Online Bible and Study Tools
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic

 
 


End Times Chart


Introduction and Key

BOOKS:  BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)


AD70 Dispensationalism: According to that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'.    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.    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.

HYPER PRETERISM

"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 (HyP) 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).  The HyP theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70 (end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity 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, their premises are undeniably and fundamentally different.

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"


Systematic Hyper Preterism
(aka "Full Preterism")



Study Archive

Jesus: "It is finished" (AD30)
cf. Hebrews 10:19-22

Click For Site Updates Page

Free Online Books Page

Historical Preterism Main

Modern Preterism Main

Hyper Preterism Main

Preterist Idealism Main

Critical Article Archive Main

Church History's Preteristic Presupposition

Study Archive Main

Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main

Josephus' Wars of the Jews Main

Online Study Bible Main

Hyper Preterism: Defining "Hyper Preterism"- Criticisms from the Inside - Criticisms from the Outside || Progressive Pret | Regressive Pret | Former Full Preterists | Pret Scholars | Normative Pret | Reformed Pret | Pret Idealism | Pret Universalism

William Bell
Max King
Don Preston
Larry Siegle
Kurt Simmons
Ed Stevens
 

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

  • All Bible Prophecy was Fulfilled By AD70

  • Atonement Incomplete at Cross ; Complete at AD70

  • The Supernatural Power of Evil Ended in AD70

  • The Spirit of Antichrist was Destroyed in AD70

  • "The Consummation of the Ages" Came in AD70

  • "The Millennium" is in the Past, From AD30 to AD70

  • Nothing to be Resurrected From in Post AD70 World ; Hades Destroyed

  • The Christian Age Began in AD70 ; Earth Will Never End

  • "The Day of the Lord" was Israel's Destruction ending in AD70

  • The "Second Coming" of Jesus Christ Took Place in AD70-ish

  • The Great Judgment took place in AD70 ; No Future Judgment

  • The Law, Death, Sin, Devil, Hades, etc. Utterly Defeated in AD70

  • "The Resurrection" of the Dead and Living is Past, Having Taken Place in AD70

  • The Context of the Entire Bible is Pre-AD70 ; Not Written To Post AD70 World

DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VARIOUS FORMS
(under construction)

  • Baptism was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

  • The Lord's Prayer was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

  • The Lord's Supper was for Pre-AD70 Era (Cessationism)

  • The Holy Spirit's Paraclete Work Ceased in AD70 (Cessationism)

  • The Consummation in AD70 Caused Church Offices to Cease (Cessationism)

  • The Resurrection in AD70 Changed the "Constitutional Principle" of Marriage (Noyesism)

  • Israel and Humanity Delivered into Ultimate Liberty in AD70 (TransmillennialismTM)

  • The Judgment in AD70 Reconciled All of Mankind to God ; All Saved (Preterist Universalism)

  • Adam's Sin No Longer Imputed in Post AD70 World ; No Need to be Born Again (Preterist Universalism)

  • When Jesus Delivered the Kingdom to the Father in AD70, He Ceased Being The Intermediary (Pantelism/Comprehensive Grace?)

  • The Book of Genesis is an Apocalypse; is About Creation of First Covenant Man, not First Historical Man (Covenantal Preterism)

 

An Answer to Trotter's "Naughty Names"

By David Johnson

Why it is Perfectly Ok To Say Naughty Things About Heretical Preterists | An Answer to Trotter's "Naughty Names" | A (Somewhat) Irenic Response to Certain Naughty Heretical Preterists


In the article, “Why it is Perfectly Ok To Say Naughty Things About Heretical Preterists”, Trotter labels all preterists as heretics by linking them doctrinally to the first century heretics, Hymenaeus and Philetus. After supposedly proving his case he feels compelled to throw out more derogatory names regarding preterists such as, “crazy”, “quasi-gnostic”, “quasi-manichean”, “quasi-liberal”, and by implication, “sleazy.” His conclusion states that the real motivation behind all “hyperpreterists is not the love of the truth but the fear of the (divine) supernatural”. Are these charges true?

Trotter asserts that preterists are heretics because, “ Hymenaeus and Philetus believed back then exactly what the hyperpreterist believe now: the resurrection of the dead has already occurred”. He then asserts that preterists seek the impossible, that is, to disassociate themselves from Hymenaeus and Philetus by arguing that Paul was disagreeing with those two, not over the nature of the resurrection, but rather, over its timing. This is impossible according to Trotter because Paul would have never labeled these guys blasphemous, gangrenous, faith-shipwrecked, and consigned to Satan since Hymenaeus and Philetus were only off by about 40 years. What did Hymenaeus and Philetus believe 2000 years ago? Do preterists believe exactly what Hymenaeus and Philetus believed back then? What exactly does the scripture say? And, would a 40-year difference in the timing of the resurrection make a difference in Paul’s mind?

Not much is known about Hymenaeus and Philetus. What we do know is found in 1 and 2 Timothy.

2 Timothy 2
16Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.

Hymenaeus is probably the one mentioned in 1Timothy 1:20

1 Timothy 1
20Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.

What did Hymenaeus and Philetus believe? Most importantly what specifically did Hymenaeus and Philetus believe that caused the faith of many to be destroyed? According to 1 and 2 Timothy the following is what Hymenaeus and Philetus believed and practiced:

They engaged in meaningless talk and godless chatter. 1Tim 1:6, 20 &

2Tim 2:16.

They believed that the resurrection had already taken place. 2Tim 2:18

They probably held to a form of first century Gnosticism. 1Tim 6:20

 

What specifically was Hymenaeus and Philetus teaching that was ruining the faith of some? It is hard to pinpoint exactly what they taught and precisely what was ruining the faith of some. Maybe it was the meaningless talk about myths and genealogies. Maybe it was the godless chatter that caused those who engaged in it to become more ungodly. Maybe it was their Gnostic beliefs which Paul says, “some have professed and in so doing have wandered from the faith.”(1Tim 6:20,21). Or maybe it was their idea that the resurrection had already taken place. More than likely it was a combination of all these things that together were contributing to the destruction of the faith of some. Is preterist theology ruining the faith of Christians today? I can not think of a single Christian whose faith has been ruined on account of preterist theology. On the other hand, I have heard of several people who have questioned their faith and even rejected Christianity because they thought the scriptures were errant regarding the numerous time sensitive predictions which in their mind failed to take place. There is no more a link between Hymenaeus and preterists than there is between Jehovah’s Witnesses and Evangelical Christians. True, preterists believe the resurrection was past as of AD 70 and Hymenaeus pre-AD 70 but this does not make them Hymeneans. This is a distinction with major differences. As we shall see, preterist have scriptural reasons for believing in a first century Coming, Judgment, Kingdom and Resurrection.

According to scripture, what was Paul’s problem with their teaching about the resurrection? Was it not that that the resurrection had already taken place? “They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.” Could it be clearer? It was a matter of timing. Trotter seeks to dismiss this conclusion by saying, “ Paul could not have possibly gotten that upset over a few decades worth of difference in timing between himself and Hymenaeus.” And because in Trotter’s mind this miscalculation is only a “whopping forty years”, he reasons that Paul must have been upset over Hymenaeus’ understanding of the nature of the resurrection. If Paul was so upset over Hymenaeus’ understanding of the nature of the resurrection, then why did he not challenge their non-physical concept? This would have been Paul’s golden opportunity to challenge their erroneous concept of the resurrection. Instead Paul challenges their understanding of the timing.

The whole thrust of Trotter’s argument hinges on the “only forty years” theory. If forty years difference in the timing of the resurrection between Paul and Hymenaeus is not enough of a discrepancy for Paul to consign them to Satan, then how many years would it take? If they were off by a hundred years would that be enough? How about 200 years? Maybe 1000 years? Surely there must be some magical number of years that would satisfy Trotter’s requirements. The point is: the number of year’s difference between their timing of the resurrection is irrelevant. The issue was that the resurrection up to that point had not yet taken place. “They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.” For Trotter to argue that Paul was upset with Hymenaeus and Philetus not over the timing but rather over the nature is to completely miss what the text says. I have to admit that this is creative. Does this type of reasoning crumble the preterists position, ala Trotter? I don’t know of anyone in the universe that holds to such a theory. And this is supposed to be the logic that pierces the preterists “buncombe”!

