Lord, what about this man?

[Michelle]

I understand, Allyn.

I don't buy Full Preterism, and I probably never will. A future, bodily resurrection is just too plain in scripture for me to dismiss.

Another thread in this eschatology forum is titled "One Simple Question Regarding Audience Relevance". I realize that the title is a little misleading because the discussion is mostly about time-sensitive statements in the gospels and epistles, but "audience relevance!" seems to be one of the rallying cries of full-preterists - except when the audience was clueless or appeared ignorant of full-preterist doctrines. Then the focus is, "No one could understand until empowered by the Holy Spirit after the Ascension!" Now, while I agree that the Holy Spirit fell upon the believers at Pentecost, and that the disciples at that time received power to be witnesses to the Lord to all the earth, I can't buy that suddenly they realized the TRUE definition of resurrection - which was then lost again for centuries.

I also believe that your position has you having to twist yourself into knots as when you say that Lazarus, not John, was the author of John (as if Lazarus and John were some first century version of Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio, who people kept mistaking for each other. "John and Laz are just so darn similar, even in style and content of their writing...")

Really, if we look at the passage at hand, Jesus says, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!" I'm going to just focus on the last part: "You follow me!"

As always, I appreciate the opportunity to think about these things and the polite and thoughtful conversation.

[Allyn]

I understand, Allyn.

I don't buy Full Preterism, and I probably never will. A future, bodily resurrection is just too plain in scripture for me to dismiss.

I used to just naturally accept a bodily resurrection. That was what was taught from the pulpit or at least it was what it was always referred to even though it was never actually proven that was the correct teaching. It was just accepted as truth. But now I know different and I am able to show how it is not an out of the grave event. But the more important proofs are based on what the Bible says as to when the main events of the end of the age were to take place.

Another thread in this eschatology forum is titled "One Simple Question Regarding Audience Relevance". I realize that the title is a little misleading because the discussion is mostly about time-sensitive statements in the gospels and epistles, but "audience relevance!" seems to be one of the rallying cries of full-preterists - except when the audience was clueless or appeared ignorant of full-preterist doctrines. Then the focus is, "No one could understand until empowered by the Holy Spirit after the Ascension!" Now, while I agree that the Holy Spirit fell upon the believers at Pentecost, and that the disciples at that time received power to be witnesses to the Lord to all the earth, I can't buy that suddenly they realized the TRUE definition of resurrection - which was then lost again for centuries.

Preterist I know who put such importance on the time statements only have yet to grasp the deeper understandings of the things that better explain how all things have been satisfied in Christ. 1st century Christians had many problems with how to understand those things. I doubt that the true understanding of the resurrection was plain to see for them. Not only were the Christian Jews all over the board concerning how the resurrection of the dead worked, the one time pagan now believer individual had their own presupositions to be taught out of.
The advantage of the church today is that we have the compete Bible to aid us but yet our Western culture still tends to get in the way. Searching the Scriptures is to be an everyday habit in our lives..

I also believe that your position has you having to twist yourself into knots as when you say that Lazarus, not John, was the author of John (as if Lazarus and John were some first century version of Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio, who people kept mistaking for each other. "John and Laz are just so darn similar, even in style and content of their writing...")

I was simply replying to the thread.

Really, if we look at the passage at hand, Jesus says, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!" I'm going to just focus on the last part: "You follow me!"

Wonderful command but even that command is not in a vacuum. What does it fully mean to follow Him? Is it blindly or with as much understanding as we can grasp? I think that would different for every person as to how much one understands but I certainly believe that it is with at least a certain bit of understanding that we follow Him. I follow Him because I believe He is who He says and that He did what He says He did, but I also follow Him intellectually as I discover more and more truths concerning Him.

As always, I appreciate the opportunity to think about these things and the thoughtful dialogue.

I have always appreciated that about you.

[Mellontes]

John 21:20-23 – Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?
22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.
23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

I have read everyone’s comments up to Allyn’s reply on Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:29 pm.

What did Jesus say? Did He not say ONLY THIS, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me”?

Now, I don’t dogmatically know why the rumor changed from what Jesus actually said to the beloved disciple not dying, but shouldn’t we rather value what Jesus said than the rumor?

Again, this is conjecture and speculation, but couldn’t Peter have been inquiring as to whether the beloved disciple was one of those who was going to remain rather than most who were going to die by the end of that generation? The argument that full preterism fails on the same basis is also conjecture and speculation.

For those who are inclined, there is an online book written by a NON-full preterist concerning the authorship of the fourth Gospel. It is http://www.thedisciplewhomjesusloved.co ... okview.pdf

David Curtis has also written regarding the authorship of the fourth Gospel here: http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/transc ... _loved.pdf

Now, if Lazarus was truly the gentleman referred to as the disciple whom Jesus loved, it is understandable why the rumor would have existed, but it is not positive proof…

P.S. - Michelle, your picture reminded me of Jamie Lee Curtis (if that is your picture)...