Is this TRUE?????

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by eldermike
Rightly dividing truth is important.
Not many should be teachers, as James warned.

Blessings [/B]

Now you hit the nail on the head

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by parousia70
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.

You honestly don't see the plain difference between those two and Revelation 1:7 (and all of the many parallels)?  Even from a pure literary perspective, without any context at all, any english major could tell you that the two examples you quote are metaphor.

The same is true of the other verses you cite.  For example:

15 The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth laid bare
at your rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of breath from your nostrils.

"breath from your nostrils" is anthropomorphism, which is -- you guessed it, metaphor. 

Originally posted by parousia70
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"? [/B]

Again, you're quoting an anthropomorphism, which is clearly metaphor. 

In sharp contrast, there is nothing whatsoever in this verse that tells you it's metaphor: "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."


What you've done is turned Rev 1:7 into metaphor simply because it involves the Lord coming in clouds.  That's not how you interpret ANYTHING let alone scripture.  For example, what if one of the gospels said, "Thomas would not believe that it was the resurrected Jesus.  So Jesus made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all his disciples and when Thomas saw and touched it, he believed." 

There you would have exactly the same language as your example.  Would it be proper to interpret it as metaphor simply because it is so similar in language to Isaiah 52:10?  Of course not!  But that's exactly what you're doing to Rev 1:7 and all the other passages like it!  You're only calling it metaphor beause it bears similarity in to other passages that are obviously metaphor, and you must do that IN SPITE of the fact that Rev 1:7 and the parallels contain no hint of metaphor themselves! And speaking of parallels -- the sheer number of times this event is recorded in scripture only bolsters my case -- if it were metaphor, you would think that at least ONE instance of this prophecy would be recorded in language that is obviously metaphorical.  Yet from a literary perspective it is not obvious from a single one of these parallels that it can be interpreted as metaphor.  You have to impose that interpretation on the text despite this and other problems with doing so.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by davo

"You see" this is the problem with your linguistic contortions

Quite the contrary, I'm trying to explain how it takes linguistic contortions (or at least a stretch of the imagination) to intepret these verses as metaphor. 

Originally posted by davo

"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.

Sorry, I just don't see what that's supposed to be so obvious.  And IMO there's evidence against that conclusion (as I said, in 2 Peter).  If Jesus had said "YOU DISCIPLES STANDING RIGHT HERE" it would be undeniable.  Heck, it would be undeniable if He had said "YOUR GENERATION" instead of "THIS GENERATION."  But that's not what Jesus said.

By the way, here's Strong's definition of genea:

New Testament Greek for ' generation '

1074 genea {ghen-eh-ah'}

from (a presumed derivative of) 1085; TDNT - 1:662,114; n f

AV - generation 37, time 2, age 2, nation 1; 42

1) fathered, birth, nativity

2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family

(strong's number 1074)

Note that NONE of the possible definitions read "the span of a single generation."  Indeed, "genea" is the root of the word translated as "geneology" (genealogia)  in 1 Timothy 1:4 ("nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies").  But it is NOT the root of the word used for "LIFETIME" (zoe) as in Luke 16:25 ("But Abraham said, "Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things"). 

But I'll go on, anyway. As I said in my previous post, I suspect the context suggests that Jesus is saying "the generation that sees these signs," but since you and/or others called into question the possibility of race, I looked into it.  What I found is that it's difficult to demonstrate that "genea" is the right or wrong word for "race" in this context because I could find no clear references to the "race of Jews" in the NT.  There are references to "the Jews," of course, but unless someone specifically referred to the "race" and used a different root word than "genea," there's no way to prove that "genea" would have been the wrong word for Jesus to use. 

Nevertheless, I found one example of how "genea" is probably meant as "race of Jews."  What it certainly cannot mean, IMO, is ONLY the generation being addressed.

