Full Preterism Could Have Changed The World?

[Michelle]

Hi Michelle,

LOL, yes I meant to say "climactic". Brenden and I, have talked about eschatology before. He is in the Futurists camp as I am not.

God Bless.

Ah, thanks for answering my questions about your response to Brenden.
Thanks,
Michelle

[robbyyoung]

Hi Michelle,

LOL, yes I meant to say "climactic". Brenden and I, have talked about eschatology before. He is in the Futurists camp as I am not.

God Bless.

Ah, thanks for answering my questions about your response to Brenden. I'd love to hear your answer to my other question: How are you, and other full preterists, doing a better job of stewarding your societies, the planet and future endeavors?

Thanks,
Michelle

Hi Michelle,

As individuals, we proclaim The Gospel message in it's entirety. Why we should do this, that, or the other, not only depends on our acceptance of the message but also to the urgency, and timing of the message. For example, Paul says in 1 Cor 7:29-31 "But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away."

(notice the mindset in regards to: stewarding your societies, the planet and future endeavors.)

A misunderstanding of this message's timing, urgency and audience, could and has - caused people, post 70AD, unnecessary self inflicted troubles, for the Preterist contends it was NEVER intended for them. "A better job", on a micro level, is to set the record straight in order for people NOT TO forsake these quality of life decisions given to a relevant audience 2000 years ago. On a macro level, governments can exact great change in a realized eschatology by having a "we have arrived" mindset. Therefore, a pending doom and gloom vanishes and we get busy affecting lasting change.

Anyway, these are my thoughts as a FP in answering your questions. Preterists and Futurists alike DO NOT differ in the Gospel Message, only the timing of it's consummation. I believe this to be significant but of course NOT condemning.

God Bless.

[Michelle]

Thank you, robbyyoung. I apologize for editing my post while you were apparently crafting yours. I hadn't read the whole thread when I replied to your post directed at me, therefore, when I went back, I realized that you had already given answers to my question.

[Homer]

I must say I am confused, but that's nothing new.

Robby wrote:

Therefore, the entirety of The Gospel message is PRIMARY and CANNOT be unsupportive to IT’S SELF. What’s secondarily ancillary to the entirety of The Gospel is our response to its message. If this is what you mean, yes I agree.

And what is that message? Is it not the teachings in the New Testament from the mouth of Yeshua and The Apostles. Isn't what we read in that message, without question, an exhortation to preparing one’s self for The Lord’s return!

You minimize any part of The Gospel Message you run afoul to the entirety of The Gospel message.

A tenet in that Gospel message was the promise of The Lord’s return. Yeshua and The Apostles constantly used this as a motivator to their audience to repent and stay the course.

If Jesus imminent return was the motivator for Christian living and staying the course, and He returned almost 2000 years ago, what motivational function does the supposedly fulfilled return perform now?

It seems to me that, between the 70AD return and the futurist return, the vast majority of Christians will have lived their lives without experiencing any return at all. They simply live, die, and go to meet the Lord. That all men are "once to die, and then the judgment" should be motivation for all of us, shouldn't it? We should all live as Christians regardless.

[robbyyoung]

Hi Homer, my response is in (RED).

If Jesus imminent return was the motivator for Christian living and staying the coarse, and He returned almost 2000 years ago, what motivational function does the supposedly fulfilled return perform now? Beside from God being 100% accurate in His promises to the 1st Century Church, and therefore ushering in the New Heaven and Earth - as God now tabernacles with man; our motivation isn't expectation but realization of His coming.

It seems to me that, between the 70AD return and the futurist return, the vast majority of Christians will have lived their lives without experiencing any return at all. (Agreed.)

They simply live, die, and go to meet the Lord. (Agreed.)

All men are "once to die, and then the judgment" should be motivation for all of us, shouldn't it? We should all live as Christians regardless. (Agreed. However, the 1st Century Church had the responsibility and burden of The Last Days Ministry. There's a reason why God had to cut those days short, or else none would be saved! It was a very grievous time. The Lord's return was not only a promise but relief and reward, a motivation not to fall away.)

God Bless.

[robbyyoung]

Thank you, robbyyoung. I apologize for editing my post while you were apparently crafting yours. I hadn't read the whole thread when I replied to your post directed at me, therefore, when I went back, I realized that you had already given answers to my question.

No worries .

[TheEditor]

Hi Robby,

I must respectfully disagree. Views on the return of Christ are not part of the "Good News". In fact, Jesus was quite clear to his disciples, as you like to style it , then listening, that if anyone were to come and say "The time is at hand", they were to not go after such. Makes it pretty clear to me that this was not to be the focal point at all in the Gospel they were preaching. By the way, I would not style myself a "Futurist" per se. But I suppose to a Full Preterist, any future expectations make me a Futurist. Kind of like to a Calvinist everyone else is at least a semi-Pelagian.

Jesus’ personality, qualities and behavior are presented plainly enough for the average reader of the Scriptures to perceive, if he really wants to, and regardless of how biased his translation may be. Christianity is the acceptance of Jesus as the Son of God and an adherence to his example and teachings: a way of life in imitation of him. That’s all it is. That’s all it ever was. As individuals, we can only test those teachings, and that way of life, by the life we live as individuals and by the good results we see in our lives and of those we touch.

By teaching and example, Jesus wielded positive influence with individuals, but he didn’t attempt to raise a group to consciousness, nor did he become an activist for social change. Still, the movers and shakers in that society felt threatened and had him killed.

At Passover, Jesus drank the traditional four cups of red wine with his apostles, he sang the traditional Hallel psalms, and he reclined at that meal instead of standing as originally done. Jesus also attended synagogues and acknowledged the authority of the extremely corrupt body known as the Sanhedrin. A variety of unprescribed customs, practices, and festivals were gradually adopted and tacked on to Jewish life in the centuries after God gave the Law through Moses. Jesus went along with such accretions, regardless of how "messed up" some of them might have become. And yet, in doing so, notably his worship remained pure and he remained sinless.

Jesus also remained sinless even while observing the extra-biblical Festival of Dedication or Hanukkah with its eight-day lamp displays and song singing. (Since the conservative Sadducees accepted only the written laws of the Pentateuch and rejected oral traditions, makes you wonder if they even celebrated Hanukkah, doesn’t it?) In so doing he was an active participant in a local Jewish forum that was attended and supported by those of conflicting sects and clashing schools of thought of Judaism. In other words, Jesus (and his followers) regularly took part in religious services where they rubbed shoulders with any and all--including self-righteous legalistic Pharisees, conservative affluent Sadducees, and politically-compromising Herodians. Even the famous Alexandrian Jew Philo (c. 20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), lived at that time. Jesus may have been aware of him or his ideas. Who knows? Philo had some pretty unusual ideas about the meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Yet, despite such routine interaction, participation, and customary commingling, Jesus remained sinless. For that matter, I find it significant that the early Jewish Christians continued to attend synagogue until they were finally given the official boot as ‘apostates against Moses.’ In other words, Christianity in its original form started off in a forum that was customarily attended and supported by those of the conflicting sects and clashing schools of thought of Judaism. Imagine that. Yet don’t we believe that somehow the worship of these early disciples remained "pure" in the process? Sure we do. But, the above facts are difficult to embrace and reconcile for those for whom the "Good News" has taken on more than the basic saving message.

As a young man the apostle John had to learn that a person might be with Christ, though not follow with the apostles; as an old man he was made to realize that "many" may follow with apostles yet not be with Christ. (Not surprisingly, the former Pharisee Paul later identified "sectarianism" or "party-spirit" as a work of the flesh.)

The basis for judgment is stated in few words. (John 3:19-21) When we boil it all down, the only real choice we have is between good and evil, and it comes down to what a person is at heart. Our problem as sinful humans is that we’re easily duped and can be downright treacherous at times. Ultimately how it will all work out is beyond my purview. To my mind, there are so many people who don’t even have a clue about anything other than their daily life routine of work and diversion. The questions I’ve posed for myself are: How is God to be viewed? How best to describe him? As a Judge to pardon or condemn? Or as a loving Father who would do anything within His righteous standards to save as many of His children as possible? To me the answer is obvious, though I admit to a limited grasp on all the particulars. Time will tell all.

Regards, Brenden.

[dwilkins]

Brenden,

I don't know what point you're trying to make. But, I have a hard time believing that you really think peoples' outlook on life doesn't affect the politics of the country they live in. And, for religious people, their view of the goal of history would obviously affect how they go about their lives. That's common sense.

Doug

[TheEditor]

Hi Doug,

I think we may be moving goal posts here. Let's reconsider the original proposition as made by Robby:

When I accepted the Full Preterist paradigm, one of the first thoughts that came to mind was how this realization would have changed the course of history. Hitler's atrocities, The Inquisition, The establishment of a Jewish State by Zionist, etc.., and how about the agnostics and atheists, who sit on or off "The Bench" because of supposed "failed prophecies" regarding Yeshua's time statements concerning His return. How many of these people would have been converted if The Full Preterist Paradigm would've been taught?

My arguments were all predicated on that one assertion. I believe the nations walk as they walk apart from any real faith in God. They may think they have a faith. But the fact they control countries and continents and broker the destinies of societal groups, tells me that the profession is merely that.

The only immediate problem the full-blown end times "Jesus is coming for sure next year" mindset creates is for the posessor of that idea. Think of the Great Dissappointment in 1843/1844, or the mini-Great Dissappointment for JWs in 1975. Many of these people sold homes and property so they could spend the remaining months in this system preaching the imminent return. How exactly would these folks ever have a mind to get involved in politics in the first place?

Unfortunately, this is one of those subjects that my OCD driven disposition forced me to become far more literate in (Second Adventism) than your average bear. Coming out of the JWs I had to deconstruct and then reconstruct my (tentative) eschatological views, as well as understand the "how's" and "why;'s" of how they historically got there.

I don't think Hitler was preparing for Christ's return. Many Adventists are a-political. I can see the temptation for Amillenialists and Preterists to become very involved in society. This then brings up a different temptation that is a variant on the same theme: To what extent should Christians be engaged in the affairs of the world?

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

how about the agnostics and atheists, who sit on or off "The Bench" because of supposed "failed prophecies" regarding Yeshua's time statements concerning His return

This was actually a problem in the first century as well, when the supposed "time statments" were acurately foretold:

"For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires  and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as from creation’s beginning." (2 Peter 3:3-4)

I guess some things never change.