|
|
|
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic || ECF/AECF || Fonts |
Endtimes Chart |
|
"Full Preterist" material is being archived for balanced representation of all Preterist views, but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The classification of all Full Preterism as Hyper Preterism is built upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and the convictions of the website curator (a former full preterist pastor). Beginning in 2006, it was recognized that the "spiritual resurrection past" view is toxic and cancerous, and also that it has been explicitly prosecuted since at least the days of Paul. This theology of resurrection with its dispensational line in AD70 (end of old age, start of new age) has never been according to the teachings found in Christianity throughout its entire history leading up to 1845, when the earliest known Full Preterist book was written. Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, the premises between them are undeniably and fundamentally different. On AD70 dispensational line: According to full preterism, AD70 was the end of the old age ('this age') and the start of the 'age to come'. The world which followed AD70 was fundamentally changed, according to the power and glory of the coming of Christ at the fall of Jerusalem. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of Christianity as seen in the New Testament. Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only when Herod's Temple in Jerusalem fell. This is contrary to John's recording of Jesus seeing that 'all things had been fulfilled' and "It is finished" at the cross (Jn. 19) - not 40 years later.. / http://preteristheresy.blogspot.com/ |
|
SOME DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES OF SYSTEMATIZED HYPER PRETERISM It is important to keep in mind that many ideas and doctrines full preterism appeals to - such as the complete end of the Old Covenant world in AD70 - are by no means distinctive to that view. Many non HyPs believe this as well, so one need not embrace the Hyper Preterist system in order to endorse this view. Following are exceptional doctrines which, so far as I've seen, are only taught by adherents of Hyper Preterism.: DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD FULL PRETERISM
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VARIOUS FORMS
|
Christ's Post-Resurrection Mode By Ward Fenley This is a short article in response to those preterists who believe that Christ had a physical and visible body after His resurrection and before His ascension. This article is not primarily to defend the present nature of Christ's resurrection body (the church), however, it will address that issue to a certain extent.
What did they doubt? They doubted if it was REALLY HIM in the temporal physical body with which He was raised.
Do these say His primary MODE of existence was invisible? Absolutely not. In fact they say that He was HOLDING their eyes so that they should not know Him. In other words HE didn't change, but HE held their eyes so that HE APPEARED differently to THEM. He was the same, but HE was holding THEIR eyes so that to THEM He appeared differently. This is exactly the case here:
Consider the use of the word "FORM." It simply means shape or nature. To THEM He appeared in a different form. Why? Because He was HOLDING their eyes. It simply cannot be argued that He META morphosized simply because it says He ephanerothe en etera morphe. Not to mention the fact that the term "appeared" is in the aorist passive indicative which means that the subject (Christ) was having the passiveness of appearing unto THEM. Christ was not ACTIVELY changing HIS form. Rather, the passiveness is that Because THEIR eyes were held, Christ was, as the subject of the appearance unto them, appearing passively. I.e. He was not the one ACTIVELY changing His form. Why? He was the one who was HOLDING their eyes, therefore the appearing in a different form was not in the active voice because HE was not APPEARING actively. We cannot separate the Mark account from Luke.
Was she saying this to an invisible person? How did she see something that cannot be seen with the physical eyes?
Certainly they did not constrain an invisible man?
Was the bread floating in thin air?
Again, who did the opening here. It was NOT that He performed a metamorphosis, rather, it was that He took His sovereign holding power off their eyes. Then He chose to vanish. NOW, does vanishing necessitate a glorified fleshly spiritual body?
So was Philip a glorified fleshly Body? Before AD 70?
This is the only place that one could possibly argue that Christ was Invisible. But even here if He was invisible, this is one case out of the abundance which I have shown. Not only this, but again, it says Christ vanished (middle deponent or active voice) out of their sight. Indeed, Christ left them. But does that necessitate that His form was "primarily invisible"? I think not. Consider these Scriptures:
Some might argue that Christ was not physical here. Well, if that is the case, and the Devil did the "bringing" and the Devil knew Christ was invisible, then why would the Devil be so stupid as to ask Christ to throw Himself off the Temple if He was invisible?
