When is a view fully preteristic?

End Times
User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: When is a view fully preteristic?

Post by Paidion » Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:05 am

What do you do with the theif on the cross in Luke 23 "“Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”
Greetings Douglas, in the name of the Altogether Lovely One!

I notice you quoted Christ's words with a comma before the word "today". All of the early Greek manuscripts were written in upper-case letters with no punctuation or even spaces between words.

Inserting a comma before "today" is is one way of interpreting Christ's words. Another way, is to insert the comma after "today":

“Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.”

Some say that Jesus would never have said, "I say to you today",that this doesn't make sense. But doesn't it? I'm tellling you right now, a similar idiom is used in our day. I just used it.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: When is a view fully preteristic?

Post by Paidion » Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:22 am

26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

You are stuck on what people say about what the Bible says instead of taking the Bible for what it says...
How about you? Believest thou this? Do you believe you are immortal and will never die?

Could it be that you are stuck on what translations say instead of taking what the Biblical writers said in the original language?

When Jesus said, "Whoever believes in me, though he dies, yet shall he live", was he talking about physical death? Would He then have contradicted Himself in the very next sentence and say that whoever is alive and believes in Him will never die? Or do you think He suddenly used "die" in a "spiritual" sense in his second sentence? I don't buy that, especially when you consider the Greek words.

The literal translation of verse 26 from the Greek is:

"Whoever lives and believes in me shall not die into the age."

I understand Jesus as indicating, in the previous verse, that anyone who believes in Him and dies a physical death will live again when he is raised from the dead at Christ's coming. And in this verse, that anyone who is alive and believes in him, though he dies a physical death, shall not remain dead right into the next age. For at the beginning of that age, Jesus will raise him to life in the first resurrection.

Jesus was saying much the same in the second sentence as in the first. It is a case of repeating for emphasis. The emphasis in this case was on the resurrection.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Mellontes
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:50 pm
Location: Canada

Re: When is a view fully preteristic?

Post by Mellontes » Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:42 am

Paidion wrote:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

You are stuck on what people say about what the Bible says instead of taking the Bible for what it says...
How about you? Believest thou this? Do you believe you are immortal and will never die?

Could it be that you are stuck on what translations say instead of taking what the Biblical writers said in the original language?

When Jesus said, "Whoever believes in me, though he dies, yet shall he live", was he talking about physical death? Would He then have contradicted Himself in the very next sentence and say that whoever is alive and believes in Him will never die? Or do you think He suddenly used "die" in a "spiritual" sense in his second sentence? I don't buy that, especially when you consider the Greek words.

The literal translation of verse 26 from the Greek is:

"Whoever lives and believes in me shall not die into the age."

I understand Jesus as indicating, in the previous verse, that anyone who believes in Him and dies a physical death will live again when he is raised from the dead at Christ's coming. And in this verse, that anyone who is alive and believes in him, though he dies a physical death, shall not remain dead right into the next age. For at the beginning of that age, Jesus will raise him to life in the first resurrection.

Jesus was saying much the same in the second sentence as in the first. It is a case of repeating for emphasis. The emphasis in this case was on the resurrection.
John 11:26 - Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

I have no problem with the literal translation of "die into the age." None whatsoever. The "never die" part still remains the same however. Neither of the two verses speaks of physical death. Only spiritual death fits the passage because we will die physically. I assume (correct me if I am wrong) you believe the "age" to be referring to heaven and that is just not the case. The present "age" (the one in which Jesus was born) was the Mosaic age. The "age" to come was the Messianic age. Old covenant age versus new covenant age in Christ. The old covenant age that was passing away (Hebrews 8:13, Hebrews 10:9, 1 Corinthians 7:31) - [the world - kosmos, Strong's 2889 often refers to the world system of Judaism] was going to make way for the manifestation of the Messianic age after the old covenant was obliterated. And it was and you know when it was...We are living in the new covenant age and not the old covenant age - it has vanished...

Matthew 12:32 (KJV) - And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world (age), neither in the world (age by implication) to come.

Matthew 12:32 (YLT) - And whoever may speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven to him, but whoever may speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming.

Please examine the Greek text to see the "about to" time indicator of "mello," Strong's 3195 in this verse. It is used in the same sense as the disciple's question in Mark 13:4 (YLT) - Tell us when these things shall be? and what is the sign when all these may be about to be fulfilled?'

For you to believe the "coming age" refers to heaven (if I have assumed correctly) means that it would be possible to speak against the Holy Ghost in heaven where no sin exists...

Please I encourage those who are confused about the "ages" to go through and look up every reference to Strong's 165. The KJV does a horrible rendering of "world" in 98% of the occurrences...

