Greetings from an Orthodox Preterist!

[Darth Xena]

Come on now, you guys knew this one was coming....

So this thread is to discuss orthodox (read nonheretical) preterism in an open and friendly manner. I would love to conver.... err discuss this issue with you;)

[Solly]

:rofl:

[GrayPilgrim]

Dee Dee,

Now I am here for my answer :). On what basis do you consider that 70 AD was the final judgment of the covenant curses, when you get the picture in Lev. 26 that it was part of the ongoing process where the Jews would stray, be judged, repent and God would restore them and, that when the temporary blinding of Romans 9-11 is over that they will repent and be restored. As I said in my email, I am more interested in this from a Biblical Law perspective, than from an eschatological angle.

GP

[Darth Xena]

Hey Gray Pilgrim:

It is great to see you!! Can you give me a few?? Boom and I are pretty busy getting this thing up and running smooth, so let me clear some of that off my plate, and I will be glad to answer your question.

[GrayPilgrim]

No rush. Just wanted it to be put out there. Thanks for setting up this forum and let me know if there is anyway I can help.

GP

[efta777]

Alright (cracks knuckles) I'm ready to go!

Thanks for the new site, Dee Dee :thumb:

[Joe Corleone]

So what happens to me if I post something that does not agree with youz guys es-scatology theory? Am I gonna end up banned for life and floating in the river with some cement blocks tied to my soul? Huh huh? Well, am I? What if I like have my own opinion about stuff, and suppose it does not jive with your anti-dispy preterianism lingo? What then? I got friends in the Jersey FBI office ya know. What kinda name is Dee Dee anyways? Are you some kinda Irishwoman or something?

[jpholding]

Originally posted by Joe Corleone
So what happens to me if I post something that does not agree with youz guys es-scatology theory? Am I gonna end up banned for life and floating in the river with some cement blocks tied to my soul? Huh huh? Well, am I? What if I like have my own opinion about stuff, and suppose it does not jive with your anti-dispy preterianism lingo? What then?

You get put in the Rogue's Gallery. ;)

Anyone wearing tin pants here?

JP

[jpholding]

Honk honk,

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
Now I am here for my answer :). On what basis do you consider that 70 AD was the final judgment of the covenant curses, when you get the picture in Lev. 26 that it was part of the ongoing process where the Jews would stray, be judged, repent and God would restore them and, that when the temporary blinding of Romans 9-11 is over that they will repent and be restored. As I said in my email, I am more interested in this from a Biblical Law perspective, than from an eschatological angle.

I've had to hit the books on this one because it has come up in a couple of places lately....pardon my self-plagiarism....

Deuteronomy of course is a covenant, a treaty between a suzerain (Yahweh) and his subjects. And we all know disobedience to this covenant required punishment. Now consider Deut. 18:15-18:

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Using this as a basis, I would say that:

1) The "Prophet" like unto Moses is to be understood as Jesus, a mediator of a new covenant for all men.
2) The command given is to hearken unto this prophet.
3) It therefore stands to reason that disobedience of this command, to hearken unto this prophet, is a cause for punishment.

If Jesus was this prophet (as we all agree, I think), and the Jewish adherents to the Deuteronimic covenant fail to hearken unto him, they are disobeying and breaking the covenant just as much as they would had they worshipped an idol, or murdered, or stolen. And thus, if they still today refuse to listen to his voice, they remain in rebellion to the commands of the Deuteronomic covenant and are subject to punishment. They have not been disowned, but they are still being punished.

So the covenant with the Jews was eternal, but they are in rebellion to that covenant, and are breaking it, through their refusal to recognize Jesus as the foretold Prophet and Messiah.

As for Rom. 9-11: I read this as saying that the true Israel is not found in the flesh but in the heart. Israel has not been replaced but expanded, and those in rebellion as above are still subject to punishment. However this is hard to grasp as Paul uses "Israel" to mean not only the national people but also people who are faithful to God.

Food for thought with mustard.

JP

[Darth Xena]

Hey thanks JP!! And yes.... I am not claiming this thread as my personal fiefdom... everyone horn in!!! I would like to be an interesting back and forth between orthodox preterists and other p.o.v.

[Darth Xena]

Hey Joe!! I missed you. Peaches just were not flipping without you.

[GrayPilgrim]

I've had to hit the books on this one because it has come up in a couple of places lately....pardon my self-plagiarism....

Deuteronomy of course is a covenant, a treaty between a suzerain (Yahweh) and his subjects. And we all know disobedience to this covenant required punishment. Now consider Deut. 18:15-18:

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

Using this as a basis, I would say that:

1) The "Prophet" like unto Moses is to be understood as Jesus, a mediator of a new covenant for all men.
2) The command given is to hearken unto this prophet.
3) It therefore stands to reason that disobedience of this command, to hearken unto this prophet, is a cause for punishment.

If Jesus was this prophet (as we all agree, I think), and the Jewish adherents to the Deuteronomic covenant fail to hearken unto him, they are disobeying and breaking the covenant just as much as they would had they worshipped an idol, or murdered, or stolen. And thus, if they still today refuse to listen to his voice, they remain in rebellion to the commands of the Deuteronomic covenant and are subject to punishment. They have not been disowned, but they are still being punished.

So the covenant with the Jews was eternal, but they are in rebellion to that covenant, and are breaking it, through their refusal to recognize Jesus as the foretold Prophet and Messiah.

As for Rom. 9-11: I read this as saying that the true Israel is not found in the flesh but in the heart. Israel has not been replaced but expanded, and those in rebellion as above are still subject to punishment. However this is hard to grasp as Paul uses "Israel" to mean not only the national people but also people who are faithful to God.

