Preterism misrepresents Scripture

[sovereigngrace]

Another unsupported claim.

So when are you going to start writing about this?

 

[claninja]

You are mistaken about who Peter wrote his letters to. He was addressing both Jew and Gentile Christian exiles. It wasn't only Jewish Christians in Israel who were exiled. There were also Gentile Christians like Cornelius and his family who lived in Israel and were exiled out of the country. Peter was addressing them as well. Yes, Peter's priority was preaching to the Jews, but did you somehow forget that he did also preach to Gentiles like Cornelius and his family?

1 Peter 2:9 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; 10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

You think Peter was talking only about Jews here? Were the Jews "in time past not a people" of God before that time? No. They obviously were the people of God well before that time, so Peter could not have been speaking only of the Jews here.

Romans 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

Who are the people who are called and are one people of God? The Jews? No, it's Jew and Gentile believers together who were not the people of God but now are the people of God because of the blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:11-13). Peter was addressing both Jew and Gentile believers. There is no doubt in my mind about that. It is both Jew and Gentile believers who make up the "royal priesthood" (Rev 1:5-6) and the "holy nation" of God (Spiritual Israel) that Peter referenced.

Also, I can't take any view seriously which denies that 2nd Peter 3 is talking about a global event rather than a local or regional one and denies that it's talking about God's desire for all people, not just the Jews, to repent (Acts 17:30).

Peter wrote to the elect of the diaspora. This is used to refer to the Hebrews outside of the land of Israel. It doesn’t refer to gentiles within the context of a Jewish author. So yes, I believe peters primary audience was Jewish.

1 Peter 1:1 To the elect who are exiles of the Dispersion throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

1290 (diaspora) is used figuratively of the Jews in NT times. They were literally scattered throughout the Roman empire (i.e. dispersed) and therefore called "the Diaspora."

[1290 (diasporá) properly refers to Israelites exiled to foreign lands, i.e. Jews residing outside of Palestine (see Jn 7:35).]

Additionally, I would suggest re reading Hosea 1-2. The oracles refer to God divorcing the northern tribes and exiling them- calling them “not my people”, but that one day they would again be his people. While it’s possible Paul may have applied it spiritually to those amongst the nations, it seems more likely that Peter applies it to the exiled elect amongst the diaspora, or the Hebrews, which had been not a people, in hoseas day,to which he was an apostle.

- I don’t follow your Cornelius statement. Where does it say Cornelius was exiled out of his country?


-And I don’t take any view’s seriously that doesn’t consider how the OT prophets used world ending language to describe regional events.

 

[claninja]

Are you somehow not able to understand that scripture sometimes speaks of time from man's perspective and sometimes from God's perspective?

Do you think Peter, in 2 Peter 3:8-9, is talking about how long until the second coming of Christ from man's perspective or God's perspective when he indicates that the Lord wasn't being slow to fulfill the promise of His second coming? Clearly, it's from God's perspective, right? Is that the only passage in all of scripture that speaks of God's perspective when it talks about the timing of Christ's return? I don't believe so. Was the concept Peter talked about in 2 Peter 3:8-9 something he had not yet known about when he wrote 1 Peter 4:7? I doubt that. So, why couldn't he have been speaking from God's perspective there like he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9? I see no reason why not.

My point was that SG changed his argument from “near not really meaning near, but approaching” to “it means near, but in God time, not human”.


“1,000 years is as a day and a day as 1,000 years” simply means God is out side of time. He doesnt exist in linear time. The creation is just as near to God as the 2nd coming. The day peter wrote 2 peter 3 is just as near to God as creation or the 2nd coming. The destruction of Jerusalem is just as near to God as the moment I’m typing this.

it doesn’t mean anything to say the coming of Christ is “near” in Gods time. Everything thing is near for the Creator who lives outside of linear time.

 

[claninja]

I don't agree.

Ok, so you believe that Christ saying “when you see these things happening, know it is near in Gods time, but possibly thousands of years away in human time”, that is a helpful statement?

 

[Hammster]

So when are you going to start writing about this?

I’m still waiting for you to substantiate your claims. But until then…

For those who argue for the omnibenevolence of God…

No idea how you work that out. “Sin is the result of rejecting God.” If it’s the result of rejecting God, then the act of rejecting God isn’t sin.

www.christianforums.com

Your favorite end times passage ?

But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His...

www.christianforums.com

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/rapture-or-taking-out.8273779/post-77191425

Bible Prophecy WILL be Fulfilled

But they were! The great disappointment of 1844 is a prime example. And on 1000 AD, many thought the end had come. They had scripture. They, just like you, thought they had it figured out. This is an unfounded accusation, made because you can't disprove the truth of there having passed...

www.christianforums.com

Etc.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You are not sure what they are about, but you are sure they are not about second coming.... why? You gave no reasoning.

Why did I have to give reasoning behind what I said? You are familiar with His transfiguration and what happened there, right? And you are familiar with what happened on the day of Pentecost, right? What do you need me to explain to you about those things? The kingdom was manifested in power in a sense on both of those occasions. Tell me what more explanation you need.

