I believe that Jesus Christ clearly taught that he would return in his second coming (parousia) during the lifetime of his disciples, and that he did in fact do just that.

Is anyone interested in having a friendly debate on the timing of the second coming. I hold the position that the second coming was a past event that has already taken place. Again, I stress "friendly debate." No ad hominem attacks (name calling and the such). So calling each other heretic is strictly forbidden. Let's just stick to clear argumentation and exegesis.

I don't really have much knowledge on Preterism and perhaps will not be able to hold a debating front against it.

However, there is a question that I would like to ask and perhaps things may kick on from there. If the Apocalypse is past, then what is our purpose here for? And also... according to Preterism, what is the Second Advent?

Cheers.

ase said: "I am clever."

If you think so.


To Someone:

I'll go ahead and try to answer your two questions.

First you asked: "If the Apocalypse is past, then what is our purpose here for?"

Well, the simplest answer to that is that we are here for the same reason that every other Christian for the past two thousand years has been here. We are to live out our Christian lives, share the gospel message with as many people as we can while we live, and then when we die we will go on to be with the Lord in heaven just like every other believer saved by grace that has died before us. It is possible that God could end the world in some sudden event, I just don't think the Bible necessarily teaches that. It doesn't teach anything about the destruction or ultimate fate of this planet.

I do understand the source of your concern. When people here the position I stand for usually their first reaction is similar to yours. They are concerned over what this means (or doesn't mean) for the future. I have come to think that this concern stems mostly from having been taught to expect some great catyclysmic event some time in the (near?) future. When one even considers the possibility that the Bible doesn't teach what they thought it did, it can cause a little anxiousness, and quite often causes a lot of consternation toward the person espousing the view (in this case, me). Speaking from my own experience, the concern over the future and what it does and does not hold for us melted away the more I came to believe that the Bible does in fact teach what preterists claim it does.

Your second question was: "According to Preterism, what is the Second Advent?"

Essentially, the Second Advent is the end of the old covenant and the beginning of the new covenant, which occured around A.D. 70. The end of the old covenant (the Mosaic Law) was demonstrated and symbolized in the destruction of the Temple. The Temple is, of course, the symbol and representation of the Law covenant, and the center for Israel's sacrificial system. After the abrogation of the Old Covenant, Christ was (is) the Temple. And our body, the Body of Christ, is the Temple of God. He had now written his law upon our hearts, and he has gone out to all men, across to all the islands -- not just to the Jewish race.

In a nutshell, the Jewish people had disobeyed God's covenant numerous times throughout their history. God was longsuffering. But the last straw was when they actually crucified the Messiah, God in flesh. This was the height of disobedience and sin. So God ended that covenant and did what he promised to do long before -- to call a new people his people, to put his law on their hearts.

The Second advent was his coming in judgment upon Israel, with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. God's hand was behind that, just as his hand was behind the destruction by the Babylonians. But this was to fulfill exactly what Jesus said would happen at the time of the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24. And, he said all those things (the things he was just mentioning in the chapter) would take place during the generation of his disciples. Jesus prediction was absolutely correct.

I hope that helps explain the preterist position a little. There is much more that could be discussed, but I hope this serves as a good springboard to more discussion.

Take care,
-Mike

How do we start?

Perhaps, maybe we could discuss/debate some verses from Scripture.

Well, I'm obviously not a preterist. I hold to the literal second coming of Christ and believe that it is the truth.

The thing about preterism is that it teaches a "spiritual resurrection". However, I have to disagree with that:

1. Sin, although it is primarily spiritual, has also physical effects. When sin entered the world, it also had physical effects upon the world. Thus, if humanity is fully redeemed, Man's physical nature will also be redeemed along with it. This can be backed up by the Ressurection. Christ Himself did not rise only spiritually, but he had a renewed resurrected body. This also indicates that we will have a body of the same nature as of Christ on the Second Advent. I would think this is just plain common sense.

Preterists teach that the coming resurrection is only spiritual. Hope I'm not misrepresenting preterism... but this is my understanding of it. I cannot agree with that and the reasons have been given above that sin also has physical effects.

2. I do not think that Preterism is supported by Scripture. I'm not a literary critic but all the quotations given from the Bible to support preterism seems to me a case of "extreme" exegesis? For example, some if not many mainline Protestants do not doubt that Paul believed that the Second Coming would happen in his time and it did not. Preterists also agree with that. But mainline Protestantism allows for the fact that Paul's interpretation was in error and the second advent will come sometime in the future. Preterists, if I'm not mistaken, do not allow that and hold to Paul's interpretation.

I'm new to this board and perhaps even the field of debates and apologetics, so if any "unprofessional" or unChristian errors are made, do not hesitate to point them out.

Cheers.

Good morning Someone
You say how do we start, I for one like to start by defining terms, so here is my limited offering.

R.C. Sproul defined Preterism as follows:

Preterism: An eschatological viewpoint that places many or all eschatological events in the past, especially during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, p. 228)

To Someone:

I would actually prefer more of a conversation format rather than a debate format anyway, so I wouldn't worry about any debate "rules" if I were you. I appreciate your attitude toward me.

Now, to get to my reply. I'm afraid this may be slightly long, but I will try to keep it from being too long. I would like to try to answer your two questions/disagreements which you posted.

First, you wrote: "If humanity is fully redeemed, Man's physical nature will also be redeemed along with it. This can be backed up by the Ressurection. Christ Himself did not rise only spiritually, but he had a renewed resurrected body. This also indicates that we will have a body of the same nature as of Christ on the Second Advent."

I think it would be helpful to the both of us if you could point to specific verses from which you are basing your perspective. Let me try to focus in on two points here. The first involves the nature of Christ's ressurection, and the second concerns the nature of our ressurection.

Two things seem clear concerning Christ's ressurection. First, that it was, at least in some sense, physical in nature. This is because his physical body was missing from the grave. But it also seems clear that his body was unlike the physical body that we all currently have. This point is demonstrated in his post-ressurection appearances. When he was first seen he was not recognized. Something clearly was different about him. He was able to appear suddenly and disappear suddenly. He was able to levitate and disappear into the clouds. His body had changed -- it was different.

I believe that one could legitimately define Christ's body as spiritual. Now, when I say spiritual, I do not mean Casper the Ghost. I do believe spiritual entities (bodies) can take on physical characteristics and yet still be spiritual in nature. Take for example the "physical" appearances of angels in the Old Testament. Does this mean angels are physical creatures? No, they are spiritual. The problem is that with our american minds, we tend to think of spiritual beings as being like casper. I definitely do not want to go beyond what Scripture clearly tells us, but I think it is safe to say that Christ's ressurection was physical in the sense that his body was gone, but also that his ressurected body had changed from what it was.

Next, consider what the Bible tells us about the nature of our resurection. The clearest passage is in 1st Corinthians 15. I would suggest to you that when Paul, and others of the time, spoke of the ressurection of the dead, they were primarily thinking of the release of human souls from Hades. The Jewish conception was that all people who died, the righteous and unrighteous, went to Hades. The righteous went to the bossom of Abraham, while the unrighteous went to a less desirable place (to say the least). But this was not the end. The Jews were waiting for a day (the last day) when the messiah would come and the righteous souls would be released from Hades (death) and go into heaven, while the unrighteous would be cast into hell. To see that this was in fact the Jewish belief at the time, read Josephus' "Homily on Hades."

So, when a Jewish person talked of the resurrection of the dead, they were referring to what I just described. I would think this was largly what Paul had in mind in 1st Corinthians 15. Let's look at portions of the passage:

In verse 35 a question is asked (it's the same question we are dealing with now), "How are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?"

The answer given is an illustration of planting seeds. When you want to plant something, say wheat, you must first plant a seed of some kind into the ground (see the imagery of death here?). The seed dies, but if brings forth something very different. But the seed must die and go into the ground first. Paul writes that there are two kinds of bodies - fleshly bodies, and spiritual bodies. The Body is like the seed, that must die. And what comes up is a new kind of body, a spiritual body, like the wheat.

Look at verse 44: "It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spirtual body. It is sown in dishonor, raised in glory. Sown in weakness, raised in power."

Now, look at this. This is very interesting. Paul goes on to compare the first Adam with the second Adam. This first Adam was a living being, but the second Adam became a life-giving spirit . In order for us to be saved, we must become like the second Adam.

Now, look at verse 50, "Now I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."

Based on this I submmit that we, as Christians, will shed our physical bodies at death, to put on a spiritual body and meet King Jesus in heaven. We cannot inherit the kingdom of God without putting on the spiritual body. This makes me wonder how exactly most people's conception of the rapture would work. Will people shed their bodies like a space shuttle sheds its rocket blasters after liftoff? I don't think that scenario works out.

Now. I know that this is already long. I still have yet to answer your second statement. Tell you what, I'll finish this post, and answer it in a new post.

[ August 11, 2004, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Mike Veronie ]

Part 2:


Is Preterism supported by Scripture? I think it is interesting that you seem to assert that it is not, and then you make the statement that Paul expresses that sentiment in his writing. In fact, you say that Preterists (your words) "hold to Paul's interpretation." Well, amen.

I am increasingly baffled as to why so many well-meaning Christians believe that Paul was mistaken. I suppose their thinking is that Paul was just expressing his personal opinion that Christ would come back in his time, but that doesn't mean the Bible teaches it. Am I mistaken, or aren't Paul's words supposed to be part of the inspired Bible?

I would like, now, to try and demonstrate that Pauls assertions that Jesus would come back "soon" and during his time was not just Paul's personal opinion, separate from the inspired Scripture, but that Paul actually taught it to his hearers (readers) and we as Christians should consider it to be accurate and authoritative. There are literally hundreds of Biblical passages that teach that Jesus would come back during the first century, but I will only pick a few for space considerations.

Romans 13:11-12
"It is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed. The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand."
Isn't it interesting that Paul writes this after the cross, yet he speaks of salvation still being future. Yet he says that it is at hand, nearer even than when they first believed. The night is gone, and the day (the last day clearly) is at hand. Notice that this is a teaching of Paul in the Bible. It is more than mere uninspired opinion. It would be odd that the day has been at hand for about two thousand years.

Romans 16:20
“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.”
To do hermeneutics well, we should keep in mind one core principle: audience relevence. That means that when Paul says "your feet," he is talking specifically to the Romans, not to us -- readers thousands of years later. Now, the Bible does speak to us of course, but must not forget audience relevance when we try to interpret scripture. Here Paul was telling the Roman church that Satan would be crushed under their feet soon.

2 Tim. 4:1
“I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is about to judge the living and the dead…”
The word for "about" in this verse is the Greek word mello . It means that something is about to take place very soon. This is used over and over in other verses.

Heb. 1:1-2
“God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son.”
Notice that the author of Hebrews said that they were in the last days at that time. Why are we still waiting for the last days if they were already present during the time of the writing of Hebrews.

Heb. 1:14
“Are they not all ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who are about to inherit salvation?”
Again salvation was a future expectation, and again the word mello is used.

Hebrews 10:37
“For yet in a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay.”
I'll let this speak for itself.

Heb. 13:14
“For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the one that is about to come.”
Again, the word mello

James 5:8
“You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.”
Why would James, being lead by the Holy Spirit to write this, tell his readers to be patient for the coming of the Lord is at hand if the coming was not until more than two thousand years off?

1st Peter 4:7
“The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.”

1st Peter 5:1
"For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God.”

1st John 2:18
“It is the last hour.”
John says that even then many anti-Christs have come, by which he knows it it is the last hour. Wow, first we say that it was the last days, here we see that at John's time it was also the last hour. (in 4:3 John tells us that the spirit of the AntiChrist which was prophesied was already present.)


Now, realize this was long, but I could have gone on and on I assure you. I passed up lots of verses that say the same thing. I hope I have argued well the point that the idea that Jesus was coming during the time of his first disciples was not just a faulty opinion of Paul, but that it is a clear and consistent New Testament teaching taught by literally every writer of the New Testament. I did not even bring up Jesus' own statements concerning the timing of his second coming, which are even more clear. Perhaps we can get into that later.

I hope these posts were not too exhausting.

Take care, Mike

[ August 12, 2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Mike Veronie ]

Mike,
Full preterism or partial?

Greetings! When i was at a reformed Protestant seminary, one of my good friends there was preterist. This was about the time that R.C. Sproul published his book saying that preterism has validity (and i would wager he is preterist himself).

i did have many discussions with him when i lived near him, but i never asked him this:

Do any of the early church fathers support this view? i have not found any yet. Would they, as very close successors to the apostles, have understood this message?

God bless you!