Parable of the Vineyard and Romans 11

[themuzicman]

OK, I've been translating Matthew 21, and came across the parable of the vineyard farmers who lease a vineyard from a landowner, and when the landowner sends servents and finally his son to collect the harvest, the crowd says that the farmers will be thrown out and destroyed, and the vineyard given to others who will provide him with the harvest.

Jesus says that in the same way, the kingdom will be taken from them, and given to the Gentiles.

Now, I assume that this has happened as per Acts.

However, Jesus seems to leave the story as though this is the end.

Paul, on the other hand, in Romans 11, seems to say that God will save "all Israel" in the end. I know the exegesis of Romans 9-11 is murky to different folks, but was the 1st Century the last hurrah for the covenant nation of Israel, or is there a future day to come?

(All views are welcome, but I'd like to focus on the Matthew passage.)

What's yet to come for Israel?

Michael

[NeilUnreal]

Jesus says that in the same way, the kingdom will be taken from them, and given to the Gentiles.

It seems to me from the context, that Jesus intends the parable to apply to the ruling religious hierarchy vs. the common folk within the Jewish nation. So reinterpreting it into an eschatological/soteriological view specifically about Israel vs. the gentiles seems a bit of an extrapolation.

So in my view, that passage in Matthew 21 is probably not relevant to eschatology, and only generally relevant to soteriology, in the sense that God does not take lightly the abuse of ecclesiastical responsibility.

If one chooses to put a first-century poltical interpretation on some of Jesus' teaching, there is also another possibility. Jesus may have been hinting that a complete Roman overthrow of Israel might well topple the rulers while leaving the common folk relatively untouched (had the Jewish revolt not occurred, this might have happened).

-Neil

[themuzicman]

If you read verse 43:

43 "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

Certainly appears to be a nation thing, and not a "ruling class" thing.

Michael

[Hitch]

What is left to come for Israel?

Well according to the parable and some others what comes after the murder is judgement. Since God has sent them Messiah it is unimaginable that He held something in reserve. What could be added to 'so great a salvation'?

Take care

H

[NeilUnreal]

Hi-

It does certainly seem possible, given Matthew 21:43 that Jesus is talking about the Kingdom going to the Gentiles.

However here's the part I'm still struggling with: in the broader context and in the context of the same parable in Mark and Luke, it appears to be specifically directed against the rulers (as opposed to the common folk). In other words "nation" meaning "all and sundry," "whosoever," etc., as opposed to the sense of the ruling instance of the Jewish Nation (i.e. an ecclesiastical and political hierarchy) vs. the Gentile nations.

That would solve the conflict with what Paul says in Romans. Paul may be speaking of Israel in terms of the covenanted household of the Hebrew faith, as opposed any ecclesiastical or political representation of that faith -- then or in the past.

Another interpretation which does not conflict with Paul is the idea that Jesus was speaking of the effects of the corporate decision made by the ruling elite. In other words, that the ejection of God's principles of justice (and by extension, the Kingdom) by the elite, will have the effect of self-exclusion from participation in the Kingdom as an organized ecclesiastical and political entity.

I also don't think it's possible to completely rule out the idea that some of what Jesus was saying was closely tied to the immediate political situation. Even in a context in which everything Jesus says has universal truth, it is still likely that he was often speaking to people in terms of their specific political situation.

So, though I revise my analysis to account for the fact that Jesus may have been referring to the Gentiles, it still seems largely unrelated to what Paul was saying.

-Neil

[NeilUnreal]

I did some more research on this. The The New Oxford Annotated Bible indicates that Jesus was likely invoking the imagery in Isaiah 5:1-7:


For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.


Maintaining the parallel in the parable, the vineyard in Jesus’ example must become the Jewish people, and the tenants the priesthood and rulers of Jesus’ day. Implying the reading below (my annotations in ‘[]’):


Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. [God establishes the Jewish people as covenanted from the time of Abraham.] He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. [Further establishes the Jewish people in the nation of Israel, surrounded by enemies, looked after by the priesthood and rulers.]

When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. [The Prophets are send to preach the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven.] The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. [The elite reject the message of the Prophets.]

