For Futurists who come here to LEARN about Preterism

[LetGodBeTrue]

Many unfair and unjust attacks have been made against preterism by futurists.  As a former futurist (pre-mil, pre-trib. dispensationalist), I recognize the cohesiveness of the futurist paradigm.  I believe that many of the individual tenets of it are false, but I can see how they tie together into a unified system.

It is my hope that I can convince others who object to preterism to at least recognize its cohesiveness even though they deny the individual tenets of it.  It does no good for us to attack another system as inconsistent when we are the ones causing the inconsistencies by forcing our individual tenets into the other model and then crying foul when things don't fit.  A futurist should not push its physical, bodily understanding of the resurrection into the preterist paradigm.  Object to preterism if you must but object to it as a whole and while allowing it to be a unified body of parts.  My point is this, when someone understands preterism and the individual tenets it professes, he should at least be able to concede that it works (within its own system)--just as futurism works within its own system.

Futurism and preterism, while both consistent and unified, are completely at odds with one another.  Here is why.  The one concentrates on the literal words of certain passages that seem to indicate a physical, bodily return of Christ.  It is the futurist understanding that physical death was a part of the Fall and that it was also a big part of Christ's redemption.  According to the futurist paradigm, therefore, people must be raised bodily out of their graves.  As a result of that foundation, such expressions as "soon," "at hand," "near," and "this generation," taken literally and in their normal, everyday usage, cause difficulties for the futurist model.  They must be somehow dealt with.  But there is consistency in this system.

On the other hand, since preterism sees spiritual death as that which Adam died when he sinned and understands that Christ came to restore that which was lost through a spiritual resurrection, it must deal with those passages which seem to teach a bodily, physical resurrection at Christ's return.  However, preterism is not forced to deal with simple time statements.  They can stand in their normal, everyday, common usages because they do no harm to the preterist paradigm.  But again, there is consistency in this system.

Both models have their difficulties.  The futurist must deal with the time statements and the preterist must deal with apparent physical and bodily resurrection passages.  Which model does a better job of dealing with its difficulties?  I guess one must decide which "literal" aspect of the Scriptures he will begin with.  Preterists cannot ignore what they consider to be clear time restraints for the Second Coming, the resurrection, and the judgment.  It, therefore, seeks to move from that foundation to synchronize other passages and doctrines to those time constraints.  The futurists are convinced that resurrection passages teach a bodily resurrection at some end of time.  They, therefore, must somehow synchronize the clear time statements to that understanding.

Let both sides recognize that they have difficulties to address.  "Bodily" resurrection passages are a problem for preterists, but being true to the time restraints given by Christ and His apostles, their focus is to re-evaluate the common understanding of the resurrection to find how it might actually, when understood correctly, fit perfectly with the timing.  It would be admirable on the part of futurists and greatly beneficial to the debate between both of these opposing views, if they would readily admit that the time statements in Scripture are, in fact, a difficulty for them.  Must preterists "twist" the resurrection passages to fit the time restraints?  We must openly and honestly look into that.  Must futurists "twist" the many time indicators in order to fit their understanding of a bodily resurrection at the end of time?  We must openly and honestly look into that.

Both sides must admit their difficulties.  Which side does a better job of overcoming them?  Only diligent study intent on discovering truth and not dedicated to shoring up one's preconceived ideas (on both sides) will cause us to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

I would like this discussion to be NOT about our pointing out the inconsistencies in someone else's paradigm, but about each side admitting its own difficulties and addressing them only.  Thank you.

Come now, let us reason together.

[notreligus]

Many unfair and unjust attacks have been made against preterism by futurists.  As a former futurist (pre-mil, pre-trib. dispensationalist), I recognize the cohesiveness of the futurist paradigm.  I believe that many of the individual tenets of it are false, but I can see how they tie together into a unified system.

It is my hope that I can convince others who object to preterism to at least recognize its cohesiveness even though they deny the individual tenets of it.  It does no good for us to attack another system as inconsistent when we are the ones causing the inconsistencies by forcing our individual tenets into the other model and then crying foul when things don't fit.  A futurist should not push its physical, bodily understanding of the resurrection into the preterist paradigm.  Object to preterism if you must but object to it as a whole and while allowing it to be a unified body of parts.  My point is this, when someone understands preterism and the individual tenets it professes, he should at least be able to concede that it works (within its own system)--just as futurism works within its own system.

