Christ's 2nd Coming was in the 1st Century -- 7 Proofs [Archive]

15th June 2002, 09:56 AM

Hi everyone. We all know that 7 is one of God's greatest numbers. So, here we go with 7 proofs of our Lord's great second coming back in the first century...

#1 - Jesus Came in Their Generation - The Last Days Generation
As we all know, Jesus promised his apostles that they would be the ones to witness the endtimes signs as well as His return in their generation (Matthew 24:33-34; Matt 23:36). Jesus promised to return in the lifetimes of his apostles (Matthew 10:22-23; John 21:21-22; Matthew 16:27-28), for they were the Last Days generation (Heb 1:1-2; James 5:3; 1 Cor 10:11; 1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:15-17; Heb 9:26). The Last Days signify the last days of the Old Testamental Age.

#2 - Christ Came "In His Kingdom"
The nature of Christ's Parousia is confirmed by a comparison of Matt. 16:27-28 and Lk. 17:21. We note that in Matt. 16:27-28 Jesus taught openly that His Coming was going to be "in His Kingdom." In Lk. 17:21, He taught that the coming of His Kingdom was going to be unobservable. Therefore if the coming of the Kingdom was going to be unobservable, then it follows that the Coming of the King in that Kingdom was also going to be unobservable.

#3 - Christ Came "In the Glory of the Father"
The coming of Jesus was to be "in the glory of the Father" (Matthew 16:27) -- i.e., it was to be as Father Yahweh always came to Israel. Yahweh was famous for his cloud-comings and apocalyptic comings down to earth (see: Isaiah 19:1-2; 2 Sam 22:10-14; Deut 33:2; Isa 31:3-8; Psalm 97:2-5; Ezek 30:3; Ps 104:3; Nah 1:3; Ex 34:5; Judges 5:4-7; Jer 4:13; Zeph 1:14-15; Psalm 68:32-35; Isa 31). Therefore Christ came in AD 66-70 as Yahweh did in those passages. Christ came back in that generation (Matthew 24:33-34), and Christ's glorification had returned him to his former glory He had with Yahweh before the world ever began (John 17:5) -- so his return came in Yahweh's power and glory.

#4 - Christ Came as a "Day of the Lord" Event - (Day of Yawheh)
Preterists understand that Christ's coming was a "Day of the Lord," also known by the phrase "Day of the Lord's Vengeance" (see Jer 46:10; Isa 61:2). Jesus confirms for us that AD 66-70 was the day of the Lord's Vengeance (see Luke 21:20-22 and compare 21:22 to Isa 61:2)! Biblically speaking, such periods of the Lord's vengeance are times of disasters and wars waged upon nations and individuals by Yahweh in real history, and AD 66-70 was the greatest Day of the Lord in Israel's History. It was Israel's Great Tribulation. Undoubtedly, it was this Day of the Lord that the 1st century apostles and saints prophesied they would live to see (1 Cor 1:7-8; Phil 1:10, 1:6; Heb 10:25; 1 Thess 5:23) -- AD 66-70 was the Day of the Lord they spoke of just decades before it transpired. We can see also that Jesus told the rulers of Israel that when he would come to them as the "Lord of the Vineyard" he would be the Stone that would grind them to powder (Matthew 21:40-45) -- they understood that he spake this of them (Matthew 21:45).

#5 - Christ "Came With Clouds" -- Rev 14:14-20
Coming and going with clouds is a consistent biblical theme for the comings and goings of divine beings and saints (see: Dan 7:13; Rev 11:12; Isa 19:1-2; 2 Sam 22:10-14; Ps 104:3). "Clouds" often signifies judgment and doom (Ez 30:3; Nah 1:3-5). We have an undeniable example in Revelation 14:14-20 where Christ is depicted in a "cloud-coming," and it is clearly in the realm of the heavenlies -- Christ is depicted there as Yahweh, the mighty ruler and judge over Heaven and Earth (Matt 28:18). Preterists note that while Christ comes in the heavenlies in that Rev 14 passage, it causes calamities upon the earth -- see Rev 14:20. This is how the jews understood Yahweh to come in O.T. times, and the apostle John is depicting Christ as equal to Yahweh and doing exactly as Yahweh had always done in His judgments upon nations. Rev 14:14-20 shows us what a "cloud-coming" means and its precise spiritual, powerful, nature.

#6 - Christ Came Upon 1st-Century Sardis "as a Thief in the Night"
Everyone knows about Christ's teaching that he would come as a "Thief in the Night" -- Jesus gives this teaching in Matthew 24:43. That coming came upon the 1st century Church of Sardis in Rev 3:1-3. It was also promised to come upon the enemies of the Thessalonians (but not overtake the Thessalonians themselves) in 1 Thess 5:2-9. This places the event firmly in the 1st century.

#7 - Jesus Said: "The World Sees Me No More"
In John 14:19 and 17:11, Jesus stated plainly that this world would see him no more. How long is "no more"? We maintain that "no more" means "no more." Jesus goes on from that passage to explain that He was to be seen on earth thereafter in and through his universal Body, the Church (John 14:19-23, 17:20-23; -- compare to Eph 1:22-23; Eph 5:30-32; 1 Cor 12:27; Rom 12:5). The TRUE temple, listed as the body of Jesus Christ in John 2:19-22, is also now the eternal Church-Temple as one of the great mysteries of the Faith (Eph 5:30-32; 2 Cor 6:16). We can't explain mysteries, we can only affirm them. Indeed God is here and now walks among His people forever (2 Cor 6:16) -- he is the Lord of all heaven and earth (Matt 28:18) and is the Prince of the kings of the earth (Rev 1:5).

With you in the Victory of Christ,
GW

Thunderchild

15th June 2002, 10:39 AM

Reading Matthew 23 is very interesting. In synopsis: If someone tells you that the Christ has returned, do not believe him unless you have seen these signs. Hardly evidence that the Christ is to return during the lifetime of his then disciples.

The interpretation of John 21:21-22 to mean that Jesus would return during the lifetime of a given disciple is debunked explicitly by the Bible itself - and in so many words - and in the very next sentence at that. Jhn 21:23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what [is that] to thee? synopsis of the meaning of Jesus's answer to Peter's question - "That is my business, not yours."

Matthew 16:27-28 - At least on this one the reader might have some excuse for believing that Jesus was promising to return during the lifetime of the listeners. I'll amend that - the reader DOES have some excuse. The passage is worded in a way that can very easily lead to such a conclusion. That "coming in his kingdom" is rather compelling... until you read the Greek, that is. The word translated as "coming" can mean either "arriving" or "returning" - "coming in his kingdom" in this passage could be alternatively rendered accurately as either "arriving" in his kingdom or "returning" to his kingdom. It does not, and cannot, mean returning "FROM" his kingdom, because the word rendered here as "coming" has only the connotations of moving towards or being established in... If the passage was to denote Christ's second coming, one would need to see a "coming FROM" his kingdom, "returning FROM" his kingdom or words to that effect.

If I get the time and have the inclination, I might address more of the claims at a later date.

davo

15th June 2002, 11:09 AM

Thunderchild, how is it that "you" are reading it as being -FROM his kingdom? :scratch: "In" means "in" -why are you saying FROM, it isn't anywhere in the greek text. It can be rendered "appear" as well -hence coming, returning or appearing "in" His kingdom.

davo

TheBear

15th June 2002, 11:16 AM

Let's take a look at Rev 1:7.

"Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen."

Let me guess, "every eye" means something else, and, "all the tribes of the earth" is not what it appears to be saying. Correct?

John

davo

15th June 2002, 11:28 AM

TheBear

15th June 2002, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by davo

No John, "every eye" means all those in that generation i.e., the tribes of the Land -Israel, as Jesus said. He even said it specifically to Caiaphas:

Mt 26:64 Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

davo

It does not say that, davo. You put the extra qualifiers in there, to fit your doctrine.

15th June 2002, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by TheBear
Let's take a look at Rev 1:7.

"Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen."

Let me guess, "every eye" means something else, and, "all the tribes of the earth" is not what it appears to be saying. Correct?

John

Hi John.

That very cloud coming of Rev 1:7 is depicted fully in Revelation 14:14-20 -- the passage shows us unquestionably an event that takes place in the heavenly realms. Do you see this?

Next, Yahweh came many, many times -- Jesus' coming is a mirror action, proving his equality and divinity with Yahweh. Yahweh came down and shot his arrows at Saul and his armies, destroying the earth and the heavens at the time (2 Sam 22:8-16); Yahweh came down and shot his arrows over Greece (Zechariah 9:13-14); Yahweh came down riding a cloud to beat up on Egypt (Isa 19:1-2); Yahweh made bare his Holy Arm in the eyes of all nations (Isa 52:10); Yahweh came to the Israelites at Sinai and Seir with Ten Thousand of His Saints and led a march on the fields of Edom (Deut 33:2; Judges 5:4-5); Yahweh destroyed the universe when he judged Israel through Babylon (Jer 4:22-30) and did so again when he judged Egypt by Babylon (Ezekiel 32:2-8). So also did Christ do these things when "the Lord of the Vineyard came" in AD 66-70 and was to them the Stone that crushed them to powder and removed the Kingdom of God from them (see Matthew 21:40-45).

Quite simply, Jesus came "In the Glory of Yahweh" (Matt 16:27/Luke 9:26) as I also pointed out in #3 in the opening post. Jesus came as Yahweh had been known to come -- a clear proof of His divinity.

davo

15th June 2002, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by TheBear
It does not say that, davo. You put the extra qualifiers in there, to fit your doctrine.

What do you mean by "qualifiers" -the greek "ge" = land, and in the context of "tribes" makes perfect and logical sense. You seem to be ignoring context to suit doctrine?? Scriptures qualify scriptures. Jesus is talking to His people -to say he wasn't [which you do when you say it applies to our age], means that the scriptures [and in particular the Apocalypse] were closed -because it's about our end of history not theirs. Yet the Apocalypse was NOT about consealing but revealing.

davo

Auntie

15th June 2002, 11:54 AM

GW,

You can't compare Jesus' 2nd Coming with anything else. The 2nd Coming of Jesus will be unlike anything else since the beginnig of time.

15th June 2002, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
GW,

You can't compare Jesus' 2nd Coming with anything else. The 2nd Coming of Jesus will be unlike anything else since the beginnig of time.

Hi Sister Auntie, and God bless.

Christ's coming was to be (and was) a coming like Yahweh's comings. Jesus promised he would come in the glory of the Father (Matt 16:27) and as a "Day of Yahweh." It doesn't get any plainer than this for us.

In Luke 21:20-22, Jesus said the Day of the Lord's Vengeance was the AD66-70 event, which had also been foreseen in Isaiah 61:1-2 (verse 2, in particular). Jesus applied both of those Isaiah 61 verses to himself, and said Isa 61:1 was fulfilled (see Luke 4 as where Jesus stood preaching and declaring Isaiah 61:1 fulfilled in their very presence). Jesus preached that Isaiah 61:2 was to be fulfilled when the nation was destroyed (see Luke 21:20-22).

The Lord of the Vineyard indeed came and Jesus was the Stone that did grind them to powder as He removed the Kingdom of God from them (Matthew 21:40-45).

TheBear

15th June 2002, 12:54 PM

I'm not buying the notion that "every eye" really means, only the people that see Him. It does not say that, no matter how you slice and dice the scriptures. I'm not buying that "all the tribes of the earth" means not all the tribes of the earth, just the tribes of Israel. It does not say that, either. Jesus was talking to all, Jews and Gentiles alike.

This is a clear cut case, where straight forward, and to the point scripture, is somehow meant to be multi-layered and complex. This can be done with any scripture, by anyone, to mean anything we want it to. And, you can claim that your preterist views have been taught since the time of Christ, just as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and a host of other herretical groups claim that their teachings were taught since the time of Christ. If you don't believe me, set down with a Jehovah's Witness and ask for a scriptural basis of their beliefs. It doesn't add to a hill of beans, to most of us.

Sorry, folks. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your belief system not only does not line up with scripture, but it leaves an unsettling feeling in my gut. Perhaps a descerning of the Spirit.

John

parousia70

15th June 2002, 01:15 PM

Hi John

Just so I know you are being consistant in your interpratation, could you explain Isaiah 52:10 to me?

Isaiah 52:10a
"The Lord hath made bare His holy arm in the eyes of all nations"

When did this ocour? Surely such a monumental, global event as Gods actual arm being seen by the eyes of every person in every nation would have been recorded in History, yes?

If by chance you interprate the above as metaphore, could you show me where the Bible tells you to interprate "seen by the eyes of all nations" in polar opposite fashion to "every eye shall see"?

Thanks, P70

Auntie

15th June 2002, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by TheBear

Perhaps a descerning of the Spirit.

John

Amen, brother John. You just hit the nail right square on the head.

davo

15th June 2002, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by TheBear
Sorry, folks. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your belief system not only does not line up with scripture, but it leaves an unsettling feeling in my gut. Perhaps a descerning of the Spirit.

Or an unteachable heart :rolleyes: -why is it that you folk can never just simply disagree, without getting all emotive by including the likes of: heresay! JW's! Mormons! etc etc etc -you do it all the time, and usually when your faulty logic has you boxed into your own corner, so you come out with the same old diatribe of guilt by "supposed" association, or baseless accusations -it's a bit of a pathetic joke. If you disagree, great, say so, but without all the insecure trimmings :(

davo

Ozarkpreterist

15th June 2002, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by TheBear
I'm not buying the notion that "every eye" really means, only the people that see Him. It does not say that, no matter how you slice and dice the scriptures. I'm not buying that "all the tribes of the earth" means not all the tribes of the earth, just the tribes of Israel. It does not say that, either. Jesus was talking to all, Jews and Gentiles alike.

This is a clear cut case, where straight forward, and to the point scripture, is somehow meant to be multi-layered and complex. This can be done with any scripture, by anyone, to mean anything we want it to. And, you can claim that your preterist views have been taught since the time of Christ, just as Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, and a host of other herretical groups claim that their teachings were taught since the time of Christ. If you don't believe me, set down with a Jehovah's Witness and ask for a scriptural basis of their beliefs. It doesn't add to a hill of beans, to most of us.

Sorry, folks. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your belief system not only does not line up with scripture, but it leaves an unsettling feeling in my gut. Perhaps a descerning of the Spirit.

John

John,

Do you know how long the pre-trib rapture of the church theory has been taught? Do you know its origins? Who first taught it? If you really want to get a sick feeling in your gut, go study these matters. I did, and I was appalled.

By the way, the passage you quote out of Revelation that says every eye shall see Him. It also says "even they who pierced Him" shall see Him. How come you didn't underline that part? Are any of these folks still alive to see Him with their eyes, or am I missing something? They would be pretty old folks by now. I think I would have at least read about them in one of those crazy grocery store magazines or something.

Ozark

Manifestation1*AD70

15th June 2002, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by TheBear
I'm not buying the notion that "every eye" really means, only the people that see Him. It does not say that, no matter how you slice and dice the scriptures. I'm not buying that "all the tribes of the earth" means not all the tribes of the earth, just the tribes of Israel. It does not say that, either. Jesus was talking to all, Jews and Gentiles alike.

This is a clear cut case, where straight forward, and to the point scripture, is somehow meant to be multi-layered and complex. This can be done with any scripture, by anyone, to mean anything we want it to. John

Well brother Bear just because you do not buy a biblical concept that is in the Bible does not make it any less the truth. In Isaiah there is also the very same biblical concept about the first coming of our Lord that states "all flesh" would SEE the first coming of the Lord togather. (Isaiah 40:1-5). Did all flesh see his first coming togather as stated in Isaiah 40?

Not according to the words of Peter. That the genuineness of your faith, being much more precious than gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and golry at the revelation of Jesus Christ whom having not seen you love. Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory (1 Peter 1:7-8).

Seen Jesus is not alway done with the literal eye and God's people above all should know this simple truth. But the futurist traditional teaching of men have overlooked these clear biblical concepts :(

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.(Hebrews 12:2)

The above verses and Revelation 1:7 was meant to show God's majesty, power, and presence were at work. Wither or not one believes these biblical concepts does not stop them from being God's truth. :clap: Thank God for that.

Manifestation1*AD70

15th June 2002, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by davo

Or an unteachable heart :rolleyes: -why is it that you folk can never just simply disagree, without getting all emotive by including the likes of: heresay! JW's! Mormons! etc etc etc -you do it all the time, and usually when your faulty logic has you boxed into your own corner, so you come out with the same old diatribe of guilt by "supposed" association, or baseless accusations -it's a bit of a pathetic joke. If you disagree, great, say so, but without all the insecure trimmings :(

davo

Buy those alway crying out the word heresay shows everone one here where their are really coming from. They are indeed trying to stop God's people from look at these biblical concepts for themselfs. However God is on the job and no amount of name calling will stop He truth from getting out. This was true in Jesus' day and it remainds true today :clap: God will have His way.

davo

15th June 2002, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70
Seen Jesus is not alway done with the literal eye and God's people above all should know this simple truth. But the futurist traditional teaching of men have overlooked these clear biblical concepts :(

John 6:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Bummer! by there literal logic -oops we missed again. :(

davo

Manifestation1*AD70

15th June 2002, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by davo

John 6:40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

Bummer! by there literal logic -oops we missed again. :(

davo

I like that one brother davo. According to their literal logic and understanding of thses thing they don't have everlasting life either. Thank you brother :clap:

15th June 2002, 03:57 PM

So, let me understasnd this; right now, Christ is reigning over the earth during the thousand year reign, the saints are reigning with Him, Satan is in the pit, there is one government and it is perfect? When did this happen, so I can get an idea when the thousand years will be up and Satan and his followers will be loosed one more time to be beat by Christ once and for all and cast into the lake of fire.

Hold on, Bill Clinton was President, and the question of what is sex was brought to the attention to us all, including our children, because of his actions. I'm pretty sure that Christ is not reigning as prophesied.

I also can read that the Great Restrainer (The Holy Spirit)will be lifted from the earth before the Great Tribulation begins. As a matter fact, the fact that the salt of the earth (the Christians) and the Holy Spirit leave is what enables Satan to try and reach for the golden ring, so to speak. Now, if the Holy Spirit left (which happens before Christ returns), then we do not have the Holy Spirit? I haven't heard that teaching before.
In short, I can't stress how confused I am over this.
Seems like a lot of you guys (and gals) have some extensive education. I'm just an ol' country boy from south Alabama and read the bible for myself. Of course, God says I have the Holy Spirit within me, guiding me because I pray that He does before I begin reading and meditation on the Word, but still, I take the Word as it is, with the aid of the Holy Spirit. So, could you please help me understand how it is that I am confused? How is it that Chrsit could have already returned for His bride, and the Christians still be here? Did we miss the marriage supper? I haven't heard anything about the Mount of Olives being split wide open, yet. And I know I never read about the Angels flying over the earth and with loud voices warning all those with hardened hearts to repent!
Something is definitely wrong with the picture. If Christ has already returned, then a large portion of the Bible is a lie. If the Bible is a lie, then the God who it supposedly represents is too weak to protect His word. If that be the case, He is not omnipotent. If that is true, we are wasting our time because that would make God Himself a liar, and the whole concept will have been a scam.
OK, now I have a headache from this. Gonna go get some aspirin. Holler at y'all later.

TheBear

15th June 2002, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by davo

Or an unteachable heart :rolleyes: -why is it that you folk can never just simply disagree, without getting all emotive by including the likes of: heresay! JW's! Mormons! etc etc etc -you do it all the time, and usually when your faulty logic has you boxed into your own corner, so you come out with the same old diatribe of guilt by "supposed" association, or baseless accusations -it's a bit of a pathetic joke. If you disagree, great, say so, but without all the insecure trimmings :(

davo

And, perhaps it is your heart that is unteachable, davo. :rolleyes:

You set yourself up as if you have the final answers for all, regarding scripture. And that everyone, (the overwhelming majority of Christians, from a cross section of most denominations), is blind, except the narrow teachings of preterism.

Over the years, preterist views have been challenged and overturned by many a Biblical scholar, from every imaginable scripture you use to support your platform.

You have been taken to task, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting, from a doctrinal standpoint.

Give up this herracy, while it's not too late.

John

15th June 2002, 05:12 PM

ArtistEd

15th June 2002, 06:28 PM

Hi All,

Here is the Greek word used for every. You can go to Crosswalks www.biblestudytools.com where they have a terrific set of study tools.

Home > Lexicons > Greek > Pas The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3956 Browse Lexicon
Original Word Word Origin
pa'ß including all the forms of declension
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Pas 5:886,795
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
pas Adjective

Definition

individually
each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

collectively
some of all types

... "the whole world has gone after him" Did all the world go afterChrist? "then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan."Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? "Ye are of God,little children", and the whole world lieth in the wicked one". Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words "world" and "all" are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the "all" means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts-- some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has notrestricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile ...

King James Word Usage - Total: 1243
all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11, no + (3756)&version=kjv 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever + (3739) + 302 3, always + (1223) 3, daily + (2250) 2, any thing 2, no + (3361) 2, not translated 7, miscellaneous 26

KJV Verse Count
Matthew 121
Mark 64
Luke 140
John 60
Acts 156
Romans 61
1 Corinthians 73
2 Corinthians 43
Galatians 15
Ephesians 37
Philippians 30
Colossians 31
1 Thessalonians 18
2 Thessalonians 14
1 Timothy 22
2 Timothy 18
Titus 11
Philemon 2
Hebrews 44
James 11
1 Peter 15
2 Peter 7
1 John 24
2 John 2
3 John 2
Jude 3
Revelation 51

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total 1075

Ed,

Manifestation1*AD70

15th June 2002, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by TheBear

Over the years, preterist views have been challenged and overturned by many a Biblical scholar, from every imaginable scripture you use to support your platform.

You have been taken to task, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting, from a doctrinal standpoint.

Give up this herracy, while it's not too late.
John

See how our brother loves. :( John I know you will be fired from this job if you openly say you believe the Lord has comes but believe my futurism is a flawed system.

For ever one of your biblical scholar that you believe has shown the preterist view to be in error I can show you three Biblical scholar which has shown futurism is a flawed belief system. (herracy) Are you up to the challeng?

Didaskomenos

15th June 2002, 09:23 PM

You set yourself up as if you have the final answers for all, regarding scripture. And that everyone, (the overwhelming majority of Christians, from a cross section of most denominations), is blind, except the narrow teachings of preterism.

Please explain how this does not apply to you as well. Fundamentalism has done just that - no room for deviation from the accepted norm. What blindness. Anyone who holds and argues for an unapproved belief strongly is not only "herratical" (heretical), but is also obviously condescending to everyone else's beliefs. :( If you would not have a cardiac arrest at the thoughts of someone believing something different from you, you would have noticed by now that these preterists are EXTREMELY patient with people who come in here and bash their motives and salvation. And you, a "moderator."

parousia70

15th June 2002, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by TheBear

Over the years, preterist views have been challenged and overturned by many a Biblical scholar, from every imaginable scripture you use to support your platform.

John

If that is true, why is it that you are having so much difficulty doing the same?

Again I'll ask about Isaiah 52:10.
Did every literal eye see Gods literal arm or not?

davo

15th June 2002, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by TheBear
And, perhaps it is your heart that is unteachable, davo. :rolleyes:

Unteachable hmmm, maybe -though I too was a futurist once, but I got challenged by The Word, and yep I had a time of having my pet theories [excuses] pricked -and I too reacted, so it's ok John, I can understand your position.

Originally posted by TheBear
You set yourself up as if you have the final answers for all, regarding scripture. And that everyone, (the overwhelming majority of Christians, from a cross section of most denominations), is blind, except the narrow teachings of preterism.

You can show NOTHING in any of my posts that indicate anything as you have just charged -"show me the money!" Sure I firmly believe what I believe -is it hypocritical to be as you??? :scratch:

Originally posted by TheBear
Over the years, preterist views have been challenged and overturned by many a Biblical scholar, from every imaginable scripture you use to support your platform.

So from your extensive well read "over the years" experience -who are they, where are they??? Got some names, or is this more reactional hyperbole. Please state your sources.

Originally posted by TheBear
You have been taken to task, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting, from a doctrinal standpoint.

John, you might want to go easy on that one -remember, when you're pointing one of your crooked fingers at us you've got three more of your own pointing back at yourself.

Originally posted by TheBear
Give up this herracy, while it's not too late.

Do you mean by "too late" before you slap a ban on me -taking your bat and ball home. How about some moderation, moderator -your colours are showing.

davo

PS: you might want to reconsider GW's reference to St John's use of Zech in Revelation.

Didaskomenos

16th June 2002, 10:25 PM

Okay guys, what about the "rapture" passage in 1 Thess 4?

13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.

That seems to be hard to explain.

Didaskomenos

16th June 2002, 10:33 PM

BTW, the words "After that" (Gk. epeita should actually be translated something like "thereupon," closing the gap between the resurrection of the dead and the catching up in the air of "we who are still alive and remain." It's obviously directly sequential.

davo

16th June 2002, 11:16 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
BTW, the words "After that" (Gk. epeita should actually be translated something like "thereupon," closing the gap between the resurrection of the dead and the catching up in the air of "we who are still alive and remain." It's obviously directly sequential.

Yes correct, however, with Paul, not always necessarily chronologically immediate. The word "later" is eqivalent, as in:

Gal 1:18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.

Gal 1:21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia.

Gal 2:1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also.

davo

Didaskomenos

17th June 2002, 12:10 AM

Actually, it is pretty immediate.

In Gal 1:18, "three years later," he's saying "immediately after three years."

Translating the word epeita correctly, its occurence in Gal 1:21 should be understood as directly following the previous statement (the translators say "later," trying to be as ambiguous as possible because of Paul's problematic account of his events that are seemingly contradicted in Acts).

"Fourteen years later" is also saying after fourteen years -- not "at least fourteen years," but directly, immediately fourteen years after his trips to Syria and Celicia.

Everywhere else in the NT, it's used in narratives and lists to mean "next." (The full list: Lk 16:7; Jn 11:7; 1 Co 12:28; 15:6; 15:7; 15:23; 15:46; Ga 1:18; 1:21; 2:1; Heb 7:2; 7:27; Jas 3:17; 4:14.) Sorry, the Greek text is against a gap between the events. I do know a bit about Greek if nothing else, and trust me: the word is used to mean that nothing happens in between those two times, and that effectively solidifies its chronological immediacy.

Besides, if that alone does not close the gap, don't forget that Paul says:

1) The Lord descends
2) The dead in Christ rise
3) NEXT, the living meet the Lord, who's still in the air (no events happened between 2 and 3)

And please don't say "It's figurative," unless you can explain the metaphor. I hope your views can account for this -- I want to believe!

davo

17th June 2002, 01:08 AM

And please don't say "It's figurative," unless you can explain the metaphor. I hope your views can account for this -- I want to believe!

I have no difficulties in you not to believing -just answering the question, I'm not here to convince you contrariwise. :cool:

As you say you "know a bit about greek" you should know "immediacy" isn't the issue as such. And you are "colouring" things with this idea of "gap" IMO. Without using your word "gap," subsequent action and not necessarily [actually definitely] "immediate" as seen in the issue of Christ and believers resurrection:

1Cor 15:23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward (epeita) [there-after = later] those who are Christ's at His coming.

There is nothing "immediate" between these two events.

13 Brothers [the believers at Thessalonica], we [Paul & co] do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep [saints who have already died in Christ], or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14 We [Paul & co] believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus [The Parousia] those who have fallen asleep in him [the dead]. 15 According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we [Paul & co] who are still alive [remaining], who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep [died]. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first [The Resurrection]. 17 After that [later], we who are still alive and are left [having survived till this time] will be caught up together with them [the Harvest] in the clouds [glorious judgment -Heb 9:27] to meet the Lord in the air [the spiritual realm, as in "air" in Eph 2:2, "seated in the heavenlies" Eph 1:3, 2:6]. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage each other [Paul's contemporaries -"this generation"] with these words.

The "clouds" issue may have primary and secondary meanings here. [1] God's coming on the clouds was always His sign of majestic glory, power and judgment. Believers were/are "glorified with Christ" through the New Covenant, yet ultimately more so in death. [2] The writer of Hebrews writes: "Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a [i]cloud of witnesses..." 12:1. So "clouds" in this sense equates to "those" [the witnesses] to whom they were "caught up" together with -in death. The same reality awaits us in our death -"caught up" into His eternal Presence. And yet also a very present reality in the new birth.

davo

Manifestation1*AD70

17th June 2002, 06:57 AM

This is a post from Terry cz the second coming of Christ.

All of christianity is false. Your Jesus said in Matthews 10 :23 that he would return before his disciples went through the cities of Israel. That did not happen so he is a false prophet.

Againg You Jesus said in matthew 16:28 that his disciples would not die before he returned. That did not happen either which makes Jesus a false prophet.

parousia70

17th June 2002, 09:11 AM

1 Cor 15:5-8, provides an excellent example of the 2 different words used together in the same passage.

If Epieta and Eita mean exactly the same thing, the question becomes, why did Paul differentiate between the 2?
Is there a difference afterall?

1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (NKJV) and that He was seen by Cephas, then (eita) by the twelve. 6 After that (epeita) He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that (epeita) He was seen by James, then (eita) by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

We see in this passage that both eita and epeita are used. In verse 15:5, we see eita, indicating that the twelve (the original apostles) saw Him immediately after Peter did, the same day. In verse 15:6, epeita is used meaning: "after that time", because the 500 didn't see Him until later. Verse 15:7, again uses epeita, meaning that some time after the 500 saw him, He appeared to James. Next, the reference is that immediately after appearing to James, He appeared to all the apostles.

As for the "rapture" verse in question, One must eventually ask: Why would Paul make such a big deal about the Dead rising first, if the Living were esentially going to rise at the same time, which the idea of "immediatly after" would indicate?

davo

17th June 2002, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by parousia70
1 Cor 15:5-8, provides an excellent example of the 2 different words used together in the same passage.

If Epieta and Eita mean exactly the same thing, the question becomes, why did Paul differentiate between the 2?
Is there a difference afterall?

1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (NKJV) and that He was seen by Cephas, then (eita) by the twelve. 6 After that (epeita) He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that (epeita) He was seen by James, then (eita) by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

We see in this passage that both eita and epeita are used. In verse 15:5, we see eita, indicating that the twelve (the original apostles) saw Him immediately after Peter did, the same day. In verse 15:6, epeita is used meaning: "after that time", because the 500 didn't see Him until later. Verse 15:7, again uses epeita, meaning that some time after the 500 saw him, He appeared to James. Next, the reference is that immediately after appearing to James, He appeared to all the apostles.

As for the "rapture" verse in question, One must eventually ask: Why would Paul make such a big deal about the Dead rising first, if the Living were esentially going to rise at the same time, which the idea of "immediatly after" would indicate?

Exactly -well said P70! :clap:

jenlu

17th June 2002, 09:27 AM

Hey The Bear...Who peirced Jesus...

Didaskomenos

17th June 2002, 11:51 AM

Parousia70 and davo,

Ok, I'm frustrated because I had this whole response laid out, but I lost it. So I'll recap, but know that I took both of your comments seriously.

My conclusion is, thank you. I understand now. I still hold that epeita is used as introducing the next thing/event in a list. Eita does this more specifically in dealing with time (i.e., it would not be used to list the colors of the rainbow, and epeita might). That's well and good, but epeita still refers to the very next event in the list. This allows time, but no other events (such as the Lord returning to heaven and then coming back for the living). Therefore, unarguably, in the Thessalonians passage, Paul says that the Lord comes down in the clouds, and stays in the clouds until the living saints are "caught up." That's all I was saying. Davo, you helped me understand that's is not a problem for preterists though, and here's why:

Paul says the Lord comes down into the clouds with a shout, etc. This is the c. 70 parousia. He enables all dead Christians (and I guess OT saints) to go to heaven. Next on the list, from His position in the clouds, He takes those who didn't die before the parousia at the particular times of their respective deaths. True to my translation of epeita, the Lord remains in the clouds (in authority and power and victory) until the next events in Paul's list, namely the catching up in death and transportation to heaven.

I think that's it. That clears up a whole lot for me. Thanks for being patient.

Interestingly enough, this means that futurists can't believe that dead Christians are in heaven yet. That doesn't happen until the Resurrection of the Dead, which happens in the future!

Didaskomenos

17th June 2002, 11:55 AM

jenlu,

Granted that that verse was saying that those who had crucified him, namely the Jewish system, would reap the judgment of doing so. However, I will anticipate Bear's response: I believe that I have pierced Jesus with my sins. It was I who put him there. The whole world's sins today are responsible for Jesus' death.

This is not a strong argument because futurists can always say what I just said.

Mandy

17th June 2002, 12:01 PM

I am a futurist, yet I believe that those who die and are saved, go directly to heaven and those who died in faith (OT saint) were freed from Hades when Jesus descanded (led captivity captive). The resurrection of the dead, is the bodily resurrection, it is the point in which those who have died will receive their glorious bodies.

Didaskomenos

17th June 2002, 12:03 PM

Good response, Mandy. The glorious body you're referring to has to do with what Paul says would be raised incorruptible?

jenlu

17th June 2002, 12:49 PM

Didaskomenos...I used to use that argument so I know what you're saying...but I finally understood the faltiness with it...Why would Jesus differentiate between "every eye" and "even those who peirced Him unless He was actually talking about those who peirced him...? Why not just stop at every eye...if it really means every eye...that would include us of course wouldn't it...so in my humble opinion that exclude's us from those who peirced Him...Just the way I see it...

Thunderchild

17th June 2002, 01:58 PM

STRIKE A LIGHT!

Davo... For pity's sake, I said that IF THE TEXT MEANT THAT JESUS WOULD BE SEEN RETURNING TO EARTH, it could NOT be worded as it is in the Greek.

It does not, and cannot, mean returning "FROM" his kingdom Your post is possibly less convoluted than mine, but we have said the same thing.

Now, concerning the manner of Jesus's return and whether it might be an "invisible" return - a "spiritual" event that is described allegorically in Mt 26:64 and elsewhere .... Act 1:9 - 11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. So much for allegorical interpretations.

Thunderchild

17th June 2002, 02:04 PM

Don't have time for more right now - I want to be abed afore sunup. But just a quick thought to Jenlu regarding the "every eye" bit ...... that would not be hard to assimilate, assuming we accept that Jesus would return after the dead are raised. (there may be factors contradicting this possibility, I haven't examined it.)

Didaskomenos

17th June 2002, 02:17 PM

jenlu,

That's a pretty good argument. I have a feeling they'd say that the passage was using a Hebrew parallelistic device, in which the second subject ("those who pierced him;" the word for "even" is the same as "and") is an exposition on the first "every eye," so that every eye of those who pierced him would behold him. I think you've got a good response to what I posted (that I honestly hadn't thought of before), but you know futurists ;) Good luck in convincing them if they don't want to believe.

davo

17th June 2002, 05:30 PM

So, put simply: the "those who pierced him" clarifies the "every eye".

davo

Didaskomenos

17th June 2002, 08:55 PM

So much for allegorical interpretations.

I've thought of this many times. It seems obvious that the angels are appealing to the disciples' senses and their witnessing of a physical event and encouraging by promising a precise parallel to the event to take place in the future.

davo

17th June 2002, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
I've thought of this many times. It seems obvious that the angels are appealing to the disciples' senses and their witnessing of a physical event and encouraging by promising a precise parallel to the event to take place in the future.

It seems you guys are missing the woods for the trees. The destruction of Jerusalem and in particular the Temple in and around 70AD WAS literal, physical, observable and total. This WAS Christ's literal Coming in judgment -The 2nd Coming. His Parousia was in the nature of all God's comings as described in the OT -all very literal, real and observable.

davo

Didaskomenos

17th June 2002, 09:42 PM

His Parousia was in the nature of all God's comings as described in the OT -all very literal, real and observable.

But not in the same nature as the way he ascended into heaven as the two angels promised? I think you're missing my point of contention.

davo

17th June 2002, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
But not in the same nature as the way he ascended into heaven as the two angels promised? I think you're missing my point of contention.

The way He ascended was "hidden" from their sight -verse 9. Do you "now" have a difficulty in seeing "clouds" in terms of hyperbolic, allegorical or symbolic language -or must it "now" be physical?

Do you challenge [disbelieve or whatever] that Christ "came" in judgment in AD70?

davo

Didaskomenos

17th June 2002, 10:43 PM

Davo,

You cannot read all literature the same way. Luke is not by any stretch of the imagination a writer who uses Jewish symbolism as the other writers of the NT do. He explains historical events phenomenally and not ideally or metaphorically. He is the modern historian's nearest touchstone to historical writing as we know it represented in the Bible. It would be extremely uncharacteristic for him to use apocalyptic language, and misleading as well, since his intent was to explain the cold hard facts to a non-Jew. I can buy symbolic writing in most other people's writings, but Luke? Show me other examples of Jewish imagery in Acts, and then we'll deal with it.

I'm not challenging the whole system - I'm working my way through your system and trying to ascertain that it's the truth beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm so disillusioned with futurism in all its forms that I'm now interested in your views. You've all been doing a good job of explaining these things to me. I'm not trying to debunk preterism, but to understand the hard points which I'm sure you've all thought through.

Didaskomenos

17th June 2002, 10:57 PM

Here's a theory:

Because heaven is not really in the air, perhaps Jesus' ascension was what W. Milligan referred to as an "acted parable," partially to accomodate Jesus' contemporaries' antiquated idea of where heaven was geographically. If so, the angels are merely keeping this symbolism chosen by Jesus in their prediction. What do you think of that?

Seems like every question I have, I end up coming up with a solution for. Is this indicative of preterism's authenticity or is my desire to believe so strong that I create answers? That's disturbing.

davo

17th June 2002, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
You cannot read all literature the same way. Luke is not by any stretch of the imagination a writer who uses Jewish symbolism as the other writers of the NT do. He explains historical events phenomenally and not ideally or metaphorically. He is the modern historian's nearest touchstone to historical writing as we know it represented in the Bible. It would be extremely uncharacteristic for him to use apocalyptic language, and misleading as well, since his intent was to explain the cold hard facts to a non-Jew. I can buy symbolic writing in most other people's writings, but Luke? Show me other examples of Jewish imagery in Acts, and then we'll deal with it.

Have a look at Lk 21, take note in particular of verses 25-27 [along with the rest] and see how that fits with "your" pidgeon-holed view of Luke.

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
I'm not challenging the whole system - I'm working my way through your system and trying to ascertain that it's the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.

I appreciate your honesty. Listen, IMO you will never be "beyond doubt" to some degree no matter where you place yourself. Speaking only from my experience, there came a time when without still having all the "i's" dotted or "t's" crossed, I came to the conclusion that there was more biblical consistancy compared to where I'd been -it still took a "leap of faith" to climb on board because I could see MANY implications of accepting "fulfilled eschatology" and so naturally a tadd nervous -however it was all making to much sense to now [then] let go. There is still plenty that I scratch my head over, and yet seeing the "end-time" scenario through the eyes of "the covenant" has opened up a whole refreshing vista of God's Word. :)

davo

Didaskomenos

17th June 2002, 11:16 PM

Believe me, I know that it doesn't all fit so neatly together. That's why I said "reasonable doubt." The minute anyone says they've got the Bible worked out, I realize their inflated with foolish pride. It's impossible, so I try to work with the best evidence I have.

I try to do my reading up on preterism - perhaps you should read up on the overwhelming consensus that Luke as a Greek writer wrote on literal, historical, factual terms, not Jewish poetic devices.

Have a look at Lk 21, take note in particular of verses 25-27 [along with the rest] and see how that fits with "your" pidgeon-holed view of Luke.

No, no. I didn't say Luke didn't quote Jesus' Jewish remarks - in fact, if he's as concerned with representing historical facts as everyone (but maybe preterists) says, then he'd be sure to quote Jesus as well as he could. The problem comes in when Luke describes the ascension with his own words.

I can live with my interpretation at the top of the page, however. Even if you disagree with it, does it seem possible to you at all? Any flags?

davo

17th June 2002, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Here's a theory:
Because heaven is not really in the air, perhaps Jesus' ascension was what W. Milligan referred to as an "acted parable," partially to accomodate Jesus' contemporaries' antiquated idea of where heaven was geographically. If so, the angels are merely keeping this symbolism chosen by Jesus in their prediction. What do you think of that?

Like you I believe everything we read about the ascension was quite literal, I just think that God uses "literal" objects also in the sense of mixed metaphors to indicate things beyond the wooden literalism. And I think it is grossly possible to "miss it" when our natural inclination hankers for what "we see" as the obvious. Jesus fed their bellies and they rushed to make him king.

[i]Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Seems like every question I have, I end up coming up with a solution for. Is this indicative of preterism's authenticity or is my desire to believe so strong that I create answers? That's disturbing.

LOL :D I have no idea -but I think I'm starting to have flash-backs :D

davo

davo

17th June 2002, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
No, no. I didn't say Luke didn't quote Jesus' Jewish remarks - in fact, if he's as concerned with representing historical facts as everyone (but maybe preterists) says, then he'd be sure to quote Jesus as well as he could. The problem comes in when Luke describes the ascension with his own words.

Now I'm :scratch: -how else is Luke going to describe what he saw, other than how he did? I'm not saying Luke has to speak in certain parlances for what he says to be true. I'm saying biblical language says a lot about how "clouds" are associated with coming divine judgment -and we know that Christ's Parousia is about judgment.

What would your argument be if Matthew had recorded this -different, or some how not a problem?? Like we can have a view of how someone writes and that seems to exclude certain things?? I agree, Luke is the most analytical of them all -yet loses nothing to any of the others.

davo

Didaskomenos

17th June 2002, 11:47 PM

I'm saying Luke wouldn't describe the ascension in metaphorical terms - if his sources saw Jesus go into the clouds literally, he would write it literally. If they saw Jesus do something else, he would describe that literally, and not use metaphorical speech. These "rules" of biblical interpretation are important, and not lightly to be cast aside. My current stance is that Luke was recording what happened literally (i.e., a literal ascension into the sky); but what happened before the disciples' eyes was a metaphor representation for what was happening (i.e., being taken to heaven in glory), and what would happen (i.e., returning to earth in glory).

Now, I would take Matthew, being the most "Jewish" of the Gospel writers, to be much more likely to resort to symbolic speech.

Are we talking past each other? I think you might be agreeing with me.

davo

18th June 2002, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Are we talking past each other? I think you might be agreeing with me.

In essence we're saying in kind :) The question might be: what did the disciples understand by what was said to "them."? Taken to its extreme "literal logical" conclusion -these disciples possibly have be on that very spot [alone] as Christ comes. He didn't give "rewards" and all the other things associated with his return when he ascended -see the untenability etc of pushing "in like manner" to mean "physicality" with regards to His Parousia, IMO.

davo

GTX

18th June 2002, 01:44 AM

7 automated proofs?

Can't you guy's even consider that Christ hasn't returned yet? That is so much more believable and glorious than Preterism.

Christs return will be visibly and physically glorious and noticable to all. Why are we not included?

Seriously

jenlu

18th June 2002, 08:25 AM

Didaskomenos,

I don't believe you're alone in your wariness of the verses in question...and I (at least I think) completely understand the "cloud" motif...It is used in the Bible all over the place...this one seems to be a bit different...yes the cloud is mentioned, but it doesn't really seem the same as when it is used in other places...and the way I read it...they actually saw Him going up for at least some part of His ascension and then at a certain point a cloud shielded Him from their sight...

parousia70

18th June 2002, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by GTX

Can't you guy's even consider that Christ hasn't returned yet? That is so much more believable and glorious than Preterism.

Hi GTX, & God Bless.

I spent the bulk of my Christian life believing Jesus hadn't returned.

While the idea that He hasn't, may be more believable and glorious to you, I found the truth of Past fulfillment far surpassed the postponement theory I held for so many years, in believability and Glory.

I used to think as you, I no longer do. Scripture has convinced me I was wrong.

In the Victory of Christ,
P70

davo

18th June 2002, 09:21 AM

Didaskomenos

18th June 2002, 10:04 AM

Jenlu,

You're right - we see the same difficulty. Like I said, I understand the cloud motif everywhere else but here for reasons I've already mentioned (e.g., it being a historical account).

Davo,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by keeping the same principle. If you mean to accept the clouds in the ascension as symbolic of glory (yet still existing physically for the disciples' benefit), that's exactly what my point was.

If you mean to accept the clouds as a literal "downpayment" on Christ's symbolic return in which the symbolism will not be physically manifested as clouds and his coming out of the sky visibly; in short, if you mean that in Christ's parousia, the angels' promise of Christ coming in the clouds was an apocalyptic symbolism for his glorious jugment on the Jewish system in c. 70, I can swallow that as well - but believing it completely would make me full preterist, and I'm not there quite yet. :)

Just don't ask me to believe that Luke was being symbolic when he described the event, that the disciples didn't really see a cloud and Jesus go up into heaven, but instead Luke recounted the ascension in apocalyptic language. Is that what you believe?

Thunderchild

18th June 2002, 11:38 AM

don't believe you're alone in your wariness of the verses in question...and I (at least I think) completely understand the "cloud" motif...It is used in the Bible all over the place...this one seems to be a bit different...yes the cloud is mentioned, but it doesn't really seem the same as when it is used in other places...and the way I read it...they actually saw Him going up for at least some part of His ascension and then at a certain point a cloud shielded Him from their sight... That is pretty much the way anyone who uses their own eyes to do the reading interprets it Jenlu.

There was a certain passage about people who claimed this preterist type concept. It is just a new twist on the - the resurrection is past - nonsense that went about in the times when the epistles were being written - referred to in here somewhere....ah yes, here tis

2Ti 2:17-18 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

Thunderchild

18th June 2002, 11:45 AM

Lemme see now if I got the concept right .... The record in Acts says ... they were watching Jesus ascend ... he disappeared from sight into the clouds ... THEY CONTINUED TO LOOK, AFTER HE HAD GONE ... the angel asked "Why are you still watching? ... the angel said "He will return in precisely the same manner that you have seen him ascend." ... And people are being asked to believe (despite this exposition) that the earlier references are somehow allegorical?

MatthewDiscipleofGod

18th June 2002, 12:02 PM

You keep making some very good points Thunderchild with some very good scripture to back it up. Might have to save some of your info here for my own research. ;)

Didaskomenos

18th June 2002, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Thunderchild
Lemme see now if I got the concept right .... The record in Acts says ... they were watching Jesus ascend ... he disappeared from sight into the clouds ... THEY CONTINUED TO LOOK, AFTER HE HAD GONE ... the angel asked "Why are you still watching? ... the angel said "He will return in precisely [? which Greek manuscript are you getting that qualifier from?] the same manner that you have seen him ascend." ... And people are being asked to believe (despite this exposition) that the earlier references are somehow allegorical?

Try looking at what I said. The event of the ascension was as Luke described. Jesus ascended as he did because this was meant as a metaphorical event, typifying for the disciples the glory in which he would return. If he was to return in "precisely" the same manner as you think it means, the angels wouldn't question why they were looking up still. In other words, why didn't the angel say, "You have good reason to look up in the sky, because if you look up at the clouds long enough, you'll see him return." Instead, he seemed to say something to the effect of, "Don't worry, he'll return in glory and power like you just witnessed, but you're not going to see it by looking up into the clouds."

Acts6:5

18th June 2002, 12:37 PM

If he was to return in "precisely" the same manner as you think it means, the angels wouldn't question why they were looking up still. In other words, why didn't the angel say, "You have good reason to look up in the sky, because if you look up at the clouds long enough, you'll see him return."

Hmmm, good point, Didas. Never thought of it in that way before.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

Auntie

18th June 2002, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos

If he was to return in "precisely" the same manner as you think it means, the angels wouldn't question why they were looking up still. In other words, why didn't the angel say, "You have good reason to look up in the sky, because if you look up at the clouds long enough, you'll see him return." Instead, he seemed to say something to the effect of, "Don't worry, he'll return in glory and power like you just witnessed, but you're not going to see it by looking up into the clouds."

Some of my family members live in another state. Sometimes they come to visit, and when they leave I know it will be a long time before I see them again. As they leave, I wave good-bye and watch them drive out of the driveway and down the road until I can no longer see their car. One could easily say, "Why are you looking down the road? Don't worry, you will see them again one day, and they will come back down this very road to you. The road they used to leave you is the very same road they will use to come back here. They will return to you the same way they left you."

MatthewDiscipleofGod

18th June 2002, 01:08 PM

Exactly Aunti Belle. The angel basicly was telling them to get on back to work since it's going to be a while! ;)

Auntie

18th June 2002, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Project 86

Exactly Aunti Belle. The angel basicly was telling them to get on back to work since it's going to be a while! ;)

Thank you Project!:) A little common sense goes a long way when trying to interpret scripture. And sometimes we fail to see the forest for looking at the trees with a magnifying glass.

jenlu

18th June 2002, 02:47 PM

Hey Auntie...quick question

If men in white robes were to tell you, like YOU say I might add, "YOU will see them again one day, and THEY will come back down this very road to YOU" etc. etc. etc........

........Wouldn't you expect it in your lifetime...you know Auntie, I kinda like this common sense thing...

Project...that sure is a long while according to you...

Auntie

18th June 2002, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by jenlu

Hey Auntie...quick question

If men in white robes were to tell you, like YOU say I might add, "YOU will see them again one day, and THEY will come back down this very road to YOU" etc. etc. etc........

........Wouldn't you expect it in your lifetime...you know Auntie, I kinda like this common sense thing...

Jenlu,

You completely missed the point of my post. The scripture says Jesus will return the same way he left. His return will be physical and in the clouds, the same way he left.

parousia70

18th June 2002, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um

The scripture says Jesus will return the same way he left. His return will be physical and in the clouds, the same way he left.

Aunti, where does the Bible tell you to pick only those two aspects of the "way he left" for your definition of "the same way", but reject all other aspects of the "way he left"?

MatthewDiscipleofGod

18th June 2002, 04:47 PM

"Project...that sure is a long while according to you..."

Well I guess it would be, to us alteast. To God I'm sure it isn't. Actually I never really had a solid belief on the 2nd coming issue until all these threads starting popping up talking about it and getting me to read more about it. I would have to say the true "2nd coming" has yet to happen and all the evidence in the bible points to it. I find it sometimes humorous on all the names they have for people such as do you believe all the things have been fullfilled, half, none. That and there are plenty others also. I really don't have a label picked out for me yet I'll get back to you guys on that I guess. I honestly don't think this topic really will effect anyones salvation but I think we all do need to be ready just like God tells us to be. I also believe this topic can be taken to way to many extremes on both sides.

tericl2

18th June 2002, 05:09 PM

2 Thessalonians 2
1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers,
2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.
3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

When did this happen?

5 Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?
6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

Is the Holy Spirit gone?

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed , whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

Seems we would know about this!

18th June 2002, 07:02 PM

ON ACTS 1:9-11:
Consistent within the book of Acts itself, Luke was refering to Christ's appearing to them as in Acts 7:55-59 and Acts 9:3-6 and Acts 10:11-16/11:7-11. These appearances of Christ came to them from Heaven (7:55; 9:3; 10:11; 11:9,11:5) exactly as he had went into Heaven (Acts 1:11).

ON THE MEANING OF "CLOUDS":
Coming and going "with clouds" is a consistent biblical theme for the comings and goings of divine beings and saints (see: Dan 7:13; Rev 11:12; Isa 19:1-2; 2 Sam 22:10-14; Ps 104:3). "Clouds" often signifies judgment and doom (Ez 30:3; Nah 1:3-5). We have an undeniable example in Revelation 14:14-20 where Christ is depicted in a "cloud-coming," and it is clearly in the realm of the heavenlies -- Christ is depicted there as Yahweh, the mighty ruler and judge over Heaven and Earth (Matt 28:18). While Christ comes in the heavenlies in that Rev 14 passage, it causes calamities upon the earth -- see Rev 14:20. This is how the jews understood Yahweh to come in O.T. times, and the apostle John is depicting Christ as equal to Yahweh and doing exactly as Yahweh had always done in His judgments upon nations. Rev 14:14-20 shows us what a "cloud-coming" means and its precise spiritual, powerful, nature.

davo

18th June 2002, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
If you mean to accept the clouds as a literal "downpayment" on Christ's symbolic return in which the symbolism will not be physically manifested as clouds and his coming out of the sky visibly; in short, if you mean that in Christ's parousia, the angels' promise of Christ coming in the clouds was an apocalyptic symbolism for his glorious jugment on the Jewish system in c. 70, I can swallow that as well - but believing it completely would make me full preterist, and I'm not there quite yet.

Yes! :clap: this is what I mean. [for clarity, I might drop your word symbolic -yet the gist of what you are saying is correct]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Just don't ask me to believe that Luke was being symbolic when he described the event, that the disciples didn't really see a cloud and Jesus go up into heaven, but instead Luke recounted the ascension in apocalyptic language. Is that what you believe?

Sorry if I gave you that false impression -that is definitely NOT where I'm coming from :)

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Try looking at what I said. The event of the ascension was as Luke described. Jesus ascended as he did because this was meant as a metaphorical event, typifying for the disciples the glory in which he would return. If he was to return in "precisely" the same manner as you think it means, the angels wouldn't question why they were looking up still. In other words, why didn't the angel say, "You have good reason to look up in the sky, because if you look up at the clouds long enough, you'll see him return." Instead, he seemed to say something to the effect of, "Don't worry, he'll return in glory and power like you just witnessed, but you're not going to see it by looking up into the clouds."

Well "Didasko" you've "taught" me something -I couldn't have said it any better. The event was actual, factual and very real -yet spoke more deeply [metaphorically] of greater things to come.

davo

18th June 2002, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by tericl2
2 Thessalonians 2
that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

When did this happen?

6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds HIM BACK WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO...

Paul's passage in 2 Thess 2 shows that the event was already underway. The son of perdition was already alive. He was at that time being restrained from his takeover of the Temple. This shows without question that it was a first century event. It is important to note that this was fullfilled entirely within a decade of Paul's writing to the Thessalonians.

The jewish Zealot-leader Manahem and his followers murdered the High Priest, robbed the Roman garrison, and siezed the Temple to start the armed Revolt in AD 66 from the Temple headquarters in Jerusalem. The victory over the Temple priests and rulers appeared to many to be God's blessing and purpose for the Revolt against Rome. The Zealots had been trying to gain control of the whole Nation and the Temple from about the time of Christ's birth. Menahem was a third generation terrorist rebel and was the son (or grandson) of Judas the Galilean rebel mentioned in the book of Acts.

Menahem is a CENTRAL figure to the Revolt and is considered one of the most powerful Jewish Messiahs of the 1st century for having successfully raided the Masada armory, securing an armed jewish force to fight the Revolt against Rome from the headquarters of the Holy Temple! Entirely apocalyptic.

The Nation had become a hotbed of Revolt-styled apocalypticism, and Josephus blames the Zealots as THE incendiary group among the Israelites that ignited the tinderbox and ruined the whole nation.

King Manahem of Israel literally fulfilled the sign of 2 Thess 2:4-7 and ordered the commands that locked the Nation into its final course of ruin and Revolt.

The Roman Armies came at that time to surround Jerusalem, and in response to all this and the Christians heeded the signs and fled Jerusalem according to Luke 21:20-22 and 2 Thess 2:4.

GW

davo

18th June 2002, 07:23 PM

GW, thanks for that biblical and historic brief -if folk are looking for a literal fulfillment of 2Thess 2, why go past the history that's been, and recorded. [common sense]

davo

Manifestation1*AD70

18th June 2002, 07:26 PM

Didaskomenos

18th June 2002, 10:29 PM

Sorry if I gave you that false impression -that is definitely NOT where I'm coming from
Good! I thought we were talking past one another :)

Well "Didasko" you've "taught" me something -I couldn't have said it any better. The event was actual, factual and very real -yet spoke more deeply [metaphorically] of greater things to come.

Well, for the record, my name doesn't mean I claim to be a teacher - it's actually a passive participle which means (albeit anarthrous, but try to overlook that) "one who is being taught," rather than "one who teaches" (didaskolos). I keep looking for truth, and if I inform anyone else along the way, it's often by accident!

davo

18th June 2002, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Well, for the record, my name doesn't mean I claim to be a teacher - it's actually a passive participle which means (albeit anarthrous, but try to overlook that) "one who is being taught," rather than "one who teaches" (didaskolos).

I stand corrected [indicatively :) ]

Didaskomenos

18th June 2002, 11:15 PM

Shoot! Now I realize I've got all these people who know a little Greek thinking I'm some self-proclaimed guru! I wish I could change names.

jenlu

19th June 2002, 07:14 AM

Project...

By no means do I believe that one's eschatological beliefs are the make or breaker of one's salvation...but I do believe one's understsanding of the Bible can and will enhance one's relationship with their Heavenly Father...eschatology is a big part of the Bible...so understanding it helps (in my opinion) one's relationship with Him...

tericl2

19th June 2002, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by GW

Paul's passage in 2 Thess 2 shows that the event was already underway. The son of perdition was already alive. He was at that time being restrained from his takeover of the Temple. This shows without question that it was a first century event. It is important to note that this was fullfilled entirely within a decade of Paul's writing to the Thessalonians.

The jewish Zealot-leader Manahem and his followers murdered the High Priest, robbed the Roman garrison, and siezed the Temple to start the armed Revolt in AD 66 from the Temple headquarters in Jerusalem. The victory over the Temple priests and rulers appeared to many to be God's blessing and purpose for the Revolt against Rome. The Zealots had been trying to gain control of the whole Nation and the Temple from about the time of Christ's birth. Menahem was a third generation terrorist rebel and was the son (or grandson) of Judas the Galilean rebel mentioned in the book of Acts.

Menahem is a CENTRAL figure to the Revolt and is considered one of the most powerful Jewish Messiahs of the 1st century for having successfully raided the Masada armory, securing an armed jewish force to fight the Revolt against Rome from the headquarters of the Holy Temple! Entirely apocalyptic.

The Nation had become a hotbed of Revolt-styled apocalypticism, and Josephus blames the Zealots as THE incendiary group among the Israelites that ignited the tinderbox and ruined the whole nation.

King Manahem of Israel literally fulfilled the sign of 2 Thess 2:4-7 and ordered the commands that locked the Nation into its final course of ruin and Revolt.

The Roman Armies came at that time to surround Jerusalem, and in response to all this and the Christians heeded the signs and fled Jerusalem according to Luke 21:20-22 and 2 Thess 2:4.

GW

posted by tericl2
5 Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?
6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

Is the Holy Spirit gone?

I'll ask again...is the Holy Spirit gone? And you conveniently deleted the last few words of this verse in order to avoid the question. Has the Holy Spirit been taken out of the way?
I also saw no reference to King Manahem proclaiming himself to be God and over God.

posted by tericl2
8 And then the lawless one will be revealed , whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

Seems we would know about this!

Where is the splendor?

jenlu

19th June 2002, 11:06 AM

Why is the one who holds it back the Holy Spirit?...Does it have to be the Holy Spirit?

davo

19th June 2002, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by jenlu
Why is the one who holds it back the Holy Spirit?...Does it have to be the Holy Spirit?

Why indeed :scratch: This again is just another dispensational assumption brought to the bible through faulty exegesis.

davo

aggie03

20th June 2002, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by jenlu
Project...

By no means do I believe that one's eschatological beliefs are the make or breaker of one's salvation...but I do believe one's understsanding of the Bible can and will enhance one's relationship with their Heavenly Father...eschatology is a big part of the Bible...so understanding it helps (in my opinion) one's relationship with Him...

I think that every aspect of what we believe and profess is extremely important.

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

Galatians 1:8,9

Paul obviously thought that every aspect of our beliefs were important enough to let us know twice that if we try to teach others anything other than the one true gospel that we are to be condemned. So I think that we should put forth every effort to learn the truth that the Bible teaches.

Acts6:5

20th June 2002, 04:31 PM

I think that every aspect of what we believe and profess is extremely important.

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!"

Galatians 1:8,9

Paul obviously thought that every aspect of our beliefs were important enough to let us know twice that if we try to teach others anything other than the one true gospel that we are to be condemned. So I think that we should put forth every effort to learn the truth that the Bible teaches.

I too feel that what we believe and profess is extremely important. But I do not believe that "every aspect of our beliefs" constitute the gospel.

The Judiazers in the Book of Galatians taught a different gospel by declaring that all gentiles must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses to be saved. But I don't think disagreements over things like predestination or eschatology changes the requirements of the gospel, unlike the Judiazers' doctrine.

Do I hate doctrinal disunity in the Church? You bet I do, and I look forward in earnest to a time when many of the disagreements will be resolved, for the wellbeing of the Church and as a witness to the world. But I at least do not see most doctrinal agreements affecting the definition of the gospel.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

20th June 2002, 06:38 PM

tericl2:

Where do you come up with the Holy Spirit in 2 Thess 2?

Read 2 Thess 2:4-7 carefully. You will see that the son of perdition was already alive and was at work and was being restrained. The son of perdition is a first-century man that took over the nation of Israel from the Temple within 10-15 years maximum from the time Paul wrote.

God bless,
GW

Shaggy

20th June 2002, 07:36 PM

Do you guys realize Christ hasn't returned yet?

davo

20th June 2002, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by GW
Where do you come up with the Holy Spirit in 2 Thess 2?
Read 2 Thess 2:4-7 carefully. You will see that the son of perdition was already alive and was at work and was being restrained. The son of perdition is a first-century man that took over the nation of Israel from the Temple within 10-15 years maximum from the time Paul wrote.

Right on the money GW! -good to see you mate :wave:

davo

Shaggy

20th June 2002, 08:00 PM

It looks like that is misinterpreted, You guys are confusing! Do you deny that Jesus is Returning? Even after all the scripture available to you?

GTX

20th June 2002, 08:01 PM

You said it Shag!

parousia70

20th June 2002, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Shaggy
It looks like that is misinterpreted, You guys are confusing! Do you deny that Jesus is Returning? Even after all the scripture available to you?

It's not that we're confusing, it's that you're confused.

It is BECAUSE of all the scripture available to us that we affirm the truth of past fulfillment, and continue to herald the fact that Christ came, on time, within the lifetime of His disciples generation, exactly when and as He promised to.

Shaggy

20th June 2002, 08:12 PM

That just confirms that your confused.

Shaggy

20th June 2002, 08:13 PM

Can I interest you in the truth, so that you may rejoice at Christs coming?

aggie03

21st June 2002, 01:52 AM

Yes you could interest me in the Truth, which is the word of God - I would like to see some scripture for what you are claiming to be the Truth. Anyone can espouse what they believe, but can they back it up with scripture - that's what I want to see.

npetreley

21st June 2002, 02:06 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GW
#1 - Jesus Came in Their Generation

If you're talking about this verse (Matthew 24:34)...

Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

...the greek word translated as generation is "genea" which normally signifies familial relationships, which is why some translations point out that this could also be translated as "race" (in this case the Jews). As some have tried to exterminate the Jews, this promise is quite reassuring.

#2 - Christ Came "In His Kingdom"

It seems to me that the plain meaning of Luke 17:21 is not that His Kingdom would be unobservable, but that they were mistaken to think of it as being a political kingdom. Young's Literal Translation even translates basileia as "reign" which implies that Jesus was talking about Him reigning in our hearts.

IMO it truly tortures the text to say that "Therefore if the coming of the Kingdom was going to be unobservable, then it follows that the Coming of the King in that Kingdom was also going to be unobservable." This would contradict the fact that Jesus also said just 3 verses later that...

For as the lightning that flashes out of one part under heaven shines to the other part under heaven, so also the Son of Man will be in His day.

Then in Luke 21, He says quite clearly that THEY WILL SEE, and LOOK UP.

27 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near."

Mark 13:35-37 tells us to watch for His return, which contradicts the assertion that His return is unobservable.

35 Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming--in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning-- 36 lest, coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. 37 And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!"

#3 - Christ Came "In the Glory of the Father"

I simply cannot decipher the reasoning here, so I have no response. I don't see how this has anything to do with Christ returning in the 1st century.

#4 - Christ Came as a "Day of the Lord" Event - (Day of Yawheh)

The Day of the Lord is always surrounded by significant celestial signs, including the sun going dark, the moon turning to the color of blood, and the visible (and quite spectacular) return of Jesus.

#5 - Christ "Came With Clouds" -- Rev 14:14-20

Again, this reasoning just eludes me. I don't see how this has anything to do with Christ returning in the 1st century.

#6 - Christ Came Upon 1st-Century Sardis "as a Thief in the Night"

This is an admonition to be ready. It in no way negates the fact that Jesus said His coming would be so spectacularly visible that His return would be unmistakable. Matthew 24:44...

44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

#7 - Jesus Said: "The World Sees Me No More"

(Referring to John 14 -- How long is "no more"? We maintain that "no more" means "no more.")

That's going to come as quite a shock to those who thought they saw the resurrected Christ. ;)

GTX

21st June 2002, 02:19 AM

Yeah and how about the fact that the book of revelation was written in 85 AD?

GTX

21st June 2002, 02:46 AM

Actually, lets make that between 80 and 95 AD. You don't discount the book of revelation do you?

npetreley

21st June 2002, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by GTX
Actually, lets make that between 80 and 95 AD. You don't discount the book of revelation do you?

Who, me?

Actually, I do discount the book of Revelation. I'll let you have it for 40% off the retail price. ;)

GTX

21st June 2002, 04:03 AM

Not you npetreley, you are not a Transmillenialist (preterist) are you?

40%? I can get a better deal! ;)

parousia70

21st June 2002, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by GTX
Actually, lets make that between 80 and 95 AD. You don't discount the book of revelation do you?

OK GTX, time to tune up your "automator" and provide scriptural evidence that Revelation was written when you contend it was. Heck, I'll make it even easier....the evidence doesen't need to be scriptural, any evidence will do.

Are you up to the challenge?
Can you back up your assertion with facts?

I eagerly await in joyful anticipation for your scholarly, if automated, response.

npetreley

21st June 2002, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by GTX
Not you npetreley, you are not a Transmillenialist (preterist) are you?

40%? I can get a better deal! ;)

No, I am not a preterist. I do believe that the most popular interpretations of prophecy (particularly pre-trib rapture and possibly even the postponement of Daniel's 70th week) have many problems, however.

npetreley

21st June 2002, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by parousia70

I eagerly await in joyful anticipation for your scholarly, if automated, response.

I know you weren't asking me, but here's an interesting essay.

http://www.covenanter.org/Postmil/AntiPreterist/ponddate.htm

There's a lot there, but this is what I find particularly interesting. You may not give weight to such things, so perhaps you won't find it as interesting.

The testimony of the Fathers on the point before us is just what, in view of the facts above detailed, we might expect. With few exceptions, it is unanimous in ascribing the exile of John, and the writing of the Apocalypse, to the time of Domitian. We commence with Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul. He had been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. He must have been familiarly acquainted with the circumstances of John's banishment, with the time of it, and the person by whom it had been decreed. He could not have been mistaken on these points, nor is there any mistake or ambiguity in his testimony. 'The Apocalypse,' he tells us, was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, near the end of the reign of Domitian.'[9] This testimony has never been set aside, and never can be. It is enough of itself, considering the circumstances, to decide the question before us.

But this testimony does not stand alone. It is concurred in by nearly all the more distinguished Fathers. Victorinus says repeatedly, that John was banished by Domitian, and in his time saw the Revelation. Hippolytus speaks of John as having been exiled to Patmos under Domitian, where he saw the Apocalypse.[10] Eusebius, speaking of the persecution, says: 'In this persecution, John the apostle and evangelist, being still alive, was banished into the isle of Patmos.'[11] Jerome, in his book of illustrious men, says: 'Domitian, in the fourteenth year of his reign, raised the next persecution after Nero, when John was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation.' In another work, he says: 'John was a prophet. He saw the Revelation in the isle of Patmos, where he was banished by Domitian.'[12] Sulpicius Severus says, that 'John, the apostle and evangelist, was banished by Domitian to the isle of Patmos, where he had visions, and where he wrote the Revelation.'[13]

It would be needless to multiply quotations like these, and pursue them to a later period. It has been said that these testimonies are of little value, since they are all based one upon another, and ultimately upon that of Irenaeus. But this is not true; at least, no one has any right or reason to affirm that it is true. They go to show what was the settled conviction of the Church on the point before us, from the second century to the sixth,-the very time when the question could best be settled; and, in the judgment then formed, and so unanimously expressed, it becomes us of the nineteenth century to acquiesce. It cannot be reversed but upon vastly weightier reasons than any that have yet been urged.

By the way, I didn't notice the "AntiPreterist" in the URL at first. But I don't get the impression that it was written for that purpose. (In fact, I don't even know if preterism was around in 1871 when this was written.)

GTX

21st June 2002, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by parousia70

OK GTX, time to tune up your "automator" and provide scriptural evidence that Revelation was written when you contend it was. Heck, I'll make it even easier....the evidence doesen't need to be scriptural, any evidence will do.

Are you up to the challenge?
Can you back up your assertion with facts?

I eagerly await in joyful anticipation for your scholarly, if automated, response.

I will try to make it as automated as possible.

The strength of the late '60's date rests on the popular myth of that period that the deranged emperor Nero would be revived. This myth parallels much of the imagry of chapter 13's reference to "the temple of God" and the "alter" in Jerusalem, which were both destroyed in 70 AD, also supports the earlier dating.

But the later date, near the end of Domitians reign as emperor [81-96 AD], is far more likely. The picture of suffering seen in Revelation seems closer to what is known of the persecution under Domitian. There is also the statement of Irenaeus, in about 185 AD, that John wrote Revelation at the close of Domitians reign. This would be around 95 AD.

Also you are discounting the literal scripture of bodily resurrection as clearly described by Job.

parousia70

21st June 2002, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by GTX

I will try to make it as automated as possible.

The strength of the late '60's date rests on the popular myth of that period that the deranged emperor Nero would be revived. This myth parallels much of the imagry of chapter 13's reference to "the temple of God" and the "alter" in Jerusalem, which were both destroyed in 70 AD, also supports the earlier dating.

That's an interesting theory, but my question was about the evidence for the "late date".
We can get into the early date evidence next ;)

Originally posted by GTX But the later date, near the end of Domitians reign as emperor [81-96 AD], is far more likely. The picture of suffering seen in Revelation seems closer to what is known of the persecution under Domitian. There is also the statement of Irenaeus, in about 185 AD, that John wrote Revelation at the close of Domitians reign. This would be around 95 AD.

So, your "evidence" that it was written post 70AD is:
A) it seems more likely to you.
B) Ireneaus said it was

If you'd like to add anything else, please go ahead, and then we can add up the evidence, scriptural and otherwise, for the early date, and compare side by side.

Originally posted by GTX
Also you are discounting the literal scripture of bodily resurrection as clearly described by Job? [/B]

I've addressed that question of yours in another thread, and it can be found here:
http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=223481#post223481

God Bless

Manifestation1*AD70

21st June 2002, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by GTX

I will try to make it as automated as possible.

But the later date, near the end of Domitians reign as emperor [81-96 AD], is far more likely. The picture of suffering seen in Revelation seems closer to what is known of the persecution under Domitian.

You are going to run into problems with that kind of statement. The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church. :eek:

[automator disengaged]

npetreley

22nd June 2002, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

You are going to run into problems with that kind of statement. The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church. :eek:

[automator disengaged]

From the essay linked above:

Jerome, in his book of illustrious men, says: 'Domitian, in the fourteenth year of his reign, raised the next persecution after Nero, when John was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation.'

Manifestation1*AD70

22nd June 2002, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by npetreley

From the essay linked above:

That is not recorded as a fact.

npetreley

23rd June 2002, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

That is not recorded as a fact.

Huh? Unless you were there at the time, then all we have to rely on are historical records. Jerome, Irenaeus, and others said that there was such a persecution. I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure, but the fact that these people lived fairly close to the times of the events certainly bolsters the credibility of their statements.

ArtistEd

23rd June 2002, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by GTX

I will try to make it as automated as possible.

The strength of the late '60's date rests on the popular myth of that period that the deranged emperor Nero would be revived. This myth parallels much of the imagry of chapter 13's reference to "the temple of God" and the "alter" in Jerusalem, which were both destroyed in 70 AD, also supports the earlier dating.

But the later date, near the end of Domitians reign as emperor [81-96 AD], is far more likely. The picture of suffering seen in Revelation seems closer to what is known of the persecution under Domitian. There is also the statement of Irenaeus, in about 185 AD, that John wrote Revelation at the close of Domitians reign. This would be around 95 AD.

Also you are discounting the literal scripture of bodily resurrection as clearly described by Job.

Hi GTX,
thought you might find this interesting.

Robert Young (1885)
"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitious Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book ; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D.175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou -- ie., Domitious (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domition, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Commentary on Revelation - Young's Analytical Concordance)

Ed

npetreley

23rd June 2002, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by ArtistEd

Hi GTX,
thought you might find this interesting.

Robert Young (1885)
"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitious Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book ; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D.175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou -- ie., Domitious (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domition, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Commentary on Revelation - Young's Analytical Concordance)

Ed

What he says is possible, but it assumes that Sulpicius and others based their information on what Irenaeus wrote. I don't know if that is a fair assumption. Based on what I've read, some scholars feel it is not a reasonable assumption, but some think it is. I don't have an opinion either way - I'd have to study the works of the contemporaries of Irenaeus to form an opinion.