The NATURE of the resurrection, second coming, Heavens & Earth passing, etc.

Originally posted by Willis Deal
GW,

I find it strange that the only terms which you don't find elastic are terms which you believe indicate immediacy,

Click to expand...

The bible doesn't use time as an elastic, allegorical thing. Rather, it is VERY precise. In fact, we have Christ's OWN blessing on the preterist hermeneutic concering the TIME statements (which demand a 1st century Day of Christ at 66-70AD, BTW). Concerning the time statements, Jesus said:

Luke 21:8
And He said, "See to it that YOU [the apostles] are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He,' AND, 'THE TIME IS NEAR.' Do not go after them.

There we have Christ's own understanding of the time statments as being the proclamation of the true end. It so happens that the Apostles proclaimed "THE TIME IS NEAR AND AT HAND." So the preterist hermeneutic on statments such as "the time is at hand, and near" is fully and explicitly vindicated by Jesus.

Originally posted by Willis Deal
You also prohibit God from fulfilling prophecy in BOTH a symbolic way (such as you and p70 have presented) and in a physical way.

Click to expand...

First, if the Messianic generation was a mere shadow and not the reality itself then your notion might have some standing. For we all agree that the Old Covenant System was a shadow of the TRUE realities that are manifest in Christ and the New Covenant Age. However, Christ and the New Covenant are indeed the REALITIES, and not mere shadows and types of some better and future blessedness. Can you imagine for a minute that Calvary or the Virgin birth were mere SHADOWS of some better and future sacrifice for mankind? I cannot even dare to think it so.

Next, the Day of Christ at 66-70AD was the GREATEST Day-of-the-Lord event in Israel's history. I just do not know anything that could make it more "physical."

Willis

I find it strange that the only terms which you don't find elastic are terms which you believe indicate immediacy, yet every other event can be massaged to fit your viewpoint. You also prohibit God from fulfilling prophecy in BOTH a symbolic way (such as you and p70 have presented) and in a physical way. If God so chooses to fulfill HIS words in a physical way at some future time why does that negate your faith?

So if I understand your post correctly there is no physical event which can convince you to change your mind and if someday you see Christ descend to this earth on a white horse you will give up your faith because you didn't have a full understanding of the word of God. Is that correct?




I find it strange that most Christians today do NOT SEE or understand, they are doing the very same thing the unbelieving Jews were doing in the first century. They two insisted that God was going to fulfill prophecy (on the earth in a physical way). They two insisted that God was going to (reign on the earth) in a physical way.

I find it real strange that even today the very same traditions of men has the "power to make the word of God of none effect (Mark 7:13) It is strange that Christians who say they read the Bible do "not see they are doing the very things."

I am curious. Like the Jews in the first century who gave up their faith because God did not fulfill prophecy in a physical way would you give up your faith because you didn't have a full understanding of the word of God?

Would you like the Jews in the first century give up your faith because Jesus really meant what He said. about the "physical world NOT seeing Him any more?" "A Little while longer and (the world will see Me no more,) but you will see Me, Because I live, you will live also (John 14:19)

So if I understand your post correctly "if there is no physical event" which can convince you to change your mind like "not ever seeing Christ descend to this earth on a white horse like He said, will you give up your faith because you didn't have a full understanding of the word of God. Is that correct?

My faith is based upon my understanding of the plan of salvation, not prophecy. If nuclear weapons were used against Israel and the entire country became a radioactive lake then by necessity I would have to question my understanding of God's word. However, lack of physical fulfillment in my lifetime is proof of nothing. If Jesus doesn't appear on the white horse for a million years then that would be suffecient proof that you are correct, but since neither of us would be around to debate the point then it is irrelevant.

In short, I can question my understanding of God's word, in fact, it is necessary to do this on a continual basis. Rather than force God's word to conform to my understanding I must force my understanding to conform to God's word.

Originally posted by Willis Deal
If Jesus doesn't appear on the white horse for a million years then that would be suffecient proof that you are correct, but since neither of us would be around to debate the point then it is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

But, brother, I don't think you get it. It would be sufficient proof that we are correct if Jesus waited any longer than HIS OWN GENERATION. Your "million years" is arbitrary, but Christ's statement about "THIS GENERATION" must be correct or He was a false prophet and you are yet in your sins:

Matthew 24:33-34
Even so you also [the apostles], when YOU see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Most assuredly I tell YOU this generation will not pass away, until all these things are accomplished

Matthew 23:35-36
that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous to the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the sanctuary and the altar. Most assuredly I tell you all these things will come on this generation.


Brother Willis, if you can't believe Christ came exactly WHEN he said he would then you cannot believe Christ for your salvation! Jesus said explicitly that he would return in the apostles generation and he could not lie. If it has not happened, as you suggest, then Christ is a false prophet and we are without hope. Surely if Christ erred on the TIMING of his own return then it could be stated that He erred on everything else too.
Do you not see how grave a danger it is to say Christ did not return exactly WHEN he and the apostles unanimously taught?

Hmm... looks like GW and 1Mamifestation are the same person.

GW said:
The bible doesn't use time as an elastic, allegorical thing. Rather, it is VERY precise. Christ's OWN blessing on the preterist hermeneutic concering the TIME statements (which demand a 1st century Day of Christ at 66-70AD, BTW)...

Originally posted by 1Mamifestation70a.d
I find it strange that the only terms which you don't find elastic are terms which you believe indicate immediacy, yet ...You also prohibit God from fulfilling prophecy in BOTH a symbolic way (such as you and p70 have presented) and in a...

Click to expand...

Matt. 23:24 'This generation' is not the same greek phrase as 'This generation' in Matt. 24. In chapter 23 it is apparent that the judgement should be fulfilled during the generation of the hearers. In chapter 24 a different phrase is used and probably should be translated 'That generation' although the translation error is minor and does not change the meaning of the verse when read in context. The intent seems to be that the generation which sees the signs will be the generation that shall not pass till all things are fulfilled.

Both certainly appear to be preterists, however, i've seen them on at the same time. After having seen GW on a different message board i can certainly say there is only one GW

Dear Yauming:

It was Willis Deal who wrote:

"I find it strange that the only terms which you don't find elastic are terms which you believe indicate immediacy"

I, GW, am my own person and am not another.

Originally posted by Willis Deal
Matt. 23:24 'This generation' is not the same greek phrase as 'This generation' in Matt. 24. In chapter 23 it is apparent that the judgement should be fulfilled during the generation of the hearers. In chapter 24 a different phrase is used

Click to expand...

You are simply not correct on this Willis. The greek words are the same, only their order within the sentence is different.

You are showing your bias here too. You admit that 23:26's "THIS generation" means Christ's generation but then you want Matthew 24:34's "THIS generation" to mean some far distant future generation. This is an obvious inconsistency on your part.

You even meddle with the 24:34 text itself to say it should say "THAT FUTURE generation." That's adding to the scripture and NO translation ever translates the passage as you propose. It should NOT probably be translated "THAT generation," for Jesus meant exactly what he said. In fact, the phrase "THIS GENERATION" is listed almost 20 times in the N.T., and each time it speaks of the contemporaries of Jesus. As Hank Hanegraaff said concerning Matthew 24:34:

HANK HANEGRAAFF ON MATTHEW 24:34:

The futurist will say when they read this text, "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened," they'll say this generation doesn't mean THIS generation, this generation means THAT generation that's alive when Jesus Christ comes again...Which is highly problematic... Jewish skeptics and people who would want to call Jesus into question as being a true prophet will use this very text and say THIS generation cannot mean anything other than the generation to whom Jesus Christ was speaking. So people that want to make 'this generation' anything other than the generation to whom Jesus Christ was speaking have the onus on them to be able to demonstrate that the grammatical construction here [in Matt 24:34], although the same as elsewhere in Matthew, means something different. ... Jesus, if he were speaking of future generations, would have said THAT, not this, generation, becasuse he would be using the same kind of construction that he used earlier in the text I just cited [citation of Matt 12:41 given by Hanegraaff].

Click to expand...

Willis

In short, I can question my understanding of God's word, in fact, it is necessary to do this on a continual basis. Rather than force God's word to conform to my understanding I must force my understanding to conform to God's word.


Well brother Willis if you really mean what you say here looks like you will haft to confom your understanding to conform to God's word. Because God said in his word.

"A Little while longer and (the world will see Me no more,) but you will see Me, Because I live, you will live also (John 14:19) It is plane and it is simple.

As many of us can testify, you better mean business when you ask God to send out His light and truth. For He will answer that prayer without regard for the cherished traditional beliefs of men.

quote:
Originally posted by Willis Deal
Matt. 23:24 'This generation' is not the same greek phrase as 'This generation' in Matt. 24. In chapter 23 it is apparent that the judgement should be fulfilled during the generation of the hearers. In chapter 24 a different phrase is used


G.W

You are simply not corret on this Willis. The greek words are the same, only their order within the sentence is different.

You are showing your bias here too. You admit that 23:26's "THIS generation" means Christ's generation but then you want Matthew 24:34's "THIS generation" to mean some far distant future generation. This is an obvious inconsistency on your part.

You even meddle with the 24:34 text itself to say it should say "THAT FUTURE generation." That's adding to the scripture and NO translation ever translates the passage as you propose. It should NOT probably be translated "THAT generation," for Jesus meant exactly what he said. In fact, the phrase "THIS GENERATION" is listed almost 20 times in the N.T., and each time it speaks of the contemporaries of Jesus. As Hank Hanegraaff said concerning Matthew 24:34:


Me

Wow and Willis says. Rather than force God's word to conform to my understanding I must force my understanding to conform to God's word. Is adding to scripture conforming to God's word?

I used Strong's concordance which lists two different words in the two chapters, 'taute' and 'houtos', both being translated as 'this'. If you'd like to cite a source to substantiate your claims I'd like to look at it. While it might be fun to do a word study on 'taute' and 'houtos' and compare how they were translated in different verses and how often one or the other was translated 'this' as opposed to 'that' I don't have the resources to do an in depth word study and question the value of that method in this instance.

It isn't inconsistent to recognize that the KJV translators translated ONE greek word into several different english words at different times, and they also translated several different greek words into ONE english word. So just because two phrases appear identical in the english doesn't mean they were identical in the greek. If the phrases aren't identical in the greek then it is only logical to question whether the meaning is identical in the two passages.

G.W. and 1Mamifestation70a.d seem to be confused as to what it really means to 'add to scripture' or 'take away from scripture'. Since when is questioning the translation of a word 'adding to scripture'? I did notice that G.W. added a word and took away a word from my proposed translation, omitting the word 'probably' and adding 'future'. If there is any adding or taking away here it is certainly on G.W.'s part, in reference to my posts.

Willis

G.W. and 1Mamifestation70a.d seem to be confused as to what it really means to 'add to scripture' or 'take away from scripture'.

Hi Willis When one 'add to scripture' or takes away from scripture is when God clearlly says somthing 'will or will not be done. "A Little while longer and (the world will see Me no more,) but you will see Me, Because I live, you will live also (John 14:19) If I keep saying EVERY EYE on this earth will see Jesus that would be adding or taking away from the word.

Jesus also clearly said "that generation" then living would not pass away until "all these things were fulfilled. And Jesus clearly said that in more "then one" way. (Matthew 10: 23; 16:27-28)

So it seem to be you futurist who are confused as to what it really means to 'add to scripture' or 'take away from scripture'.

Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

OOPS, I did it again, by your definition, when I quote scripture which contradicts what you believe to be a 'clear' scripture then I am 'adding to scripture'. Wow, that's really a creative definition. Good luck trying to convince anyone else to accept your position.

Hello parousia, GW and Mami,
Assuming that you all believe in the same theory, that the 1000 years of Christs reign has already come and gone, and now we are living in the New Earth, when did Christ fulfill the following verses?? I think the whole world missed it, and even our History books failed to mention it.

Rev.2: 26-29 - "To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations--
(27) He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery--just as I have received authority from my Father. (28) I will also give him the morning star. (29) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

Do you think that Christ forgot about this promise, or did He just change His Mind??

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER
Hello parousia, GW and Mami,
Assuming that you all believe in the same theory, that the 1000 years of Christs reign has already come and gone, and now we are living in the New Earth, when did Christ fulfill the following verses?? I think the whole world missed it, and even our History books failed to mention it.

Rev.2: 26-29 - "To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations--
(27) He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery--just as I have received authority from my Father. (28) I will also give him the morning star. (29) He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

Do you think that Christ forgot about this promise, or did He just change His Mind??

Click to expand...

Hi Rollin.

1.) Our history books did not fail to mention it. My view of the second coming is one of the Day of the Lord. 66-70AD was Israel's greatest Day of the Lord in its history (there were many O.T. day of the Lord judgments). Even a great many miraculous appearances were recorded along with that Day of the Lord judgment.

2.) You mentioned the promise of Rev.2: 26-29 that Jesus personally made to Thyatira. We can notice that Jesus promised the Thyatira congregation that he was coming to them (Rev 2:26) and that at that time he would deal with their false prophetess and destroy her and her followers by ruining them in the great tribulation (2:20-23). They were to "hold fast" until he came. Did Jesus not perform what he promised them? If Jesus did not come to them as promised then He is a false prophet. The same holds true for the other 1st century congregations that were told specifically that Christ's coming was going to happen to them and bring either curses or blessings (see: Sardis - Rev 3:1-3; Philadelphia - 3:10-11; Ephesus 2:5, etc)

Originally posted by parousia70
Shane,
your admitted puzzlement on how preterists define "heavens and earth" cut to the heart of my purpose for starting this thread.

The Bible is not a book of the History of planet earth, although earths history is often referenced. The Bible is however, a book of the history of Gods Covenant relationship with man.

Any interpratation that fails to recognize this fundamental truth is doomed to fail.

You mentioned:
"It will be interesting to hear how it is that you explain that the entire heavens and earth have been melted away and Jesus is now reigning among us without us so much as ever hearing a word about it though.

Easy. I explain it covenantally.
The new heavens and earth prophesied by Isaiah, Peter & John, came to replace the "heavens and earth" God created in Isaiah 51:16 after He parted the sea and brought the Hebrew people out of Egypt.
Since we know God created the Physical planet long beofre that time, Heavens and earth in this passage must refer to something different. In fact the term "heavens and earth" in this passage referr to the creation of The Mosiac economy, And Gods exclusive Covenant relationship with Israel.

It was that "Heavens and Earth" and the "elements" thereof (the rudementary principles of the Law) that were waxing old and about to vanish away in the late 60's AD, and finally melted with fervent heat and dissolved completely in AD70 whith the destruction of Jerusalem and The temple, removing "operational Biblical Judiasm" as Gods sole Covenant relationship with man, replacing it with the new and better covenant (New heavens and earth)

In Isaiah 65:17-23, we see that in the New Heavens and earth, there will still be:
Birth,
Ageing,
Death,
Sinners.

Does that sound like the edenistic, biologic, earthly paradise marked by complete behavioral errorlessness that many Christians today believe it is?

A puzzler indeed!

Click to expand...

There are admitedly some difficulties for me there, as it makes it appear that the coming of Christ will be immediately followed by His New Jersualem, which would prevent Him reigning "on this earth" in a literal sense, I suppose. But there appear to be even more for you. Certainly no one today is deemed cursed if they live less than 100 years.

If one believes in a millenial reign, one can at lease opt that this is a reference to this. With your view, I am faced with the impossiblity of ever reconciling many, many verses of the Bible.

How, for example do you explain the end of the symbolic 1000 years, and the release of Satan? (Rev 20:7) How do you resolve the references to eternal life with your verse in Isaiah's reference only to long life?

The reason "many Christians today" believe in the errorless biology or whatever you call it is because it is referred to in the Bible. *shrugs* We shall be changed, the corruptible will put on incorruptability.

Perhaps there are explanations for all this but the problem I am having is that the problems with the explanations only compound the supposed problems with the more traditional view of a coming Messiah. In other words, while I don't fully understand either view, the preterist seems to me to spawn problem after problem, whereas the problems with the traditional view are few and need only slight tweaking to understand.

Interesting that in Rev 21:25-26 the last, complete New Jerusalem will have the glory and the honor of the nations brought into it. In other words there is a whole world that exists outside of the final New Jersualem that could be referred to in Isaiah, and still there would be New Jerusalem in the most literal sense.

I say interesting because I have never once heard an sermon given about this verse, nor any particular understanding of it ever been given me before from anyone. My view of heaven has always been one of universal purity where all evil has been eliminated and burned. But perhaps the situation will be ongoing even in the world to come, outside of the New Jerusalem.

Obviously I still have some things to learn and sort out, which is why I keep asking after this preterist view, but so far it isn't helping.

The concept behind my allowing for a seemingly overabundant leniency in the term "a little while" or "generation" is because both words carry with them the connotation of being symbolic. We speak of generations of people, but also of generations of cars, computeres, ages and so forth. "little while" likewise is relative. What is a little while to my great grandmother was a lot longer than a littlw while was to me when I was 5, and so also a little while for an eternal God could be a substantial period of time. Whereas 1000 years is a definite period of time. 1000 years as one day as referred to in 2nd Peter can have all these connotations wrapped up in one very meaningful place and it is in this sense that I have always understood it, because of context.

Again, I could be wrong, but it presents for me fewer difficulties than the preterist interpretation.