Thanks
How about the resurrection of the dead? Did this all happen in the first century, too? Some of it didāyes. But I Corinthians 15 seems to indicate that some will be raised at the coming of Christ. I know some think that happened in the first century also. But what about verse 24? Did āthe endā come in the first century? Did Jesus destroy every rule and authority and power? Did He put all His enemies under his feet? Did He destroy death itself in the first century?
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Corinthians 15:20-26 ESV)
1 Like
You get so pissed at meā¦ Yet every thing you have said could have and very well happened in the first century. The coming of Christ, the last enemy destroyed is deathā¦ It could be that you (Don and many others) want to live forever in the state you are in. That is kind of what man is all about. But destroying death could mean the place where man (Adam) was separated from God. And Jesus (second Adam) returned Man to a righteous state with the Father.
Itās amazing how a person can cling to a belief in spite of scripture to the contrary.
As for the rest of your post, I canāt make any sense of it.
1 Like
You and I are as usual, at a loggerhead. You continue to ignore the obvious idea that I do not view the validity of scripture in the same regard as you. I realize the forum pretense, but also acknowledge the adminās obvious allowance of contradictory views, so we are at this point allowed to fight it out.
So good luckā¦ Weāll fight it out.
Iām not interested in āfighting outā anything with you, Chad.
If you donāt regard the words of Jesus and the apostles as valid, then what is the basis for disagreement? Philosophy?
That is my very pointā¦ I see all of the words of Jesus and the Gospel writers as valid, but you see those words as different than I do. Don, you are panderingā¦ You know my view as well as I know yours. Quit being a stinker. I will accept you believe and have your viewā¦ and I understand it. The question is, will you do the same for the preterist/ pantelist view?
Yep I know that all to well thanks to you and your evangelical viewsā¦ Maybe it would be fun to have you engage in the conversation.
Iāve really got you going tonight - fun!
This denotes a spirit of indifference and discouragement. Iām sorry you feel that way.
Yet again, the question remains unanswered.
No. That view is not in harmony with the teachings of Jesus and His apostles.
You might also consider ceasing your name-calling. I donāt think that practice is part of the āpreterist/pantelist viewā, is it?
1 Like
Well if calling someone an evangelical is name calling, I stand guilty as charged.
(not withstanding the stinker poke)