Futurism and preterism, while both consistent and unified, are completely at odds with one another.  Here is why.  The one concentrates on the literal words of certain passages that seem to indicate a physical, bodily return of Christ.  It is the futurist understanding that physical death was a part of the Fall and that it was also a big part of Christ's redemption.  According to the futurist paradigm, therefore, people must be raised bodily out of their graves.  As a result of that foundation, such expressions as "soon," "at hand," "near," and "this generation," taken literally and in their normal, everyday usage, cause difficulties for the futurist model.  They must be somehow dealt with.  But there is consistency in this system.

On the other hand, since preterism sees spiritual death as that which Adam died when he sinned and understands that Christ came to restore that which was lost through a spiritual resurrection, it must deal with those passages which seem to teach a bodily, physical resurrection at Christ's return.  However, preterism is not forced to deal with simple time statements.  They can stand in their normal, everyday, common usages because they do no harm to the preterist paradigm.  But again, there is consistency in this system.

Both models have their difficulties.  The futurist must deal with the time statements and the preterist must deal with apparent physical and bodily resurrection passages.  Which model does a better job of dealing with its difficulties?  I guess one must decide which "literal" aspect of the Scriptures he will begin with.  Preterists cannot ignore what they consider to be clear time restraints for the Second Coming, the resurrection, and the judgment.  It, therefore, seeks to move from that foundation to synchronize other passages and doctrines to those time constraints.  The futurists are convinced that resurrection passages teach a bodily resurrection at some end of time.  They, therefore, must somehow synchronize the clear time statements to that understanding.

Let both sides recognize that they have difficulties to address.  "Bodily" resurrection passages are a problem for preterists, but being true to the time restraints given by Christ and His apostles, their focus is to re-evaluate the common understanding of the resurrection to find how it might actually, when understood correctly, fit perfectly with the timing.  It would be admirable on the part of futurists and greatly beneficial to the debate between both of these opposing views, if they would readily admit that the time statements in Scripture are, in fact, a difficulty for them.  Must preterists "twist" the resurrection passages to fit the time restraints?  We must openly and honestly look into that.  Must futurists "twist" the many time indicators in order to fit their understanding of a bodily resurrection at the end of time?  We must openly and honestly look into that.

Both sides must admit their difficulties.  Which side does a better job of overcoming them?  Only diligent study intent on discovering truth and not dedicated to shoring up one's preconceived ideas (on both sides) will cause us to rightly divide the Word of Truth.

I would like this discussion to be NOT about our pointing out the inconsistencies in someone else's paradigm, but about each side admitting its own difficulties and addressing them only.  Thank you.

Come now, let us reason together.

Give me a break!   How many posts are made right here in this forum which ridicule non-Preterists?  I don't know the exact number but there are many.   Let's not be hypocrites about this.   If you are going to state that no one can come into this forum and point out your errors, then why is it OK for you to come outside of this forum and instruct others how they are wrong?   

Are you familiar with the term apologetics?   If so, then you know that the reason that there are many different forum groups here which are divided along theological and denominational lines is because Christians have decided to follow a particular doctrinal view.   Christians ought to be able to defend their beliefs.   You can teach others about Preterism as you defend it.   If you can't defend it then it is indefensible, right?   

[k-pappy]

Ok, to all those who disagree with preterism:  Please remember not to attack the messenger.  I have seen people get frustrated on both sides.  I've been frustrated and have simply stopped discussing.  Let's remember that regardless of our personal views, we are followers of Christ.  As strongly as we disagree with views, let's not make the discussions personal, ok?

Oh, and please focus only on the way YOU act, and don't use the way others act as an excuse.

Thanks!

[Red Baker]

Many unfair and unjust attacks have been made against preterism by futurists 

Sir, I believe you need to go back and read the post again, and see who are being rude and unfair. 

  As a former futurist (pre-mil, pre-trib. dispensationalist),

So was I, yet I am not a futurist of that camp now, but a amill futurist.  Yet, I believe God has children within that belief system. 

