Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Question About Preterism


Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

Or is the "1/2" coming in the clouds his veiled coming in AD 70? 

Mark 12:What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.

Well, yes, except He didn't come then. Wasn't aware of the graves being emptied of the dead in Christ, and all the believers being taken up and resurreected into their glorified bodies. Seems some of the born again writers after that might have mentioned it.  What was the point of Jesus coming in the clouds in 70AD?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Please read the parable I quoted - the husbandmen. That isn't a coming for resurrection, nor "rapture." 

And the kingdom marriage in Mat. 22 & the kingdom parable in Luke 19. 

And consider the possibility that they relate to AD 70.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Then what you are suggesting is that Jesus came a whole other time.   No, I suspect that this was fulfilled when the husbandmen, the Pharisees and all the Jews present, killed Christ, the Son, and He came back three days later and sent His disciples into all the world. Though many of the Jews believed and were saved, notice that, on Pentecost, a majority were from all over the world. Jesus told them they would be witnesses to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the uttermost parts of the earth-hence, the kingdom was, at that point, given to everyone, and the work was going out of Israel, not in to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Uh, has anyone considered that in the Mark 12:1-11 parable, "the lord of the vineyard" and his one wellbeloved son are not the same person?  Grammatically, in Mark 12:9 the one who comes and destroys the husbandmen and then gives the vineyard unto others is not the wellbeloved son (who was the one killed and cast out by the husbandmen), but is "the lord of the vineyard" himself.  Thus Mark 12:6 speaks concerning God the Son's first coming; Mark 12:7 speaks concerning God the Son's crucifixion; and Mark 12:8 speaks concerning God the Father's coming in judgment upon "the husbandmen."

Precision in Bible study is important.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Uh, has anyone considered that in the Mark 12:1-11 parable, "the lord of the vineyard" and his one wellbeloved son are not the same person?  Grammatically, in Mark 12:9 the one who comes and destroys the husbandmen and then gives the vineyard unto others is not the wellbeloved son (who was the one killed and cast out by the husbandmen), but is "the lord of the vineyard" himself.  Thus Mark 12:6 speaks concerning God the Son's first coming; Mark 12:7 speaks concerning God the Son's crucifixion; and Mark 12:8 speaks concerning God the Father's coming in judgment upon "the husbandmen."

Precision in Bible study is important.

Yes, I pointed that out to Covenanter a year or so ago.

God came in judgment when he brought Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, and also when he judged Babylon. God Neb called His servant.  Cyrus, He also called  "My shepherd " and "My anointed" and held his right hand.and no doubt Titus was also God's servant when he brought him against Jerusalem.  Having said that, I don't think that "coming with the clouds is different from the coming when we meet him in the air on the last day.

Edited by Invicta
Spelling corrections
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Uh, has anyone considered that in the Mark 12:1-11 parable, "the lord of the vineyard" and his one wellbeloved son are not the same person?  Grammatically, in Mark 12:9 the one who comes and destroys the husbandmen and then gives the vineyard unto others is not the wellbeloved son (who was the one killed and cast out by the husbandmen), but is "the lord of the vineyard" himself.  Thus Mark 12:6 speaks concerning God the Son's first coming; Mark 12:7 speaks concerning God the Son's crucifixion; and Mark 12:8 speaks concerning God the Father's coming in judgment upon "the husbandmen."

Precision in Bible study is important.

And yet, Jesus, as suffering Lamb and Servant is resurrected as the Lord of the vineyard, being also God Almighty. So in this, the same Jesus, before death, and post-resurrection, could be the well-beloved son AND the Lord of the vineyard.  In Zechariah 14, who is it that will come and stand upon the mount of Olives to fight in battle? Zechariah refers to Him as, (in the kjv), "LORD", which we know to be the name of God. But if this is the same incident as we read in rev 19, then this is, indeed, Jesus Chrst, who IS the LORD God.  So that Jesus, pre-death, could be the Son, and post-resurrection, could be Lord of the vineyard, is no great stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And yet, Jesus, as suffering Lamb and Servant is resurrected as the Lord of the vineyard, being also God Almighty. So in this, the same Jesus, before death, and post-resurrection, could be the well-beloved son AND the Lord of the vineyard.  In Zechariah 14, who is it that will come and stand upon the mount of Olives to fight in battle? Zechariah refers to Him as, (in the kjv), "LORD", which we know to be the name of God. But if this is the same incident as we read in rev 19, then this is, indeed, Jesus Chrst, who IS the LORD God.  So that Jesus, pre-death, could be the Son, and post-resurrection, could be Lord of the vineyard, is no great stretch.

Hm, possibly, but I'm not sure.

We have a visiting preacher who is doing a series of studies on angels.  He said the Angel of the LORD in the OT is not the same as the Angel of the Lord in the NT, because of the LORD on the OT is not used in the NT.  After doing a study. I wrote to say I didn't agree. I said that Peter said Ac 2:21  And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. and when peter quoted David Acts 2:25  For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26  Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27  Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. David Used LORD Peter used Lord.

Even the JWs recognize that in their bible, if not their doctrine for it uses Jehovah in Acts.  Strange really when Peter says David was speaking about Jesus.

 

Edited by Invicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And yet, Jesus, as suffering Lamb and Servant is resurrected as the Lord of the vineyard, being also God Almighty. So in this, the same Jesus, before death, and post-resurrection, could be the well-beloved son AND the Lord of the vineyard.  In Zechariah 14, who is it that will come and stand upon the mount of Olives to fight in battle? Zechariah refers to Him as, (in the kjv), "LORD", which we know to be the name of God. But if this is the same incident as we read in rev 19, then this is, indeed, Jesus Chrst, who IS the LORD God.  So that Jesus, pre-death, could be the Son, and post-resurrection, could be Lord of the vineyard, is no great stretch.

Certainly, God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is perfect and eternal Deity, being wholly one with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit in the perfect essence of the Eternal Godhead.  However, God's Word also reveals that each of the three Persons of the Eternal Godhead have distinct roles and functions within the relationship of the Godhead and in their relationship toward mankind (as well as the rest of the creation).  Therefore, when a passage of Scripture distinguishes between the precise distinctions of the Persons in the Eternal Godhead and of their different roles and activities, we should recognize that Biblical precision in our Biblical understanding.  Even so, in the parable of Mark 12:1-11, the two "players" of (1) "the lord of the vineyard" and of (2) the one, wellbeloved son of that lord are distinctly presented as different individuals.

On the other hand, if you wish to claim that "the lord of the vineyard" and the wellbeloved son are the same, then you need to be consistent throughout the entire parable.  As such, in Mark 12:1 God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, planted the vineyard, entrusted it to "the husbandmen," and went into a far country.  As such, in Mark 12:2-5 God the Son,the Lord Jesus Christ, sent various of His servants (the Old Testament prophets) unto "the husbandmen."  As such, in Mark 12:6 God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, sent Himself to "the husbandmen," and in so doing referred to Himself as His own Son (seems a little awkward there).  Finally as such, in Mark 12:9 God the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, came and destroyed "the husbandmen," and then gave the vineyard "unto others."

Yet there is more; for in Mark 12:10-11 our Lord Jesus Christ concluded the parable by applying a quote from Psalm 118:22-23 (See also Matthew 21:42-44; Luke 20:17-18; Acts 4:11; 1 Peter 2:6-8).  In the picture of this quotation, "the stone" is equivalent to the wellbeloved son in the parable; "the builders" are equivalent to "the husbandmen" in the parable; and the Lord is equivalent to "the lord of the vineyard" in the parable.  Even so, according to 1 Peter 2:4-8 God the Father is the One who chose God the Son to be the "Chief Corner Stone."  In fact, by considering Mark 12:10-11; Acts 4:11; and 1 Peter 2:4-8 together in unity, we must understand that the parable of Mark 12:1-11 was already in the process of fulfillment at the beginning of "the church age."

Again I say -- Precision in Bible study is important.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I suppose my primary point was that Jesus didn't come in the clouds in 70AD. I made some suppositions that I really didn't hold to, just throwing some stuff around. My point being, if Jesus came in 70AD, and effectivel, as I assume preterism teaches, oversaw the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, or that it is attributed to Him and associated with Him coming in the clouds, then it is specifically opposite of what the Bible says othewise about His coming in the clouds, and when Jesus comes back to earth to SAVE Jerusalem. Destroying jerusalem is the opposite of saving Jerusalem. I think I got off into a tagent, more than I meant to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I suppose my primary point was that Jesus didn't come in the clouds in 70AD. I made some suppositions that I really didn't hold to, just throwing some stuff around. My point being, if Jesus came in 70AD, and effectivel, as I assume preterism teaches, oversaw the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, or that it is attributed to Him and associated with Him coming in the clouds, then it is specifically opposite of what the Bible says othewise about His coming in the clouds, and when Jesus comes back to earth to SAVE Jerusalem. Destroying jerusalem is the opposite of saving Jerusalem. I think I got off into a tagent, more than I meant to.

Brother Mike,

As far as the "tangent," my original "corrective" posting was not actually directed against you, but against Brother Day's use of Mark 12:9.

As far as the coming of Christ to "SAVE" Jerusalem, it is my understanding that the preterist position (as well as the partial-preterist position, from what I can observe) denies that Christ is coming to "SAVE" Jerusalem at all.  Therefore, they would reject the contradiction that you have presented because they would reject the premise upon which it is founded.  As such, the starting point for you would be to provide Biblical evidence that the Lord Jesus Christ is actually coming again for the purpose in some way of "saving" Jerusalem (and the children of Israel, I presume).

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Brother Mike,

As far as the "tangent," my original "corrective" posting was not actually directed against you, but against Brother Day's use of Mark 12:9.

As far as the coming of Christ to "SAVE" Jerusalem, it is my understanding that the preterist position (as well as the partial-preterist position, from what I can observe) denies that Christ is coming to "SAVE" Jerusalem at all.  Therefore, they would reject the contradiction that you have presented because they would reject the premise upon which it is founded.

Agreed. Its just weird, how does SAVE Jerusalem, in Zechariah 14, become DESTROY Jerusalem? What else can Zechariah 14 be about? Seems pretty plain

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Agreed. Its just weird, how does SAVE Jerusalem, in Zechariah 14, become DESTROY Jerusalem? What else can Zechariah 14 be about? Seems pretty plain

Oh, it does not make Biblical sense because it is not Biblical truth.  Indeed, it is quite plain; however, it is at points such as this that our "opponents" must begin their pattern of imprecision in Bible study, claiming things for the text that it does not precisely say and uniting passages together that do not precisely speak about the same things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I suppose my primary point was that Jesus didn't come in the clouds in 70AD. I made some suppositions that I really didn't hold to, just throwing some stuff around. My point being, if Jesus came in 70AD, and effectivel, as I assume preterism teaches, oversaw the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, or that it is attributed to Him and associated with Him coming in the clouds, then it is specifically opposite of what the Bible says othewise about His coming in the clouds, and when Jesus comes back to earth to SAVE Jerusalem. Destroying jerusalem is the opposite of saving Jerusalem. I think I got off into a tagent, more than I meant to.

 Mark 13:1 ¶  And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2  And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Matt 23:34 ¶  Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35  That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 

Are you saying that God did not bring Titus to destroy Jerusalem for the cruel murder of His Only Begotten Son by the Jews?  During the Jewish war, Titus was the only one who wanted to save the temple, appealing to the Jews to return to legitimate Roman rule, but there was a madness that seized the rebellious, there were three factions fighting in  Jerusalem and the temple, dead bodies were in the streets  with a terrible stench, and the seditious were trampling on them. 

Are you saying that God did not bring Titus, the prince who was to come to destroy the city?  And the people of the prince, his soldiers, who set fire to the temple against his orders, were not the people of the prince?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 Mark 13:1 ¶  And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here! 2  And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Matt 23:34 ¶  Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35  That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. 37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 

Are you saying that God did not bring Titus to destroy Jerusalem for the cruel murder of His Only Begotten Son by the Jews?  During the Jewish war, Titus was the only one who wanted to save the temple, appealing to the Jews to return to legitimate Roman rule, but there was a madness that seized the rebellious, there were three factions fighting in  Jerusalem and the temple, dead bodies were in the streets  with a terrible stench, and the seditious were trampling on them.

Are you saying that God did not bring Titus, the prince who was to come to destroy the city?  And the people of the prince, his soldiers, who set fire to the temple against his orders, were not the people of the prince?

 

 

That's not what I'm saying-I am well aware of the historical fact of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. What I don't agree with, however, is this this is fulfillment of either the coming of Christ in the air to resurrect the dead in Christ, and then those who are alive and remain. Nor do I believe this is fulfilment of Zechariah 14 or Revelation 19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...