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

Status
Not open for further replies.

jenlu

Active Member
May 29, 2002
246
2
Visit site
✟625.00
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...
 
Upvote 0

Thunderchild

Sheep in Wolf's clothing
Jan 5, 2002
1,542
1
68
Adelaide
Visit site
✟3,180.00
Faith
Non-Denom
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.
 
Upvote 0

Thunderchild

Sheep in Wolf's clothing
Jan 5, 2002
1,542
1
68
Adelaide
Visit site
✟3,180.00
Faith
Non-Denom
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.)
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
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.
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
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.
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
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
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
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.
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
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
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
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.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
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.
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
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
 
Upvote 0

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
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?
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
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 think] 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.

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
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
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
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Didaskomenos

Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Feb 11, 2002
1,057
40
GA
Visit site
✟18,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
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.
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
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
 
Upvote 0

jenlu

Active Member
May 29, 2002
246
2
Visit site
✟625.00
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...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.