The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

John as it turns out your issue isn’t with me, but Mike Sullivan a coauthor of “House Divided”.

John Scargy has accused me of deceit, claiming, “In your hateful zeal Pault you have clearly misrepresented what Dr. Beale has written. People need to put a mark on you as this isn’t the first time you have resorted to such low deceitful tactics.”

http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blogs/pault-expelled-from-class?xg_source=activity

John’s conclusion is based on this quote of mine seen below taken from,this blog.

Sullivan begs the question, assuming “gathering” means “resurrection”. Dr. Beale certainly doesn’t suggest “resurrection” is a topic of consideration in Matthew 24. Nor does Dr. Beale claim “resurrection” is a parallel concept between Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4. The term “gathering” is never used in the New Testament to describe the reanimation of a formerly dead body or person i.e. “resurrection”.

The blog Scargy has extracted my quote from was written to support someone who claims to be a reformed evangelical Christian who was engaged with Mike Sullivan. As clearly demonstrated here

Let’s take a look at this [Sullivan’s] argument and see what suggestions we can offer the “old” guard.

The argument of Sullivan included the basis for his comments which was from the book he coauthored wherein he provided the view of G.K. Beale as evidenced here,

I would assume you NOW do make the parallels (like G.K. Beale, see HD pp. 107-108) and would concede this point.

John if you go to pages 107-108 in “House Divided”, as I did when I responded to Sullivan’s argument you will find a table wherein Sullivan represents Dr. Beale’s position. You will note the term “resurrection” is NOT listed as one of the concepts that are parallel between Matthew 24:30, 31 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18. You will also note on pages 107 – 108 Sullivan doesn’t provide the quote you did John, making no reference to Beale’s understanding resurrection is “implied” in Matthew 24:31 This was the basis for my comments you claim I was deceitful over, not the commentary from which you extracted Dr. Beale’s quote. Therefore, my statement was accurate in as much as it was commenting on how Sullivan had represented Dr. Beale. I was pointing out what was missing from Dr. Beale’s view as reported by Sullivan. So if you think someone was deceitful fraudulently representing Dr. Beale you may want to take it up with Mike Sullivan who failed to quote Dr. Beale accurately. Frankly, John you should retract your unwarranted accusation against me and apologize.

However, as I’ve already pointed out to you I did note in the blog Dr. Beale viewed Matthew 24 as a yet future event. This example taken from the blog in question is what I was talking about.

The “analogy” of Scripture doesn’t hold to the hyperpreterists “bizarre” view of reality. Based on the “analogy” of Scripture, Christianity understands God is going to redeem the dead from the grave, which is the subject of 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18. Therefore, if someone like Beale suggests there are “parallels” in Matt 24 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 they are approaching the apocalyptic text of Matthew 24 based on their understanding of what the didactic text of 1 Thessalonians states will occur when the second appearance of Jesus Christ occurs

John, it is intellectually dishonest for a hyperpretertist who views the nature of the resurrection from a Gnostic like perspective to employ the work of an orthodox reformed evangelical Christian when it comes to resurrection language. When Sullivan employs Dr. Beale’s “parallels” without acknowledging what he clearly states is the Christian expectation as outlined on page 136 of Dr. Beale’s commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians he is operating in a, (your word John) “deceitful” manner. Why, because Dr. Beale writes,

The remainder of 4:14-17 elaborates on further details about Jesus’ coming and how the resurrection of Christians will take place: the Lord [Jesus] will come and first resurrect the believing dead and then raise up Christians still living. Even living Christians will experience a ‘resurrection’ in the sense that their old bodies will be transformed and renewed in the same manner as those bodies lying in the grave. All those resurrected will be with the Lord forever (4:17) (1-2 Thessalonians, G.K. Beale, IVP, pg 136)

Dr. Beale would be appalled at Sullivan’s use of his material when he clearly defines the nature of the resurrection as ‘physical’. Why do I say this, because Dr. Beale would classify Sullivan as a false teacher

..the false claim is that Christ’s coming and the final resurrection have already happened, so that there should be no present expectation of any future occurrence of either of these events…This conclusion is supported by the parallel from Corinth, where some denied that there was to be a final, physical (Emphasis provided by Dr. Beale) resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:12-24 in the NET Bible(r)" rel="external">1 Cor 15:12-24). (Ibid, 200)

Furthermore, Dr. Beale seems to allude to the very view you and Sullivan advocate,

…some years ago I was invited to a meeting of theologians in order to discuss a teaching that was spreading (and continues to spread) among a number of churches, namely, that there will not be a final, general bodily resurrection of Christians at the end of the age and that Christ’s second coming and the resurrection of saints already happened in some figurative and invisible manner in A.D. 70. It was the same false teaching as was propounded in Corinth, Ephesus and elsewhere in the first century. (Ibid, pg 201, 202)

What you guys just don’t seem to get is the issue isn’t over the timing of the resurrection as some hyperpreterists desperately attempt to argue but the fact false teachers had redefined the nature of the resurrection from “physical” (Dr. Beale’s own words) to simply the “spiritual resurrection from the dead”. Some would liken the false teaching to Casper’s release. Nevertheless Dr. Beale’s belief in a physical resurrection leads to the point in my blog from which you extracted the quote,

The “analogy” of faith of Scripture according to Dr. Beale includes a physical resurrection of the dead, which is why he believes Matthew 24 is a yet future event. For Sullivan to employ Dr. Beale’s opinion regarding Matthew 24 without taking into consideration his view of Scriptures proclamation of the goal of redemptive history is intellectually dishonest.