Luke 11
48 In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs. 49 Therefore the wisdom of God also said, "I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,' 50 that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

If you insist that "THIS GENERATION" in Luke 21:32 can only be interpreted to mean those to whom Jesus was talking and ONLY those to whom He was talking, then according to your own method of interpretation, Luke 11:50-51 can only be interpreted to mean this:  Those to whom Jesus was talking -- including the disciples, I assume -- and ONLY those to whom Jesus was talking, would be accountable for all the blood shed since Abel. 

Now common sense tells me this cannot be the proper intepretation.  Yet there is FAR more in common between Luke 21:32 and Luke 11:50-51 than there is between the Son of Man coming in the clouds and contrasting "cloud" passages.  And you seem to think that because "clouds" are used as metaphor in one place that you MUST interpret any other reference that uses clouds as metaphor even if the literary style does not suggest metaphor.  So if such an incredibly LOOSE connection between a metaphor and a plain statement forces you to interpret the plain statement as metaphor, then how can you interpret Luke 11:50-51 to mean anything other than the generation to whom Jesus was speaking, and ONLY that generation?

Or do the rules of common sense only apply when they confirm preterism? 

 

 

[jenlu]

the generation of those to whom He was talking was required to take the wrath of God for the blood shed of the righteous...this generation is not just the people that can hear his voice... what you suggest this interpretation has to mean does not make sense...

 

[jenlu]

no one insists that "this generation" means only those who He is talking to...but the subject is the generation OF those who he is talking to...

 

[smaller]

Peace All who set their hands to Peace!

The topic has strayed somewhat into a (somewhat rightful) question about preterisms view that Christ has already appeared based on the statement that "this generation" shall "see" The Son of Man returning.

As an observation there are the generations of MEN OF FLESH, and there is a GENERATION of the evil ones.  The evil ones have not yet been set aside for they have existed since the Garden and with(in) Adam.

It is to "this" generation that Jesus Christ spoke the following:

Matt. 12:34
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil , speak good things?

and again in  

Matt. 12:39
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:

and again in

Luke 11:29
And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation

It is also spoken elsewhere as this present evil AGE.  It is this present evil age that has not passed and this present EVIL AGE has EVIL occupants that have not yet passed, according to Gods Purposes when He bound us to these "disobedient ones."  This is the PERPETUAL EVIL GENERATION that mankind has struggled with since the BEGINNING.

So the preterist has ERRED in their understanding of Jesus statement and in trying to "understand" by the flesh of mankinds generations they do not understand the GENERATION that Jesus spoke of.

There are many other scriptures in the Gospels that will back this "evil generation" view.

and

God is Love.

smaller

 

 

[parousia70]

Hi Smaller, Ar you saying the "Gospel Age" that Jesus brought into being is an "Evil Age"?

 

[jenlu]

smaller,

So Jesus coming in the flesh did nothing? So Jesus dying, ressurrecting, ascending to His throne did nothing? O.K. I'm not a preterist, but I do believe the "coming" discussed by Jesus happened within that generation...the words simply state it...

I used to read the Bible the same as most other dispensationalist so I know that point of view well...and I was an avid proponent of the doctrine...His plain and simple discussions with His disciple's and the jewish hierarchy makes it obvious that any removal of what He said would come to pass within a generation is not needed...Then a look a secular historical as well as N.T. books it becomes obvious that the "last days" were that of the first century...We've just confused it with the end of the world...but it actually just was the beginning of a "new" type of world where Jesus is King of Kings and Lord or Lords... Hebrews 9:26 But now ONCE at the Consumation Of The Ages He has been manifestED to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself...

As you can see, the writer of Hebrews was talking about Jesus at the intersecting or convergence of the ages(old covenant age and new covenant age) when He sacrificed Himself on the Cross...

Point is, the manner in which we live and can live is different than before the consumation of the ages(the cross and subsequent events)...as plainly stated in the Bible in my opinion of course...

 

[franklin]

Originally posted by eldermike
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.

Hiya Mike, ..."will not die but fly" sounds very humorous these days especially when it is delivered quite well from the many stages and pulpits by the smooth talking seminary trained entertainers out there!  However, it is far from Biblical!  The Gospel has already been preached to all the world as is evidenced in the many passages in the NT.  The carful reader who applies the proper Bbilical Hermeneutics to the scripture by allowing the scripture to be it's own iterpreter can plainly see this prophecy as past fulfilled during the lifetime of those who heard the message first.  It was written to them & written FOR us today.  Yes we need to get busy and about our fathers business and continue to share the Gospel with the world that has no end.   

 

 

 

[davo]

Originally posted by jenlu
His plain and simple discussions with His disciple's and the jewish hierarchy makes it obvious that any removal of what He said would come to pass within a generation is not needed...Then a look a secular historical as well as N.T. books it becomes obvious that the "last days" were that of the first century...We've just confused it with the end of the world...but it actually just was the beginning of a "new" type of world where Jesus is King of Kings and Lord or Lords... Hebrews 9:26 But now ONCE at the Consumation Of The Ages He has been manifestED to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself...

If I may jenlu -for a non-pret, very well said

davo

 

[eldermike]

Smaller,

You are correct.

Blessings to you brother

 

[davo]

Originally posted by npetreley
If Jesus had said "YOU DISCIPLES STANDING RIGHT HERE" it would be undeniable.  Heck, it would be undeniable if He had said "YOUR GENERATION" instead of "THIS GENERATION." 

Not so, for even then you would seek to discredit His words in denying them -your eschatology demands it.

Originally posted by npetreley

...I suspect the context suggests that Jesus is saying "the generation that sees these signs," but since you and/or others called into question the possibility of race, I looked into it.  What I found is that it's difficult to demonstrate that "genea" is the right or wrong word for "race" in this context because I could find no clear references to the "race of Jews" in the NT. 

The reason it's hard to demonstrate is the fact that it isn't there, but if you want to find something you will -yet "genea" as used in Matt 23-24 and the parallel passages ALL mean "generation" -not "race." The closest you can come to race is "ethnos" -from which comes our "ethnic" -which unfortunate for your case are NOT used in these passages -according to your usage.

Originally posted by npetreley
If you insist that "THIS GENERATION" in Luke 21:32 can only be interpreted to mean those to whom Jesus was talking and ONLY those to whom He was talking, then according to your own method of interpretation, Luke 11:50-51 can only be interpreted to mean this:  Those to whom Jesus was talking -- including the disciples, I assume -- and ONLY those to whom Jesus was talking, would be accountable for all the blood shed since Abel. 

Yes! you got it . Jesus had some very stern words for his generation -in particular, the religious hierarchy, for upon them and their generation was coming judgment. They were doing what their fathers had done before, persecuting and killing God's messengers -and God's wrath was soon to fall full upon them:

Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

John 8:41, 44 You are doing the works of your father... You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire...

Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,

1Thessalonians 2:15-16 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.

Retribution was already coming upon that wicked and perverse generation. The generation that was to see the signs was in deed the terminal generation -and they were it. And "signs" as indicated in the very first verse of the Revelation were "indicators" of things to come -not literal ends in themselves.

Originally posted by npetreley
Now common sense tells me this cannot be the proper intepretation. 

Or do the rules of common sense only apply when they confirm preterism?  

 

Again I would say your eschatology doesn't allow common sense to prevail. Besides which, "common sense" is a bit relative if you consider that what you and I might call common sense in our 21st century western world is poles apart from 1st century Judaism.

davo
 

 

[npetreley]

The reason it's hard to demonstrate is the fact that it isn't there, but if you want to find something you will -yet "genea" as used in Matt 23-24 and the parallel passages ALL mean "generation" -not "race." The closest you can come to race is "ethnos" -from which comes our "ethnic" -which unfortunate for your case are NOT used in these passages.

The reason "ethnos" is not used in these passages is because "ethnos" is NEVER used at all in the entire NT. Whenever there's a reference to "race" it is a word based on the root "genea." For example, Acts 7:19 employs the word "genos" not "ethnos".

Acts 7:19
He dealt treacherously with our people [genos] and oppressed our forefathers by forcing them to throw out their newborn babies so that they would die.

You obviously completely missed my point about Luke 11:50-51, but since this is going nowhere I'll leave it at that.

 

[npetreley]

Correction: I should have said "Jewish race". Genea, genos, etc., do not MEAN Jewish race, but that's the word used. There is another Greek word for foreigners, however, which is allophulos.

Just a technicality, but I didn't want to mislead anyone.

And to avoid anyone who doesn't know Greek from arguing that "genos" is not really close enough to "genea," I should have quoted something closer, like Acts 18:2 where "by birth" or "of the lineage" is "genei".

2 and having found a certain Jew, by name Aquilas, of Pontus by birth [genei].

In other words, it's still the same root, whether the word is genea, genei, genos, suggenes (kinfolk), etc.

 

[jenlu]

npetreley...

Truly, I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation. Matthew 23:26
I believe it's safe to assume you can see that Jesus is talking about the generation then living...Just a while later He says: Truly, I say to you, this generation shall not pass until all these things take place. I'm sure this doesn't convince you and I'm going to list these for fun hoping you study them up so here goes...

A list of texts where either generation or "this generation" as used in the Gospels.....Matthew 1:17, "11:16", 12:39, "41", "42", "45", 16:4, 17:17, "23:36", "24:34"...Mark "8:12", "38", 9:19, "13:30"...Luke 1:48, 50, "7:31", 9:41, "11:29-32", "50-51", 16:8, "17:25", "21:32"...(quotations denoting "this generation" reference)...
Also, from what I've found, comparing the accounts in question (matthew 24, marc 13, and luke 21) helps in the determination that it is the generation living at the time...

also, if Jesus were talking of a generation other than the one living then...He would have surely used "that" generation...If he would have said "that", there would be no argument, but since he said "this", there really is no argument either...The way I see it (and this of course is my opinion) people can finagle(sp) around the clear teachings in the Word all they want, but it does not change it's intent...

 

[jenlu]

npetreley says....."then according to your own method of interpretation, Luke 11:50-51 can only be interpreted to mean this:  Those to whom Jesus was talking -- including the disciples, I assume -- and ONLY those to whom Jesus was talking, would be accountable for all the blood shed since Abel"

No, No, No...that's not how it reads or how I'd interpret it...it was told to those whom Jesus was talking to about THEIR GENERATION...

 

[davo]

Originally posted by npetreley
The reason "ethnos" is not used in these passages is because "ethnos" is NEVER used at all in the entire NT. Whenever there's a reference to "race" it is a word based on the root "genea." For example, Acts 7:19 employs the word "genos" not "ethnos"

ETHNOS
Matthew 24:7
Mark 13:8
Luke 7:5
Luke 21:10
Luke 23:2
John 11:48
John 11:50
John 18:35
Acts 7:7
Acts 8:9
Acts 17:26
Acts 24:17
1Peter 2:9
Revelation 13:7
Revelation 14:6

davo

 

[jenlu]

thanks davo...I was going to do that...

 

[davo]

Originally posted by jenlu
thanks davo...I was going to do that...

Yeah LOL -I doubt any of those scriptures you mentioned will get read either

davo

 

[parousia70]

Jesus Christ Himself affirms the preterist understanding of "The time is near" in Luke 21:8; 


<DD>And He said: "Take heed that you not be deceived. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He,' and, 'The time has drawn near.' Therefore do not go after them.

<DD>

<DD>It is clear from the above that Jesus&nbsp;is indicating that the statement "The time has drawn near"&nbsp; is to be understood by the disciples as a literal claim of "Nearness" in human understanding. He goes on to warn his disciples against following anyone who says "the Time is Near".


<DD>Now, either the apostles turned into the very people Jesus warned them not to follow, or they were in fact correct in claiming "the time is near".&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

<DD>

<DD>&nbsp;</DD>