Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 213

Thread: Question for partial preterist

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,921
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    I don't know how either 70AD or WWII fulfils the great tribulation?
    Agreed. Neither were what scripture describes as the great tribulation which is against Christians primarily. Jews are not targeted by Satan and his wrath.

    Rev 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
    Rev 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
    Rev 6:11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.


    The ones persecuted are Christians!


    Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
    Rev 11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.
    Rev 11:5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.
    Rev 11:6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
    Rev 11:7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.
    Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

    The ones persecuted are Christians!


    Rev 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

    Christians are Satan's target!


    Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

    The saints are Christians not Jews. The tribulation is war on Christianity.

    Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

    The witness of Jesus means they are Christians. The ones persecuted are Christians!
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,800
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee

    ... We are told that this multitude that came of the GT is indeed from every nation, all tribes and languages.
    Yes, prophetic views that focus on the past fail to take into account scripture that speak of the future. As a result, we find ourselves in endless debate between hard-line Futurism and hard-line Preterism. This is sad, because most prophetic scripture carry an initial fulfillment followed by a final (fuller) fulfillment.

    It is commonly know as ‘Dual’ or ‘Double’ fulfillment but such terms suggest prophecy might be re-enacted exactly. That is not what is meant. Near/Far prophecy happens when a prediction takes place some time after the announcement then a fulfilment happens again, expanding on the former fulfilment or including an aspect that is still waiting. In both cases the fulfilment(s) are clearly recognisable to the era concerned.

    Why is it important? Well, when we realise that prophecy can be graduated over more than one event it satisfies the prophetic description without forcing us to choose between the extremes of Futurism and Preterism.
    "Your name and renown
    is the desire of our hearts."
    (Isaiah 26:8)

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,772
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    Perhaps it began then for the Jewish people in 70AD and continues for them to the very end.
    Luke calls it dayS of vengeance that certainly began in 70ad ,and wrath continued for them wherever they were exiled. They still haven't passed away.
    The problem with this view is that scripture expressly says it will require divine intervention to stop, else no flesh will be saved (Matt 24:22). I would dare to posit that the reason it will be shortened is because of its sheer intensity and capability to destroy life completely.

    To plug the holes in their case, those who say the great tribulation started from 70 AD claim it's an indefinite Jewish experience that will be cut short when Jesus returns. If a tribulation that has lasted up to 1,970 years and still counting and hasn't yet wiped out life as scripture feared, then something is seriously wrong. Either this is not the GT Jesus spoke about or those advancing this line of argument are plainly wrong. For me, I know who I believe.

    Secondly, it says the GT will be shortened for the sake of the "elect". Anyone who believes that the elect in the NT dispensation is exclusively Jews, couldn't be mistaken if they tried.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,772
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyberseeker View Post
    Yes, prophetic views that focus on the past fail to take into account scripture that speak of the future. As a result, we find ourselves in endless debate between hard-line Futurism and hard-line Preterism. This is sad, because most prophetic scripture carry an initial fulfillment followed by a final (fuller) fulfillment.

    It is commonly know as ‘Dual’ or ‘Double’ fulfillment but such terms suggest prophecy might be re-enacted exactly. That is not what is meant. Near/Far prophecy happens when a prediction takes place some time after the announcement then a fulfilment happens again, expanding on the former fulfilment or including an aspect that is still waiting. In both cases the fulfilment(s) are clearly recognisable to the era concerned.

    Why is it important? Well, when we realise that prophecy can be graduated over more than one event it satisfies the prophetic description without forcing us to choose between the extremes of Futurism and Preterism.
    I agree completely. It amuses me when I read the exegesis of those with a very poor rendition of the prophecy, laud it over the rest of us poor souls about how misinformed we are.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    13,921
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post

    Secondly, it says the GT will be shortened for the sake of the "elect". Anyone who believes that the elect in the NT dispensation is exclusively Jews, couldn't be mistaken if they tried.
    *more mistaken ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post

    Secondly, it says the GT will be shortened for the sake of the "elect". Anyone who believes that the elect in the NT dispensation is exclusively Jews, couldn't be mistaken if they tried.
    *more mistaken ?
    James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,801

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The problem with this view is that scripture expressly says it will require divine intervention to stop, else no flesh will be saved (Matt 24:22). I would dare to posit that the reason it will be shortened is because of its sheer intensity and capability to destroy life completely.

    To plug the holes in their case, those who say the great tribulation started from 70 AD claim it's an indefinite Jewish experience that will be cut short when Jesus returns. If a tribulation that has lasted up to 1,970 years and still counting and hasn't yet wiped out life as scripture feared, then something is seriously wrong. Either this is not the GT Jesus spoke about or those advancing this line of argument are plainly wrong. For me, I know who I believe.

    Secondly, it says the GT will be shortened for the sake of the "elect". Anyone who believes that the elect in the NT dispensation is exclusively Jews, couldn't be mistaken if they tried.
    I believe that it is not just a Jewish experience as it comes upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth. All who reject Jesus will suffer the same fate at the very end.

    Yes , the Elect are made up of people from every race.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The problem with this view is that scripture expressly says it will require divine intervention to stop, else no flesh will be saved (Matt 24:22). I would dare to posit that the reason it will be shortened is because of its sheer intensity and capability to destroy life completely.

    To plug the holes in their case, those who say the great tribulation started from 70 AD claim it's an indefinite Jewish experience that will be cut short when Jesus returns. If a tribulation that has lasted up to 1,970 years and still counting and hasn't yet wiped out life as scripture feared, then something is seriously wrong. Either this is not the GT Jesus spoke about or those advancing this line of argument are plainly wrong. For me, I know who I believe.

    Secondly, it says the GT will be shortened for the sake of the "elect". Anyone who believes that the elect in the NT dispensation is exclusively Jews, couldn't be mistaken if they tried.
    I believe that it is not just a Jewish experience as it comes upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth. All who reject Jesus will suffer the same fate at the very end.

    Yes , the Elect are made up of people from every race.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    15,523

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    I believe I gave an exegesis of Matthew 24: 29-31 by comparing Scripture with Scripture. If you are asking me how to view this passage in light of WW 2 the answer to that is incredibly easy. You ask the question with an assumption in mind, one which is in error. The assumption you are making is the the Jews who suffered an incredible holocaust in 70 AD are the same people who suffered in WW 2 and I would make no such assumption for they are not the same people, nor at they are the descendants of the few survivors of 70 AD, nor are they descendants of Abraham.
    Why do you assume they are not from the line of Abraham? Even if they are not, the issue remains. Jews are Jews by religion as well. And the great tribulation is supposed to be worse than anything ever before it, or that will come after it for Jews according to PP. If we only make it about blood lines, don't we miss the point that Jesus made concerning Jews? That even Rahab, who was not Jewish by bloodline, but was by religion?


    Jesus said of the tribulation of 70 AD: "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, NOR EVER WILL BE." Since Covenentally the "Jews" are the same status as "Gentiles" under the NEW Covenant since 70 AD, there will not be more tribulation for them like it, EVER! This is a short answer to a very involved and theological question.

    The main take-away from the passage of Matthew 24: 29-31 is that Jesus is using language that the Old Covenant people of Israel would understand is clearly coming form the Old Testament prophets and specifically form Daniel 7: 13-14. They KNEW what the meaning of the "SON OF MAN" was to them and understood what he meant when He used the term. He said these events would come upon THIS GENERATION, (Matt. 24: 36) meaning the generation they were living in. It all happened - within 40 years of Him proclaiming it. he said it again a few verse back to the apostate Pharisees in Matthew 23: 26: " Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."

    "The Son of Man Coming on the clouds of heaven" from Daniel 7: 13-14 is NOT a description of the future Second Coming, as "Consistent literalists" have errored. It is a description of the SON OF MAN going UP to the Father on the clouds, in the first century, not coming back TO earth. To say it is the future Second Coming of Jesus coming back down TO earth is to read into the passage something it does not say!

    I realize to ultra-extremist literalists that the words of a Partial Preterist sound like the ravings of a lunatic teaching evil to the Church of God. I do not take these teachings lightly. I assure you I have studied Eschatology for almost 40 years since I got saved and have come to this conclusion after a lot of study of both Theology and Hermeneutics. Part of the problem is that no one knows ANYTHING about the history of what happened in 70 AD- NOT ONE CLUE - so when they hear about it, they have no idea how the words of Jesus in Matthew 24 fit in PERFECTLY with the fulfilled historical events. When one rationally compares Scripture with Scripture and let the Scripture be its own interpreter, one will come to a preterist conclusion, just as the Reformers and Puritans did in the 1500-1600's.

    This view was the standard back then, for a few hundred years, until Darby came along with ultra-literalism and futurism and poisoned the understanding of tried and proven hermeneutics that was developed over the centuries. Since the modern Western Christian, on average, knows nothing of preterism and has never even heard of it, except to be criticized, these words sound like heresy to them when they do hear about it. But it used to be the accepted, standard view of Matthew 24.

    *****I do not know how anyone can get around the words of Jesus in Matthew 24: 34 and Matthew 23: 36 when He said that these things would take place IN THIS GENERATION! First century!

    I would be happy to discuss this further with you should you have any question or wish to know the meaning/ significance of any particular passage from a PP perspective. Thanks!
    Using derogatory terms like "ultra-literalist" doesn't seem like language that will work to win converts to your point of view. But I do appreciate the time you are taking to respond. I lean towards PP but lean more towards a historicist view point. BTW, historicist also goes all the way back to the reformers as well and would include PP as part of it's view but not all of it.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Well said and succinct. Its certainly talking about 70 AD and the Romans!

