Is the Resurrection already past?

[Allyn]

Hi TK,
You said:

I guess my point is, to Allyn and everybody, that regardless of our eschatology views, should we not strive to be the best followers of Christ we can be?

Yes

I mean, it doesn't matter if His 2nd coming was 2000 years ago or whether it is 2000 years from now.

I think it matters much because it is, as I see it today, the flow and reason for the coming of Christ and if it is not all done by now then there is much incompleteness also in our spiritual well being. Besides that - truth matters.

If He tells me to do something, I had better do it, regardless.

What's he telling you to do - flee to the mountains?
If He told you He is coming quickly how will you interpret that since it has been almost 4 times longer now then it was from Daniel to the AOD in the 1st century and he was told that would be a far off future time.

From what I have read at this forum about FP(yes Allyn- I did read your other post when I asked this question but I told you I really didnt get what you were saying) I dont think embracing it would change anything in the way we should live our Christian lives.

I do appreciate you reading.

[steve7150]

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.





It's not that John is speaking to believers 2,000 years later, because he is speaking to all believers of any age , not just a tiny group of people 2,000 years ago and not just to believers 2,000 years later.
As i said BTW i'm not a so called futurist as you coin it, i'm a historicist , and you did'nt answer my question which was in Rev we find 3 different descriptions of judgment against Jerusalem. Either they are 3 different events or the same event repeated 3 times over in close proximity. Jerusalem has been destroyed several different times starting in 70AD, then muslims overan it and built the Dome of the Rock, the Crusades overan it and Iran is threatening it now. So from history it sounds like three different events , the Preterist sees it as three different descriptions of the same event, which seems like overkill to me. Jesus predicted it's destruction once in the Olivet Discourse , so do we need the entire book of Revelation to repeat what Jesus already said in 3 different gospels or does the Revelation of Jesus Christ contain additional material not already revealed. Remember the name of this book is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." Revelation means something not previously revealed.

[Mellontes]

It's not that John is speaking to believers 2,000 years later, because he is speaking to all believers of any age , not just a tiny group of people 2,000 years ago and not just to believers 2,000 years later.

As I said BTW I'm not a so called futurist as you coin it, I'm a historicist , and you did'nt answer my question which was in Rev we find 3 different descriptions of judgment against Jerusalem. Either they are 3 different events or the same event repeated 3 times over in close proximity. Jerusalem has been destroyed several different times starting in 70AD, then muslims overan it and built the Dome of the Rock, the Crusades overan it and Iran is threatening it now. So from history it sounds like three different events , the Preterist sees it as three different descriptions of the same event, which seems like overkill to me. Jesus predicted it's destruction once in the Olivet Discourse , so do we need the entire book of Revelation to repeat what Jesus already said in 3 different gospels or does the Revelation of Jesus Christ contain additional material not already revealed. Remember the name of this book is "The Revelation of Jesus Christ." Revelation means something not previously revealed.

"It's not that John is speaking to believers 2,000 years later, because he is speaking to all believers of any age , not just a tiny group of people 2,000 years ago and not just to believers 2,000 years later. "

I see. May I ask which one of the seven churches you associate yourself with? Can you not see your own dismissal of the historical time frame with such a comment? Where does John say he is writing to believers of every age? I can show you with Scripture that he is writing to believers from seven first century Asian churches. Paul wrote his epistles to specific churches too. Each Apostle has their own specific audience. Sure there are spiritual applications that continue into our time frame, BUT HISTORICAL EVENTS (Jewish persecution, etc.) STAY BACK IN THE PAST WHERE THEY BELONG! (Sorry to shout).

As long as you believe all prophecies have not been fulfilled, then you are a futurist. Israeli people adhering to the Talmud would probably be at the highest level of futurism because they are still waiting for their Messiah to come the first time. And just because prophecies have been fulfilled does not mean there are no continuing applications. For example, the prophecy of Calvary has been fulfilled but its continuing availability has not stopped.

