preterism

[Suede]

Toms777





++++“SUEDE Yea, and none of those verses are directed towards you, they are exclusively to the disciples”. You keep saying that, but you don't show me that to be the case from scripture. Indeed, let's see:

Matt 24:19-20
But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.


So which of the apostles were pregnant - it does say "you" and you said that this was exclsuive to the apostles+++



The conversation is still to the disciples. Notice Jesus says

“But woe to those who are pregnant…” Not “woe to you guys that might be pregnant.” Jesus is merely relaying how terrible that time will be, but he is still relaying this message to the disciples. Let’s look at Luke’s account of this verse,



Lu 21:23 – “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.”



Jesus adds that there is going to be a tribulation on THIS people. Not a later people living +2,000 years, but that specific group of people. The coming of tribulation on that particular generation is a theme that is repeated all throughout the New Testament. Here it is again,



Matt 23:36 “Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.”



SUEDE

 

[Toms777]

Matt 24:19-20
But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.


So which of the apostles were pregnant - it does say "you" and you said that this was exclsuive to the apostles+++



The conversation is still to the disciples. Notice Jesus says

“But woe to those who are pregnant…” Not “woe to you guys that might be pregnant.” Jesus is merely relaying how terrible that time will be, but he is still relaying this message to the disciples. Let’s look at Luke’s account of this verse,

Ah, but he descriobes the conditions which cause them to to flee, and then states that it will be "your" flight, thus, according to you, since this applies exclusively to the apostles, one of the apostles must be pregnant.

As soon as you are willing to admit that "you" does not necessarily always apply to those who are the immediate and original hearers, then the problem goes away.

You have been caught in your own trap.

 

[Toms777]

So finally we come to the real point of contention. No wonder you won't reply to my post. You don't believe that God divorced Israel and slew her in covenant judgement.

You must not have read Acts 3 that P70 quoted:

The Old Covenant was the matrimony between God and His people. They proved faithless, stiff-necked, rebellious murderers. They also proved that the Old Covenant was not sufficient to meet the needs of the human condition.

You need to read Romans 11 in it's entirety. It is entirely written against those who claim that God rejected the Jews as a people and oprovides some seriously warnings against such false teachings.

I am not sure what you mean by "replacement theology".

Replacement theology is a heresy which states that the Jews killed and/or rejected Jesus, and as a result God rejected the Jews as a people in 70AD, replacing them with the church, and thus all the promises in scripture which relate to the Jews now relate to the church and that God no longer has a purpose for Israel or the Jews as a people.

Somehow, these folk think that those who actually killed Jesus (gentiles) are somehow not rejected by God, but instead God removes His blessing from the Jews, rejecting them in favour of those who actually killed Jesus.

Of course the serious error in this theology is that it believe that somehow, contrary to scripture, one race uis better than another in God's eyes despite the scripture which states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

 

[Suede]

Toms777





+++Ah, but he descriobes the conditions which cause them to to flee, and then states that it will be "your" flight, thus, according to you, since this applies exclusively to the apostles, one of the apostles must be pregnant.+++



The apostles are being exclusively talked TO, but not talked ABOUT. Jesus makes a similar statement to some women on his way to be cruicified, read Luke 23:27-30. You seem to not understand that the Apostles are the audience here, not the topic of discussion. Jesus is speaking of pregnant and nursing women and those women’s flight to escape the wrath.


+++As soon as you are willing to admit that "you" does not necessarily always apply to those who are the immediate and original hearers, then the problem goes away.+++



Actually, as you admit that only the disicples are there being talked to, then all your problems go away.Tom, I was not raised a Preterist, but came to that by the grace of God. We mustn’t fight against the Bible that speaks so plain to us. You have to understand that you can’t refute the truth, and Preterism is that truth in eschatology. I too had submit to the Bible as the authority on The End. I did so graciously and you should too. We’ll be here when you do, take care,



SUEDE

 

[Toms777]

The apostles are being exclusively talked TO, but not talked ABOUT...

Exactly. So when the word "you" is used, they may be spoken to, but not about.

Precisely!!

 

[Suede]

Tom,

The disciples are the only ones being spoken to, but they are not the pregnant women of verse 19. Common sense that men can't be pregnant refutes your idea. However, Christ is telling them, the disciples, that THEY are going to see those things, and they DID. And let's not forget the cap, verse 34, that Christ says that ALL those things would happen within one generation!

SUEDE

 

[Toms777]

Tom,

The disciples are the only ones being spoken to, but they are not the pregnant women of verse 19. Common sense that men can't be pregnant refutes your idea. However, Christ is telling them, the disciples, that THEY are going to see those things, and they DID. And let's not forget the cap, verse 34, that Christ says that ALL those things would happen within one generation!

