Is the Resurrection already past?

[Allyn]

I think your points are well made, Mellontes.

[TK]

Mellontes wrote:

Paul, Sylvanus, Timothy and people from the Thessalonian church would constitute the we, otherwise it has ZERO application for the intended audience.

I just read 2 Thess ch 1 again- and I honestly don't read it the way you do, preconceptions or not. Sorry. I don't see any specific promises to this specific church that MUST require the understanding that it would happen in their lifetime. They are undergoing persecution (as Jesus said they would) and Paul is simply comforting them. Paraphrasing greatly, "Don't worry- this wont last forever. Stay faithful as you have been and one day you will have eternal rest. And by the way- those who are persecuting will get theirs in the end. God is just."

I don't see any direct promises that Jesus is coming back in their lifetime, or even that their persecutors would be judged in their lifetime. I simply see a "hang in there for the cause" sort of encouragement. And if Paul was so certain of everything, why was he so incredibly vague about what he was talking about? If he truly knew the exact details and just said them, we wouldn't be having these debates.

Why should the Thessalonians get the special treatment of Jesus coming back just for them? Haven't there been other even greater persecutions of the church? How about in China, Russian, India, or wherever?

And why would God necessarily want to stamp out persecution? Doesn't the church thrive under these circumstances? Didnt Jesus promise persecution? Isn't the lack of persecution in the American church evidence of how far it has fallen below the Kingdom level?

And how would the destruction of Jersusalem cause persecution to stop in Thessalonica?

TK

[Duncan]

Hey TK,

You can see my two cents on 2 Thessalonians 2 here, http://planetpreterist.com/content/man- ... s-part-one. It touches on some of what you are asking.

Duncan

[Mellontes]

I just read 2 Thess ch 1 again- and I honestly don't read it the way you do, preconceptions or not. Sorry. I don't see any specific promises to this specific church that MUST require the understanding that it would happen in their lifetime. They are undergoing persecution (as Jesus said they would) and Paul is simply comforting them. Paraphrasing greatly, "Don't worry- this wont last forever. Stay faithful as you have been and one day you will have eternal rest. And by the way- those who are persecuting will get theirs in the end. God is just."

I don't see any direct promises that Jesus is coming back in their lifetime, or even that their persecutors would be judged in their lifetime. I simply see a "hang in there for the cause" sort of encouragement. And if Paul was so certain of everything, why was he so incredibly vague about what he was talking about? If he truly knew the exact details and just said them, we wouldn't be having these debates.

Why should the Thessalonians get the special treatment of Jesus coming back just for them? Haven't there been other even greater persecutions of the church? How about in China, Russian, India, or wherever?

And why would God necessarily want to stamp out persecution? Doesn't the church thrive under these circumstances? Didnt Jesus promise persecution? Isn't the lack of persecution in the American church evidence of how far it has fallen below the Kingdom level?

And how would the destruction of Jersusalem cause persecution to stop in Thessalonica?

TK

Okay, fair enough. I still don't see how you can realize that the letter is writtten to the first century Thesslonians and miss the fact that there would be some who would be alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord. If you were at that church how would you take Paul's words? It is so similar to what Jesus said in Matthew 16:28:

Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Yet it continues to be pushed out to a period of time almost 2,000 years from the original audience. Do you really believe something that wouldn't be happening for at least 1,950 years would be of any immediate encouragement especially since Paul named the persecutors (you know, the ones who were troubling that church) as the first century unbeliving Jews? That doesn't make any sense at all, IMHO. I'll stay quiet on this issue for now and let others have their peace.

[Allyn]

TK said:

I don't see any direct promises that Jesus is coming back in their lifetime, or even that their persecutors would be judged in their lifetime. I simply see a "hang in there for the cause" sort of encouragement. And if Paul was so certain of everything, why was he so incredibly vague about what he was talking about? If he truly knew the exact details and just said them, we wouldn't be having these debates.

This is why the better way to understand that all things were fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem is to search the Scriptures for the teaching on when the main events were to take place. As a preterist I believe that the writers were teaching their readers to be prepared for the times to come in their lives but the real teaching of the events and their timing are not based on how we undertand who the warnings and encouragements from the writers of the epistles were for. Hopefully I can make some headway in yours and others better understanding of the timing as discussed in my thread.

[TK]

Mellontes wrote:

If you were at that church how would you take Paul's words?

The same way I take scripture today that I believe has a future fulfillment. It may or may not happen in my lifetime. Either way, I need to be a disciple of Christ so that I am ready if and when it does happen.

I am still not sure why Paul wasnt more clear for such an important topic if it was really going to happen to them directly.

TK

[TK]

Allyn wrote:

Hopefully I can make some headway in yours and others better understanding of the timing as discussed in my thread.

What I think would be helpful is if you comprised a "full preterist" timeline sort of like the dispensationalist do, marking key events, like the rapture, the 2d coming, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, etc. I read the wikipedia article on FT and it gave me a decent overview but I would still like to see a timeline.

TK

[steve7150]

Yet it continues to be pushed out to a period of time almost 2,000 years from the original audience. Do you really believe something that wouldn't be happening for at least 1,950 years would be of any immediate encouragement especially since Paul named the persecutors (you know, the ones who were troubling that church) as the first century unbeliving Jews? That doesn't make any sense at all, IMHO. I'll stay quiet on this issue for now and let others have their peace.
Mellontes



Even if 2nd Thes 1 is speaking of 70AD , it's hard for me to conceive the entire book of Rev is about 70AD. I mean that would be the ultimate example of overkill. I can accept it was written around 65AD and that the beginning part is about 70AD , but there are 3 judgments of Jerusalem and instead of repeating the same event 3 times with different symbols i think it is referring to separate events over the church age. The bible has prophecied things thousands of years in advance yet suddenly in the last book of the bible it only prophecied an event 5 years in advance and says nothing about anything in this world after that? Does'nt make sense to me. The book is not just about the Old vs New Covenant it's called the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
I think historicism is the most balanced and logical approach to the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

[Mellontes]

Even if 2nd Thes 1 is speaking of 70AD , it's hard for me to conceive the entire book of Rev is about 70AD. I mean that would be the ultimate example of overkill. I can accept it was written around 65AD and that the beginning part is about 70AD , but there are 3 judgments of Jerusalem and instead of repeating the same event 3 times with different symbols i think it is referring to separate events over the church age. The bible has prophecied things thousands of years in advance yet suddenly in the last book of the bible it only prophecied an event 5 years in advance and says nothing about anything in this world after that? Does'nt make sense to me. The book is not just about the Old vs New Covenant it's called the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
I think historicism is the most balanced and logical approach to the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Since the topic has changed to Revelation...

I guess it all depends upon whether one believes the following verse to be 2,000 years into the future from the time of the writing or whether the events were to transpire soon as the author says repeatedly:

Revelation 22:10 - And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Would you agree that the "sayings of this prophecy" referred to what was written in the book of Revelation?
If this letter was read in your fellowship, would you think the time was at hand? Or would you have thought something like this:

"John is not writing to me at all. What he said has nothing to do with me or my situation. He must be talking to those believers who are 2,000 years removed from us." All futurists are forced to believe the latter or their paradigm disintegrates.

Why was the prophecy of Daniel to be sealed up (Daniel 12:4, 9)? Answer: because it was for many days (long time). Revelation's prophecies were not to be sealed up. Why? Answer: because the time was at hand. The timing is clear unless you prefer to believe "at hand" meant at least 1,950 years. Added to this is the fact that Daniel's prophecies were brought up by many authorized individuals concerning the "time of the end" within a first century context. Remember, the "end" is not in reference to a planet or our history; it is in reference to covenant.

I have said this before. Futurism destroys the relevancy to whom the letters were written. The original interpretation is denied in favor of a future audience.

Please understand that I was a futurist dispensationalist for over 20 years. It was shocking enough to realize that the dispensational paradigm for Israel was skewed. And yet it is still held by the majority of North American churches. Does majority constitute truth? No.

And just some speculation here...The fourth Gospel is the only Gospel that does not contain an Olivet discourse. Could it be that John is now giving it in the book of Revelation?

[StephenPatrick]

Good morning.

I think it was a combination of Bible studies from Steve, Allyn, Mellontes, psychomike, and my own personal studies which turned me from futurism to preterism. It took a few years to break me. I couldn't deny the audience revelance issue, nor the many time statements throughout the NT. The closer one gets to the end there seems to be a sense of urgency, as if time is running out. At least thats how I've come to understand it, and believe it to be true.

Steve