• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

How I came to embrace Preterism.

Status
Not open for further replies.

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, look at it again. He says that NOTHING will pass from the law until ALL has been fulfilled? What do you think the "all" is there? Can't you see that what Jesus says later, tells what the "all" is? He says that the time of punishment will fulfill "all that's been written". Let Jesus interpret Himself. Don't put your own interpretation on it.

Well, it do plainly read......'from the law'.

Here's some other versions to help you along.....

Mat 5:18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen.
CEV

"everything written in it must happen' of course refers to the Law.

The surrounding verses also reflect what He is talking about....the Law. I find no reference in Mat 5 at all that specifically refers to the fulfillment of 'all things'.


So what He is saying is that nothing will pass away from the law until ALL that has been written (the OT) has been fulfilled.

This is your addition to the meaning of the Scripture. If you can find reference to "all things written (the OT) in Mat chapter 5, let me know.

Yeah, I noticed how you just ignored that Paul said (after Jesus had already ascended to heaven) that the old covenant would SOON DISAPPEAR....meaning it was still in effect when Paul wrote that, but it was soon to pass away. Which means it DID NOT end at the cross. It didn't pass away until AFTER Paul wrote the book of Hebrews years after the crucifixion.

And you INTERPRET that to mean the end of the law? I believe He meant that what was finished was the atonement for sins? THat the power of sin was finished. Especially in light of the fact that He specifically says that the time of punishment was when "all that's written" would be fulfilled. No where is there any indication in scripture that the law ended at that moment.

Well now, Paul sho 'nuff said it was obsolete! :) :)

The old covenant was obsolete after the Cross, and it was obsolete when Saul served it, and was obsolete all the way to the destruction of the Temple.

btw, I have'nt said it was the end of the Law. I said it was the end of the old covenant.

:)

Yep, the law is obsolete TODAY and has been since 70AD. But when Paul wrote Hebrews it had not yet passed away....it was SOON to pass away. And it did in 70AD. And grace has abounded since Adam and Eve and will forevermore......thank God.

Yes, when Paul wrote that, that which was already obsolete was going to pass away.

<><
 
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
from John Gill:

Mat 5:17 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets,.... From verse 3 to the 10th inclusive, our Lord seems chiefly to respect the whole body of his true disciples and followers; from thence, to the 16th inclusive, he addresses the disciples, whom he had called to be ministers of the word; and in this "verse", to the end of his discourse, he applies himself to the whole multitude in general; many of whom might be ready to imagine, that by the light of the Gospel, he was giving his disciples instructions to spread in the world, he was going to set aside, as useless, the law of Moses, or the prophets, the interpreters of it, and commentators upon it. Christ knew the thoughts of their hearts, that they had taken up such prejudices in their minds against him; wherefore he says, "think not"; he was sensible what objections they were forming, and what an improvement they would make of them against his being the Messiah, and therefore prevents them, saying,

I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. By "the law" is meant the moral law, as appears from the whole discourse following: this he came not to "destroy", or loose men's obligations to, as a rule of walk and conversation, but "to fulfil" it; which he did doctrinally, by setting it forth fully, and giving the true sense and meaning of it; and practically, by yielding perfect obedience to all its commands, whereby he became "the end", the fulfilling end of it. By "the prophets" are meant the writings of the prophets, in which they illustrated and explained the law of Moses; urged the duties of it; encouraged men thereunto by promises; and directed the people to the Messiah, and to an expectation of the blessings of grace by him: all which explanations, promises, and prophecies, were so far from being made void by Christ, that they receive their full accomplishment in him. The Jews (t) pretend that these words of Christ are contrary to the religion and faith of his followers, who assert, that the law of Moses is abolished; which is easily refuted, by observing the exact agreement between Christ and the Apostle Paul, Rom_3:31 and whenever he, or any other of the apostles, speaks of the abrogation of the law, it is to be understood of the ceremonial law, which in course ceased by being fulfilled; or if of the moral law, not of the matter, but of the ministry of it. This passage of Christ is cited in the Talmud (u), after this manner:

"it is written in it, i.e. in the Gospel, "I Aven", neither to diminish from the law of Moses am I come, "but", or "nor" (for in the Amsterdam edition they have inserted &#1493;&#1500;&#1488; between two hooks), to add to the law of Moses am I come.''

Which, with their last correction, though not a just citation, yet tolerably well expresses the sense; but a most blasphemous character is affixed to Christ, when they call him "Aven"; which signifies "iniquity" itself, and seems to be a wilful corruption of the word "Amen", which begins the next "verse".

(t) R. Isaac Chizuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 10. p. 401. (u) T. Bab. Sabbat. fol. 116. 2.


Mat 5:18 - For verily I say unto you,.... Or "I Amen say unto you", which is one of the names of Christ; see Rev_3:14 or the word "Amen" is only used by Christ as an asseveration of what he was about to say; and which, for greater confirmation, is usually doubled in the Evangelist John, "Amen, Amen", or "verily, verily". The word is used by the Jews (w) for an oath; they swore by it; and it is a rule with them, that whoever answers "Amen" after an oath, it is all one as if he had pronounced the oath itself. The thing so strongly affirmed in this solemn manner is,

till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. The &#953;&#969;&#964;&#945; "or jot", in the Greek language, answers to "jod" in the Hebrew, the least of all the letters in the alphabet; hence a little city is called by this name, and this reason is given for it, (x) &#1513;&#1497;&#1493;&#1491; &#1511;&#1496;&#1504;&#1492; &#1489;&#1488;&#1493;&#1514;&#1497;&#1493;&#1514;, "because that jod is the least among letters". We read also of Rabbi Jod (y), perhaps so called because &#1492;&#1497;&#1492; &#1511;&#1496;&#1503;, he was little, as the author of Juchasin observes (z). This shows in what language the law was written; not in the Samaritan language, for the jod in that is a large letter, but in the Hebrew, in which it is very small; and particularly is written in a very diminutive character, in Deu_32:18 "by one tittle" some think is meant one of those ducts, dashes, or corners of letters, which distinguish one letter from another, that are much alike; others have thought that one of the pricks or vowel points is intended; others, one of those little strokes in the tops of letters, which the Jews call (a) "crowns" and "spikes", is here meant, in which they imagined great mysteries were contained; and there were some persons among them, who made it their business to search into the meaning of every letter, and of everyone of these little horns, or pricks, that were upon the top of them. So says R. Meir (b),

"in the time of the prophets there were such who very diligently searched every letter in the law, and explained every letter by itself; and do not wonder at this that they should expound every letter by itself, for they commented &#1506;&#1500; &#1499;&#1500; &#1511;&#1493;&#1509; &#1493;&#1511;&#1493;&#1509; &#1513;&#1500; &#1499;&#1500; &#1488;&#1493;&#1514; &#1493;&#1488;&#1493;&#1514;, upon everyone of the tops of each letter.''

Such an expounder was Akiba ben Joseph (c). To which custom Christ is here supposed to have respect: however, certain it is that he speaks very much in the language, and agreeably to the mind of the Jewish doctors; and some things in their writings will serve to illustrate this passage,

"If, (say they (d),) all the nations of the world were gathered together, "to root one word out of the law", they could not do it; which you may learn from Solomon, who sought to root "one letter out of the law", the letter "jod", in Deu_17:16 but the holy blessed God said, Solomon shall cease, and an hundred such as he (in the Talmud (e) it is a thousand such as he) &#1493;&#1497;&#1493;&#1491; &#1502;&#1502;&#1498; &#1488;&#1497;&#1504;&#1492; &#1489;&#1496;&#1497;&#1500;&#1492; &#1500;&#1506;&#1493;&#1500;&#1501;, "but, jod shall not cease from thee (the law) for ever".''

And elsewhere the same expression is used (f), and it is added,

"ljbm ynya Kmm huwqw, "but a tittle from thee shall not perish."''

The design of Christ, in conformity to the language of the Jews, is to declare, that no part of the law, not one of the least commandments in it, as he explains himself in the next verse, should be unaccomplished; but all should be fulfilled before "heaven and earth pass" away, as they will, with a great noise and fervent heat, as to their present form and condition; or sooner shall they pass away, than the least part of the law shall: which expresses the perpetuity of the law, and the impossibility of its passing away, and the superior excellency of it to the heavens and the earth. It is a saying of one of the Jewish doctors (g), that

"the whole world is not equal even to one word out of the law,''

in which it is said, there is not one letter deficient or superfluous.

(w) T. Hieros. Kiddushin, fol. 60. 4. Misn. Bava Kama, c. 9. sect. 7, 8. T. Bab. Shebuot, fol. 36. 1. Debarim Rabba, fol. 242. 2. Maimon Hilch. Shebuot, c. 2. sect. 1. (x) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 21. 2. & Gloss. in ib. (y) T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 22. 2. (z) Fol. 93. 2. (a) T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 29. 2. (b) In Semitis fidei, fol. 104. 4. & 105. 1. apud Capell. in loc. (c) T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 29. 2. (d) Vajikra Rabba, fol. 160. 3. Shirhashirim Rabba, fol 20. 2. (e) T. Hieros. Sanhedrim, fol. 20. 3. (f) Shemot Rabba, fol. 96. 1. (g) T. Hieros. Peah, fol. 15. 4.

courtesy of www.esword.net
 
Upvote 0

EchoPneuma

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
2,581
98
81
In a galaxy far far away...
✟3,335.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
daneel said:
Well, it do plainly read......'from the law'.

Here's some other versions to help you along.....

Mat 5:18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen.
CEV

"everything written in it must happen' of course refers to the Law.

The surrounding verses also reflect what He is talking about....the Law. I find no reference in Mat 5 at all that specifically refers to the fulfillment of 'all things'.




This is your addition to the meaning of the Scripture. If you can find reference to "all things written (the OT) in Mat chapter 5, let me know.

You think Jesus spoke in chapters and verses? Did something He say a little later in the day not have any bearing of what He said earlier? I can't, for the life of me, see why you continue to ignore the scripture where Jesus says that the time of punishment was going to fulfill all that had been written.

What do you think that ALL was?

Well now, Paul sho 'nuff said it was obsolete! :) :)

Yeah, and he sho nuff said it hadn't yet passed away when he wrote Hebrews....and until it PASSED AWAY the Jews had to obey it. Capish?

The old covenant was obsolete after the Cross, and it was obsolete when Saul served it, and was obsolete all the way to the destruction of the Temple.

Yep, it was....and that's why it was so important for God to show the Jews, by destroying the temple, that it had finally PASSED AWAY. Just because something is obsolete doesn't mean it can't still be used....it just means it is outdated and something better is here. The Jews had to be SHOWN that the "something better" was finally there by the temple being destroyed.....and it worked....just look at how my Jewish friend was saved. It worked just like God wanted it to work.

btw, I have'nt said it was the end of the Law. I said it was the end of the old covenant.

Whatever....

:)


Yes, when Paul wrote that, that which was already obsolete was going to pass away.

Finally you are getting it. It was obsolete but it hadn't yet passed away....but it was going to soon. Which meant the Old Covenant was still in effect when Paul wrote Hebrews, which means the law was still in effect because the law was part of the Old Covenant....
 
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You think Jesus spoke in chapters and verses? Did something He say a little later in the day not have any bearing of what He said earlier? I can't, for the life of me, see why you continue to ignore the scripture where Jesus says that the time of punishment was going to fulfill all that had been written.

What do you think that ALL was?

It is in regards to the surrounding context. And I'm not ignoring anything. He said the Law. You want to read into it "all".

But had He meant 'all' then I have to reconcile "all'' and "It is finished".

Can't do it, can we......

Yeah, and he sho nuff said it hadn't yet passed away when he wrote Hebrews....and until it PASSED AWAY the Jews had to obey it. Capish?

Yes, they had to obey something that was obsolete because they rejected the Christ.

makes sense to me.....:doh: :)

Yep, it was....and that's why it was so important for God to show the Jews, by destroying the temple, that it had finally PASSED AWAY. Just because something is obsolete doesn't mean it can't still be used....it just means it is outdated and something better is here. The Jews had to be SHOWN that the "something better" was finally there by the temple being destroyed.....and it worked....just look at how my Jewish friend was saved. It worked just like God wanted it to work.

Yes, you're right. Jesus being there face to face with them did'nt quite do the trick. The temple had to be destroyed because they would'nt believe He was the Christ. Even though He did miracles, raised the dead, fed thousands with a boys luch, preached the Kingdom of God, and fulfilled prophecy of the coming Messiah.

Finally you are getting it. It was obsolete but it hadn't yet passed away....but it was going to soon. Which meant the Old Covenant was still in effect when Paul wrote Hebrews, which means the law was still in effect because the law was part of the Old Covenant....

Yes. With the old covenant still in place, and even though it was obsolete, G-d would still accept the blood of animals. Even though His Beloved Son atoned for the sins of men, those who would believe, He would still accept obsolete temple stuff because he had to show them, even though he was face to face with them, that it would really really be over with if the temple was tore down.

Have I got it right so far?

<><
 
Upvote 0

EchoPneuma

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
2,581
98
81
In a galaxy far far away...
✟3,335.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
daneel said:
It is in regards to the surrounding context. And I'm not ignoring anything. He said the Law. You want to read into it "all".

But had He meant 'all' then I have to reconcile "all'' and "It is finished".

Can't do it, can we......

NO, He didn't say the law. Let's look at the context of what He says OK?

Luke 21:21-23 21Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.

He doesn't say ANYTHING about the law there, Now, I will ask again. What is the "all" that He is talking about.

You can reconcile "all" and "it is finished" very easily, if you will see that Jesus meant that what was finished was the payment for sin....NOT the law. I don't see why you interpret "it is finished" to mean the law?.....especially since that interpretation conflicts with what Paul says in Hebrews, to the effect that the Old CovenanT had still not passed away when he wrote the book of Hebrews.

Your interpretation of one scripture should never contradict what another scripture says. Your's does.

So yes, it CAN be done
Yes, they had to obey something that was obsolete because they rejected the Christ.


makes sense to me.....:doh: :)

No, they had to obey it because it was still in effect. You don't seem to understand that to a Jew the law was from God and MUST be obeyed as long as it was in effect. Until it passed away they were COMMANDED in the law BY GOD to go to the temple and offer sacrifices.....and that's what they did UNTIL it passed away when the temple was destroyed.

Yes, you're right. Jesus being there face to face with them did'nt quite do the trick. The temple had to be destroyed because they would'nt believe He was the Christ. Even though He did miracles, raised the dead, fed thousands with a boys luch, preached the Kingdom of God, and fulfilled prophecy of the coming Messiah.

And YOU don't seem to understand that you have to look at this through the Jewish law. Who do you think Jesus came to earth to visit? It was the JEWS. He even said that He had only come for the lost sheep of Israel. You are trying to take this and make it all a Gentile construct. It wasn't. Salvation was OF the Jews...and it came to THEM first.....therefore it had to be in accordance with their laws. Until the Old Covenant (and Mosaic Law) passed away and the New Covenant was ushered in it was ALL about the Jews. Gentiles played no part whatsoever. So Jesus said that nothing would pass from the law until ALL was fulfilled. Then He said that "ALL" would be fulfilled at the time of punishment. It's clear as day.

Yes. With the old covenant still in place, and even though it was obsolete, G-d would still accept the blood of animals. Even though His Beloved Son atoned for the sins of men, those who would believe, He would still accept obsolete temple stuff because he had to show them, even though he was face to face with them, that it would really really be over with if the temple was tore down.

Have I got it right so far?

<><

I NEVER said that God accepted the animal sacrifices. I don't know where you got that. I said that He wasn't satisfied nor pleased with them, but the law REQUIRED them. That's what Hebrews says.

God WAS NOT going to just arbitrarily change things for the Jews without fulfulling all the prophecies. Jesus said they were ALL fulfilled during the time of punishment. You seem to think that Jesus could die to pay for sins, rise from the dead and then, without all the prophecies of the OT being fulfilled, suddenly expect the Jews to walk away from their law and prophecies. That's not the way it worked for the Jews. It was God that GAVE THEM those prophecies and they had to ALL be fulfilled before their law could pass away.

and, once again, Jesus said that ALL that was written (what do you think He's talking about? Shakespeare?) would be fulfilled at the time of punishment.
 
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
NO, He didn't say the law. Let's look at the context of what He says OK?


Please read my posts. I'm in Mat chapter 5. You are referencing Luke 21. It is in Mat 5 where he references the jot and tittle and the law being fulfilled.

Thank you.

Mat 5:18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen.
CEV

<><
 
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You can reconcile "all" and "it is finished" very easily, if you will see that Jesus meant that what was finished was the payment for sin....NOT the law. I don't see why you interpret "it is finished" to mean the law?.....especially since that interpretation conflicts with what Paul says in Hebrews, to the effect that the Old CovenanT had still not passed away when he wrote the book of Hebrews.

Your interpretation of one scripture should never contradict what another scripture says. Your's does.


I've stated before, Jesus fulfilled the Law as the perfect sacrifice for the propitiation of mans sins. There is no contradictions.

When Jesus said, "It is finished", He finished what He came to do. That is all I'm saying.

I NEVER said that God accepted the animal sacrifices. I don't know where you got that. I said that He wasn't satisfied nor pleased with them, but the law REQUIRED them. That's what Hebrews says.

Very well then. I'll let the readers of this post determine just what you did say, and what you did'nt say.

Echopneuma quotes:
What is false? Josephus said they were offered right up until the temple was destroyed. It's history.

If God wouldn't have accepted those sacrifices, that He had COMMANDED the Jews to offer, then God would have lied to them. Remember, the Jews knew that as long as the temple stood that they had the command from God to go there and offer sacrifices.

If the temple still stood, and yet God refused to accept those sacrifices it would make God a liar in the eyes of a Jew. So that is why it was SO important for Jesus to destroy the earthly temple. That's why His prophecy in Luke 21 was so significant. Because when the temple was destroyed, God was showing them that the Old Covenant was GONE. That He no longer accepted those sacrifices because He destroyed the temple.

YOu have to look at this through Jewish eyes to see the significance.


http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18993609&postcount=264

I think for now, as far as I'm concerned, our conversation is over.

toodles

<><
 
Upvote 0

EchoPneuma

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
2,581
98
81
In a galaxy far far away...
✟3,335.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
daneel said:
I've stated before, Jesus fulfilled the Law as the perfect sacrifice for the propitiation of mans sins. There is no contradictions.

When Jesus said, "It is finished", He finished what He came to do. That is all I'm saying.

No, actually what you said was that Jesus fulfilled the law when He died on the cross. Now you are agreeing with me, that what He fulfilled was being the sacrifice for sins and it was the payment for sins that was finished....not the law.

Very well then. I'll let the readers of this post determine just what you did say, and what you did'nt say.

You are correct. I misspoke. When I said that God had to accept them, I meant that the law REQUIRED them and since God gave them the law, He couldn't just arbitrarily change things for the Jews without having the law pass away. I didn't mean that He accepted them as payment for sins. Hebrews makes it clear that the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin. I wasn't clear.

I think for now, as far as I'm concerned, our conversation is over.

toodles

Very well. Thanks for the debate. Until another time.:wave:

<><[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

jittery

New Member
Oct 6, 2005
3
0
50
✟22,613.00
Faith
Christian
stauron said:
preterist archive is a great place to get info.

There are also several great books that can help with the transition. Where did you run into preterism?


I was fortunate enough to start attending a church where the pastor gave weight to the idea that the Bible makes a lot more sense when you consider who the people were that the author was addressing at the time, and what kind of cultural and historical context needs to be applied. If you take that approach, Revelation doesn't exactly read like Left Behind.
 
Upvote 0

EchoPneuma

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
2,581
98
81
In a galaxy far far away...
✟3,335.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
jittery said:
I was fortunate enough to start attending a church where the pastor gave weight to the idea that the Bible makes a lot more sense when you consider who the people were that the author was addressing at the time, and what kind of cultural and historical context needs to be applied. If you take that approach, Revelation doesn't exactly read like Left Behind.

Yes, you were fortunate. That pastor was very wise. Good luck in your studies.:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Hidden Manna

Veteran
Feb 21, 2004
1,206
11
69
✟16,418.00
Faith
Christian
EchoPneuma said:
Yes, you were fortunate. That pastor was very wise. Good luck in your studies.:thumbsup:

I agree, I wished that I had a pastor like that 31 years ago. ;)

Understanding Apocalyptic Language

Sometimes we discover statements, which disturb our preconceived ideas and challenge us to rethink long held views. Such is the case with II Thessalonians 2:1-2. If the day of the Lord is, as you and I have always been taught, a time ending, universe destroying event, how in the world could the Thessalonians ever have been convinced, as they obviously were, that the day of the Lord had ALREADY COME?

The same could be said of the passage in II Timothy. If the resurrection is when all the physical graves are opened, when Jesus bodily, visibly descends on a cloud with the audible sound of a trumpet: how could any one convince those at Ephesus that it had already happened? The point is, Paul did not challenge the teaching concerning the nature of the day. He only challenged the chronology so these first century saints held another concept or understand of the (day of Lord) then what we have been traditionally taught. Buy what was there understand the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven?
First we must keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew who was familiar with Jewish prophetic thought in the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17, 13:17; Luke 2:41-47, 24:27).

In order to understand how the manifestation of the “Son of man” in the judgment upon Jerusalem was on the “clouds of heaven,” one must understand the language of Israel’s Old Testament prophets. In biblical language “clouds” are symbolic of God’s wrath and judgment against the enemies of God’s people. David said that the Lord delivered him from his enemies while descending on clouds (Psa. 18:3-15). Of course, clouds also speak of God’s divine presence and power.

