Author Topic: Just a (polite) rant...  (Read 1869 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

raggthyme

  • Guest
Just a (polite) rant...
« on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 16:04:02 »
Hi all, it's The Polite Preterist here. (hey, I kinda like that...)  ::smile::

I wanted to touch on something that's been bugging me for awhile now (besides the accusation that Preterism itself is antisemitic, which is totally false and another topic entirely)... the continual insinuation (by certain individuals of a particular eschatological group) that the Apostle Peter was actually talking about Preterists in 2 Peter 3...

"This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you;... in which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance... knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."

Several people have been using this passage of scripture to demonize Christians who have come to believe our Lord's words over creeds and traditions, specifically those of us who accept that Jesus spoke of the events which transpired roughly 40 years after He prophesied them, saying "these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." Luke 21

First, Peter, writing prior to 70ad referred specifically to the scoffers of his time who were mocking the prophecy of that coming judgment. We, living after the fact, affirm that this judgment did in fact take place, and within the generation Jesus said it would. Apples and oranges, folks.

Second, Preterists believe that judgment came as Christ said it would but we are slanderously reported as saying, "where is the promise of His coming? There will be no judgment." Wait, what? How can one mock a coming judgment and at the same time affirm that the judgment did come? It's an illogical accusation. We're talking about the timing (and nature) of events here, not the denial of them. Peter was speaking of those who didn't believe it would happen, because to them "all things continue(d) as they were from the beginning of the creation."

This accusation against us appears to arise from the belief that, in chapter 3, Peter was referring to a fiery dissolution of the physical heavens and earth. And since that obviously hasn't happened yet, those who believe God's promise in Genesis 8 are considered by some to be the scoffers Peter was writing about. I would like to propose again that this interpretation of 2 Peter 3 goes completely against God's promise...

"And the LORD smelled a sweet savor, and the LORD said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."


Some have said that God only meant that He would never again smite all things living by flood but He never promised not to do the same by fire! Do we serve a God of escape clauses? I believe an honest look at Genesis 8:21 (in context) reveals the truth. God knows that man's heart is evil from his youth, but even so He promised that He will never again destroy all living things as He did in the flood. So then, we are left with searching out an interpretation of 2 Peter that compliments, rather than conflicts with this promise...



The "New Heavens and Earth"
(2 Peter 3:13)

The apostle makes a distribution of the world into heaven and earth, and saith they were destroyed with water, and perished. We know that neither the fabric nor substance of the one or other was destroyed, but only men that liveth on the earth; and the apostle tells us (ver. 7) of the heaven and earth that were then, and were destroyed by water, distinct from the heavens and the earth that were now, and were to be consumed by fire; and yet as to the visible fabric of heaven and earth they were the same both before the flood and in the apostle's time, and continue so to this day; when yet it is certain that the heavens and earth, whereof he spake, were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing of our foundation a little, consider what the apostle intends by the heavens and the earth in these two places.

1. It is certain that what the apostle intends by the world, with its heaven, and earth (vers. 5, 6), which was destroyed ; the same, or some-what of that kind, he intends by the heavens and the earth that were to be consumed and destroyed by fire (ver. 7) ; otherwise there would be no coherence in the apostle's discourse, nor any kind of argument, but a mere fallacy of words.

2. It is certain that by the flood, the world, or the fabric of heaven and earth, was not destroyed, but only the inhabitants of the world; and therefore the destruction intimated to succeed by fire is not of the substance of the heavens and the earth,... but of person or men living in the world.

3. Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the world, and the heavens and earth of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose among many that may be produced: Isa. 51:15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God was when He divided the sea (ver. 15) and gave the law (ver. 16), and said to Zion, Thou art my people; that is, when He took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state; then He planted the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth: that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And since it is that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that language which seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isa. xxxiv. 4, which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like also is affirmed of the Roman Empire (Rev. vi. 14), which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv.) He sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.

4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text:-

(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews, some of them believing, others opposing, the faith. Now there was no particular concernment of that generation, nor in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judment in general ; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation ; and, besides, an ample testimony both to the one and the other of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ, which was the thing in question between them.

(2.) Peter tells them, that after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of (vers. 7-13), " We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,' etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. lxv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God shall create these new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Saith Peter, " It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell." But now it is evident from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of Gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of Gospel ordinances to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed Heb. xii. 26-28.

This being the design of the place, I shall not insist longer on the context, but briefly open the words proposed, and fix upon the truth continued in them.

First, There is the foundation of the apostle's inference and exhortation, seeing that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, in a day of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; let others mock at the threats of Christ's coming: He will come- He will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God Himself planted, -the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, -the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinancy against the Lord Christ, shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed: this we know shall be the end of these things, and that shortly.

There is no outward constitution nor frame of things in government or nations, but it is subject to a dissolution, and may receive it, and that in a way of judgment. If any might plead exemption, that, on many accounts, of which the apostle was discoursing in prophetical terms (for it was not yet time to speak it openly to all) might interpose for its share. -J.Owen



I'm not sure of Mr. Owen's eschatological views, but I agree with his interpretation of 2 Peter 3. This idea that Preterists are the ones walking after their own lusts and scoffing at the Lord's prophecy of judgment (that was soon to come upon Jerusalem) is ridiculous at best, and I felt it needed addressing.

God bless.






« Last Edit: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 11:02:48 by raggthyme »

Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #1 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 22:01:52 »
Am I permitted to post a response here?

raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #2 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 22:08:40 »
Of course, John.  ::smile:: I would only ask that you stick to the details of the OP if possible. 


Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #3 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 22:22:36 »
Okay.

You mentioned in the first sentence about Preterism being antisemitic (even though making mention to avoid the subject, but you still mentioned it).

Even though that would in my mine be open season on the subject I will be courteous to you and ask if you mind my making a brief point about that and moving on?

raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #4 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 22:39:55 »
That sounds reasonable.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #4 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 22:39:55 »



Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #5 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 22:50:12 »
Thank you.

I was not trying to name call anyone. In fact I should have said that any belief system that holds to replacement theology is antisemitic in that belief. Preterism holds to replacement theology does it not? Rhetorical question. To keep this brief I will only cite the verses and those interested can look them up. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the Gospel in the OT. Immediately after are verses 35-37 regarding God not being through (finished with Israel) as well as Romans 11:28 (just after the grafted in verses of the Olive tree verses 16-26). I'm done.

Thanks again.

Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #6 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 22:56:41 »
Now to the rest of the OP...

I invite you to revisit the thread about the apostasy before the rapture... in it I stated that I do not say for certain that I believe Preterism is that apostasy (I even suspect another thing entirely is being referred to) but I do explain how Preterism fits the bill in at least several points (not all but several).

This is not about name calling or one upsmanship  or my theology is bigger than your theology. Though clumsily at times (obviously) I am only trying to get at the truth.

If you do not, visit the thread, that is, I understand. No pressure.

Good day (evening).

raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #7 on: Sun Mar 04, 2012 - 23:55:41 »
Thank you.

I was not trying to name call anyone. In fact I should have said that any belief system that holds to replacement theology is antisemitic in that belief. Preterism holds to replacement theology does it not? Rhetorical question. To keep this brief I will only cite the verses and those interested can look them up. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the Gospel in the OT. Immediately after are verses 35-37 regarding God not being through (finished with Israel) as well as Romans 11:28 (just after the grafted in verses of the Olive tree verses 16-26). I'm done.

Thanks again.

I guess it would truly depend on how you define antisemitic. Would you say it encompasses anyone who does not adhere to Christian Zionism?

Personally, I do not believe Preterism teaches replacement theology, at least not from what I have understood. How can the church be said to replace Israel when it is in itself the very fulfillment of the promise made to the remnant? Isaiah 10:22, Romans 9:27

I would like to comment on Jer 31:31. Yes, vs 31-34 refer to the salvation that came to Israel through the gospel, but only to the remnant. In vs 36 the LORD speaks of the seed of Israel, who shall not cease from being a nation before Him. If this was referring to the nation that we know as Israel today, what becomes of His promise while there was no nation for nearly 1900 years? I personally understand the seed of Israel to be referring to this:

But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God:

Who are the chosen people? I believe this answers it... the gentiles grafted into the remnant of Israel making that one new man.

Now to the rest of the OP...

I invite you to revisit the thread about the apostasy before the rapture... in it I stated that I do not say for certain that I believe Preterism is that apostasy (I even suspect another thing entirely is being referred to) but I do explain how Preterism fits the bill in at least several points (not all but several).

This is not about name calling or one upsmanship  or my theology is bigger than your theology. Though clumsily at times (obviously) I am only trying to get at the truth.

If you do not, visit the thread, that is, I understand. No pressure.

Good day (evening).

Thank you, I hadn't seen your recent posts on that thread. If you don't mind, I'd like to post parts of it so I can tie it into  this topic.


you said:

Preterists teach that the highlighted [2 Peter 3:10 and 12] refers only to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE. That the elements are temple elements used in daily operations and sacrifices. And the heavens in their interpolation is the covenant with God and further into the chapter the new heaven and new earth is just the New Covenant.

I imagine quite a few Preterists (even full Preterists) are unaware of this teaching...


I have only been studying Preterism for about 4 months now, and I was fully aware of this. I would say though that I believe the elements are also referring to the same thing Paul talks about in Galatians 4 and Colossians 2. I'm also not in total agreement with the portion I highlighted above. I think there's more to that. In fact, this is the bulk of my OP.. the reasoning behind the belief that Peter is not referring to the physical heavens and earth and an explanation of the alternative.

Did you happen to read through the entire post?

« Last Edit: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 14:02:20 by raggthyme »

thethinker

  • Guest
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #8 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 09:14:35 »
raggthyme said:
Quote
Second, Preterists believe that judgment came as Christ said it would but we are slanderously reported as saying, "where is the promise of His coming? There will be no judgment." Wait, what? How can one mock a coming judgment and at the same time affirm that the judgment did come? It's an illogical accusation. We're talking about the timing (and nature) of events here, not the denial of them. Peter was speaking of those who didn't believe it would happen, because to them "all things continue(d) as they were from the beginning of the creation."


Ragggthyme,

Well done Sis! Accusations are all the Futurists have. Exegetically they have nothing. The Futurists make Jesus and the Apostles into false prophets. They also make God into a liar because He breaks His promises. Paul assured the Thessalonians that God would give THEM relief from THEIR persecutions "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven." But the Futurists deny this which means that God broke His promise to THEM. Jesus did not return from heaven to give THEM the relief that was promised.

One word about their "anti-semitic" accusation. The promise of the resurrection and the rapture was originally made to Israel (Hosea 12:13 w/ 1 Corinthians 15:50). Yet the Futurists make Israel the last to be resurrected and totally take away the rapture from them. Then they have the audacity to call Preterists "anti-semitic."

