Fulfilled Theology - Preterist

Discussion All Areas Of Systematic Theology

Thanks for the opportunity to coment!

   As to the number in the Garden during Adam's creation, we cannot question other than a plurality present.

Genesis 1:26 clearly states a plurality in the "us, our, and them' in scriptural account. By the way, as author, in The

Great Deception, I laid out the dimensions of Heaven and Earth, to within a foot in all directions. Additionally, Eden encompassed these same boundaries. To the East in Eden, could be anywhere east of central Heaven and Earth.

Guess where that would place the Garden? No, not along the Euphrates! Donald possesses the map.

   Hope this might stir some interest and discussion.

Ben Winter






Views: 775


You need to be a member of Fulfilled Theology - Preterist to add comments!

Join Fulfilled Theology - Preterist

Comment by RiversOfEden on June 27, 2012 at 10:57am

Hi Ben,


Here are some thoughts in reply to your comments. :)


1.  I don't see where you get the idea that "Jesus was resurrected (raised) from the Law" in scripture.    Being "raised from the dead" seems to mean coming out of a tomb where a person would "decay" (John 12:17; Acts 13:34).   I can see where accountability to the "Law" made the Israelites worthy of physical death and decay (1 Corinthians 15:56), but being "raised" or "resurrected" explicity referred to coming out of graves.


2.  I'm not sure what you are getting at with "ascension", but I do see "levitation" implied where the historical account of Jesus' ascension says that the disciples were "looking (up) into the sky (heaven)" and that Jesus was "taken up into the skies (heavens)" and that they "watched him go (up) into the sky (heaven)" (Acts 1:9-11).


3.  What I mean by "permenantly conquered death" is what Paul explained in Acts 13:34 that being "raised from the dead" was "to no longer return to decay".   The "decay" was referring to what happens when a dead person's body (i.e. soul) was put in a grave and rotted away (Acts 2:31-32).


4.  I don't see where you are getting "a different death" out of 1 Corinthians 15:26.   Paul seems to be explicitly referring to Christ's historical resurrection out of a grave (1 Corinthians 15:4; 1 Corinthians 15:20).   Where do you see him changing what "resurrection" means anywhere in the context?


5.  I think the "disciple whom Jesus loved" in John 21:7 was Lazarus (and not Apostle John).   Please see John 11:5 and John 11:36.  These are the only texts where it was said that Jesus "loved" a particular male disciple (i.e. Lazarus) in the Fourth Gospel.


6.  I open to consider what you have to say about the 4 Kings in Daniel.  I haven't studied it that much.  Please share it with us.


Rivers :)


Comment by Bennie Winter on June 15, 2012 at 12:54pm

Hi Rivers: (Re: -- 'A couple things about "resurrection."'

Looks like I have my work cut out for me. I'll try to do my best with a beginning question:

Paragraph One: Truly, Jesus could not have been a first resurrection from the physically dead; therefore, let's cut to the chase, What was he resurrected from and into?  Apparently, he was resurrected from the Law, into His Kingdom! He was obligated, of course, to the Law until His physical death!

Paragraph Two: We are dancing around the symbolic subterfuge. The two men 'dressed in white' (Acts 1) Are they not significant? So, what is their significance? Oh, and by the way, Who are the Revelation 11 'two witnesses'? Could they signify those standing on both sides the river in Daniel 12? Your reference to 'ascended' does not infer levitation; therefore, What was necessary to signify Jesus' disappearance and for a like-manner reappearance in his 'coming,' or Parousia.? In this instance, he is enabled to take the throne seat. Where was his Father's throne? And what must occur to signify his return?  Jesus can now be described only as a spirit; What manner of manifestation must evidence his 'coming'? He was to come in the clouds, of course. But what must create the clouds making such prophetic fulfillment. Would not a huge army and its logistical support create great clouds and bring promised vengeance on the sons, daughters, and progeny of the fathers? Is it not possible?

I must ask: What do you mean by 'permanently conquered death'? What death? Jesus did not nor could his followers 'conquer physical death.' It was another death they set out to conquer (I Cor.15:26). This death was spiritual death, sin death, or death to the Law!

Here (reference to John 21), John was not raised from physical death as per your text, but was promised to live past the resurrection period, or Parousia.

Re: 1 Corinthians 15:24 - :28: Parousia was a vendication of those 'angelic' messages and prophecies urging loyalty to the God-husband, and vengeance on those denying the word and ignoring wifely ntegrity flounced in the face of a jealous God-husband. Too, no Inner Sanctum remained to house one spirit, much less thousands or millions.

Paragraph Three: None were 'permanently raised,' not even in the presence of Messiah. Where do you extract a sense of permanency in the transubstantiation of physical bodies into eternal existence? I gather that tradition extracts a presumption of eternal life in the dual legal-historicism assumed to have existed before the advent of such records. Also, like the misinformation concerning 'eternal,' how about inconsistency surrounding the abolishment of 'permanency'? How can you abolish something permanent. Is that not a bit incongruous? To my interception of symbols and numbers, no physically dead people were revived. or resurrected at Parousia. Only spiritually dead tribesmen were changed, killed, captured to be killed, converted, or resurrected into the new order at Parousia. But those slain or dying in the future, their memory cells, bones, blood, and flesh have disintegrated into the atoms and more minute particles once representing synergistic embodiment. How could there be a reassembly of those disintegrated parts now occupying the physical makeup of millions if not billions of other living human beings? (I also have an intense interest in physics, lol.)

II will try to address the other comments later. Right now, I have errands to run and a huge lawn to mow. Like every one else, I have to hustle before chores turn into crisis. lol

So we can read on the same page: Do you think the Four Kings in Daniel 11:2 are significant? I think most will be surprised to discover their true identity. Any ideas?

Best Regards,


Ben Winter

Author of:

THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified

Comment by RiversOfEden on June 14, 2012 at 12:29pm




A couple things about "resurrection."  


We know that Jesus wasn't the first person to be raised from the dead.  Both Elijah and Elisha raised people from the dead long before Jesus (1 Kings 17:24; 2 Kings 4:37).   As you noted, Lazarus was also raised from the dead (John 11) before the resurrection of Christ, as were Jarius' daughter (Mark 5) and the widow's son (Luke 7).


The difference may be in the fact that only Jesus "ascended" and went to the Father after his resurrection (Acts 1:9-11) which showed that he had permenantly conquered death.   Lazarus (i.e. "the disciple whom Jesus loved") and those others whom Jesus raised may have remained until the parousia and not seen death again (John 21:20-22).   Thus, the parousia would have been their "ascension" into heaven to be with Jesus and the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).


Of course, there is no evidence that the people raised by Elijah or Elisha were still living at the time of Christ, so it's probably best to assume that they were not permenantly raised in the same sense as those who lived with Jesus during the last days.   Presumabley, those from the time of the prophets  would have part of "the dead ones" who were also raised at the Parousia (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17).


Rivers :)



Comment by RiversOfEden on June 14, 2012 at 12:05pm

Hi Ben,


I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I think it's hard to sustain the idea that 2 Timothy 1:10 was referring to the fulfillment of 1 Timothy 6:14 (which you assume is a difference of 3 1/2 years).


The problem I see with this explanation is that Paul seems to still be anticipating "the appearing" when he mentions it elsewhere in the same letter (2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:8; 2 Timothy 4:18).  The "future" tenses of "will give a crown" in 2 Timothy 4:8 and "will preserve until the kingdom" in 2 Timothy 4:18 seem to suggest that Paul was anticipating something that was not present at the time of he wrote 2 Timothy.


My other concern with your interpretation is that "evil" was supposed to be abolished at "the appearing" of Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:8), but there is still much evil present at the time of this letter (2 Timothy 3:13) and Paul said it was still going to be there if he died (2 Timothy 3:1-7; 2 Timothy 4:3-4)


Can you reconcile this evidence with your explanation of the 3 1/2 years between the two letters to Timothy?


Rivers :)


Comment by Bennie Winter on June 13, 2012 at 7:45pm

Resurrection is a really tricky subject; however, the falsely promoted notion of spirits rising in the air for all to see is a difficult promotion. Are not spirits transparent? How you going to see them? And how can a spirit have soul to know what he is doing? What form must he take to evidence a soul? Briefly, all fulfillment must begin with prophesy! Something for you to mull over in the next day or two: Who was the first man raised from physical death, according to tradition? Did Jesus conquer death by being the first raised from physical death? If Lazarus was truly physically dead when Jesus raised him, then how can we assign the death spoken of in I Corinthians 15? And how could the 'dead past' bury their dead -- when Jesus was recruiting his disciples?
No, Jesus was not the first physical body raised from a physical deadness state! These are all intriging questions and resolutions -- and must be solved not by emotion but intellect, or careful analysis. Jesus was raised from the dead -- but not the physically dead. I will be gone all day tomorrow and have several chores awaiting me when I return home, but I will endeavor to answer your enquiry tomorrow night or early Saturday.
Thanks for your interest, I will probably relearn a few things as I attempt to answer your query. lol