Your meaning of Revelation is incorrect. It simply means a revealing. You might want to check out all the other uses of αποκαλυψις (Strong's G602) and see how it was used throughout the NT. It would be poor exegesis to dismiss those meanings in favor of a contemporary one, right?

I don't even remember seeing your question. Sorry. But at a quick glance it seems your interpretation is future based too. I don't remember seeing Muslim, Crusades, or Iran in Revelation at all. These are all futurist interpretations to dismiss the clear first century context.

And why is the first century context dismissed so willingly? It is because of the futurist's preconceived view of the nature of the resurrection and the parousia event. There is no consideration at all to re-think those two traditional venues of thought. It is much easier to dismiss the clear time frame of imminency to the first century generation. Remember C.S. Lewis? I am fairly sure you may have seen what he said concerning the imminency of the Lord's return to that first century generation:

“The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” (Essay; “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)

Frankly, I think C.S. Lewis is the embarassment and not my Lord Jesus Christ. See what awful comments are made simply because we won't accept the clear first century timing? My Christ is NOT delusionary!

[steve7150]

see. May I ask which one of the seven churches you associate yourself with? Can you not see your own dismissal of the historical time frame with such a comment? Where does John say he is writing to believers of every age? I can show you with Scripture that he is writing to believers from seven first century Asian churches. Paul wrote his epistles to specific churches too. Each Apostle has their own specific audience. Sure there are spiritual applications that continue into our time frame, BUT HISTORICAL EVENTS (Jewish persecution, etc.) STAY BACK IN THE PAST WHERE THEY BELONG! (Sorry to shout).

As long as you believe all prophecies have not been fulfilled, then you are a futurist. Israeli people adhering to the Talmud would probably be at the highest level of futurism because they are still waiting for their Messiah to come the first time. And just because prophecies have been fulfilled does not mean there are no continuing applications. For example, the prophecy of Calvary has been fulfilled but its continuing availability has not stopped.




Once again i must repeat that i'm an historicist who believes the first part of Rev applies to those actual churches before 70AD but then Rev moves forward over the balance of the church age. I think chap 9 applies to the birth and spread of Islam for example therefore i don't believe all prophecies have yet to be fulfilled, only some. So your "futurist" label is inaccurate and seems to be a label you use often to marginalize any criticism of preterism.
Of course again you avoided any of my valid questions re why Jesus would need over 20 chapters to describe a brief historical event already clearly desribed
in three gospels or why Jesus would describe 3 different judgments of Jerusalem if it was the same event in 70AD.
All through the bible prophets spoke to an immediate audience like Isaiah did in chap 53 or when he said Jesus would be born to a virgin or Micah said he would be born in Bethelem And God said "the seed of the women" yet these things applied to events hundreds and thousands of years later. So this "immediate audience " mantra has to be applied on a case to case basis and not dismissed by labeling anyone who disagrees as a "futurist".

[StephenPatrick]

Good morning steve7150.

For a pretty good study on the judgments of Jerusalem, please go to this study by Duncan McKenzie on the covenant judgements in Revelation.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Modern/ ... gment.html

He makes the pretty good case that these are describing in detail the judgements in Leviticus and Deuteronomy upon the nation of Israel. I think this will help answer your question as to why they are presented in Revelation.

Your statement concerning Isaiah 53 and Genesis 3 have no time fulfillment within them. Micah is concerned with the future destruction of Samaria and Jerusalem. In Micah 4:1 it starts off with, "But in the last days", (time indicator) and within those last days are the prophecy of a ruler coming from Bethlehem, and finishes with Micah 7:19-20 that God will have compassion on us, subdue our iniquities, and cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. (very similar to Isaiah 53:11-12) Preterists understand the last days started with John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:12)

I think that Mellontes has shown that throughout the NT the time indicators are evident, clear, and make much more sense if understood from the viewpoint of the 1st century listeners.

