PDA

View Full Version : Full Preterism



Romulus
Sep 20th 2007, 06:09 PM
I might be branching into an area not allowed here (in which case, Rommie, you probably know to truncate this discussion more than I do) but would a Full Preterist such as yourself believe that the bodily resurrection and the actual future physical return of Jesus and the final and eternal judgement of mankind will actually happen at some stage? I am uncertain as to whether you believe they are not Biblically prophesied, or whether they will not happen at all.

Hi Bing,

Sorry I couldn't answer your question in End Times Chat but I wanted to abide with forum rules.

No I don't believe they will happen in the future because I believe they already happened in 70 A.D. The scriptures that speak of a second appearing and the resurrection of the dead I believe(full preterism) to be of a spiritual nature and not a physical one. I know you are aware of the partial-preterist point of view but that view leaves 1 Thessalonians 4:13 (rapture) as future and the Hebrews "second appearing(coming)" as future where I believe they were fulfilled. Heresy gets thrown around alot because the physical aspect of these events has been so drilled into Churches that believing in the unseen aspect of it is inconceivable. I do believe there is scripture proving these points but that I can explain only if you wish to further this thread.

Also, the Judgement scene in Revelation I don't believe to be a final judgment but a judgement that began in 70 A.D. with the "dead in Christ" and the unfaithful dead and is now ongoing on through history as each person dies and is immediately judged and then enters paradise or the second death(lake of fire). Notice how Revelation 20 never says "final judgment" or that it occurs once. John is only shown a picture of the judgement at that time. The events shown after such as the New Jerusalem and access to the tree of life happened in 70 A.D. as well(IMO). There is scriptural details that support this that I can share but again only if you or someone else wishes.

In answer I do believe in the 2nd appearing(coming), resurrection of the dead, judgement, New Jerusalem, and access to the tree of life, but that they occurred in the 1st century. The nature of them is also a spiritual event rather then a physical event.

Blessings Bing!

Bing
Sep 21st 2007, 06:45 PM
Romulus,
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer this question.

Is this orthodox full preterism, or is it your own personal belief? To your knowledge, is this the typical treatment of scripture that full preterism ascribes to?

Will the earth in its present state go on forever, then? If there is no end of the age, if there is no second coming, but that each believer enters judgement only upon death, when comes the final bookend of this experience we call life on earth?

Romulus
Sep 21st 2007, 07:35 PM
Romulus,
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer this question.

Is this orthodox full preterism, or is it your own personal belief? To your knowledge, is this the typical treatment of scripture that full preterism ascribes to?

Will the earth in its present state go on forever, then? If there is no end of the age, if there is no second coming, but that each believer enters judgement only upon death, when comes the final bookend of this experience we call life on earth?

Hi Bing,

This is not orthodox unfortunately since it is outside of historical orthodox teachings which is why "heresy" gets thrown around alot. There is no such thing as "orthodox full preterism". This is actually known as Consistant Preterism. The difference is I have not made up my mind on the thousand year issue in regards to Satan's final uprising. Full preterism believes this to be in 70 A.D. but I have difficulties with that since it then throws the thousand years prior to 70 A.D. right after Christ's crucifixion in 30 A.D. and that forces the martyrdom of the saints under the beast at that time which I don't believe happened then but in 70 A.D.

My views are still considered Full-Preterist since I believe(contrary to partial-preterism) that the second appearing(coming), resurrection of the dead (1st resurrection), and the Judgment(ongoing in history) to be past events. This goes hand in hand with a teaching of the atonement in the Old Covenant and the stipulations that Jesus was fulfilling in His work on Calvary. It is a wonderful plan of redemption that I believe culimnated in His second appearing "unto salvation" for all humanity. It was not a physical coming since the Old Testament "comings" in judgement were also never literal as prophecied in Isaiah and Psalms. I can expand on this if you wish but otherwise this is what I believe but do not comment on as per ETC board rules. ;)

God Bless Bing and have a wonderful weekend Brother!

Gary Rake
Sep 21st 2007, 08:09 PM
Dear Romulus:

Just a quick question. I was reading your postings to Bing and appreciated your succinct comments as they clear up much of what I had been reading by various preterist posters. Because of board rules I understand why some of the preterist postings seem strange as they are necessarily incomplete. Thanks for clarifying. It helps.

I was reading II Tim 2:18 and wondering how you see it in light of your general view that most of prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. Paul says,

"...who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some."

Thanks for your time to post the above summary.
Blessings,
Gary

Bing
Sep 23rd 2007, 01:05 PM
Romulus,

Thanks again for your replies. I've checked with the powers that be, and we are allowed to play here in controversial issues. Let's play nice, and make sure that nobody goes near the heresy card.

I was wondering if I could get a little more clarification on some of my questions above:

First, by "Orthodox Preterism" (which I realise is a hilariously ironic term) I meant the standard preterism spin. Basically, if I run into a full preterist, would he or she be likely to agree with you on most of the key issues?

Second, I think I understand your take on the second coming of Christ, the resurrection and the judgement. Which of these following scenarios best describes your belief:

- Jesus is still coming, we will be resurrected and judged, but these events are not described in the Bible; the Bible only describes past comings and the first resurrection and the ongoing historical judgement.

- Jesus is not coming back. He came spiritually, and we'll keep going until we die and go to heaven.


Third, what is your interpretation of Revelation 21-22? Are they future or past? It would seem that these passages (and others like them, describing eternity) cannot have been fulfilled, even by the most symbolic interpretation.

Romulus
Sep 24th 2007, 02:32 PM
Dear Romulus:

Just a quick question. I was reading your postings to Bing and appreciated your succinct comments as they clear up much of what I had been reading by various preterist posters. Because of board rules I understand why some of the preterist postings seem strange as they are necessarily incomplete. Thanks for clarifying. It helps.


Hi Gary,

I am more then happy to answer your questions. Just a note of clarification that preterism usually falls under two views and only Full-Preterism is outside board rules. Partial-Preterism confirms to orthodox teachings and the historic Church and does not conflict with those views as presented in the creeds. Partial-Preterism is allowed to be expressed in all open forums while Full-Preterism is only allowed here in controversial issues and world religions.



I was reading II Tim 2:18 and wondering how you see it in light of your general view that most of prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. Paul says,

"...who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some."


Here is the full scripture:

II Timothy 2

16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his,"[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20timothy%202&version=31#fen-NIV-29831a)] and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

This is usually where many will assume Full-Preterism falls under and then label it "Hymenaeus-Preterism". Let me explain why that is an incorrect term. Hymenaeus and Philetus had wandered from the truth because they were teaching that the resurrection had passed while the temple was still standing. This goes hand in hand with Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:8

6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing.

Within Full-Preterism the way into the Most Holy Place could only have done through atonement and not while the 2nd temple was still standing. The last sign of the Old Covenant had to be removed and the resurrection had to have occurred at that time. Nothing unholy could enter the most Holy place otherwise. Hymenaeus and Philetus were preaching that the resurrection(of the dead) had occurred already even before the temple was removed going against the very plan of God. This is why Full-Preterism cannot be labeled with the actions of Hymenaeus and Philetus because Full-Preterism believes the resurrection occurred after the 2nd temple or tabernacle as noted in Hebrews had been destroyed, not before.

Also, here is a very important detail regarding the nature of the resurrection of the dead. Most of the Church today and the historic Church believed that the resurrection of the dead was a physical all eye seeing event that would be witnessed by all of humanity. If this was the original teaching then how could Hymenaeus and Philetus have been successful in their error? Let me explain, if the resurrection of the dead was a physical event of the dead and living rising from their graves and meeting the Lord how could Hymenaeus and Philetus have convinced anyone that the resurrection had occurred? They couldn't have, because no physical event like this ever happened. The only way that they did convince many that the resurrection was a past event was if the nature of it was not physical but a spiritual event. Full-Preterism simply believes that the resurrection of the dead was not a physical event but a spiritual event and the same as the first resurrection in Revelation 20.

Revelation 20

4I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

To understand the first resurrection we must understand the first death which is not expanded upon here. The first death is believed by most to be our physical death on earth and the first resurrection is our bodily resurrection into heaven itself(there are other variations on this but most usually begin at our physical death.) I do not believe this as per scripture. Let me explain. To understand the first resurrection we must know what the first death was. The second death is mentioned here as having no power over those who partake in the first resurrection. The second death is revealed here:

Revelation 20

The Dead Are Judged

11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

All agree that the second death is the lake of fire. Not all agree with what the first resurrection is which I believe to the same as the resurrection of the dead. To answer this question we must find the first death in scripture. It is not in Revelation, for that we must go back to the beginning in Genesis:

Genesis 2 (septuagint into english)

2:15 And the Lord God took the man whom he had formed, and placed him in the garden of Delight, to cultivate and keep it.
2:16 And the Lord God gave a charge to Adam, saying, Of every tree which is in the garden thou mayest freely eat,
2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil-- of it ye shall not eat, but in whatsoever day ye eat of it, ye shall surely die.

God told Adam that on the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would surely die. Did Adam physically die on the day he ate the fruit? No, he lived for another 400+ years but God does not lie. Adam did die on the day he ate the fruit, he died spiritually(as did all of humanty) and became separated from God through sin as nothing unholy can dwell with God. A consequence of the fall was physical death but that was not the first death in scripture. It was Adams spiritual death that occurred first and had to be atoned for. If the first death was not physical then the first resurrection must not be physical either, it must be spiritual to resurrect us from the first death(spiritual.) We know that this was only done through Christ from His atoning work on Calvary.

This now harmonizes with Revelation. The second death has no hold on those that partake in the first resurrection(spiritual). Christ's atoning work on the Cross protects us from the second death(lake of fire) because we are now forgiven and worthy to be back in the presence of God through the work of Jesus Christ. When we are judged it is Christ's blood that covers us and we will be judged to be faithful servants through Him who died for us, Jesus. Revelation goes further and states that "blessed are those who have part in the first resurrection" since they will rule with Christ for a thousand years. We who partake in Christ's resurrection(our first resurrection) now reign with Jesus Christ. Even more so we are now resurrected from the dead. Not physical death but spiritual death. That is what I believe that the 1st century believers were waiting for and that which Hymenaeus and Philetus were in error as occurring before the 2nd(Herodian) temple was destroyed. We are now resurrected through Christ and the second death has no power over us and more importantly we are now with Him and He is within us.

Just another point of interest, I believe that 1 Thessaloninans 4:13 which is usually attributed to being the rapture or the future second coming of Christ I believe to be fulfilled in the final act of atonement unto our salvation. I believe that the rapture or the meeting of the Lord in the air is the same event as the resurrection of the dead and the first resurrection and that occurred in the destruction of the Last sign of the Old Covenant, the temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. I can expand on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is you wish.

God bless you brother!

Romulus
Sep 24th 2007, 03:46 PM
Romulus,

Thanks again for your replies. I've checked with the powers that be, and we are allowed to play here in controversial issues. Let's play nice, and make sure that nobody goes near the heresy card.



Hi Bing, I also had this discussion with the moderators in the moderator chat forum quite a while back and they did tell me I was allowed to expand on Full-Preterist arguments but only here in controversial issues and world religions. Thanks for the concern and I know we will have a informative discussion that we both can learn from. Thanks for not playing the heresy part, that means alot brother.



I was wondering if I could get a little more clarification on some of my questions above:

First, by "Orthodox Preterism" (which I realise is a hilariously ironic term) I meant the standard preterism spin. Basically, if I run into a full preterist, would he or she be likely to agree with you on most of the key issues?


As a whole, yes most Full-Preterists would agree with me on these issues. The only difference disagreement we would have is the issue of the thousand years. Full-Preterists mostly believe that the period from the Cross to 70 A.D. was the thousand years which I do not agree with since that would mean the beast and the martyrdom under it/him had to occur at the time of the cross. I more agree with Partial-Preterists on that issue but I am still questioning where that part harmonizes with the other views I have. Anyhow, I am still in the Full-Preterist camp since I believe that the big three 1) second appearing 2) Resurrection of the dead 3) Judgment (70 A.D. and ongoing through history) have occurred already. This immediately throws my views into Full-Preterism. Full-Preterism also believes that the New Jerusalem, access to the tree of life began in 70 A.D. (some Partial-Preterists agree with this as well).



Second, I think I understand your take on the second coming of Christ, the resurrection and the judgement. Which of these following scenarios best describes your belief:

- Jesus is still coming, we will be resurrected and judged, but these events are not described in the Bible; the Bible only describes past comings and the first resurrection and the ongoing historical judgement.

- Jesus is not coming back. He came spiritually, and we'll keep going until we die and go to heaven.



Number 2. I think the issue that many have a hard time understanding from the Full-Preterist view is that there is no future physical coming of Christ when the outcome is the same hope of all Christians. It is simply in the nature of it. I believe that Jesus is with me, now and will never leave me or forsake me. Just because I do not see Him does not make this truth invalid. In fact, the fact that he is with me is in a greater reality then I could imagine. I am no longer separated from God through Jesus Christ. The physical manifestation of that relationship should be no different then the one God wants to have now with me today. In fact this real raltionship today is more important then the physical aspect of that relationship because God is spiritual, and the spiritual, contrary to what I was taught is a greater reality then the physical reality we all live in each day.



Third, what is your interpretation of Revelation 21-22? Are they future or past? It would seem that these passages (and others like them, describing eternity) cannot have been fulfilled, even by the most symbolic interpretation.


I am glad you asked this question since I have not been able to expand on this in end time chat. I will take each scripture and give you my opinion on why these cannot be future rather then why they are past.

Revelation 21

The New Jerusalem

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

I believe this to be a present reality. Is God with us? Are we His people? Is God our God?

This scripture reminds us of:

Jeremiah 31 (septuagint in to english)

31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Juda:
31:32 not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded them, saith the Lord.
31:33 For this is my covenant which I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will surely put my laws into their mind, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.
31:34 And they shall not at all teach every one his [fellow] citizen, and every one his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them: for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more.

Isn't this a reality now? If we are looking for the physical aspect of it, then no. But if we look beyond the physical aspect and ask ourselves is this true now, in all reality, just because I can't see it, is it true? I believe it is.

Anyhow let us expand:

Revelation 21(NIV)

22I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Revelation 21(CEV)

24Nations will walk by the light of that city, and kings will bring their riches there. 25Its gates are always open during the day, and night never comes. 26The glorious treasures of nations will be brought into the city. 27But nothing unworthy will be allowed to enter. No one who is dirty-minded or who tells lies will be there. Only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2021;&version=46;#fen-CEV-27465d)] will be in the city.

How can this be future after the Millenium and the Final Judgement if sinners are outside of the city walls? They should have been judged and punished already but yet scripture states that outside of the walls are the unworthy(non-believers.) The New Jerusalem is the place where God dwells. There is no sin, and nothing impure is in it, but outside there is sin and the ungodly. Inside is where the lamb is it's light because Christ is dwelling within it. Full-Preterism believes this is a picture of the believer today. The city or the New Jerusalem is the bride of Christ, the Church. It is a picture of the reality that we share today. Christ is dwelling within us. We have been made new. Nothing impure can enter within us because He reigns within our hearts. Sin and the ungodly still exist outside of us but they cannot enter the presence that we as believers share in, the reign of Christ within out hearts that have been made perfect through the blood of Christ. It is not a physical city but a heavenly picture of the heavenly reality we all share in right now. Nothing impure can enter us because we are forgiven and Christ(the lamb) is our light. If this is future how could sin still exist outside of the physical walls when the Final Judgement has already occurred and the ungodly punished with the second death(lake of fire)? It could only exist outside if the city is a picture of a reality today when sin still exists as well as the unredeemed.

Revelation 22

1The angel showed me a river that was crystal clear, and its waters gave life. The river came from the throne where God and the Lamb were seated. 2Then it flowed down the middle of the city's main street. On each side of the river are trees [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelation%2022;&version=46;#fen-CEV-27467a)] that grow a different kind of fruit each month of the year. The fruit gives life, and the leaves are used as medicine to heal the nations. 3God's curse will no longer be on the people of that city. He and the Lamb will be seated there on their thrones, and its people will worship God 4and will see him face to face. God's name will be written on the foreheads of the people. 5Never again will night appear, and no one who lives there will ever need a lamp or the sun. The Lord God will be their light, and they will rule forever.

The same goes for access to the tree of life. Notice the scripture above is for the healing of the nations. If this was after the final judgement and the second coming and the destruction of the earth then what nations are left to heal? These nations would have been judged already and the new heavens and the earth would have come. Nothing sinful or ungodly nation would exist. The only explanantion is that this is also a reality now. Through the fall in Genesis we were separated from access to the tree of life(immortality). Here we have a picture of the reality that we have access again. This must be reality when the nations are still in need of healing. Can this fit the reality of the world today through believers? I believe it can. Do the nations need healing today? Do people need healing today? Of course. We through Christ have access to immortality or the redemption of our souls though Christ. We all will live forever due to Christ's atoning work on the Cross. The nations through the Church(New Jerusalem) will be witness the Gospel of Christ. The healing will be done through our preaching of life everlasting through our Lord Jesus Christ. We will heal the nations that are in darkness with the power of the Gospel. They will indeed be healed with the same knowledge that we have been healed by. This I don't believe to be a picture in the future but the reality that is true in Christ Jesus today. This goes hand in hand with the Church's mission today:

Matthew 28

The Great Commission

16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=28&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-24212a)] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

God never said to disciple people but nations. He expects every nation to partake in the glorious work of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ. Will it take work on the Church's part, yes but all things are possible through Him who lives and reigns within us.

God Bless you brother!

Bing
Sep 25th 2007, 02:13 AM
Hi Bing, I also had this discussion with the moderators in the moderator chat forum quite a while back and they did tell me I was allowed to expand on Full-Preterist arguments but only here in controversial issues and world religions. Thanks for the concern and I know we will have a informative discussion that we both can learn from. Thanks for not playing the heresy part, that means alot brother.
I appreciate the way in which you have conducted yourself thus far in this conversation, friend. I might as well tell you here that I do believe that you are completely off in your theology and in extreme error, but you seem sincere, and so I can see nothing to gain in berating you or anything like that. My main purpose here on these forums is to strengthen my own understanding of theology and to test what I believe, so please tell me at once if you feel threatened or belittled by anything I say. I also believe in being honest, so if I don't believe something you say, I will tell you. I have been accused in the past of having an aggressive nature in discussion, and I want to make sure we don't end up degenerating into petty and fruitless squabbling.


Number 2. I think the issue that many have a hard time understanding from the Full-Preterist view is that there is no future physical coming of Christ when the outcome is the same hope of all Christians. It is simply in the nature of it.
I'm trying to grasp your system here without questioning every jot that I disagree with, but I'm wondering here how this statement measures up against Acts 1:11?


I believe that Jesus is with me, now and will never leave me or forsake me. Just because I do not see Him does not make this truth invalid.
Are you Trinitarian? Has not the role you described been filled by the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-14)? I'm not trying to begin an argument here, just wondering how your theology stacks against some other tenets of orthodoxcy here. It is my understanding that Matthew 28:20 describes the spiritual presence of the Lord within believers in the same way as John 16, and that God is with me now in an incomplete way, and that the greater experience is still to come, when, as in 1 John 3:2, we shall both see Him and be transformed into His likeness in the glorification. Paul speaks of this in Romans 8:23, and speaks of it as something yet to come - by this hope we were saved - and something both assured and future. What does your belief (as stated above) mean in conjunction with these scriptures and with the doctrine of glorification?


In fact, the fact that he is with me is in a greater reality then I could imagine. I am no longer separated from God through Jesus Christ. The physical manifestation of that relationship should be no different then the one God wants to have now with me today. In fact this real raltionship today is more important then the physical aspect of that relationship because God is spiritual, and the spiritual, contrary to what I was taught is a greater reality then the physical reality we all live in each day.
If I said this was plain Gnosticism, would you be offended?


I am glad you asked this question since I have not been able to expand on this in end time chat. I will take each scripture and give you my opinion on why these cannot be future rather then why they are past.

Before we go into a full study of these passages (which might need a separate thread - in fact, which will need a separate thread) I'll just let you know that I am Premillennial, and not entirely sure yet whether these passages are describing the Millennium or Eternity. My main point in bringing them up was the interesting observation that John implies God will eventually dwell with men (21:3) in a way different from the way He dwellt with men at the time of John's writing. I wonder if you claim a pre-70 AD date for Revelation to solve this? Or perhaps you have a different idea as to when the indwelling Spirit of God began living inside believers (I have only heard the interpretation that this happened in Acts 2).

I appreciate your comments on Revelation 21 and 22. I read them and thought on them, but I would like to grasp some of the more fundamental aspects of your doctrine before I try an indepth exegesis with you!

Thanks for all your time.

Romulus
Sep 25th 2007, 03:59 PM
I appreciate the way in which you have conducted yourself thus far in this conversation, friend. I might as well tell you here that I do believe that you are completely off in your theology and in extreme error, but you seem sincere, and so I can see nothing to gain in berating you or anything like that. My main purpose here on these forums is to strengthen my own understanding of theology and to test what I believe, so please tell me at once if you feel threatened or belittled by anything I say. I also believe in being honest, so if I don't believe something you say, I will tell you. I have been accused in the past of having an aggressive nature in discussion, and I want to make sure we don't end up degenerating into petty and fruitless squabbling.


Thanks Bing. It is okay that we disagree on theology. Most of the historic Church has as well as the Church today and probably will for a long time. We all have one common, Jesus Christ and that is what is important. I hope your beliefs are strengthened and if they are challenged then they are challenged. :)



I'm trying to grasp your system here without questioning every jot that I disagree with, but I'm wondering here how this statement measures up against Acts 1:11?


This is scripture that is usually the cornerstone of of a physical return of Christ.

Acts 1:11 (KJV)

9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Like manner seems to state not exactly like he left but that can be disputed. Even so, I believe an accurate view of verse 9 makes it more clear. A cloud received him was how Jesus ascended into heaven. He was taken away not as a body rising to the heavens and seen by the disciples but the cloud simply covered Him and He was gone. This was the exact opposite of a cloud coming. It was rather a cloud going. When Christ was to return it was as a cloud coming as stated in Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark etc. I know you are familiar with the Partial-Preterist view of these scriptures and Full-Preterism simply sees the verse of a future coming of Christ hand in hand with the other cloud comings in scripture, not removing Acts 1:11 as a separate physical coming but as the same Christ coming in other scriptures. Full-Preterism only sees one Christ coming in scripture, not 2 or more. These "cloud comings" are the same as spoke about in Isaiah and Psalms by God before the Judgement of nations. The prophecies against Edom, Babylon, Nineveh also had cloud imagery and celestial signs but were always understood by their Jewish readers as apocalyptic language. These prophecies were fulfilled historically but the literal fulfillment of this language never happened. The nations I explained above do not exist anymore. They were Judged exactly as God said they would be andyet none of the cloud comings or celestial events ever happened. Full-Preterism simply uses the Old Testament as the key to understanding the New Testament. Partial-Preterists do the same but Full-Preterism does it consistantly with all scriptures including Acts 1:11.




Are you Trinitarian? Has not the role you described been filled by the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-14)? I'm not trying to begin an argument here, just wondering how your theology stacks against some other tenets of orthodoxcy here. It is my understanding that Matthew 28:20 describes the spiritual presence of the Lord within believers in the same way as John 16, and that God is with me now in an incomplete way, and that the greater experience is still to come, when, as in 1 John 3:2, we shall both see Him and be transformed into His likeness in the glorification. Paul speaks of this in Romans 8:23, and speaks of it as something yet to come - by this hope we were saved - and something both assured and future. What does your belief (as stated above) mean in conjunction with these scriptures and with the doctrine of glorification?


First off I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity. I reject "oneness" or "Jesus only" doctrine. I believe in the historic Church's belief of God as proclaimed in the Nicene Creed. :) Let us look at the scriptures you mentioned:

Matthew 28:20

20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

The translation of the greek word "aeon" is age, not world as stated above. It limits that Christ would be with them even until the end of the age or what I believe to be the Old Covenant age that was about to pass away. Jesus was with the Father but yet said that He would be with the believers until the end of the age. I believe that to be true but as you stated it was not complete yet. The atonement had to be completed for our salvation which is where the second appearing was "unto salvation" as written in Hebrews. That would be the fulfillment and the completion of our salvation. This is the issue that was very uncomfortable for me. When I believed the second appearing was future, Hebrews was clear that the second appearing was "unto salvation". If Christ didn't come yet then we did not have salvation. That I believe to be completed at the end of the age in 70 A.D. This was now after the end of the age. Was Jesus still with us, yes but I believe in a greater way now that Salvation was complete. We were now reconciled with heaven itself and God our Father. We were changed so we could be with our Father through Jesus Christ. We now had access to the Holy of Holies which was the presence of God. That was what all humanity was waiting for since the fall.

John 16:16

16A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

This I believe was seeing Jesus exactly as he is because we were now through His blood able to be in the presence of God. Prior to 70 A.D. we were not worthy to be in the presence of God yet. Jesus did make the final sacrifice but yet our salvation was not complete until the removal of the Old Covenant whose last sign was removed in 70 A.D.

Romans 28


23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

I believe that the body here is not speaking of our physical body. Before I get accused of Gnosticism which I believe was the accusation in your next post :(we must look at other scripture if it conflicts with the understanding of redemption.

1 Peter 1

7That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

8Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory: 9Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

Hebrews 10:39

39But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.


The appearing would be in the redemption of our souls, not our bodies. Here we have second appearing once again. If it did not occur we do not forgiveness of sins and access to the holy of holies or the very throne of God. This could only be accomplished if sin has been atoned for. Notice how Romans 28 states that we were waiting to be adopted. Adopted as what? Well Romans is clear in another passage that it was as "our adoption as sons".

I am going to ask you a question that I believe may make my point clearer. If our bodies need redemption then where does sin lie? Is it not sin that dwells in our hearts and corrupts our souls? If our physical bodies as noted in the Romans 28:23 scripture is what is needed as part of redemption and would complete our salvation then the conclusion that must be accepted is that sin resides in our physical bodies and not just/only in our spirit. Is it our physical bodies that need to be redeemed or our spirit/soul?



If I said this was plain Gnosticism, would you be offended?


Gnosticism is the idea of a "gnosis" or a spiritual knowledge to a learned few. Basically that salvation was achieved through knowledge and revealed that the spirit was separate from the body. A better way to state it is that the spirit was trapped within a sinful existence and waiting to be freed. This was deemed as un-biblical and contrary to scripture. I must state that Fulll-Preterism is not gnosticism as I don't believe that the spirit is separate from the body. Scripturally they are together. The actions of the flesh are in agreement with the soul and vice versa and each effects the other for better or for worse. Gnosticism does not believe this. Also, I believe that once we have been redeemed an inner struggle begins between both flesh and spirit. This is in agreement with what Paul wrote as struggling with sin and "I do what I do not want to do". Christianity as a whole does believe though that after the body passes away(back to dust) that the spirit remains and is given a spiritual body in heaven. I believe this as well, the only difference is that I believe that we already have that body through Christ through redemption. It was the redemption of our spirit that I believe is presented with the concept of a spiritual body and instead of believing in the physical aspect of it I believe in the reality of it now. We have access to heaven itself and God himself, how could that be unless we have been redeemed fully? The Gnostics believed that the body was irrelvent and the spirit is what was separate from it. This led into many new age ideas which I totally reject. The spirit and soul are connected as one and that is how God created humanity in scripture. The flesh is not separate from the soul. It simply was the corruption of one that determined the corruption of the other and that is what needed to be redeemed for the reconciliation between heaven and earth or God and humanity. Gnosticism rejects this idea and that is why I cannot accept this idea. Scripture was clear that the second appearing(coming) was our blessed hope. That blessed hope was our redemption from sin and our reconciliation to God Himself through Jesus Christ. If the blessed hope was in the redemption of our physical bodies we open up another can of worms as to what needed redemption which I know Christianity rejects but that is the implication. redemption is our blessed hope and that was fulfilled in Christ. Now comes our mission. We must live out not just spiritually but physically the truth that is within us. We do not love just with our spirits but with our bodies as well. Love is a manifestation not just in the spiritual but in the physical. Faith which is spiritual must also be shown in works as the scriptures state. If it did not, then the faith in which we profess is dead. Of course it is not works that save us but faith showing itself through works. There must be a relationship between the truth that is within and the world that is outside without the truth. We must step out and change the world with the Love that has been shown us first. The love of Christ.

I must admit that at times Full-Preterism may sound like gnosticism but I hope that I explained clearly that it is not. Full-Preterism has the same requirements for redemption as all other orthodox views of scripture. It simply makes our redemption completed not at the redemption of the body but of sin atoned for once and for all in the New Covenant that is true today. It also realizes the reality of God's Kingdom not within the physical aspects of a changed world but in the change made by the participants in the Kingdom, us as we proclaim the Gospel to the world. The world is changed not by the physical changing of the earth but by the children of God living out the Gospel of Christ and bringing others into that glorious completed work.




