Amillennialism & Preterism - Are these Biblical, or not?

[Oseas]

Isaiah 33:1-14

10 Now will I rise, saith the Lord; now will I be exalted; now will I lift up myself.

11 Ye shall conceive chaff, ye shall bring forth stubble: your breath, as fire, shall devour you.

12 And the people shall be as the burnings of lime: as thorns cut up shall they be burned in the fire.

13 Hear, ye that are far off, what I have done; and, ye that are near, acknowledge my might.

14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?

 

[Oseas]

 

[Josheb]

Hello folks. How many of you guys think that Amil and Preterism are anti-Christian? Many Christians believe that Amillennialism and Preterism are false teachings due to their disagreement with a literal interpretation of certain end-time events described in the Bible. Here's why:

1. Amillennialism: This view denies the future millennium as a period of earthly bliss, which is often considered anti-Christian because it goes against several passages that describe this time explicitly (Revelation 20:1-7). For instance, verse 6 (NIV) says, "Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years." This suggests a literal millennium where believers will reign with Christ on earth.
2. Preterism: Preterists believe that most or all of the prophecies about the end times were fulfilled by events prior to A.D. 70, which is problematic because many passages in Revelation (such as chapters 6-19) clearly depict future events yet to come. For example, Revelation 20:4 (NIV) says, "I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God." This verse suggests a future event where believers will be martyred for their faith.

These interpretations can lead people away from a literal understanding of biblical prophecy and potentially undermine the hope that Christians have in Christ's return and the establishment of His kingdom on earth, which is central to Christian belief. For more detailed information about these views, you may want to refer to works such as "2000 Years of Christ’s Power" by Nick R. Needham (specifically chapters discussing millennialism).

This op is utter hogwash and was likely garnered from biased sources that were prejudiced against views more historical and orthodox than modern futurism.

Yes, amillennialism and (partial-)preterism are biblical. Amillennialism developed and was formalized at a time when there weren't centuries of post-canonical theological commentary by which to measure it. It was the prevailed doctrinal perspective in Christianity for more than 1600 years (and remains so today). It is modern futurism that is the statistical and normative outlier and the eschatologies that abuse scripture.

As far as preterism goes, ALL Christians are preterist to one degree or another!!! To be a Christian is to be a messianic, or Christological preterist, and not just partially so, but fully so. Christians believe ALL the messianic prophecies of the OT are fulfilled in Jesus. That is what makes us Christians. There will not be two Christs. There's not going to be any other guy (or gal) coming along to again fulfill the OT Christological prophecies. Jesus is that guy. People who do not believe Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, God's anointed one who by his life, death, and resurrection is the sole propitiation for our sin..... they are not Christians! To be a Christian is to be Christologically preterist.

Which means.....

Teacher and preachers who criticize preterism and do not make correct and appropriate distinctions are lying by omission. They are false teachers and that immediately disqualifies them from having any position of authority and anything authoritative to say on the subject . Then, by extension, the inconvenient truth that follows that reality is that otherwise earnest and devout Christians who did not critically examine the above have made themselves part of the problem to be solved by their own lack of due diligence. The result is ideological adherence to doctrine, not sound beliefs based on accurate knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

These interpretations can lead people away from a literal understanding of biblical prophecy and potentially undermine the hope....

Do you see the contradiction in that sentence? A literal reading and a literal understanding of scripture do not require "interpretation"!

For example, if and when the opening of Revelation is read literally, the events described in the rest of the book are to be understood as coming quickly because the time was at hand in the first century. The literal reading of the text would lead to a preterist conclusion (the events have already happened). A literal reading of verse 1:19 would mean much of Revelation had already happened prior to the book being written because it was events John had already seen, and much of the book was happening at the time of his writing because they were "the things that are." Again, the literal reading, the literal reading without any added or embellished "interpretation," is that much contained tin the book are events John had already seen and things that were occurring at the time of Revelation's visions occurring.

No one cannot read something literally AND interpret it to say or mean anything other than what it literally states.

Revelation 1:1-3
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

Revelation 1:19
Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

What if those verses are actually read literally and not interpretations, especially not eschatologically biased interpretations, especially not any eschatologically biased interpretations invented in the 19th century, were added?

Well, if that happened then everyone would be preterist to one degree or another.

 

[parousia70]

First of all, the Lord of the Vineyard is the Father, not the Son.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

The Son is also The owner of the vineyard
Matthew 21:38

Also, the kingdom was taken from unbelieving Jews and given to the church before 70 AD. The book of Romans was written before 70 AD and Paul wrote in Romans 11 that unbelieving Israelites had been blinded and cut off of the good olive tree (representing the kingdom of God) already at that point. And Gentile believers had been grafted in already at that point. So, your understanding of Matthew 21:43 is flawed.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Notice that Jesus was relating what He said in verse 43 directly to what He said in verse 42. So, the timing of the kingdom of God being taken away from the chief priests and Pharisees relates directly to when the stone the builders rejected became the cornerstone. When did Jesus become the cornerstone of the church? Upon His death and resurrection. If you read Ephesians 2:19-22, which also was written before 70 AD, it describes the church as already being built with Jesus Christ as its cornerstone and the apostles and prophets as its foundation.

For sure, the AD 70 Day of the Lord was executed by Christ the Lord God. Jesus said he was the Stone that crushed them (Matt 21:40-45). Jesus said they were to suffer that fate because they insulted God's Visitation (Lk 19:40-44). Jesus said those were the Days of Vengeance (Lk 21:20-22).

We've had this discussion before, but for our readers sake if nothing else, this bears repeating:

The Lord of the Vineyard indeed came and Jesus is the Stone that did come and grind them to powder as He removed the Kingdom of God from them (Matthew 21:40-45).

According to Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 21:40-45, the Lord of the Vineyard would "come destroy those miserable men," which you agree speaks of AD 70. And in coming and destroying those miserable men, he "took the Kingdom away from them and gave it to a new nation." At THAT Coming, Christ the Stone "fell on them and scattered them to dust," and the chief priests and Pharisees "recognized Jesus spoke these words concerning them." That just couldn't be more clearly prophesied.

Jesus "the Rock" fell upon them at AD 70 and ground them to powder:

"On whomsoever it [the Rock] shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them." (Mt 21:44-45).

It doesn't get any plainer than this for us.

Attempting to change the parable to make "Jesus the Stone" NOT be who came and ground them to powder at that time - as you are attempting - is, again, scripturally unfounded.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.

The Son is also The owner of the vineyard
Matthew 21:38

Weak response. It says the owner of the vineyard specifically is the one who would destroy the wicked tenants. The owner is God the Father who is differentiated from the son in the parable.

For sure, the AD 70 Day of the Lord was executed by Christ the Lord God. Jesus said he was the Stone that crushed them (Matt 21:40-45). Jesus said they were to suffer that fate because they insulted God's Visitation (Lk 19:40-44). Jesus said those were the Days of Vengeance (Lk 21:20-22).

God the Father had them destroyed because of their rejection of His Son, but that doesn't mean Jesus Himself came there to destroy them. That is false.

We've had this discussion before, but for our readers sake if nothing else, this bears repeating:

The Lord of the Vineyard indeed came and Jesus is the Stone that did come and grind them to powder as He removed the Kingdom of God from them (Matthew 21:40-45).

According to Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 21:40-45, the Lord of the Vineyard would "come destroy those miserable men," which you agree speaks of AD 70. And in coming and destroying those miserable men, he "took the Kingdom away from them and gave it to a new nation." At THAT Coming, Christ the Stone "fell on them and scattered them to dust," and the chief priests and Pharisees "recognized Jesus spoke these words concerning them." That just couldn't be more clearly prophesied.

Jesus "the Rock" fell upon them at AD 70 and ground them to powder:

"On whomsoever it [the Rock] shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them." (Mt 21:44-45).

It doesn't get any plainer than this for us.

Attempting to change the parable to make "Jesus the Stone" NOT be who came and ground them to powder at that time - as you are attempting - is, again, scripturally unfounded.

Why did you not address what I said about your statements regarding Matthew 21:42-43?

You said this:

The Bible, and therefore preterism, teaches that Christ took the kingdom from the Jews, and gave it to the church at the Coming of the Lord of the Vineyard, who is the holy nation that bears it's fruits.
(Matt 21:43, 1Peter 2:9)

I said this:

First of all, the Lord of the Vineyard is the Father, not the Son. Also, the kingdom was taken from unbelieving Jews and given to the church before 70 AD. The book of Romans was written before 70 AD and Paul wrote in Romans 11 that unbelieving Israelites had been blinded and cut off of the good olive tree (representing the kingdom of God) already at that point. And Gentile believers had been grafted in already at that point. So, your understanding of Matthew 21:43 is flawed.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Notice that Jesus was relating what He said in verse 43 directly to what He said in verse 42. So, the timing of the kingdom of God being taken away from the chief priests and Pharisees relates directly to when the stone the builders rejected became the cornerstone. When did Jesus become the cornerstone of the church? Upon His death and resurrection. If you read Ephesians 2:19-22, which also was written before 70 AD, it describes the church as already being built with Jesus Christ as its cornerstone and the apostles and prophets as its foundation.

Can you please actually address this and some of the other points I made in my post that you didn't address here? I showed how the kingdom of God was taken from the chief priests and Pharisees BEFORE 70 AD because they were blinded and cut off from the kingdom of God BEFORE 70 AD, and you respond with silence about that. So, can you please address it now?

 

[claninja]

Weak response. It says the owner of the vineyard specifically is the one who would destroy the wicked tenants. The owner is God the Father who is differentiated from the son in the parable.


God the Father had them destroyed because of their rejection of His Son, but that doesn't mean Jesus Himself came there to destroy them. That is false.


Why did you not address what I said about your statements regarding Matthew 21:42-43?

You said this:



I said this:

First of all, the Lord of the Vineyard is the Father, not the Son. Also, the kingdom was taken from unbelieving Jews and given to the church before 70 AD. The book of Romans was written before 70 AD and Paul wrote in Romans 11 that unbelieving Israelites had been blinded and cut off of the good olive tree (representing the kingdom of God) already at that point. And Gentile believers had been grafted in already at that point. So, your understanding of Matthew 21:43 is flawed.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? 43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.

Notice that Jesus was relating what He said in verse 43 directly to what He said in verse 42. So, the timing of the kingdom of God being taken away from the chief priests and Pharisees relates directly to when the stone the builders rejected became the cornerstone. When did Jesus become the cornerstone of the church? Upon His death and resurrection. If you read Ephesians 2:19-22, which also was written before 70 AD, it describes the church as already being built with Jesus Christ as its cornerstone and the apostles and prophets as its foundation.

Can you please actually address this and some of the other points I made in my post that you didn't address here? I showed how the kingdom of God was taken from the chief priests and Pharisees BEFORE 70 AD because they were blinded and cut off from the kingdom of God BEFORE 70 AD, and you respond with silence about that. So, can you please address it now?

Parable:
“Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. 34When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servantsc to the tenants to get his fruit. 35And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. 37Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ 39And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

Explanation:
42Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;d
this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. 44And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”e

In the explanation of the parable, what does the destroying? The stone. Who would you say is the stone?

 

[Aaron112]

A lot of errors were incorporated in the first few centuries, 1700 years or so ago.

Thy Will, Not Ours

You may recall Jesus said His Kingdom was not of this world. Creating a kingdom here using God as an excuse is not the same as paving the way for the Kingdom to come, a Kingdom that operates on principles opposite to the will and ways of man...

www.christianforums.com

i.e. the thread op/title would not even be considered by the true believers.

 

[Oseas]

THE SUDDEN COMING OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD
The invitation made to John around 2000 years ago is extendable to all people now on this seventh and last Day, and you will know better what will and must happen from now on, on this seventh and last Day, the Day of the Lord. Revelation 11:15 and 19:-->15 The kingdoms OF THIS WORLD are become the Kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.
-->19 And the temple of GOD was opened in heaven(heaven?Ephesians 1:3-8), and there was seen in His temple the Ark of His Testament: and there were(will be) lightnings, and VOICES, and thunderings, and an earthquake(Revelation 16:18), and great hail.
Luke 13:29
29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the Kingdom of GOD.
Come up hither, yeah, come up hither, unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not...it will be a waste of time to want to buy now(Matthew 25:10), the bridegroom has come and shut the door, the door is shut(Luke 13:25 combined with Revelation 3:7), and he that was /is ready goes in with Him to the marriage: and the door is closed-->for ever.
Lord, Lord, open to us. Oh Lord, open to us, open to us... Lord, Oh Lord ...open...

