What is the Orthodox Preterist position on the Parousia?

[Quantum Weirdness]

Do they hold Paul's parousia (at least in some places) to be different than the parousia elsewhere?

[One Bad Pig]

I don't understand your question.

[Quantum Weirdness]

I don't understand your question.

Does the parousia mentioned in the New Testament concerning Christ refer to one event or 2?
(Like for instance, 1 Thessalonians)

[Obsidian]

I think as long as they acknowledge a future bodily resurrection, it is considered orthodox. However, some of them have what I consider fairly stupid beliefs, such as a first-century rapture. Most preterists just distinguish the 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 passages from Matthew 24, and there are disagreements on most of the other passages.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Erm? Are there preterists out there that believe in a rapture at all?

[Obsidian]

I've seen preterists actually argue that God snatched away all the Christians in the first century, leaving the church to start over. To me, that concept runs counter to pretty much the entire concept of even having a church. It contradicts the mustard seed parable, for example. Also, it contradicts the fairly obvious implication from John 21:23 that John eventually died.

[One Bad Pig]

Does the parousia mentioned in the New Testament concerning Christ refer to one event or 2?
(Like for instance, 1 Thessalonians)

Christ came in judgment in AD 70. 1 Thes. 4 is a future coming. Does that help?

[One Bad Pig]

I've seen preterists actually argue that God snatched away all the Christians in the first century, leaving the church to start over.

That's an extraordinary claim, which I have a difficult time believing. Do you have any actual evidence for this, or did you just misunderstand something?

To me, that concept runs counter to pretty much the entire concept of even having a church. It contradicts the mustard seed parable, for example.

Also, it contradicts the fairly obvious implication from John 21:23 that John eventually died.

You keep using the word "contradicts". I don't think it means what you think it means. I agree that John eventually died, but I disagree that the implication is obvious from John 21:23. Wasn't John still living when he wrote it?

[Darth Xena]

Piggo Obsidian is correct that some hyperpreterists believe in a literal first century rapture event. But it is a tiny number out of an already tiny group.

[Obsidian]

You keep using the word "contradicts". I don't think it means what you think it means. I agree that John eventually died, but I disagree that the implication is obvious from John 21:23. Wasn't John still living when he wrote it?

21:23 was written to counter the notion that John was not going to die. It is possible that John wrote 21:23 to explain that he was probably going to die, and then got raptured away without dying. But I doubt it.

Do you have any actual evidence for this, or did you just misunderstand something?

http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/20...-last-trumpet/

Here is one example, and the guy who wrote it is not a full preterist. Apparently he argues that only the Jewish Christians were raptured, which doesn't make much sense to me because the passage he is discussing was written to Greek Christians.

[One Bad Pig]

21:23 was written to counter the notion that John was not going to die. It is possible that John wrote 21:23 to explain that he was probably going to die, and then got raptured away without dying. But I doubt it.

John 21:23 was written to counter the belief that John was not going to die before Christ's return, but it does not deny the possibility; John is essentially repeating for emphasis Jesus' admonition to worry about oneself, not others.

http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/20...-last-trumpet/

Here is one example, and the guy who wrote it is not a full preterist. Apparently he argues that only the Jewish Christians were raptured, which doesn't make much sense to me because the passage he is discussing was written to Greek Christians.

Thanks. I agree, that makes no sense (regardless of who were the intended recipients of the letter). Not sure if that whole site is intended to be a parody or not.

[Obsidian]

John 21:23 was written to counter the belief that John was not going to die before Christ's return, but it does not deny the possibility

Why counter the belief, if the belief were correct?

[Darth Xena]

Piggo and Ob, that site is not exactly teaching what Ob claimed. It makes no claim that all the believers were raptured and the church had to start over. There are however hypers who teach that. Piggo that site is not a paroday,I am good friends with the owner Mike Bull though obviously we disagree, he subscribes to the James Jordan school of interpretive maximalism.

[One Bad Pig]

Piggo and Ob, that site is not exactly teaching what Ob claimed. It makes no claim that all the believers were raptured and the church had to start over. There are however hypers who teach that. Piggo that site is not a paroday,I am good friends with the owner Mike Bull though obviously we disagree, he subscribes to the James Jordan school of interpretive maximalism.

Oh, his last name is Bull. That explains the site name, then.

[One Bad Pig]

Why counter the belief, if the belief were correct?

I already addressed that.