"Until the TIMES of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled.&qu

[_Steve]

Crusader seems to be quoting somebody in the following paragraph, though it is not clear who (Tommy Ice, perhaps?):

"A further problem with the preterist view is that our Lord said “some of those standing here…” It is clear that the term “some” would have to include at least two or more individuals within the scope of its meaning, since “some” is plural and coupled with a plural verb, “to be.” The word “some” nicely fits the three disciples, Peter, James, and John (Mt. 17:1) who were the participates with our Lord at the transfiguration. On the other hand, Peters notes that “John only survived”[45] till the destruction of Jerusalem among the 12 disciples."

Why does whoever wrote this limit the range of "those standing here" to the twelve disciples? The comment "Some of those standing here..." was made to a much larger group. According to Mark, Jesus made this remark after "He had called the people to Him, with His disciples also..." (8:34). In Luke's parallel (after recording Jesus' private talk with His disciples), it reads: "Then He said to all..." (9:23).

Clearly, "those standing here" referred to a larger crowd than the disciples. Anyone could have seen this simply by reading the passage in context. The fact that Tommy Ice (or whoever was being quoted by Crusader) did not even bother to check the context before leveling his ridiculous criticism is a great example of why dispensationalists are losing the field among biblically-literate Christians.

At the risk of being redundant, I would repeat that Crusader's problem is that he does not know enough about preterism to even understand the points that Sean was making in his posts. Nor does he want to understand preterism. He only wants to quote Tommy Ice, who also does not understand preterism—he is just so threatened by it that his brain seems to shut off when he hears the term.

Crusader, I am going to ask that you do one of two things:

Option 1: Educate yourself somewhat in the views you wish to criticize. You can do this, either (as was suggested earlier) from my lectures (probably the most accessible, though possibly not the best, summary), or by reading something by someone else that explains the view—not something by dispensationalists, since they are notorious for their failure to understand the view and for their penchant for misrepresentation of whatever they cannot refute by biblical exegesis.

One good reason to hear my lectures (rather than reading something off a preterist website) is that my views are closer to those that Sean is presenting, whereas many preterist websites are sponsored by fully-realized preterists, of which there are either few or none here. I don't know if your familiarity with preterism even extends so far as to recognize the major division between partial and fully-realized preterists.

When I want to debate against someone, I read their literature and do my best to know what makes them think the things they think. To neglect this is simply to show them disrespect, and to treat them as if they have no rational basis for their beliefs. This approach leaves no alternative in the debate than to suggest that your opponents are twisting scriptures to fit their theological preferences. This is quite an allegation against the integrity of the brethren—and often a gratuitous one.

The truth is, you demonstrate the very propensity of twisting scripture that you accuse others of doing. You spiritualize or allegorize whenever it suits your preferred theology, and then (without the slightest warrant) insist that something in Ezekiel (the most non-literal book in the Old Testament) must be taken literally, even when doing so places it in contradiction to the teaching of Christ and the apostles.

Further, you show absolutely no respect for scripture. You think you are honoring scripture by quoting it, but by refusing to cross-examine your own novel views of any given passage, you show a cavalier disinterest in learning what the scripture might really mean, and demonstrate a boundless respect only for your own opinions about the text and those of your teachers. This is not reverence for scripture, but a prideful refusal even to consider that you might be mistaken and that it might be worthwhile to examine some of the evidence that has led so many godly brethren throughout history to disagree with your position.

This option requires that you show enough respect for scripture and the brethren with whom you are interacting to at least attempt to understand where they are coming from (not merely by reading their critics), to answer their questions, respond to the scriptures they present, and show why the scriptures you present are better understood the way you understand them than the way they understand them. This, in my opinion, is nothing more than meeting the minimal standards of courtesy in a discussion such as this.

Option 2: Leave the forum.

[_Sean]

ISRAEL - They believe that ethnic Israel was excommunicated for its apostasy and will never again be God’s Kingdom. They say that the Bible does not tell of any future plan for Israel as a special nation.

This is not correct, as I stated many times already.

First of all Peter (a Jew) said to other Jews : "You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own posession" (1 Peter 2:9)

Clearly, ethnic Israel is not cast off. We shouldn't be swinging to extremes here. In all honesty, the Dispensationalist are the ones teaching replacement theology. They teach that the church replaces Israel (till the times of the gentiles are fulfilled) until the rapture, then Israel is reinstated. This is replacement theology. Preterists like me believe that the Church is the remnant of Israel with Gentiles grafted on. After the fulness of the Gentles, we enter the eternal state described in Revelation 21-22.

Read Romans 11. Who is the olive tree? Israel. Who is grafted onto Israel? Gentiles. Notice God doesn't plant a new Gentile "wild olive tree" that is seperate from the original and stop the growth on the first one. Instead, God continues to work with the original olive tree (Israel) and grafts Gentiles onto that.

What has been replaced is the Old Covenant. God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. That is, the remnant.

THE NEW JERUSALEM - Most preterists believe that this is the Church, both now and forever!

One other thing I forgot to mention that this reminded me of:

Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Rev 21:9 Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, "Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem

So what is the holy city Jerusalem? What does the text say "it" is?
The Bride, the wife of the lamb. This is the Church:

2 Co 11:2 I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ.

The bride of Christ is the Church, the Bride is also the holy city Jerusalem.

Please explain how this is incorrect.

There are no two peoples of God, we are all one in Christ (Eph 2&3, Gal 3).

Why have you never responded to this? You made the charge and I backed these up by directly quoting scripture. Can you show me how John is invalid by stating that the new Jerusalem is the Church (Paul as well in Gal 4:26).

You keep trying to say that (apparently unbelieving?) Jews are going get their land back under David and Jesus. So they are going to call Jesus Lord but they are not part of the church, which is Jesus body?

Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise.

It must be hard to accept that even the new testament affirms that the new Jerusalem is the church. It's hard when dispensationalism teaches there is eternal seperation of the church and Israel, but the Bible teaches they are one. That the real "exposing" is that "we" are not teaching Israel is replaced by the church, but that it is the church.

[Guest]

Please dont try to intimidate me Steve...Ive seen your dispensationlist humor post..if you think that done in a spirit of fair play then you are as misinformed on eschatology as you are manners...and If you read what I wrote earlier I have no intention of carrying on a debate regarding the false teaching of preterism...I only answered sean because he seemed to get a little bolder when you showed up...and I was enticed beyond what I could bear.


Crusader

[_Sean]

Please dont try to intimidate me Steve...Ive seen your dispensationlist humor post..if you think that done in a spirit of fair play then you are as misinformed on eschatology as you are manners...and If you read what I wrote earlier I have no intention of carrying on a debate regarding the false teaching of preterism...I only answered sean because he seemed to get a little bolder when you showed up...and I was enticed beyond what I could bear.


Crusader

If it's false, show us. Even if we don't agree, you might convince someone else who's reading this. But if you don't answer the texts I have brought up, then what am I or anyone else who reads this to think?

I have tried very hard to answer all your questions and biblical quotes.

[_Steve]

Two points of clarification:

1. I don't have a dispensational humor post.

2. I never make any effort to intimidate anyone.

[_Sean]

I think he's referring to a thread I started about the location of the great tribulation.

[Guest]

Where is that Sean? I don't think I have seen that new thread.

location of the great tribulation

[Guest]

Thank you all for your posts. It has been very interresting reading. I had a great visit over the weekend with my brother and his wife from Montana.
I showed him this website and he showed interrest in joining in when he got back home (who knows...maybe he will and maybe not).

When I left this thread of conversation, I was discussing "the man of sin" in Thessalonians with you and the thought of this being the papacy. So I think I should ask you ( Sean, Allyn, and JD mostly) if this is your view and not just assume that you are argueing from this position.

Secondly, Allyn quoted the verses about forbidding marriage and abstaining form meat, if I remember correctly. And this is a doctrine of demons , correct?

This certainly would fit in somewhat with the Catholic Church but not totally. There are some married priests and I don't know if they still hold to no meat on friday. Irregardless...I hold the view currently that the Catholic church is "The Mother of Harlots" in Revelation . I don't see the man of sin as the pope but am certainly willing to look hard at these verses and be corrected if I am wrong.

Thanks again for all your writing.

Roger

[Guest]

Hey Roger,

Speaking for myself I can say that I hold to the position Sean took (since he was the most vocal I use him as an example).

[Guest]

Hi Roger,

I also take the view that the papacy is the man of sin, setting himself up in the temple of God (church), displaying himself as God.

This entire passage puzzled me for years when I was pre-trib, as it seemed to contradict itself. I was told that there was the "day of Christ", then the "day of God", then the "day of the Lord", to explain the rapture, the tribulation, and the 1,000 years. Too much parsing for my taste, and a bit of a stretch. But such reasoning wows the unsuspecting, and is considered deep insight.

Have you considered that Revelation may be John's recording of the Olivet Discourse, only in symbols? This is fodder for a new thread, but Revelation 6 parallels much of Matthew 24. In this line of reasoning, all or most of Revelation is about the destruction of Jerusalem as well. Thus the harlot could be Israel.

Though, some see a split in Revelation, that it is at once envisioning the destruction of Jerusalem, and then the destruction of Rome. This is not unlike the pattern of judgment God uses in the OT, where He judges Israel by Babylon, then turns around and judges Babylon.

I know Dave Hunt would suggest otherwise.

Perhaps I sound wishy-washy here, so forgive me. I've learned it is better to hold out judgment about things I'm not 100 % sure of. It is less painful than having to retract bold statements made in the past.

Regards,
JD