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,801

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    Well said and succinct. Its certainly talking about 70 AD and the Romans!
    Hit the "reply with quote" button when answering a post please.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    Well said and succinct. Its certainly talking about 70 AD and the Romans!
    Hit the "reply with quote" button when answering a post please.
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    I am very surprised to see you regard yourself as a PP. that is good news. Nevertheless, there are some question you have which require answers.

    To answer the first question. The onus is on others to convince anybody that the modern Jews ARE of the line of Abraham and his literal physical descendants or the descendants of those who survived 70 AD. Certainly after 2000 years of roaming the earth and intermarrying with so-called "Gentiles" and assimilating into the nations and cultures they were exiled to, its is only reasonable to believe that they have about as much "Jewish blood" in they as you or I do! For them to continue a pure line of Abraham's linage, they would have to have sex only with other Jews who are also the descendants of the survivors of 70 AD and do it consistently for almost 2000 years and produce children with that same Jewish blood and DNA. Is is beyond the pale to believe that has happened. Clearly there is much historical proof that many "Gentiles" have converted to Talmudism over the centuries, especially in Eastern Europe and Russia. And its primarily those peoples that have immigrated to Israel and America.

    As just one example of this, I would refer you to the book "The Jews of Khazaria" by Kevin Alan Brook. He says he is a Jew himself in this book. In Chapter 10, page 247 - 271, he lists dozens of people groups and ethnics from all over Europe, Russia and the Middle East that historically converted to Talmudism (ie. Judaism) There are too many to name, but I can name them if you so desire me to.

    Next, you say the jews are jews by religion. Interesting. If Jesus came back to and visited Israel or NYC, He would find the religion that they are following is unknown and indistinguishable to the religion followed by faithful Jews in the First Century and prior to that. And that is because Judaism, which is correctly called Talmudism, is a totally different religion that that of the old Testament religion. Talmudism is the corporate collection of the unbelieving Rabbi's writing put together over the past 2,000 years, starting with the MISHNAH. The Mishnah was the first writings of the Talmud which were alive and well at the time of Christ by the Pharisees and the Scribes and Chief Priests,etc. *****Jesus condemned them as "The Traditions of the Elders" in Matthew 15: 1-10 and Mark 7: 1-12. The traditions are based on "Oral Tradition" which has superseded the Old Testament as the "inspired Word of God" for Jews today and are authoritative for Jews today NOT the Old Testament, as most modern Christians and especially Dispensationalists want to believe. Talmudism holds to a few things from the OT like circumcision, pork and the Sabbath, etc. but the overwhelming influence and "Scripture" they follow are the writings of the Talmud composed by the Rabbi's.

    So, therefore, as for their race, blood and DNA, they hardly qualify as the descendants of Abraham OR the survivors of 70 AD. And as for what they believe, they believe NOTHING whatsoever that resembles the Old Testament. they believe and follow the TALMUD, which they call TORAH today.

    Add to that, their "race" is irrelevant, because Paul said their race was irrelevant. God has nothing special planned for "the Jews' because of their race EXCEPT salvation by faith in Christ through his blood on the Cross. (1 Cor. 15: 3-4) Paul says this clearly in many places, but much of Romans 4 comes to mind, Galatians 3 and Romans 9 comes to mind and Ephesians 2: 11-22. They are on the same level playing field spiritually as any "Gentile" since 70 AD and their responsibility is to get saved and it is that which we pray for (Romans 10: 1) ! We are to give them the Gospel so that they may be saved. The land of Israel, all the types and shadow and the Talmud is the way to hell, not salvation in Christ who died for them.

    The other thing is my use of the word ultra-literalism which you described as derogatory. Believe me , its is absolutely not meant as a derogatory term and I used it with no intent to be derogatory against you. I use the word because it is the proper word to use. In the scheme and scope of the skill of hermeneutics (interpretation), those who are futurists or dispensationalist are on the far right extreme of the use of literalism. I realize they believe that they themselves are in the middle, but in reality they are on the far right of extreme literalism; they just don't seem to see it. That makes them ultra-literalists and leads them astray in their understanding of the Word of God in many places and requires them to re-interpret vast portions of Scripture from the traditional understanding of them. This causes them to diverge substantially from the understanding that men of God from the past have given those vast portions of Scriptures. Reformers come to mind. The simplistic rule that Dispensationalists use is that "ALL Scripture is to be be interpreted literally (unless there is some reason not to). *****They rarely find a reason not to, when people such as myself would find a very good reason to. A perfect example is Matthew 24. The Book of Revelation would be another great example of that. Imagine....trying to interpret the Book of Revelation literally. Its just not possible to interpret it sanely with that degree of literalism.