Why then did Paul get so upset over the teaching of Hymenaeus and Philetus? What were the implications of a pre-AD 70 resurrection? First of all, to teach a pre-AD 70 resurrection would undermine the teaching and inspiration of Jesus and the Apostles. Jesus and the Apostles taught that before the consummation of the Kingdom, certain events must take place. For example: the destruction of the temple, abomination of desolation, the apostasy, the man of lawlessness, etc. To teach otherwise would prove Jesus and the Apostles to be false teachers and thus call into question the very essence of the gospel. Secondly, to teach a pre-AD 70 resurrection would jeopardize the full and final consummation. The first century saints lived in the transition period known as the “last days”. The old covenant was fading away while the new covenant, which had already come, was being fully ratified and would soon cause the old to pass away (Heb 8:13). To teach that the resurrection was past would imply that the earthly sacrificial system, which was still in practice, would have lasting significance in the new covenant. This would cause confusion among Christians who trusted in Jesus as their once and for all sacrifice. This would leave the church confused and wondering whether or not the external regulations of the old covenant were to apply even into the time of the new order (Heb. 9:10). The church would be left in a state of unfinished transition. Thirdly, to teach a pre-AD 70 resurrection would imply that the Lord’s coming and Judgement had already arrived. But what about the first century Christians that were promised relief at the Lord’s coming, “He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled…(2Thess 1:5-10). If the consummation had already occurred before AD70 then the implication would be that there was not going to be relief. The first century Christians would have to live with persecution indefinitely; however, in AD 70 the chief persecutors of the church, the Jews, were judged and the promised relief was given. Preterists believe that the coming of the Lord in AD 70 marked the beginning of a new age. Christianity and Judaism would forever be separated. God took away the Kingdom from Israel and gave it to the new spiritual Israel, the Church. This was the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written (Lk 21:22). These are major differences, which clearly separate Preterists from Hymenaeus and Philetus. If the words of Jesus and Paul were not fulfilled completely, then this would mean utter devastation to the first century believer. The issue of the resurrection, its timing and nature, will not be settled simply by a study of Hymenaeus and Philetus. The issue of the resurrection is inseparably tied to the Lord’s coming, the coming of His kingdom, and the judgment. Any serious study on the resurrection must deal with these events and how they relate to one another.

Trotter calls the preterists AD 70 argument a “slick rhetorical trick”. Is this true? Are there any scriptures that tell us when the resurrection would take Place? Consider the following:

Daniel 12
1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Daniel 12
6 One of them said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, "How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?"
7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time. [
1] When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed."

In Daniel 12:2 Daniel is told that in the time of the end (not end of time) multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. This is undoubtedly the resurrection. Notice when this resurrection was supposed to be fulfilled, v.7, “When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed." Was there a time in history when this was accomplished? Was this not fulfilled in AD70 at the destruction of Israel when the owner of the vineyard returned and brought judgment on covenant breaking Israel and gave the Kingdom to another Nation? The resurrection in Daniel 12 is further linked to the first century. Notice the parallels with Matthew 24 that Trotter would admit was fulfilled in AD 70.

Daniel 12:1 & Matthew 24:21 “time of distress”

Daniel 12:4,9,13 & Mat 24:3,14 “Time of the end”, “the end”, “end of the age”

Daniel 12: 11 & Matthew 24:15 “the abomination that causes desolation”

So then we have seen that the resurrection spoken of in Daniel 12 was to be fulfilled when the power of the holy people has been finally broken. That time was none other than AD 70 when God finally once and for all judged apostate Israel for her covenant unfaithfulness. Notice what Luke says about this time of judgment.

Luke 21

20"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

32"I tell you the truth, this generation[1] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the fulfillment of “all that has been written”, and that would include the resurrection. The inescapable conclusion is that the resurrection had to be fulfilled in the first century before that generation passed away.

Matthew 16
27For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Here Jesus predicts His coming, His kingdom, the judgment, and the resurrection. When will this take place? Before all of his first century audience fell asleep. Notice the link between resurrection and rewards. (Matt. 25:31-46; Rev. 20:12-15) Thus there is a connection between Jesus’ coming/kingdom/judgment/and resurrection (2Tim4:1; 1Cor 15:23).

Partial preterist have sought to play down this connection by introducing the “multiple comings” theory. They say that the Bible teaches two comings, an AD 70 coming and an “end of time” coming. Does the Bible teach such a theory? And if so where? This is tantamount to the dispensationalist which demand a third temple. As someone once said, “necessity is the mother of invention”. Nowhere is this clearer than with the partial preterist and their third coming theory. Suffice it to say that the scriptures know nothing of a third coming (Hebrews 9:26-28).

Matthew 24&25

1 Corinthians 15
51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—

1 Thessalonians 4
15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

These 3 passages (Matt 24&25 ;1Thess 4; 1Cor 15) are speaking in reference to the same event(s). Each passage speaks of the Lord's coming, trumpet call of God, gathering of the saints (resurrection), and each passage has a time statement attached to it linking it to the first century ("this
generation”, "we will not all sleep", “ we who are alive and remain"). Unless
there are two comings, two trumpet blasts, and two resurrections separated by thousands of years then these passages are speaking of the same event(s). Also, the time statements firmly place the fulfillment of those event(s) squarely in the first century.

Partial preterists try to argue that phrases like " we will not all sleep",
and "we who are alive at his coming", are not time sensitive statements, but
they are. In fact, textual critics like Bruce Metzer have demonstrated that 1Cor 15: 51 have been corrupted by well meaning scribes as early as the 2nd century. Scribes sought to help Paul out of a jam by rewording 1Cor 15:51 to "we will all sleep" since the 1st century saints all slept and apparently the Lord failed to return in their lifetime. To those second century scribes who were wrestling with the parousia-delay it was time sensitive. These phrases are no different from, "some standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Matt 16:27,28) and this phrase is taken by all partial preterist as pointing to AD 70. In each case the context is the lifetime of the audience. Some would live to see it some would not.

Acts 24
15and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there is (about to be) a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

According to the Alfred Marshall interlinear, Acts 24:15 should be translated, “about to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked”, thus placing Paul’s expectation of the resurrection in his lifetime. This would be consistent with what we have seen in the above verses.

 

Because of scripture verses like these and many others, preterists are compelled to believe in an AD 70 fulfillment of the resurrection. Appeals to church history, number of adherents, derogatory name-calling, and false accusations regarding ones motives are not going to convince the serious Bible student. Preterists are committed to the scriptures and the scriptures alone.

In conclusion, Preterist are not like Hymenaeus and Philetus for the reasons stated above. I do not know of anyone whose faith has been destroyed by preterism nor have I heard of such. Trotter’s accusations of “quasi-gnostic”, “quasi-manichean”, “quasi-liberal”, “sleazy”, and “fearful of the divine supernatural” are completely bogus and with out merit. What baffles me most is Trotter’s presumptuous remarks, “I am convinced that what really motivates the hyperpreterist is not the love of the truth, but the fear of the divine supernatural. Heretical preterist are usually highly intelligent rationalist who wouldn’t believe a miracle if it happened right in front of their eyes.” This statement is utterly and completely outrageous. Where is Trotter coming from with this kind of accusation? How can he make such an outlandish accusation? Does this perhaps tell us something of his motivation?

David Johnson

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security


Date:
25 Oct 2002
Time:
13:35:00

Comments

Great work. Thanks for submitting the article! Todd


Date:
25 Oct 2002
Time:
17:59:14

Comments

With respect to Dan. 12:2, Philip Mauro, so highly regarded by preterists, said in chapter 10 of "The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation" that nothing is said in that verse "about either death or resurrection." Also, since the present author constantly refers to THE resurrection he apparently does not realize that the NT speaks of TWO resurrections involving mankind -- that of the dead in Christ at his first-century parousia and the still future resurrection of those who were NOT in Christ at that time and will not be resurrected until the end of this present, symbolically described "thousand years" (Rev. 20:5-15).


