Pristine Grace
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst ... 2
Results 21 to 40 of 40

Thread: 1 Cor 15:12-57

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    248
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Cm, thankyou for your postings. I acknowledge the Bible contains parables & symbolism. I see words which are symbolic, but the prophecy itself is always fullfilled physically. Babylon was physically overthrown, not just spritually. Yes there are words within that prophecy which are symbolic, but the prophecy as a whole, surrounding that symbolism, is always fullfilled physically.
    I don't see Isaiah as being the fall of Babylon anyway, so I can't answer your question regarding the earth's place.
    Yes there is both a physical cornerstone as well as a spritual one for Zion.
    WE agree that JEsus was not a physical branch so to speak, but He fullfilled the prophecy's of the Messiah physically. SYmbolic words contained in the prophecy do not change the fact that the prophecy was fullfilled physically by Jesus Christ.
    Again, Babylon was physically engulfed.(Jer. 51:42)
    As to the original question about resurrection, Isaiah 26:19-
    " Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake & sing ye that dwell in the dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead."

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Debbie:
    WE agree that JEsus was not a physical branch so to speak, but He fullfilled the prophecy's of the Messiah physically. SYmbolic words contained in the prophecy do not change the fact that the prophecy was fullfilled physically by Jesus Christ.
    We do agree that the "Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." We also agree that his body did not see decay, and was raised on the third day, just as he promised.

    Debbie:
    Babylon was physically overthrown, not just spritually.
    As was the Old Jerusalem, in 70AD.

    Debbie:
    but the prophecy as a whole, surrounding that symbolism, is always fullfilled physically.
    That is debatable.

    Debbie:
    I don't see Isaiah as being the fall of Babylon anyway, so I can't answer your question regarding the earth's place.
    While the fall of Babylon is not the only subject covered in Isaiah's prophecies, several passages are devoted to it, including the passage to which you are referring.

    Debbie:
    Again, Babylon was physically engulfed.(Jer. 51:42)
    As to the original question about resurrection,
    Isaiah 26:19-
    " Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake & sing ye that dwell in the dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead."
    What about this, just a few verses earlier?
    NAS Isaiah 26:14
    14. The dead will not live, the departed spirits will not rise; Therefore You have punished and destroyed them, And You have wiped out all remembrance of them.
    Almost any doctrinal position one wants to take can be supported by prooftexting. We have to consider the whole counsel of Scripture in order to make sure we're being accurate.

    Jesus said he would do certain things and he gave a time frame for fulfillment of those promises. We know from reading the gospel of John that Jesus only said what he heard his Father saying. We also know from Scripture that God is faithful and always keeps his word. Everything depends on it.

    Grace and peace,
    cm
    "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    for Odyssey:

    jak,

    Check this one out, brother; do you think it may explain anything?

    http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/christianity/tacitus.html

    Commentary:
    Moreover, there may have been some element of distorted truth in the accusation [that the Christians started the fire], because the Christians believed that Rome would be destroyed during Christ's return. They must have responded enthusiastically when they saw Babylon burning, and in fact, Tacitus tells us that at least some of them pleaded guilty, i.e. admitted something that their interlocutors interpreted as a confession.
    Grace and peace,
    cm
    "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Debbie:
    Yes there is both a physical cornerstone as well as a spritual one for Zion.
    This comes down to a question of the nature of the kingdom of heaven:
    http://www.eschatology.com/1johncommunion.html

    Grace and Peace to you,
    cm
    "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    cm,

    Not sure. Since this took place before the fall of Jerusalem, it could be that the Jewish Christians were still holding on to the nationalistic ideals, i.e., those of polital Gentile revolt.

    Grace to you,

    jak

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Here's what I was thinking, and I could be barking up an empty tree, so I wanted feedback. We have a question about why the post-apostolic church did not grasp the whole significance of the Neronic persecution and the subsequent demise of the dynasty that ended with him, and especially the significance of the following destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. We also have the puzzle of why Hymaenius and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection had already occured. If the majority of the church mistakenly expected Christ to destroy the city of Rome at his parousia, then the fire that burned half the city might have been initially misunderstood as the sign of his coming, and might have sparked some spurious rumors. In other words, this might have been the event H&P misinterpreted and that gave them their opportunity to gather a following for themselves (which was usually the goal of false prophets and teachers). Then, when Rome wasn't actually destroyed, the church may have concluded that they still needed to wait for its destruction to signify Christ's return. What do you think?

