HYPER-Preterist Hangups: Sin Goes On Forever w/ Dr. Stephen Boyce

Hyper-Preterism and the Claim That Sin, Death, and Evil Continue Forever

Hyper-preterism as we know it now as a full-blown system. Believe what we're experiencing now. Continues on sin death all the gross kinds of evil always continues.

No, and that's why I say this is relevant. If this is the new heavens new earth. We've all been ripped off. I wouldn't need a comfy chair. It's in some plastic made chair. Welcome to another episode of facts.

I'm your host Stephen Boyce joined today by a special guest. So I'm about to bring on in just a second to discuss the doctrine and teaching of Preterism. What we're gonna intend to do today is number one.

We're gonna easily define what it is the kind of the history behind it then we're gonna spend some time refuting it and showing why it is actually a Heresy and should be perceived as as such in relation to many facets of a scriptural basis of a historical basis.

We're gonna get into all those things. And so I've got Jeremiah Nortier with me today first time on the show is on his show recently reviewing the debate that Samuel Neeson and I did on Justification with Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin, so we reviewed that you can go to his channel.

I'll have later in the link a Connection and link to his channel. So Jeremiah tell everybody on facts a little about yourself what you do and then we'll jump right into this.

I just want to start by saying when you have a studio at your house You risk of the wifey sneaking in there and leaving her her stamp of approval. So yes, I do love my wifey. Thank you for having me on Stephen.

Your audience can find me at the apologetic dog. That's my youtube channel and I've been really pursuing the world of apologetics and One of the Mary there's a couple emphasis that I have number one. I really try to evangelize the Church of Christ I believe I believe they've deviated from the gospel of grace.

They're a restorationist movement out of the early 1800s. And so I have a lot of apologetic content pursuing evangelizing the Church Christ and full preterism as we're gonna get into today because in Arkansas, there's been kind of an uptick of interest in eschatology and it seems like People went from pre mill to all mill to post mill and then as as you continue down the post mill route especially in terms of theonomy and looking at this age and age to come as we'll get into.

Some people just seem to fall off the main wagon into full or hyper preterism. And so I've been really trying to pursue more apologetics in that field to help Help encourage people. Hey, there's really good reasons to just reject that wholeheartedly if You understand that a lot of people when they hear full preterism Stephen.

They automatically know that who would believe this. There's a reason why as we're gonna get into the church has rejected this for 2 ,000 years. So anyway, that's at the apologetic dog I do a number of debates on Marlon Wilson's channel the gospel truth and Donny's channel Standing for truth and I've been doing a handful of in-person debates and a lot of times that will be with the Church of Christ.

But I've debated Roman Catholics Eastern Orthodox just kind of a whole slew love doing Debates with brothers on important doctrines, but where we can still high-five. I don't know if I'm ready to ever square off with.

Dr. Stephen Boyce, but you never know. Maybe one. Yeah, he won't touch the Anglicans. It's not even worth his time now. I did leave your screen up long enough for you to show your wifey post. But then I'm gonna zoom us in here for the rest of the show here.

Defining Preterism and Its 70 AD Hermeneutic

Demonstrating what preterism actually is Jeremiah. So that's that that's really a confusing term today because those that hold to the camp of preterism have to clarify. Because there's different nuances.

You got full preterist. You've got semi preterist and then you got to go into what you disagree with on the full preterist if you're a semi preterist. But ultimately the word preterist comes from the Latin word prater which just means past.

And When we look at preterism themselves in the belief system in its fullest sense their teaching is. That the book of Revelation the Olivet Discourse many of Daniel's prophecies are done. They were finalized.

They were completed in 70 AD. And therefore the relevance of many of these prophetic books including some that were in Paul's writings. Or are no longer needed as it relates to us today what some people are sitting around Counting, you know calendar days and looking at the color of the moon are freaking out about writing books because that's the other extreme of this.

That stuff's all unnecessary so preterism and of itself is a view of eschatology that interprets these prophecies as Being only Needed till the time of 70 AD and they find their consummation in those things.

So kind of talk about your engagement with that alone. Just the definition of it how you see that they really push this. Where do they go? What's their main point? Why do they want to always point 70 AD for these things?

Yeah, the the hook into full preterism as I've been told is the quote-unquote timing indicators This generation these things will happen soon mentioned in the book of Revelation and The the time is near at hand all of that.

It's like it's a it's a full-orbed worldview everything shoehorned 70 AD is is the nail or really the hammer that just Redefines everything else and slams everything else in it. So I've also also said that this is a backwards hermeneutic it starts with eschatology and redefines everything else in light of them.

Yep. Yep. Kind of the hook is the quote-unquote timing indicators and Like I said everything you don't start with Genesis and a progressive revelation a fulfillment of old to new covenant everything is redefined and Shoehorned as I just try to emphasize to make 70 AD work at all cost.

Other problems you get into is It's not a look at redemptive history. It's a look at Israel's history, which they're gonna push for ends at 70 AD. So nothing biblically can go past that date, which is the destruction of the temple.

Which they would assume then that all New Testament books were written prior to that point, especially the prophetic nature. How do you feel about that? I got a lot of feelings about that and we'll get into my feelings about that.

The timing of this and this is the issue I have with dispensationalism. For example, it's new. Not historic premillennial ism, but actual modern-day dispensationalism is fairly new. The issue I have also with preterism is when you find Teachings that do not exist in the early sections of church writings especially early commentaries of the prophetic nature of the all the discourse or whether you're talking about the book of Revelation or even some of Paul's language and first Thessalonians or first Corinthians 15.

When you don't see this show up for almost 1600 years. That's where red flags should go up because most would at least agree. That the idea of preterism was a counter-reformation teaching. Some would place it into the area of Jesuits.

Like Alcazar and I don't know, you know if they will are willingly going to say. Yeah, that's that's when this teaching started. Obviously, they're gonna push to try to make it more relevant history. But it really isn't no one in the patristics.

No one in the church fathers defined. Anything close to the belief system that preterism has about 70 ad now. I will say there are church fathers who see a lot of the things that Jesus taught me all of the discourse taking place 70 ad maybe not fully consummated.

I will say that they would also play into the idea that Many of the events that were happening in Daniel's prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus in the first entry but to see them as Believing that there is no physical body razor bodily resurrection.

So where preterism will take you I. There is no Orthodox church father that would ever assert such a doctrine.

See, we're gonna get into some of that. No creed, but Christ who cares what church history has to say?

That's right. Nobody cares what they say, but it does give us even if you okay, even if someone doesn't care about. The church fathers they want to have the Mormon view where heresy started when John died and everybody up till you know.

Most recent times of the Mormon faith got the truth if we want to hold that view. Even if you believe that about the church fathers that they were just grossly mistaken on this they completely misunderstood especially guys like Irenaeus even though He was alive in the descendancy of teachers and trainees down through John and was alive within a hundred years of John's writing that.

And we're gonna talk about that was a hundred nine hundred fifty. We'll get into that but when you talk about these individuals who make statements. What we're concluding about them is that they actually have parameters.

There's there's points in time where you can see when things came into existence. We can say whether you like them or somebody likes them or not that teaching didn't exist in the second century. Certainly did not exist in the third century, which is where we have the earliest Commentary of the Book of Revelation.

It didn't exist there. It didn't exist in the 4th century. There was a lot of dispute in the 4th century. Eusebius even gets into some of this in his history of the church. He gets in the arguments of whether or not there really was a thousand years versus a hypothetical number.

He actually makes fun of Papias for this now in doing that we see there were two arguments about the millennial reign but not in a past sense in a present or future sense. Depending on your their interpretation.

So we don't see this in the 4th century and on and on it really seems to arise During a counter-reformation in the late 16th century. So when we're talking about preterism, it's about 400 years old and To me when teaching start happening that recent and there's no traceability.

Before it or a restoration of it. It's a cause for concern and red flag when it comes to theology. I don't know your view of that, but that's just my well.

No, I think it's really good and to compound the red flags hyper preterism Really came on the scene. Around maybe the early 80s with Max King a church of Christ minister. Which once again this finds its its roots in the restorationist movement.

And so full full preterism or covenant eschatology as it's had a spin or Pantale ism. Barely 30 not even 40 years old. I don't know how you like that. And I see a lot of problems with the views that have a solo scriptural mentality.

No creed, but Christ. It's just me right now and the book of Acts what God does in between there is irrelevant. I think there's problems. It really takes those guardrails up. When we are looking back throughout church history to see how exactly Christ has been building his church for 2 ,000 years and Promising that the Holy Spirit would guide us ultimately the church into all truth.

These are the bullets that full preterism has to say. Yeah, the church for 2 ,000 years has got our blessed hope wrong, right? Not only to me is that a red flag, but you you can be confident that they're wrong in this.

