Partial-Preterism, Preterism and Futurism

Here you can discuss differences in belief between different denominations, or other religions and Christianity. This is an informational forum. Always be courteous and polite, and respect other people's views and values.<P>Permanent Residents may only reply to posts here; Native Residents may initiate & reply to posts here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Postby Sean » Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:29 pm

My only beef with partial-preterism is that has been used to fuel anti-Semitism because it argues that the coming Christ predicted in Matthew 24 was one of judgment specifically against the Jewish people for their rejection of their Messiah (in the form of using Rome to attack Jerusalem and desecrate and destroy the temple), instead of a more general coming to judge all people at the end of time.
Sean
 

Postby natman » Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:04 pm

Sean wrote:My only beef with partial-preterism is that has been used to fuel anti-Semitism because it argues that the coming Christ predicted in Matthew 24 was one of judgment specifically against the Jewish people for their rejection of their Messiah (in the form of using Rome to attack Jerusalem and desecrate and destroy the temple), instead of a more general coming to judge all people at the end of time.


The judgement in 70AD was not against Jews in general, but against those specific Jewish leaders and followers, particularly in Jerusalem, the Holy City at the time of Christ that should have known who Jesus was, yet purposely rejected Him for their own temporary gain. Such judgement is not uncommon against God chosen race throughout history, although it had never been as devastating up to that point as as it was in 70AD. The judgement that was poured out over Jerusalem does not apply to Jews of this generation. In essence they are now on a level playing field with all other races of mankind, meaning, they still need Jesus for their salvation.

Galatians 3:28
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."


One of the futurist sub-sects, "Dispensationalism", is far more anti-Semitic in that they espouse that the hope for the Jews lies in them being returned, en-masse, to Jerusalem so that they may rebuild the Temple and re-institute Temple sacrifice in order to spark the war that will end all wars that would supposedly result in the slaughter of 2/3rd of their race and force the return of Christ. Of course, they also believe that Christians are taken out of the scene before all Heck breaks loose on Earth. Further, in their zeal to re-fill Israel with Jews, they have inadvertently supported genocide of millions of Palestinians that have occupied the land for almost 2000 years. It would be no different than the Shoshones coming into your home and telling you to get out or be killed because the land it sits on once belonged to them 150 years ago.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Postby Sean » Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:33 pm

Yeah, I guess you're right. The dispensational model is more anti-Semitic than the partial-preterist OT-style judgment. Basically Christ came to judge the particular Jewish leaders for not leading their people to their Messiah, which is their primary job in the first place? Pretty much dereliction of duty?
Sean
 

Postby natman » Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:27 am

Sean wrote:Pretty much dereliction of duty?


I think that is why Jesus was so hard on the Pharisees, Sadducees and Scribes.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Postby Strandloper » Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:39 pm

Hi, Nathan –
while the actions of the State of Israel and its 20th-century forerunners against the Arab inhabitants of the Holy Land do qualify as genocide, I am uncomfortable with the attribution of genocide solely to Israel.
All of Israel’s neighbour states have at one or another stage waged genocidal war against Israel, and the extremist movements in Palestine have also done so. Currently Hamas is the main culprit, but there is not one of the movements that acknowledged Yasser Arafat that has not been guilty at some stage.
Jews in other parts of the Middle East have during this period been the subject of murderous treatment, notably in Iraq, Yemen and Tunisia.
It has usually been attributed to revenge for Israeli excesses, but this is a simplistic interpretation, and one heavily influenced by the biased Muslim approach towards the truth.

The incursion into Lebanon that took place not all that long ago resulted in intense newspaper coverage of every incident where civilians were hit by Israeli fire, but not once in all those reports was it mentioned that Hizbollah deliberately fired from positions within villages or alongside people’s homes, so as to draw Israeli reaction, and excluded the Lebanese army from those areas until they had removed all trace of their presence.
This presented a totally false picture to the world media.

And aside from modern Israel, the Holy Land has a long history of bloodshed since 70 AD. The Arabs are quick to remind us of the excesses of the Crusaders, but Muslim conquerors have been no less bloodthirsty, and at times much more so, than Crusaders or Israelis.

And turning from the genocide angle, there is also the fact that the (false) theology behind the hatred of Jews is not new. The nazis were following in the tradition of Martin Luther, who in turn was following the tradition of the Catholic Church. It is a very old evil.
Shalom,
Strandloper
User avatar
Strandloper
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Eastern Cape, South Africa

Postby natman » Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:10 pm

Strandloper wrote:Hi, Nathan –
while the actions of the State of Israel and its 20th-century forerunners against the Arab inhabitants of the Holy Land do qualify as genocide, I am uncomfortable with the attribution of genocide solely to Israel.


My qualm is not against Israel carrying out such genocide, although I view all forms of genocide as evil. It is against Christians that financially or theologically support such actions in the hopes of bringing about what they think will be the "Battle of Armeggedon" and thereby forcing the advent of the second return of Christ.

There is no doubt that the Jewish people have been oppressed and put upon by the rest of the world since their inception and particularly since their dispersion in 70AD. Like America today, they have been dispised because of their successe in budiness and culture and subjected to many periods of exile and genocide.

Unfortunately, at the bequest of a group known as the Zionist Federation by virtue of the Balfour Declaration around the turn of the 20th century, several western countries believed they were bound to restore Israel to the Jews, displacing those that have lived in that region, including millions of Palestinian Christians, for nearly two-thousand years. The migrations came in waves, beginning around 1880 and culminated in the eventual forced creation of the Jewish state of Israel in 1947 at the hands of the British.

Up tp that period of time, for approximately 1900 years, apart from periodic skirmished, Palestinian Jews, Muslims and Christians all lived together in relative peace. It was only after the west, primarily England, forced the issue, that the hatred of the Jews by Islamic countries came to the forefront.

The Arabs are quick to remind us of the excesses of the Crusaders, but Muslim conquerors have been no less bloodthirsty, and at times much more so, than Crusaders or Israelis.


The Crusades was not an endeavor in FAVOR of the Jews, but was a Brittish attempt to wrest control of Jerusalem away from the Muslims and to preserve it's "Christian character.

And turning from the genocide angle, there is also the fact that the (false) theology behind the hatred of Jews is not new. The nazis were following in the tradition of Martin Luther, who in turn was following the tradition of the Catholic Church. It is a very old evil.


I absolutely agree.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Postby jochanaan » Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:08 pm

Scripture is clear about many things, especially that the LORD God loves His chosen people, whether the children of Israel by birth, or those adopted by belief in Jesus. And the Apostle Paul in Romans 11:25-26 seems to refer to a future time when all Jews will come to this saving belief. Despite the current Messianic Jewish movement, that time has not happened yet.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6341
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Postby natman » Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:29 pm

jochanaan wrote:the Apostle Paul in Romans 11:25-26 seems to refer to a future time when all Jews will come to this saving belief.


Certainly if you read those verses all by themselves, you can come to that conclusion.

Rom 11:25-26
"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob."


However, Paul also makes it clear who he is speaking of when he speaks of "Israel" a couple chapters earlier in Romans 9

Rom 9:1-8
“I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it in the Holy Spirit— I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.”


Also

Rom 9:25-27
“As he says in Hosea: "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people; and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved.”


Paul is not referring to "Israel the Nation", but to "Israel God's Chosen People" or His "Remnant" which has carried on throughout the OT and on into the NT, those that, regardless of bloodline, had and have faith in the one true God of the Bible and in His promised Redeemer and Savior, which is Chist Jesus.









Despite the current Messianic Jewish movement, that time has not happened yet.[/quote]
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Postby jochanaan » Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:05 pm

natman wrote:
jochanaan wrote:the Apostle Paul in Romans 11:25-26 seems to refer to a future time when all Jews will come to this saving belief.


Certainly if you read those verses all by themselves, you can come to that conclusion.

I came to that conclusion not from those two verses only, but from the entire 11th chapter of Romans, where Paul makes it very clear when he is talking about Israel "of the flesh," and when he isn't.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6341
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Postby natman » Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:08 pm

Can you give me your synopsis of Romans 11?...[/b]
In the next few days; I'm kinda busy right now. :shock:
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Postby Strandloper » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:10 pm

Hi, Nathan –
whoa there! There seems to be a strongly anti-British bias here.
Firstly, while it was Britain that made the Balfour Declaration (whether or not it was under the influence of Christian groups pressing for the restoration of Israel for the motives you mention), the decision to partition Palestine was taken by the United Nations.
Britain, having undertaken to hand over certain areas of Palestine which were Jewish-occupied, then came close to reneging on the deal. Many strong points within Jewish zones were handed over to Arabs, together with weapons.
Britain did not peacefully hand control over to the Jews. They had to seize it by force, and immediately the country was invaded by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
Arabs living in Palestine were ordered out of the country by these invading forces.
While some were undoubtedly pushed out by Israeli forces, by far and away the majority left because of the promise made by the Arab countries to smash Israel and kill all the Jews.

Secondly, you refer to the Crusades as being an English venture.
While the English – and Richard Lionheart – certainly took part of the Crusades, they were called by papal decree and supported by the Emperor and the King of France.
Its original intent was to make the Holy Land safe for Christian pilgrims – reports reaching the West indicated that pilgrimages were nigh impossible – although the movement acquired its own momentum.
Nobles from across Christian Europe took part, and Godfrey de Bouillon, count of a relatively obscure district now in Belgium, was made the ruler of Jerusalem. (His successors were styled kings.)
Considering the disarray Europe had been in up to that time, simply getting the Christian armies to the Holy Land was an unprecedented feat of organisation. But clearly the Christian rulers were unable to exercise proper control over their feudal subjects.

As you say, the Crusades were not aimed at restoring the Jews, and the Jews of both Constantinople and Jerusalem were massacred in different crusades.

You wrote: “Up to that period of time, for approximately 1900 years, apart from periodic skirmishes, Palestinian Jews, Muslims and Christians all lived together in relative peace.”
The key word there is “relative”, and peace as viewed by Muslims is not the same as peace as seen by Christians.

The jihad against Israel is presented as a religious issue because of Jerusalem’s supposed sacred status in Islam.
The fact is that Jerusalem has always played a minor role in Islam. It has falsely been elevated during the 20th century to being the third city of Islam purely to justify the annihilation of the Jews.

You refer to “a group known as the Zionist Federation” as if it was an aberration.
It has played a major role in Jewish life since the 19th century, and although it is seen as a secular organisation, it has included religious Jews – although not the most conservative.
There were Jews living in Palestine for much of the preceding 1900 years, but a small number. Most were families funded by relatives on the basis of the saying “we pay, you pray”.

It is likely that many of the Arab Christian communities of Palestine had their origin among Jews who converted to Christianity in the time of the Early Church.
Christianity has been tolerated in that region alongside Judaism, but note that the Muslim concept of toleration towards Christians and Jews is not a neutral position.
These communities have traditionally been subjected to heavy taxation as non-Muslims, and there has always been pressure on members to convert to Islam.
The taxation of non-Muslims is still practised in most Muslim countries.

With regard to Jews and the End Times, I do believe that many of them will be saved through their acceptance of their Messiah, Yeshua, but that the State of Israel as a whole will not be saved, either the religious Jews or the secular variety.
Shalom,
Strandloper
User avatar
Strandloper
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Eastern Cape, South Africa

Postby natman » Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:51 pm

Strandloper wrote:Hi, Nathan –
whoa there! There seems to be a strongly anti-British bias here.


'Not trying to be anti-British, but was simply stating what I recall of the events of history around that period. Because the Brits were primarily in control of the region, much as the Romans were in the first century, they appear to be the ones that were most active in re-establishing Jewish dominance. Right or wrong, that alone has been the catalyst for most of the upheaval we see in that region as well as the hatred poured out on the Jews by most Palestinian and Arab countries today.

I have had several Muslim friends tell me that Muslims had very little problems with the Jews prior to having them take over Jerusalem and force all Palestinian Muslims out.

Secondly, you refer to the Crusades as being an English venture.While the English – and Richard Lionheart – certainly took part of the Crusades, they were called by papal decree and supported by the Emperor and the King of France.


Yes, I understand that. From what I understand, it was a few British knights, acting as mercenaries for those that desired to make a pilgramage to the Holy Land that may have actually started the process, and it escalated from there.

With regard to Jews and the End Times, I do believe that many of them will be saved through their acceptance of their Messiah, Yeshua, but that the State of Israel as a whole will not be saved, either the religious Jews or the secular variety.


I agree. I believe there is just as much opportunity, perhaps even more, for Jews to come to know Jesus as Lord and Savior TODAY, as there is for any other ethnic group. The area I have trouble with is when people read into scripture that God has some separate plan for the Jews, but first they must rebuild the Temple, restart Temple Sacrifices, then go through Hell on Earth.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Postby jochanaan » Thu Nov 08, 2007 3:17 pm

natman wrote:Can you give me your synopsis of Romans 11?...[/b]
In the next few days; I'm kinda busy right now. :shock:

Oops! I meant to quote that post, not edit it! :oops: :cry: Working on getting the original post back...
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6341
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Postby Strandloper » Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:44 pm

Hi, Nathan –
certainly it was Britain that invaded the Ottoman Empire during the First World War because Istanbul was allied with Germany and Austria.
This was done in two directions – from Egypt into Palestine, and from Kuwait (a treaty state) into Iraq.
The French had virtually no involvement in the battle against the Turks, but finangled an agreement whereby it would be given the region now called Syria and Lebanon.
The British tried to get around this, since there was also a provision that allowed for cities captured by Arab forces to be given over into Arab hands. They proclaimed Faisal, son of Hassein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca, as King of Syria.
But the French simply ignored the Syrian kingdom, and seized the entire area allocated to them by the earlier treaty.
The British then gave Iraq over to Faisal, who was approved by a 96% vote in a plebiscite.
The French then proceeded to undo the political structures that existed there, immediately enlarging the small principality of Lebanon (majority population Maronite) with two other districts (Muslim and Druze) to create Grand Liban (Great Lebanon), the ethnically mixed state we know today, with its inherent instability.
Similar mini-states were set up elsewhere in the territory of modern-day Syria, which after a few years were merged into a single protectorate named Syria.
That country also is an ethnic and religious mish-mash, since there are Sunni, Shi’ite and Alawite factions, some Druze and a variety of Christian communities making up 10% of the population.
In Iraq the British merged Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurdish regions – another explosive mixture which is boiling over right now.
In Palestine, the British government did not take an active role in establishing Jewish control or superiority. In fact it was so negative towards the Jews that in 1946 Irgun Zvai Leumi blew up the King David Hotel, which served as British military headquarters.
Private British and American individuals and organisations did provide money for the purchase of a great deal of land, but once the Jews established themselves on that land, they had to defend it themselves. Frequent attacks forced them to surround their kibbutzim with barbed wire and to erect guard towers.
The sale of the land was legitimate in terms of Ottoman law (which had been in operation in the country for centuries). The British made few changes to the legal system in Palestine.
Many Jews were disappointed that the British would not allow them across the Jordan into the lands once occupied by the tribe of Manasseh (and other tribes). Instead it handed control of the region over to Faisal’s brother Abdullah.
Transjordan remained part of the mandate, but gradually Abdullah was recognised as an independent ruler.
The British were so much in favour of anti-Jewish elements that they appointed Amin al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in 1921.
This man personally sowed hatred wherever he went. He was the root of all the Palestinian guerilla/terrorist movements, he recruited Bosnian Muslims to kill Serbs and Croats for the nazis, and while in exile in Southern Rhodesia, he inspired the radical and racist African nationalist movement that today controls Zimbabwe.

The Palestinians today tell a very different story of what happened in the years before 1967.
After 1948 Jews were persona non grata in the Jordanian-occupied region now called the West Bank (as they were also in the Egyptian-occupied Gaza strip).
The Palestinians bitterly resented being forcibly incorporated into the Hashemite kingdom.
But having been excluded from the kingdom in 1967, they sang a different tune, putting all the blame on Israel for everything that had ever gone wrong for them.
Shalom,
Strandloper
User avatar
Strandloper
Native Resident
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Eastern Cape, South Africa

Postby natman » Fri Nov 09, 2007 2:11 pm

Okay, I'll try to rebuild what I said.

jochanaan wrote:
natman wrote:
jochanaan wrote:the Apostle Paul in Romans 11:25-26 seems to refer to a future time when all Jews will come to this saving belief.


Certainly if you read those verses all by themselves, you can come to that conclusion.

I came to that conclusion not from those two verses only, but from the entire 11th chapter of Romans, where Paul makes it very clear when he is talking about Israel "of the flesh," and when he isn't.


natman wrote:Can you give me your synopsis of Romans 11?

Here is my take on the entire chapter...


Rom 11:1-4
"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal."


Paul begins by ascerting that God did not forsake "his people", which are the people that God "foreknew". Then he refers to a passage in 1 Kings 19:10 in which God tells Ealijah that He has reserved 7000 out of all of Israel (a remnant) that have remained faithful to the Lord.

1 Kings 19:10
"Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel—all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him."


Paul goes on in verse 5 to compare that OT remnant to the first cenury remnant, chosen by grace.

Rom 11:5
"So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace."


Pointing out in verse 7 that Israel did not obtain what it had sought all of those years, but the "elect" did.

Rom 11:7
"What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did."


Then Paul admonishes the gentile believers not to become arrogant in their faith, remembering that just as God had cut off some of the natural branches of Israel because of unbelief and grafted some gentiles in, so too might He also cut them off for the same reason. God did not spare some of the natural branches (some of those from Israel the Nation).

Rom 11:17-21
"If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either."


In verses 26 and 27 Paul exclaims that "All Israel will be saved" and then goes on to give us a clue who "All Israel" is. It is those who's sins the "Deliverer from Zion" (Christ Jesus) will take away. Who's sins does Jesus promise to take away? The answer is "Those who believe in Him."

Rom 11:26-27
'And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: "The deliverer will come from Zion; he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins."'


Paul makes his point all the more clear in his letter to the Galatians.

Gal 3:16-17
"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say "and to seeds," meaning many people, but "and to your seed," meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise."


He states explicitly who is Abraham's seed, which is Christ Jesus and all who are found in Him...

Gal 3:26-29
"You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."


I already mentioned Romans 9 as well.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7245
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity and other religions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron