• 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.

Is this TRUE?????

Discussion in 'Christianity and World Religion' started by goodnewsinc, Jun 22, 2002.

  1. jenlu

    jenlu Member

    246
    +1
    I agree...Peter and all of the disciple's believed that they were living in the "last days"...the whole crux is figuring out what the "last days" entailed...was it supposed to be an end?
     
  2. franklin

    franklin Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

    +218
    Atheist
    Private
    Howdy, Jen, end of the old covenant age, beginning of the NC eternal age without end!

    and all of God's people said, Amen! and amen!! :clap:
     
  3. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    It is only dishonest if you don't qualify what one means by "at hand" or "near." And Peter DID qualify it.

    He said that Jesus isn't taking a long time because the Lord is slack in fulfilling his promises, but because the Lord is patient and longsuffering.

    But most important, he tried to hammer home the point that OUR idea of "at hand" and the Lord's idea of "at hand" are two very different things. He made this point by saying that with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day. If Peter were convinced that it would be in his lifetime, he certainly wouldn't have used that degree of hyperbole. He might have said "a decade is like a day" but not "a thousand years." But he specifically said (through hyperbole) that if it DOES take a thousand years, it's still "at hand" and "near" because the Lord doesn't reckon time the same way we do.

    Ironically, what I think you fail to see is that Peter is specifically addressing the people who assumed that the return of Jesus would have to conform to the human conception of "near" and "at hand" and "at the door" which (IMO) is the heart of the problem with preterism.

    It also explains what you were saying about James, etc. Jesus IS, indeed, near and at the door even today. He simply isn't compelled to obey our human conception of what "near" means. Why would Jesus say such a thing? It is obvious, to me, at least. Because we should ALWAYS be prepared to come face-to-face with the Lord, no matter when He returns.

    ------------------

    By the way, this is off-topic, but one way you can know that Peter is using hyperbole is because he compares the reckoning of time BOTH WAYS. Most people focus only on the "a thousand years like a day" to make the point that to the Lord a long, long time is no time at all, since He is eternal. But they ignore the fact that Peter says it works the other way, too. "A day is like a thousand years" isn't just a repetition, IMO, but it means that the Lord experiences the fullness of every second in ways we cannot possibly imagine so that he takes in 1,000 years worth of experience and information in just one day. (Not literally 1,000 years, of course, but in the same sense as "a picture is worth 1,000 words.")
     
  4. NumberOneSon

    NumberOneSon The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

    +231
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Others
    Hi npetreley

    This is the point P70 is trying to get across to you; in Matt 24, Jesus lists numerous signs that are to happen immediately before Christ returns(v. 5-32). There is no question within Christian circles that these events are signs to warn the Church the return of Christ is imminent by human standards. Can you agree with me on this? In other words, In Matt 24, Jesus was warning the body of believers that when these signs take place the end is about to occur. Are you in agreement with me on this?

    So, it is in this context that the Lord continues by saying, "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is NEAR, even at the very doors(v.33)". Again, this confirms that when Jesus says the "signs" take place then the time is "near and "at the doors". Will you again agree that in this case "near" and "at the doors" is judged by our human standard of time, not by the "1 day equals 1000" theory? It's not as if Jesus is saying that when the fig tree's branch is tender it could be another thousand years before the summer is nigh, or that when the abomination and tribulation occur the return of Christ may not happen for another 2000 years after those events, correct? In Matt 24, the "nearness" of Christ's return, using the terms, "near" and "at the door", are to be measured by human standards.

    Now in our other examples, both James and Peter declare that the time WAS at hand, and at the very door in the 1st Century. They used exactly the same phrases that Jesus used in Matt 24 to describe the nearness of end-time events by human standards. The terms "near" or "at hand" are never used to mean "always" or "potentially now". We have scriptural precedent in which Jesus used those terms to describe the nearness of His coming by human standards. Where in the NT can your precedent be found? So when Jesus said "near" or "at the door", He meant just that, but when the disciples used those identical terms to warn the Church, they meant "now, in 3 months, 2000 years, or anytime because we don't have a clue"?

    Your theory just doesn't make sense, NPetreley, unless you can find an example from Jesus or the Disciples in which they used the terms "near" or "at the door" to mean "anytime", not according to man's standard of time.   Jesus specifically told the apostles when the time of His return would be "near"  and at the " door" by human standards...and 30 some years later these very same apostles declared that the end of all things was "near", "at hand", and the judge was standing "at the door".   

