 |
|
|
Did you know that from the beginning of time the whole purpose of God was to reproduce Himself?...And when we stand up here, brother, you're not looking at Morris Cerullo; you're looking at God. You're looking at Jesus
-- Morris Cerullo, "The End Time Manifestation of the Sons of God"
|
|
| |
Preterism: One niggling problem
Posted on Saturday, December 18 @ 13:07:49 PST by Virgil |
|
Bob Hraba asks: "One niggling problem I cannot seem to solve is the gap between AD 70 and ther 1st of the Early Church Fathers writings, which mention not anything about a spiritual resurrection, ye rapture of the Saints (which mankes one wonder what happened to the escapees to Pella were they "carnal Christians"?"
By the time of some early writings, nothing which could be deciphered as preteristic in outlook is apparent. It's almost as if the early church gave up on an earlier preteristic and went to it's 2nd best attempt to explain the gap, a future perousia. Can anybody help me with a comprehensive explaination?
I agree that belief in a future 2nd,3rd coming does not destroy preterist beliefs, Jesus can come any time he wishes, for any reason, including a final return. Same is simply not what the parusia of the NT is referring to, but rather the 70 ad coming in judgement. Help
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: One niggling problem (Score: 1)
 by Virgil on Saturday, December 18 @ 13:20:11 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Bob,
Your problem is not a biblical one, but rather a problem of prioritizing things in your life. Right now, the fact that the early church did not record or recognized the return of Christ in AD 70 is more important than the relevance of the God-inspired writings of the New Testament. Most Partial Preterists are caught in this web of tradition, church creeds and indoctrination.
Jesus never talked about a third coming. The Bible never talks about a third coming, or the end of history, and a 3rd coming not only destroys Preterism, but it destroys the inerrance of the Scripture, replacing it with man-made doctrine.
The AD 70 coming was the only second coming of Christ...there isn't another one...it's done. His Presence is now a reality, and His Kingdom is not of this world - it cannot be seen with your flesh eyes. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by TheSandman on Sunday, December 19 @ 13:16:27 PST
- by Waidmann on Sunday, December 19 @ 13:36:49 PST
- by Waidmann on Monday, December 20 @ 10:38:52 PST
- by TheSandman on Monday, December 20 @ 15:57:46 PST
- by Parker on Monday, December 20 @ 19:29:34 PST
Re: One niggling problem (Score: 1)
 by Zorro on Saturday, December 18 @ 19:46:43 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | 'Jesus can come any time he wishes, for any reason, including a final return.'
He will come when the Father tells Him to come. Eternal obedience. When the church is completely built. 'Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.' Did gentiles cease being gentiles after 70AD? I came in, as you did.
Said to His Jewish enemies: "For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ That sure didn't in 70AD. Josephus was a Jew, wasn't he?
Every eschatological 'problem' (each school is certain they have solved it) could have been averted if the Holy Spirit had made it so utterly clear that the 'end' could not be mistaken for something else. But He didn't - every generation of Christians has been watching and waiting - apparently that is the way it is supposed to be. "...that they may be one as we are one." This is the communion (as in experience and hope) of the saints.
So any system that diminishes those saints by calling them fools, dupes, or 'inferior' Christians is suspect. "They shall be one big group of fools" is what some would have us believe that communion is.
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Waidmann on Sunday, December 19 @ 08:59:26 PST
- by Zorro on Monday, December 20 @ 09:52:49 PST
- by Waidmann on Monday, December 20 @ 10:18:08 PST
- by Zorro on Monday, December 20 @ 10:43:31 PST
- by armothe on Monday, December 20 @ 13:07:58 PST
- by alberto on Tuesday, December 21 @ 07:35:51 PST
One SERIOUS niggling problem (Score: 1)
by Parker on Saturday, December 18 @ 20:22:16 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Bob,
The first-century elect, historically speaking, did not recognize or experience the Parousia (if indeed it ever happened). This presents a major problem that has been discussed here at length recently but never resolved.
There are plenty of historic accounts of the first-century elect at and beyond AD 70 (both by Christian writers and secular histories), and we see that the people uniquely chosen to experience the return of Christ simply never experienced it--and not for any lack of faith, hope, or willingness to die for Jesus.
Unfortunately, the only reasonable explanation to this historical dilemma is that the event never happened. And, while this is the only reasonable explanation, it appears quite devastating and amounts to a blundered return of the Lord in some form or another. Futurism can't solve the problem. Preterism can't solve the problem. And partial preterism can't solve the problem. It's a blunder that can't be reconciled.
The historic non-occurrence of the Parousia in that generation renders void the entire teaching of eschatology so far as anyone can make sense. Futurism, preterism, and partial preterism are all incapable of repairing the errors that took place with regard to the predicted return of Jesus for His elect ones at a real time and place in history. Preterism, which is the only teaching close to biblical accuracy, is stuck with a Parousia that was historically unrecognizable by ANYONE, even by the very people chosen by God to experience and recognize the event.
You asked a great question, but, unfortunately, the answer is quite unsettling no matter whether one is a futurist, preterist, or partial preterist. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Saturday, December 18 @ 20:52:21 PST
- by Parker on Sunday, December 19 @ 05:59:58 PST
- by Virgil on Sunday, December 19 @ 11:42:26 PST
- by TheSandman on Monday, December 20 @ 06:42:10 PST
- by Zorro on Saturday, December 18 @ 20:54:55 PST
- by TheSandman on Monday, December 20 @ 06:24:13 PST
Re: One niggling problem (Score: 1)
by JC on Saturday, December 18 @ 23:59:43 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hi Bob,
You might like to check out the following recent discussions on the same theme:
Dec 03. Historical problem of silence: not a problem.
Nov 30. Historical Parousia vs. Theological Parousia.
Nov 26. Jesus' Promise of a 1st Century Parousia - not clear?
It seems to me that this is MUCH MORE than a 'small niggling problem' ..!
It is surely THE reason why the Church believed in the future return of Jesus, for 2000 years!
Julienne Chambers
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Virgil on Sunday, December 19 @ 11:44:09 PST
- by Zorro on Sunday, December 19 @ 16:19:25 PST
- by TheSandman on Monday, December 20 @ 06:53:34 PST
- by Roderick on Monday, December 20 @ 13:25:52 PST
- by TheSandman on Monday, December 20 @ 06:48:41 PST
- by TheSandman on Tuesday, December 21 @ 13:13:16 PST
Re: One niggling problem (Score: 1)
 by davo on Sunday, December 19 @ 08:45:22 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) |
Parker: It also lies beyond the scriptural realm of possibility -- yet, somehow, preterists believe in a secret second coming of Christ and teach it.
This is an interesting move on your part Parker; not only seemingly distancing yourself from "preterists" – but now also advocating that the preterist position teaches a secret Parousia??? I have not seen on your site nor any other "fully" preterist site this new claim of yours – you're sounding more and more futurist in your charges. Only a futurist logic tries to claim such; and I thought you knew or at least even taught better than that – maybe I was wrong?
Parker, I think your "renewed need" for a futurist style/type of explanation of this historic "covenantal event" is fogging your spiritual perception. The external temporal evidence IS there for the age changing Parousia – a kingdom coming without biological observation was that which occurred within, just like the "rebirth". This is 101 stuff.
You never did answer my questions at the link below, so I'll ask them again here:
http://planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=comments&op=showreply&tid=11552&sid=2255&pid=11549&mode=&order=0&thold=0#11552
Parker: The earliest writings of the AD70-150 generation unanimously testify to non-occurrence.
Quite simply, which is your "earliest" "non-occurrence" quote [you must have one] that you are trusting in - as opposed to the promise of Christ to His generation?
Parker: In not one case did they teach a fulfilled Parousia, and that's because it never happened, so far as they knew.
Supposed ignorance does not relegate Christ's prophetic promise to his generation null and void.
Apart from your favourite earliest quote, answer this - what do you do with these words of our Lord:
Mt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
And we know the "about to be" [mello] Parousia was about to be concurrent with the Resurrection, Judgment and Kingdom - cancel one and you cancel all.
davo |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Zorro on Sunday, December 19 @ 10:45:13 PST
- by davo on Sunday, December 19 @ 13:03:32 PST
- by Zorro on Sunday, December 19 @ 13:47:37 PST
- by armothe on Monday, December 20 @ 13:16:13 PST
- by Parker on Sunday, December 19 @ 19:25:25 PST
- by Parker on Sunday, December 19 @ 21:42:10 PST
- by Waidmann on Monday, December 20 @ 10:24:17 PST
- by Parker on Monday, December 20 @ 19:20:26 PST
Re: One niggling problem (Score: 1)
 by RevelationMan on Sunday, December 19 @ 14:18:58 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hraba,
This is your friend Eric Fugett. I think the problem for the early church fathers as well as many of us is that they, nor many of us, were or are not Jewish. The Christians in Jerusalem understood what Jesus meant and they got out of before Jesus sent Rome in to finish the job. I am in the process of writing an article now that will remind us that Matthew's gospel had a Jewish audience in mind. That is why I interpret the trumpets and the gathering of the elect as the Feast of Trumpets and Feast of Ingathering (Tabernacles) respectively.
We (us non-Jewish believers) should be reading Luke 21 rather than Matthew 24. Luke spells things out in a way that I will make clear when I finish the article. The signs that we were to look for are given in Luke 21:11 and refer to the curses Leviticus 26:14-39 and Deuteronomy 28:15-68. This is made abundantly clear by Deuteronomy 28:46. It is even reiterated in Revelation chapter 6. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Zorro on Sunday, December 19 @ 17:01:06 PST
- by RevelationMan on Sunday, December 19 @ 17:09:52 PST
- by Zorro on Sunday, December 19 @ 18:47:32 PST
- by armothe on Monday, December 20 @ 13:22:21 PST
- by Virgil on Sunday, December 19 @ 17:12:12 PST
- by Zorro on Sunday, December 19 @ 17:30:18 PST
- by Virgil on Sunday, December 19 @ 20:10:42 PST
- by Parker on Sunday, December 19 @ 18:16:18 PST
- by Virgil on Sunday, December 19 @ 20:11:18 PST
- by TheSandman on Monday, December 20 @ 07:52:21 PST
hi Sandman (Score: 1)
by Parker on Monday, December 20 @ 08:15:35 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hi Sandman.
Feel free to email me or send a message anytime.
Parker |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: One niggling problem (Score: 1)
by Bobw2000 on Wednesday, January 12 @ 16:05:51 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | | No problem ... the first resurrection happened at calvary as declared by Matt. After he gave up the ghost the graves were opened and the saints walked the streets. Isa 26:19, Hosea 6 1-3. He became the frirst fruits of the resurrection. 2nd part is you must read 1 Cor 15:35-50 understand that the catching away your looking for is not what you've been told. It has nothing to do with a physical body. 3rd that is how the dead is raised incorruptable. "The dead in christ shall raise first then we that are alive and remain". This is a blue print of his plan... first at Calvary then later we that are alive and remain. It's not a spontaneous event. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
| 
|