[Mellontes]

...therefore i don't believe all prophecies have yet to be fulfilled, only some. So your "futurist" label is inaccurate and seems to be a label you use often to marginalize any criticism of preterism.

It is obvious that you did not understand what I said. I said if one does not believe ALL prophecies have been fulfilled, then one is a futurist. You clearly admit that ALL prophecies have not been fulfilled, only some. That makes you a futurist. And your comment that I use it to marginalize any criticism of preterism is totally unwarranted and unnecessary.

All through the bible prophets spoke to an immediate audience like Isaiah did in chap 53 or when he said Jesus would be born to a virgin or Micah said he would be born in Bethelem And God said "the seed of the women" yet these things applied to events hundreds and thousands of years later.

Where is the specific "time stamping" in those passages?

So this "immediate audience " mantra has to be applied on a case to case basis and not dismissed by labeling anyone who disagrees as a "futurist".

Again, you are using "disruptive" language and an inappropriate tone. Please refrain. The "immediate audience" is not a mantra at all. It is a fact that we must interpret Scripture from a grammatical AND historical point of view. It is just sound hermeneutics. Eschatology is the ONLY branch of theology where the historical portion is rejected and then projected through that worm hole magically ending up in our present day. This is adamantly wrong!

But you are right when you said time statements have to be applied on a case by case basis. And that is exactly what we do. Let's take one case as another example:

"The end of all things is at hand." If you received a letter in which that was said to you and you believed the person was not a liar, what would you think it meant?

Or how about "the time is at hand."

Or how about "the end of the ages has come."

The list is quite long you know...

Futurism rejects the historicity of all the time statements when the passage is eschatological in nature.

[steve7150]

It is obvious that you did not understand what I said. I said if one does not believe ALL prophecies have been fulfilled, then one is a futurist. You clearly admit that ALL prophecies have not been fulfilled, only some. That makes you a futurist. And your comment that I use it to marginalize any criticism of preterism is totally unwarranted and unnecessary.




If someone believes most prophecies have been fulfilled but not all and that is the definition of a futurist, then IMHO it's a misleading description, but that's up to you. I think it lumps everyone else in one pot who is a non-preterist, but if you see it as an accurate description , that's fine.
As far as time stamping fulfillment dates of various prophecies , IMO many sound to me that the listener would interpret a near term fulfillment even when a specific date is not stated. When God says the seed of the women will crush the head of the serpant, it sounds like Eve's son will crush the serpent's head who had just tempted her. That would be the natural reading if we did'nt know better.

[Mellontes]

If someone believes most prophecies have been fulfilled but not all and that is the definition of a futurist, then IMHO it's a misleading description, but that's up to you. I think it lumps everyone else in one pot who is a non-preterist, but if you see it as an accurate description , that's fine.
As far as time stamping fulfillment dates of various prophecies , IMO many sound to me that the listener would interpret a near term fulfillment even when a specific date is not stated. When God says the seed of the women will crush the head of the serpant, it sounds like Eve's son will crush the serpent's head who had just tempted her. That would be the natural reading if we did'nt know better.

And the natural reading of "the time is at hand" would be 2,000 years??? Isn't this exactly what futurists such as yourself advocate?

Note: By using the label "futurist," please understand that in no way is it meant to be derogatory. It just separates those who believe the parousia event is still future.

[steve7150]

And the natural reading of "the time is at hand" would be 2,000 years??? Isn't this exactly what futurists such as yourself advocate?



No since several times i said that i think the beginning of Rev is concerning 70AD just not all 22 chapters.

[Mellontes]

No since several times i said that i think the beginning of Rev is concerning 70AD just not all 22 chapters.

Oh....you think I was quoting from Rev 1:3...I wasn't. I was quoting from Rev 22:10...regarding all the sayings of the prophesy. You do believe the "sayings of the prophecy" meant the content of his letter, don't you?