    In Christ,

    Acts6:5
     
  5. Auntie

    Auntie THANK YOU JESUS!!

    +603
    Christian
    Married
    Okay, just wondering, if we could travel at the speed of light, and we left the earth and came back in one day(24 hours) traveling at the speed of light, when we returned to earth 24 hours later---how much time will have passed on the earth???  Doesn't time slow down when you reach the speed of light??

    I know, one is a time measurement, and the other measures speed.  Maybe I should say, if you are traveling at the speed of light, how far can you go in 24 hours?  And if you were traveling at the same speed that the earth rotates, how far do you go in 24 hours? 

    Can you give your answer in a ratio?  I'm wondering if the answer is 1:1,000

    Does someone know how to figure this for me?

    Any pilots out there? Mike?
     
  6. parousia70

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

    +2,614
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Sounds like sleazy laywer loophole talk to me. 


    Peter is quoting Psalms 90:4

    For a thousand years in Your sight Are like yesterday when it is past, And like a watch in the night

    Peter is simply reminding his audience that God is timeless. whether He promised to do something tomorrow, or whether He promised to do something in 1000 years, makes not difference to God when it comes to keeping that promise.

    What Peter isn't saying is that If God promised to do something "tomorrow" He could wait 1000 years to fulfill it, and still be true to His word, which is what the futurist is contending.


     

    On the above, we are in agreement. Excellent insight! and yet another reason to disregard a literal 1000 year reign, for 1 earth day could easily satisfy 1000 years in "Gods time" as you so eloquently demonstrated.
     
  7. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    So? In the context it still reads like Peter is saying that it doesn't matter how long it takes, the promise is still good. And you can't discount the objection he is answering:

    Note especially, scoffers will come in the last days. WILL COME. When? IN THE LAST DAYS.

    Now I happen to believe the last days started back in the 1st century and the last days continue even until today. So it is certainly possible Peter is saying "scoffers will come in a week or two after I write this.." But IMO that's a bit of a stretch. ;)

    Please stop saying there's a 1 day = 1000 years theory. If others believe that, fine, but I've made it clear that I believe it's simply hyperbole.

    No, he's saying that seeing the signs is like seeing a fig tree about to bud. The question is, when will/did we see the signs?

    Are they?

    If you really want to take that entire verse literally, then please take it ALL literally by human standards and see what you get.

    If you're going to take Jesus at his word, then you're going to SEE all these things, including everything I quoted in red. Sun and moon going dark. Stars falling from heaven. The Son of Man appearing in the clouds with great glory. Angels gathering his elect. AFTER YOU SEE ALL THESE THINGS then you'll know His coming is near, even at the door.

    Nobody has SEEN all those things yet.

    If that's so, then you do you explain the use of the phrase "this generation?"

    I already mentioned that "generation" could be translated "race," but perhaps the more likely interpretation would be (as is implied in the context) THE GENERATION THAT SEES ALL THE SIGNS He just gave will not pass away until all these things take place.

    Is the above interpretation 100% correct? I have no idea. But I do know one thing. Your interpretation is not as airtight, obvious and bulletproof as you preterists seem to think.
     
  8. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    Listen npetreley, forget about whose claiming 'airtight' or whatever, get out your Greek study material and find the referrences to where, then how "genea" possibly means "race" -[as you keep saying] then come and enlighten us all.

    davo
     
  9. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    That's your answer? You pick out the one thing I said in passing (which I immediately replaced with another interpretation) and used that to dismiss everything else?
     
  10. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    What, no answer for turning "generation" into "race?" -that sure sounds like replacing one interpretation for another -or was that your hyperbolic dispensational slip in passing?:(

    davo
     
  11. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    Peter in quoting Psa 90:4 indicates that for God "time" is no bind or restriction. However it is exegetical gymnastics and scripturally unsound and "going beyond what is written" in dismissing clear time referents made by Christ and His apostles by appealing to the poetic expression Peter borrows from the Psalm. Mishandling this scripture as dispensationalists do is their only response to the difficulty they have in not accepting as literal the imminent time statements of Christ's Parousia so prominent in the New Testament. And yet they accept ALL other time referents without thinking of appealing to 2Pt 3:2 to dispute them, use convenient language like "hyperbole" to cover what they say they never do -spiritualise away the obvious -consistently inconsistent.

    Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

    Notice the "thousand" years are even equated with "a watch in the night." Clearly expressive and ridiculous any other way. Otherwise it is just as valid to ask: Does one believe in a 7000-year creation? Does one believe in a "one-day" millennium? If God owns the cattle on a thousand hills -who owns the 1001st?

    It's an interesting thought, but what reasoning would dispensational futurists use to ignore clear time references if 2Pt 3:8 wasn't in Scripture?? Well it is in the scriptures and so to do justice to consistency of interpretation surely it can be seen how Peter meant it -it is only arrogance that suggests those to whom Peter wrote were ignorant of what he spoke. Either that, or all of their hopes for righteousness died with them -unfulfilled. And "what saith the Scripture" -

    Prov 13:12 Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life.

    davo
     
  12. NumberOneSon

    NumberOneSon The poster formerly known as Acts6:5

    +231
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Others
    Hi npetreley,

    What thoughts did you have concerning my #64 post? In Matt 24, the "nearness" of Christ's return, using the terms, "near" and "at the door", are to be measured by human standards, correct? So if 30 years later the apostles of Christ declared that the end of all things was "near", "at hand", and the judge was standing "at the door", then were they not using the same "human standard" of time as Christ did?

    The Lord's idea of "at hand" is according to human standards when He is conveying time ideas to humans, or else the signs in Matt 24 are useless. Every instance in the gospels where the Lord uses "at hand" it was according to human standards of measuring time (Matt 4:17; 1:7; 26:18,45,46; Mark 1:15; 14:42; Luke 21:30,31).

    So whether or not God is outside of time is not the issue; when the Lord or His disciples instructed the Church on the "nearness" of His coming it was according to our standard of measuring time  .  When the disciples instructed the Church in the 1st Century, they were using human standards because they were human.   You are using a single verse by Peter to interpret every other NT immenency phrase, even though that one single verse is not meant to be the standard for measuring all end-time prophecy.    

    In Christ,

    Acts6:5
     
  13. parousia70

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

    +2,614
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Yeah, here's the problem with that. Scriptural precident prevents me from taking the "sun darkening, earth splitting, moon bleeding, stars falling" Literal,  and scriptural precident compells me to take prophetic time statements literal.

    Prophetic time is always given to be understood by how time relates to man, and not how time relates to God. Every time, without fail, always.

    Conversely, apocalyptic imagry such as stars falling, earth splitting, heavens rolling like a scroll, God riding on a cloud, etc.. is always used as metaphore to describe commotions in, and Judgements against nations, governments and people. Every time, without fail, always.

    To take this language as it describes the "2nd coming", and suddenly apply a polar opposite interpratation to the set precident, is, in my opinion,  scripturally unfounded, grossly misguided and simply untenable.

     
     
  14. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    Ah, you mean like the 70 weeks of daniel, where all the prophecies were fulfilled less than a year and a half after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was given.

    Or perhaps you mean like in Hosea 6:1-2 where God restored Israel 3 days after Hosea spoke or wrote this.



    Or perhaps you're talking abouthow Jesus had already been crucified before Isaiah wrote this. After all, prophecy is every time, without fail, always given to be understood by how time relates to man, and this is clearly in the past tense:

    And no doubt because Jesus can say in one breath the word "near" and it be literal and then the word "see" and yet "see" is somehow symbolic because elsewhere in the Bible "clouds" are associated with symbolism, then can you explain where the clouds are in the following prophecy from Ezekiel? Because I'd like to know how they symbolically occurred already, since they certainly haven't been fulfilled literally.

    If they were literal, as the plain reading would imply, perhaps you can point me to a map with directions from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea with the proper detour so I can drive around that Valley of Hamon Gog, which blocks the way. If not, can you show me how to get to the town called Hamonah?

    Or is Hamonah a figurative town 50 or so figurative miles east of New Jerusalem and just about 10 figurative minutes from that figurative burial place Hamon Gog? Is there a figurative McDonalds on the way? 'Cuz if I have to take a detour around that valley, I might like to stop on the way to get a figurative Big Mac. ;)
     
  15. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    First of all, there's a HUGE difference between metaphor, simile, and literal declarative statements, and you rarely even need context to tell them apart. The language itself usually shows you which is which.

    SIMILE:

    "The enemy's airplanes will descend upon you like a cloud"

    METAPHOR:

    "There was a cloud of witnesses that the airplane crashed."

    LITERAL STATEMENT:

    "You will see the airplane fly out of that cloud."

    Nevertheless, here are some interesting "cloud" verses and other selections for examination. I'll explain why I've chosen these in a moment.

    Don't worry, I see the problem here. These aren't prophecies or apocalyptic language.

    The fascinating thing about adding the qualification is that there's nothing in the Bible to test it against so it is impossible to falsify. God never predicted anything else that compares to "you will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great glory" which you can then demonstrate was symbolic. So we can't check your assertion against any other "fulfilled" prophecy of this kind, because there IS NO OTHER fulfilled prophecy of this kind.

    So to come to your conclusion, you have to assume this statement about what we "will see" is symbolic, even though there's no precedent for making a clearly stated prophecy like this and not fulfilling it literally. You have to assume this even though it is clear (from the verses above) that God is perfectly capable of displaying fire, clouds, His glory, the glory of Jesus, etc., in a literal way, and has already done so on several occasions.

    I'm fine with that.

    But, as for me, I'll believe the plain meaning of the text, that we'll not only see Jesus return in the clouds with great glory, but that it will be so spectacular that nobody will miss it -- that as lightning in the east...I'm sure you know the rest.
     
  16. parousia70

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

    +2,614
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Ahhh but there is:

    Revelation 1:7 "Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen."

    This is reminiscent of Old Testament cloud comings, when God came in judgement.

     Psalms 104:3 (NKJV) He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters, Who makes the clouds His chariot, Who walks on the wings of the wind.

    Isaiah 19:1 (NKJV) The burden against Egypt. Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud, And will come into Egypt; The idols of Egypt will totter at His presence, And the heart of Egypt will melt in its midst.

    Psalm 18:7-14 and Joel 2:1-2 also speak of cloud comings. All of which happened "literally" ie: God was actually present riding a could of Judgement, but they were made manifest by His use of Human armies. Christ's coming spoken of in Revelation 1:7 is a judgement coming, in the Glory of His father, which focuses upon first century Israel: He is coming upon those who pierced Him in the same manner as all other Cloud coming Judgements of The father.

    What do you do with Isaiah 52:10 then?

    The Lord has made bare His holy arm In the eyes of all the nations;

    When did this happen "Literally"? when did every person in every nation "See" with their "Eyes" Gods actual "Arm"?

    What scriptural precident can you cite to justify interprating "seen by the eyes of all nations" in polar opposite fashion to "every eye shall see"?
     
  17. I agree with Auntie-Belle here. God would not allow confusion concerning His plans for the return of Christ.  However God dose not stop one for refusing to see what he has already done.  Remember man still has a free will. This was true in Jesus' day and it remains true today.  People today still hold the traditional teachings of men over the Words of God.:(
     
  18. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    "You see" this is the problem with your linguistic contortions -"the plain meaning of the text" goes out your metaphoric window when you say ALL that you've said and then still blatantly ignore when Jesus said YOU he meant HIS people in THEIR GENERATION. -try as hard as you can it just won't go away -they knew he was speaking to THEM.

    Matthew 21:40-45:

    40"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?" 41They said to Him, "He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons." 42Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures: 

            "The stone which the builders rejected
            Has become the chief cornerstone.
            This was the LORD's doing,
            And it is marvelous in our eyes'?

    43"Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder." 45Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them.

    -"them" i.e., that [or as Jesus said -"this"] wicked and perverse generation.  The EXACT same "this generation" as in Mt 24! You know -the one Jesus said "YOU" about.
     
  19. eldermike

    eldermike Pray Supporter

    +578
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Jesus said: FIRST, the good new would be preached in all the nations. THEN, this generation would not pass.
    This is true....We need to get busy, the generation that obeys this will not die, but fly.

    Rightly dividing truth is important.
    Not many should be teachers, as James warned.

    Blessings
     
  20. Well said franklin .  The church isn't the final authority, the scripture is at least with Pretereist that is.  And Mike you also hit the nail on the head.  We preterist who are from all over the world all agree on the second coming however in the futurist champ there are many interpetations, and many time frames, and many traditional teaching of men on these.  They all do not agree with one another thats why you have Armill, Premll. postmill :eek:

    Non of these views can get their act togather because they don't allow the scripture to be it's own interpreter.   However one day, if not on this earth they will know the truth:eek:
     
Loading...