Questions about preterism

Hi OS,

Maybe now it is time to ask you what does 'this generation' mean'?

What does this verse mean?

26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

With special attention to when the END OF THE WORLD IS?

Justme

FREE:
You are skipping over the fact that the entire church missed it and the rest of the world.

GW:
The first century Churches did not miss it. They documented it. See Revelation 2-3.



FREE:
"Every eye shall see" did not happen yet. There isn't a single early church father who taught that the Second coming already came, even John who did nmost of his writing after 80 A.D.

GW:
The "cloud-coming" that every eye would see (Rev 1:7) is shown in Revelation 14:14-20, and that passage plainly demonstrates that Christ himself is in the heavenly clouds, and is casting down judgments upon the earth. Those judgments were all "near soon and at hand" in St. John's generation (Rev 1:1-3; 22:6-7), John himself was in the tribulation period and the Kingdom when the book was written (Rev 1:9), and Christ's return was applied to the first-century Asia Minor churches (Rev 2-3).



FREE:
It is Paul's clear teaching that the living are caught up together with the resurrected dead in christ to meet Jesus in the air.

GW:
The living cannot and did not precede the dead. The OT dead came out of Hades and entered into God's eternal Heaven first. The living go later. That's what Paul says.



FREE:
No, it doesn't mandate a 1st century return!

GW:
Revelation 2-3 explicitly documents the first-century return of Jesus Christ to the Asia Minor Churches. We may not deny what the bible plainly teaches. Jesus returned to each one o fthem and executed his judgments and addressed various issues particular to those Churches. Read it. It's documented history. It's scripturally verified.



FREE:
Jesus didn't lie. He didn't say it will happen in the next 40 years.

GW:
Jesus promised the apostles that they would see all those things happen, and they would see it in their generation (Mt 24:33-34). A biblical generation is about 40 years, and Jesus promised the apostles that they would see all those things as well as His return. Jesus could not have lied to them when He promised them, saying:

"So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (MT 24:33-34).




FREE:
He said the time is unknown and only the Father in heaven knows.

GW:
Jesus said the apostles could recognize once He was at the door: "So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door" (Matt 24:33-34). St. James, writing at about AD 63, officially and apostolically recognized Christ's return as Jesus instructed. He said:

James 5:8-9
...the coming of the Lord is near...behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.




FREE:
Therefore, we are to watch.

GW:
You are not to watch for something that already happened.




FREE:
The Thesalonians...expected to have been removed, as in 'caught up' or raptured, first.

GW:
They plainly believed the second coming (Day of Christ) was already present (2 Thess 2:2). They obviously therefore knew nothing of a rapture 7 years prior, they obviously therefore knew nothing of leaving planet earth, and they obviously therefore knew nothing of a "church age" or "1948" or "computer chips." This was something for their lifetime--yes, they all believed in a first-century return of Christ, and they learned this from their teachers, the apostles. Paul fully taught them this would take place within their lifetime:

"we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord..." (1 Thess 4:15)




FREE:
But Paul corrected them that he had not written that message or letter to them, and at the end of II Thes. points out how he signs his letters.

GW:
They got the correct letter from St. John just a few years later, declaring the apocalypse.




FREE:
The coming of the Lord includes an unexpected event and then 7 years later...

GW:
But that is incorrect. The Thessalonians believed the Day of Christ was present! (2 Thess 2:2). They knew nothing about some event 7 years prior.



FREE:
John wasn't a preterist.

GW:
He plainly was, as the scripture says.


FREE:
You are plainly ignoring context here. John is not writing of the 'man of sin' who sits in the temple of God proclaiming to be God in these verses, but those who reject Christ. Like 'they are devilish', not 'they are the Devil'.
Christ wasn't a preterist.

GW:
John boldly announced the antichrist of the final hour had come! (1 Jn 2:18-19). It was by their manifestation during St. John's later ministry years that the apostle understood that he was in the final hour of the last days:

1 John 2:18-19
"it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

John plainly was in the final hour of the last days, defeating the last days antichrist.



FREE:
He didn't write to the 7 churches as if He already came a Second time, but as a future occurance.

GW:
Read Revelation 2-3, and you will see that Jesus is applying his second coming to the first-century churches. John was announcing Christ's then-at hand apocalypse, with the judgments which were obligated to take place soon for them:

Revelation 1:1-3
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place...for the time is at hand.


Those things took place soon for them, for the time was then at hand.




FREE:
Jude wasn't a preterist.

GW:
He was.


FREE:
He didn't teach that Jesus already came.

GW:
He announced that the last days apostasy had arrived. That's the message and occasion of his book. He is urging his contemporaries to keep the faith and not succumb to the last-days falling away.



FREE:
"Last days' is often used, and used here, to show that God's revelation to mankind of the plan of salvation is complete.

GW:
Puh-lease. Everyone knows that the last days means the generation in which Christ will return. They apostles explictly taught that THEY were the last days generation (Heb 1:1-2; Jame 5:3; Acts 2:15-17; 1 Cor 10:11; 1 Pet 1:20). We may not disagree with them.



FREE:
And the apostles believed it was possible that the Second coming could occur in their lives.

GW:
Yes. And therefore they knew nothing about "1948," computer technology, the EU, the cashless society, the modern Israeli-palestinian issue, etc. etc. And why did they not know of those things? Quite simply, because those things have nothing to do with bible prophecy whatsoever.




FREE:
Perhaps that is why John waited til about 80 A.D. to start writing.

GW:
We know for a fact that St. John announced the apocalypse during the tribulation period at the Day of The Lord (Rev 1:9).



FREE:
But NONE of them claimed it had to happen in a certain time frame.

GW:
That's false. Here's a time frame:

"So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (MT 24:33-34).

Here's a time frame:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place...for the time is at hand." (Revelation 1:1-3)




FREE:
And yeah, 'genea' can mean 'race'.

GW:
It cannot. You are confusing "genea" and "genos." As Chilton writes: "I challenge you: Get out your concordance and look up every New Testament occurrence of the word generation (in Greek, genea) and see if it ever means 'race' in any other context. Here are all the references for the Gospels: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 18:8; 17:25; 21:32. Not one of these references is speaking of the entire Jewish race over thousands of years; all use the word in its normal sense of the sum total of those living at the same time. It always refers to contemporaries. (In fact, those who say it means "race" tend to acknowledge this fact, but explain that the word suddenly changes its meaning when Jesus uses it in Matthew 24! We can smile at such a transparent error, but we should also remember that this is very serious. We are dealing with the Word of the living God.)."




FREE:
Well, when Christ does come again, then futurism will be completed. But preterists will be surprized.

GW:
You have a fully misguided hope. Why must futurists constantly hope for what we already have.

Free,

The Church for 20 centuries has rejected the notion of a literal and future "thousand years." The presbyterians, methodists, calvinists, lutherans, catholics and every mainstream group accepted Rev 20 as part of the pattern of symbols St. John uses. For sure, the OT never mentions a millennium. The gospels never mention a millennium. The epistles never mention a millennium.


FREE SAID:
And then there are other problems too. Who was the beast? Nero?...

GW:
These are not problems. Problems only arise when people lack knowledge about Christ's generation and what went on in it, and lack of knowledge of scripture. Nevertheless, the bible documents it very well for us, for the New Testament letters were "last-days" letters written by last-days people to other then-contemporary last-days people about their dire last-days situation and martyrdom to usher in the New Covenant Kingdom.

Justme said:

Hi OS,
Maybe now it is time to ask you what does 'this generation' mean'?

What does this verse mean?

26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

With special attention to when the END OF THE WORLD IS?
Justme

Click to expand...

[size=+1]I have explained this before, the generation which shall see ALL these things, "this generation" shall not pass away, etc. And that generation has not happened yet. We know that the tribulation of the Holocaust was almost 5 times as great as the tribulation at the fall of Jerusalem, 7+ million killed vs. 1.2 million.

All the scripture twisting in the world cannot change the simple fact that Jesus said, "then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." So if a greater tribulation than the fall of Jerusalem occurs, and it has, then that was NOT the great tribulation.

And this says nothing of the great loss of life which occurred when God destroyed the world during the flood, which also would have been greater than 1.2 million.

I already know your arguments. There are still Jews living in Jerusalem who can escape to the hills of Judaea. And there IS an abomination standing in, not surrounding, the Holy place, as required by the prophecy, it is called the Al Asqa mosque.[/size]

" But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself." [size=+1]This verse certainly does NOT support Preterism. Jesus clearly said He was coming again. This verse says, "he has appeared once for all." Had the Parousia occurred when this verse was written? The word translated "ages" in your verse, is[/size] kosmoV, [size=+1]according to Strong's "ages" is NOT one of the definitions.

Evidently the writer of Hebrews did NOT consider the Parousia imminent because he refers to, "them that look for him" not "we that look for him."[/size]

• 
  Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

GW said:

FREE:
And yeah, 'genea' can mean 'race'.

GW:
It cannot. You are confusing "genea" and "genos." As Chilton writes: "I challenge you: Get out your concordance and look up every New Testament occurrence of the word generation (in Greek, genea) and see if it ever means 'race' in any other context. Here are all the references for the Gospels: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 18:8; 17:25; 21:32. Not one of these references is speaking of the entire Jewish race over thousands of years; all use the word in its normal sense of the sum total of those living at the same time. It always refers to contemporaries. (In fact, those who say it means "race" tend to acknowledge this fact, but explain that the word suddenly changes its meaning when Jesus uses it in Matthew 24! We can smile at such a transparent error, but we should also remember that this is very serious. We are dealing with the Word of the living God.)."

Click to expand...

"Did too. Did not. Did too. Did not." [size=+1]Does not respond to the evidence posted. The fact that you have not seriously addressed anything I have posted shows how shaky your position is.

Guess what if you look up the word generation in the NT, it going to be generation. Duh-uh. What needs to be done is look up genea NOT generation. Note carefully the primary meaning of genea in Classical Greek, from which the Koine Greek of the GNT is derived.

Edited to add: The above lists 22 occurrences of "generation." However, genea occurs 37 times in the GNT. Why omit the other 15 occurrences, could it be because some of them do not support the premise as has already been shown above.[/size]

Strong’s
074 genea Genea ghen-eh-ah'
Noun Feminine TDNT 1:662,114
from (a presumed derivative of) (1085)
  1. fathered, birth, nativity
  2. that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
    a. the several ranks of natural descent, the successive members of a genealogy
    b. metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character
      1. esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
  3. the whole multitude of men living at the same time
  4. an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek.

genea , as, Ion. geneê , ês, hê, Ep. dat. geneêphi Il.14.112 : ( [genesthai] ):
I. of the persons in a family,

1. race, family, Priamou g. Il.20.306 , cf. Od.1.222, 16.117; geneên te tokon te Il.15.141 ; idmen . . geneên, idmen de tokêas 20.203 , cf. 214; geneêi huperteros higher by birth or blood, 11.786 (but younger in Archil. ap. Sch.ad l.); tautês einai g. kai haimatos of this race and blood, Il.6.211; patrothen ek geneês onomazein 10.68 ; geneêi by birthright, Od.1.387; Aitôlos geneên by descent, Il.23.471; geneên Dios 21.187 ; geneê ek tinos descent from . . , ib.157; geneên apo Thrêikês Hdt.2.134 ; of horses, breed, stock, Il.5.265, 268: pl., chrêmata kai geneas families, Plu.Tim.34; genean poieisthai to have issue, GDI1798 (Delph.); patria kai g., = phratria kai genos, ib.1152 (Elis): hence, tribe, nation, Persôn g., Turrênôn g., A.Pers. 912 (lyr.), Eleg.2:--rare in Prose, tis ôn genean; X.Cyr.1.1.6; kai auton kai tan g. apolesthai SIG306.8 (Tegea, iv B. C.).

2. race, generation, hoiêper phullôn g. toiêde kai andrôn Il.6.146 ; duo g. meropôn anthrôpôn 1.250 , etc., cf. Hdt.2.142, Th.1.14, Heraclit. ap. Plu.2.415e (but, = mên, Id. ap. Lyd.Mens.3.14); astên ex astôn amphoterôn epi treis g. gegenêmenên SIG1015.6 (Halic.); age, g. anthrôpêïê the historical, opp. to the mythical, age, Hdt.3.122; epi tês hêmeteras g. D.H.3.15

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=#21830

GW said:

Free,
The Church for 20 centuries has rejected the notion of a literal and future "thousand years." The presbyterians, methodists, calvinists, lutherans, catholics and every mainstream group accepted Rev 20 as part of the pattern of symbols St. John uses.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Please document this claim. If it is not the church talking about the millenium, who is, Aliens?[/size]

"For sure, the OT never mentions a millennium." [size=+1]Irrelevant. Revelation does.[/size]

"The gospels never mention a millennium." [size=+1]Irrelevant. Revelation does.[/size]

"The epistles never mention a millennium." [size=+1]Irrelevant. Revelation does.[/size]

FREE SAID:
And then there are other problems too. Who was the beast? Nero?...

GW:
These are not problems. Problems only arise when people lack knowledge about Christ's generation and what went on in it, and lack of knowledge of scripture. Nevertheless, the bible documents it very well for us, for the New Testament letters were "last-days" letters written by last-days people to other then-contemporary last-days people about their dire last-days situation and martyrdom to usher in the New Covenant Kingdom.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Then why don't you enlighten us lesser mortals, with your obviously superior knowledge. This seems to be talking in circles without answering anything. And while you are telling us who the beast was, when was anyone required to get the mark of the beast in their head or hand to buy and sell? And I am still waiting to know what the thousand years means. "Soon" means "soon" and "shortly" means "shortly" but evidently "the thousand years, forty two months, etc." doesn't mean anything, so let's just ignore it along with the beast, the mark of the beast, and anything else that doesn't fit.

Edited to add: I did a quick search online with the words "Presbyterian/Methodist/Baptist thousand year reign" and there are certainly a lot of them who do believe in the millenium.[/size]

Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics are all A-MILLENNIAL. That is, they do not believe in a future, literal earthly thousand year period. Additionally, most of the Church teaches that the great tribulation/distress was located at the fall of Jerusalem (AD 66-70).

The early millennialism of Justin, Irenaeus, etc. was contested in their time, and has been rejected by the Church since their time. God never honored the prophetic outlook given by Justin, Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc., and the Church had to reject their view as error.

Unfortunately, the Darbyite "prophets" of the 1800s invented a newer version of millennialism that has kept many of the evangelical tradition in a suspended "endtimes mode" since about 1820. Funny how God never had honored their theology by returning either. Hehe. God cannot honor myths--even modern ones.

GW said:

Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics are all A-MILLENNIAL. That is, they do not believe in a future, literal earthly thousand year period. Additionally, most of the Church teaches that the great tribulation/distress was located at the fall of Jerusalem (AD 66-70).

Click to expand...

[size=+1]I'm sorry, I asked for documentation and I don't see any. Repeating the same assertion does not prove it. I told you I did a search online for three major denominations and there are many, many churches in each which talk of the millenium. Can you refer me to a creed or statement of belief of any of these denominations which support your assertion?[/size]

The early millennialism of Justin, Irenaeus, etc. was contested in their time, and has been rejected by the Church since their time. God never honored the prophetic outlook given by Justin, Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc., and the Church had to reject their view as error.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Which writings, where, who has written the refutations, where, when? More unsupported assertions without any documentation. I don't think I have read any church father that was a Preterist. All the evidence I can find posits the Parousia in the future. Already posted here and ignored.[/size]

Unfortunately, the Darbyite "prophets" of the 1800s invented a newer version of millennialism that has kept many of the evangelical tradition in a suspended "endtimes mode" since about 1820. Funny how God never had honored their theology by returning either. Hehe. God cannot honor myths--even modern ones.

Click to expand...

[size=+1]Hee Hee God has not honored you Preterism myth. When asked specific questions about scripture, we get "Did too. Did not." Questions such as where in the Ephesus account in Revelations does Jesus say He is definitely coming back in the first century? What is the 1000 years? What is the 42 months? Who was the beast? When did people have to get the mark of the beast to buy and sell? Beside it ain't over till the fat lady sings.

Never heard of Darbyite prophets, before now. And this statement seems to contradict your previous statement. Unless I'm mistaken Darby was a premillenialist. So does the church believe in a literal millenium or not? My quick search online proves many do. What is that you say? "Did too. Did not."[/size]

Hi OS,

Hebrews 9:26
26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

When did Jesus appear once? AT the end of the ages?

What did He appear for?

To do away with sin

How did He do away with sin?
by the sacrifice of Himself

When did He sacrifice Himself?

At the end of the ages. 30 AD or close. AION in the Greek OS, not kosmos.

Justme

Hi Frost,

You wrote:

Has God put all enemies under his feet? Did Christ defeat death? I do not think Paul was talking about spiritual death here either as the whole passage is about the physical resurection of Christ.
*****************


2 Tim 1:10

Justme

frost said:

There seems to be an overwhelming amount of evidence to support a partial-preterist view. Before making the leap to full-preterism though, there are a few things that need explaining. Take for instance, Cor. 15:25-26:

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Has God put all enemies under his feet? Did Christ defeat death? I do not think Paul was talking about spiritual death here either as the whole passage is about the physical resurection of Christ.

Click to expand...

Hi Frost. The "death" that Jesus defeated for the saints was the HADEAN death. Remember, the departed saints of the OT times all went to Hades, separated from God, until about AD 70. They did NOT go to God's eternal heaven until that time. Now, follow closely...

Jesus, having lived during the Old Covenant age, went to hades at about AD 30. Three days later He left hades to ascend to heaven as the firstfruits out from the hadean dead (1 Cor 15:20; Acts 26:23; Rev 1:5; Col 1:18). This signalled that the covenantal change for the dead was coming, and the rest of the dead in Hades were to follow Him at the end of the age, when the Law of Moses was no longer extant for the Israelites (1 Cor 15:54-56). Paul sums up his discourse concerning the end of the Hadean death at the end of the Mosaic age this way:



In Paul's summary statement at 1 Cor 15:54-56 we read that sin, reckoned against the Israelites via the Law of Moses, is what kept the saints of God defeated in Hades. Once the Law covenant finally vanished at AD 70 (Heb 8:13; Heb 10:9), so did hadean death (1 Cor 15:54-56).

(See also the parallel end of Hades/Purgatorio described in Revelation 20:13-15).

GW

Old Shep, I will not be doing your homework for you. If you are unaware of the facts I am stating, perhaps you could read up on the history of eschatology by reading The Last Days are Here Again, by Richard Kyle or The Day and the Hour, by Francis Gumerlock.

GW

GW said:

Old Shep, I will not be doing your homework for you. If you are unaware of the facts I am stating, perhaps you could read up on the history of eschatology by reading The Last Days are Here Again, by Richard Kyle or The Day and the Hour, by Francis Gumerlock.

GW

Click to expand...

[size=+1]They are NOT facts until you prove them. The discussion is here, NOT in those books. As far as I know the authors of those books are not members of this forum and have never posted here. I have asked you specific questions about your posts, not those books. You keep scoffing at those, who do not hold your Preterist view, using derogatory terms like "myth," and you have been asked to back up your assertions and accusations. May I suggest you do your "homework", particularly the rules. Any statement which disparages/criticizes/puts down the beliefs/practices of any other member, which cannot be supported from scripture and/or other reliable sources, does not belong on this forum. [/size]

[size=+1]Edited to add: Some information on the two books referenced above. What exactly are we to learn from these two books, that SOME people made false prophesies in the past? So what? How does that prove anything about future events? And OBTW Kyle is NOT a Preterist.

Do either of these books answer the questions, who was the beast, what was the mark of the beast, when did people have to have the mark of the beast in their head or hand to buy and sell, what is the 1000 years, the 42 months, etc?[/size]

• 
  Richard Kyle wrote a book entitled The Last Days are Here Again. That is both a "catchy" and "tongue-in-cheek" title. He says: "Prophets and soothsayers have predicted the end countless times. Their batting average has been a perfect zero. Other dates have inspired an end-of-the-world excitement: 999, 1013, 1300, 1600, 1666, 1844, and 1914."
  
  But Kyle goes on to say: "Since the 1970's there has been a flood of end-of-the-world predictions. But remember that sensible people will not jump irrationally at every prediction. Every Christian must be prepared for Christ's return. but they need to realize that signs indicating the last days are not new. They have been visible for 2000 years."
  
  http://www.highlandbaptist.org/stan's%20articles/last_days_or_new_days.htm
  
  Christinity Today Interview with Richard Kyle
  
  [Kyle] Also, with my background—I'm still a moderate premillennialist—I associated millennialism with the Christian mainstream. But in most of history, millennialism (in which people expect the world to end soon) has been the view of fringe groups. In the Middle Ages, the mainstream Catholic church held what became known as amillennialism, but the Joachites, Franciscans, and Taborites, for example, were far more millennial. Even when millennialism was popular during the Middle Ages, it wasn't the official view of the church.
  
  [Christianity Today] In spite of the fact that so many Christians in so many eras have been wrong about the details of the Second Coming, we still retain a vibrant hope in it. Why is that?
  
  [Kyle] I think it's inescapably biblical. If you're any kind of a sober, sincere Christian, you have to expect and believe that Jesus Christ is going to return physically at a particular time. The Bible hasn't given us many details about this, and so, unfortunately, the hope of Christ's return has become the fodder for the curious and for fanatics. But that doesn't change the essential biblical teaching: Christ will come again.
  
  http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/61h/61h042.html
  
  The Day and the Hour, by Francis Gumerlock. Reviewer: Jonathan H Barlow (see more about me) from St. Louis, MO USA
  Francis Gumerlock, a classmate of mine, has done a great job of research here. He chronicles the false interpretations of end-time prophecy throughout church history. You will learn about some of the most bizarre scoundrels and heretics in church history as well as some orthodox folks who were simply reading the Bible in light of world events rather than the opposite. Reading this book is a good way to get a jolt of humility in this day and age when prophecy books about a future antichrist run rampant (The Left Behind series, for instance). This is definitely one to add to your library -- I can think of no book like it.
  
  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0915815370/ref=nosim/macinsearch/102-3905338-8750507[/list]

Justme said:

Hi OS,
Hebrews 9:26
26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

When did Jesus appear once? AT the end of the ages?

What did He appear for?

To do away with sin

How did He do away with sin?
by the sacrifice of Himself

When did He sacrifice Himself?

At the end of the ages. 30 AD or close. AION in the Greek OS, not kosmos.

Justme

Click to expand...

[size=+1]This is called research. Anyone can do it. All these resources, and more, are available at the click of a button.[/size]

• 
  Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
  
  Else must he often have suffered (epei edei auton pollakiß paqein). A common elliptical use of epei after which one must supply "if that were true" or "in that case," a protasis of a condition of the second class assumed to be untrue. The conclusion with edei is without an (verbs of necessity, obligation, etc.). See Robertson, Grammar, p. 963. The conclusion with an occurs in Luke 10:2. See also 1 Corinthians 5:10. "Since, if that were true, it would be necessary for him to suffer often." Since the foundation of the world (apo katabolhß kosmou). See 1 Corinthians 4:3 for this phrase. The one sacrifice of Christ is of absolute and final value (1 Peter 1:19; Revelation 13:8). At the end (epi sunteleiai). Consummation or completion as in Matthew 13:39 which see. Hath he been manifested (pepanerwtai). Perfect passive indicative of panerow, permanent state. See "the primitive hymn or confession of faith" (Moffatt) in 1 Timothy 3:16 and also 1 Peter 1:20. Jesus came once for all (Hebrews 1:2). To put away sin (eiß aqethsin thß amartiaß). See Hebrews 7:18 for the word aqethsiß. "The sacrifice of Christ dealt with sin as a principle: the Levitical sacrifices with individual transgressions" (Vincent).
  
  Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory
  on the Whole Bible
  
  Hebrew 9:26. then—in that case. must . . . have suffered--rather as Greek, "It would have been necessary for Him often to suffer." In order to "offer" (Hebrews 9:25), or present Himself often before God in the heavenly holiest place, like the legal high priests making fresh renewals of this high priestly function. He would have had, and would have often to suffer. His oblation of Himself before God was once for all (that is, the bringing in of His blood into the heavenly Holy of Holies), and therefore the preliminary suffering was once for all.
  
  since the foundation of the world--The continued sins of men, from their first creation, would entail a continual suffering on earth, and consequent oblation of His blood in the heavenly holiest place, since the foundation of the world, if the one oblation "in the fulness of time" were not sufficient. PHILO [The Creation of the World, p. 637], shows that the high priest of the Hebrews offered sacrifices for the whole human race. "If there had been greater efficacy in the repetition of the oblation, Christ necessarily would not have been so long promised, but would have been sent immediately after the foundation of the world to suffer, and offer Himself at successive periods" [GROTIUS].
  
  now--as the case is, once--for all; without need of renewal. Rome's fiction of an UNBLOODY sacrifice in the mass, contradicts her assertion that the blood of Christ is present in the wine; and also confutes her assertion that the mass is propitiatory; for, if unbloody, it cannot be propitiatory; for without shedding of blood there is no remission (Hebrews 9:22). Moreover, the expression "once" for all here, and in Hebrews 9:28, and Hebrews 10:10,12, proves the falsity of her view that there is a continually repeated offering of Christ in the Eucharist or mass. The offering of Christ was a thing once done that it might be thought of for ever (compare Note, in the end of the world--Greek, "at the consummation of the ages"; the winding up of all the previous ages from the foundation of the world; to be followed by a new age (Hebrews 1:1,2). The last age, beyond which no further age is to be expected before Christ's speedy second coming, which is the complement of the first coming; literally, "the ends of the ages"; Matthew 28:20 is literally, "the consummation of the age," or world (singular; not as here, plural, ages). Compare "the fulness of times," Ephesians 1:10.
  
  John Gill's Exposition of the Bible Hebrews 9:26
  
  but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away
  sin by the sacrifice of himself; this is to be understood, not of his appearance in heaven, of which mention is made in (Hebrews 9:24) but of his incarnation on earth, called an appearance; not as though his human nature was a mere phantom or apparition, for it was a real thing; or as if he was then manifested to be what he really was before; for before his incarnation he was not truly and actually man; but this is said with respect to the manifestation of his invisible deity; or of him as the Son of God in human nature; and in regard to the types of the old law, under which he was hid; and with respect to the prophecies of his coming; and it designs the same thing with his descent from heaven, and coming into this world, in which he appeared in fashion as a man, as a mean man, as an afflicted one; yea, he looked like a sinful man, bearing the infirmities and sins of his people; his appearance was but to a very few, and for a little time; and the time of it was, "in the end of the world"; the same with the last days; the last age of the world; the end of the Jewish economy; at the close of their civil and ecclesiastical state, according to (Habakkuk 2:3) & so the Jews expect their Messiah (Mymyh Uql) , "at the end of days" F14: and this appearance was but "once"; there were many appearances of him in an human form, under the Old Testament dispensation; and there were many after his resurrection; but this is said to be but once, in opposition to the many types and sacrifices under the law, and agrees with his one oblation, and once suffering: the end of his appearance was, to put away sin; the filth of it, by his blood; the guilt of it, by his atoning sacrifice; and the punishment of it, by his sufferings and death, the penalty of the law; and in consequence of all this, the dominion of it by the power of his grace, and the very being of it hereafter: and this putting it away is signified by his bearing, carrying, and taking it away; by removing it as far as the east is from the west; by finishing and making an end of it; by crucifying the old man, destroying the body of sin, and by an utter disannulling and abolishing it, as a debt, and as a law; and all this is done by the sacrifice of himself; by the offering up of his body and soul an offering for sin; as in (Hebrews 9:14).

Hi OS,

I asked you. I don't care what these guys think. I can't track them down and prove to them where they are right or wrong. I want to hear your answers.

Justme