Is this TRUE?????

[npetreley]

Originally posted by davo

How simple is it to believe Jesus' words -how more simple for his hearers to believe his words, unless you believe Jesus was lying to them

I'll get back to this in a moment.

Example #1 of how the preterist takes the word "YOU" and applies different rules to it than to any other word or verse in the rest of the passage.

Originally posted by davo

I'm not sure how you reason Alexander the Great from 3-4 centuries before into 70AD -but I have noticed that with Futurism many things are possible. The ALL THINGS is in referrence to ALL the verses before that Jesus just stated would occur in that generation of hearers. And not only that but other OT prophecies about the coming in of the New Covenant.

It doesn't say ALL THE PREVIOUS VERSES THAT YOU'll EVENTUALLY WRITE. It says ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN (past tense). Included in ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN is the fact that the sun will go dark, the moon will turn to the color of blood, the sky will recede like a scroll, etc., which always refers to the Day of the Lord. More on that in a moment.

Example #2 of how the preterist takes the word "YOU" and applies different rules to it than to any other word or verse in the rest of the passage.

Originally posted by davo

Once again the text in context and logic provides the answer. The THEY is none other than Jesus' audience -how simple to believe. The parallel Mt 24:30 mentions "the tribes of the earth" [Gk earth=Land, hence "tribes" -of what? -the Land of ISRAEL!

You are implying that "tribes" cannot possibly apply to any tribes other than the tribes of Israel (I'd say 12 tribes, but although there are 12 at any one time, the tribes themselves change.) There are and were other tribes besides tribes of Israel, you know. How can we know if your interpretation is correct? Well, it MIGHT be correct if it wasn't contradicted by other passages. It is. Here's a parallel passage from Revelation that gets VERY specific about who THEY are:

The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red, 13and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind. 14 The sky receded like a scroll, rolling up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.
15 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16 They called to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?"

Example #3 of how the preterist takes the word "YOU" and applies different rules to it than to any other word or verse in the rest of the passage.

Originally posted by davo

Do a study of God's coming in judgment throughout the OT and you'll find some describe it in terms of "coming on the clouds" -they were ALL literal WITHOUT necessitating "physicality."

"How simple is it to believe Jesus' words -how more simple for his hearers to believe his words, unless you believe Jesus was lying to them."

IMO, Jesus would have been lying to them if Jesus returned in 70AD. How simple it is to believe Jesus' words that we would SEE Him coming in power and great glory on the Day of the Lord! Especially since this description of events is clearly written in both OT and NT. Yet you take TWO WORDS, "YOU" and "GENERATION" and interpret them in a way that precludes the plain and simple interpretation of a myriad of verses whose plain and simple meaning contradict your conclusions. And the contradictory verse in this case (seeing Jesus return on the Day of the Lord) has MANY MORE confirming parallel occurrances in the OT AND NT than the "YOU" and "GENERATION" to which you so frequently refer.

Does that mean you are wrong about "YOU" and "GENERATION"? Not necessarily. That's not what I'm saying. There may be a way to harmonize both - I'm not certain.

But here's the problem in a nutshell.

The Bible -- both the OT and NT -- takes many liberties with language. Isaiah records many of the prophecies about Jesus in the past tense, for example, yet we know that these were not fulfilled until after Jesus was born.

Therefore it is quite POSSIBLE that the "YOU" to which Jesus refers is his immediate audience, but it could also mean "YOU JEWS" or "YOU READERS OF THIS GOSPEL". Certainly Jesus knew it would be written -- he directs such things. Similarly, the greek word "genea" for GENERATION could easily be interpreted as "THIS LIVING GENERATION" or "RACE OF JEWS".

You can certainly claim that there is only one interpretation -- the one you think is plain and simple. But it is hypocritical to turn around and ignore the plain and simple interpretation of a verse that appears just a few verses later, especially when that verse is repeated so many times throughout the Bible in almost the same way.

So what's my point?

Please stop claiming you have the exclusive true interpretation of the Bible. You ARE interpreting the text properly in some cases but in other cases you are not only torturing the text, you're ripping it limb from limb and gouging out its spleen with a plastic fork. My advice is to just chill out. You may be right about some things, and the futurists may be right about some things, too. We'll all find out sooner or later. In the meantime, stop worrying about what others will think about Jesus and prophecy. You're not in charge, God is. I trust that God will see his plan to fruition with or without your (or my) help.

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by GTX
Because these are the basic truths of the bible. An accurate compilation of basic truths to summarize our belief.I want to hear more about Jesus descending from the clouds. This has to be physical. I too am going out on a limb, but it seems Jesus is saying he will descend from the clouds for all nations to see.

GTX, Well, I would say we would have to ask some logical questions if we believe Jesus is to literally and physically return to planet earth on a cloud.....

It will have to be on a cloudy day, no doubt about it right? Will He return during the daylight hours and if that is the case, what about the folks who are sleeping in the middle of the night in darkness on the other side of the globe? How will they see Him? The Bible says every eye shall see him right? If it's going to be on a cloudy day will there be a hail storm forecasted? How is Christ going to remove all believers if we do encounter a hail storm? And not to mention the freezing cold temperatures thousands of feet into the air? This could present many obstacles! Not to mention numerous believers entering into heaven with all sorts of symtoms of colds and the flu! Oh that's right I forgot, that's the rapture and that is supposed to be a secret event is that correct? So I guess when Christ comes riding in on His trusty old cloud that would be the third coming but we'll call it the second coming! Doest this sound about right on target to you?
Fill me in on your thoughts so I can be ready!

 

[GTX]

Originally posted by franklin



GTX, Well, I would say we would have to ask some logical questions if we believe Jesus is to literally and physically return to planet earth on a cloud.....

It will have to be on a cloudy day, no doubt about it right? Will He return during the daylight hours and if that is the case, what about the folks who are sleeping in the middle of the night in darkness on the other side of the globe? How will they see Him? The Bible says every eye shall see him right? If it's going to be on a cloudy day will there be a hail storm forecasted? How is Christ going to remove all believers if we do encounter a hail storm? And not to mention the freezing cold temperatures thousands of feet into the air? This could present many obstacles! Not to mention numerous believers entering into heaven with all sorts of symtoms of colds and the flu! Oh that's right I forgot, that's the rapture and that is supposed to be a secret event is that correct? So I guess when Christ comes riding in on His trusty old cloud that would be the third coming but we'll call it the second coming! Doest this sound about right on target to you?
Fill me in on your thoughts so I can be ready!

Do you think maybe it will be an event that Jesus has prepared for? He is all powerful he has the power to control and orchestrate every aspect of his return, including weather, temperature, etc.

C'mon Franklin you are underestimating our Lord. You know as well as I that Jesus will have this under control, I mean this will be a divine event.

It will be glorious, it will be divine.

We cannot comprehend Gods being, maybe he can be in more than one place at once, it is not for us to decide what he is capable of. I mean the sun, the stars, everything will be a divine event, it will cause all to know that it is divine and know that Jesus is all powerful.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by franklin

GTX, Well, I would say we would have to ask some logical questions if we believe Jesus is to literally and physically return to planet earth on a cloud.....

It will have to be on a cloudy day, no doubt about it right? Will He return during the daylight hours and if that is the case, what about the folks who are sleeping in the middle of the night in darkness on the other side of the globe? How will they see Him? The Bible says every eye shall see him right? If it's going to be on a cloudy day will there be a hail storm forecasted? How is Christ going to remove all believers if we do encounter a hail storm? And not to mention the freezing cold temperatures thousands of feet into the air? This could present many obstacles! Not to mention numerous believers entering into heaven with all sorts of symtoms of colds and the flu! Oh that's right I forgot, that's the rapture and that is supposed to be a secret event is that correct? So I guess when Christ comes riding in on His trusty old cloud that would be the third coming but we'll call it the second coming! Doest this sound about right on target to you?
Fill me in on your thoughts so I can be ready!

There are so many straw men in your argument that I wouldn't know where to start.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by GTX



C'mon Franklin you are underestimating our Lord. You know as well as I that Jesus will have this under control, I mean this will be a divine event.

It will be glorious, it will be divine.

We cannot comprehend Gods being, maybe he can be in more than one place at once, it is not for us to decide what he is capable of. I mean the sun, the stars, everything will be a divine event, it will cause all to know that it is divine and know that Jesus is all powerful.

GTX! WOW!

Do I hear you correctly?
aren't you saying that all franklins points are rendered mute because of the "Divine spiritual nature" of the 2nd coming?

That must be what you are saying. How else could Every eye see Him , including they that pierced Him? Isn't it true that if not for it's Divine "spiritual" nature, the predictions of the events surrounding the 2nd coming could not happen?

Franklins points are valid if you view God in a Box, and limit him to a Fleshy 5 foot 9 inch human frame, However I'm glad to see you don't limit Christ in that way. You have clearly shown us that, no matter WHEN you believe it came / will come, the 2nd coming can only be understood as "spiritual" in nature.

Keep it up!

 

[GTX]

It will be both physical and divine.

Divine because of God and Physical because it will be for physical humans to behold.

 

[GTX]

Ok, npetreley put this out there, it looks pretty tough, how do you guys handle this? You guys have to admit it's pretty good.

Originally posted by npetreley


Example #1 of how the preterist takes the word "YOU" and applies different rules to it than to any other word or verse in the rest of the passage.



It doesn't say ALL THE PREVIOUS VERSES THAT YOU'll EVENTUALLY WRITE. It says ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN (past tense). Included in ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN is the fact that the sun will go dark, the moon will turn to the color of blood, the sky will recede like a scroll, etc., which always refers to the Day of the Lord. More on that in a moment.

Example #2 of how the preterist takes the word "YOU" and applies different rules to it than to any other word or verse in the rest of the passage.



You are implying that "tribes" cannot possibly apply to any tribes other than the tribes of Israel (I'd say 12 tribes, but although there are 12 at any one time, the tribes themselves change.) There are and were other tribes besides tribes of Israel, you know. How can we know if your interpretation is correct? Well, it MIGHT be correct if it wasn't contradicted by other passages. It is. Here's a parallel passage from Revelation that gets VERY specific about who THEY are:



Example #3 of how the preterist takes the word "YOU" and applies different rules to it than to any other word or verse in the rest of the passage.



"How simple is it to believe Jesus' words -how more simple for his hearers to believe his words, unless you believe Jesus was lying to them."

IMO, Jesus would have been lying to them if Jesus returned in 70AD. How simple it is to believe Jesus' words that we would SEE Him coming in power and great glory on the Day of the Lord! Especially since this description of events is clearly written in both OT and NT. Yet you take TWO WORDS, "YOU" and "GENERATION" and interpret them in a way that precludes the plain and simple interpretation of a myriad of verses whose plain and simple meaning contradict your conclusions. And the contradictory verse in this case (seeing Jesus return on the Day of the Lord) has MANY MORE confirming parallel occurrances in the OT AND NT than the "YOU" and "GENERATION" to which you so frequently refer.

Does that mean you are wrong about "YOU" and "GENERATION"? Not necessarily. That's not what I'm saying. There may be a way to harmonize both - I'm not certain.

But here's the problem in a nutshell.

The Bible -- both the OT and NT -- takes many liberties with language. Isaiah records many of the prophecies about Jesus in the past tense, for example, yet we know that these were not fulfilled until after Jesus was born.

Therefore it is quite POSSIBLE that the "YOU" to which Jesus refers is his immediate audience, but it could also mean "YOU JEWS" or "YOU READERS OF THIS GOSPEL". Certainly Jesus knew it would be written -- he directs such things. Similarly, the greek word "genea" for GENERATION could easily be interpreted as "THIS LIVING GENERATION" or "RACE OF JEWS".

You can certainly claim that there is only one interpretation -- the one you think is plain and simple. But it is hypocritical to turn around and ignore the plain and simple interpretation of a verse that appears just a few verses later, especially when that verse is repeated so many times throughout the Bible in almost the same way.

So what's my point?

Please stop claiming you have the exclusive true interpretation of the Bible. You ARE interpreting the text properly in some cases but in other cases you are not only torturing the text, you're ripping it limb from limb and gouging out its spleen with a plastic fork. My advice is to just chill out. You may be right about some things, and the futurists may be right about some things, too. We'll all find out sooner or later. In the meantime, stop worrying about what others will think about Jesus and prophecy. You're not in charge, God is. I trust that God will see his plan to fruition with or without your (or my) help.

 

[davo]

Originally posted by npetreley
It doesn't say ALL THE PREVIOUS VERSES THAT YOU'll EVENTUALLY WRITE. It says ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN (past tense). Included in ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN is the fact that the sun will go dark, the moon will turn to the color of blood, the sky will recede like a scroll, etc., which always refers to the Day of the Lord.

Jesus in what he had just said was reiterating "in detail" that which had been written in the prophets concerning the "end-time." I notice you conveniently left out my "And not only that but other OT prophecies about the coming..." The cosmic cataclysmic events described would have been understood by Jesus' hearers as he wasn't speaking over their heads [at least those that had ears to hear] as it's the OT language of divine judgment. Sun moon and stars falling is prophetic language of national leadership i.e., headship. When Joseph told his family about his dream of the sun moon and stars bowing to him THEY knew he spoke of THEM. Peter quoting Joel on the Day of Pentecost identifies this "cosmic language" as being the change in covenants that was in the process of taking place.

Originally posted by npetreley
You are implying that "tribes" cannot possibly apply to any tribes other than the tribes of Israel (I'd say 12 tribes, but although there are 12 at any one time, the tribes themselves change.) There are and were other tribes besides tribes of Israel, you know. How can we know if your interpretation is correct?

Of course there were "tribes" elsewhere -no doubt. But seeing as Jesus was speaking to his people about their times etc, it isn't unreasonable to see as applying to those to whom he was speaking -not forgetting he said elsewhere that he had come for the lost sheep of Israel. [now before you run off saying I'm excluding the rest of us, remember the context of what we're talking about -their understanding of what they were hearing]

Originally posted by npetreley
IMO, Jesus would have been lying to them if Jesus returned in 70AD. How simple it is to believe Jesus' words that we would SEE Him coming in power and great glory on the Day of the Lord! Especially since this description of events is clearly written in both OT and NT. Yet you take TWO WORDS, "YOU" and "GENERATION" and interpret them in a way that precludes the plain and simple interpretation of a myriad of verses whose plain and simple meaning contradict your conclusions. And the contradictory verse in this case (seeing Jesus return on the Day of the Lord) has MANY MORE confirming parallel occurrances in the OT AND NT than the "YOU" and "GENERATION" to which you so frequently refer.

It has been said by another poster over in this section [according to their belief] the fact [in their oppinion] that Jesus didn't keep his word and return in their generation as he prophesied and promised, so indeed [in their opinion] makes Jesus a false prophet and fraud. I reject this -as He did return on time as promised. His reasoning is the same as yours -it wasn't physical "so it didn't happen!" -which sounds a lot like "where is his promised coming -since of old things have continued as normal!" This IMO is a huge problem with futurism.

As for the word YOU; if I were to say to "you" that I'm coming over to see "you" then when I arrived I said "well actually I meant "everybody" in the US -not "you," you could be forgiven for thinking me a lier
and nut -why? because when I sad what I said I was talking to you. How about "you" show me a verse where YOU is used that doesn't mean what it plainly says. Consider context and consider audience relevance.

Originally posted by npetreley
Certainly Jesus knew it would be written -- he directs such things. Similarly, the greek word "genea" for GENERATION could easily be interpreted as "THIS LIVING GENERATION" or "RACE OF JEWS".

If you are serious in your claim then I encourage you to do a NT word study on "genea" and then come back and show where "genea" means race, or anything other than the generation in mention.

Originally posted by npetreley
Please stop claiming you have the exclusive true interpretation of the Bible. You ARE interpreting the text properly in some cases but in other cases you are not only torturing the text, you're ripping it limb from limb and gouging out its spleen with a plastic fork. My advice is to just chill out. You may be right about some things, and the futurists may be right about some things, too. We'll all find out sooner or later. In the meantime, stop worrying about what others will think about Jesus and prophecy. You're not in charge, God is.

npetreley, you make more unfounded claims here. I have never once claimed exclusivity to truth in interpretation -and you cannot produce one post of this. It is true that I believe my approach is biblically more sound than yours -yet that makes me no different than you or anyone else with respect to certain beliefs. And I'm not the one reacting and worrying about others interpretations -I'm simply answering YOUR questions -now, if you don't like my answers then don't ask the questions! You're "in charge" of how you react or respond.

davo

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by GTX
Do you think maybe it will be an event that Jesus has prepared for? He is all powerful he has the power to control and orchestrate every aspect of his return, including weather, temperature, etc.

GT, I'm not sure what you mean by Jesus preparing for the journey back to planet earth, however, according to His words in the OliverDiscourse, He said only the Father knew the day and the hour and since approximately 200 centuries have passed how can we be sure we can trust any of His words anymore! You see GT, Jesus spoke those time statements during the lifetime of His contemporaries and those folks who were eagerly listening to Jesus speaking were believing every single word He was telling them. I think they believed Jesus words with all their hearts that He was going to appear the second time to complete their salvation! Now do you really think that Jesus would let them down like that? Is that the Jesus you want to serve?
Well, GT, what if I was to tell you that He did keep His word and His promise just like He proclaimed to His diciples and He did return during the generation to those He spoke all those words to? Would that disappoint you? Disappoint you in such a way that you would feel like you really missed out on such a great event as the second advent of the Lord? Or would you shout it from the the top of the roof of your house and proclaim that sin, death and the devil has finally been defeated and Christ really did keep his word during the times of His contemporaries? I would rejoice! I would rejoice out of my skin if I could! just like I rejoiced when someone shared with me this great revelation that was staring me right in the face all of my Christian life but I was to blind to see past my own nose for 17 years!!! It can happen to you too!
It's as simple as just taking Jesus at His words!

C'mon Franklin you are underestimating our Lord. You know as well as I that Jesus will have this under control, I mean this will be a divine event..[/B]

As you can tell from my last comment, I have not underestimated my Lord Jesus! I believe every single word He said to His diciples and yes it was a divive event at that! And I REJOICE!!!! rejoice that it took place 2000 years ago just like when He gave His life for me and shed His precious blood on that cruel rugged old cross! That is past to BTW, just like His second appearing!

It will be glorious, it will be divine...[/B]

Oh yes it was GT, it WAS divine! Yes it WAS GLORIOUS!

We cannot comprehend Gods being, maybe he can be in more than one place at once, it is not for us to decide what he is capable of. I mean the sun, the stars, everything will be a divine event, it will cause all to know that it is divine and know that Jesus is all powerful. [/B]

GT, I agree with you, we can't comprehend all that God has in store for us and His word is simple enough for us to comprehend that when He inspired the writers of His word He made sure those who were living during those historical times would be able to understand the simple message of that great day and be watchful and ready for the day of the Lord just as His Son had predicted! Yes, the stars the moon the sun and don't forget the lightening stretching from one end of the heavens to the other, yes it sure must have been a glorious sight to see! Can't you just see it in your mind now how it must have been? Just open up the pages where all this is taking place! Its in there! Go seek Him in those passages! Praise the Lord!

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by davo

It has been said by another poster over in this section [according to their belief] the fact [in their oppinion] that Jesus didn't keep his word and return in their generation as he prophesied and promised, so indeed [in their opinion] makes Jesus a false prophet and fraud.

