You Be The Judge: Anderson Vs Burk

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

That is a true observation. They are saying the resurrection is past.

Wrong AGAIN. You just don't ever seem to get it right, do you?









To set it straight for Bro. Epley—again: AFP does believe there is now and will forever be a resurrection for those who are in Christ. Of course Bro. Epley has already had this told to him many, many times in the past. He just chooses to ignore what we DO teach in preference to misrepresentations.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Wrong AGAIN. You just don't ever seem to get it right, do you?









To set it straight for Bro. Epley—again: AFP does believe there is now and will forever be a resurrection for those who are in Christ. Of course Bro. Epley has already had this told to him many, many times in the past. He just chooses to ignore what we DO teach in preference to misrepresentations.

Sir YOU do NOT believe in a resurrection PERIOD!!!!! If that which dies does NOT resurrect then there is NO resurrection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To teach folks go immediately to Heaven upon death to be what they will always be without a resurrection of the body is to teach NO resurrection.
I am correct it is not my fault you teach this foolishness.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Sir YOU do NOT believe in a resurrection PERIOD!!!!! If that which dies does NOT resurrect then there is NO resurrection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To teach folks go immediately to Heaven upon death to be what they will always be without a resurrection of the body is to teach NO resurrection.
I am correct it is not my fault you teach this foolishness.

Bro. Epley, over the years you have consistently displayed your inability to offer any scripture to prove what you do believe. When confronted over this, you refuse to answer and habitually retreat to heckling and misrepresentations.

Bro. Epley, you have never demonstrated that you understand what the Bible does teach on the resurrection. If you did know the arguments, you would see the irrational error of your rebuke.

Until you can actually give those six verses (SEE HERE) that do say what you believe is “biblical Truth,” then you really cannot claim anyone else is teaching “foolishness.”

Be blessed in your studies, Elder!

[afp1996]

Upholding our Future Hope was a joke. It was poorly written, the authors didn't even agree with each other on most points. Nearly all of them seem to believe that the Early Church became the Catholic Church which then broke off into the non-Catholic Trinitarian Churches which led to the Pentecostal "Azuza Street" outpouring that restored the modern Pentecostal Church to it's Apostolic roots. The true Apostolic Church never became the Catholic Church like the UPC book states over and over again. They constantly site Catholic Fathers and pre-Catholic Fathers as if this is proof of what the Apostolic Church believed.

The proof book, is not proof at all. It was directed at one man from the references that were used. This book was written to stop the influence of a man, and in the process opened up the influence of the doctrine. This farce of an apologetic book strengthens our position.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by JN Anderson

Can you provide a link for that Wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

I would like to check out its claims since it is information in flux. As I noted Ireneaus isn't the only witness and it is held by some scholars that others were quoting Victorinus, not Irenaus.

I never found any sources saying that. Can you provide me with links, etc. for that? Thanks.

I noted the article from Bullinger. I have his old commentary on Revelation as well. He had some good insights. Some of his work is becoming dated however. For example, he noted that the Syriac mss were the oldest being dated around AD 170. We have fragments of the Gospel of John near that date earlier (Chester-Beaty Papyri, Rylands).

Interesting. But regarding info on the dating, whether or not the Syriac is oldest known, it certainly is oldest in regards to indication as to WHEN Rev was written, with its note about Nero banishing John. If that idea was wrong, everyone would have jumped all over it, seeing it is so close to the actual time!

There is no Syriac versions of the Scripture Old or New that precede the birth of Christ. Syriac versions are just that. Versions of older texts for early Christians in the Eastern part of the church at large. The Syriac versions are dated around the 4th Century AD and is attributed as having multiple and unknown authorships.

The Peshitta is second century, though.

The Greek text there suggests that soon does not directly refer to a time frame but rather a sudden return. Whenever the return occurred it would be sudden. I would reply to you point by point but you sort of skipped over a few of my points as well. Actually don't got a lot of time. Thanks for the reply brother Blume.

You are welcome.

Consider this as well. Internal evidence is always best.

Daniel was told to SEAL the book since it was for the time of the end. Daniel lived 400 years before John. John was told to NOT SEAL the book since the time was at hand. Comparing the words to John with those to Daniel, that meant John was in the end time. This could not refer to the last days lasting over 2,000 years, since that would make the demand for Daniel to seal it only 400 years earlier a ridiculous point, I think.

This one point means more to me than anything I ever heard before.

Thanks for your consideration.

[mfblume]

Bro Epley, I will say that FP's consider our departure from our bodies upon death to be a resurrection. Personally, I agree with you that it is not really a resurrection. A resurrection occurs when something is alive, then dies, and lives a second time. What is it that lived, died and lived again when we depart from our bodies? It has to be a single part of our beings that experiences this threefold undertaking (no pun intended).

However, I hand it to the FP's that they do in fact believe we will not perish after this life is over, but rather go on to be with the Lord forevermore upon death. The means to that end is not technically a "resurrection" as I understand it, though, which I think is what the bible says is the means to that end. Philetus and Hymenaeus proposed we perish after this life, and that is what their inference was concerning resurrection being past.

I expect to spend eternity with Jesus and many FP's. I just think they are mistaken about some plain reading in the bible, and would have departed from FP due to all the evidence provided in dialogues with them about our differences, had I been FP and read all of this, myself.