Luke 13:25-27
25 When once the Master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he answers and says unto you, I know you not whence ye are:
26 And ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.

Lord, Lord, open to us. Oh Lord, open to us, open to us... Lord, Oh Lord ...open...

 

[sovereigngrace]

Problem with preterism and postmillnialism view is that the book of revelation was written in year 95, at the end of Emperor Domitian'a reign. Early churchfathers affirm this date.

Just reading chapter 11 we know it possible couldn't gave yet happened. The two witnesses were not in Jerusalem yet, doing all the things that are described in the book.

According to Amilleniallism, if I understand correctly, is that God's Kingdom is already here. Then why do Christians pray in Lord's prayer for God's kingdom to come. So which is it?

And satan is not bound yet, no way.

The kingdom is here spiritual. Many balanced Premils believe that, especially those from the Reformed camp. It just hasn't arrived in all it's full and final glory. Most sane theologians agree with that.

Christ shows in His teaching when the binding of Satan began - 2000 years ago. Your hyper-literal approach will not allow that.

1. Do you believe Satan and his minions are physical beings?
2. Is the dragon in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical dragon?
3. Is the serpent in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical serpent?
4. Do you believe Satan literally has 7 heads and 7 necks?
5. Is the key mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal door key?
6. Is the chain mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal chain?
7. Is the prison mentioned in Revelation 20:7 a literal brick prison?
8. Do you believe demons need to be detained in a literal physical prison with literal metal chains in order to be restrained?
9. Can a prisoner in a prison have great wrath while in chains?
10. Does imprisonment mean immobility?
11. Does it mean a prisoner cannot do harm?
12. Can a dog on a chain walk or roam about?
13. Can a prisoner in a prison walk or roam about?
14. Does a prisoner have the ability to kill, steal, destroy, rape and embezzle in prison?

 

[Oseas]

The kingdom is here spiritual. Many balanced Premils believe that, especially those from the Reformed camp. It just hasn't arrived in all it's full and final glory. Most sane theologians agree with that.

Christ shows in His teaching when the binding of Satan began - 2000 years ago. Your hyper-literal approach will not allow that.

1. Do you believe Satan and his minions are physical beings?
2. Is the dragon in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical dragon?
3. Is the serpent in Revelation 20:2 a literal physical serpent?
4. Do you believe Satan literally has 7 heads and 7 necks?
5. Is the key mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal door key?
6. Is the chain mentioned in Revelation 20:1 a literal metal chain?
7. Is the prison mentioned in Revelation 20:7 a literal brick prison?
8. Do you believe demons need to be detained in a literal physical prison with literal metal chains in order to be restrained?
9. Can a prisoner in a prison have great wrath while in chains?
10. Does imprisonment mean immobility?
11. Does it mean a prisoner cannot do harm?
12. Can a dog on a chain walk or roam about?
13. Can a prisoner in a prison walk or roam about?
14. Does a prisoner have the ability to kill, steal, destroy, rape and embezzle in prison?

See the difference of Satan from Adam's time and Satan of the current time​

If we compare the generation of the time of Adam, when the children of GOD were still before the Lord and Satan among them, going to and fro on the earth, and walking up and down on it; with the Christian generations, after the Ministry of JESUS, that is, to compare with the generations of the children of the children of GOD according to John 1:12-13, among other references; then I would like to point out that there is an immense difference between how or what the Devil, the old Serpent, was in that ancient time, and how or what he is today. In fact, the difference is very, very great.

