ECT How Can the Preterists be so Blind?

[God's Truth]

You probably mean to say that you yourself do not see things the same way as the Peterists.

Labeling them and name-calling them "blind" is not very helpful in my opinion.

Jerry ruins anything good he has to say by acting as the unsaved act.

 

[Interplanner]

If it is as you say, then there is NO delay. So then, why say there was a delay? It is as if you are trying to prove preterism, but then back out of it.

I could go along with everything that is said about Jesus coming at the time of the destruction of the temple, but then there is something preterists do not seem to be able to explain to me and that is, if full preterism is true, where are our physical bodies?

There was a delay to the judgement of the whole world, not to the DofJ. Perhaps I should say there is a distinction and a delay.

 

[God's Truth]

There was a delay to the judgement of the whole world, not to the DofJ. Perhaps I should say there is a distinction and a delay.

What scriptures do you believe supports there being a delay?

If there is a delay, how then do you support preterism?

Would you like to tell me about our bodies being redeemed to us?

If full preterism is true, then you will have to explain why only our spirits go to heaven when we die and not our resurrected physical flesh bodies.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Labeling them and name-calling them "blind" is not very helpful in my opinion.

You would probably tell the Lord Jesus the same thing for saying the following:

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it" (Jn.8:44).​

 

[Interplanner]

The delay is in Mk 13's parable of the attentive servants: 4 possible return times during "the night."
2, It is in the declaration that the Son did not know the timing of the end, only the Father knew. If you know anything about Mt24A and especially the parallel material in Luke, the Son knew everything about the DofJ; he's referring to the end of the whole world.
3, Peter explains and defends the delay in 2 Pet 3. He can't be referring to the 1st coming. And there is nothing Judaic about the 2nd coming; it is the worldwide judgement day, followed swiftly by the NHNE.

As far as supporting preterism, I hope you can see by now that the question may have a built-in mistake. If you mean the DofJ, that's what Mt24A and all that material in Luke is about (ch 13, 19, 21, 23). Mt24A is not by itself, either. The parable of the vineyard in 21, the parable of the wedding refusers in 22 (who have "their city burned to the ground"!!!), and the declarations against Israel in ch 23 are lead ups to what questions 24A is dealing with and why.

I do not believe the 2nd coming occurred right after the DofJ, although Paul did (beforehand). So I don't have a disembodiment problem! Historian Lattourrette says the first issue the remaining apostles had to work out was 'what about the delay?' in his Vol 1, p43. 100 years later Irenaeus claimed the 'solution' was another round for Israel in the future, and then the end of the world. He was apparently a close student of John, but his is just a theory and I don't find it strong enough to dwell on.

 

[God's Truth]

The delay is in Mk 13's parable of the attentive servants: 4 possible return times during "the night."

I have never understood that word 'delay' to mean the time set was put off, but that only it must have seemed like a delay to those who wait. No one knows the time, so then how would the servant say 'delay' with an understanding that the time was actually delayed?

2, It is in the declaration that the Son did not know the timing of the end, only the Father knew.

Jesus did not know the timing of the end while he was on earth as a Man. However, Jesus is God the Father in the flesh and I believe he knows the exact time now in heaven.

If you know anything about Mt24A and especially the parallel material in Luke, the Son knew everything about the DofJ; he's referring to the end of the whole world.
3, Peter explains and defends the delay in 2 Pet 3.

Again, there is no delay, for there was no set time. The word delay is because people are waiting and wanting to give up believing the Lord will come.

He can't be referring to the 1st coming.

Do you mean the 1st coming as when Jesus came as a Man, or when the temple was destroyed? If you mean when the temple was destroyed, then why can't Peter have meant then?

And there is nothing Judaic about the 2nd coming; it is the worldwide judgement day, followed swiftly by the NHNE.
As far as supporting preterism, I hope you can see by now that the question may have a built-in mistake. If you mean the DofJ, that's what Mt24A and all that material in Luke is about (ch 13, 19, 21, 23). Mt24A is not by itself, either. The parable of the vineyard in 21, the parable of the wedding refusers in 22 (who have "their city burned to the ground"!!!), and the declarations against Israel in ch 23 are lead ups to what questions 24A is dealing with and why.