    And when people disagree on what the Word of God means, its all comes down to the Hermeneutical rules they have been taught to use. The Dispensational rule of hermeneutics, I no longer use it . Dispensationalists use a very high degree of literalism. Reformers and Covenentalists such as myself use is to a lesser degree. We interpret the portions of Scripture that are meant to be interpreted literally, literally. And the portions of Scripture that are meant to be interpreted symbolically or figuratively, we interpret them symbolically or figuratively. How do we know the difference? Context, Comparing Scripture with Scriptures, Audience, Genre, Typology, and letting the New interpret the Old, letting the Epistles interpret the Gospels, letting the clearer portions of Scripture interpret the harder more symbolic portions of Scripture, etc. etc, etc. (ie. Revelation does not allow you to interpret John or 1 John, but 1 John would be a better source for interpreting Revelation, just as an example) But Dispensationalists have made a boogeyman out of that kind of thinking. I did not think this up myself but many great men of God and theologians have in the past, the kind of Bible teachers that we should be listening to and reading.

    One final question I have for you. Do you regard these thoughts I have articulated as "anti-Semitism," hatred towards "Jews?"

    I would appreciate your comments! Thanks for communicating with me.

    I am very surprised to see you regard yourself as a PP. that is good news. Nevertheless, there are some question you have which require answers.

    To answer the first question. The onus is on others to convince anybody that the modern Jews ARE of the line of Abraham and his literal physical descendants or the descendants of those who survived 70 AD. Certainly after 2000 years of roaming the earth and intermarrying with so-called "Gentiles" and assimilating into the nations and cultures they were exiled to, its is only reasonable to believe that they have about as much "Jewish blood" in they as you or I do! For them to continue a pure line of Abraham's linage, they would have to have sex only with other Jews who are also the descendants of the survivors of 70 AD and do it consistently for almost 2000 years and produce children with that same Jewish blood and DNA. Is is beyond the pale to believe that has happened. Clearly there is much historical proof that many "Gentiles" have converted to Talmudism over the centuries, especially in Eastern Europe and Russia. And its primarily those peoples that have immigrated to Israel and America.

    As just one example of this, I would refer you to the book "The Jews of Khazaria" by Kevin Alan Brook. He says he is a Jew himself in this book. In Chapter 10, page 247 - 271, he lists dozens of people groups and ethnics from all over Europe, Russia and the Middle East that historically converted to Talmudism (ie. Judaism) There are too many to name, but I can name them if you so desire me to.

    Next, you say the jews are jews by religion. Interesting. If Jesus came back to and visited Israel or NYC, He would find the religion that they are following is unknown and indistinguishable to the religion followed by faithful Jews in the First Century and prior to that. And that is because Judaism, which is correctly called Talmudism, is a totally different religion that that of the old Testament religion. Talmudism is the corporate collection of the unbelieving Rabbi's writing put together over the past 2,000 years, starting with the MISHNAH. The Mishnah was the first writings of the Talmud which were alive and well at the time of Christ by the Pharisees and the Scribes and Chief Priests,etc. *****Jesus condemned them as "The Traditions of the Elders" in Matthew 15: 1-10 and Mark 7: 1-12. The traditions are based on "Oral Tradition" which has superseded the Old Testament as the "inspired Word of God" for Jews today and are authoritative for Jews today NOT the Old Testament, as most modern Christians and especially Dispensationalists want to believe. Talmudism holds to a few things from the OT like circumcision, pork and the Sabbath, etc. but the overwhelming influence and "Scripture" they follow are the writings of the Talmud composed by the Rabbi's.

    So, therefore, as for their race, blood and DNA, they hardly qualify as the descendants of Abraham OR the survivors of 70 AD. And as for what they believe, they believe NOTHING whatsoever that resembles the Old Testament. they believe and follow the TALMUD, which they call TORAH today.

    Add to that, their "race" is irrelevant, because Paul said their race was irrelevant. God has nothing special planned for "the Jews' because of their race EXCEPT salvation by faith in Christ through his blood on the Cross. (1 Cor. 15: 3-4) Paul says this clearly in many places, but much of Romans 4 comes to mind, Galatians 3 and Romans 9 comes to mind and Ephesians 2: 11-22. They are on the same level playing field spiritually as any "Gentile" since 70 AD and their responsibility is to get saved and it is that which we pray for (Romans 10: 1) ! We are to give them the Gospel so that they may be saved. The land of Israel, all the types and shadow and the Talmud is the way to hell, not salvation in Christ who died for them.

    The other thing is my use of the word ultra-literalism which you described as derogatory. Believe me , its is absolutely not meant as a derogatory term and I used it with no intent to be derogatory against you. I use the word because it is the proper word to use. In the scheme and scope of the skill of hermeneutics (interpretation), those who are futurists or dispensationalist are on the far right extreme of the use of literalism. I realize they believe that they themselves are in the middle, but in reality they are on the far right of extreme literalism; they just don't seem to see it. That makes them ultra-literalists and leads them astray in their understanding of the Word of God in many places and requires them to re-interpret vast portions of Scripture from the traditional understanding of them. This causes them to diverge substantially from the understanding that men of God from the past have given those vast portions of Scriptures. Reformers come to mind. The simplistic rule that Dispensationalists use is that "ALL Scripture is to be be interpreted literally (unless there is some reason not to). *****They rarely find a reason not to, when people such as myself would find a very good reason to. A perfect example is Matthew 24. The Book of Revelation would be another great example of that. Imagine....trying to interpret the Book of Revelation literally. Its just not possible to interpret it sanely with that degree of literalism.