See the difference of Satan from Adam's time and Satan of the current time

If we compare the generation of Adam's time, when the sons of GOD were still before the Lord and Satan among them going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it; with the Christians generations, after the Ministry of JESUS, i.e. to compare with the generations of the sons of...

purebibleforum.com

 

[Ed Parenteau]

13 The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14 How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

The problem for your view are the verbs; "sanctify" in the present tense and "cleanse" in the future tense. That shows that the law was still binding including the temple sacrifices until the temple was destroyed which made the keeping of the whole law impossible. This corroborates what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
The temple therefore equates with "heaven and earth".

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Parable:
“Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard and put a fence around it and dug a winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. 34When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servantsc to the tenants to get his fruit. 35And the tenants took his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. 36Again he sent other servants, more than the first. And they did the same to them. 37Finally he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38But when the tenants saw the son, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and have his inheritance.’ 39And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

Explanation:
42Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:
“‘The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;d
this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. 44And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.”e

In the explanation of the parable, what does the destroying? The stone. Who would you say is the stone?

You just want to keep getting around how it specifically says that the owner of the vineyard will destroy the tenants. Why? Because of their rejection of his son. Yes, Jesus is the stone, of course, but it very specifically says the owner of the vineyard, who represents God the Father, would be the one doing the actual destroying of His enemies.

Did you not read everything I said about this? I pointed out that the kingdom of God was taken from the unbelieving Israelites like the chief priests and Pharisees that Jesus was talking to in the parable well before 70 AD already. How can you not be aware of that?

The following, which was written well before 70 AD, thoroughly disproves the notion that the kingdom of God wasn't taken from them until 70 AD.

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.....17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

So, the natural olive tree (Paul calls it's branches "natural branches"), which some call the good olive tree, represents the kingdom of God. Some of the natural branches, which represent individual Israelites, were broken off "because of unbelief". So, they had the kingdom of God taken from them. Who was it given to? A wild olive tree had some of its branches grafted in to the natural olive tree which represented Gentile believers joining Israelite believers in the kingdom of God as other scripture talks about as well. And, of course, that happened by way of the shed blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:11-22). So, what Jesus said would happen began happening already right after His death and resurrection. Only those with faith were in the kingdom of God at that point and those who did not believe were broken off and had the kingdom of God taken from them. The parable in Matthew 21 should be understood accordingly.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

The problem for your view are the verbs; "sanctify" in the present tense and "cleanse" in the future tense. That shows that the law was still binding including the temple sacrifices until the temple was destroyed which made the keeping of the whole law impossible. This corroborates what Jesus said in Matthew 5:17Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. 18For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
The temple therefore equates with "heaven and earth".

This is complete nonsense and contradicts the following, amongst many other scriptures:

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

If the law was still binding after Christ's death and resurrection, then why did Paul say this to the Galatians who were foolishly trying to put themselves under the curse of the law:

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

What you're saying blatantly contradicts what Paul wrote here. Immediately after the death and resurrection of Christ, Israelite believers were set free from the curse of the law of Moses. Why was it a curse? Because "cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" and "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God". If someone broke even one of the 613 commandments in the law of Moses then they were guilty of breaking them all (James 2:10). Jesus set them free from that because salvation is by grace through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-10).

 

[claninja]

You just want to keep getting around how it specifically says that the owner of the vineyard will destroy the tenants. Why? Because of their rejection of his son. Yes, Jesus is the stone, of course, but it very specifically says the owner of the vineyard, who represents God the Father, would be the one doing the actual destroying of His enemies.

Did you not read everything I said about this? I pointed out that the kingdom of God was taken from the unbelieving Israelites like the chief priests and Pharisees that Jesus was talking to in the parable well before 70 AD already. How can you not be aware of that?

The following, which was written well before 70 AD, thoroughly disproves the notion that the kingdom of God wasn't taken from them until 70 AD.

Romans 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying, 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. 7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.....17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

So, the natural olive tree (Paul calls it's branches "natural branches"), which some call the good olive tree, represents the kingdom of God. Some of the natural branches, which represent individual Israelites, were broken off "because of unbelief". So, they had the kingdom of God taken from them. Who was it given to? A wild olive tree had some of its branches grafted in to the natural olive tree which represented Gentile believers joining Israelite believers in the kingdom of God as other scripture talks about as well. And, of course, that happened by way of the shed blood of Christ (Ephesians 2:11-22). So, what Jesus said would happen began happening already right after His death and resurrection. Only those with faith were in the kingdom of God at that point and those who did not believe were broken off and had the kingdom of God taken from them. The parable in Matthew 21 should be understood accordingly.

the parable in Matthew 21:40-41 states that the vineyard is taken away from the wicked tenants WHEN the vineyard owner comes to destroy them. But you seem to be trying to get around that part by providing Romans 11 for some reason.

Romans 11:9 does mention a stumbling block in regards to rejecting Christ, which is similar to the explanation of the stumbling stone that breaks to pieces those that fall on it. Matthew 21:44a.

But I’m talking about Matthew 21:44b (and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.) and its application to the parable in Matthew 21:41-42. Who is the stone that crushes on whomever It falls and how is this related to the parable? Or Is Matthew 22:44b completely unrelated to the parable?

Edit: I don’t deny that the parable states the vineyard owner destroys the wicked tenants - I just think that Matthew 21:44b elaborates Christs role in that.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

the parable in Matthew 21:40-41 states that the vineyard is taken away from the wicked tenants WHEN the vineyard owner comes to destroy them. But you seem to be trying to get around that part by providing Romans 11 for some reason.

For some reason? The reason is clear. Jesus is not saying that the process of the kingdom being taken from them does not begin until then. Paul very clearly taught that the kingdom of God had already been taken from unbelieving Israelites before 70 AD. Why are you trying to dismiss that? What else does it mean for the unbelieving Israelites to have been broken off of the olive tree because of unbelief except that they had the kingdom of God taken away from them?

Romans 11:9 does mention a stumbling block in regards to rejecting Christ, which is similar to the explanation of the stumbling stone that breaks to pieces those that fall on it. Matthew 21:44a.

But I’m talking about Matthew 21:44b (and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him.) and its application to the parable in Matthew 21:41-42. Who is the stone that crushes on whomever It falls and how is this related to the parable? Or Is Matthew 22:44b completely unrelated to the parable?

Edit: I don’t deny that the parable states the vineyard owner destroys the wicked tenants - I just think that Matthew 21:44b elaborates Christs role in that.

For one thing, stop ignoring what Romans 11 indicates about when the kingdom of God was taken away from the Israelite unbelievers. You are trying to brush that under the rug, but it can't be done. Your understanding of the parable leads you to believe that the kingdom of God was not taken from unbelieving Israelites until 70 AD, which is simply not true, as Romans 11 proves.

Though it was God the Father who destroyed the unbelieving Jews by using the Roman armies to do His will, He did it because of the stone the builders rejected. Because of them rejecting His Son Jesus Christ. When it talks about those who fall on the stone being broken, it's not talking about them being physically destroyed. It's talking about them being separated from the kingdom of God. Separated from having any relationship with God. The stone breaking them can be compared to Paul saying that they stumbled but did not fall. Peter, 1 Peter 2:8, called Jesus "a stone of stumbling". Paul said that the unbelieving Israelites had stumbled, but did not fall. When something is broken, it can be repaired. Though the unbelieving Israelites had stumbled and had been blinded and broken off because of unbelief, Paul still hoped to help save some of them (Romans 11:11-14).

When it talks about them being ground into powder, that is when it talks about them being destroyed. Jesus was saying that rejecting Him both results in separation from God, with the possibility of returning to God (as Paul wrote about in Romans 11:11-14), but that it will eventually result in one's destruction if they continue to reject Him.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

This is complete nonsense and contradicts the following, amongst many other scriptures:

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

If the law was still binding after Christ's death and resurrection, then why did Paul say this to the Galatians who were foolishly trying to put themselves under the curse of the law:

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? 2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. 5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. 10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

What you're saying blatantly contradicts what Paul wrote here. Immediately after the death and resurrection of Christ, Israelite believers were set free from the curse of the law of Moses. Why was it a curse? Because "cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them" and "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God". If someone broke even one of the 613 commandments in the law of Moses then they were guilty of breaking them all (James 2:10). Jesus set them free from that because salvation is by grace through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8-10).

There's no contradiction at all. You're making the case that Christians are not under the law. I agree 100%. You didn't even try to address what I said, instead you change subjects. Don't you realize that you're arguing that "heaven and earth passed away at the cross".

If the law was no more, why did Paul try to win those "under the law"? 1 Corinthians 9:20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law.

In the following, v13 makes it clear he as addressing believers. Then just 3 verses later, he says those feast day laws are a shadow of things to come. How could they still be a shadow if they were nailed to the cross? It's because the unbelieving Jews were still under the law.

Colossians 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16Therefore let no one judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a feast, a New Moon, or a Sabbath. 17These are a shadow of the things to come, but the body that casts it belongs to Christ.

 

[Aaron112]

If the law was still binding after Christ's death and resurrection, then why did Paul say this to the Galatians who were foolishly trying to put themselves under the curse of the law:

In Galatians if I remember right, they were being tempted to trust something they could do as if if they did not, they would not be saved, right ?
Those who were continually trusting Jesus continued obeying TORAH as always, not trusting TORAH to save them, but as true followers of Jesus .

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Clare73]

For some reason? The reason is clear. Jesus is not saying that the process of the kingdom being taken from them does not begin until then. Paul very clearly taught that the kingdom of God had already been taken from unbelieving Israelites before 70 AD.

Jesus did the same (Mt 21:43).

 

[claninja]

For some reason? The reason is clear. Jesus is not saying that the process of the kingdom being taken from them does not begin until then. Paul very clearly taught that the kingdom of God had already been taken from unbelieving Israelites before 70 AD. Why are you trying to dismiss that? What else does it mean for the unbelieving Israelites to have been broken off of the olive tree because of unbelief except that they had the kingdom of God taken away from them?

The parable, in specific language, states WHEN the vineyard owner comes, then he will end/destroy the wicked tenants and rent out the vineyard to others.

The ironic part of your argument against @parousia70 is that, per your posts, it seems he can’t use scripture to demonstrate that the vineyard owner, in the parable, is ultimately Christ. BUT for some reason, it seems, you are allowed to use Romans 11 in order argue that the vineyard is taken away PRIOR to the coming of the vineyard owner, contrary to the parable.

For one thing, stop ignoring what Romans 11

I quoted from Romans 11 in my last post, unless you forgot or didn’t read my last post? I agreed that the stumbling stone from Romans 11:9 relates to Matthew 21:44a. Matthew 21:44a is a different OT allusion than Matthew 21:44b, as almost all scholars and theologians appear to unanimously agree.

Though it was God the Father who destroyed the unbelieving Jews by using the Roman armies to do His will, He did it because of the stone the builders rejected. Because of them rejecting His Son Jesus Christ. When it talks about those who fall on the stone being broken, it's not talking about them being physically destroyed. It's talking about them being separated from the kingdom of God. Separated from having any relationship with God. The stone breaking them can be compared to Paul saying that they stumbled but did not fall. Peter, 1 Peter 2:8, called Jesus "a stone of stumbling". Paul said that the unbelieving Israelites had stumbled, but did not fall. When something is broken, it can be repaired. Though the unbelieving Israelites had stumbled and had been blinded and broken off because of unbelief, Paul still hoped to help save some of them (Romans 11:11-14).

When it talks about them being ground into powder, that is when it talks about them being destroyed. Jesus was saying that rejecting Him both results in separation from God, with the possibility of returning to God (as Paul wrote about in Romans 11:11-14), but that it will eventually result in one's destruction if they continue to reject Him

I’ve already agreed that Romans 11 talks about a stumbling block, in similar fashion as Matthew 21:44a. No need to rehash that.

I completely agree the rejection of the son results in the vineyard owner coming to destroy the wicked tenants. Again, no need to rehash that.

My question was in regards to Matthew 21:44b. Do you believe the stone falling on and crushing, is completely unrelated to the vineyard owner coming to destroy the wicked tenants? Or do you agree the stone falling on and crushing those to powder is related to the vineyard owner coming to destroy the wicked tenants?