Your post is possibly less convoluted than mine, but we have said the same thing.It does not, and cannot, mean returning "FROM" his kingdom
So much for allegorical interpretations.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.
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.
His Parousia was in the nature of all God's comings as described in the OT -all very literal, real and observable.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Are we talking past each other? I think you might be agreeing with me.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?