ECT Why preterism can never be taken seriously by Bible believers

[Interplanner]

Musterion wrote:
Ephesians 3:9 and 2 Cor 5:16 are two of the reasons why.


[note to all: this would be why D'ism uses 2P2P]

1, you missed what the mystery was in Eph 3 and that it joins rather than alternates two peoples. You don't know what you are saying and you don't know why.
The mystery in 6 is that the joining of these ethnes into one unified people is THROUGH THE GOSPEL. It is not 'another' program, because Paul has examples all through the OT. It was mysterious TO JUDAISM because it read everything out of Christ and unveiled. When the veil is lifted, anyone can see it is there.

Further, the unification is right there in Gen 12 and 15: all nations will be blessed (in one gift). What was obscured was that it would not be through law, which is why Gal 3:17 reads as it does.

I don't think I need to make a separate response about 2 Cor 5 because I've mentioned it being hidden to those in Judaism. those who read it 'kata sarka' as Paul did initially.

None of these references are about interjecting the church because Israel bailed on God.

I cannot underestimate the necessity of thoroughly accounting for the whole schmear of Gal 3:17. What is Paul correcting? Who said so? What does it take to correct it? Why is this clarifying to all of Gal 3?

 

[Interplanner]

re:
It is absolutely clear this is always going on with the NT.
Is it?

Yes, I did lose my train of thought there.

I meant that it is clear that there was always one program embedded in the Bible. Paul says someone voided and switched the Promise. That's the source of confusion.

I also meant to say that the SwS of D'ism is only true if it is 2P2P first. D'ism could care less how the NT uses the OT. The use of the OT the NT should be what you and D'ism are after, but I seldom see it done honestly. Acts 2 is said to be partly X000 years in the future. Acts 15 about amos 9 is not about the church right smack in front of them, on and on, exception after exception.

D'ism comes down to:
how a person does rom 11:25
how a person does Mt 23 ('until you say, 'blessed is he...'
and Ezek 38, 39.

For frickin cryin out loud! There are 2500 uses of the OT to study! Those three proof texts are way to brittle to base anything upon.

 

[Interplanner]

Musterion wrote:
I mentioned wrath in my definition of disp'ism.

this isn't the best venue for longer posts, but that wasn't the question. I'm sure d'ism stresses the wrath of God properly but they think it has a huge geo-political side to it that misses the whole point.

The question was how the presentation of the historic Gospel of justification makes the wrath of God so necessary, which is what you dismissed.

Maybe there are P'ist beliefs that do that; I'd need to see quotes. I dont'.

 

[Clete]

Perhaps you should seek somebody else interested in playing word games and being combative? I'm not into sophomoric, trollish disputings. Let's just agree to disagree, and just take it for a fact that you're not making sense to me, either.

I wasn't being combative at all.

You brought up not being able to make sense of how I can believe, what I presume are in your mind, contradictory things.

My questions are serious as can be and I never play word games. If I thought the post I was responding too was stupid, I would have said so. Instead, I specifically stated that I wasn't trying to be insulting in any way, and I meant exactly that.

So I ask you again...

What percentage (approximately of course) of your beliefs have to make sense?

And I am asking about your own personal beliefs, it's not a generic question. Does you own doctrine make sense to you? If so, it what sense do you mean that? Do you mean by "make sense" that something has to feel right (i.e. intuitively) or do you mean something more concrete than that.

Personally, I refuse - REFUSE - to accept anything that is irrational or that is in any respect in contradiction to the primary premise of my doctrinal worldview, which, as I said in my previous post, is that God is living, personal, relational, loving and righteous. When you reject something, on what basis do you do so?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

"4. The substitutionary, atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Jesus Christ to the earth."-Clete

Most Preterists, including this habitual liar Tellalie, redefine the doctrine of the resurrection, which by definition, is physical, and likewise redefine the redemption of the body, which, again, by definition, is physical, into some "mystical," "spiritual" "resurrection"/"redemption of the body," void of a glorified, "flesh and bone" body, which perverts the essence of the gospel of Christ, 1 Cor. 15 KJV ff., and thus deny that the believing remnant of the nation Israel, will inherit a literal, physical kingdom of heaven upon the earth, in resurrected bodies, not being able to sin(saved from the power of sin-their glorification) part of the physical and spiritual benefits of the New Covenant, promised to them, by the LORD God, "the promises made unto the fathers," and deny that respective members of the boc, will also receive "physically redeemed," "flesh and bone" bodies, "the adoption," "the redemption of the purchased possession/body," in heavenly places in Christ, again not being subject to the power of sin(glorification).