My only concern with their teaching has EVER BEEN that if their hermeneutic that derives the conclusions they make about 1 Cor 15 is applied to other scriptures, things could get more serious.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Bro Epley, I will say that FP's consider our departure from our bodies upon death to be a resurrection. Personally, I agree with you that it is not really a resurrection. A resurrection occurs when something is alive, then dies, and lives a second time. What is it that lived, died and lived again when we depart from our bodies? It has to be a single part of our beings that experiences this threefold undertaking (no pun intended).

However, I hand it to the FP's that they do in fact believe we will not perish after this life is over, but rather go on to be with the Lord forevermore upon death. The means to that end is not technically a "resurrection" as I understand it, though, which I think is what the bible says is the means to that end. Philetus and Hymenaeus proposed we perish after this life, and that is what their inference was concerning resurrection being past.

I expect to spend eternity with Jesus and many FP's. I just think they are mistaken about some plain reading in the bible, and would have departed from FP due to all the evidence provided in dialogues with them about our differences, had I been FP and read all of this, myself.

My only concern with their teaching has EVER BEEN that if their hermeneutic that derives the conclusions they make about 1 Cor 15 is applied to other scriptures, things could get more serious.

Hmmmm...not every Partial Preterist agrees with you.

PARTIAL PRETERIST (PAST)
Do not let the word Preterist throw you off. It simply means past. This group believes in a partial past interpretation of prophecy. Most believe the Church—Jew and Gentile in one body—is the True Israel of God, Daniel’s 70 weeks are fulfilled, the Great Tribulation and the time of Jacob’s trouble was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Jerusalem was Revelation’s Babylon the Great, Matthew 24 was fulfilled during the generation in which it was written, the first 19 chapters of the book of Revelation are fulfilled, and the remaining chapters of Revelation are being fulfilled in the Church. They believe there still is a final judgment, and a final coming of the Lord that will end the Church Age and will resurrect the dead in Christ, even though the destruction of Jerusalem was referred to in scripture as a “coming of the Lord.” (This viewpoint is probably closest to the position that I currently endorse on Bible prophecy. However, I strive to remain open so that I can always walk in the light as God reveals more understanding about the Scriptures.)

TOTAL PRETERIST
The Total Preterist believes the same as the Partial Preterist, except they believe all prophecy was fulfilled when the Lord came in judgment against Jerusalem in 70 AD. They believe that He resurrected the dead at that time, and that we who are alive and remain will be caught up to meet the Lord as we die. They also believe the world and the Kingdom of God (Church Age) will never end because the Scriptures teach that His Kingdom is an “everlasting Kingdom that will never be destroyed.”

The main difference between the Partial Preterist and the total Preterist is found in their differing viewpoints of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. The Partial Preterists believe its fulfillment will take place in the future. The Total Preterists believe its fulfillment took place in 70 AD when Jesus came back to bring judgment against Jerusalem. They say that those who were dead and in the graves then were resurrected and those who are alive and remain shall be caught up to meet the Lord as they die.

– Larry T. Smith, The Coming of the Lord, the Last Days, and the End of the World, page 7.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

Hmmmm...not every Partial Preterist agrees with you.

It does not change the dictionary definition.

MERRIAM WEBSTER:



res·ur·rect
\ˌre-zə-ˈrekt\

Function:
transitive verb

Etymology:
back-formation from resurrection
Date:
1772

1 : to raise from the dead 2 : to bring to view, attention, or use again


WEBSTER:

Resurrection
RESURREC'TION, n. s as z. [L. resurrectus, resurgo; re and surgo, to rise.]

Notice the term comes from RE SURGO -- We get the word RESURGE from that. And to SURGE means to have life. To RE-SURGE is to have life a second time. This requires a period of the element being without life. You cannot resurge until you first have surged and ceased from being surged. The "RE" prefix means to cause to happen a second time. It means AGAIN. Or BACK.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Bro Epley, I will say that FP's consider our departure from our bodies upon death to be a resurrection. Personally, I agree with you that it is not really a resurrection. A resurrection occurs when something is alive, then dies, and lives a second time. What is it that lived, died and lived again when we depart from our bodies? It has to be a single part of our beings that experiences this threefold undertaking (no pun intended).

However, I hand it to the FP's that they do in fact believe we will not perish after this life is over, but rather go on to be with the Lord forevermore upon death. The means to that end is not technically a "resurrection" as I understand it, though, which I think is what the bible says is the means to that end. Philetus and Hymenaeus proposed we perish after this life, and that is what their inference was concerning resurrection being past.

I expect to spend eternity with Jesus and many FP's. I just think they are mistaken about some plain reading in the bible, and would have departed from FP due to all the evidence provided in dialogues with them about our differences, had I been FP and read all of this, myself.

My only concern with their teaching has EVER BEEN that if their hermeneutic that derives the conclusions they make about 1 Cor 15 is applied to other scriptures, things could get more serious.

Eph.2:1-22 KJV

2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Just a few of my favorite verses,

Falla39

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It does not change the dictionary definition.

I thought this was about what YOU believed.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Personally, I agree with you that it is not really a resurrection....

I pointed out that Bro. Smith DOES see the AFP's resurrection occurring AFTER a saint DIES. You said that you did not see how AFP teaches a resurrection since, in your opinion, AFP does not have a person dying.

Originally Posted by mfblume

A resurrection occurs when something is alive, then dies, and lives a second time. What is it that lived, died and lived again when we depart from our bodies? It has to be a single part of our beings that experiences this threefold undertaking (no pun intended).

What I was showing is that AFP does have a person dying and being instantly raised from that to live in eternity. Bro. Smith indicated in his book that he understood this in the AFP doctrine as well, hence my usage of his quote.