The Reconciliation

""In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory"".

The hyper preterists claim that is not yet to those Paul was writing to in Ephesians. Jesus has promised to gather all saints who belong to Him, yet the hyper preterists claim that occurred in A.D. 70. Look at Romans 5:8-10

""But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

And not only that, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.""

The letter to Rome was also written before A.D. 70, but that is irrelevant. Preston and his followers claim there was no atonement or reconciliation until Christ came in A.D. 70.

Preston is on a kick about the Jewish Feats Days you can find in Leviticus 23. The last 3 Jewish feats days were fulfilled in A.D. 70 he says. The other 4 were fulfilled in around A.D. 33. Most people have come to A.D. 33 and so skip 37 years and finish the last 3.

Yeah I now right?

A side note. When Preston wrote "Temple to Telos" and literally just making it up as he went, he talked about the last feast days being fulfilled when Rome jacked Jerusalem and a scholar got wind of it and reminded Preston God had set the dates for the feast days and those dates don't match the A.D. 70 doctrine. Preston panicked and thought about it a couple of days and said; Oh well that's why Jesus said if those days were not shortened no flesh would survive. LOL! Yeah whatever Don, you got busted.

He's on this thing now about the atonement or reconciliation could not have occurred at the cross because Jesus Had to come back out of the Most Holy before the Church could be reconciled to God. He uses the Old Law priests like Aaron as an example where they went in once a year to offer the blood and if the sacrifice was accepted the High Priest would come back out and sprinkle the blood for the people showing them the sacrifice was accepted.

What Don fails miserably at acknowledging is, Jesus' sacrifice WAS accepted, The Holy Sprit is our Guarantee of our extant acceptance. The old Law was full of shadows, examples, metaphors. The Feast Days had no meaning for the Roman Gentiles when Paul wrote to them those in Christ had been reconciled to God because Jesus had made the atonement for sins.

Also 1st Corinthians 3:16 tells us where the True Temple of God is, regardless f the shadow. And we know who the High Priest is regardless of the type.

""Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?""

From the first century when Paul wrote to the Corinthians, before A.D. 70, they were not waiting on a high priest to come out of the Most Holy! Foks they knew they WERE the Temple, indwelt by the Holy Spirit their Seal or guarantee of their salvation. Jesus sacrifice was accepted and His blood is sprinkled on those who are His.

It's not the literal blood of bulls and goats which was a shadow of Christ's sacrifice. That blood could not forgive sins. Hebrews 10:4. We're not waiting on Jesus to come out of the Temple to sprinkle His blood to show us He was accepted and that didn't happen in A.D. 70. Jesus shed His blood Once for All and we are the Temple of God and can go before the throne boldly knowing that we have forgiveness of sins.

And that's what they taught in the first century before Titus destroyed the temple made with hands. To teach there was no forgiveness of sins until Jesus came back in A.D. 70 because He had to come out of the Most Holy to prove His sacrifice was accepted like a Levite Priest is heretical.