A Biblical Definition of Hyper-Preterism

In Matthew 22: 1-14, we have the very important parable of the marriage of the king’s son. It is unanimously agreed that the King’s Son is Christ. Therefore, the King must be God the Father. We learn in this parable, then, God’s plan and purpose to bring about the kingdom. But if we follow this parable to its logical conclusions, we’ll find that Hyper-Preterism distorts its teachings, and changes the Divine order of events.
1. Marriage supper was ready/at hand when the invitations were sent out. AGREED. 22: 4.
2. Invitees rejected the invitation. AGREED. 22: 5.
3. Servants in charge of the invitations were mistreated and killed.AGREED. 22: 6.
4. City was destroyed because of continued rejection of the invitation. AGREED. 22: 7.
5. Marriage supper was postponed. DISAGREED. But see 22: 8.
A question for Preterists: Is there anything in this parable that would lead one to think that the marriage supper occurred at the destruction of the city?? Or were the invitations extended to others after the city was destroyed? (BTW, I can’t send you an invitation to an event that already happened.)
Obviously, a simple exegesis of Christ’s parable shows that the second coming of Christ is still future.
“And he saith unto me, write, Blessed are they which are called to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.” (Rev. 19: 9).
From our Lord’d own parable, anyone can see that IT IS HYPER-PRETERISM TO CLAIM THAT THE MARRIAGE SUPPER HAPPENED IN A.D. 70.
Hyper-Preterism is called “hyper” because it goes beyond the original intent of doctrine established by Christ and His hand-picked apostles. To claim that Rev. 19 was fulfilled in A.D. 70 is to ignore the time-frame of the marriage supper given in Christ’s parable–which is said to take place AFTER the city is destroyed–and to make it equivalent to the destruction of the city itself. This violates the grammatical and contextual rules of interpretation.
In my opinion, all Hyper-Preterism must be clearly identified whenever possible, and the erroneous views of its teachers combated with clear exegetical evidence. The parable is just one of the many examples that shows how Hyper-Preterism has completely departed from anything remotely akin to “historic Christianity.”

More Battles With Heretics!

Big Bus (a Hyper-Preterist) writes:
#1, Paradise wasn’t heaven. Christ didn’t die and go to HEAVEN on that day. This is basic Christian knowledge.
#2, the “absent from the body, present with the Lord”, was simply talking of the different covenants. To be absent from the body of death (being “in Adam”) simply meant that redemption/salvation had come.
This is clear from the CONTEXT of 2 Corinthians 5, which is about the “earthly TENT (tabernacle)”, which was merely the old covenant, versus the “house not made with hands (new jerusalem…eternal tabernacle…Christ’s BODY..the CHURCH)”.
For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed (body of death…being “in Adam”), we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens (Heavenly Jerusalem…which is the new covenant..see GAlatians 4). 2 For in this tent we groan (old covenant life), longing to put on our heavenly dwelling (new covenant LIFE and SALVATION),
But wait, there’s MORE!!!
For while we are still in this tent (mortal body of death,where NO ONE is saved), we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed (sound familiar?), so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life (eternal life…has nothing to do with physical life).
and there’s MORE, folks…
We know that while we (plural) are at home in the body (singular) we are away from the Lord
This above verse actually PROVES my point. While those first century believers were at “home” in the BODY (singular)..which is nothing more than the body of death..ie, being in Adam…while they were THERE, then NO ONE could be in the presence of the Lord. It is simply a contradiction to have people TODAY going to be with the Lord, if the resurrection/parousia has not happened.
At least Ellfinagain on here is consistent with that. I give him credit.
Being present with the Lord would not occur until the resurrection. ANYONE who argues that Christians TODAY go to heaven, if they’re a futurist, is arguing inconsistently. Without the parousia/resurrection, there is NO ONE with the Lord in heaven.

*********
MillennialSaint (a Pre-Mil Dispensationalist) writes:
Big Bus,
Of course you’re right that the penitent thief didn’t go to Paradise that day. The punctuation of the KJV translation is somewhat misleading. Christ spoke to the thief, He said “Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.” But how do you figure Paradise isn’t heaven?? Paul himself equates Paradise with the third heaven, and he ought to know! (2 Cor. 12: 2-4). Also, Paul says that when Christ ascended He led a multitude of captives (Eph. 4: 8). So, since the ascension Christians have gone to “be with Christ.” Christ is not in Hades, but in heaven. The theory that Christian souls can’t go to heaven until Christ returns is a fabrication. For when CHrist returns, He will no longer be in heaven, but on earth (Acts 3: 19, 21).
Also, you’re completely mistaken about 2 Cor. 5. The tabernacle is not ‘the old covenant.’ Peter was talking about his physical body when he said: “Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as the Lord hath showed me” (2 Peter 1: 14). For in the next verse he mentions the “putting off” of his tabernacle as his “decease.” So let’s assume he meant by tabernacle his “old covenant” life. Well, then if his decease issued in the putting off of his old covenant life, then it proves that Old covenant life was put off prior to A.D. 70. Hence no need to go to Hades.
Besides, virtually every commentator, ancient and modern, has interpreted the “tabernacle” of 2 Cor. 5: 2 as meaning the physical body. Go back to Romans 7: 24, and ask yourself what Paul meant when he said, “who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” He was talking about a struggle between his physical body and the spiritual life within him. He was looking forward to a release from the struggle, via resurrection. According to Scripture, resurrection will change our sinful and mortal bodies into sinless and immortal ones. This is what 2 Corinthians 5 is all about.
By claiming that the law is over, Preterists pull the rug out from under their feet. For “sin is not imputed where there is no law” (Romans 5: 13). You can’t logically say that believers still “sin” if they’re no longer under law. If that’s the case, then salvation ended when the law was abolished. Why would you need any “salvation” if you’ve never been under condemnation?? This is why Hyper-Preterism is a completely nonsensical and fallacious (not to mention heretical) system.
MillennialSaint

To view post in context, go to: http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?t=141367