Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

klutedavid · Nov 30, 2021

Timtofly said:
Are you agreeing then that 70AD was not an end? It would only be an end to a dispensation or age at best. Except that end was at the Cross in 30AD. There was definitely an end to millions of humans in 70AD.

As soon as the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was made desolate. The nation of Israel in 70 AD had been notified of that termination of the old covenant. The house of Israel had been left desolate.

Israel was no longer the chosen people. This was a seismic shift from the Old Testament, the old covenant, to a new covenant. The new covenant was from above and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ. Whereas the old covenant, based on the book of the law, was sprinkled with the blood of calves and goats.

Our salvation is entirely based on Jesus Christ and we are chosen by Him when we believe.

The nation of Israel did not believe in their messiah and were rejected by God.

The transition from a covenant based on obedience and law, i.e. works of the law. To a covenant based on the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, was an astounding transition.

parousia70 · Nov 30, 2021

klutedavid said:
The nation of Israel did not believe in their messiah and were rejected by God.

I would only add the caveat that the Remnant of Israel did believe.

In Elijah's era, the multitude of Israelites who worshiped the false god Baal was so great that faithful Israel narrowed to a mere seven thousand men (1 Kings 19:1-18; Rom 11:2-4) and the rest were excommunicated out of the Covenant forever. That faithful remnant at that time constituted ALL of God's covenanted Israel, and from that time forward ONLY the descendants of those 7000 were Gods Covenanted Israel. The rest, again, were cut off forever.

That's how God preserves His remnant in times of Great Apostasy.

That is what happened in the 1st century.

Israel survived *exclusively* in the sect of the Nazarenes. Like the 7000 in Elijah's day, "TRUE ISRAEL" was once again reduced to a tiny remnant, the faithful ones of the Nazarene sect, and they received with joy their promised New Covenant and obediently rejected all former biases against the non-Abrahamic families of earth so that Genesis 12:3 might finally be attained (Gal 3:7-9/Rom 4:13-18)---via the work of the Jewish Messiah.

The Rest, as in Elijah's day, were excommunicated out of Covenant with God, FOREVER.

jeffweedaman · Nov 30, 2021

klutedavid said:
As soon as the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was made desolate. The nation of Israel in 70 AD had been notified of that termination of the old covenant. The house of Israel had been left desolate.

Israel was no longer the chosen people. This was a seismic shift from the Old Testament, the old covenant, to a new covenant. The new covenant was from above and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ. Whereas the old covenant, based on the book of the law, was sprinkled with the blood of calves and goats.

Our salvation is entirely based on Jesus Christ and we are chosen by Him when we believe.

The nation of Israel did not believe in their messiah and were rejected by God.

The transition from a covenant based on obedience and law, i.e. works of the law. To a covenant based on the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, was an astounding transition.

Impressive post Thankyou. I enjoyed rereading it several times.

Bob_1000 · Dec 1, 2021

klutedavid said:
As soon as the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was made desolate. The nation of Israel in 70 AD had been notified of that termination of the old covenant. The house of Israel had been left desolate.

Israel was no longer the chosen people. This was a seismic shift from the Old Testament, the old covenant, to a new covenant. The new covenant was from above and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ. Whereas the old covenant, based on the book of the law, was sprinkled with the blood of calves and goats.

Our salvation is entirely based on Jesus Christ and we are chosen by Him when we believe.

The nation of Israel did not believe in their messiah and were rejected by God.

The transition from a covenant based on obedience and law, i.e. works of the law. To a covenant based on the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, was an astounding transition.

The covenant of grace was given before the law and the law didn't disannul it so actually none of the Old Testament believers in Christ were under the old covenant. Those people who believed in Christ were God's chosen people, the flesh descendants never were his chosen people.

grafted branch · Dec 1, 2021

Bob_1000 said:
Those people who believed in Christ were God's chosen people, the flesh descendants never were his chosen people.

What are you doing with verses such as Deuteronomy 14:2? This verse seems to indicate that Israel as a nation was a chosen people.

Bob_1000 · Dec 1, 2021

grafted branch said:
What are you doing with verses such as Deuteronomy 14:2? This verse seems to indicate that Israel as a nation was a chosen people.

I agree, and it appears that way many times throughout the Old Testament but God's chosen people are only those that obey God's voice and keeps his covenant. Some Jews did that while some Jews didn't.

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

Hammster · Dec 1, 2021

grafted branch said:
What are you doing with verses such as Deuteronomy 14:2? This verse seems to indicate that Israel as a nation was a chosen people.

They were a covenant people. Covenants have both blessings and cursings.

grafted branch · Dec 1, 2021

Bob_1000 said:
I agree, and it appears that way many times throughout the Old Testament but God's chosen people are only those that obey God's voice and keeps his covenant. Some Jews did that while some Jews didn't.

Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:

So my next question is this, when we see the word “saints” in Revelation 13:7, would you say that this word is being used in a similar way?

Can “saints “be referring to a group of people that comprise both believers and unbelievers?

The reason I ask is because they are overcome by the beast but according to Revelation 12:11 they can overcome by the blood of the Lamb. So to me it would appear that some saints can indeed overcome the beast while apparently some saints will be overcome by the beast.

This seems similar to the statement they are not all Israel who are of Israel. What are your thoughts on this?

Bob_1000 · Dec 1, 2021

grafted branch said:
So my next question is this, when we see the word “saints” in Revelation 13:7, would you say that this word is being used in a similar way?

Can “saints “be referring to a group of people that comprise both believers and unbelievers?

The reason I ask is because they are overcome by the beast but according to Revelation 12:11 they can overcome by the blood of the Lamb. So to me it would appear that some saints can indeed overcome the beast while apparently some saints will be overcome by the beast.

This seems similar to the statement they are not all Israel who are of Israel. What are your thoughts on this?

I've never noticed 2 types of saints in the bible like "not all Israel (1) who are of Israel(2) so I would think saints are believers in Christ but I could be wrong. To be honest I haven't put much thought into that and I've always assumed it was true believers.

grafted branch · Dec 1, 2021

Bob_1000 said:
I've never noticed 2 types of saints in the bible like "not all Israel (1) who are of Israel(2) so I would think saints are believers in Christ but I could be wrong. To be honest I haven't put much thought into that and I've always assumed it was true believers.

I tend to think the law is a type of beast, and since I tend to be preterist I think it’s the law that overcame Israel as a nation.

I know there are some here who think that a person can loose their salvation but If saints (true believers) can never be overcome because they have the blood of the Lamb then the beast in Revelation 13 can’t be future to us.

Just a thought for those who aren’t preterist.

Timtofly · Dec 2, 2021

myst33 said:
You are taking prophecies too literally. Thats why it will be still future for you, even after a million years.

Thanks for allowing me to live that long. I think you are slightly off in your symbolism.

Timtofly · Dec 2, 2021

jgr said:
No?

“All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17 Bellarmine (1542-1621), a professor and rector at the Jesuit Gregorian University in Rome, is generally considered to have been one of the outstanding Jesuit instructors in the history of this organization.

“The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II” (Ferraris was an Italian Catholic canonist and consultor to the Holy Office in Rome.)

“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

Are you post mill?

Timtofly · Dec 2, 2021

parousia70 said:
So the phrase "the end of all things" is contextual for the futurist? it doesnt really, LITERALLY mean the "end of all things"?

I guess when Futurists declare "the end of all things" doesnt literally mean the end of "ALL" things, it's OK, but when Preterists do it, it's wrong?

Can you point out the end of all things has already happened? The end of computers has not, as we are still posting our thoughts back and forth.

Timtofly · Dec 2, 2021

parousia70 said:
Got scripture for that?

My Bible says the way into God's Heaven was not opened until the Temple fell.
Hebrews 9:8

None. that's my point. Why do you imply the results of the GWTJ were available to the Christian at the Cross?

Until 1 Corinthians 15:55-56 and Revelation 20:12-15 are FULFILLED, ALL the Dead Go to Hades, Righteous and Wicked, Separated by a gulf, but encompassed in Hades.
Hades is not emptied by any means besides JUDGEMENT.
Yet, millions upon millions of supposedly "reasonable" Christians believe Hades (at least the righteous side) is empty today and the Righteous, at least, are presently enjoying the Results of a Judgment that has yet to occur...

Scripture for that?

My Bible confirms that Earthly Jerusalem, by Divine right and calling, was already the preeminent city among all nations. The Biblical understanding of Jerusalem is that she is the "Chief of the nations" (Jeremiah 31:7; Ez 5:5), the Queen city of the earth (Lam 1:1/Rev 18:7). She, by Divine right and covenant, was appointed as the head of all nations (Deut 26:19; Deut 15:6; Deut 28:1,10-13), and the gentile kings recognized God's dwelling was at Jerusalem with the Hebrews (1 Ki 10:24; Luke 11:31; Ezra 1:2; Dan 2:47, 3:28-29, 4:1-3, 4:17, 4:34-37; Ezra 1; Ezra 4-7; Ezra 7:15,23).

The Governor of all nations (Ps. 22:28) lived in Jerusalem in his House (Ez 7:15,23), and all the kingdom, power and might over earth was His (1 Chron 29:11-12). Indeed, all kings receive their power to rule from that Divine King (Rom 13:1-2,6; John 19:11; 1 Pet 2:13-14,17; Ez 1:2; Dan 1:1-2; Dan 2:20-21; Dan 2:37-38; Dan 2:47, Dan 3:28-29; Dan 4:1-3,17,34-37.).

What Power over the Church do you claim the unsaved presently have?

Is it your claim that one day the unsaved will get to share in Christ's victory over Sin and Death?
What scripture teaches that?

Scripture DOES teach that Christ Jesus, and the Church which is His Body, Rules over ALL THINGS right now.

Matthew 16:18, Revelation 1:5, Matthew 28:18, Colossians 1:16-20, 1 Peter 3:22

Circular Reasoning based solely on speculation.

Hebrews 9:8 is not about Christ. The writer was comparing the two. The Holy Spirit only worked when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year. That was a yearly phenomenon, showing the difference between the outer court and the inner court. The Holy Spirit always worked on the individual level. It was not tied up in the Law of Moses.

Are you saying the few years of success Solomon had are your only example?

The judgment that freed those from Abraham's bosom was the Cross. In fact the only judgment of Atonement was the Cross. Is that not what the book of Hebrews points out? You used that argument on the first point of this post, no?

That is why the GWT is not even comparable to the Cross. Those souls in sheol since Adam brought sin into the world rejected the Atonement of the Cross. They are not covered by that judgment. That is why they stand dead before the GWT.

The point is not about having power at all. That is the argument of amil and post mill. They use life on earth to alledge Christ's authority. Christ does have all authority despite life on earth. We do not need examples of sinful humans to prove that. If any human thinks they have authority outside of the Holy Spirit, they are missing the point.

trophy33 · Dec 2, 2021

Timtofly said:
Thanks for allowing me to live that long. I think you are slightly off in your symbolism.

Again, taking it too literally

Timtofly · Dec 2, 2021

klutedavid said:
As soon as the temple was destroyed and Jerusalem was made desolate. The nation of Israel in 70 AD had been notified of that termination of the old covenant. The house of Israel had been left desolate.

Israel was no longer the chosen people. This was a seismic shift from the Old Testament, the old covenant, to a new covenant. The new covenant was from above and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ. Whereas the old covenant, based on the book of the law, was sprinkled with the blood of calves and goats.

Our salvation is entirely based on Jesus Christ and we are chosen by Him when we believe.

The nation of Israel did not believe in their messiah and were rejected by God.

The transition from a covenant based on obedience and law, i.e. works of the law. To a covenant based on the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, was an astounding transition.

I accept the Cross was more powerful than what the Romans did in 70AD.

Your choice seems to be made though. Those first century Jews may have thought like you did, but God removed the veil from the Holy of Holies, in 30AD, and declared, "It is finished" on the Cross. That was God's Atonement. That was God's final judgment call against sin. Those who reject that Atonement will stand at the GWT. Those who reject 70AD was the point of desolation, just miss an historical footnote. The spiritual desolation was already in place.

If you think that Paul sacrificing in the Temple is proof that God was still was around, would not Paul's act be a conflict of interest? Paul claimed he was all things to all men. That was Paul's ability, but it does not mean the Atonement of the Cross was null and void for 40 years. The temple was rendered useless by the Cross. 70AD was the result of the high priest going rogue. That desolation was felt in Jerusalem way before 70AD. If the Jews had controlled their emotions, 70AD would never have happened. They self fulfilled any prophecy themselves, because they were already desolate.

Jesus' words were as much a warning as a prophecy. So which temple being torn down Atoned for sins? If history had been different, and Jerusalem remained in tact, it would have only meant, the Jews did understand who their Messiah was. They may have even dismantled their temple on their own, instead of witnessing the blood shed of millions. Daniel said in his 9th chapter they would do it. The Romans never had to be involved at all, yet the Jews failed, and millions of lives destroyed in the process.

Timtofly · Dec 2, 2021

grafted branch said:
So my next question is this, when we see the word “saints” in Revelation 13:7, would you say that this word is being used in a similar way?

Can “saints “be referring to a group of people that comprise both believers and unbelievers?

The reason I ask is because they are overcome by the beast but according to Revelation 12:11 they can overcome by the blood of the Lamb. So to me it would appear that some saints can indeed overcome the beast while apparently some saints will be overcome by the beast.

This seems similar to the statement they are not all Israel who are of Israel. What are your thoughts on this?

Overcome has too many connotations to be held to the same meaning in every instance.

The only humans overcome in Revelation 13:7 are the 144k. They retreat to Mt. Zion during the 42 months. The only 2 witnesses face Satan during those 42 months. The 2 witnesses are overcome at the end and their bodies lay dead in the street of Jerusalem for 3.5 days. Then resurrected and taken to heaven.

In both cases overcome does not mean they stopped being redeemed. The 144k did not even die. They were sealed not to die. They left the earth, because the 2 witnesses took over.

Trying to symbolize these two different groups and claim people loose their redemption is the wrong approach. John never explains these events as necessary to make some spiritual point. They are written as literal events and will literally happen.

Those who endure to the end, is not saying those people have to live until a certain event. It is talking about any human in the past 1991years, who remained faithful until their physical body ended. It is an individual goal, not a corporate goal for all people to live through the same event. Where some would not make it and others would. Even individuals can give up. That is why we are told not to. The point being some do not even understand the gospel to begin with, thus never give up, they just loose interest in figuring out the gospel message.

Is it possible for any one to remove themselves from the grace of God? Paul says, nothing can. So the point has to be, that many just never accept that Grace, not that they can ever loose it.

Timtofly · Dec 2, 2021

grafted branch said:
I tend to think the law is a type of beast, and since I tend to be preterist I think it’s the law that overcame Israel as a nation.

I know there are some here who think that a person can loose their salvation but If saints (true believers) can never be overcome because they have the blood of the Lamb then the beast in Revelation 13 can’t be future to us.

Just a thought for those who aren’t preterist.

Not a good analogy to claim Revelation 13 is in the past. It cannot work in any time frame period, if that is your point. How can it be true in the past, but not true in the future? If you claim it cannot be true in the future, then it cannot be true in the past either. Time has nothing to do with it being true or not.

Satan has never had 42 months rule that was utter desolation. No one ever recorded even meeting Satan and lived to tell about it. Those future 42 months has Satan literally physically in control in Jerusalem. All humanity knows it as it happens. Not some past historical cover up.

Timtofly · Dec 2, 2021

myst33 said:
Again, taking it too literally

Do you not take your life as literal? Perhaps you are being too symbolic, and can find a happy literal point to agree on?

jgr · Dec 2, 2021

Timtofly said:
Are you post mill?

Amil.

Preterism, both full & partial, are false.

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads