(Jesuit) Preterism versus John 14
- Thread starter Phoneman-777
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
that 1 Thessalonians 4 does not contradict Ephesians 2.
But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive, but each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.
(1 Corinthians 15:20-23)
when scripture speaks of marriage, is it of the body or of the spirit? 
(Eph 5:30) For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
(Eph 5:31) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
(Eph 5:32) This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
The only way the husband (Christ) and the woman (the church) become ONE flesh is through marriage. We ARE (present tense) members of his body, his flesh and his bones. That isn't talking about our earthly flesh nor our earthly bones being members of his body, flesh and bones.
(1Co 6:16) What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
(1Co 6:17) But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
He that is joined to an harlot is one body.... did they literally become one flesh - no. It's all about the spirit as verse 17 tells us.
We, are not our earthly bodies nor are we our glorified bodies, both of those are containers for our spirits. Our spirit is the "real us" and Christ marries the "real us", not the containers that house us.
(Eph 5:31) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
(Eph 5:32) This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
The only way the husband (Christ) and the woman (the church) become ONE flesh is through marriage. We ARE (present tense) members of his body, his flesh and his bones. That isn't talking about our earthly flesh nor our earthly bones being members of his body, flesh and bones.
(1Co 6:16) What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
(1Co 6:17) But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
He that is joined to an harlot is one body.... did they literally become one flesh - no. It's all about the spirit as verse 17 tells us.
We, are not our earthly bodies nor are we our glorified bodies, both of those are containers for our spirits. Our spirit is the "real us" and Christ marries the "real us", not the containers that house us.
-
1
- Show all
Thank you for your measured answer. Have you noticed the general appreciation after 26 postings? Nearly nobody wants to address the tense. When our Lord Jesus said "where I AM", they all read "where I WILL BE". That is, wherever the disciples were going to be WAS WHERE JESUS WAS AT THAT MOMENT of speaking. But He was on earth. So any talk of heaven or the grave is ruled out.
But then He TOLD the disciples were He was at that moment. "In the Father and the Father IN Him". So the understanding of the narrative is not left to us. The passage is not obscure. The context is not obscure. The Book is not obscure. And the prophecy of John 14 is fulfilled right in the same Book in Chapter 20. But for some reason, men just don't want to hear what our Lord so plainly said.
I know that longish postings are seldom read, and I am certainly not in any way privileged that my postings should be read or answered, but my posting calls into question what more than 95% of Christians believe. You'd think I'd get a bashing for that. But I didn't. Interesting.
But even more interesting is that nobody wanted to give an exegesis that made the whole Chapter harmonize with their theory. They assumed a meaning and then wrested one or two half verses to help their theory. The same context of an "abode" in the Father's House stretches all the way to verse 23. And within those 23 verses the Father is promised to be IN the disciple (v.20), Christ Himself is promised to be IN the disciple (v.18, 20), and the Holy Spirit is promised to be in the disciple (v.17). Which One is it, and how can it be if both the Father and the Son will be in heaven for most of the New Testament age? Then again the matter of going away and coming again stretches to verse 29. Just consider it; "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." That is, FAITH only STARTS on that day - not going to heaven or a Wedding Feast which are taught to be the END of your faith.
But then He TOLD the disciples were He was at that moment. "In the Father and the Father IN Him". So the understanding of the narrative is not left to us. The passage is not obscure. The context is not obscure. The Book is not obscure. And the prophecy of John 14 is fulfilled right in the same Book in Chapter 20. But for some reason, men just don't want to hear what our Lord so plainly said.
I know that longish postings are seldom read, and I am certainly not in any way privileged that my postings should be read or answered, but my posting calls into question what more than 95% of Christians believe. You'd think I'd get a bashing for that. But I didn't. Interesting.
But even more interesting is that nobody wanted to give an exegesis that made the whole Chapter harmonize with their theory. They assumed a meaning and then wrested one or two half verses to help their theory. The same context of an "abode" in the Father's House stretches all the way to verse 23. And within those 23 verses the Father is promised to be IN the disciple (v.20), Christ Himself is promised to be IN the disciple (v.18, 20), and the Holy Spirit is promised to be in the disciple (v.17). Which One is it, and how can it be if both the Father and the Son will be in heaven for most of the New Testament age? Then again the matter of going away and coming again stretches to verse 29. Just consider it; "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." That is, FAITH only STARTS on that day - not going to heaven or a Wedding Feast which are taught to be the END of your faith.
-
1
- Show all
Then why did the Reformation sing about "when the saints go marching in, O, how I want to be in THAT NUMBER when the saints go marchin in"? We're going to march into heaven corporately as a multitude...we don't march in individually at death. We sleep in the grave until the resurrection.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Not sure which post trib Christians you been studying with, but clearly you haven't studied with us Adventists. We most definitely have Jesus coming back after the tribulation to collect His bride, the church, and then we'll travel back to heaven to spend the 1,000 years while the prophecies of an empty, desolate, dark, silent, destroyed, uninhabited Earth that are found in Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Psalms, 2 Peter, etc. are fulfilled.
Unfortunately, Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism afford no such opportunity for fulfillment of these prophecies, so they have to be made to mean the opposite of what is said. Prophecies which speak of a totally uninhabited, silent, dark, empty, destroyed Earth are interpreted to mean and Earth filled with life and order and inhabitants and non-stop hustle and bustle that is continuous and unbroken since the First Advent.
Unfortunately, Jesuit Preterism and Jesuit Futurism afford no such opportunity for fulfillment of these prophecies, so they have to be made to mean the opposite of what is said. Prophecies which speak of a totally uninhabited, silent, dark, empty, destroyed Earth are interpreted to mean and Earth filled with life and order and inhabitants and non-stop hustle and bustle that is continuous and unbroken since the First Advent.
Really? ...here's two reasons why your logic is flawed. READ BOTH BEFORE REPLYING, THANK YOU:
1) Jesus clearly spoke of going to heaven to build the mansions, and heaven is not on Earth. Therefore, when He said, "...that where I am...", He obviously meant "...that where I am when I arrive at My Father's house".
2) Jesus told Nicodemus, "...but the Son of Man which is in heaven." Clearly, the Son of Man was not in heaven when He spoke with Nicodemus, but since God often speaks in Scripture of "that which shall be" as though it already "is" because He is not limited by the bounds of space and time, Jesus can speak of Himself being in heaven with His Father whilst being on Earth fulfilling His divine mission. In saying this, Jesus was not implying that heaven is on Earth, for "My kingdom is not of this world" and neither is this the case in John 14.
What say you?
1) Jesus clearly spoke of going to heaven to build the mansions, and heaven is not on Earth. Therefore, when He said, "...that where I am...", He obviously meant "...that where I am when I arrive at My Father's house".
2) Jesus told Nicodemus, "...but the Son of Man which is in heaven." Clearly, the Son of Man was not in heaven when He spoke with Nicodemus, but since God often speaks in Scripture of "that which shall be" as though it already "is" because He is not limited by the bounds of space and time, Jesus can speak of Himself being in heaven with His Father whilst being on Earth fulfilling His divine mission. In saying this, Jesus was not implying that heaven is on Earth, for "My kingdom is not of this world" and neither is this the case in John 14.
What say you?
The context of this passage is the resurrection, not Jesus' travel plans. The phrase "God will bring with Him" doesn't mean "in the company of" - it means "in like manner". IOW, just as God brought Jesus forth from the tomb, so in like manner will God raise up the dead saints. It doesn't mean "conscious but disembodied saints are going to travel from heaven with Jesus" to Earth to get shot up the nostrils of immortal bodies rolling off some terra firma assembly line.
thank you -- an this is showing that our marriage to Christ involves not only the spirit but the body, right? Paul is using that point to encourage holiness.
speaking of us as already His own bride doesn't definitively make the snatching away of the bride to the place prepared for her, the marriage consummation and feast a thing of the past tho. in Hebrew culture, a betrothed is considered equivalent to an actually married bride. it was not until Gentile culture was mixed with Jewish in the middle ages that there was any thought of the engagement process being 'reversible' or 'tentative' -- rabbinic law treats the betrothal as only being possible to annul through the same divorce proceedings that a married woman would go through.
so it is a very Jewish thing for Paul, a Jew, to speak of the one he 'betrothed' to Christ ((not 'married' - 2 Cor. 11:2)) as already and truly belonging to Him.
but in that these passages from Ephesians speak of us as being bodily joined with Him, how can that consummation, and subsequent feast, have already taken place when we have not yet received the redemption of our bodies ((Rom. 8:22-25)) which is the consummation of our sanctification -- that sanctification being a process the Hebrew bride completes before the consummation of marriage?
speaking of us as already His own bride doesn't definitively make the snatching away of the bride to the place prepared for her, the marriage consummation and feast a thing of the past tho. in Hebrew culture, a betrothed is considered equivalent to an actually married bride. it was not until Gentile culture was mixed with Jewish in the middle ages that there was any thought of the engagement process being 'reversible' or 'tentative' -- rabbinic law treats the betrothal as only being possible to annul through the same divorce proceedings that a married woman would go through.
so it is a very Jewish thing for Paul, a Jew, to speak of the one he 'betrothed' to Christ ((not 'married' - 2 Cor. 11:2)) as already and truly belonging to Him.
but in that these passages from Ephesians speak of us as being bodily joined with Him, how can that consummation, and subsequent feast, have already taken place when we have not yet received the redemption of our bodies ((Rom. 8:22-25)) which is the consummation of our sanctification -- that sanctification being a process the Hebrew bride completes before the consummation of marriage?
-
1
- Show all
That bride /groom dimension is a game changer.
You are bringing to the table the heart of the issue.
The other non pretrib rapture positions ,can in no way reconcile that component.
....and yet it is the apex of the purposes of God.
Ruth is claimed as a precondition to Naomi's land,along with Naomi.
Gentile gathered first.
Jesus was the middle man to "....you saved the best wine for last". (The Jews)
You are bringing to the table the heart of the issue.
The other non pretrib rapture positions ,can in no way reconcile that component.
....and yet it is the apex of the purposes of God.
Ruth is claimed as a precondition to Naomi's land,along with Naomi.
Gentile gathered first.
Jesus was the middle man to "....you saved the best wine for last". (The Jews)
-
1
- Show all