    And when people disagree on what the Word of God means, its all comes down to the Hermeneutical rules they have been taught to use. The Dispensational rule of hermeneutics, I no longer use it . Dispensationalists use a very high degree of literalism. Reformers and Covenentalists such as myself use is to a lesser degree. We interpret the portions of Scripture that are meant to be interpreted literally, literally. And the portions of Scripture that are meant to be interpreted symbolically or figuratively, we interpret them symbolically or figuratively. How do we know the difference? Context, Comparing Scripture with Scriptures, Audience, Genre, Typology, and letting the New interpret the Old, letting the Epistles interpret the Gospels, letting the clearer portions of Scripture interpret the harder more symbolic portions of Scripture, etc. etc, etc. (ie. Revelation does not allow you to interpret John or 1 John, but 1 John would be a better source for interpreting Revelation, just as an example) But Dispensationalists have made a boogeyman out of that kind of thinking. I did not think this up myself but many great men of God and theologians have in the past, the kind of Bible teachers that we should be listening to and reading.

    One final question I have for you. Do you regard these thoughts I have articulated as "anti-Semitism," hatred towards "Jews?"

    I would appreciate your comments! Thanks for communicating with me.

  11. #86

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    What you are suggesting is a double/dual fulfillment. Its one thing to want to think that, but its another to come with with exegesis to support it. I am welcome to hear why you believe this (though I have studied the issue to death) by demonstrating to us the Biblical basis, proof or exegesis that would support a dual fulfillment. Dual prophetical fulfillments in Scripture are in fact very, very rare.
    I don't see a "double fulfillment" in the Olivet Discourse (I think this was the context of your comments, correct me if I'm wrong). Here's something I wrote in the context of a different convo and thread, but it speaks to this issue... that the Olivet Discourse speaks to two distinct things (separately, but in which some of the things which are distinct, sound similar):

    [quoting that post]

    The "SEE" then "FLEE" is indeed following the "beginning of birth pangs [plural]" in Matthew 24.

    But in Luke 21, THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

    --"the beginning of birth pangs" = Matt24:4-8 / Mk13:5-8 / and DESCRIBED in Lk21:8-11...

    [but then verse 12 says, "BUT BEFORE ALL THESE" (and then [vv.12-24a] describes the 70ad events which must come BEFORE the "beginning of birth PANGS [PLURAL]/and 1Th5:2-3 is the INITIAL "birth PANG [SINGULAR]")]


    so...

    in Luke 21 the order is not "birth pangs" THEN "SEE" THEN "FLEE," but instead is "SEE [Jeru compassed with armies]" THEN "FLEE" [BEFORE ALL OF THESE--->] "beginning of birth pangs" [which is Matt24:4-8/Mt13:5-8/Lk21:8-11 and then followed by much more...].

    Completely distinct and wholly different SEQUENCE (not to mention the specific thing they were/are to "SEE" in each)


    ____________

    Luke 21:24 [in the SECTION re: events surrounding 70ad (vv.12-24a)] "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all the nations..."

    Matthew 24:29-31 [re: their gathering] parallel to Isaiah 27:12-13 [at the "GREAT" trumpet], where Isaiah says, "ye shall be gathered ONE by ONE, O ye children of Israel" and..."and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount AT JERUSALEM"

    Completely opposite things. (And neither of them are speaking of our Rapture, per contexts.)

    [end of that quoted post]


    This is a SEQUENCE issue pertaining to "the beginning of birth pangs": Matthew24:4-8 / Mark13:5-8 / Luke21:8-11 and what verse 12 there says must come "BEFORE ALL THESE [before all these beginning of birth pangs]" and that is, the 70ad events must occur "BEFORE" them

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    15,523

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    I am very surprised to see you regard yourself as a PP. that is good news. Nevertheless, there are some question you have which require answers.
    I don't regard myself as a PP. I said I lean that way. More accurately, I am open to it as a fulfillment of prophesy. I consider myself more a historicist. I do have questions about the PP position for sure. And this thread has done a wonderful job of answering them!

    To answer the first question. The onus is on others to convince anybody that the modern Jews ARE of the line of Abraham and his literal physical descendants or the descendants of those who survived 70 AD.
    I think the onus is on anyone who would make an absolute statement. If you are going to absolutely state they are NOT Jews and are NOT from Abraham, then it would be up to you to prove it. Otherwise, we should not make such absolute statements.

