70 AD- calling you Davo

[maintenanceman]

Randy said:

I would ENCOURAGE Davo and others, embracing “non-orthodox” positions here…To answer any and all questions, in a straightforward manner. Like folks do, at the Calvinist site - Got Questions.

Thanks Randy, how are those embracing ‘non orthodox’ positions not answering questions… Sharpen your pencil pal.

[davo]

Randy said:

I would ENCOURAGE Davo and others, embracing “non-orthodox” positions here…To answer any and all questions, in a straightforward manner. Like folks do, at the Calvinist site - Got Questions.

Thanks Randy, how are those embracing ‘non orthodox’ positions not answering questions… Sharpen your pencil pal.

Yeah… like maybe folk can start at the beginning of this thread i.e., page 1 and ACTUALLY read the answers given all the way through.

[Origen]

Full Preterism/Pantelism Refuted:

“The folly of full Preterism”:
forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/relig … -preterism

Full Preterism “misdefining resurrection”:
forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/relig … surrection

“Mishandling the sleep -awake metaphor”:
forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/relig … e-metaphor

“Misdefining the rapture”:
forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/relig … he-rapture

“Full Preterism robs Christ”:
forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/relig … obs-christ

“The Lesser Christ of Full Preterism”:
forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/relig … -preterism

[davo]

[size=150]oh dear!![/size]

[Origen]

This was posted in another thread & my response unanswered:

But my position is that we have to quit taking Bible text’s out of context. They were meant for what they were meant for. Let’s move on. We have been blessed. Christ did a redeeming work for his people and through the promise, the nations. WE ARE ALL SAVED. Our position with God has been concreted through Christ.

True enough Chad… religianity however doesn’t like this scenario as it threatens its own vested interests of control and power.

We are all saved? Saved from what?

Sin, disease, death, pain, guilt, sorrows, torments, unbelief, mental illness, hatred of God, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, serial killing, corruption, war, stubbornness?

Scripture makes it clear that salvation is conditional on faith (Rom. 10:9-10,13; Acts 2:38; 11:14; 16:31; Mk.16:16; Jn.3:18; etc).

Isa.45:22"Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. 23 "I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. 24 "They will say of Me, ‘Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.’ Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame

[davo]

This was posted in another thread & my response unanswered:

But my position is that we have to quit taking Bible text’s out of context. They were meant for what they were meant for. Let’s move on. We have been blessed. Christ did a redeeming work for his people and through the promise, the nations. WE ARE ALL SAVED. Our position with God has been concreted through Christ.

True enough Chad… religianity however doesn’t like this scenario as it threatens its own vested interests of control and power.

We are all saved? Saved from what?

From a Godless eternity.

[Origen]

From a Godless eternity.

How does this fit in with your view of Revelation:

Such ended with the AD70 parousia courtesy of the lake of fire, i.e., the destruction of Jerusalem. That which opposed and accused the brethren, aka the High priest and Co. had their place in the lake of fire.

If the satan be a human figure, i.e., the High Priest then as a human and despite his ignorance and demise in the lake of fire… duly reconciled.

What Scripture gives you the idea that the torments of the “High priest and Co.” have ended & they are “duly reconciled” to God:

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev.20:10, KJV)

Rev.20:10 reveals the devil (whom you equate with the “High priest and Co.”) is cast into the lake of fire. Wouldn’t that kill a mortal man like the High Priest? Then, after his death, he is tormented in the lake of fire, which would be after death punishment. This continues EIS the “ages of the ages”, or, since you don’t seem to like literal translations & interpretations, i take it your preference is KJV “for ever and ever”. IOW ECT.

BTW, the contextual references to Satan & the devil don’t seem to be speaking of a human “High Priest”:

Rev.20:2 He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.
Rev. 20:7 When the thousand years are complete, Satan will be released from his prison,

Unless you think, like some Pantelists, apparently, that the millennium (1000 years) lasted only about 40 years (c. 30-70 A.D.), which comes about 960 years short of a full enchilada.

[davo]

From a Godless eternity.

How does fit in with your view of Revelation:

Such ended with the AD70 parousia courtesy of the lake of fire, i.e., the destruction of Jerusalem. That which opposed and accused the brethren, aka the High priest and Co. had their place in the lake of fire.

If the satan

be a human figure, i.e., the High Priest then as a human and despite his ignorance and demise in the lake of fire… duly reconciled.
What Scripture gives you the idea that the torments of the “High priest and Co.” have ended & they are “duly reconciled” to God:

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev.20:10, KJV)

The pantelist position is that the ‘lake of fire’ is the same as Jesus’ “gehenna” — something even Paidion agrees with. The pantelist view goes one step further understanding Jesus’ “gehenna” to be in fact a reference to the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem. So… whatever the identity of the devil/beast/false prophet, IF they be human figures as I intimate in that quote above then their demise in Jerusalem’s fall, i.e., their death, then beyond that they shall be reconciled, for… “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” I’m inclined to believe Paul’s words here, but that’s me.

BTW, the contextual references to Satan & the devil don’t seem to be speaking of a human “High Priest”:

Rev.20:2 He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.
Rev. 20:7 When the thousand years are complete, Satan will be released from his prison,

IF the devil be a literal spirit being then destruction would be in order, i.e., cessation of existence. The new covenant world about to come in its fullness was NOT in any way shape or form to be under any spirit subjection… at least NOT according to the writer of Hebrews…

Heb 1:14; 2:5 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who are about to inherit salvation? — For He has not put the world about to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels.

<μέλλω> mellō = about to

Unless you think, like some Pantelists, apparently, that the millennium (1000 years) lasted only about 40 years (c. 30-70 A.D.),…

It is indeed the pantelist position that John’s 1000yrs reflects the coverage of that 40yr period and is duly understood as “figurative language” as reflected in Paidion’s words here, to which again I agree…

Paidion

"]Davo, the book of Revelation consists of a vision that someone named “John” experienced. It is full of figurative language and there are hundreds of different interpretations.
Along these very lines both futurist position of Amillennialism and Postmillennialism likewise agree with the “figurative language” interpretation.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

We are missing a few questions. In what way is something considered Orthodox - in Christianity?

Rather than looking at the views Origen or Davo expresses, which are taking opposite sides. I see what WIKI has to say:

"Partial preterism is generally considered to be a historic orthodox interpretation as it affirms all eschatological points of the ecumenical Creeds of the Church.[45][46][47] Still, partial preterism is not the majority view among American denominations founded after 1500 and meets with significant vocal opposition, especially by those denominations which espouse Dispensationalism.[45][47][48] Additionally, Dispensationalists are concerned that partial preterism logically leads to an acceptance of full preterism, a concern which is denied by partial preterists.[49]

Full preterism is sometimes viewed as heretical,[45][46][47] based upon the historic creeds of the church (which would exclude this view), and also from Biblical passages that condemn a past view of the Resurrection or the denial of a physical resurrection or transformation of the body — doctrines which most Christians believe to be essential to the faith. Critics of full preterism point to the Apostle Paul’s condemnation of the doctrine of Hymenaeus and Philetus (2 Tim 2:17-18 ), which they regard as analogous to full preterism. Adherents of full preterism, however, dispute this assertion by pointing out that Paul’s condemnation was written during a time in which (their idea of) the Resurrection was still in the future (i.e., pre-AD 70). Their critics assert that if the Resurrection has not yet happened, then the condemnation would still apply."

I mean, folks can look at me and say I’m NOT orthodox. Even though I follow the Nicene Creed, the ACNA beliefs, and Eastern Anglo-Catholic orientations.

Why?

Well, I practice Buddhist Mindfulness and Yoga. Or taking part in healing ceremonies, of Native Americans, Japanese Johrei / Sukyo Mahikari and German Burno Groening.
Or I am a member, of the Theosophical Society. Where I can abide, by their 3 general objects.
Or I talk about the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse - rather than something like Left Behind series viewpoint.

And If I’m right, on the last point…I am performing a great service - for humanity.

[davo]

We are missing a few questions. In what way is something considered Orthodox - in Christianity?

I’ve NEVER hidden the fact that pantelism is not ‘orthodox’.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

We are missing a few questions. In what way is something considered Orthodox - in Christianity?

I’ve NEVER hidden the fact that pantelism is not ‘orthodox’.

We do have parallels, in the Theosophical Society. Where historical folks like Annie Besant, promotes what I call Esoteric Christianity. Or folks like Mary Baker Eddy, promote an Idealistic brand (i.e. all is mental - no matter. And the Theosophical equivalent, of Mary Baker Eddy - is Joel Goldsmith) . Assuming you (or folks like Mary Baker Eddy or Annie Besant) - are right. I wonder what God must be thinking?

I gave them Holy Scripture, but only a FEW got it?

Or is God thinking?

I tried to make my message, as clear as possible - for ALL of humanity to understand. But look at the fights, between the different church branches and theologians. HOW can my brilliant theologians, like Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther - have totally different perspectives?

Either way, it must be giving God some headaches.

“A man begins cutting his wisdom teeth the first time he bites off more than he can chew.”-- Herb Caen

[Origen]

The pantelist position is that the ‘lake of fire’ is the same as Jesus’ “gehenna” — something even Paidion agrees with. The pantelist view goes one step further understanding Jesus’ “gehenna” to be in fact a reference to the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem. So… whatever the identity of the devil/beast/false prophet, IF they be human figures as I intimate in that quote above then their demise in Jerusalem’s fall, i.e., their death, then beyond that they shall be reconciled, for… “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” I’m inclined to believe Paul’s words here, but that’s me.

So you like Paul’s words (according to your own interpretation of them), but reject John’s in Revelation:

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (lit. ages of the ages, Rev.20:10, KJV)

BTW those who are being tormented aren’t destroyed as in annihilated or killed. Which, again, leaves you rejecting the Scripture quoted above. And if those torments began in 70 AD and continue “forever and ever” (or “into the ages of the ages”), can God have become “all in all” in 70 AD & could all prophecy have been fulfilled as per your Pantelistic theology?

[davo]

DaveB asks a question below in another thread which is more pertinent to be dealt with here in this pantelist thread. But first just by way of clarification… like other eschatological views prêterism has its variants — Pantelism being one of them. The main difference between these two fulfilled views is… pantelism views Israel’s prophesied redemption in Christ to be the catalyst for humanity’s reconciliation to God and thus all the blessings to flow because of that.

Again, pantelism takes an inclusive prêteristic position. I use ‘inclusive’ as opposed to ‘universal’ BECAUSE there are many aspects of universalism far removed from the pantelist rationale. Universalism is in fact much closer to its nemesis of Infernalism, or if one prefers… Particularism, as in both these positions believe in the EXACT same postmortem experience and nature of “hell” for any ascribed as destined there — the ONLY real difference being the degree of the suffering endured therein, i.e., limited or unlimited.

I do have a question: if the Second Coming, the first and the second resurrections are completed, what scriptural hope do prets have of our - humanity’s - physical resurrection after death?

As a pantelist the 1st resurrection was germane to the firstfruit saints of the AD30-70 NT era, culminating in the 2nd or general resurrection of AD70, being inclusive of all Israel prior to that; and then in consequence the rest of departed humanity. The only “physical resurrection” per sé that counted was Jesus’ which assured the redemption and reconciliation of all — the restoration of man.

Pantelism doesn’t so much go for this so-called physical/spiritual divide when it comes to ‘resurrection’ (which biblically speaking was actually something promised to Israel), understanding such to be speaking of COVENANT realities and thus specifically and primarily referring to Israel’s ‘covenant renewal’.

Pantelism sees this 1st resurrection ALREADY in operation here…

Jn 5:24-25 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live.

This death to life that NOW IS was the beginnings of Israel’s covenant renewal, i.e., resurrection, starting in Jesus’ ministry then and there — the first resurrection.

Then what followed in the AD70 Parousia was the general or 2nd resurrection, as per…

Jn 5:28-29 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth (Acts 24:15)—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

The “resurrection of the dead” was two-fold and did not necessitate physical death. Firstly… the resurrection of Jn 5:25 was of the firstfruits harvest occurring in that generation — thus their “coming to life” was a coming up out from among the dead, that is… what constituted the body of old covenant Israel (Moses), of which Jesus “would be the first to rise from the dead” as per Acts 26:23. Pantelism understands resurrection here described as covenantal in focus and nature as Jesus was not in fact the first to rise from the dead — if by resurrection is meant the attaining of a new or revived fleshly-physical abode or mode of existence, for Scripture is replete with this phenomenon already… 1Kgs 17:17-23; 2Kgs 4:17-37; 2Kgs 13:21; Mt 27:52-53; Lk 7:11-17; Lk 8:40-42, 49-55; Jn 11:38-44, so for Paul, this cannot have been the essence of what “resurrection” was, in view here.

Thus the resurrection of John 5 was not a “spiritual” resurrection followed then by a “bodily” resurrection, no. Rather, it was the “firstfruits” resurrection (1st) being followed by a “whole harvest” resurrection (2nd). Resurrection was all about COVENANT change — or as Paul said… “we shall all be changed” — the AD70 DoJ was the final death knell of that old covenant world.

The “life” Jn 5:29 is the affirmative comparison to its negative opposite “condemnation” aka judgment. Those of “faith” would be spared the dire consequence of AD70 — calling on the name of the Lord they would be saved (Rom 10:13) and not be put to shame (Rom 10:11) such as condemnation would bring, hence…

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

Continuing to walk according to the passing old covenant would lead to “death” — quite literally as it turned out for some in the DoJ; yet also metaphorically speaking comparatively… walking according to the burgeoning new covenant was the pathway of “life” into the coming new age “wherein righteousness dwells” 2Pet 3:13.

[anon12438761]

davo said: “Continuing to walk according to the passing old covenant would lead to “death” — quite literally as it turned out for some in the DoJ; yet also metaphorically speaking comparatively… walking according to the burgeoning new covenant was the pathway of “life” into the coming new age “wherein righteousness dwells” 2Pet 3:13.”

Thanks for that extended post above, davo. It helped me to sharpen up a couple of thoughts and questions.

1. Do you (and by ‘you’ I am not pointing at you in particular; I’m referring to FP’s and Pantelists in general) have any grounds on which to base a hope for life after death?
2. Why is belief in physical resurrection ‘archaic’??
3. Does righteousness dwell now in this age, if in fact we are in the ‘coming new age?’
4. Is the Church now the ‘body of Christ’?
5. What does it mean, if anything, to ‘be a Christian’?

Thanks. What bothers me and maybe some others is a conceptual thing: what is the ‘bridge’ from AD70 into the new age?

[steve7150]

1. Do you (and by ‘you’ I am not pointing at you in particular; I’m referring to FP’s and Pantelists in general) have any grounds on which to base a hope for life after death?
2. Why is belief in physical resurrection ‘archaic’??
3. Does righteousness dwell now in this age, if in fact we are in the ‘coming new age?’
4. Is the Church now the ‘body of Christ’?
5. What does it mean, if anything, to ‘be a Christian’?

I’m not a FP but I did play a Doctor on TV once, so let me take a stab.

1. FP believe people are judged by Christ at death. That’s how they interpret the day of judgment
2. FP believe physical death is natural and not caused by “the fall” or “sin” . They dismiss the physical body and embrace a spiritual or angelic existence.
3. I’m not sure but i think they believe evil just continues indefinitely so i’m not sure how they view righteousness in this age
4. I think most FP believe there is no need for churches,Pastors,the Lord’s supper or “body of Christ” on earth after 70AD.
5. Not sure

[anon12438761]

Thanks Steve. I hope davo and Chad will share as well.

[davo]

I’m not a FP but I did play a Doctor on TV once, so let me take a stab.

1. FP believe people are judged by Christ at death. That’s how they interpret the day of judgment
2. FP believe physical death is natural and not caused by “the fall” or “sin” . They dismiss the physical body and embrace a spiritual or angelic existence.
3. I’m not sure but i think they believe evil just continues indefinitely so i’m not sure how they view righteousness in this age
4. I think most FP believe there is no need for churches,Pastors,the Lord’s supper or “body of Christ” on earth after 70AD.
5. Not sure

Well, that was more worthy of what our friend Origen might churn out… in fact nearly verbatim.

5. Not sure

That was your most accurate answer…

I shall get to answering Dave’s queries properly from a pantelist perspective presently.

[anon12438761]

Please prepare present precepts perspicaciously.

[steve7150]

That was your most accurate answer… You mean that I played a Doctor on TV Glad you liked it!

I shall get to answering Dave’s queries properly from a pantelist perspective presently.

You are sure i’m wrong but you have to research the answers? Sweet!

The fact is that there is no centralized FP playbook and you don’t all think exactly alike on every point. I gave the general perspective but you may have a Davo perspective.

[davo]

You are sure i’m wrong but you have to research the answers? Sweet!

Some ‘perspicacious’ research by you quasi-pret experts would do wonders as opposed to what is being trotted out as to “what prêterists believe”. — I am of course taking the pantelism angle in this particular thread addressed to me.