Bot Brain Eschatology Vs Human Reasoning

This writing is a response to Tristan Gabriel’s Facebook post attacking the preterist view on a spiritual hermeneutic for certain elements of eschatology demonstrated below.

The gaps Tristan identifies are imaginary. His insistence on physical or observable outcomes aligns with a logical expectation that major eschatological events would have tangible (perceptible by touch and physically observable) implications.

What Tristan has done is substituted his own personal and unscriptural criteria for his assumed explanation of the resurrection and the apantesis (meeting of Christ in the air).

He begins with the false premise that the apantesis is physical, then demands evidence from the Full Preterists’ position to provide the evidence for his assumptions contrary to scripture.

The first task for Tristan is to prove the eschatological resurrection/meeting in the air is physical.

Secondly, he must also provide the demand from scripture that such physical evidence is required rather than assuming it from strawman arguments. If it is the case that these events referred to above are not physical, observable events in the natural realm, then the demand for physical evidence is irrelevant.

For example. “The kingdom of God does not come with observation, nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you. Lk. 17:20. According to Tristan’s logic, one must be able to split open the body and brain of a believer and “see” with one’s physical eyes, evidence of a kingdom inside them. MRI, CT scan and body camera technology for observing what happens inside the body were not yet invented. Even so, they cannot reveal whether one is a believer or not. But perhaps such scans will do so in the future. That would end the question of who is or is not a believer.

Observe also Paul’s statements suggested by Don Preston. “1 Corinthians 15:25-26 – He has put all things under his feet…. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.

Colossians 2: 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.

1 Peter 3:22– who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him.

To the human eye, Christ had not put anything under his feet. He had not made the authorities subject to himself.”

To continue with another example, we understand from Scripture that Christ would come and therefore “came” in “His kingdom.” (Matt. 16:27; 25:31).

• The scriptures teach that the “Christ in you” is the hope of glory. (Col. 1:27).
• Again, we ask, where is the text that demands Christ to physically or materially indwell believers which is the hope? It does not exist. Christ dwells in the heart through faith, i.e. belief (Eph. 3:17) supported by Scriptural testimony, (Rom. 10:17). By the way, words are “signs” and “symbols” of abstract ideas.
• Thus, if the kingdom is invisible, i.e. does not come with observation and Christ comes in that invisible kingdom and both reside within the believer, then it must follow that one cannot say, “See here” or See there about either Christ or the kingdom for they both dwell within you.
• Because there was an “already but not yet” of both, the kingdom and Christ’s non-observable indwelling of believers prior to the Parousia, there had to be some “tangible” evidence of this non-observable indwelling. One can deny it, by saying, since I cannot see it, it does not exist or there was no indwelling, or one can “search the Scriptures” to see what if any evidence exists.
• According to the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit, in its miraculous manifestations were the proof that Christ dwelt in believers prior to the parousia.
• Tangible evidence: real and not imaginary, able to be shown, touched, or experienced

This brings us to point number three in the “Assumptions of Tristan,”, i.e. his “ontological (the study of nature or being) demands based on his false premises.

Let’s begin with the ontological study of the Holy Spirit.

• The Holy Spirit is spiritual, i.e. non-tangible, meaning not subject to touch or natural observation.
• After Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, the disciples, terrified, supposed they had “seen” a spirit.
• Jesus told the disciples “Behold” (idete, stare at till convinced by seeing) my hands and my feet, that it is I Myself. Handle or touch (Pselaphisate, pluck, manipulate, by [physical] contact) me, and see (idete, stare at and discern clearly) for a spirit does not have flesh and bone as you see I have. Lk. 24:37.
• As a spirit in contrast to Christ’s resurrected body, the Holy Spirit cannot be observed with the eyes or physically touched that we may feel His material substance to prove His existence.
• Therefore, we are left to physical manifestations of the presence or operations of the Spirit and through those as well as through words (signs and symbols) for ideas, we know and accept His existence and activities.

Paul taught that the ontological and tangible evidence for observing and acknowledging the presence and activity of the invisible Holy Spirit was through observable events and experiences in natural phenomena and spirit-filled people, (Joel 2:28-30, Mk. 16:17-20; Acts 2:1-4, 16-20; Gal. 3:3-5), etc.

Moses, in the wilderness was given signs that confirmed God sent him as an apostle to Israel, and the Christ and his apostles were given miracles, signs, and wonders to confirm they were authoritative and authentic messengers sent by God, (Jn. 3:2; 10:37, Acts 2:22; 2 Cor. 12:12, Heb. 2:3). The above being true, the ontological nature and being of the Holy Spirit can only be observed through physical manifestations.

This brings us to another logical fallacy in the “Assumptions of Tristan” namely, the demand for a visible catching up of the saints in the air to visibly and physically meet Christ, i.e. the apantesis.

• First, not only do the Scriptures teach that Christ would invisibly come “in His kingdom” as Christ “in you” the hope of glory, but it also teaches he would come in the air.
• Whether one views the “air” of 1 Thes. 4:16 to be the atmosphere above us, or in a metaphorical figurative sense does not matter. If Christ’s coming was in a manner to indwell believers as the “one hope” of the gospel, such an event demands this coming is a spiritual and not a physical, material, observable event.
• The task for Tristan is to demonstrate how Christ can come and dwell within the saints at His parousia so as to be visibly and tangibly be seen, touched and handled in His invisible kingdom. Whatever he offers as proof should and can be used to demonstrate how Christ and the Spirit indwelled the believers even before the parousia.
• Since the nature and visibility of Christ coming in His kingdom determines the nature of the apantesis, it logically follows and is demanded by Scripture that the apantesis, i.e. meeting Christ in the air is not physically observable by the natural eye. This demands another type of evidence to demonstrate Christ’s coming in His kingdom and the meeting of His saints in the air.
  • As a side note, Eph. 2:2, speaks of the “prince of the power of the air” among whom the disciples had walked in times past as sinners, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind. Does this mean they all wore “Air Jordans” and floated walking on air like the famous basketball legend, Michael Jordan? No.
  • What it means is that to “walk in the air” was to walk under or according to the power and authority of Satan, the prince and power of the air. The opposite of that scenario would mean that the meeting of the Lord in the air is to walk according to the new covenant age under the authority of Christ, who cast out the principalities and rulers of darkness, from the heavenly places, (Eph. 6:12). Jesus foretold this in John 12:31 saying, “Now is the judgment of this world (cosmos), now shall the “prince of this world be cast out.” Since he was the ruler of the “air”, he would be cast out of the air, leaving the air cleansed of iniquity and prepared for Christ to step into it and reign with the saints.
  • Further evidence of this is the presence of Satan in the “Most Holy Place” as seen in Zechariah 3:1f. Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. And the LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you. Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?
  • Here, we have Satan, standing with Joshua, the High Priest in the “air”, i.e. the Most Holy Place of the temple. The scene ends with atonement for iniquity. This should not be a hard concept to understand. Satan, or the Serpent, was standing with Adam in the garden temple of Eden to oppose him. The very same scenario plays out in Job 1:5, 6. Job, acting as High Priest for his family, offered burnt offerings for them before the LORD. Next, we read, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD and Satan also came among them.” (v. 6). This is temple imagery where Job meets with the Lord and Satan is present. Satan opposed the sons of God, and continued this activity until finally, in the end times, he is permanently cast out, never again, to enter that sacred space, i.e. to exercise authority sitting in the “seat of God” but as the ruler of darkness. See also, 2 Thes. 2:4-8 and Rev. 12:7, 20:10.7.

A Fourth Assumption of Tristan is contained in the following statement: “His insistence on physical or observable outcomes aligns with a logical expectation that major eschatological events would have tangible implications.”

• What Tristan’s bot brain has done is demanded physically observable outcomes based on subjective expectations of assuming this demands tangible evidence as the outcomes. He substitutes this subjectivity as divine, logically reasoned evidence. Rather, it is human wisdom.
• Tristan has attempted to infiltrate scripture with this human wisdom, of how and what he thinks the evidence should be. However, historical narratives have already demonstrated historical events using tangible evidence to prove or demonstrate the ontological experience.
• In Josephus, we have three terms used to demonstrate the ontological nature of God and his actions as people of their day would have observed them. They are the words, “parousia,” (presence, often translated coming in the NT) “epiphaneia,” (manifestation of a hidden divinity) and “dunamis” (power).