It is my hope that I can convince others who object to preterism to at least recognize its cohesiveness even though they deny the individual tenets of it.

I believe every sincere person, who has love for the truth, has try every spirit that has gone out into the world, I for one have, and have friends that believe much of what you hold to, except they believe in a future resurrection of our bodies, and Jesus' coming again to received us unto himself. 

when we are the ones causing the inconsistencies by forcing our individual tenets into the other model and then crying foul when things don't fit.

You want me to believe that you do not do this?  Please, be honest.

Object to preterism if you must but object to it as a whole while allowing it to be a unified body of parts.

It is only a unified body of parts, if the scriptures will support it, which we believe God's testimony will give it no support.

My point is this, when someone understands preterism and the individual tenets it professes, he should at least be able to concede that it works (within its own system)--just as futurism works within its own system.

The sound bites works for many different beliefs which men profess to be God's truth, but will the scriptures, overall considered, support one's belief, are the reasons why men have debating since  the days of the apostles, when the scriptures were completed.  Again, futurism are divided into two main systems, which you only refer to as one.

Futurism and preterism, while both consistent and unified, are completely at odds with one another.  Here is why.  The one concentrates on the literal words of certain passages that seem to indicate a physical, bodily return of Christ.

Not so~again, futerism are strongly divided into two camps.  It is very true, that both agree on a literal second coming of Christ, and a literal bodily resurrection.

It is the futurist understanding that physical death was a part of the Fall and that it was also a big part of Christ's redemption.

Both camps of the futurist do indeed agree on that doctrine.

As a result of that foundation, such expressions as "soon," "at hand," "near," and "this generation," taken literally and in their normal, everyday usage, cause difficulties for the futurist model.

No difficulties for one who has ponder and dealt with these things before, many times over.

However, preterism is not forced to deal with simple time statements.

Really?  let us see.

I must attend a meeting, but shall return.

[LetGodBeTrue]

notreligus, already you are trying to hijack the intent of this thread.  Why?

I have made a sincere offer for us to simply present our paradigms.  There are plenty of other places to argue and debate.  That was not my intent with this thread, and yet, you immediately come here and seek to be offensive.

Please read again what I am proposing in this thread.  If you would like to debate the differences between preterism and futurism, there are plenty of other threads in which you can do that OR you could start your own.

BUT that is not what I was asking for here.

Do you understand?

[LetGodBeTrue]

I give up.  I do not know what else to do.  Is there anyone out there who understands what I was seeking to do with this thread?  No one who has weighed in so far seems to know.  Already people are going line by line trying to tear apart everything I said.  That was not my intent here. 

Please contribute under the stated purpose of this thread.

[Red Baker]

I give up.  I do not know what else to do.  Is there anyone out there who understands what I was seeking to do with this thread?  No one who has weighed in so far seems to know.  Already people are going line by line trying to tear apart everything I said.  That was not my intent here. 

Please contribute under the stated purpose of this thread.

Sir, You want us to play a game you invented, and by your rules, and you will tell us how the game is going to be played, so at the end, you decide what we can say, and what we cannot say, and who is is playing right and who is not, so that you can win in your own mind.   

I will go back to the other thread and deal with THIS GENERATION base upon how Jesus Christ used the phrase.  The scriptures defines its own use of words, not Webster, or Red Baker or any other man.   

[LetGodBeTrue]

Red, you do not understand or are you willfully not understanding what this thread is about? I want FUTURISTS to also outline their beliefs without fear of being attacked.  Why must you always give me a hassle?  I was not forcing anyone here.  I cannot believe that before we have even begun, you and others have sidetracked everything.  This was not intended to be some game or some trap.  What is wrong with you?

I simply wanted it to be an opportunity for both sides to present how their system or paradigm is cohesive and consistent--BOTH sides.

This is why I get into trouble.  I try to be reasonable with unreasonable people.  It cannot be done.   SIGH!

[AVZ]

I would like this discussion to be NOT about our pointing out the inconsistencies in someone else's paradigm, but about each side admitting its own difficulties and addressing them only.  Thank you.

Well, why don't you start?

[raggthyme13]

I would like this discussion to be NOT about our pointing out the inconsistencies in someone else's paradigm, but about each side admitting its own difficulties and addressing them only.  Thank you.

I'm not sure futurists will admit to any difficulties.. I've never heard them talk about inconsistencies within their own eschatology. In fact, I've never really even heard preterists talk about theirs... even though I myself have some questions about how certain scriptures fit into my (relatively newfound) paradigm.

This should be an interesting and unique thread if it goes the way you hope it will.

[AVZ]

I would like this discussion to be NOT about our pointing out the inconsistencies in someone else's paradigm, but about each side admitting its own difficulties and addressing them only.  Thank you.

I'm not sure futurists will admit to any difficulties.. I've never heard them talk about inconsistencies within their own eschatology. In fact, I've never really even heard preterists talk about theirs... even though I myself have some questions about how certain scriptures fit into my (relatively newfound) paradigm.

This should be an interesting and unique thread if it goes the way you hope it will.

Of course it is not going the way he wants, because the request is an impossible feat.
Asking a futurist to explain "difficulties" is like asking a creationist to explain the "difficulties" of creation.
To a creationist there is no "difficulty" with creation because it was executed by someone who is above and beyond difficulties.
The difficulty only exists in the mind of the other person.

To a futurist there is not difficulty with futurism simply because it is prophesy, and it is executed by someone above and beyond difficulties.
If God decides to thrown down the stars of heaven, then He is able to do so...no difficulty at all for Him.
Secondly, prophesy cannot be proven as it is yet to happen.

So the difficulty solely is with the preterist as they place the prophesy in the past.
They must make a solid argument that Revelation is not future, but history.

And right now it appears that the OP is unable to make that solid argument, as he just admitted that there are difficulties with his premise.

[Red Baker]

Red, you do not understand or are you willfully not understanding what this thread is about?

Well, every time you are confronted, you lessen the rules.   Now this could be workable~but does not mean that it will not end in a dog fight, which it most likely will. 

As AVZ said:  "Well, why don't you start?"

[Stormcrow]

Re: For Futurists who come here to LEARN about Preterism

Seems fairly simply to me: this was intended to be an invitation to futurists wishing to learn and try to understand preterism.  Yet the usual suspects have turned it into an argument and debate thread once again.

Paul clearly addresses the nature of the resurrection when he wrote this:

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;  it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;  it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 (NIV2011)

Paul further clarifies this view in 2nd Corinthians:

For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.  Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling,  because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked.  For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 (NIV2011)

The mortal that was to be swallowed in life is - as Paul wrote in this same passage - was to be found in heaven!  The futurist view raises people bodily from the grave so that they can reign with Christ on a re-created earth, yet that is not what Paul taught!

Jesus, in describing the resurrection, said this:

"In the resurrection therefore, which one's wife will she be? For all seven had married her."  Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage,  but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;  for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.  "But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the burning bush, where he calls the Lord THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, AND THE GOD OF ISAAC, AND THE GOD OF JACOB.  "Now He is not the God of the dead but of the living; for all live to Him." Luke 20:33-38 (NASB)

If anyone thinks that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still in the gave waiting to be raised into the presence of God, they are sorely mistaken.  They are as alive as Jesus is, and are with Him in heaven right now enjoying their eternal bodies, just as Paul and every believer who has died since 70 AD is.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven, which is why the body that is raised is spiritual, not physical.  It is a body made for eternal life in heaven.  This is what Jesus and Paul taught.

[Stormcrow]

Quick show of hands: how many futurists believe they will escape bodily death because of the rapture?  If you think you will avoid the pain of death, think again.  Paul was clear on this point, too:

But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?"  You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies;  and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.  But God gives it a body just as He wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own.  All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.  There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. 1 Corinthians 15:35-40 (NASB)

Paul uses the analogy of a seed going into the ground and dying before it can become what God intended it to be!

When your old, tired, worn-out body dies, it will go into the ground, but your spirit will go to be with the Father, clothed with a new, spiritual, eternal body that He has already prepared for you. 

That is what Paul taught.

All this is to say that preterists don't have as much trouble with the resurrection as futurists do with the many time statements Jesus and the apostles used to describe Christ's return for them.