Food for thought with mustard.

JP

So far I am in complete agreement of what you have said.

Let me preface my further comments with a note on my understanding of the covenants and how they work together. I believe what you might call a radical continuity, i.e. the promises and the covenants are still in effect. As part of this continuity I would say that the Abrahamic Covenant overarches the other big three (Mosaic, Davidic and New) covenants. So to understand the Mosaic, you must first understand the Abrahamic. To use your example, one does not fulfill the covenant made at Sinai by merely following the laws and regulations. Even in the Mosaic Covenant one must have faith. To take this into the Romans passage, I would say that believing Israel is the inheritor of the promises, not physical Israel.

My one question for you, Dee Dee or any other takers is in specific relation to the promise of God in Lev 26, that:


Leviticus 26:40-45 "But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery that they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, 41 so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies- if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. 43 But the land shall be abandoned by them and enjoy its Sabbaths while it lies desolate without them, and they shall make amends for their iniquity, because they spurned my rules and their soul abhorred my statutes. 44 Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the LORD their God. 45 But I will for their sake remember the covenant with their forefathers, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the LORD."

So say en masse a group of these covenant breakers would confess their iniquity [not believing the Prophet]. Would not God remember the covenant with Jacob, Isaac and Abraham and remember the Land [ha'arets]? Does not God promise to not spurn them, even while in rebellion?

The inclusion of the covenant formula, "I will be to them God" seems to link Him inextricable to the righteous remnant within Israel.

Okay, now how I think I differ from your position: I assert that within this era God will deal differently with believing/Messianic Jews than with the Gentile who puts his faith in Christ. How I am assuming we agree: in the eternal state there will be not distinction between Jew and Gentile in heaven.

So in some ways I don't think we are too far apart in our take, but please let me know how you think things pan out and perhaps show me the error of my ways.

But my original question still holds: What makes the execution of the covenant curses in 70AD the final repudiation of Israel?

GP


PS As I said originally, I am more interested in the relation of the Covenants with this discussion than arguing the merits of preterism as a whole.

[Hitch]

Oh wow deja vu ,, man... Like I know I ve been here before...

[Jaltus]

Good grief! I thought I had escaped this thread!


Purgatory, I call you eschatology debates!

[GrayPilgrim]

Jaltus always warned me "Stay away from the Eschatology page, and really stay away from the Dispensational Page." Some people will never learn!

[Darth Xena]

I leave this thread with me wherever I go. It is the same as scrawling "Dee Dee was here" on a locker wall.

[Hitch]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes the execution of the covenant curses in 70AD the final repudiation of Israel?

Because it was Christ's only unfulfilled prophecy and is directly tied to the removal of the Kingdom and the declaration of 'unworthyness' (M22;8) .

The Church now occupies the station as the 'people of god and
the Holy Nation. There is no room and no need for another.


Take care

Hitch

[GrayPilgrim]

But how does that square with Lev 26:44?

I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the LORD their God.

[Hitch]

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
Dee Dee,

Now I am here for my answer :). On what basis do you consider that 70 AD was the final judgment of the covenant curses, when you get the picture in Lev. 26 that it was part of the ongoing process where the Jews would stray, be judged, repent and God would restore them and, that when the temporary blinding of Romans 9-11 is over that they will repent and be restored. As I said in my email, I am more interested in this from a Biblical Law perspective, than from an eschatological angle.

GP Ok So what is the penaltly for a Priest's daughter gone whore? Is there a remedy once it ics carried out?

As I blissfullly rest in the knowledge that in this one shining spot in the universe it is understood that Israel/Jerusalem is the 'whore' of apocalyptic writ.

Ahhh that felt good...

Hitch

[Hitch]

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
But how does that square with Lev 26:44? Are jews allowed into the Kingdom on conversion?

[jpholding]

Yo GP,

So far I am in complete agreement of what you have said.

Well, that's no fun! :(

Let me preface my further comments with a note on my understanding of the covenants and how they work together. I believe what you might call a radical continuity, i.e. the promises and the covenants are still in effect.

More or less true by my view as well.

So say en masse a group of these covenant breakers would confess their iniquity [not believing the Prophet]. Would not God remember the covenant with Jacob, Isaac and Abraham and remember the Land [ha'arets]? Does not God promise to not spurn them, even while in rebellion?

Arguably so. One might argue that the current political Israel has something to do with this. But to me it is a matter of non-interest.

One thing that may be an answer for you: If I am right about Deut. 18 and the prophet, then at this point the Deuteronomic covenant, then the answer to your question -- "What makes the execution of the covenant curses in 70AD the final repudiation of Israel?" -- is, "Because there's no way Israel could have kept it without believing in Jesus." It's not so much a "repudiation" as that it becomes impossible to keep under the terms Judaism/ political Israel of 30-70 lived.

Did that make sense? :help:

JP

[Reba]

Originally posted by Joe Corleone
So what happens to me if I post something that does not agree with youz guys es-scatology theory? Am I gonna end up banned for life and floating in the river with some cement blocks tied to my soul? Huh huh? Well, am I? What if I like have my own opinion about stuff, and suppose it does not jive with your anti-dispy preterianism lingo? What then? I got friends in the Jersey FBI office ya know. What kinda name is Dee Dee anyways? Are you some kinda Irishwoman or something?


Joe, you become the hockey puck! Welcome to the game !

[Darth Xena]

Reba LOLOL!! But hey, Joe is the only one who can get away with calling me Peach Flip and Dumpling.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Joe Corleone
So what happens to me if I post something that does not agree with youz guys es-scatology theory? Am I gonna end up banned for life and floating in the river with some cement blocks tied to my soul? Huh huh? Well, am I? What if I like have my own opinion about stuff, and suppose it does not jive with your anti-dispy preterianism lingo? What then? I got friends in the Jersey FBI office ya know. What kinda name is Dee Dee anyways? Are you some kinda Irishwoman or something?


I welcome all open debates. Please feel free to post your augments here :). As long as you follow the rules, you can post whatever your little heart desires. :thumb:

However I only feel it safe to warn you. If the above your best attempt at a valid argument, don't come crying :( to me when you receive the thrashing you deserve :p

[GrayPilgrim]

Originally posted by jpholding
Yo GP,

"Because there's no way Israel could have kept it without believing in Jesus." It's not so much a "repudiation" as that it becomes impossible to keep under the terms Judaism/ political Israel of 30-70 lived.

Did that make sense? :help:

JP

I agree that there is salvation in no other name, the idea that the Jews have a seperate way is less than cogent. I also agree that the Judaisms and political makeup of 30-70 Israel is not tennable or a desirable thing. What I differ with is that there is a form of Judaism that is covenentally desirable, i.e. a group of followers of Jesus whose physical lineage as well as their spirtual descent is from Abraham.

I guess the reason IMHO that this is so essential goes back to Genesis 15, where God ties up his existence inextricably with the fulfillment of these promises to the descendents of the Promise.

GP

[bar Jonah]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
Come on now, you guys knew this one was coming....

So this thread is to discuss orthodox (read nonheretical) preterism in an open and friendly manner. I would love to conver.... err discuss this issue with you;)
Discussing orthodox preterism in an "Open" manner? The irony of that pun is almost without limit. :rofl:

[Darth Xena]

Sigh.

[Joe Corleone]

Uh-huh...As I recall, Dee Dee, I withheld the dumpling peach flip complimentary comments until you blatantly posted the action pic of Xena baring her leather plated breastplate and finely honed Damascus steel persuader. BTW, Xena is really popular in some lesser fanatical Islamic middle eastern countries...like Iraq for example.

Hockey puck eschatology discussion, eh?

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Joe Corleone
Uh-huh...As I recall, Dee Dee, I withheld the dumpling peach flip complimentary comments until you blatantly posted the action pic of Xena baring her leather plated breastplate and finely honed Damascus steel persuader. BTW, Xena is really popular in some lesser fanatical Islamic middle eastern countries...like Iraq for example.

Hockey puck eschatology discussion, eh?

Misplaced guilte by association? Where have I seen that before?

Can anyone say deja vue?

[Reba]

Gray

I agree that there is salvation in no other name, the idea that the Jews have a seperate way is less than cogent. I also agree that the Judaisms and political makeup of 30-70 Israel is not tennable or a desirable thing. What I differ with is that there is a form of Judaism that is covenentally desirable, i.e. a group of followers of Jesus whose physical lineage as well as their spirtual descent is from Abraham.

Could you please reword this into a very basic simple form even if ya think it is basic now? Thanks

[GrayPilgrim]

Originally posted by Reba
Gray

Could you please reword this into a very basic simple form even if ya think it is basic now? Thanks

Now you have fully expereinced most people's reaction to me: :huh: I tend to be very incomprehensible. I will often only use half sentences in an attempt to communicate, it generally fails.

I will try to make it coherent, but I generally need my wife to translate me to others ;)
I agree that there is salvation in no other name, the idea that the Jews have a seperate way is less than cogent.

Some people teach that Jews by the very fact that they are physically descended from Abraham have a free ticket to heaven. I on the other hand say that Jesus Christ is the only way to the Father.


I also agree that the Judaisms and political makeup of 30-70 Israel is not tennable or a desirable thing.

The forms of Judaism that existed at the time of the destruction of Judaism were largely seperated from the way God intended it to be. In the Mishna, there is a story of a guy who is threatened with banishment b/c he dared to have a relationship with God and did not follow the traditions of the elders. This shows that the oral traditions had replaced God as central to the Jews at that time. Thus it is not a good representative of godly worship, therefore it is not something we should desire to return to.

What I differ with is that there is a form of Judaism that is covenentally desirable, i.e. a group of followers of Jesus whose physical lineage as well as their spirtual descent is from Abraham.

This is to me the difference between me and those who see the Church as Israel. I believe that in this era, that is the period between the Fall and the Final Consumation, that God has covenanted to give a particular peiece of land to the children of Abraham who have faith in Him. Therefore, it is not enough that a person is a Jew by birth, but they must put their faith in God through Christ. [*Gen 15:6 "And Abraham placed his trust on God, and he credited to him as righteousness"]

Salvation has always been predicated on belief or trust in God. Since, God has linked his existence to the fulfillment of this promise I think it is a future fulfillment (IMHO this is the purpose of the Mill). However when we enter into the eternal state there will only be one group: those who are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and have been cleansed from sin.

I hope I have simplified this and not made it just that more incomprehensible.

GP


* Gen 15:6 transalted by GP

[Reba]

The gray fog... Ok understood to this point..

Salvation has always been predicated on belief or trust in God. Since, God has linked his existence to the fulfillment of this promise I think it is a future fulfillment (IMHO this is the purpose of the Mill). However when we enter into the eternal state there will only be one group: those who are redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and have been cleansed from sin.


So to your understanding the MK will not hold any more people then will be able to live in the boundries of IsraeL ?

[GrayPilgrim]

No, I see that we get the nations of the world coming to worship in Jerusalem, and the boundaries of the land are expanded in Ezekiel to cover the whole Middle East, which shows a move from Land to World. So I do not deny that there is this move, I just think that Israel as the center piece is the point of the MK.

[Reba]

1 Cor 15:46
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.and afterward that which is natural.



Yea just like in the scripture ;)

[efta777]

No, I see that we get the nations of the world coming to worship in Jerusalem, and the boundaries of the land are expanded in Ezekiel to cover the whole Middle East, which shows a move from Land to World. So I do not deny that there is this move, I just think that Israel as the center piece is the point of the MK.

Where exactly do you get this extension from Jeruselem to the entire middle east? Also, how do you reconcile this with the New Testament where it says that as Christians we are the NEW Israel. Doesn't this tell you that the covenant is still alive and well, only now it is not limited to the Ethnic Jews alone?

[bar Jonah]

I certainly hope we're not Israel, considering that Israel was cut off from God.

[Darth Xena]

Ahh, but there is more than one way to use the term Israel, my friend. LOL.

[bar Jonah]

Apparently so. The right way and the wrong way. :)

[AVmetro]

I could easily waste Dee Dee and her heretical preterism!!! :rant: I just don't feel like it right now, that's all! :hrm:

wHo's da man? :argh: Who's da man! :argh: Who?! :argh:

[AVmetro]

Mooorrrrre Paaaaaiiinnnn!!! :argh: :whip:

[bar Jonah]

What is it with accusations of heresy and and antichrist around here lately? Sheesh!

As strongly as I disagree with Praeterism, it is certainly not heresy. It does not violate the fundamental, absolutely foundational principles of the gospel message. I am even more adamantly (even vehemently) against Calvinism, and I wouldn't even consider that to be heresy, although it is close to the borderline, to be honest. But it is NOT heretical, and I will defend it against accusations of heresy along with my Calvinist brothers in Christ. Or in this case, my Praeterist sister in Christ.

So back offa my sis, AVmetro, and act with a modicum of civility. :cool:

[AVmetro]

What is it with accusations of heresy and and antichrist around here lately? Sheesh!

As strongly as I disagree with Praeterism, it is certainly not heresy. It does not violate the fundamental, absolutely foundational principles of the gospel message. I am even more adamantly (even vehemently) against Calvinism, and I wouldn't even consider that to be heresy, although it is close to the borderline, to be honest. But it is NOT heretical, and I will defend it against accusations of heresy along with my Calvinist brothers in Christ. Or in this case, my Praeterist sister in Christ.

So back offa my sis, AVmetro, and act with a modicum of civility.

Haha, you didn't really think I wasn't being sarcastic, did you? My post was dripping with it --------> :duh:

God bless

[bar Jonah]

Can't be too careful. Glad to hear it.

Rock on, muchacho! :w00t: :rockon: :w00t:

[AVmetro]

I just don't feel like it right now, that's all!

If I ever say that in a debate with an Anti-Trin and mean it....shoot me. :)

[AVmetro]

Do WE have those smilies? :o

[bar Jonah]

Yup. You're a mod, and you don't even know what smileys we have? LOL

[AVmetro]

:spam:

^ This forum just jumped to #1 on the Net :D

[AVmetro]

Yup. You're a mod, and you don't even know what smileys we have? LOL

This forum appears to morphe hourly. Can you blame me? ;)

[Darth Xena]

Sigh. AVMetro so when are you going to make the leap to common sense and just embrace preterism yourself?

[and RightIdea - thank you for defending my honor!!]

:yipee:

[Solly]

RI, don't worry about AV, he has been like this for ages; its just cognitive dissonance - he can't bring himself to admit openly the cogency of DD's arguments, so he does a merry dance. :bonk:

For old times sake...

[Darth Xena]

Yeah AV has been dodging me for a while. I will get him one day though.... I will, I will!!!

And Solly, you are SOOOOO bad.

[AVmetro]

That's it!!!

You and me, Dee Dee! :rant: One on one. THIS forum! :argue: ...........um......10 years from now...:(

[AVmetro]

For old times sake...

LOL!

It actually took me awhile to get that..;)

[Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Yeah AV has been dodging me for a while. I will get him one day though.... I will, I will!!!




...... and your little dog too.:p

[Hitch]

So much sound and fury.

[bar Jonah]

Signifying nothing? :lol:

[AVmetro]

:cheers: :duh: :eww: :rofl:

[AVmetro]

The old slew of drunken smilies. The perfect complement to my false mask of bravery. :)

[AVmetro]

Sigh. AVMetro so when are you going to make the leap to common sense and just embrace preterism yourself?

Hey, you owe me some article links first ;)

[Darth Xena]

Really?? Oh, I did not remember that. I thought you were going to let me convert you personally, but sigh, since you need those links.... here is jpholding's stuff on the matter

the Mistress of Preterism herself offers to give him a personal conversion experience, and he wants links......

http://www.tektonics.org/olivet01.html

http://www.tektonics.org/revdate.html

[Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Really?? Oh, I did not remember that. I thought you were going to let me convert you personally, but sigh, since you need those links.... here is jpholding's stuff on the matter

the Mistress of Preterism herself offers to give him a personal conversion experience, and he wants links......

http://www.tektonics.org/olivet01.html

http://www.tektonics.org/revdate.html

Bummer Dee Dee :argh:

Of course it was those articles, especially the first link, that fully converted me to the preterist position. :thumb:

However, Dee Dee, if I had known you then, I would have gladly let the mistress of preterism have the honor. :cheers:

[Darth Xena]

Well, then I can claim partial credit for (or maybe I am just a legend in my own mind) I gave JP the final push to finally get on with making a committment himself. I was convinced of the position before he was and made it a goal to harp him on it occasionally. I think my words were, "Come on now Holding, either poop or get off the preterist pot" or something to that effect. LOL. I will leave him to correct me on that, otherwise my legendary status will grow until even Boom's capacious head cannot contain me.

[AVmetro]

Well, then I can claim partial credit for (or maybe I am just a legend in my own mind) I gave JP the final push to finally get on with making a committment himself. I was convinced of the position before he was and made it a goal to harp him on it occasionally. I think my words were, "Come on now Holding, either poop or get off the preterist pot" or something to that effect. LOL. I will leave him to correct me on that, otherwise my legendary status will grow until even Boom's capacious head cannot contain me.

That was kinda :rofl: , and kinda :eww: at the same time.

Thanks for the links!

God bless

[Lizard]

Dee Dee Warren:
Well, then I can claim partial credit for (or maybe I am just a legend in my own mind) I gave JP the final push to finally get on with making a committment himself. I was convinced of the position before he was and made it a goal to harp him on it occasionally. I think my words were, "Come on now Holding, either poop or get off the preterist pot" or something to that effect. LOL. I will leave him to correct me on that, otherwise my legendary status will grow until even Boom's capacious head cannot contain me.

Booms capacious head must be nearly filled already, you legendary preterist princess. :thumb:

[Darth Xena]

It is quite capacious. I am free to say this since Boom never reads these threads for fear that the sense of preterism will finally overcome him. Oh, hi there Boom!

[papabryant]

Dee Dee Warren:
Ahh, but there is more than one way to use the term Israel, my friend. LOL.


O.K. - as my first "officially significant" post outside the welcome center, let me ask a question.

Are Preterism and Dispensationalism by necessity exclusive?

As an example of what I mean, Isaiah 53 is recognized as literally messianic in meaning by all Christians. In fact, in Jewish theology in both Talmuds it is also referenced as "messianic" by all the sages EXCEPT Rashi (and no other rabbinical source agreed with him until Rabbi David Kimshi in the 1600's).

Yet if you read Isaiah 53 metaphorically it could also reference the Jewish people, just as Rashi interprets, and in fact is a good (though not perfect) description of the history of the Jewish people.

So we have, at least as I understand it, a "double" meaning to these passages. Could not the eschatological passages also have double meaning, in a simular manner?

I throw the question open to the floor.

Peace, Tom

[Darth Xena]

Dear Tom:

Hi there!! And I am flattered that this is your first significant post here ... I am acknowledging your question and will return to it at my next chance.. I have a few others on the burner that I must get to first, until then...

[papabryant]

Oh, that's fine, dear. I'm in no hurry. :D

Peace, Tom

[Darth Xena]

Cool! Hopefully tonight!

[smilax]

I like this topic in particular, so I hope you don't mind if I step in.papabryant:
So we have, at least as I understand it, a "double" meaning to these passages. Could not the eschatological passages also have double meaning, in a simular manner?Yes, but not in the dispensational sense. The preteristic framework would have to govern whatever double fulfillment (I prefer "typological correspondence") you end up with. Pick a passage, any passage, and we can look at specifics.

For starters, note that there is not a single "Antichrist" figure, but rather the beast and the son of perdition.

[papabryant]

It's a date, then!


:rofl:

I look forward to your answer.

Peace, Tom

[Hitch]

papabryant:



O.K. - as my first "officially significant" post outside the welcome center, let me ask a question.

Are Preterism and Dispensationalism by necessity exclusive?Yes.

Although I think your question is really more concerned with literalism. And one easily regognizable difference on that is the DF and preterist views of Rev 1;1. No DF takes this verse .or v3, literally, while the preterist does. Yet the DF will insist on literalism in the much more, and obviously so, symbollical and methaphorical chapters of the Apocalypse.
And even the most wild-eyed literalist dosent think Messiah is really a plant.


As an example of what I mean, Isaiah 53 is recognized as literally messianic in meaning by all Christians. In fact, in Jewish theology in both Talmuds it is also referenced as "messianic" by all the sages EXCEPT Rashi (and no other rabbinical source agreed with him until Rabbi David Kimshi in the 1600's).

Yet if you read Isaiah 53 metaphorically it could also reference the Jewish people, just as Rashi interprets, and in fact is a good (though not perfect) description of the history of the Jewish people.

So we have, at least as I understand it, a "double" meaning to these passages. Could not the eschatological passages also have double meaning, in a simular manner?

I throw the question open to the floor.

Peace, Tom Could not the eschatological passages also have double meaning, in a simular manner?

Well there was but one temporal ' city in which their Lord was crucified'. There is but a single generation set out by the very Word of God to be consumed for the guilt of the innocents from Abel to Messiah and his Saints. There is the Promise that 'great tribulation' regardless of view or definition, is a unique event in history, never to be repeated.

So if the preterist is correct all notions of impending doom and final rebellion are wrapped up long since and never to be repeated. And the parables expressing long and constant growth of the Kingdom, with troubles, are his expectation. He emphasizes the declaration 'all power is given Me in heaven and earth' as part of the eternal Gospel and Covenant over the near and local dark and deadly judgements soon to come upon that generation.

take care

Hitch

[papabryant]

Hi, Smilax!

O.K. - I will have to be leaving soon, but let me give a starting place for a discussion. Matt 24.


1: And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2: And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

So far obviously preterist, as I understand it.

3: And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Literal reading could suggest the disciples are speaking of a different time than the destruction of the Temple. "When will the Temple be destroyed?" "What shall be the signs that you are prepared to come into a Kingship role?" "What are the signs of the end of the world?"

4: And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Bar Kokhba did not claim to be the messiah, although others did claim that for him. And he did not come in the name of Jesus, nor did any others that I am aware of. Bar Kokhba was the only one of the post-resurrection rebellion leaders that had any messianic claims made about him, again that I am aware of. But Bar Kokhba could be the preterist fulfillment here.