    Certainly after 2000 years of roaming the earth and intermarrying with so-called "Gentiles" and assimilating into the nations and cultures they were exiled to, its is only reasonable to believe that they have about as much "Jewish blood" in they as you or I do! For them to continue a pure line of Abraham's linage, they would have to have sex only with other Jews who are also the descendants of the survivors of 70 AD and do it consistently for almost 2000 years and produce children with that same Jewish blood and DNA.
    Pure line? You mean like Rahab's offsprings were pure "blood line"?

    Next, you say the jews are jews by religion. Interesting. If Jesus came back to and visited Israel or NYC, He would find the religion that they are following is unknown and indistinguishable to the religion followed by faithful Jews in the First Century and prior to that. And that is because Judaism, which is correctly called Talmudism, is a totally different religion that that of the old Testament religion. Talmudism is the corporate collection of the unbelieving Rabbi's writing put together over the past 2,000 years, starting with the MISHNAH. The Mishnah was the first writings of the Talmud which were alive and well at the time of Christ by the Pharisees and the Scribes and Chief Priests,etc. *****Jesus condemned them as "The Traditions of the Elders" in Matthew 15: 1-10 and Mark 7: 1-12. The traditions are based on "Oral Tradition" which has superseded the Old Testament as the "inspired Word of God" for Jews today and are authoritative for Jews today NOT the Old Testament, as most modern Christians and especially Dispensationalists want to believe. Talmudism holds to a few things from the OT like circumcision, pork and the Sabbath, etc. but the overwhelming influence and "Scripture" they follow are the writings of the Talmud composed by the Rabbi's.
    I would expect Jews today to make many of the same errors of the Jews in Jesus time... i.e. putting man's law as equal to God's law. In this, they are the same. And their bible is the same. If you make such an argument about Jews, then most certainly those same arguments can be made about the church today not being like the one in Acts.

    Add to that, their "race" is irrelevant, because Paul said their race was irrelevant. God has nothing special planned for "the Jews' because of their race EXCEPT salvation by faith in Christ through his blood on the Cross. (1 Cor. 15: 3-4) Paul says this clearly in many places, but much of Romans 4 comes to mind, Galatians 3 and Romans 9 comes to mind and Ephesians 2: 11-22. They are on the same level playing field spiritually as any "Gentile" since 70 AD and their responsibility is to get saved and it is that which we pray for (Romans 10: 1) ! We are to give them the Gospel so that they may be saved. The land of Israel, all the types and shadow and the Talmud is the way to hell, not salvation in Christ who died for them.
    There is only one way to heaven and that is through Jesus Christ! That was true of Eve, Abraham, Moses, Hosea, Peter, Paul, James, you and I. That has always been the case and always will be. Nothing has ever changed concerning that doctrine. God honors all His promises and will continue to do so.


    The other thing is my use of the word ultra-literalism which you described as derogatory. Believe me , its is absolutely not meant as a derogatory term and I used it with no intent to be derogatory against you.
    I didn't take it personally. I am a big believer in symbols, types, shadows, etc. We lose much today because people are very literal in their view of scripture. But the word ultra will turn off the very people you are trying to convince. It's a label that would seem deragotory to many who would be dispensationalist. That's why I wouldn't use it. Let people be offended by truth and by Jesus and His cross rather than by me and my choice of words. That is what I was trying to get across.

    I use the word because it is the proper word to use.
    IMO, such a description is not just ineffective as a means to changes minds, it actually closes the hearer down to what else you might want to say. But that's just my opinion and I've been wrong about many things and right on a few.

    In the scheme and scope of the skill of hermeneutics (interpretation), those who are futurists or dispensationalist are on the far right extreme of the use of literalism. I realize they believe that they themselves are in the middle, but in reality they are on the far right of extreme literalism; they just don't seem to see it. That makes them ultra-literalists and leads them astray in their understanding of the Word of God in many places and requires them to re-interpret vast portions of Scripture from the traditional understanding of them. This causes them to diverge substantially from the understanding that men of God from the past have given those vast portions of Scriptures. Reformers come to mind.
    Reformers were often historicist too. I would beg you to keep in mind that many read this forum and that for those you desire to change their minds, your words may be a big turn off. If that is the case, then those words are self defeating. Again, just my opinion.

