What led me to preterism....

[asterisktom]

If no man can know the day or the hour...how can preterists state matter-of-factly it occured already?

According to this logic the second coming could never occur.

 

[webdog]

According to this logic the second coming could never occur.

No, since it's a future event. If something has happened already, it is part of history where the date, time and hour should and could be pinpointed.

 

[asterisktom]

No, since it's a future event. If something has happened already, it is part of history where the date, time and hour should and could be pinpointed.

You are assuming what needs to be proved. And using that assumption as part of your logic. You are building your house on roof shingles.

By your logic you have disproved the possibility of a future coming. A person in your Millennium would be looking back at the 2nd coming, knowing the date clearly. He could, in your words "state matter-of-factly it occured already". Yet you say that would not be possible.

But if your Millennium person can do that, then we can too - and we do. We state matter-of-factly that it occurred at AD 70.

 

[HankD]

You are assuming what needs to be proved. And using that assumption as part of your logic. You are building your house on roof shingles.

By your logic you have disproved the possibility of a future coming. A person in your Millennium would be looking back at the 2nd coming, knowing the date clearly. He could, in your words "state matter-of-factly it occured already". Yet you say that would not be possible.

But if your Millennium person can do that, then we can too - and we do. We state matter-of-factly that it occurred at AD 70.

But in either case we would be with Him in person in that place He went and prepared for us.
He said that He would return for us so that where He was we could also be.

In Rome with Titus and Vespasian?

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

But in either case we would be with Him in person in that place He went and prepared for us.
He said that He would return for us so that where He was we could also be.

In Rome with Titus and Vespasian?

HankD

The Kingdom of God does not come with observation. The Kingdom of Titus and Vespasian came with observation. The fault of those inside the doomed walls was focusing too literally on the literal kingdom, even though their Messiah explained to them several times the nature of the Kingdom.

Paul said in Ephesians that we are seated with Him in the heavenlies. Are we in that place right now? Is it any less real because it doesn't show up on Google Earth?

 

[HankD]

The Kingdom of God does not come with observation. The Kingdom of Titus and Vespasian came with observation. The fault of those inside the doomed walls was focusing too literally on the literal kingdom, even though their Messiah explained to them several times the nature of the Kingdom.

Paul said in Ephesians that we are seated with Him in the heavenlies. Are we in that place right now? Is it any less real because it doesn't show up on Google Earth?

Positionally, yes.

Where is my resurrected body which the scripture says I shall have because I will be like Him because I shall see Him as He is?

I still have a flesh and blood body which you said (if memory serves me) could not enter the kingdom of God.

HankD

 

[Logos1]

Lack of knowledge about Christian history can be so entertaining!

Actually this is a big problem today. This type of thing and many like it is why I say the church is in deep trouble, and since I am a member of a Baptist church I say that any baptist church that allows anyone to remain active in that church after that person openly admitts to being a Preterist or claims the beliefs of a Preterist makes that church a false church. Again our churches are in deep trouble and every Pastor who does not deal with these problems is accountable for the sins of those who do them.

I love this post—its double knee slapping hilarious! It demonstrates the complete lack of knowledge about Christian history that Baptists use when they say the King James Version of the bible is the only legitimate version. If they knew their Christian history they would know that members of the Anglican translation committee were personally involved in persecution (even to the death) of the Separatists who would become the first Baptists while they were translating the KJV.

No matter what model of eschatology freeatlast believes in if he were to go into a Christian church at different moments in history he would be subject to being burned at the stake or beheaded or chastised as a heretic for his views. The majority of Christians have at different times thought that the correct model of eschatology was Classic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, or Historicism (if you were protestant at the time of the Reformation). Dispensationalism has only been an American phenomenon since the turn of the 20th century with little following around the world except where American missionaries have spread it.

If freeatlast knew his Covenant history he would know that any reference to Israel in the bible would only refer to Old Covenant Israel. There is no pretense of extending their Covenant relationship with God beyond the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Therefore Christ could not return any later than 70 AD or else his return would be beyond the life of Covenant Israel.

Myself I’m thankful for freeatlast’s lack of knowledge of Christian history. It makes for such irony I find remarks like these so entertaining it probably borders on sinful. But I love'em anyway, I can't help myself.

I can only hope you will entertain us some more with your views and knowledge of Christian history! Come on freeatlast don’t hold back I want to know how you really feel—don’t be bashful, speak up and be counted! (Can I get an Amen from the back row)

Blessings and laughs galore from your life long Baptist brother and Preterist—Logos1!

:laugh:

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

 

[Logos1]

Is Webdog a secret Preterist?

No, since it's a future event. If something has happened already, it is part of history where the date, time and hour should and could be pinpointed.

Webdog without realizing it you have proved Preterism as good as anyone on the board has ever argued its merits! (I wouldn't out you, but just between you and me Welcome to the club)

Just ask your preacher if Israel today is still in a covenant relationship with God, if so then we live under the law—ask him if we live under the Law or grace.

Since Old Covenant Israel ended when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD we can pinpoint when Israel’s covenant relationship ended which means we know at what time Christ had to have returned by just as you say.

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

 

[HankD]

Webdog without realizing it you have proved Preterism as good as anyone on the board has ever argued its merits! (I wouldn't out you, but just between you and me Welcome to the club)

Just ask your preacher if Israel today is still in a covenant relationship with God, if so then we live under the law—ask him if we live under the Law or grace.

Since Old Covenant Israel ended when the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD we can pinpoint when Israel’s covenant relationship ended which means we know at what time Christ had to have returned by just as you say.

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

So? We have already been down this road many times logos.

You know that dispensationalists believe that Israel will be restored.
Even the apostles had that expectation...

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?​

In fact Jesus promised them that very thing​

Luke 22
28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

How about if Webdog asks his preacher how in Acts 1:11 and several other passages, Jesus Christ is transformed into Titus a Roman General?

Acts 1

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.​

1 Thessalonians 4

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.​

Revelation 1

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

1 John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.​

HankD​

 

[Logos1]

Hello HankD,

Good Saturday morning to you (and a good Labor day as well).

We have been down it before, but it never hurts to revisit this territory. Too many people in general including Sunday School teachers and pastors as well make the fatal flaw of reading the bible as if it were written contemporary to them and not 2000 years ago and forget that what was prophecy to the apostles is history to us.

Even worse they read it as its written from an English perspective instead of a Jewish perspective. It's important to know when Christ is speaking of a spiritual renewal of Israel and not a return of Solomon's glorious reign.

When you do these simple things it becomes much easier to realize that the Old Covenant ended in 70 AD and there is no provision for it to return regardless of whether or not present day bible teachers realize that or not.

Myself I'm thankful I don't have to live under the law.

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

 

[HankD]

Hello HankD,

Good Saturday morning to you (and a good Labor day as well).

We have been down it before, but it never hurts to revisit this territory. Too many people in general including Sunday School teachers and pastors as well make the fatal flaw of reading the bible as if it were written contemporary to them and not 2000 years ago and forget that what was prophecy to the apostles is history to us.

Even worse they read it as its written from an English perspective instead of a Jewish perspective. It's important to know when Christ is speaking of a spiritual renewal of Israel and not a return of Solomon's glorious reign.

When you do these simple things it becomes much easier to realize that the Old Covenant ended in 70 AD and there is no provision for it to return regardless of whether or not present day bible teachers realize that or not.

Myself I'm thankful I don't have to live under the law.

“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

Hi Logos1,

I hope you have nice Labor Day holiday weekend as well.
Where did the summer go?

Yes, I understand your points.

But there are those who interpret the so-called "rejection" of Israel as a laying aside "until the times of the Gentiles are fullfilled". They have Scripture to support them as you do for your views.

We both know that.

So, having said that, in my view of the Scripture the New Covenant now includes both the Jew and the Gentile. The Jew first then the Gentile. The gospel is now offered to all men everywhere apart from the Law of Moses.

Abrogation of the Law ofMoses in lieu of the present age leading of the Holy Spirit does not necessarily mean the "casting away" of Israel as a nation or their disolution from the Abrahamic Covenant to his seed and the blessing of salvation offered to all the nations.

Romans 11

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:​

In my view and the view of many, God is able to graft them back into the Abrahamic promise which also contains a promise of real estate "HaEretz".

Jesus said "Love one another". Surley this still applies.

Concerning His Second Coming Jesus Himself speaks to all:

Mark 13

31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.​

Full preterists say He has already come in AD70.​

Most of us disagree.​

Hopefully we won't be disagreeable with one another in our disagreement.​

HankD​

 

[Winman]

I believe Matt 16:28 was fulfilled on the mount of transfiguration.

Matt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

First of all, the Lord did not say "many" he said "some". And we know that Peter, James, and John witnessed his transfiguration. In all three gospels where this saying of Jesus is mentioned it is directly followed by the account of the transfiguration.

And that they saw Jesus come in power is stated directly by Peter.

2 Pet 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Here Peter confirms the fulfillment of this prophesy. Notice he says they made known "the power and coming" of the Lord Jesus. They were eyewitnesses of his "majesty" which almost always refers to royalty or a king. And verse 18 shows he was speaking of the transfiguration on the mount.

Why do people speculate when the fulfillment of this prophesy is directly shown and explained in scripture?

 

[thomas15]

Hello HankD,

.....We have been down it before, but it never hurts to revisit this territory. Too many people in general including Sunday School teachers and pastors as well make the fatal flaw of reading the bible as if it were written contemporary to them and not 2000 years ago and forget that what was prophecy to the apostles is history to us.

Even worse they read it as its written from an English perspective instead of a Jewish perspective. It's important to know when Christ is speaking of a spiritual renewal of Israel and not a return of Solomon's glorious reign.

When you do these simple things it becomes much easier to realize that the Old Covenant ended in 70 AD and there is no provision for it to return regardless of whether or not present day bible teachers realize that or not.

.....“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel

Why thank you Mel!

Way back when this thread was new, my post #7 to you Logos1 made an observation that seemed obsurd to lastday (post 12) that the debate here is really not eschatology but rather covenant vs. dispensational theology. My thinking being that preterism lives or dies based on the disp. vs. cov. debate.

Obviously you are comitted to covenant and or replacement theology when in the paragaph above you state the old covenant ended in AD 70. OK, fine, but were in the OT are we told that Jehovah God promised the covenant people that they would receive forgiveness for sin and eternal life because they are the covenant people?

This is the problem, if you read the terms of the covenants and try to come up with some way of making them promise forgiveness of sin and life everlasting in heaven you have a real problem. And this problem doesn't go away with a carefull study of Heb 8-11.

List the covenants and the terms of same and try to make them equal forgiveness of sin and eternal life. Do that and then we can talk about preterism and the intellectual genius of those who believe in it.

What I don't understand is why covenant theologians never really take a good hard look at the actual covenants. They say that the Bible is literal infallable word of God but cannot bring themselves to actually taking the word literally. Instead, they throw verbal rocks at those who do take the word literally. You do what you want, but this 21st century simpleton (me that is) believes that when it comes to the Bible, black is black, white is white and on the day that I have to give account, I will let the judge of all things decide if he was smart enough to give the writers of his word the correct words to communicate to us, you and I, what he ment us to understand.

Where in the Bible does Jehovah God give his stamp of approval to a human being for giving a spititualized intrepretation to a law or precept or decree that involves forgiveness of sin? Look what happened to Moses when he took matters into his own hands and struck the rock not once but twice. I say trust the word not your feelings but you see it differently, that is of course your privledge.

Sometimes it is good to study other belief systems using the teachings of those who believe that way, not just the critics of the system. For example, suppose you want to understand the church institution based in Rome. You could read what Warfield wrote about it and you should but to really get a handle on it try a Roman theologian also. Point me if you can to a critic of dispensationalism who actually treats Ryrie with even a small amount of respect. Then look at how Rome reads all kinds of theology into Matt ch 16 to justify the papacy. I cannot help escape the feeling that many covenant theologians use the same kind of thinking to justify their belief system. I'm not saying this to equate you with Rome, rather I'm trying to make the point that the covenant system makes in my humble opinion a lot of assumptions and then builds on those assumptions rather than let the word mean exactly what is says.

 

[freeatlast]

Okay, I've got two questions: 1) Where is your church, 2) What is the name of your church. Because I want to make sure I don't accidently walk into your church while on vacation and leave without my head attached.

Seriously though, your attitude is wrong and I hope you come to see it soon. I don't believe your desire to punish dissenters is motivated by love.

You might want to consider that the biblical admonition to “love one another” is a COMMAND OF GOD. It is not optional.

Churches have to confess what is believed, and has to restrict its teachers to be generally faithful to that confession. But no one except God has the right to bind the conscience of the individual. A preterist holding a preteristic opinion does not threaten the Church in any way. If he or she becomes divisive, that's different. Divisiveness is a sin.

By the way, I wonder how you define "preterist"; after all, even you are a preterist on SOME passages, aren't you?

Based on your understanding of sin then you must believe that the Lord sinned. Matt 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Love does not mean that an offender is allowed to continue and perhaps harm the faith of another or a group. Any error in clear doctrine needs to be confronted with scripture out of love. If the person listens and repents then you have won a brother. If they do not then they would need to be put out. There are many people and churches like yourself that welcome false teaching so the ousted person could easily find some place to attend.
Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
The answer is no. So they one holding the false teaching would need to be put out if they would not repent.

 

[Winman]

Good post Thomas.

Where do Preterists get this idea that the old covenant ended in 70 A.D.? The scriptures show it is yet to be fulfilled in Romans.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

In this chapter Paul is not speaking of the church, he is speaking of the flesh, Gentile believers versus Jewish believers. The distinction is shown several times. And Paul says that after the fulness of the Gentiles comes in, then all of Israel shall be saved. The fulness of the Gentiles has not been completed yet, Gentiles are still being converted to Christ.

And in verse 27 Paul shows that God still intends to keep his covenant with the Jews.

So, there is no way this covenant ended in 70 A.D..

 

[asterisktom]

Positionally, yes.

What is the Greek word for "positionally"? There is none. But there is an equivalent term: "spiritually". We are spiritually seated in the heavenlies.

I am not sure, but I suspect that much is made today of positional truth because of doctrinal discomfort with the ramifications of using the word "spiritual". It has become a dirty word for some: spiritual -> spiritualize -> allegorize -> disbelief.

And yet the main emphasis in the Bible is on spiritual reality.
The kingdom is spiritual, not physical.
The resurrection of believers (Note: I am writing of believers) is spiritual, not physical. This makes it even more real than if it was merely physical. When Christ said:

"I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." (John 11:25-26)

He was emphasizing our spiritual nature, and the spiritual nature of our new life in Him. In a very real sense we will never die. We will only sleep. The disciples misunderstood this very point in this chapter.

Where is my resurrected body which the scripture says I shall have because I will be like Him because I shall see Him as He is?

When it says we will be like Him it does not mean in all particulars. The passage itself, that you allude to here, provides the answer.

I still have a flesh and blood body which you said (if memory serves me) could not enter the kingdom of God.

HankD

Your memory is correct. I say it because the Bible says it. 1 Cor. 15:50

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption."

You believe this too, right?