[Red Baker]

Quick show of hands: how many futurists believe they will escape bodily death because of the rapture?  If you think you will avoid the pain of death, think again.

I would love to go one on one with you, Mr. [deleted] on THIS generation from Matthew 24.

[LetGodBeTrue]

It's not starting out that way, raggthyme.  I guess I was naive to think that people with such opposing views could openly share their own strengths and weaknesses without attacking the other side.

[LetGodBeTrue]

I did not lessen the rules, Red.  When did I do that?  You are the one trying to change the rules, not I.

[LetGodBeTrue]

Already the name calling, Red (describing Stormcrow as Mr. proud spirit).  If you want to discuss Matthew 24:34 and "this generation," many of us would love to do that--but NOT on this thread, although that issue would certainly come up IF futurists would admit that it is a problem for them.  Please respect the topic.

I have not yet begun because people like you keep sidetracking the topic of the thread.  Please stop.  If you see no difficulties with your paradigm, this is not the place for you.  This is not a debate.  I intended it for a learning thread.  How do preterists deal with passages that appear to teach a bodily resurrection? How do futurists deal with the time statements that do injustice to their contention that things are still future?

If you don't like those parameters, no one is forcing you to be here.  But please stop coming here and changing my intent.  You have already sidetracked me and others.

I am going to SHORTLY begin my perspective on some things.  I will not deal with people who intentionally refuse to follow the topic I started.  Is that not my prerogative in beginning a thread?

[LetGodBeTrue]

I guess the best place to begin is at the beginning.  For most preterists I know, the death Adam experienced in the Garden was spiritual.  He lost (and all mankind as a result) the relationship he had had with God.  He suffered that death immediately--just as immediately as his eyes being opened.  Christ came and died to restore that life and not to save Man from physical death.   I believe that physical death was part of creation.  Death exists all around us in nature--one creature's death benefits another creature's life.  The soil is nourished from death and decay.  It is the concept that physical death began at the Fall that requires no physical death before the Fall.  I know there are preterists who disagree with me on this.  I am interested in their perspective. 

God created Man from the dust and to the dust He was always intended return.  If Man was intended by God to always exist on the earth (which would have been reality if he had never sinned) while heaven is taught to be so much better, wouldn't that make sin and redemption appear to be a good thing since they opened up the possibility of heaven? 

Do futurists believe that had Man not sinned, he would have never died physically but would have remained forever on the earth.  OR would there have been a time of testing after which he would have been taken to heaven?

What saith you other preterists and you futurists? 

[Red Baker]

I will not deal with people who intentionally refuse to follow the topic I started.

No problem~but it was Stromcrow who started his post with these words:

Quick show of hands: how many futurists believe they will escape bodily death because of the rapture?  If you think you will avoid the pain of death, think again.

All this is to say that preterists don't have as much trouble with the resurrection as futurists do

So who first intentionally refused to follow the thread. 

  If you see no difficulties with your paradigm, this is not the place for you.

Then it is not for me.  Here is why, and then I am finish:  I believe that the scriptures alone are our only source of truth. Daniel 10:31 I believe that truth is hidden there in, not outside of the scriptures.  I believe that the scriptures alone will interpret themselves for us, by comparing scriptures with scriptures.  The scriptures defines its meaning of words, not Webster.  I believe if a regenerate child of God never heard of 70 A.D. it would never affect his understanding God's truth that is recorded and hidden within the scriptures~none whatsoever!   To understand God's truth, all that is needed is a regenerate spirit that is capable of learning, (the Holy Spirit living within a person)  faith, prayer, and a elder of the faith guiding their regenerated spirit~no outside source, or extra-biblical means can give any light, or understanding upon God's truth.  Truth is Divinely given to the elect on the behalf of Jesus Christ, and more so, as they apply themselves diligently to the things of God, and not of this world.     

     

[LetGodBeTrue]

Actually, Red, I believe it was you who began taking EVERY point of my initial post and tearing into it.  You attempted to negate the very premise upon which I began the thread.

Furthermore, even after you decided you did not like my rules and the nature of my thread, your parting words were critical of preterism and suggestive that only futurism understands truth as found in the Bible.  Thanks for yet another distraction from what I am seeking to do here.

