Is this TRUE?????

franklin

Sexed up atheism = Pantheism
May 21, 2002
8,103
257
Bible belt
Visit site
✟9,942.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by jenlu
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?

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:
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by parousia70

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?

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.")
 
Upvote 0

NumberOneSon

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5
Mar 24, 2002
4,138
478
49
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟22,170.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hi npetreley

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.

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
 
Upvote 0

Auntie

THANK YOU JESUS!!
Apr 16, 2002
7,624
657
Visit site
✟27,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by npetreley


"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.

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?
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by npetreley


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

Sounds like sleazy laywer loophole talk to me. 

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.


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.


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.")

 

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.
 
Upvote 0
From Parousia70
[B}Peter is quoting Psalms 90:4[/B]

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:

knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."

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. ;)

Acts6:5
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?

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.

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,

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?

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.

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.

29 "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

32 "Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 33
So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near--at the doors! 34 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

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.
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
Originally posted by npetreley
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.

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
 
Upvote 0
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.

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?
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
Originally posted by npetreley
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?

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
 
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

davo

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

NumberOneSon

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5
Mar 24, 2002
4,138
478
49
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟22,170.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
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
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by npetreley


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.


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.

 
 
Upvote 0
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.

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.

1 "Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds.
2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence.[/b]


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:

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

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.

9 " 'Then those who live in the towns of Israel will go out and use the weapons for fuel and burn them up-the small and large shields, the bows and arrows, the war clubs and spears. For seven years they will use them for fuel. 10 They will not need to gather wood from the fields or cut it from the forests, because they will use the weapons for fuel. And they will plunder those who plundered them and loot those who looted them, declares the Sovereign LORD .
11 " 'On that day I will give Gog a burial place in Israel, in the valley of those who travel east toward the Sea. It will block the way of travelers, because Gog and all his hordes will be buried there. So it will be called the Valley of Hamon Gog.
12 " 'For seven months the house of Israel will be burying them in order to cleanse the land. 13 All the people of the land will bury them, and the day I am glorified will be a memorable day for them, declares the Sovereign LORD .
14 " 'Men will be regularly employed to cleanse the land. Some will go throughout the land and, in addition to them, others will bury those that remain on the ground. At the end of the seven months they will begin their search. 15 As they go through the land and one of them sees a human bone, he will set up a marker beside it until the gravediggers have buried it in the Valley of Hamon Gog. 16 (Also a town called Hamonah will be there.) And so they will cleanse the land.'

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. ;)
 
Upvote 0
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.

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.

Genesis 9:16
Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

Exodus 13:22
Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people.

Exodus 24:15-16
When Moses went up on the mountain, the cloud covered it, and the glory of the Lord settled on Mount Sinai. For six days the cloud covered the mountain, and on the seventh day the Lord called to Moses from within the cloud.

Numbers 9:15
On the day the tabernacle, the Tent of the Testimony, was set up, the cloud covered it. From evening till morning the cloud above the tabernacle looked like fire.

Mark 9:7
Then a cloud appeared and enveloped them, and a voice came from the cloud: "This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!"

Luke 9
28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, 31 appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him.

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.
 
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
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by npetreley




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.

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.

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.

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"?
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um


Mike, I said that GOD would not allow confusion concerning His plans for the return of Christ. God would not make a plan that would cause confusion. That is why Jesus' 2nd Coming will be seen by every eye, there will be no room for error, no room for confusion, no possible chance for anyone to question if Jesus really returned or not.

Now, of course Man is full of confusion. That's a whole nuther subject.:)

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.:(
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
Originally posted by npetreley
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.

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. [/B]

"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.
 
Upvote 0

eldermike

Pray
Supporter
Mar 24, 2002
12,088
624
74
NC
Visit site
✟20,209.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
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
 
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
Originally posted by franklin

Hi Ms Belle, I just couldn't resist this part of your quote.... Actually this is the very problem the body of Christ has had for at least the past century and a half and that is being dependent on the authority of the church for interpretation of all scripture, instead of us allowing the scripture to be it's own interpreter! The church isn't the final authority, the scripture is! Get the picture?

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:o
 
Upvote 0