Last of all, he sent his son to them. “They will respect my son,” he said. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.” So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. [God at last sends Jesus, yet he is rejected and killed by the elite, since they want to retain control of ecclesiastical and political power.]

Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?

“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."

Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes?”

Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. [The only logical reading in this context, is that “you” refers to the ruling elite, not to the Jewish people as a whole. Unfortunately, it’s still not clear to whom “people” refers. It could refer to the corporate relinquishing of the Kingdom of Heaven from the Jews to the Gentiles by the actions of ruling priesthood. However, it could also – in context – refer to the authoritative relinquishing of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Apostles and followers of Jesus (which might include Gentiles, Samaritans, etc.). I think, in context, both are possible, but the second is much more probable, especially in light of the fact that Christianity remained a predominately Jewish movement for some time after Christ's death and resurrection.]

“He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet. [Again, the elite appeared to know that Jesus was referring to them specifically, not the Jewish people as a whole.]


The conclusion is, that the parable refers to the removal of ecclesiastical authority from the existing elite. To whom that authority is being transferred is not clear.

Now I want to go back and look at Romans 11 again...

-Neil

[NeilUnreal]

Hi-

Romans 11:1-24 is consistent with the view expressed in Jesus’ parable. However, Paul adds something that was not in the original parable. Namely, that the immediate extension of the Kingdom has been handed over to the Gentiles on a contingent and temporary basis, as a “wild” branch “grafted into” the main stock of Israel. In other words, the Jewish nation remains the root and life of the tree.

Then he comes to the “mystery,” with which the OP is concerned. (By using the word “mystery” Paul indicates that he is about to reveal some new piece of knowledge or doctrine.)

This mystery, he tells us, is that (in a metaphorical sense) the main stock of the tree which is Israel has not died, it has merely temporarily ceased growing while life is extended to the new, grafted branch (the Gentile Church). There is life still in the main stock – a remnant –though which life (e.g. the Kingdom) will once again return to Israel.

This is where we, 2000 years later, can get tangled up if we’re not careful. Paul makes it clear that his expectation is one of an imminent eschatological end of the present age, and the beginning of a Kingdom age. He does leave the door open to a postponement of this end, but his thinking is clearly influenced by this expectation of imminence.

In that scenario, Paul is most likely thinking in terms of this re-awakening of the Jewish root and its turn to the Kingdom, as an event which is likely to happen in near term. In other words, to the Jewish people as real individuals, in his world, not in some future metaphysical reconciliation. This will happen, he tells us, because of God’s promise to the patriarchs.

So I think it’s too much to try to read this “mystery” of a Paul’s as referring to events in some future eschatological sequence of events at the metaphysical end of the world. I think the real theological message we can draw from what Paul is saying is that God’s promises and plans are not thwarted in spite of appearances. Paul is saying that although it appears that God’s promises were broken, changed, or misunderstood, it is in fact the interpretation of present events which we (i.e. the recipients of Romans) have got wrong.

And this also ties back to Paul’s ideas of the imminence of the end of the age. It is possible to see in Paul’s writings a taking of his own advice. He clearly modifies his expectations of imminence and his understanding of eschatology as his writings progress. His famous “we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,” passages show how his diminishing expectations of imminence likewise indicate a flaw in our (his) previous understanding, not a thwarting of God nor a mistake on the part of God. (It may be no coincidence that he also uses the term “mystery” in that context.)

So if Paul teaches us anything, it’s about our continuing need to revise our own views of God and God’s purposes. Not because God changes, but because our understanding of God is always contingent, limited, and flawed.

To reverse an aphorism of Paul’s: "we must all change if we are to avoid spiritually falling asleep" – both as a Church and as individuals.

-Neil

[maudman]

OK, I've been translating Matthew 21, and came across the parable of the vineyard farmers who lease a vineyard from a landowner, and when the landowner sends servents and finally his son to collect the harvest, the crowd says that the farmers will be thrown out and destroyed, and the vineyard given to others who will provide him with the harvest.

Jesus says that in the same way, the kingdom will be taken from them, and given to the Gentiles.

Now, I assume that this has happened as per Acts.

However, Jesus seems to leave the story as though this is the end.