Aren't there two possible answers to this? One is that Jesus did return. Another is that the assumption that Jesus would return in the lifetime of the apostles is incorrect. You assert one, I assert another. I hope both of us are getting our interpretations from scripture. What I suspect, however, is that some preterists are arriving at their answer only because they want to be able to pacify people with objections like the one you cite above. IMO that is the wrong motivation, and could easily have led to the wrong conclusion.

As for the word YOU; if I were to say to "you" that I'm coming over to see "you" then when I arrived I said "well actually I meant "everybody" in the US -not "you," you could be forgiven for thinking me a lier
and nut -why? because when I sad what I said I was talking to you. How about "you" show me a verse where YOU is used that doesn't mean what it plainly says. Consider context and consider audience relevance.

Perhaps because I'm a writer it is plain to me that "YOU" can very easily be misunderstood. Regardless, you seem to think nothing of abandoning this process of "plain and simple, in-context" interpretation when you get to the part about "You will SEE." You reason that stars are used elsewhere as symbols. Well, if I can find somewhere in scripture that clearly refers to stars literally, will that change your mind? Probably not, because IMO, you are [often] simply making up whatever rules of interpretation you need to prop up your conclusion. EDIT: Oops, I did it again. I mean "YOU preterists" here. And I added "often" because I'm sure it isn't done all the time.

If you are serious in your claim then I encourage you to do a NT word study on "genea" and then come back and show where "genea" means race, or anything other than the generation in mention.

I'm simply suggesting that it IS an alternative to make the point. It never really mattered that much to me. I may do a study, anyway, however - just because I'm curious now.

npetreley, you make more unfounded claims here. I have never once claimed exclusivity to truth in interpretation -and you cannot produce one post of this. It is true that I believe my approach is biblically more sound than yours -yet that makes me no different than you or anyone else with respect to certain beliefs. And I'm not the one reacting and worrying about others interpretations -I'm simply answering YOUR questions -now, if you don't like my answers then don't ask the questions! You're "in charge" of how you react or respond.

I apologize for making it sound like I was talking to YOU, personally. I would have thought the context of my heading for each example (such as "Example #3 of how the preterist") would have indicated that I was talking about preterists in general and not YOU specifically. But I guess the word "YOU" can be misleading sometimes, eh? I wish I was clever enough to have set you up for that remark, but it was entirely by accident, I assure YOU.

The fact is, I've read several preterist posts here that pretty much communicate that they have the true interpretation of the Bible and everyone else is confused. I'm pretty convinced of my interpretation of most things, and if you've read my articles you'll know that I'm very forceful with my opinions, but I still can't imagine saying something like that to anyone.

 

[davo]

Originally posted by npetreley
Aren't there two possible answers to this? One is that Jesus did return. Another is that the assumption that Jesus would return in the lifetime of the apostles is incorrect. You assert one, I assert another. I hope both of us are getting our interpretations from scripture. What I suspect, however, is that some preterists are arriving at their answer only because they want to be able to pacify people with objections like the one you cite above. IMO that is the wrong motivation, and could easily have led to the wrong conclusion.

I can't speak for others "motivations" -however that's not mine. The point I was making is that what Jesus meant what he said, and postponement eschatology gives more amunitition for people to reject the Gospel as unreliable and unnecessary.

Originally posted by npetreley
The fact is, I've read several preterist posts here that pretty much communicate that they have the true interpretation of the Bible and everyone else is confused. I'm pretty convinced of my interpretation of most things, and if you've read my articles you'll know that I'm very forceful with my opinions, but I still can't imagine saying something like that to anyone.

Well confused or not, if you're talking about arrogance and superiority of attitude you may want to look back through some posts and see who has been expressing their christian love tolerance and respect in terms of "deceived" "of the devil" "servants of Satan" "devisive" "lost" "non-christian" "twisted" "heretics" "haters of truth" "false brethren" etc -ad nauseam. You'll find the ledger falls squarely on the futurists side of the fence.

davo

 

[Mike Beidler]

Originally posted by npetreley
What I suspect, however, is that some preterists are arriving at their answer only because they want to be able to pacify people with objections like the one you cite above. IMO that is the wrong motivation, and could easily have led to the wrong conclusion.

I couldn't agree with you more. That is why I don't use that argument when discussing my conversion to preterism.

As for me, I could care less what the skeptics think. I believe that spiritual things are spiritually discerned, and that it takes an act of God to open the eyes of an unbeliever to the truth. (This is, of course, a totally different theological animal.) I simply want to be subservient to the truth and be intellectually (as well as spiritually) honest with myself.

For decades, I was comfortable with futurism. For years, I was comfortable with pre-wrath rapturism. But in both cases, as I dug further into the Word, the Greek and Hebrew languages, Judaic culture, and history, I found both views wanting scripturally and (for me) intellectually. In short, I am primarily satisfying my own personal search for the truth.

You can ask my futurist, non-preterist wife. Not once have I declared her the believer of heresy. I've been extremely patient in my ways, teaching her what I've learned and letting her come to her own conclusions.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by npetreley


Aren't there two possible answers to this? One is that Jesus did return. Another is that the assumption that Jesus would return in the lifetime of the apostles is incorrect.

Just so I'm clear, are you calling the preterist's "assumption" that Jesus would return in the apostles lifetime "incorrect", or are you calling the Apostles assumption that Jesus would return in their lifetime incorrect?

Originally posted by npetreley
Well, if I can find somewhere in scripture that clearly refers to stars literally, will that change your mind? Probably not, because IMO, you are [often] simply making up whatever rules of interpretation you need to prop up your conclusion.

Perhaps if you could find any other "Judgement" passages that Cleary use "sun moon and stars" literally, I'd be interested.

Or do you consider drawing a paralell from other Judgement texts to be "making up rules of interpratation for myself"?

Disregarding the unwaivering, precident setting use of this language in Judgement motif, opting instead for a polar opposite interpratation is not just making up the rules, it's blatant contempt for the rules.

The above is just my opinion.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by davo

Well confused or not, if you're talking about arrogance and superiority of attitude you may want to look back through some posts and see who has been expressing their christian love tolerance and respect in terms of "deceived" "of the devil" "servants of Satan" "devisive" "lost" "non-christian" "twisted" "heretics" "haters of truth" "false brethren" etc -ad nauseam. You'll find the ledger falls squarely on the futurists side of the fence.

You may be right. I haven't seen those, but I don't read every post, either. Nevertheless, you know what they say. Two wrongs don't make a right, even if the other side is worse. And I must say that, while it is still inexcusable, I can imagine that I might eventually lose my temper if someone tells me enough times that their view is the only Biblical view while continuing to ignore the scriptural problems with that view.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by parousia70

Just so I'm clear, are you calling the preterist's "assumption" that Jesus would return in the apostles lifetime "incorrect", or are you calling the Apostles assumption that Jesus would return in their lifetime incorrect?

Did the apostles assume that Jesus would return in their lifetime? If so, why would Peter have said that in the last days, people would scoff and say "where is this coming you were talking about?" He answered with the famous "day is like a thousand years" verse. Preterists and others like to poke fun at that verse, as if you either have to ignore it or interpret it to mean you have to translate every reference to a day to mean 1,000 years. But that's intellectual dishonesty. The verse has nothing to do with translating days into millenia. Peter was CLEARLY saying that if Jesus didn't come back soon, it didn't mean He wasn't coming back at all. The hyperbole he applied (day=1000 years) simply emphasized that the Lord doesn't reckon time the same way we do, and he had no idea whatsoever how long it would be before Jesus returned, but knew that Jesus would, indeed, return.

 

[davo]

Originally posted by npetreley
Did the apostles assume that Jesus would return in their lifetime?

Absolutely, it was more than an assumption -it was their teaching -AND you can ignore this but the scriptures make plain [eg: "the Judge IS at the door" metaphorically of cause

Originally posted by npetreley
If so, why would Peter have said that in the last days, people would scoff and say "where is this coming you were talking about?"

It's just like that today -futurists are saying: HAH!! where is his coming, I didn't see it!!

Non belief is nothing new

davo

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by davo

It's just like that today -futurists are saying: HAH!! where is his coming, I didn't see it!!

Non belief is nothing new

davo

That doesn't explain Peter's answer, and Peter's answer implies he did NOT think it was necessarily going to be in his lifetime.

 

[davo]

Originally posted by npetreley
The hyperbole he applied (day=1000 years) simply emphasized that the Lord doesn't reckon time the same way we do, and he had no idea whatsoever how long it would be before Jesus returned, but knew that Jesus would, indeed, return.

Obviously [in your reckoning] there is no sense made of any time statements made by Jesus or his inspired apostles -as you've already answered your own query.

davo

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by npetreley


Did the apostles assume that Jesus would return in their lifetime? If so, why would Peter have said that in the last days, people would scoff and say "where is this coming you were talking about?"

It was only 35 years since Jesus left and Scoffers were already saying "where is the promise of his coming"? Peter Said in the "last days" it would happen, Peter also said that He was living in the "Last days".

Originally posted by npetreley

The verse has nothing to do with translating days into millenia. Peter was CLEARLY saying that if Jesus didn't come back soon, it didn't mean He wasn't coming back at all. The hyperbole he applied (day=1000 years) simply emphasized that the Lord doesn't reckon time the same way we do, and he had no idea whatsoever how long it would be before Jesus returned, but knew that Jesus would, indeed, return.

If Peter Had no Idea, Why would he declare the Day of the Lord to Be "At Hand"? just like all the Apostles did? Isn't that dishonest to say an event is indeed "at hand" when in reality you have no idea when it will ocour?

Another evidence that the Apostles believe Jesus would return in their lifetime:

Jesus told his disciples, James among them, that He would not be "near & at the door" until they saw certain signs. (Matt 24:33) Before the signs were seen, they knew He was not "near & at the door", Jesus makes it clear that only after the signs were seen, was He in fact, "Near & At the door".


James, writing 30 some odd years later, Says some exciting things!
James 5:8-9
8 You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. 9 Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!

Npetr

James was instructed By Jesus directly that He would not be "near & at the doors" until certain signs were seen.

Either James saw the signs, or James was wrong.
Which are you more comfortable with?

 

[NumberOneSon]

If Peter Had no Idea, Why would he declare the Day of the Lord to Be "At Hand"? just like all the Apostles did? Isn't that dishonest to say an event is indeed "at hand" when in reality you have no idea when it will ocour?

Jesus told his disciples, James among them, that He would not be "near & at the door" until they saw certain signs. (Matt 24:33) Before the signs were seen, they knew He was not "near & at the door", Jesus makes it clear that only after the signs were seen, was He in fact, "Near & At the door".

James, writing 30 some odd years later, Says some exciting things!
James 5:8-9
8 You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. 9 Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!

Excellent points, P70!! The crux of the matter is this; the theory that the apostles had "no idea when Christ would return" cannot be valid because the apostles THEMSELVES indicated that the time WAS at hand. You can't claim the apostles did not know the timeframe when their epistles show that they did.

They did not say: "Be ready, for the time MAY be at hand, it COULD come at any second, we just don't know."
They said: "the time IS at hand, so be ready".

There's a huge difference from claiming something "mignt" be at hand (like today's Christians), and claiming that someithing "is" at hand (like the apostles). Due to revelation of the Spirit and the signs, the apostles knew that the time was "at hand", although they did not know the exact day or hour.

You cannot believe that Peter had "no idea" when Christ would return, when he in fact stated in his first epistle, "But the end of all things IS AT HAND: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.".

In order for Peter to say that the time WAS at hand he had to KNOW it was.

In Christ,

Acts6:5