 

[Winman]

So how do you explain Job's statements?

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Job said at the latter day his redeemer (Jesus) shall stand upon the earth. I must have missed this, could you tell me where Jesus is standing upon the earth now? And just how does a spirit stand upon the earth?

And Job said though worms destroy his body (decomposition), yet in his "flesh" shall he see God.

How do you explain these verses?

 

[asterisktom]

So how do you explain Job's statements?

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Job said at the latter day his redeemer (Jesus) shall stand upon the earth. I must have missed this, could you tell me where Jesus is standing upon the earth now? And just how does a spirit stand upon the earth?

And Job said though worms destroy his body (decomposition), yet in his "flesh" shall he see God.

How do you explain these verses?

So - let me get this straight - you think that Job's passage somehow negates the clearer passage in 1 Cor. 15?

Why don't you give the 1 Cor. 15 passage I gave a fair shot and then I will most gladly deal with your Job passage.

 

[lastday]

Lastday

Winman,
Thanks for the opportunity to show why Preterists misinterpret Matt.16:28.

I believe Matt 16:28 was fulfilled on the mount of transfiguration.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom (POWER).
First of all, the Lord did not say "many" he said "some".

Jesus was not teaching that "some would not die until after 6 to 8 days"!
He seems to say "some would die after He comes to reward all believers"!!
Mark places the time to die "after they see Him coming in Kingdom Power!!!

Peter, James, and John witnessed his transfiguration...And they saw Jesus come in power
is stated directly by Peter. 2 Pet 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables,
when we made known unto you the power and coming (PRESENCE) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Peter saw in the Transfiguration experience the "MAJESTY" of Christ's future
coming in Kingdom Power (as later revealed to John in Rev.12:10-11) where
many will die before He actually appears in both Power and in His Glory!
Matthew reveals "some will die as He is ABOUT (mello) to come in GLORY!!
Mark reveals "some will die after He comes in POWER"; not yet in His Glory!!!

Peter confirms the fulfillment of this prophecy. Notice he says they made known "the power and coming" (PRESENCE)
of the Lord Jesus. They were eyewitnesses of his "majesty" which refers to royalty or a king. And verse
18 shows he was speaking of the transfiguration on the mount.

Great because Peter includes both "Power and PRESENCE" at His SC!
The Transfiguration envisioned His SC as fulfillment of Endtime Prophecy!!
"Some must taste death" after He has come in Power thru the two Prophets!!!

Why do people speculate when the fulfillment of this prophesy is directly shown and explained in scripture?

Preterists "speculate" by claiming Christ came before "some here" had died!
The "NOW of God's Kingdom Power" coincides with the 3.5 Endtime Period!!
Jesus was preparing "some" to anticipate death during the final 3.5 days!!!

Rev.12:10-14 explains why Mark 9:1 should have been Mark 8:38!
Robert Stephanus, in 1550, didn't make connection with Revelation!!
He separated Mark 9:1 from what had occurred about 6 days before!!!
Mel

 

[Winman]

So - let me get this straight - you think that Job's passage somehow negates the clearer passage in 1 Cor. 15?

Why don't you give the 1 Cor. 15 passage I gave a fair shot and then I will most gladly deal with your Job passage.

I have answered that before, but you would not accept my answer.

1 Cor 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

This verse says flesh AND blood. Jesus did not have blood when he resurrected, he spilled his blood out and offered it in heaven to pay for our sins. But after he resurrected he told the disciples that he was not a spirit, but flesh and bone and ate food in front of them.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them.

Jesus made it clear he was not a spirit but flesh and bone. And then he further proved it by eating food in front of them.

And Job said that even though his body is destroyed, yet in his flesh he shall see his redeemer who will stand upon the earth at that time.

There is a difference between flesh and blood and flesh and bone. I have shown you this before, but you refuse to accept it. I didn't make this up, it is in the scriptures and you have been shown.