However, with Benny Hinn and his "Holy Spirit" parlor tricks and others, like the guy in Southern Russia who claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus (who commands a following of 4 million people) would be an arguement straight out of Tim LaHaye for dispensationalist interpretation, right?

6: And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7: For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8: All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Well, the obvious newspaper stories could be quoted here about wars and rumors thereof. And not just American wars - Pakistan/India nuclear stand offs, civil war in Argentina, genocide in Myannamar, etc. But post-Jesus Jewish rebellions, and wars against Germania could also be cited here too.

As well in verse 7, ethnic violence is common to both eras, as was famines and widespread disease. The interesting one here is earthquakes. This is either direct reference to the "darkening" sky and earthquake at the cruxifixion (thus meaning it was felt worldwide, which makes Julius Africanus' rebuttle of Thallus REAL interesting), or the rising >7.0 earthquake activity currently going on worldwide. Or it is confirmation of the "double" meaning theory I have posited.

Or I may have spoke too soon.

I'll stop here for now, as I have to go. But I will definately check back in for your answer/reply. Till later...

Peace, Tom

[Hitch]

As well in verse 7, ethnic violence is common to both eras, as was famines and widespread disease. The interesting one here is earthquakes. This is either direct reference to the "darkening" sky and earthquake at the cruxifixion (thus meaning it was felt worldwide, which makes Julius Africanus' rebuttle of Thallus REAL interesting), Or it is confirmation of the "double" meaning theory I have posited.

I suggest interested paties direct any questions they have wrt or the rising >7.0 earthquake activity currently going on worldwide. to the USGS and ask them for yourselves. Or take my word that the answer will be negative.


http://www.usgs.gov/


Hitch

[smilax]

papabryant:
Literal reading could suggest the disciples are speaking of a different time than the destruction of the Temple. "When will the Temple be destroyed?" "What shall be the signs that you are prepared to come into a Kingship role?" "What are the signs of the end of the world?"And the word for "world" in the King James is "aion," properly meaning "age." See the "End of the age" thread for details.Bar Kokhba did not claim to be the messiah, although others did claim that for him. And he did not come in the name of Jesus, nor did any others that I am aware of. Bar Kokhba was the only one of the post-resurrection rebellion leaders that had any messianic claims made about him, again that I am aware of. But Bar Kokhba could be the preterist fulfillment here.How about...

Acts v, 36-37: "For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed."

I wouldn't think of Bar-Kokhba as directly related to this prophecy. For example, the oft quoted Jeremiah xxix, 11 says, "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." This is directed to the Jewish captivity, but people apply it today on a personal level. That does not make us examples of prophetic fulfillment.However, with Benny Hinn and his "Holy Spirit" parlor tricks and others, like the guy in Southern Russia who claims to be the reincarnation of Jesus (who commands a following of 4 million people) would be an arguement straight out of Tim LaHaye for dispensationalist interpretation, right?Ah, but see, the dispensationalist interpretation denies initial fulfillment altogether. And in that case, we could say the same thing about every single generation.Well, the obvious newspaper stories could be quoted here about wars and rumors thereof. And not just American wars - Pakistan/India nuclear stand offs, civil war in Argentina, genocide in Myannamar, etc. But post-Jesus Jewish rebellions, and wars against Germania could also be cited here too.And, again, every single era in history. Unless you're a historicist, this is not fulfillment, but simply God acting the same way throughout history. You can therefore extract a universal principle from the text, (history spirals in Jewish thinking,) and you can apply it via pesher midrash, (example: Paul's use of Habakkuk i, 5, which refers to the Babylonians attacking Judah, in Acts xiii, 41, which refers to salvation going to the Gentiles.) But fulfilling prophecy? No way.As well in verse 7, ethnic violence is common to both eras, as was famines and widespread disease. The interesting one here is earthquakes. This is either direct reference to the "darkening" sky and earthquake at the cruxifixion (thus meaning it was felt worldwide, which makes Julius Africanus' rebuttle of Thallus REAL interesting), or the rising >7.0 earthquake activity currently going on worldwide. Or it is confirmation of the "double" meaning theory I have posited.If you want a double meaning, you'll have to include the years in between, thus giving you triple, quadruple, and quintuple meaning...

I see room for a typological fulfilllment, (one historical precursor, and only one final repetition; see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/typol.html for a good introduction, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period by Richard Longenecker for more detail) but what you have described so far is not quite that.

Hope that helps.

[papabryant]

Hi, Hitch!

Although I think your question is really more concerned with literalism. And one easily regognizable difference on that is the DF and preterist views of Rev 1;1. No DF takes this verse .or v3, literally, while the preterist does. Yet the DF will insist on literalism in the much more, and obviously so, symbollical and methaphorical chapters of the Apocalypse.
And even the most wild-eyed literalist dosent think Messiah is really a plant.

You may be right concerning literalism.

I see areas where both views could be literally correct, given that certain specific nuances are incorrectly interpreted by us moderns. But I suppose that means we must take into account how peoples of the ANE played "fast and loose" with time orientation. (The unimportance of precision of time telling, orienting towards present/past/future in order of importance, etc.) Here I see Jesus speaking to a group of typical Jews about separate events, one in the near future (almost could be called present) and one in the unknown far future, one being almost a foreshadowing of the other, mixing the "metaphors" so to speak in a way that His audience would have easily understood the difference, but that we moderns would not. (Of course it could just be me trying to get the best of both worlds too. :grin:

And the parables expressing long and constant growth of the Kingdom, with troubles, are his expectation. He emphasizes the declaration 'all power is given Me in heaven and earth' as part of the eternal Gospel and Covenant over the near and local dark and deadly judgements soon to come upon that generation.