Before we go into a full study of these passages (which might need a separate thread - in fact, which will need a separate thread) I'll just let you know that I am Premillennial, and not entirely sure yet whether these passages are describing the Millennium or Eternity. My main point in bringing them up was the interesting observation that John implies God will eventually dwell with men (21:3) in a way different from the way He dwellt with men at the time of John's writing. I wonder if you claim a pre-70 AD date for Revelation to solve this? Or perhaps you have a different idea as to when the indwelling Spirit of God began living inside believers (I have only heard the interpretation that this happened in Acts 2).


I believe they are describing the Millenium or reign of christ. I believe in a pre-70 A.D. for Revelations writing. As I stated before I believe that God dwelling with men is a present reality.



I appreciate your comments on Revelation 21 and 22. I read them and thought on them, but I would like to grasp some of the more fundamental aspects of your doctrine before I try an indepth exegesis with you!

Thanks for all your time.


Anytime Bing! I hope we can discuss them at another time. God Bless you! :)

Gary Rake
Oct 4th 2007, 02:36 AM
Dear Romulus:

I will be back in this thread, eventually...just have my hands full for the moment.

gr

Bing
Oct 9th 2007, 03:29 AM
This is scripture that is usually the cornerstone of of a physical return of Christ.

Acts 1:11 (KJV)

9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Like manner seems to state not exactly like he left but that can be disputed. Even so, I believe an accurate view of verse 9 makes it more clear. A cloud received him was how Jesus ascended into heaven. He was taken away not as a body rising to the heavens and seen by the disciples but the cloud simply covered Him and He was gone.
That seems like a very subtle omission. When I read Acts 1, I read "when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight."

Either way, I'm uncertain as to how you have explained this scripture. Let us pretend for a moment that Jesus was not "lifted up" and that His body did not firework up into the air before the clouds covered Him. Let us assume that Jesus was in the middle of a mountainside chat with the disciples when a cloud rolled down over Him and He vanished.

The angel tells them that's how He's coming the next time, or else somehow very much like it.

From that, we can deduce certain things. Jesus was on the earth in a physical and material body, glorified and renewed from the agony of death that He had defeated from His ordeal on the Cross. Right? He was taken up, still clothed in that body. Right? Whether He went up or the cloud came down is immaterial. The angel said "This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come IN THE SAME WAY as you saw him go into heaven."

I'm reading the ESV here, but even if we are to use the KJV, the words translated "in the same way" or "in like manner" simply mean "that way/manner." The simplest translation would thus read "This Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven will come in the way you saw Him go."

I am in a generous disposition. Let us imagine that the angel only meant "in a sort-of similar way." That would still bear some resemblance to the fundamentals of His assumption into glory, would it not? He would still, say, have a physical body? He would still descend with the clouds? He would interact with humanity face to face?

I am perplexed as to how you have interpreted "in the same way" as "in a completely different way." Help me out here.


This was the exact opposite of a cloud coming. It was rather a cloud going.
Right.


When Christ was to return it was as a cloud coming as stated in Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark etc. I know you are familiar with the Partial-Preterist view of these scriptures and Full-Preterism simply sees the verse of a future coming of Christ hand in hand with the other cloud comings in scripture, not removing Acts 1:11 as a separate physical coming but as the same Christ coming in other scriptures.
Right. I think you overestimate my knowledge of Full Preterism, but I think I'm on board with you here.


Full-Preterism only sees one Christ coming in scripture, not 2 or more. These "cloud comings" are the same as spoke about in Isaiah and Psalms by God before the Judgement of nations.
Now, I was about to bring up Isaiah 19, but it seems you already have. This seems like an excellent time to bring up some past scriptures regarding Jesus "coming with the clouds."

The Exodus to the Tabernacle

Exclusively, every time "clouds" are mentioned, the coming of the Lord is described, not in judgement but in communion. In Exodus 14:24 the Lord destroys the attacking Egyptians from the cloud, but the cloud is still present as a visible and tangible sign, and this event is in context with the Lord's guidance of the people. In Exodus 19:9 we find that the Lord Himself was not the cloud, but veiled Himself with the cloud so that the people could have a direct experience with the Supernatural God. Likewise in Exodus 34:5 the Lord came in the cloud to declare His name.

Everything in these accounts suggested that the Lord came literally wrapped in a cloud and communed directly with His people. Even throughout the age of Kings, cloud was attributed to the manifestation of the glory of God inside the Tabernacle. In Numbers 11, 12 and 14 God is said to stand "face to face" with the elders and with Moses and with Miriam and Aaron, speaking with them directly and even eating with them (cf. Exodus 24:11).

The Prophets

You suggest that judgement is the context for most clouds in the Old Testament, yet in Isaiah 4:5 the cloud described is like the guiding cloud of the Exodus account, and appears in the day that the Branch of the Lord is made beautiful and glorious. The Branch of the Lord is universally acclaimed by Christians to be Jesus (Isa 11:1), and I see no reason to stray from this interpretation. Indeed, the glorification of the Branch seems in keeping with the event described in Habakkuk 2:14, that the "earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea." Even by the staunchest of preterist doctrines this cannot have yet come to pass without watering down the prophecy to positively milquetoast levels. Regardless, the "cloud" is a cloud of protection and intimate communion over the city of Jerusalem, not an impersonal judgement against the Lord's enemies.

I do not believe that Isaiah 19:1 has yet come to pass. You claim to have consistent hermeneutics compared with partial preterists (who I agree are horribly inconsistent) and yet to suggest that the Prophets were indiscriminately symbolic and then literal is to attain the very problem you accuse others of. You say that the cloud is figuratively and arbitrarily used as a euphamism for judgement. What are the grounds for this? Excepting similies, we have as yet come upon no uses of "cloud" as used symbolically in any book of the Bible. The Nile has never dried up (v. 5). Which five cities in Egypt have unilaterally and without exception given their allegiance to the Lord (v. 18)?

Most telling of all, these things are to come about in a clearly visible and obvious way. They are to be a sign and a wonder that can be easily recognisable and yet likewise inexplicable to all who see them (v. 20). Egypt at large will come to the Lord (vv. 20-22) - something that has never been historically realised. It seems that the evidence is stentorian: Isaiah 19 describes a future, physical and literal coming of the Lord, in which Jesus will come to Egypt upon a cloud. I would suggest that this is the answer to Acts 1:11 that has thus far eluded you.

The Lamentations have the only use of clouds (outside of the obviously prevalent similes throughout the Bible) that I can see show them used as a shrouding or preventative utility. Even this accompanies, rather than presaging, judgement. Throughout Ezekiel the use of cloud imagery seems completely literal (nee similes), and entirely appropriate in keeping with the precedent for clouds used in the days of the Tabernacle; the indication of the manifest glory of the Holy God. The Wisdom books (Psalms, Job, Proverbs, etc) are again almost entirely consistent, using cloud imagery either as clear similes (like, as, etc) or as simple physical and scientific reflections on the power of the God who makes the clouds rain down on the earth.

The clearest use of cloud imagery in the prophetic books of the Old Testament is in Daniel 7:13 where the Son of Man (Jesus) is shown coming with the clouds of heaven. This is of course what Jesus alludes to in Matthew 24:30 and Mark 13:26 as His coming. This is what incensed the High Priest in Matthew 26:64, who recognised it as Daniel's Messianic and divine prophecy. This is what Stephen mentioned that enraged the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:56. But let us interpret the heightened apocalyptic language of Daniel consistently. If Daniel 7 is to be taken as a parallel to Daniel 2, then we can open the debates as to who the various parts of the statue are, what the bear is, what the ribs in its mouth are...the whole debacle.

I'd rather not.

I think we both agree that the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is Jesus. I think we can both agree that the Rock that smashes the earthly kingdoms into rubble is also Jesus. Remember Daniel 2:35 - "the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth." No matter how we come at it, we are back at Habakkuk 2:14 and the eventual saturation of the entire world with the knowledge of the glory of God. There is a direct link then, between Daniel 7:13 and the Son of Man coming with the clouds and Daniel 2:35 and the eternal, manifest and total victory of Jesus over the earthly kingdoms of the world.

My contention is that this is what the angels were speaking about in Acts 1:11 when they foretold Jesus coming with the clouds in the same way as He had just left.


The prophecies against Edom, Babylon, Nineveh also had cloud imagery and celestial signs but were always understood by their Jewish readers as apocalyptic language.
Apocalyptic language and Jewish readers aside, I trust that the Jews had understanding of similes and metaphors. Now metaphors can be contended, but we have already shown that almost all of the references to clouds in the Old Testament are either similes (like a cloud, as a cloud, etc) or else references that I am prepared to accept as future and literal. Unless you can provide me with some exceptions?


These prophecies were fulfilled historically but the literal fulfillment of this language never happened. The nations I explained above do not exist anymore. They were Judged exactly as God said they would be and yet none of the cloud comings or celestial events ever happened. Full-Preterism simply uses the Old Testament as the key to understanding the New Testament. Partial-Preterists do the same but Full-Preterism does it consistantly with all scriptures including Acts 1:11.
So, your contention is the same as my explanation. They never happened, the conditions for their fulfillment are no longer available, ergo they must have been symbolic, despite a consistent application of cloud imagery to be read as literal and communicative rather than symbolic and judgemental?

Can it be assumed then, that your sole contention against the interpretation of a literal and future application of these Old Testament prophecies is the fact that the nations in question (and therefore the prerequisites for the prophetic fulfillments) never existed? A simple yes or no answer for this one will suffice; I would like to take it further.

I shall get back to you later (probably some days later - I have a hectic schedule) on the rest of your salient points as answered above.

Thanks, Romulus!

Oh, and settle a bet for me: Star Trek fan, or Ancient Roman mythology fan?

AlainaJ
Oct 9th 2007, 04:17 PM
[quote=Romulus;1387878]Hi Bing,

Sorry I couldn't answer your question in End Times Chat but I wanted to abide with forum rules.

No I don't believe they will happen in the future because I believe they already happened in 70 A.D. The scriptures that speak of a second appearing and the resurrection of the dead I believe(full preterism) to be of a spiritual nature and not a physical one.

I have to admit, I thought abuot this a while back on my own...never knew it was an established thoery.

I know you are aware of the partial-preterist point of view but that view leaves 1 Thessalonians 4:13 (rapture) as future and the Hebrews "second appearing(coming)" as future where I believe they were fulfilled. Heresy gets thrown around alot because the physical aspect of these events has been so drilled into Churches that believing in the unseen aspect of it is inconceivable. I do believe there is scripture proving these points but that I can explain only if you wish to further this thread.

Also, the Judgement scene in Revelation I don't believe to be a final judgment but a judgement that began in 70 A.D. with the "dead in Christ" and the unfaithful dead and is now ongoing on through history as each person dies and is immediately judged and then enters paradise or the second death(lake of fire). Notice how Revelation 20 never says "final judgment" or that it occurs once. John is only shown a picture of the judgement at that time. The events shown after such as the New Jerusalem and access to the tree of life happened in 70 A.D. as well(IMO). There is scriptural details that support this that I can share but again only if you or someone else wishes.

Question- so when we die, we immediately face judgement...Christ appears to us at death?

In answer I do believe in the 2nd appearing(coming), resurrection of the dead, judgement, New Jerusalem, and access to the tree of life, but that they occurred in the 1st century. The nature of them is also a spiritual event rather then a physical event.
Can you explain this more in simple terms?

Here is is my take on it from your point of view.... This is fascinating and intersting to study.;)

The resurection of beleivers is the second birth....being born again, alive in Christ. We are spiritually ressurected from the dead.

New Jeruseluem is the Church, the body of Chrst, that we are born again in to.

The tree of life is Spiritual meaning that all born again beleivers have access to it though Christ.

Can you add more to this? And how does 70 AD fit in- I know Jeruselem was destroyed in 70 AD, but what else?

God Bless

Alaina

AlainaJ
Oct 9th 2007, 04:42 PM
Romulus,

I have read about this before...and have considered it too.

Question- Could the book of Revelation be an overview of salvation. A view of a great war between good and evil, God and satan.

I have never thought of the entire book as literal.......so hear me out on this, please:)

The letters to the Churches show us how to endure until the end.....that would be until we die.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

I have always felt these messages were to all the churches for the time of pentecost on.


The rest of Revelation shows us an overview of the entire New Testament, so to speak. How to be saved, death and hell.

Question- how do you interpet the mark of the beast and buying and selling?

I am looking foward to learning more and discussing this with you.

God Bless

Romulus
Oct 9th 2007, 08:21 PM
Hi Bing,

Sorry I couldn't answer your question in End Times Chat but I wanted to abide with forum rules.

No I don't believe they will happen in the future because I believe they already happened in 70 A.D. The scriptures that speak of a second appearing and the resurrection of the dead I believe(full preterism) to be of a spiritual nature and not a physical one.

I have to admit, I thought abuot this a while back on my own...never knew it was an established thoery.


Hi Alaina(cute cat),

This theory is known as Full-Preterism. It believes all of scripture was fulfilled in the atoning work of Christ and at His second appearing in 70 A.D.(spiritual). It is forbidden to be debated in End Times Chat so I am limited to dicussing it here, which is what Bing and I have been doing. Read our posts as well that explain alot of what I believe.



I know you are aware of the partial-preterist point of view but that view leaves 1 Thessalonians 4:13 (rapture) as future and the Hebrews "second appearing(coming)" as future where I believe they were fulfilled. Heresy gets thrown around alot because the physical aspect of these events has been so drilled into Churches that believing in the unseen aspect of it is inconceivable. I do believe there is scripture proving these points but that I can explain only if you wish to further this thread.

Also, the Judgement scene in Revelation I don't believe to be a final judgment but a judgement that began in 70 A.D. with the "dead in Christ" and the unfaithful dead and is now ongoing on through history as each person dies and is immediately judged and then enters paradise or the second death(lake of fire). Notice how Revelation 20 never says "final judgment" or that it occurs once. John is only shown a picture of the judgement at that time. The events shown after such as the New Jerusalem and access to the tree of life happened in 70 A.D. as well(IMO). There is scriptural details that support this that I can share but again only if you or someone else wishes.

Question- so when we die, we immediately face judgement...Christ appears to us at death?



Yes. There is no waiting place anymore since Jesus fulfilled the requirements for humanity to be back in the presence of God the Father. If we are still awaiting our bodily resurrection then when we die we cannot enter paradise and (Bing may wish to interject) must await the bodily resurrection of the faithful at the second coming of Christ. This does not make sense to me as I believe the Judgement of mankind is ongoing since 70 A.D. and taking place at each persons death. We are now judged and enter the place prepared for us by Jesus or into the lake of fire(second death). I don't believe hades exists anymore but only prior to the 70 A.D. coming of Christ when the atonement was not yet complete. After it was, man was made holy by the blood of Jesus to enter the presenceof God again. All was accomplished.



In answer I do believe in the 2nd appearing(coming), resurrection of the dead, judgement, New Jerusalem, and access to the tree of life, but that they occurred in the 1st century. The nature of them is also a spiritual event rather then a physical event.
Can you explain this more in simple terms?


Read the post above that I explained above shows a little more detail. The 2nd appearing was the judgement coming in 70 A.D. against the nation of Israel and the temple. The temple was the last sign of the Old Covenant and was the sign that it was no longer valid and that Jesus now lived with His people. The resurrection of the dead was not a physical event but a spiritual one where our spirits were redeemed by Christ's work on Calvery and occurred in the final act of atonement by Jesus, his appearing in 70 A.D. His coming was not literal as Judgement comings in the Old Testament were never literal but occurred through heathan armies sent by God. In this case, the Roman armies who destroyed Jerusalem.

Here is is my take on it from your point of view.... This is fascinating and intersting to study.;)



The resurection of beleivers is the second birth....being born again, alive in Christ. We are spiritually ressurected from the dead.

New Jeruseluem is the Church, the body of Chrst, that we are born again in to.

The tree of life is Spiritual meaning that all born again beleivers have access to it though Christ.


Wow! You sure your not full-preterist? I believe the same. The resurrection of the dead I believe to be the same event as the first resurrection in Revelation which is our spiritual resurrection from the first death, the spiritual death of Adam.

The New Jerusalem I believe to be a picture of the believer today, not a literal city that will come down from heaven.

The tree of life is what existed in the garden of which we have access to now which is eternal life through Christ and is for the healing of the nations. How could it be after the second coming, the New heavens and the new earth, and final judgement when the nations would have been judged already and removed? They would not need healing but they need healing today don't they?



Can you add more to this? And how does 70 AD fit in- I know Jeruselem was destroyed in 70 AD, but what else?

God Bless

Alaina


70 A.D was the removal of the last sign of the Old Covenant, the temple in Jerusalem. It fulfills the following scripture in Hebrews:

Hebrews 9

6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing.

The way into the most holy place was access to God Himself. To be in His presence and with God was the hope of all humanity before the completion of Christ's work. The reconciliation between God and man could not happen while the first tabernacle(Old Covenant) was still standing. The destruction of the temple showed that the way into the most holy place(God's presence) was complete.




Romulus,

I have read about this before...and have considered it too.

Question- Could the book of Revelation be an overview of salvation. A view of a great war between good and evil, God and satan.

I have never thought of the entire book as literal.......so hear me out on this, please:)



It is an overview of Salvation but also a I believe a worship service and how we are to live today. It is heavenly literature potraying an actual event in 70 A.D.



The letters to the Churches show us how to endure until the end.....that would be until we die.

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

I have always felt these messages were to all the churches for the time of pentecost on.


I believe that the message was to the Churches then existing in the 1st century. They were to witness the events unfolding. They do not exist today. The message was to the persecuted Churches in the time of the Roman empire. I believe any Church can fall in to the state that each Church was in but the audience was these Churches specifically prior to 70 A.D. not today.



The rest of Revelation shows us an overview of the entire New Testament, so to speak. How to be saved, death and hell.


Wel i take the view that it presents the fufillment of atonement for us and the judgement against the Harlot(unfaithful Israel).



Question- how do you interpet the mark of the beast and buying and selling?

I am looking foward to learning more and discussing this with you.

God Bless
To understand the mark of the beast we must look at those marked for the Lord. Does God need to mark those that are His physically with a microchip, tatoo, etc. ? No, He marks his own spiritually. God knows who are his. If the mark of the Lord is spiritual then the mark of the beast is also spiritual. If the mark of the beast is a physical mark, then we must be marked physically as well which I don't believe to be the case.

God Bless!

AlainaJ
Oct 9th 2007, 09:45 PM
This theory is known as Full-Preterism. It believes all of scripture was fulfilled in the atoning work of Christ and at His second appearing in 70 A.D.(spiritual). It is forbidden to be debated in End Times Chat so I am limited to dicussing it here, which is what Bing and I have been doing. Read our posts as well that explain alot of what I believe.



Yes. There is waiting place anymore since Jesus fulfilled the requirements for humanity to be back in the presence of God the Father. If we are still awaiting our bodily resurrection then when we die we cannot enter paradise and (Bing may wish to interject) must await the bodily resurrection of the faithful at the second coming of Christ. This does not make sense to me as I believe the Judgement of mankind is ongoing since 70 A.D. and taking place at each persons death
I have always agreed with this to, it is appointed for man to die and then face judgement.

The thief on the cross was told today you will be with me in paradise...paradise is the paradise of Genises. It is heaven.


. We are now judged and enter the place prepared for us by Jesus or into the lake of fire(second death). I don't believe hades exists anymore but only prior to the 70 A.D. coming of Christ when the atonement was not yet complete. After it was, man was made holy by the blood of Jesus to enter the presenceof God again. All was accomplished.

That is why we don't need the blood of animals or an earthly temple. Jesus is the sacrifice- any other would trample on his death. I beleive that is why satan wants the jews to return to animal sacrifice again. It would mock Jesus, basically saying His death meant nothing.



Read the post above that I explained above shows a little more detail. The 2nd appearing was the judgement coming in 70 A.D. against the nation of Israel and the temple.

Did- Jesus descend in the clouds, as he told his dicsiples he would? What about every eye will behold him.....is this an anology to death...or literal?

70 A.D was the removal of the last sign of the Old Covenant, the temple in Jerusalem. It fulfills the following scripture in Hebrews:





To understand the mark of the beast we must look at those marked for the Lord. Does God need to mark those that are His physically with a microchip, tatoo, etc. ? No, He marks his own spiritually. God knows who are his. If the mark of the Lord is spiritual then the mark of the beast is also spiritual. If the mark of the beast is a physical mark, then we must be marked physically as well which I don't believe to be the case.

I have always beleived this...the mark is not literal. In the same way God seals His servants, Satan marks his. You either bear the image of Christ or Satan.

2Cor.1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5127503)


[22] Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.Eph.1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5182041)


[13] In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

No where in scripture does God physically mark someone and how would you physically seal someone....? You can't it has to be spiritual. I have actually posted on this before.:)


Last questions- How do you interpet the Day of the Lord in the Old Testament. Is that 70 AD to you?

Will this earth burn up in a ferverent heat and the heavens dissolve as spoken about Peter?

2Pet.3
10] But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
[11] Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
[12] Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
[13] Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
[14] Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

is this literal in your view or spiritual- I wouls live to hear your view.

God Bless,
Alaina:)

Romulus
Oct 10th 2007, 02:06 AM
Yes. There is waiting place anymore since Jesus fulfilled the requirements for humanity to be back in the presence of God the Father. If we are still awaiting our bodily resurrection then when we die we cannot enter paradise and (Bing may wish to interject) must await the bodily resurrection of the faithful at the second coming of Christ. This does not make sense to me as I believe the Judgement of mankind is ongoing since 70 A.D. and taking place at each persons death
I have always agreed with this to, it is appointed for man to die and then face judgement.

The thief on the cross was told today you will be with me in paradise...paradise is the paradise of Genises. It is heaven.




Hi Alaina,

Here is where we may start to differ. I actually believe that the entrance to paradise was not at the cross but at the second appearing in 70 A.D. To answer your statement before I go on a tangent, the actual scripture regarding the thief on the cross is ambiguous. The actual greek translation has no punctuation, therfore no coma in the scripture. I don't have access to a greek translation but I will use the NIV for my example. It can either read:

Luke 23
43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

43Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise."

Makes a big difference doesn't it? Since there was no coma in the original text the first example is stating that the thief would be in paradise today with Jesus or as the second example states that he was told the truth today, that one day he would be in paradise with Jesus. I believe that the second reading is acurate based on other scripture. Also, I believe that Jesus went to Hades in between the crucifixion and the resurrection to minister to those waiting there for Jesus to finish His atoning work on the cross. These included all the dead and the dead in Christ(Old Testament Saints such as Abraham). Anyhow the reason I state that 70 A.D. was when the entrance into paradise began was as my first example here through scripture, is that Hebrews states:

Hebrews 9

7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.

The way into the holy of holies(or the presence of God) was not made manifest while the first tabernacle(temple in Jerusalem) was still standing. This was the last sign of the Old Covenant and had to be destroyed before atonement was made complete for us. It also goes hand in hand with what Paul said in the New Testament.

Romans 8

22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?

Romans 13

11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.


You see, the scriptures above were after the crucifixion, resurrection and the ascension. Paul is showing that something had to be completed before he and the other believers were adopted as sons by God. Also, Paul specifically states that he and the believers were closer to salvation then they once were. Well if they weren't at salvation yet means that they did not attain it yet. These scriptures show that something was not complete at the Cross. I believe for the the reason we must go back to the Day of Atonement in the Old Testament. Jesus was fulfilling the stipulations of atonement of sin based on the Old Covenant. He was as we know had become a high priest on our behalf.

Hebrews 9

19We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.






Did- Jesus descend in the clouds, as he told his dicsiples he would? What about every eye will behold him.....is this an anology to death...or literal?



This is biblical apocalyptic language(I will comment further in my comment). I mentioned that Jesus was fulfilling the "Day of Atonement" for our sins once and for all as in the Old Covenant. Most have forgotten that there was a process to the forgiveness of sins, even the Jews themselves as they missed Christ's glorious work of atonement.

On the day of atonement in the Old Covenant, once a year all of Israel would gather around the tabernacle or temple while the high priest would accomplish the following(in a nutshell):

1) The priest would make atonement(sacrifice) for himself first since nothing unholy can enter the most holy place.

2) The hight priest would then make atonement(sacrifice) for the people in the holy of holies(there is more detail to this but I am trying to make it simple)

3) God would then accept the sacrifice. If this was done not exactly as God had commanded, the high priest was struck dead.

4) All of Israel outside would then wait for the high priest to appear. Even though the sacrifice was accepted they did not have forgiveness of sins until the high priest appeared. If he didn't appear then Israel knew that the sacrifice was not accepted (I wonder if this ever happened). If the high priest appeared, then and only then would Israel rejoice because their sin was atoned for and they then would celebrate.

This is what Jesus as fulfilling as stated in the Old Covenant, only in a more perfect way and once and for all.

We know that Jesus on the cross was fufilling what the Old Covenant high priest was doing in my example above regarding the sacrifice. Jesus first off did not need to make atonement for Himself because He was without sin. Jesus in fact became the sacrificial lamb on our behalf on the cross. He then ascended into hades and ministered to those there who never were preached the Gospel. But Abraham and the other Old Testament Saints(dead in Christ) were waiting for Jesus to come while the other dead did not receive Him. Jesus was then resurrected on the third day. Now, Jesus fulfilled the sacrifice itself once and for all but atonement had to be made on man's behalf. Here is where Hebrews comes in:

Hebrews 9

23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Atonement for humanity could not be done on earth but in the heavenly sanctuary. Remember the earthly sanctuary was not the perfect one but a shadow of the true one in heaven itself before God our Father. The atonement for our sins was done in heaven. Jesus did not fulfill this on earth but only after He ascended into heaven itself which now is in harmony with Paul's statements in Romans regarding "our adoption as sons" and "we are now closer to salvation then we once were" since sin was just about to be atoned for in heaven. This now completes once and for all what was done by the high priest in the holy of holies on the day of atonement.

But did humanity have salvation yet? According to the day of atonement in the Old Covenant, no. The appearing of the high priest was not done yet. In other words Jesus(the high priest) had to appear to humanity to show that the sacrifice and atonement was completed. Hebrews states this stipulation clearly:

Hebrews 9

27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Another translation states "and he will appear a second time, unto salvation". You see, Christ's second appearing was just like the Old Covenant's appearing of the high priest. Then and only then would the people receive the atonement or the forgiveness of their sins. Jesus had to appear for us just as the high priest appeared to Israel. That second appearing was now "to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him". If Jesus has not appeared yet, we do not have salvation. Many who believe this second appearing is future do not realize that if this has not happened yet, then the Old Covenant is still in effect and we do not have salvation or the forgiveneness of our sins because Hebrews was specific that the second appearing(or second coming) of Christ was the completion of our salvation.

This is what Paul and the first century believers were waiting for, redemption. This now completes the Old Covenant stipulation perfectly and once and for all. Your reference to cloud coming and all eyes seeing it was the second coming of Christ, the completion of atonment and the event that would fulfill the Old Covenant and bring in the New Covenant and the resurrection of humanity from sin unto life through Christ. This was not a literal coming in the clouds as we use the Old Testament as our guide.

Isaiah 19

A Prophecy About Egypt
1 An oracle concerning Egypt:
See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud
and is coming to Egypt.
The idols of Egypt tremble before him,
and the hearts of the Egyptians melt within them.

Fulfilled when the Assyrians take Egypt in 480 B.C.

Nahum 1
1 An oracle concerning Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elko****e.

The Lord 's Anger Against Nineveh

2 The LORD is a jealous and avenging God;
the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath.
The LORD takes vengeance on his foes
and maintains his wrath against his enemies.

3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power;
the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished.
His way is in the whirlwind and the storm,
and clouds are the dust of his feet.
4 He rebukes the sea and dries it up;
he makes all the rivers run dry.
Bashan and Carmel wither
and the blossoms of Lebanon fade.
5 The mountains quake before him
and the hills melt away.
The earth trembles at his presence,
the world and all who live in it. 6 Who can withstand his indignation?
Who can endure his fierce anger?
His wrath is poured out like fire;
the rocks are shattered before him.

Fulfilled when the Chaldeans and the Medes conquer Nineveh in 612 B.C.

Isaiah 13 (concerning Babylon)

9 See, the day of the LORD is coming
—a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger—
to make the land desolate
and destroy the sinners within it.
10 The stars of heaven and their constellations
will not show their light.
The rising sun will be darkened
and the moon will not give its light.