The Lord said that He would ride into Egypt on a cloud to punish them: Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud, and is about to come to Egypt. The idol of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them. (Isa. 19: 1). In the above verse. the Lord did NOT literally ride on a cloud. However. Egypt did receive this judgment at the hands of the Assyrians (Isa. 20:1-6) . When God used the means of a nation or people to carry out a judgment. He was said to come on the clouds.

This apocalyptic language was well known to all in the Jewish and early Christian communities. This language was studied by all the congregation of Israel on the Sabbath in the synagogues, it was spoken in homes and by the rulers of Israel. This is the reason Jesus chose to use apocalyptic language as He described His SOON return to the people of His day. Jesus promised the High Priest. Caiaphas. that he would “see the Son of man... coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:63-65). By this statement Jesus was claiming to be divine, Israel’s Messiah, and the Son of God.

This is how Israel’s prophets had said the Son of Man would come in the clouds of heaven (Dan. 7:13-14). Caiaphas knew that the language that Jesus used meant that he, as a ruler of Israel and as the fleshly seed of Abraham who rejected his Messiah, would SEE His return in judgment . A fleshly concept of Jesus coming on the clouds was contrary to the nature of Caiaphas’ understanding of the OT prophets.

The Old Testament idea of the “day of the Lord” was that God acted by means of armies or a nation to judge His enemies (Luke 11:29-32, 19:43-44). The “day of the Lord” was tumultuous, frightening, and awesome—but God did NOT appear visibly. Only the God of Israel could ride the clouds of heaven in judgment (Psa. 104:1-3. Isa. 19:1-3. Joel 2:1-2, Nah. 1-3. Zeph. 1:14-15). This fact was well known to every Jew.

The inspired apostle John stated that the Jews sought the more to kill Jesus because He was making himself equal to God (Jn 5:18, 8:58). These events of God coming in the clouds of heaven for judgment were contained in the ancient scrolls which comforted the early followers of Christ while then, waited for His return in judgment against their enemies (2Thes. 1:3-8). The Bible says that Jesus is the same yesterday. today and forever (Heb. 13:8).

Paul stated that he only said what the prophets and Moses said would take place (Acts 26:21-22). Although futurists today claim that verses such as Acts 1:9-11 predict events in our future. the angels said Jesus would return in the same manner (nature) as He appeared in the Old Testament, that is. in the clouds. David described his deliverance from his enemies in terms which sounded as if the physical universe was destroyed when Jehovah came down from heaven ( 2 Sam. 22)

The “day of the Lord” in the Old Covenant did not destroy planet earth, nor did it end time forever, nor would it do so under the New Covenant (compare Isa. 45:17 and Eph. 3:21). In the Old Covenant governments and nations were destroyed during the “day of the Lord” because they were enemies of God or because the, came up against His chosen people. In the first century in 70 A.D.. the Jewish world was destroyed during the “day of the Lord” because of their inability to accept the prophets of God and the Son of God (Matt.23:34-36).

The destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. put an end to the Old Covenant. In its place, the New Covenant, which began at the Last Supper came into its fullness. The second and final coming of Christ occurred in 70 A.D as Jesus invisibly and spiritually came on the clouds of heaven to judge His enemies and establish His everlasting kingdom.

This is how the church at Thessalonica had mistakenly begun to believe that the coming of Jesus was IMMINENT. They never had the concept of a literal physical coming of Jesus on literal physical cloud. They held the Old Testament understand that Paul taught them. Remember there is not (one words) from Paul were he writes to correct any problems of their understanding (about the nature) of that day. Paul did not challenge the teaching concerning the nature of the day. He only challenged the chronology.
Now here are some questions we should ask.

(1) Were in the New Testament scriptures does the Son of man say his New Testament Parousia was not to be like his Old Testament Parousia?
(2) Were in the Old Testament scriptures does it say anyone literal saw God coming down riding a literal cloud? David said that the Lord delivered him from his enemies while descending on clouds (Psa. 18:3-15). Of course. “clouds” also speak of God’s divine presence and power but no one literally saw him.
(3) Were in the New Testament scripture does Paul say he is (not teaching) these Old Testament concepts of the day of Lord? Remember Paul was also a Jew who familiar with Jewish prophetic thought in the Old Testament.
(4) Were is the scripture does Jesus who is the very same God in the Old Testament say his Parousia in the New Testament is new to be understood as a literal Parousia.

The only thing that comes close is Revelation 1:7 Behold, He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see Him, and they also who pierced Him; and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him. Even so. Amen. But notice Zechariah 12:10-14.

The main purpose of Revelations was the revealing of Jesus to the “tribes of the earth (or land).” Now, we must identify, from Scripture, who those “tribes” were. To do that, we must keep in mind this simple rule of interpreting the Bible: let Scripture interpret Scripture. We can do that quite easily by looking at Zechariah 12:10-14.

And I will pour out on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and prayers. And they (i.e., the inhabitants of Jerusalem) shall look on Me whom they have pierced, and shall mourn for Him. As one mourns, for an only son, and will be bitter over Him like the bitterness over the firstborn. In that day (i.e., when they look on Him whom they had pierced) the mourning in Jerusalem will be great, like the mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo. And the land shall mourn, families by families alone; the family of the house of David alone, and their wives alone; the family of Nathan alone, and their wives alone; the family of the house of Levi alone, and their wives alone; the family of Shimei alone, and their wives alone; all the families who are left, family by family alone, and their wives alone.

What (that day). The day of the Lord. Obviously, this is the foundation for John’ “every eye will see Him and those who pierced Him, and all the tribes of the earth (or land) will wail due to Him.” The Hebrew word for “family” is mishpachah and it means “family; by extension a tribe or people.” So, in essence, Zechariah was saying that the “tribes of the land” would mourn for Him whom they had pierced. Who were those “tribes?” “The inhabitants of Jerusalem.” This also helps us identify the “earth” in Revelation 1:7. According to Zechariah, the “earth” is the land of Palestine, specifically, Jerusalem. Also, it is those tribes, i.e., the nation of Israel, who would “look on Me whom they had pierced.” And because of that, “the mourning in Jerusalem” would be great. With all of this information, we can see that the “tribes of the earth” in Revelation 1:7 are the nation of Israel. The “earth” is Palestine. The land that would mourn is Jerusalem.

So, the main purpose of Revelation would be to reveal Jesus the nation of Israel. The place of this revealing would be Jerusalem. Lastly, this revealing would be to those who pierced Him, i.e., the Jews. This is not a general reference to the Jewish nation as some commentators state, but to Christ’s contemporary generation, that generation was destroyed in AD 70 by the Roman Legions. Therefore, the book of Revelation must have been written before that event.
 
Upvote 0

stauron

Only dust on the outside
Dec 26, 2003
680
9
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟882.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
jittery said:
I was fortunate enough to start attending a church where the pastor gave weight to the idea that the Bible makes a lot more sense when you consider who the people were that the author was addressing at the time, and what kind of cultural and historical context needs to be applied. If you take that approach, Revelation doesn't exactly read like Left Behind.
Good analogy. I always ask if the fans of LB have any twinge that their theology makes for great fiction.
 
Upvote 0

EchoPneuma

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
2,581
98
81
In a galaxy far far away...
✟3,335.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
Justme said:
Hi Forum,

In answer to the intent of the thread.

I had known that the presense of Christ and the establishment of the kingdom was first century probably 10 ?years before I ever heard the word 'preterism.'

Justme

Lucky you! Some of us oldtimers had to take a few laps around Mt. Sinai before we got there...;)
 
Upvote 0

EchoPneuma

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
2,581
98
81
In a galaxy far far away...
✟3,335.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
BTW Hidden Manna....that was a great post above. Very informative and right on the money. I don't know why some people can't see it....or don't want to see it. It is so liberating, postive, faith building and encouraging to know that all the scriptures have been fulfilled and we are now living in the fulness of the everlasting kingdom of Jesus.

Coming to the understanding of preterist eschatology has increased my faith in Jesus many times over and heightened my sense of what it means to be a "joint heir" with Christ. I thank God everyday that He led me to this truth.
 
Upvote 0

stauron

Only dust on the outside
Dec 26, 2003
680
9
55
New Jerusalem
Visit site
✟882.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
EchoPneuma said:
BTW Hidden Manna....that was a great post above. Very informative and right on the money. I don't know why some people can't see it....or don't want to see it. It is so liberating, postive, faith building and encouraging to know that all the scriptures have been fulfilled and we are now living in the fulness of the everlasting kingdom of Jesus.

Coming to the understanding of preterist eschatology has increased my faith in Jesus many times over and heightened my sense of what it means to be a "joint heir" with Christ. I thank God everyday that He led me to this truth.

Totally agree. Great post. It is a sad day that not even christians are interested in spending the time to know and understand their faith. If it fits on a bumper sticker or makes for an exciting fiction book then it is obviously true, but if it takes study and diligence (and, GASP, understanding your bible) then it is wrangling over words and possibly at odds with a relationship with God.

I guess I just like being weird...
 
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
stauron said:
Totally agree. Great post. It is a sad day that not even christians are interested in spending the time to know and understand their faith. If it fits on a bumper sticker or makes for an exciting fiction book then it is obviously true, but if it takes study and diligence (and, GASP, understanding your bible) then it is wrangling over words and possibly at odds with a relationship with God.

I guess I just like being weird...


Hi Stauron,

I'm curious here.....is it a case of either or here? Either one believes that the full preterist has the correct view of things and those who are'nt merely read bumper stickers and sci-fi books?

I would agree with what you say, there are those who believe in bumper sticker-ism.

However, I would also say there is a problem if somebody is going to tell me I'm not saved because I don't believe the 2nd coming of Christ has already happened. I would relegate this to the same degree as to what the JW will tell me, that Jesus also made an invisible return in 1914 (?)

:)

<><
 
Upvote 0

EchoPneuma

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
2,581
98
81
In a galaxy far far away...
✟3,335.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
daneel said:
Hi Stauron,

I'm curious here.....is it a case of either or here? Either one believes that the full preterist has the correct view of things and those who are'nt merely read bumper stickers and sci-fi books?

I would agree with what you say, there are those who believe in bumper sticker-ism.

However, I would also say there is a problem if somebody is going to tell me I'm not saved because I don't believe the 2nd coming of Christ has already happened. I would relegate this to the same degree as to what the JW will tell me, that Jesus also made an invisible return in 1914 (?)

:)

<><

I don't believe there is a preterist out there who would tell you that you aren't saved because you don't believe the second coming has already taken place. In fact, it's the other way around. Futurists tell US that we are heretics and aren't saved because we believe the second coming is in the past.

Preterists believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus.....not by what one believes or doesn't believe about eschatology.

I'm sure Stauron will totally agree with me on this.
 
Upvote 0

gort

pedantric
Sep 18, 2003
10,451
194
70
Visit site
✟34,392.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
EchoPneuma said:
I don't believe there is a preterist out there who would tell you that you aren't saved because you don't believe the second coming has already taken place. In fact, it's the other way around. Futurists tell US that we are heretics and aren't saved because we believe the second coming is in the past.

Preterists believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus.....not by what one believes or doesn't believe about eschatology.

I'm sure Stauron will totally agree with me on this.

My pondering came from this post of yours:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=19023222&postcount=270

That's why I asked "are you saved?" Because if you say you are saved right now, then you are also saying that He must have already returned the second time, because Hebrews makes it clear that when He returns the second time He will BRING SALVATION to those who are waiting for Him.

Has He brought salvation? If yes. Then He has returned the second time.
They go together. You can't separate the two.

You can't say "Jesus has brought me salvation. I have it now"....and yet deny He has returned the second time. That contradicts the scripture in Hebrews that says:

<><
 
Upvote 0

EchoPneuma

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2005
2,581
98
81
In a galaxy far far away...
✟3,335.00
Faith
Marital Status
Married
daneel said:
My pondering came from this post of yours:



<><

I simply said you can't SAY that without CONTRADICTING that scripture in Hebrews. And you CAN'T. If you REALLY believe that you've already been saved (and you do) and then you say you don't believe Jesus has returned the second time, you are CONTRADICTING that scripture in Hebrews.

That scriptures says that when Jesus returns the SECOND TIME that He will come to BRING SALVATION.

So IF you believe that Jesus has brought salvation to men, then you also HAVE to believe that Jesus has returned the SECOND TIME because that is WHEN He was going to bring it. Otherwise, you are contradicting scripture.

If you believe that Jesus hasn't returned the second time, then you also have to believe He hasn't brought salvation to men yet (based on the scripture in Hebrews) and therefore, if that were true, then NONE of us would have salvation yet.

You can't have it both ways. You can't believe that you have salvation and yet Jesus hasn't come the second time. That totally contradicts what it says in that scripture in Hebrews. Our beliefs MUST line up with scripture or they are false.

That is what I said. I didn't say that you aren't saved.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.