Paul, on the other hand, in Romans 11, seems to say that God will save "all Israel" in the end. I know the exegesis of Romans 9-11 is murky to different folks, but was the 1st Century the last hurrah for the covenant nation of Israel, or is there a future day to come?

(All views are welcome, but I'd like to focus on the Matthew passage.)

What's yet to come for Israel?

Michael


What Christ is telling the High Priest is that the work that they had been commissioned to do was now going to given over to the Children of faith. They weren’t bringing forth fruit because they had no knowledge of God.

Why is Preterism a failure because it say’s that YHWY had quit doing the work he was doing prior to the new covenant.

But the truth is he was just changing who all would be involved in doing it. Christ died so that it could continue not to bring it to an end. He prayed Father forgive them they know not what they do. Because of Christ the work could continue. Yes because he died gentiles could now share in the same vision of YHWY through Christ. They now could be husbandmen and do the Good work of YHWY. Only now it wasn’t in Jerusalem but the world. YHWY was now sharing his truth with the world. Same work greater scale.


Preterism is in for a bitter ending and those who are responsible for convincing other that they no longer need to consider the future of prophetic fulfillments shall be guilty of teaching that which is contrary to the Lord who told us to watch because we no not what hour he will Come. It’s worse than those who have made predictions that never came true. They Say they have Greater vision than Christ. Their knowledge is Greater than his. Only Christ had prevailed to loosen the seals of the scrolls and he never made the claims that preterist have made.

peace

[Straylight]

Preterism is in for a bitter ending and those who are responsible for convincing other that they no longer need to consider the future of prophetic fulfillments shall be guilty of teaching that which is contrary to the Lord who told us to watch because we no not what hour he will Come. It’s worse than those who have made predictions that never came true. They Say they have Greater vision than Christ. Their knowledge is Greater than his. Only Christ had prevailed to loosen the seals of the scrolls and he never made the claims that preterist have made.

peace

Bro, Preterism doesn't teach that there isn't a future of prophetic fulfillment. Only hyper-preterists say that -- and preterists consider their teachings off the wall and heretical just as much as anybody.

Preterists may not have all the elaborate dispensationalist scenarios common to popular end times prophecy books, but they do acknowledge that there will be a second coming of the Savior, and a resurrection of the dead.

[themuzicman]

I did some more research on this. The The New Oxford Annotated Bible indicates that Jesus was likely invoking the imagery in Isaiah 5:1-7:


For the vineyard of the LORD of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant: and he looked for judgment, but behold oppression; for righteousness, but behold a cry.


Maintaining the parallel in the parable, the vineyard in Jesus’ example must become the Jewish people, and the tenants the priesthood and rulers of Jesus’ day. Implying the reading below (my annotations in ‘[]’):


Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. [God establishes the Jewish people as covenanted from the time of Abraham.] He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. [Further establishes the Jewish people in the nation of Israel, surrounded by enemies, looked after by the priesthood and rulers.]

When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit. [The Prophets are send to preach the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven.] The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. [The elite reject the message of the Prophets.]

Last of all, he sent his son to them. “They will respect my son,” he said. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.” So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. [God at last sends Jesus, yet he is rejected and killed by the elite, since they want to retain control of ecclesiastical and political power.]

Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?

“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."

Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes?”

Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. [The only logical reading in this context, is that “you” refers to the ruling elite, not to the Jewish people as a whole. Unfortunately, it’s still not clear to whom “people” refers. It could refer to the corporate relinquishing of the Kingdom of Heaven from the Jews to the Gentiles by the actions of ruling priesthood. However, it could also – in context – refer to the authoritative relinquishing of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Apostles and followers of Jesus (which might include Gentiles, Samaritans, etc.). I think, in context, both are possible, but the second is much more probable, especially in light of the fact that Christianity remained a predominately Jewish movement for some time after Christ's death and resurrection.]

“He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed.”

When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet. [Again, the elite appeared to know that Jesus was referring to them specifically, not the Jewish people as a whole.]


The conclusion is, that the parable refers to the removal of ecclesiastical authority from the existing elite. To whom that authority is being transferred is not clear.

Now I want to go back and look at Romans 11 again...

-Neil
The only problem I see with this is that Jesus' answer means that Gentiles will rule the nation of Israel, and somehow the Gentiles will cause nation of Israel to produce fruit, rather than producing it themselves.

Michael

[maudman]

Bro, Preterism doesn't teach that there isn't a future of prophetic fulfillment. Only hyper-preterists say that -- and preterists consider their teachings off the wall and heretical just as much as anybody.

Preterists may not have all the elaborate dispensationalist scenarios common to popular end times prophecy books, but they do acknowledge that there will be a second coming of the Savior, and a resurrection of the dead.

Hello Straylight

Yes it is as you say I know preterist who are not hyper terrorist. Who believe in as you say a second coming and a resurrection? Granted if you read and believe what most futurists say popular or not about the future you are in for a world of hurt. The question is as Mathew 21 where do people draw the line in prophetic fulfillments. Do we just overlook the fact that Paul say’s all Israel will be saved both the past and the present.

Let me ask some Questions

How much of Revelations does one have to believe irrelevant to be a preterist? Or what verses in Revelations are Irrelevant to be a preterist. Or what verses of Genesis are irrelevant. Or what verses of Daniel. Just what is it that makes a Preterist a Preterist? Surely it’s not because you disagree with certain futurist. Or is it just the simple Israel thing. Is it the people or the land called Israel or is it Jerusalem. Or is it that you don’t believe that there are going to be two witnesses. Or that Nero was the Anti Christ and that 600 threescore and 6 doesn’t mean anything anymore. Just who determines were the lines are draw in what it means to be a preterist.

Peace

[Straylight]

It's don't "disbelieve" the fulfillment of any of those things you mentioned. I just don't read them the same way. After all, eschathology is hermenuetics.

As for this "world of hurt" you're talking about: Jesus never told any of us, "You shall know the exact nature of the end times, or you're in for a world of hurt."

So please, stop with that nonsense. It's one thing to condemn preterism, and another to condemn a preterist. My salvation lies solely with entrusting myself to Christ -- Not with whether or not I adhere to this or that eschatological doctrine.

It may be another story if we were talking about theological doctrine in broad terms, but we're not.

[edit]

In other words, why exactly would I be in for a world of hurt? I hope for the same Christ to come back as you. If I turned out to be mistaken, I would still happy with the results anyways. The only eschatological doctrines that should trouble you are the ones without a Christ-centered theology behind them.

[Hitch]

Hello Straylight

Yes it is as you say I know preterist who are not hyper terrorist. Who believe in as you say a second coming and a resurrection? Granted if you read and believe what most futurists say popular or not about the future you are in for a world of hurt. The question is as Mathew 21 where do people draw the line in prophetic fulfillments. Do we just overlook the fact that Paul say’s all Israel will be saved both the past and the present.

Let me ask some Questions

How much of Revelations does one have to believe irrelevant to be a preterist? Or what verses in Revelations are Irrelevant to be a preterist. Or what verses of Genesis are irrelevant. Or what verses of Daniel. Just what is it that makes a Preterist a Preterist? Surely it’s not because you disagree with certain futurist. Or is it just the simple Israel thing. Is it the people or the land called Israel or is it Jerusalem. Or is it that you don’t believe that there are going to be two witnesses. Or that Nero was the Anti Christ and that 600 threescore and 6 doesn’t mean anything anymore. Just who determines were the lines are draw in what it means to be a preterist.

PeaceHow much of Revelations does one have to believe irrelevant to be a preterist? Are you implying that all Biblical books containing fulfilled prophecy are irrelevant?

I dint catch this one the firet time through, and ya know ,I only looked because I have grown to expect nonsense from folks hung up on perfectly spelling the name of the Lord.

are in for a world of hurt. The question is as Mathew 21 where do people draw the line in prophetic fulfillments. Do we just overlook the fact that Paul say’s all Israel will be saved both the past and the present

This must be from Revelations (sic)

It might be interesting to fine out which scewball you're hooked up with.

H

[NeilUnreal]

The only problem I see with this is that Jesus' answer means that Gentiles will rule the nation of Israel, and somehow the Gentiles will cause nation of Israel to produce fruit, rather than producing it themselves.

That is one possible interpretation of the word ethnos in Matthew 21:43. However, I feel a more likely possibility is that Jesus is using the word in the sense of the Kingdom stewardship being taken away from the existing elite, and given to all and sundry: His disciples among the Jews, Samaritans, and Gentiles.

This accords well with Paul’s view in Romans 11. In this case, the vineyard remains the original Jewish root crop, into which the Gentiles have been grafted. Paul sees his role as specifically a steward of this grafted “wild” stock, while presumably Peter, James (et al) would remain as stewards of the original stock. So Paul is saying that in the end, the entire vineyard will be saved, root stock and grafted stock. The original vineyard has not been abandoned, it has been expanded.

This is in line with other parables such as that of the “prodigal son.” In that parable it is made clear that although the returned son is a reason for rejoicing, it by no means indicates that the steadfast sons were abandoned.

It helps to rewind one's thinking to Paul's day, in which there was an active and growing body of disciples who did not see themselves as separate from existing temple Judaism. In fact, the opposite was true. Many parts of the New Testament show the young Church wrestling with the opposite problem: "How can one be a Christian without first being a Jew?"

So still think interpreting the tenants whose stewardship will be removed in terms of the existing elite makes sense and avoids any conflict with Paul. In fact, it dovetails quite nicely with Paul’s ideas.

-Neil

[maudman]

It's don't "disbelieve" the fulfillment of any of those things you mentioned. I just don't read them the same way. After all, eschathology is hermenuetics.

As for this "world of hurt" you're talking about: Jesus never told any of us, "You shall know the exact nature of the end times, or you're in for a world of hurt."

So please, stop with that nonsense. It's one thing to condemn preterism, and another to condemn a preterist. My salvation lies solely with entrusting myself to Christ -- Not with whether or not I adhere to this or that eschatological doctrine.

It may be another story if we were talking about theological doctrine in broad terms, but we're not.



In other words, why exactly would I be in for a world of hurt? I hope for the same Christ to come back as you. If I turned out to be mistaken, I would still happy with the results anyways. The only eschatological doctrines that should trouble you are the ones without a Christ-centered theology behind them.

hello straylight

I may not have been clear? the "World of hurt" wasn't something mentioned against Preterist but more at some futurist doctrine as You said "popular" that make it sound like if you don't believe as they do your in for a world of hurt. No I'm not against preterist but Preterism. Preterist spead Preterism.

I don't disagree with some Preterism doctrine In fact I think some of it is more right or at least as right as some futurist. But a little truth doesn't make things right for any. It's what caught EVE.


The only eschatological doctrines that should trouble you are the ones without a Christ-centered theology behind them.

CHrist is the reason why I"m concerned. ANd Christ said that not having our life centered around the will of the father is a life that is in danger. How did he show us to pray. Our Father who is in heaven. Did he say Our Christ which is in Heaven. Christ message was that we are to do the will of the Father. So his sheep are those who stive to do what CHrist said because they believed in his message. Thats what it means to me to be Christ Centered. We strive to do the will of the Father and in doing so we become like him(christ). Christ never asked anyone to worship him. He commanded all to worship God and to do the will of the father. And simply put this theological foundational view is not at the fore front of most escahtology viewpoints and Christianity as a whole.

Being Christ center to most is a gospel message that he was and is the Son of God. But simply put that wasn't his message to us. That was his claim but not his message.

What does the Scripture say Jesus said:

Take heed that you be not decieved for many shall come in my name saying I (Jesus) am the Christ and shall decieve the many. "The Gospel message about Jesus" which wasn't his message. His claims about himself although true weren't his message or his gospel. It's not just preterism thats in for a world of hurt.

So what does being Christ centered mean to you and what is its relationship in your eschatology.

peace straylight

[Straylight]

So what does being Christ centered mean to you and what is its relationship in your eschatology.

There is only one way to be "Christ centered" in eschatology, and that would be to have a Covenantally minded theology. One can be either preterist, premill, postmill, amill and still be Covenantal -- So it's not like I'm saying "preterism" is THE truth.

Besides, that, I only came into this thread to clarify the distinction between preterism and hyper-preterism. I didn't want to engage you about anything other than that (and it seems like that issue is understood now as well).

[maudman]

Hello Hitch


How much of Revelations does one have to believe irrelevant to be a preterist? Are you implying that all Biblical books containing fulfilled prophecy are irrelevant?



No, all biblical prophecies are relevant even the fulfilled Prophecies.

When Paul is speaking to the Jews and he's trying to show them how Christ is their Messiah, is he going to prophecies that have yet been fulfilled?

No he's going to the ones that have been fulfilled. It simply depends on the Audience. Like speaking to the Gentile who were being somewhat arrogant about how they now were the children of promise and Israel wasn't Paul uses his understanding of what the prophecies say and his knowledge of the purpose that God had for Israel and that all would be saved.

All prophecies lend themselves for greater contemplation fulfilled and unfulfilled because they lead to a better understanding of God. But the apostles had a lot more to explain than fulfilled prophecies. It's the things that aren't mentioned in any direct light that the truth stays cloaked and its those things that kept certain Israelite from believing.

Matthew 23

1. Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2. Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Why is Christ telling Israelites, Jews and the Apostles to Observe and do what Scribes and Pharisees are bidding them to do. Do you really think That Christ came to destroy all that his father had been doing over the last 4 or 5 or 6 thousand years. Do you know what these Scribes and Pharisee would have been bidding. Things aren't so cut and dry. But then again maybe they are?


I dint catch this one the firet time through, and ya know ,I only looked because I have grown to expect nonsense from folks hung up on perfectly spelling the name of the Lord.

are in for a world of hurt. The question is as Mathew 21 where do people draw the line in prophetic fulfillments. Do we just overlook the fact that Paul say’s all Israel will be saved both the past and the present

This must be from Revelations (sic)

It might be interesting to fine out which scewball you're hooked up with.

H

Glad you find Screwballs interesting. I quess this is where I must be a member of a cult or something. Yeah that's it, say things people don't often think about and your a member of the screwballs club. You would be surprised what's in revelations.

Thanks for not beating me up on my grammer I'm really lousy at it. One way to assure that the truth is hidden is to preserve it in those who don't well write it.

21. In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.


Peace Hitch

[Hitch]

All prophecies lend themselves for greater contemplation fulfilled and unfulfilled because they lead to a better understanding of God. But the apostles had a lot more to explain than fulfilled prophecies. It's the things that aren't mentioned in any direct light that the truth stays cloaked and its those things that kept certain Israelite from believing.

Then your implication that the Apocalypse is irrelevent to Preterist How much of Revelations does one have to believe irrelevant to be a preterist? is without foundation, nothoing more than a stawman.

Take care

Hitch

[maudman]

All prophecies lend themselves for greater contemplation fulfilled and unfulfilled because they lead to a better understanding of God. But the apostles had a lot more to explain than fulfilled prophecies. It's the things that aren't mentioned in any direct light that the truth stays cloaked and its those things that kept certain Israelite from believing.

Then your implication that the Apocalypse is irrelevent to Preterist How much of Revelations does one have to believe irrelevant to be a preterist? is without foundation, nothoing more than a stawman.

Take care

Hitch

Well that may be how it has come across Hitch. But actually I was asking a question to get a more precise understanding of Preterism. There are different strokes for different folks even in the same congregations. The reason I ask is because where everybody is venerable is timing. Both sides DF and Preterism entrench themselves.

By the way I'm no more DF than I’m Preterist. I’m just a Christian. But I think it is extremely important to understand that which was, to completely understand that which we really have. It just simply lends itself to a more comprehensable truth.

Take care Hitch

[Hitch]

Well that may be how it has come across Hitch. But actually I was asking a question to get a more precise understanding of Preterism. There are different strokes for different folks even in the same congregations. The reason I ask is because where everybody is venerable is timing. Both sides DF and Preterism entrench themselves.

By the way I'm no more DF than I’m Preterist. I’m just a Christian. But I think it is extremely important to understand that which was, to completely understand that which we really have. It just simply lends itself to a more comprehensable truth.

Take care HitchLOL Straw is straw.