I do not believe the 2nd coming occurred right after the DofJ, although Paul did (beforehand).

Could you explain more what you mean? What exactly do you mean by DofJ? What do you mean Paul did beforehand?

So I don't have a disembodiment problem! Historian Lattourrette says the first issue the remaining apostles had to work out was 'what about the delay?' in his Vol 1, p43. 100 years later Irenaeus claimed the 'solution' was another round for Israel in the future, and then the end of the world. He was apparently a close student of John, but his is just a theory and I don't find it strong enough to dwell on.

Just because someone is tired of waiting and giving up faith does not mean there is a delay.

The preterist I studied with before said that we will never receive flesh bodies again, and that the resurrection of our bodies is actually spirits given to us, and those spirits going to heaven is the resurrection. This preterist also said that this world will never end, and that the new world is symbolic of the new order of things.

It sounds as if preterists can have different beliefs from each other.

I believe that we must have our flesh bodies redeemed when Jesus comes back, but you do not believe that, so then how do you reconcile the scriptures with your beliefs about Jesus coming back and resurrecting us with new bodies?

 

[Interplanner]

I have never understood that word 'delay' to mean the time set was put off, but that only it must have seemed like a delay to those who wait. No one knows the time, so then how would the servant say 'delay' with an understanding that the time was actually delayed?



Jesus did not know the timing of the end while he was on earth as a Man. However, Jesus is God the Father in the flesh and I believe he knows the exact time now in heaven.



Again, there is no delay, for there was no set time. The word delay is because people are waiting and wanting to give up believing the Lord will come.


Do you mean the 1st coming as when Jesus came as a Man, or when the temple was destroyed? If you mean when the temple was destroyed, then why can't Peter have meant then?



Could you explain more what you mean? What exactly do you mean by DofJ? What do you mean Paul did beforehand?


Just because someone is tired of waiting and giving up faith does not mean there is a delay.

The preterist I studied with before said that we will never receive flesh bodies again, and that the resurrection of our bodies is actually spirits given to us, and those spirits going to heaven is the resurrection. This preterist also said that this world will never end, and that the new world is symbolic of the new order of things.

It sounds as if preterists can have different beliefs from each other.

I believe that we must have our flesh bodies redeemed when Jesus comes back, but you do not believe that, so then how do you reconcile the scriptures with your beliefs about Jesus coming back and resurrecting us with new bodies?

re seemed like a delay.
The transition between Mt24A & B is 'immediately after.' So we either have to move all of Mt24A to the future with B and imagine there to be a whole set of events in the middle east, or B has been delayed.

You may have noticed that Lk21 allows no delay. Luke was chronicling Paul and his teachings a lot, and Paul is the most certain of a very quick end of the world in many places. There's your expectation of a quick end; the delay would be if that end was postponed. A was not postponed. B was.

re Jesus knowing
So the Godhead decided not to make it definite for human knowledge. If the Son did not know when B was taking place for sure, most listeners at that time would probably think a delay would take place.

re the comings
Peter is speaking about 'the coming' and means neither of your options. Do you have reasons for either? I don't see it. I don't think he meant the suffering atonement. He meant and described the end of the world. I don't think he meant the DofJ (destruction of Jerusalem). Because he describes nothing that is Judaic or Judean based. He meant the end of the world. Ie Mt24B.

Preterist writers like 'Tetelestai' here keep saying that the 'elements' in 2 Pet 3 must mean what 'elements of the world' meant in Gal 4 and Col 2. But Paul means Judaism, or a neo-Judaism there. 2 Pet 3 is ordinary meaning--molecular, building block elements. If it is an extended figure of speech then so is Peter's remarks about the flood.

btw, yes there are many kinds and I'm a historian first, theologian second.

re Paul "didn't beforehand".
I've lost the drift of thought and can't see it in this window. I'll respond later.

re bodies
I don't know that preterist doctrine. It may have to do something with the belief that the NHNE is now. They would get that from making 2 Pet 3 figurative, and maybe from 2 Cor 5 about Christ the New Creation (the phrase is actually about Christ, not individuals). So then, the world would go on indefinitely like Eph 3 says (world without end), and nothing of earth goes forward after death.

I don't think that doctrine has much traction because "I know my redeemer lives and in my flesh shall I see God on the last day" and Jesus' own body resurrected.

 

[Interplanner]

re Paul believed the 2nd coming was right after the DofJ beforehand.
Of course, Paul had no after-the-fact view as a person because he was killed in Rome before it all. But every indication that I see (Luke's materials and several places in his own) is that Paul saw no distinction between Mt24A and B. When Luke 21 describes the same thing, there is no chance of distinction. No "only the Father knows," etc.

 

[God's Truth]

re seemed like a delay.
The transition between Mt24A & B is 'immediately after.' So we either have to move all of Mt24A to the future with B and imagine there to be a whole set of events in the middle east, or B has been delayed.

First, I want to thank you for discussing this deeply with me.

I do want to ask though if you could us the exact scripture you are speaking about instead of saying A and B. In Matthew 24 there are two different times spoken about, so it is good to know which scriptures you are referencing.

You may have noticed that Lk21 allows no delay. Luke was chronicling Paul and his teachings a lot, and Paul is the most certain of a very quick end of the world in many places. There's your expectation of a quick end; the delay would be if that end was postponed. A was not postponed. B was.

As in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, I believe there are two different times Jesus is referencing. The scripture which says stands firm to the end is about the end of the Apostles lives.

re Jesus knowing
So the Godhead decided not to make it definite for human knowledge. If the Son did not know when B was taking place for sure, most listeners at that time would probably think a delay would take place.

I just don't see the delay, not at all.
I see it as the waiting so long feels like a delay, and nothing more.

re the comings
Peter is speaking about 'the coming' and means neither of your options. Do you have reasons for either? I don't see it. I don't think he meant the suffering atonement. He meant and described the end of the world. I don't think he meant the DofJ (destruction of Jerusalem).

I thought you meant DofJ meant day of Jesus...day of the Lord.

Because he describes nothing that is Judaic or Judean based. He meant the end of the world. Ie Mt24B.

Preterist writers like 'Tetelestai' here keep saying that the 'elements' in 2 Pet 3 must mean what 'elements of the world' meant in Gal 4 and Col 2. But Paul means Judaism, or a neo-Judaism there. 2 Pet 3 is ordinary meaning--molecular, building block elements. If it is an extended figure of speech then so is Peter's remarks about the flood.

btw, yes there are many kinds and I'm a historian first, theologian second.

Since I have studied with a preterist before, please be patient with me if, at times, I confuse the both of your beliefs; also, the abbreviations and lack of the full scripture references added to the confusion.

re Paul "didn't beforehand".
I've lost the drift of thought and can't see it in this window. I'll respond later.

Thank you. I have wanted to get back into studying preterism a little more, and I know it will take much patience from both sides.

re bodies
I don't know that preterist doctrine. It may have to do something with the belief that the NHNE is now. They would get that from making 2 Pet 3 figurative, and maybe from 2 Cor 5 about Christ the New Creation (the phrase is actually about Christ, not individuals). So then, the world would go on indefinitely like Eph 3 says (world without end), and nothing of earth goes forward after death.

Would that be full preterism?

I don't think that doctrine has much traction because "I know my redeemer lives and in my flesh shall I see God on the last day" and Jesus' own body resurrected.

Seeing Jesus in the prophets flesh is definitely where the preterist I studied with lost me; however, seeing Jesus' own body resurrected could be explained in the preterist's favor.

 

[God's Truth]

re Paul believed the 2nd coming was right after the DofJ beforehand.

It helps to know that DofJ means the Destruction of Jerusalem.
I was confusing your beliefs with the other preterist's beliefs, and that is the second coming was at the DofJ, according to the other preterist. It sounds as if you do not believe Jesus came at that time. Would that be a correct assessment?

Of course, Paul had no after-the-fact view as a person because he was killed in Rome before it all. But every indication that I see (Luke's materials and several places in his own) is that Paul saw no distinction between Mt24A and B. When Luke 21 describes the same thing, there is no chance of distinction. No "only the Father knows," etc.

I think the use of 'A' and 'B' has helped in my losing the train of thought.
Again, please be patient.

 

[Interplanner]

Mt24A is up to v29 where the text then says "Immediately after the trouble of those days..." (referring to what it just said), and goes on to the worldwide judgment of God. Ie, B.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Why would Breen be that interesting?

Well, being a renowned doctor of theology, from New York City...

 

[God's Truth]

Mt24A is up to v29 where the text then says "Immediately after the trouble of those days..." (referring to what it just said), and goes on to the worldwide judgment of God. Ie, B.

Since I am not sold on your beliefs, would you mind using the scriptures references as used in the Bible?

 

[Interplanner]

Mt24A = Mt 24:1-28 about Judea.
Mt24B = 24:29+ about the whole world. There are some practical instructions that are similar about both. Or else he is just returning to what matters to them in that generation.

 

[God's Truth]

Mt24A = Mt 24:1-28 about Judea.
Mt24B = 24:29+ about the whole world. There are some practical instructions that are similar about both. Or else he is just returning to what matters to them in that generation.

When you speak about a scripture, just use the scripture reference as stated in the Bible.

 

[Interplanner]

Or you could go read it 10x; then it would be more or less embedded in your thinking, and wouldn't have to be written out each and every time.

 

[Interplanner]

But don't just start at Mt24. The overall conclusions of Jesus about the fate of Israel are first stated in the parable of the vineyard back in 21 when he enters the city. This theme builds its way to 24 until you have the disciples blindsided by the things he's saying and they are asking their questions (in 24:1+) with misguided expectations.

 

[rainee]

But don't just start at Mt24. The overall conclusions of Jesus about the fate of Israel are first stated in the parable of the vineyard back in 21 when he enters the city. This theme builds its way to 24 until you have the disciples blindsided by the things he's saying and they are asking their questions (in 24:1+) with misguided expectations.

Ok, this is my last post in a direct disagreement with the Noob, Innterplanner. I don't want him fearing he has picked up a stalker
But in the beginning of Acts the Apostles ask The Lord if he was going to do something for Israel, yes?
Did He answer, "yes, right now!" Or "no, never!"
Or what?
Did He squelch expectations or what?

 

[rainee]

Please accept my apology Interplanner for the above post, I was feeling playful and not serious. I am sorry for sounding so disrespectful. Both you and the subject deserved better.

 

[Interplanner]

OK, I didn't find that much disrespect in it, but I think your last paraphrase may be the closest. A good gritty translation of what Christ said was 'It's none of your business' which in a way gets closer to the immature obsession they were showing in the gospel accounts ('whose the greatest? who gets the seat on the right?' etc).

So now you know your homework: what happens to the 'kingdom' as they thought of it in Acts?

Most people think of the first clues as being the times of refreshing in ch 3's sermon and the restitution. The times of refreshing come with the Spirit, and so were available to any Israelite who believed the apostles. It was to help them accomplish their prophesied mission to the nations.

re the restitution. To whom? I don't think this means to Israel. I think it means to God. I think it is like I Cor 15's section about the world being repaired and given back to the Father.

But the first clue should be the enthronement of Christ mentioned in the ch 2 sermon. God has made Jesus Lord and Christ. That is enthronement. The kingdom is in effect and inaugurated. It is to be proclaimed throughout the world; that this place belongs to him, a name above all names on earth.

If you find something else in Acts, please let me know, but I think that the basic shape of things is right there. The kingdom is in effect and it is a mission and it goes to the nations and Israelites were asked to get to work in it. It also had a supernatural kickstart in the Pentecost event, or in those people returning to their various homes around the Roman world.