I always want to hold fast to that which is good by testing the early church fathers to the scriptures and as you've studied these were brilliant men of the past and so. There's a lot of great insight there.

But full preterism just wholesale says yeah, they're not the early church fathers. They're the early church infants.

Infants to me that's hysterical because They would be absolutely mocked and probably expelled not well, not probably they would have been expelled not only expelled they would have been Flogged by many of these individuals for the nonsense that they were spewing.

So let's talk about that in relation to the historical framework. Let's start with the Apostles Creed. Shall we? So in the Apostles Creed, which is one of the earliest creeds the church probably was using or at least a form of it I did an entire episode on that if those of you that listen this Tyler and I did a whole series on creeds.

We did four total episodes. First one was why do we need him? Then we went through the history of each of the creeds in the Apostles Creed. It states Plainly the Jesus rose from the dead and ascended in heaven that he is presently seated at the right hand of the Father God Almighty from there.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead and Then if that wasn't enough Shortly after in the Nicene Creed you have a similar statement. He ascended into heaven and seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and dead and his kingdom will not have no end now as We look at these creeds what they're telling us and even at the very end Holy Catholic Apostolic Church baptism for the forgiveness of sins and look forward to the Resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

So they were looking forward to this in the fourth century. Then you have the Athanasian Creed, which is probably after that Talks about how he is once again Ascended into heaven see the right hand of the Father from there He will come to judge the living the dead at his coming.

All people will arise bodily and given account for their deeds. Those who have done good will enter eternal life those who have done evil will enter eternal fire. This is the Catholic faith one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.

That's an anathema at the end of this. So When you get into the three creeds here the main Institute of Creed's Apostles Nicene Athanasian They all speak of Jesus's bodily resurrection his ascension into heaven his return and in that return they speak of dealing with people who have already died in a bodily resurrection who will give an account for the things they did in this earth the Athanasian Creed goes so far as to put anathemas on those who deny this as a Catholic faith There is no ability to defend the historical nature.

Mmm of Preterism in any of the apostolic churches not not a single place.

You can do that in the creeds. With that full preterism fails historically and this is a point that full preterist will own. In fact, they will prep their you know potential converts by saying be ready to be called heretics because None of church history supports us.

So that's really where the brainwashing begins. Yeah, and you know, they have to let them, you know redefine persecution so forth. But yeah, they they realize this so like when we get into how full preterism fails logically and exegetically.

They're wanting to talk more so just about scriptures and looking into certain Greek words and semantic domains to really just say well It could possibly mean this. But yeah, they don't want to touch.

They don't want to touch history with the 10-foot pole. Can you blame them?

I mean if you can't find something rooted in any Apostles churches or any kind of creed or Statement that's been given by a father who's connected one of the churches the Apostles started There again folks that that's why we do facts.

That's that's why this program exists it exists to warn you and Teach you to found your faith within the framework Set down by Jesus himself through his Apostles of the church as they started the letters They wrote to that church the tradition that maintained those letters in the church so that when things like this come on the scene There's an immediate pushback and discernment process that says wait a minute can this pass the test of the church Doctrine that has been passed down through the ages can this be the faith that was once delivered to the Saints and has been Guarded by as a deposit by the successors of the Apostles.

No, none of them mentioned this. Okay, how about the councils of all the successors accumulating in these ecumenical groups? Do they do it? And I see it. No, do they do it in any parts of North Africa?

No, do they have this teaching in the east not a chance. Do they have it in Antioch? Not a chance. So we have nothing and when they admit that they're already leaving themselves Empty without any deposit to put themselves into historically you have to start Redefining scripture without a historical framework and that is where most heresy comes from.

So that's that's a problem. Now. You mentioned that it's also a logical fallacy Kind of go into why you think there's logical issues as it relates to preterism.

Logical Problems with a 70 AD Fulfillment

Yeah, so when we do worldview analysis I do want to encourage people to think about full preterism as not Christian. It uses Christian ease and it appeals to the 66 books of the Protestant canon. But make no mistake about it when you start with a 70 AD hermeneutic everything else gets Redefined.

And so as we're talking about, you know logical fallacies. Because once again If you're doing what's called an internal critique if full preterism is true and it contradicts itself on its own terms then it's false and so.

One thing we have to understand about full preterism is they believe we're already living. Check this out Stephen Boyce. And the new heavens and new earth fully consummated now.

