preterism

[Toms777]

[/size][/font]

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.

That was specifically waht I was told. I am using the bvery words which were given. If you have a disagreement with your fellow preterists, take it up with them.

BTW, I note that you are back into multiple messages, some getting quite long again, so you can assume as you choose to try to deluge me with overload that i will ignore some of all of some of the messages. If you have key points, please make sure that you make the messages concise and to the point if you want to ensure that I read or respond to it.

 

[Suede]

Toms777



+++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.+++



Yes, the context is important. But again, the disciples are the audience, and that’s it. I do understand that you can mean others, however in a private conversation it is to the immediate audience. I know you tried to refute that idea with the pregnant women verse. But that only broadens the context by one, the disciples and pregnant women. But we know that isn’t right. We must concede to the Bible that the disciples are the “you” in Jesus’ private discourse with them.



SUEDE

 

[Toms777]

Yes, the context is important. But again, the disciples are the audience, and that’s it. I do understand that you can mean others, however in a private conversation it is to the immediate audience. I know you tried to refute that idea with the pregnant women verse. But that only broadens the context by one, the disciples and pregnant women. But we know that isn’t right. We must concede to the Bible that the disciples are the “you” in Jesus’ private discourse with them.
SUEDE

All based upon your assumptions, circular reasoning and you willingness to apply your rules to one aspect of the discussion when it supports you, and to ignore it when it does not.

 

[stauron]

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.


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.

So are you saying that the Jews didn't reject Jesus?

As I explained replacement isn't the right word unless you are talking about the covenant. The Old Covenant has been replaced by the New, in every vital aspect. The Jews with the faith of Abraham (like Paul) understood this, counted the old as dung and embraced Christ.

I think that you are missing the context of Romans 11 in Paul's overall argument in Romans. Paul spends several chapters arguing that God is not a respecter of persons and shows no favoritism. God elects whom He will for His own purposes. Paul then addresses the logical question about what to do with the Jews if God doesn't base salvation on bloodline. Paul asks "God has not rejected his people, has he?" And the answer contradicts your whole arguement, Toms777. "We know that God hasn't rejected His people because some of them are becoming Christians, like me!" So in Paul's day, some of the Jews were coming to Christ and confirming the promises to the Fathers.

11:5 So in the same way at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace... 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was diligently seeking, but the elect obtained it. The rest were hardened,

So we see that the elect obtained the promise by believing in Christ.

11:11 I ask then, they did not stumble into an irrevocable fall, did they? Absolutely not! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous.

So the gentiles coming in made Israel jealous.
Why?
Because salvation was the promise for which the Jews had been longing, and here, right before their eyes the Gentiles were streaming in.

In vv12-24 Paul says that no one may boast about salvation because God is the chooser, and all, Jew and gentile alike are grafted in together into the same tree by grace. He also points out that salvation is completed (reconcilliation and life from the dead) by Jews and gentiles together.

11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

“The Deliverer will come out of Zion;

he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.

11:27 And this is my covenant with them,

when I take away their sins.”

11:28 In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers. 11:29 For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. 11:30 Just as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have now received mercy due to their disobedience, 11:31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy. 11:32 For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.

Now we can see by the colored words above that Paul is speaking of the same group all the way through. This group of people is being saved by having their sin taken away. It happened in Paul's day and here is the bit that undoes Toms777 position salvation only came for both groups together in that day!!

So I still don't see all the fuss that you are having about replacement. The faithful Jews believed and were gathered into Christ and the rest were broken off.

And as far as one race being better than another, I have no idea how that relates to what you have presented as replacement, but I know that one generation called down Jesus' blood on their head and their children, and that generation suffered for it

so that on you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 23:36 I tell you the truth, this generation will be held responsible for all these things

So back to our argument already.

 

[Toms777]

So are you saying that the Jews didn't reject Jesus?

No, are you trying to say that Gentiles did not reject Jesus? If not, then what merit can either Jews or Gentiles claim before God?

That is where replacement theology turns into herssy by denying what the Bible says and by creating a different gospel, one which denies Roman 3:23

As I explained replacement isn't the right word unless you are talking about the covenant. The Old Covenant has been replaced by the New, in every vital aspect.

Leave the strawman aside and address what i said.

The Jews with the faith of Abraham (like Paul) understood this, counted the old as dung and embraced Christ.

I think that you are missing the context of Romans 11 in Paul's overall argument in Romans. Paul spends several chapters arguing that God is not a respecter of persons and shows no favoritism.

Which also means that God does not reject the Jews for all eternity because they reject him when in fact the Gentiles did no less. It is not I who is claiming favouritism, it is those who argue in favour of the belief that God somehow rejected the jews in favour of the Gentiles in 70AD.

 

[stauron]

No, are you trying to say that Gentiles did not reject Jesus? If not, then what merit can either Jews or Gentiles claim before God?

That is where replacement theology turns into herssy by denying what the Bible says and by creating a different gospel, one which denies Roman 3:23

Right, Jews and gentiles are equal before God. There is one access and one status before God, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb.

Which also means that God does not reject the Jews for all eternity because they reject him when in fact the Gentiles did no less. It is not I who is claiming favouritism, it is those who argue in favour of the belief that God somehow rejected the jews in favour of the Gentiles in 70AD.

The problem is that the Jews did have a special favor from God, the covenant that espoused them, which they abused, spurned, abandoned, rejected and despised. Who is called the harlot and unfaithful again and again? Not the gentiles, only the married can commit adultery. So Israel has been rejected as God's covenant people. Which is exactly your point from Romans 3. The playing field has been leveled, no special status or privilege for anyone. The people of the new covenant are both Jew and gentile together.

2:11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh—who are called “uncircumcision” by the so-called “circumcision” that is performed on the body by human hands— 2:12 that you were at that time without the Messiah, alienated from the citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who used to be far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.2:19 So then you are no longer foreigners and noncitizens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household,

Obviously, Paul is saying that we are fellow citizens with Israel.

2:14 For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one 2:15 when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two,thus making peace, 2:16 and to reconcile them both in one body

So Jews and gentiles no longer had anything separating them because Jesus took away the one thing that was favoritism, the special status that Israel had in the Old Covenant as God's people. Now "both groups [are] one".

 

[parousia70]

It is not I who is claiming favouritism, it is those who argue in favour of the belief that God somehow rejected the jews in favour of the Gentiles in 70AD.

No one is arguing that here Toms777.

It sure would be nice if, just for once, you could rebut something we preterists actually believe instead of continuing to create your own fictitious "preterist positions" to refute.

God did not reject Jews in favor of Gentiles in 70, rather He rejected unbelievers He was in covenant relationship with, in favor of Believers to BE in covenant relationship with.

No one today, Jew or gentile, outside of Christ, is in covenant relationship with God.

The "spepration theology" you appear to be touting would have God with 2 seperate peoples, with 2 seperate covenants, with the Jews having more criteria put upon them than Christians to achieve salvation.

Your theology is the one that puts an added burden on the Jews because of their DNA.

The truth is, Jesus and His Jewish Followers were true Israel, the believing remnant, and with Gentiles grafted in are now the one and only "People of God", and as such, all Israel is saved. The rest were horribly, violently cut off forever from Covenant with God in 70AD.

 

[Toms777]

No one is arguing that here Toms777.

It sure would be nice if, just for once, you could rebut something we preterists actually believe instead of continuing to create your own fictitious "preterist positions" to refute.

Please, leave the political statements for the elections. Just deal with the issues.

God did not reject Jews in favor of Gentiles in 70, rather He rejected unbelievers He was in covenant relationship with, in favor of Believers to BE in covenant relationship with.

But the Bible says that He did NOT reject the Jews, yet you say that He did. Who shall I believe?

No one today, Jew or gentile, outside of Christ, is in covenant relationship with God.

No one argues with that. There never was any other way to be saved.

The "spepration theology" you appear to be touting would have God with 2 seperate peoples, with 2 seperate covenants, with the Jews having more criteria put upon them than Christians to achieve salvation.

Never heard of separation theology - better argue that with whoever you are mixing me up with.

Your theology is the one that puts an added burden on the Jews because of their DNA.

It is the preterists who say that God rejected the Jews, not me.

The truth is, Jesus and His Jewish Followers were true Israel, the believing remnant, and with Gentiles grafted in are now the one and only "People of God", and as such, all Israel is saved. The rest were horribly, violently cut off forever from Covenant with God in 70AD.

Then that would include the Gentiles, but then what chnaged? Did God ever not consider non-believers to be saved? If so, then you would be promoting two ways for salvation, which is a different gospel and a denial of the gospel given in the Bible.

 

[parousia70]

Please, leave the political statements for the elections. Just deal with the issues.

As long as you continue to invent positions you think preterists hold, and continue to demonstrate your unwillingness to learn what preterists actually believe, I'll continue to tear down every straw man you erect.

But the Bible says that He did NOT reject the Jews, yet you say that He did. Who shall I believe?

Jews are not rejected, as long as they believe in Christ.

No one argues with that. There never was any other way to be saved.

Interesting. Then why are you placing an extra criteria for salvation upon Jews today because of their DNA?

Never heard of separation theology - better argue that with whoever you are mixing me up with.

Seperating Jews fom Christians today in salvation criteria is what you do, isn't it? Don't You claim God still is one day again going to deal with the Jews under the terms of the Old Covenant?

It is the preterists who say that God rejected the Jews, not me.

God rejected unbelieving Jews of the 1st century who were in covenant relationship with Him. Gentile nations of that time were not in covenant relationship with God and thus were exempt from the covenant curses.

Did God ever not consider non-believers to be saved? If so, then you would be promoting two ways for salvation, which is a different gospel and a denial of the gospel given in the Bible.

God never considered non believers to be saved, but non believing Israel was under special temporal curses for not believing that non believing gentile nations were not.

Your seperation theology has the Jews still under a special curse today because of their DNA.

 

[Toms777]

Jews are not rejected, as long as they believe in Christ.

Ah, then the Jews were NOT therefore rejected as a people in 70AD, but as with the Rom,ans who crucified Jesus, it is a matter of the acceptance of the gospel. That has been my point from the start.

This therefore tears down the position which you have put forward about the events of 70AD being the worst event in history because of the eternal consequences for the Jews. Since it is a matter of a personal acceptance of Jesus as Saviour and not a rejection of the Jews as a people, your argument, weak as it was, is completely invalid.

Interesting. Then why are you placing an extra criteria for salvation upon Jews today because of their DNA?

Never did. It was you and your preterist friends who suggested that something eternal happened in 70AD to the Jews.

God rejected unbelieving Jews of the 1st century who were in covenant relationship with Him. Gentile nations of that time were not in covenant relationship with God and thus were exempt from the covenant curses.

So you are trying to say that there has been more than one way to be saved?

Your seperation theology has the Jews still under a special curse today because of their DNA.

Argue this with whoever brought up separation theology. Personally I never heard of it.

 

[parousia70]

Ah, then the Jews were NOT therefore rejected as a people in 70AD, but as with the Rom,ans who crucified Jesus, it is a matter of the acceptance of the gospel. That has been my point from the start.

Those who made up the nation of Israel, that were in covenant relationship with God under the terms of the Mosaic Covenant, who rejected Jesus, were violently excommunicated out of covenant with God in 70 per the terms of the contract.

Are you saying the nation of Israel was not Bound by the terms of the Mosaic Covenant?

Or are you saying the gentile nations were equally bound by the terms of the mosaic covenant as the nation of Israel was?

Please clarify.

This therefore tears down the position which you have put forward about the events of 70AD being the worst event in history because of the eternal consequences for the Jews. Since it is a matter of a personal acceptance of Jesus as Saviour and not a rejection of the Jews as a people, your argument, weak as it was, is completely invalid.

Again, Due to the covenantal significance of the event, that Day of the Lord's vengeance (cf. Luke 21:20-22; Isa 61:2; Jer 46:10) can never be repeated.

You seem to be arguing for "covenental insignificance", but I haven't seen one shred of scripture to support that view.

AD70 was the end of the Old Covenant. Tha end can never be repeated, though it appears you believe it can.

Never did. It was you and your preterist friends who suggested that something eternal happened in 70AD to the Jews.

See previous response

So you are trying to say that there has been more than one way to be saved?

No, but thanks for asking.

Argue this with whoever brought up separation theology. Personally I never heard of it.

Your position is seperation theology, regardless of whether you have heard the term.

Lets see where the rubber hits the road shall we?

Do you believe the Jews today are blinded by God because of their DNA or not?

A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Toms777]

Those who made up the nation of Israel, that were in covenant relationship with God under the terms of the Mosaic Covenant, who rejected Jesus, were violently excommunicated out of covenant with God in 70 per the terms of the contract.

See, you keep accusing me of using DNA, when in fact I have taken the position that all must be saved and judged accoprding to whether they have accepted Jesus as Saviour. It is you who keep using DNA as a determining factor for rejection by God.

If it was our faithfulness that determined whether we have a relationship with God, then we'd all be going straight to hell. Fortunately, God does not use the same judgement as you have suggested but rather it is His faithfulness and not ours which matters.

Your position is seperation theology, regardless of whether you have heard the term.

Mybe if you are going to amke accusations, you should define the term.

Lets see where the rubber hits the road shall we?

Do you believe the Jews today are blinded by God because of their DNA or not?

No, do you?

A simple yes or no will do.

 

[Toms777]

I read today in a Preterist article by Edward E. Stevens, the following comment:

"Sin will always exist, but it no longer is master over us."

How many preterists believe that Sin will always exist and that at no point ever will sin ever be eliminated from the world?

 

[Suede]

Toms,

+++All based upon your assumptions, circular reasoning and you willingness to apply your rules to one aspect of the discussion when it supports you, and to ignore it when it does not.+++

Sorry Tom, we already saw objectively that it was PRIVATE conversation and the disicples asked Christ to tell THEM the answers. If you can't objectively disprove it, it stands firm.

SUEDE

 

[Suede]

Toms777


+++I read today in a Preterist article by Edward E. Stevens,+++

Kudoes! I seriously respect that you did that.

+++"Sin will always exist, but it no longer is master over us."

How many preterists believe that Sin will always exist and that at no point ever will sin ever be eliminated from the world?+++

I do because the Bible states it. I know a lot of Futurists believe that after New Jerusalem comes down in Rev 21 that sin no longer exists. This is in error though. When we read Rev 22 we see that the wicked still exist on earth. Tom, you are a sinner, BUT you are saved. Do you see? Sin DOES still exist, despite the fact that Christ's atoning work is done. Do you see? However, we have eternal life through Christ, so sin does NOT reign over us. That's what the Bible is getting at,

SUEDE

 

[Toms777]

Sorry Tom, we already saw objectively that it was PRIVATE conversation and the disicples asked Christ to tell THEM the answers. If you can't objectively disprove it, it stands firm.
SUEDE

In the same conversation, the commenst were made abouit pregnancy. You cannot have it both ways. If you are not willing to be consistent in your interpretation, then it is clear that you have an issue.

 

[Toms777]

How many preterists believe that Sin will always exist and that at no point ever will sin ever be eliminated from the world?+++

I do because the Bible states it. I know a lot of Futurists believe that after New Jerusalem comes down in Rev 21 that sin no longer exists. This is in error though. When we read Rev 22 we see that the wicked still exist on earth. Tom, you are a sinner, BUT you are saved. Do you see? Sin DOES still exist, despite the fact that Christ's atoning work is done. Do you see? However, we have eternal life through Christ, so sin does NOT reign over us. That's what the Bible is getting at,
SUEDE

Your Rev 22 must be written different than mine.

Rev 22:3
3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.
NKJV

Your theology still allows for sin to prevail, thus says that Jesus is not fully in control.

My sins are forgiven and are no more:

Isa 1:18
18 "Come now, and let us reason together,"
Says the LORD,
"Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow;
NKJV

Ps 103:12
12 As far as the east is from the west,
So far has He removed our transgressions from us.
NKJV

Col 2:13-15
13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
NKJV

 

[parousia70]

I read today in a Preterist article by Edward E. Stevens, the following comment:

"Sin will always exist, but it no longer is master over us."

How many preterists believe that Sin will always exist and that at no point ever will sin ever be eliminated from the world?

Do you believe in everlasting punishement for unbelievers?

Or do you believe the Unbelievers will one day share in Christ's victory over sin?

Is your objection really about the eternal existance of Sin, or just about the eternal location of Sin?

Would it be ok with you if sin existed forever somewhere besides earth?

Your question is answered quite extensively from the preterist perspective here:

http://www.strato.net/~dagreen/questionsandanswers2.html#note13

 

[parousia70]

#

 

[Toms777]

#

I guess that we finally left you speechless!!