SUEDE

So you apply the "exclusively" "you" rule whenever it supports your theology but deny it when it sounds silly.

You need to be consistent.

 

[Suede]

Stauron,



You had a question about Replacement theology and Tom gave you an answer. But let me do one better.



+++Replacement theology is a heresy which states that the Jews killed and/or rejected Jesus,+++



Yes, this is true, it does state that the Jews killed Jesus. And this is also Biblically true. And since it is Biblically true, it’s not really a heresy.



Mt 27:24 – “When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves."

Mt 27:25 – “And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"



1 Thess 2:14,15 - “….as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.”



So we got that down now. However, one needs to remember that this is not ALL Jews, simply put the Apostles were Jewish! So to blame all of the Jews is were the error is, it was only the Non Believing Jews that did this, and actually with their non belief they in essence cancel out their Jewishness. Look at John 8: 42-44.



42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me. 43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word. 44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father….”



We forget that one is with and of God through FAITH, not flesh.


+++ and as a result God rejected the Jews as a people in 70AD, replacing them with the church, and thus all the promises in scripture which relate to the Jews now relate to the church and that God no longer has a purpose for Israel or the Jews as a people.+++


Parousia70 has already done a great job explaining that it was the non believing Jews that were rejected, not Jews as a whole. But the Church, i.e. the people of the New Covenant, does in fact replace the people of the Old Covenant. The only way a “Jew” has a purpose with God is if he is a believer in the Messiah Jesus. If not, they are in apsostacy just like any other non Christian. When saying Church though, one must understand that this does not mean gentiles exclusively. This in itself is a heretical error. The Church is all believers! For All are equal in Christ.



Gal 3:28 –“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”



+++Somehow, these folk think that those who actually killed Jesus (gentiles) are somehow not rejected by God, but instead God removes His blessing from the Jews, rejecting them in favour of those who actually killed Jesus+++



Well we’ve already refuted the first part, but let’s bear in mind that God works covenantly via Faith, not flesh. All PEOPLE’S can have blessings in God, if they are believers.



+++Of course the serious error in this theology is that it believe that somehow, contrary to scripture, one race us better than another in God's eyes despite the scripture which states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God+++



The counter of Replacement Theology states that one race is better then another as well. It states that the Jews through their flesh can some how get Divine Favor. THAT is a racist doctrine. All have fallen short of the glory of God, therefore all need Jesus and his atoning work. Rabbicnical Judaism does not save. If a “Jew” dies not believing in Jesus, they are not ushered into eternal life.



SUEDE

 

[Suede]

Tom you need to understand that at the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is basically giving a lecture. This is not a Q&A, Jesus is talking here and the disciples are his audience. Let’s go back to the start to understand just who the audience is and in turn who the “you” is.



Matt 24:3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"



Ok, as we can clearly see, the disciples are coming to Jesus privately. That alone knocks out a larger audience. BUT, then the disciples say this “ Tell us…” Let me repeat that, “Tell us…”



And Jesus is going to honor their request with a lecture, or a Discourse. Jesus is going to tell THEM, per their request, what they, them, the disciples will see. There isn’t a way around this, this is what the Bible says. To continue to say otherwise makes only yourself look bad, please reconsider, no harm, no foul in doing so.



SUEDE

 

[Toms777]

+++Replacement theology is a heresy which states that the Jews killed and/or rejected Jesus,+++

Yes, this is true, it does state that the Jews killed Jesus. And this is also Biblically true. And since it is Biblically true, it’s not really a heresy.

Actually, the Bible says that the Romans killed Jesus, therefore not only is it a heresy, it is historically and Bibly wrong. It is a racially biased heresy.

1 Thess 2:14,15 - “….as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.”

This refers to their request that he die, but it was actually the gentiles who physically killed Jesus according to the Bible:

Matt 27:27-35
27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole garrison around Him. 28 And they stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him. 29 When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" 30 Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head. 31 And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified.
32 Now as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. Him they compelled to bear His cross. 33 And when they had come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say, Place of a Skull, 34 they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink. 35 Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet:
NKJV

The fact is that neither Jew nor Gentile has any right to try to claim that one or the other is rejected by God and we are told that specifically and directly, with warninsg in Romans 11.

The heresy is that those who teach replacement theology ignore part of the part and then claim that the Jewish race is somehow rejected by God but that the Gentiles, who physically murdered Jesus bear no guilt and are not rejected by God. That is completely contrary to the entire message of the Bible and the gospel.

Rom 11:16-26
17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
NKJV

 

[Toms777]

Tom you need to understand that at the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is basically giving a lecture. This is not a Q&A, Jesus is talking here and the disciples are his audience. Let’s go back to the start to understand just who the audience is and in turn who the “you” is.

You are losing this, because the Bible does not always use "you" to refer to those who originally hear, unless you think that one of the apotles is pregnant.

 

[Suede]

Toms777


+++Actually, the Bible says that the Romans killed Jesus, therefore not only is it a heresy, it is historically and Bibly wrong. It is a racially biased heresy.+++


Actually, as I have listed but a few scriptures, the Bible does NOT say that Jesus put to death by the Romans. Let me show you why Biblically and historically.



Mt 27:24, 25 – “When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!”



Pilate here as the representative of Rome found no fault in Jesus. If it were up to Rome exclusively, Jesus would not have been executed. That alone takes out that the Romans killed Jesus. Note too the request of the Jews there, they freely and openly took Jesus’ death upon themselves.



+++1 Thess 2:14,15 - “….as they did from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.”



This refers to their request that he die, but it was actually the gentiles who physically killed Jesus according to the Bible:+++



But remember it was that “request” that got him killed! Rome found no fault in Jesus and wouldn’t have executed him. Rome wasn’t concerned with some Jewish man running around saying he was the Messiah, particularly since he wasn’t a militant or a revolutionary.

+++Matt 27:27-35+++



This is the crucifixtion account. Historically, since Palestine was under Roman rule, the Jews there could not legally execute anyone without Rome’s involvement. So, did the Romans hang Jesus on the cross? Yes, they did. But, does this mean that it was Rome that killed Christ? No. As we have seen, it was the Jews that got Jesus killed, not the Romans. People fail to understand the motives behind Jesus’ execution. A lot of people simply try to whitewash the issue with the fact that the Romans drove the nails into the cross, but this misses the complexity of the issue. People fail to recognize, who was Jesus’ opposition? Was it the Romans, or his fellow Jews? It was his fellow Jews! They were Jesus’ opposition, not Rome.



+++The fact is that neither Jew nor Gentile has any right to try to claim that one or the other is rejected by God and we are told that specifically and directly, with warning in Romans 11.+++



Unbelievers are rejected by God. However, it is unfair that people often give an edge or a “handicap” to Jews simply because they are “Jews”. THAT is racism.

+++The heresy is that those who teach replacement theology ignore part of the part and then claim that the Jewish race is somehow rejected by God but that the Gentiles, who physically murdered Jesus bear no guilt and are not rejected by God. That is completely contrary to the entire message of the Bible and the gospel.+++



Well Jewish “race” is a whole other ball of wax, but as for now; Rabbinical Jews aren’t rejected by God anymore then any other non believer. It’s incorrect to think that they are more rejected, but it’s equally incorrect to think that they are somehow more accepted. They are non believers. PERIOD. That’s the issue, one of faith, not of flesh.

For Replacement Theology to be racist, it needs to be minutely defined, because it’s just as easy to throw in Anti Replacement Theology into the racists category as well.



SUEDE

 

[Suede]

Toms777



+++You are losing this, because the Bible does not always use "you" to refer to those who originally hear, unless you think that one of the apotles is pregnant+++



In a private conversation it does, it’s no different then a private conversation now. There’s no mystery or madness here at the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is talking alone to his disciples. However if you disagree with me, you must refute it Biblically. Let’s identify the audience then, shall we? My view is the Disciples, and here is my Biblical proof.



Matt 24:3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"



Now you. Failure to do so will be a sign of concession.



SUEDE

 

[Toms777]

In a private conversation it does, it’s no different then a private conversation now. There’s no mystery or madness here at the Olivet Discourse, Jesus is talking alone to his disciples. However if you disagree with me, you must refute it Biblically. Let’s identify the audience then, shall we? My view is the Disciples, and here is my Biblical proof.



Matt 24:3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"



Now you. Failure to do so will be a sign of concession.

I don't entirely agree with you on this definition, because again, the context is very important. I gave you an example earlier of how "you" could be used priavtely and still mean someone else.

Regardless, the quote that I gave was from the same discussion, also private, so even under your definition, nothing changes.

 

[Toms777]

Mt 27:24, 25 – “When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this Man’s blood; see to that yourselves.” And all the people said, “His blood shall be on us and on our children!”

First, I wonder how many people who were guilty of murder also claimed innocence? Secondly, what matters - whether or not men decide who is guiklty or God? Third, we have the Biblical and historical record that says it was the gentiles who carried out the act and only the gentiles who had the authority to do so.

+++The fact is that neither Jew nor Gentile has any right to try to claim that one or the other is rejected by God and we are told that specifically and directly, with warning in Romans 11.+++


Unbelievers are rejected by God. However, it is unfair that people often give an edge or a “handicap” to Jews simply because they are “Jews”. THAT is racism.

So to claim that the Jews were subjected to rejection in 70AD by God and that was the greatest event in world history would therefore be racism.

That is the point. As soon as you find someone who has not rebelled against God, other than Jesus himself, please let me know. Only that person will have the right to talk about how others rejected God.

 

[parousia70]

according to you, since this applies exclusively to the apostles, one of the apostles must be pregnant.

Perhaps, with Gods help, one day you will understand that not one single preterist here is arguing that the word "YOU" applies EXCLUSIVELY ot the apostles as you appear to contend.

You have erected a Giant straw man Toms777, that is preventing you from accurately opposing our position, since what you are opposing is NOT the position of any preterist I know.

As soon as you are willing to admit that "you" does not necessarily always apply to those who are the immediate and original hearers, then the problem goes away.

See above response. All preterists affirm that the audience goes beyond the apostles to include their contemporaries, so you might as well stop trying to argue that we don't.

HOWEVER,

No matter how many other people BESIDES the apostles this is addressed to, you have failed to show that the apostles are to be EXCLUDED as you contend.

Preterists affirm the plain text that Jesus was addressing the apostles and others (their contemporaries), while you seem to think Jesus was only addressing "others", and not the apostles at all.

It's your trap that has sprung upon yourself.

It would really help your argument if you took the time to learn about what you are attempting to argue against.

 

[parousia70]

Replacement theology is a heresy which states that the Jews killed and/or rejected Jesus, and as a result God rejected the Jews as a people in 70AD, replacing them with the church, and thus all the promises in scripture which relate to the Jews now relate to the church and that God no longer has a purpose for Israel or the Jews as a people.

That's odd, I thought St Peter was speaking the truth here when He wrote this to the church:

1Peter 2:5-10
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. 6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. 9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

I wonder why St Peter didn't call the Church "one of the peoples of God"?
Instead he called the Church "THE people of God".

It's clear you believe St Peter and the Holy spirit who inspired Him are flat out wrong in the above, and that the Church is not a royal preisthood, not holy nation and not the people of God.

Of course the serious error in this theology is that it believe that somehow, contrary to scripture, one race is better than another in God's eyes despite the scripture which states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Another straw man erected because of your apparent unwillingness to learn what preterism ACTUALLY teaches.

I understand your dilema. Why would you bother to learn about preterism? It's far easier to lash out against what you THINK we believe, than it is to actually do the groundwork it takes to comprehend our position.

Ever being the hopeful one, I'll once again attempt to point you in the right direction as to what preterists actually believe and teach, and perhaps one day you'll attempt a lucid refutation based upon the facts of our position, instead of hopelessly trying to refute what you THINK we believe.

In the preterist doctrine, Jerusalem was "given to the nations" by God in the late 60's, A.D., and the Great City was then tread under foot for 42 months (Rev. 11:2). During that Great Tribulation which culminated in the destruction of the City and the Sanctuary in A. D. 70, the wrath of God against the Jews had come to the utmost (I Thess. 2:16; Heb. 10:26-31) and the Jews had paid the price for their Messianic blood-guilt to the last cent (Lk. 12:54-59). When the fleshly covenant-nation was disinherited as God's covenant people in 70, God's wrath against her was finished. After that day, the Jews became --covenantally speaking-- simply one of the many ethnic classes in the family of man (Eph. 3:15). And there is not one class (or "race") of man today that is in any sense rejected or accepted by God because of their DNA, but all are freely accepted in Christ.

How many lives would have been saved if this preterist view of Israel in Bible prophecy had been taught instead of consistent futurism?

Probably millions.

 

[parousia70]

I gave you an example earlier of how "you" could be used priavtely and still mean someone else.

You gave no such example of "YOU" excluding the apostles.

Try again.

 

[parousia70]

So to claim that the Jews were subjected to rejection in 70AD by God and that was the greatest event in world history would therefore be racism.

That is the point. As soon as you find someone who has not rebelled against God, other than Jesus himself, please let me know. Only that person will have the right to talk about how others rejected God.

You are forgetting that God had a covenant relationship with the Jews EXCLUSIVELY.

They were the only ones bound by the terms of the covenant. Gentiles were not.

Perhaps you should read Deuteronomy 28. There God lays out specifically the blessings and curses of His covenant with the Jews.

The blessings were EXCLUSIVELY for the Jews who kept the covenant, therefore the curses must also be esclusively for the JEWS who rejected the covenant.

You and your straw men. Dorothy, you're not in Kansas anymore.

 

[Toms777]

You are forgetting that God had a covenant relationship with the Jews EXCLUSIVELY.

They were the only ones bound by the terms of the covenant. Gentiles were not.

Though I am not sure what difference this makes, thus what point you are trying to make, you are not entirely accurate. Gentiels who choose to live with Israel were also open to join the covenant.

Further, keep in mind that the New Covenant was NOT made with the Gentiles, but with the Jews.

Perhaps you should read Deuteronomy 28. There God lays out specifically the blessings and curses of His covenant with the Jews.