• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

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

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by GW, Jun 15, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheBear

    TheBear Free Agent

    +1,627
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
  2. GW

    GW Veteran

    +58
    Christian
    Dear John the Bear.

    Please note that Revelation 1:7 is a quotation of a passage from Zechariah -- namely, Zechariah 12:10-14. The mourning of the tribes in that Zechariah passage is a mourning of the tribes of Israel. Case closed. To try and make the "tribes of the land mourning" mean some OTHER tribes than the ones Zechariah meant (and, thus St. John who quotes him) is very bad hermeneutics. I highly recommend you read Zechariah 12:10-14 and recognize that St. John is quoting him in Revelation 1:7.

    Furthermore, the Zechariah 12:10-14 passage is centered geographically on the city of Jerusalem. So when St. John quotes Zechariah in Rev chapter 1 we can be sure that he has a focus similar to Zechariah 12:10-14.

    The bible is the best interpreter of the bible. Do we agree on this?

    GW
     
  3. ArtistEd

    ArtistEd Junior Member

    38
    +1
    Christian
    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,
     
  4. 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?
     
  5. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +36
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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."
     
  6. parousia70

    parousia70 I'm livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +2,404
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    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?
     
  7. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    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.

    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:

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  8. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +36
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Okay guys, what about the "rapture" passage in 1 Thess 4?
    That seems to be hard to explain.
     
  9. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +36
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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.
     
  10. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    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
     
  11. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +36
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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!
     
  12. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    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.



    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 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
     
  13. 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.
     
  14. parousia70

    parousia70 I'm livin' in yesterday's tomorrow Supporter

    +2,404
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    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?
     
  15. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    Exactly -well said P70! :clap:
     
  16. jenlu

    jenlu Member

    246
    +1
    Hey The Bear...Who peirced Jesus...
     
  17. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +36
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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!
     
  18. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +36
    Non-Denom
    Married
    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.
     
  19. Mandy

    Mandy Well-Known Member

    +7
    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.
     
  20. Didaskomenos

    Didaskomenos Voiced Bilabial Spirant

    +36
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Good response, Mandy. The glorious body you're referring to has to do with what Paul says would be raised incorruptible?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...