ECT MAD Preterism

[nikolai_42]

I'm not promoting this view, but the thought occurs to me that this would be consistent with dispensational distinction between Israel and the church...

Doesn't dispensationalism generally (and MADism more specifically) lend itself to Preterist eschatology? That is, if there is a gospel for the Jew and another for the Gentile - if some scriptures were not written for the Gentile as some were not written for the Jew - if this is so, why not a different "coming" for the Jew than for the church? So when Jesus gives warnings in Matthew 24 (just as an example), the warnings up to verse 28 could easily be to the Jews alone (arguably all fulfilled in and by 70AD). The rest of the chapter (it could be argued) may not be unique to the Jews (though the MAD approach would, I think, lend itself to the "elect" being the Jews only - certainly in verse 31).

Seen this way one may view the comings of the Lord as specific to a people. After all, the letters to the churches in Revelation had Jesus warning "...I will come to you..." separately to each.

 

[Danoh]

I'm not promoting this view, but the thought occurs to me that this would be consistent with dispensational distinction between Israel and the church...

Doesn't dispensationalism generally (and MADism more specifically) lend itself to Preterist eschatology? That is, if there is a gospel for the Jew and another for the Gentile - if some scriptures were not written for the Gentile as some were not written for the Jew - if this is so, why not a different "coming" for the Jew than for the church? So when Jesus gives warnings in Matthew 24 (just as an example), the warnings up to verse 28 could easily be to the Jews alone (arguably all fulfilled in and by 70AD). The rest of the chapter (it could be argued) may not be unique to the Jews (though the MAD approach would, I think, lend itself to the "elect" being the Jews only - certainly in verse 31).

Seen this way one may view the comings of the Lord as specific to a people. After all, the letters to the churches in Revelation had Jesus warning "...I will come to you..." separately to each.

Your guessing at is typical of the result that an overreliance on books results in.

Where one reasons this, and reasons that, and by that, eventually ends up with an entire school of reasoning based on one's own reasoning about this and that from within one's own vacuum.

From there, all reasoning about a thing is from within said vacuum; unable to see the Scripture; though it thinks it does.

1 and 2 Corinthians are dead set against that kind of thing.

Try their "method."

 

[tetelestai]

I'm not promoting this view, but the thought occurs to me that this would be consistent with dispensational distinction between Israel and the church...

Doesn't dispensationalism generally (and MADism more specifically) lend itself to Preterist eschatology? That is, if there is a gospel for the Jew and another for the Gentile - if some scriptures were not written for the Gentile as some were not written for the Jew - if this is so, why not a different "coming" for the Jew than for the church? So when Jesus gives warnings in Matthew 24 (just as an example), the warnings up to verse 28 could easily be to the Jews alone (arguably all fulfilled in and by 70AD). The rest of the chapter (it could be argued) may not be unique to the Jews (though the MAD approach would, I think, lend itself to the "elect" being the Jews only - certainly in verse 31).

Seen this way one may view the comings of the Lord as specific to a people. After all, the letters to the churches in Revelation had Jesus warning "...I will come to you..." separately to each.

MAD has numerous comings of the Lord, and numerous resurrections.

All we have to do is look at Thessalonians. In Thessalonians the phrase "The Coming of the Lord" is found three times. However, MAD claims that two times "The Coming of the Lord" refers to when Jesus comes after the rapture, but one time "The Coming of the Lord" refers to the rapture itself.

That's how messed up MAD is.

The Apostle Paul never made any distinction, or even hinted that Christ Jesus would come twice.

 

[nikolai_42]

Your guessing at is typical of the result that an overreliance on books results in.

Where one reasons this, and reasons that, and by that, eventually ends up with an entire school of reasoning based on one's own reasoning about this and that from within one's own vacuum.

From there, all reasoning about a thing is from within said vacuum; unable to see the Scripture; though it thinks it does.

1 and 2 Corinthians are dead set against that kind of thing.

Try their "method."

I'm really not sure exactly what you are saying. My post is predicated on one thing and one thing only - that the dispensationalist divides the gospel and the scriptures. They call it "rightly dividing". So if they believe that, then what is it about a coming to the Jews being separate to a coming to the church is so hard to accept? After all, if they are judged on separate terms using (often, but not always) different scriptures, why doesn't it naturally lead to some form of preterism? Isn't that being consistent?

 

[tetelestai]

I'm really not sure exactly what you are saying.

Join the club.

Danoh accuses everyone who isn't a Neo Mid-Acts Dispensationalist like he is, of relying on books instead of reading the Bible.

It's the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.

Danoh's Neo MAD comes from books and books written by John Nelson Darby, and followers of John Nelson Darby.

 

[Danoh]

I'm really not sure exactly what you are saying. My post is predicated on one thing and one thing only - that the dispensationalist divides the gospel and the scriptures. They call it "rightly dividing". So if they believe that, then what is it about a coming to the Jews being separate to a coming to the church is so hard to accept? After all, if they are judged on separate terms using (often, but not always) different scriptures, why doesn't it naturally lead to some form of preterism? Isn't that being consistent?

Consider that what it is possibly consistent with is your obvious misunderstanding of Mid-Acts.

 

[Danoh]

Join the club.

Danoh accuses everyone who isn't a Neo Mid-Acts Dispensationalist like he is, of relying on books instead of reading the Bible.

It's the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.

Danoh's Neo MAD comes from books and books written by John Nelson Darby, and followers of John Nelson Darby.

You were there, a gnat on my wall; so it must be true.

 

[tetelestai]

your obvious misunderstanding of Mid-Acts.

Says the person who doesn't know if he's Mid-Acts or not:

I am not even Mid-Acts, really, though I favor it over all other approaches.

 

[themuzicman]

Dispensationalists try to make the bible say that the Old Covenant Law will make a comeback among the Jews, and God will save them.

Preterists believe prophecy about Israel is fulfilled, and they were finally judged in 70AD.

Not sure what's compatible about that.

 

[Danoh]

Says the person who doesn't know if he's Mid-Acts or not:

You really are an incompetent at the most basic of things.

I am asserting I do not allow myself to go into the Scripture from Mid-Acts or any other perspective other than setting, scope, context, and other basic rules of communicating intended sense through words.

I leave my Mid-Acts at the door, but I still find it there when I am done studying, validated as sound by my above practice.

But, I am communicating this to you; an incompetent when it comes to looking at things from a Meta Perspective going in.

It is why you one size fit all who have arrived at some distinctions Darby also supposedly held, as having "got that from Darby."

That is through and through incompetent on your part as to how people often come to distinctions and or understandings similar to others, on their own.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You really are an incompetent at the most basic of things.

I am asserting I do not allow myself to go into the Scripture from Mid-Acts or any other perspective other than setting, scope, context, and other basic rules of communicating intended sense through words.

I leave my Mid-Acts at the door, but I still find it there when I am done studying, validated as sound by my above practice.

But, I am communicating this to you; an incompetent when it comes to looking at things from a Meta Perspective going in.

It is why you one size fit all who have arrived at some distinctions Darby also supposedly held, as having "got that from Darby."

That is through and through incompetent on your part as to how people often come to distinctions and or understandings similar to others, on their own.

Excellent post.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

TeT is not only a "Know-nothing nit-wit" he's also what is called an ignoramus and
a cultist. Nothing he says is pertinent nor informative. He tries to disrupt threads
with his buffoonery. If I were caught in the same space as he, I'd take him by the
seat of the pants and nap of the neck and out he'd go. In the 50s or early 60s that's
what my Father did with a communist that tried to share his "beliefs" in our home.

 

[nikolai_42]

Dispensationalists try to make the bible say that the Old Covenant Law will make a comeback among the Jews, and God will save them.

Preterists believe prophecy about Israel is fulfilled, and they were finally judged in 70AD.

Not sure what's compatible about that.

I'm just saying that the coming of the Lord to the Jews can easily be read separately as the coming of the Lord to the church (as it normally is anyway, today) so what is inconsistent about saying Christ came to the Jews in 70AD?

EDIT : The Preterist puts the Great Tribulation in and around 70AD - which is consistent if one reads Matthew 24 as Jesus speaking to the Jews of their coming judgment (i.e. His coming to them). Remember, it's the dispensationalist that makes the separation. The thorough-going preterist is trying to read prophecy through the lens of a single return of Christ and as being identical with any coming of Him.

 

[tetelestai]

it's the dispensationalist that makes the separation.

Here's a post by Jerry Shugart that supports your claim:

So the Scriptures reveal two different resurrections of the just, one which is foretold in the OT and another which was a mystery truth, not found in the OT.

As we see above, Jerry has one resurrection for "the church" and one resurrection for Jews.

It's also why Dispensationalists have to have Jesus come back twice. Once for "the church", and then once for the Jews.

Jerry has a third resurrection for the unjust:

Besides that, there is a resurrection of damnation so that makes three resurrections!

This is what Dispensationalism does. It has to create all kinds of events for Darby's false teachings to work.

Some MADists such as STP and heir have three gospels with three different peoples, and three different eternities.

Dispensationalism is a mess.

 

[themuzicman]

I'm just saying that the coming of the Lord to the Jews can easily be read separately as the coming of the Lord to the church (as it normally is anyway, today) so what is inconsistent about saying Christ came to the Jews in 70AD?

Dispensationalists say that this is still future to us.

EDIT : The Preterist puts the Great Tribulation in and around 70AD - which is consistent if one reads Matthew 24 as Jesus speaking to the Jews of their coming judgment (i.e. His coming to them). Remember, it's the dispensationalist that makes the separation. The thorough-going preterist is trying to read prophecy through the lens of a single return of Christ and as being identical with any coming of Him.

Thus, they are incompatible.

 

[nikolai_42]

Dispensationalists say that this is still future to us.

Thus, they are incompatible.

That dispensationalists put it all in the future isn't the issue - it's that they separate them. Once you do that, what is keeping them from espousing at least partial preterism?

 

[Danoh]

That dispensationalists put it all in the future isn't the issue - it's that they separate them. Once you do that, what is keeping them from espousing at least partial preterism?

Everyone holds to some aspect of everyone else's view.

Its just a matter of looking at each past their labels.

In this, I find myself able to understand where others are coming while they are often scratching their heads and asking what was meant by this, that, or some other assertion on my part.

I once noted I am not Mid-Acts and explained that I meant I leave it at the door when ever I sit down to study a thing out.

Right off, that was misinterpreted by those unable to see past what bias they themselves are obviously unable to leave at their own door.

 

[DAN P]

Join the club.

Danoh accuses everyone who isn't a Neo Mid-Acts Dispensationalist like he is, of relying on books instead of reading the Bible.

It's the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.

Danoh's Neo MAD comes from books and books written by John Nelson Darby, and followers of John Nelson Darby.

Hi and I have never met a Neo MAD , and have you ??

If you new what Mid-Dispensationalist means , find out first !!:chuckle::chuckle::chuckle:

dan p

 

[DAN P]

Dispensationalists try to make the bible say that the Old Covenant Law will make a comeback among the Jews, and God will save them.


Not sure what's compatible about that.

Hi , and what will they use , like Mark 16:15-18 , BECAUSE this will happen during the last half of the Great Tribulation !!:chuckle::chuckle:

What is your timeline for Mark 16:15_18 ??

dan p

 

[themuzicman]

That dispensationalists put it all in the future isn't the issue - it's that they separate them. Once you do that, what is keeping them from espousing at least partial preterism?

Because, while it is separate, fundamental to all dispensationalism is that this is all still future. You know, gap theory, "this generation", etc?

Also, in dispenationalism, the Jews of the future are actually saved an inherit the land (or the earth).

In preterism, the Jews have been judged, and there is no coming back.