Questions for the non-full preterist

[Allyn]

A new question:
At the transfiguration - what would the futurist/partial preterist have to say was the purpose behind the display?
I won't have time until later to address this if any answers come in by then but I did want to put the question out there.

[Homer]

Homer wrote:
So if Preterism is supposedly the ancient faith, how is it that Clement of Rome (1st century), Justin, and Irenaeus all clearly believed in a future, bodily resurrection, even quoting Paul about it? How did the church go wrong so soon?

Preterism is based on the writings of the Bible and not on the misunderstanding of those who appeared after the events.

So were the Apostles ignorant of preterism, just forgot or neglected to inform those who they discipled, or ? If it is true, who are the early Christians who held the preterist view? By early I mean 1st or 2nd century. Surely there must have been some, and you would think it would be the dominent view.

[Homer]

Allyn wrote:

A new question:
At the transfiguration - what would the futurist/partial preterist have to say was the purpose behind the display?

So Jesus was transfigured and Moses and Elijah appeared. Jesus' disciples act as though the three are equal in status. Moses and Elijah have a peculiar relationship to the Law, one as lawgiver, the other as Law restorer (otherwise one might expect Abraham or David to have appeared). God's voice thunders from heaven "This is my beloved Son, listen to Him". Jesus is to be obeyed, the era of the LOM is over. Jesus is Lord, praise God!

[Mellontes]

Allyn wrote:

A new question:
At the transfiguration - what would the futurist/partial preterist have to say was the purpose behind the display?

So Jesus was transfigured and Moses and Elijah appeared. Jesus' disciples act as though the three are equal in status. Moses and Elijah have a peculiar relationship to the Law, one as lawgiver, the other as Law restorer (otherwise one might expect Abraham or David to have appeared). God's voice thunders from heaven "This is my beloved Son, listen to Him". Jesus is to be obeyed, the era of the LOM is over. Jesus is Lord, praise God!

Excuse my ignorance...what does "the era of the LOM is over" mean? Was that the purpose of the transfiguration account?

[Homer]

LOM = Law of Moses. Hope this helps you understand my post. Its really pretty simple.

[steve7150]

Matthew 21:12-13 - And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

As for the temple just being incidental, then why Christ's prediction/prophecy of its destruction in the Olivet discourse? I mean why do away with it if it meant nothing and had no purpose. Perhaps it was in answer to OT prophecy as well? It would result in the destruction of the entire old covenant economy! No more temple, no more genealogies, no more priests, no more anything related to the types and shadows. The fulfillment in Christ had arrived!



OK you did make a good point "My house" meant the temple did have the approval of God but IMHO that was until the curtain was torn in half. I think that incident was a consequence of Jesus crucifixtion and removed any authority that dwelled in the temple. The destruction of the temple was the elimination of a house that was already desolate of God. The fact that the curtain was repaired by man was not by direction from God, therefore it had no authority from heaven.
As to why would Jesus prophecy it's destruction if it had no authority, to fulfill prophecy, to warn Christians,visibly validating the ending of the old covenant even though it had really
already ended when the curtain was torn.

[TK]

In regard to the transfiguration, I like Homer's answer, but I don't think there has to necessarily be any hidden purpose behind it. Perhaps God just wanted to provide a glimpse of Jesus' glory.

TK

[Allyn]

In regard to the transfiguration, I like Homer's answer, but I don't think there has to necessarily be any hidden purpose behind it. Perhaps God just wanted to provide a glimpse of Jesus' glory.

TK

There is nothing hidden. It is actually explained elsewhere in the NT and I will show that later.

[Allyn]

Homer wrote:
So if Preterism is supposedly the ancient faith, how is it that Clement of Rome (1st century), Justin, and Irenaeus all clearly believed in a future, bodily resurrection, even quoting Paul about it? How did the church go wrong so soon?

Preterism is based on the writings of the Bible and not on the misunderstanding of those who appeared after the events.

So were the Apostles ignorant of preterism, just forgot or neglected to inform those who they discipled, or ? If it is true, who are the early Christians who held the preterist view? By early I mean 1st or 2nd century. Surely there must have been some, and you would think it would be the dominent view.

Hi Homer,

What says there had to be a wide spread understanding by those after the events? There were certainly some but for the most part those post event writers have been ignored or not understood.

Of the Apostles were not ignorant - unless you believe like Steve Gregg that only were guessing they had it right because of not really having been inspired. The Apostles taught this stuff as 1st century fulfillment.

[Allyn]

Matthew 21:12-13 - And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

As for the temple just being incidental, then why Christ's prediction/prophecy of its destruction in the Olivet discourse? I mean why do away with it if it meant nothing and had no purpose. Perhaps it was in answer to OT prophecy as well? It would result in the destruction of the entire old covenant economy! No more temple, no more genealogies, no more priests, no more anything related to the types and shadows. The fulfillment in Christ had arrived!



OK you did make a good point "My house" meant the temple did have the approval of God but IMHO that was until the curtain was torn in half. I think that incident was a consequence of Jesus crucifixtion and removed any authority that dwelled in the temple. The destruction of the temple was the elimination of a house that was already desolate of God. The fact that the curtain was repaired by man was not by direction from God, therefore it had no authority from heaven.
As to why would Jesus prophecy it's destruction if it had no authority, to fulfill prophecy, to warn Christians,visibly validating the ending of the old covenant even though it had really
already ended when the curtain was torn.

Steve7150,
I think you are failing to see my point. The permanency of the temple being gone is the true indicator of what has fully come in. The curtain torn, in my opinion, was a sign of what was to come but the curtain was certainly not what sanctified the temple but rather hid the people from what was the glory of God inside. In fact I do not believe that the glory of God left His temple until just shortly before the destruction and I say this because of the likeness of whaen it happened before but was illustrated in Zechariah as the mount of olives split in two.