I am a newbee partial preterist. Discuss.

[BABerean2]

I read the context and still Not following you. Maybe you could explain this a bit further.

Hebrews 8:6 was written in the present tense before 70 AD.
It says Christ is "now" the mediator of a better covenant, at that point in time.
It did not say He will be the mediator of a better covenant when the Old Covenant passes away, in 70 AD.

Hebrews 8:13

(CJB) By using the term, "new," he has made the first covenant "old"; and something being made old, something in the process of aging, is on its way to vanishing altogether.

(ESV) In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

(Geneva) In that he saith a new Testament, he hath abrogate the olde: nowe that which is disanulled and waxed olde, is ready to vanish away.


(GW) God made this new promise and showed that the first promise was outdated. What is outdated and aging will soon disappear.

(LITV-TSP) In the saying, New, He has made the first old. And the thing having been made old and growing aged is near disappearing.

(KJV) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

(KJV+) In that he saith,G3004 A newG2537 covenant, he hath made the first old.G3822 G3588 G4413 NowG1161 that which decayethG3822 andG2532 waxeth oldG1095 is ready to vanish away.G1451 G854

(NKJV) In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

(YLT) in the saying 'new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete an


Based on Matthew 26:28, the New Covenant went into effect at Calvary.

If the Old Covenant was still in effect until 70 AD, why did God rip the temple veil in half at the moment Christ died on the Cross?

If the Old Covenant was still in effect until 70 AD, why didn't Paul give the Galatian believers a choice in how they could be saved?

In Galatians 4 Paul compares the Sinai Covenant to "bondage". He told the Galatian believers to cast out the Old Covenant, then. He did not say it will be fine to use it until the temple is destroyed in 70 AD.

,

.

 

[JLB777]

Hebrews 8:6 was written in the present tense before 70 AD.
It says Christ is "now" the mediator of a better covenant, at that point in time.
It did not say He will be the mediator of a better covenant when the Old Covenant passes away, in 70 AD.

Hebrews 8:13

(CJB) By using the term, "new," he has made the first covenant "old"; and something being made old, something in the process of aging, is on its way to vanishing altogether.

(ESV) In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

(Geneva) In that he saith a new Testament, he hath abrogate the olde: nowe that which is disanulled and waxed olde, is ready to vanish away.


(GW) God made this new promise and showed that the first promise was outdated. What is outdated and aging will soon disappear.

(LITV-TSP) In the saying, New, He has made the first old. And the thing having been made old and growing aged is near disappearing.

(KJV) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

(KJV+) In that he saith,G3004 A newG2537 covenant, he hath made the first old.G3822 G3588 G4413 NowG1161 that which decayethG3822 andG2532 waxeth oldG1095 is ready to vanish away.G1451 G854

(NKJV) In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

(YLT) in the saying 'new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete an


Based on Matthew 26:28, the New Covenant went into effect at Calvary.

If the Old Covenant was still in effect until 70 AD, why did God rip the temple veil in half at the moment Christ died on the Cross?

If the Old Covenant was still in effect until 70 AD, why didn't Paul give the Galatian believers a choice in how they could be saved?

In Galatians 4 Paul compares the Sinai Covenant to "bondage". He told the Galatian believers to cast out the Old Covenant, then. He did not say it will be fine to use it until the temple is destroyed in 70 AD.

,

.

Yes sir at Calvary.

It began vanishing away when the Lord spoke it through the mouth of Jeremiah.

The vanishing became complete when the same Lord said it is finished.

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Hebrews 8:13


JLB

 

[mkgal1]

Hebrews 8:6 was written in the present tense before 70 AD.
It says Christ is "now" the mediator of a better covenant, at that point in time.
It did not say He will be the mediator of a better covenant when the Old Covenant passes away, in 70 AD.

Hebrews 8:13

(CJB) By using the term, "new," he has made the first covenant "old"; and something being made old, something in the process of aging, is on its way to vanishing altogether.

(ESV) In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

(Geneva) In that he saith a new Testament, he hath abrogate the olde: nowe that which is disanulled and waxed olde, is ready to vanish away.


(GW) God made this new promise and showed that the first promise was outdated. What is outdated and aging will soon disappear.

(LITV-TSP) In the saying, New, He has made the first old. And the thing having been made old and growing aged is near disappearing.

(KJV) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

(KJV+) In that he saith,G3004 A newG2537 covenant, he hath made the first old.G3822 G3588 G4413 NowG1161 that which decayethG3822 andG2532 waxeth oldG1095 is ready to vanish away.G1451 G854

(NKJV) In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

(YLT) in the saying 'new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete an


Based on Matthew 26:28, the New Covenant went into effect at Calvary.

If the Old Covenant was still in effect until 70 AD, why did God rip the temple veil in half at the moment Christ died on the Cross?

If the Old Covenant was still in effect until 70 AD, why didn't Paul give the Galatian believers a choice in how they could be saved?

In Galatians 4 Paul compares the Sinai Covenant to "bondage". He told the Galatian believers to cast out the Old Covenant, then. He did not say it will be fine to use it until the temple is destroyed in 70 AD.

,

.

I still believe there was a series of events that caused the Old Covenant to go from obsolete (which was present) to vanishing forever (future in the time of the writing of the biblical text).

That the Levitical priests were missing that their sacrifices were idolatry doesn't change the fact that they were applying Old Covenant rules and rituals (so it couldn't be said the Old Covenant had "vanished" or "disappeared"--not until 70 AD). I'm not suggesting God said anything like (or that the implication was) "it's fine to use the Old Covenant". I'm just saying it WAS being used (whether it was right or wrong doesn't matter) until 70 AD.

 

[mkgal1]

Also....from what I'm understanding: This is what Jesus was speaking of...what He'd predicted and warned of... This is from Ray Vanderlaan:

----->THE END OF THE REVOLT The Antonia fortress fell in mid-July. On August 6, the sacrifices ceased in the Temple. The Temple itself was burned and destroyed on the ninth of the Jewish month of Ab (the end of August), the same day it had been destroyed by the Babylonians more than 600 years before. It has never been rebuilt.

Clearly, Jesus predicted the destruction that would result from the revolt (Matt. 24:1-2). It led him to weep on one occasion as he described exactly what would happen (Luke 19:41-44). It seems that Jesus was saddened because his fellow Jews looked for military solutions to their problems rather than spiritual ones, to a political messiah rather than the Lamb of God. He warned his followers not to take part in that method of bringing in God's kingdom. The coming destruction was not God's judgment as much as it was the natural result of human beings seeking salvation through their own political and military might. Jesus' method was the opposite of such an approach.
~The Jewish Revolts

 

[BABerean2]

I still believe there was a series of events that caused the Old Covenant to go from obsolete (which was present) to vanishing forever (future in the time of the writing of the biblical text).

That the Levitical priests were missing that their sacrifices were idolatry doesn't change the fact that they were applying Old Covenant rules and rituals (so it couldn't be said the Old Covenant had "vanished" or "disappeared" (not until 70 AD). I'm not suggesting God said anything like (or that the implication was) "it's fine to use the Old Covenant". I'm just saying it WAS being used (whether it was right or wrong doesn't matter) until 70 AD.

It would be like attempting to operate a television set with no source of electrical power.

You could sit around and watch the screen, but why would you?

Nobody came to salvation during the time between Calvary and 70 AD, without coming to faith in Christ.

This is the message we find throughout the Epistles, especially the books of Galatians and Hebrews.

If a third temple is rebuilt during a future time, would that mean the Old Covenant comes back into effect?

Some of us are promoting a form of Dual-Covenant Theology between Calvary and 70 AD, in order to make their version of preterism work.

.

 

[claninja]

It says Christ is "now" the mediator of a better covenant, at that point in time.

I agree

It did not say He will be the mediator of a better covenant when the Old Covenant passes away, in 70 AD.

I agree. It says he is presently the mediator of a better covenant. In Christ being the mediator of better covenant, it makes the first obsolete. And the covenant that was obsolete was about to vanish away. Why didn't the author of Hebrews stop at the first being obsolete? Why did he add "growing old and aging and near vanishing"?

Additionally, we have Paul clearly stating the old covenant is fading in 2 corinthians 3. The verb fading away appears to present a process that is presently occurring.

2 corinthians 3:7-11
Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 9For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. 10Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which is fading away came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

Based on Matthew 26:28, the New Covenant went into effect at Calvary.

I agree

If the Old Covenant was still in effect until 70 AD, why did God rip the temple veil in half at the moment Christ died on the Cross?

The old covenant became obsolete. The veil being rent in half representing that the way to the most holy place was now available to those in the body of Christ.

But before the destruction of temple in Jerusalem, Jews who were not born again, were still slaves to law and its curses. Without Christ, they could not be free from the Law. And those who remained slaves to the law, rejecting christ, were completely destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem by the roman armies.

If the Old Covenant was still in effect until 70 AD, why didn't Paul give the Galatian believers a choice in how they could be saved?

The old covenant doesn't save, so I don't think Paul would have given that as an option to the Galatians.

In Galatians 4 Paul compares the Sinai Covenant to "bondage". He told the Galatian believers to cast out the Old Covenant, then. He did not say it will be fine to use it until the temple is destroyed in 70 AD.

I agree. But when were the sons of the slave woman cast out never to share in the inheritance of the free sons?

From 30 ad to 70 ad, Jews who were under the Law, died to the Law and were raised in Christ (born again). These were God's elect, chosen before the foundation of the world, to be a part of the body of Christ. These were that remnant of natural Israel that were saved before the sons of the slave woman were cast out.

Romans 9:27
and Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israelc be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved,

Paul, being born again, had died to the Law and had been raised in Christ. Being born again, he was no longer under the Law. But his fellow Jewish brothers who had not been born again, were still under the Law:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law (Jews) I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law (gentiles) I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

_________________________________________________________________________________

If the the old covenant had ended completely at the cross, how could Paul die to the law? How could all the jews that were being born again, after the cross, die to the law if it had ended at the Cross?

The law was obsolete after the cross, but it still had its slaves (Jews who were not born again, rejecting christ, and still following the law for salvation). And they were cast out in 70Ad.

 

[mkgal1]

It would be like attempting to operate a television set with no source of electrical power.

You could sit around and watch the screen, but why would you?

I'm not saying it was a good thing.....just that it was reality (that the Old Covenant was being used).

Nobody came to salvation during the time between Calvary and 70 AD, without coming to faith in Christ.

I'm not referring to salvation at all.

Some of us are promoting a form of Dual-Covenant Theology between Calvary and 70 AD

I'm not promoting anything.....just pointing out that it wasn't until the Temple was destroyed that rituals like temple animal sacrifices ceased to exist.

 

[BABerean2]

I'm not saying it was a good thing.....just that it was reality (that the Old Covenant was being used).

If the Old Covenant was fulfilled to the letter by Christ, and God ripped the temple veil in half, was the Old Covenant still being used?

Not according to what Paul told the Galatians, in the passage below.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.


.

 

[BABerean2]

I agree



I agree. It says he is presently the mediator of a better covenant. In Christ being the mediator of better covenant, it makes the first obsolete. And the covenant that was obsolete was about to vanish away. Why didn't the author of Hebrews stop at the first being obsolete? Why did he add "growing old and aging and near vanishing"?

Additionally, we have Paul clearly stating the old covenant is fading in 2 corinthians 3. The verb fading away appears to present a process that is presently occurring.

2 corinthians 3:7-11
Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 9For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. 10Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if that which is fading away came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.




I agree



The old covenant became obsolete. The veil being rent in half representing that the way to the most holy place was now available to those in the body of Christ.

But before the destruction of temple in Jerusalem, Jews who were not born again, were still slaves to law and its curses. Without Christ, they could not be free from the Law. And those who remained slaves to the law, rejecting christ, were completely destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem by the roman armies.



The old covenant doesn't save, so I don't think Paul would have given that as an option to the Galatians.




I agree. But when were the sons of the slave woman cast out never to share in the inheritance of the free sons?

From 30 ad to 70 ad, Jews who were under the Law, died to the Law and were raised in Christ (born again). These were God's elect, chosen before the foundation of the world, to be a part of the body of Christ. These were that remnant of natural Israel that were saved before the sons of the slave woman were cast out.

Romans 9:27
and Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israelc be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved,

Paul, being born again, had died to the Law and had been raised in Christ. Being born again, he was no longer under the Law. But his fellow Jewish brothers who had not been born again, were still under the Law:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law (Jews) I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law (gentiles) I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

_________________________________________________________________________________

If the the old covenant had ended completely at the cross, how could Paul die to the law? How could all the jews that were being born again, after the cross, die to the law if it had ended at the Cross?

The law was obsolete after the cross, but it still had its slaves (Jews who were not born again, rejecting christ, and still following the law for salvation). And they were cast out in 70Ad.

If you are correct, a rebuilt temple with renewed animal sacrifices would bring the Law of Moses back into effect during modern times.

Is this what you believe?

.

 

[Willie T]

OP,
I don't think there is a Christian alive who could possibly say they are not also a "Partial Preterist." That would be to deny what Christ did on the cross... among other things.

 

[BABerean2]

OP,
I don't think there is a Christian alive who could possibly say they are not also a "Partial Preterist." That would be to deny what Christ did on the cross... among other things.

Unfortunately, the word "Preterist" has become a curse word for some, who seem to spit after using the word.


Most of these would consider themselves "Futurists", with advocates of modern Dispensational Theology leading the charge in that direction.

The word "Preterist", is many times converted to "Full-Preterist", and is applied to all who say that any of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled during 70 AD.
This is a tremendous error, and has likewise produced tremendous confusion on this forum.

I have often wondered why we never use the term "Partial-Futurist"?

Is the glass half full, or half empty?

.

 

[A71]

I'm literally closing my account, because I find Forums lack accountability. But you should realize that when you accuse me of dissimulation, you completely devalue any merit in any statement you make, as likewise I cannot assume any integrity in what you propose. The same standard you have just applied to me. Shame, because you initially struck me as on of the more serious posters here. I think If I ever join another forum, (doubtful), I will follow Willie-T and be myself. 100% transparent and honest. Good luck to you as you get lost in rabbit warrens.

It is a statement of fact, not intended to attack any member of this forum.

Acting offended at a statement of fact, does not change the reality of the fact.

If you do not want to be considered at "partial-preterist", maybe we could consider you a "partial-futurist", instead.

.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

OP,
I don't think there is a Christian alive who could possibly say they are not also a "Partial Preterist." That would be to deny what Christ did on the cross... among other things.

the parable of the wheat and the tares seems to suggest a future close of the age - as the tares were not removed from the kingdom in 66-70 AD. The kingdom could not in this case be heaven, as the tares would not be in heaven, so Jesus must have meant that the kingdom is the earth, from where the tares and all that causes offence is removed, before the wheat is gathered into the barn -
Matthew 24 is all about 70 AD. the kingdom arrived in various ways - one was Pentecost, another was the fulfillment of the law.

 

[BABerean2]

I'm literally closing my account, because I find Forums lack accountability. But you should realize that when you accuse me of dissimulation, you completely devalue any merit in any statement you make, as likewise I cannot assume any integrity in what you propose. The same standard you have just applied to me. Shame, because you initially struck me as on of the more serious posters here. I think If I ever join another forum, (doubtful), I will follow Willie-T and be myself. 100% transparent and honest. Good luck to you as you get lost in rabbit warrens.

Being a member of this forum does require thick skin, at times.

This post is an example of that fact.

.

 

[A71]

You can use any analogy you want, but let's say for example, that a peeping Tom is someone with a strong sexual interest in women, who acts on this interest by covertly filming them. Now say you have a strong sexual interest in women BAB, but do not engage in illicit filming. If I then called you a partial-peeping Tom, because you have one component of Tom's make-up, then you would get offended. This by analogy is what you are doing by calling someone a partial Preterist. It is an illicit designation. Bye.

 

[Willie T]

Unfortunately, the word "Preterist" has become a curse word for some, who seem to spit after using the word.


Most of these would consider themselves "Futurists", with advocates of modern Dispensational Theology leading the charge in that direction.

The word "Preterist", is many times converted to "Full-Preterist", and is applied to all who say that any of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled during 70 AD.
This is a tremendous error, and has likewise produced tremendous confusion on this forum.

I have often wondered why we never use the term "Partial-Futurist"?

Is the glass half full, or half empty?

.

Yes, it is often startling how many "Christians" derisively banter around labels when we haven't a clue as to what we are talking about.

 

[Netgear]

I'm literally closing my account, because I find Forums lack accountability. But you should realize that when you accuse me of dissimulation, you completely devalue any merit in any statement you make, as likewise I cannot assume any integrity in what you propose. The same standard you have just applied to me. Shame, because you initially struck me as on of the more serious posters here. I think If I ever join another forum, (doubtful), I will follow Willie-T and be myself. 100% transparent and honest. Good luck to you as you get lost in rabbit warrens.

Bye.

 

[claninja]

If you are correct, a rebuilt temple with renewed animal sacrifices would bring the Law of Moses back into effect during modern times.

Is this what you believe?

.

I don’t believe a temple will be rebuilt and animal sacrifices reinstated. I suggest looking up what happened when the Jews attempted to rebuild the temple in 363 AD.

 

[Willie T]

Do we REALLY think sometimes? I have ideas and thoughts about certain things in the Bible, and so do you...... and a third person thinks something else, entirely Often, they are at opposition. So what?

Frankly, the chances are very good that NONE of us has it "right." Yet we will curse and fight another person, tooth-and-nail, about these trivial matters that really make no difference about anything.

Odd that we feel such a need to do that. I wonder how the oldest sin in the world, PRIDE, enters into that?

 

[mkgal1]

I'm literally closing my account, because I find Forums lack accountability.