Partial Preterism & Full Preterism

[Guest]

I am thinking that maybe its OUR misunderstanding of what the Coming was supposed to be, rather than the only other valid conclusion that Peter, Paul, James, JOhn, and JESUS, were wrong. I dont know if there is an option there for holding to inspiration if thats the case.

I agree Jim. This is the crux of the issue. Given our distance from the Gospel and Epistle writers in terms of time, language, culture, etc. it is (imho) much more likely that WE are the ones who have been mistaken, rather than the Apostles.

[Guest]

Thanks Mort. But if thats the case, that we are mistaken in our understanding of the Parousia, that that seems to make you a full pret. cuz i looked at the verses you listed for resurrection, etc. But they are just describing the event, not making a case for why it is still future.

Now, of course, if you assume that the resurrection did not happen, then it would be valid, but then wouldnt you be making the same mistake that you agreed with me about, being that you have a presupposition about what the resurrection is???

If the resurrection isnt exactly what we think it is to be, like the parousia, then its possible it happened already. maybe we are mistaken in what that is as well.

So are there any verses that demonstrate a future coming to us? And to add to that , if there are a couple that would imply that, this is another thing that bothers me...........Why would there be such little discussion from the apostles on what would seem to be such an important topic and doctrine??? That seems very odd.

And my other big hang up that hasnt been addressed yet, is the timing references, and a good reason why they dont mean what they usually mean without being ad hoc. (anyone can read my prior post above to see my problem)

Thanks again.............waiting to hear from paidon or emmet on this..............or steve.

jim d

[_Sean]

Jim,
I'd love to dialogue with a full preterist (or at least someone who is considering it).

You said:

Why would God speak to us in language we would NOT understand??

Why indeed. I would say that the argument you used in your post could be used against the full-pret view that the resurrection has already taken place. It would seem that the NT makes it clear that a physical resurrection is to be expected. Jesus resurrected physically and demonstrated that He was indeed physical. He said he would raise the believers to life on the "last day". And that there would be a time when all the dead would hear His voice and come out of their tombs.

So I would conclude that the resurrection is still in the future, since not only do people still die, but we have no reports of all the dead coming to life and coming out of their tombs. Also mentioned in Revelation 21-22 is a future time when there will be judgement of all followed by a time when there will be no more death, crying or pain. An event that has not yet transpired.

1 Cor 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

When I read this I see a 1:1 correspondance. Christ rose from the dead, we will rise from the dead. If the dead do not rise then Christ did not rise. The logic is sound. If Christ did rise physically, we will also. This must be a future event unless Jesus resurrection is different than ours, but if it's different then Paul made a mistake comparing the certainty of our resurrection with Christs'.

I too am trying to figure out what verses demonstrate clearly that there is an additional coming of Christ (assuming 70 a.d. was), or if that was it, and we just misunderstand what his coming meant. But i am sincerely desiring to think this through.

I think 1 Corinthians 15 shows a clear timeline of events that transpire.

If you read on in 1 Cor 15 we see that Christ must reign until all enemies are defeated, the last enemy is death (verses 25-26). Later on, starting in verse 50 Paul states that at the resurrection and transformation of our bodies from ones that can decay to ones that cannot decay (corruptible to incorruptible). He says this happens when death is swallowed up in victory. That's what Paul mentioned earlier, he said Jesus must reign until all the enemies are defeated, the last one is death.

Simply put, when there are no more dead in the ground, death is defeated. This seems to still be a single, future event since people at this time do not have incorruptible bodies and the dead are in the ground. And since Paul equates the resurrection with Christs', and Christ physically rose from the dead and left and empty tomb then would we not expect the same?

I see this as the even also described in 1 Thes 4, an even that occurs at the "second coming".

I think if there was a future coming, it would be a third coming, by their view, so i feel that description is a bit misleading.

It certainly gets confusing here. If you read Matthew 24 you don't read anything about a resurrection. I think that's telling us something important. In 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes 4 it's at the heart of the event.

I take 1 Cor 15:25 to say that Christ reigns now and has since His resurrection and is using His power to defeat His enemies, like Jerusalem.

Jesus "coming" in 70AD means the same thing it did when the "coming of the Lord" was used in the OT. It means judgement. It does not mean resurrection.

So on the one hand Paul states something imminent here:

1 Corinthians 7:29
What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none

I believe Paul is expecting the same thing Jesus predicted in Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 and Revelation. Coming of judgement on Jerusalem and persecution of the church scattered thoughout the Roman empire.

But I do not believe that Paul, Jesus, John or Peter predicted a soon coming that would usher in the resurrection of the dead and final judgement (as stated in Matt 25 and Rev 20). One reason is because if they did predict this, they were all wrong. Another reason is because I believe Jesus actually taught us otherwise:

Matt 25:6"At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!' 7"Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.' 9" 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.' 10"But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!' 12"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.' 13"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

It seems that the reason some of the virgins were foolish is because they did not have enough oil. In other words, they were prepared to meet Jesus, but they were not prepared to wait a long time for Him! That seems to be the only thing they did wrong, it seems to be the reason they were foolish. They expected Jesus to return soon, but the other virgins were prepared for a long wait since they brought more oil, just in case.

Jesus ends by saying to be prepared because you do no know the day or the hour. In other words, be prepared for a long wait.

Paul seems to be in agreement that we can not predict when it will happen. So how could Paul at the same time know it will be soon?
1 Thes 5: 1 Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.

Jesus also said:
Luke 21:8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

If Paul, Peter, James, John all thought that the time was near, then Jesus said not to follow them. So the question is, what was near (70AD) and what was not?

Just some things to consider.

IMO, what was near was the destruction of old covenant and apostate Jerusalem, the instability of the Roman empire and persecution of the Church. What was not near was the resurrection of the dead, death being defeated, final judgement or the new heavens and earth.

Just as Jesus warns the Churches in Revelation that He would/could "come" to them, there can be different ways of speaking of Jesus' coming.

[Guest]

hello sean..........

I think your concept is very ingenious. By making the resurrection a separate event, and keeping all the time references connected to 70 a.d., you dont run into the problem of the bible not being inspired, or the worse attempt at trying to change the meaning of words. But i think most part. pret here would disagree with that concept.

You said.......
I think 1 Corinthians 15 shows a clear timeline of events that transpire.

I totally agree with you. But in your many references to 1 Cor 15.......you leave out the most telling. That is verse 23.

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

It seems clear to me that at his coming/parousia, resurrection occurs. I think one only disagrees with this if they have certain presuppositions............which you said could be used against my post , earlier.........but that would only be the case if your first paragraph regarding what resurrection is, is clear. This is my other problem. I dont think its that clear at all, and this is why i am not so sure that the part. pret view holds up, and the scripture seems to favor a full pret. view.

Your argument for resurrection, and why it must be future is as follows......
. It would seem that the NT makes it clear that a physical resurrection is to be expected. Jesus resurrected physically and demonstrated that He was indeed physical. He said he would raise the believers to life on the "last day". And that there would be a time when all the dead would hear His voice and come out of their tombs.


And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus: eph. 2:6

This is while they are alive, not dead. You quoted from john 5 and 6.

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

But you neglect the context. a couple verses before, in Verse 25 states..........

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live

You stated that jesus resurrected physically, and that demostrates he was indeed physical. YES. But what follows??? NOT your presupposition.

These verses show that what you say is future to us, was happening At THAT TIME. Your presupposition that people have not come out of the grave, and still die just doesnt match up with scripture. I dont think your argument is overwhelming. In fact, i dont think you have shown any biblical evidence for it. I know there is more on your post, but i think this is sufficient to start with.