[raggthyme13]

I guess the best place to begin is at the beginning.  For most preterists I know, the death Adam experienced in the Garden was spiritual.  He lost (and all mankind as a result) the relationship he had had with God.  He suffered that death immediately--just as immediately as his eyes being opened.  Christ came and died to restore that life and not to save Man from physical death.   I believe that physical death was part of creation.  Death exists all around us in nature--one creature's death benefits another creature's life.  The soil is nourished from death and decay.  It is the concept that physical death began at the Fall that requires no physical death before the Fall.  I know there are preterists who disagree with me on this.  I am interested in their perspective. 

God created Man from the dust and to the dust He was always intended return.  If Man was intended by God to always exist on the earth (which would have been reality if he had never sinned) while heaven is taught to be so much better, wouldn't that make sin and redemption appear to be a good thing since they opened up the possibility of heaven? 

Do futurists believe that had Man not sinned, he would have never died physically but would have remained forever on the earth.  OR would there have been a time of testing after which he would have been taken to heaven?

What saith you other preterists and you futurists?

I've always thought that the consequence for his sin was both spiritual and physical death. I'd always been taught that man and animals were made to live forever. But the difficulty with that is that there is only so much room on this physical planet and as we know, if man was never meant to die we would have long ago run out of it! (Unless the command to "fill the earth" meant that once it was full there would be no more conception.)

Another difficulty is that even in a perfect and sinless state, Adam's body was created fragile. Accidents still happen.. if a person falls out of a tree and lands on their head.. well the body could be injured beyond repair. Not sure where I'm going with this, just throwing some things out there. :)

[Stormcrow]

I've always thought that the consequence for his sin was both spiritual and physical death.

It was.  God was teaching Adam (and Eve), among other things, that they lived in a cause and effect world, and that consequences (the "effect") would always follow their actions (the "cause").  There is no better illustration of this than in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, where God says repeatedly "if you obey me, this will happen, but if you don't, then this will happen."  Physical death is a real consequence of Adam's sin, and continues to be a consequence of bad behavior: drug overdose, drunk driving, anger, jealousy, envy, etc.

However, Christ's redemptive work on the cross was not to save us from physical death (though He told His disciples to flee Jerusalem lest they should suffer the same fate as those who stayed in the city), but from spiritual death, which is the result of being cast out of the presence of God.  The penalty for their disobedience was to be cast out from God's presence and the moment they were, they died spiritually: cut off from God's life-giving spirit.  Physical death followed hundreds of years later.  It was not the immediate consequence of their sin.

Paul writes about this repeatedly:

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.  And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.  Romans 5:10-11 (NASB)

Adam and Eve were cast out of the presence of God.  They were, in a word, "excommunicated" from His presence, and it was through Adam's disobedience that all men fell into this state of excommunication.  (The word excommunication means putting a specific individual or group out of communion.)

Christ's death was to reconcile us to God, not in the flesh but in the spirit.

And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,  yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— Colossians 1:21-22 (NASB)

And it's this reconciliation that allows a believer who does to go straight to the Father without languishing in the grave waiting for a resurrection that Christ's redemptive work already provided.

[LetGodBeTrue]

I want to clarify your position, Stormcrow, with a question.  If Adam had not sinned, would he have lived on the earth forever without dying? Is that what you are saying?  Just asking.   Is it not possible that it was not physical death that affected Adam at the Fall so much as life becoming difficult until such time as he was predetermined to die?

Thanks for sharing.  I will continue my position on this tomorrow.  The sandman is beating me to death right now!

[AVZ]

I want to clarify your position, Stormcrow, with a question.  If Adam had not sinned, would he have lived on the earth forever without dying? Is that what you are saying?  Just asking.   Is it not possible that it was not physical death that affected Adam at the Fall so much as life becoming difficult until such time as he was predetermined to die?

Thanks for sharing.  I will continue my position on this tomorrow.  The sandman is beating me to death right now!

You are desperately speculating. Genesis does not mention if humans were meant to live forever. You are asking people to take a stance on a point that even you do not know for sure.
The sacrificial lambs in the old testament had to die physically to make sin void. And Jesus too had to die physically as well.
The Bible clearly teaches that blood is required to satisfy God.