Comment by rickeyfred on June 13, 2012 at 11:18am
Thank you Ben and Rivers for this dialogue, it has been fascinating. Ben, do you mind building on what you said about "resurrection". It seems as if you see this as an ongoing event within the three and a half year time frime, is that correct, and if so, how did you come to that?
Comment by Bennie Winter on June 12, 2012 at 4:40pm

Hi Rivers:
Scripture does not specify time frame for the New Heavens and Earth, and which was born on much suffering and trepidation; such time indistinction, as it exists, is corroborated in Daniel 7:25: where, Daniel speaks of one-half the alloted last week of years, in times, time and dividing of time, symbologically of course. We know Daniel was speaking of the end times and of Messiah's 'second coming'. In Matthew 24, Jesus speaks of his Parousia four times; one of the signs of such activity was Temple destruction; so, we know the coming was to be some time after the beginning of his kingdom rule but commensurate with Temple destruction. In II Peter 3, A.D. 65, we find the New Heaven and Earth to still be future. In I Timothy 6:14 ('until'), also in A.D. 65, time frame holds fast (Paul still looking for the 'coming'); however, three years later, in II Timothy 1:10, Paul states Parousia activity already underway (made manifest by his 'appearing'). And in II Timothy 2, Hymaneus and Philateus are chastised for misleading some, saying the resurrection is past already; as well they should be called to account, for the resurrection had two more years of terrible hardship before it would be ended. The New Testament was never intended as a soteriology instruction book. It was assembled (though incorrectly) some three hundred years after the fact. First and second Timothy were not written to you and I; they were written to Timothy. And Revelation should be collated about midway in the New Testament assembly. It must be thereby placed (in time frame) to have been of any use to anybody; though, it is doubtful if any outside the Apostles understood any of it, even if they were so privilaged. And, though we cannot speak positively of any date as hereby posited, we can know of certain historical dates and tie together particular forecasts, events, and historical evidence, we can surmise a few dates and agreements within New Testament writings: notwithstanding,the problems inherent in those difficult symbols and numbers so confusing to prophesy understanding. I do know, tradition has failed the general public with inconsistent prognostications, utter symbols falsification, and wild soteriology fabrications. I am confident this evaluation of three and one-half years, Parousia, time frame will prove feasible with its own witness. Guess you and I will have to set the record straight for all time. lol You were right in questioning the three and one-half years.
If this doesn't read to your satisfaction, then I'm willing to carry the discussion further.
Best Regards,

Comment by RiversOfEden on June 12, 2012 at 1:47pm

Hi Ben,


Where do you see the "new heaven and earth" (2 Peter 3:13) limited to only 3 1/2 years?


Rivers :)


Comment by Bennie Winter on June 12, 2012 at 11:13am


First, let me apologize for the lack of correct punctuation in the last comment's last few sentences. My editing was certainly lacking. Anyway, I think we are pretty well in agreement on the 'Heaven' definition. Truly, many biblical 'heavens' are intendedly directed to sky things. However, many are directed to the seat of benevolence depended in the daily lives of a covenanted society. Such 'new heaven and earth,' (II Pet. 3:13) predicted in a present tense letter, indicates an event still future to Peter's time in about A.D. 65. Notwithstanding, such occurence was most imminent and was to stand for only three and one-half years. It is fun to write it down as fact when intercepted and then build on these syllogistic backed conclusions. This i'new heaven' was not particularized as part of our discussion but seems an integral part of the definition process. Anyway, enjoyed the interchange.


Comment by RiversOfEden on June 12, 2012 at 8:27am

Hi Ben,


Yes, I would agree with most of what you're saying about "heaven."  I'm just trying to keep the definition of the terms in the simple form they are found in scripture.   The fact that the Hebrew language used the word "heaven" so speak of the sky (and everything they looked upward and saw there) suggests that they didn't have a complicated vocabulary for describing and understanding the things "above" the earth.


I also like what you're saying about how "heaven" is related to the innermost parts of the temple but I also think that would be somewhat too narrow of a definition since there are many uses of the term in scripture which can't be linked directly to the temple (at least not the earthly one).


Yes, we agree that "heaven was up"!


Rivers :)


This is an open forum to discuss all areas of Systematic Theology which it does not agree with the Church Traditions.

© 2024   Created by Donald.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service