Such view quite erases the meaning of the "last days" phrase, if it already lasts 2x longer than the whole Mosaic Covenant. The point of the "last days" is that those days are last, not the first in many.

That's your opinion that comes purely from a human perspective. Peter indicated in 2 Peter 3 that the scoffers would scoff at the promise of His second coming during the last days and He has not come yet, as evidenced by the fact that the heavens and earth have not been burned up yet. So, it's still the last days. Also, Peter indicated that people would call on the name of the Lord during the last days and people are still doing that. You don't get to decide the duration of the last days. That is up to God.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

I'm not going to try to explain. You know that the word translated as "short" in that verse is only used in one other verse, right? That makes it difficult to determine how that particular word can be used. If you don't understand that, then so be it. There's nothing I can do about that.

Because Paul says "we". And Timothy is not alive today.

This is such a terrible way of interpreting scripture. If you think every time it says "we" that it can't ever refer to you and me, then just throw your Bible away because it has nothing to do with you in that case. Come on. When Paul says "we" it doesn't mean he was only talking about himself and those who were alive at the time.

I will illustrate how flawed your logic is. My wife and I are going to a concert on Thursday. So, "we" are going to the concert". Does this mean that my wife and I are the only ones going to that concert because I said we are going? Clearly not, right? Yet, that is the kind of logic you are using when interpreting those verses.

Paul said "we will all be changed" at the last trumpet and went on to indicate that it will happen when the dead are resurrected. Was he only talking about himself and those who were alive being changed

What reasoning is there to think that people will not be calling the name of the Lord to be saved "after the last days"?

That isn't what I said. Please read more carefully. They will be calling on the name of the Lord to be saved DURING the last days. Since people are still doing that then we are still in the last days. That is my point.

Well, we cannot use "thousands years are a day" as some kind of a blank check. It would cover all prophecies ever.

That is not what I'm doing and you know it, so why say this? I was talking about one verse in particular where I believe Peter was talking from the perspective just as he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9.

Yes, everything in the book, because its both in the beginning and in the end of the book.

How can it be about everything in the book in light of this verse:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

I asked you for your understanding of this verse in light of your understanding of Revelation 1:1-3 and you didn't answer the question. Why not? How can everything written in the book be literally soon to occur after John wrote it when Revelation 1:19 indicates that he was to write about things that happened in the past, things that were happening at the time and things that would happen from then on? Are you just going to ignore Revelation 1:19?

Those who pierced Him are no longer alive. The point of mentioning them is quite clear and easily compatible with all other verses saying everything will happen in their generation. You will probably offer the explanation "they will be resurrected first", but such statement would have no actual meaning, in the context.

It's unbelievable that you would try to minimize the resurrection of the dead like this. Are you somehow not aware that most of the ones who pierced Him were likely not even still alive in 70 AD? Have you even thought about that? Jesus did not come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD.

If somebody says to you "I will come quickly", you do not suppose he will come soon? In real life? I do not like explanations that are "possible", but obviously not how the language is commonly used.

It depends on the context. Are they talking about coming in the future or talking about how quickly they will come once it's time for them to come? You don't seem to even take things like that into consideration.

Also, the original text was not written in English, it was written in Greek. The Greek word translated as "quickly" there (tachy) means immediately or in a very short amount of time. Did Jesus come very soon or almost immediately after John wrote the book in your view? I don't believe so. In your view He came a few years after the book was written, right? That doesn't fit the definition of the Greek word translated as "quickly" in the Revelation 22 verses.

If you look at how the Greek word "tachy" is used in other verses then you can see it was used to refer to things that would happen immediately or very quickly and not to things that were near, but a few years away. So, it can't mean what you think it means in the Revelation 22 verses.

I showed you the context of what I believe Jesus meant by that by referencing Matthew 24:27. Naturally, you would just immediately dismiss that, but I think it's a very reasonable way of understanding what He was saying. If, once it's time for Him to come, He comes as quickly as lightning flashes from the east to the west, then that would fit the definition of the Greek word translated as "quickly" in the Revelation 22 verses.

 

[trophy33]

Why did I have to give reasoning behind what I said? You are familiar with His transfiguration and what happened there, right? And you are familiar with what happened on the day of Pentecost, right? What do you need me to explain to you about those things? The kingdom was manifested in power in a sense on both of those occasions. Tell me what more explanation you need.

Reasoning (from the text itself) for why it cannot be about the second coming.

That's your opinion that comes purely from a human perspective.

What you write are also just your opinions and your human perspective. Regarding the second coming in the first century, you are applying your human perspective that it could not happen, because xyz. This is as human as anything else.

This is such a terrible way of interpreting scripture. If you think every time it says "we" that it can't ever refer to you and me, then just throw your Bible away....

When I say "we", it does not have to refer only to me, but it must refer also to me. I am included in the context.

To your example, if you say you and your wife go to a concert, it does not mean I cannot go, but it means you do go.

That isn't what I said. Please read more carefully. They will be calling on the name of the Lord to be saved DURING the last days. Since people are still doing that then we are still in the last days. That is my point.

You said: "These last times probably should be understood in the same context as "the last days" which we're still in today since people are still calling on the name of the Lord to be saved."

My question is valid, because your logic is as follows - "since people are still doing that, then we are still in the last days".

What reasoning is there to think that people will not be calling the name of the Lord to be saved after the last days?

How can it be about everything in the book in light of this verse:

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

I asked you for your understanding of this verse in light of your understanding of Revelation 1:1-3 and you didn't answer the question. Why not? How can everything written in the book be literally soon to occur after John wrote it when Revelation 1:19 indicates that he was to write about things that happened in the past, things that were happening at the time and things that would happen from then on? Are you just going to ignore Revelation 1:19?

Try to clarify your question, because I do not know what is there ti answer. Demonstrate incompatibility of Rev 1:19 and everything being about generational events?

Are you somehow not aware that most of the ones who pierced Him were likely not even still alive in 70 AD?

No, I am not. Please provide source for this.

Also, the original text was not written in English, it was written in Greek. The Greek word translated as "quickly" there (tachy) means immediately or in a very short amount of time.

Sure, context - "soon" meaning not "tomorrow", but soon enough to warn the church in the 1st century. It can hardly mean "long after you all will be dead".

In your view He came a few years after the book was written, right?

I do not have any specific view regarding of in which year the book was written. But before the destruction of the temple.

If you look at how the Greek word "tachy" is used in other verses then you can see it was used to refer to things that would happen immediately or very quickly

Do not forget the context you mentioned. The context are not two people talking on a phone about their evening. Its angel showing to John "things that must happen soon".

I showed you the context of what I believe Jesus meant by that by referencing Matthew 24:27. Naturally, you would just immediately dismiss that, but I think it's a very reasonable way of understanding what He was saying. If, once it's time for Him to come, He comes as quickly as lightning flashes from the east to the west, then that would fit the definition of the Greek word translated as "quickly" in the Revelation 22 verses.

There are dozens of verses, not just Mt 24:27. The certainty of the first church that Jesus will return in their generation is seen almost everywhere in their writings. So, we must discover what they generally expected, not to try to explain one verse after another in an isolated way.

That's your opinion that comes purely from a human perspective....
I'm not going to try to explain...
This is such a terrible way of interpreting scripture...
Are you just going to ignore...
It's unbelievable that you would try to minimize the resurrection...
Naturally, you would just immediately dismiss that...

Limit these, thanks. When somebody gives you his time to discuss a topic that is important to you at length, you must behave in a better way.
If you are fed up with a conversation, you do not have to continue (leaving a conversation does not mean the other side is right).

 

[Hammster]

So when are you going to start writing about this?

When are you going to actually respond?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

When I say "we", it does not have to refer only to me, but it must refer also to me. I am included in the context.

To your example, if you say you and your wife go to a concert, it does not mean I cannot go, but it means you do go.

Well, it looks like you do understand. Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. You did not give this impression with what you said before. Oh well. Moving on....

You said: "These last times probably should be understood in the same context as "the last days" which we're still in today since people are still calling on the name of the Lord to be saved."

My question is valid, because your logic is as follows - "since people are still doing that, then we are still in the last days".

What reasoning is there to think that people will not be calling the name of the Lord to be saved after the last days?

Who is saying that will happen? Not me. So, why are you asking me that question? It's not a valid question to ask someone like me who does NOT believe that people will be calling on the name of the Lord after the last days. In my view, Jesus will return on the last of the last days and then time will end as we know it and eternity will be ushered in.

Try to clarify your question, because I do not know what is there ti answer. Demonstrate incompatibility of Rev 1:19 and everything being about generational events?

Your interpretation of Revelation 1:1-3 is that it indicates that everything written about in the book was soon to happen, right? How does that correlate with Revelation 1:19 which indicates that John would write about past things, current things, ongoing things and future things in the book?

No, I am not. Please provide source for this.

Common sense. In terms of the ones Jesus was talking to at the time, most of them were probably at least in their 30s and most were probably older than that. By 70 AD most of them would have been at least 70. I believe the average life span was not nearly as long back then as it is now. So, it's just highly unlikely that most of them were even still alive in 70 AD.

If you disagree, then provide some kind of evidence to back that up. I'm not asking for birth and death certificates of people who lived back then. or anything like that. Just some kind of solid reasoning to back up your view would suffice.

Sure, context - "soon" meaning not "tomorrow", but soon enough to warn the church in the 1st century. It can hardly mean "long after you all will be dead".

You completely missed the point. When the word is used elsewhere in scripture it speaks of things that happen immediately after something else or very soon after. In terms of the book of Revelation, you believe the things written there happened at least a few years or so after it was written, right? A few years after does not fit the way the word is used in other verses. Please address this.

I do not have any specific view regarding of in which year the book was written. But before the destruction of the temple.

I disagree that it was written before that, but we don't need to talk about that here. If it was written before the destruction of the temple, it certainly isn't Is it reasonable to think it was written very soon (as in days or weeks) before that since in that case I'm sure John would have wanted the book to have time to circulate to all the seven churches and such before those things happened, which would take some time (a number of months, at least, if not years). So, again, in terms of the word translated as "quickly" in those Revelation 22 verses, the destruction of the temple happening 2 or 3 years (or however long - even several months) after the book was written simply does not fit the definition of that word.

Do not forget the context you mentioned. The context are not two people talking on a phone about their evening. Its angel showing to John "things that must happen soon".

Again, the point is that the word "tachy", translated as "quickly" in those Revelation 22 verses, is not one that would be used to described something that was still 2 or 3 years off. Are you denying this? If so, look up for yourself how the word is used in other verses and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Here are a couple examples:

Matthew 28:5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly (tachy) and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

Here, the angel was telling the women to immediately go and tell the disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead.

John 11:27 “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” 28 After she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is here,” she said, “and is asking for you.” 29 When Mary heard this, she got up quickly (tachy) and went to him.

In this verse the word again is used to described someone doing something immediately. In this case, Mary immediately went to see Jesus after Martha told her He was there.

There are dozens of verses, not just Mt 24:27. The certainty of the first church that Jesus will return in their generation is seen almost everywhere in their writings. So, we must discover what they generally expected, not to try to explain one verse after another in an isolated way.

I disagree. It's clear to me that Peter understood that it could potentially be a long time before He returned and that's why he wrote what he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9 in relation to the promise of His second coming. He indicated there that no matter how long He took to return it couldn't be said that He was being slow to return because from His eternal perspective, where there's no difference between one day and a thousand years, He was not being slow. Why would Peter have said that if he was certain that Jesus was returning soon? That would make no sense. He may or may not have believed that He would, but no one was certain because no one but the Father knew for certain when He would come (Matt 24:36).

Limit these, thanks. When somebody gives you his time to discuss a topic that is important to you at length, you must behave in a better way.
If you are fed up with a conversation, you do not have to continue (leaving a conversation does not mean the other side is right).

I understand. I will honor your request the best I can, though I may slip up here and there. I have been posting on another forum where they give more leeway on things like that, and I sometimes forget which forum I'm posting on.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Peter wrote to the elect of the diaspora. This is used to refer to the Hebrews outside of the land of Israel. It doesn’t refer to gentiles within the context of a Jewish author. So yes, I believe peters primary audience was Jewish.

So, by saying you believe they were his primary audience are you acknowledging that Gentiles were also part of his audience?

1 Peter 1:1 To the elect who are exiles of the Dispersion throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

1290 (diaspora) is used figuratively of the Jews in NT times. They were literally scattered throughout the Roman empire (i.e. dispersed) and therefore called "the Diaspora."

[1290 (diasporá) properly refers to Israelites exiled to foreign lands, i.e. Jews residing outside of Palestine (see Jn 7:35).]

Additionally, I would suggest re reading Hosea 1-2. The oracles refer to God divorcing the northern tribes and exiling them- calling them “not my people”, but that one day they would again be his people. While it’s possible Paul may have applied it spiritually to those amongst the nations, it seems more likely that Peter applies it to the exiled elect amongst the diaspora, or the Hebrews, which had been not a people, in hoseas day,to which he was an apostle.

I don't understand this logic. For one thing, Paul did apply it spiritually to both Jew and Gentile believers, as Romans 9:24-26 makes clear. I would assume you are aware that Paul at other times applied things that may have seemed to only apply to Jews to Gentiles as well (Galatians 3:26-29, for example). So, what is the basis for thinking that Peter wouldn't have had the same understanding as Paul? He certainly was familiar with Paul's teachings (2 Peter 3:15-16). And, of course, they were both inspired by the Holy Spirit, so there's no reason to think they would not have had the same perspective on things while writing scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.

- I don’t follow your Cornelius statement. Where does it say Cornelius was exiled out of his country?

I didn't mean to say that I somehow know that he was among the Gentile Christians who were exiled from Israel back then. I meant that there were Gentile Christian who were exiled from Israel and I was just saying they were Gentile Christians as Cornelius was. I have no idea if Cornelius was among them who were exiled or not. I was just using him as an example of a Gentile Christian who lived in Israel.

-And I don’t take any view’s seriously that doesn’t consider how the OT prophets used world ending language to describe regional events.

I do consider that and understand they did that at times. But Peter was not an OT prophet and 2nd Peter is not a prophetic book, overall, like the books that those OT prophets wrote.

Other than the book of Revelation, things are mostly much more plainly stated in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament when it comes to prophecy. I consider the context of any given passage without making any assumptions. In the case of 2 Peter 3, the context is clearly in regards to a global event. Peter compared it directly to the global flood of Noah's day. He didn't compare a regional event to a global event.

 

[claninja]

So, by saying you believe they were his primary audience are you acknowledging that Gentiles were also part of his audience?


I don't understand this logic. For one thing, Paul did apply it spiritually to both Jew and Gentile believers, as Romans 9:24-26 makes clear. I would assume you are aware that Paul at other times applied things that may have seemed to only apply to Jews to Gentiles as well (Galatians 3:26-29, for example). So, what is the basis for thinking that Peter wouldn't have had the same understanding as Paul? He certainly was familiar with Paul's teachings (2 Peter 3:15-16). And, of course, they were both inspired by the Holy Spirit, so there's no reason to think they would not have had the same perspective on things while writing scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit.


I didn't mean to say that I somehow know that he was among the Gentile Christians who were exiled from Israel back then. I meant that there were Gentile Christian who were exiled from Israel and I was just saying they were Gentile Christians as Cornelius was. I have no idea if Cornelius was among them who were exiled or not. I was just using him as an example of a Gentile Christian who lived in Israel.


I do consider that and understand they did that at times. But Peter was not an OT prophet and 2nd Peter is not a prophetic book, overall, like the books that those OT prophets wrote.

Other than the book of Revelation, things are mostly much more plainly stated in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament when it comes to prophecy. I consider the context of any given passage without making any assumptions. In the case of 2 Peter 3, the context is clearly in regards to a global event. Peter compared it directly to the global flood of Noah's day. He didn't compare a regional event to a global event.

Correct, when you read through the book of acts, many synagogues throughout the Roman Empire were primarily Jewish, but did also have “God fearing” Greeks attending as well.

So, if Peter was was writing to the elect of the Diaspora, which meant the Hebrews amongst the nations, then his audience would have been primarily Jewish. And if his audience was primarily Jewish, his application of Hosea 1-2 was still appropriate because the context of the original passage is the 10 northern tribes becoming God’s people again.

I still don’t understand what you mean by Christian gentiles exiled from Israel? Can you give a scriptural or historical example of a gentile being exiled from Israel? I’ve never heard of this.

As to the heavens and earth, peter was quoting from an OT prophet - Isaiah 65. He isn’t making a new prophecy. You would have to argue that Isaiah 65 is literal and not poetic language.

As the global event, we have no evidence that a global flood ever took place. We do have evidence that a massive regional flood did occur, and this would have seemed like a “global”flood to those living in that area (hyperbolic world ending languaging was often used for regional events), especially considering their cosmological view. Any argument that requires the flood to be global, i really don’t take seriously due to lack of any real evidence.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Correct, when you read through the book of acts, many synagogues throughout the Roman Empire were primarily Jewish, but did also have “God fearing” Greeks attending as well.

So, if Peter was was writing to the elect of the Diaspora, which meant the Hebrews amongst the nations, then his audience would have been primarily Jewish. And if his audience was primarily Jewish, his application of Hosea 1-2 was still appropriate because the context of the original passage is the 10 northern tribes becoming God’s people again.

I still don’t understand what you mean by Christian gentiles exiled from Israel? Can you give a scriptural or historical example of a gentile being exiled from Israel? I’ve never heard of this.

As to the heavens and earth, peter was quoting from an OT prophet - Isaiah 65. He isn’t making a new prophecy. You would have to argue that Isaiah 65 is literal and not poetic language.

As the global event, we have no evidence that a global flood ever took place. We do have evidence that a massive regional flood did occur, and this would have seemed like a “global”flood to those living in that area (hyperbolic world ending languaging was often used for regional events), especially considering their cosmological view. Any argument that requires the flood to be global, i really don’t take seriously due to lack of any real evidence.

1 Peter 1:1-2 records: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers [Gr. parepidēmos] scattered [Gr. diaspora] throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”

When you read this letter, you quickly see that Peter addressees it to all believers without distinction (not just Jewish believers). He is speaking to God’s “elect.” His epistle is directed to the early Church who were spread throughout the nations, because of harsh, intense and widespread persecution. He describes God’s people as “the strangers.” The Greek word used here describes an alien, a foreigner and/or a pilgrim. That is exactly who the redeemed are on this earth. That is who we are today. Those who have no theological axe to grind, have no difficulty with this truth.

Because of the intense persecution Christians suffered at the hand of the Jews and the Roman authorities, he describes how these strangers were “scattered” [Gr. diaspora] throughout Europe and Asia. Just like Israel in the Old Testament, Christians found themselves the subject of hostility and persecution on this earth. That explains how the world was not their home.

This word diaspora therefore describes the lot of God’s people in either economy, not just the Old Testament.

 

[grafted branch]

When you read this letter, you quickly see that Peter addressees it to all believers without distinction (not just Jewish believers). He is speaking to God’s “elect.” His epistle is directed to the early Church who were spread throughout the nations, because of harsh, intense and widespread persecution. He describes God’s people as “the strangers.” The Greek word used here describes an alien, a foreigner and/or a pilgrim. That is exactly who the redeemed are on this earth. That is who we are today. Those who have no theological axe to grind, have no difficulty with this truth.

I have thought that the books written by Peter, James, and John were intended for a Jewish audience based on Galatians 2:9.

There is no biblical evidence that this agreement was changed, at least I can find any evidence. I’m not interested in debating you on this but can you give your reasoning as to when Peter started going to the Gentiles?

 

[claninja]

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers [Gr. parepidēmos] scattered [Gr. diaspora] throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

When you read this letter, you see that Peter sent it to believers (not just Jewish believers), who were spread throughout the nations, through harsh and widespread persecution. He describes God’s people as “the strangers.” It describes an alien, a foreigner and/or a pilgrim. That is exactly who the redeemed are on this earth. That is who we are today. Those who have no theological axe to grind, have no difficulty with this truth.

Because of the intense persecution Christians suffered at the hand of the Jews and the Roman authorities, he describes how these strangers were “scattered” [Gr. diaspora] throughout Europe and Asia. Just like Israel in the Old Testament, Christians found themselves the subject of hostility and persecution on this earth. That explains how the world was not their home.

This word diaspora therefore describes the lot of God’s people in either economy, not just the Old Testament.

Biblical usage of diaspora is in regards to the Jews amongst the Greeks.

“1290 (diaspora) is used figuratively of the Jews in NT times. They were literally scattered throughout the Roman empire (i.e. dispersed) and therefore called "the Diaspora."

[1290 (diasporá) properly refers to Israelites exiled to foreign lands, i.e. Jews residing outside of Palestine (see Jn 7:35).]”

 

[sovereigngrace]

Biblical usage of diaspora is in regards to the Jews amongst the Greeks.

“1290 (diaspora) is used figuratively of the Jews in NT times. They were literally scattered throughout the Roman empire (i.e. dispersed) and therefore called "the Diaspora."

[1290 (diasporá) properly refers to Israelites exiled to foreign lands, i.e. Jews residing outside of Palestine (see Jn 7:35).]”

Yes, and also NT believers. You are so fixed in your Preterism that it colors every passage you read. It is difficult engaging with you because you are so bias and unobjective. You are selective in choosing a Bible version that suits your error. You also leave out prime meanings of Hebrew and Greek words to skew your argument. This all exposes the error of your position.

1Pe 4:3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:
1Pe 4:4 Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:

1 Peter 2:9-10 declares, whilst addressing the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ, “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: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Peter takes this teaching, which was describing the Israel of God in the Old Testament, directly from Exodus 19, and applies it to the people of God in the New Testament. In doing so, he explains the continuity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Correct, when you read through the book of acts, many synagogues throughout the Roman Empire were primarily Jewish, but did also have “God fearing” Greeks attending as well.

So, if Peter was was writing to the elect of the Diaspora, which meant the Hebrews amongst the nations, then his audience would have been primarily Jewish. And if his audience was primarily Jewish, his application of Hosea 1-2 was still appropriate because the context of the original passage is the 10 northern tribes becoming God’s people again.

Primarily does not mean exclusively. It seems like you are dodging my point here. Do you or do you not believe that he was at least partly addressing Gentile believers regardless of whether or not he was primarily addressing Jewish believers?

I still don’t understand what you mean by Christian gentiles exiled from Israel? Can you give a scriptural or historical example of a gentile being exiled from Israel? I’ve never heard of this.

There were Gentile Christians living in Jerusalem when this happened:

Acts 8:1 On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.

It wasn't just Jewish Christians who were exiled at that time. Gentile Christians were as well. It wasn't a Jewish exile, it was a Christian exile. Since it was a Christian exile and not just a Jewish exile, then it makes sense that Gentile Christians were among those exiled to "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" as well as Jewish Christians.

As to the heavens and earth, peter was quoting from an OT prophet - Isaiah 65. He isn’t making a new prophecy. You would have to argue that Isaiah 65 is literal and not poetic language.

It is literal when it talks about the new heavens and new earth.

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Tell me what this means in a non-literal way. If this is not talking about a literal new heavens and new earth then what are "the former" that "shall not be remembered, not come into mind"?

Also, what prophecy was Peter quoting when he said the day of the Lord would come like a thief resulting in the burning up of the heavens, the earth and the elements? That isn't found in Isaiah 65.

As the global event, we have no evidence that a global flood ever took place.

No evidence? You have to be kidding me. It's sad that you don't consider scripture itself to be evidence.

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.....11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

This couldn't be more clear that God said He would destroy all people and all creatures on the earth. How can you say there is no evidence? How can you expect to be taken seriously with anything you say when you say something that blatantly contradicts scripture like this?

Peter confirmed that God destroyed everything on the earth with the flood:

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;

We do have evidence that a massive regional flood did occur, and this would have seemed like a “global”flood to those living in that area (hyperbolic world ending languaging was often used for regional events), especially considering their cosmological view. Any argument that requires the flood to be global, i really don’t take seriously due to lack of any real evidence.

Nonsense. Scripture itself is all the evidence we need. I don't take your view seriously since it blatantly ignores scripture.

 

[trophy33]

Well, it looks like you do understand. Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. You did not give this impression with what you said before. Oh well. Moving on....

If we both understand that saying "we" must include "us", then we may both see that Paul taught and the first church believed that at least some of them will be alive in the time of the coming.

Who is saying that will happen? Not me. So, why are you asking me that question? It's not a valid question to ask someone like me who does NOT believe that people will be calling on the name of the Lord after the last days. In my view, Jesus will return on the last of the last days and then time will end as we know it and eternity will be ushered in.

I was asking you this question because your argument about the verses was based on that presupposition.

Your interpretation of Revelation 1:1-3 is that it indicates that everything written about in the book was soon to happen, right? How does that correlate with Revelation 1:19 which indicates that John would write about past things, current things, ongoing things and future things in the book?

Future for him does not have to mean future for us.

Common sense. In terms of the ones Jesus was talking to at the time, most of them were probably at least in their 30s and most were probably older than that. By 70 AD most of them would have been at least 70. I believe the average life span was not nearly as long back then as it is now. So, it's just highly unlikely that most of them were even still alive in 70 AD.

If the Bible prophecised they will witness that, then its not so unlikely that they lived to 70. They just had to survive fights and wars, being soldiers.

You completely missed the point. When the word is used elsewhere in scripture it speaks of things that happen immediately after something else or very soon after. In terms of the book of Revelation, you believe the things written there happened at least a few years or so after it was written, right? A few years after does not fit the way the word is used in other verses. Please address this.

The context is self-explanatory. The "soon" means soon regarding to the world events in the book. Those events naturally do not happen in days or months, so being it 5 years, 10 years, 15 years is still working, in this context. If you argue that "soon" cannot last for example a decade, the favorite verse of futurists can be used here, too:

"The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
2Pt 3:9

I disagree that it was written before that, but we don't need to talk about that here. If it was written before the destruction of the temple, it certainly isn't Is it reasonable to think it was written very soon (as in days or weeks) before that since in that case I'm sure John would have wanted the book to have time to circulate to all the seven churches and such before those things happened, which would take some time (a number of months, at least, if not years). So, again, in terms of the word translated as "quickly" in those Revelation 22 verses, the destruction of the temple happening 2 or 3 years (or however long - even several months) after the book was written simply does not fit the definition of that word.

Again, the point is that the word "tachy", translated as "quickly" in those Revelation 22 verses, is not one that would be used to described something that was still 2 or 3 years off. Are you denying this? If so, look up for yourself how the word is used in other verses and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I think that your argument that "soon", regarding world events, cannot take for example a decade, is not a strong one. Usage in other verses in different contexts is not a law.

Matthew 28:5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly (tachy) and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”

Here, the angel was telling the women to immediately go and tell the disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead.

John 11:27 “Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” 28 After she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. “The Teacher is here,” she said, “and is asking for you.” 29 When Mary heard this, she got up quickly (tachy) and went to him.

In this verse the word again is used to described someone doing something immediately. In this case, Mary immediately went to see Jesus after Martha told her He was there.

Still the same answer I gave above. It depends on the context.

Why would Peter have said that if he was certain that Jesus was returning soon? That would make no sense.

If people (in those times) were using your argument - that soon cannot take some years - then it would make sense for Peter to exaggerate ("even thousand years..."). But again, this one verse cannot be used as some blank check for like 30 prophecies that the coming will happen in their lifes. They were genuinely expecting and teaching that, at least it seems so from the New Testament.

Its the nature of people that we can get impatient easily. It was something Jesus was warning His disciples about quite frequently, in parables.

And James adds:
"Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.
The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains.
You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.
Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door."
Jm 5:7-9

 

[claninja]

Yes, and also NT believers. You are so fixed in your Preterism that it colors every passage you read. It is difficult engaging with you because you are so bias and unobjective. You are selective in choosing a Bible version that suits your error. You also leave out prime meanings of Hebrew and Greek words to skew your argument. This all exposes the error of your position.

1Pe 4:3 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:
1Pe 4:4 Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you:

1 Peter 2:9-10 declares, whilst addressing the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ, “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: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.”

Peter takes this teaching, which was describing the Israel of God in the Old Testament, directly from Exodus 19, and applies it to the people of God in the New Testament. In doing so, he explains the continuity between the people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God in the New Testament.

Your argument of skewing meanings of the words is laughably hypocritical. At least I provide academic sources too back up that it is not my own personal definition change of a Greek word. You, on the other hand, are only ever able to provide your personal opinion based on your eschatological presuppositions. Still waiting on those scholarly sources that define “near”, in the perfect tense, the way you do………and now you have to change the biblical use of diaspora to suit your theological position…….but sure, please provide and academic or scholarly work that says diaspora, in Jewish literature doesn’t refer to the Jews amongst the Greeks……..though I won’t hold my breath based on previous experiences of you not being able to do this…..

Diaspora, IN THE CONTEXT OF JEWISH LITERATURE, means the Jews, outside of Israel, amongst the Greeks. The word’s origins is related to dispersion. Its USE in biblical literature is that of Israelites amongst the gentiles.