    And when people disagree on what the Word of God means, its all comes down to the Hermeneutical rules they have been taught to use. The Dispensational rule of hermeneutics, I no longer use it . Dispensationalists use a very high degree of literalism. Reformers and Covenentalists such as myself use is to a lesser degree. We interpret the portions of Scripture that are meant to be interpreted literally, literally. And the portions of Scripture that are meant to be interpreted symbolically or figuratively, we interpret them symbolically or figuratively. How do we know the difference? Context, Comparing Scripture with Scriptures, Audience, Genre, Typology, and letting the New interpret the Old, letting the Epistles interpret the Gospels, letting the clearer portions of Scripture interpret the harder more symbolic portions of Scripture, etc. etc, etc. (ie. Revelation does not allow you to interpret John or 1 John, but 1 John would be a better source for interpreting Revelation, just as an example) But Dispensationalists have made a boogeyman out of that kind of thinking. I did not think this up myself but many great men of God and theologians have in the past, the kind of Bible teachers that we should be listening to and reading.
    Sure. How we interpret scriptures matter. I am definitely not a dispensationalist. But they are my brothers and sisters in Christ! And as I have already stated, I love the symbology of scriptures and the types and shadows! The bible is full of such things and they are very, very, very valuable and often overlooked. They go far beyond eschotology though.

    One final question I have for you. Do you regard these thoughts I have articulated as "anti-Semitism," hatred towards "Jews?"
    Not yet. But I've seen some PP on this board that have seemed to cross that line.

    God bless and thank you for your time and effort. I have learned a lot in this thread.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by bluesky22 View Post
    Hyperbolic language comes to mind. Lots of it in scripture.
    Hyperbolic language certainly exists (and a fair amount in prophecy), however when it is reinforced by a definite statement, that is a RARE thing.

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    In response to you point about a holocaust in 1940, I'm not sure if I may have already answered it in another post, but I will attempt to clarify it.

    The assumption that you are making in that statement, and that most people make today, is that the Jews of the First century that lived in Israel have some relationship to AND that the Biblical prophecies about their destruction apply to the modern people who identify as "Jews." I would make no such assumption, for they are a different people; a different people both racially and according to what they believe, and most importantly, a different people COVENENTALLY. To make such a statement, one would have to assume that the people who died in the Biblical holocaust of 70 AD are the same people who died in the modern day holocaust of 1940-45; that somehow the Biblical prophecy of Matthew 24 and elsewhere apply to them. I make no such assumption for I wholeheartedly do not believe that the one group has anything to do with the other and therefore the Biblical prophecy does not apply to those who died in 1945.

    For the "Biblical Jews" of the first century, it WAS the worse holocaust they ever experienced and ever would. Jesus said of the coming holocaust in His generation: "For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, NOR EVER WILL BE." The covenant with the Jews was over at the Cross but was technically finished after a generation of Grace for them to get on board with Faith in Jesus Christ. Instead of coming to faith in Him and entering into a NEW Covenant, they DOUBLED DOWN and entered their final apostasy, which finally led to their destruction!

    The final nail in the coffin for the destruction of the outward types and shadows of that Covenant occurred in 70 AD. Almost all of them were killed and the rest sent into captivity by the Romans into various nations. (see Luke 21: 24) Since 70 AD, all peoples on the earth are on the same level playing field for salvation and are not identified as "Jews" or "Gentiles" in the sight of God covenentally. One is either a believer or an unbeliever, with no sub-categories of racial groups identified.

    *****To equate the holocaust of 1945 with the true Holocaust of the Israelite's in 70 AD is like comparing apples to oranges. They are both different peoples, under a different Covenant, for different purposes, a different era, and a different "race", etc. etc. Therefore, we can confidently say that the worse Holocaust for the Israelite's (their proper name) was in 70 AD, not 1945 and that the Biblical prophecy Jesus made in 33 AD applied to His generation alone. This prophecy does not apply to the "the modern Jews" (their correct name).

    This is the proper Biblical understanding of Matthew 24: 21. What we are talking about here does not apply today in 2019. It is fulfilled prophecy.

    It is not politically correct to say anything I have stated here, but it is nonetheless true.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by Aviyah View Post
    OK, we'll just let the readers decide since I quoted both passages together. Mere conjecture about what the "AoD" actually is, isn't persuasive IMO. Both quotations of the event list the same results and instructions to the listeners, even verbatim in several places (e.x.: "Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Luke 21:23, Matthew 24:19 identical transcript). I'm not sure what your other end-time positions are, but I think you need to reconcile the fact that this is very clearly speaking of the same event.
    You did indeed quote JUST those verses.
    As one is written in Matthew and the other in Luke they are NOT actually "together".
    The question is whether IN the CONTEXT in which those verses are put is it the SAME or are there differences which mean that though they are similar, in reality they speak of TWO separate events. This is why I highlighted the visions of Daniel as recorded in Dan 7 and Dan 8, which BOTH speak of a little horn who blasphemes, yet is NOT the SAME individual.

    I also gave the EXAMPLE of speaking about the 20th century, which HAD two World Wars.
    In BOTH World Wars there are a number of similarities:
    1) Eastern Europe was the spark which got the whole thing going.
    2) Germany invaded another country.
    3) Germany poised to invade France (and did).
    4) Millions were killed

    Yet there are also differences, which could have been noted. Simply because there are similarities does NOT in itself mean they are the same.
    Another example would be a car accident.
    If you describe a car accident you have seen, and a friend of yours describes a car accident, then you MIGHT be describing the SAME car accident or different ones.
    Both of you would speak about one vehicle hitting another, you would describe injuries, and possibly that one car swerved. These things are generically true.

