Preterist Gangrene: Its Diagnosis, Prognosis and Cure

[Hitch]

I don't get how I "blew it." Where is your proof that Paul was speaking in a general sense about death being conquered for believer and unbeliever alike?

how much time is left after the last trump?

How do you come to that conclusion? In fact, to the contrary, John implies in Rev 20 that some will actually experience death again. So where did I blow it exactly? Show me.

Death is finally conquered -- "swallowed up." that was your chosen term,,,, death can only be finally conquered once Sean no matter how many resurrections you conjure up . But then for futurists 'finally' might be as elastic a term as 'last day ' LOL The only way for that to take place is the end of death, final univerisial resurrection, you know the ancient doctrine the futurist tossed out in their collective delirium. I already asked you how you account for any history after the fact of the last trump,and you didnt answer .

Jesus was plain enough and you can read , so like I said just keep on pretending You dont have to believe Jesus ,in fact you cant and hold some of these silly positions.

I don't get your argument here. I'm not denying Jesus said that. I don't believe that passage relates to what is being described in in 1 Cor 15 or in Rev 20:5. Are you actually suggesting that what Paul was referring to in 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4:17 about the resurrection of the saints was a spiritual resurrection? If that's the case, then I'll end the discussion because I seriously misconstrued the theology you believe.

Its our Lord's eschatology you despise and have foully misrepresented, and this vain attempt at slander doesnt make you look good . It was truely pathetic.

28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,

29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

As I said earlier the disease is failing to believe Jesus Christ, that is the first place futurism fails

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

and fails,,,

So add all the resurrections you like, and gaps and what ever you need because you have demonstrated that you are not bound by the Scripture, not even Jesus Christ personally quoted.

[seanD]

I don't believe Paul was referring to death being conquered for everyone in 1 Cor 15. It was in the context of believers, not unbelievers. Christians are turned immortal, thus death no longer is a factor for them. Pretty logical, no? You disagree, even though you can't prove why it's wrong. Okay fine.

In your religious melodramatics and pretty wild and colorful accusations against me you still haven't answered the question. So do you conclude that 1 Cor and 1 Thess 4:17 are physical resurrections or spiritual resurrections? If physical, then how do you know this is not what Rev 20:5-6 is describing and thus what Hymenaeus and Philetus were interpreting as spiritual, since the two passages have coincidental elements -- saints resurrected with Christ and victory over death?

[Hitch]

I don't believe Paul was referring to death being conquered for everyone in 1 Cor 15.

Well you dont care what Jesus says, and it shows.

New International Version (©1984)
and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

New Living Translation (©2007)
and they will rise again. Those who have done good will rise to experience eternal life, and those who have continued in evil will rise to experience judgment.

English Standard Version (©2001)
and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
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.

International Standard Version (©2008)
and will come out-those who have done what is good to the resurrection that leads to life, and those who have practiced what is evil to the resurrection that ends in condemnation.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And they shall come out: those who have done good things, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil deeds, to the resurrection of judgment.

It was in the context of believers, not unbelievers. Christians are turned immortal, thus death no longer is a factor for them. Pretty logical, no? You disagree, even though you can't prove why it's wrong. Okay fine.

Hey you ignore Jesus when He says last day it follows you ignore Paul when he says last trump LOL

In your religious melodramatics and pretty wild and colorful accusations against me you still haven't answered the question. So do you conclude that 1 Cor and 1 Thess 4:17 are physical resurrections or spiritual resurrections?

There is a general resurrection of mankind on the last day

If physical, then how do you know this is not what Rev 20:5-6 is describing and thus what Hymenaeus and Philetus were interpreting as spiritual, since the two passages have coincidental elements -

So there must be some part of 'last day' you dont understand,,, nahh sorry you just dont care what it means LOL

- saints resurrected with Christ and victory over death?

If I'd never engaged you before I would have thought this was some sort of prank. even now its difficult the take you seriously. Paul makes his point that the resurrection comes at the consummate end, in agreement with Christ, John makes his point that a good bit of history,at least 1,000 years will follow the 'first resurrection' and you're trying to say it might be the same thing? I wouldnt have believed this if some one told it to me.

[seanD]

[QUOTE=Hitch;3362694]

I don't believe Paul was referring to death being conquered for everyone in 1 Cor 15. [/ quote ] Well you dont care what Jesus says, and it shows.New International Version (©1984)
and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

New Living Translation (©2007)
and they will rise again. Those who have done good will rise to experience eternal life, and those who have continued in evil will rise to experience judgment.

English Standard Version (©2001)
and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
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.

International Standard Version (©2008)
and will come out-those who have done what is good to the resurrection that leads to life, and those who have practiced what is evil to the resurrection that ends in condemnation.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And they shall come out: those who have done good things, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil deeds, to the resurrection of judgment.

Hey you ignore Jesus when He says last day it follows you ignore Paul when he says last trump LOL There is a general resurrection of mankind on the last day So there must be some part of 'last day' you dont understand,,, nahh sorry you just dont care what it means LOL If I'd never engaged you before I would have thought this was some sort of prank. even now its difficult the take you seriously. Paul makes his point that the resurrection comes at the consummate end, in agreement with Christ, John makes his point that a good bit of history,at least 1,000 years will follow the 'first resurrection' and you're trying to say it might be the same thing? I wouldnt have believed this if some one told it to me.

Even if you assume Paul was referring to the White Throne Judgement as the resurrection of the saints with Christ, it isn't even portrayed as the last day in Rev 20 because Rev 21 ensues. And low and behold, there is a Tree of Life. Why is there a ToL if death is completely conquered? So the problem is that it isn't as cut and dry as you'd like to think it is. I understand it isn't as cut and dry and acknowledge that there is much information that is obviously missing or isn't clear one way or the other.

So again, the similarities between Paul's resurrection of the saints and Rev 20:5-6's resurrection of the saints is an issue I'd be concerned with if I was arguing that the latter is spiritual and not physical because not only does Rev 20:5-6 look like the same resurrection but it looks to me like this is what Hymenaeus and Philetus was arguing and what Paul was warning against.

[zwan]

The paper is written by a Amillenialist to combat Full Preterism...

It looks like it is trying to combat preterism in general.

Funny really to lump all preterist together by saying that OP's are "inconsistent" Preterists...it's kind of like the rose bush calling the cactus thorny...

Are you saying that the author is also guilty of being inconsistent? That doesn't refute him.

[Littlejoe]

It looks like it is trying to combat preterism in general.

Are you saying that the author is also guilty of being inconsistent? That doesn't refute him.

You DO realize you can be a Orthodox Preterist AND Amillennial....right? That's why he's inconsistent...(and potentially) wrong

[Hitch]

[QUOTE=seanD;3362697]

Even if you assume Paul was referring to the White Throne Judgement as the resurrection of the saints with Christ, it isn't even portrayed as the last day in Rev 20 because Rev 21 ensues. And low and behold, there is a Tree of Life. Why is there a ToL if death is completely conquered? So the problem is that it isn't as cut and dry as you'd like to think it is. I understand it isn't as cut and dry and acknowledge that there is much information that is obviously missing or isn't clear one way or the other.

So again, the similarities between Paul's resurrection of the saints and Rev 20:5-6's resurrection of the saints is an issue I'd be concerned with if I was arguing that the latter is spiritual and not physical because not only does Rev 20:5-6 look like the same resurrection but it looks to me like this is what Hymenaeus and Philetus was arguing and what Paul was warning against.

LOL You have no excuse, you ddidnt before this thread but thats another matter. You know Jesus said the resurrection would come at the last day, You do not believe what Jesus said . That is the disease.

[One Bad Pig]

You DO realize you can be a Orthodox Preterist AND Amillennial....right? That's why he's inconsistent...(and potentially) wrong

[zwan]

You DO realize you can be a Orthodox Preterist AND Amillennial....right? That's why he's inconsistent...

Why would that make him inconsistent?

Anyway, what matters is whether partial preterists are "inconsistent".

[seanD]

LOL You have no excuse, you ddidnt before this thread but thats another matter. You know Jesus said the resurrection would come at the last day, You do not believe what Jesus said . That is the disease.

Obviously Jesus didn't literally mean "last day" because Rev 21 clearly tells us it's not the last day. Instead, "last day" means the end of a particular era. Last Day incorporates resurrection of the saints, immortality (death conquered) and judgement of the saints (rewards). Since Jesus said he would separate the sinners from saints, well, in Rev 20:5-6 that's exactly what he does -- he resurrects the saints, while the rest wait in the grave for their final doom (lake of fire). No conflicts there, and it works out pretty simple for me. So your issue is not with what I believe but with the conflict YOU have with Rev 21.

[Littlejoe]

Why would that make him inconsistent?

Anyway, what matters is whether partial preterists are "inconsistent".

633820907326946345-JesusFacepalm.jpg

You obviously don't understand either Amillenialism OR Partial Preterism (PP)

Let's do this, explain how you think the author directly shows how PP is inconsistent. Then I may have more confidence you actually understand the argument.

LJ

[zwan]

633820907326946345-JesusFacepalm.jpg

You obviously don't understand either Amillenialism OR Partial Preterism (PP)

Let's do this, explain how you think the author directly shows how PP is inconsistent. Then I may have more confidence you actually understand the argument.

LJ

How about you back up what you said:

"You DO realize you can be a Orthodox Preterist AND Amillennial....right? That's why he's inconsistent..."

That may give me some confidence that you actually know what you are talking about.

[Littlejoe]

How about you back up what you said:

"You DO realize you can be a Orthodox Preterist AND Amillennial....right? That's why he's inconsistent..."

That may give me some confidence that you actually know what you are talking about.

You're the OP....you made the assertions to start with...you have not shown one thing to back it up, other than to post an article by someone else...why should I waste my time when it seems obvious you don't even seem understand the argument...

It's like you have put a chip on your shoulder and are daring us to knock it off...life to short to play those games...

LJ

[Hitch]

You're the OP....you made the assertions to start with...you have not shown one thing to back it up, other than to post an article by someone else...why should I waste my time when it seems obvious you don't even seem understand the argument...

It's like you have put a chip on your shoulder and are daring us to knock it off...life to short to play those games...

LJ

Ya know you never hear of a Full Preterist Modalist, ....

[zwan]

You're the OP....you made the assertions to start with...

Posting a link to an article isn't "making assertions"; it's just posting a link to an article.

you have not shown one thing to back it up, other than to post an article by someone else...why should I waste my time when it seems obvious you don't even seem understand the argument...

It's like you have put a chip on your shoulder and are daring us to knock it off...life to short to play those games...

LJ

So when you're just asked to support a claim you made, you run away from doing so and throw out nonsense like this?

You are asked to support your claim, and you talk about people "playing games"? I guess you want a world where you can say whatever you want without worrying about truth!