Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 213

Thread: Question for partial preterist

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    15,531

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    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.
    and

    *****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.
    I don't see how you can absolutely say it is true that the Jews today are different than the Israelites by race. That sounds like conjecture to me. But OK. Thanks for responding. As for religion, it sure looks the same to me. Of course, the church today is different in many ways than the church in Acts. But we are still Christian. IMO, the same can be said of the Jews.

    Are you suggesting that the holocaust in WW2 is not a true holocaust?

    God bless!

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    6,727
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Thanks for the discussion FHG, we both made our case and the reader can decide whose is more convincing.
    여러분은 주님 안에서 항상 기뻐하십시오. 내가 다시 말합니다. 기뻐하십시오.
    모든 사람을 너그럽게 대하십시오. 주님께서 오실 날이 가까웠습니다. Philippians 4


  3. #93

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    I could place also in this thread the points I've made in the past about the parallels I see in the following passages:

    --Daniel 12:1-4 (not a physical/bodily resurrection from the dead, as v.13 speaks of, but distinct... and at a specific point in time [which time period DOES end with Daniel's being "resurrected" to stand again on the earth, per v.13]); this being about "Israel" [thy people, v.1] coming up out of the graveyard of nations, where scattered

    --Ezekiel 37:12-14,20-23 (dry bones prophecy)

    --Hosea 5:15-6:3 (after two days... in the third day; "I will go and return to My place TILL...")

    --Isaiah 26:16-21 (note the "birth pangs")

    --Romans 11:15[25] "...what shall the receiving of them be but LIFE FROM THE DEAD" (again, not a bodily/physical resurrection, but regarding "Israel" in their future)

    --John 6:39 (distinct from v.40)


    --Acts 1:6 where their question had to do with its TIMING, not its NATURE (which they correctly understood; they just did not understand its TIMING [their Q])

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,822
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by ewq1938 View Post
    *more mistaken?
    What do you think I meant?

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,822
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by jeffweeder View Post
    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.
    Glad we share the same views. Indeed, the elect is from every race. But specifically, the faithful (Jew/Gentile) in Christ are the elect.

  6. #96

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Oops, I left one out [edit to add to previous post]

    --Romans 9:26 regarding Israel [distinct from 9:25 re: the Gentiles] / Hosea 1:10-11 regarding Israel [distinct from 2:23b re: the Gentiles]; so 9:25 says, "And it shall come to pass, that in the place where IT WAS SAID UNTO THEM, YE are NOT MY PEOPLE, there shall they be called the children/sons of the living God." [this verse can ONLY be speaking of Israel (whereas the other set of vv. is about the Gentiles); Romans 9-11 covering "nations": Israel (singular nation), and the Gentiles (plural nations)]

  7. #97

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    EDIT: Sry, should read "so 9:26 says" (not 9:25)

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,822
    Blog Entries
    13

    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!
    Which post did you respond to?

  9. #99

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Oh yeah, and one more thing...

    I forgot to also add:

    --Acts 3:21 - "whom the heaven must receive UNTIL the times of restitution of all things OF WHICH GOD SPOKE by the mouth of His holy prophets from the age." [contrasted with the things He "kept hidden in God" (that is, the as of yet "undisclosed" things, by contrast)]

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    9,950
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by Aviyah View Post
    Thanks for the discussion FHG, we both made our case and the reader can decide whose is more convincing.
    Of course.
    Getting back more to the thread, do people agree that a PP is someone who is not an historicist, like just about all of us to some degree, but someone who holds that the majority of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by 70 AD?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aviyah View Post
    Thanks for the discussion FHG, we both made our case and the reader can decide whose is more convincing.
    Of course.
    Getting back more to the thread, do people agree that a PP is someone who is not an historicist, like just about all of us to some degree, but someone who holds that the majority of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled by 70 AD?

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,822
    Blog Entries
    13

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    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.
    If your argument is to be believed that the Jews of WWII and those living today are different from those in the 1st century, then by Jove; the Irish, the British and Italian Americans, today must have materialised from thin air and have zero connection to their forebears that immigrated to America hundreds of years ago!

    I note you're Canadian, so apart from native Canadians, are you telling your readers that white Canadians today have no ancestral link to the English, Scottish and French people?

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    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!
    Your exegesis will be more valid if you actually made attempts to actually align it with scripture. Josephus put the number of the dead in 70 AD tentatively at 1.1 million. In contrast, 6 million died in the Holocaust. Now, Jesus said expressly that the GT will be of such magnitude that it will not be * equalled or surpassed* EVER again. If 5 million more Jews died in the Holocaust than 70 AD, then the Bible must be in error given that the loss in WWII surpassed 70 AD, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    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.
    If you summation is true that "no sub-categories of racial groups exist" then Paul is gravely mistaken by saying in Romans 11 that Israel, even today, remains broken off from the olive tree. The theme of Rom 11 clearly identifies unbelieving Israel as a distinct race. But your doctrine seems to deny this.

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    *****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.
    Would you care to explain the "covenant" the Jews of 70 AD were under and the operating covenant for the modern Jews? This will be a good starting point to help me address your reference to *apples and oranges*.

  12. #102

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    I don't see how you can absolutely say it is true that the Jews today are different than the Israelites by race. That sounds like conjecture to me. But OK.
    Consider the following, also:

    "28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory [see also Matthew 25:31-34 for TIMING (also Isaiah 24:21-23, esp 23)], ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judgING the twelve tribes of Israel."

    [here it is "the twelve tribes of Israel," but in the Matt25:31-34 context it is "the nations [plural]," that will be gathered before Him, and it says "when He shall come..." ]

    As for the Isaiah 24:21-23 reference ^, it parallels Revelation 19:19,21/16:14-16/20:5 (at the time of His Second Coming to the earth); that is, of the TWO "PUNISH" words in Isa24:21-22[23], the FIRST of the TWO correlates with the Rev19 passages I just showed (at the time of His Second Coming to the earth); Rev19:15b also says "He SHALL [future] shepherd [rule] them [the nations] with a rod [sceptre] of iron [righteousness and strength; the "sceptre" of "the age [singular]" referred to in Heb1:8 see also 1Cor15:24 where it says "THEN [G1534] the end" (G1534 being a different Grk word than is used elsewhere, this "G1534 then" being a SEQUENCE word only, with no time element attached (like the OTHER "then" Grk word)... so this is NOT saying "THEN immediately the end"... for He must reign until.... ]

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Regarding "the end of the age," in Matthew 24: 1-3, I as a PP believe that the age being referred to is the end of the age of the Old Covenant and the end of the age of the Old Covenant people. The audience being spoken to is not "the Gentiles" or a universal audience, but the Old Covenant Jews, so what Jesus is saying is applicable to them. The end of the age (verse 3) is tied in with "not one stone being left upon another which will not be torn down (verse 2). So the end of the age is simultaneous with the Destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem. Since we have NO reason to believe that it is ever going to happen again the future (at least not having anything to do with Bible prophecy/Eschatology) we can conclude that the end of the age happened in 70 AD.

    Another related verse that should make futurists think is Hebrews 8: 13. Again, the audience is believing Jews, NOT Gentiles. Written in 63 AD, the writer says "When He said, A New Covenant, He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. " So I have always wondered why the writer worded it this way. The tenses he uses seem to be incorrect!! Or are they? Why did he not say "But whatever became obsolete already and has already grown old has already disappeared, " in reference to the Old Covenant?? It is because even though the New Covenant began with Jesus Christ, 30 years earlier, there is still some unfinished Old Covenant business to take care of in the not too distant future, called the destruction of the outward types and shadows, the Temple, the priesthood, the sacrifices, the record of the tribal genealogies, the City and the Land, etc, etc etc. - ALL the things that made the Old Covenant real had to be destroyed physically and literally as well as the destruction of the apostates before moving the Church would move on in its own. The "apostate excess baggage and the accompanying types & shadows" during that 40 year period of Grace for the Jews to and believe the Gospel had to happen first before Hebrews 8:13 could be spoken of in the past tense! 70 AD is very important!!

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,828

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    Regarding "the end of the age," in Matthew 24: 1-3, I as a PP believe that the age being referred to is the end of the age of the Old Covenant and the end of the age of the Old Covenant people. The audience being spoken to is not "the Gentiles" or a universal audience, but the Old Covenant Jews, so what Jesus is saying is applicable to them. The end of the age (verse 3) is tied in with "not one stone being left upon another which will not be torn down (verse 2). So the end of the age is simultaneous with the Destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem.
    Doesn't the following verse suggest that the end doesn't immediately follow the fall of the temple?

    6 You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.


    Luke speaks of the wrath and exile of Jews because of the war , and then the trampling of Jerusalem by Gentiles, until the times of the gentiles over Jerusalem are over.

    What verses in the olivet do you apply to his second coming?

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    Regarding "the end of the age," in Matthew 24: 1-3, I as a PP believe that the age being referred to is the end of the age of the Old Covenant and the end of the age of the Old Covenant people. The audience being spoken to is not "the Gentiles" or a universal audience, but the Old Covenant Jews, so what Jesus is saying is applicable to them. The end of the age (verse 3) is tied in with "not one stone being left upon another which will not be torn down (verse 2). So the end of the age is simultaneous with the Destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem.
    Doesn't the following verse suggest that the end doesn't immediately follow the fall of the temple?

    6 You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.


    Luke speaks of the wrath and exile of Jews because of the war , and then the trampling of Jerusalem by Gentiles, until the times of the gentiles over Jerusalem are over.

    What verses in the olivet do you apply to his second coming?
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ADELAIDE / South Australia
    Posts
    3,828

    Re: Question for partial preterist

    Quote Originally Posted by DJohnson View Post
    Regarding "the end of the age," in Matthew 24: 1-3, I as a PP believe that the age being referred to is the end of the age of the Old Covenant and the end of the age of the Old Covenant people. The audience being spoken to is not "the Gentiles" or a universal audience, but the Old Covenant Jews, so what Jesus is saying is applicable to them. The end of the age (verse 3) is tied in with "not one stone being left upon another which will not be torn down (verse 2). So the end of the age is simultaneous with the Destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem.
    Doesn't the following verse suggest that the end doesn't immediately follow the fall of the temple?

    6 You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.


    Luke speaks of the wrath and exile of Jews because of the war , and then the trampling of Jerusalem by Gentiles, until the times of the gentiles over Jerusalem are over.

    What verses in the olivet do you apply to his second coming?
    And those castles made of sand....fall into the sea......eventually

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
  •