I believe we've debunked preterism.

AOBTW = And Oh By The Way

The point is that the motivation of the circumcision not the circumcision itself is what made these individuals "dogs".

They conflated grace and works.

HankD

 

This is a great passage that shows that the prophets are to be taken into the decision making.
For readers, because Icon already is highly familiar with this passage:

It isn't in the quoted verses you posted, but is basically a great conflict emerged in Gentile land, and the assembly appointed two to travel for instructions to the first baptizing church in Jerusalem.

Paul telling of Gentile conversions in very much detail. He left out nothing said, or done.

"4When they arrived at Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them."​

After the initial assembly wide report, the small group of elders and the apostles sat with Paul and Barnabas to sift the happenings and see of anything that might present a Scriptural conflict. Again, this group listened to all the accounts, again.

12All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.​

After concluding, there may have been some dramatic pause as folks might not have desired to speak either out of fear of being considered foolish, or out of respect. But, it was the leader of the folks, the brother of Jesus, that spoke saying the verses you quoted.

Typically, Jewish speaking, even to this day, is patterned often starting with what has taken place, the progress so far, and then what Scriptures might have to say.

What has taken place and progress so far:

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.​

Scriptures agree or disagree:

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16 After this
​

After what????

After what Simeon declared - that God at first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name. That has been going on now for some 2000 years.

I will return,
​

When???? (which is the big question of the threads)
The answer is given above - AFTER THIS - the time of the gentiles, the time that God is using to take out of the gentiles a people for His name.

and will build again the tabernacle of David,
​

What happened to the temple?

which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
​

Why?

17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things​

Who are the residue of men?

All who survive the end of the time God has indicated in which He calls out of the gentiles a people for His name.


See, Icon, their must be another temple.

Because the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, yet, Jame quoted that a temple built upon the ruins of the one "fallen down."

Even uneducated James, the leader of the fbc of Jerusalem knew such would take place.

There is no reason given to suggest this was Herod's temple, for it was already built and standing, and doesn't fit the statement of James quoting the prophet.

There is no reason to categorize the temple to be built as indicating the church or the people of God, because that would be inconsistent with both the prophet, and Jame's statement indicating there was a difference between "building" and "people" attending the building.

 

Roby....
Could you answer post 29?
Also did you notice Mt. says.....the sign of the Son of man in heaven.....the sign.

 

But this is the problem in general.

The same response the Lord said as the people of Noah, in denial until the flood came.

So WHAT it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.

Do you not find prophecy concerning the first advent were fulfilled as if they were written after the event, yet spoken centuries prior to the event?

IF you do, then why bring doubt upon that which is yet to come?

Unless there are indicators (common in English language) for something to not be taken literally, then it is to be taken literally.

 

See post 42

 

That post is an example of dividing the word of truth in order to totally destroy its straightforward meaning.

James' understanding of the events taking place - the spread of the Gospel among the Gentiles & the vexed question of whether Gentiles turning to Christ should become Jews in order to enjoy full acceptance by Jewish Christian congregations - is thus:

Acts 15:18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works. 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.” ​

i.e. Full acceptance on condition that they simply respect the Jews in their conduct according to the Law of Moses.

So what is meant by:

Acts 15:
14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.’
​

What was the tabernacle of David? A temporary tent used to shelter the Ark?

2 Sam. 6:17 So they brought the ark of the Lord, and set it in its place in the midst of the tabernacle that David had erected for it. Then David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord.​

Or the Davidic dynasty that had ended with Jeconiah:

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus says the Lord:
‘Write this man down as childless,
A man who shall not prosper in his days;
For none of his descendants shall prosper,
Sitting on the throne of David,
And ruling anymore in Judah.’” ​

James is surely thinking in terms of Jeremiah's prophecy of the following chapter:

23:
5 “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord,
“That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.
6 In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell safely;
Now this is His name by which He will be called:
THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.​

And Amos' related prophecy the Holy Spirit guides him into the spiritual meaning:

11 “On that day I will raise up
The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down,
And repair its damages;
I will raise up its ruins,
And rebuild it as in the days of old;
12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,”
Says the Lord who does this thing.​

David's tabernacle - the kingly line, was indeed rebuilt by the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Gospels assert. But I'll just quote Isaiah:

11:1 There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse,
And a Branch shall grow out of his roots.
2 The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him,
The Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The Spirit of counsel and might,
The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord.
........
10 “And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse,
Who shall stand as a banner to the people;
For the Gentiles shall seek Him,
And His resting place shall be glorious.”​

 

Preterism destroys itself.

 

There is so much bad theology in the post, that I won't even start a rebuttal.

 

Polycarp wrote to the Philippians a letter that is one of the most cherished and dearest readings of the early church. This man lived a long life and knew many that were eyewitnesses to the Lord.

In sharing the requirements of selecting deacons, he makes a statement that is important to this thread.

In like manner should the deacons be blameless before the face of His righteousness, as being the servants of God and Christ, and not of men. They must not be slanderers, two - faced, or lovers of money, but temperate in all things, compassionate, industrious, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who was the servant of all.
If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, “we shall also reign together with Him,” provided only we believe.​

Ignatius, who was a close friend of Polycarp wrote to his friend,

...Be ever becoming more zealous than what thou art. Weigh carefully the times. Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes.​

This same ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaeans about the body of Christ,

For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, "Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit." And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.
​

Point of this post is to show two of the earliest church leaders statements concerning the future reign of Christ, the body in which Christ was raised and continues to have, and the timelessness of the eternal, that is God is not conformed to a human timeline of past, present, future.

Note: All the letters containing quotes above can be found at: Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

It is also important to note that the sight has exhaustive early Christian writings, irregardless of the acceptance into the Scripture cannon.

A warning must be followed, that any writing that is presenting anything "new" or "different" from that found in the Scriptures, must be rejected and held as anti-Christ.

 

I have noticed the anti-preterist posts tend to be sans Scripture. Usually zingy one-liners.

 

To the title of the OP: only until your opponent writes a post titled “I believe we’ve debunked Dispensationalism”. These type of click-bait thread titles over promise and under deliver. Consider Calvinism. I hazard to guess there are few Calvinists on this board that are more convinced than me, but I’m not under the illusion that the debate is over just because I say it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

No you haven't

 

The accusation that the thread title is click bait is in and of itself over exaggerating

 

Yes he has, hence why he said it.

 

We are still waiting to see the scriptures that Jesus returned AD 70, and the resurrection even took place at that time! Or ANY historical proof for that matter!

 

NONE of us here, at least as I as I know, are modern day Apostles and have infallible theology and understanding, so thank God that he saved by grace, and not on how well we can elaborate on doctrines!
Saying that... Supreme irony that all of us here were saved by the Calvinism model of salvation, and many of us refise to see that as true....

 

I've noticed that when you can't answer the Scriptures we use, you turn to mischaracterizations and obfuscations.

We just finished an entire thread on the meaning of Christ's 2nd Coming, with many positive results mentioned, and you dealt with none of those manyu Scriptures showing positive results (you did deal some with the result of judgement in our post #47) of the 2nd Coming until your incomprehensible post about John 14:1-3 at almost the end of the thread. (Still don't know what you meant.) Instead, you tried over and over to derail the thread with parousia, Josephus, numerology, etc. So tell me again how you are all about the Scriptures.

 

Full blown Pretierism cannot be proven by scripture, so needs to fall back on numerology, historical misfacts etc!

 

Yes, Polycarp and Ignatius did look forward to the coming of the Lord. That just shows how quickly Christianity deteriorated. Ignatius is the one who said "Do nothing without your bishop". Also they were instrumental in leading Christendom down the path of celibacy, reverence for relics, and mariolatry.

All of this is exactly what Paul had prophesied in Acts 20:

"29 I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. "

Notice the slight distinction: Fierce wolves coming into the flock (29) and men arising out of the flock drawing personal followers after their beliefs(30).

I don't classify Ignatius and Polycarp as wolves (like Cerinthus was) but I do think they fell into grievous error,and not just in their mistaken eschatology.

We can get a lot of benefit from reading the ECF (though we were not to call them "fathers") but they are all of them flawed.