The Partial Preterist Believers Safe House

[eclipsenow]

I see not from the passages that there is endorsement for being in the city but rather the people of Israel in captivity might better prosper with not being antagonistic to the culture of the captors but to get along with them. It is a good principle overall. I am not against people being in community. There is real value in that.

Arguing from evidence doesn't work like that. You can't just throw YOUR value judgements onto the texts - you have to show WHY you think the texts say what you think they say - not just assert your opinion about them. WHY do you think there is no implicit endorsement for living in cities when so much of the New Testament is named after cities? WHY do you think there is no command to come out of cities? WHY do you think the command was to work hard, pay taxes, live a quiet life and contribute to the cities when suddenly you want to arrive 2000 years later and pretend that the bible says to come out of cities?

In Acts 13, listen to what the Holy Spirit says:

13 1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul. 2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 3 So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off.
4 The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus. 5 When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper.

The Holy Spirit said nothing about getting the church/es out of Antioch, out of Seleucia, Cyprus, or Salamis. Instead the Holy Spirit sent them TO these places.

You went on at length about being naked. I don't have the problem with that. If you see a problem with it, take it up with God who had people in God's design that way, people just as their natural selves without added layers considered needed or necessary. What you see against might be from culture you were raised with, or else from your impure mind. You should not then be among people where they do not wear clothes. But if you have a problem with it, it is not because they are doing anything wrong with the people just simply nude.

You see? You did it again. It's not about what YOU think. It's about how you can demonstrate that you have a good understanding of what the original author/s of the texts were telling their ancient audiences. It's about understanding where these passages fit in that section of the bible, and how their story fits into the bible overall. It's called "Biblical Theology" - and then from understanding where each chunk of the bible fits - we can get our "Systematic Theology." Your inability to discern the difference between your gut reaction to a passage and how to prove what the passage is actually telling us here, now, thousands of years later is what I meant when I said you had a weak epistemology and theology.

What about the fact that the Bible's picture to nakedness changes from one of innocence pre-fall to one of pitifulness and immorality later on? Why did Noah have trouble with one of his sons walking in on him naked after silly Noah got drunk? Why is nakedness so pitiful later in the bible? Why does one of the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation condemn the group as not being clothed at all, but being pitiful, blind and naked? It's about vulnerability and inappropriateness and immorality later in the bible!

But in Revelation - God clothes his martyred saints in heaven all in white. It's an image of them finally being purified by the blood of the lamb.

Your elevation of Genesis 1 to some sort of imperative for how we are to live now, it seems, has left you vulnerable to forgetting the rest of the passage! And that's to say nothing of the grand sweep of Biblical Theology and how it demonstrates the sacrifice for sins in animals, how this points to Jesus, how Jesus dying in our place was the real substitution for sins, how the gospel opens up to all nations, etc etc etc.

And finally - the whole bible culminates in the greatest hope of them all - the New Jerusalem - a city so big it basically covers the whole known ancient world!

If you continue on with discussion here leave discussion of that topic out. It getting too much off topic.

Nakedness? You see - it's not really the topic. Your inability to place it correctly in the bible is. It was just a petty example of how you let your agenda elevate Genesis 1 to the point where you almost seem to misunderstand the rest of the bible!

They're naked and innocent in Genesis 1. They sin. God steps in and kicks them out of that garden! Then we live in cities, in sin, in fallenness, without access to the Tree of Life. God saves us - and the answer to all this is HE clothes us in white and gives us a good new city to live in when the New Creation is born.

In the meantime our top priority is sharing all this to people who these says, more than ever, live in cities.

Cities are just incidental to what is shown in biblical history. There really was not yet the issue in the world that there is now,

Agreed. There wasn't the same medicine etc.
Again - you've missed like 9/10ths of the points I made in my last few posts! You just avoid them because they are inconvenient to you. Or do you even really perceive how devastating many of them are to your simplistic reading of all this?

but it would have been better for people to not be in cities.

That's your value judgement creeping in. The bible does not say that.

Most people were not, until not very much more than a century ago.

You've also forgotten that cities breed jobs and economic opportunities, that Technology is radically decreasing the per-capita impact of people in cities, and that we can repair areas we have mined for all this to happen. EG:-

This was a mine in Melbourne. A dear friend wrote a book about how this quarry became Newport Lakes - a beautiful nature reserve that has actually saved one species of lizard we know of from going extinct!

For what feels like the 100th time:-​

THE BIBLE​

When are you going to answer FACTS that:-​

1. Jeremiah 29 says to work "for the good of the city"- and that this was a city full of God's enemies? (If EVER there was a time to flee the city, that would have been it, right? Or also under Rome's occupation of Jerusalem?)
2. That many books in the New Testament are named after the cities that had churches in them - all remarkably without any command to leave the cities they are in?
3. That the Isaiah and Revelation chapters you quoted as saying "Come out!" of the cities actually ended with better, godly cities as the solution?
4. That the overall priority of the whole bible is the gospel of our Lord who died to save us, and would have us share this good news with everyone - and that these days everyone lives in cities? That the whole bible's message of salvation ends in a city?

​

THE SCIENCE and IMPRACTICALITY​

When are you going to acknowledge the FACTS that:-​

1. environmental scientists have stated that clean energy ALONE would nearly halve our total environmental impact?
2. Going back to the land would double the land required to produce the same amount of food. (Unless of course we all went vegetarian - but you've got to convince everyone to do that as well!)
3. It is not geographically possible for many nations anyway - and would require building housing for 4 BILLION people overnight!
4. With about 4 people per household that is a billion new homes that must be built! What is the true environmental cost of your proposed solution?
5. That most people are still moving towards urban living
6. That you have not convinced one person to join you in all this talk.

 

[FredVB]

The argument not in good faith and with gaslighting continues. I will not speak to your continued attention to nakedness with twisted use of isolated passages used out of context here, at all. It can be brought up in the Ethics and Morality forum. Otherwise I will feel need to report posts. What you have accusation against is what is seen from your own posts. You see things from the perspectives of your own culture and what you see taught, that circular reasoning is no more valid than my basis for what I say. Why focus so strongly with put downs over this which is peripheral to the essential gospel and reaching others for salvation? Everyone has a different eschatology and none of those pertain to their salvation, their maturity, or their ability to read and understand scriptures. What you support, even with what others say for basis, is still opinion, as it interprets scripture passages in one way for that. The orthodoxy around when Jesus first came was not enough to have any ready see the reality of the promised Messiah when he came, the leaders were all wrong. Now those who make eschatological claims are just as certain as those orthodox leaders then, and I am sure they are not more trustworthy with their claim of certainty. The issue of the discussion is that destruction to this world we were to care for is still continuing and there are great risks ahead still, that are not yet going away. And, what is being done or should be done. There should not be more diversion from this.

 

[eclipsenow]

The argument not in good faith and with gaslighting continues. I will not speak to your continued attention to nakedness with twisted use of isolated passages used out of context here, at all. It can be brought up in the Ethics and Morality forum.

Oh my word! Why do I bother? You completely missed the point!

You are the one twisting isolated passages - the very start of the whole biblical story in paradise - and saying their JOB description back then is how we should be living now. No. Their relationship with God is what we should model our lives on - but then they broke that!

Then the story progresses.

But you? Speaking of story - let's try comparing your attitude to the bible to some other story - like Cinderella. (I tried this above.) I'm the one saying Cinderella is the story of a nasty, prejudiced family that kept this poor girl locked away in the house, basically their slave in the basement doing the laundry and other jobs all day. But then she met powerful forces who transformed her looks and let her get to the ball where she met the prince and her true inner and outer beauty could be seen! Eventually she marries the prince.

You're saying "That's rubbish - she's stuck in the basement covered in soot. Or did you miss the fact that her name is Cinder-ella!?"

The nakedness in early Genesis is NOT the point - it's the soot - a mere detail of the totally different starting point to where we end up in the overall biblical story.

YOU are the one arguing in bad faith from one small and largely symbolic part of the bible! Simply because you CANNOT justify your life's mission from the bible.

Otherwise I will feel need to report posts.

Be my guest.

What you have accusation against is what is seen from your own posts. You see things from the perspectives of your own culture and what you see taught, that circular reasoning is no more valid than my basis for what I say.

Sorry - I'm the one trying to respect the way the original audiences would have understood these texts. Not that I'm a theologian myself - but that I'm trying to read those who understand these things.

Again - YOU are the one just projecting your own desires onto the passage!

Why focus so strongly with put downs over this which is peripheral to the essential gospel and reaching others for salvation?

Again - YOU are the one trying to twist what we should be doing! As I have pointed out above. YOU are the one saying the overall bible message is to run away from people - not run to them!

Everyone has a different eschatology and none of those pertain to their salvation, their maturity, or their ability to read and understand scriptures.

YOU are the one saying "Flee the cities!" Um... except, the Great Commission and all that? Hello? Where are the people?

What you support, even with what others say for basis, is still opinion, as it interprets scripture passages in one way for that.

