Introduction to Preterism - Lesson 1

[Roderick]

In an effort to spark discussion here, I offer this flash presentation. The topic is about eschatology, the so-called "endtimes" & the Second Coming of Christ (The Parousia). This brief presentation will be the springboard for fuller discussion.

Introduction to Preterism - Lesson 1


In Christ ransomed, risen, & returned,
Roderick

 

[noblej6]

Hi Roderick,

Somewhere in a link I took an eschatology quizz. The computer tells me I have 4 answers wrong. I would like to contest this with you and show you why I feel I am right. These questions.....

# Which is the most accurate statement about the Resurrection?
Your answer:
Wrong. The correct answer is The Resurrection isn't about physically dead people coming back to life

# Which is the most accurate statement concerning Christians & physical death?
Your answer: Christians go immediately to be with the Lord upon death
Wrong. The correct answer is Christians are already with the Lord now & simply pass from life to life upon death

# Which is the most accurate statement according to the Bible?
Your answer: The world will end in the future
Wrong. The correct answer is The world is without end

# Which is the most accurate statement concerning Christ's so-called Second Coming
Your answer: It can happen at any moment
Wrong. The correct answer is It has already happened

I agreed with the computer on all the rest, but was considered wrong here. However, I consider the computer to be wrong on these four not me.

I agree with the basic thought thru the test that the parousia was in the first century. However, that was the 'second coming' which established the Kingdom of Heaven and made way for the Heavenly eternal life promised from the beginning......

Titus 1
2a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,

The writer of Hebrews tells me that Christ will return a second time......

Hebrews 9
28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

It doesn't say here that He will come to earth a second time, it says He will appear(in this translation) a second time. He hasn't appeared to me yet, therefore that is still future for me yet. That may seem like an arguable point but it isn't. The bible says He will appear a second time and so far He hasn't, He alone judges so He has to appear to me or somehow inform me of my judgment and He hasn't yet. It is like the lightning in the west so I couldn't have missed it.

In Hebrews 9 it affirms this because I die and THEN comes the judgment, so far I'm not dead.

27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

So the parousia was in 70 AD, but that was only the second coming for the very first group. From that moment on it carries on at the death of each individual. That is each persons private second coming. One second coming per person whether they died 10000 years ago and they would be involved in the White Throne Judgment at the time of the parousia(Rev 20 and 1 Thess 4:13-18), or 10000 years from now at personal death,. Every eye shall see Him and when they do they will not say "There He is" to anybody because of course they are dead.

Only three people were alive to see the coming, everyone else is dead when they see it. It all takes place in the afterlife world, the spiritual and eternal realm.

One of the questions was about the physically dead coming back to life.

*****Wrong. The correct answer is The Resurrection isn't about physically dead people coming back to life************

If you mean resurrection isn't about physically dead coming back to physical life, it is correct. However, the physically dead are resurrected to spiritual life, the heavenly situation.

1 Cor 15

44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

[quote:4eab6]# Which is the most accurate statement concerning Christians & physical death?
Your answer: Christians go immediately to be with the Lord upon death
Wrong.

Here are the verses that say that they do.

First we know there is an earthly body which we are in now.......

40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies;

And we know that the heavenly body or spiritual body does not come until the earthly one is done with

46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.

This explains it further....

2 Cor 5
1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.


My earthly tent has not been destroyed so I have the spiritual to come yet, the eternal house in Heaven.

That comes immediately as we learn here....

John 11
25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Martha was to 'live' even if she died. She did die so she has to be 'living' in the only other body option available and that is the spiritual one in Heaven. It had to be immediate because Jesus Himself told her she would never die. She lived until physical death and the was immediately reborn as a spiritual being.

Above is the reasons I can't accept full preterism. I can't accept partial preterism because they consider the resurrections of the dead are future and the seconmd coming is an earthly physical event and it won't be as I see scripture.

One question was about the world ending... Yes, it will, the earth as a mass may continue but the world or the living of the earth will not last forever, 2 Peter 3:10 and how many times does the bible say...

Heaven and earth will pass away................

Otherwise FP has some very solid ideas.

noble6[/quote:4eab6]

 

[Roderick]

Eschatology Quiz

Hello noble6,

Yes the Eschatology Quiz can be accessed directly by clicking the link.

I'm glad to see you went further than just viewing the flash presentation. I appreciate that. I want to interact with you on what you have written about the quiz, but please allow me 1 more day, as I'm a bit busy to go into detail. A quick response would be unfair to you. Your observations are interesting.

Until then,
In Christ ransomed, risen, & returned,
Roderick

 

[PHIL121]

Preterism is inherently anti-semetic.

It doesn't matter how much make-up you put on a pig, it's still a pig. :

 

[Roderick]

Sons of Abraham are true Jews

Rather,

Galatians 3:7
Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.

Is that an anti-semitic notion?

Add to that:

Rom 2:28-29
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.

And one more:

Colossians 3:11
where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

So phil, before you go around making such unfounded assertions, you might consider 2 things:

1. Know what the Bible says about the status of "semite".
2. Know how to spell "semitic"

 

[PHIL121]

How about I just post all of Romans 11 to show what a crock all replacement theologies (like preterism) are?

Romans 11
Israel’s Rejection Not Total

1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life�[a] 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.†5 Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace. 6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.[c] But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.
7 What then? Israel has not obtained what it seeks; but the elect have obtained it, and the rest were blinded. 8 Just as it is written:


“ God has given them a spirit of stupor,
Eyes that they should not see
And ears that they should not hear,
To this very day.â€Â[d]

9 And David says:


“ Let their table become a snare and a trap,
A stumbling block and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they do not see,
And bow down their back always.â€Â[e]
Israel’s Rejection Not Final

11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!
13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.†20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness,[f] if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved,[g] as it is written:


“ The Deliverer will come out of Zion,
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
27 For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.â€Â[h]

28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, 31 even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34 “ For who has known the mind of the LORD?
Or who has become His counselor?â€Â
35 “ Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?ââ‚Â[j]

36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Phil,

Preterism is inherently anti-semetic.

You may have read my concerns with the full preterist doctrine above. However, I also stated that other than those points I felt FP has very solid biblical logic.

I consider the preterist theology to follow the bible much closer than others so what do you find anti semitic.

noble6

 

[PHIL121]

Hi Phil,

Preterism is inherently anti-semetic.

You may have read my concerns with the full preterist doctrine above. However, I also stated that other than those points I felt FP has very solid biblical logic.

I consider the preterist theology to follow the bible much closer than others so what do you find anti semitic.

noble6

Preterism lacks biblical logic. It supposes that Nero was the Beast of Revelation, and that that all prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of temple. Yet, the disaters of the seventh seal certainly DID NOT occur in 70 AD, and the Jews were NOT delievered at that time, but instead were scattered. The only way to rationalize this fact, is by using replacement theology; saying the Gentile Church has replaced the Jewish Church in the Old Covenant. This is anti-semetic, as it denies the promise God made to the Jews through Abraham

And Romans 11 clearly shows God has NOT foresaken the Jews.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Phil,

You have made an assumption.....

The only way to rationalize this fact, is by using replacement theology; saying the Gentile Church has replaced the Jewish Church in the Old Covenant.

And then concluded this........

This is anti-semetic, as it denies the promise God made to the Jews through Abraham

And you wonder why Romans 11 doesn't fit.

It supposes that Nero was the Beast of Revelation, and that that all prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of temple.

Luke thought the same thing here as he talks about the destruction of the temple.

Luke 21
22For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written.

Yet, the disaters of the seventh seal certainly DID NOT occur in 70 AD,

The seventh seal was before the seventh trumpet which was the coming of the son of man on the clouds immediately after the great tribulation and the bible says this about that comong:

Matthew 10
23When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

John 21

22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."

Rev 2
25Only hold on to what you have until I come.

and the Jews were NOT delievered at that time, but instead were scattered.

Daniel says they would be deivered at the time of the great ribulation.

Daniel 12

But at that time your peopleâ€â€everyone whose name is found written in the bookâ€â€will be delivered.

If this took place in 70 AD or thereabouts, it would necessarily be in the spiritual, heavenly, invisible realm. How would you or any other living mortal ever be privy to what goes on there and live to tell about it. Not including NDE of course, which does confirm this in many cases.

I have a funny feeling Roderick can explain this further than this.

noble6

 

[ddubsolo85]

@ Forum

Hello,

I agree with Phil, and this is why; Preterists believe that Gentiles have become Israel, and the Bible doesn't say that anywhere.

This would be an anti-semitic statement in that Preterists are assuming a place not given by God, and replacing those God said are Israel.

Why? Salvation is given to all, so what's the problem? Why would someone want to be something other than what God made them? God in no respector of persons, so why must Preterists insist on being something that the Bible doesn't say they are? Both Jews and Gentiles are offered an eternity with God, so I really don't understand the incorrect insistence on Gentiles being Israel. It's nonbiblical, and it's anti-semitic.

God Bless!

 

[Roderick]

To noble6

To noble6

Thanks for allowing me more time to respond. You had questions about the Eschatology Quiz. Specifically, these questions & the associated answers:

# Which is the most accurate statement about the Resurrection?
Your answer: ?? you didn’t say ??
Wrong. The correct answer is The Resurrection isn't about physically dead people coming back to life

# Which is the most accurate statement concerning Christians & physical death?
Your answer: Christians go immediately to be with the Lord upon death
Wrong. The correct answer is Christians are already with the Lord now & simply pass from life to life upon death

# Which is the most accurate statement according to the Bible?
Your answer: The world will end in the future
Wrong. The correct answer is The world is without end

# Which is the most accurate statement concerning Christ's so-called Second Coming
Your answer: It can happen at any moment
Wrong. The correct answer is It has already happened

You agreed with most everything else you say but one major contention was that you say Christ didn’t personally appear to you a second time (As you referenced Heb 9:28)

I’m glad you reference Heb 9:28, its an excellent verse as it is all about the atonement. You often hear Christians say everything was complete on the Cross. That is not accurate. What was finished on the Cross was the Sacrifice; the actual atonement was yet future. Much of the book of Hebrews is about Christ’s role as High Priest and we see the typological comparison in Lev 16:17.

Leviticus 16:17 (King James Version)
And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.

Hebrews 9:28 (King James Version)
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

In Leviticus, we see the picture of the atonement. The High Priest would make the sacrifice outside the Holy of Holies, then enter in the tabernacle to make the offering before God. If it was acceptable, we would “come out†to declare the atonement complete. There is even tradition that says they would tie a rope around his leg in case he was struck dead & the people would need to pull his body out. At any rate, the actual atonement was not complete at the mere sacrifice, nor was it complete until the people seen him appear a second time.

Futurism (the opposite of preterism) ignores this important typology of the Bible and simply says the atonement was complete on the Cross.

But as to your specific thoughts noble6. You say:

“It doesn't say here that He will come to earth a second time, it says He will appear(in this translation) a second time. He hasn't appeared to me yet, therefore that is still future for me yet. That may seem like an arguable point but it isn't. The bible says He will appear a second time and so far He hasn't, He alone judges so He has to appear to me or somehow inform me of my judgment and He hasn't yet. It is like the lightning in the west so I couldn't have missed it.â€Â

First, you are wise to understand the importance of Hebrews. All through the book we see the comparison of the O.T. High Priest who had to constantly make sacrifice for people and each year had to make atonement for the people (thus The Day of Atonement), but Christ only had to be sacrificed once and make atonement once. I commend you for coming that far, but here is where I believe your theology gets a bit off track. Christ never promised to appear to YOU a second time – especially since you weren’t there for His first advent. In essence you would have the High Priest continually coming out of the Holy of Holies – when Christ only needed to do so once for ALL – all Christians, for all time.

You had other comments I’d like to address but I like to keep my posts to 1 page. Please allow me to get back to the other comments a bit later.

In Christ ransomed, risen, & returned,
Roderick

 

[Roderick]

to PHIL121 & ddubsolo85

PHIL121 & ddubsolo85

You equate my reference to Galatians 3:7, Romans 2:28-29, & Colossians 3:11 as advocating “Replacement Theologyâ€Â

First off, never did I imply that, but as you quoted Romans 11, let us not try to proof-text verses, using one verse to disprove another. Rather, let us reconcile the texts. The Bible is consistent, but you make it out to be at odds with itself.

Quoting Romans 11:1-4

1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my lifeâ€Â?[a] 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.â€Â

Let us couple this with Romans 9:6 where Paul just gets done lamenting over the fact that so many of the Israelites WERE rejecting the Messiah.

Romans 9:6
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

So you see phil & ddubsolo85, no one here is advocating a replacement. For who is Israel? Who is a Jew? Who are the true sons of Abraham? They could be of Israel OR of the Gentiles – but at any rate they are those of FAITH among all peoples of the world without distinction.

Instead, you take the texts & pit them against each other. You take the texts and make God have two distinct people groups when the point was to unite both Jew & Gentile under one faith, grafting them to the One Vine, the One Branch -- Christ Jesus. These are the “reserved onesâ€Â, from out of Israel AND the Gentiles.

No one is replacing “false Israelâ€Â, for THEY were NEVER the true Israel. God could raise up stones to be the sons of Abraham if He so desired. And as you say, “God is no respecter of persons.â€Â

Next, I would like to interact with a related comment from phil:

“…and the Jews were NOT delievered at that time, but instead were scattered.â€Â

I am currently writing a full book length response to “The End Times Controversy†(ETC) by Tim LaHaye & Thomas Ice – My book will be called “Conversing with Controversy†and can be found in progress by clicking that link. The reason I bring this up is because this is a typical futurists objection & is used by the authors of the ETC.
But even in the ETC they are inconsistent. They like phil here, try to tell us that Zechariah 12-14 is about the “rescue of Israel†but then they also must admit its about the defeat. I quote from the ETC:

“However, in spite of the tremendous losses the Jewish forces inflict upon the enemy, in course of time, the city will fall. Jerusalem’s spoil will be divided among these Gentile armies.†(ETC, pg 263)

The Jews were looking for an earthly king over an earthly kingdom and Christ was not what they expected – He was even more, a heavenly king over an heavenly kingdom! And still the futurists seek an earthly king over an earthly kingdom.

Luke 17:20-21
Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

John 18:36
Jesus answered, " My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

Again, the futurists pit the Bible texts against each other rather than being consistent & letting the Bible reconcile itself. The Messiah indeed rescued HIS PEOPLE, He even gave them forewarning in Matthew 24, Mark 13, & Luke 21 to flee when they saw the nations gathered around Jerusalem. The “false Israel†filled up the measure of their fathers’ sins and their house was left desolate, the kingdom was given over to those who bear the fruit of it -- EXACTLY AS JESUS SAID.

Futurism continues to corrupt people with bad hermeneutics and fatalistic mindset. And rather than interact consistently with all the texts of the Bible, futurism picks & chooses and pits texts against texts in some kind of textual slugfest.

In Christ ransomed, risen, & returned,
Roderick

 

[noblej6]

Hi roderick,

Christ never promised to appear to YOU a second time – especially since you weren’t there for His first advent.

I'd consider that He did.

Hebrews 9 that we already talked about, then:

John 14

3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going."

Because, yes, I know where Jesus was going.

John 3
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

We are born, we live the physical earthly life, we physcally die, we are born-again the spiritual being.

You probably have run across Suede from down in Texas, a well studied full preterist. Him and I had this discussion a few months ago.

The thing about this that keeps me in the future second coming idea is that :
Hebrews 9
27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Who judges?

John 5:22
Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,

So I see my second coming as future , I see Mother Teresa's second coming as past, I see the second coming of the people who died in the great tribulation as being the first that ever saw the second coming or the parousia.

FP see the second coming as being all set up and finalized in the first century which I have no problem with. What I see differently is that for me personally it hasn't happened yet because I have not died yet.

You talk about the technicalities(?) of the atonement.

I think it is biblically understandable that death the final enemy wasn't destroyed yet here:

1 Cor 15
25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

It doesn't say why death wasn't defeated yet only that it wasn't. When Paul wrote this, death had been destroyed.....

2 Tim 1
10but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

So how could mankind be resurrected to 'life' when death was yet to be destroyed. That took until near the parousia in 70 AD for whatever reason.

I'm looking forward to your discussion on the other questions as well.

noble6

 

[PHIL121]

Based on the answers you posted in you eschatology quiz, its quite obvious you are not a Christian, Roderick.

At least not any Christianity that is based on the Bible.

You get "ignored"

 

[ddubsolo85]

@ Roderick

Roderick:

You equate my reference to Galatians 3:7, Romans 2:28-29, & Colossians 3:11 as advocating “Replacement Theology†First off, never did I imply that,...

If that's not your implication, then why would you list these scriptures? Aren't you saying that Israel is no longer made up of only Jews, but now includes Gentiles in a newly created 'spiritual Israel'? I'm pointing out that NONE of these scriptures say anything of the kind;

Gal 3:7; Both Jews and Gentiles are sons of Abraham. Being a son of Abraham doesn't make you, nor qualify you, to be Israel. That is a nonbiblical concept.

Rom 2:28-29; It's not speaking of Gentiles. There was no circumcision of the flesh required of Gentiles, so Gentiles are EXCLUDED from being Jews inwardly in this verse. The discussion doesn't pertain to Gentiles.

Col 3:11; It simply says that ALL (Jew, Gentile,...) are in Christ. It does not say that Gentiles become Jews. It does not speak of a 'spiritual Israel'.

...but as you quoted Romans 11, let us not try to proof-text verses, using one verse to disprove another. Rather, let us reconcile the texts. The Bible is consistent, but you make it out to be at odds with itself.

The Bible would be at odds with itself if it stated that Israel was those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and then later said "No, I think Israel will now include Gentiles also." Or, "I think now there will be a 'spiritual Israel' that will replace the Israel which was previously in place, and it will include those previously outside of Israel." There is no such thing, and therefore your belief begins on a false premise.

Quoting Romans 11:1-4

1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not! For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my lifeâ€Â?[a] 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.â€Â

Let us couple this with Romans 9:6 where Paul just gets done lamenting over the fact that so many of the Israelites WERE rejecting the Messiah.

Romans 9:6
But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel,

So you see phil & ddubsolo85, no one here is advocating a replacement. For who is Israel? Who is a Jew? Who are the true sons of Abraham? They could be of Israel OR of the Gentiles – but at any rate they are those of FAITH among all peoples of the world without distinction.

Nope, that's not what these verses say. WHERE do you read that Israel could be of the Gentiles? You are ASSUMING that is what is meant, would you agree? Neither verse even mentions Gentiles! YOU mention Gentiles in these verses, NOT the Bible. Is that true?

First, Rom 9:6 states very clearly,

"For they are not all Israel WHO ARE (((OF))) ISRAEL,"

Are Gentiles "OF" Israel? No! Only those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are "OF" Israel. Therefore, this alone would exclude Gentiles from being the ones the verse is referring to. It has absolutely nothing to do with Gentiles.

Now, when you couple it with Rom 11:1-4, it becomes crystal clear that God isn't saying that Gentiles are Israel in any sense.

1 I say then, has God cast away His people? Certainly not!

His people? What people is Paul speaking of? He makes it clear that he's speaking of Israel;

For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not cast away His people (ISRAEL) whom He foreknew.

Paul distinguishes himself as a Jew, distinct from the Gentiles he's speaking to. Also, God didn't foreknow the Gentiles, He foreknew the Jews, who are Israel.

Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying, 3 “LORD, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my lifeâ€Â?[a] 4 But what does the divine response say to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.â€Â

Those reserved are OBVIOUSLY the Jews that He foreknew because that's who Paul is speaking of in these verses. Gentiles aren't even spoken of! I don't know HOW or WHY you and others would want to insist otherwise. There is absolutely NO mention of Gentiles (or anyone else for that matter) being Israel other than those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Gentiles are not included in these verses as Israel, or anything of the kind.

Roderick:

God have two distinct people groups when the point was to unite both Jew & Gentile under one faith, grafting them to the One Vine, the One Branch -- ChrisInstead, you take the texts & pit them against each other. You take the texts and make t Jesus. These are the “reserved onesâ€Â, from out of Israel AND the Gentiles.

I made two distinct people? Who DISTINGUISHED himself as a Jew in Rom 11:1? I didn't write the verse, Paul did. And clearly he makes the distinction. Are you arguing that point? And again, these verses don't even mention Gentiles in the light of being Israel. As a matter of fact, they don't even mention Gentiles! That 'quantum leap' comes from YOU, not from the Bible. The Bible shows two distinct people brought together in one seed, Christ. That one seed isn't Israel, and nowhere does the text make that claim. So why would you? That one seed is Christ.

No one is replacing “false Israelâ€Â, for THEY were NEVER the true Israel.

"False Israel"??? I'm sorry, but God calls them Israel. Those born of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that come to Christ are Israel. That would exclude ALL Gentiles from being Israel. Are you a Gentile? Then that would exclude you also. So if you're going around claiming to be Israel, that would make YOU "false Israel".

(Sidenote: Out of curiosity, would Noah be of false Israel, or true Israel? And how about David?)

God could raise up stones to be the sons of Abraham if He so desired. And as you say, “God is no respecter of persons.â€Â

Well, being a son of Abraham doesn't make one Israel. To say otherwise would be nonbiblical. And that's correct, God is no respecter of persons. A Jew is no better than a Gentile in the eyes of God, and vice-versa. So why is it so important to you to be Israel? Why would you want to be something that God didn't make you? Doesn't God give enough? Is God's grace and salvation not sufficient?

If Gentiles were Israel, on an issue of that importance, don't you think the Bible would state it plainly? Show one scripture that says Gentiles are Israel, become Israel, will be Israel,... There are none, are there? What you've listed here surely doesn't say it. There are none. The claim comes from YOU, not the Bible. So why would you make a false claim, and claim to be Israel? And why would you attribute that to God when He didn't say it, and YOU said it?

I believe this is at the core of the problem with preterism. It starts on a false premise. There is NOTHING that says Gentiles are Israel, or that Gentiles become Israel. That is the "quantum leap" that preterists take outside of the Bible, then piece scriptures together to make a case. If we begin a math problem with 1+1=3, how can we come to a correct conclusion? Just show me the scripture(s) that state Gentiles are Israel, and we can go from there. If we don't begin with the truth, how can we end up there? In my humble opinion, that is what is being done with preterism. So let's take away the ASSUMPTION that Gentiles are Israel, and start with proving that first. If I'm in error, please show me. So far what you've listed doesn't do it, as I've shown you.

God Bless!

 

[noblej6]

Hi ddub,

I believe this is at the core of the problem with preterism. It starts on a false premise. There is NOTHING that says Gentiles are Israel, or that Gentiles become Israel. That is the "quantum leap" that preterists take outside of the Bible, then piece scriptures together to make a case.

This wasn't addressed to me but I have read thru this with interest.
I don't understand what you are getting at at all.............
I'm lost.

What does 'Israel' mean as you are using it?

What does the fact that certain verses do not mention gentiles have to do with the final outcome?

I'm missing your point, I guess...sorry. Hopefully Roderick comes on and explains for you. I'm looking forward to seeing this unraveled becaause preterists I have talked to aren't antisemitic.

noble6

 

[Vic C.]

The seventh seal was before the seventh trumpet which was the coming of the son of man on the clouds immediately after the great tribulation and the bible says this about that comong:

This is so important to the timing of The Great Tribulation and God's Wrath that I feel the need to backpeddle a couple of day to address this.

God's wrath can begin only after His promise... "And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

The trumpet in Matthew, 1 Cor 15:52 and 1 Th 4:16 is not the seventh angel trump of Revelation. This trump (shofar) will be blown by God Himself, not an angel.

Sixth Seal
Rev 6:12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;

Announcement of coming Wrath
Rev 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Seventh Seal
Rev 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven about the space of half an hour.

 

[noblej6]

Hi Vic,

In my understanding the days had already been shortened 40 years before the event. I think this verse would make it 2000 years for you.
Mark 13
If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.

So here again I don't follow well.


Can you write more about the difference between these trumpet blasts?

All I have ever thought its it is a trumpet heard at death.

noble6

 

[ddubsolo85]

@ noblej6

Preterists are under the impression that God is finished with the Israel of the Old Testament, and that the church is the new Israel, assuming all that was promised to old Israel.

I hope that helps you to better understand the conversation.

God Bless!

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Vic,

In my understanding the days had already been shortened 40 years before the event. I think this verse would make it 2000 years for you.
Mark 13
If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.

So here again I don't follow well.

Can you write more about the difference between these trumpet blasts?

All I have ever thought its it is a trumpet heard at death.

noble6

I can share what I have found in research. I will do it in another thread though. Maybe someone like Judy or Cameron can add to it.