Questions for the non-full preterist

[Mellontes]

OK you did make a good point "My house" meant the temple did have the approval of God but IMHO that was until the curtain was torn in half. I think that incident was a consequence of Jesus crucifixtion and removed any authority that dwelled in the temple. The destruction of the temple was the elimination of a house that was already desolate of God. The fact that the curtain was repaired by man was not by direction from God, therefore it had no authority from heaven.
As to why would Jesus prophecy it's destruction if it had no authority, to fulfill prophecy, to warn Christians,visibly validating the ending of the old covenant even though it had really
already ended when the curtain was torn.

There can be no question that the old covenant had been rendered of no effect at the cross. But there is still so much tied in with the timing of the destruction of the temple and the consequential anihilation of the old covenant economy among the millions of unbelieving Jews during that first century. Matthew 24 sets this stage and Hebrews and other passages add to this "time of the end" as prophesied by Daniel.

The whole (or a vast portion) of the NT deals with the two covenants. Paul who once went about trying to destroy Christianity now has to do battle with the unbelieving Jews who were out to destroy him. The unbelieving Jews were constantly persecuting the church. It was old covenant versus new covenant. It was Israel after the flesh versus Israel after the Spirit. One day, vindication was promised. It was promised to that first century church. One day, the old covenant economy would be wiped out completely and leave the new covenant economy as the only existing economy, as it is today. There is no temple, no sacrifices, no offerings, no more genealogies, no more nothing!

One cannot think planets as being the emphasis of the NT. Well, I suppose one can, but to do so is to commit hermeneutic suicide. Think covenants and the language of them. The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was not a type of the fulfillment; it was the fulfillment...

And yet there are many discussions today as to whether the Christians back then during the 40 years from the cross to the parousia had to follow the Law. Things such as Paul's Nazarene vow, etc. Allyn may very well be right that the torn curtain was just a sign of much worse things to come.

[Allyn]

In this subject of the end of the Law I have no doubt in my mind that it was never intended to end until the Kingdom of God had been brought fully into place when Jesus returned with His angels and the sheep and the goats were seperated. By the way, that seperation was not the resurrection of the dead as some teach but instead was what Jesus taught all along concerning the kingdom being likened unto types of people who were entering in and those who, by there actions, were held outside. But back to my point - Jesus never once said he came to do away with the Old Covenant system. It was going to go away on its own as it continued to grow obsolete. What we do find Jesus teaching is that the sheep under the shepherding of the Jewish temple leaders were to do what those shepherds had required of the people to do but yet jesus said not do what they do. It has already been pointed out that Jesus attempted to cleanse the temple, which was a certain act of determination of the importance of the house of God. Certainly we are to understand that one day it was all to end - the woman at the well story is the indicator of this - but up until even the cross and 40 years beyond the temple was of the utmost importance it had always been in the sight of God until the kingdom fully arrived in the glory of the king.

[Allyn]

A new question:
At the transfiguration - what would the futurist/partial preterist have to say was the purpose behind the display?
I won't have time until later to address this if any answers come in by then but I did want to put the question out there.

Homer says:

So Jesus was transfigured and Moses and Elijah appeared. Jesus' disciples act as though the three are equal in status. Moses and Elijah have a peculiar relationship to the Law, one as lawgiver, the other as Law restorer (otherwise one might expect Abraham or David to have appeared). God's voice thunders from heaven "This is my beloved Son, listen to Him". Jesus is to be obeyed, the era of the LOM is over. Jesus is Lord, praise God!

Concerning the question I think Homer is right. Moses was the Lawgiver, Elijah was the epitome of the Old Covenant prophets. By appearing together Moses and Elijah sum up the entire drama of the old order from its beginning to its end, the one is the predeccessor, the other is the precursor of the Messiah.

Also we know that Moses and Jesus had a little conversation of the soon to come crucifixtion of Jesus.

Not only do we have the actual account given in the Gospels we also are given further insight into the event by Peter himself. What did Peter and the others see on the Mount? What is the transfiguration all about? Homer tells us his opinion on it and I generally agree but we also have more concerning it from 2 Peter chapter 1 which I find very interesting. In time I hope to lead us right into 2 Peter 3 and argue the nature of the Day of the Lord as it relates to the parousia and the New Covenant. I hope some of you stick around and will ask questions or give your comments along the way.

As a full preterist I believe to properly understand 2 Peter 3, we must first investigate the purpose of the epistle itself. Chapter 3 does not stand alone in its discussion of the Day of the Lord. It is within the context of the apostle's overall purpose. Peter does not leave us in the dark about this, his reason for writing is to respond to scoffers questioning the reality of the parousia.

I don't want to make this a lecture so what I will first do is give the passage from 2 Peter chapter 1:16-21 and then ask a question. It does no good to just tellyou what I think if you don't see it yourself. I want to see if you see what I see (i'm getting see sick)

16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
(KJV)

Question:
What was it that Peter said that they had made known unto them?

[CThomas]

I read something today that reminded me of the side-discussion about NT inspiration from way back on pages 1-3 of this discussion. It is from George Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament 28 (1897):

"For myself, though my prepossessions certainly would have led me to expect absolute accuracy [in the NT documents], I own that my expectations are no rule to measure the degree in which the Holy Spirit would interfere to guard the Evangelists from error, and that in the absence of any assertion, either by the Evangelist himself, or by any other sacred writer for him, that such a lapse on his part was absolutely impossible, I must allow my belief to be determined by evidence. If it can be proved that St. Mark said 'the high priesthood of Abiathar,' when in strict accuracy he ought to have said 'the time of Abiathar,' that need not one whit affect the credence we give to his testimony concerning the miraculous life and death of our Lord."

I thought that this was interestingly similar to the views expressed by Steve earlier in this discussion, if I understood him properly. (The book is available for free on Google Books, incidentally.)

Best regards to all,

CThomas

[steve]

Very similar indeed.