Preterism is true....no bones about it. Right?

[3 Resurrections]

If you say so.

No, CrowCross. This is not based on my personal opinion.

You are contradicting the unified testimony of God Himself speaking through the prophet David, the prophet Daniel, Christ Jesus, Peter, Paul, and most of the NT authors who were unanimous in their testimony regarding when Christ's reign as our Great High Priest was established (at His resurrection-day ascension), and when He would bodily return for a bodily resurrection of His saints in the first century generation.

If you really want to argue against their unanimous testimony on these things, knock yourself out.

 

[CrowCross]

No, CrowCross. This is not based on my personal opinion.

Yes it is.

You are contradicting the unified testimony of God Himself speaking through the prophet David, the prophet Daniel, Christ Jesus, Peter, Paul, and most of the NT authors who were unanimous in their testimony regarding when Christ's reign as our Great High Priest was established (at His resurrection-day ascension), and when He would bodily return for a bodily resurrection of His saints in the first century generation.

If you really want to argue against their unanimous testimony on these things, knock yourself out.

I'm sure it was.

 

[Mr GLee]

That is right. None of these so-called relics can possibly be the bones belonging to any believers who had died prior to AD 70. All those saints (including Paul, Peter, and Stephen) who had physically died prior to AD 70 were bodily-resurrected at Christ's second coming return and taken to heaven with Him at that time. Paul testified to both Felix and Timothy of this bodily resurrection that was "about to be" in his time. (Acts 24:15, 25, and 2 Timothy 4:1). I believe Paul's prediction came true as promised, and in the first-century time frame that Christ predicted in Matthew 16:27-28.

I would offer.

You seem to be supporting the necromancy doctrines. Like that of the Pope Formosa( 816 – 896) trial. Dug up some bones dressed in priestly attire nd pronounced judgement. Then passed around to be venerated.

Same with those with Peter's bones in Rome . Peter sent by Satan as a false prophet rebuked the Lord of glory and forbid Jesus the Son of man from doing the will of the father . Peter making the false claim he dying mankind is God the King of kings (Mathew 16)

Catholiscim commandment as oral traditions of dying mankind. They needed to create a sexless priesthood to support their fleshly Queen mother. . they call Mary after our sister in the Lord

Satan having no gospel, spiritual understanding in effect saying the ressurection has happened (Gnosticism) . the foundation of reincarnation same bones that have already returned to dust

Believers' as sons of God new creatures are to consider themselves neither male nor female We are not that in which we will be.

Galatians 3:27-29King James Version For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

1 John 3:1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

destroying the faith (unseen spiritual understanding) of some .The New Alphabet LGBTQIA+ new identity

2 Timothy 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

One ressurection. When the veil was rent there was no Jewish man as King of kings sitting in the what some called holy of holies .The ressurection gate opened. . . it will close on the last day under the Sun like a thief in the night.

2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be "present" with the Lord.

 

[Mr GLee]

No, CrowCross. This is not based on my personal opinion.

You are contradicting the unified testimony of God Himself speaking through the prophet David, the prophet Daniel, Christ Jesus, Peter, Paul, and most of the NT authors who were unanimous in their testimony regarding when Christ's reign as our Great High Priest was established (at His resurrection-day ascension), and when He would bodily return for a bodily resurrection of His saints in the first century generation.

If you really want to argue against their unanimous testimony on these things, knock yourself out.

God is not a man. .

Christ the anointing teaching master yoked with the Son of Man Jesus .

Christ who worked in the son man of Peter,

Christ who worked in the son of man Paul.

The same spirit of faith as it is writen that mutually works in all

2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

 

[TMSO]

No, CrowCross. This is not based on my personal opinion.

You are contradicting the unified testimony of God Himself speaking through the prophet David, the prophet Daniel, Christ Jesus, Peter, Paul, and most of the NT authors who were unanimous in their testimony regarding when Christ's reign as our Great High Priest was established (at His resurrection-day ascension), and when He would bodily return for a bodily resurrection of His saints in the first century generation.

If you don't consider yourself a saint, since this is long past the first century so the saints are all long gone... that's fine.

 

[Mr GLee]

No, CrowCross. This is not based on my personal opinion.

You are contradicting the unified testimony of God Himself speaking through the prophet David, the prophet Daniel, Christ Jesus, Peter, Paul, and most of the NT authors who were unanimous in their testimony regarding when Christ's reign as our Great High Priest was established (at His resurrection-day ascension), and when He would bodily return for a bodily resurrection of His saints in the first century generation.

If you really want to argue against their unanimous testimony on these things, knock yourself out.

God is not a man that somehow he will return in dying flesh

1 Samuel 8: 5-7 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Christ gave over the athiest, faithless Jew to do that which they should not of. Refuse God unseen from reigning over them c hosing the pagan foundation out of sight out of mind

The Spirit of Christ returned at the time of the first century reformation. destroying all the kingdoms of men .

Kings in Israel the abomination of desolation.

God is not dying Jewish man as King of kings.

The whole period of time there were Kings in Israel was used as a parable .the signified understanding .using the temporal historical things seen to give the spiritual unseen things

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Which was a figure (parable) for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation

Those ceremonial shadows disappeared

 

[3 Resurrections]

If you don't consider yourself a saint, since this is long past the first century so the saints are all long gone... that's fine.

Don't be silly, TMSO. Christ took only the bodily-resurrected saints from this planet at His second coming AD 70 return. Not those who had not died yet.

Some of those saints in AD 70 had been bodily-resurrected before then (like the many Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected Jewish saints, Lazarus, Dorcas, and anyone the disciples and Christ had raised from the dead during His earthly ministry). These had already been made "alive", but had "remained" on the planet in those resurrected bodies until AD 70 (as in 1 Thess. 4:15 & 17).

Any believers who have lived and died on earth since AD 70 will be participating in the final THIRD group bodily resurrection event in our future.

 

[Mr GLee]

Don't be silly, TMSO. Christ took only the bodily-resurrected saints from this planet at His second coming AD 70 return. Not those who had not died yet.

Some of those saints in AD 70 had been bodily-resurrected before then (like the many Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected Jewish saints, Lazarus, Dorcas, and anyone the disciples and Christ had raised from the dead during His earthly ministry). These had already been made "alive", but had "remained" on the planet in those resurrected bodies until AD 70 (as in 1 Thess. 4:15 & 17).

Any believers who have lived and died on earth since AD 70 will be participating in the final THIRD group bodily resurrection event in our future.

When jesus walked out of the abomination of desolation (kings in Israel) the temple made by the dying will of mankind he declared it is desolation and it was. .And warned of those who seek after signs before they beleive .None were given to include 70 AD oral tradition .

A few bricks are still being used as a idol image wall.

One ressurection the time of reformation had come opening the ressurection gate .Since then to be absent of the earthly body of death is to be present in the mansion with many rooms .

The gates will close on the last day under the sun

Mathew 23: 38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.

 

[Josheb]

From what I read according to the Preterist the return of Christ, resurrection and rapture occurred around 70 AD during or around the destruction of the Temple.
WIKI says it like this...."full preterists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled all eschatological or "end times" events."

From what I read and understand the bones of Paul, Peter are on display. There is even the claim that Stephens body has been found.

Of course we all know these bones are not really the bones of Paul, Peter and Stephen because they would have been resurrected in the Preterist rapture/resurrection at Christ second coming back in 70 AD. Right?

That is incorrect.

Part 1:

This opening post commits the exact same error that most modern futurists/Dispensationalists do when speaking/writing about preterism: mistaking full-preterism for the more common and orthodox partial-preterism as evidenced y using the word "preterism" to mean only full preterism.".

Most prets are NOT full prets.

MOST PRETERISTS ARE NOT FULL PRETERISTS!!!​

Please do not make that mistake again AND, in the future, when you hear other equate preterism with full preterism please know they are mistaken (or lying) and dismiss what those individuals say accordingly because everything they build upon that falsehood will also be false (irrational and incorrect).

To be even more informing, preterism is not an ~ism in which approaches scripture with the belief everything has all already been fulfilled in his/her mind before reading anything written. Preterism is arrived at by reading scripture exegetically, exactly as written. Additionally, all Christians are partially preterist! Preterism simply means that prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled. Nothing more. There are degrees of preterism, with some Christians thinking some, many, most, or all of the prophecies are fulfilled. Therefore, soteriologically speaking, all Christians are partially preterist! Likewise, Christologically speaking, all Christians are partially preterist! Most Christians are Christologically full preterists! Dispensationalists/modern futurists are partially preterist in their Christology. To be a Christian is to be partially preterist because to be a Christian is to believe ALL the Old Testament prophecies about the coming anointed one/Messiah are ALL fulfilled in Jesus the Christ. There is not going to be another person is is also Messiah. There is only one Messiah and Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus bar Joseph is his name. That's why we call him Jesus Christ and that is why we are called Christians. Salvation has come, and it has come in the person of Jesus Christ, and there will be no other salvation from sin but that found in Jesus and Jesus alone. We are ALL soteriological full preterists.

Is everyone starting to see how much ignorance and foolishness is involved in anti-preterism?


Eschatologically speaking, however, we are not all full preterists. We may not be preterist at all but that would prove to be enormously problematic because eschatology is inherently and inextricably tied to Christology and soteriology. That is why for the first eighteen centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice eschatology was considered a lesser doctrine. It wasn't until the apocalyptic teaching of most Restoration Movement sects that eschatology became important or preeminent. They are the ones who made eschatology chief among Christian doctrines (and some of them do this openly). Eschatologically speaking, chief among them was the brethren sects and chief within that sect was John Darby, whose Premillennial Dispensationalism has become very popular. It has become so popular that the "Premillennialism" is often dropped and we now speaking simply of "Dispensationalism," and even more generically of "modern futurism."

As is the case with the rest of Christendom, there are within Dispensationalism, partial preterists of various degrees, along with eschatological non-preterists. John MacArthur, Gary Hamrick, and many others within Dispensational Premillennialism are eschatological partial preterists because they believe the first three chapters of Revelation were fulfilled prior to 70 AD but they do not believe the rest of Revelation has been fulfilled. They openly and forthcomingly teach the seven letters were written to first century congregations and the events described in those letters have all happened but many, if not most, modern futurists do not hear the partial preterism in those dispensationalist teachers' teachings. Now that the readers of this post hopefully know and understand.... listen for it....

...and understand how ignorant every anti-preterist sounds to those who better know and understand the meaning of the word "preterism."


Because preterism is a position reached by means of an exegetical reading of scripture as written, and because the messianic and soteriological prophecies have been fulfilled preterism has been an orthodox part of orthodox Christianity since the beginning of the New Testament (which openly and explicitly states certain prophecies are fulfilled). I reiterate: There are no full non-preterists in Christianity. Another common mistake made by modern futurists is to attribute the origins of preterism in the Reformation era Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar but Alcazar 1) only formalized in writing a viewpoint that had existed for more that a millennia, and 2) specifically made his preterism about the defense of the pope (because the Reformers were calling for an end to the Pope and the papal system). To conflate what de Alcazar did with the whole of preterism is completely irrational and factually untrue. Those who know this and knowingly do not teach it are committing a lie of omission. That makes them liars. So, from now on, listen for it and when you hear Dispensationalists/modern futurists teach the falsehood of de Alcazar as the origin know they are either ill-informed or lying, and dismiss everything they build upon that falsehood accordingly.

Do not make and replicate their errors.

 

[Josheb]

Part 2:

Within eschatological preterists, like myself, there is a wide range of belief and the reason that range exists is because the scriptures do not explicitly explain every fulfillment of prophecy. Sometimes scripture does declare the fulfillment, sometimes the fulfillment is necessarily implied, and sometimes scripture is silent (or the implication is a function of sound exegesis - it wouldn't be obviously understood unless and until the whole of scripture was understood). To say something is "normative," is to say it is falls within the standards of belief established by Christianity. To say something is "statistical" is to say it is correlated to a statistical mathematical analysis. Eschatologically speaking, partial preterism is both a normative and a statistical majority among preterists. Eschatologically speaking, full preterism is both a normative and a statistical outlier among preterists. Eschatologically speaking, neither are normative among Dispensationalists/modern futurists. There are five main eschatological positions within Christendom - Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Post-millennialism, Idealism, and Dispensationalism/modern-futurism. All five can contain Christian believers who are partially preterists but partial preterism is much more prevalent in the first four listed than in Dispensationalism. To further complicate our understanding of preterism within eschatology there are often huge overlaps within Amillennialism, Post-millennialism, and Idealism. Many Amils are Idealist Amils (like Vern Poythress). Many Amils are not Idealist (like R. C. Sproul). Many Amils, like myself, have Post-mil leanings in which we believe the gospel will eventually become the preeminent worldview, but we are not looking forward to a Christian state (like the Reconstructionists) or a specified "golden age" like Dominionists Post-Millennials.

In other words, preterism can be found just about everywhere within Christian eschatology.

The angel is in the details. The truth is found in the facts, not polemics.




So keep in mind the fact that many (but not all) of the leading teachers in Christendom are well-educated, well-studied, and well-practiced in their teachings. I mention this for two reasons. The first is that because they are well educated, studied, and practiced they know what I just posted. Those that do not know the above are incompetent and their teachings shouldn't be followed. Those that do know these things but consciously choose to withhold these facts are committing a life of omission and, again, their teachings should not be followed. One way or the other, they are eschatologically false teachers. There's the third category of nut cases but they're not a statistical majority so I'll leave them out of the mix despite everyone here knowing there are some forum posters who believe and follow the teachings of nut cases. The second reason I mention the education, skill, and prowess of these teachers is because eschatology has become ideology and thereby a form of idolatry. We can, therefore, either view these teachers as victims or propagators (or both). Dispensationalism is taught, not learned directly from scripture. No one becomes a Dispensationalists without first assuming and applying the Darbyite hermeneutic (which assumes two groups of people with two different purposes and a discontinuity of scripture that eschews covenant at the expense of dispensation). No one else in Christendom practices that kind of eisegetic or applies their hermeneutic (whatever alternative they may hold) in that way. Anti-preterists hold some form of ideology that has removed them from objectivity. I, for example, am a big fan of Kim Riddlebarger but, eschatologically speaking, he sometimes makes mistakes regarding preterism that can only be attributed to his allegiance to his Amillennial viewpoint and not the facts of scripture, history, or preterism. Perhaps he simply does not know this fact or that but I, personally, find that very difficult to believe given the breadth of his research and his own teaching. My personal incredulity is, of course, logically meaningless, but the question, "How can such a well-educated, well-studied, and well-practiced man make that mistake?" is a valid question and one we should be asking of ALL our teachers.

Unblessedly, we can ask that question only when we're in possession of the facts ourselves.

So, @CrowCross and any other sibling in Christ who wants to better understand preterism (and has anti-pret leanings) now you're better informed. Don't make the mistake of conflating full preterism with all preterism and realize All Christians are partial prets.






And good morning to everyone. Blessings from me and our Lord upon your day.

 

[CrowCross]

That is incorrect.

Part 1:

This opening post commits the exact same error that most modern futurists/Dispensationalists do when speaking/writing about preterism: mistaking full-preterism for the more common and orthodox partial-preterism as evidenced y using the word "preterism" to mean only full preterism.".

Most prets are NOT full prets.

MOST PRETERISTS ARE NOT FULL PRETERISTS!!!​

Please do not make that mistake again AND, in the future, when you hear other equate preterism with full preterism please know they are mistaken (or lying) and dismiss what those individuals say accordingly because everything they build upon that falsehood will also be false (irrational and incorrect).

To be even more informing, preterism is not an ~ism in which approaches scripture with the belief everything has all already been fulfilled in his/her mind before reading anything written. Preterism is arrived at by reading scripture exegetically, exactly as written. Additionally, all Christians are partially preterist! Preterism simply means that prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled. Nothing more. There are degrees of preterism, with some Christians thinking some, many, most, or all of the prophecies are fulfilled. Therefore, soteriologically speaking, all Christians are partially preterist! Likewise, Christologically speaking, all Christians are partially preterist! Most Christians are Christologically full preterists! Dispensationalists/modern futurists are partially preterist in their Christology. To be a Christian is to be partially preterist because to be a Christian is to believe ALL the Old Testament prophecies about the coming anointed one/Messiah are ALL fulfilled in Jesus the Christ. There is not going to be another person is is also Messiah. There is only one Messiah and Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus bar Joseph is his name. That's why we call him Jesus Christ and that is why we are called Christians. Salvation has come, and it has come in the person of Jesus Christ, and there will be no other salvation from sin but that found in Jesus and Jesus alone. We are ALL soteriological full preterists.

Is everyone starting to see how much ignorance and foolishness is involved in anti-preterism?


Eschatologically speaking, however, we are not all full preterists. We may not be preterist at all but that would prove to be enormously problematic because eschatology is inherently and inextricably tied to Christology and soteriology. That is why for the first eighteen centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice eschatology was considered a lesser doctrine. It wasn't until the apocalyptic teaching of most Restoration Movement sects that eschatology became important or preeminent. They are the ones who made eschatology chief among Christian doctrines (and some of them do this openly). Eschatologically speaking, chief among them was the brethren sects and chief within that sect was John Darby, whose Premillennial Dispensationalism has become very popular. It has become so popular that the "Premillennialism" is often dropped and we now speaking simply of "Dispensationalism," and even more generically of "modern futurism."

As is the case with the rest of Christendom, there are within Dispensationalism, partial preterists of various degrees, along with eschatological non-preterists. John MacArthur, Gary Hamrick, and many others within Dispensational Premillennialism are eschatological partial preterists because they believe the first three chapters of Revelation were fulfilled prior to 70 AD but they do not believe the rest of Revelation has been fulfilled. They openly and forthcomingly teach the seven letters were written to first century congregations and the events described in those letters have all happened but many, if not most, modern futurists do not hear the partial preterism in those dispensationalist teachers' teachings. Now that the readers of this post hopefully know and understand.... listen for it....

...and understand how ignorant every anti-preterist sounds to those who better know and understand the meaning of the word "preterism."


Because preterism is a position reached by means of an exegetical reading of scripture as written, and because the messianic and soteriological prophecies have been fulfilled preterism has been an orthodox part of orthodox Christianity since the beginning of the New Testament (which openly and explicitly states certain prophecies are fulfilled). I reiterate: There are no full non-preterists in Christianity. Another common mistake made by modern futurists is to attribute the origins of preterism in the Reformation era Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar but Alcazar 1) only formalized in writing a viewpoint that had existed for more that a millennia, and 2) specifically made his preterism about the defense of the pope (because the Reformers were calling for an end to the Pope and the papal system). To conflate what de Alcazar did with the whole of preterism is completely irrational and factually untrue. Those who know this and knowingly do not teach it are committing a lie of omission. That makes them liars. So, from now on, listen for it and when you hear Dispensationalists/modern futurists teach the falsehood of de Alcazar as the origin know they are either ill-informed or lying, and dismiss everything they build upon that falsehood accordingly.

Do not make and replicate their errors.

I don't intend to argue definitions with you.

The point of the post was to show if the artifacts presented are actually from those they are claimed to be from...the rapture of the "what-ever pre-fix Preterest" claimed happen in 70 AD...didn't....as they would have been resurrected. But, those bones are still here which means the rapture didn't happen.

 

[TMSO]

Don't be silly, TMSO. Christ took only the bodily-resurrected saints from this planet at His second coming AD 70 return. Not those who had not died yet.

Since there is only one second coming, or a pure heresy, which is it?

Some of those saints in AD 70 had been bodily-resurrected before then (like the many Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected Jewish saints, Lazarus, Dorcas, and anyone the disciples and Christ had raised from the dead during His earthly ministry). These had already been made "alive", but had "remained" on the planet in those resurrected bodies until AD 70 (as in 1 Thess. 4:15 & 17).

And they all died again.

Any believers who have lived and died on earth since AD 70 will be participating in the final THIRD group bodily resurrection event in our future.

There is no third resurrection. There is a first and a second resurrection, which you can read about in Revelation.

"4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of [b]their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years."

The second resurrection is the resurrection to judgment. It is much different then the first resurrection. You do know that preterism was invented by a jesuit during the counter-reformation to bring protestants back into the church right? You also know that they say it is the only eschatological framework that has no historical tradition, right?

 

[CrowCross]

Don't be silly, TMSO. Christ took only the bodily-resurrected saints from this planet at His second coming AD 70 return. Not those who had not died yet.

Some of those saints in AD 70 had been bodily-resurrected before then (like the many Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected Jewish saints, Lazarus, Dorcas, and anyone the disciples and Christ had raised from the dead during His earthly ministry). These had already been made "alive", but had "remained" on the planet in those resurrected bodies until AD 70 (as in 1 Thess. 4:15 & 17).

Any believers who have lived and died on earth since AD 70 will be participating in the final THIRD group bodily resurrection event in our future.

This is not true.
The following is from this thread:
From what I read according to the Preterist the return of Christ, resurrection and rapture occurred around 70 AD during or around the destruction of the Temple.
WIKI says it like this...."full preterists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled all eschatological or "end times" events."

From what I read and understand the bones of Paul, Peter are on display. There is even the claim that Stephens body has been found.

Of course we all know these bones are not really the bones of Paul, Peter and Stephen because they would have been resurrected in the Preterist rapture/resurrection at Christ second coming back in 70 AD. Right?

 

[CrowCross]

Since there is only one second coming, or a pure heresy, which is it?

It is my belief derived from scripture that Jesus comes back twice....the first time in the air at the pre-trib rapture/resurrection then again as mentioned in Rev 19 on a white horse.

 

[Josheb]

I don't intend to argue definitions with you.

Good, because Post 49 and 50 are correct and anyone can objectively verify its facts with a little bit of investigation.

The point of the post was to show if the artifacts presented are actually from those they are claimed to be from...the rapture of the "what-ever pre-fix Preterest" claimed happen in 70 AD...didn't....as they would have been resurrected. But, those bones are still here which means the rapture didn't happen.

Which would apply solely to the full prets and not all the rest of Christendom who believe the resurrection is still future, including the partially preterist Dispensationalists/modern futurists who believe the rapture and resurrection are two separate events. In other words, because this op specifies full preterism it applies to a very small portion of Christians. Most preterists are not full preterists and that is just as true of the preterists here as it is of preterists throughout the whole of Christianity. Many Christians don't know about preterism and many Christians don't know their preterists even though they are (I recently discussed Orthodox theology with a Greek Orthodox priest, and he'd never heard the term but many of his views - both personal and institutional - proved consistent with partial preterism).

If the intent of this op is to engage only full preterists then there will be few participants (because there are very few full prets in CCAM). Regardless of the intent, Posts 49 and 50 are correct, valid, completely op-relevant, and worth knowing before engaging full prets in their outlying beliefs. It is, likewise, critically important to know most prets are not full prets and understand why that is the case.

I don't intend to argue definitions with you.

Then don't.

I don't intend to argue definitions with you.

The point of the post was to show if the artifacts presented are actually from those they are claimed to be from...the rapture of the "what-ever pre-fix Preterest" claimed happen in 70 AD...didn't....as they would have been resurrected. But, those bones are still here which means the rapture didn't happen.

That would be correct if full preterists defined those terms the same way as the op defines preterism, but that is not the case. If full preterists are approached with definitions they do not share with their critics and proof of error is sought using those definitions, then four things will happen: 1) you and the full prets will be talking past one another in chronic false equivalences, 2) success will wrongly imagined when nothing has been accomplished, and 3) any lack of understanding of preterism will become increasingly apparent, and 4) all the same mistakes Dispensationalist teachers have made will be repeated.

I'm trying to help.

A full preterist will likely define the resurrection and anything related to death and life after death as a reference to soteriological conversion. If comments and inquires are posted to them using a more orthodox definition of dead people literally, physically coming out of the grave (or their state of physical death) and try to apply that to the full preterist without EXPLICITLY establishing those two definitions then the discussion will go nowhere and only the appearance of a conversation will occur. It will be like having a conversation about Christology with a JW or LDS. We all use the word "Christ," but orthodox Christians, JWs, and LDSes hold completely different and wholly irreconcilable definitions of that word. All three will think they have consensus and agreement with the statement, "Jesus is the son of God," but that belief in agreement will only be in their imagination because the phrase "son of God," also has different definitions for each group.

I think modern futurist eschatology is dross, and I have opposed it on many, many occasions. However, despite the eschatological differences between us, I will join you in disagreement with full preterism. Most preterists here will do the same if they stay within the specifics of this op because most prets are not full prets. I, however, will be able to disagree with full preterism using their own views whereas you will NEVER be able to do that as long as Dispensationalist definitions are imposed on full prets, and that includes the chronically misguided practice among Dispensationalists of conflating all preterism with full preterism. If full preterism is going to be opposed, then oppose it for what they actually teach and do not bring all preterists into that conversation unless an argument is sought (despite protests to the contrary). It's offensive when people's beliefs are misrepresented and the offense is made worse when the misrepresentation is made knowingly.

I don't intend to argue definitions with you.

Then don't.


Let me recommend that all the respondents be asked to clarify whether or not they are full prets, partial prets, or non-prets and discuss this op only with those who think "the artifacts presented are actually from those they are claimed to be from...the rapture of the "what-ever pre-fix Preterest" claimed happen in 70 AD...didn't....as they would have been resurrected."

You'll find there are very few of them and engaging only them will prevent unnecessary arguments and streamline the thread.

 

[CrowCross]

Dispensationalists/modern futurists who believe the rapture and resurrection are two separate events.

This is a false statement.

The rapture/resurrection are the same event for the current believers. Get you facts straight please.

 

[TMSO]

It is my belief derived from scripture that Jesus comes back twice....the first time in the air at the pre-trib rapture/resurrection then again as mentioned in Rev 19 on a white horse.

I don't count that first one because the young men said that Jesus would return to the Earth as He left. Since He isn't returning to the Earth for the rapture, it isn't the same.

 

[Josheb]

This is a false statement.

The rapture/resurrection are the same event for the current believers. Get you facts straight please.

It is not a false statement.

Dispensationalists say there are at least two resurrections. The first occurs when the Christians are raptured off the planet, and another occurs when everyone else is raised from the dead to go before the final judgment. Some dispies say there are at least four resurrections.

But all of that is off-topic.

This op specifies full preterists, and it defines full preterism in specified ways, BUT it also implicitly conflates full preterism with preterism as a whole and that is a mistake. If you wish to engage full prets about full preterism then trade posts only with the full prets and engage them specifically on their beliefs (not what is imagined they believe or with your own beliefs). The only way that will happen is if you ask them to identify themselves as full prets and articulate their views in their own words. That's the only way straw men can be avoided.


Note to any full preterists engaging this op: Start by confirming or correcting the claims about full preterism. For example, do you actually believe, "would bodily return for a bodily resurrection of His saints in the first century generation"? Do you actually believe, "the artifacts presented are actually from those they are claimed to be from...the rapture of the "what-ever pre-fix Preterest" claimed happen in 70 AD...didn't....as they would have been resurrected"? Those are the claims made about full preterism. If that's not true and the op is not corrected regarding what full preterism actually teaches then the two of you will talk past one another and accomplish nothing.

If it is true you're interested only in full preterism then I will take my leave. Posts 49 and 50 are correct and I encourage the serious consideration of their content for the sake of this thread's efficacy. Strawmen, false equivalences, red herrings and the other fallacious arguments often made about preterism never succeed.

 

[CrowCross]

I don't count that first one because the young men said that Jesus would return to the Earth as He left. Since He isn't returning to the Earth for the rapture, it isn't the same.

I do. It doesn't say "earth". Come back doesn't mean Jesus will stand on the physical earth. One thing we do know for sure is Jesus didn't leave on a white horse.

 

[CrowCross]

It is not a false statement.

Dispensationalists say there are at least two resurrections. The first occurs when the Christians are raptured off the planet, and another occurs when everyone else is raised from the dead to go before the final judgment. Some dispies say there are at least four resurrections.

Yes it was a false statement. You said....Dispensationalists/modern futurists who believe the rapture and resurrection are two separate events.

1 Thes 4:16....is a single event. The resurrection and rapture happen in the same account.