See, you reject the idea of a physical resurrection, you reject the idea of graves opening and people coming out. You make the whole Bible a spiritual event where physical death is inconsequential.
Yet we have Jesus dying physically and arising physically, leaving us an open and empty grave. Why?
In your book Jesus could have simply died spiritually, and then...who knows? Live a long life thereafter and finally die of natural cause?

From the onset the Bible teaches that physical death is a necessity.
So who's message shall we follow then? Yours or Jesus'?

[Stormcrow]

If Adam had not sinned, would he have lived on the earth forever without dying?

I believe it's a moot point, however, I also believe he would've lived in God's presence without dying, wherever God's presence was. The Jewish teaching concurs with this:

The First Commandment

When G-d gave Adam permission to eat the fruits of all the trees in the Garden of Eden, He warned him not to eat of the fruit of the "Etz Hadaath," the "Tree of Knowledge" of good and evil, which stood in the middle of the Garden. Its fruits were very beautiful. As long as Adam did not eat of it, he was like an angel who does only good and lives forever. The fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge," however, had the power to fill a man with the desire for both good and evil.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/246606/jewish/The-First-Human-Beings.htm

Once he sinned, however, man was cast out of the garden and God's presence, thus affecting his immediate spiritual death and eventual physical death.

There is a very good article written from the Jewish perspective on this found here:

http://www.jewishpathways.com/chumash-themes/garden-eden  Here's a snippet:

The Tree

Let us begin by describing the Tree, formally known as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The word for knowledge, da'at, is used later to describe the marital union between Adam and Eve. Therefore an alternative translation might be: the Tree of Union Between Good and Evil.2

And this is the crux of the matter: When God created the world, He clearly defined right from wrong. All moral issues were objective and not subjective. There was one, obvious, absolute morality. True, one could choose to do the wrong thing, but that choice was clear.

Yet God did create one place of moral confusion: the Tree. Eating from the Tree would actually internalize a confusion between right and wrong. Avoiding this fate was Adam and Eve's one mitzvah to observe. And were they to refrain from eating -- i.e. from entering that state of confusion -- the world would have reached its ultimate completion. Mankind would have been immortal; forever in Paradise.

The Tree had a tremendous alluring power, primarily in how it affected the senses: Eve first listens to the snake's seduction. She is then attracted to the look of the tree. She then takes the fruit in hand and tastes it. As the verses say: "And when the woman saw that the tree was... a delight to the eyes... she took of the fruit, and did eat..." (Genesis 3:6).

When Adam and Eve eat from the tree, it triggers a new modus operandi for the entire human experience: The senses become more powerful than the intellect. And because all sensory delights are by nature subjective, at this point man's frame of reference becomes personal rather than universal. Thus each person feels empowered to decide for themselves between right and wrong, and moral confusion enters the world.

It does seem to explain how right is wrong and wrong is right in a morally relativistic worldview, doesn't it?

In the article, the author explains (as I have tried to do) that God did not punish Adam and Eve (as He did the serpent), but only gave them over to the consequences of their sin.  Sound familiar?  Paul writes the same thing:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,  because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Professing to be wise, they became fools,  and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man--and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.  Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,  who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions... Romans 1:20-26 (NKJV)

In conclusion, I am inclined to believe the Jewish view of Adam and Eve as articulated above.  Had they never sinned, mankind would still be in a state of innocence and alive in the presence of God to this very day.  But, of course, we know that didn't happen and contemplating the alternative is merely speculation.

[LetGodBeTrue]

I see a definite relationship between the creation of man as a physical being and the seed analogy of 1 Corinthians 15. 

Adam was created to die and to return to the dust.  In his unfallen state, since he had not sinned, his seed (his physical body) would have gone through the same resurrection process of 1 Corinthians 15--there is the physical and there is the spiritual.  This has always been.

Unfallen man was to die and that physical seed was to die and out of it was to come that which was fitted for heaven.  To view it any other way is to see 1 Corinthians 15 as something new and something after the fact.