John 8:51-52 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.


Do you see how the unbelieving Jews looked at death in the same way most do. They referred to it as physical death and Christ referred to it as spiritual death. Because these Jews got it wrong they said Jesus had a devil!

John 10:28 - And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

The "perish" here is the same in John 3:16 (Strong's 622) The same literal translation is "perish into the age."

I wonder what Peter meant when he said "thou mayest not wash my feet--to the age." (John 13:8 YLT)

Anyway...

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: When is a view fully preteristic?

Post by TK » Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:32 am

Mellontes-

are you saying that Adam and Eve would have died (physically) had they never sinned?

TK

User avatar
Mellontes
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:50 pm
Location: Canada

Re: When is a view fully preteristic?

Post by Mellontes » Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:38 pm

TK wrote:Mellontes-

are you saying that Adam and Eve would have died (physically) had they never sinned?

TK
Yes, because physical death has nothing to do with sin. This is the whole point of sustenance being required by Adam and Eve BEFORE the fall to keep them alive. If they were created immortal (never could die) they wouldn't need anything...That is why it is so easy to point out the "spiritual death" Scriptures in the NT...

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: When is a view fully preteristic?

Post by TK » Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:04 pm

Mellontes wrote:
TK wrote:Mellontes-

are you saying that Adam and Eve would have died (physically) had they never sinned?

TK
Yes, because physical death has nothing to do with sin. This is the whole point of sustenance being required by Adam and Eve BEFORE the fall to keep them alive. If they were created immortal (never could die) they wouldn't need anything...That is why it is so easy to point out the "spiritual death" Scriptures in the NT...
BUT:
Genesis 3:22-24:

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever" – therefore, the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.
AND:
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."
Gen 3:19
it sure seems like physical death was a symptom of the fall.

TK

User avatar
Mellontes
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:50 pm
Location: Canada

Re: When is a view fully preteristic?

Post by Mellontes » Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:58 pm

TK,

Man was taken from the ground (dust) and he was to return to the ground (dust)...That just tells me it was just a normal pattern...It is appointed unto man once to die...

What was the reason for sustenance for someone who could not die (Genesis 1:29). That is what I want to know.

Sin is separation from God. Period. Jesus was separated from God upon Calvary. Redemption in Christ is the cure for the sin. If I am redeemed I am cured from sin's penalty and therefore I shall never die spiritually, but I will die physically one day. Probably sooner if you guys get a hold of me... :o Redemption is the reverse process of restoration unto God. Period. We are made alive in Christ. Period. It has nothing to with our shell. Does the body get saved? Or does the spirit/soul get saved? You decide...

Philippians 2:8 - And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

What's the big deal if He was gonna die physically anyway? (As Paidion has said) Being separated from His Father for the first time since eternity IS a big deal though!

I suppose you might be one of many who believe mosquitos didn't bite people until after the fall and bees didn't have stingers until afterwards either...all based upon physical death presupps...

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?

Mellontes

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

Re: When is a view fully preteristic?

Post by RickC » Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:40 pm

Chiming in.
TK wrote:BUT:

Genesis 3:22-24:

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat and live forever" – therefore, the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

AND:

By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return." Gen 3:19

it sure seems like physical death was a symptom of the fall.
Theophilus and I discussed this @

[quote="On the "Tree of Life" thread: http://www.theos.org/forum/posting.php? ... =67&p=1293 I"]I've always wondered what Ge 2:17 means {???} "...but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

Most of us have heard this death was "spiritual death" and that "physical death was delayed." True, "in Adam all die," wrote Paul. We know we die physically, at least, as a result of "the fall of Adam" or since sin entered into the world.

Some have interpreted the phrase, "...in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" to be God's way of saying, "You will become mortal." I lean toward this interpretation and can't quite "unravel" {for lack of vocabulary} if Adam and Eve "died spiritually" when they ate from the Knowledge Tree.

Had they eaten from the Tree of Life first, this could be a natural conclusion. Yet had they eaten from this they would have lived forever...unless....

But, of course, things didn't happen that way....[/quote]

Copy & paste from same Tree of Life thread:
In any event, I've wondered if Adam & Eve didn't eat from the Tree of Life because, well, they were already alive weren't they? Everything was going along in their lives {new though they be}....

Genesis 3 (ESV)
22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" 23therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.


Did Adam & Eve, with their new "wisdom," learn that the Tree of Life would give them neverending life? It's likely, Ge 3:22. Earlier it was the Tree they apparently thought they didn't need to eat from.

After speaking to them {in Ge 3 which I haven't posted}, God wasted no time in kicking them out of the Garden and put a "quick seal" on the Tree of Life lest Adam "reach out his hand" and eat some on the way out!!! God, obviously, didn't want that to happen.

