Resurrection question

[Mellontes]

All the things that are to shortly come to pass as stated in Rev. "started" in the first century, as I would agree as well, but I am not sure the timing statements in Rev. would necesitate the completion of all those things, such as the throwing of Satan into the lake of fire.

I believe that Satan is Bound right now, and that is a tough one for any dispensationalilst to grasp, as is your idea that Satan is actually already thrown in the lake of fire for me to believe at this point and time.... But the cool thing is that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all understanding. So I am learning and growing each day brother... Keep up the good work and stay open to the truth. As I try to do the same.

Douglas,

Well at least you didn't say the common, "Shortly means the speed at which these things happen when the proper generation comes around." I have heard that explanation (?) too many times. Your explanation of "started" does not equal "come to pass." It is similar to the view of sin found in the garden. Most agree that Adam did die spiritually "in that day," but that he also "started" to die physically that day also...Redemption is the reverse of what happened in the garden - to get back to the presence of God. It really doesn't have anything to do with the physical.

How could satan be "started" to be thrown in the lake of fire? It clearly says that he was cast into the lake of fire. Perhaps he hasn't landed yet... Okay, okay a little too sarcastic...I apologize.

Blessings, Ted

[RickC]

Hi Mellontes,

This is my first post to you {other than the one on PMs}.

I see you're interested in Eusebius. I have a thread on him @
Eusebius' Report: Jesus' Great Nephews Amillennial

an excerpt

Hegesippus (c.110-c.180), Early Church historian, theologian, and heresiologist, was a Jewish convert to Christianity. He was well-versed in biblical languages, and Jewish culture and life. He wrote five books of Commentaries on Acts which are lost. However, a few fragments are quoted in Eusebius' Ecclesiatical {Church} History. The following has been dated to c. 95AD and relates to the reign of the Roman Emperor, Domitian (81-96):

Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus, wrote {underline for emphasis}:

"There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas {"Jude" in our Bibles}, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done. So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work. Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life. Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them, but treated them with contempt, as too mean for notice, and let them go free. At the same time he issued a command, and put a stop to the persecution against the Church. When they were released they became leaders of the churches, as was natural in the case of those who were at once martyrs and of the kindred of the Lord. And, after the establishment of peace to the Church, their lives were prolonged to the reign of Trajan."
– Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.20

end of excerpt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What Eusebius reported here also reflects what he, himself, and the Jewish-Christian, Hegesippus believed: Jesus will return {"Domitian Caesar...dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done"} --- and there will be a resurrection of the dead at the end of human history {as it has been understood}.

I noticed no full-preterists said anything on my thread....
Were Eusebius, Hegesippus, and the great nephews of Jesus wrong?
Keeping in mind that while this "legend" of Jesus' great nephews may or may not be true {historical fact}; Eusebius concurred with the future resurrection doctrine, as reported in it.
I'm curious how full-preterists deal with this information...if they do{???}.
Have a good weekend,

[Mellontes]

It is a confusing mess isn't it Rick? Both sides can pull quotes to support both positions. These same church fathers have been quoted to support Catholic doctrine too.

For me, and for many preterists (if I may be allowed to speak for them) it is not a matter of creeds or church history. These are but fallible men, like myself. Our argument is with Scripture. The church creeds have evolved over time and corrected many misunderstandings, one of which is the trinity. Can it not be said that they missed this understanding of eschatology. There has never been a real council to discuss such matters; they have just been accepted.

You ask me if the "legends" could have been wrong? And I say yes. Was Jesus wrong when he said "All these things would happen in their generation? Was Peter wrong when he said "The end of all things is at hand therefore be sober and watch unto prayer (1 Peter 4:7)?

It is Scripture versus church creeds. Who do you think we should trust first?

Also, I was hoping you could define what you meant by the "rapture" from a couple of posts back...

Anyway, I came here to post the debate between Don Preston and a partial preterist, Brian Schwertly. The subject was the resurrection.
May I invite all who are interested in the nature and timing of the resurrection to listen to the following debate?