The world operates on death and decay.  It is the process of life.  I do not believe that is an aspect of the Fall.  Plants and animals die and fertilize the earth so that new plants can come forth.  That is the life cycle.  It did not come into being as a result of sin.  It is good and it is natural.  The death Adam suffered was spiritual so that at death the seed died and nothing spiritual could come from it. 

If not sinning meant remaining on the earth and never receiving the glory of 1 Corinthians 15, it hardly seems a good thing.  Did the Fall bring about something better than what they would have had had Adam not sinned?  He was created from the dust and to the dust he was predetermined to return, apart from the Fall, as every living thing, so that the seed that was planted at death (his physical body) could release that which was not like that which was planted!  That newness of life, that life which would come forth from the death of the seed, is what was lost in Adam.  Physical death has never been the enemy.  Sin brought about harshness of life not physical death.  It brought about sorrow in the natural process of life because there was no life in the seed so that when natural death came, it was fruitless.  Even in the Creation we find the principles of 1 Corinthians 15.

Christ came to take the sting and victory from the natural process of death and not to end physical death. He came to give back to those in Christ that life that was always meant to come forth from the death of the seed--the physical body.  Death brings newness of life for those with spiritual life.  It has always been that way.

[LetGodBeTrue]

IF physical death was part of God's original creation and it involved that which was "good," then Christ did not come to raise physical bodies from their graves but to restore that spiritual life that was lost in Adam.  From this perspective, it is not a stretch to view the resurrection as a restoration of life that is spiritual (yet actual) and not physical. 

This perspective also honors the time statements.  The resurrection and the judgment are inseparably tied to Christ's return.  He said He as returning to those of His generation.  The resurrection and the judgment, when viewed properly, fit into that scenario. 

When Christ died for our sins, he sealed the promise of salvation until such time as all things were fulfilled.  Preterism respects the holy duties of the priesthood.  Christ, as the unique High Priest, ascended into heaven and sprinkled His blood on the heavenly Mercy Seat in the Heavenly Most Holy Place.  He exited the Most Holy Place, not in a symbolic display of the propitiation for sins, but as the actual propitiation.  He could then return to those disciples and those saints of THAT generation so that where He was they could be also (John 14).  It was His exit from the heavenly Most Holy Place that brought the completed salvation He had told His disciples to look for as they stood right there with Him.  It was that same salvation Paul spoke of as being nearer than when THEY first believed!  It was the salvation necessary to "resurrect" dead saints from Sheol/Hades. 

The seed had to die in order for it to become that which was different from the seed (I Corinthians 15).  Those still alive and in Christ were immediately changed--in the twinkling of an eye.  The dead in Christ and those alive in Christ were gathered together in Christ (Mat. 24:30, 1 Thes. 4).  The body, made from dust, returns to dust, never to rise again.  The new body given to believers at Christ's return, and subsequently to all believers, was not physical; but it was as real and tangible as a physical body.  Its nature is such that it is fitted for the heavenly realm and not the earthly realm.  It is not a misty, ghostly apparition--it is real and substantive, but heavenly. 

This approach, I believe, does justice to Paul's words to Felix that there was then "about to be" a resurrection of the dead (Acts 24:15).

[LetGodBeTrue]

It was not the purpose of this thread for people to copy and paste things that have questionable relevance to this and other threads.  This is the second time I have seen this Time Traveler "poem"--here and in another thread, where it was equally irrelevant.

Can you put any of this into YOUR words?

[Red Baker]

It was not the purpose of this thread for people to copy and paste things that have questionable relevance to this and other threads.  This is the second time I have seen this Time Traveler "poem"--here and in another thread, where it was equally irrelevant.

Can you put any of this into YOUR words?

Brother, he is an atheist, that does not follow the word of God, but only uses it to mock God and Christians. 

[LetGodBeTrue]

Thanks, Red.  I did not know that.  I saw another "newbie" post this same thing on another thread.

[notreligus]

You Preterists are fortunate to be able to post here.  There is another large discussion board on the Internet with "Christian Forums" as part of the name of the board which will not let Preterists post there.   They will ban you if you are a Preterist.   

[LetGodBeTrue]

And what Preterists  have been going to those areas, notreligus?

And what does any of that have to do with the topic of THIS thread?