Preterism misrepresents Scripture

[Spiritual Jew]

Right on. There is no end of the globe, I mean, why would there be--isn't the cross enough to restore what Adam lost? Were we not a new created people? When I looked in the mirror I looked the same except I was no longer dead. The old covenant of death is gone, the new covenant of life is here. It's a whole new world, rejoice and be glad in it.

This is pretty sad if you think this is as good as it gets. Wow. God has something so much better planned for us than this. Personally, I look forward to having an immortal body and being in the new heavens and new earth where there will be no more death, crying, pain or sorrow.

Doesn't Matthew 22's parable of the wedding have the wedding take place right after the Pharisee's city is burned up?

No. How are you coming to that conclusion? First, the wedding invitation (gospel invitation - salvation offer) went to the Jews who rejected it (not all, but most), so they and their city end up being destroyed. The wedding did not take place at that time. After being rejected by the Jews the invitation then went out "into the highways" which represents the Gentile nations. That invitation is still being sent out today because it represents the gospel being preached to the world with everyone being called to salvation. How can you think the wedding already took place? Were you there? The wedding will include all of Christ's people from all-time, not just some of them. Why would He have the wedding without all of His people (all of His bride) there? I don't believe that makes any sense.

 

[Ed Parenteau]

This is pretty sad if you think this is as good as it gets. Wow. God has something so much better planned for us than this. Personally, I look forward to having an immortal body and being in the new heavens and new earth where there will be no more death, crying, pain or sorrow.

Our purpose is expressed in Rev 22:17The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” Let the one who hears say, “Come!” And let the one who is thirsty come, and the one who desires the water of life drink freely.

Why is every statement of Christ coming in the Revelation stated in the present tense? That includes these 4 verses in Revelation 22:
7“And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”
10And he *said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
12“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to reward each one as his work [h]deserves. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
20He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming quickly.” Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

18I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

No. How are you coming to that conclusion? First, the wedding invitation (gospel invitation - salvation offer) went to the Jews who rejected it (not all, but most), so they and their city end up being destroyed. The wedding did not take place at that time. After being rejected by the Jews the invitation then went out "into the highways" which represents the Gentile nations. That invitation is still being sent out today because it represents the gospel being preached to the world with everyone being called to salvation. How can you think the wedding already took place? Were you there? The wedding will include all of Christ's people from all-time, not just some of them. Why would He have the wedding without all of His people (all of His bride) there? I don't believe that makes any sense.

It just seems obvious to me that the new heavens and earth is fulfilled in Christ where there is no more death, crying etc.
As it says 2 Corinthians 1:For as many as the promises of God are, in Him they are yes; therefore through Him also is our Amen to the glory of God through us. --- Are there promises of a new heaven and earth?

Christ came in the last times at the fulness of time:
1 Peter 1:He was known before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in the last times for your sake.
Galatians 4:4But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, having been born of a woman, having been born under the Law, 5that He might redeem those under the Law, so that we might receive the divine adoption as sons.
Ephesians 1: 9having made known to us the mystery of His will according to His pleasure, which He purposed in Him 10for the administration of the fullness of the times, to bring together all things in Christ—the things in the heavens and the things upon the earth

Colossians 3:1Therefore, if you have been raised with Christ, keep seeking the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your minds on the things that are above, not on the things that are on earth. 3For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.

 

[claninja]

Nope

Well, postmil and premil can agree on the complete fulfillment of the OD. So I’m not sure what your point was then?

How do you determine when you should agree with them and when you shouldn't? You clearly disagree with Barnes on a number of things, yet for some reason you fully trust him on this. Okay then.

For me, it comes down to if they are using scripture to interpret scripture consistently. Surprisingly, in my experience, more often than not, many of the commentaries consistently use scripture with scripture when it comes to OT and the gospels (especially the OD). Unfortunately, the same cannot be said when it comes to passages like revelation.

However, the main purpose for me using commentaries is to correct the misconception that what I believe is exclusive to full preterism.

You are misrepresenting me here and I don't appreciate it at all. Because of how I interpret other parts of Revelation and the book overall by interpreting scripture with scripture, it would contradict my understanding of other parts of the book as well as my overall understanding of scripture to conclude that mystery Babylon is first century Jerusalem or apostate Israel as you call it. It's as simple as that. To accuse me of not interpreting scripture with scripture in this case is utterly false. I don't just interpret that scripture in isolation, find something simialr elsewhere and then draw a conclusion. It's not as simple as that. There are other descriptions of Babylon that do not fit first century Jerusalem and, again, my understanding of the rest of the book and my understanding of the rest of scripture does not line up with that, either.

You're acting as if history ended in 70 AD. Who is responsible for the blood shed since then? No one? Is Revelation about Jesus and His church along with the enemies of Jesus and His church or is it about Jesus and Israel? To me, it's clearly the former so I see no basis for thinking it's all about what happened in 70 AD. I don't see any scripture which teaches that He came in 70 AD, so why would I conclude that about Revelation 19? Since it's obvious to me that Revelation 19 is about His yet future second coming then interpreting Babylon as first century Jerusalem or apostate Israel would make no sense since it seems clear to me that Babylon falls around the time of His second coming.

I only said you don’t use scripture to interpret scripture, such as “all the righteous blood shed”, when it goes against your eschatological belief.

It’s not a misrepresentation, since you agreed:

“Because of how I interpret other parts of Revelation and the book overall by interpreting scripture with scripture, it would contradict my understanding of other parts of the book as well as my overall understanding of scripture to conclude that mystery Babylon is first century Jerusalem or apostate Israel as you call it. It's as simple as that.”

I never insisted the literal world ended in 70ad. I’ve only insisted the obsolete old covenant vanished away.

It seems that you interpret Revelation 21:1-5 the same way then? Yet, John said the new heavens and new earth are ushered in after the passing away of the first heaven and first earth. So, please tell me what you think are the first heaven and first earth if not the literal heaven and earth?

The “first heaven and earth”, After the flood, refers to the formation of Israel as a nation under the law. When they separated the waters of the deep and passed through. Doctor John Owen, explains it best:

“Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the world, and the heavens and earth of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose among many that may be produced: Isa. li. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God was when He divided the sea (ver. 15) and gave the law (ver. 16), and said to Zion, Thou art my people; that is, when He took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state; then He planted the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth: that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth in the world.” John Owen, partial preterist, on 2 peter 3

You call him a fundamentalist. Would you call yourself a liberal? I would not be surprised if you believe in evolution. Do you? I can't even express how hard it is for me to take you seriously on some of these things.

I would say “modernist” on only certain issues - such as the 7 day creation, the flood, the earth only being 6-10 thousand years old, the earth being flat, etc….

As to evolution, micro evolution is definitely real. As to macro, I’m not dogmatic. If it’s true, well, it was ordained by God imho.

LOL. You are somehow expecting me to know all there is to know about him. Do the research yourself if you really want to know. It's clear to me that you will just dismiss anything I say about this and dismiss any resources I might provide, so it's clearly a waste of time.

He doesn’t appear to have any scientific peer reviewed papers for a global flood, from a quick review.

What is the problem with that? Young dinosaurs would not have taken up that much space. You should go to the Ark Encounter some time so you can get an idea of just how huge the ark actually was. But, I suppose it would not be liberal enough for you to handle being there for long.

The problem is mainly that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.

So, Peter indicated that last days scoffers would scoff at the promise of His coming and they would forget about how "by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water". Do you believe that Peter was referring to the literal heavens here and that they came into being "by God's word"? Do you believe that Peter was is referring to the literal earth and that he was saying it was "formed out of water and by water"?

No, I don’t believe Peter is referring to the destruction of the literal heavens and earth. I’ll use “postmil” partial preterist doctor John Owen’s words on 2 peter 3, to which I agree.


“The apostle makes a distribution of the world into heaven and earth, and saith they were destroyed with water, and perished. We know that neither the fabric nor substance of the one or other was destroyed, but only men that liveth on the earth; and the apostle tells us (ver. 7) of the heaven and earth that were then, and were destroyed by water, distinct from the heavens and the earth that were now, and were to be consumed by fire; and yet as to the visible fabric of heaven and earth they were the same both before the flood and in the apostle's time, and continue so to this day; when yet it is certain that the heavens and earth, whereof he spake, were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing of our foundation a little, consider what the apostle intends by the heavens and the earth in these two places.

' 1. It is certain that what the apostle intends by the world, with its heaven, and earth (vers. 5, 6), which was destroyed ; the same, or some-what of that kind, he intends by the heavens and the earth that were to be consumed and destroyed by fire (ver. 7) ; otherwise there would be no coherence in the apostle's discourse, nor any kind of argument, but a mere fallacy of words.

' 2. It is certain that by the flood, the world, or the fabric of heaven and earth, was not destroyed, but only the inhabitants of the world; and therefore the destruction intimated to succeed by fire is not of the substance of the heavens and the earth, which shall not be consumed until the last day, but of person or men living in the world.”

“Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the world, and the heavens and earth of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose among many that may be produced: Isa. li. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God was when He divided the sea (ver. 15) and gave the law (ver. 16), and said to Zion, Thou art my people; that is, when He took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state; then He planted the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth: that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And since it is that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that language which seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isa. xxxiv. 4, which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like also is affirmed of the Roman Empire (Rev. vi. 14), which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv.) He sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.”


“On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, BUT to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text:-

'(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews, some of them believing, others opposing, the faith. Now there was no particular concernment of that generation, nor in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general ; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation ; and, besides, an ample testimony both to the one and the other of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ, which was the thing in question between them.

'(2.) Peter tells them, that after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of (vers. 7-13), " We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,' etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. lxv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God shall create these new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Saith Peter, " It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell." But now it is evident from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of Gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of Gospel ordinances to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed Heb. xii. 26-28..'*

* Dr. Owen's Sermon on 2 Peter iii. 11. Works, folio, Reprinted 1721

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Well, postmil and premil can agree on the complete fulfillment of the OD.

What does that mean?

For me, it comes down to if they are using scripture to interpret scripture consistently. Surprisingly, in my experience, more often than not, many of the commentaries consistently use scripture with scripture when it comes to OT and the gospels (especially the OD). Unfortunately, the same cannot be said when it comes to passages like revelation.

However, the main purpose for me using commentaries is to correct the misconception that what I believe is exclusive to full preterism.

I don't recall making that claim.

I only said you don’t use scripture to interpret scripture, such as “all the righteous blood shed”, when it goes against your eschatological belief.

The same is true for all of us. It's a good thing to do, but there are a few occasions when passages have similarities but are not about the same event or topic.

It’s not a misrepresentation, since you agreed:

“Because of how I interpret other parts of Revelation and the book overall by interpreting scripture with scripture, it would contradict my understanding of other parts of the book as well as my overall understanding of scripture to conclude that mystery Babylon is first century Jerusalem or apostate Israel as you call it. It's as simple as that.”

I never insisted the literal world ended in 70ad. I’ve only insisted the obsolete old covenant vanished away.

The traces or evidence of the old covenant vanished away in 70 AD because of the destruction of the temple buildings, but the old covenant itself was made obsolete (was made old and no longer in effect) by the death of Jesus Christ.

The “first heaven and earth”, After the flood, refers to the formation of Israel as a nation under the law. When they separated the waters of the deep and passed through. Doctor John Owen, explains it best:

“Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the world, and the heavens and earth of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose among many that may be produced: Isa. li. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God was when He divided the sea (ver. 15) and gave the law (ver. 16), and said to Zion, Thou art my people; that is, when He took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state; then He planted the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth: that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth in the world.” John Owen, partial preterist, on 2 peter 3

I was asking about Revelation 21:1-5, not 2 Peter 3. It was John who specifically referenced "the first heaven and the first earth" in Revelation 21:1. As for Peter, he made no reference to Israel in 2 Peter 3. He referenced the flood and then compared a future event directly to the flood. He wasn't comparing a future figurative event to a past literal, physical event. That would make no sense.

I would say “modernist” on only certain issues - such as the 7 day creation, the flood, the earth only being 6-10 thousand years old, the earth being flat, etc….

LOL at lumping in "the earth being flat" with those other things. Give me a break. You say "modernist", I say "liberal".

As to evolution, micro evolution is definitely real.

Yep. But, you knew what I was talking about.

As to macro, I’m not dogmatic. If it’s true, well, it was ordained by God imho.

That's not possible since God's word does not support macroevolution whatsoever. It seems that you put man's fallible opinions on the same level as God's word.

He doesn’t appear to have any scientific peer reviewed papers for a global flood, from a quick review.

So, your "quick review" is definitive, is it? Whatever. Hey, you go ahead and trust in whoever you want to trust in. I trust in God's word which very clearly teaches a global flood in Noah's day.

The problem is mainly that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.

LOL. No, they did not. You have them becoming extinct during an imaginary time period LONG before God even created the dinosaurs and other land animals on His fifth literal day of creation thousands (not millions or billions) of years ago.

No, I don’t believe Peter is referring to the destruction of the literal heavens and earth. I’ll use “postmil” partial preterist doctor John Owen’s words on 2 peter 3, to which I agree.


“The apostle makes a distribution of the world into heaven and earth, and saith they were destroyed with water, and perished. We know that neither the fabric nor substance of the one or other was destroyed, but only men that liveth on the earth; and the apostle tells us (ver. 7) of the heaven and earth that were then, and were destroyed by water, distinct from the heavens and the earth that were now, and were to be consumed by fire; and yet as to the visible fabric of heaven and earth they were the same both before the flood and in the apostle's time, and continue so to this day; when yet it is certain that the heavens and earth, whereof he spake, were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing of our foundation a little, consider what the apostle intends by the heavens and the earth in these two places.

' 1. It is certain that what the apostle intends by the world, with its heaven, and earth (vers. 5, 6), which was destroyed ; the same, or some-what of that kind, he intends by the heavens and the earth that were to be consumed and destroyed by fire (ver. 7) ; otherwise there would be no coherence in the apostle's discourse, nor any kind of argument, but a mere fallacy of words.

' 2. It is certain that by the flood, the world, or the fabric of heaven and earth, was not destroyed, but only the inhabitants of the world; and therefore the destruction intimated to succeed by fire is not of the substance of the heavens and the earth, which shall not be consumed until the last day, but of person or men living in the world.”

“Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the world, and the heavens and earth of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose among many that may be produced: Isa. li. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God was when He divided the sea (ver. 15) and gave the law (ver. 16), and said to Zion, Thou art my people; that is, when He took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state; then He planted the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth: that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And since it is that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that language which seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isa. xxxiv. 4, which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like also is affirmed of the Roman Empire (Rev. vi. 14), which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv.) He sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.”


“On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, BUT to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text:-

'(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews, some of them believing, others opposing, the faith. Now there was no particular concernment of that generation, nor in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general ; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation ; and, besides, an ample testimony both to the one and the other of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ, which was the thing in question between them.

'(2.) Peter tells them, that after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of (vers. 7-13), " We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,' etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. lxv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God shall create these new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Saith Peter, " It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell." But now it is evident from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of Gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of Gospel ordinances to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed Heb. xii. 26-28..'*

* Dr. Owen's Sermon on 2 Peter iii. 11. Works, folio, Reprinted 1721

I don't find any of that to be convincing whatsoever. He's treating 2 Peter 3 as if it's an Old Testament book of prophecy, but it is not. Yes, Isaiah often used symbolism in his writings, but not Peter. He was much more straightforward. I see no basis whatsoever for thinking that Peter was not comparing what happened in Noah's day on the earth directly with what will happen in the future on the earth. What he said has nothing to do with Israel, it has to do with things that happen on the entire earth. It was destroyed by water (not annihilated, but it destroyed everything on it except for 8 people) back then and will be destroyed by fire (not annihilated, just everything on it burned up) in the future.

 

[claninja]

What does that mean?

It means that postmil and premil can agree that the OD was completely fulfilled in the first century because millennialism is not necessarily the same thing as eschatology.

I don't recall making that claim.

I didn’t say you made a claim.

The traces or evidence of the old covenant vanished away in 70 AD because of the destruction of the temple buildings, but the old covenant itself was made obsolete (was made old and no longer in effect) by the death of Jesus Christ.

Correct, the obsolete old covenant which was still being zealously followed by Christian Jews and non Christian Jews alike long after the cross, vanished away In 70ad.

I was asking about Revelation 21:1-5, not 2 Peter 3. It was John who specifically referenced "the first heaven and the first earth" in Revelation 21:1. As for Peter, he made no reference to Israel in 2 Peter 3. He referenced the flood and then compared a future event directly to the flood. He wasn't comparing a future figurative event to a past literal, physical event. That would make no sense.

i don’t believe the OHOE and NHNE are different between 2 peter 3 and revelation 20-22. So my answer was applicable to both passages.

As to literal vs figural, the destruction of the literal fabric of heaven and earth was not near to peters audience. But the overthrow of the Jewish polity was.

So while the heavens and earth of Noah’s day were destroyed - not the literal fabric and atoms, but the people, so to would the heaven and earth of Peter’s day be destroyed by fire, not literal atoms or fabric, but principles and ordinances, and people.

like I said, I don’t believe Peter is going beyond what Isaiah prophesied of poetically. So just as God had destroyed the pre diluvian world with a flood so to would he destroy the heavens and earth, that he planted by creating Israel (Isaiah 51), with fire.

LOL at lumping in "the earth being flat" with those other things. Give me a break. You say "modernist", I say "liberal".

Sure, then I’m liberal/modernist on only certain things such as flat earth, earth being the center of the universe, global flood, literal 7 day creation, earth only being 6,000 years old, etc….. No problem with that.

That's not possible since God's word does not support macroevolution whatsoever. It seems that you put man's fallible opinions on the same level as God's word.

Gods word neither supports nor undermines evolution, as The Bible doesn’t say anything about evolution.

So, your "quick review" is definitive, is it? Whatever. Hey, you go ahead and trust in whoever you want to trust in. I trust in God's word which very clearly teaches a global flood in Noah's day.

I went through his list of published papers, and none of his global flood papers were in peer reviews journals.

Interestingly enough some of his peer reviewed articles, that are not about a global flood, appear to contradict his young earth stance. Maybe he became a young earth proponent later in the life?

LOL. No, they did not. You have them becoming extinct during an imaginary time period LONG before God even created the dinosaurs and other land animals on His fifth literal day of creation thousands (not millions or billions) of years ago.

Hate to break it you, but the earth is older than 6,000 years. We know this thanks to the science of radiometric dating.

I don't find any of that to be convincing whatsoever. He's treating 2 Peter 3 as if it's an Old Testament book of prophecy, but it is not. Yes, Isaiah often used symbolism in his writings, but not Peter. He was much more straightforward. I see no basis whatsoever for thinking that Peter was not comparing what happened in Noah's day on the earth directly with what will happen in the future on the earth. What he said has nothing to do with Israel, it has to do with things that happen on the entire earth. It was destroyed by water (not annihilated, but it destroyed everything on it except for 8 people) back then and will be destroyed by fire (not annihilated, just everything on it burned up) in the future.

It has to do with Israel as peter was the apostles to the Jews and wrote - to the elect amongst the diaspora. This would be Jews amongst the greeks.

As to Dr owen, yes, he is treating the peters quotation of Isaiah like the poetical language it was.

Does the Bible describe Israel’s formation as the planting of heavens and earth? Yep sure does. Does the Bible use hyperbolic world ending language to describe the fall and ruin of empires? Yep, sure does.

Was the end of the literal globe near to Peter? Nope. Was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple practices? Yep.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

It means that postmil and premil can agree that the OD was completely fulfilled in the first century because millennialism is not necessarily the same thing as eschatology.

I never said that millennialism is the same thing as eschatology.

Correct, the obsolete old covenant which was still being zealously followed by Christian Jews and non Christian Jews alike long after the cross, vanished away In 70ad.

LOL. You said "Correct" and then proceeded to say something different than what I said. That's a good one. I said the TRACES (the evidence) of the obsolete old covenant vanished away in 70 AD. You're talking as if the old covenant ended in 70 AD. No, it was put to an end and no longer in effect when Jesus died on the cross. The tearing of the veil of the temple in two signified that. The fact that people foolishly followed the old covenant after His death does not mean it was still in effect after that. Not at all.

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;

i don’t believe the OHOE and NHNE are different between 2 peter 3 and revelation 20-22. So my answer was applicable to both passages.

As to literal vs figural, the destruction of the literal fabric of heaven and earth was not near to peters audience. But the overthrow of the Jewish polity was.

So while the heavens and earth of Noah’s day were destroyed - not the literal fabric and atoms, but the people, so to would the heaven and earth of Peter’s day be destroyed by fire, not literal atoms or fabric, but principles and ordinances, and people.

All of the living creatures and people on the earth except for Noah and his family (except for the believers) were killed by the flood. The same will happen when Jesus returns, as Jesus Himself said in Matthew 24:35-39. Only this time it will be by fire. Peter was comparing a past literal, global destruction event with a future one. There is no hint there whatsoever that he was speaking of "principles and ordinances" being destroyed by fire. Why compare that event directly with the flood in that case? That would make no sense. I don't find your argument here to be even a tiny bit convincing.

like I said, I don’t believe Peter is going beyond what Isaiah prophesied of poetically. So just as God had destroyed the pre diluvian world with a flood so to would he destroy the heavens and earth, that he planted by creating Israel (Isaiah 51), with fire.

There is not even a hint in anything Peter said of something like that. We're talking about Jesus's return here. That will be a global event. He did not return in any way, shape or form in 70 AD.

Sure, then I’m liberal/modernist on only certain things such as flat earth, earth being the center of the universe, global flood, literal 7 day creation, earth only being 6,000 years old, etc….. No problem with that.

Why are you lumping in the belief in a flat earth and the earth being the center of the universe in with the belief in a global flood, literal 7 day creation, etc.? That's ludicrous.

Gods word neither supports nor undermines evolution, as The Bible doesn’t say anything about evolution.

LOL. Evolution requires millions or billions of years and the Bible says God created everything in 6 literal days (only literal days have a morning and evening) and that God created Adam as the first human being before then creating Eve. And that was not millions or billions of years ago. So, the Bible does say something about evolution in the sense that evolution, with its required millions or billions of years, is not possible based on what the Bible teaches about the history of the world.

I went through his list of published papers, and none of his global flood papers were in peer reviews journals.

Interestingly enough some of his peer reviewed articles, that are not about a global flood, appear to contradict his young earth stance. Maybe he became a young earth proponent later in the life?

I don't know. I never claimed to be an expert on the guy. I just brought him up because he works with Answers in Genesis and because you were acting as if Ken Ham works alone and came up with all the info in that article himself.

Hate to break it you, but the earth is older than 6,000 years. We know this thanks to the science of radiometric dating.

LOL. You put your trust in biased and faulty dating methods over the Word of God. Very sad.

It has to do with Israel as peter was the apostles to the Jews and wrote - to the elect amongst the diaspora. This would be Jews amongst the greeks.

As to Dr owen, yes, he is treating the peters quotation of Isaiah like the poetical language it was.

Does the Bible describe Israel’s formation as the planting of heavens and earth? Yep sure does. Does the Bible use hyperbolic world ending language to describe the fall and ruin of empires? Yep, sure does.

Was the end of the literal globe near to Peter? Nope. Was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple practices? Yep.

Did Jesus return in 70 AD? Nope, He sure didn't. So, can that be what Peter was writing about in 2 Peter 3? Nope, it sure can't.

 

[parousia70]

Did Jesus return in 70 AD? Nope, He sure didn't.

Don't you know Jesus is the Stone of Matthew 21 that came and crushed them to Powder?

Matthew 21:40-45
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”

41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will [g]render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking of them.


Even The Chief Priests and Pharisees understood he was speaking of them and their fate in their day.
Jesus was not issuing an empty threat to them that He didn't make good on.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Don't you know Jesus is the Stone of Matthew 21 that came and crushed them to Powder?

Matthew 21:40-45
40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”

41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will [g]render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking of them.


Even The Chief Priests and Pharisees understood he was speaking of them and their fate in their day.
Jesus was not issuing an empty threat to them that He didn't make good on.

Of course Jesus was talking about the chief priests and Pharisees. That is beyond obvious. Do you think I would try to deny that? Of course not.

But, did you not read the whole parable?

Matthew 21:33 Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. 34 When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. 35 “The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. 36 Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. 37 Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said. 38 “But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. 40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

Jesus said that the owner of the vineyard would come and destroy them. The owner of the vineyard was not Jesus, but was God the Father. Jesus is the vineyard owner's son that they killed. So, Jesus was talking about a coming of the Father here, not the coming of the Son of Man that He talked about in the Olivet Discourse. It was because of their rejection of His son that the landowner destroyed them. It very specifically says "when the owner of the vineyard comes" He will destroy those tenants, not "when the son of the owner of the vineyard comes". Why are you not saying anything about that?

Jesus was very clearly referring to God the Father coming and destroying the tenants who represented the chief priests and Pharisees, not the Son. What happened in 70 AD was a coming of the Father and an outpouring of His wrath against the unbelieving Jews because of having rejected His Son who is symbolically represented as the stone that the builders rejected. Jesus was not talking about Himself as being the one who would come to destroy them as Matthew 21:40 makes very clear. He very specifically said it would be the landowner, representing God the Father, who would come and destroy the chief priests and Pharisees in response to their having rejected His Son. That can't be ignored.

The second coming of Christ is a global event, not a local or regional event as passages like 2 Peter 3:10-13 make very clear. He did not come in 70 AD and we are still awaiting His second coming.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Jesus was very clearly referring to God the Father coming and destroying the tenants who represented the chief priests and Pharisees, not the Son. What happened in 70 AD was a coming of the Father and an outpouring of His wrath against the unbelieving Jews because of having rejected His Son who is symbolically represented as the stone that the builders rejected. Jesus was not talking about Himself as being the one who would come to destroy them as Matthew 21:40 makes very clear. He very specifically said it would be the landowner, representing God the Father, who would come and destroy the chief priests and Pharisees in response to their having rejected His Son. That can't be ignored.

You need to balance that thought against John 5:22 which says, "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son..." Also, speaking of just who would do the judging, Paul testified to those on Mars Hill about God in Acts 17:31, saying, "For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead." The Son and the Father acted in unity on this.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

You need to balance that thought against John 5:22 which says, "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son..."

That is speaking of judging people on judgment day when everyone will stand before Him to give an account of themselves. That is a completely different context than the parable in Matthew 21.

Look, the parable very specifically says the landowner would come and destroy the tenants who killed his son. It does not say the son would come and destroy them. It seems you are going out of your way to try to get around that.

Also, speaking of just who would do the judging, Paul testified to those on Mars Hill about God in Acts 17:31, saying, "For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead." The Son and the Father acted in unity on this.

Yes, that is speaking of judgment day when everyone will stand before Christ to give an account of themselves (Romans 14:10-12, 2 Corinthians 5:10, Matthew 25:31-46). That is not what the parable in Matthew 21 is about.

 

[grafted branch]

Jesus was very clearly referring to God the Father coming and destroying the tenants who represented the chief priests and Pharisees, not the Son. What happened in 70 AD was a coming of the Father and an outpouring of His wrath against the unbelieving Jews because of having rejected His Son who is symbolically represented as the stone that the builders rejected. Jesus was not talking about Himself as being the one who would come to destroy them as Matthew 21:40 makes very clear. He very specifically said it would be the landowner, representing God the Father, who would come and destroy the chief priests and Pharisees in response to their having rejected His Son. That can't be ignored.

The second coming of Christ is a global event, not a local or regional event as passages like 2 Peter 3:10-13 make very clear. He did not come in 70 AD and we are still awaiting His second coming.

If that’s the case then the day of the Lord<2962> in 2 Peter 3:10 has to be referring to AD70.



HELPS Word-studies

2962 kýrios – properly, a person exercising absolute ownership rights; lord(Lord).

[In the papyri, 2962 (kýrios) likewise denotes an owner (master) exercising full rights.]

 

[claninja]

I never said that millennialism is the same thing as eschatology.

then I’m not sure why you would ask me, someone leans postmil, why I use premil sources, if you already know that both premils and postmils can agree on partial preterist eschatology?

LOL. You said "Correct" and then proceeded to say something different than what I said. That's a good one. I said the TRACES (the evidence) of the obsolete old covenant vanished away in 70 AD. You're talking as if the old covenant ended in 70 AD. No, it was put to an end and no longer in effect when Jesus died on the cross. The tearing of the veil of the temple in two signified that. The fact that people foolishly followed the old covenant after His death does not mean it was still in effect after that. Not at all.

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;

2,000 years removed, it’s easy for us to call it “traces” and “foolish”. But thousands of Jewish Christians, including the apostle James, were still zealous for the law decades after the cross.

I agree the old covenant was made obsolete at the cross, just highlighting that those “traces” were a little bigger than that. It wasn’t like all of the sudden, the Christian Jews understood to stop following the temple practices.

All of the living creatures and people on the earth except for Noah and his family (except for the believers) were killed by the flood. The same will happen when Jesus returns, as Jesus Himself said in Matthew 24:35-39. Only this time it will be by fire. Peter was comparing a past literal, global destruction event with a future one. There is no hint there whatsoever that he was speaking of "principles and ordinances" being destroyed by fire. Why compare that event directly with the flood in that case? That would make no sense. I don't find your argument here to be even a tiny bit convincing.

The massive deluge of Noah’s time didn’t destroy the entire literal globe - it destroyed the people of a specific region. This is confirmed not only by the absence of geologic evidence, but also Historical records and archaeological discoveries of civilizations, such as the Norte Chico and China, existing prior to, during, and post the date of flood as given by “answers in genesis” (around 2350 bc)

As to principles and ordinances - the Greek for elements in 2 peter 3:10 can also mean principles and ordinances. So to say there is zero hint is not really true.

Helps word studies
“4747 stoixeíon– properly, fundamentals, like with the basic components of a philosophy, structure, etc.; (figuratively) "first principles," like the basic fundamentals of Christianity.

[4747 (stoixeíon) refers to "the rudimentswith which mankind . . . were indoctrinated (before the time of Christ), i.e. the elements of religious training or the ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles" (J. Thayer). “

Why are you lumping in the belief in a flat earth and the earth being the center of the universe in with the belief in a global flood, literal 7 day creation, etc.? That's ludicrous.

I’m lumping in biblical interpretations that have had to change due to changes in the understanding of our world.

Interestingly enough, Answers in Genesis believes the earth is the center of the universe

LOL. Evolution requires millions or billions of years and the Bible says God created everything in 6 literal days (only literal days have a morning and evening) and that God created Adam as the first human being before then creating Eve. And that was not millions or billions of years ago. So, the Bible does say something about evolution in the sense that evolution, with its required millions or billions of years, is not possible based on what the Bible teaches about the history of the world.

LOL. You put your trust in biased and faulty dating methods over the Word of God. Very sad.

Genesis 1 describes the creation consistent with the formation of ancient near eastern cosmological world, which, as we know today, is not an accurate portrait of the world.

Additionally, radiometric dating can prove the earth is older than 10,000 years.

So i don’t put my faith in a literal, fundamental interpretation of genesis (which is only 1 way of multiple different types of interpretation methods of genesis 1). I put my faith in simply God creating the world, and genesis 1 is a poetic story written in contrast the other creation stories of that time.

Did Jesus return in 70 AD? Nope, He sure didn't. So, can that be what Peter was writing about in 2 Peter 3? Nope, it sure can't.

I absolutely agree Jesus did not return in 70ad according to your belief.

 

[3 Resurrections]

That is speaking of judging people on judgment day when everyone will stand before Him to give an account of themselves. That is a completely different context than the parable in Matthew 21.

Look, the parable very specifically says the landowner would come and destroy the tenants who killed his son. It does not say the son would come and destroy them. It seems you are going out of your way to try to get around that.

No, it's the very same context. When Christ returned, Paul said that He would judge both the living AND the dead at His appearing and his kingdom (2 Timothy 4:1 YLT). He told Timothy, "I do fully testify, then, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living AND dead at his manifestation and his reign..." Christ was going to be the means by which God the "landowner" destroyed the living "tenants" who had rejected the Son. They acted in united purpose on this.

When we see Christ portrayed in Revelation 19, His garments are dipped in the blood of His enemies. "In righteousness He doth judge and make war" (Rev. 19:11). God committed all judgment to the Son, which included judgment of the living who had rejected Him during His earthly ministry.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If that’s the case then the day of the Lord<2962> in 2 Peter 3:10 has to be referring to AD70.

HELPS Word-studies

2962 kýrios – properly, a person exercising absolute ownership rights; lord(Lord).

[In the papyri, 2962 (kýrios) likewise denotes an owner (master) exercising full rights.

No, that is not the case. Both the Father and the Son can be referred to as the Lord (kýrios). Jesus is referred to as "the Lord" (kýrios) in other verses, so I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

Here are a couple examples where the word is used to refer to Jesus:

Matthew 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord (kýrios), make his paths straight.

Matthew 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord (kýrios), if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

There are plenty of other examples as well, but this should suffice.

 

[grafted branch]

No, that is not the case. Both the Father and the Son can be referred to as the Lord (kýrios). Jesus is referred to as "the Lord" (kýrios) in other verses, so I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

Here are a couple examples where the word is used to refer to Jesus:

Matthew 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord (kýrios), make his paths straight.

Matthew 8:2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord (kýrios), if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

There are plenty of other examples as well, but this should suffice.

Right, so your argument has to be that after Christ’s death and resurrection He wasn’t the Lord over the vineyard, God the Father kept the vineyard.

In Matthew 28:18 Jesus says all power or authority was given him. What verses would support God giving Jesus all power except for the power over the vineyard?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

then I’m not sure why you would ask me, someone leans postmil, why I use premil sources, if you already know that both premils and postmils can agree on partial preterist eschatology?

Sure, they can sometimes agree on things, but most often they do not. But, hey, go ahead and put your trust in someone's opinion with whom you disagree on a lot of other things if you want. I can't stop you.

2,000 years removed, it’s easy for us to call it “traces” and “foolish”. But thousands of Jewish Christians, including the apostle James, were still zealous for the law decades after the cross.

But, they shouldn't have been. They were mistaken. Why would you think otherwise? I'm not just making this up. Paul said it was foolish to still try to follow the old covenant law.

Galatians 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh? 4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain? 5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? 6 So also Abraham “believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

I agree the old covenant was made obsolete at the cross, just highlighting that those “traces” were a little bigger than that.

The old covenant was no longer in effect after Christ's death regardless of whether people were still trying to follow it after that or not. That is the point. His death put a complete end to the old covenant and established the new covenant. That's what being made obsolete means. People trying to still live under the old covenant when they should have been starting to live under the new covenant was meaningless.

It wasn’t like all of the sudden, the Christian Jews understood to stop following the temple practices.

So what? That doesn't change the fact that the old covenant was made completely obsolete and no longer in effect by Christ's death. The Jews weren't the ones to determine when it was no longer in effect, Jesus was.

The massive deluge of Noah’s time didn’t destroy the entire literal globe - it destroyed the people of a specific region.

That is false. It's sad that you accept what secular sources who have an agenda tell you instead of accepting what the Word of God itself indicates.

Genesis 6:6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.

Did the Lord regret that He had made human beings only in a specific region of the earth? Of course not. That's ridiculous. He was clearly speaking of human beings in general. And it says He would wipe them from the face of the earth. Not from just a certain place on the earth, but from the entire earth. Why do you not accept what scripture teaches over what anti-Christian sources say?

This is confirmed not only by the absence of geologic evidence,

What is your basis for saying this? Are you a scientist? Have you done the research on this yourself? There are scientists who make that claim and other scientists who say otherwise. How do you decide which geologists and scientists you believe?

but also Historical records and archaeological discoveries of civilizations, such as the Norte Chico and China, existing prior to, during, and post the date of flood as given by “answers in genesis” (around 2350 bc)

Why do you act as if all archaeologists agree on these things? What is your source for this?

As to principles and ordinances - the Greek for elements in 2 peter 3:10 can also mean principles and ordinances. So to say there is zero hint is not really true.

Helps word studies
“4747 stoixeíon– properly, fundamentals, like with the basic components of a philosophy, structure, etc.; (figuratively) "first principles," like the basic fundamentals of Christianity.

[4747 (stoixeíon) refers to "the rudimentswith which mankind . . . were indoctrinated (before the time of Christ), i.e. the elements of religious training or the ceremonial precepts common alike to the worship of Jews and of Gentiles" (J. Thayer). “

Of course most Greek words have multiple definitions. But, explain to me exactly how "a philsophy, structure, etc." can melt with fervent heat even in a figurative sense.

I’m lumping in biblical interpretations that have had to change due to changes in the understanding of our world.

Changes that come from the agendas of people who don't accept what the Word of God teaches.

Interestingly enough, Answers in Genesis believes the earth is the center of the universe

Are you being purposely dishonest here? You're talking about the geometric center of the universe, right? That is not what they mean when they say that. Why wouldn't you have mentioned what they meant by that?

This is what they say about that: "The earth occupies the central position in the entire universe because of its God-given role, even though it may not be in the geometrical center.". How convenient for you to not mention this.

Genesis 1 describes the creation consistent with the formation of ancient near eastern cosmological world, which, as we know today, is not an accurate portrait of the world.

And who told you this? It says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That's the literal heavens and literal entire earth. Trying to say otherwise is just a case of trying to change the Word of God to say what you want it to say.

Additionally, radiometric dating can prove the earth is older than 10,000 years.

Those dating methods have been proven to be faulty. Why do you put so much blind trust in such things? I'm in agreement with Answers in Genesis on this when they say:

"Radiometric dating measures the decay of radioactive atoms to determine the age of a rock sample. It is founded on unprovable assumptions such as 1) there has been no contamination and 2) the decay rate has remained constant. By dating rocks of known ages which give highly inflated ages, geologists have shown this method can’t give reliable absolute ages.".

Here's more info about radiometric dating: Radiometric Dating

So i don’t put my faith in a literal, fundamental interpretation of genesis (which is only 1 way of multiple different types of interpretation methods of genesis 1).

That's unfortunate since there is no basis for that. Each of the creation days consisted of a morning and evening, which is a clear reference to 24 hour days.

I put my faith in simply God creating the world, and genesis 1 is a poetic story written in contrast the other creation stories of that time.

Nonsense. Other scripture refers to things written in Genesis 1 in a literal way and refers to Adam and Eve as the first human beings. You choose to use non-biblical sources for your understanding rather than the Bible itself.

I absolutely agree Jesus did not return in 70ad according to your belief.

LOL

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Right, so your argument has to be that after Christ’s death and resurrection He wasn’t the Lord over the vineyard, God the Father kept the vineyard.

In Matthew 28:18 Jesus says all power or authority was given him. What verses would support God giving Jesus all power except for the power over the vineyard?

You need to think about this more carefully. Did you actually read the parable? Do you think the vineyard owner and vineyard owner's son are the same? The parable differentiates between the two, so why aren't you?

 

[grafted branch]

You need to think about this more carefully. Did you actually read the parable? Do you think the vineyard owner and vineyard owner's son are the same? The parable differentiates between the two, so why aren't you?

Because of Matthew 21:42. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Jesus became the head of the corner and was given all power. These things happened after His resurrection, Jesus became the owner after His resurrection. Are you acknowledging this or do you have some verses that say otherwise?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Because of Matthew 21:42. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Jesus became the head of the corner and was given all power. These things happened after His resurrection, Jesus became the owner after His resurrection. Are you acknowledging this or do you have some verses that say otherwise?

That is besides the point. God the Father giving power to the Son does not mean He had no power or authority Himself after that. Is that what you think? It very specifically says that the vineyard owner would come and destroy the ones who killed his son. The vineyard owner is God the Father. It does not say that the son would come and destroy them, it says the vineyard owner would come and destroy them. Why are you trying to get around that? The fact that Jesus is the stone they rejected doesn't change that fact. God the Father destroyed them because they rejected His Son.

Jesus did not come in 70 AD. Scripture is clear that His second coming will be a global event resulting in the destruction of all of His enemies in the world as well as the resurrection of all the dead in Christ and the change of all His people from having mortal to immortal bodies.

 

[grafted branch]

That is besides the point. God the Father giving power to the Son does not mean He had no power or authority Himself after that. Is that what you think? It very specifically says that the vineyard owner would come and destroy the ones who killed his son. The vineyard owner is God the Father. It does not say that the son would come and destroy them, it says the vineyard owner would come and destroy them. Why are you trying to get around that? The fact that Jesus is the stone they rejected doesn't change that fact. God the Father destroyed them because they rejected His Son.

No that is the point, you have to have the Father holding onto the vineyard and not giving it to the Son.

Jesus did not come in 70 AD. Scripture is clear that His second coming will be a global event resulting in the destruction of all of His enemies in the world as well as the resurrection of all the dead in Christ and the change of all His people from having mortal to immortal bodies.

Are you scoffing and asking where is the promise of his AD70 coming?