Please show me ONE legitimate command to leave the cities that does NOT end in better cities being the answer?

The orthodoxy around when Jesus first came was not enough to have any ready see the reality of the promised Messiah when he came, the leaders were all wrong. Now those who make eschatological claims are just as certain as those orthodox leaders then,

Then why oh why on earth are you writing in the Partial Preterist safe house if you think Partial Preterism is rubbish?
I'm the one that should be reporting you?

and I am sure they are not more trustworthy with their claim of certainty.

They at least accepted Jesus as the Messiah, and trusted in him by grace alone, faith alone, through Jesus alone and respecting the ultimate authority of Scripture alone. So there's that major difference with the Pharisees!

The issue of the discussion is that destruction to this world we were to care for is still continuing

And that's a valid discussion to have - and may or may not have anything to do with eschatology. Maybe you need to figure out why you're doing this in the Partial Preterist SAFE HOUSE and then saying horrible things about Partial Preterism and it's founders?

and there are great risks ahead still, that are not yet going away. And, what is being done or should be done. There should not be more diversion from this.

Except you're doing this in the Partial Preterist safe house? Please start a discussion in a Christian Ethics forum or somewhere more appropriate? You do not seem to be a Partial Preterist, and just basically compared them to Pharisees.

For what feels like the 100th time:-​

THE BIBLE​

When are you going to answer FACTS that:-​

1. Jeremiah 29 says to work "for the good of the city"- and that this was a city full of God's enemies? (If EVER there was a time to flee the city, that would have been it, right? Or also under Rome's occupation of Jerusalem?)
2. That many books in the New Testament are named after the cities that had churches in them - all remarkably without any command to leave the cities they are in?
3. That the Isaiah and Revelation chapters you quoted as saying "Come out!" of the cities actually ended with better, godly cities as the solution?
4. That the overall priority of the whole bible is the gospel of our Lord who died to save us, and would have us share this good news with everyone - and that these days everyone lives in cities? That the whole bible's message of salvation ends in a city?

THE SCIENCE and IMPRACTICALITY​

When are you going to acknowledge the FACTS that:-​

1. environmental scientists have stated that clean energy ALONE would nearly halve our total environmental impact?
2. Going back to the land would double the land required to produce the same amount of food. (Unless of course we all went vegetarian - but you've got to convince everyone to do that as well!)
3. It is not geographically possible for many nations anyway - and would require building housing for 4 BILLION people overnight!
4. With about 4 people per household that is a billion new homes that must be built! What is the true environmental cost of your proposed solution?
5. That most people are still moving towards urban living
6. That you have not convinced one person to join you in all this talk.

 

[FredVB]

You are right. I came to this thread for reaching what I hoped would be more thoughtful readers, not being sure what partial would be excluded from preterism, and addressing things that had been worsening, which had been discussed up to then, with understanding that it would yet continue and not be anything believers would all be just delivered from while others remain with it, The Partial Preterist Believers Safe House, and then was explaining that, for it to be clear. It was not that I came to argue about the preterism. As I said I don't understand what it is when it is partial. So as what I say apparently goes against it somehow, which I haven't been seeing, I will not keep coming to this thread to post on that further. I think what I said was right, things are still getting worse, that I and others should go and live much more sustainably. It would not be returning to soot and ashes. I see this is like what was perfectly modeled in the beginning that was not anything inferior at all. What is perfect is shown. Find anything else in the Bible God called 'very good'. But change to further sustainable living is not to be argued against. If we see that is desirable, it is good to leave it at that, even as we each believe things that cannot be proven to the other. That is very common on the forums anyway.

 

[eclipsenow]

You are right. I came to this thread for reaching what I hoped would be more thoughtful readers, not being sure what partial would be excluded from preterism, and addressing things that had been worsening, which had been discussed up to then, with understanding that it would yet continue and not be anything believers would all be just delivered from while others remain with it, The Partial Preterist Believers Safe House, and then was explaining that, for it to be clear. It was not that I came to argue about the preterism. As I said I don't understand what it is when it is partial.

Then have you bothered to google it if you don't understand it? I even just went and asked Gemini (Google's Ai) and it gave this useful summary.