Well, we. What a ripoff.

So when you just tell people that they're like, oh, that's crazy. And it is and so most people aren't buying what they're selling because it's just crazy, right? But what's baked into that? So when we look at passages like Isaiah 65 They interpret this in such a way where when you have an infant that's a hundred years old and you continue to read the account there.

There's a couple of different things. They believe Everything as we see it now continues on Forever there's obscure verses they can pull from Ecclesiastes 1 for that generation the earth abides forever and so what you have is time being infinite and This is not eternal.

This isn't a qualitatively different state of affairs as we would see a new heavens new earth. Eternity being different than time as we know it now, that's something outside of time. But what they have is what we're experiencing now.

Continues on sin death all the gross kinds of evil always continues. Well, then you get into some immediate problems because they believe human procreation is Always going to happen infinitum and what you have infinity introduced into our time as we know it.

You're going to have internal contradictions with the necessary attributes of God so one way to illustrate this is God is omniscient and therefore knows his elect, you know, whether Someone falls on you know Each side of the debate on understanding elect if we at least can understand that God is omniscient He knows all of his own, right?

But not with full preterism because you never get the benefit of using a word that entails a set like the word all God doesn't know all of his people because you could always add one more and you could always add one more of the scripture.

Could say all will go under judgment. Well, not all because you could always add one more and so that's one example of how It's good when you have Infinity introduced into this world. This is the new heavens new earth and time continues on as is.

Ultimately, it's going to come back and bite you with understanding God and force you to be logically consistent with God being in process other passages like John chapter 6 When it says all that the father will give to me will come to me and I will raise him up at the last day.

Well, not all that the father gives you don't get that benefit of the word all including a set. So that does that kind of make sense where you get into some inherent sounds like a little problems. Yeah.

Well, it sounds like wordplay.

Where you have to Wordplay something and insert something into the text that's Isis Jesus and then it sounds like a knockoff of open theism In in relation to God's ability to even know an infinite number.

If he has infinite knowledge, there's no limitation to the infinite number of his knowledge. I mean this again, yes logical fallacy in of itself as it relates to these things because I Look at preterism from the viewpoint of they have an agenda that has to be fit into scripture and therefore we have to take the basic meaning and basic interpretation of a lot of these passages and For some new idea into it say well, it really doesn't mean that when it says that Says who like why can't it mean that.

The only reason it can't mean that is because it doesn't fit your narrative. There's 99 reasons why it doesn't fit your narrative which are the most logical reasons to go with. So again I don't like any system that takes the common-sense understanding of anything Has to manipulate and twist it to make it something that it is not.

So yeah, I mean I'm with you on the logical fallacy side of the teaching.

Yeah, I just want to encourage your audience. I interviewed. Dr. Sam Frost who was a He was one of the main voices in this movement for a bad decade from 2000 2010 main speaker for preterists speaking all the Conferences on circuit and God in his grace saved.

Dr. Frost out of that and so now I've been able to interview him a number of different times speak with him at conferences on this and for him to kind of share his heart and speak to the dangers of hyper preterism and what draws people in but he wrote an article called Full preterism and the problems of infinity and so me and him I have a clip from a long interview where we specifically talk about the inherent problems of infinity.

What I was going to say is when we try to understand we are finite human beings with a finite set of knowledge and When we try to force infinity into our world We we see that it's going to spiral Everything anything becomes everything and Incoherent.

Well, we have to understand and apprehend as Ecclesiastes 311 is God has put eternity into the heart of man. We know something exists beyond our temporal world. And when you start thinking and pondering about eternity too long, our minds can't fathom that that is our inability.

It's limited. And therefore when we look at something that's Infinite really that's our inability to understand that which is eternal and so that's the big difference is We're not saying Eternity is a sequence of events.

We're not talking about quantity. We're talking about something Qualitatively different that we will live Face to face with Christ one day in a new heavens and new earth, but like you said earlier They are forced into that kind of harmony you get kind of two full predators when we're talking about this those that fully embrace what we just talked about and the logical problems and they would just say paradox and we're saying no there is a difference between inherent contradiction versus paradox.

I mean those that just I don't know and they they realize where that train is going and they don't want to acknowledge it so for those that don't.

You mentioned the timeless aspect the world goes on it goes on it goes on it goes on it goes on. Take somebody through a process. You're in the new have a new earth today our world which by the way, we've all been ripped off.

And and after I explain how my day has gone to you if this is the new heaven new earth. I've really been screwed. So This this is not Anything of the redemptive nature of the new heaven new earth in the redeemed Eden, but somebody dies.

Today in the new heaven new earth and their theology you go to the funeral. They don't believe in a bodily resurrection. So walk the audience through how they would view a funeral today.

Well as we're gonna get into first Corinthians 15 a little bit. They can only understand death to mean spiritual death. And so you do lose your apologetic forgiving account why physical death happens?

And so what a lot of full predators believe is even though we're living in the new heavens and new earth fully consummated now. Your spirit does go on to heaven and they will quote 2nd Corinthians 12 that just says to To wonderful for words where Paul just said no man cannot utter so that is the only thing future.

You don't get a body now. They're gonna bring it at first Corinthians 15. They'll call it a spiritual body. But it's a ethereal spirit and nothing like we we see and perceive now. But that's the only thing for the that checks out full predators.

Eve either are trying to still preach the gospel today, which makes no sense in their worldview for a post-mortem history. Or you have the Israel only group that are universalists so Yes, they would reject all the passages that are read at funerals like first Corinthians 15 John chapter 14 and you know a handful of more about that Titus chapter 2 which I want us to look at a little bit but anything Pertaining to our blessed.

Hope anything in Scripture is already fulfilled. And so yeah, I just there's no hope in full preterism. But but the ones that I've interacted with they'll try to say well There is a kind of heaven that still awaits us, but you're not gonna get a body the way that you think.

All right. So let's jump into the biblical side of this because that's that's the bridge right there. So our blessed hope is mentioned by Paul in writing his letter to his preacher at Crete Titus. He talks about looking for the blessed hope and that's that's a popular statement by Paul.

Anyway, this idea of hope the future even thinking about hope not just in the human bodily sense. For people even in Romans. He talks about the earth groaning for its redemption, right? So you have all of creation is Dissatisfied in the current state.

Now again, they're gonna say that was before 70 AD. Yeah, but yeah, there's a major issue here. Biblically speaking now you mentioned Titus so kind of go into the blessed hope. How that relates to this from Paul's letter to Titus.

I don't know if you can pull up the passage, but I definitely don't mind reading it in Titus chapter 2. But Paul's telling Titus for the grace of God has appeared bringing salvation for all people training us and What full predators are gonna do is they're gonna say audience relevance.

It was the us of the first century. No one after that that's belonging training us as Christians to renounce ungodliness and worldly Passions to live self-controlled upright and godly lives. This is something I want to talk about here in a moment in the present age Waiting for our blessed Hope the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works and I want to include verse 15 because Stephen I've been accused of being too mean and too harsh about this topic and I say yeah.

But he's talking about our blessed hope in verse 15 reminds us declare these things Exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you. So we're talking about things of salvation our blessed.

Hope Titus 2 is a discipleship chapter. And so this when he talks about rebuke, he's saying call to repent someone that if they did fundamentally deny these truths, this is at the core of Christianity as we're gonna be looking at 1st Corinthians chapter 15.

And so you can't be neutral on these things. Sure. We can scratch our heads and continue to sharpen one another. But this is something that we go to task on this kind of relates back to Titus chapter 1 about the man of God must be able to rightly handle the word and Contradict and rebuke those that contradict the scriptures.

I'm just saying this is not something that we can just merely Disagree over coffee right now. There are different eschatological views all meal pre-meal post meal. But we all conclude in a future blessed.

Hope a future Second-coming of Jesus Christ bodily which is unfortunate. I have to emphasize that word bodily a resurrection of the dead that is future and bodily and the Restoration of all things that is physical and still not yet.

That's kind of the core tenets of our blessed hope and in Titus He kind of mentions about the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ so he is talking about that great Parasee of that great coming at the end of Temporal history mind you this perishing evil age is when it's gonna happen.

But yeah, I just wanted to kind of read you that passage to say this is kind of what's at stake. We are contending for a future blessed. Hope full preterism say no. No. No, that's a realized past blessed hope.

And it's so odd to me because their view of the redemptive nation and nature of things is similar to actually Gnostic beliefs. You find this major view in Gnosticism That disregarded the physical elements.

If there was a group that Preterism could more closely relate with as it relates to an idea of a resurrection. It's gonna be Gnosticism. Because they did not believe at all in a physical bodily resurrection because they believe all physical matter is evil and Therefore the salvation of anybody is to rid yourself of the physical world and go back now again.