    Now IF Jesus speaks of Jerusalem being attacked by an invader then certain statements would be generally the same. So the need to flee would be one of them, the fact that it would be hard for women who are pregnant would be another, or who are nursing (breast feeding) infants would be another.
    So the point that they are almost the same does NOT mean that they ARE about the SAME event, but rather that they are BOTH about an event of the SAME kind.

    I am not giving conjecture about WHAT the AoD is in order to be making this point. I am simply highlighting that this is a form of PRETEXT as you are not digging INTO what Matthew or Luke specifically highlight. Pretrib often do the SAME but in reverse trying to claim it is ALL about a future event. There argument is even IDENTICAL to yours, that because they are similar so they are about the SAME event. Yet they follow the leads in Matthew and so note that this is NOT about Jews or about Jerusalem in 70 AD.

    I have TRIED to reconcile them to being the SAME event, but this is an IMPOSSIBILITY based on what Luke notes about the timing of the event and what occurs and with what Matthew notes down. I also pay attention to the FACT that Luke records part of the Olivet Discourse in Luke 17. Have you ever considered why?

    1) It does not say an army "in the holy place," is just says "abomination of desolation" - which is up for speculation on what that actually means.
    2) You can simultaneously have an army outside the city, and [whatever symbolic thing] inside the city.
    3) Whatever Luke and Matthew are describing, they both give the same instructions of response:
    1) Correct it does NOT say an army in the holy place, nor does Luke note an Abomination OUTSIDE the city. There is NO direct connective, though when we read about Antiochus IV Epiphanes we note he had an army which allowed him to setup an abomination of desolation.
    2) You can indeed. The point is that WHATEVER is outside is NOT also inside. These are TWO separate SIGNS. You SEE them separately and Jesus states them separately. They are NOT the SAME thing, which immediately calls into question the claim that you have made that it is self-evident they are the same, when clearly the one thing is NOT the other.
    3) Indeed. The response for BOTH events is to flee. There have been other events when Jerusalem was surrounded when the prophet stated that God would protect the city. This will also be true at the end of the millennium when God will send down fire from heaven to consume the armies which have come (Rev 20).
    However in these TWO instances the correct response is to flee.

    When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Luke)
    When you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Matthew)
    They both actually list the desolation as being the signal to flee. Luke is simply being generic and includes the overall scenario Jesus was describing. It's really difficult for me to understand how you can read this and not conclude they are speaking of the same thing.
    Actually they do NOT. Luke says the desolation is NEAR. This was SEEN in 66 AD and was the time to flee.
    However Matthew states the desolation is HERE.
    Luke is NOT being generic at all. Luke is being VERY SPECIFIC. He quotes Jesus' prophecy of an army which came, surrounded Jerusalem and then left. This does NOT fit what Matthew states. Matthew has an abomination being set up in the heart of the city, in its temple. This is also VERY SPECIFIC.

    They are NOT and CANNOT be the SAME thing.

    Right, that's why it says:
    And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. (Matthew)
    You are indeed confused. The elect were NOT in Jerusalem or Judea, for they had fled long BEFOREHAND. It made no difference how long the siege of Jerusalem lasted for the elect.
    Further ALMOST ALL the Jews in Jerusalem were killed. The events of 70 AD made no different to human beings around the world.

    Right - Luke is also giving a historical account, which is why he includes the "armies" with the desolation. Matthew, writing to Jews, doesn't bother with the "armies" part but alludes to Daniel instead. They are both talking about the same thing which was the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple.
    Luke is not giving an "historical" account, but a topical account. Luke makes no mention of abomination, nor does he say WHEN the desolation would happen. In the actual fulfillment of the prophecy no desolation or abomination occurred in 66 AD.
    Matthew though isn't writing for Jews, but rather for Christians who are Jewish. Matthew does NOT record the SAME thing as he makes mention for example that you need to pray that this event does NOT happen on a Sabbath. For Matthew this event occurs QUICKLY, with one day to flee. With Luke though there is a four year period between Cestius Gallus' armies surrounding Jerusalem and Titus surrounding it again. When you go into any of the details of what they state we find they speak of things incompatible with each other.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 108
    Last Post: Dec 27th 2014, 01:38 AM
  2. Discussion The Coming of the Son of Man: A Partial Preterist & Futurist Party
    By Matthehitmanhart in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: Sep 4th 2011, 07:47 AM
  3. Replies: 155
    Last Post: Dec 2nd 2010, 08:19 PM
  4. Question for Partial Preterists Re: Near/Far Prophecy
    By AtlGatekeeper in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Oct 25th 2010, 03:40 AM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: Aug 12th 2010, 04:01 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •