Preterism misrepresents Scripture

[Spiritual Jew]

? I thought that false gospel was not permitted online... maybe it was another forum....
Refuting it is not apparently possible online...

Are you referring to full preterism? That is not allowed to be promoted here.

 

[Aaron112]

Are you referring to full preterism? That is not allowed to be promoted here.

I wasn't being knowing the difference, thanks.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I wasn't being knowing the difference, thanks.

Full preterists are those who don't believe in a future second coming of Christ.

 

[claninja]

You're contradicting what Jesus said in His parable. Jesus Himself said it would be the vineyard owner, not the vineyard owner's son, that would come and He would destroy the wicked tenants. You are trying to change the parable and make the son of the vineyard owner the one who would come even though that is not what Jesus said. If it was the son who was going to come then it would say, but it says the vineyard owner would come instead.

Matthew 21:42 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

Can you see here that it says the owner of the vineyard would come? Does the owner of the vineyard represent God the Father or does it represent His Son Jesus in the parable? You said "No disagreement that the master of the vineyard is represented by God, and the son represents Christ" and yet you are still trying to make it as though Jesus said the son would come rather than the vineyard owner. Jesus becoming the cornerstone doesn't make Him the vineyard owner rather than the son of the vineyard owner. The vineyard owner in the parable is God the Father. Period. You can't change the parable.

If Jesus “becoming” the cornerstone, which would crush those it fell on, doesn’t make Jesus the vineyard owner who would come to crush wicked tenants, then Jesus’ pivot to the whole “the rejected stone has become the cornerstone” is completely irrelevant to the parable of the wicked tenants.

I’m not changing anything in the parable. Im simply interpreting the parable of the wicked tenants through the lens of the rejected stone becoming the cornerstone. i believe the rejected stone (murdered heir to the vineyard) became the cornerstone (master of the vineyard) which would crush the wicked tenants (coming of the vineyard owner).

Christ’s rejection by Israel, and his death and resurrection resulted in him inheriting the kingdom and all authority, dominion, glory, and power. So I disagree that the rejection of the stone has nothing to do with Christ’s becoming the master of the vineyard owner.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

If Jesus “becoming” the cornerstone, which would crush those it fell on, doesn’t make Jesus the vineyard owner who would come to crush wicked tenants, then Jesus’ pivot to the whole “the rejected stone has become the cornerstone” is completely irrelevant to the parable of the wicked tenants.

That's not true. The vineyard owner, which represented the Father in the parable and only the Father, destroyed them because of their rejection of the son of the vineyard owner who is described as "the rejected stone" who becamse the cornerstone. That doesn't mean He became the vineyard owner. The Father is the vineyard owner and He came to destroy those who rejected His Son. Never does Jesus say He Himself would come to destroy them.

If Jesus “becoming” the cornerstone, which would crush those it fell on, doesn’t make Jesus the vineyard owner who would come to crush wicked tenants, then Jesus’ pivot to the whole “the rejected stone has become the cornerstone” is completely irrelevant to the parable of the wicked tenants.

I’m not changing anything in the parable.

Yes, you absolutely are doing that. Please tell me, who does the vineyard owner represent in the parable? God the Father or Jesus? It's clearly God the Father, but you are trying to make the vineyard owner Jesus instead. The son of the vineyard owner obviously represents Jesus. He is not both the vineyard owner and the son of the vineyard owner.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The day of judgment of all people being judged has clearly not yet arrived. You are mistaken. God set a day in which all people from all-time will have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of themselves. Acts 17:30 talks about how God commands all people everywhere to repent. Acts 17:31 talks about how God has "given assurance to all". That's talking about literally all people since literally all people are commanded to repent and God gave assurance to literally all people having raised the man He ordained (Jesus, obviously) from the dead. So, "the world" there refers to literally all people everywhere being judged when the appointed day arrives in the future.

The Acts 17:31 verse spoke of the judgment about to come in Paul's generation. "...because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness,..." This was a judgment imminent to those Paul was speaking to.

There is more than one Great White throne judgment. All humankind in total will eventually have to be judged before God's throne - just not all at one time, as is commonly presumed.

 

[claninja]

You're contradicting what Jesus said in His parable. Jesus Himself said it would be the vineyard owner, not the vineyard owner's son, that would come and He would destroy the wicked tenants. You are trying to change the parable and make the son of the vineyard owner the one who would come even though that is not what Jesus said. If it was the son who was going to come then it would say, but it says the vineyard owner would come instead.

Matthew 21:42 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”

Can you see here that it says the owner of the vineyard would come? Does the owner of the vineyard represent God the Father or does it represent His Son Jesus in the parable? You said "No disagreement that the master of the vineyard is represented by God, and the son represents Christ" and yet you are still trying to make it as though Jesus said the son would come rather than the vineyard owner. Jesus becoming the cornerstone doesn't make Him the vineyard owner rather than the son of the vineyard owner. The vineyard owner in the parable is God the Father. Period. You can't change the parable.

what is the vineyard that was planted by God at the beginning of the parable? Was it not the nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, and its laws and ordinances through which the priests and doctors of the law (husbandmen) would govern Israel, in which they were supposed to lead Israel to produce fruit.

Clarke
“There was a certain householder - Let us endeavor to find out a general and practical meaning for this parable. A householder - the Supreme Being. The family - the Jewish nation. The vineyard - the city of Jerusalem. The fence - the Divine protection. The wine-press - the law and sacrificial rites. The tower - the temple, in which the Divine presence was manifested. The husbandmen - the priests and doctors of the law. Went from home - entrusted the cultivation of the vineyard to the priests, etc., “

Ellicot
“Taking the thought there suggested as the key to the parable, the vineyard is “the house of Israel;” the “fence” finds its counterpart in the institutions which made Israel a separate and peculiar people; the “wine-press” (better, wine-vat—i.e., the reservoir underneath the press), in the Temple, as that into which the “wine” of devotion, and thanksgiving, and charity was to flow; the “tower” (used in vineyards as a place of observation and defence against the attacks of plunderers; comp. Isaiah 1:8), in Jerusalem and the outward polity connected with it. So, in like manner, the letting out to husbandmen and the going “into a far country” answers historically to the conquest by which the Israelites became possessors of Canaan, and were left, as it were, to themselves to make what use they chose of their opportunities.”

Benson
“The Jewish Church planted in Canaan, represented also as a vineyard”

MacLaren
“It is planted and furnished with all appliances needful for making wine, which is its great end. The direct divine origin of the religious ideas and observances of ‘Judaism’ is thus asserted by Christ. The only explanation of them is that God enclosed that bit of the wilderness, and with His own hands set growing there these exotics.”

Benson
“Planted a vineyard - A place for the cultivation of grapes. It is often used to represent the church of God. as a place cultivated and valuable. Judea was favorable to vines, and the figure is frequently used, therefore, in the sacred writers. See Matthew 20:1. It is used here to represent the "Jewish people" - the people chosen of the Lord, cultivated with care, and signally favored; or perhaps more definitely, "the city of Jerusalem."

Jamiesson
“and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower—These details are taken, as is the basis of the parable itself, from that beautiful parable of Isa 5:1-7, in order to fix down the application and sustain it by Old Testament authority.”


So when these wicked tenants are destroyed for killing the servants and the son, and not producing fruit from the vineyard , am I to understand that the new tenants that are given this very same exact vineyard, are given the literal nation of Israel, the literal earthly city of Jerusalem, and the literal ordinances of the law in order to bear fruit? Based on your current and very rigid argument, it seems so, but……

No, of course not. The parable isn’t meant to convey that the new tenants would take the place of the wicked tenants’ position in literal earthly Jerusalem over the old covenant. Jesus explains the parable, and the meaning - the vineyard being given to the new tenants is to be understood as the kingdom of God being taken from the wicked leaders and given to a new nation producing fruit - the body of Christ (new tenants) would be given the spiritual kingdom of God and the heavenly Jerusalem.

So Just as Jesus explains the vineyard being given to new tenants, as the kingdom being taken from Israel and being given to a new nation, he also explains the wicked tenants’ destruction by the vineyard owner - the stone that was rejected by the builders (husbandmen) had now became the cornerstone, and it would fall on them and crush them.

So, I view matthew 21:40-41 through Jesus’ explanation in Matthew 21:43-44 and matthews commentary on the Pharisees reaction in vs 45.

 

[sovereigngrace]

what is the vineyard that was planted by God at the beginning of the parable? Was it not the nation of Israel and the city of Jerusalem, and its laws and ordinances through which the priests and doctors of the law (husbandmen) would govern Israel, in which they were supposed to lead Israel to produce fruit.

Clarke
“There was a certain householder - Let us endeavor to find out a general and practical meaning for this parable. A householder - the Supreme Being. The family - the Jewish nation. The vineyard - the city of Jerusalem. The fence - the Divine protection. The wine-press - the law and sacrificial rites. The tower - the temple, in which the Divine presence was manifested. The husbandmen - the priests and doctors of the law. Went from home - entrusted the cultivation of the vineyard to the priests, etc., “

Ellicot
“Taking the thought there suggested as the key to the parable, the vineyard is “the house of Israel;” the “fence” finds its counterpart in the institutions which made Israel a separate and peculiar people; the “wine-press” (better, wine-vat—i.e., the reservoir underneath the press), in the Temple, as that into which the “wine” of devotion, and thanksgiving, and charity was to flow; the “tower” (used in vineyards as a place of observation and defence against the attacks of plunderers; comp. Isaiah 1:8), in Jerusalem and the outward polity connected with it. So, in like manner, the letting out to husbandmen and the going “into a far country” answers historically to the conquest by which the Israelites became possessors of Canaan, and were left, as it were, to themselves to make what use they chose of their opportunities.”

Benson
“The Jewish Church planted in Canaan, represented also as a vineyard”

MacLaren
“It is planted and furnished with all appliances needful for making wine, which is its great end. The direct divine origin of the religious ideas and observances of ‘Judaism’ is thus asserted by Christ. The only explanation of them is that God enclosed that bit of the wilderness, and with His own hands set growing there these exotics.”

Benson
“Planted a vineyard - A place for the cultivation of grapes. It is often used to represent the church of God. as a place cultivated and valuable. Judea was favorable to vines, and the figure is frequently used, therefore, in the sacred writers. See Matthew 20:1. It is used here to represent the "Jewish people" - the people chosen of the Lord, cultivated with care, and signally favored; or perhaps more definitely, "the city of Jerusalem."

Jamiesson
“and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower—These details are taken, as is the basis of the parable itself, from that beautiful parable of Isa 5:1-7, in order to fix down the application and sustain it by Old Testament authority.”


So when these wicked tenants are destroyed for killing the servants and the son, and not producing fruit from the vineyard , am I to understand that the new tenants that are given this very same exact vineyard, are given the literal nation of Israel, the literal earthly city of Jerusalem, and the literal ordinances of the law in order to bear fruit? Based on your current and very rigid argument, it seems so, but……

No, of course not. The parable isn’t meant to convey that the new tenants would take the place of the wicked tenants’ position in literal earthly Jerusalem over the old covenant. Jesus explains the parable, and the meaning - the vineyard being given to the new tenants is to be understood as the kingdom of God being taken from the wicked leaders and given to a new nation producing fruit - the body of Christ (new tenants) would be given the spiritual kingdom of God and the heavenly Jerusalem.

So Just as Jesus explains the vineyard being given to new tenants, as the kingdom being taken from Israel and being given to a new nation, he also explains the wicked tenants’ destruction by the vineyard owner - the stone that was rejected by the builders (husbandmen) had now became the cornerstone, and it would fall on them and crush them.

So, I view matthew 21:40-41 through Jesus’ explanation in Matthew 21:43-44 and matthews commentary on the Pharisees reaction in vs 45.

Of course, the vineyard being taken from Christ-rejecting apostate Israel and being given to a new nation producing the fruit thereof relates to the international New Testament Church entering into the kingdom of God.

 

[Aaron112]

There are so many contradictions and butchering of the sacred text in Preterism that it is hard to know where to start when refuting it.

It got a lot of free advertising in this thread.

Jesus did not bother refuting the gentiles false religions , so why do people today do so ?

Is it not even an instruction not to even talk to anyone who brings a false gospel ? Don't have a meal with them. Don't let them in fellowship meetings.
Period.

 

[claninja]

Of course, the vineyard being taken from Christ-rejecting apostate Israel and being given to a new nation producing the fruit thereof relates to the international New Testament Church entering into the kingdom of God.

Did the planting of the vineyard and giving it to the original tenants refer to the New Testament church entering the kingdom of God?

 

[sovereigngrace]

The Acts 17:31 verse spoke of the judgment about to come in Paul's generation. "...because He did set a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness,..." This was a judgment imminent to those Paul was speaking to.

There is more than one Great White throne judgment. All humankind in total will eventually have to be judged before God's throne - just not all at one time, as is commonly presumed.

So, you believe the second coming and the day of judgment are death for a human (or the believer)?

 

[3 Resurrections]

So, you believe the second coming and the day of judgment are death for a human (or the believer)?

I would quote Paul from his letter to Timothy. 2 Timothy 4:1 (YLT) says, "I do fully testify, then, before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who is about to judge living and dead at his appearing and his kingdom..." That was Christ's second coming which Paul was referring to. On that occasion, judgment of the dead was going to happen, with either rewards given to His resurrected saints, or destruction given to the souls of the wicked in that judgment. The living were also going to experience a time of trial and testing leading up to that point.

Also, when Christ comes in our future, all human wickedness is to be purged from this planet. Only the bodies of the righteous dead will be resurrected and changed to the incorruptible and immortal state at this coming. The souls of the wicked dead brought to judgment will never be re-united with their physical body again, and will likewise perish during this judgment.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Also, when Christ comes in our future, all human wickedness is to be purged from this planet. Only the bodies of the righteous dead will be resurrected and changed to the incorruptible and immortal state at this coming. The souls of the wicked dead brought to judgment will never be re-united with their physical body again, and will likewise perish during this judgment.

Do you believe that is a future event or an ongoing unfolding reality?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Do you believe that is a future event or an ongoing unfolding reality?

No, this is not an "ongoing unfolding reality". There is yet again, on a single particular day, a future judgment of the living and the dead, the just and the unjust, at Christ's next appearance. In the meantime, the spirits of the righteous are present with the Lord at their physical death as they wait for the final bodily resurrection, and the souls of the wicked are reserved for a final judgment before God which destroys them utterly so that they exist no more.