Preterist's, whats the diff!

[rhart]

As I have been a dispy for so long. I continue to study. My study has drawn me to a strong leaning to PARTIAL preterism. If this is so, what other inferences are draw into this change in interpretive method.

Basically what other areas of ones theology are affected by this. Are any other doctrines changed or is it only the end times. Any research on these changes would be appreciated.

Why do some preterist hold to rapture and others do not?

I appreciate the help.

I have been off this site for a while. I have found many of the findings and discussions on here useful in my silence. So thanks for that too.

Richard

[GhostontheNet]

The reason the "Preterists," hereafter Hyper-Preterists (aka Full Preterists), hold to a past Ressurection, Rapture, Second Coming, and Final Judgement is that they feel the Bible teaches it. In this section, all calling themselves "Preterists" are of your (and my) Partial/Orthodox Preterist view. They feel they can hold to a past Resurrection and Rapture by denying all the data we have on Resurrection. Is Christ's Ressurection clearly physical? Enough to eat fish and have people touch him and his wounds from crucifiction. N.T. Wright's case for highly ubiquitous belief of bodily Resurrection in Jewish and Christian contexts also provides a major wound (See The Resurrection of the Son of God). From a Biblical standpoint the best they have for a non-physical Resurrection body is 1 Corinthians 15:44 KJV I am still developing my argument against this simply being the immaterial self of man. In this same part of Corinthians, Paul states 1 Corinthians: 15:23-26 KJV I fail to see how it is that all Christ's enemies have been put at His feet when enemies of Christ still exist after the alleged defeat of the last enemy. On the rapture, the Hyper Preterists either spiritualize what clearly looks like a being physically taken from the earth at the Second Coming, or they simply assert a physical Rapture occured saying there is no evidence against it rather than having reason to believe one occured. As to their claim that the Final Judgement, they skip what is at least 1000 years, making it to be a maximum of 40 years. On their claim of a past Second Coming, it ultimately hinges on the interpretation of much of the data used by both sides.

[dizzle]

Hey there, I do hope to get to your post at some point when I can give it some thought.

[rhart]

The reason the "Preterists," hereafter Hyper-Preterists (aka Full Preterists), hold to a past Ressurection, Rapture, Second Coming, and Final Judgement is that they feel the Bible teaches it. In this section, all calling themselves "Preterists" are of your (and my) Partial/Orthodox Preterist view. They feel they can hold to a past Resurrection and Rapture by denying all the data we have on Resurrection. Is Christ's Ressurection clearly physical? Enough to eat fish and have people touch him and his wounds from crucifiction. N.T. Wright's case for highly ubiquitous belief of bodily Resurrection in Jewish and Christian contexts also provides a major wound (See The Resurrection of the Son of God). From a Biblical standpoint the best they have for a non-physical Resurrection body is 1 Corinthians 15:44 KJV I am still developing my argument against this simply being the immaterial self of man. In this same part of Corinthians, Paul states 1 Corinthians: 15:23-26 KJV I fail to see how it is that all Christ's enemies have been put at His feet when enemies of Christ still exist after the alleged defeat of the last enemy. On the rapture, the Hyper Preterists either spiritualize what clearly looks like a being physically taken from the earth at the Second Coming, or they simply assert a physical Rapture occured saying there is no evidence against it rather than having reason to believe one occured. As to their claim that the Final Judgement, they skip what is at least 1000 years, making it to be a maximum of 40 years. On their claim of a past Second Coming, it ultimately hinges on the interpretation of much of the data used by both sides.

Ghostonthenet.

I think I have a pretty good understanding that the hyper's are a little hyper. I think there are some Othodox Preterist who hold to a rapture event and others that do not. This has been a little confusing. It seems that for the view to "work" Paul was presenting this event in a different context than todays fictions depict.

Also, I am very interested in other areas that the are affected by the change of interpretation. I am sure there must be. I have not found any myself. It seems that is the only thing missing for me to evaluate this theological point of view.

I have really read the history on the Revelation dating method. I feel most convinced of the Early Date. The evidence in Matthew 24 is stong as well. The weakest area seems to be dealing with the "Rapture" scriptures. Especially 1 Thess 4:15-17.

I am hoping to get sources or the info needed to validate what I am starting to see here.

Anything believed, that has gone untested is not worth believing!

Richard

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

As a former Dispy turned preterist, I can say that there are no major changes in my theology as a result of the change, but a whole lot of little things have changed. Most notably, when I veiw certain passages from within a preterist framework, they make more sense as part of the whole of scripture. Esepcially the Old Testament. I now see the OT as such an important resource for a solid understanding of the NT (not that I didn't think so before, but the degree to which I see the OT as vital is a degree of magnatude higher than before).

IOW, I find preterism to lend itself to a more internally consistent theology than dispyism. And other parts of scripture make more sense as part of the big picture. This is a change that comes slowly, (3 years and counting for me).

As far as the rapture. If you mean the physical resurrection of the just and unjust at the final judgement, then yes I believe in "the rapture". That is clearly biblical.

Now if by rapture you mean the "popular" definition of a "Church only" resurrection significantly before the final judgement, then I say no. I am not aware of anyone who considers himself a preterist to accept that definition of rapture.

[rhart]

As a former Dispy turned preterist, I can say that there are no major changes in my theology as a result of the change, but a whole lot of little things have changed. Most notably, when I veiw certain passages from within a preterist framework, they make more sense as part of the whole of scripture. Esepcially the Old Testament. I now see the OT as such an important resource for a solid understanding of the NT (not that I didn't think so before, but the degree to which I see the OT as vital is a degree of magnatude higher than before).

IOW, I find preterism to lend itself to a more internally consistent theology than dispyism. And other parts of scripture make more sense as part of the big picture. This is a change that comes slowly, (3 years and counting for me).

As far as the rapture. If you mean the physical resurrection of the just and unjust at the final judgement, then yes I believe in "the rapture". That is clearly biblical.

Now if by rapture you mean the "popular" definition of a "Church only" resurrection significantly before the final judgement, then I say no. I am not aware of anyone who considers himself a preterist to accept that definition of rapture.


Any examples of that new cohesive OT/NT based on the new position. Just wondering? Thank you for the response. By the way if you challenge this doctrine with people, it is like stealing their baby. Gosh, Christians sure love their fiction!!!



Richard

[dizzle]

By the way if you challenge this doctrine with people, it is like stealing their baby. Gosh, Christians sure love their fiction!!!


:lmbo:

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Any examples of that new cohesive OT/NT based on the new position. Just wondering? Thank you for the response. By the way if you challenge this doctrine with people, it is like stealing their baby. Gosh, Christians sure love their fiction!!!



RichardWell for one thing, as a preterist, I recognize the use of OT idioms in the Olivet Discourse. Now that I am properly aware of that I find that I read an OT passage and recognize a simlar phrase in the NT and can usually see a contection (not just eschatological text either). I'm sorry I don't have a concrete example. I will try to think of one.

However, I began to think after I posted in this thread yesterday, that it might not be preterism that is causing this, so much as preterism is an effect of the same cause.

Now that you are really confused let me explain. :grin:

For years I was confused by the dispy eschatology I was raised on. At first I thought it was because I wasn't a "Siminarian" or some such. Then as I got older and more confident, I thought it was because eschatology was so difficult that no one could get a good grasp on it, and that the "experts" were applying a "best guess" interpretation and that Dispensational Futurism (DF) was as good a guess as any.

It wasn't until I began to study the bible for myself that I was ready to embrace preterism. It is quite possible that this new "cohesion" is a result of me getting off my lazy duff and actually studying scripture for myself instead of taking the leadership of my church's position on it. And eschatology was the first house of cards that fell.

Of course it was natural that eschatology fell first. 1) I had already had some doubts about DF and 2) It is IMHO the weakest plank of "popular" Christianity, or at the very least, a very weak plank with a tremendous amount of exposure.


Edit to add.

I thought of a couple of specific things to add:

The concept of the Covenental aspect of the Bible is much more coherent under the preterist perspective (or at least for me away from the Dispy perspective). With preterism you have a clear end of the old covenant and the sacrificial system with the destruction of the Temple. Preterism also allows the New Covenant to be an expanding contiuation of the old covenant instead of a replacement, which fits in with the other covenants being contiuations of the older covenants. This makes the Bible a much more holistic book that discribles a contiuous but changing process instead of a bunch of completely different dispensations.

A specific example of how this makes scripture cleared.

In John where Jesus says, "Destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days". He was not merely talking about his death and resurrection. He was talking about how his sacrificial death and resurrection would replace the temple worship. This kind of clarity of thought is not possible (or it wasn't for me) as a DF, since under DF there will be another temple down the road anyway.

[rhart]

Well for one thing, as a preterist, I recognize the use of OT idioms in the Olivet Discourse. Now that I am properly aware of that I find that I read an OT passage and recognize a simlar phrase in the NT and can usually see a contection (not just eschatological text either). I'm sorry I don't have a concrete example. I will try to think of one.

However, I began to think after I posted in this thread yesterday, that it might not be preterism that is causing this, so much as preterism is an effect of the same cause.

Now that you are really confused let me explain. :grin:

For years I was confused by the dispy eschatology I was raised on. At first I thought it was because I wasn't a "Siminarian" or some such. Then as I got older and more confident, I thought it was because eschatology was so difficult that no one could get a good grasp on it, and that the "experts" were applying a "best guess" interpretation and that Dispensational Futurism (DF) was as good a guess as any.

It wasn't until I began to study the bible for myself that I was ready to embrace preterism. It is quite possible that this new "cohesion" is a result of me getting off my lazy duff and actually studying scripture for myself instead of taking the leadership of my church's position on it. And eschatology was the first house of cards that fell.

Of course it was natural that eschatology fell first. 1) I had already had some doubts about DF and 2) It is IMHO the weakest plank of "popular" Christianity, or at the very least, a very weak plank with a tremendous amount of exposure.


Edit to add.

I thought of a couple of specific things to add:

The concept of the Covenental aspect of the Bible is much more coherent under the preterist perspective (or at least for me away from the Dispy perspective). With preterism you have a clear end of the old covenant and the sacrificial system with the destruction of the Temple. Preterism also allows the New Covenant to be an expanding contiuation of the old covenant instead of a replacement, which fits in with the other covenants being contiuations of the older covenants. This makes the Bible a much more holistic book that discribles a contiuous but changing process instead of a bunch of completely different dispensations.

A specific example of how this makes scripture cleared.

In John where Jesus says, "Destroy this temple, and I will rebuild it in three days". He was not merely talking about his death and resurrection. He was talking about how his sacrificial death and resurrection would replace the temple worship. This kind of clarity of thought is not possible (or it wasn't for me) as a DF, since under DF there will be another temple down the road anyway.

Thanks Faramir....

I agree with the ammendment of as oppossed to the replacement or dual covenant.


Are there any other Preterist guru's who have something to offer on this perspective????????


Richard