    Grace and Peace,
    cm
    "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    cm,

    Could be. However, we shouldn't speculate when Scripture is silent. Why did H & P state that the resurrection was passed before the end of the age? I haven't the foggiest idea. The one thing I do know is that was what their problem was, i.e., stating the resurrection was before the end of the age. Paul wrote:

    2Timothy 2.15-18. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some.

    Paul does not go into what type of resurrection they were teaching (although, I think we have made good suggestions as to what it was and what it was not), only that it was a past event. The reason this was a problem was because the OC age was still in effect, albeit, 'ready to pass away' but hadn't yet. The NT clearly teaches that the resurrection would take place at the end of the age. Preterists take this to mean the end of the OC age while others take it to mean the end of the NC age or the end of history.

    Grace to you,

    jak

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Thanks for the response, Odyssey,

    I do realize these are only possibilities, and we can't determine the answers to those questions with certainty. I'm not trying to base any doctrine on Scriptural silence; we could not hope to find out from documents written before 70AD answers to why the post-apostolic church erred in its eschatology.

    Grace and Peace,
    cm
    "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I have read some speculation regarding this. The claim is that since the Gentile church was removed from their Jewish heritage, they looked at things literally. The claim is that the Jewish Christians would have recognized the symbolism within the destruction of Jerusalem and, basing their interpretation on the OT, would have concluded the parousia in AD 70. I believe the book was 'The Messiah's Return' by Timothy James.

    Grace to you,

    jak

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by Odyssey
    I have read some speculation regarding this. The claim is that since the Gentile church was removed from their Jewish heritage, they looked at things literally. The claim is that the Jewish Christians would have recognized the symbolism within the destruction of Jerusalem and, basing their interpretation on the OT, would have concluded the parousia in AD 70. I believe the book was 'The Messiah's Return' by Timothy James.

    Grace to you,

    jak
    that's another reason that prevents me from embracing preterism. how is that the apostolic and post-apostolic fathers are universal in their eschatology? why is it that they missed such a major event. either they, their parents, or grandparents were alive during 70AD. don't you think they would have mentioned it or heard about it? there is not one early church father who points to this event as the parousia or to a fulfillment of revelation, etc. why? i know that this will be dismissed by saying that "we don't get our soteriology from the fathers do we?", "we don't believe in baptismal regeneration do we?", etc. but this is not what i'm saying. i'm not saying that i believe such and such b/c the fathers did, i'm saying that they didn't even mention 70 AD as the parousia or any other fulfillment for that matter. don't miss the force of this argument/issue by dismissing it out of a hat. the explanation you offer above doesn't do this justice. i don't mean to sound divisive but i've never spoken to one preterist who gives this serious thought or consideration. it's always poo-pooed as if it's a ridiculous idea. thanks for listening to me ramble...

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    disciple,

    Here is a link for you.

    Grace to you,

    jak

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    139
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by disciple

    ........ i'm saying that they didn't even mention 70 AD as the parousia or any other fulfillment for that matter. don't miss the force of this argument/issue by dismissing it out of a hat. the explanation you offer above doesn't do this justice. i don't mean to sound divisive but i've never spoken to one preterist who gives this serious thought or consideration. it's always poo-pooed as if it's a ridiculous idea. thanks for listening to me ramble...
    I have always found it interesting that there is not one single writing from the church during the generation immediatly following the apostles generation. Why?

    Could it be they didn't see the need since they saw it all as fulfilled?

    I know this ammounts to nothing more than an argument from silence, but it sure fits with the already stated notion about the Gentile fathers being out of touch with the Jewish idioms "heavens and earth, stars falling, earth shattering, etc....

    YBIC,
    Peter

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    eastern GA
    Posts
    33
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Couldn't you give the same argument that so many Jews did not accept that Jesus was the promised Messiah, in fact only a handful did.

    You could ask the same question. Why didn't the teachers of the Law, the scribes and the Pharisees recognize Jesus?

    That is probably what keeps most Jews today similarly unconvinced that their Messiah did indeed come already.

    All the prophecies were fullfilled in Jesus and the Law was given as a tutor to lead them to know Him when He came, yet they would not.

    They were expecting Him to come and destroy their enemies, which He did, but not in the way they wanted.

    I believe there is an obvious parrallel here between what they expected in Messiah and what people today expect of Christ's return in glory.

    The main questions today are:

    Did He usher in His kingdom as He promised or are we still waiting for Him to do so?

    Is Jesus present today?

    He said that wherever 2 or 3 were gathered, He would be in their midst.