Part 1 - http://www.blubrry.com/player/?e=278070&p=2840

Part 2 - http://www.blubrry.com/player/?e=278071&p=2840

Some of you may take issue with the music and that's fine with me. I am not particulary fond of it...

Blessings, Ted

[mikew]

You could logically be a full preterist and realize that Rev 20 has a parenthetical phrase that isn't in the same period of time.

For example, the mention of 1000s years periods can logically be seen as an explanation of the bruising of Satan from Gen 3:15. The explanation basically says that Satan was being taken away his power of deception of the nations for a time -- this is the bruising. Yet he would be loosed again to deceive the nations (likely in some manipulation of the world cultures against the Christian religion). I would see this as God's process of removing dross.
Then after the dross was removed, Satan's actions are no longer welcome and he is destroyed (not only bruised).

So the Book of Revelation showed this only for the purpose of giving better understanding to the main topic -- the events to shortly happen.

The idea of this view fitting as a full preterist view is in defining full preterism as being fulfillment of:
1) the prophecies of the Old Testament about the latter days judgments
2) the prophecies of the Messiah
3) the fulfillment of the promises to Israel
4) the start of the kingdom
5) redemption of the faithful believers
6) the prophecies of the New Testament that address the first five items

(Some other stuff probably should also be included in the list)

This would meet the requirements of Luke 21:32
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

So items that are open ended -- such as there being no end to the increase of the kingdom -- can't be said to be fully fulfilled. Anyhow, such as phrase is more of a description rather than a prophecy anyhow.

[Mellontes]

If anyone is interested, I started a post called "Some interesting quotes by church fathers" in the ecclesiology section of the board index. This would be a good place to pit church father against church father, or church father against this doctrine or that doctrine, with no value being obtained in either case...

Blessings, Ted

[RickC]

Hello Ted.

It is a confusing mess isn't it Rick? Both sides can pull quotes to support both positions. These same church fathers have been quoted to support Catholic doctrine too.

It can be confusing if the scriptures and church fathers aren't read in context. E.g., I feel you misread Eusebius in your earlier post, though I haven't commented why {I may later but have to go to bed soon today}.

The fact that church fathers are quoted to support any number of beliefs---{like how premillennialists and amillennialists quote them to support their views}---doesn't address what I asked you.

For me, and for many preterists (if I may be allowed to speak for them) it is not a matter of creeds or church history. These are but fallible men, like myself. Our argument is with Scripture. The church creeds have evolved over time and corrected many misunderstandings, one of which is the trinity. Can it not be said that they missed this understanding of eschatology. There has never been a real council to discuss such matters; they have just been accepted.

Again, though they might be there {?}; I've never found any full-preterist comments on "Eusebius' Report."

You ask me if the "legends" could have been wrong? And I say yes.

I'm taking this as your saying:
"Yes. Eusebius, Hegesippus, and the doctrines espoused in the legend of the great nephews of Jesus are erroneous."

It is Scripture versus church creeds. Who do you think we should trust first?

I use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, briefly described:
1) Scripture
2) Tradition
3) Reason
4) Experience

Your approach seems a lot like what has been called Solo Scriptura {only the scriptures}. This differs somewhat from Sola Scriptura {which also means "only the scriptures"}. But the difference with Sola Scriptura is: In Lutheran and most Protestant circles, church tradition is also embraced to the extent it conforms with apostolic teaching {the scriptures}.

I accept that you think Eusebius, Hegessippus, and "the great nephews of Jesus legend" had it wrong. But then again, I'm not a Solo Scriptura kind of person. In other words, I accept the truth of the Church tradition {#2, above} that the resurrection of the dead at the end of history has been taught since Christ and the apostles. The "Eusebius Report" is evidence for it {and/or an argument for a future resurrection, #3}. Furthermore, this has been the belief experienced {#4} since the founding of the Church.

I've read many of your posts and see we strongly disagree on full-preterism {I've studied it and things-related for some time now}. However, I'm probably what is being called a "Modern Preterist" and seem to see some things kind of like full-preterists do...{but not really}.....
I don't know to what extent we could discuss things: It might be minimal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It wasn't on-topic but...thanks for the debate links. I like listening to good ones.
{Off-topic some more}: Have you listened to or read contra-full-preterists like Dan Trotter, Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, and Dee Dee Warren? I'm going to load a Don Preston debate from Warrens' site soon.

Btw, just because I've heard & read these folks doesn't mean I agree with everything they say {without going into any specifics}.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lastly, did the Apostle John or any other Christians who lived during---and after---70AD miss the rapture? I ask once more...and will leave there.
~~~~~~~~~~

Have a nice day,

[Mellontes]

Rick said, "{Off-topic some more}: Have you listened to or read contra-full-preterists like Dan Trotter, Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, and Dee Dee Warren?"

The answer is yes! Don't forget I started off as a dispensationalist and went through progressive dispensationalism, and touched upon amillennialism and postmillennialism. I have read a few works by each of Chilton, DeMar (he is excellent), Gentry and regrettably Dee Dee Warren. Actually it was Dee Dee who got me thinking just why are we so mean to these people who have a differing view of eschatology. I could find no sound Scriptural analysis from her explaining why...just church historian after church historian. I want Scripture and only Scripture and I make no apology for it. Not saying that I am acting like Christ but didn't He refute satan in the wilderness with Scripture only...I guess that is how I look at things sort of...

Rick said, "Btw, just because I've heard & read these folks doesn't mean I agree with everything they say {without going into any specifics}.

Don't worry. I won't hold you to it. I don't either." I think Gentry and DeMar are miles apart themselves...

Rick said, "Lastly, did the Apostle John or any other Christians alive during and after 70AD miss the rapture? I'm asking this once more...at that, I leave it."

I will answer "No, they did not miss the rapture" even though I have asked for clarification as to what you mean by the rapture. I can answer only by what I define the rapture to be. So I ask again for the second time, "What do you mean by the rapture?"

Have a great week-end! Ted

Have a nice day, "

[RickC]

Hi Ted,

Rick said, "Lastly, did the Apostle John or any other Christians alive during and after 70AD miss the rapture? I'm asking this once more...at that, I leave it."

I will answer "No, they did not miss the rapture" even though I have asked for clarification as to what you mean by the rapture. I can answer only by what I define the rapture to be. So I ask again for the second time, "What do you mean by the rapture?"

Actually, I think I already know what you believe on the rapture from reading your other posts: To you, it's not physical/literal.

My view of the rapture is: amillennial.
I don't want to debate your view versus mine.

Also, though it's off-topic, I left dispensationalism as I learned I was never really convinced of it in the first place...it was all I knew at one time. I didn't become amillennial from reading amillennialists. I "became amill" from reading the Bible and trying to reconcile difficult passages in it {comparing scripture with scripture}. I was familiar with a basic amillennial interpretation of Rev. 20, but this didn't convince me in and of itself: The Bible did.

I'm "amillennial" in that it best describes my overall view of eschatology. However, I'm not amillennial in an "across the board" way. E.g., many, if not most, amillennialists are Calvinists, which I'm not. They have other reasons to be amillennialists, like being committed to covenant theology, and so on. Thanks,

[Michelle]

Heya Mellontes and Rick,

Mellontes, you seemed to want Rick to state your definition of the rapture, which I can't blame him for avoiding doing.

Rick, you said you don't want to debate his view vs. your view, which I also can't blame you for avoiding.

I am curious, however, to read both of your views of the rapture and would be very grateful if you both could just give a summary of your position. If you have time, and if you don't mind, that is.

Thanks,
Michelle

[RickC]

Hi Michelle

My view is essentially just like Steve Gregg's...if you know his.

And, yes, I don't want to debate full-preterists. For one thing, I think it would be unproductive. For another, I think it might be next to impossible.

Anyways, sorry about getting off-topic, Douglas {thread starter}.

Perhaps we need a new thread on "My View of the Rapture {and what's yours?}...or something like that.