It's not Identical right. That's the closest thing in church history that denies a bodily resurrection. Was Gnostics so. I mean they do have a friend in history. It's not a good friend. They have that friend though.

Well, I liked how you say it's not identical to you know rank Gnosticism, but it's at least neo or proto. I mean, it's definitely touching back on that because most full preterists see Jesus's second coming at 70 AD as a Spiritual coming of Jesus.

It wasn't a bodily and as we're gonna talk about they look at the ascension of Jesus in Acts chapter 1 even though the angels Said he's going to return the way you see him. They just see him covenantally with power and authority ascending.

And somewhere along the way because they're forced into this understanding that Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God a a little literal tangible body will get in that passage. But somewhere along the way Jesus's physicality and human body ceased.

And so that touches on the nature of Christ. No wonder they believe his second coming was spiritual or as we would say is Gnostic. Our resurrection isn't anything physical. We the church has been wrong for 2 ,000 years.

It's a spiritual kind of resurrection either for Those that were in Hadassah that have been spiritually raised to now be In heaven or they're just gonna say it's that point of regeneration the spiritual rebirth.

That's the kind of resurrection that believers.

Speaking of physical things in the world I just got a comment that I have the comfiest looking chair on YouTube and it helps the capacity. Man listen it took Months to pick out chairs down here because my co-host has an identical chair over here.

I just yeah camera aimed here.

We did it on purpose because like that blue light you got going on in the back.

Two of them back here I think but we we picked two of these and we pick comfy ones because my co-host and I both have lower back issues so. So that's why I think it's not getting any better.

This is the new heavens and new earth as you know.

And that's why I say this is relevant if this is the new heavens new earth. We've all been ripped off. I wouldn't need a comfy comfy chair could sit in some plastic made chair and not even be bothered by it, but.

The Bodily Resurrection of Christ and the Meaning of Adam’s Death

As it relates to the Ascension let's once pause on that because at this point I'm Forget 70 AD you can disprove that if all the New Testament was written prior to 70 AD. When you look at Jesus's appearance when he appears to his disciples and Say Thomas for example who was saying I won't believe Unless I touch.

They're looking for physical evidence of a resurrection. Not spiritual in what way would they excuse the physical bodily resurrection? Whether you see John leaned up on Jesus and John 21. Whether you see Thomas over there.

Touching. Particularly the very wounds of where the scars were from the nails. Where in the world do they land as it relates to the issue of resurrection and bodily touching. Especially first John one that which we've seen we have heard we have touched the Word of Life.

No great question. So they're not gonna deny that Jesus is first coming the virgin birth incarnation was physical a literal flesh. What they're gonna say though is what you don't understand you hyper credulous to you is that he is restoring what Adam lost which was Covenant and so by covenant that's kind of their code word.

That's their their duct tape that goes over everything is. The covenant relationship between Adam and God had nothing to do with physicality. It was relationship only. And so when Adam plunged all of humanity into death, that's really into Hades.

So when man dies, it goes to Hades and what we see Jesus physically doing that's an exception. He's not he's not the rule. He's not the standard. That's kind of an exception to what is spiritually and covenantally going on in the backdrop.

And so Jesus yes, he physically died. Yes. He physically resurrected. Don't don't dwell too much on that but because when he went to Hades and led captivity captive really the big Resurrection for covenant Israel as he was ushering them into the heavenlies.

And so now when you die in Christ, you don't go to Hades. Because that's all done away with 70 AD now you just get to go straight to heaven. Does that make sense where they just kind of brush aside the physicality of what we see in the gospel accounts and the book of Acts.

All right, so they state that Jesus is an exception. He's he's not he's not the standard here. That must be nice to just Manipulate that around so that leads us into 1st Corinthians 15 because the Interesting perspective of the church was as long as Jesus resurrected ours is irrelevant.

Paul comes in and puts up the big timeout sign and says wait, wait, wait. If Christ is not risen you're still dead sins and you're the most pitiful people around. Then in Relation to that he comes in and says that our resurrection is actually attached to his resurrection and He goes on to actually not only attach our resurrection to his but says that when we see him we shall be as he is.

So, how can Jesus be an exception if we're gonna be as he is?

Covenantally he it can't restore.

Our. Oh, you're I know but like I I'm almost. Is there any preterists in the crowd? We'll drag in here. Come on now. How can that be speaking covenantally because the language there is not even covenant language.

Oh.