    Whether or not the church fathers understood what Christ's return in glory actually entailed is irrelevant.

    The Jewish leaders did not recognize or accept Christ the first time He came.

    I think the return of Christ needs to be closely re-examined by the church today.

    Behold He comes on clouds. A careful study of the "cloud comings" of Jehovah is warranted here.
    In His grace and for His glory

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Amen, dogwood.

    Grace to you,

    jak

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    eastern GA
    Posts
    33
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Jak,

    Thanks. Maybe we could post some verses of cloud comings here or elsewhere. It helped me so much to understand the significance of how Jesus said He would return.


    Behold He comes on clouds and He will return in like manner.

    You will not see Me again until you see Me coming on the clouds of Heaven.

    I'll have to get my bible to find the references.
    In His grace and for His glory

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    860
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Back to the original topic: 1 Corinthians 15:12-57

    My study in 1 Corinthians today was in this chapter, and I wrote some notes about verses 50-57. I think the notes might contribute to the discussion, so here they are:

    50 – Flesh and blood, being perishable, can’t inherit the kingdom of God, which is imperishable. God is holy, and cannot have fellowship with corruption.

    51 – We will not all sleep… Some of them to whom Paul wrote would still be living when the resurrection occurred. …but we will all be changed… Both the living and the dead were to be transformed.

    52 – The shofar customarily sounded to assemble the people. The gospel of the coming kingdom was this trumpet call.

    1. The final call was sounded…
    2. The dead were raised, imperishable…
    3. The living were changed.

    (The gospel remains, but we should now preach the kingdom established.)

    53 – The risen dead were made imperishable, and the living, in order to receive their inheritance, had to undergo a qualitative change. Paul described this change as putting on imperishability like clothing; it means that they were engulfed in eternal life, fellowship with God himself! God, being holy, cannot have fellowship with anything corrupt, so he covered us with Life.

    54 – 57: All things are thus restored. God can now have full communion with his people. The sting of death is sin. Until the resurrection, the dead (even the faithful) had to await the resurrection in Sheol. For God’s people, Sheol is no more; its gates did not prevail against the kingdom. The power of sin is the Law. The Law can never condemn anyone again!

    God reigns on earth, just as in heaven.

    To God be the glory,
    cm
    "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity." - St. Augustine of Hippo

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Dogwood, you wrote: "They [the jews] were expecting Him to come and destroy their enemies, which He did, but not in the way they wanted."

    Unfortunately, this broad sweep of first century Jews is deficient. Not all first century Jews considered Rome as their enemy, nor did they seek liberation from Rome. Particularly, Pharisaical Judaism. Pharisaical Judaism was quite comforable with the authourity and prestige they had through their political alliance with Rome. They perceived Jesus as a disruption of their way of life (dependence on Rome). Evidence of this can be traced back to the days of the dead sea community (early zealots) and also can be seen in Rev. 17 (the woman seated on the beast). On the other hand, the Zealots, and Sicarii were quick to take arms ogainst their enemies, Rome. They can be seen as those who wanted to make Jesus King "by force". THis may be considered a minor point, but I think it is an important one.

    Tracy Van

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Tracy,

    I agree. However, the majority of the people thought that Rome was the enemy. Even the Pharisees, based on their understanding of the OC prophecies, thought that Messiah would conquer them and make Israel the ultimate nation with all other bowing down to her.

    Grace to you,

    jak

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    42
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Jak,

    I certainly agree the OT scriptures point to other nations as the enemies of Israel. How would you explain the change of focus from the OT to the NT.

    In relation to my previous post, I think that the DSS reveals that some Jews intepreted the OT scriptures in a manner that showed wicked Israelites (particularly pharisees) to be the true enemies also (along with Rome). To say that God did not destroy their (the righteous, as they thought they were) enemies "in the way they wanted", is true only in a certain sense. In another sense, He did destroy their enemies (those who allied with Rome, abandoning the covenant) as they expected. But still, the point that Rome (political) was not an enemy of Israel (spiritual and physical) is not entirely correct. Rome (political) was certainly an enemy of the Church and Israel in the tribulation of A.D. 70 and also the years that followed (wouldn't you agree?).

    Tracy

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Tracy,

    Yes, I agree. The 'true' enemies of god were, just as you pointed out, the physical nation of Israel, who rejected god and their covenant (which, btw, they did hundreds of years earlier) and 'went to bed' with Rome.

    Grace to you,

    jak

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst ... 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •