Preterism misrepresents Scripture

[Spiritual Jew]

If the truth they are denying is fundamental, then it should be extremely easy to disprove the position of those who deny it.

It is. But, why bother? It's a waste of time. It's a heretical doctrine that doesn't belong on a Christian forum. I believe there's a Controversial Issues forum or something like that here. They can talk about it there.

All I suggested was that they be allowed to give their position, currently they can’t and I don’t think this website would allow them free rein through out the forum but Sovereigngrace seemed to be arguing against them. I just thought if Sovereigngrace wanted to show the rest of us how easy it is to defeat the full preterist view, it would be helpful to allow the full preterist to post to this thread if this website would made it possible for the author to specifically allow it.

That is all I was thinking, I didn’t put in a formal suggestion. But based on how much it seems to bother the Amil people here I doubt it would happen anyway.

It's not going to happen, so it's pointless to discuss this any further.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Will people in NHNE be able to understand why Jesus died if we don’t remember the sins we committed? Will it not come to our minds the pain and death Jesus suffered? These things happen in this current heaven and earth.

I don't know and am not going to pretend to know something like that. We have to be careful how literal we take things like that. Is it talking about literally not remembering anything at all about the current earth? I'm not sure. I doubt we will have specific memories of His pain and suffering on the cross (or memories of reading about it in our case), but I would think we'll have some sense and understanding of the fact that He is our Savior. Regardless, it's clear to me that verses like Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:1 are speaking of the current heavens and earth passing away in the future in favor of the new heavens and new earth. Doesn't mean they will be annihilated, but the heavens and earth will be made new and the things that occurred on the earth as we know it now, such as death, pain, crying and sorrow, will no longer occur on the new earth.

 

[grafted branch]

I don't know and am not going to pretend to know something like that. We have to be careful how literal we take things like that. Is it talking about literally not remembering anything at all about the current earth? I'm not sure. I doubt we will have specific memories of His pain and suffering on the cross (or memories of reading about it in our case), but I would think we'll have some sense and understanding of the fact that He is our Savior. Regardless, it's clear to me that verses like Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:1 are speaking of the current heavens and earth passing away in the future in favor of the new heavens and new earth. Doesn't mean they will be annihilated, but the heavens and earth will be made new and the things that occurred on the earth as we know it now, such as death, pain, crying and sorrow, will no longer occur on the new earth.

If I understand you correctly you admit if Isaiah 65:17 is meant literally then it causes conflicts with other verses that can’t be explained, but it’s clear Isaiah 65:17 is meant literally as in the current heavens and earth passing away in the future in favor of the new heavens and new earth.

 

[One Son]

If I understand you correctly you admit if Isaiah 65:17 is meant literally then it causes conflicts with other verses that can’t be explained, but it’s clear Isaiah 65:17 is meant literally as in the current heavens and earth passing away in the future in favor of the new heavens and new earth.

Hi,

2Cor.5:1-21(NKJ)

16Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not [d]imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.


20Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.


Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.


if anyone is in Christ.


Matt.5:17“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one [c]tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I do get it, the Nicene creed says there is a future literal coming and this forum will say any view that denies a future coming is heresy.

If I wanted to deny 70AD occurred I could do so and that would not be heresy even though both denying 70AD and a future coming of Christ are denying literal fulfillments.

I just simply made a suggestion that a red tag could be made available to allow full preterist to argue against some of your statements like this in the OP …




Only full preterist don’t believe in a future coming, it seems you wanted from the start to debate full preterist but only partial preterist views are allowed in this area of the forum so really nobody is going to argue against that point. I think it would be helpful if full preterist could debate someone like you in this area of the forum but they have their hands tied behind their backs, so to speak.

Not so. My post was addressed to all Preterists.

 

[Jipsah]

I am highlighting your lack of Scripture and your fixation with Titus and AD70.

You've done nothing to support your claim to that "fixation", either. We're apparently accept it on your authority, which is very unlikely to happen.

 

[grafted branch]

Not so. My post was addressed to all Preterists.

Right, your post is addressed to all preterist but only full preterist believe there is no future literal coming.

It seems your main problem with partial preterist is their view on AD70, you call it a fixation. A partial preterist could simply turn your OP around on you and say something like this …



All Amil are fixated only on the actual return of Christ, which everyone agrees will be glorious. Amil are so fixated on the return that they don’t want to talk about how certain parts of scripture have been fulfilled, that day will not come as a thief to those who understand and can see the fulfillment of scripture. By only focusing on the return they sadly miss the Titus and AD70 fulfillment, this is the most troubling and dangerous aspect of their many contradictions.

 

[Hammster]

You've done nothing to support your claim to that "fixation", either. We're apparently accept it on your authority, which is very unlikely to happen.

I’ve tried to make that point. It just gets waved away as if it’s so obvious.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You've done nothing to support your claim to that "fixation", either. We're apparently accept it on your authority, which is very unlikely to happen.

You are a walking proof of that. Choose a thread and readers will see the evidence. Show me anywhere you have taught in detail on Christ's glorious future return? The burden of proof is with you.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Right, your post is addressed to all preterist but only full preterist believe there is no future literal coming.

It seems your main problem with partial preterist is their view on AD70, you call it a fixation. A partial preterist could simply turn your OP around on you and say something like this …



All Amil are fixated only on the actual return of Christ, which everyone agrees will be glorious. Amil are so fixated on the return that they don’t want to talk about how certain parts of scripture have been fulfilled, that day will not come as a thief to those who understand and can see the fulfillment of scripture. By only focusing on the return they sadly miss the Titus and AD70 fulfillment, this is the most troubling and dangerous aspect of their many contradictions.

Totally disagree. That is your opinion. Amils just don't make AD70 the central point of history and the constant topic of conversation as Preterists do.

 

[Hammster]

You are a walking proof of that. Choose a thread and readers will see the evidence. Show me anywhere you have taught in detail on Christ's glorious future return? The burden of proof is with you.

You apparently don’t understand burden of proof

 

[sovereigngrace]

You apparently don’t understand burden of proof

I actually do. I was a police officer for 15 years. The first principle of evidence is: he who alleges must prove. Where is all your teaching on a future second coming?

 

[Jipsah]

You are a walking proof of that.

That what?

Choose a thread and readers will see the evidence. Show me anywhere you have taught in detail on Christ's glorious future return? The burden of proof is with you.

Well, my tag line for one: "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again". You'll see it right beloe here.

As for "detail.,. here ya go:
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Any questions?

Oh, and proof of what, exactly? Talking about Titus? I domn't recall talking about the old boy at all except when you mentioned him.

70AD? Yeah, I've mentioned it. Probably about 1% as often as you do. You do seem to refer to it in every post, far more than any preterist I've ever talked to. Projecting?

 

[Hammster]

I actually do. I was a police officer for 15 years. The first principle of evidence is: he who alleges must prove. Where is all your teaching on a future second coming?

Your OP alleged. So go ahead and prove. I’m innocent until then.

Here is what you’ve alleged and need to prove.

“The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70”

 

[Ed Parenteau]

Did you even read the post you were replying to? He indicated in his post that, in his view, Peter was speaking from God's perspectivei just like he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9. So, he's not denying what Peter said and not contradicting anything. He simply has a different interpretation of it than you do.

If one reads the very statement that Peter made, it still remains within a time frame given by the Lord. The Lord's Promise that was seemingly being delayed was this: Matthew 24:Truly I say to you that this generation will not have passed away until all these things shall have taken place. Otherwise what promise did He make that could be delayed? A day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day can neither be delayed nor extended-it's eternal. It's not an eraser used to negate any time statement like "the time is near". At the time of Peter's writing, it's been some 35 years into that generation and Peter's using that simile it to rebut the scoffers, who, like the Judaizers are attacking the church. Just read Ezekiel 12 and see how God Himself sees changing His time statements.

But let's start at verse 1 of 2 Peter 3 to lay a foundation for what follows.
1Beloved, this is now my second letter to you. Both of them are reminders to stir you to wholesome thinking 2by recalling what was foretold by the holy prophets and commanded by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
3Most importantly, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4“Where is the promise of His coming?”

When looking for the last day scoffers in the prophets we find that Isaiah prophesies about them and tells us exactly who they are and the time frame it puts them in.
Isaiah 28:
14Therefore hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers
who rule this people in Jerusalem.
15For you said, “We have made a covenant with death;
we have fashioned an agreement with Sheol.
When the overwhelming scourge passes through
it will not touch us,
because we have made lies our refuge
and falsehood our hiding place.”
16So this is what the Lord GOD says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation;
the one who believes will never be shaken.

2Peter 3: 7And by that same word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8Beloved, do not let this one thing escape your notice: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise as some understand slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance.
The "you" Peter's speaking to are the Jewish diaspora who are the "remnant" that are being saved. It can't be anyone else, otherwise it's just too late as many have already perished over the last 2 thousand years. And that is what fits into the "this generation" time frame that Christ promised.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If I understand you correctly you admit if Isaiah 65:17 is meant literally then it causes conflicts with other verses that can’t be explained,

Nope. you're not understanding me correctly. I think this is hopeless. For whatever reason you are just not able to understand me and I honestly have trouble understanding you. Oh well.

Anyway, I'm definitely not saying that. Isaiah 65:17, taken literally, does not cause any conflict with any other verses.

but it’s clear Isaiah 65:17 is meant literally as in the current heavens and earth passing away in the future in favor of the new heavens and new earth.

Yes, that is clear.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Your OP alleged. So go ahead and prove. I’m innocent until then.

Here is what you’ve alleged and need to prove.

“The most troubling aspect (of course) is their dangerous, obsessive and unbiblical fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70”

I would need to quote every topic you get excited about. Posters can search back for themselves. Pick any thread you engage in.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If one reads the very statement that Peter made, it still remains within a time frame given by the Lord.

You're not addressing my point which had to do with the false accusation you made towards WPM. You falsely claimed that he denied what Peter said, but he did not. I said that he indicated in his post that, in his view, Peter was speaking from God's perspective just like he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9. That's not a case of denying what Peter said, it's a case of him interpreting what Peter said differently than how you do. I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post because I didn't ask for your interpretation of any scripture. I was simply pointing out how you had made a false accusation towards another person.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I’ve tried to make that point. It just gets waved away as if it’s so obvious.

When have you ever talked about the glorious future return of the Lord Jesus Christ? Have you ever? Are you looking forward to it with great anticipation and excitement? When it comes to this forum, do you talk about much else besides what happened in 70 AD? Not that I've seen.

 

[Jipsah]

I would need to quote every topic you get excited about. Posters can search back for themselves. Pick any thread you engage in.

YOu made the allegations, burdens on you. Better turn to, you have a bunch of reading to do.