Again, I emphasize the Ben Johnson affect. But farbeit for Christ to take anabolic steroids. I assure you, Christ was Jewish, not Canadian. Also:
Isn't it amazing how when Christ performed a miracle such as this, they SUPPOSED that they had seen a spirit both before AND after His resurrection. When Christ was eating with them AFTER His resurrection, we read:
John writes:
Again, the MANNER of Jesus after His resurrection or MODE was not appearing in an invisible state but that He holds His people's eyes. Why can they not see Him? Because Christ, through these examples, is emphasizing that even if a man were to rise from the dead they cannot recognize Him for He holds their eyes:
Again, Christ was holding her eyes:
Gardeners are typically not invisible. She SUPPOSED Him to be the gardener. Jesus was not the gardener. (Just a quick note: It really doesn't make sense for Christ to show His people His hands and His feet (the scars) if He was going around putting Himself in different FORMS or SHAPES. When Paul says:
Notice that Christ was SEEN (optanomai). Now at first glance it may seem like verse 8 is an argument in favor that Christ had the same physical body that He had while He showed Himself to the apostles. But Paul qualifies his own SEEING of Christ with the phrase, "As one born out of due time." In other words, Paul was the only apostle that SAW Christ for the first time POST Pentecost. In other words, every other apostle saw Christ the first time PRE-Pentecost in His physical state. But Paul's first experience (as an apostle) seeing Christ was AFTER Pentecost when people were already SEEING Christ spiritually under the bond of the New Covenant. This was not taking place before Pentecost. Some may argue that we cannot interpret OPTANOMAI in a spiritual way. The Scriptures, however, teach otherwise:
If Christ is the Resurrection and the LIFE, then if we do not SEE (OPTANOMAI) Him, then we do not yet have life:
Through the Gospel, we see Christ. Paul SAW Christ for the first time in His (Christ's) POST-Post-Ascension state. Otherwise there would be no need for Paul to identify Himself as an apostle born out of due time. Again, it is imperative that we understand that seeing Christ is not what makes a person an apostle, for there were over five-hundred brethren who saw Christ but were not considered apostles.
Again, here is a passage to which Paul alludes in 1 Corinthians which proves that after Christ's resurrection, yet before Pentecost, Christ showed Himself with many infallible proofs. The "seeing" of Christ in the New Covenant sense would not take place until Pentecost. But it was imperative that an apostle MUST have seen Christ, whether pre-resurrection or post-Pentecost. Under the New Covenant, we see Christ through the Gospel. Optanomai in the most spiritual sense is the word used to describe our seeing Christ under the New Covenant THROUGH the Gospel. Finally, to finish my proof that Christ was NOT primarily in an imaginary invisible mode while in His fleshly body after His resurrection, I cite the following:
How could this woman be touching Jesus and Jesus be concerned about it if He was PRIMARILY invisible?
They were glad when they saw the Lord. Certainly this is not referring to invisibility. Christ's invisibility came when He took the throne to become King, which was AFTER His ascension:
He ascended to become the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God:
I would like to summarize by saying this: Christ indeed showed Himself to His apostles and there is no place in Scripture that says Christ's pre-Pentecost, post-Resurrection state was invisible. He was raised physically as a sign of the greater reality of the eternal and spiritual resurrection:
Now, however, the New Covenant is explicit:
Last,
In other words, Christ being made under the law, as a man and a servant, in the likeness of men, was considered of no reputation and humiliated. Farbeit for the Almighty to carry that state into heaven. Christ prayed for no such thing:
Implication: Christ wanted what He had before His manifestation: The Glory of the Father. His prayer was answered and He returned to that same glory He had before the foundation of the world:
|
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996 |