Romans 8 KJV

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, 21 because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. 23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. 24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? 25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.

Ephesians 1 KJV
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: 4 according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: 10 that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 11 in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: 12 that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. 13 in whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

And thus, many/most(?)Preterists, deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is currently a man, today, serving as the Mediator to the lost, per:


1 Timothy 2:5 KJV

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Acts 17:31 KJV

because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Can you provide any substantiation of this?

Any quotes from preterist sources or even posts here on TOL that indicate that this is what they believe and teach?

 

[Clete]

"3. The virgin birth of Jesus Christ."-Clete

I would correct that to, "The virgin conception," as the Saviour was born "normally," as we were. I understand what most Christians are stressing; however, we must be accurate, scripturally, since the lost are assessing our doctrine.

Nope. "Virgin birth" is perfectly fine. Mary was a virgin when Christ was conceived AND when He was born.

 

[Interplanner]

Can you provide any substantiation of this?

Any quotes from preterist sources or even posts here on TOL that indicate that this is what they believe and teach?

It's definitely not what I believe, and the idea that Israel has to be back in their land to enjoy those blessings of spiritual life is hooey because Paul the Jew taught that he had it and taught others they could at his time. Literalism makes people foolish as it did in numerous examples in John and a few in M,M,L.

 

[Interplanner]

There is no two locations in the NT. All believers are together already unified with the 'clouds of witnesses' in the Jerusalem that is above and free, and will be altogether in the NHNE.

 

[musterion]

Can you provide any substantiation of this?

Any quotes from preterist sources or even posts here on TOL that indicate that this is what they believe and teach?

I think part of what he means is that some preterists deny any future bodily resurrection. What would be the point? The Kingdom is now.

 

[musterion]

Literalism makes people foolish

Translation: Assuming God said what He means and means what He said is for suckers. Can't trust the Bible alone. Gotta ask some 'advanced' human authority what's what, or you're a fool.

 

[musterion]

If a passage says that in that generation the city will be surrounded and ruined, and if that event happens, and if there is an admittedly slightly spun account which is nevertheless hundreds of pages, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

The inconvenient historical fact, recorded by one of YOUR biggest sources, of MANY stones left one upon another. That's YOUR problem.

See, you take things VERY literally when they can be made to support preterism. If not, it's spiritual...allegory...figuritive. But it's we who are the fools.

 

[Clete]

I think part of what he means is that some preterists deny any future bodily resurrection. What would be the point? The Kingdom is now.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing but only intuitively. I'm hoping to be able to confirm this. So far, no preterist has bothered to answer my question though. Maybe they've answered me spiritually rather than literally.

 

[patrick jane]

Maybe they've answered me spiritually rather than literally.

:rotfl:

 

[musterion]

Well, let's do it this way.

IP, whether or not it's yours, is there a segment of preterism that says all bodily resurrections are past, or otherwise not to be expected in any literal sense?

 

[Clete]

It's definitely not what I believe, and the idea that Israel has to be back in their land to enjoy those blessings of spiritual life is hooey because Paul the Jew taught that he had it and taught others they could at his time. Literalism makes people foolish as it did in numerous examples in John and a few in M,M,L.

Literal-ism, per se, is no more foolish than 'figurative-ism' is, which, as far as I can tell, is the fundamental error preterists make. They turn seemingly everything into shadow and accept almost nothing as substance.

There are things that should not be taken literally and things that should. The trick is to know when to do which. The preterist has no system, no rules for when to accept something as literal vs when to take something as spiritual. They cherry pick. Anything they don't WANT to be literal, they take as spiritual and that's the intellectual extent of their whole system. If the preterist manner of handling the text of scripture was valid, there wouldn't be any way of biblically disproving any doctrinal claim that anyone wanted to make. The only way of proving the likes of David Koresh and Jim Jones wrong is to wait for them to die and hope there's not too big a blood bath to clean up after them.

But that's a whole separate issue. What I'm really interested in is whether the preterist accepts that Jesus will return physically to this Earth and thereby holds to the fundamental teaching of the Christian faith or not.


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Interplanner]

The inconvenient historical fact, recorded by one of YOUR biggest sources, of MANY stones left one upon another. That's YOUR problem.

See, you take things VERY literally when they can be made to support preterism. If not, it's spiritual...allegory...figuritive. But it's we who are the fools.

Try this: total loss. The temple and city would be a total loss. That's why the worship system has not been there for two millenia. Because it is a decree, says Hebrews 8, that 'it would disappear.' Even if we were to call what you are doing hyper-literal, it does not and cannot escape the fact of Heb 8!

The idea of injecting the NT with a 2nd program is definitely not literalism and it sure ain't figurative. It is cultic nonsense like Mormonism. But these people say it is everywhere! It is more certain than what the solid sections like Gal 3 or 2 Cor 5 ACTUALLY say.

To realize that Lk 21 etc is about the destruction of Jerusalem is not definitively against D'ism. I have heard their teachers say that it is what what was meant. But then they have a circus-trick hermeneutic that 'he meant two things at a time'. That is what I mean by cultic nonsense. The cult is 2P2P and it is nowhere in Gal 3 but it is everywhere in D'ism.

 

[Interplanner]

Literal-ism, per se, is no more foolish than 'figurative-ism' is, which, as far as I can tell, is the fundamental error preterists make. They turn seemingly everything into shadow and accept almost nothing as substance.

There are things that should not be taken literally and things that should. The trick is to know when to do which. The preterist has no system, no rules for when to accept something as literal vs when to take something as spiritual. They cherry pick. Anything they don't WANT to be literal, they take as spiritual and that's the intellectual extent of their whole system. If the preterist manner of handling the text of scripture was valid, there wouldn't be any way of biblically disproving any doctrinal claim that anyone wanted to make. The only way of proving the likes of David Koresh and Jim Jones wrong is to wait for them to die and hope there's not too big a blood bath to clean up after them.

But that's a whole separate issue. What I'm really interested in is whether the preterist accepts that Jesus will return physically to this Earth and thereby holds to the fundamental teaching of the Christian faith or not.


Resting in Him,
Clete

It is time to stop using D'ism and P'ism then, because I'm not the latter. that's why I refer to 2P2P. In the case of the 2nd coming, I affirm the 2nd coming. I do not understand the person who gets to 2 Peter 3 where the deluge is a historic event that models the 2nd coming, but the person says the 2nd coming is not a coming historic event. (They usually do so because 2 Cor 5 says the new creation is Christ and is here).

 

[Interplanner]

Well, let's do it this way.

IP, whether or not it's yours, is there a segment of preterism that says all bodily resurrections are past, or otherwise not to be expected in any literal sense?

I don't know. There are segments of people who believe everything, so there probably are.

 

[Interplanner]

Yes, I was thinking the same thing but only intuitively. I'm hoping to be able to confirm this. So far, no preterist has bothered to answer my question though. Maybe they've answered me spiritually rather than literally.

In this case, you've insisted that 'the kingdom' has to be in Judea, or officed there, and has to be on this earth. That is hardly what the NT does. It is already in the power of the teaching of Jesus, and it ends as the NHNE.

 

[tetelestai]

5. The physical resurrection and the personal bodily return of Jesus Christ to the earth.[/INDENT]

It's the fifth point in particular that seems like it might make a preterist itchy.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ Jesus makes a bodily return to planet earth.