|
Post by Josh on Sept 7, 2011 16:19:38 GMT -8
Oh, and #2:
There's a difference between these questions:
a) is a physical afterlife (for Jesus or us) any better or worse than a merely spiritual one?
b) does it matter if Jesus and the disciples taught a physical resurrection of Jesus and there really was no such thing?
As far as a, I could make some conjecture on the subject, but ultimately I might shrug my shoulders as Chris seems to be doing. But as far as b, it has to do with the credibility and authority of the most central Christian belief, and is therefore super important.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 7, 2011 17:22:38 GMT -8
Mike wrote:
Don't worry Mike! Full preterism is just as novel as Dispensationalism and it's not likely the church missed it for 1800 years. I know that's not an exegetical refutation, but there's at least good odds that greater minds than ours have looked at it and came down on the side of orthodoxy (Josh apparently being one of them ;D).
My whole uncertainty on the subject is that I've seen a lot of debate about the doctrine, but I haven't seen what I would consider a fool proof exegetical refutation of it. Full preterists get a lot of flack, but they do actually have pretty good arguments IMO (as do their opponents).
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 7, 2011 17:24:09 GMT -8
Josh wrote:
I would agree with that assessment.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 7, 2011 19:51:25 GMT -8
Exegetical arguments don't necessarily trump historical/ logical arguments. Sometimes the latter are more solid, as in this case. Wow. This is all hitting home tonight. Justus' hamster died tonight and he's facing his first real encounter with death. Had to do a lot of pastoring this evening
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 10, 2011 10:01:31 GMT -8
Kirby- a related question for you.
If you were Saul/ Paul and you became convinced that Jesus truly did raise bodily from the dead in history, how do you suppose that would have affected/ changed/ altered your views on God, salvation, and the meaning of life?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 10, 2011 20:20:54 GMT -8
Where the bible is silent, history and logic shed some useful light, I would agree. But don’t you think full prets would have an answer for it? Of course I’m not a full prêt, just playing devil’s advocate. You say Jesus and Paul came “firmly” down on the side of physical resurrection, I would say that still remains to be demonstrated. You may be convinced, but different people find different evidence compelling. I, for one, am not willing to discount anything plausible at this point.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 10, 2011 20:23:05 GMT -8
Sorry to hear about Chewy. I hope Justus is doing OK.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 10, 2011 21:02:03 GMT -8
Would you be saying these same things about those who hold a dispensational viewpoint? Because while a dispensationalist may have an answer for each objection, that doesn't mean the answers are satisfactory. Just as I don't find dispensationalism satisfactory, I don't find full preterism offering a satisfactory counterclaim to the evidence that the biblical authors had in mind and taught a future bodily resurrection.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 11, 2011 19:58:45 GMT -8
Yes, I would. You and I both believe dispensationalism is an error, but it’s an entirely plausible and tenable system (and so is full preterism). And there are those who have looked at all the evidence and still come down on the side of dispensationalism. So what are we to say about that? We either have to say they are sincerely unconvinced or convincedly insincere. No doubt there are both types, but since only God knows the heart, I would prefer to err on the side of the former. I think this helps to maintain a spirit of unity with those I disagree with. This is especially important since there are people from both of those camps (dispy and full prêt) that are much better Christians than I am.
I also have to say that certain passages make more sense to me from a full preterist point of view than the traditional view (like Rev 20-22, Matt 25, 2 Thess) and there are other passages that make more sense to me from a futurist point of view (like 1Cor 15). But since I haven’t worked it all out yet, I remain in my default view until such time I’m convinced otherwise. But always keeping my mind open and not caving to the usual alarmist rhetoric about “damnable heresies” and the like.
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Sept 12, 2011 23:23:41 GMT -8
On the one hand, I think N.T. Wright has the final word on the subject in his marvelous work, "The Resurrection of the Son of God". I would refer all questions about whether the NT teaches if Jesus rose bodily from the dead to that document.
On the other hand, it's some 800 pages of exegesis, which might seem daunting to some.
|
|