Date:
28 Oct 2002
Time:
02:01:57

Comments

the heretics cannot even keep their story straight... why? Because you cannot live a lie. Johnson said, "The issue of the resurrection is inseparably tied to the Lord’s coming, the coming of His kingdom, and the judgment. Any serious study on the resurrection must deal with these events and how they relate to one another." Big fat raspberry. Biblical version of the statement. "The issue of the resurrection is inseparably tied to the Lord's coming, the ENDING of His Kingdom, and the judgment......" 1 Cor 15 makes it clear this event ENDS the Messianic Kingdom. Most Hymenaeans recognize this and warp other Scriptures... but Johnson apparently can't keep his errors straight.


Date:
28 Oct 2002
Time:
07:23:16

Comments

By all means lets set the story sraight. Luke 21:31 states,"Even so when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near." 2Tim4:1 states,"In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who being about to judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, etc. See also Dan 2:44;7:14 We can debate the meaning of 1Cor 15:24,25. Is it Christ's Kingdom? Is it the Father's Kingdom? Or do they co-reign together? However, the point is: The Kingdom which was future to the first century church was about to come and with it the resurrection and the judgement. This is the overwhelming testimony of scripture. Are you willing to submit your presuppositions to the infalliable God breathed scriptures?


Date:
28 Oct 2002
Time:
12:16:38

Comments

Further nonsense. Christ's use of Daniel 7 in the Olivet Discourse makes it clear what Kingdom is in view. The Messianic Kingdom. Your sleight of hand tricks are not convincing. 1 Cor 15 makes it clear that the resurrection ENDS the special Messianic reign of Christ. There is a special period of time of Christ's prominence in which He is not subjected to the Father in a way that He will be once it is over. The heretics must squeeze that into forty years.. and if we look at Eph 1:20 et al, must squeeze two ages into forty years for Paul makes it explicit that Christ's special position which is spoken about ad nauseam in Scripture was to last in the age in which Paul was writing and through the end of the "age to come" which is our age.


Date:
28 Oct 2002
Time:
12:19:10

Comments

Boy it must suck to be a "preterist" and have to ignore those clear chronology verses about Christ's Kingdom.


Date:
28 Oct 2002
Time:
12:43:19

Comments

Poison.


Date:
29 Oct 2002
Time:
17:37:04

Comments

1) We really don't know whether or not H&P were gnostics. 2) The only specific example of the meaningless talk and godless chatter that Hymenaeus and Philetus engaged in is their error concerning the resurrection. So why all of this effort to distract us from the only thing we really know H&P taught? Because that error is so glaring that it grabs our attention like a big red pimple on the end of a nose. Since teaching that the resurrection is past is the only thing we know H&P taught, and Paul singles this out as an error, it follows that if full preterists are also wrong concerning the resurrection, then they are also guilty of the same error, and teaching it amounts to "godless chatter." What made the teaching of H&P so bad was not all of the things Mr. Johnson goes to such pains to enumerate, but the simple fact that the bodies of believers were still in their graves. H&P's teaching led to the heresy that there will be no physical resurrection, just as Full Preterism does. There was no need for Paul to repeat a FOUNDATIONAL doctrine of the faith again to Timothy! The scriptures plainly indicate that both the Jews and the Christians anticipated a PHYSICAL resurrection of the dead! To deny this is to deny a FOUNDATIONAL doctrine of the faith identified in Hebrews 6:2, "the resurrection of dead ones" (note that the Greek word is plural)." According to Thayer, anastasis means "a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat)" I have not yet encountered a single full preterist who has been willing to attempt an answer this question: "How in the world can something be "raised" and yet remain lying down in the grave?" (If any of you are daring enough to try and answer this question, I am all ears!) Why, the very definition of the word "resurrection" shows just what a glaring error Full Preterism is! All Mr. Johnson has done is tenderly apply a lot of makeup on a great big ugly pimple. But it really needs to go. He needs to apply the Oxy10 of the Word of God to that heresy, and stop denying the bodily resurrection of the dead.


Date:
29 Oct 2002
Time:
18:24:22

Comments

Bravo to the last comment!!! Bravo!!!


Date:
29 Oct 2002
Time:
20:36:36

Comments

<In response to the comment two slots above> Where in 2 Timothy 2:16-18 (the passage under debate) is it recorded that Paul said H&P's teachings were so bad because believer's bodies were still in graves? This is reading into the text what is not there. The words of Paul are clear about H&P saying the resurrection had already taken place. It is here the Johnson article does a great job showing what should have troubled believers in Paul's day if their view of the timing of the resurrection was too early. Instead of attacking the article by trying to promote a presupposition of the nature of the resurrection, why not deal head on with the rock solid time statements put forth in the Johnson article? Instead of trying to divert readers' attention away from the article's points why don't those who disagree take the verses with the time statements head on to show the rest of us the correct understanding of the verses IF David Johnson really didn't handle them properly? For the serious person seeking truth this will make a difference in their life. Preterists look to the Bible and see verses with the blatant time statements which help us understand the Bible better. If Preterists are misunderstanding those verses, then those who love them and have the correct understanding will not only take the time to give the proper understanding, but they will do it without words that try to stab their listeners. ___Spencer Morrison


Date:
29 Oct 2002
Time:
22:45:40

Comments

In reply to Spencer Morrison's comment, "If Preterists are misunderstanding those verses, then those who love them and have the correct understanding will not only take the time to give the proper understanding, but they will do it without words that try to stab their listeners."<br> Sometimes, when gentler words fail to work, the most loving thing is to "wake up" someone with tough words. Tragically, one must "cut" to remove cancer or gangrene, if other means fail. When faithful friends inflict wounds out of love, it is usually not perceived as loving by the one who is wounded.<br> Spencer requested time be devoted to replying to the time statements.<br> Daniel 12:2 "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake" - the phrase "dust of the earth" indicates mortal bodies which have returned to dust.<br> Daniel 12:7 "When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed." - how can they be "covenant breaking" as David Johnson said above, and "holy" at the same time?<br> David Johnson wrote, "The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the fulfillment of 'all that has been written', and that would include the resurrection."<br> Luke 21:22 "{That may be fulfilled} (tou plesyenai). Articular infinitive passive to express purpose with accusative of general reference" (RWP)<br> The meaning is that this must happen in order that "all that has been written" may be fulfilled. There are other things that ALSO must happen for "all that has been written" to be fulfilled.<br> "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Scripture teaches two comings of Christ in his kingdom - the first, which occurred during the incarnation, was seen by the disciples. The second will take place at the end of the age. Luke 11:20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you. Luke 4:36 And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits, and they come out. Regarding Luke 21:32, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." Here "this" may refer to a generation "near" in consideration, but far away in time.<br> "We will not all sleep" - Genesis 50:25 "And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence." If Joseph did not mean the current generation of the children of Israel by his plural "you," then it is wrong to say that Paul must have also meant this by "we."<br> Concerning Acts 24:15, most often in scripture, mello is used to express certainty of occurrence. Out of 107 occurrences, it is only translated "about to" six times. Hardly enough to build a case on! Most often it is used in scripture to refer to things that are certain to happen in the future. Consider for instance, Hebrews 11:20: "By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come (mello)."<br> Or 2 Peter 2:6: "And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should (mello) live ungodly;<br>


Date:
30 Oct 2002
Time:
01:44:16

Comments

Bravo again.. I am finding your comments very, very interesting even if I don't agree with each thing you have said... I am still finding it very interesting. I appreciate your zeal in combating this deadly poison.


Date:
30 Oct 2002
Time:
22:39:55

Comments

(Part 1 of 2) <in response to the comments directly before these comments> Thank you for your well thought out and truthful words about faithful friends inflicting wounds out of love. It would be one thing if all of us who are leaving comments knew each other already, but this is not the case. So the only way we can distinguish between those who are disgusted with Preterists and those whose heart truly cares about us is by both the content of the comments and the delivery of the comments. Compare the following statements for example: #1 "Preterists have stupid thinking when it comes to the resurrection." (with no biblical support for the statement) #2 "Preterists are mistaken about the resurrection since they don't see Christ's resurrection as the first fruit of all other resurrections in the actual manner in which the dead are raised." 1 Cor 15:21-23. Since we are in a medium where we are only acquaintences I wanted to remind everyone their delivery isn't buffered by deep friendships offline and that readers notice one's delivery to decide if comments are being used in reaching out to correct in love or if they are missiles in an attack. Not only am I sensitive to this because I feel the sting of some poorly chosen words, but because I've been guilty of it myself and the person I did it to pointed out my lack of grace toward them. None of my comments are an attempt to cancel your previous comments about "wounds from a friend can be trusted" and using words to wake up people. My comments are an attempt to encourage everyone to choose words based on the golden rule especially with people you don't know. (Part 2 of 2 is on the way which is my response to the second part of the previous slot's comments) -- Spencer Morrison


Date:
31 Oct 2002
Time:
01:23:53

Comments

Boy Paul was not very "nice" to Hymenaeaus was here. Perhaps he didn't think he needed to "buffer" his words about vile cancerous heresy. As far as Johnson's claim he never met anyone who's faith has been destroyed, then he hasn't looked very far. Of course whether or not Johnson has met any such person is irrelevant. The Bible says that an incorrect belief about the fundamentals of the resurrection is a matter of eternal life and eternal death. If these people here are wrong they are happily leading others down the path to damnation. I am sorry if I don't feel like making nice about that.


Date:
04 Nov 2002
Time:
21:22:44

Comments

Part 2 (of 2) This is a response to the comments in 4th slot above. >>> I don't see how the statement, "Daniel 12:2 "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake" - the phrase "dust of the earth" indicates mortal bodies which have returned to dust." helps us come up with a conclusion toward the points in the Johnson article. >>> Concerning the question: "How can they be "covenant breaking" as David Johnson said above, and "holy" at the same time?" <in relation to Daniel 12:7 "When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed."> notice Jesus explains in Matthew 24 to his disciples that he will come and destroy the temple before their generation disappeared. In his discourse on his judgement upon the temple he calls it "the holy place" in Matt 24:15. The word, holy, is being used in both Daniel 12:7 and Matt 24:15 not as an adjective to describe the noun's spiritual position, but as part of a phrase that labels a specific group or place. So the power of the holy people (the Jews) was broken when God made his covenant with them disappear in 70 AD by destroying the center of that covenant. Notice in Hebrews 8:13 the introduction of the New covenant made the Old one obsolete and it was soon to disappear back then. >>> The comments about the greek in Luke 21:22 being aritcular infinitive passive don't seem to agree with the translations of the verse. Are you sure you have it correct? A related verse is Matthew 5:18 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." The Olivet Discourse (Matt 24-25, Mk 13:, Luk 21) records Jesus saying "heaven and earth will pass away" in the context of his coming within the generation of those he was talking to. With Jesus' coming upon Jerusalem in its destruction of 70 AD it must be said "the heavens and earth passed away". By the way this is a way previous prophets of God would prophecy a nation's destruction (Isaiah 13, 34 & Ezk 32). So in light of the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse being associated with the end of the Law we can see everything was accomplished based on Matt 5:18. So the translations we have of Luke 21:22 seem to do a great job saying what Jesus wanted his audience to understand about Jerusalem's destruction - "For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written." which also includes Daniel's resurrection prophecy tied to when the holy people's power was broken. >>> The statement made: " The second (coming of Jesus) will take place at the end of the age." is correct. What surprises most people is what the Bible says about the end of the age and Jesus' coming. 1 Cor 10:11 "These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come." Paul's audience had the fulfillment of the ages coming upon them! 1 John 2:18 "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour." John's audience was in the >last hour<!! Hebrews 10:37 "For in just a very little while, 'He who is coming will come and will not delay.'" Jesus' second coming did come and it was at Jerusalem's destruction which brought the end of the age. >>>Regarding the idea that the generation in Luke 21:32, Matt 24:34, & Mark 13:30 may refer to a generation "near" in consideration, but far away in time, it helps to read Matt 23 and focus on verse 36. This is the same wording we find in Lk 21:32, Mt 24:34, & Mk 13:30. Jesus makes it plain he is talking to the generation who is hearing his words. It was that generation that crucified the Messiah, the chosen One, the Prophet, the King of Isreal. To take Jesus' words aimed at that generation and place them on some future generation is not being fair to what Jesus said to them and the disciples. >>>At first glance the use of Joseph's words to his brothers in Gen 50:25 seems to help us better understand Paul's words to the Corinthian believers in 1 Cor 15:51 "We will not all sleep", but realize this is being done without showing the context of Paul's letter. In the very same letter Paul tells the readers that the fulfillment of the ages was coming upon them (1 Cor 10:11) and that the end would come when the last enemy, death, is destroyed. Both events are tied to the resurrection ="We will not all sleep". By looking at 1 Cor 15:53-56 we can see when death meets its end. The passage says death will be swallowed in victory when the mortal is clothed with immortality. Then it says the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. When the law is done away with then death no longer has sting. It is defeated. When was the law done away with? It was done away with at the destruction of the temple in 70 AD (biblical support for this is mentioned earlier). So the resurrection took place at the same time when death was defeated at 70 AD. So there isn't a parallel of pronoun use between "you" in Ge 50: 25 and "we" in 1 Cor 15:51. >>> The NIV Exhaustive Concordance states the greek word, mello, is in the NT 109 times and is translated as "about to be" 21 times. Even if we go with the numbers mentioned in 4 slots above, there is the possibility that mello in Acts 24:15 could be translated as "about to be". And in light of all the verses that tie the resurrection to 70 AD it makes sense that Paul was stating both the certainty of and the closeness of the resurrection during his argument about why he was being held a prisoner. -- Spencer Morrison


Date:
05 Nov 2002
Time:
03:52:08

Comments

And yet more heretical nonsense from the pen of Morrison, but this time he also piles antinomianism on top of the pile.


Date:
05 Nov 2002
Time:
14:04:46

Comments

<a response to the previous slot> How can someone be antinomian by pointing to where God's Word says the Law would pass away? (Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.) Also, saying something is nonesense doesn't make it so. So where's the proof that what I said is nonsense? If it really is nonesense, then I need to know where I've messed up. One more thing, I want to say I appreciate the effort given by those who try to deal with the points made by Preterists. If I am wrong about my beliefs concerning Jesus' second coming as a Preterist, it will not only be my personal study of God's Word that will show me where I'm wrong, but it will also be from brothers pointing out my mistakes and the prayers of brothers and sisters for me to see where I'm wrong. At the present, my understanding of eschatology (things concerning the last things) has been building me up in so many ways and has been making Scripture so clear in various biblical passages that the attacks toward me without any biblical support move me to pray blessings for the attacker. Don't forget Jesus said "out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks." -- Spencer Morrison


Date:
06 Nov 2002
Time:
01:25:44

Comments

I also remember that Paul called the denial of the resurrection (which you are in fact doing) a matter of heaven and hell, and the claim that it was past when it was not (which you are in fact doing)a faith wrecking cancer.


Date:
06 Nov 2002
Time:
01:29:50

Comments

Oh, and here's a clue Spencer... the word "law" is used in many different ways by Paul. For you to claim that the "law" in 1 Cor 15 refers to the OT ceremonial law is ridiculous and is a brand of antinomianism. I dare you to say that death has no sting at a funeral of a loved one as you merrily lead others down the road to perdition. I am not praying for you Spencer, I am praying for your victims which there for but by the grace of God go I. You were waiting to meet someone who's faith was devastated by this nonsense... well here you go Spencer in the flesh. You and your ilk will be held accountable on the judgment day you deny.


Date:
06 Nov 2002
Time:
07:22:13

Comments

Dear Dr. Trotter: Greetings to you in the name of the Lord! I have read your article "WHY IT IS PERFECTLY OK TO CALL HERETICAL PRETERISTS NAUGHTY NAMES." Let me introduce myself as a preterist that has been called an abundance of naughty names recently, and, after reading your article, I'll add yours to my list (big grin here). I could see that you have studied the arguments of full preterism and for this I commend you. Most of the opposition I have faced has come from those who would not even open the Bible with me to examine my views and correct me if needed. I was called "naughty names" and denounced for my departure from historic orthodoxy by both denominational leaders and a small group in my former church. One man in a public meeting went on for over 20 minutes about my departure from the creeds. So vicious was his tirade, that my teenage daughter left the room crying. Life was made pretty miserable for me and my family to the point that I resigned from the church which I pastored for over 10 years and I have left the denomination I was in for over 30 years. Which brings me to your article. I cannot fault you wanting to defend the truth; the irony here is that full preterists would also claim to be defending truth. But could I point out a few things that you might want to consider in your defense of the truth? 1. You seem to have exempted yourself from the task of "speaking truth in love" on the basis of Paul's dealings with Hymenaeus and Philetus (citing Paul in 2 Timothy 2:16-18 and Tina Turner). In fact, your article seems to be more of a defense of why you can have your say in a nasty manner. You say that you don't want people to complain since you're only keeping this on a level of "doctrine." But is the Spirit of Christ unwilling or unable to lead us to deal with issues of doctrine while exibiting the love of Christ? Does the bible teach that "love for the brethren" gets set aside when matters of doctrine are involved? No doubt, Paul used some salty language in dealing with threats to the gospel. But is there no application of Paul's words in that same chapter vs. 23-26? We don't know much more of Hymenaeus than what we read of here and in 1 Timothy 1. Did Paul never sit down with Hymenaeus to try to restore him (violating his own exhortation in Gal. 6:1)? Did Paul believe humility, patience, gentleness and loving forbearance (Eph. 4:2) did not apply to Hymenaeus? You assume much about Paul's dealing with Hymenaeus in 1 & 2 Timothy without knowing the history of the conflict. Could it be that Paul resorted to his language in 2 Timothy 2:16-18 only because Hymeneaus did not respond to patient, gentle attempts to correct him? Based on all that Paul says on love among the brethren, it's a compelling thought. 2. You make an interesting statement: "'Love' is the first word out of the mouth of someone about to lose a theological argument." Was Jesus on the verge of losing a theological argument when He gave the New Commandment in John 13:34, 35? Was Paul unable to defend the gospel, hence his statement, "Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another?" Was John being theologically whipped when he equates not loving your brother with walking in darkness (1 John 2:9-11) or failure to love as murdering your brother (1 John 3:15)? If you consider "heretical preterists" as saved, converted, bought by Christ's blood and your brothers in Christ, does this not make your attitude toward them one that is just as damnable a heresy if not more than "heretical preterism." One reproof I would have to those who opposed me was that they were intent on upholding the integrity of the Scriptures in one area by denying the plain revelation of God in another. Please, brother, don't defend what you believe the Bible teaches about Christ's coming while denying what it says about loving one another. Have you considered that "love" is the first word out of the mouth of someone who sees that you are failing in love? (By the way, why couldn't it be an equally true statement that, "Naughty names are the first words out of the mouth of someone who doesn't have a good argument?") 3. The strength of your article seems to depend mainly on the use of "naughty names," slanted rhetoric and guilt-by-association. I'm not saying here that you don't present cogent arguments that preterists ought to consider. What I'm saying is that if you are wanting to really turn a preterist from his ways, -- biblical restoration -- calling him names and labeling his defense "slick rhetorical tricks" is not a good substitute for reasoned, patient and loving dialogue. Here's a question I put to one of my opposers: "Suppose you wanted to turn me from preterism, and the way to do it would be to commit to two, maybe three years of loving, patient opening of the Scriptures with me, would you be willing to do it?" He decided "no" as a few days later he publicly denounced me. Calling those with whom you disagree names, comparing them to "sleazy lawyers" and dismissing them outright is an easier out than persevering in love. Let's put it this way: If you do have good arguments that might turn me, I have a hard time seeing them through the smoke of your malice. 4. Please think about the kind of disciple you are creating by your spirit in this article. No doubt you hope to influence people to think as you think since you think you are thinking according to God's word. I have no problem with this; but are you willing to live with those who imitate your spirit of "naughty name" calling and vitriol? Are you not teaching them that it is okay to viciously ostracize those with whom they disagree, even perhaps in areas not related to eschatology? You seem to be pretty intoxicated with your newfound liberty to call "heretical preterists" names. I hope this compassionless drunkenness doesn't affect your flock. 5. Please remember certain things about the "heretical preterists" that you are addressing. They are, implicitly by your own admission, those for whom Jesus paid a tremendous price -- His own blood. If they are precious to Him, shouldn't they be to you, too? We walk on very dangerous ground when we deface a treasure for which the Lord paid a great price. Before I address a person in opposition to me, I think of my daughter who ran out of the room crying that one night. I don't want another man's family hurt because of my poisonous tongue or pen (word processor?) In conclusion, dear brother, please reconsider your acidic attacks. You mention -- I assume favorably -- the humble Waldensians, but you come across more as the Inquisitors that condemned and persecuted them. This is wrong; and it is wrong whether it is an attitude held by a futurist or a preterist. I would say the same thing to a preterist I said to you who exhibited the same spirit. If you are a man given to pride, my time has been wasted here. But I have better hopes for God's people that we will all approach this matter in a spirit of humility. Please consider these words in light of the cross of our Savior.


Date:
06 Nov 2002
Time:
09:40:46

Comments

<a response to the previous slot and the one before it> The Johnson article and my comments are in no way trying to deny the resurrection. We are pointing to Scriptures that not only say the resurrection is a fact but these Scriptures also place the resurrection at the time when the power of the holy people was broken (Dan 12), at the time of Jesus' second coming which took place at 70 AD (based on the Olivet Discourse Mt 24, Mk 13, Lk 21), at the time of death's destruction due to the law disappearing (1 Cor 15 with Hebrews 8:13), ......there's more but I'll stop here. So the focus of the discussion is on the timing of the resurrection. I would like to make it clear that I believe that Christians who die today receive their spiritual, eternal body at the point of physical death. The resurrection was a two stage event (Rev 20:4-5) in which God brought forth people out of the abode of the dead. Today those who die aren't placed in the abode of the dead since God threw that place into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14). Resurrection is the process of standing up what has been laid down. So biblically, there is no more place to lay down dead people anymore. Today at physical death people are either thrown into the lake of fire or enjoying their kingdom work, praising God, and eating at the Lord's table in their new body. So Preterism believes in the resurrection. It's the verses concerning its timing that Preterists are highlighting for all to see. >>>Please, I assure you that I've not been waiting to meet someone who's faith was devastated by Preterism. I don't even remember saying anything close to it. The changes in my life due to better understanding how God fulfilled all His promises and fulfilled all the prophecies He had His prophets proclaim have built me up to be a stronger and more loving Christian. I want the results in my life due to Preterism to be enjoyed by all my brothers and sisters. I can't see how Preterism can devastate someone's faith when Preterism gives glory to God by showing how He has kept >every< promise He has made. I can see how Preterism causes major discomfort for brothers and sisters in that it shakes what they understand the Bible to say. When I first heard Preterism's positions I got in the fellow's face who told me about it and rudely spelled out what I first thought about it. I thought there's no way the new heavens and earth had come...what nonsense I thought! Well I kept reading my Bible and its time statements kept poking my attention's eye so hard I couldn't ignore them. So I figured I would go get the evidence others use to show Preterism's faults. I read books and went to a Y2K eschatology conference in Florida, but the only thing that came up was: Preterism goes against the creeds (which aren't Scripture), Preterism can't explain the nature of the resurrection (but more importantly, it shows where in history God made it a reality) and that the coming of Jesus can be placed at both 70 AD and at some other time (but the Bible only speaks of Christ's first coming at his incarnation and a second coming - not a third coming). So I surrendered my personal view of Christ's coming to what I read in the Bible. It wasn't easy. I struggled in a similar way when I discovered God's soveriegnty has no limits on His creation. In both cases Scripture caused me discomfort. Yet I rested in the fact that God's love for me wasn't going to keep me away from what is uncomfortable, it is going to guide me into what's best for me even if it hurts some times. I am now in the mindset that I want to know what is the total truth even if it make me cry. It is only the truth that is going to show me how to experience God at every level so that life means something. So I can't ignore the time statements God put in the Bible. If I have understood them wrong, please someone reach out to me and show me my mistakes, mess ups, and misunderstandings. If I am correct, I can totally empathize with you concerning the discomfort you may go through if you decide to embrace the truth.


Date:
06 Nov 2002
Time:
19:05:35

Comments

My comments in the 2nd slot above this slot are responses directed to the 4th and 5th slots above this slot. Something messed up with the comment submission function and I didn't know someone posted before my response. Todd Dennis fixed it, so thank you Todd! -- Spencer Morrison


Date:
07 Nov 2002
Time:
22:52:30

Comments

Hi Spencer, This is in response to your “Part 2 of 2” above. >>"Daniel 12:2 "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake" – “In the dust” indicates their location, which is the dust of the earth. This therefore must refer to mortal bodies sleeping in the earth. Remember Jesus’ words in John 11:11? “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.” Jesus associated “awaking” Lazarus with resurrecting his mortal body. >>You wrote, “The word, holy, is being used in both Daniel 12:7 and Matt 24:15 not as an adjective to describe the noun's spiritual position, but as part of a phrase that labels a specific group or place.” Do you actually believe this adjective has a naming function but no meaning? The word holy is used consistently in scripture to refer to apartness, holiness, sacredness, separateness unto God. The temple was set apart to God. So are God’s people. When a people no longer serve God, they have ceased to set themselves apart for Him, and are therefore no longer holy. A covenant breaking people are no longer holy. >>You said, “The comments about the Greek in Luke 21:22 being aritcular infinitive passive don't seem to agree with the translations of the verse. Are you sure you have it correct?” Well, as I indicated by the letters “RWP,” the quote came directly form the work of a noted Greek authority. I took it straight out of “Robertson’s NT Word Pictures.” >>You then wrote, ”The Olivet Discourse (Matt 24-25, Mk 13:, Luk 21) records Jesus saying ‘heaven and earth will pass away’ in the context of his coming within the generation of those he was talking to.” I don’t see how you can get that from “Heaven and Earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.” >>You also said, ” By the way this is a way previous prophets of God would prophecy a nation's destruction (Isaiah 13, 34 & Ezk 32).” I believe that you are mistaken here. Aside from the sun and stars being darkened by the smoke of burning fields and cities, in these and many other OT prophecies, God was letting us know that no nation will escape his judgment, for He will one day judge the entire world and the heavens. His judgment on specific nations is but a foreshadowing of that. >>You also said, “This is the same wording we find in Lk 21:32, Mt 24:34, & Mk 13:30. Jesus makes it plain he is talking to the generation who is hearing his words.” Those are the parallel verses. How do they prove your argument? Your argument would be better advanced by using the other “this generation” verses which definitely point to the generation Jesus was speaking to. But even these would not prove your point, for it is only by the context that we can tell what “this generation” means. If I say “this car” ten times and by that mean a Chevy, that does not mean that the next time I say “this car” I will be talking about the same car. I may be talking about my neighbor’s BMW instead. >>Following that, you wrote, “In the very same letter Paul tells the readers that the fulfillment of the ages was coming upon them (1 Cor 10:11)...” You have your tenses wrong here, brother. The verb here is aorist active indicative, and means “have come,” meaning that the ends of the ages had already come. The word “ages’ is plural, and means that Paul is talking about not just the end of the present age, but the ends (plural) of multiple ages. This can refer to nothing other than the death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus, for this was the only act that affected and extended throughout all ages past and future that had already come in their generation. >>You said,” When was the law done away with? It was done away with at the destruction of the temple in 70 AD…” How does the destruction of the temple do away with the law? Was the law done away with when Solomon’s temple was destroyed? Of course not. The fact is, that scripture only told us that the law was obsolete and passing away. It did not give us a specific date. >>You also said, “The passage says death will be swallowed in victory when the mortal is clothed with immortality.” How can a dead mortal body be clothed with immortality and yet still remain decomposing in the grave? >>Lastly, you wrote, “The NIV Exhaustive Concordance states the Greek word, mello, is in the NT 109 times and is translated as ‘about to be’ 21 times.” The figures I quoted were from Thayer’s Lexicon, and based on the Authorized Version, which is a more literal translation than the NIV, since the NIV is a dynamic equivalent translation. But even the NIV figures indicate that most of the time, mello does not mean “soon” or “about to be.” My motive is not to argue with you or prove myself right, but to try to persuade you, in the hope that God will grant that you and others may turn from this error concerning the faith.


Date:
20 Nov 2002
Time:
19:00:31

Comments

<in response to the first two points in the slot above - more to come later> >>> I deeply appreciate the discourse we're having without the use of abusive words. I hope everyone who reads our comments sees how much is accomplished with words seasoned with salt (Coloss 4:6). Concerning what you said about Dan 12:2 and Lazarus pointing to the resurrection as a physical event, I would like to say that I hold to Jesus' resurrection body as the type of body that believers will receive after death (1 Cor. 15:36b & 49). I'm guessing we both agree on this. So our discussion is left to focus on the exact details by which God has done/will do this for believers, but there seems to be a problem. Where in the Bible is there a specific revelation on >every< detail a person experiences in the resurrection? We know the Bible describes some of it --> physical death and the result of having an immortal, spiritual body, but not exactly what happens to the mortal body between those events. Lazarus is an example of someone who was risen from the dead, but is he an example of the resurrection with an immortal body? I'm guessing "no" since Jesus was the firstfruits of the resurrection involving immortality. So I'm not sure Lazarus is a good example for our discussion. Based on Rom. 8:23 and Philipp. 3:21 I see that there's a connection with the mortal body and the spiritual body, but does that connection match up to what most Christians hold to today? Look at 2 Corinth 5:1-10 which presents a new body as being in heaven which God clothes us with if our earthly body is destroyed. 1 Cor. 15:35-44 presents the mortal body being like a seed that is planted (death) and God gives it a body as he has determined so that what is planted is not what is raised. The mortal body dies which brings about the existence of the spiritual body. What makes this tough for today's popular resurrection position is that the seed analogy makes it appear the mortal body stays in the ground since after sowing a seed it never pops back out of the ground as a better seed. On the other side we have a clothing analogy in the Bible where the mortal is clothed with immortality which makes it appear that the mortal body will arise out of the ground different than it was going into the ground. So I can see both sides of the topic. For me, I'm not convinced one side has the unchallengeable position in regards to the exact details of the mortal body in the resurrection. But when it comes to the timing of the resurrection in the Bible, its clarity is striking since it's tied to Jesus' coming, the trumpet call of God, the power of the holy people being finally broken, the end, the destruction of death, and the binding and release of Satan in regards to the Abyss. Each of these things can be shown biblically to be involved with the events of 70 AD in Jerusalem. So I remain unmoved by the attempts made at explaining the timing of the resurrection by presentations of the resurrection having to be physical (thus, <as the argument goes> it hasn't occurred yet since the graves haven't opened up yet). But I can be moved by someone revealing a better understanding than what I currently hold to concerning the timing of the resurrection. >>> I thought Jesus' description of the temple as the "holy place" in his prophecy against it was sufficient in showing how the word, holy, can be part of a naming function without functioning as a description of the noun it is attached to. Not only did Jesus use that phrase within a prophecy against it, but shortly before that prophecy he cried out at Jerusalem that its house (the temple) is left to it desolate (Matt 23:38). So Jesus' view of the temple at that time was not positive at all. Thus, it makes sense to me that both the power of God's people is broken when they are breaking the Mosaic covenant and that at the same time be labelled as "the holy people" to specify which people group is being prophecied about. God's people were set apart to Him whether they were obedient or not like a married woman is a man's wife whether she's good or bad, but if adultery enters the picture, the husband can divorce the wife which under the O.T. included death for the adulterous parties. God's patience held together his marriage with Israel through many adulteries, but when His Son was killed by His people God had enough of the relationship and He brought the ultimate divorce about. Dan 12:7 parallels Matt 21:33-46 where after God's Son is killed He takes the kingdom away from the Jews and gives it to a people who will produce its fruit. It is at that point the power of the holy people is finally broken. They no longer had the special relationship with God. The beginning of this is seen when Paul says in Galatians 6:15 that circumcision means nothing, so it's obvious something had changed. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was the final punishment of God's wife. The kingdom was fully given over to another people, and it was at that time in which the resurrection took place according to Dan 12:2 being tied to Dan 12:7. Another fact to dwell on is that through the Mosaic covenant God promised blessings of victory and health to His people when they were obedient; and He also promised curses of being dragged off by other nations, harsh weather, and sickness for when they were unfaithful. So for the power of the holy people to be broken they must have been breaking their covenant with God. Hebrews 8:13 shows that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was the end of God's marriage contract with the Jews. When Hebrews 8:13 was written the Old covenant was already obsolete. The verse also says it was soon to disappear. Its disappearance could only be the temple's destruction of 70 AD. What other event in Jerusalem's history could match up with the Old covenant's being obsolete (due to the cross Coloss 2:14) and soon to disappear? -- Spencer Morrison


Date:
24 Nov 2002
Time:
20:52:32

Comments

Spencer, you wrote, "So I remain unmoved by the attempts made at explaining the timing of the resurrection by presentations of the resurrection having to be physical (thus, <as the argument goes> it hasn't occurred yet since the graves haven't opened up yet). But I can be moved by someone revealing a better understanding than what I currently hold to concerning the timing of the resurrection." Why? Are those scriptures which indicate that the resurrection will be physical any less inspired than those which refer to the timing of the resurrection? I think the problem here is that your interpretation of passages which refer to the timing is forcing you to conclude that these resurrection passages can't be literal. So you must explain them away. I think you have a blind spot here. You need to seek God for an interpretation which harmonizes the plain sense of BOTH the timing and the resurrection statements. When any theological outlook forces us to explain away a lot of very clear passsages, something is very wrong. Have you considered John 5:28-29? "28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." The word translated graves is mnemion, which always refers in the NT to a tomb, grave or grave monument, never to the abode of departed spirits. All that are in the graves shall come forth. That's the same thing Lazarus did, even though he did not rise with an immortal body. That sounds pretty physical to me. Why not just take it for what it says?


Date:
26 Nov 2002
Time:
05:27:18

Comments

Spencer, you wrote,"When Hebrews 8:13 was written the Old covenant was already obsolete. The verse also says it was soon to disappear. Its disappearance could only be the temple's destruction of 70 AD. What other event in Jerusalem's history could match up with the Old covenant's being obsolete (due to the cross Coloss 2:14) and soon to disappear?" Why could the destruction of the temple make the law disappear? Did it make it disappear when Solomon's Temple was destroyed? It was God's statement that He was going to make "a new covenant" that made "the first old." (Hebrews 8:13). Read the verse again and you will see that it is the process of decay that makes the Old Covenant disappear (a gradual process), not the violent and sudden overthrow of the temple.


Date:
09 Feb 2003
Time:
15:44:57

Comments

Someone help me, I have looked and looked and now anything a futurist says any more makes no sense and I cannot see where they are comming from. A few years ago when I began in earnest to find out what makes Christianity any more valid than any other religion, I came to understand that it was its truthfulness and historocity. Futurist make Christianity into a rediculous joke and in no way superior beause their god cannot keep his promisses or even read a watch. Now I have lost my objectivity in the matter and everything a futurist says sounds like they would rather follow tradition rather than God. Can one futurist make a completely logical argument using the scripture and make it make sense? Please? I'm beging here becuase I want to see both sides and to understand but the Preterist argument is the only one that makes sense. Sincerely yours, Douglas E Radcliffe, doughoist@earthlink.net


Date:
21 Feb 2003
Time:
07:53:45

Comments

i see a lot in preterism. it answers lots of questions. yet i still have a problem finding any relevance to the bible if it's all over with in 70 a.d. it seems even with figurative language thee 70 a.d. judgment at least pictures a universal judgment of the creation. it had a start and will have an end as do individuals. do u mean resurrection came in a legal sense, like salvation--it came in christ, is continually coming and will yet come in its fulness? i mean, it is obvious this tent we are in is presently decaying awy. don't we as individuals still look forward to a resurrection? when we die and give up the spirit, do we not take on a spiritual body? or must we be agnostic concerning our future?


Date:
11 Mar 2003
Time:
17:06:22

Comments

To whom it may concern,I did not read the article above,but was more interested in reading some of the comments at the bottom, so I will not comment on the article. As i was reading some of the comments, I see that both camps have good arguments. Im writing this mainly concerning the "Full preterists" view and with respect to my preterist brethren. Im not a scholar,Im not say you are,but I speak as one who has obtained mercy from the LORD, and has been forgiven as a chief of sinners. Brethren you claim that Christ has come and the ressurection is already past, I respect your right to have your own opinion as to what scripture teaches and am sure you respect mine. If you reject what I say thats no business of mine.Now I have next to me the precious word of God, and Im sure my God will do all that he has promised me. For the scriptures declare "ALL", not some,of the promises in Christ are "YEA" 2Cor 1:20.Brethren you claim that we dont have "physical" existance,but only "spiritual" existance,after we die, because you say it is a "spiritual body",as scripture says 1Cor 15:44, if im correct. But brethren If Im going to take Gods promise that says "ALL" promises are "YEA" in Christ,literally, then "ALL"promises in the bible are "Yea". But you say all has past, and that leaves me to say that God will not finish the work began he began in me Php 1:6, because it says "UNTIL the day of Jesus Christ", with which we have no more hope, for that day past as some of you say. The precious word also says in 1Thess 5:23-24,that God wholly sanctifies and that we will be preserved blameless "UNTO" the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. But if you say, bretheren, "The coming came already",then the promise has nothing to do with me for his coming came already and my faith is in vain. And brothers as one who holds to the doctrines of grace, because of your interpretation, I would be forced to believe that God has stopped willing that "NONE" perish, because with the reformed perspective I hold to,I believe Peter was talking about the "ELECT" that God's "PROMISE" to "US-WARD" is not willing that any should perish,but that "ALL" should come to repentance 2Pe 3:9 was written to.But you say that the "Day of the Lord" which comes as "a thief in the night" has already come as you claim everything the coming, resurrection, and judgement has already come. Well brothers I would have to say that this promise to me, an "ELECT" child of my precious Father in heaven, would be meaningless to me and no hope,because there are some who say that everything happened in the A.D. 70 and only coming of Christ.With your theology Im forced to believe that "ALL" promises in the Bible were only to certain individuals before A.D. 70, and no longer for us who now believe. With all due respect, bretheren, you say that the body we recieve is "spiritual" and you are correct it is a spiritual body 1Cor.15:44,49,but bretheren according to a well tested and approved principle of hermenuetics which states that we interpret the unclear verses in light of the clear, Iwould have to take the verse in Php 3:21,which was written by the same blessed apostle Paul who wrote 1Cor,and see clearly that Paul said in Php 3:21 that,the Lord Jesus, "shall" change our "vile body",that it may be "FASHIONED LIKE UNTO HIS GLORIOUS BODY".Brothers this "spiritual body" in 1Cor15:44,this "image of the heavenly" in 1Cor15:49, is none other than our "vile BODY" which will be "FASIONED LIKE UNTO HIS GLORIOUS BODY".This is my concern brethren, Im not trying to bash you, I would just like to see if you would reconsider your belief and consider what I've said and test everything you say and I say in light of the word of God. Oh yes Brothers one more thing I'm not expecting you to change your minds thats between you and the Lord, but who of you would dare to say that Job was wrong when he said in Job 19:25-26 who said that "my redeemer liveth,and that he shall "stand" at the "latter day" upon the earth:and though "AFTER" my skin worms "DESTROY" this "BODY","YET" in my "FLESH" shall I see GOD.Brethren with all due respect I would have to agree with brother Job and say ,with my flesh I will see God, and disagree with you who say it is only in a spiritual body.God bless you brethren, Your bro Luis.


Date:
12 Mar 2003
Time:
07:02:57

Comments

Dear brother Luis, I appreciate the tone in which you write. You say that if the Lord's coming is past then it has nothing to do with us, the promises are unfulfilled and your faith is in vain. Is Christ's atonement past? Is there any benefit to us today? Absolutely! Just because the promises of God (all that has been written) were fulfilled by AD70(Lk 21:22)it does not follow that there is no application for 21 century man. I agree with you when you say the clear must interpret the unclear. To me there are numerous clear time references to the timing of the resurrection which the article above references. I would encourage you to read the article. For the preterist, time determines nature, for the futurist, nature determines time. You must come to your own convictions as to which is the clearest in scripture. As for me the time statements are clear and unavoidable. As for Job 19:25-26, the text is ambiguous. If you look at the footnote you will see that the text can read, "yet APART FROM my flesh I will see God." As Paul said, "flesh and blood can not inherit the Kingdom of God." To be sure our existence in heaven will be in bodily form. It will be a body that has been determined by God (cf. the seed analogy). I pray that you will consider what the Bible has to say about the timing of the coming, judgement, and resurrection. To God be the glory.


Date:
12 Mar 2003
Time:
18:44:33

Comments

Hey Brethren,Its Luis again. I thank you for answering my comment.Please dont think that Im coming agaisnt you,but by the grace of God I want to be open minded about this. I guess you can say Im like doubting Thomas,who wanted to touch and see Christ to see If he really rose again. What Im trying to say is that if Christs resurrection according to 1Cor 15, was seen of Cephas then of the twelve, and then seen of 500 brethren "AT ONCE",after that, he was seen of James then of all the apostles, and then of Paul. Then also in another place its says Christ told the disciples that a spirit does not have flesh and bones, and that he ate before them, Lk 24:38-41.Brethren you say that the resurrection past both of the just and unjust Dan 12:2;John 5:28-29;Acts 17:31-32,24:14-15;2Tim 4:1;Rev 20:11-15. Now if Jesus "the firstfruits"(one person), if his resurrection had 500 witnesses "AT ONCE", then brethren I would expect the A.D 70 resurrection would have plenty of witnesses as well that were left behind to tell and to be passed down to generations to come. Im sure if such a massive resurrection happened of both the just and unjust, many people would be testifying that they not only saw such a resurrection,but ate with them as well.Surely there has got to be someone who saw one of there loved ones alive again whether they were just or unjust. If Christ showed himself to 500 "AT ONCE", logically it would follow many of the just and unjust would prove there resurrection who awoke in A.D 70. You might say that it was secret, hidden and just spiritual, Ah yes!but that would put you in the same line as the dispensationalists of which you say are wrong. No where in scripture does it say there will be a silent,secret,hidden, or spiritual without body resurrection. Brehtren you say that the Historic Christian faith is backed by evidence whether it be archeological, manuscript, prophectic etc. well if the this A.D 70 resurrection of the just and unjust did pass then where is the external evidence,by the those people many centuries after, outside of the bible to prove such a great resurrection, to tell us who are there descendants. This should be the iron clad evidence provided by you,so that our mouths may be shut, that would end the eschatology debate and say the preterists are right. If you prove to me with ironclad historical documents from people who say they saw such a resurrection that would be the nail in the coffen, and like Thomas who doubted, I'll believe. Paul said in 2Cor 13:1,"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established". Your brother Luis.


Date:
13 Mar 2003
Time:
13:40:20

Comments

Dear brother Luis, I too at one time was a doubting thomas regarding preterism. There is nothing wrong with being a doubting thomas until you have been completly convinced from the scripture. You appeal to the fact that Jesus was seen by more than 500 who testified to the fact that indeed he did rise from the dead. You reason that if Jesus showed himself then why not the multitutes in AD70? Luis, I think that is a fair question? My understanding is that Jesus was promised that his body would not see decay(Acts 2:27)whereas the rest of us "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement" (Heb 9:26). His body was with out sin and thus was not corrupted. Ours is tainted with sin and will return to dust from which it came. This is why our bodies decay and return to dust while Jesus' body walked out of the toomb. I see the resurrection as the time when those who were confined to Hades,(the realm of the dead), were released into the presence of God. At that time they were given their new glorified spiritual bodies(just like Jesus' body). You say that if the resurrection was an AD 70 event then it was "secret, hidden, and just spiritual". Paul in 1Cor 15:44 says it would be raised a "spiritual body". I take Paul to mean that our bodies will be like Jesus' body. His body had physical properties, (he ate fish), and spiritual properties, (he appeared and disappeared). I maintain that when we die we will receive this kind of body with which we will dwell with God in eternity. While it is true that no one saw bodies flying out of graves yet the resurrection did not go unnoticed. Was there any verifiable evidence that the resurrection took place? Consider Dan 12. See the article above. I am convinced that the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 was the sign of Jesus' coming, judgement, kingdom, and resurrection. The "power of the holy people was finally broken" in AD70 with the destruction of Israel. This is the historical evidence and proof of a first century resurrection. To God be the glory.


Date:
14 Aug 2003
Time:
11:43:33

Comments

Mello and the Greek. The issue is not how it is translated but what it means in the context. I would suggest the most used BAGD third edition. Then find out how present tense and infinitives are translated with mello. And then ask yourself if a word means whatever I want it to mean under the same format in difference verses then what use is the word? The primary meaning, even in Strong's, listed in order is "about to" all other uses are to cover up the obvious.... There is no support for mello in the present tense followed by an infinitive to be some pie in the sky bye and bye unlimted future.


Date:
26 Aug 2003
Time:
07:10:47

Comments

I think preterists would be better off moving forward to shape and form our doctrine through honest Biblical study rather than continuing to respond to critics with the same old arguments. The critics will not listen. The arguments here have been put forth time and time again, yet the critics still surface to throw their accusations and insults. Mr. Trotter has really done nothing to merit a respose in the first place. He has shown that he has no desire to debate. He refuses to dialog with those who disagree with him. He simply says that preterists are wrong and we are then expected to follow him like sheep. As preterists, let's move on, even if it means without men like Mr. Trotter, and not continue to be held back by those who only look to persecute and ridicule.


Date:
02 Sep 2003
Time:
19:02:27

Comments

A-men 2 the A-bove


Date:
15 Dec 2004
Time:
12:12:12

Comments

MOST OF THESE FUTURIST PEOPLE LOVE THE SCARE TATICS THAT MOST PREACHERS PREACH TODAY.THEY WILL NOT LOOK AT SCRIPS IN THE LIGHT OF THE TEXT.THEY ALSO RUFUSE TO RELIZE THAT US PRETERIST WERE AT ONE TIME FUTURIST.AND NO MATTER IF THEY ACCEPT IT OR NOT WE AS WELL AS THEM WERE VERY CONFUSED CONCERNING THE END TIMES UNTIL WE TOOK GOD AT HIS WORD AND INTERPRET SCRIPS WITH SCRIPS AND READ THE TEXT IN THE MANNER THEY WERE WRITTEN[SOMEONE ELSES MAIL] IN CHRIST MIKE


Date: 12 May 2005
Time: 12:53:42

Comments:

From Dan Trotter's own mouth, he shows he HATES other christians. According to 1st John 2:8,9, Mr. Trotter is in DARKNESS no matter how he tries to cover up. He is oblivious to even care what Hymaneus really was - a judaizer! Dan Trotter could care less about truth and care more about tearing people down. He has the weakest arguments I have seen from anti-preterists (ad hominem). He has not proven anything against preterism, but hopefully his horrible behaviour will show his own view is rotten to the core. He worships an interpretation, not Jesus Christ. He should be ashamed of himself. It appears that he is the one guilty of overthrowing the faith of some. He is the highest hypocrite! He doesn't deserve the truth, because he will rend you with it if you do give it to him (just look at his lame attacks against fellow Christians). He is swine, a dog, a viper, an antichrist! He has no love for Jesus Christ, other Christians or the truth.

 

Click For Index Page

Free Online Books Historical Preterism Modern Preterism Study Archive Critical Articles Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main Josephus Church History Hyper Preterism Main

Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ preteristarchive.com) Opened in 1996
http://www.preteristarchive.com