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets most or all biblical prophecies, particularly those in the Book of Revelation, as having been fulfilled in the 1st century AD, primarily with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This includes prophecies about the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the Second Coming. Preterists often point to verses like Matthew 24:34, which states, "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened," as evidence that these events occurred within the lifetime of Jesus' disciples.​

​

Partial Preterism, a less radical view, acknowledges the fulfillment of some prophecies in the 1st century but maintains that others, such as the bodily resurrection of believers and the final judgment, are yet to come. This perspective often cites verses like 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, which describes a future transformation of believers' bodies, as evidence for a future, bodily resurrection.​

I would be stronger though. I would say Preterism is heresy! That it actually starts to attack the gospel itself - as the gospel has the hope of the Lord Jesus returning. Preterism denies this. Partial Preterism says that EVERYTHING ELSE - every other prophecy - has been fulfilled in Jesus. All the bible's promises find their 'yes' in Jesus. Therefore there are no "end times tables" to try and figure out - no final anti-Christ to look for (as Revelation 13 is about Caesar Nero), no silly endless arguments between different branches of 'futurism' trying to interpret what's going to happen. Because - Jesus said we CANNOT know what will happen!

So as what I say apparently goes against it somehow, which I haven't been seeing, I will not keep coming to this thread to post on that further.

You basically called Partial Preterists like myself Pharisees. Or how else am I to read this bit? You do not write clearly at all.

Everyone has a different eschatology and none of those pertain to their salvation, their maturity, or their ability to read and understand scriptures. What you support, even with what others say for basis, is still opinion, as it interprets scripture passages in one way for that. The orthodoxy around when Jesus first came was not enough to have any ready see the reality of the promised Messiah when he came, the leaders were all wrong. Now those who make eschatological claims are just as certain as those orthodox leaders then, and I am sure they are not more trustworthy with their claim of certainty.​

I think what I said was right, things are still getting worse,

Some things are. Some things are not. You are not very good at presenting your case!

You still have not acknowledged that while CO2 still goes up globally - the rate of CO2 rising out of certain countries or even entire economic blocks (like the EU) is slowing. China's CO2 emissions are enormous! But they're the second largest country in the world by population - but with the largest emissions. But on a per capita rate of course us Westerners emit far more than them - just because we're so rich and our systems are historically fossil fuel dependent. But even China's emissions are slowing! Soon - the rate of their CO2 emissions will peak - and begin to decline! That is - they're still going to emit CO2 - but it will be a little bit less every year until maybe 2050 or 2060 - when their energy sector should be 100% clean.

These historical trends are facts - and can easily be extrapolated into the future with a little mathematics.

​

As an environmentalist - why do you not know them?​

Why can you not admit them? What other single threat is up there with climate change?​

that I and others should go and live much more sustainably.

By what definition? Your definition of 'sustainable' is Amish living. It's technology hating Ludditism - a back-to-the-land romanticism that defies reality.

Have you ever lived like this? Do you know what you would be missing out on? The moment you talk about avoiding modern clean energy systems, you're asking people to give up everything that helps extend human life and give us quality of life. Modern medicine, modern science, modern air conditioning, transport, planes and trains and cities - things that can be built poorly and degrade the social fabric or things that can enhance them.

Also - we are just on the brink of modern technological miracles that could far outpace the environmental harm we are doing and almost restore us to something LIKE Eden! (In a sort of physical sense - but without the spiritual connecting to God of course.)

In my view you are turning your back on the very answers you're crying out for!
You just don't know about them all yet.

It would not be returning to soot and ashes. I see this is like what was perfectly modeled in the beginning

OK - and this is the metaphor you are referring to - we're back to running around naked in Eden again. The point of the 'soot' in my Cinderella story is that you are pretending we are stuck at the beginning of the story. But so much more has happened! (That's why I stopped talking about nakedness and mentioned Cinderella - you seemed to get too emotional when I mentioned nakedness.)

You are demanding we literally live like we are in Eden - even though we are NOT in Eden. Like we have not fallen, even though we HAVE fallen. Like we have not invented electricity and modern medicine and flight and space-flight and modern communications that let us have this very conversation across the world - like we have NOT invented all these things!

Like we're still in Eden and do NOT know that the Apostle John has promised that a New Jerusalem will be descending from the heavens!

Now don't get me wrong - this is very nuanced. I'm NOT saying it will be a literal city the size of the entire ancient Roman Empire! It's symbolic writing - another metaphor - for how heaven and earth are going to be 'married'. Wed together somehow. That is - this physical universe will be upgraded. The laws of physics will be fixed (so we're not all trapped in a cold, dying universe as the stars go out in 100 trillion years.)

Whether there is an actual physical city or a NEW Eden 2.0 I do not know - I know some theologians that think we will not need buildings etc. But there are others that think these are expressions of what it is to be human, our very creativity and powers of construction are part of our dominion over this world. That it's almost as much a part of us being in the image of the Creator God - as we go about building and creating new things out of the ingredients God has given us in this earth.

that was not anything inferior at all. What is perfect is shown.

Dude - again - soot. Cinderella! Why can't you get this!
This happened in the past. It is now gone. What WAS perfect WAS shown - it's gone now.
We are not in Eden! We cannot live like that any more! We are cursed to work by the sweat of our brow.

But technology? Creating stuff? That's part of being human!
It's also in some cases offers wonderful respite from some of the effects of the fall.
In a scorching heatwave - I'm so glad of air-conditioning.
When my dear 5 year old boy had cancer, I was so glad of modern medicine.
You would have him dead. There's no way to sugar-coat that. You would have everyone living off the land, being Amish, and my dear son would be dead. Nice. Really Christian of you!

It's not the technology and cities that are wrong but probably how we use them. We make mistakes. We try to fix some things - and create problems in other areas. But we're learning. Amazing things are coming!

But I think you are delusional if you think you are really going back to Eden! Are you going to use a shovel or pickaxe or ... dare I say it ... clothes? That's NOT Eden. Are you going to walk with God in the garden every day? I don't think so. Are there weeds to deal with? Heatwaves? Climate change? Pests that destroy your crops? Ever creeping rain zones as the climate zones shift towards the poles - turning equatorial agricultural areas into deserts?

BILLIONS WOULD HAVE TO MOVE WITHOUT MODERN TECHNOLOGY TO BRING THE FOOD TO THEM!

BILLIONS OF HOMES WOULD HAVE TO BE REBUILT

HAVE YOU EVER ONCE ADDRESSED THIS IN YOUR MIND?

But all the things you are condemning - like modern cities and technology and energy systems - all fall under the much broader job description of being human. Ask yourself - what is it to be made in the image of God?

1. We are like God in that we rule creation.

2. We are like God in our creativity.

3. We are like God in our relationships.

4. We are like God in that we are unlike animals.

5. We are like God in our mercy.

6. We are like God in our love.

7. We are like God in our holiness.

8. We are like God in our justice.

What Does it Mean That We Have Been Created in the Image of God?

Read What Does it Mean That We Have Been Created in the Image of God? by Aubrey Sampson and more articles about God and Wiki on Christianity.com

www.christianity.com

Find anything else in the Bible God called 'very good'.

Find God calling anything this side of the fall that as well! Other than his beloved son of course.

But change to further sustainable living is not to be argued against.

No - it is not. Why is why I can't abide you telling us all we have to go Amish and give up sustainable energy systems that improve our lives so much!

If we see that is desirable, it is good to leave it at that,

Your definition of 'sustainable living' is not desirable.
Have you convinced ONE person to go with you?
You have your answer.

even as we each believe things that cannot be proven to the other.

Yeah - you cannot prove it because it is not in the bible or common sense!

That is very common on the forums anyway.

I've not had a conversation this frustrating and blatantly ignoring of the facts for a long time.
You seem to have this view that just restating your opinion again and again - without dealing with ONE of the facts I have repeatedly shown you - is an acceptable form of debate. It is not.

For what feels like the 100th time:-​

THE BIBLE​

When are you going to answer FACTS that:-​

1. Jeremiah 29 says to work "for the good of the city"- and that this was a city full of God's enemies? (If EVER there was a time to flee the city, that would have been it, right? Or also under Rome's occupation of Jerusalem?)
2. That many books in the New Testament are named after the cities that had churches in them - all remarkably without any command to leave the cities they are in?
3. That the Isaiah and Revelation chapters you quoted as saying "Come out!" of the cities actually ended with better, godly cities as the solution?
4. That the overall priority of the whole bible is the gospel of our Lord who died to save us, and would have us share this good news with everyone - and that these days everyone lives in cities? That the whole bible's message of salvation ends in a city?

THE SCIENCE and IMPRACTICALITY​

When are you going to acknowledge the FACTS that:-​

1. environmental scientists have stated that clean energy ALONE would nearly halve our total environmental impact?
2. Going back to the land would double the land required to produce the same amount of food. (Unless of course we all went vegetarian - but you've got to convince everyone to do that as well!)
3. It is not geographically possible for many nations anyway - and would require building housing for 4 BILLION people overnight!
4. With about 4 people per household that is a billion new homes that must be built! What is the true environmental cost of your proposed solution?
5. That most people are still moving towards urban living
6. That you have not convinced one person to join you in all this talk.

 

[eclipsenow]

So Fred - are you well? I hope you are OK - and that one day you are going to address these points?