Sound familiar? (Matthew 24, Luke 21) Fulfilled completely when King Cyrus and the Medes and the Persians conquer Babylon in 538 B.C. according to history(my opinion 459 B.C.).

If none of these Judgement comings were literally fulfilled in the Old Testament why must we believe that the cloud comings, and celestial events in the New Testament be anything different? In the cloud comings and judgement language in the Old Testament God always used heathan armies to judge nations. Those were the comings God spoke against Egypt, Nineveh, and Babylon. Do these nations exist today? No, but God judged each as He said He would and yet He never came on a cloud or made the sun not give it's light. The second coming as prophecied in Matthew 24 and Luke 21(same event) was not literal but through the Roman armies when God judged the nation of Israel and destroyed the last sign of the Old Covenant, the temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This judgement coming was when Jesus appeared a second time fulfilling our salvation. At this time at the completion of our atonement at His appearing was when we were reconciled to God our Father and made perfect through the blood of Christ. We now had access to heaven itself or more appropriately God our Father as we were now holy. All the 1st century believers were resurrected from Spirtual death unto life as now God no longer dwelled in man made temples but within His children themselves though Jesus Christ our Lord. Salvation had come to all who call on the name of the Lord, Jesus Christ starting in 70 A.D. and continuing since then. This is when the "rapture" also happened as stated in 1 Thessalonians 4:13 but that is another story.

Romulus
Oct 10th 2007, 02:07 AM
. We are now judged and enter the place prepared for us by Jesus or into the lake of fire(second death). I don't believe hades exists anymore but only prior to the 70 A.D. coming of Christ when the atonement was not yet complete. After it was, man was made holy by the blood of Jesus to enter the presenceof God again. All was accomplished.

That is why we don't need the blood of animals or an earthly temple. Jesus is the sacrifice- any other would trample on his death. I beleive that is why satan wants the jews to return to animal sacrifice again. It would mock Jesus, basically saying His death meant nothing.


Again, we totally agree. Jesus made the pefect sacrifice, no other is needed ever again. It does not matter if anyone reinstitutes animal sacrifices again, in a rebuilt temple now or in the future God will never dwell there. Scripture does not state that animal sacrifices will ever be reinstituted, even as a memorial. It is fulfilled in Christ completely.



To understand the mark of the beast we must look at those marked for the Lord. Does God need to mark those that are His physically with a microchip, tatoo, etc. ? No, He marks his own spiritually. God knows who are his. If the mark of the Lord is spiritual then the mark of the beast is also spiritual. If the mark of the beast is a physical mark, then we must be marked physically as well which I don't believe to be the case.

I have always beleived this...the mark is not literal. In the same way God seals His servants, Satan marks his. You either bear the image of Christ or Satan.

2Cor.1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5127503)
1. [22] Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.
Eph.1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5182041)
1. [13] In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
No where in scripture does God physically mark someone and how would you physically seal someone....? You can't it has to be spiritual. I have actually posted on this before.


We agree again!



Last questions- How do you interpet the Day of the Lord in the Old Testament. Is that 70 AD to you?

Will this earth burn up in a ferverent heat and the heavens dissolve as spoken about Peter?

2Pet.3
10] But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
[11] Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
[12] Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
[13] Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
[14] Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

is this literal in your view or spiritual- I wouls live to hear your view.

God Bless,
Alaina


I think I explained at length above. There were many days of the Lord but the great day of the Lord as proclaimed in many New Testament passages including Revelation I believe to be 70 A.D.

I have probably given to much to absorb but I hope you received something from it as I enjoyed writing it. There is alot more on the Beast, False Prophet, Harlot etc. that occurred in the 1st century but I can explain more on these at a later date.

God Bless You Alaina!

AlainaJ
Oct 10th 2007, 07:21 PM
Romulus,

Hi:) You got me doing the google search thing and reading.

What is your view an then partial-pretesist position?

God Bless:)

Romulus
Oct 10th 2007, 07:41 PM
Romulus,

Hi:) You got me doing the google search thing and reading.

What is your view an then partial-pretesist position?

God Bless:)

Hi Alaina,

The partial-Preterist position is virtually identical except for several major key issues. Partial-preterist's see all fulfilled except the following:

1) Second coming of Christ(physical)
2) Resurrection of the dead(physical resurrection of the body)
3) New Jerusalem(fulfilled or unfulfilled-Various POV)
4) Tree of Life(fulfilled or unfulfilled-Various POV)
5) Rapture(Physical-same as resurrection of the dead)

Full-Preterist's such as myself see the above fulfilled in 70 A.D. while partial-preterists do not. Also, partial-preterist's also do not accept(or realize) that the Day of Atonement is the blueprint for Christ's work for our salvation. PP's do not believe that salvation was fulfilled in 70 A.D. but rather at the cross in 30 A.D. The Partial-Preterist view sees scripture through the same eyes as the Full-Preterist but still leaves several events as physical(therefore future) where Full-Preterist's see those physical events as spiritual and therefore fulfilled. Full-Preterism is also known as Consistant Preterism and unfortunatly as you look through google as "Hymaneous Preterism" or "hyper Pretersm" and heretical since it denies a future physical return of Christ and no future resurrection of the body.

Hope that helps. I enjoy our discussion Alaina! God Bless!

Romulus

Bing
Oct 13th 2007, 04:20 AM
You still with me, Rommie? :P

Romulus
Oct 16th 2007, 04:27 PM
You still with me, Rommie? :P

Hi Bing, still here. I will respond to your post shortly. Hope you are well!

Bing
Oct 16th 2007, 08:47 PM
Hi Bing, still here. I will respond to your post shortly. Hope you are well!
Very well, very patient, very much hoping you remember me :lol:

Teke
Oct 16th 2007, 09:23 PM
Full preterism believes this to be in 70 A.D. but I have difficulties with that since it then throws the thousand years prior to 70 A.D. right after Christ's crucifixion in 30 A.D. and that forces the martyrdom of the saints under the beast at that time which I don't believe happened then but in 70 A.D.



I see you believe the thousand years is literal, then you must be a covenant preterist aka hyper preterist.:hmm:

Romulus
Oct 16th 2007, 09:43 PM
I see you believe the thousand years is literal, then you must be a covenant preterist aka hyper preterist.:hmm:

Hi Teke

No I do not believe the thousand years to be literal. I am Amillenial and believe the thousand years to be an undetermined period of time. I am still unsure about this scripture though since if it is talking about Christ's kingdom we know it is neverending. Anyhow I believe we are in Christ's kingdom now and not sure if the thousand years are over or the same as Christ's reign.

God bless!

Teke
Oct 16th 2007, 10:01 PM
Hi Teke

No I do not believe the thousand years to be literal. I am Amillenial and believe the thousand years to be an undetermined period of time. I am still unsure about this scripture though since if it is talking about Christ's kingdom we know it is neverending. Anyhow I believe we are in Christ's kingdom now and not sure if the thousand years are over or the same as Christ's reign.

God bless!

Hi Romu,
We're not to far apart from what I've read. My approach differs from yours tho. EO believe He reigns now and unto ages of ages. We depict this in an icon of Christ enthroned.

Your approach is literal with scripture, ours is liturgical (pertaining to worship) and ontological.

Romulus
Oct 17th 2007, 12:46 PM
Hi Romu,
We're not to far apart from what I've read. My approach differs from yours tho. EO believe He reigns now and unto ages of ages. We depict this in an icon of Christ enthroned.

Your approach is literal with scripture, ours is liturgical (pertaining to worship) and ontological.

Hi Teke,

I believe that Christ's reign is literal but His throne is in heaven, not earth. Earth is made subject to Him though as He reigns. Most believe that He will have a literal throne on earth which I dissagree with. I am not sure how your approach is different though from mine as what you wrote I agree with. I believe that when we worship it is in His presence, with the communion of saints and even though we don't physically see it, before the very throne of God. This is when we gather in Church every week as we join in with all of cfreation to give glory to God.

By the way you are correct, I am "hyper-preterist" but I kinda like "Full-Preterist" better. :)

God Bless!

Teke
Oct 17th 2007, 01:49 PM
Hi Teke,

I believe that Christ's reign is literal but His throne is in heaven, not earth. Earth is made subject to Him though as He reigns. Most believe that He will have a literal throne on earth which I dissagree with. I am not sure how your approach is different though from mine as what you wrote I agree with. I believe that when we worship it is in His presence, with the communion of saints and even though we don't physically see it, before the very throne of God. This is when we gather in Church every week as we join in with all of cfreation to give glory to God.

By the way you are correct, I am "hyper-preterist" but I kinda like "Full-Preterist" better. :)

God Bless!

I agree with that. God never said He gave the world to man to take it from him later. And it is a dominion within His dominion and will remain so.

Please forgive me if I sounded as though you were incorrect in approach. Perhaps it would have been best if I had said, presentation. Orthodox Christians present their eschatology in the Eucharist (feast of the Lamb).

The second ecumenical council of the church (381) condemned the teaching of Apollinarius concerning the thousand year reign. Chiliasm isn't even acceptable to hold as a personal view. The second council introduced the words "of His Kingdom there will be no end", which is what Orthodox believe.

I suppose I should add why Orthodox do not agree with Chiliasm.
1) According to chiliast teaching, the resurrection will take place twice. the first being only of the righteous a thousand years before the end of the world. The second at the end of the world when sinners are also resurrected. However, Christ only taught of one universal resurrection when all are resurrected and receive their recompense.
2) The Word of God speaks of only two comings of Christ in the world. The first in lowliness the second in glory, when He will appear to judge the living and the dead. Chiliasm introduces a third coming a thousand years before the end.
3) The Word of God teaches only of two kingdoms of Christ, the Kingdom of Grace which will continue until the end of the world (1 Cor. 15:23-26), and the Kingdom of Glory which will begin after the Last Judgment and will have no end (Luke 1:33, 2 Peter 1:11). Chiliasm, however, allows yet a thirad, as it were, a middle kingdom of Christ, which will last only a thousand years.
4) The teaching of a sensual kingdom of Christ clearly contradicts the Word of God, according to which the Kingdom of God is not "food and drink"(Rom. 14:17), in the resurrection of the dead they do not marry nor are given in marriage (Matt. 22:30), the rites of the law of Moses had only a prefiguring significance and were forever done away with by the more perfect NT law (Acts 15:23-30), Rom. 6:14, Gal 5:6, Heb. 10:1).

The Apocalypse is a mystical book, therefore to interpret and understand literally the prophecies contained in it, especially if such a literal understanding contradicts other passages of sacred scripture, is entirely opposed to the rules of hermeneutics.

Bing
Oct 18th 2007, 06:24 AM
I agree with that. God never said He gave the world to man to take it from him later. And it is a dominion within His dominion and will remain so.
Teke, while I wait for Rommie to reply to my earlier post, I would very much like to comment on this objection you have to the Lord's reign on the earth, which I confess I had not heard before.

I would like to agree with you that the dominion God promised to man at the beginning of creation will not be taken away, though obviously Adam forfeited his right to rule the earth. Nonetheless, God desires to give the world to man.

This is why Romans 5 depicts Jesus as the second Adam. He is the man to whom God will give the earth, and over which He will reign as King. That is why Matthew goes to such effort to establish Jesus' earthly right as a fully human king of the line of David. Through one man's (Adam) sin death began to reign over the world, rather than Adam (Rom 5:12-14). Unlike this trespass however, Jesus' free gift caused the opportunity for us as humans to "reign in life through the one Man Jesus Christ" (Rom 5:17) by the free gift of righteousness that He gave to us.

In fact, in Psalm 2:7-8 we see the very transaction whereby the Father gifts the nations to the Son for His inheritance. In Revelation 2:26-28 that same passage is quoted by Jesus who tells us that He has made a way for us to reign with Him in the same capacity of rulers of the world, under His authority and in partnership with Him.

So no, God has not "taken away" man's right to dominate the earth (Gen 1:26, 28) even though man proved unworthy of this honour. Instead, God found a Man who was worthy: His own Son. We as adopted sons are also invited by Jesus (and only by and through Jesus) to partake in the very role we forfeited. Therefore if you believe that man is to come into the Genesis 1 inheritance that God gave him and which is irrevocable, you must believe that Jesus will literally reign upon and reign over this world.


I suppose I should add why Orthodox do not agree with Chiliasm.
1) According to chiliast teaching, the resurrection will take place twice. the first being only of the righteous a thousand years before the end of the world. The second at the end of the world when sinners are also resurrected. However, Christ only taught of one universal resurrection when all are resurrected and receive their recompense.
2) The Word of God speaks of only two comings of Christ in the world. The first in lowliness the second in glory, when He will appear to judge the living and the dead. Chiliasm introduces a third coming a thousand years before the end.
3) The Word of God teaches only of two kingdoms of Christ, the Kingdom of Grace which will continue until the end of the world (1 Cor. 15:23-26), and the Kingdom of Glory which will begin after the Last Judgment and will have no end (Luke 1:33, 2 Peter 1:11). Chiliasm, however, allows yet a thirad, as it were, a middle kingdom of Christ, which will last only a thousand years.
4) The teaching of a sensual kingdom of Christ clearly contradicts the Word of God, according to which the Kingdom of God is not "food and drink"(Rom. 14:17), in the resurrection of the dead they do not marry nor are given in marriage (Matt. 22:30), the rites of the law of Moses had only a prefiguring significance and were forever done away with by the more perfect NT law (Acts 15:23-30), Rom. 6:14, Gal 5:6, Heb. 10:1).

The Apocalypse is a mystical book, therefore to interpret and understand literally the prophecies contained in it, especially if such a literal understanding contradicts other passages of sacred scripture, is entirely opposed to the rules of hermeneutics.
I just thought I would briefly address what you have said here - although I do not want to draw us off into general eschatology instead of a commentary on Full Preterism. I cannot speak for point 1 (which I believe is derived from eisegetical study of scripture) or point 2 (which is a hallmark of dispensational premillennialism exclusively) but I would suggest the points 3 and 4 derive from an intentional negative light. To say that Chiliasts (or Premillennialists, or whatever you want to call us) believe in Jesus' Kingdom ending after a thousand years, or to say that we believe in a Millennium of hedonism is unfair. I could say that you believe in an eternity limited to this present evil age, or that you believe in an eternity of timeless oblivion in order to cast your theology in a negative light. In fact, these latter two objections are the exact objections that led Augustine to abandon Chiliasm, and have been addressed and refuted and hammered into their proper place dozens of times.

Ahem.

Back to topic. Any chance of that reply, Romulus?

Teke
Oct 18th 2007, 02:22 PM
Teke, while I wait for Rommie to reply to my earlier post, I would very much like to comment on this objection you have to the Lord's reign on the earth, which I confess I had not heard before.



This is really a matter of perception and approach. I have no objection to your perception on the matter (which I can only assume is a systematic approach of scripture, the general approach of Protestants and RC).

Eastern Christians don't use scripture that way (systematic). Holy Scripture is for worship, bringing us into communion with God in prayer and understanding. The eastern Christian understands scripture and it's implications in relation to the ontological implications of Jesus Christ, our dogma. Not the other way around, with scripture defining Christ for us.

We also believe history is a witness to God and His interaction with us. So we also consider things in a conciliar manner. IOW we don't consider ourselves popes of scripture. We take council with the fathers of the church and tradition (both historical) on the matter of scripture in relation to dogma (Jesus Christ the God-Man).

History includes the natural created order, which is also a source with scripture and tradition in mans reasoning of God (Paterology, proper theology). As creation is like the continued speech of God as an honest and truthful man bears witness to his continued existence and activity and to his mind and will, so to, the created order reveals the continued activity and loving will of God.

You could say we view scripture in the Taboric light of transfiguration by grace, our Christology. Our Eschatology is found in our Christology.
To us, Jesus Christ has joined the uncreated (God) with the created (mankind). The ontological implications of this are ineffable.

But God doesn't change, and so man is still the crown (ornament) of creation (cosmos), as he is part of it, being created as the cosmos from nothing. And yet every part of mankind is part of the cosmos (elements).

In our examination we discern things like essence, energy and nature and how that is effected by God's transforming power (Incarnation, Transfiguration, Resurrection). Our Bibliology is not only a matter of Soteriology and Hamartiology as it is with most evangelicals. IOW a different paradigm. :)

God has never abandoned us or stopped reigning over us. He just revealed Himself to us, in our world of perception, through the person of Jesus Christ.
Man will always be the ornament of the cosmos reigning with God. The Trinity is our explanation of this, and how one is to understand hierarchy.

Mograce2U
Oct 20th 2007, 03:56 PM
Hi Romulus, #9 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1392549&postcount=9)
I do understand what you are saying about the 1st resurrection being spiritual. However I am not clear on whether you see us with resurrected bodies or not, or if so, when? I am thinking of this passage:

(Job 19:25-27 KJV) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: {26} And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: {27} Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

When we see the resurrected Jesus before His ascension He appeared as a man, but able to appear and disappear at will. But John in Revelation sees Him in His heavenly glory looking much different. How would you explain this difference?

Bing
Oct 22nd 2007, 02:05 AM
Romulus,

I'm still waiting for a reply from the first page. Here's your chance to give your full preterism a dust off and show it to somebody. I'm still waiting. (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1405091&postcount=11)

Teke
Oct 22nd 2007, 01:08 PM
The difference is I have not made up my mind on the thousand year issue in regards to Satan's final uprising.

Where do you see "Satan's final uprising"?



My views are still considered Full-Preterist since I believe(contrary to partial-preterism) that the second appearing(coming), resurrection of the dead (1st resurrection), and the Judgment(ongoing in history) to be past events. This goes hand in hand with a teaching of the atonement in the Old Covenant and the stipulations that Jesus was fulfilling in His work on Calvary. It is a wonderful plan of redemption that I believe culimnated in His second appearing "unto salvation" for all humanity. It was not a physical coming since the Old Testament "comings" in judgement were also never literal as prophecied in Isaiah and Psalms.

What a mix.:eek:
How is the second coming a past event?
What does the word "atonement" mean to you? (your answer will help me understand how you view "Calvary", ie. penal substitution or some such)
"Second appearing unto salvation"???

Romulus
Oct 23rd 2007, 04:33 AM
Hi Bing!,

I must sincerely apologize for not responding. I have been unbelievably busy and have not had time to really sit down and write properly. The comments I made to Alaina(before responding to you) was done rather quickly on my Iphone and I could not comment properly to you that way as it would take me too long. I haven't forgotten you so here goes.



That seems like a very subtle omission. When I read Acts 1, I read "when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight."

Either way, I'm uncertain as to how you have explained this scripture. Let us pretend for a moment that Jesus was not "lifted up" and that His body did not firework up into the air before the clouds covered Him. Let us assume that Jesus was in the middle of a mountainside chat with the disciples when a cloud rolled down over Him and He vanished.

The angel tells them that's how He's coming the next time, or else somehow very much like it.


That is the key for me. In like manner notes to me not exactly as he left which was physical. I know that you mention this in further detail below so I will comment further below.


From that, we can deduce certain things. Jesus was on the earth in a physical and material body, glorified and renewed from the agony of death that He had defeated from His ordeal on the Cross. Right?

We agree that Jesus was on earth in a physical body and that He died physically but we may disagree that He died spiritually just like we did(you can clarify later). The spiritual death was in my view the center point of what He came to do for us, not the physical death. The entire picture of redemption was in the Full-Preterist view from the spiritual, not the physical, let me explain. What does redemption or resurrection(which goes hand in hand) from? Was it from physical death or spiritual death? The bigger question is what needed to be redeemed? Was it our physical body or our spiritual? The key to redemption was to be redeemed from sin and nothing more. That was the reason we could not be in the presence of God, or in scripture the "holy of holies", God Himself. It was sin within our spiritual that needed to be redeemed. If it is our physical bodies at the end of days that we were to be redeemed, is that supported by scripture? I believe that question is answered in Genesis.

Genesis 2

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Did Adam physically die on the day he ate the fruit? Of course not, but God did not lie. Adam did die on the day he ate he fruit, but he died spiritually, as did all of humanity from that day forward. Adam died because sin entered his very being and separated himself from God Himself as nothing sinful can be in the presence of God. The entire act of redemption was to redeem humanity from sin which resided in our spirits. Is the physical connected? Of course! But our physical body is not what needed redemption because that was of the dust of the earth and would pass away at our physical death but the spirit is what remains.

When Jesus died on the cross, He died physically but that is not he center point of what He did for us. He died spiritually as well, just as we did and that is what needed redeeming. Remember at the cross Jesus took on all the sin of the whole world before Him, during Him, and after Him, all sin came upon Him. Was it in His physical being, I don't believe so, it was in His spiritual. He took on the very nature all of humanity was trapped in. This is why Jesus shouted "why have You forsaken me". God would never forsake His one and only Son, but it was because Jesus was separated from His Father taking on the very nature we were born into by Adam.

When He resurrected the focal point should not be the physical resurrection but His spiritual resurrection. The physical did not need redemption because it was the spirit that needed to be redeemed, from sin. Christ's physical resurrection was needed as proof that His spirit had been redeemed otherwise humanity could not see it otherwise. It was proof that Christ, taking on the very sinful nature that humanity had since Adam, was atoned for. Christ was resurrected and redeemed just as we were to be at the completion of redemption or the atonement.


He was taken up, still clothed in that body. Right? Whether He went up or the cloud came down is immaterial. The angel said "This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come IN THE SAME WAY as you saw him go into heaven. I'm reading the ESV here, but even if we are to use the KJV, the words translated "in the same way" or "in like manner" simply mean "that way/manner." The simplest translation would thus read "This Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven will come in the way you saw Him go."


We can dispue translation here, but I believe "like manner" is the correct translation. Even if was different, the focal point should be that He left in the clouds and would return in the clouds, in my view "in like manner", which does not necessasrily mean as He left physically.



I am in a generous disposition. Let us imagine that the angel only meant "in a sort-of similar way." That would still bear some resemblance to the fundamentals of His assumption into glory, would it not? He would still, say, have a physical body? He would still descend with the clouds? He would interact with humanity face to face?

I am perplexed as to how you have interpreted "in the same way" as "in a completely different way." Help me out here.


I probably lost you but let us back this up with other scriptures. We can both agree that Acts 1 as well as the second appearing(coming) is the same event, correct? Since you are a futurist I would assume 1 Thessalonians 4:13(Rapture) is a separate event in your eyes, but I believe this to be the same event as well. It is in the majority of opinion that at the second appearing we would all receive our resurrection of the body and enter paradise. We can dispute the rapture as being the same or a separate event but we can leave that to a further discussion. Here is the second appearing in scripture:

Hebrews 9

27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Here is the key to Acts 1 as well as in my opinion, 1 Thessalonians 4:13, Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 etc. but let's just leave this at Acts 1. The second appearing was unto salvation. It was at this 2nd appearing that humanity was to receive salvation, the completion of redemption and atonement. If this has not occurred we are still in our sins. The second appearing was for the removal of sin, unto salvation. Are we still in our sins or not? Most would say no but that would mean that the second appearing has occurred yet, most would then say we are saved but we have not received our spiritual bodies yet and that is what is meant here.

I must disagree with that argument. This brings up that the resurrection of our body goes hand and hand here. Here is the scripture noting our supposed physical bodies being resurrected:

Romans 8

22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Here we have the event that was to occur in Acts 1 and the second appearing, even in the futurist paradigm as well as the partial-preterist view. Upon plain reading it seems that physical resurrection is implied here with our body but we must ponder the implication of this event at the Acts 1 scenario and the second appearing. As I commented before, it was our spirit that needed redemption, not our physical, I hope we agree at this point. If our physical body is meant here we cannot remove that redemption was to occur at the same time. If our physical body is meant here, which redemption is attached to at the same time at the glorious 2nd appearing(coming) of Christ then I pose the question, if our physical body is in need of redemption then....

Where does sin reside?

If our redemption was at the physical bodily coming of Christ at which our bodies were to be resurrected physically, then we cannot remove scripture that redemption must occur at the same time as noted in Romans 8 and then we arrive at the conclusion that sin then must reside in our physical body(this is gnosticism). Do you understand the implication? To remove ourselves from this conclusion, which I hope many do then the body that was to be resurrected at the second appearing of Christ must have not been physical and must be understood to be our redemption from sin within our spirit. Notice the rest of the scripture:

Romans 8
24For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Is our hope in our physical resurrection or our spiritual resurrection? The 1st century believers as well as humanity today is waiting for "our blessed hope". To believe this is a physical resurrection is to believe that sin must be redeemed from our physical and not our spiritual which is exactly what Jesus did not do. He redeemed us from sin through his spirtual death on the cross. Does redemption which was to happen at the second appearing as in Acts 1 shown anywhere to be physical?

Ephesians 1

6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;


Collosians 1

13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Hebrews 9

11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

All these speak of redemption throught the atoning work of Christ. We must take into account that redemption clearly goes with the resurrection of our body(resurrection of the dead) and second appearing(coming) as mostly agreed upon as taking place in Acts 1 and in my opinion the 1st resurrection in Revelation where the second death(lake of fire) has no power over those partaking in the 1st resurrection. If this must have occured for us to have salvation then Acts 1 must be assumed to have occurred already and not of a physical nature. If it hasn't then salvation has not occurred since the second appearing is future and the Old Covenant is still in effect. It was sin atoned for once and for all that was the fufillment of the Old Covenant. Remember what is the sting of death? It is sin, if sin has not been atoned for then death still reigns until physical death is destroyed but the conclusion that must be arrived at is that if death has not been defeated then sin still reigns. I believe this to be fulfilled at the second(spiritual) appearing of Christ in which all of humanity was redeemed and now worthy to be in the presence of God once more. All was accomplished. I cannot separate Acts 1 from the second appearing(I am sure many cannot either) and the resurrection of the dead so with the fulfillment of one I believe that Acts 1 must not be physical but a spiritual one that occurred as the many cloud comings in the Old Covenant that were not physical either.



Right. I think you overestimate my knowledge of Full Preterism, but I think I'm on board with you here.


I overestimate because I am very optimistic. :)

I will get to your comment on cloud imagery shortly.



Thanks, Romulus!

Oh, and settle a bet for me: Star Trek fan, or Ancient Roman mythology fan?


If I have to choose between the two, I must say Star Trek since I know more about the star trek universe(which is not much) more then Roman mythology. I am Babylon 5 fan more though then Star Trek! :o

God Bless Bing, and again sorry for the delay in responding.

Romulus
Oct 23rd 2007, 04:51 AM
Where do you see "Satan's final uprising"?



I leen toward 70 A.D. when the Roman armies surounded Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in Jerusalem but I am still not sure on the 1000 year scenario which implies something different. I am reconciling this with a study on translations but I am still studying the scripture before this one. I believe this is probably a past event since I believe the Judgement is ongoing since 70 A.D. and occurs at each of our deaths and since I believe the Judgement picture is fulfilled then "Satan's Uprising" may be as well.



What a mix.:eek:
How is the second coming a past event?
What does the word "atonement" mean to you? (your answer will help me understand how you view "Calvary", ie. penal substitution or some such)
"Second appearing unto salvation"???


Read my posts to Bing and Alaina on the first page and the one I just wrote to Bing to get an idea. I can comment further if you would like something more specific.

God Bless!

markedward
Oct 23rd 2007, 05:14 AM
How I love answering questions in a good-spirited debate. I wish I could jump in, but I don't want to disrupt Rom's flow.

Teke
Oct 23rd 2007, 01:48 PM
I leen toward 70 A.D. when the Roman armies surounded Jerusalem and destroyed the temple in Jerusalem but I am still not sure on the 1000 year scenario which implies something different. I am reconciling this with a study on translations but I am still studying the scripture before this one. I believe this is probably a past event since I believe the Judgement is ongoing since 70 A.D. and occurs at each of our deaths and since I believe the Judgement picture is fulfilled then "Satan's Uprising" may be as well.

Are you viewing an uprise of Satan from Revelation? ie. the dragon or beast, which I don't believe is Satan, but paganism and a world system/order, meaning mans confused thoughts and not right worship.

The way I understand it, Satan is "bound" in that he is not able to stop the gospel of Christ on earth or interfere in that part of God's plans. To me his binding is not by force from God, but by command of God and oath of Satan. IOW they are in agreement to move Gods plan forward. Pentecost, the birth or anointing of the Church seals the deal so to speak.




Read my posts to Bing and Alaina on the first page and the one I just wrote to Bing to get an idea. I can comment further if you would like something more specific.

God Bless!

I agree the spiritual had to be addressed first, as God is first and He is Spirit. The material (elemental) is secondary, but follows suit with the spirit. But I disagree that the second coming is a past event.

While we could say everything already happened (past event) in an atemporal sense, in our elemental/material sense it hasn't. And because we are made up of the elements (cosmos) and they follow the Spirit, there will be a second coming likened to a cosmic unity.
This is just stating my view briefly, I elaborated more in a thread I did on "Time" in bible chat.

The paradigm of Jesus Christ, the God-Man, justifys this Orthodox understanding.

PS, I'm an old Trekky fan myself, but then there came Stargate. :spin:

Teke
Oct 23rd 2007, 02:03 PM
from post 33
" If it hasn't then salvation has not occurred since the second appearing is future and the Old Covenant is still in effect."

Does this mean you believe salvation is a one time event rather than a process?

AlainaJ
Oct 23rd 2007, 03:31 PM
Romulus- I am still following along- anyway, this post struck me.

I believe that question is answered in Genesis.

Genesis 2

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Did Adam physically die on the day he ate the fruit? Of course not, but God did not lie. Adam did die on the day he ate he fruit, but he died spiritually, as did all of humanity from that day forward. Adam died because sin entered his very being and separated himself from God Himself as nothing sinful can be in the presence of God. The entire act of redemption was to redeem humanity from sin which resided in our spirits. Is the physical connected? Of course! But our physical body is not what needed redemption because that was of the dust of the earth and would pass away at our physical death but the spirit is what remains.

I never really saw that before..however Adam did die. He could have lived forever, but he lost imortality becasause of his sin. Since a day to God is like a 1,000- I always assumed that his death would come in the future.

I also think that both our physical and spiritual bodied died when Adam sinned. If Adam had not eaten would he have not stayed young and perfect forever? But sin, brough death of the body- through aging and the soul through sin.

Any thoughts?:hmm:

When Jesus died on the cross, He died physically but that is not he center point of what He did for us. He died spiritually as well, just as we did and that is what needed redeeming. Remember at the cross Jesus took on all the sin of the whole world before Him, during Him, and after Him, all sin came upon Him. Was it in His physical being, I don't believe so, it was in His spiritual. He took on the very nature all of humanity was trapped in. This is why Jesus shouted "why have You forsaken me". God would never forsake His one and only Son, but it was because Jesus was separated from His Father taking on the very nature we were born into by Adam.

This a point often over looked. :)
Jesus died spiritually as well as physicaly.


When He resurrected the focal point should not be the physical resurrection but His spiritual resurrection. The physical did not need redemption because it was the spirit that needed to be redeemed, from sin. Christ's physical resurrection was needed as proof that His spirit had been redeemed otherwise humanity could not see it otherwise.
Excellent point, I agree. The miracles that Jesus performed were to show man, who he was. To make men beleive.

It was proof that Christ, taking on the very sinful nature that humanity had since Adam, was atoned for. Christ was resurrected and redeemed just as we were to be at the completion of redemption or the atonement.

I 100% agree.:)

Hebrews 9

27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

You kind of lost me after here.

So you do not think our physical bodies will be resurected? Can you explain these verses?

Matt.22 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4478498)


[23] The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
[28] Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
[30] For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
[31] But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,In your opinion what is being spoken about here?

Phil.3 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5207915)


[11] If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
In Phil 3 do you see this as a spiritual resurrection only? Meaning being resurrected from our dead sinful state and made alive in Christ?

Heb.6 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5288222)


[2] Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.What are your thoughts on Hebrews 6.

See- I am not a pre-tribber. i beleive the DOL is one day. Jesus returns- dead in Chrsit raised, those who are alive meet them in the air. The wicked are destroyed. Earth is burned up as per Peter...and we receive a new heaven and earth where in dwell only the redeemed.

Can you commetnon the above......will this earth be destroyed? Will we receive a new earth- or have we already received it when we were saved and that is New Jeruselum- heaven.

God Bless- I find this so fascinating.

Alaina:)

Romulus
Oct 23rd 2007, 10:47 PM
Are you viewing an uprise of Satan from Revelation? ie. the dragon or beast, which I don't believe is Satan, but paganism and a world system/order, meaning mans confused thoughts and not right worship.


Hi Teke,

I believe the dragon is satan and the beast is the Roman Empire of the 1st century, specifically in the embodiment of Nero Caesar as do Partial-Preterists as well. I believe so since Revelation was clear that the events were about to occur:

Revelation 1

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Here we have in the first three verses that the events unfolding were "shortly to come to pass" and "is at hand". Also the reader is told to "hear the words of this prophecy" and to keep the things which are written therein. In other words, do what it says. It would be strange that Daniel is told to seal the words of his book because the time was far off, but John is told to heed the words of this book in other words, not to seal the words of this book since the time was near. Since Daniel and Revelation are linked(which is usually agreed upon) then Daniel was about to be fulfilled in the same time as Revelation which was "soon". If neither book was about to be fulfilled then the statements given by the angel mean absolutely nothing. I believe both were about to be fulfilled approximately 4-6 years after John was given the vision. This is believing the time statements given in the scripture to mean exactly what they were supposed to.



The way I understand it, Satan is "bound" in that he is not able to stop the gospel of Christ on earth or interfere in that part of God's plans. To me his binding is not by force from God, but by command of God and oath of Satan. IOW they are in agreement to move Gods plan forward. Pentecost, the birth or anointing of the Church seals the deal so to speak.


I do agree Teke. I am right now up in the air if this "binding" of satan was between 30-70 A.D. or at 70 A.D. and occurring to the present. I am leaning toward prior to 70 A.D. since this is the time period that the Gospel was preached to the entire known world and was not hindered by satan.

Collossians 1

23If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

The New Testament states that the Gospel was preached to the ends of the earth.



I agree the spiritual had to be addressed first, as God is first and He is Spirit. The material (elemental) is secondary, but follows suit with the spirit. But I disagree that the second coming is a past event.

While we could say everything already happened (past event) in an atemporal sense, in our elemental/material sense it hasn't. And because we are made up of the elements (cosmos) and they follow the Spirit, there will be a second coming likened to a cosmic unity.
This is just stating my view briefly, I elaborated more in a thread I did on "Time" in bible chat.


Let me propose a thought(which I presented earlier int his thread). Here is the scripture on the 2nd appearing of Christ:

Hebrews 9



27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Scripturally we cannot avoid the fact that salvation was to occur at the 2nd appearing of Jesus. It was his appearing that heralded the completion of our salvation as noted in Hebrews 9:28 above. If this has not occurred then there still is something that needs to be accomplished for salvation. If we agree that there is something still left to be done then the only possibility left is that it is our physical resurrection of our physical body. If this is what we believe we still cannot avoid the statement that it was to our salvation. If our bodily resurrection is "our blessed hope" and the event that was to complete our salvation we cannot avoid the fact in the next scripture:

Romans 8

22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?

Everywhere in scripture, redemption, atonement, and salvation go together. It was at the redemption of our bodies that we were to achieve salvation. We cannot separate salvation and resurrection. If the resurrection of the dead and the 2nd appearing were to occur at the same time and we believe it is a physical event and that was "unto salvation" then the the question must be asked(that I have proposed already) is

Where does sin reside?

If salvation was only to come at a physical coming of Christ at which we were to receive the "resurrection of the dead" and our spiritual bodies we cannot separate redemption from this event which then forces us to believe that our physical bodies needed redemption and not our only our spirit.

If the 2nd appearing has not occurred, salvation has not come yet, the Old Covenant must then still be in effect and "our blessed hope" is not in salvation of our spirit/soul but in the physical resurrection of our body which has not occurred yet.





The paradigm of Jesus Christ, the God-Man, justifys this Orthodox understanding.


Please read my post I rote to Alaina on the "day of atonement" which explains my view of Christ's work. It is unfortunately an unorthodox view since it shows the completion of salvation in 70 A.D. but nonetheless, see what you think.



PS, I'm an old Trekky fan myself, but then there came Stargate. :spin:


There is nothing wong with Stargate. :)

God Bless Teke!

Romulus
Oct 23rd 2007, 10:57 PM
Does this mean you believe salvation is a one time event rather than a process?

It is a process but salvation is like getting married. Once you are married you are married and become one. Does that mean the husband leaves the wife never to see her again? Of course not, if he did then could you say that he was married? Once the marriage occurs it is only the beginning of a relationship that will grow and become more intimate.

The same is with salvation. Once you are saved that is not the end of it. It is only the beginning of a wonderful intimate relationship with God himself through Jesus Christ that begins to grow. Nonetheless, the beginning or reconciliation of that relationship is the completion of salvation since we have now been forgiven for every sin we have, are, and will ever commit. The reconciliation to God Himself is what everything in God's Word was leading toward. We are now worthy to be back in the very presence of God through Christ and now the relationship begins again. The second death(lake of fire) as well as sin was the enemy of salvation. It separated us from God the Father. All has been accomplished through the shed blood of Christ. We are no longer separated, that is salvation.

Romulus
Oct 23rd 2007, 11:48 PM
Romulus- I am still following along- anyway, this post struck me.

I believe that question is answered in Genesis.

Genesis 2

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Did Adam physically die on the day he ate the fruit? Of course not, but God did not lie. Adam did die on the day he ate he fruit, but he died spiritually, as did all of humanity from that day forward. Adam died because sin entered his very being and separated himself from God Himself as nothing sinful can be in the presence of God. The entire act of redemption was to redeem humanity from sin which resided in our spirits. Is the physical connected? Of course! But our physical body is not what needed redemption because that was of the dust of the earth and would pass away at our physical death but the spirit is what remains.

I never really saw that before..however Adam did die. He could have lived forever, but he lost imortality becasause of his sin. Since a day to God is like a 1,000- I always assumed that his death would come in the future.

I also think that both our physical and spiritual bodied died when Adam sinned. If Adam had not eaten would he have not stayed young and perfect forever? But sin, brough death of the body- through aging and the soul through sin.

Any thoughts?:hmm:


Hi Alaina,

You are so correct! Though I must stress that the physical was only the result of spiritual death. In my view the spiritual death is what needed redemption, not our physical body. He would have lived forever, but sin brought upon his spiritual death and only then his physical death as well.

Just an added thought. A day with the Lord is LIKE a thousand years should not be used to interpret when God states a time statement. If we do, then we can never understand what God is stating since His view of time is in view, not the Children to whom He is writing to.

We are on the same page Alaina! :)



Hebrews 9

27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

You kind of lost me after here.

So you do not think our physical bodies will be resurected?


You are correct. I believe redemption had everything to do with the abolishment of sin, which did not reside in our flesh but only in our Spirit/soul. I cannot separate resurrection and redemption which was to complete our salvation. Salvation came fully at the 2nd appearing of Christ in 70 A.D. with the removal of the last sign of the Old Covenant, the temple in Jerusalem. The way into the most holy place was now made manifest and we had access to God the Father once more. We were resurrected individually when we accepted Jesus as our Lord. Nothing else needed redemption. The resurrection of the dead(from sin)event began in 70 A.D. and has been going on ever since as each believer is redeemed in Christ as they accept Him and become worthy to be in the ery presence of God again. Jesus no longer is simply beside us, but dwelling within us. We have been given our spiritual body since this was what heralded our being with Jesus forever. Isn't this a reality now? Of course Jesus will never leave us or fosake us. We dwell with Him now for all eternity. Do we see it, no. But as Jesus said, without faith you canno see he Kingdom of God.



Can you explain these verses?

Matt.22 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=4478498)

[23] The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
[28] Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
[30] For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
[31] But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,In your opinion what is being spoken about here?

Phil.3 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5207915)


To understand this concept we must address the full scripture and Jesus's response to them:

Matthew 22

23That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24"Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died. 28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2022&version=31#fen-NIV-23903a)]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

Right from the beginning the sadducees are told by Jesus that they are already in error. What was the error? The sadducees are asking a question based on a physical resurrection scenario, which is why they are trying to stump Jesus about marriage which is an earthly physical event. They have missed the point entirely by applying earthly marriage to the New Covenant truth. Jesus goes on to state the answer "that they will be like the angels in heaven" which is spiritual newness in Christ. This was the entrance into the Kingdom of God which is not bound to the physical earth so the question of earthly marriage is totally outside of what Jesus was conveying.

Let us see further:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

In Christ there also, no male and female. Do we believe this? This now goes hand in hand with the understanding that in Christ there is no distinction. Galations was clear that nothing distinguished us anymore in the Kingdom of God, all are one in Christ. If God does not see male and female anymore, only those in Christ then it fits perfectly that within the Kingdom of God there is no marriage either. This does not mean that earthly mariage does not exist but that would be missing the point. In the Kingdom of God there is no male and female, nothing to separate us, nothing stating differences, we are now all equal in Christ. We must separate earthly principles from spiritual principles. They are not the same.



[11] If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.In Phil 3 do you see this as a spiritual resurrection only? Meaning being resurrected from our dead sinful state and made alive in Christ?

Here is the full scripture:

Phillipians 3

7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

You are correct. I see only spiritual resurrection here. Faith in Christ is what redeems us. It reminds us of these scriptures:

John 11

25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

This is the same resurrection of the dead, but I don't see physical resurrection. It is resurrection from sin, and that is spiritual.

1 corinthians

20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

What death came from Adam? Was it physical death that needed to be redeemed, of course not. The first death is Adam's spiritual death when he ate the fruit in which all humanity is still in outside of Christ. I know you agree but I wanted to show you this scripture. It forces a conclusion that the resurrection of the dead was through Christ and not a physical resurrection. It goes pefectly with redemption from sin.



(http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5288222)Heb.6 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5288222)
[2] Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
What are your thoughts on Hebrews 6.
(http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=5288222)

I think I exhausted this thought too much, but this is the same as I commented above.



See- I am not a pre-tribber. i beleive the DOL is one day. Jesus returns- dead in Chrsit raised, those who are alive meet them in the air. The wicked are destroyed. Earth is burned up as per Peter...and we receive a new heaven and earth where in dwell only the redeemed.

Can you commetnon the above......will this earth be destroyed? Will we receive a new earth- or have we already received it when we were saved and that is New Jeruselum- heaven.

God Bless- I find this so fascinating.

Alaina:)


I don't believe the earth will be destroyed.

Genesis 8 (septuagint into english)

8:21 And the Lord God smelled a smell of sweetness, and the Lord God having considered, said, I will not any more curse the earth, because of the works of men, because the imagination of man is intently bent upon evil things from his youth, I will not therefore any more smite all living flesh as I have done.
8:22 All the days of the earth, seed and harvest, cold and heat, summer and spring, shall not cease by day or night.

In the time of Noah, after the flood God promises not to destroy the earth because man's heart is evil from youth. Isn't that still the case today? No matter how evil man is, He promises never to destroy the earth as He did.

God bless you Alaina! I am glad you find this interesting.

Teke
Oct 24th 2007, 12:24 AM
Hi Teke,

I believe the dragon is satan and the beast is the Roman Empire of the 1st century, specifically in the embodiment of Nero Caesar as do Partial-Preterists as well. I believe so since Revelation was clear that the events were about to occur:

Revelation 1

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Here we have in the first three verses that the events unfolding were "shortly to come to pass" and "is at hand". Also the reader is told to "hear the words of this prophecy" and to keep the things which are written therein. In other words, do what it says. It would be strange that Daniel is told to seal the words of his book because the time was far off, but John is told to heed the words of this book in other words, not to seal the words of this book since the time was near. Since Daniel and Revelation are linked(which is usually agreed upon) then Daniel was about to be fulfilled in the same time as Revelation which was "soon". If neither book was about to be fulfilled then the statements given by the angel mean absolutely nothing. I believe both were about to be fulfilled approximately 4-6 years after John was given the vision. This is believing the time statements given in the scripture to mean exactly what they were supposed to.


There is a historical meaning, but also a spiritual meaning in Revelation.
Doesn't this all just mean "end times". IOW we live daily in the "end times".



Let me propose a thought(which I presented earlier int his thread). Here is the scripture on the 2nd appearing of Christ:

Hebrews 9

27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Scripturally we cannot avoid the fact that salvation was to occur at the 2nd appearing of Jesus. It was his appearing that heralded the completion of our salvation as noted in Hebrews 9:28 above. If this has not occurred then there still is something that needs to be accomplished for salvation. If we agree that there is something still left to be done then the only possibility left is that it is our physical resurrection of our physical body. If this is what we believe we still cannot avoid the statement that it was to our salvation. If our bodily resurrection is "our blessed hope" and the event that was to complete our salvation we cannot avoid the fact in the next scripture:

Verses and chapters surrounding that one Hebrews verse are relating "worship". "Without sin" in that verse, means "apart from sin". This is relating Christ Incarnation of our flesh (present). In Genesis man is made in the image and likeness of God, here Christ is made into the likeness of man.

Hebrews deals with the meaning of Christ's sacrifice (His whole life and being bringing humanity into perfect worship before God, IOW He perfects human worship before God).


Romans 8

22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?

Then what does verse 18 mean in this line of thought?


Everywhere in scripture, redemption, atonement, and salvation go together. It was at the redemption of our bodies that we were to achieve salvation. We cannot separate salvation and resurrection. If the resurrection of the dead and the 2nd appearing were to occur at the same time and we believe it is a physical event and that was "unto salvation" then the the question must be asked(that I have proposed already) is


Salvation is a means not an end. Worship is the end.


Where does sin reside?

Sin is a symptom, as in illness, of mortality.
Romans 5, sin reigned because of death. Sin is the effect which death had on mankind. Christ has healed that by overcoming death. What He assumed He healed.:)


God Bless Teke!

Thank you
Peace be with you.:hug:

Romulus
Oct 24th 2007, 01:02 AM
Hi Romulus, #9 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1392549&postcount=9)
I do understand what you are saying about the 1st resurrection being spiritual. However I am not clear on whether you see us with resurrected bodies or not, or if so, when? I am thinking of this passage:

(Job 19:25-27 KJV) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: {26} And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: {27} Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.


Hi Mograce2u,

The KJV is one of the only versions that include "worms" the scripture. Other translations have different readings.

Job 9:25-27 NIV

25 I know that my Redeemer [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2019:25-27;&version=31;50;49;74;45;#fen-NIV-13323a)] lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.

26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet [c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2019:25-27;&version=31;50;49;74;45;#fen-NIV-13324c)] in [d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2019:25-27;&version=31;50;49;74;45;#fen-NIV-13324d)] my flesh I will see God; 27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

Job 9:25-27 NKJV

25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,
And He shall stand at last on the earth;

26 And after my skin is destroyed, this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God, 27 Whom I shall see for myself,
And my eyes shall behold, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

Job 9:25-27 NASB

25"As for me, I know that (A (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2019:25-27;&version=31;50;49;74;45;#cen-NIV-en-NKJV-en-NASB-13323A))my Redeemer lives,
And at the last He will take His stand on the earth.
26"Even after my skin is destroyed,
Yet [B]from my flesh I shall (B (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2019:25-27;&version=31;50;49;74;45;#cen-NIV-en-NKJV-en-NASB-13324B))see God;
27Whom I myself shall behold,
And whom my eyes will see and not another.
My heart (C (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2019:25-27;&version=31;50;49;74;45;#cen-NIV-en-NKJV-en-NASB-13325C))faints within me!

I have to look at these scriptures from the point of view of Job. He is talking about his suffering but yet is still holding on to fatih that God will deliver him. Only the NKJV is stating that worms will eat his skin, implying death in the ground. All other translations here do not note this. I believe first that Job is not talking about his death but the state that his body is now when he is enduring this great suffering. When I see that Job is talking about the sufering of his body it is the statement that from this very flesh that is alive now in suffering, he shall see God and his deliverance. This is a bold statement of faith from Job that even though his flesh is suffering in that very flesh he will God himself and will be delivered which as we know he was.

Each translation above talks about Christ in the last day which would naturally bring us to the resurrection of the dead. Let us look at the version below that I believe shows the scenario clearer:

Job 9 (Septuagint into English)

19:25 For I know that he is eternal who is about to deliver me,
19:26 [and] to raise up upon the earth my skin that endures these [sufferings]: for these things have been accomplished to me of the Lord;
19:27 which I am conscious of in myself, which mine eye has seen, and not another, but all have been fulfilled to me in [my] bosom.

From the Septuagint(into English) we see a clearer picture of the same explanation I used with the other 3 translations but does not throw the scenario into the last day. God was about to deliver him, not at the resurrection of the dead but in Jobs lifetime. Job is stating here clearer that his eye of faith sees the deliverance from his sufferings soon. Not at his death, but within his lifetime. This is great example of faith that he would indeed soon see deliverance. God delivered Job because of his faith. Job saw the victory already, even though he was currently suffering. Isn't this what type of faith we are to have? The original greek into english shows the same faith as in later translations but makes it clearer that it was not on the last day, but in the time of Job's suffering. I believe this scripture is about faith in the lifetime of Job, not at the resurrection of the dead.




When we see the resurrected Jesus before His ascension He appeared as a man, but able to appear and disappear at will. But John in Revelation sees Him in His heavenly glory looking much different. How would you explain this difference?


If Jesus was manifested on earth in His full glory as in Revelation, then naturally the earth would fall apart. Jesus's full glory could not be experienced by humanity, if He manifested His full glory then no one could survive. That would put quite a damper on things. :lol: Also, the actual full appearing of Jesus in His glory must be different then ours. We have a similiar spiritual body but we are not God. Christ is.

Matthew 22

29Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

Is Jesus like the angels in heaven? Of course not, He is greater and more glorious then we can imagine. He is God. That is why Christ's spiritual body on earth is what we will have and why I believe that in Revelation when His full glory is pictured, in heaven(not earth) it is more magnificient because God is God, we are not God.

The scripture in Matthew notes this pefectly that our body is like the angels in heaven but we must understand that Jesus is God and more glorious and always was more powerful and majestic then we ever would be.

Still with me?

Romulus
Oct 24th 2007, 01:27 AM
There is a historical meaning, but also a spiritual meaning in Revelation.
Doesn't this all just mean "end times". IOW we live daily in the "end times".


Hi Teke(by the way, how do you pronounce your user name?)

In my view we are not living in the end times. The end times were back in the 1st century and ended at the inaugeration of the New Covenant. If it didn't then the last days in scripture have been occuring for the past 2000 years. The "end of the age"(or the last days) was the end of the only age in scripture, the age of the Old Covenant which was dissapearing in the time of Paul and was fulfilled fully at the 2nd appearing of Christ in 70 A.D. (in the Full preterist view).

Acts 2

16No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17" 'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.

Isn't this the case at pentecost?

Hebrews 1

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.


This is now the 1st century who heard this message.


1 Peter 1

19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

First century again.





Verses and chapters surrounding that one Hebrews verse are relating "worship". "Without sin" in that verse, means "apart from sin". This is relating Christ Incarnation of our flesh (present). In Genesis man is made in the image and likeness of God, here Christ is made into the likeness of man.


I am a little confused? I agree on the "apart from sin" or holy but is the point that at the second appearing it was to be "in the likeness of man" or human? Maybe I read it wrong.




Hebrews deals with the meaning of Christ's sacrifice (His whole life and being bringing humanity into perfect worship before God, IOW He perfects human worship before God).


I agree! Jesus was bringing all humanity back into the very presence of His Father.



Then what does verse 18 mean in this line of thought?


Romans 8


17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
18For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

The sufferings of the present time must be looked through the eyes of those who heard it. The present time was in the time of great persecution by Israel and Rome against the 1st century believers. Paul for instance did not live a trouble free life. He was beaten, stoned, in starvation and worried for his life everyday. This was the case for many of the 1st century Church. The glory that was to be revealed was in the entrance into the Kingdom of God as verse 19 states to be adopted as "sons of God".



Salvation is a means not an end. Worship is the end.


I agree. It is the beginning of a glorious relationship with God where we are seated in the very throne room of God worshipping with angels and arch angels and all the company of heaven giving glory to God. It is the beginning of a Lordship and a relationship that will never end.



Sin is a symptom, as in illness, of mortality.
Romans 5, sin reigned because of death. Sin is the effect which death had on mankind. Christ has healed that by overcoming death. What He assumed He healed.:)


My view ends it the same as you stated it. Sin came at the spiritual death of adam, Christ has overcome death by atoning for our sin, once and for all. My conclusion though is that salvation was to be completed at the second appearing as stated in Hebrews. What in you view do you believe is accomplished at the second appearing?



Thank you
Peace be with you.:hug:


And to you sister! :kiss:

God Bless!

Teke
Oct 24th 2007, 01:13 PM
Hi Teke(by the way, how do you pronounce your user name?)

T- ee -k :D


In my view we are not living in the end times. The end times were back in the 1st century and ended at the inaugeration of the New Covenant. If it didn't then the last days in scripture have been occuring for the past 2000 years. The "end of the age"(or the last days) was the end of the only age in scripture, the age of the Old Covenant which was dissapearing in the time of Paul and was fulfilled fully at the 2nd appearing of Christ in 70 A.D. (in the Full preterist view).

Yes, we have been living in the "end times" since the beginning of the Church. That "first is last and last is first" time.

I don't see how you are getting a second coming then, He was coming and speaking to them before the Church was established, but not afterward. Once the Church was established, which is also His Body, then the Church became the "God bearer", as we Orthodox say it, in the world. In the world but not of it.


Isn't this the case at pentecost?

The Church having been established, begins it's mission (ecclesiology) in the world. Which is the same as His. Calling to everyone the invitation to the kingdom and marriage feast of the Lamb.




This is now the 1st century who heard this message.

Yes, the foundation was laid.




I am a little confused? I agree on the "apart from sin" or holy but is the point that at the second appearing it was to be "in the likeness of man" or human? Maybe I read it wrong.

Let me give a bit of background. Adam wasn't like all the rest of mankind, though all were joined to him from his rib. Adam was "formed" by God. The rest of mankind was procreated from that original. So scripture calls him the "natural" man, but Jesus the "spiritual" man. Because Jesus was Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and procreated mankind (specifically the virgin Mary). They are both "Adam" in that they are both "man".
The significance is in their "being" (ontological), and the implications of that.



I agree! Jesus was bringing all humanity back into the very presence of His Father.

Let's compare notes on this subject. Can you explain what sacrifice means to you, especially Jesus sacrifice?




Romans 8


17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
18For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.

The sufferings of the present time must be looked through the eyes of those who heard it. The present time was in the time of great persecution by Israel and Rome against the 1st century believers. Paul for instance did not live a trouble free life. He was beaten, stoned, in starvation and worried for his life everyday. This was the case for many of the 1st century Church. The glory that was to be revealed was in the entrance into the Kingdom of God as verse 19 states to be adopted as "sons of God".

Indeed we must understand things exactly as the Apostles did. In verse 19 you read, "the creature" = creation, "waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God". If creation (cosmos) waits, then what is it waiting for.:hmm:


I agree. It is the beginning of a glorious relationship with God where we are seated in the very throne room of God worshipping with angels and arch angels and all the company of heaven giving glory to God. It is the beginning of a Lordship and a relationship that will never end.


Yes, Orthodox proclaim this in the Eucharist (bread and wine) sacrifice which is eternal.



My view ends it the same as you stated it. Sin came at the spiritual death of adam, Christ has overcome death by atoning for our sin, once and for all. My conclusion though is that salvation was to be completed at the second appearing as stated in Hebrews. What in you view do you believe is accomplished at the second appearing?

Orthodox like myself, don't view Adam as western Christianity does, in being spiritually dead. That would be impossible since life is the Spirit of God. One cannot kill God, His Spirit is not dead.
Sin is like a psychological result of one who is faced with death. Rather than man having faith in the One who could save them from death, they relied on themselves and what was created. So creation became a means to their end, so to speak, rather than creation being the means of their communion with God, which was the original intention.

Communion is a give and take. God gives us all and we take that which is given and offer it back to Him in worship.

The second coming is for the final judgment.

Romulus
Nov 1st 2007, 02:11 AM
T- ee -k :D


Cool! :)



Yes, we have been living in the "end times" since the beginning of the Church. That "first is last and last is first" time.


We do agree it began with the beginning of the Church but I disagree that it is today. I believe the "end times" or the "end of the age" ended with the Old Covenant on the last day in 70 A.D. In Paul's time the Old Covenant ws passing away which meant it was vanishing but the New Covenant I believe culimnated in the removal of the last sign of the Old Covenant, the temple in Jerusalem. Incidentally all translations that state "the end of the world" have world translated incorrectly. It is the word "oikoumene" which properly translated is "age". The only "age" that was ending was the Old Covenant age.



I don't see how you are getting a second coming then, He was coming and speaking to them before the Church was established, but not afterward. Once the Church was established, which is also His Body, then the Church became the "God bearer", as we Orthodox say it, in the world. In the world but not of it.


True, but Christ was telling the audience that "I am coming soon" and I believe that to be not a literal coming but a coming just as in the Old Testament. See post number 16 for a little more detail on God's coming through heathan armies.



The Church having been established, begins it's mission (ecclesiology) in the world. Which is the same as His. Calling to everyone the invitation to the kingdom and marriage feast of the Lamb.


I agree!





Let me give a bit of background. Adam wasn't like all the rest of mankind, though all were joined to him from his rib. Adam was "formed" by God. The rest of mankind was procreated from that original. So scripture calls him the "natural" man, but Jesus the "spiritual" man. Because Jesus was Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and procreated mankind (specifically the virgin Mary). They are both "Adam" in that they are both "man".
The significance is in their "being" (ontological), and the implications of that.



Again, we agree. But the scripture was clear in Hebrews:

Hebrews 9

28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

If this has not occurred yet, our salvation has not been completed yet. If you see some of my earlier posts to Alaina it explains it clearer as well as an explanation of the forerunner of Christ's work, the "day of atonement".



Let's compare notes on this subject. Can you explain what sacrifice means to you, especially Jesus sacrifice?


Christ's sacrifice was to become the final sacrifice for our transgressions(sin). It was the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. He took upon Himself every sin so that I may live. More specifically it was to bring humanity back into the Holy of Holies or the very presence of God. It was to restore me to God the Father. Through Christ I am worthy to be in communion with God the Father. All of Christ's work was to reconcile earth to heaven or humanity to God the Father. We are now able to come to the Father through His Son Jesus and only Jesus. Christ has restored what Adam had given up through sin, a relationship with God Himself. I am no longer unworthy to call God my Father. Christ has accomplished all.


Indeed we must understand things exactly as the Apostles did. In verse 19 you read, "the creature" = creation, "waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God". If creation (cosmos) waits, then what is it waiting for.:hmm:

Paul and the rest of the believers were waiting to be restored to God Himself through Christ. As Hebrews states "The way into the Holy of Holies was not made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing". This speaking of the 1st tabernacle, the temple in Jerusalem. It was the destruction of the last sign of the Old Covenant that showed the world that Christ or God no longer dwelt in man made structures but within believers themselves. He was now with them. See my earlier posts on the "day of atonement" I wrote to Alaina that explains the process.




Yes, Orthodox proclaim this in the Eucharist (bread and wine) sacrifice which is eternal.


As do I! It is not just a memorial but the very presence of Christ in bread and wine. Life is put in my body as I partake in the body and blood of my Lord. Like Jesus said, "if you do not eat the flesh and blood of the Son of man, you have no life in you". I believe this is the Eucharist.



Orthodox like myself, don't view Adam as western Christianity does, in being spiritually dead. That would be impossible since life is the Spirit of God. One cannot kill God, His Spirit is not dead.


Remember though, that the sting of death is sin. Adam had sin which is why he and the rest of humanity was separated from God. Death was defeated through the work of Christ, not actual death but the sting of death, which was sin. We are now back in the presence of God through Christ. Death did reign before Christ.
Communion is a give and take. God gives us all and we take that which is given and offer it back to Him in worship.



The second coming is for the final judgment.


I believe the second appearing occurred in the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem. The scripture on Judgement in Revelation in the original Greek has no mention of "final". John is merely shown a judgement scene. I believe the judgement began in 70 A.D. and does not end but occurs for each person at death. Otherewise scripture is silent on where humanity goes since the "final Judgement" and the "resurrection of the dead" has not occurred which I believe already did. Read my posts to Alaina for a little more insight.

God Bless Sister! :)

Mograce2U
Nov 1st 2007, 03:13 AM
Romulus,
I went back to your post #41 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1418912&postcount=41) to Alainja where you said that according to Gen 8:21 you do not believe that the earth will be destroyed. How do you reconcile that with Peter's words here:

(2 Pet 3:3-7 KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, {4} And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. {5} For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: {6} Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: {7} But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Romulus
Nov 1st 2007, 04:12 AM
Romulus,
I went back to your post #41 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1418912&postcount=41) to Alainja where you said that according to Gen 8:21 you do not believe that the earth will be destroyed. How do you reconcile that with Peter's words here:

(2 Pet 3:3-7 KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, {4} And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. {5} For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: {6} Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: {7} But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.


Hi Mograce2U,

It is the understanding if the literal heavens and the earth are meant or something different. Take a look at the scripture below:

Matthew 5

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

If heaven and earth have not dissapeared then the Old Covenant Law is still in effect. It had to have dissapeared in order for Jesus to fulfill the Law in His sacrifice for us.

Let us also look at Isaiah:

Isaiah 51(septuagint into English)

51:15 for I am thy God, that troubles the sea, and causes the waves thereof to roar: the Lord of hosts is my name.
51:16 I will put my words into thy mouth, and I will shelter thee under the shadow of mine hand, with which I fixed the sky, and founded the earth: and [the Lord] shall say to Sion, Thou art my people.

Isaiah 51(KJV)

15But I am the LORD thy God, that divided the sea, whose waves roared: The LORD of hosts is his name.
16And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.

Here we see in the Old Testament that God had delivered Israel from Egypt through the dividing of the red sea. It was at this time that He would lay the foundations of the heavens and the earth. Obviously the physical heaven and earth were not created at that time but in Genesis but something was. This was the Old Covenant world that was given in the law to Israel. Here we have God then stating that "thou art my people". We know this to be a reality in the time the Old Covenant began. The references of "heaven and earth" have to do with the Old Covenant age that had begun.

2 Peter 3 merely states the same as a renewing of the heaven and earth in the New Covenant in Christ. The Old Covenant world was being removed and fulfilled in the age in Christ's blood. If the physical heaven and earth was not meant bu rather the Old Covenant age then the burning away of that to begin a "new heavens and new earth" must refer to the New Covenant age in Christ.

Also, 2 Peter 3 puts this change within the context of the "last Days". The New Testament(as you know) puts the last days in the time of Paul. We also have the term the "end of the age". The only age that was ending was the Old Covenant age as the New Covenant age in Christ was about to begin.

God Bless!

Bing
Nov 1st 2007, 06:11 AM
Hi Bing!,

I must sincerely apologize for not responding. I have been unbelievably busy and have not had time to really sit down and write properly. The comments I made to Alaina(before responding to you) was done rather quickly on my Iphone and I could not comment properly to you that way as it would take me too long. I haven't forgotten you so here goes.
My dear fellow! If you can excuse me the lateness of my reply, it would be churlish of me to hold you to blame. I understand that we all have real life commitments. My reminder posts were simply so we did not allow this fascinating thread to drift out of memory, and were in no way intended as a chiding. I am indebted to you for your readiness to enter into intelligent discussion in a spirit of seeking out truth and searching out the Word of God. Let us proceed.


That is the key for me. In like manner notes to me not exactly as he left which was physical. I know that you mention this in further detail below so I will comment further below.

We agree that Jesus was on earth in a physical body and that He died physically but we may disagree that He died spiritually just like we did(you can clarify later). The spiritual death was in my view the center point of what He came to do for us, not the physical death. The entire picture of redemption was in the Full-Preterist view from the spiritual, not the physical, let me explain. What does redemption or resurrection(which goes hand in hand) from? Was it from physical death or spiritual death? The bigger question is what needed to be redeemed? Was it our physical body or our spiritual? The key to redemption was to be redeemed from sin and nothing more. That was the reason we could not be in the presence of God, or in scripture the "holy of holies", God Himself. It was sin within our spiritual that needed to be redeemed.

Here I must interrupt you before we go into Genesis (one of my favourite parts of scripture to search out!). I believe that you are making an unfair division between the spirit and the body. Are they distinguishable elements of our makeup? One would be inclined to think so, owing to the fact that they are referred to by different and exclusive names throughout the Bible. Are they utterly different components, of which we can shed or drop? I do not believe so. You ask the question of what our redemption and resurrection (which are not the same thing, but which may be dealt with together in this context) actually from, and differentiate between spiritual death and physical death.

Does this differentiation exist in scripture? I am not sure, so permit me to open up a few verses for an overview:

The "Second Death" is one that the redeemed saints do not taste (Rev 20:14-15) and can be said to be the ultimate end of wicked man. Is this solely a spiritual reality? No. In Revelation 19:20 both the Beast and the False Prophet are thrown alive into this Lake. Unless all three are demoted to "spiritual metaphors" (which I find a distasteful prospect akin to universalism) then we must assume that bodily suffering is included in the Lake of Fire, a prospect borne out by John 5:29 and Revelation 20:5 (both of which imply a bodily resurrection of the wicked dead).

1 Corinthians 15:56 gives the sting of death as sin - I presume this to mean that death is only seen as significant to a man if his sins are still laid to his own account rather than covered by the Blood of Jesus. For us, death is swallowed up in victory; what is sown in weakness is raised up in power as we become like Christ (1 John 3:2) - that is, glorified and perfect, equally yoked to Him. By placing this victory over death in context with the glorified body, I believe Paul confirms that victory over death (for 1 Corinthians 15:56 places all death in context with the Lake of Fire in terms of its effectiveness) is absolute for the believer. I cannot find scriptural evidence for a sinless natural body and a sinful and dead spirit; only evidence for a fallen natural body (Romans 8:10) and a fallen spirit made alive by our justification (Romans 6:4). Both are an integral part of our salvation, whereby we have a salvatory experience and are justified (Romans 5:12), continue to walk out our salvation until death (Philippians 2:12), and then are finally glorified in the image of Christ (Romans 8:23).


If it is our physical bodies at the end of days that we were to be redeemed, is that supported by scripture?
According to Romans 8:23 above, emphatically yes! But let us look at Genesis...


I believe that question is answered in Genesis.

Genesis 2

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Did Adam physically die on the day he ate the fruit? Of course not, but God did not lie. Adam did die on the day he ate he fruit, but he died spiritually, as did all of humanity from that day forward. Adam died because sin entered his very being and separated himself from God Himself as nothing sinful can be in the presence of God. The entire act of redemption was to redeem humanity from sin which resided in our spirits. Is the physical connected? Of course! But our physical body is not what needed redemption because that was of the dust of the earth and would pass away at our physical death but the spirit is what remains.

I will jump straight in and address what I believe to be a false premise from the beginning of this argument. Yes, I believe that Adam and Eve did die on that day, when they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam died spiritually, and yet both he and his wife died physically as well, in an event that Christians refer to in shorthand as "The Fall."

From the moment of the proclamation of Genesis 3:19, man began to die. We can see this in the declining longevity of humanity from that time. Adam was made of dust before Genesis 3:19, and the dust was not intrinsically evil. Jesus clothed Himself in flesh (Hebrews 2:14) just as we are, and He remains clothed in the same. Indeed, this is proof of His resurrection that He offered His disciples; that He was of flesh and blood, still fully God and still fully Man (Luke 24:39).

This is where my earlier criticism of latent Gnosticism came in; I believe that you place undue emphasis on the spirit at the cost of the flesh. Jesus is still fully Man as well as fully God, and this is how He will relate to us for eternity. He will not change, nor will He put off the human, physical and glorified body that He was resurrected into (Hebrews 13:8). 1 Corinthians 15:40 tells us that in lieu of these earthly bodies we shall receive heavenly bodies, of the same substance (ie: physical, real) as our current bodies, except glorious and redeemed. As I mentioned earlier, Romans 8:23 is the final word on whether the physical resurrection is to be awaited.


When Jesus died on the cross, He died physically but that is not he center point of what He did for us. He died spiritually as well, just as we did and that is what needed redeeming. Remember at the cross Jesus took on all the sin of the whole world before Him, during Him, and after Him, all sin came upon Him. Was it in His physical being, I don't believe so, it was in His spiritual. He took on the very nature all of humanity was trapped in. This is why Jesus shouted "why have You forsaken me". God would never forsake His one and only Son, but it was because Jesus was separated from His Father taking on the very nature we were born into by Adam.

When He resurrected the focal point should not be the physical resurrection but His spiritual resurrection. The physical did not need redemption because it was the spirit that needed to be redeemed, from sin. Christ's physical resurrection was needed as proof that His spirit had been redeemed otherwise humanity could not see it otherwise. It was proof that Christ, taking on the very sinful nature that humanity had since Adam, was atoned for. Christ was resurrected and redeemed just as we were to be at the completion of redemption or the atonement.
Again, I have shown several times that the Bible clearly states that the physical does need redemption. If it was Jesus' spiritual death and resurrection that was the issue, why are the gospels silent on this? All four dwell significantly on Jesus' bodily death and resurrection, an event that by your theology must be a footnote.

What do you mean by "Christ...was atoned for"?


We can dispue translation here, but I believe "like manner" is the correct translation. Even if was different, the focal point should be that He left in the clouds and would return in the clouds, in my view "in like manner", which does not necessasrily mean as He left physically.
I am not interested in different translations. The Greek is considerably simpler than the English. It means "in the way" - and the English nuances "in like manner" "in such a way" or "in the same way" should all be treated synonymously and as figures of speech. Paul uses similar phrases in Acts 15:11 (to point out that Jew and Gentile are both saved in the same way) or in Acts 27:25 (to reassure the ship's masters that they would be saved in the same way as God showed him in an angelic encounter). Jannes and Jambres were said to have opposed Moses "in the same way" that wicked men of these last days oppose truth (2 Timothy 3:8). Jude 7 reports that "in the same way" as the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, ungodly men in his day and in the future would indulge in sexual immorality and homosexuality.

Consistently then, we must ignore whatever nuances lay beneath the English words we use as translations, and look at some very simple Greek words that simply mean "in this way."

The translation choices of the ESV or NKJV or NASB or KJV or NIV are immaterial. Your reading of the text does not reflect the intentions of the translators, but only the versatility of the English language.


I probably lost you but let us back this up with other scriptures. We can both agree that Acts 1 as well as the second appearing(coming) is the same event, correct? Since you are a futurist I would assume 1 Thessalonians 4:13(Rapture) is a separate event in your eyes, but I believe this to be the same event as well. It is in the majority of opinion that at the second appearing we would all receive our resurrection of the body and enter paradise. We can dispute the rapture as being the same or a separate event but we can leave that to a further discussion. Here is the second appearing in scripture:

Hebrews 9

27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Here is the key to Acts 1 as well as in my opinion, 1 Thessalonians 4:13, Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 etc. but let's just leave this at Acts 1. The second appearing was unto salvation. It was at this 2nd appearing that humanity was to receive salvation, the completion of redemption and atonement. If this has not occurred we are still in our sins. The second appearing was for the removal of sin, unto salvation. Are we still in our sins or not? Most would say no but that would mean that the second appearing has occurred yet, most would then say we are saved but we have not received our spiritual bodies yet and that is what is meant here.

I must disagree with that argument. This brings up that the resurrection of our body goes hand and hand here. Here is the scripture noting our supposed physical bodies being resurrected:

Romans 8

22For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Here we have the event that was to occur in Acts 1 and the second appearing, even in the futurist paradigm as well as the partial-preterist view. Upon plain reading it seems that physical resurrection is implied here with our body but we must ponder the implication of this event at the Acts 1 scenario and the second appearing. As I commented before, it was our spirit that needed redemption, not our physical, I hope we agree at this point. If our physical body is meant here we cannot remove that redemption was to occur at the same time. If our physical body is meant here, which redemption is attached to at the same time at the glorious 2nd appearing(coming) of Christ then I pose the question, if our physical body is in need of redemption then....
I am not at all sure what you mean by all of this. I hold that Hebrews 9:28 is talking about the second coming, in which our salvation will be completed. Even so, men were "saved" before 70 AD, and so you cannot be trying to tell me that Hebrews 9:28, Acts 1:11, 1 Thessalonians 4, Romans 8:23 and 1 Corinthians 15 were fulfilled at 70 AD.

You have lost me here.

If the verses I referred to just here refer to 70 AD, then our salvation is complete now.

If they refer to the ultimate glorification at the end of the age, well and good.

Bing
Nov 1st 2007, 06:11 AM
Where does sin reside?

If our redemption was at the physical bodily coming of Christ at which our bodies were to be resurrected physically, then we cannot remove scripture that redemption must occur at the same time as noted in Romans 8 and then we arrive at the conclusion that sin then must reside in our physical body(this is gnosticism). Do you understand the implication? To remove ourselves from this conclusion, which I hope many do then the body that was to be resurrected at the second appearing of Christ must have not been physical and must be understood to be our redemption from sin within our spirit. Notice the rest of the scripture:

Romans 8
24For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

Is our hope in our physical resurrection or our spiritual resurrection? The 1st century believers as well as humanity today is waiting for "our blessed hope". To believe this is a physical resurrection is to believe that sin must be redeemed from our physical and not our spiritual which is exactly what Jesus did not do. He redeemed us from sin through his spirtual death on the cross. Does redemption which was to happen at the second appearing as in Acts 1 shown anywhere to be physical?

Ephesians 1

6To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;


Collosians 1

13Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Hebrews 9

11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

All these speak of redemption throught the atoning work of Christ. We must take into account that redemption clearly goes with the resurrection of our body(resurrection of the dead) and second appearing(coming) as mostly agreed upon as taking place in Acts 1 and in my opinion the 1st resurrection in Revelation where the second death(lake of fire) has no power over those partaking in the 1st resurrection. If this must have occured for us to have salvation then Acts 1 must be assumed to have occurred already and not of a physical nature. If it hasn't then salvation has not occurred since the second appearing is future and the Old Covenant is still in effect. It was sin atoned for once and for all that was the fufillment of the Old Covenant. Remember what is the sting of death? It is sin, if sin has not been atoned for then death still reigns until physical death is destroyed but the conclusion that must be arrived at is that if death has not been defeated then sin still reigns. I believe this to be fulfilled at the second(spiritual) appearing of Christ in which all of humanity was redeemed and now worthy to be in the presence of God once more. All was accomplished. I cannot separate Acts 1 from the second appearing(I am sure many cannot either) and the resurrection of the dead so with the fulfillment of one I believe that Acts 1 must not be physical but a spiritual one that occurred as the many cloud comings in the Old Covenant that were not physical either.
You are using "Acts 1" as an undefined phrase. Acts 1 and the events depicted therein have obviously happened. We call that the Assumption. You have yet to prove conclusively (or even suggest conclusively) that the events promised in Acts 1:11 have come to pass. In fact, the only event promised in Acts 1:11 is that Jesus will return as He left.

Acts 1:11 follows Hebrews 9:28 in pointing out that next time when He comes, it will not be as a sacrificial offering (for Hebrews also says that His sacrifice was once and for all sufficient) but to save those who are waiting for Him.

You place this in a strictly spiritual context. I contend that many were saved before 70 AD, and so His Hebrews 9:28 appearing cannot be a spiritual appearance to open the doors of salvation. Indeed, it can only be the ultimate capstone upon a lifetime of sanctification of saints and initial justification. Hebrews 9:28 cannot be talking of anything other than glorification, which as we have shown above is a literal and material reality.

To use the invisible "hope" of Romans 8:24 to prove the preceding verse as spiritual is a circular argument; you claim that verse 24 must be spiritual because we cannot see the glorification of the bodies. The glorification of our bodies must be spiritual because we cannot see it, thererfore it is our hope.

I contend that the "hope" of Romans 8 refers to the future glorification of our bodies in a literal way that will confirm and justify the hope we have harboured.

I eagerly await your responses. There is a lot in your reasoning that I do not understand, and I believe that has chiefly to do with our Genesis discrepancy, and our disagreement as to whether the flesh or the spirit is tainted by the Fall.

To clarify; you believe that the flesh is irrelevant and the spirit is dead because of the fall? You believe that New Testament references to the resurrection of the body are therefore spiritual references to our inner man?

Teke
Nov 1st 2007, 06:13 PM
It is the word "oikoumene" which properly translated is "age". The only "age" that was ending was the Old Covenant age.

Mat 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

the end = Gr. synteleia = 1) completion, consummation, end
the world = Gr. aiōn = 1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity 2) the worlds, universe 3) period of time, age

To me this shows a consummation of the cosmos, which man is connected with.

Now let's look at "judged' (Gr. krino) in Revelation. (BTW there are eight other synonymous words for "judge" in Greek)
krino = to judge, used of a legal or other decision; generally translated "judge", sometimes "determine", "conclude"
So in Revelation it is used in the sense of completion or culmination. IOW God has final say on the whole matter.


True, but Christ was telling the audience that "I am coming soon" and I believe that to be not a literal coming but a coming just as in the Old Testament. See post number 16 for a little more detail on God's coming through heathan armies.

I read post 16, your using Hebrews 9:28 which uses the Greek preposition "eis" ("unto" salvation=meaning salvation culminates in or with Him) and does not equate to "to".
Here (http://www.levendwater.org/companion/append104.html) is a short study on prepositions in Greek, see vi.



[COLOR=black]If this has not occurred yet, our salvation has not been completed yet.

He is the one who completes it.


If you see some of my earlier posts to Alaina it explains it clearer as well as an explanation of the forerunner of Christ's work, the "day of atonement".

The, day of atonement reference is liturgical. The type helps explain to Jews what Christ has accomplished for humanity in perfecting human worship.


Christ's sacrifice was to become the final sacrifice for our transgressions(sin).

Christ is not a sin sacrifice. While He is a sacrifice in His suffering, sacrifice is only one aspect of worship. The crucifixion was not the completion, the resurrection was.

Salvation is becoming a partaker of the divine Nature (2 Pet. 1:4), the ontological and uncreated divine energies. The Orthodox believe in sacrificial propitiation or atonement without the judicial conceptualizations, a view leaning more to the latreutic (having to do with worship) concepts of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and which embraces Jesus entire Life, not just His crucifixion.



Remember though, that the sting of death is sin. Adam had sin which is why he and the rest of humanity was separated from God. Death was defeated through the work of Christ, not actual death but the sting of death, which was sin. We are now back in the presence of God through Christ. Death did reign before Christ.
Communion is a give and take. God gives us all and we take that which is given and offer it back to Him in worship.

Death is what causes us to sin, the type of sin which corrupts perfect worship. God ordained death so that we would appreciate such perfection. As St Isaac of Syria said, "Anything that is easily found is also easily lost, whereas what is found after much labor will be guarded with vigilance."
This is why in Genesis God makes it harder for man to produce (Gen. 3:17..."cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; ")fruit meet for righteousness (worship).


I believe the second appearing occurred in the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem. The scripture on Judgement in Revelation in the original Greek has no mention of "final". John is merely shown a judgement scene. I believe the judgement began in 70 A.D. and does not end but occurs for each person at death. Otherewise scripture is silent on where humanity goes since the "final Judgement" and the "resurrection of the dead" has not occurred which I believe already did. Read my posts to Alaina for a little more insight.

God Bless Sister! :)

See top of this post on Revelation and judge.
I do believe God judges continually in different ways, the OT witnesses to this, as many judgments have been made. But those are not the culmination of all things.

Peace:hug:

Romulus
Nov 6th 2007, 09:15 PM
My dear fellow! If you can excuse me the lateness of my reply, it would be churlish of me to hold you to blame. I understand that we all have real life commitments. My reminder posts were simply so we did not allow this fascinating thread to drift out of memory, and were in no way intended as a chiding. I am indebted to you for your readiness to enter into intelligent discussion in a spirit of seeking out truth and searching out the Word of God. Let us proceed.


My thoughts as well brother. Let us go further.



Here I must interrupt you before we go into Genesis (one of my favourite parts of scripture to search out!). I believe that you are making an unfair division between the spirit and the body. Are they distinguishable elements of our makeup? One would be inclined to think so, owing to the fact that they are referred to by different and exclusive names throughout the Bible. Are they utterly different components, of which we can shed or drop? I do not believe so. You ask the question of what our redemption and resurrection (which are not the same thing, but which may be dealt with together in this context) actually from, and differentiate between spiritual death and physical death.


It may seem as if I am dividing spirit and body (which is why gnosticism is thrown around sometimes) but in reality I do agree that they are connected. Is it not the flesh in which all of us submit to much of the time, rather then the spirit in which we are redeemed? Is it not the flesh that we constantly struggle with ever since we became believers and the constant reminder that we must humble ourselves before God for forgiveness? Is it not the very command of Jesus to not fulfill the desires of the flesh since we are made new in Him? Are we not to be examples of the children of God by our outward showing of love and faithfullness to His word through the actions of our body?

Redemption as Websters defines it (from the root word Redeem.)

1 a: to buy back : repurchase (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/repurchase) b: to get or win back2: to free from what distresses or harms: as a: to free from captivity by payment of ransom b: to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental c: to release from blame or debt : clear (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/clear) d: to free from the consequences of sin3: to change for the better : reform (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reform)4: repair (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/repair), restore (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/restore)5 a: to free from a lien by payment of an amount secured thereby b (1): to remove the obligation of by payment <the United States Treasury redeems savings bonds on demand> (2): to exchange for something of value <redeem trading stamps> c: to make good : fulfill (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fulfill)6 a: to atone for : expiate (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/expiate) <redeem an error> b (1): to offset the bad effect of (2): to make worthwhile : retrieve (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/retrieve)

What did Christ buy us back from? What did we need to be freed from? What did Christ pay back for us, that we needed to pay? Is it not to buy us back from the enemy. To free us from the bondage and consequences of sin which is death? I know we agree on this. Redemption was the completion of salvation, to redeem us from the fall(sin.) The separation between man and God or earth and heaven.

Here is the Websters definition of resurrection:

1 acapitalized : the rising of Christ from the dead boften capitalized : the rising again to life of all the human dead before the final judgment c: the state of one risen from the dead2: resurgence (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/resurgence), revival (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/revival)3Christian Science : a spiritualization of thought : material belief that yields to spiritual understanding.

We can disregard the 3rd definition. I am glad even Websters has Christ as the primary definition. Resurrection is the act of rising from the dead in which is what Jesus did for us. Resurrection is the "coming back to life". Can we agree upon this to?

Is this differentiation exist in scripture? I am not sure, so permit me to open up a few verses for an overview:



The "Second Death" is one that the redeemed saints do not taste (Rev 20:14-15) and can be said to be the ultimate end of wicked man. Is this solely a spiritual reality? No. In Revelation 19:20 both the Beast and the False Prophet are thrown alive into this Lake. Unless all three are demoted to "spiritual metaphors" (which I find a distasteful prospect akin to universalism) then we must assume that bodily suffering is included in the Lake of Fire, a prospect borne out by John 5:29 and Revelation 20:5 (both of which imply a bodily resurrection of the wicked dead).


You are correct! Those not redeemed by the blood of Christ must suffer the 2nd death (lake of fire.) The question is what kind of bodily suffering is mentioned here. Is it flesh and blood suffering or of a different nature of suffering not seen in this world and will be for all eternity? First off we know that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God and I believe that carries over to eternal suffering as well. Can flesh and blood endure the lake of fire? Of course not, the body we know of in this life would burn away from the lake of fire in a moment and those in torment would cease to exist. If it is not the body that we are aware of in this life it must be something different that will endure for all eternity in torment and most unfortunately, be separated from God. I do not presume to understand the nature of this body but I simply do not believe it is a flesh and blood one(physical.)


1 Corinthians 15:56 gives the sting of death as sin - I presume this to mean that death is only seen as significant to a man if his sins are still laid to his own account rather than covered by the Blood of Jesus. For us, death is swallowed up in victory; what is sown in weakness is raised up in power as we become like Christ (1 John 3:2) - that is, glorified and perfect, equally yoked to Him.

I agree, but let us look further in Isaiah:

(Septuagint into English)

25:7 they shall anoint themselves with ointment in this mountain. Impart thou all these things to the nations; for this is [God's] counsel upon all the nations.
25:8 Death has prevailed and swallowed [men] up; but again the Lord God has taken away every tear from every face. He has taken away the reproach of [his] people from all the earth: for the mouth off the Lord has spoken it.
25:9 And in that day they shall say, behold our God in whom we have trusted, and he shall save us: this [is] the Lord; we have waited for him, and we have exulted, and will rejoice in our salvation.

Death has swallowed men up. What death is spoken of here, is it physical death or the spiritual death from the fall?

When that day was to come, would be the day He saved us from this death. Again, is this physical death? Finally humanity would then rejoice in their salvation. What did we need to be saved from, physical death or the spiritual death from sin?

The question comes to mind, if the last thing to be defeated is death, what death needs to be defeated? I see all scriptures pointing to spiritual death and scripture is very clear that salvation was to come at that time as well. Does salvation come at physical death being defeated or did it come at spiritual death being defeated?



By placing this victory over death in context with the glorified body, I believe Paul confirms that victory over death (for 1 Corinthians 15:56 places all death in context with the Lake of Fire in terms of its effectiveness) is absolute for the believer.

I agree that victory over death is in context with the lake of fire in that those that have been given the victory do not experience it but the question we are both commenting on is what type of body is specified. You believe a glorified physical body (which has not happened yet) where I believe it has but is not physical. Can we agree that resurrection of the dead is the event that fulfills this?