At any rate, had God not taken action in banning them from the Garden, they could have eaten from the Tree of Life and lived forever. God knew the Tree of Life gave this, and now, they did.

End of copy & paste
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And to quote TK again, where he wrote:it sure seems like physical death was a symptom of the fall.


Romas 5 (NASB)
12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--

17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
19For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.
20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
21so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


TK, the scriptures clearly teach death is due to sin {as I'm sure you agree}. Many, many more passages could be cited to prove the point.

Getting back to my "quoting" from the Tree of Life thread; it doesn't seem to me Adam & Eve were created "immortal." It seems they were originally in a "neutral" state of existence. That is, after being made, they had the option to eat from the Tree of Life, but made the other choice {eating from the Knowedge Tree of good & evil}. Even after eating from it and being sentenced to death, Adam could have eaten from the Tree of Life, apparently on his way out of the Garden. But God stopped that possibility "lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever" {Ge 3:22}.

I might be repeating myself here.

At any rate, the Bible doesn't teach Adam & Eve were created immortal, afaik. They were in a preemptive state of existence. In other words, the options for them were there, they chose wrongly, and, as a result "just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" {Ro 5:12}. Btw, this verse sums up the Jewish view on "original sin." Jews, of course, don't believe in the Augustinian view on it {Paul included, and actually, Jews deny "original sin"}. But what we see in Ro 5:17 is that via Adam's sin, death became the destiny of his offspring, not because they {we} "do" Adam's sin, but simply because "all sinned." We've inherited a world tainted by sin and its effects. We have a propensity toward sinning and this propensity {as human frailty} causes all of us to sin: but yet we do the sinning and are, therefore, held accountable for it.

I suppose I have points to list in this post:
1) The Bible doesn't say Adam "died spiritually." For Jews, and the biblical authors by extension, physical death and spiritual death are inseparable. They're intertwined, wrapped around each other, and cannot be separated into two distinct categories.
2) Physical death {without separating spiritual death into another thing} is the result of the Fall of Adam. We all fall like Adam did when we sin because we're "in Adam" but he's not responsible for my sins any more than I am for his.
3) We all will die a physical death whether we're Christians or not.
4) I'm not in a position to say full-preterists aren't "true Christians."
5) But a denial of physical death as being a result of the Fall of Adam is unbiblical.
6) Full-preterists completely redefine the biblical teaching on hamartiology {doctrine of sin}.
7) I think they're wrong on this and other points but....
8) Attempting to discuss things with them seems next to impossible and, thus, pointless.

Thanks for letting me go on a bit, :)

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

Re: When is a view fully preteristic?

Post by RickC » Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:09 pm

Hello Mellontes,
You wrote:We are made alive in Christ. Period. It has nothing to with our shell. Does the body get saved? Or does the spirit/soul get saved? You decide...
I haven't debated you {not much, anyway}.

Do you realize that seeing the human body as a "shell" is at least Platonic, if not gnostic? The Bible teaches that the following gets saved:
1) the body
2) the soul
3) the spirit

Numbers 1-3 aren't separate entities or "parts" of a person. They're inseparable from "me." I don't "have" a soul, I am a soul.

In any event, just because you and other full-preterists hold to gnostic ideas isn't reason for me to anathemize you or them. But then again, I believe God could possibly save Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, who may not have figured out the trinity yet or are searching to understand it {not that believing in the trinity is necessarily required for salvation}! I think God could, and probably will, save other people who have doctrines I consider unorthodox and strange {quick note: universalists and dispensationalists are among these also, imo}....

I recently heard a lecture {can't remember from who} who said full-preterism will probably wind up being in a "cult" status. The idea conveyed was that full-preterists will, sometime, organize as a separate "sect" from orthodox Christianity. This, of course, has already happened in individual churches, though I can't say how many {church splits over full-preterism}.

I, myself, if I believed in certain teachings from gnosticism, I wouldn't be ashamed nor reluctant to admit it. I've studied gnosticism {ancient and modern} and though some of the things they say are interesting, and even somewhat "applicable" to life; I nevertheless, reject gnosticism's main tenets. One of them being that the "real you" is your spirit or soul and that your body is but a "shell"....

I'll leave it at that. Thanks.
Last edited by RickC on Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mellontes
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:50 pm
Location: Canada

Re: When is a view fully preteristic?

Post by Mellontes » Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:43 pm

Thanks for the Scriptureless reply and the comaprisons to the gnostics...I am out of here. Good luck guys,

Blessings, Ted

Post Reply

Return to “Eschatology”