Originally Posted by unlearnedlearner

Hence my qualification, "aside from hyper-preterist", so:

1. When you say "preterist" I am taking it as an orthodox preterist, so the response was in that direction for preterist.

2. The hyper-preterist cannot have any historical understanding of those words, including the time that the Bible was written, especially resurrection. Grab the Bible and read the end of Luke and then read through Acts and see how resurrection is used for Jesus - he is touched, seen, and felt. The whole use of resurrection is the physical body of Jesus coming out from "the dead", which, again, was touched, seen, and then ascended, and it is not simply a "resurrection from hades/sheol", although it included that, and it is not a "covenantal resurrection" or "resurrection of old covenant Israel".

3. As you point out here, the "difficulty" with hyper-preterism is that it is a mirror of Christianity & a Christian heresy, they "believe" those things. It is a little bit like when I was a kid and championship wrestling had Doink the clown. In order to keep the schtick interesting they brought out Dink the Clown, who was a mirror of Doink, although he was a midget. They even went through a routine once where they met in the center of the ring and mirrored each other's moves. So it is with hyper-preterism. Hyper-preterism is not real Christianity, but merely mirrors it and mimics every move, although distorted and redefined. Is there a millennium? A resurrection? A "second coming"? New Heavens and New Earth? A Consummation? Yes to all of those, but where do they get their understanding and definitions? Is Dink like Doink? O.k., maybe that is an awful analogy, but...

This is where the "difficulty" comes in. They do not get their definition and understanding from the context that the Scriptures were written or even the Scriptures for that matter. Despite claims to taking the Bible in its historical context, their rejection of how words are used in the 1st century and in Scripture demonstrates that they do not. IF they can define "resurrection" any way they want, completely devoid of historical context, and just impute that definition into the text, then they can kind of make their system work, at least at points. Overall, however, like any false system, the errors begin to arise as sound exegesis is performed.

Remember, as they oft claim, "It is not creeds, but properly exegeted Scripture that we must follow." This would include the creed that "Jesus returned in AD 70". It is only because I think properly exegeted Scripture, especially as it pertains to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles on the resurrection and the Apostles on the "second coming", that I am a "futurist" and agree with the history of the Church.