I think you have to explain why 1 cor 15 :23 is not what is says without a futurist bias, and explain why the context of john 5 is wrong and eph. 2 is wrong.

thanks sean. I did this quickly so i hope is coherent, and i hope you see what i feel is a difficulty. Because i too used to hold to what you stated, but i dont feel strong about it anymore. I think its very hard to get away from the idea that the parousia is also connected to the resurrection, which thus leads most to deny the time references..........which is the usual approach, which i also think is based on bias rather than the truth of scripture.

jim d.

[Guest]

I think one of the mistakes that people make is not looking into the greek tenses that are used by Paul in his argument. The dead "were being raised" in his day. You can't make present active mean something way off in the future without doing damage to the text. Unfortunately our english translations don't always do the best. Mainly because of the presuppositions that the translators had as well.

Also...just because you see the word dead you can't automatically assume it's talking about rotted flesh. In many cases it is talking about a people. Ex: Matt 8:22; John 5:25; etc.

More on this topic later.

8) Mike

[Guest]

I don't know why Sean's explanation should be regarded as "ingenius" (as if he was doing some fancy footwork in order to dodge valid challenges to his view). It seems that he is simply doing normal exegesis of passages on a case-by-case basis (and pretty sound exegesis at that). This is the same way that I have reached similar conclusions to his, and I think it is the right approach to biblical studies, generally.

To treat the word "parousia" as if it always means the same thing, regardless of context, is to take the lazy approach to biblical studies. The word is a generic word that is used of more than one thing—including the "coming" of Titus (2 Cor.7:6)! That this kind of language refers, in the Old Testament, to a wide variety of judgment events is indisputable. It is no stretch of the imagination at all to allow the same to be true in New Testament usage.

It is not bizarre to find the term used a variety of ways in different contexts—whether of a judgment event in AD 70 (a figurative "coming") or a universal judgment event at the end of time (a literal "coming" of Christ). Only the latter could be called "the second coming" (an expression not found in scripture, but implied in Hebrews 9:28) in the sense that Acts 1:11 would seem to predict.

[Guest]

I dont understand how what you said steve, alleviates any problem or the problems i raised with sean.

I do understand that "coming" is used with others.

But james says the Parousia is at hand. Paul also talks of the coming at hand also, as well as the others, e.g., "soon" "near" ,etc.

YOu admit that those did happen soon, and near, etc. but were referencing 70 a.d. Fine, i agree with that also. But not the corinthians verse. Why?

But how is it that you are able to say that the parousia in 1 Cor 15:23 is NOT the same event as the other Parousia's? It seems to me that the ONLY reason is because of a presupposed idea what the resurrection is supposed to be, and since it has not happened as you believe it is to happen, its thus future, then you are able to conclude that the corinthians verse MUST be in the future. But that argument hasnt been made yet. Sean did make some points, but i think i demonstrated that they were not valid, or at a minimum not convincing enough to overide the plain meaning of scripture.

Maybe i am being to simplistic in my interpretation. But.............
Paul states they were being resurrected at that time, john said the hour was then. What is the measuring rod in determining what is future and what isnt if its not guided by a bias to a futuristic pardigm that hasnt been justified without begging the question????

This is what i am trying to figure out.

sincerly, JIm in sunny california!!

[Guest]

Jim, Acts 17 tells us about the judgement and it's not what happened in 70AD.
"He declares that every human being EVERYWHERE must repent, because He has set a day in which He is going to judge the world with justice by a man whom He has designated to do so. And He has furnished proof of this to everybody by raising him from the dead." Acts 17.30-31

Note that Paul says the WORLD will be judged and the proof of this event is linked to the BODILY resurrection of Christ. The bodily resurrection of Christ is not distinguished from the type of resurrection that the world receives. You talked about presuppositions well if you read this passage without any then the resurrections of Jesus verses everyone else is in the same way. Additionally Paul refers to the judgement of the world wheras 70AD was limited to Jerusalem.

Re John 5.25 it is distinguished from John 5.29 because it refers to a spiritual resurrection from spiritual death to spiritual life. As John says "those who HEAR will LIVE." Nothing is said about coming out of the graves as is specifically said later in 5.29 when in fact John speaks of EVERYONE coming out of the graves to be judged by Christ on the last day which was'nt 70AD.

[Guest]

Jim,

I don't recall the biblical writers claiming that the resurrection of the dead was near. There are numerous "parousias"—but only the final one includes the resurrection of all the dead.

True, there was a near "parousia" in the first century, and nearly every author in the New Testament predicted it and spoke of its nearness. It did not involve the literal return of Christ from heaven to earth, but was simply one of the many historic, divine judgments which are spoken of as a "coming" or "visitation" of God.

However, there are many passages that suggest a more distant "parousia," which the readers were not to expect in their near future (2 Thess.2:1-3/ Matt.25:5, 14, 19/ Luke 19:11—Revelation 20 speaks of the interval, figuratively, as "a thousand years").

This distinction is not problematic for me. I am sorry if it remains so for you.

To be a fully-realized preterist requires that one claim the resurrection occurred in the past. This is the doctrine for which Paul delivered certain heretics, because of their teaching it, over to Satan (1 Tim.1:20 w/ 2 Tim.2:17-18). I would beware of it.

[_Sean]

Paul states they were being resurrected at that time, john said the hour was then. What is the measuring rod in determining what is future and what isnt if its not guided by a bias to a futuristic pardigm that hasnt been justified without begging the question????

This is what i am trying to figure out.

sincerly, JIm in sunny california!!

...........................................
These verses show that what you say is future to us, was happening At THAT TIME. Your presupposition that people have not come out of the grave, and still die just doesnt match up with scripture.

John mentions two resurrections. The first is being born of the spirit, or "born again". The second is physical "coming out of the tombs". That's why John says the time is coming "and now is". When he talks about hearing and understanding the spiritual teachings of Jesus (remember how many people didn't listen to Jesus because they didn't understand him?). Jesus then goes on in John 5 to talk about a time is (still future) coming when all the dead will hear and come out of their tombs.

2 events, two types of resurrections.

Joh 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Joh 5:25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

Joh 5:28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice
Joh 5:29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

It seems to me that two events are being described. One that "now is" (verse 25) and one that is still to come (verse 28). The one that is still to come is the resurrection of physical bodies and judgement (i.e. Revelation 20:12+).

Another reason I believe this is what Jesus said here:
Joh 11:26 and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Have you ever known anyone who has not died that you have personally known? Obviously people die physically. So it seems that for Jesus to be correct He must mean that you don't die even though your body does, you live on. As Paul mentions in Phil 1:23.


As far as you believing Paul/Jesus taught that the resurrection was already occuring, since you could point to the very passages I just cited (Steve alluded to this above) you should read Paul's own words on this:

2Ti 2:17 ... Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
2Ti 2:18 who have swerved from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already happened. They are upsetting the faith of some.

Yet you said about John 5:

"These verses show that what you say is future to us, was happening At THAT TIME. Your presupposition that people have not come out of the grave, and still die just doesnt match up with scripture. "

Paul says otherwise.

When Paul speaks of being seated with Christ in the heavenlies, this is a spiritual conection. Since Christ sits at the right hand of God and His Spirit dwells in us and we are said to be parts of "His body" then it can certianly be said that we are seated with Him. But this truth does not undo the fact of a time coming when all the dead "in Christ" will rise to meet the lord in the air. When Paul said this in 1 Thes 4 he was comfoting those who had known of believers who had died. Why did Paul comfort them with the hope of a future resurrection if they had already experienced the only resurrection there was going to be?

It should also be noted that the word parousia is used here:

2 Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Was Peter an eyewitness to the second coming? Parousia is not a technical word for the second coming.