Josephus describes how the Romans, Greeks and Jews understood a coming of the God of Israel. He used the very same terms found in our N.T. It is a clear example of how people experienced that coming. When Caius had demanded the Jews to erect a statue to Caesar, they refused to submit to idolatry. They were threatened with the destruction of their temple. They appealed to Petronius. He agreed to risk his life and office to speak kindly to Caesar about exempting them from the requirement. This brought the Jews to a cheerful state of mind. Immediately following these incidents, Joseph records: “And God did show his presence (parousia) to Petronius, and signify to him, that he would afford him his assistance in his whole design; for he had no sooner finished the speech that he made to the Jews, but God sent down great showers of rain, contrary to human expectation; for that day was a clear day, and gave him no sign, by the appearance of the sky, of any rain; nay, the whole year had been subject to a great drought, and made men despair of any water from above, even when at any time they saw the heavens overcast with clouds insomuch, that when such a great quantity of rain came, and that in an unusual manner and without any other expectation of it, the Jews hoped that Petronius would by no means fail in his petition for them. But as to Petronius, he was mightily surprised when he perceived that God evidently took care of Jews, and gave very plain signs of his appearance, (epiphaneia) and this to such a degree, that those that were in earnest much inclined to the contrary, had no power left to contradict it….”Moreover, that God was their governor, had shown his power (dunamis) most evidently on their account, and that such a power of his as left no room for doubt about it.” Ant. 18.8.6.

Thus, we have a clear example of how the invisible God revealed His parousia (presence), his “epiphaneia, and power (dunamis). Compare 1 Tim. 6:15, Matt. 24:30. It was through visible signs in nature under conditions totally out of sync with the event before tens of thousands including Greeks, Romans and Jews. He even mentioned that those who were inclined to acknowledge it to the contrary, had no power left to contradict it. The evidence was sufficient to any rational mind of what had occurred. Yet God did not physically appear.

• This also shows that the bot brain used by Tristan is not programmed to understand the logic, reasoning and use of common historical events easily recognized by those who lived and understood how such events occurred in their day. This is also the preterist hermeneutic for understanding the very same nature of events prophesied in the N.T.
• Further, it was actual human experience that the bot brain is too dumb to figure out and therefore must lack common sense based on the following statement: Common sense supports the idea that significant spiritual or societal events would manifest in ways that are clearly understood by those experiencing them, which Preston struggles to articulate.” How can Preston fail to articulate what is clearly recorded as “human experience” in an ancient writing demonstrating the very hermeneutic of Preston? The example above also shows that the broader Roman and Greek world had no problem whatsoever understanding the manner in which such spiritual events and persons were manifested. Thus, this statement by the bot brain is also debunked. Tristan points out that Preston’s framework neglects the perspectives of the majority of Gentiles and the broader Roman world, clearly proven false by this event.

It is highly unlikely that an event such as the fall of the temple in 70AD would have gone totally unnoticed by the Romans or other Gentiles in the broader Roman world. How could the Roman world not know of an event in which they were directly involved? That’s like saying the Ukranians or the Russian world have no clue about what’s going on in the two countries. Further, not only do they know, but even in technologically challenged so-called “third world” countries around the globe know what is going on not only with countries as large as Russia and the Ukraine, but also with the smaller strip of land called Palestine and the genocidal war occurring there which has reverberated around the world with public and private outcries and demonstrations in the streets.

The same hermeneutical fallacy is displayed in Tristan’s objection to the resurrection. John wrote, “We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. 1 Jn. 3:14. This was an extension of the outworking of conversion in the hearts of believers. The gospel joined them together as brethren and demanded of them a changed life, especially between Jews and Gentiles. Love was the guiding principle of these newly formed relationships and provided the evidence that they were truly resurrected, albeit–already but not yet–not just in dying and rising through baptism, (Rom. 6:4-6) but in the practical outworking of love in the Christ community. Yet, none of the living in this context had entered the literal grave, nor risen from it except Dorcas and Eutychus. However, all who were dead in trespasses and sins were raised out of that death to sit together with Christ in the heavenly places. (Eph. 2:1-6) Such things are two wonderful for bot brains at the present time. They have not been programmed to understand the nature of spiritual things.

Lastly, concerning the resurrection, the scriptures teach that the church had put off the old man and had put on the new, Col. 3:9, 10. This too is a process begun in baptism for the N.T. church, Rom. 6:4-6, Col. 2:11, 12. Thus, the saints had put off the body of flesh, i.e. the old man. Further, they had put on the new man, i.e. the spiritual body. Shall we apply bot brain logic to this anthropological soteriology and seek a physical, material, tangible proof of this transformation? The proof is in the pudding. Paul has already told us how to recognize and demonstrate the change. It is expressed in the unity of Jew and Gentile in the one body of Christ. As a result, they were, as the elect of God, to put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness and longsuffering; bearing with one another, and forgiving one another. These are the true visible signs of the new man who is created after God in righteousness and true holiness.

In conclusion, we have shown how God manifested events in the spiritual realm and how those among the Romans, Greeks and Jews observed the evidence of those realities to such an extent that they acknowledged it was from God. The events witnessed by them were described in the same terms used in eschatological prophecy. They could be observed in the same way by the same people of that era. They did not require CT scans before accepting the evidence as conclusive.