Strongs:
“diaspora: a dispersion (Isr. in Gentile countries)
Original Word: διασπορά, ᾶς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: diaspora
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-as-por-ah')
Definition: a dispersion (Israelites in Gentile countries)
Usage: lit: scattering abroad of seed by the sower, hence: dispersion, used especially of the Jews who had migrated and were scattered over the ancient world.”

Helps:
1290 diasporá (from 1223 /diá, "through," intensifying 4687 /speírō, "sow or scatter seed," which is the root of sperma, "seed") – properly, thoroughly scatter, distribute seed widely.

1290 (diaspora) is used figuratively of the Jews in NT times. They were literally scattered throughout the Roman empire (i.e. dispersed) and therefore called "the Diaspora."

[1290 (diasporá) properly refers to Israelites exiled to foreign lands, i.e. Jews residing outside of Palestine (see Jn 7:35).]

Thayers:
Transferred to Christians (i. e. JewishChristians )) scattered abroad among the Gentiles: James 1:1 (ἐν τῇ διασπορά, namely, οὖσι); παρεπίδημοί διασπορᾶςΠόντου, sojourners far away from home, in Pontus, 1 Peter 1:1

I have no idea, what your point is with 1 Peter 4? I agree that peters audience was at a past time like the gentiles: idolatry, lusts, etc……such was the case with the Jews living amongst the gentiles. We read about this a lot in the OT.

As to 1 Peter 2, right, peter takes a passage about the law and applies it to his audience, I agree. Not sure what the point is there. AND I do suggest re reading Hosea 1-2, which is about the norther kingdom OF ISRAEL becoming “not my people” but promised that one day they would again be his people. Peter is simply recognizing that promise the elect of the diaspora.

 

[trophy33]

Regarding the text from James:

"Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord.
The farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains.
You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near.
Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door."
Jm 5:7-9

The word "near" in the sentence "for the coming of the Lord is near":

HELPS Word-studies
1448 eggízō (from 1451 /eggýs, "near") – properly, has drawn close (come near). 1448 (eggízō) occurs 14 times in the Greek perfect tense (indicative mood) in the NT which expresses "extreme closeness, immediate imminence – even a presence...

 

[sovereigngrace]

Your argument of skewing meanings of the words is laughably hypocritical. At least I provide academic sources too back up that it is not my own personal definition change of a Greek word. You, on the other hand, are only ever able to provide your personal opinion based on your eschatological presuppositions. Still waiting on those scholarly sources that define “near”, in the perfect tense, the way you do………and now you have to change the biblical use of diaspora to suit your theological position…….but sure, please provide and academic or scholarly work that says diaspora, in Jewish literature doesn’t refer to the Jews amongst the Greeks……..though I won’t hold my breath based on previous experiences of you not being able to do this…..

Diaspora, IN THE CONTEXT OF JEWISH LITERATURE, means the Jews, outside of Israel, amongst the Greeks. The word’s origins is related to dispersion. Its USE in biblical literature is that of Israelites amongst the gentiles.

Strongs:
“diaspora: a dispersion (Isr. in Gentile countries)
Original Word: διασπορά, ᾶς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: diaspora
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-as-por-ah')
Definition: a dispersion (Israelites in Gentile countries)
Usage: lit: scattering abroad of seed by the sower, hence: dispersion, used especially of the Jews who had migrated and were scattered over the ancient world.”

Helps:
1290 diasporá (from 1223 /diá, "through," intensifying 4687 /speírō, "sow or scatter seed," which is the root of sperma, "seed") – properly, thoroughly scatter, distribute seed widely.

1290 (diaspora) is used figuratively of the Jews in NT times. They were literally scattered throughout the Roman empire (i.e. dispersed) and therefore called "the Diaspora."

[1290 (diasporá) properly refers to Israelites exiled to foreign lands, i.e. Jews residing outside of Palestine (see Jn 7:35).]

Thayers:
Transferred to Christians (i. e. JewishChristians )) scattered abroad among the Gentiles: James 1:1 (ἐν τῇ διασπορά, namely, οὖσι); παρεπίδημοί διασπορᾶςΠόντου, sojourners far away from home, in Pontus, 1 Peter 1:1

I have no idea, what your point is with 1 Peter 4? I agree that peters audience was at a past time like the gentiles: idolatry, lusts, etc……such was the case with the Jews living amongst the gentiles. We read about this a lot in the OT.

As to 1 Peter 2, right, peter takes a passage about the law and applies it to his audience, I agree. Not sure what the point is there. AND I do suggest re reading Hosea 1-2, which is about the norther kingdom OF ISRAEL becoming “not my people” but promised that one day they would again be his people. Peter is simply recognizing that promise the elect of the diaspora.

You don't address my arguments. You just relay what you have been taught. My previous posts rebut your arguments.

I present Scripture to support Scripture, which trumps your so-called authorities. We should be led by the Holy Spirit not man. I reject your selective and false interpretation.