I cannot find scriptural evidence for a sinless natural body and a sinful and dead spirit; only evidence for a fallen natural body (Romans 8:10) and a fallen spirit made alive by our justification (Romans 6:4). Both are an integral part of our salvation, whereby we have a salvatory experience and are justified (Romans 5:12), continue to walk out our salvation until death (Philippians 2:12), and then are finally glorified in the image of Christ (Romans 8:23).


First off, I agree that there is no scriptural evidence of your premise above. The only disagreement is I believe that the justification in which we are made alive is our salvation and is complete at the event that fulfilled it and that the physical resurrection that is implied is not part of the completion of salvation. In other words, if the physical resurrection of our bodies completes our salvation then the act of physical resurrection which has not occurred yet forces us into the believe that salvation is not complete yet. Would you agree?




According to Romans 8:23 above, emphatically yes! But let us look at Genesis...



I will jump straight in and address what I believe to be a false premise from the beginning of this argument. Yes, I believe that Adam and Eve did die on that day, when they ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam died spiritually, and yet both he and his wife died physically as well, in an event that Christians refer to in shorthand as "The Fall."


Yes Adam did die that day but only spiritually. The connection as I proposed earlier is that the "first resurrection" is the event that destroys the "first death" as resurrection is the coming back from the dead. Those that partake in the "first resurrection", the "second death" (lake of fire has no power over them.) So in order for us to understand the nature of the "first resurrection" we must understand the nature of the "first death". The first death in Genesis is spiritual death. The death as proclaimed in Genesis was specifically to have occurred on the day that Adam ate from the tree of good and evil. The only death on that day was spiritual death as Adam's physical death occurred 400 years later. The first death in Genesis cannot encompass two events and two natures. It can only be either spiritual or physical, not both. God was specific, what death occurred on the day Adam ate from the tree? That death is what the "first resurrection" was to bring back humanity from.



From the moment of the proclamation of Genesis 3:19, man began to die. We can see this in the declining longevity of humanity from that time. Adam was made of dust before Genesis 3:19, and the dust was not intrinsically evil. Jesus clothed Himself in flesh (Hebrews 2:14) just as we are, and He remains clothed in the same. Indeed, this is proof of His resurrection that He offered His disciples; that He was of flesh and blood, still fully God and still fully Man (Luke 24:39).


I don't dispute the incarnation of Christ. Full-Preterism is an avid defender of this as all other believers. Jesus was fully God, and fully man. He was resurrected in the flesh. The only disagreement comes is in do we need to be physically resurrected once we have been spiritually resurrected in Christ?

Romulus
Nov 6th 2007, 09:18 PM
This is where my earlier criticism of latent Gnosticism came in; I believe that you place undue emphasis on the spirit at the cost of the flesh. Jesus is still fully Man as well as fully God, and this is how He will relate to us for eternity. He will not change, nor will He put off the human, physical and glorified body that He was resurrected into (Hebrews 13:8). 1 Corinthians 15:40 tells us that in lieu of these earthly bodies we shall receive heavenly bodies, of the same substance (ie: physical, real) as our current bodies, except glorious and redeemed. As I mentioned earlier, Romans 8:23 is the final word on whether the physical resurrection is to be awaited.


First off, we both agree that Christ was raised physically. The only difference is that I believe He was also raised spiritually and that was the point. The physical was simply the proof that He was raised spiritually. Without the physical, humanity could not have seen that death could not hold Him and that He was spiritually resurrected just as we were to be. Jesus took upon himself every sin of the world for all time. He took on the same spiritually condition all humanity was in, spiritual death. Why else would He cry out to God our Father, "why have you forsaken me".
Would God forsake His one and only son. Of course not, but something did........sin. Sin separated Christ from God the Father. The resurrection was the event that was the forerunner of what was to happen to us. Since sin separated Christ from God the Father, and was resurrected just like Him we would be resurrected spiritually through Him and be reconciled to God the Father as well, worthy to be in His presence once more as nothing sinful can dwell with God.

Romans 8:23
23And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
What adoption was humanity waiting for? I believe as Paul writes, "our adoption as sons". Well sons of whom? God of course. This was to happen as the redemption of our body. Is adoption as sons an event that occurs at our physical or spiritual redemption?


Again, I have shown several times that the Bible clearly states that the physical does need redemption. If it was Jesus' spiritual death and resurrection that was the issue, why are the gospels silent on this? All four dwell significantly on Jesus' bodily death and resurrection, an event that by your theology must be a footnote.


If the physical needs redemption, redemption from what? In all scriptures it states that we need redemption from sin, nothing else. Is there any other redemption? Therfore, if our physical body needs redemption, then again I ask:

Where does sin reside?
Redemption can only occur in our spiritual. If it occurs in the physical, as in the bodily resurrection of humanity at the last day, then sin must reside within our physical flesh and blood and not our spirits. That is what gnosticism teaches and I believe that goes against the "first death" in scripture. Also, if our physical bodies are to be resurrected and that is what is always meant then redemption, resurrection, and most importantly, salvation has not been completed.





I am not at all sure what you mean by all of this. I hold that Hebrews 9:28 is talking about the second coming, in which our salvation will be completed. Even so, men were "saved" before 70 AD, and so you cannot be trying to tell me that Hebrews 9:28, Acts 1:11, 1 Thessalonians 4, Romans 8:23 and 1 Corinthians 15 were fulfilled at 70 AD.


Do we physically need to be saved from death, or has Jesus already saved us? I believe man was not saved before 70 A.D. if they were then why did Paul say:

Romans 13
11And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.

Also, Romans 8:23 states that we have not been adopted yet as sons. Romans 13 states that we are not yet at salvation. This was after the resurrection and ascension. Either we are saved fully(in 70 A.D.) or it has not happened yet.



If the verses I referred to just here refer to 70 AD, then our salvation is complete now.


:pp You got it!



If they refer to the ultimate glorification at the end of the age, well and good.


End result is the same. :)



I will respond shortly to the other response. God bless you Brother!

Mograce2U
Nov 9th 2007, 04:45 PM
Romulus, #53 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1432887&postcount=53)
When Jesus quotes Psalm 22 from the cross it is to point us to that passage.

When you look at what David was saying, he first begins with what he feels is true but then reminds himself of God's promises which He kept and shows us that in fact God had not forsaken Israel in the past but kept His word to them. We can see that the passage is Messianic because Jesus has declared it so for us.

(Psa 22:24 KJV) For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

Despite what appears to be the case, that is not the truth; God hears prayer. And in Jesus' case, this is prophetic of His being raised from the dead.

And Jesus also says this from the cross:

(Luke 23:46 KJV) And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Which is similar to what Stephen says as he was dying:

(Acts 7:59 KJV) And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

So rather than being forsaken by the Lord the spirit returns to the Father who gave it.

(Psa 22:29 KJV) All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

This is our hope in which we trust the Lord to do. Jesus was never without the presence of the Father in life or death. He could take sin upon Himself because He alone is immortal. The curse Adam could not bear was his physical death, which came about because sin separated him spiritually from God. Jesus did not have to die "spritually" in order to take this curse away. All He needed to do was die physically and live thru it!

Romulus
Nov 9th 2007, 06:32 PM
Romulus, #53 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1432887&postcount=53)
When Jesus quotes Psalm 22 from the cross it is to point us to that passage.

When you look at what David was saying, he first begins with what he feels is true but then reminds himself of God's promises which He kept and shows us that in fact God had not forsaken Israel in the past but kept His word to them. We can see that the passage is Messianic because Jesus has declared it so for us.

(Psa 22:24 KJV) For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.

Despite what appears to be the case, that is not the truth; God hears prayer. And in Jesus' case, this is prophetic of His being raised from the dead.

And Jesus also says this from the cross:

(Luke 23:46 KJV) And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

Which is similar to what Stephen says as he was dying:

(Acts 7:59 KJV) And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

So rather than being forsaken by the Lord the spirit returns to the Father who gave it.

(Psa 22:29 KJV) All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.


Hi Mograce2u,

I believe Christ said "Why hast Thou forsaken me" for the reason I stated before to take upon Himself exactly the same state that all humanity was in which was separation from God. Your argument can be stated the same regarding the faithful as well. As scripture states regarding the faithful that "their names have been written in the book of life, before the foundation of the world" which implies that we were God's children before we even existed on earth. God knew before creation who were His and who were not. This goes further into the view that life began in the mind of God and not just at conception and yet even though we were His before creation we were separated from Him until we received His Son through sin. Nonetheless if Jesus did not take on the very nature that we were in, how could it have been atoned for? God is never far from His children, even when they are separated from Him and He will be with them fully when they receive Jesus Christ as Lord. I would actually even be bold and say He is after the unfaithful, even though He knew who were His but in His love for them was after those that would ultimately reject Him because it was not based on their faithfullness, but His.


This is our hope in which we trust the Lord to do. Jesus was never without the presence of the Father in life or death. He could take sin upon Himself because He alone is immortal.

He could take sin, all sin upon Himself because He is God but I take it a step further that Christ became just like us as the forerunner to what would be done for us. I don't believe He symbolically took sin upon Himself or it was different because He was immortal but took on the very nature of sin in Himself who was without sin, which is why He became the final sacrifice. Only one who is without sin, could take on the sin of humanity and as such became just like you and me. That is why what He did for us is so magnificant and glorious and utterly unpayable back.


The curse Adam could not bear was his physical death, which came about because sin separated him spiritually from God.

I must disagree here. The curse Adam could not bear was not physical death, but separation from God Himself through his spiritual death. Adam did not die physically the day he ate the fruit from the tree, but God was telling the truth. Adam did die spiritually that day. That "first death" is what he could not bear because that death is what resulted in Him and the rest of humanity being cast out of the garden of eden. Nothing sinful could be in the presence of God or "the holy of holies". Physical death is a result of sin but only because that which was with sin could not be immortal, like God resulting from sin residing within us, not outside of us.



Jesus did not have to die "spritually" in order to take this curse away. All He needed to do was die physically and live thru it!


Go with me here. If you believe(as I do) that Christ took on the very nature we had, then He had to die spiritually in every way that we did. If He only died physically then the resurrection was only physical as well. How could this take on the very nature we have since sin does not reside in flesh and blood but in our spiritual? If we were dead in sin, spiritually then Christ had to also be dead spiritually as we were. The physical resurrection at the time of spiritual resurrection which occurred on the 3rd day was evidence that death had no hold over Jesus and proof that He was also spiritually resurrected which is what Jesus came to do. Resurrect humanity from separation from God by atoning for our sin.

Again it goes to the question:

Where does sin reside?

Is it within flesh and blood? or is it in spirit? Whichever it is, is where we had to be resurrected along with Jesus in the same way He was resurrected. Does not the flesh waste back into dust when we die and the spirit remain? If yes, then the spiritual is what needed resurrecting, not the physical. I believe that Jesus did the same for us which is why Christ's work is even greater. God Himself who was without sin took upon Himself not just the physical aspect of our humanity but the very sinful nature that we were held in captivety in since the fall from paradise. Does not this make Jesus's sacrifice even greater?

God bless!

Mograce2U
Nov 9th 2007, 07:12 PM
Romulus,
I would like to answer this but have to go into work. Meet me here later?

Romulus
Nov 9th 2007, 08:52 PM
Romulus,
I would like to answer this but have to go into work. Meet me here later?

I check back here every time I log in. Have a good work day and try to rest.

Blessings!

AlainaJ
Nov 9th 2007, 10:30 PM
Romulus, hey..I am still following along.

I agree that Adam died spiritually the day he sinned...and becuase of that all men are born with a sin nature and must die.

Do you beleive that this present heaven and earth will ever end? Will this world ever end...or is on going?

Also what are your thoughts on satan being bound for a 1,000 years and the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

Has Satan been bound already for a 1,000 years and then released against the church?

God Bless,
Alaina

Mograce2U
Nov 10th 2007, 04:44 AM
Romulus,
Jesus is the last Adam which points us back to the creation of man. That means He was like Adam BEFORE the fall. That was when Adam was without sin, as was Jesus in His humanity when He was made a little lower than the angels by taking on human flesh. In that state, Adam was perfect and enjoyed a oneness with God, as does Jesus.

Adam's physical death came as a result of his spiritual separation from God because of sin. Without the presence of God indwelling him, Adam could have no life beyond the grave because of the judgment of God upon sin. Yet God promised a resurrection from the dead but not until the price was paid that meets His justice. God's plan to redeem man could not contradict the requirements of His holiness. The grace of God must be according to the declared justice of God for His mercy to be extended. God keeps His word; and that word required that a penalty be paid - death.

Since Adam, now fallen, could not pay that price and live, another Adam would have to come who could - Jesus. A Man in whom the Spirit of God could dwell fully so that death could be endured - ie. survived. A Man in whom there was no sin so that God could dwell in Him. Adam would never have died had not sin separated him from the life-sustaining power of God. Although his body would live for a time after the fall, that life was without eternal durability. Jesus, indwelt by the Father and filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, was the only Man in a position to take this role upon Himself.

There is no reason I can see that Jesus was required to die "spiritually" in order to be our sacrificial Lamb. Being a Lamb without blemish is what qualified Him. This is in line with the picture of sacrifice in Leviticus. The penalty for sin was physical death. Spiritual death had already occurred due to sin and was the reason physical death came. By taking care of the penalty which was physical death, man could then be forgiven and restored to fellowship with God - which means to be given again spiritual life.

For Jesus to be made sin for us means that He took away our sin from us so that though we still must die in the flesh, we can be kept alive by the Spirit which He has given to us. Hence the need to be born again by the Spirit of God. The indwelling Spirit is the seed in us that will grow up into eternal life after our flesh has been planted in death. Without this Seed, man is destined to death for all eternity.

Yet what Jesus accomplished by bringing us forgiveness of sin is applicable to all of mankind, undoing Adam's fall even for those who died before the cross and who had a hope in this work of Messiah. This is why the hope of resurrection was given in the very beginning, so that the promise could come according to faith. Adam named his wife Eve because of this hope. Abraham was willing to kill his son which God had promised because of this hope that God would raise him from the dead if necessary to keep His word. The hope we have to be raised from the dead is thus assured because He is risen. Therefore we can see how God intends to keep His word to us who have the promise. We too will live and be like Him. And His body is spiritual and yet with physical substance in that He can live in either realm. And when we are raised, we will be like Him and will be the same.

Romulus
Nov 12th 2007, 02:53 PM
Hi Mograce2u,

Most of your response is preaching to the choir. :) I do agree.



Romulus,
Jesus is the last Adam which points us back to the creation of man. That means He was like Adam BEFORE the fall. That was when Adam was without sin, as was Jesus in His humanity when He was made a little lower than the angels by taking on human flesh. In that state, Adam was perfect and enjoyed a oneness with God, as does Jesus.


I agree!



Adam's physical death came as a result of his spiritual separation from God because of sin. Without the presence of God indwelling him, Adam could have no life beyond the grave because of the judgment of God upon sin. Yet God promised a resurrection from the dead but not until the price was paid that meets His justice. God's plan to redeem man could not contradict the requirements of His holiness. The grace of God must be according to the declared justice of God for His mercy to be extended. God keeps His word; and that word required that a penalty be paid - death.


I agree. There would be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood which Jesus has done so perfectly for all humanity.



Since Adam, now fallen, could not pay that price and live, another Adam would have to come who could - Jesus. A Man in whom the Spirit of God could dwell fully so that death could be endured - ie. survived. A Man in whom there was no sin so that God could dwell in Him. Adam would never have died had not sin separated him from the life-sustaining power of God. Although his body would live for a time after the fall, that life was without eternal durability. Jesus, indwelt by the Father and filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, was the only Man in a position to take this role upon Himself.


Again I agree!




There is no reason I can see that Jesus was required to die "spiritually" in order to be our sacrificial Lamb. Being a Lamb without blemish is what qualified Him. This is in line with the picture of sacrifice in Leviticus. The penalty for sin was physical death. Spiritual death had already occurred due to sin and was the reason physical death came. By taking care of the penalty which was physical death, man could then be forgiven and restored to fellowship with God - which means to be given again spiritual life.


I do agree with your above posts. It is simply the specifics of what needed redemption. The "first resurrection" in Revelation is bonded to the "first death" in scripture". Those that partake in it, the "second death"(lake of fire) has no power over them. Do we agree on the "first death" in scripture. The very grammer indicates the first death. The first death in scripture is spiritual death, not physical. That was a consequence of spiritual death but that did not occur until 400 years later. The only death that occurred on that day was Adam's spiritual death. We cannot have both that needed redemption. With the "first resurrection" through Christ does a physical resurrection need to occur in order for the "second death" to have no power over us? Of course not! We are resurrected from the death of Adam through the forgiveness of our sins. We are now back in the presence of God our Father.

Was physical death what needed to be atoned for? We must add that redemption is what Jesus came to do. If Jesus came to redeem humanity from sin so we could be back in the presence of God, sin had to be atoned for from where it resided. Wherever sin resided is what needed redemption. Is sin in our felsh and blood. If it was then Christ only needed to die physically. That is what is the conclusion in Christ's physical death as well as our physical resurrection. But this is not what scripture lines up with. Nowhere does it state that our physical bodies needed redemption. It was only our spiritual that did.


For Jesus to be made sin for us means that He took away our sin from us so that though we still must die in the flesh, we can be kept alive by the Spirit which He has given to us. Hence the need to be born again by the Spirit of God. The indwelling Spirit is the seed in us that will grow up into eternal life after our flesh has been planted in death. Without this Seed, man is destined to death for all eternity.

I agree totally, but simply the physical death and resurrection of Christ would not accomplish this. If our spirits were redeemed it was because Jesus took on that very nature and became spiritually dead. When He rose again, His spirit(like ours) was resurrected from the dead. His physical resurrection also had to occur since if it didn't, humanity would not know that He was resurrected from death(spiritual.)



Yet what Jesus accomplished by bringing us forgiveness of sin is applicable to all of mankind, undoing Adam's fall even for those who died before the cross and who had a hope in this work of Messiah. This is why the hope of resurrection was given in the very beginning, so that the promise could come according to faith. Adam named his wife Eve because of this hope. Abraham was willing to kill his son which God had promised because of this hope that God would raise him from the dead if necessary to keep His word. The hope we have to be raised from the dead is thus assured because He is risen. Therefore we can see how God intends to keep His word to us who have the promise. We too will live and be like Him. And His body is spiritual and yet with physical substance in that He can live in either realm. And when we are raised, we will be like Him and will be the same.


But isn't our state right now, although in the flesh also in a redeemed state that if we died we would be with God? Where is there a difference? We are redeemed and actually (even though not seen) in the very throne room of God. Remember also that redemption, resurrection and salvation all go hand in hand. All is accomplished now. Sin no longer needs to be dealt with, it already was. If our physical redemption is needed for all to be accomplished then sin resides in flesh and blood. Would you agree?

Romulus
Nov 12th 2007, 03:19 PM
Romulus, hey..I am still following along.



Glad your still with me Alaina! :)



I agree that Adam died spiritually the day he sinned...and becuase of that all men are born with a sin nature and must die.

Do you beleive that this present heaven and earth will ever end? Will this world ever end...or is on going?


I don't believe it will ever end. See post #48 for little explanation on "heaven and earth" in the Old Testament. The removing of heaven and earth in scripture was language showing the removing of the Old Covenant age and the fulfilling of it in the New Covenant age. I don't believe anything in scripture literally points to the physical destruction of earth. Just think of it, when Adam and Eve were in the garden and they were without sin, would the earth have existed for all eternity? Yes, it was God's plan for man to dwell on earth for all eternity. Only sin changed that plan.



Also what are your thoughts on satan being bound for a 1,000 years and the 1,000 year reign of Christ.

Has Satan been bound already for a 1,000 years and then released against the church?


I am still studying this part of scripture. I believe Satan is at the most, bound today(not literally) prevented from hindering the Gospel. The 1000 years I don't believe to be literal but a undetermined period of time or even eternity. There are some translation issues that I am studying so I cannot give a concrete answer. I can say that I believe the Judgement is not a one time event but rather an ongoing event through history for each person when they die. The original texts did not have "final judgement" as the heading since there were no headings. All events after Revelation 20 I believe to be ongoing today.



God Bless,
Alaina


God Bless you sister!

Mograce2U
Nov 12th 2007, 03:49 PM
Hi Romulus, #60 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1438318&postcount=60)

But isn't our state right now, although in the flesh also in a redeemed state that if we died we would be with God? Where is there a difference? We are redeemed and actually (even though not seen) in the very throne room of God. Remember also that redemption, resurrection and salvation all go hand in hand. All is accomplished now. Sin no longer needs to be dealt with, it already was. If our physical redemption is needed for all to be accomplished then sin resides in flesh and blood. Would you agree?The only problem I have with your concept is that scripture is not what is explaining this to us, reason is. If we look at what God said to Adam about not eating from the tree it was because death would be the result.

The law of God thus has a curse attached for disobedience - the death penalty. God did not explain to Adam that he would also lose the glory of God's presence in order to effect this death penalty upon him. That is where the serpent was able to deceive Eve by saying she would not surely die. In other words - "not yet". Eve thought God was merely saying the tree was poisonous or something, and the devil averts her attention from what God did say, and convinces her instead that is not the case, but actually something good is being kept from her. You know the story.

The point being is the curse is what has to be satisfied so the part that was not told, could be restored. The last Adam did not have to die a spiritual death because the first Adam already had. If anything, Jesus had to die a physical death without dying spiritually - and this is what only He was able to do. Christ's physical death thus becomes the portal for us to enter back into spiritual life by faith now, so that when we die, death will not be able to hold us.

When God tries Adam & Eve and the serpent for what they have done, He then provides the skins of animals to cover their nakedness - why? so that they can stand before His presence and live. (Fear of death is what came upon Adam when God called him as he expected the penalty to be meted out.) A physical life is what is required in the shedding of blood. But an animal was an imperfect sacrifice - as would be any human being other than Jesus who alone possesses eternal life. The Life is in the blood. Had Jesus died spiritually that Life would NOT be in His blood and would not be able to provide a better covering than that of animals.

Mograce2U
Nov 12th 2007, 04:07 PM
Romulus, #61 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1438337&postcount=61)
I have been looking into this as well about the new heavens and new earth. I think it has something to do with how Noah's flood brought a radical change to the world at that time. The old order of things was forever changed by the flood in the physical sense. The new covenant brought in a new order in a spiritual sense by ending the old covenant and giving us access to heaven. The world has thus been forever changed since the cross. Noah's flood is the type, and the cross is the antitype. The spiritual realm is now open to all who will enter in by faith. Our access to the throne of Grace and the power of God is how we are able to rule and reign thru righteousness with Christ now in His kingdom. No man ever entered heaven before Jesus, but now that the way is open, we can - both in this life and forever!

AlainaJ
Nov 12th 2007, 05:37 PM
Romulus:)

I have always thought that too concerning the judgement. If we die today, we are judged- if the Lord did return we would be judged. Either was we are judged, weh we meet the Lord.:)

We are told it is for man to die and then face judgement- so that is pretty clear to me.

I also beleive the binding of Satan in not a literal one...but a restraining of God on what destruction he can do to the church.

So, I beleive then we are in agreemtn that:

There is no literal mark of the beast?- it is symbolic, just as God seals His servants.

Do you beleive that demons or evil spirits are released out of the Euphrates, to spread spiritual death? Those stung by them are false Christians, who bleive the false gospels?

Who is Apollyon in your opinion?

Last question:)

The beast from the sea is Satan, the great serpant. How does this tie into Job and Leviatian? It seems like the same entity.

Job.41

[1] Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
[2] Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
[3] Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
[4] Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
[5] Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
[6] Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
[7] Canst thou fill his skin with barbed iron? or his head with fish spears?
[8] Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
[9] Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
[10] None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
[11] Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
[12] I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
[13] Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
[14] Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
[15] His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
[16] One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
[17] They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
[18] By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
[19] Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
[20] Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
[21] His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
[22] In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
[23] The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
[24] His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
[25] When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
[26] The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
[27] He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
[28] The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
[29] Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
[30] Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
[31] He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
[32] He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.

God Bless,
Alaina

Romulus
Nov 12th 2007, 06:43 PM
Hi Romulus, #60 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1438318&postcount=60)
The only problem I have with your concept is that scripture is not what is explaining this to us, reason is. If we look at what God said to Adam about not eating from the tree it was because death would be the result.


I agree that death would be the result but what death I guess is where we disagree. I bring up that physical death was a consequence of sin entering the world but that is all it was, a consequence. The death of the flesh is not what separated us from God but death of the soul. All that Jesus was to do in His redemption for us was to bring us back into the presence of God our Father and that could only be done by removing sin from our lives. Spiritual death is the only death that occurred that day, yes the consequence of physical death came as well but did not occur. Remember, "first death" implies only one death, not two. Which came first spiritual or physical? Did God tell Adam not to eat the fruit because he would physically die or was it because sin would come into the world?


The law of God thus has a curse attached for disobedience - the death penalty.

Exactly. There was a domino effect:

1) Adam ate the fruit (day paradise fell)
2) Adam died spiritually "First Death" (day paradise fell)
3) Adam separated from the presence of God (day paradise fell)
4) Consequence of "first death" was Physical death would befall Adam(400 years later) since nothing with sin can have access to the tree of life.



God did not explain to Adam that he would also lose the glory of God's presence in order to effect this death penalty upon him. That is where the serpent was able to deceive Eve by saying she would not surely die. In other words - "not yet". Eve thought God was merely saying the tree was poisonous or something, and the devil averts her attention from what God did say, and convinces her instead that is not the case, but actually something good is being kept from her. You know the story.


We agree Satan did lie but God did not lie. God said

"on the day you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die"

There is nothing grammatical in the text to suggest anything other death then the one that occurred that day. This would then go hand in hand with the "first resurrection" in Revelation. God was not concerned about the physical death but knew that Adam would become sinful and had to be separated(of course He knew what would happen) from the presence of Himself.


The point being is the curse is what has to be satisfied so the part that was not told, could be restored. The last Adam did not have to die a spiritual death because the first Adam already had.

If Adam died spiritually then to atone for it, Jesus must die the same way as well. How could He take on our sin if it was not in the same nature that we had it? I don't believe He could. All the sin of the world for all time came unto Jesus so He could remove it from us once and for all. Obviously we disagree on this point, but let us look at the "resurrection of the dead" which was result of Christ's work, the event that would bring us back into the presence of God our Father.




If anything, Jesus had to die a physical death without dying spiritually - and this is what only He was able to do. Christ's physical death thus becomes the portal for us to enter back into spiritual life by faith now, so that when we die, death will not be able to hold us.


But the emphasis here is that that if Jesus died only physically and then we would have to be redeemed by being physically resurrected as well in the same way, then redemption has not happened.

Romans 8:23

23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.



If this event has not happened then we are not adopted as sons of God yet, and further redemption has not occurred. If our physical redemption is at the resurrection of our physical body we still cannot remove that redemption was to happen at the same time according to the scripture.

Redemption has to do with sin, scripture talks about no other redemption from anything else but sin. If we believe that redemption comes at the resurrection of the physical body then I ask you this question again

Where does sin reside?

It is either in flesh and blood or the spiritual, that is redemption. Which do you believe that is? This is the conclusion. If redemption comes at our physical resurrection then sin resides in flesh and blood which I don't even want to begin to address the problems with that. If this is true then Christ had to die only physically and His statement "Father why hast thou forsaken me" really is not answered. Only if He became exactly like us do I believe we have the answer:

2 Corinthians 5:21(CEV)

Christ never sinned! But God treated Him as a sinner, so that Christ could make us acceptable to God.


When God tries Adam & Eve and the serpent for what they have done, He then provides the skins of animals to cover their nakedness - why? so that they can stand before His presence and live. (Fear of death is what came upon Adam when God called him as he expected the penalty to be meted out.)

But what caused Adam to be thrown our of Eden? Sin in his soul, not because he would eventually die.



A physical life is what is required in the shedding of blood. But an animal was an imperfect sacrifice - as would be any human being other than Jesus who alone possesses eternal life. The Life is in the blood. Had Jesus died spiritually that Life would NOT be in His blood and would not be able to provide a better covering than that of animals.


True, no argument, but that is why a physical animal could not be a perfect sacrifice because they did not have a sinless spirit. They were only animals(temporary). If it was the physical that only needed to die then why was Jesus necessary? Couldn't any sacrifice of any man be sufficient? But if the importance lied within the spirit of the sacrifice or the perfect without sin then only Christ could fufill this. In other words, like you said above, if Jesus only needed to die physically, then any other body would do since what made Jesus's body different then anyone else's, but that was not what was needed. A sinless perfect sacrifice was needed and that had everything to do with the spirit nature of the sacrifice. Do you understand my point? What made Jesus unique from every other person?

Romulus
Nov 12th 2007, 06:50 PM
Romulus, #61 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1438337&postcount=61)
I have been looking into this as well about the new heavens and new earth. I think it has something to do with how Noah's flood brought a radical change to the world at that time. The old order of things was forever changed by the flood in the physical sense. The new covenant brought in a new order in a spiritual sense by ending the old covenant and giving us access to heaven. The world has thus been forever changed since the cross. Noah's flood is the type, and the cross is the antitype. The spiritual realm is now open to all who will enter in by faith. Our access to the throne of Grace and the power of God is how we are able to rule and reign thru righteousness with Christ now in His kingdom. No man ever entered heaven before Jesus, but now that the way is open, we can - both in this life and forever!

100% agree. Did you see the scriptures I noted about "heavens and earth" in the Old Testament and what they meant? That explanation goes nicely with the idea that "new heavens and new earth" were not literal but changing of Covenants. Since God was about to lay the heavens and the earth after He led Israel out of Egypt how could He be talking of the literal heavens and earth? It was of course language describing the Old Covenant.

Romulus
Nov 12th 2007, 07:14 PM
Romulus:)

I have always thought that too concerning the judgement. If we die today, we are judged- if the Lord did return we would be judged. Either was we are judged, weh we meet the Lord.:)

We are told it is for man to die and then face judgement- so that is pretty clear to me.


I believe this began in 70 A.D. and has been ongoing since then. If there was only one "final" judgement then where would we go prior to this? Scripture is silent on this one. It is only reconciled if the judgement occurs at each person death, that is what Revelation is showing. The judgement scene that began in the 1st century and has not ended.



I also beleive the binding of Satan in not a literal one...but a restraining of God on what destruction he can do to the church.

So, I beleive then we are in agreemtn that:

There is no literal mark of the beast?- it is symbolic, just as God seals His servants.


We are in agreement! :)



Do you beleive that demons or evil spirits are released out of the Euphrates, to spread spiritual death? Those stung by them are false Christians, who bleive the false gospels?



Revelation 9

13The sixth angel sounded his trumpet, and I heard a voice coming from the horns[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=9&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-30838b)] of the golden altar that is before God. 14It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates." 15And the four angels who had been kept ready for this very hour and day and month and year were released to kill a third of mankind. 16The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number.

Revelation 16

12The sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up to prepare the way for the kings from the East. 13Then I saw three evil[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=16&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-30952a)] spirits that looked like frogs; they came out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 14They are spirits of demons performing miraculous signs, and they go out to the kings of the whole world, to gather them for the battle on the great day of God Almighty.

I lean toward a symbolic language of the gathering of the Roman armies prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. I don't believe this to be literal. Otherwise Godzilla watch out.

Who is Apollyon in your opinion?

Revelation 9

7The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. 8Their hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lions' teeth. 9They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle. 10They had tails and stings like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months. 11They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=9&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-30836a)]
12The first woe is past; two other woes are yet to come.

Honestly, not sure! It is symbolic of something but I could not be specific.




Last question:)

The beast from the sea is Satan, the great serpant. How does this tie into Job and Leviatian? It seems like the same entity.

Job.41

[1] Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
[2] Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
[3] Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
[4] Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
[5] Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
[6] Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
[7] Canst thou fill his skin with barbed iron? or his head with fish spears?
[8] Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
[9] Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
[10] None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
[11] Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
[12] I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
[13] Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
[14] Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
[15] His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
[16] One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
[17] They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
[18] By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
[19] Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
[20] Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
[21] His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
[22] In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
[23] The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
[24] His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
[25] When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
[26] The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
[27] He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
[28] The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
[29] Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
[30] Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
[31] He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
[32] He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.


Isaiah 27

1 In that day,
the LORD will punish with his sword,
his fierce, great and powerful sword,
Leviathan the gliding serpent,
Leviathan the coiling serpent;
he will slay the monster of the sea.

Leviathan is also noted here. Demonic beasts like the dragon are throughout scripture. The beast in Job, I simply see as a sea dinosaur that God is comparing Job to. The Isaiah beast I do see as Satan as the text calls for symbolism. The dragon is of course literally not a dragon in Revelation but symbolic as we agree, of Satan.



God Bless,
Alaina


Glad you made it this far, God bless you Sister!

Mograce2U
Nov 12th 2007, 10:26 PM
Romulus,


MoGrace2U:
A physical life is what is required in the shedding of blood. But an animal was an imperfect sacrifice - as would be any human being other than Jesus who alone possesses eternal life. The Life is in the blood. Had Jesus died spiritually that Life would NOT be in His blood and would not be able to provide a better covering than that of animals.

True, no argument, but that is why a physical animal could not be a perfect sacrifice because they did not have a sinless spirit. They were only animals(temporary). If it was the physical that only needed to die then why was Jesus necessary? Couldn't any sacrifice of any man be sufficient? But if the importance lied within the spirit of the sacrifice or the perfect without sin then only Christ could fufill this. In other words, like you said above, if Jesus only needed to die physically, then any other body would do since what made Jesus's body different then anyone else's, but that was not what was needed. A sinless perfect sacrifice was needed and that had everything to do with the spirit nature of the sacrifice. Do you understand my point? What made Jesus unique from every other person?I think you are making this too complicated! I do understand your point and almost believed it too, but have come to my senses after presenting this to someone. My first point is that conjecture is where this idea comes from. Our redemption is provided in a judicial sense - Jesus pays the penalty for us and satisfies the law, so that we can go free. However, we still must die; but once restored to a spiritual relationship then God can justly raise us from death. I reposted my answer because I am not sure you read it. According to your idea, even an animal sacrifice would have affected nothing, yet it did. This is because it was the shedding of blood that He requires to atone for sins so we are not judged in His presence. The temporary picture is sufficient to help understand this. When an animal died, his life was gone, but it satisfied the requirement for that time. Sin however continued (as it does now), necessitating a better sacrifice - one that would continue to have life. Jesus is the only man like Adam before the fall, who could die and yet live.

As for where does sin reside - it is not separate from our flesh. When flesh is gone however, sin stops. But death (in a fallen man) does not make him "sinless", rather the condition seems to be permanent and without restitution, because the judgment has been met - making it final. UNLESS, one has been forgiven before then. Therefore God is just to raise us via the pardon He issued beforehand, and we are set free.

Teke
Nov 12th 2007, 11:23 PM
Sorry, but I believe you are both wrong. It is not a juridical matter. Sacrifice is not a trade with God. That is a pagan concept. Not even the Hebrews believed such.
Jesus Christ was not such a sacrifice.

The Son of God came to perfect human worship. Worship is associated with sacrifice. A perfect sacrifice is perfect worship. This requires mind, body and spirit literally.

Forgive me, but I believe to much focus is on the death of our Lord and what that means, which misses out on the whole picture He gave us of perfect worship.

Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.

Mograce2U
Nov 13th 2007, 02:44 PM
Sorry, but I believe you are both wrong. It is not a juridical matter. Sacrifice is not a trade with God. That is a pagan concept. Not even the Hebrews believed such.
Jesus Christ was not such a sacrifice.

The Son of God came to perfect human worship. Worship is associated with sacrifice. A perfect sacrifice is perfect worship. This requires mind, body and spirit literally.

Forgive me, but I believe to much focus is on the death of our Lord and what that means, which misses out on the whole picture He gave us of perfect worship.

Jhn 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Jhn 4:24 God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.Teke,
I went back to your previous post #51 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1427813&postcount=51) but admit I do not understand what you are saying by "liturgical". It sounds a bit like idealism to me. Could you explain it more simply for me?

Teke
Nov 13th 2007, 03:19 PM
Teke,
I went back to your previous post #51 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1427813&postcount=51) but admit I do not understand what you are saying by "liturgical". It sounds a bit like idealism to me. Could you explain it more simply for me?

Well I try to explain it simply by saying "worship", which shouldn't be an idea, but a reality.
Perhaps the simple answer is to ask ourself what Christ taught us. Which is to pray, fast and love one another, IOW joining together with Him in doing so.:)

Mograce2U
Nov 13th 2007, 03:48 PM
Well I try to explain it simply by saying "worship", which shouldn't be an idea, but a reality.
Perhaps the simple answer is to ask ourself what Christ taught us. Which is to pray, fast and love one another, IOW joining together with Him in doing so.:)Well the discussion I guess then is about whether Jesus had to die spiritually to bring us to the place of proper worship. My view is that He did not. What is your view of His sacrifice in that light?

Romulus
Nov 13th 2007, 04:31 PM
Romulus,
I think you are making this too complicated! I do understand your point and almost believed it too, but have come to my senses after presenting this to someone. My first point is that conjecture is where this idea comes from. Our redemption is provided in a judicial sense - Jesus pays the penalty for us and satisfies the law, so that we can go free. However, we still must die; but once restored to a spiritual relationship then God can justly raise us from death.


Mograce2u,

This is quite a different path then I am sure your Partial-Preterist point of view is comfortable doing. Believe me, I was quite challenged. I do agree that Jesus paid the penalty for us exactly as you stated, satisfying the Law. Just a question for you, let us say that we are restored to God the Father. Does there really need to be any raising as our flesh simply goes back to dust and what remains(spiritual), remains and goes to be with the Lord in heaven since it is holy through Christ now?


I reposted my answer because I am not sure you read it. According to your idea, even an animal sacrifice would have affected nothing, yet it did.

I hope I didn't say it did nothing, I really was aiming for temporary, shadow of the perfect to come.

Hebrews 10

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

I don't believe the Old Covenant was meaningless but merely not perfect.
It was a reminder of sins to the people of Israel.



This is because it was the shedding of blood that He requires to atone for sins so we are not judged in His presence. The temporary picture is sufficient to help understand this. When an animal died, his life was gone, but it satisfied the requirement for that time. Sin however continued (as it does now), necessitating a better sacrifice - one that would continue to have life. Jesus is the only man like Adam before the fall, who could die and yet live.


No argument here. :) My argument though still is what made Christ's sacrifice different then any other person? If it only had to do with the death of the flesh to atone for sin then any man could have done it. What differentiated Christ from the ordinary. It was his very spirit, which was perfect and without sin. For sin to be atoned for, something had to take on all sin of all time. Did the flesh accomplish this? I don't believe so. It was Jesus, God Himself in the flesh, fully God and fully Man who took upon Himself, the death that all humanity was under within Himself to bring us back to God the Father. If it was simply the death of flesh, any man could have done it, but when we see the spirit that had to be perfect and blameless, only Christ could fulfill this. Can you see that point of view, even if you disagree?



As for where does sin reside - it is not separate from our flesh. When flesh is gone however, sin stops. But death (in a fallen man) does not make him "sinless", rather the condition seems to be permanent and without restitution, because the judgment has been met - making it final. UNLESS, one has been forgiven before then. Therefore God is just to raise us via the pardon He issued beforehand, and we are set free.


I don't believe sin is separate from the flesh since scripture states we have fleshly desires. My issue is that is does not originate there. Is not scripture clear that what comes from the heart of man is evil? Not what is outside of man inward? Does the flesh think for itself, or speak contrary to what our hearts do? That is my argument. I don't separate spirit and flesh as gnostics do, but I also don't believe that the flesh is evil.

Teke
Nov 13th 2007, 04:41 PM
Well the discussion I guess then is about whether Jesus had to die spiritually to bring us to the place of proper worship. My view is that He did not. What is your view of His sacrifice in that light?

I agree with you that He did not die "spiritually". But I also don't believe that man died spiritually either.

"The flesh" which has to do with the creation is also influenced by creation. Meaning our perception is of the creation, what we see, feel etc. This does not mean we are spiritually dead. But that our judgment by such perception is faulty. As we cannot see what is spiritual.

So Jesus (who is God) came to show us in our state (in creation by the Incarnation) what true worship looks like (IOW the spiritual from our POV). He also changed our human state by joining it to the uncreated state of God (I call this transfiguration by grace).
So whether we believe it or not, He has assumed that which was fallen or faulty (worship in the flesh) and healed it (perfected it) by His divinity (divine power).

To "be still and know God" is perfected worship and communion with God who is Spirit.

In God is the Spirit of Life and God cannot die. Which is why God 'overcomes' death. Meaning He is greater than death. There is no struggle with death, as Life (God) is greater than death.:)

Teke
Nov 13th 2007, 05:00 PM
No argument here. :) My argument though still is what made Christ's sacrifice different then any other person? If it only had to do with the death of the flesh to atone for sin then any man could have done it. What differentiated Christ from the ordinary. It was his very spirit, which was perfect and without sin. For sin to be atoned for, something had to take on all sin of all time. Did the flesh accomplish this? I don't believe so. It was Jesus, God Himself in the flesh, fully God and fully Man who took upon Himself, the death that all humanity was under within Himself to bring us back to God the Father. If it was simply the death of flesh, any man could have done it, but when we see the spirit that had to be perfect and blameless, only Christ could fulfill this. Can you see that point of view, even if you disagree?

The problem with this view is that no one can take the
sin of another (Ezek. 18). It isn't necessary. We do not appease God, nor does He require appeasement. We have nothing He "needs". He meets our need, not the other way around.


I don't believe sin is separate from the flesh since scripture states we have fleshly desires. My issue is that is does not originate there. Is not scripture clear that what comes from the heart of man is evil? Not what is outside of man inward? Does the flesh think for itself, or speak contrary to what our hearts do? That is my argument. I don't separate spirit and flesh as gnostics do, but I also don't believe that the flesh is evil.

Those "fleshly desires" aka "passions", can be either godly or sinful. Both come from our being, not God's being.
Adam and Eve are the example, that when man looks to creation rather than the creator to meet his need, he has made a bad judgment. Man continued to do so in looking at death which is part of the created, rather than the Creator to meet his need.

The Genesis story is saying the same thing using a tree that produces death, to show that looking to such as death will cause one to sin. As the person will use creation as a means rather than the salvation of God as a means.

Salvation as a means leads to the end, which is worship. Creation as a means leads to death, which is sin.
Our means define the direction to our end.:saint:

Mograce2U
Nov 13th 2007, 05:13 PM
Romulus, #73 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1439621&postcount=73)
The fall of man was 2 part, as is his resurrection. Both spirit and flesh will be redeemed. When Jesus was raised from the dead, no physical body remained in the tomb - the graveclothes were empty. That means that his flesh was transformed and raised back to life. That is the first resurrection which is complete in Him. We however have yet to face death and our part in the first resurrection is spirtual - no change has occurred yet to our flesh. Jesus saw no corruption, but our bodies will. The hope that we have in His resurrection is that when our salvation is complete, we will be like Him as He is now.

I know this is where we disagree, since you say our salvation must be complete already. In a sense I agree with you (He is risen!) except that we do not yet see it in its fullness, since we must actually still die. Since Jesus did not raise up in another body than the one in which He died, I can only assume that our body will be raised and transformed in kind, even though it does return to dust.

Now we have the difference between the full preterist and the partial preterist. I see us fully redeemed in body, soul & spirit. For this is how we must serve God now. It was in this state that Adam was created perfect; it was the same state in which Jesus came - therefore it is the state to which we will come, though remarkably different than what it is now.

While I do think the saints are in heaven in the presence of God, I do not think they have yet received their glorified bodies - else the graves would be empty now - like Jesus' tomb is. Therefore, a resurrection still awaits us making us perfect & whole and capable of living in His presence for eternity. Which our bodies of flesh can only do spiritually in this realm, where we still see thru a glass darkly until that time when we will see Him as He is.

That means there is still a future coming of the Lord to bring us into the fullness of the resurrection in which we already have a part now.


The Resurrection of the Dead

(1 Cor 15:12-26 KJV) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? {13} But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: {14} And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. {15} Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. {16} For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: {17} And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. {18} Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. {19} If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. {20} But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. {21} For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. {22} For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. {23} But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. {24} Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. {25} For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. {26} The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Teke
Nov 13th 2007, 05:17 PM
:amen: Morgrace, truly He is risen. Such is the proclamation of His Church Body. :pray:

Mograce2U
Nov 13th 2007, 05:18 PM
Teke, #74 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1439632&postcount=74)
Do you see the story of creation in Genesis as a parable?

Teke
Nov 13th 2007, 05:21 PM
Teke, #74 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1439632&postcount=74)
Do you see the story of creation in Genesis as a parable?

If you mean in the sense that it is telling us a spiritual truth, yes (ie. pictographic).:)

Romulus
Nov 15th 2007, 07:32 PM
Romulus, #73 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1439621&postcount=73)
The fall of man was 2 part, as is his resurrection. Both spirit and flesh will be redeemed. When Jesus was raised from the dead, no physical body remained in the tomb - the graveclothes were empty. That means that his flesh was transformed and raised back to life. That is the first resurrection which is complete in Him. We however have yet to face death and our part in the first resurrection is spirtual - no change has occurred yet to our flesh. Jesus saw no corruption, but our bodies will. The hope that we have in His resurrection is that when our salvation is complete, we will be like Him as He is now.

Hi Mograce2u,

I am not questioning that Jesus physically died and rose again but that this in itself was not the redemption that scripture speaks about IMO. As you said above

“That is the first resurrection which is complete in Him. We however have yet to face death and our part in the first resurrection is spirtual - no change has occurred yet to our flesh.”

How could Jesus’s resurrection be the forerunner of ours if He was only raised physically? that would automatically mean we ONLY would be/will be raised physically? How could we be raised spiritually if Christ wasn’t? Genesis was clear that the “first death” was our spiritual death. Like I stated before that there is 2 deaths in scripture, spiritual and physical. One was the consequence of another but they cannot both be the "first death" together. Only one can be the “first death” and that I believe to be spiritual death because that came first. If all humanity was under “first death” then the “first resurrection” must only be spiritual death, not both and Christ would have to have endured the same to redeem us from it.



I know this is where we disagree, since you say our salvation must be complete already. In a sense I agree with you (He is risen!) except that we do not yet see it in its fullness, since we must actually still die. Since Jesus did not raise up in another body than the one in which He died, I can only assume that our body will be raised and transformed in kind, even though it does return to dust.


Well that is exactly it. Either we have salvation(the forgiveness of our sins) or we don’t. I don’t believe there is partial salvation but only salvation and that was to come at the 2nd appearing of Christ. Salvation has to do with sin and our redemption back to God and that is it. Do you see the dilemma? If salvation was to come fully in the 2nd appearing and it was physical and obviously has not happened yet, then we do not have salvation.

I also believe that Jesus was not raised up in the same flesh and blood body that He died with. How could He? Can flesh and blood walk through walls? It was a spiritual body, not flesh and blood. Remember Jesus’s own words “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”. The spiritual body was totally different then the one of the flesh. Most people believe the spiritual body that was to be resurrected was similar to the flesh and blood body since the flesh body was used to make up this body which is where we get a physical resurrection from. Can you see the possibility that the spiritual body was not in any way shape or form from the fleshly body but a totally different body that could exist at the same time as our fleshly body? When we die, even though connected the flesh and blood simply wastes away leaving the spiritually resurrected body which already gives us access to the holy of holies and is one with Christ already?


Now we have the difference between the full preterist and the partial preterist. I see us fully redeemed in body, soul & spirit. For this is how we must serve God now. It was in this state that Adam was created perfect; it was the same state in which Jesus came - therefore it is the state to which we will come, though remarkably different than what it is now.

True, that is the difference. Full-Preterism sees redemption through the spiritual and not the flesh. We are covered in the blood of Christ and therefore made perfect. The idea of a physical resurrection of our body does not change redemption in this view. We are fully redeemed and through our spiritual body we now have access once again to heaven itself and most importantly, God our Father. We now worship Him in spirit and in truth as He reigns within us. I guess the outcome is the same.


While I do think the saints are in heaven in the presence of God, I do not think they have yet received their glorified bodies - else the graves would be empty now - like Jesus' tomb is. Therefore, a resurrection still awaits us making us perfect & whole and capable of living in His presence for eternity. Which our bodies of flesh can only do spiritually in this realm, where we still see thru a glass darkly until that time when we will see Him as He is.

Here is another point, if Jesus only died physically and went to be the Father until He was resurrected bodily then we must conclude that Christ did not go to hades(not lake of fire) to minister to the waiting souls there since creation since nothing ascended into heaven before Jesus. If Christ did not go there and no “resurrection of the dead” happened yet then how could the saints be in heaven? Scripture states absolutely nothing about when they were to ascend into heaven. Do you see scripturally where the saints, without the resurrection ascended to heaven? That must mean they are still in hades awaiting the resurrection of the dead. See the problem? Jesus I believe needed to ascend to hades to minister to the souls waiting there since creation. Jesus did and was resurrected the same way they were to be at His second appearing in 70 A.D. If Christ did not complete this then when are the saints to be ministered the Gospel which they were all awaiting and Abraham specifically “was looking forward to” ?



That means there is still a future coming of the Lord to bring us into the fullness of the resurrection in which we already have a part now.

Scripture states “and He will appear a second time, unto salvation”. If it is a physical resurrection that completes salvation then I must conclude we do not have salvation since redemption has to do with the forgiveness of sins to bring us back to God. The bodily resurrection of humanity forces us then to accept that sin resides in our physical body and until that is physically resurrected salvation fully has not come. The second appearing forces the completion of salvation at whatever resurrection occurs at that time. I cannot see a partial-salvation either, either we have it or we don’t. First death in Genesis is specific that death of the spirit is what sin caused first and resulted in humanity being expelled out of God’s presence. I guess we disagree, but that is okay!




The Resurrection of the Dead

(1 Cor 15:12-26 KJV) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? {13} But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: {14} And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. {15} Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. {16} For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: {17} And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. {18} Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. {19} If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. {20} But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. {21} For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. {22} For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. {23} But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. {24} Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. {25} For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. {26} The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.


Notice how in verse 22 it states “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Did physical death come first or death of the soul? Are we not made alive in Christ now through His work or does death still have a hold on us? Since the “second death” is the lake of fire if we died today does not Christ’s work save us from this “second death” ? Does it have any power over us since we will never be thrown into it but will enter heaven itself?

If Jesus did not die spiritually, what made Jesus different then anyone else? If it was His flesh that would be resurrected and had nothing to do with His spirit then anyone could have done it. You see if we say, Jesus was perfect and that is why He was the perfect sacrifice where was His perfection? Was it in His flesh or in His spirit and very nature? If it was in His flesh then a physical death only and a physical resurrection does make sense. That which was perfect had to take on our very sin and affliction in the same way we were afflicted. But is not Jesus perfect in Spirit and in His very nature, God, which makes Him the perfect sacrifice? The resurrection was to redeem humanity in the same way. Only in this perfection did it make Jesus different then any other sacrifice. That was the distinction. If His flesh was what was important, Jesus would have been no different then you or me. It was all about His perfect and sinless Spirit, His very nature that took on our sin so we would be redeemed back to the Father.

Does this make sense?

I enjoy our conversation Mograce2u. I look forward to your response. :)

God Bless you!

Mograce2U
Nov 15th 2007, 09:24 PM
Romulus,
Stay with me here and tell me if you see what I see in these passages:

The spiritual life that Christ possessed when He entered the world was the same eternal life He had before the world began:

(John 5:26 KJV) For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Thru His death in His body is the means by which we are given His same life:

(John 6:51-57 KJV) I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. {52} The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? {53} Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. {54} Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. {55} For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. {56} He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. {57} As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

(1 John 1:1-3 KJV) That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; {2} (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) {3} That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

Sin is attached to our mortal flesh and death brings us freedom from it. But death contains no power by which we can live. We must die like Him in body to be raised like Him in life:

(Rom 6:5-7 KJV) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: {6} Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. {7} For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Here is the key - possession of spiritual life must be given first:

(Rom 8:11 KJV) But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

The spiritual body is a transformation of the natural body that occurs when it dies to release the seed sown in it by which it attains the power of eternal life - the living soul must be made a quickened spirit. Which we see Jesus' spiritual body had tangibility to it as well:

(1 Cor 15:42-45 KJV) So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: {43} It is sown in dishonour; 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. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. {45} And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The intent here is to show that we will not be incorporeal spirits:

(2 Cor 5:1-10 KJV) For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. {2} For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: {3} If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. {4} For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. {5} Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. {6} Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: {7} (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) {8} We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. {9} Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. {10} For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

What I cannot find and you have yet to show by scripture, is that Jesus was required to die spiritually in order to redeem us. Rather it seems to me that the power of an endless life which He alone possessed, remained His though His body died. This is what makes the body of Jesus unique, because of the type of life it contained as well as the fact that no sin could be attributed to Him. Sin is what defiles our body, and death to our body is what allows it to be rid of sin. What we lack however, is the spiritual life by which our souls can be kept alive at that time. The body & blood of Christ was sufficient to avert the penalty over us so that we could justly be given the life that we need.

So in our redemption, first our spirits are redeemed while the body of sin we are in continues - which death will be the final purge of what defiles it. Soul AND body is thus purged & transformed and raised to inhabit eternity where nothing that defiles can enter in.

I will give you that the spiritual body we are promised may not require that our physical bodies ever leave the grave. However, this was not the case with Jesus.

Mograce2U
Nov 21st 2007, 03:32 AM
Romulus,
I don't want this thread to get buried, so this is a bump.

What are your thoughts on 2 Pet 3?

I am becoming convinced that most if not all scripture is given in parabolic form. God who is Spirit sees the entirety of the matter and speaks in a manner that is a bit foreign to us.

Here is what Peter says:

(2 Pet 3:3-10 KJV) Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, {4} And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. {5} For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: {6} Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Here he mentions Noah's flood which brought a radical change to the earth due to a judgment by God upon it. He sets this up as our example for the return of the Lord and the coming fire.

{7} But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. {8} But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. {9} The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This earth which went thru a radical change in the flood is about to undergo another change by the fires of judgment though God is waiting for some to repent first. I think the ones who have to come to repentance are Israel's remnant in that day. And I think Peter is referencing both a soon spiritual result and a far future physical result at the same time as he speaks of this judgment which he does not know when it is coming only that it is. Only John was said that he would tarry until the Lord comes; Peter therefore knows it will be after he departs but not exactly when.

{10} But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

This is the clincher which to me is parabolic or at least symbolic in its presentation. The DOTL and Jesus coming as a thief (Rev) is the tie that binds.

the heavens = sun, moon, stars from Joseph's dream in Gen 37:9+; the patriarchs

The great noise is as a rushing wind if you look up the definition. Pentecost?

earth = also interpreted as the land of Israel

elements = the Mosaic law Gal 4:9

works = OT sacrifices done away by Christ's death

The judgment upon Jerusalem in 70 AD which literally burned up the temple also gave way for the new heavens and earth that would replace it in a spritual sense - in the temple made without hands.

(2 Pet 3:11 KJV) Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

What is dissolved or broken up or let loose, is the OT system which bound the people.

Personally, I think we have been sold a ball of wax on what our hope is all about. The idea that a rapture is still in the future rather than a marriage that has been consumated already - which was still future in 1 Thes 4:17, 1 Cor 15:51; 2 Cor 5:2; has given the Church a false idea on what it is their hope is really about. If we are not joined together in Christ already then we have no hope of resurrection at death. Putting it off into the far future is also bypassing this hope that we have NOW by the seed that has been planted in us.

Nobody is ever going to believe this, given what they have been so systematically taught all these years. Where do you begin?

Allegra
Nov 27th 2007, 03:21 AM
Hi Mograce2u,

I have to concur with Romulus on the preterism theology. I'm just finding this thread. What I've read so far, I agree with. I'll have to play catch-up, so I don't repeat what's been said.
But I would like to answer your latest question in general.
I pulled up Easton's Bible dictionary for the use of the word elements:
http://dictionary.biblebrowser.com/leftarr.gif (http://dictionary.biblebrowser.com/e/el-elohe-isreal.htm)
Elements

http://dictionary.biblebrowser.com/rightarr.gif (http://dictionary.biblebrowser.com/e/elephant.htm)
In its primary sense, as denoting the first principles or constituents of things, it is used in 2 Peter 3:10 (http://bible.cc/2_peter/3-10.htm): "The elements shall be dissolved." In a secondary sense it denotes the first principles of any art or science. In this sense it is used in Galatians 4:3 (http://bible.cc/galatians/4-3.htm), 9; Colossians 2:8 (http://bible.cc/colossians/2-8.htm), 20, where the expressions, "elements of the world," "week and beggarly elements," denote that state of religious knowledge existing among the Jews before the coming of Christ, the rudiments of religious teaching. They are "of the world," because they are made up of types which appeal to the senses. They are "weak," because insufficient; and "beggarly," or "poor," because they are dry and barren, not being accompanied by an outpouring of spiritual gifts and graces, as the gospel Isaiah

At first blush, I thought this to mean the earth would dissolve, be destroyed, in bio-chemical sense.
But now when I realized that I never believed when I died, I was coming back to a New Earth! It has & always will be to Heaven!
So now, when we read these verses in context of the chapter, realizing the preterist viewpoint that we are NOW in the New Jerusalem with all of the spiritual blessings in the kingdom, everything makes complete sense Scripturally. The fact that Jesus returned in AD70,. From AD30-AD70 His disciples were told to "watch". The audience Peter is addressing are the 1st century believers. This AD30-70 is also "the thousand years" But I won't elaborate too much lest I don't soften the blow for some now.
Let's read the text now, keeping the above in mind:
5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter%203:5-10&version=31#fen-NIV-30517a)]
Footnotes:
2 Peter 3:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter%203:5-10&version=31#en-NIV-30517) Some manuscripts be burned upI could pull up all the verses with "fire" in them. OK, just some of them:
John 15:6 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.
Heb 10:27 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
Heb 12:29
29for our "God is a consuming fire."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%2012:29;&version=31;#fen-NIV-30226a)]
Footnotes:
Hebrews 12:29 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%2012:29;&version=31;#en-NIV-30226) Deut. 4:24Dan 7:9 9 "As I looked,
"thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
1Peter 1:6-7 6In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. 7These have come so that your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

It's getting late, so I'll just post those.
So, now I'll say 2Peter 3 is an allegory.
Let's read the rest of the chapter:
2Peter 3:11-17
11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter%203:11-17;&version=31;#fen-NIV-30519a)]That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.
Footnotes:
2 Peter 3:12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter%203:11-17;&version=31;#en-NIV-30519) Or as you wait eagerly for the day of God to comeAD 70!

Mograce2U
Nov 27th 2007, 04:05 AM
Hi Allegra,
The only distinction I would make about the 1,000 years is that Peter did not yet have John's revelation. Peter is giving us a principle because he does not know when the Lord is coming, although he expects it to be soon, yet after his death. John on the other hand uses the term as a long but unspecified period of time. The Amil understanding that this millennial period is now makes sense. There is a future period at the end of that time in which Satan will again have power to deceive - which I think is already here. The fire that comes to destroy him is different than the fire that already came in 70 AD. The former one had survivors, the latter one will not - except for saints! Also since we know that the kingdom is spiritual, it makes sense that the new heavens and earth are too. But the physical is still here, which at some point must make the transition as well - when the spiritual is all that remains.

Allegra
Nov 27th 2007, 04:33 AM
Hi Allegra,
The only distinction I would make about the 1,000 years is that Peter did not yet have John's revelation. Peter is giving us a principle because he does not know when the Lord is coming, although he expects it to be soon, yet after his death. John on the other hand uses the term as a long but unspecified period of time. The Amil understanding that this millennial period is now makes sense. There is a future period at the end of that time in which Satan will again have power to deceive - which I think is already here. The fire that comes to destroy him is different than the fire that already came in 70 AD. The former one had survivors, the latter one will not - except for saints! Also since we know that the kingdom is spiritual, it makes sense that the new heavens and earth are too. But the physical is still here, which at some point must make the transition as well - when the spiritual is all that remains.
I agree that the kingdom & new heavens are spiritual.
But the physical must be applied to people & not the earth, bc this earth & our bodies are only temporal. If the earth is applied, earth refers to Israel. But the 40 yrs. was the transition period from the Old system to the New Jerusalem.
Quote:
Many postmillennialists and all the amillennialists hold the idea that the millennium was/is/will be a period of indeterminable length and not necessarily a literal thousand years. It could symbolize a period of completeness, fullness, finishing. In Second Peter, chapter 3, Peter says God was not hasty in bringing the then-imminent judgment upon that generation. He waited until the harvest was ripe before treading the winepress. I believe Max King’s suggestion (that the millennium was the period from 30 to AD 70) is the correct one. The term “thousand years” would then simply refer to the period of time while the kingdom was being built, before God came to judge His enemies. It was a time of completion. Jesus said in Matthew 24 that no man knew the day or the hour. All they could know was that it was getting close, by the signs He told them to watch for. unquote.

Yes, I know the dilemma. I was Amil. But "fire" (God's wrath) did come down on Jerusalem in AD70.
Have a look at this & tell me what you think:
QUESTION: Matt. 28:19, 20 “..lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” (AGE) Does this imply that he was “with them” always, or only until AD 70? ANSWER: The Greek here is very interesting. Literally translated, it reads, “...and behold I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age.” There is an unfortunate translation here. It should say, “the whole time” (lit. “all the days”) rather than “always.” He would be with them the whole time they were announcing the coming of the kingdom, down to the very consummation of that age. He was simply telling them they would not be alone during this period when the great commission was being accomplished (from 30 to AD 70). He would be Spiritually present with them (through the work of the Holy Spirit) to see them through to the very end of that old Jewish age. In AD 66-70, Christ Himself returned to put down His final enemies and give His saints their kingdom inheritance. They had only a temporary and partial “pledge, earnest or seal” of that inheritance from 30 to AD 70. The great commission given to the twelve apostles was completed by the time Jesus returned at the end of that Jewish age. -Edward E. Stevens
QUESTION: Did Jesus Christ return in AD 70 without fanfare?
ANSWER: I wouldn't exactly call the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 an event “without fanfare.” Josephus mentions some loud voices and trumpet sounds being heard, as well as angelic armies being visible in the sky over Judea at the time of the Jewish revolt (AD 66-70). Jews today still commemorate it in some fashion in almost every joyous occasion they celebrate (the shattered goblet at Jewish weddings, and a special fast day every year in August (Tisha b'Av) are two ways in which they still remember the destruction). Rabbi Davis (from White Plains NY), in his opening remarks of his (1978?) lecture on “Post-Biblical Judaism,” commented that he would begin the study of post-Biblical Judaism with “the end.” Then he said, he would begin with AD 70., because AD 70 was “the end of Biblical Judaism” and the beginning of rabbinic or Talmudic Judaism. Josephus, a Jewish priest and one of the ten Jewish generals who started the war with Rome in 66 A.D., gives his eyewitness account of that gruesome judgment which Jesus said was, “such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall.” (Matt. 24:21) A few days later Jesus (at His trial) said the High Priest & the Sanhedrin, “shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Matt. 27:64) Josephus, Tacitus, Eusebius and the Talmud all record the FACT that God’s presence was perceived at that awesome destruction. They even record that angelic armies were seen in the clouds. -Edward E. Stevens

Allegra
Nov 29th 2007, 06:42 AM
Romulus,

I've been reading almost all of the pages here. I noticed you said you were a hyper-preterist. Is this why as a preterist only I do not spiritualize some passages as much as you do?
I see a lot of Paul's writings speaking about our spiritual resurrection, being made alive in Christ, etc., yes, but I also see some(although not the majority) speaking about being raised up to glory when the Lord returns. I will get back to that thought shortly. I do not see Rev. 20, the "first resurrection", only spiritually.
Rev 20:4-6
4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
I believe these were the 1st century martyrs & that they were physically resurrected, having be given there glorified bodies when Christ returned in AD70. This was the first resurrection.
Now the figurative "thousand years" was described as the 30-70AD time period when the Gospel "was preached to all the earth" The disciples lived in this time period. But the sentence structure describes their mission during that time; how they were killed & that they didn't worship the beast or his image/mark at that time also. So "the thousand years except for vs. 5 is describing the apostles & disciples.
So then at the end of the 1k years, the rest of the dead were raised (for the judgment throne) This would be AD70 at Christ's return. Are you following me?! OK but "when the thousand years is finished" is actually the same time as the saints being resurrected in AD70.
It's just describing 2 sets of people, & not time. The 2nd group are those not referred to as souls who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, the word of God, or worshiped the beast. This group, are are from Daniel's people. Daniel 12 at the Throne judgment-also known as the wheat & tares.
1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
The end of the old Jewish age in AD70- when the dead actually rose to meet the raptured in the air.
Paul's not talking spiritual talk when he says they would meet the Lord in the air. This is the resurrection of the dead.
Now I believe that "blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on" That when believers die, therey receive their glorified bodies then in heaven. The sinners go right to the lake of fire.

No waiting in Hades since Christ's return. No corporate(group) resurrection after that. The last day came. Now it's the last day of a person's life.


What do you think so far?
I will post some excerpts from the "historical records" next. (I feel a little like the alien on galaxy quest!)

Allegra
Nov 29th 2007, 07:18 AM
QUESTION: Did the signs of his second coming (Mt. 24:27-30) already take place and nobody noticed them? ANSWER: I would hardly describe the voluminous accounts of Josephus, Tacitus, and Eusebius as "nobody noticed them." Plus the "deafening silence" and mysterious absence of any Christian writings and missionary activity for almost a whole generation after AD 70 tells us that something very significant happened to remove the Christians. Their absence left a big "black hole" in church history about which patristic historians are still scratching their heads. Eusebius and other historians mention that the Christians definitely saw the signs and left Jerusalem. The Jews saw the signs too (acc. to Josephus and Tacitus), but they refused to heed them. They stubbornly believed that God was about to establish a literal, physical Golden Age of the Messiah. So, the Jews stayed in Jerusalem and Judea to fight the war, believing God would somehow miraculously deliver them and give them their physical kingdom over Rome and the whole world. But God had a "better" heavenly kingdom in store for His saints. -Edward E. Stevens


Isn't that something? :o Well I do believe that there was of course some spreading of the gospel after the return of Christ. Christians that left Jerusalem (fled to Pella), the Christians outside of Jerusalem ie; Roman Christians, Thessalonica, Phillipi, etc) I mean Christianity just didn't become Catholicism, do you think? Surely those outside Jerusalem weren't raptured. Then some of the earliest church fathers who were bishops. Ignatius (50-117 AD) Polycarp fought against gnosticism in the early church. Both martyred for their faith. I don't expect to see overall pagan Roman witnesses writing about the events , when they were so against the spread of the Faith.
John 21:22 22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."

Allegra
Nov 29th 2007, 08:18 AM
Gosh, I have to get up early, but I had an afterthought.
Those Christians would have had to be raptured also. After all, Paul was speaking to the Corinthians & Thessalonians.

But I don't know about John though. He's still a mystery to me. I heard from a reputable pastor/theologian that John lived to be 100 & that he was one of the youngest. I have to see if I have that recording still & what the facts were that he claimed that so.
Wasn't there a connection with John at the time of Domitian reign (emperor)
98-117 AD.?
Hmm. I'll get back after I try to follow the apostle John. !

OK, I'm sleep walking away........

Romulus
Dec 4th 2007, 09:01 PM
Romulus,

I've been reading almost all of the pages here. I noticed you said you were a hyper-preterist. Is this why as a preterist only I do not spiritualize some passages as much as you do?


I only spiritualize when other scripture warrants to do so, otherwise a literal interpretation is the norm.



I see a lot of Paul's writings speaking about our spiritual resurrection, being made alive in Christ, etc., yes, but I also see some(although not the majority) speaking about being raised up to glory when the Lord returns. I will get back to that thought shortly. I do not see Rev. 20, the "first resurrection", only spiritually.


You probably wrote this earlier. I assume you feel differently now?



Rev 20:4-6
4And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
I believe these were the 1st century martyrs & that they were physically resurrected, having be given there glorified bodies when Christ returned in AD70. This was the first resurrection.


Sounds like Full-Preterism to me, butI believe a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one.



Now the figurative "thousand years" was described as the 30-70AD time period when the Gospel "was preached to all the earth" The disciples lived in this time period. But the sentence structure describes their mission during that time; how they were killed & that they didn't worship the beast or his image/mark at that time also. So "the thousand years except for vs. 5 is describing the apostles & disciples.
So then at the end of the 1k years, the rest of the dead were raised (for the judgment throne) This would be AD70 at Christ's return. Are you following me?! OK but "when the thousand years is finished" is actually the same time as the saints being resurrected in AD70.
It's just describing 2 sets of people, & not time. The 2nd group are those not referred to as souls who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, the word of God, or worshiped the beast. This group, are are from Daniel's people. Daniel 12 at the Throne judgment-also known as the wheat & tares.
1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.


I agree this was fulfilled but I am not sure how the 1000 years plays into this. For the 1000 years to be from 30 A.D. to 70 A.D. means that the Beast and it's mark had to be in the time of 30 A.D. which we know happened prior to the 70 A.D. destruction. That is where I have not reconciled this view yet. I do believe the end result though, that death and hades was thrown into the lake of fire and Satan was probably judged at that time.

How do you reconcile that the Beast and Mark of the Beast was in 30 A.D. if the scripture states that the saints who reign rejected the Beast then reigned for a thousand years which supposedly began in 30 A.D.? I am not disagreeing with you, I believe the end result is fulfilled but this part puzzles me. Also, the scripture that notes:

And the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over...... is not in 2 of the most oldest writings of Revelation so I tend to lean that this was originally not included.



The end of the old Jewish age in AD70- when the dead actually rose to meet the raptured in the air.
Paul's not talking spiritual talk when he says they would meet the Lord in the air. This is the resurrection of the dead.
Now I believe that "blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on" That when believers die, therey receive their glorified bodies then in heaven. The sinners go right to the lake of fire.

No waiting in Hades since Christ's return. No corporate(group) resurrection after that. The last day came. Now it's the last day of a person's life.


What do you think so far?
I will post some excerpts from the "historical records" next. (I feel a little like the alien on galaxy quest!)


Since you are a Full-Preterist now:) do you still believe the gathering of the faithful in the air is still physical?

Let's keep this thread alive if we can.

God Bless

Allegra
Dec 6th 2007, 10:32 PM
You probably wrote this earlier. I assume you feel differently now?Yes & no. There are some of Paul's writings consistent with spiritual "rebirth" references. (Note I do not use the word "resurrection"?)
I.E.: Ephesians 2:6..."and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.."
We can discuss more of the "spiritual" only statements later, but right now I'm not concerned if Paul's spiritual vs. physical references were 50/50 0r 30/70 etc. or not.

Sounds like Full-Preterism to me, butI believe a spiritual resurrection, not a physical one. Now this is where, if I'm understanding you correctly, I disagree with you spiritualizing only & not recognizing the physical resurrection in Rev. 20, "the First Resurrection"
1Cor.15:51-54

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.(or imperishable)
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall 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 incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor.%2015:50-54;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-28767a)]
2Cor. 5:1-4
Assurance of the Resurrection

1 For we know that if our earthly house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven,
3 if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.
4 For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life. This is not a spiritual or positional "putting on" of mortality (in a metaphorical sense) It is an actual "putting on " of their new bodies at the resurrection event. We know that the dead "put on" their new immortal bodies.
2Cor.5:4 text clears this up. Those who are alive(past tense now) "in this tent" at the time of the Second coming/Parousia will not be "unclothed" (disembodied by death), but would be "clothed upon" with their new immortal bodies while still dwelling in their "earthly tents"
If you agree with the physical aspect of this resurrection, how can you say that at the Parousia, the saints were not raised in glory?
How can they still be waiting for their glorified bodies in heaven?

Quote:Allegra
Now the figurative "thousand years" was described as the 30-70AD time period when the Gospel "was preached to all the earth" The disciples lived in this time period. But the sentence structure describes their mission during that time; how they were killed & that they didn't worship the beast or his image/mark at that time also. So "the thousand years except for vs. 5 is describing the apostles & disciples.
So then at the end of the 1k years, the rest of the dead were raised (for the judgment throne) This would be AD70 at Christ's return. Are you following me?! OK but "when the thousand years is finished" is actually the same time as the saints being resurrected in AD70.
It's just describing 2 sets of people, & not time. The 2nd group are those not referred to as souls who were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, the word of God, or worshiped the beast. This group, are are from Daniel's people. Daniel 12 at the Throne judgment-also known as the wheat & tares.
1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.




I agree this was fulfilled but I am not sure how the 1000 years plays into this. For the 1000 years to be from 30 A.D. to 70 A.D. means that the Beast and it's mark had to be in the time of 30 A.D. which we know happened prior to the 70 A.D. destruction. That is where I have not reconciled this view yet. I do believe the end result though, that death and hades was thrown into the lake of fire and Satan was probably judged at that time. Well, do you agree the Beast out of the Sea was Nero? Ok, His reign was 54-68. I believe his "mark" was basically allegiance to Rome. The right hand was a reference to "works" & the forehead was a reference to "thoughts"
It does "happen prior to the AD destruction.

How do you reconcile that the Beast and Mark of the Beast was in 30 A.D. if the scripture states that the saints who reign rejected the Beast then reigned for a thousand years which supposedly began in 30 A.D.? I am not disagreeing with you, I believe the end result is fulfilled but this part puzzles me. Also, the scripture that notes: The Beast didn't reign for the thousand years, the martyred saints did.

And the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over...... is not in 2 of the most oldest writings of Revelation so I tend to lean that this was originally not included. Well, even if vs.5 is used, this is Daniel 12. This has to do with the parables Jesus spoke of, regarding the Wheat & Tares, & the Sheep & Goats.
Daniel 12 & Matthew 24 parallel. Daniel is talking about a "complete shattering" of the Jewish nation at "the end of the age" when there would be a great tribulation upon the Jews. Dan 12:2 refers to the "rest of the dead", if we use the statement at all. "Multitudes who sleep in the dust will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt"
When we notice in Rev 6:9-11, the martyrs, whose souls were seen by John under the altar. It does not say whether these martyrs were from the O.T. or the N.T. transition period or both. It doesn't say that these came out of the tribulation either. Just that they were dead.
There is nothing said about the 144,000 & the great multitude in Rev 7 having been martyred. And the timing is right for them to be in heaven right after the "great tribulation" (See Matthew 24:21-31) Both the 144,000 & the great multitude are pictured in heaven. How did the great multitude get into heaven? It says they came out of the "great tribulation"
The phrase "ones who come out of the great tribulation" shows the correct timing. We know that from Matthew 24:29-31, the "gathering" (rapture) event would occur immediately after the tribulation. (70 AD)
And don't forget the ones in Christ(church) in Rev.12 MY FAVORITE (SEE MY AVATAR!) 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach.
So, if Daniel's people were raised at the Throne judgment, it seems logical enough to say that the Martyrs in Rev.20 were the first resurrection both spiritually(the Apostles & disciples) during the 30-70AD period/and physically at the resurrection(70AD) Rev.20:4&5 is only distinguishing the Apostles & other dead martyrs before them., From the dead in Daniel 12.
It's not separating the time, the time is the same (70AD) But describing 2 different groups of people.




Since you are a Full-Preterist now:) do you still believe the gathering of the faithful in the air is still physical? Yes. And I stated why above. Gosh, Romulus, you best be careful about that lol, someone might mention the word gnosticism if one doesn't believe there at least was a physical resurrection. I don't know if you are implying anything like that. I just thought you should be aware of it.

Take Romulus. I look forward to hearing from you.
God Bless[/quote]ditto:)

Mograce2U
Dec 7th 2007, 04:07 AM
Allegra,
I don't see that the resurrection is ever anything "physical" at all. What is corruptible turns to dust and remains in the grave - except for Jesus that is. He alone I believe has an empty tomb, because no sin was in Him and therefore He saw no corruption. Now when Lazarus was raised back to natural life, his sister mentioned that after 4 days he would be stinking. Jesus brought Lazarus back to life in the same body in which he died - yet that was only to die in the natural once again. He came out of the grave with his graveclothes still upon him. Jesus was raised and left His graveclothes behind.

Jesus is the only MAN who has ascended to heaven; which I think is referring to His physical body now glorified. We on the other hand who have defiled these bodies with sin will never see them again. Our bodies when they die frees us from the sin that defiled them. This I believe is speaking of the new man who is raised while the old man attached to the body of flesh dies with it. The new man therefore needs a new body to inhabit - one that is not made with hands, ie. has not any physical substance to it - no flesh and blood that was created by conception. Jesus' body was of this nature having been made by the Father and not Joseph. Therefore our new body will be like Adam's before sin entered into it - a body just like Jesus' - one that was made by God.

This is the spiritual seed that is planted in us now by the Holy Spirit that is thus able to survive the death of the body, which is then clothed upon with a spiritual body that is immortal. The Holy Spirit given to us will never depart so that when we are absent from this body we can be present with the Lord. Jesus said that He will never leave us nor forsake us and that we will be with Him where He is forever. That means we will not be abandoned to the grave for even a moment. All of which is true because the dead were raised in the 1st century at the marriage of the Lamb.

Allegra
Dec 7th 2007, 05:15 PM
Allegra,
I don't see that the resurrection is ever anything "physical" at all. What is corruptible turns to dust and remains in the grave - except for Jesus that is. He alone I believe has an empty tomb, because no sin was in Him and therefore He saw no corruption. Now when Lazarus was raised back to natural life, his sister mentioned that after 4 days he would be stinking. Jesus brought Lazarus back to life in the same body in which he died - yet that was only to die in the natural once again. He came out of the grave with his graveclothes still upon him. Jesus was raised and left His graveclothes behind.

Jesus is the only MAN who has ascended to heaven; which I think is referring to His physical body now glorified. We on the other hand who have defiled these bodies with sin will never see them again. Our bodies when they die frees us from the sin that defiled them. This I believe is speaking of the new man who is raised while the old man attached to the body of flesh dies with it. The new man therefore needs a new body to inhabit - one that is not made with hands, ie. has not any physical substance to it - no flesh and blood that was created by conception. Jesus' body was of this nature having been made by the Father and not Joseph. Therefore our new body will be like Adam's before sin entered into it - a body just like Jesus' - one that was made by God.

This is the spiritual seed that is planted in us now by the Holy Spirit that is thus able to survive the death of the body, which is then clothed upon with a spiritual body that is immortal. The Holy Spirit given to us will never depart so that when we are absent from this body we can be present with the Lord. Jesus said that He will never leave us nor forsake us and that we will be with Him where He is forever. That means we will not be abandoned to the grave for even a moment. All of which is true because the dead were raised in the 1st century at the marriage of the Lamb.
Wow, Mograce2U, if I believed liked that then I should be pitied more than all people! First of all, the spiritual seed that should dominate are the fruits of the Spirit. 2Cor.9:10 10Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness.
Mark 4:31 31It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground.
If I only referred to the Holy Spirit as a seed for life after death, instead of a Deposit for not only eternal life, but to bring forth the fruit it produces in this life now I would be very grieved in my spirit.
But as far as the eschatological reference to this "seed"-
1Cor 15:20-23
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
1Cor 15:31-32
31I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
"Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%2015:31-32;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28735a)]
Footnotes:
1 Corinthians 15:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%2015:31-32;&version=31;#en-NIV-28735) Isaiah 22:13
Ever see a picture of the Amphidome that Paul tarried in Ephesis to preach-bc there would be 250,000+ pagans there?
1Cor 15:35-44
A Glorious Body


35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” 36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain—perhaps wheat or some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%2015:35-44;&version=50;#fen-NKJV-28752a)] of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 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. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
When i used the word "physical", it was to distinguish between our spiritual position of having the Holy Spirit & blessings, from the actual glorified body we will obtain when we die.Once one "sees" the expectations of the 1st century Christians, then they will know by Faith that the Lord's promises were true & fulfilled.

If I didn't have this kind of faith, & had not seen God's salvation in my life personally- then I would be a "dormant" Christian, only quoting scripture- but not having any meaning in my life, with it, then I also wouldn't or couldn't have a personal relationship with the Lord.

If that were so, you couldn't sell me on Christianity. I didn't even like the Golden Rule- Don't you do onto to me what you want done onto yourself!
I would like Buddha's philosophy better- "Don't do onto others what you don't want done onto you"

But Praise God for His mercy & for giving me this Faith!

Mograce2U
Dec 7th 2007, 06:51 PM
Allegra,
Of course the seed that has been planted in us brings forth fruit in this life - where did I say it didn't? I was addressing 1 Cor 15:35 and the hope that we now have of resurrection upon death by that same seed.

Allegra
Dec 9th 2007, 03:23 PM
Allegra,
Of course the seed that has been planted in us brings forth fruit in this life - where did I say it didn't? I was addressing 1 Cor 15:35 and the hope that we now have of resurrection upon death by that same seed.
Oh, OK. That is the viewpoint of the preterist also. That the Judgment (of Satan) had taken place- the one who held the power of Death & Hades in the Old Age- had & Has been destroyed. Christ came to destroy the works of the devil, or Satan, who spiritually fathered the Jews (Matt 3:7; 23:3; John 8:44) & influenced them to reject Christ & persecute Christians.
Revelation 1:18 "I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."
Mograce2U, there are some, perhaps many believers, that still believe "this seed" is still waiting for its glorified body in heaven for the believer after death in this life- & does not find its consummation until the "end of human history" when Christ returns. But that would be the same as "waiting in Hades" my friends. "Soon" in Revelation- meant SOON, right through chapter 22. Christ said He would do it "soon"- (they had a great expectation & promise) and He DID!
This I submit to you that the Old order of things(or Old dispensation/administration) ought not be! The Parousia, Resurrection, & Judgment occurred in AD70!
It was "future" to those waiting for Him. And now we follow(or should follow) ALL Jesus' teachings. We have the Holy Spirit as a DEPOSIT- for eternal LIFE & much, much more! He is the Comforter & Guidance Counselor who makes Intercession for us! Praise God :rolleyes:

Blessings,
Allegra.

Allegra
Jan 8th 2008, 12:59 AM
Allegra,
Of course the seed that has been planted in us brings forth fruit in this life - where did I say it didn't? I was addressing 1 Cor 15:35 and the hope that we now have of resurrection upon death by that same seed.
So does this mean you are a full preterist? That you believe (as I do ) by careful & consistent hermeneutics of the Bible that St. Paul (for example)was raised to glory in 70AD? And we (post-parousia) Christians, have the same hope & experience upon death?
Paul clearly expected that he would receive the crown of righteousness at Christ's Second Coming, even if he died before that date. Paul clearly implies (2Tim 4) that this crown of righteousness, is the same crown that those Christians he addressed, could also expect to receive at the Parousia.
He says that Christ "is about to judge" [Gr. mellontos krinein] the living & dead at His appearing and kingdom. At Christ's appearing and kingdom the righteous Judge would reward his living & deceased saints with the crown of righteousness.
That's not all-there is the crown of Life & the crown of Glory, and I only gave one of many examples of the imminence. It was just an example to relate to my question.
I know I get overjoyed when I think about the Apostles & the saints(OT & NT) received their just rewards! Especially the Apostles & first Disciples. I really get teary-eyed every time! :rolleyes:

Allegra
Jan 8th 2008, 03:04 AM
Revelation 20:4 is speaking of the lives of the saints upon the earth is indicated by the tense used in speaking of those who did not worship the beast, neither his image, nor received his mark. In the Greek, the same tense is used for all(the aorist)- sat, was given, lived, reigned, not worshiped, had not received. Since they are all in the same tense they must refer to the same time.
1Cor. 15:24-28 depicts the then present reign of Christ to be followed by His victory over the last enemy,death, (that would be spiritual death) at "the end"-the parousia. Revelation 20 presents the reign of Christ in the Millennium. At the end of the millennium death is destroyed.

Both our amil & postmil friends say the millennium was ongoing when John wrote. They also agree that the parousia (second coming) is "postmillennial."
I concur with that. However, John said the parousia was imminent. This demands that it was the end of the millennium that John was anticipating.
If the millennium is the Christian Age, then since John said the coming of Jesus, which was to occur at the end of the millennium, was at hand, this would mean the end of the Christian Age was at hand! This cannot be true, the Christian age has no end (Ephesians 3:20-21)
To determine whether John was anticipating the arrival of the millennium, or its consummation, I submit scripture parallels that would characterize the millennium, or events following, in some cases.

A)Millennium Rev.20...........................B)Jesus' Ministry, Pentecost
1)Satan bound (v.2)..........................Satan bound (Luke10:18;Mt12:25)
2)Saints on throne(v.4)......................Saints on throne (Eph.2:5-7)
3)Existence of Kingdom(v.4).................Existence of Kingdom(Col.1:13)
4)Saints serve as Priests to God.........Saints serve as Priests to God
.................................................. ...(1Peter 2:5; Rev.1:5-6)
5)Saints resurrected (v.4,6)...............Saints resurrected(John 5:24)
.................................................. ..."the hour is coming and now is
.................................................. ....when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of Man"

Matthew (12:28)- Satan Bound; saints "raised from dead"; on thrones in early church period (Eph 2:5-7)
Mt23:34-more suffering to come. Final victory in Jesus' generation(v.35-39)
Rev. 6- Final victory in "a little while" (v.10-17)
Rev.20- Final victory in a little while, after the little season of Satan's loosening(v.3, 9-10)

The final defeat of Satan, when Satan would be crushed, at the end of the millennium, was near when Paul wrote Romans:"The God of Peace shall crush Satan under your feet shortly" (Romans 16:20)
Did you catch the power of that? The end of the millennium was near when Paul & John wrote.

"The millennial reign of Jesus, parallels the the "last days" of the old aeon (of Israel) and the defeat of the enslaving powers." (Max R. King, Cross and Parousia)

In His service,
ALLEGRA