Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

do you know who Hymenaeus and Philetus were?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,048.00
Goal
$1,038.00

JM

Member
Do you know why the apostle Paul, “…deliver them up to Satan?â€Â

2 tim 2:16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

1 tim. 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Do you understand the nature of their error? It wasn't as http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyAr ... _2-18.html contends, they taught the resurrection was spiritual, that's why it was possible for the resurrection to already have happened and that's why Full Preterism is false.

Peace,
j
 
JM said:
Do you understand the nature of their error? It wasn't as http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyAr ... _2-18.html contends, they taught the resurrection was spiritual, that's why it was possible for the resurrection to already have happened and that's why Full Preterism is false.

Peace,
j

Did Paul correct their teaching of the nature of the resurrection? Or did he correct their timing?

How is This Possible?
One of the most critical questions about 2 Timothy seems to have completely escaped the notice of the adversaries of Covenant Eschatology. If the resurrection is a time ending, earth burning, history ending event, when the material body of every person who has ever lived is instantaneously reconstructed and raised out of the ground, not to mention the sea, just how in the name of reason could anyone convince anyone that this had already occurred? Paul dealt with the same issue in Thessalonica (2 Thessalonians 2:1-2).

The Time and Nature of the Resurrection
How would it be possible for Hymenaeus to teach what he did? Hymenaeus clearly thought he had support for his views. Was not Jesus the firstfruits from the dead, and if the firstfruits had come then had not the harvest time arrived? Did not Paul himself proclaim that resurrection from the dead was a reality already (Romans 6:3-5, 9-11; Ephesians 2:1-5; Philippians 3:9-16; Colossians 2:12-13; 3:1f)? Had Paul himself not told the Romans "reckon yourselves to be alive from the dead" (Romans 6:10)? Had he not told the Colossians that they had risen with Christ? Hymenaeus, therefore, ostensibly had somewhat of a case, for as Max King has well stated, "The question is not whether the eschatological resurrection had begun, but whether it was a completed or consummated work of the quickening Spirit?" Hymenaeus could indeed effectively prove that the time had come for the resurrection.


http://www.eschatology.org/index.php?op ... &Itemid=61
 
Thank you for the link I'll have to bookmark it. I haven't rule out partial preterism yet, full preterism I have, the spiritual resurrection and spiritual coming of Christ has done it for me.

The first difficulty is that it [Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 15] involves propositions and assertions that can be neither verified nor falsified empirically. ... if one announces or predicts things that will take place in the arena of real history involving physical reality, then empirical verification becomes relevant and crucial...It is unfortunate that the apostle failed to alert the Corinthians-and us, by extension-that he was speaking of a secret, hidden, spiritual resurrection. His language certainly suggests something else, particularly as Paul so clearly conjoins the resurrection of our bodies with the resurrection of Christ's body. The resurrected Christ is the firstfruits of all who will be raised. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 162)

If a spiritual body cannot be seen, touched, or handled, is it a body at all? It is one thing to say that our resurrected bodies will be spiritiual bodies, but quite another to imply that our resurrected bodies will be merely spirits. The Bible speaks of spiritual bodies. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 164)

Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

We see how Christ's return will be in the same, literal manner in which He left. No fancy footwork needed.
 
Thank you for the link I'll have to bookmark it. I haven't rule out partial preterism yet, full preterism I have, the spiritual resurrection and spiritual coming of Christ has done it for me.


Careful, thats what I said. I think you will find the partial-preterist position to be inconsistent. When I started studying these things for the first time it was quite obvious the view I was taught(dipsy) was wrong. The more I studied the more I was convinced the partial-preterst view was correct. But this is where the stomach aches began(literally). I was seeing that all these events were tied together and could not be separated. I also began to realize verses I thought spoke of the second coming really spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem. Then I began to realize they did in fact speak of His second coming. Here's what I mean:

Here is what Albert Barnes says of Matt:24:27


The coming of the Son of man - It has been doubted whether this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, or to the coming at the day of judgment. For the solution of this doubt let it be remarked:
1.That those two events are the principal scenes in which our Lord said he would come, either in person or in judgment.
2.That the destruction of Jerusalem is described as his coming, his act.
3.That these events - the judgment of Jerusalem and the final judgment in many respects greatly resemble each other.
4.That they “will bear,†therefore, to be described in the same language; and,
5.Therefore, that the same words often include both events, as properly described by them.

The words had, doubtless, a primary reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, but they had, at the same time, such an amplitude of meaning as also to express his coming to judgment. See the introduction to Isaiah, section 7, (3).


You see? He has the Destruction of Jerusalem as a "coming of the Lord". Then question then becomes did Jesus teach two comings?

Here is what the great Baptist John Gill said regarding this verse:


so shall also the coming of the son of man be; which must be understood not of his last coming to judgment, though that will be sudden, visible, and universal; he will at once come to, and be seen by all, in the clouds of heaven, and not in deserts and secret chambers: nor of his spiritual coming in the more sudden, and clear, and powerful preaching of the Gospel all over the Gentile world; for this was to be done before the destruction of Jerusalem: but of his coming in his wrath and vengeance to destroy that people, their nation, city, and temple: so that after this to look for the Messiah in a desert, or secret chamber, must argue great stupidity and blindness; when his coming was as sudden, visible, powerful, and general, to the destruction of that nation, as the lightning that comes from the east, and, in a moment, shines to the west.

Gill does the same thing. Dispies tell us this refers to the second coming, partial-preterist say it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, full-preterist say they are both right.

Again Gill in the following verses in Matt 24:

and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. The Arabic version reads it, "ye shall see", as is expressed by Christ, in Mat_26:64. Where the high priest, chief priests, Scribes, and elders, and the whole sanhedrim of the Jews are spoken to: and as the same persons, namely, the Jews, are meant here as there; so the same coming of the son of man is intended; not his coming at the last day to judgment; though that will be in the clouds of heaven, and with great power and glory; but his coming to bring on, and give the finishing stroke to the destruction of that people, which was a dark and cloudy dispensation to them: and when they felt the power of his arm, might, if not blind and stupid to the last degree, see the glory of his person, that he was more than a mere man, and no other than the Son of God, whom they had despised, rejected, and crucified; and who came to set up his kingdom and glory in a more visible and peculiar manner, among the Gentiles.

So does the NT teach two comings?

This brings to mind this passage:

2Ti 4:1 Therefore I solemnly witness before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is going to judge the living and the dead according to His appearance and His kingdom,

It seems this verse says His coming, His Kingdom and the judging of the living and the dead all occur at the same time. Partial-prets say the Kingdom has come, if so why not the rest? How can you have a judgment without a resurrection?

Mat 16:27 For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall reward each one according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Truly I say to you, There are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

There is no doubt the Kingdom would arrive in the lifetime of those to whom He was speaking. But can you divorce verse 27 from 28?

Consider these things as you study.



1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the Law.

Why does Paul bring up the Law when speaking of a physical resurrection?
 
Mat 16:27 For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall reward each one according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Truly I say to you, There are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

There is no doubt the Kingdom would arrive in the lifetime of those to whom He was speaking. But can you divorce verse 27 from 28?

Remove the chapters and verses and you find the transfiguration of Christ. "And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." They didn't taste death because Christ was transfigured before them.

Consider these things as you study.

1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the Law.

Why does Paul bring up the Law when speaking of a physical resurrection?

The Law brings knowledge of sin, that's it, it's simple.

Enjoy.
3) Does the word "genea" (Greek - generation) etymologically or philologically always mean people concurrent or living at "that time"? Can the word not also have a broader, more general sense? Those who want to say that the events given in the Olivet Discourse were completed in AD 70 endeavor to support their interpretation by saying that the word "generation", as Jesus used it, means the generation of mankind living contemporaneously with Jesus.

In William F. Arndt and Wilbur Gingrich's lexicon, a Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1974, the first meaning of genea is "those descended from a common anscestor, a clan, then race, kind," etc. Thayer, in his lexicon, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, says the meaning of genea is "men of the same stock, a family". The Louw and Nida computerized lexicon says that the word "genea" can be understood as "people of the same kind; successive following generations...descendants". The understanding of these lexical references is that the word "genea" can also have a broader, more extended meaning than the limiting view of simply the current generation living at the time concurrent with the speaker. The context must decide which understanding the author has in mind.

Neil D. Nelson Jr., a doctor of philosophy candidate at Dallas Theological Seminary, in examining Matthew's use of "this generation" in the first gospel, says,

A study of the use of he" genea haute" ["this generation"] (ll:16; 12:41, 42, 45; 23:36; 24:34) and genea with other descriptive adjectives (12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17) used in the same sense reveals that the kind of people referred to are characterized as those who reject Jesus and his messengers and the salvific message they preach, who remain unbelieving and unrepentant, who actively oppose Jesus and his messengers through testing and persecution, and who will face eschatological judgment. The pejorative adjectives given to "this generation" (evil, adulterous, faithless, perverse; cf. 12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17) throughout the gospel are qualities that distinguish those who are subjects of the kingdom from those who are not...The opponents of Jesus' disciples in Matthew 24-25 share similar traits with "this generation" as characterized in these...chapters. (Neil D. Nelson, Jr. ""This Generation" In Matt. 24:34; A Literary Critical Perspective", JETS 38:3 September 1995 376)

John Young, in his book, Jesus Did Not Return in A.D. 70, published by Vantage Press, 1999, page 50, concludes, "Considering the uncomplimentary things Jesus said in Matthew 23 about the Jewish leaders, Matthew 24:34 could have been translated: 'Truly I say to you, this KIND [instead of generation] will not pass away until all these things take place.' For the same KIND of people will continue to contradict and oppose Christ's authority until Christ shall have taken the reins of human government." (Emphasis added.)

Clearly, the meaning of "this generation" is not limited in understanding to the generation concurrent with Jesus, nor is it to be understood as referring to disciples of that contemporaneous generation who will see the parousia of Christ.

4) If by the word "generation" Jesus was referring to those who heard Him the day He gave the teaching, He would have in effect been saying that His coming (i.e. His 2nd parousia) would be before the last man of the generation who heard Him that day, died. But, by Jesus' own admission, He did not know "the day or the hour" of His return (Matt. 24:36). A study of the use of the term "hour" reveals that the New Testament writers used it in two distinct ways: (1) in a specific sense, where such words as "the", "one", "third", "very", "dinner", "every", "half an" precede the use of the word. In each case, a definite hour is intended, and (2) in a general sense, where the word "hour" may be understood to be equal to our use of the word "time". A few examples of this usage are: Luke 1:10; 12:40, 12:46; John 2:4; I Cor. 4:11. The phrase, "day or...hour", in the context of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:36), is one that speaks of a general time perspective (following the midpoint of the 70th Week which begins with the abomination of desolation -Matthew 24:15) and is not referring to a specific hour of a 24-hour day nor is the term "day" to be understood as a specific day of the week within the same 70th Week perspective.

It is obvious from His teaching in Matthew 24:45-51, that Jesus was expecting a rather long delay before His return. The "master's" remanstrance with the "evil slave" (24:48) indicates that the delay was of such duration that slothfulness and indolence has set into the fabric of the church. That indication is repeated in the parable of the ten virgins. The delay of the bridegroom's coming was such that the virgins fell asleep (25:5). It hardly seems probable that such a slothfulness had invaded the church to such a marked degree before AD 70. The original apostolic band (except Judas) was still living and ministering. The apostle Paul, actively ministering in the Mediterranean world, including Israel, is supposed to have been martyred somewhere around AD 65, only a few years before the fall of Jerusalem. With such stalwarts of the faith and their immediate disciples still living and ministering, had the church fallen into such dire straits by AD 70 and to such a degree that it was to be characterized as Jesus indicates in the parable? The epistles certainly demonstrate that the church had its growing pains and needs, but had she become delinquint in her service unto the Lord and become unguarded, dull, sluggish and unwary? There is no historical data that would support such a broad scale notion. When the apostle John saw the "great multitude" in Revelation seven, he wondered who they could be. In his short time on earth as a disciple of Jesus, perhaps only 60 years, the gospel had not yet reached "every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues". That would only come after several centuries of the gospel spreading all over the world.

When Jesus said He did not know the "day and hour", He certainly understood that His second coming would be delayed and that the kinds of behavior he described in the parables following His direct teaching in Matthew 24:3-31 would invade the church in general. Although Christ did not know the "hour" (when in history, not the general timeframe within the 70th Week) of His return, as He said (Matt. 24:36), it is clear that He didn't expect to come within the next 40 years (by AD 70) or even within the generation that heard Him that day.
 
JM said:
Mat 16:27 For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall reward each one according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Truly I say to you, There are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

There is no doubt the Kingdom would arrive in the lifetime of those to whom He was speaking. But can you divorce verse 27 from 28?

Remove the chapters and verses and you find the transfiguration of Christ. "And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." They didn't taste death because Christ was transfigured before them....
That's awesome Jason. They (the disciples) were given a glimpse into the future, where Jesus was in HIS full, Glorified state and they didn't die.
 
Remove the chapters and verses and you find the transfiguration of Christ. "And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." They didn't taste death because Christ was transfigured before them.

Mat 16:27 For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He shall reward each one according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Truly I say to you, There are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

1.Jesus said “someâ€Â. Why say “some†to an event that happened 6 days later? Most if not all were still alive 6 days later. Now if He were describing an event 40 years later, “some†would be the perfect way to describe it.

2.Did angels come with Him at the Transfiguration?

3.Did He reward each one according to his works at the transfiguration?

Is verse 27 not connected to 28 in any way? The standard interpretation is that this passage refers to the transfiguration but it can’t unless there is a gap inserted between verse 27&28. then you have verse 28 being fulfilled before verse 27 by some 2000 plus years


Quote:
Consider these things as you study.

1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the Law.

Why does Paul bring up the Law when speaking of a physical resurrection?


The Law brings knowledge of sin, that's it, it's simple.

1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the Law.

But if we are talking about physical resurrection then we must be talking about physical death. How did the Law in any way bring physical death. The Law is tied to the death that Paul is speaking of.

Paul quotes two OT passages:


1Co 15:55 O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your victory?"

Those come from Is. 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 neither of which is speaking of physical death. Why does Paul use non-physical death passages to speak of physical resurrection?

Joh 11:25 Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live.
Joh 11:26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?

It seems if you have Jesus you have resurrection life. Jesus didn’t say I will be resurrected(though He was), He says I am the Resurrection.

3) Does the word "genea" (Greek - generation) etymologically or philologically always mean people concurrent or living at "that time"? Can the word not also have a broader, more general sense? Those who want to say that the events given in the Olivet Discourse were completed in AD 70 endeavor to support their interpretation by saying that the word "generation", as Jesus used it, means the generation of mankind living contemporaneously with Jesus.

I don’t think the partial-preterist position is for you. Most if not all partial-preterist I have read agree that it was the generation that Jesus spoke to. Partial-preterist would put the dividing line around verse 36. Another inconsistency of the partial-pret view, in my opinion, is saying the Olivet Discourse from verse 1-35 is past and from 36 on is future.

Spurgeon:

The Kingly Prophet foretold the time of the end: "Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." It was before that generation had passed away that Jerusalem was besieged and destroyed. There was a sufficient interval for the full proclamation of the gospel by the apostles and evangelists of the early Christian Church, and for the gathering out of those who recognized the crucified Christ as their true Messiah. Then came the awful end, which the Savior foresaw and foretold, and the prospect of which wrung from his lips and heart the sorrowful lament that followed his prophecy of the doom awaiting his guilty capital." (in loc.)


Neil D. Nelson Jr., a doctor of philosophy candidate at Dallas Theological Seminary, in examining Matthew's use of "this generation" in the first gospel, says,

A study of the use of he" genea haute" ["this generation"] (ll:16; 12:41, 42, 45; 23:36; 24:34) and genea with other descriptive adjectives (12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17) used in the same sense reveals that the kind of people referred to are characterized as those who reject Jesus and his messengers and the salvific message they preach, who remain unbelieving and unrepentant, who actively oppose Jesus and his messengers through testing and persecution, and who will face eschatological judgment. The pejorative adjectives given to "this generation" (evil, adulterous, faithless, perverse; cf. 12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17) throughout the gospel are qualities that distinguish those who are subjects of the kingdom from those who are not...The opponents of Jesus' disciples in Matthew 24-25 share similar traits with "this generation" as characterized in these...chapters. (Neil D. Nelson, Jr. ""This Generation" In Matt. 24:34; A Literary Critical Perspective", JETS 38:3 September 1995 376)


Not surprising coming from a professor at DTS. I think if you look at every instance at “this generation†in the NT you will find it means to those whom Jesus spoke.

John Young, in his book, Jesus Did Not Return in A.D. 70, published by Vantage Press, 1999, page 50, concludes, "Considering the uncomplimentary things Jesus said in Matthew 23 about the Jewish leaders, Matthew 24:34 could have been translated: 'Truly I say to you, this KIND [instead of generation] will not pass away until all these things take place.' For the same KIND of people will continue to contradict and oppose Christ's authority until Christ shall have taken the reins of human government." (Emphasis added.)

In Matthew 23 is Jesus not addressing a specific group of people? Is He not addressing the Jews?

Mat 23:32 and you fill up the measure of your fathers.

Young tries to convince us this is really a warning to all men everywhere. But it clearly is not.

Mat 23:36 Truly I say to you, All these things shall come on this generation.

Why would Jesus say this:

â€ÂFor the same KIND of people will continue to contradict and oppose Christ's authority until Christ shall have taken the reins of human governmentâ€Â.

It doesn’t fit the context of the chapter.

Just pretend for a moment Jesus wanted to indicate that those whom He was speaking were the ones who would see the event. What word would He have used other than “genea�

4) If by the word "generation" Jesus was referring to those who heard Him the day He gave the teaching, He would have in effect been saying that His coming (i.e. His 2nd parousia) would be before the last man of the generation who heard Him that day, died. But, by Jesus' own admission, He did not know "the day or the hour" of His return (Matt. 24:36).

Not knowing the day or hour is not saying He didn’t know the general time-frame.

Joh 16:13 However, when He, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatever He hears, He shall speak. And He will announce to you things to come.


The epistles certainly demonstrate that the church had its growing pains and needs, but had she become delinquint in her service unto the Lord and become unguarded, dull, sluggish and unwary?

He doesn’t think any of the 7 churches of Revelation fit this description?

In his short time on earth as a disciple of Jesus, perhaps only 60 years, the gospel had not yet reached "every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues". That would only come after several centuries of the gospel spreading all over the world.

He just lost the argument:

Matt.24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world ( oiÎkoumeÑnh )for a testimony unto all the nations ( eáqnov ); and then shall the end come.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world ( ko/smov ), and preach the gospel to the whole creation .(ktiðsiv)

Matt.28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations (eáqnov ), baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:


Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth ( gh=),

All fulfilled in the 1st century:

Col.1:6 which is come unto you; even as it is also in all the world ( ko/smov ) bearing fruit and increasing, as it doth in you also, since the day ye heard and knew the grace of God in truth;

Col 1:23 if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all creation ( ktiðsiv )under heaven; whereof I Paul was made a minister

Romans 16:26 but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the nations ( eáqnov) unto obedience of faith:

Romans 10:18 But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth ( gh=), And their words unto the ends of the world ( oiÎkoumeÑnh ).

When Jesus said He did not know the "day and hour", He certainly understood that His second coming would be delayed

On what does He base this assumption? Is he saying Jesus originally had a date set, but had to make a different one? Explain?

it is clear that He didn't expect to come within the next 40 years (by AD 70) or even within the generation that heard Him that day.

Well, then the inspired NT writers were sure fooled.


The author of this document likes to quote RC Sproul:

A theological problem with a spiritualized understanding of the resurrection is likewise addressed by R.C. Sproul

R.C. Sproul addresses the same concern when he writes,


Yet RC Sproul is as close to the full-preterist position as you can get without being one. His book “The Last Days According toJesus†is an excellent book. He mainly deals with the differences between the partial and full preterist views, from the partial-preterist view point.
 
Back
Top