is to be "in the same way as ye beheld Him going into heaven."

Thank you for that and making it more clear!

Peter
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 8:58:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:08:50 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:46:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I agree with you on this one, although I rarely use such terms as "full preterism" and "partial preterism." One reason is that every Chrsitian is a partial preterist in some respect.

I agree. Even the most hardcore futurist still accepts the OT has been partially fulfilled, but, as far as I am aware, these terms are most commonly being used as defined in the OP.

At any rate, I suppose I would be classed as a "partial preterist" based upon the common use of the term. I believe that much of NT prophesy was fulfilled either on Pentecost with the establishment of the kingdom of God (the church), or else in the destruction of the Jewish civil state in AD 66-70.

Beyond that, there is yet to be fulfilled the literal return of Christ, a time when all in their graves will hear His voice. However, there is not the slightest hint that Christ will set foot on earth again.

That is interesting. I always pictured the "literal return" as Jesus physically coming to earth again.

This is the time I dreaded, where I would possibly completely detach myself from perhaps my only ally on this forum, yet I'm all ears to your comments and conviction.

My understanding of your position is that you accept full preterism, but that if partial preterism were explained in a way that makes sense you might just as easily accept it. This need not be adversarial. An open discussion is a good thing. After all, it is possible that you two may actually come to an agreement. ;-)

Plus, I have plans to compare aspects of preterist/futurist eschatology soon. (Maybe this weekend if I have time) I'm sure you two will agree there.

I welcome making this into a three person discussion for I am not aware of anyone else who has enough knowledge of the Bible in regards to this position to discuss it on this forum. No one else has signed up anyway.

I would welcome your comments on Skepticalone's first post also, especially Acts 1:7-11 which speaks to a specific group of people. I want to see how you reconcile his points also. In this way we can compare and contrast the two positions of partial and full Preterism.

Peter
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 9:01:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 7:56:16 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


Revelation 1:7 - Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him.

Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.


To be clear, the verse says "every eye will see Him", and that the tribes will mourn him. This is not necessarily the same groups of people. I believe the author means overlapping groups of people. (ie. some people will be in only one group, other will be in both groups)

I believe you misinterpret this verse, and this takes you off course.

I would say that Rev 1: 7 has nothing whatsoever to do with the literal second coming of Christ. There are no tribes as such to see Him today.

The ges in the passage, translated earth, can mean "a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region". And thus it most likely refers to the tribes of Israel (which did exist the time of writing) that were dispersed all over the Roman Empire.

The "they that (literally) pierced Him" would still be living - or some of them would, but the passage has specific reference to the Jews who condoned the whole thing. The Roman government was only the agent. The guilt resided with the Jews.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 9:02:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:58:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 8:08:50 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:46:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I agree with you on this one, although I rarely use such terms as "full preterism" and "partial preterism." One reason is that every Chrsitian is a partial preterist in some respect.

I agree. Even the most hardcore futurist still accepts the OT has been partially fulfilled, but, as far as I am aware, these terms are most commonly being used as defined in the OP.

At any rate, I suppose I would be classed as a "partial preterist" based upon the common use of the term. I believe that much of NT prophesy was fulfilled either on Pentecost with the establishment of the kingdom of God (the church), or else in the destruction of the Jewish civil state in AD 66-70.

Beyond that, there is yet to be fulfilled the literal return of Christ, a time when all in their graves will hear His voice. However, there is not the slightest hint that Christ will set foot on earth again.

That is interesting. I always pictured the "literal return" as Jesus physically coming to earth again.

This is the time I dreaded, where I would possibly completely detach myself from perhaps my only ally on this forum, yet I'm all ears to your comments and conviction.

My understanding of your position is that you accept full preterism, but that if partial preterism were explained in a way that makes sense you might just as easily accept it. This need not be adversarial. An open discussion is a good thing. After all, it is possible that you two may actually come to an agreement. ;-)

Plus, I have plans to compare aspects of preterist/futurist eschatology soon. (Maybe this weekend if I have time) I'm sure you two will agree there.


By "futurist", do you mean (or include) the premillennialists?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 9:04:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 9:01:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 8:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 7:56:16 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


Revelation 1:7 - Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him.

Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.


To be clear, the verse says "every eye will see Him", and that the tribes will mourn him. This is not necessarily the same groups of people. I believe the author means overlapping groups of people. (ie. some people will be in only one group, other will be in both groups)

I believe you misinterpret this verse, and this takes you off course.

I would say that Rev 1: 7 has nothing whatsoever to do with the literal second coming of Christ. There are no tribes as such to see Him today.

The ges in the passage, translated earth, can mean "a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region". And thus it most likely refers to the tribes of Israel (which did exist the time of writing) that were dispersed all over the Roman Empire.

The "they that (literally) pierced Him" would still be living - or some of them would, but the passage has specific reference to the Jews who condoned the whole thing. The Roman government was only the agent. The guilt resided with the Jews.

Okay, what verses (if any) do you believe refer to a second coming?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 9:06:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 9:02:30 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 8:58:35 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 8:08:50 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:46:07 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:40:49 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 5:05:24 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
I submit it is more reasonable to accept partial preterism over full preterism.

Partial preterism is a Christian eschatological view that the prophecies in Mathew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and the book of Revelation have been largely fulfilled. Full preterism goes beyond this and claims all prophecy has been fulfilled.

I agree with you on this one, although I rarely use such terms as "full preterism" and "partial preterism." One reason is that every Chrsitian is a partial preterist in some respect.

I agree. Even the most hardcore futurist still accepts the OT has been partially fulfilled, but, as far as I am aware, these terms are most commonly being used as defined in the OP.

At any rate, I suppose I would be classed as a "partial preterist" based upon the common use of the term. I believe that much of NT prophesy was fulfilled either on Pentecost with the establishment of the kingdom of God (the church), or else in the destruction of the Jewish civil state in AD 66-70.

Beyond that, there is yet to be fulfilled the literal return of Christ, a time when all in their graves will hear His voice. However, there is not the slightest hint that Christ will set foot on earth again.

That is interesting. I always pictured the "literal return" as Jesus physically coming to earth again.

This is the time I dreaded, where I would possibly completely detach myself from perhaps my only ally on this forum, yet I'm all ears to your comments and conviction.

My understanding of your position is that you accept full preterism, but that if partial preterism were explained in a way that makes sense you might just as easily accept it. This need not be adversarial. An open discussion is a good thing. After all, it is possible that you two may actually come to an agreement. ;-)

Plus, I have plans to compare aspects of preterist/futurist eschatology soon. (Maybe this weekend if I have time) I'm sure you two will agree there.


By "futurist", do you mean (or include) the premillennialists?

Yes, but I had not planned on speaking of a millennial interpretation, unless that is something that interests you guys.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PGA
Posts: 4,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 9:07:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 8:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 7:56:16 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


Revelation 1:7 - Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him.

Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.


To be clear, the verse says "every eye will see Him", and that the tribes will mourn him. This is not necessarily the same groups of people. I believe the author means overlapping groups of people. (ie. some people will be in only one group, other will be in both groups)

The TRIBES will mourn is put in perspective by Jesus and others in NT passages, as well as OT authors, as already quoted. I can quote more if necessary. The Bible is its own interpreter. If it wasn't then anyone could make any verse say whatever they wanted it to mean (and have by ignoring the text, context and greater message). Let us stick to the information we have available, not some far-fetched speculation. Demonstrate that this is a fact, not a speculation.

I believe you misinterpret this verse, and this takes you off course.

I just cited what the Scriptures in question reveal about who the audience is. Jesus came to an OT people and spoke to them of things written in their Scriptures as being fulfilled in their lifetime, that generation, that age, the last days of that covenant age.

This is complete speculation on your part for the author, John, is drawing from a specific prophecy in the OT. To remove his citation from its original context is to do great damage to understanding what it means. Anyone can do what you just did and make the verse mean anything. No, John is speaking to a 1st century audience about things that would happen soon and he cites two OT passages in doing so.

If you do not understand these OT passages you can make it mean things it does not mean. This is not sticking to the evidence we have at hand and what it reveals. It is speculating.

"Every eye will see Him" is in the context of the OT prophecy and NT fulfillment. I already pointed out to you the NT fulfillment as revealed by what Jesus, Paul, John in his Gospel (and Peter, who I did not record) said in regard to who were responsible for His piercing, His crucifixion.

Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2015 9:13:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/27/2015 9:04:38 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 9:01:05 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/27/2015 8:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 11/27/2015 7:56:16 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/27/2015 11:16:35 AM, Skepticalone wrote:


Revelation 1:7 - Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him.

Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.


To be clear, the verse says "every eye will see Him", and that the tribes will mourn him. This is not necessarily the same groups of people. I believe the author means overlapping groups of people. (ie. some people will be in only one group, other will be in both groups)

I believe you misinterpret this verse, and this takes you off course.

I would say that Rev 1: 7 has nothing whatsoever to do with the literal second coming of Christ. There are no tribes as such to see Him today.

The ges in the passage, translated earth, can mean "a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region". And thus it most likely refers to the tribes of Israel (which did exist the time of writing) that were dispersed all over the Roman Empire.

The "they that (literally) pierced Him" would still be living - or some of them would, but the passage has specific reference to the Jews who condoned the whole thing. The Roman government was only the agent. The guilt resided with the Jews.

Okay, what verses (if any) do you believe refer to a second coming?

A literal second coming? Acts 1: 7-11, for starters.

To claim that the "coming in judgment" in AD 66-70 answers back to the "shall return in like manner as ye beheld" in Acts 1 requires quite an imagination, I'd say.

(1) Nobody "beheld" Jesus at all, literally, AD 70. They did in AD 33, though.
(2) Jesus did not return "in the same manner as ye beheld" in AD 70 at all.

The wording of Rev 1: 7, taken alone and isolated from any context, could indeed refer to the second literal coming. The entire context of the prologue to Revelation, however, is the coming judgment upon the city which was "at hand" and to "shortly come to pass."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."