Getting back to your charge against me, John, I noticed you failed to include in Dr. Beale’s comments which sets up the partial quote you employed. Unlike Sullivan you actually provided a quote wherein Dr. Beale suggests resurrection is a concept in view in Matthew 24:31. However, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out Dr. Beale’s presupposition, a presupposition you failed to provide in your partial quote from his commentary. Why did you fail to include Dr. Beale’s presupposition?

Since Matthew 24 refers to tribulation that precede Christ’s coming, it is likely that Paul is doing the same throughout 4:15-5:11. Scholars debate which tribulation and coming of Christ Matthew 24 actually narrates…(Ibid, pg 137)

Indeed scholars debate what event Matthew 24 narrates. That is the point, but perhaps this is why Sullivan didn’t employ the quote you did John. However, because Dr. Beale believes Matthew 24 alludes to a yet future event he goes on to write,

Paul’s particular combination of reference from Matthew 24 shows that he interprets the whole of the Matthean text as referring to woes preceding the first coming of Christ (and though Matthew does not explicitly mention the idea of resurrection he implies it in the phrase “gather his elect” in 24:31, which implies the gathering of all believers, both living and dead [Marshall 1983:1261]) (Ibid, pg 137,138)

Why does Beale suggest Matthew 24:31 implies the resurrection of the dead, because he understands the text as a yet future event based on his view of the nature of the resurrection. He doesn’t claim the term “gather” is a METAPHOR for “resurrection”. Indeed, he claims your understanding of the term is false teaching. So yes, technically I was in error claiming Dr. Beale doesn’t suggest the resurrection is in Matthew 24:31, but my mistake was based on Sullivan’s less than accurate portrayal of Dr. Beale’s view. However, this would seem to be par for the course within the hyperpreterist community given you are guilty of the same thing Sullivan is in that you were not forthright in revealing the biased presupposition which is the basis for Dr. Beale’s position.

Dr. Beale points out scholars debate the events of Matthew 24 and because “gather” is not a METAPHOR for “resurrect”, your unwarranted claim, the debate is on solid ground. However, what isn’t a debatable issue is that the resurrection of the dead is of a material, physical nature. To deny such is to participate in false teaching as Dr. Beale points out. Only those who presuppose the text of Matthew 24 is dealing with a yet future event understand that “resurrection” is implied in the text. Why because the nature of the resurrection is physical and not the release of Casper the Ghost something akin to what the Gnostics would have held and you avow. As Dr. Beale points out this is the same mistake some were making in the early church,

Some also denied that there would be a final physical resurrection of all God’s people (1 Cor 15:12; 2 Tim 2:18). The reason for such a denial may have been that some believed Christ has already finally returned in some invisible or spiritual manner and that in some way the resurrection of the church has also occurred in a kind of spiritual way. Similarly, some may have affirmed that, since the Old Testament predicted only one physical resurrection, Christ’s resurrection was representative for the church. Consequently, when one believed in him, one was identified with the risen Christ and at that time experienced a spiritual resurrection, after which no physical resurrection was needed or could be expected, (Ibid, pg 132)

John, thank you for pointing out Dr. Beale’s quote, your criticism albeit misplaced has allowed me to further the argument I have against Sullivan for his less than accurate representation of Dr. Beale’s position on the matter. What you’ve done John is affirm there is a real need to validate first hand the claims the authors of “House Divided” make regarding the authors they review. This is a classic example of me giving Sullivan the benefit of the doubt that he had correctly reflected Dr. Beale’s position without researching first hand Sullivan’s representation.

Additionally, I wasn’t aware that Dr. Beale had addressed the heresy you advocate. Understanding he is on record as pointing out your definition of the resurrection of the dead is akin to what the proto-Gnostics were selling in the first Century supports my assertion that you guys are simply selling a view that was one of the earliest heresies identified within Christendom. Frankly, I think it is an error for anyone to claim your view is the result of an evolutionary movement and refinement of a theological position within Christianity.

In the book of Ecclesiastics we find there is nothing new under the sun. Most heresy is simply a repackaging of a former heresy. Clearly this is the case with hyperpreterism which defines the nature of the resurrection of the dead along the lines of those who opposed Paul in the first Century and is akin to what the Gnostics advocated in the second Century. Without you pointing out Sullivan’s less than accurate representation of Dr. Beale which lead to my mistake causing me to do additional research, I would have never known Dr. Beale agrees with my assessment of your view. For this I thank you.