Your logic is irrefutable. Again well done and manna!



thinker

EdwardGoodie

  • Guest
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #9 on: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 14:10:54 »
I would like to add some thoughts to the OP's quotation of 2 Peter 3:3-4

2 Peter 3:3-4 - Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,  
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
 

First, "fathers" from verse 4 is JEWISH in nature.  I want those from the antipreterist movement to consider the implications of that understanding.

Second, these scoffers would come in the future to Peter's epistle and near the end of the generation which Christ Himself defined the time.

Third, these scoffers DID COME!! Now, I realize that futurists have little concept of audience relevance as demonstrated by a child's understanding of finding a letter written by their great, great grandfather.  In this letter (which was written to the great, great grandfather's wife), it says that he would be coming to visit shortly.

The child came down from the attic loudly proclaiming, "My great, great grandfather is coming to visit us shortly.  Yeah, I can't wait to meet him for the first time!"  Can you imagine the shock of surprise on the faces of the child's parents?  The parents would have to tell their child that the great, great grandfather had died several years before the child had even been born.  They would also have to mention that the letter wasn't written specifically to them.  It had been written back in the great, great grandfather's time period and was written to a different audience.  The great, great grandfather would not be coming to visit at all, let alone in a short period of time.

I think the child would be able to understand such an explanation.  But it is obvious that futurists choose not to.

Let me demonstrate...

"Scoffer" or "mocker" is used only twice in the entire Bible.  It is Strong's G1703 - εμπαικται.

The only other time it is used is in Jude 1:18 (or Jude 18 if you prefer).

Consider the relevance of those "mockers" from the epistle written by Jude to his audience.  Note that it is common FUTURIST knowledge that Jude was written after 2 Peter.

Jude 1:18 - How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.  

Here is a question futurists will not like...Who are the "they" and who are the "you"?  If the "you" are 21st century Christians, then the "they" are 21st century Christians too because the "they" would have to be alive to to tell "you" anything...

However, Jude 1:17 is very clear in saying that the "they" were the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ (dead people).

Jude 1:17 - But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;  

The "you" are the people who have been told these things by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.  It wasn't us, folks.

Next is what Jude says in the content of his epistle...

This wording matches 2 Peter 3:3 right down to their characteristic of lust and is much too exact to be just an ordinary coincidence.  Jude said these mockers refer to those who “are [present tense] certain men crept in unawares
« Last Edit: Mon Mar 05, 2012 - 15:39:23 by EdwardGoodie »

Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #10 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 08:53:52 »
Thank you.

I was not trying to name call anyone. In fact I should have said that any belief system that holds to replacement theology is antisemitic in that belief. Preterism holds to replacement theology does it not? Rhetorical question. To keep this brief I will only cite the verses and those interested can look them up. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the Gospel in the OT. Immediately after are verses 35-37 regarding God not being through (finished with Israel) as well as Romans 11:28 (just after the grafted in verses of the Olive tree verses 16-26). I'm done.

Thanks again.

I guess it would truly depend on how you define antisemitic. Would you say it encompasses anyone who does not adhere to Christian Zionism?

Depends on how you define Christian Zionism.

Quote
Personally, I do not believe Preterism teaches replacement theology, at least not from what I have understood. How can the church be said to replace Israel when it is in itself the very fulfillment of the promise made to the remnant? Isaiah 10:22, Romans 9:27

Better brush up on what Preterists believe. All the promises of Israel bestowed upon the Church is how one of the Preterists here said it... replacement theology by any other name still smells as rotten...


Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #11 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 09:08:42 »
I would like to comment on Jer 31:31. Yes, vs 31-34 refer to the salvation that came to Israel through the gospel, but only to the remnant. In vs 36 the LORD speaks of the seed of Israel, who shall not cease from being a nation before Him. If this was referring to the nation that we know as Israel today, what becomes of His promise while there was no nation for nearly 1900 years? I personally understand the seed of Israel to be referring to this:

But ye [are] a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past [were] not a people, but [are] now the people of God:

Who are the chosen people? I believe this answers it... the gentiles grafted into the remnant of Israel making that one new man.

Abraham has two heirs known as his seed... the sand by the seashore and the stars of the heavens (Genesis 22:17 in keeping with Romans 9:6); one physical one spiritual.

Romans 4:16 (KJV)
16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Romans 4:18 (KJV)
18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.

Galatians 3:16 (KJV)
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

So... the passage in Jeremiah 31:31-34 refers to all who believe in the Hebrew Messiah are spirit Israel spirit Jews... then it goes on to say that the physical Jews will never cease to be a nation before him etc.

You made a point about not being a nation for 1900 years... once again as with the terms "soon" near" "at hand" it all depends upon "soon near at hand" to whom (God). Israel will never cease to be a nation (to God) what Israel ceases to be by humans definition is moot. 

Quote
Now to the rest of the OP...

I invite you to revisit the thread about the apostasy before the rapture... in it I stated that I do not say for certain that I believe Preterism is that apostasy (I even suspect another thing entirely is being referred to) but I do explain how Preterism fits the bill in at least several points (not all but several).

This is not about name calling or one upsmanship  or my theology is bigger than your theology. Though clumsily at times (obviously) I am only trying to get at the truth.

If you do not, visit the thread, that is, I understand. No pressure.

Good day (evening).

Thank you, I hadn't seen your recent posts on that thread. If you don't mind, I'd like to post parts of it so I can tie it into  this topic.