:huh: So what of the "1000 years" of peace? Here I plead complete ignorance of how preterist see this coming about.


I suggest interested paties direct any questions they have wrt or the rising >7.0 earthquake activity currently going on worldwide. to the USGS and ask them for yourselves. Or take my word that the answer will be negative.

Actually I did this two years ago, and found that the USGS was being somewhat deceptive, possibly because they get so many questions about this.

At the website was an e-mail address to ask questions of a geologist. I asked about >7.0 earthquakes specifically because that was the figure given in a book on prophesies by Peter and Paul Lalonde, and I wanted to double check their data.

Well, they sent me back fairly simplistic data about earthquakes >6.0 and greater, which stated that things were remaining fairly constant. I wrote back could they break it down further by earthquake magnitude. They suggested I seek a University in Canada for that data (I'd have to look for the name in my email files on a computer I now have boxed up in storage).

I did write that University and they sent me what looked to me like raw data. And earthquakes >7.0 have increased dramatically, while earthquakes 6.0 to 7.0 are dropping in frequency world wide. I'll see if I can dig up some of that data - at least the name of the University and post it here.

Peace, Tom

[Hitch]

papabryant:
Hi, Hitch!


You may be right concerning literalism.

I see areas where both views could be literally correct, given that certain specific nuances are incorrectly interpreted by us moderns. But I suppose that means we must take into account how peoples of the ANE played "fast and loose" with time orientation. (The unimportance of precision of time telling, orienting towards present/past/future in order of importance, etc.) Here I see Jesus speaking to a group of typical Jews about separate events, one in the near future (almost could be called present) and one in the unknown far future, one being almost a foreshadowing of the other, mixing the "metaphors" so to speak in a way that His audience would have easily understood the difference, but that we moderns would not. (Of course it could just be me trying to get the best of both worlds too. :grin:[quote] well thats one of teh problems associated with futurism. In futuristic thought we have lots of passages in the NT in which the subject is supposed to be something about to happen, happenning already, and personalized as with Tim, yet we are to believe it is yet to come thousands of years later... LOL[quote]



:huh: So what of the "1000 years" of peace? Here I plead complete ignorance of how preterist see this coming about.

Luke 2:11-14
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
(KJV)


Is the peace outside of salvation? Peace, of the variety that comes from above is tied directly to salvation and the Savior.



Actually I did this two years ago, and found that the USGS was being somewhat deceptive, possibly because they get so many questions about this.

At the website was an e-mail address to ask questions of a geologist. I asked about >7.0 earthquakes specifically because that was the figure given in a book on prophesies by Peter and Paul Lalonde, and I wanted to double check their data.

Well, they sent me back fairly simplistic data about earthquakes >6.0 and greater, which stated that things were remaining fairly constant. I wrote back could they break it down further by earthquake magnitude. They suggested I seek a University in Canada for that data (I'd have to look for the name in my email files on a computer I now have boxed up in storage).

I did write that University and they sent me what looked to me like raw data. And earthquakes >7.0 have increased dramatically, while earthquakes 6.0 to 7.0 are dropping in frequency world wide. I'll see if I can dig up some of that data - at least the name of the University and post it here.

Peace, Tom If La Londe told me the sky was blue.... I would check it out rather than take that clowns word for anythng,,,but thats just me.

[papabryant]

And the word for "world" in the King James is "aion" properly meaning "age."See the "End of the age"thread for details.

I will, and stand corrected.


Acts v, 36-37: "For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed."

I am not aware of either Theudas or Judas of Galilee having or making messianic claims, although if I'm wrong I can see why such claims would be made - both were leaders of political motivation, which is what the Jews were expecting of messiah.

I wouldn't think of Bar-Kokhba as directly related to this prophecy. For example, the oft quoted Jeremiah xxix, 11 says, "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end." This is directed to the Jewish captivity, but people apply it today on a personal level. That does not make us examples of prophetic fulfillment.

I see your point, but I would counter that the Jeremiah quote is a religious/philosophical idea within a historical context, while Matt. 24 speaks of the historical events themselves.


Ah, but see, the dispensationalist interpretation denies initial fulfillment altogether.

That's kinda my point. Like I said to Hitch, I see where both preterism and dispensationalism can both be correct, provided that certain points each side held were incorrect.

But also as I told Hitch it could just be men trying to get the best of both worlds. I'm here to learn as much as to argue. :cheers:

I see room for a typological fulfilllment, (one historical precursor, and only one final repetition; see http://www.christian-thinktank.com/typol.html for a good introduction, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period by Richard Longenecker for more detail) but what you have described so far is not quite that.

Hope that helps.

I downloaded the "Tank" a while back. I'll look up the article.

And help it does.

Peace, Tom

[Darth Xena]

eeekk!!! you guys are just plowing ahead without me!!!

<spastically bawling>
:bawl:

That's okay... I will have my usual two cents to add soon.

[smilax]

papabryant:
I am not aware of either Theudas or Judas of Galilee having or making messianic claims, although if I'm wrong I can see why such claims would be made - both were leaders of political motivation, which is what the Jews were expecting of messiah.Well, if Jesus Christ is the ringleader of some new group that Gamaliel decides to compare with those two, the natural thing to think is that they were Messianic pretenders, no?I see your point, but I would counter that the Jeremiah quote is a religious/philosophical idea within a historical context, while Matt. 24 speaks of the historical events themselves.Not at all! "Give you an expected end," is as historical as, "Many shall come in My name." The religious idea behind the verses you cited is namely this: there are false teachers.

And, of course, I would say that has been true no matter what the age.

[Darth Xena]

Dear Papa:

Hey I am coming in a bit late, so I may repeat some things already said, but it sometimes it is cool to hear a little bit of a different voice…

Are Preterism and Dispensationalism by necessity exclusive?

I would say an unqualified yes. I have found that preterism is the silver bullet in fact to defeat all flavors of dispensationalism. I think though what you mean to ask is if preterism and futurism are by necessity exclusive, however, my answer would remain the same.


As an example of what I mean, Isaiah 53 is recognized as literally messianic in meaning by all Christians. In fact, in Jewish theology in both Talmuds it is also referenced as "messianic" by all the sages EXCEPT Rashi (and no other rabbinical source agreed with him until Rabbi David Kimshi in the 1600's).

Yet if you read Isaiah 53 metaphorically it could also reference the Jewish people, just as Rashi interprets, and in fact is a good (though not perfect) description of the history of the Jewish people.

So we have, at least as I understand it, a "double" meaning to these passages. Could not the eschatological passages also have double meaning, in a simular manner?

I would disagree with you on Isaiah 53, but your point could be made with other passages, such as Psalm 22, so I will not fuss over that. Before I answer your question though, I do have a few to ask you myself, and I mean no disrespect, but why is the idea of a future Great Tribiulation so hard to let go of? I mean, if the passage on its face seems to say that this is a past event, why then the reason to find some future fulfillment as well? What is it about this particular passage that draws such a gut response? For instance, there are many other fulfilled judgment passages in the Bible, let’s say for exawmple, the judgment upon Tyre… why are we not zealously advocating yet another fulfillment of that passage?

Rhetorical questions aside, let’s take a look at this passage, ie the Olivet Discourse.

My position is that the details of Matthew 24 and its contextual setting and purpose make it impossible for it to have a “double fulfillment.” Its purpose was very specific, and it has nonrepeatable events contained therein. However, the Bible is full of “type” and “anti-type” relationships. Specifically, in Matthew 24:29, Jesus quotes almost exactly (the NAS indents it as an exact quote) Isaiah 13:10 (a past judgment) to describe the AD70 judgment on Israel. Now, that does not mean that Isaiah 13 had a double fulfillment. Its fulfillment was found in the judgment upon Babylon centuries earlier, but it does mean that there was a typological relationship between ancient Babylon and first century Jerusalem, a very interesting “slap in the face” by Jesus indeed (and makes the “mystery Babylon references in Revelation very interesting as well).

Also, God’s judgments are predictable and very often covenantal. In these senses, of course Matthew 24 can be predictive in a typological way of future judgments… but I would not call them a “fulfillment” in the sense that I think you are employing. It’s fulfillment was in the first century and we have no reason to expect an exact repeat performance for there is nothing in the text that gives us any hint that we should expect any of this to have any future applicability in a specific (rather than typological sense). It is minutely geared to the first century situation and the “end of the age.” That “age” cannot end again, it is very specific.

Now while I believe it may have some typological/covenantal lessons for us and future applicability in those sense, I don’t believe it is at all “anti-typical” of the end of our age for an entirely different reason, and that moves away from preterism to postmillennialism. I don’t believe that the Bible teaches the relative earthly defeat of the Kingdom in temporal history, thus, the conditions in Matthew 24 are not descriptive of the end of our temporal age.

[Popeye]

If Matthew's account gives you trouble with words like "coming" and "age", then read the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke. There is no room for doubt there that the subject is limited solely to the destruction of the Temple.

[Darth Xena]

Exactly!! Luke makes it really plain... in fact so plain that futurists such as Tommy Ice try to say that Luke was talking about the first century in one part but not Matthew. This is arbitrary and transparent.

[Hitch]

Dee Dee Warren:
Exactly!! Luke makes it really plain... in fact so plain that futurists such as Tommy Ice try to say that Luke was talking about the first century in one part but not Matthew. This is arbitrary and transparent. LOL And you can find it on page 1106 of the SRB.

H

[bar Jonah]

Dee Dee Warren:
Exactly!! Luke makes it really plain... in fact so plain that futurists such as Tommy Ice try to say that Luke was talking about the first century in one part but not Matthew. This is arbitrary and transparent.
Interesting... I am a futurist and I don't believe any such thing. I agree that they referred to a 1st century Tribulation. I just don't believe the Tribulation was completed. I will say, though, that my beliefs regarding the exact timetable of the 69th and 70th weeks is currently under revision. Nevertheless, it is still quite contrary to preterism. ;)

[Darth Xena]

Dear RI:

Tommy Ice's view, I do realize, is not typical of what you would hold, but it is typical of more mainstream futurism.

[mikewhitney]

But how does that square with Lev 26:44?

I will not spurn them, neither will I abhor them so as to destroy them utterly and break my covenant with them, for I am the LORD their God.

The key legal issue here is "destroy them utterly." Anything less than complete and utter destruction of all them would then meet the requirements of this verse.
This quote is satistfied by God's preservation of a remnant in 70AD. If God had destroyed all of those under the first covenant before bringing the new covenant with them, then this verse would have been violated.

[Lizard]

...er mike...This is like a really old thread. Neither Gray Pigrim nor Right Idea (bar Johnah) are active members. (I know I miss them both).

Anyway, welcome to TWeb.

[mikewhitney]

Hmmm.

It seems that in the past I automatically saw the latest posts. Today it seems I am getting the earliest posts.

So, "If you can read this sign, you are travelling in the wrong direction. Turn around quickly."

[Hitch]

Leave him alone Far he makes a good point

H

[Lizard]

Leave him alone Far he makes a good point

H

I agree, I was just making a comment so he did not expect an answer from the people he was addressing.