By all means go ahead. Nothing I post online is to be hidden but open for all to see and quote as they see the need I only ask that it is in context of what I said.


Quote
you said:

Preterists teach that the highlighted [2 Peter 3:10 and 12] refers only to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE. That the elements are temple elements used in daily operations and sacrifices. And the heavens in their interpolation is the covenant with God and further into the chapter the new heaven and new earth is just the New Covenant.

I imagine quite a few Preterists (even full Preterists) are unaware of this teaching...


I have only been studying Preterism for about 4 months now, and I was fully aware of this. I would say though that I believe the elements are also referring to the same thing Paul talks about in Galatians 4 and Colossians 2. I'm also not in total agreement with the portion I highlighted above. I think there's more to that. In fact, this is the bulk of my OP.. the reasoning behind the belief that Peter is not referring to the physical heavens and earth and an explanation of the alternative.

Did you happen to read through the entire post?



I'm sorry, which post are you referring to?

Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #12 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 09:13:38 »
How can taking what Jesus and the Apostles said to heart be making them out to be false prophets?

Time after time your Preterist dogma is refuted with scripture. Your accusations (like this one) are proven unfounded. And you rave on and on which is YOUR only recourse to being refuted.

raggthyme said:
Quote
Second, Preterists believe that judgment came as Christ said it would but we are slanderously reported as saying, "where is the promise of His coming? There will be no judgment." Wait, what? How can one mock a coming judgment and at the same time affirm that the judgment did come? It's an illogical accusation. We're talking about the timing (and nature) of events here, not the denial of them. Peter was speaking of those who didn't believe it would happen, because to them "all things continue(d) as they were from the beginning of the creation."


Ragggthyme,

Well done Sis! Accusations are all the Futurists have. Exegetically they have nothing. The Futurists make Jesus and the Apostles into false prophets. They also make God into a liar because He breaks His promises. Paul assured the Thessalonians that God would give THEM relief from THEIR persecutions "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven." But the Futurists deny this which means that God broke His promise to THEM. Jesus did not return from heaven to give THEM the relief that was promised.

One word about their "anti-semitic" accusation. The promise of the resurrection and the rapture was originally made to Israel (Hosea 12:13 w/ 1 Corinthians 15:50). Yet the Futurists make Israel the last to be resurrected and totally take away the rapture from them. Then they have the audacity to call Preterists "anti-semitic."

Your logic is irrefutable. Again well done and manna!



thinker

Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #13 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 09:42:53 »
I would like to add some thoughts to the OP's quotation of 2 Peter 3:3-4

2 Peter 3:3-4 - Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,  
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
 

First, "fathers" from verse 4 is JEWISH in nature.  I want those from the antipreterist movement to consider the implications of that understanding.

Well one way that can be interpreted is to say ever since 70 CE all things continue as they were from the beginning (no global tribulation period nor futurist eschatology)... which the Apostle is citing as incorrect doctrine / eschatology.

Quote
Second, these scoffers would come in the future to Peter's epistle and near the end of the generation which Christ Himself defined the time.

Which Christ defined as the generation that sees all the things he spoke of previously as being that generation which would not pass until they be accomplished... could be thousands of years yet to come because they all have not been accomplished... like the rebirth of the Levitical sacrificial system.

Quote
Third, these scoffers DID COME!!

(snip non sequitur)

You isolate part of the text to prove your point. You cannot properly interpret the passage by stopping at just the word scoffers. Scoffers came in Jesus' ministry and in Moses' and in Eden (Cain). Its the scoffers IN THE LAST DAYS who walk after their own lusts and put forth the eschatology that is typical to evolutionsist (no catastrophism just steady state for billions of years... and Preterists who state the return of Jesus was 1900 + years ago and the future will just like the past was...)


Quote
Scoffers will come who

Let me demonstrate...

"Scoffer" or "mocker" is used only twice in the entire Bible.  It is Strong's G1703 - εμπαικται.

The only other time it is used is in Jude 1:18 (or Jude 18 if you prefer).

Consider the relevance of those "mockers" from the epistle written by Jude to his audience.  Note that it is common FUTURIST knowledge that Jude was written after 2 Peter.

Jude 1:18 - How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.  

Here is a question futurists will not like...Who are the "they" and who are the "you"?  If the "you" are 21st century Christians, then the "they" are 21st century Christians too because the "they" would have to be alive to to tell "you" anything...

However, Jude 1:17 is very clear in saying that the "they" were the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ (dead people).

LOL

Are you serious?

Jude says to remember what the Apostles said... meaning a reminder to the recipients of the letter of Jude that this will happen in the last days (which John defined as being already then and until the end) we would say dispensation but I know that's a bad word to Preterists...  

He also spoke of the return of the Lord Jesus quoting Enoch (who lived in Moses day)...

Is this the best you got?

Quote
Jude 1:17 - But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;  

The "you" are the people who have been told these things by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.  It wasn't us, folks.

Next is what Jude says in the content of his epistle...

This wording matches 2 Peter 3:3 right down to their characteristic of lust and is much too exact to be just an ordinary coincidence.  Jude said these mockers refer to those who “are [present tense] certain men crept in unawares

raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #14 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 10:45:24 »
Quote from: JohnDB70X7
You made a point about not being a nation for 1900 years... once again as with the terms "soon" near" "at hand" it all depends upon "soon near at hand" to whom (God). Israel will never cease to be a nation (to God) what Israel ceases to be by humans definition is moot.  


I believe God says things for our benefit. If the terms "soon" "near" "at hand" "never cease" etc. don't mean what they say then they mean nothing to us and are open to all kinds of interpretation.


Quote
I'm sorry, which post are you referring to?


The OP, especially what I posted about 2 Peter 3's "heavens and earth".

Thank you.

I was not trying to name call anyone. In fact I should have said that any belief system that holds to replacement theology is antisemitic in that belief. Preterism holds to replacement theology does it not? Rhetorical question. To keep this brief I will only cite the verses and those interested can look them up. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the Gospel in the OT. Immediately after are verses 35-37 regarding God not being through (finished with Israel) as well as Romans 11:28 (just after the grafted in verses of the Olive tree verses 16-26). I'm done.

Thanks again.


I guess it would truly depend on how you define antisemitic. Would you say it encompasses anyone who does not adhere to Christian Zionism?


Depends on how you define Christian Zionism.


I define it like this:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

Quote
Better brush up on what Preterists believe. All the promises of Israel bestowed upon the Church is how one of the Preterists here said it... replacement theology by any other name still smells as rotten...


Again, how can the church be said to replace Israel when it is in itself the very fulfillment of the promises made to the remnant? Isaiah 10:22, Romans 9:27

« Last Edit: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 11:19:57 by raggthyme »

Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #15 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 11:20:55 »
Quote from: JohnDB70X7
You made a point about not being a nation for 1900 years... once again as with the terms "soon" near" "at hand" it all depends upon "soon near at hand" to whom (God). Israel will never cease to be a nation (to God) what Israel ceases to be by humans definition is moot.  


I believe God says things for our benefit. If the terms "soon" "near" "at hand" "never cease" etc. don't mean what they say then they mean nothing to us and are open to all kinds of interpretation.


David and Solomon proceeded from this point of view and the Jewish Temple was built based on this kind of interpretation of:

2 Samuel 7:12-13 (KJV)
12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
[/quote]

Solomon's throne did not last forever. In fact it did not last two generations over the entire kingdom.

God's interpretation of 2 Samuel 7:12-13 is:

Zechariah 6:12-13 (KJV)
12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

His throne is established forever and he is a priest on his throne.

So the way you personally believe (which only matters to you alone as when anyone believes anything contrary to scriptural truth) does not matter when a biblical truth is presented to that is contrary to your opinion / belief... and you go ahead and believe what you want to anyway. 

Quote
Quote
you said:

Preterists teach that the highlighted [2 Peter 3:10 and 12] refers only to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE. That the elements are temple elements used in daily operations and sacrifices. And the heavens in their interpolation is the covenant with God and further into the chapter the new heaven and new earth is just the New Covenant.

I imagine quite a few Preterists (even full Preterists) are unaware of this teaching...


I have only been studying Preterism for about 4 months now, and I was fully aware of this. I would say though that I believe the elements are also referring to the same thing Paul talks about in Galatians 4 and Colossians 2. I'm also not in total agreement with the portion I highlighted above. I think there's more to that. In fact, this is the bulk of my OP.. the reasoning behind the belief that Peter is not referring to the physical heavens and earth and an explanation of the alternative.

Did you happen to read through the entire post?




I'm sorry, which post are you referring to?


The OP, especially what I posted about 1 Peter 3's "heavens and earth".[/quote]

Oh yes yes yes... You cited the destruction of the earth by the flood... but the destruction of the heaven and the earth by fire also gives way to a new heaven and new earth where there will be no light of the sun or moon or the stars. Now are we to just spiritualize all these to mean as Demar and Gentry teach "where is the promise of this earth-changing heaven-changing return? for things will continue on just as they are since the beginning of creation...

Isn't this the heresy of Peter is wraning against???


Quote
Thank you.

I was not trying to name call anyone. In fact I should have said that any belief system that holds to replacement theology is antisemitic in that belief. Preterism holds to replacement theology does it not? Rhetorical question. To keep this brief I will only cite the verses and those interested can look them up. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the Gospel in the OT. Immediately after are verses 35-37 regarding God not being through (finished with Israel) as well as Romans 11:28 (just after the grafted in verses of the Olive tree verses 16-26). I'm done.

Thanks again.


I guess it would truly depend on how you define antisemitic. Would you say it encompasses anyone who does not adhere to Christian Zionism?


Depends on how you define Christian Zionism.


I define it like this:  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism


You are antizionst then are you? 

Romans 11:28 (KJV)
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

This verse means nothing?

Quote
Quote
Better brush up on what Preterists believe. All the promises of Israel bestowed upon the Church is how one of the Preterists here said it... replacement theology by any other name still smells as rotten...


Again, how can the church be said to replace Israel when it is in itself the very fulfillment of the promises made to the remnant? Isaiah 10:22, Romans 9:27



These passages speak of Israel the physical and Israel the Spiritual (Romans 9:6 in another manner of speaking). And I agree there is no truth to replacement theology.

Preterists feign not to believe in replacement theology but when push comes to shove they HAVE to in order to distinguish the destruction of the temple and city in 70 CE from the destruction of the temple and city in 586 BCE.

Matthew 24 (KJV)
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The great tribulation was not 70 CE because it is what happened in 586 BCE and even happened on the very same date of the Hebrew calendar year (Tisha b'av). So there is a great tribulation to come. Preterists tried to explain their way around this by saying it was different because God turned away from Israel to... fill in the blank it's replacement theology no matter how you slice it.


raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #16 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 13:21:14 »
Quote

Oh yes yes yes... You cited the destruction of the earth by the flood... but the destruction of the heaven and the earth by fire also gives way to a new heaven and new earth where there will be no light of the sun or moon or the stars. Now are we to just spiritualize all these to mean as Demar and Gentry teach "where is the promise of this earth-changing heaven-changing return? for things will continue on just as they are since the beginning of creation...

Isn't this the heresy of Peter is wraning against???



I don't know what Demar and Gentry teach, I've not read their books. But in the OP J.Owen speaks of the sun, moon, and stars being the Judaical polity etc. (maybe due to Joseph's dream?) I agree that this fits better with Scripture. We just spoke of the physical ordinances in Jer 31:36. This suggests to me that the physical sun, moon and stars will not be done away with. And though we disagree about the identity of the "nation" I agree that it will never cease while those ordinances are in place.

Quote

You are antizionst then are you?  

Romans 11:28 (KJV)
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

This verse means nothing?


I would say that I do not adhere to Zionism as defined above because I do not see it taught in Scripture. If you'd like to call that anti.. that's your right.  ::smile:: I believe all promises made to the remnant of Israel were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and His spiritual kingdom. I don't believe in a future earthly kingdom where a third temple will be built (Jesus said the hour was coming when the true worshippers of God would neither worship on this mountain nor in Jerusalem but would worship God in Spirit and truth.) I don't believe that will ever be reversed.


Quote
Again, how can the church be said to replace Israel when it is in itself the very fulfillment of the promises made to the remnant? Isaiah 10:22, Romans 9:27


you said:
These passages speak of Israel the physical and Israel the Spiritual (Romans 9:6 in another manner of speaking). And I agree there is no truth to replacement theology.

Preterists feign not to believe in replacement theology but when push comes to shove they HAVE to in order to distinguish the destruction of the temple and city in 70 CE from the destruction of the temple and city in 586 BCE.

[cites Matt 24]

The great tribulation was not 70 CE because it is what happened in 586 BCE and even happened on the very same date of the Hebrew calendar year (Tisha b'av). So there is a great tribulation to come. Preterists tried to explain their way around this by saying it was different because God turned away from Israel to... fill in the blank it's replacement theology no matter how you slice it.

Would you please explain this.. I haven't a clue what you are talking about here.

Concerning the context of Matt 24, the only way one can come to the conclusion that this chapter is about something other than the events surrounding the destruction of Herod's temple is to take the disciples question out of the context of Jesus statement in 24:2. He says

"See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." To this they asked, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the [aiōn]?" By the Holy Spirit, Luke records the same question like this:

"..when shall these things be? And what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?"

It is evident from the context that in both accounts the disciples were asking Him specifically about the statement He made in 24:2 and 21:6. To say they jumped ahead and asked about a time totally unrelated to this statement is no more than an assumption. And tragically, futurism bases it's interpretation of Matt 24 and Luke 21 on this assumption.
« Last Edit: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 13:50:21 by raggthyme »

Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #17 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 14:06:31 »
I don't know what Demar and Gentry teach, I've not read their books. But in the OP J.Owen speaks of the sun, moon, and stars being the Judaical polity etc. (maybe due to Joseph's dream?) I agree that this fits better with Scripture. We just spoke of the physical ordinances in Jer 31:36. This suggests to me that the physical sun, moon and stars will not be done away with. And though we disagree about the identity of the "nation" I agree that it will never cease while those ordinances are in place.
Quote

But even if you go that avenue (Owen) the sun and moon and stars are done away with and applying that to Jeremiah 31:36 you end up with replacemnet theology. 

Quote
You are antizionst then are you?  

Romans 11:28 (KJV)
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.

This verse means nothing?


I would say that I do not adhere to Zionism as defined above because I do not see it taught in Scripture.

But I just quoted Romans 11:28

Quote
If you'd like to call that anti.. that's your right.  ::smile:: I believe all promises made to the remnant of Israel were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and His spiritual kingdom. I don't believe in a future earthly kingdom where a third temple will be built (Jesus said the hour was coming when the true worshipers of God would neither worship on this mountain nor in Jerusalem but would worship God in Spirit and truth.) I don't believe that will ever be reversed.

It will not be reversed. But the Jews who do not believe in Jesus will be the builders of the third Temple.

Quote
Again, how can the church be said to replace Israel when it is in itself the very fulfillment of the promises made to the remnant? Isaiah 10:22, Romans 9:27


you said:
These passages speak of Israel the physical and Israel the Spiritual (Romans 9:6 in another manner of speaking). And I agree there is no truth to replacement theology.

Preterists feign not to believe in replacement theology but when push comes to shove they HAVE to in order to distinguish the destruction of the temple and city in 70 CE from the destruction of the temple and city in 586 BCE.

[cites Matt 24]

The great tribulation was not 70 CE because it is what happened in 586 BCE and even happened on the very same date of the Hebrew calendar year (Tisha b'av). So there is a great tribulation to come. Preterists tried to explain their way around this by saying it was different because God turned away from Israel to... fill in the blank it's replacement theology no matter how you slice it.

Would you please explain this.. I haven't a clue what you are talking about here.

Okay. Let me simply ask you this way...

Matthew 24:21 (KJV)
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

If that Great Tribulation was the destruction of the city and temple in 70 CE as Preterism claims... how is it different from the he destruction of the city and temple in 586 BCE?


Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #18 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 14:31:15 »
Concerning the context of Matt 24, the only way one can come to the conclusion that this chapter is about something other than the events surrounding the destruction of Herod's temple is to take the disciples question out of the context of Jesus statement in 24:2. He says

"See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." To this they asked, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the [aiōn]?" By the Holy Spirit, Luke records the same question like this:

"..when shall these things be? And what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?"

It is evident from the context that in both accounts the disciples were asking Him specifically about the statement He made in 24:2 and 21:6. To say they jumped ahead and asked about a time totally unrelated to this statement is no more than an assumption. And tragically, futurism bases it's interpretation of Matt 24 and Luke 21 on this assumption.


Matthew 24 (KJV)
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying,

(a) Tell us, when shall these things be?

and

(b) what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Two questions

4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

this could apply to either one of us here now... one or the other...

6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

This did not apply to those in the hearing of Jesus but to those who would believe what they taught.

Luke 12:40-41 (KJV)
40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?

Jesus spoke in ways that people standing right there did not know if he mean just them or others or everyone else.


(Matthew 24 continued)
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

This is speaking of the believer's tribulation period btw. Revelation 12"17 - Revelation 13:10.

14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

"you" again Luke 12:41 applies here.


16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:


21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.


raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #19 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 14:38:05 »

But even if you go that avenue (Owen) the sun and moon and stars are done away with and applying that to Jeremiah 31:36 you end up with replacemnet theology. 

Not in my mind, I don't believe that Peter and Jeremiah are speaking of the same ordinances.

Quote
But I just quoted Romans 11:28

Still, I do not see Zionism taught in Scripture. I put Romans 11:28 in the context of 11:5. The time frame is "this present time" which was in Paul's day. I don't see the need for a modern day fulfillment when the remnant was saved in the first century, as promised.

Quote
If you'd like to call that anti.. that's your right.  ::smile:: I believe all promises made to the remnant of Israel were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and His spiritual kingdom. I don't believe in a future earthly kingdom where a third temple will be built (Jesus said the hour was coming when the true worshipers of God would neither worship on this mountain nor in Jerusalem but would worship God in Spirit and truth.) I don't believe that will ever be reversed.

It will not be reversed. But the Jews who do not believe in Jesus will be the builders of the third Temple.
[/quote]

But you believe the same temple will be used for worship (in Jerusalem) in the Millennium, do you not?

Quote
Okay. Let me simply ask you this way...

Matthew 24:21 (KJV)
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

If that Great Tribulation was the destruction of the city and temple in 70 CE as Preterism claims... how is it different from the he destruction of the city and temple in 586 BCE?



Jesus taught this one was the greatest by far. I guess I don't really understand the point you are making.

raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #20 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 14:38:46 »

But even if you go that avenue (Owen) the sun and moon and stars are done away with and applying that to Jeremiah 31:36 you end up with replacemnet theology.  

Not in my mind, I don't believe that Peter and Jeremiah are speaking of the same ordinances.

Quote
But I just quoted Romans 11:28

Still, I do not see Zionism taught in Scripture. I put Romans 11:28 in the context of 11:5. The time frame is "this present time" which was in Paul's day. I don't see the need for a modern day fulfillment when the remnant was saved in the first century, as promised.

Quote


It will not be reversed. But the Jews who do not believe in Jesus will be the builders of the third Temple.

But you believe the same temple will be used for worship (in Jerusalem) in the Millennium, do you not?

Quote
Okay. Let me simply ask you this way...

Matthew 24:21 (KJV)
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

If that Great Tribulation was the destruction of the city and temple in 70 CE as Preterism claims... how is it different from the he destruction of the city and temple in 586 BCE?



Jesus taught this one was the greatest by far. I guess I don't really understand the point you are making.
« Last Edit: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 15:20:14 by raggthyme »

raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #21 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 16:54:52 »
Matthew 24 (KJV)
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying,

(a) Tell us, when shall these things be?

and

(b) what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Two questions

The assumption is that the two parts of this question are entirely unrelated, that the first part speaks to the Lord's prophecy in 24:2 and the other does not... at all. And by this assumption an entire eschatology is formed. Unless proof is provided that the disciples randomly popped the "obliteration of the universe" question (which would have been totally off topic), I believe we must keep both parts of it in the context and time frame of "there shall not be left here one stone upon another..." That seems like an honest approach because a plain reading of the text indicates that the coming of Christ, the end of the [aiōn] and the desolation of Jerusalem/destruction of the temple were inseparable in their minds.

In both accounts, their first concern was "when" and their second was the "sign". I believe Matthew expounds Luke's "these things" with "thy coming and.. the end of the [aiōn]" so that there would be no doubt that they tied all these things together.

Quote
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

This did not apply to those in the hearing of Jesus but to those who would believe what they taught.

Mar 13:8
For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these [are] the beginnings of sorrows.

But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.


Are you saying this wasn't about first century believers?

Quote
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)


16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:


Luke says "when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies" (this happened in the first century) "then know that the desolation thereof is nigh." Therefore the abomination of desolation occurred in the first century. (Unless nigh does not mean nigh in this instance.)
« Last Edit: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 18:42:26 by raggthyme »

Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #22 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 20:04:57 »
The assumption is that the two parts of this question are entirely unrelated,

It's right there in print for all to see.


Offline JohnDB70X7

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
  • Manna: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #23 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 20:22:31 »
Matthew 24 (KJV)
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying,

(a) Tell us, when shall these things be?

and

(b) what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Two questions

The assumption is that the two parts of this question are entirely unrelated, that the first part speaks to the Lord's prophecy in 24:2 and the other does not... at all. And by this assumption an entire eschatology is formed.

No, I am afraid not. It's all the rest of scriptures on this subject... you see, all a futurist has to do is believe the Bible and take God at his word. Preterists have to spiritualize texts like 2 Peter 3:8 and explain away the meaning of verses like Acts 1:11 just to name two of the many verses Preterists do this with... all to fit an extrabiblical position that all prophecy was fulfilled in the first century CE.

Quote
Unless proof is provided that the disciples randomly popped the "obliteration of the universe" question (which would have been totally off topic),

You know, I am not like some futurists / dispensationalists who hold to the definition as absolutely meaning "world." I can see how it refers to "age" or era. The question is, how does the Preterist determine it refers to any particular age other than the last of the last when Jesus would return and the resurrection would occur. Remember, Martha said I believe in the resurrection.

John 11:20-26 (KJV)
20 Then Martha, as soon as she heard that Jesus was coming, went and met him: but Mary sat still in the house.
21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.
22 But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.
23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.
24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Jesus was not referring to that last resurrection but to what Larry Feldman calls a "restoration" (meaning Lazarus though raise dfrom the dead would die again and in the last day be raised to life eternal). So, bear this in mine Raggthyme. The Jews were "up" on the teaching about passages like Job 19:23-27 and Isaiah 26:19-20.

So how can you or Preterists presume the disciples' question about the return of Jesus refer to any aion other than the last aion at the end of time?

Daniel 12:11 harps on this:

Daniel 12:11 (KJV)
11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

1290 days till what?

The end of time.

Will all this in most Jewish people's Hebrew school lessons background, how would they even know to ask about ages in between their day and the end of time?

Further, how is it they asked in Acts 1 when the kingdom would be restored to Israel?

Oh no, you disciples have it wrong God isn't going to restore anything to Israel, in fact in another 40 years he's pullin' the plug on Israel forever... you know, the end of "this" age "this generation... within the life times of all y'all..."

Ridiculous!!!


raggthyme

  • Guest
Re: Just a (polite) rant...
« Reply #24 on: Wed Mar 07, 2012 - 23:03:28 »
I said:
The assumption is that the two parts of this question are entirely unrelated,

It's right there in print for all to see.

See what??


No, I am afraid not. It's all the rest of scriptures on this subject... you see, all a futurist has to do is believe the Bible and take God at his word. Preterists have to spiritualize texts like 2 Peter 3:8 and explain away the meaning of verses like Acts 1:11 just to name two of the many verses Preterists do this with... all to fit an extrabiblical position that all prophecy was fulfilled in the first century CE.

How would you interpret all other scriptures on this subject if you put the disciples' question (both parts of it) directly into the context of Matt 24:2?

Therefore, it is the interpretation of this question that sets the stage for how one understands the answer Jesus gives them in the whole of chapter 24 and Luke 21. This determines ones eschatological position, as far as futurist/preterist goes. And ones EP determines how they view the rest of the scriptures on this subject.

Quote
You know, I am not like some futurists / dispensationalists who hold to the definition as absolutely meaning "world." I can see how it refers to "age" or era. The question is, how does the Preterist determine it refers to any particular age other than the last of the last when Jesus would return and the resurrection would occur.

I can't speak for other Preterists, but I am persuaded that the age Jesus referred to was the Judaical age, the Old Covenant age, so to speak. The one Hebrews indicates was passing away. The last day (in this understanding) would be the last day of that age. Once the temple was destroyed and God exacted vengeance upon the generation that crucified His Son (parable of the vineyard), all the promises and prophecies made to Israel (the remnant) were fulfilled and then began the age we are in now.. which Paul calls the "world without end", the New Covenant (gospel) age. Remember it is the eternal gospel.. it goes on and on saving souls. I don't believe God is going to obliterate this universe. He promised to never again smite every thing living, I believe Him.


Quote

Daniel 12:11 (KJV)
11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

1290 days till what?

The end of time.

1290 days...
Interestingly, 3 1/2 years was the time during the Jewish Wars.. from mid 66 to 70ad. It corresponds with the "times of the gentiles" (in which Jerusalem would be trodden down). *More about that for anyone interested can be found in howard's thread "The Last Days" (towards the bottom of page 2)

Quote
Further, how is it they asked in Acts 1 when the kingdom would be restored to Israel?

Oh no, you disciples have it wrong God isn't going to restore anything to Israel, in fact in another 40 years he's pullin' the plug on Israel forever... you know, the end of "this" age "this generation... within the life times of all y'all..."

Ridiculous!!!

Personally I believe that the kingdom was restored to Israel when God took it from the wicked husbandmen and gave it to a people who would bear fruit. (Again, parable of the vineyard) which happened in the first century. Israel received all the promises in Jesus Christ, as Isaiah said they were only to the remnant and according to Paul that remnant was alive in his time. Rom 11:5

I'm going to let you respond and hopefully have the last word (if I can restrain myself  ::smile::) because I realize we could go on and on here never seeing eye to eye. I appreciate the respectful manner in which you've dealt with me on these few threads and the Scriptures you brought to the conversation. My hope is that anyone visiting will look at everything presented and search it out for themselves whether or not the things we've said be so.

God bless you!


« Last Edit: Thu Mar 08, 2012 - 12:28:04 by raggthyme »