• 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. Now you hit the nail on the head
     
  2. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    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:

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

    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.

     
     
  3. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    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. 

    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:


    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.

    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? 

     
     
  4. jenlu

    jenlu Member

    246
    +1
    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...
     
  5. jenlu

    jenlu Member

    246
    +1
    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...
     
  6. smaller

    smaller New Member

    25
    +0
    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

     
     
  7. parousia70

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

    +2,612
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Hi Smaller, Ar you saying the "Gospel Age" that Jesus brought into being is an "Evil Age"?
     
  8. jenlu

    jenlu Member

    246
    +1
    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...
     
  9. franklin

    franklin Sexed up atheism = Pantheism

    +218
    Atheist
    Private
    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.   

     

     
     
  10. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    If I may jenlu -for a non-pret, very well said:wave:

    davo
     
  11. eldermike

    eldermike Pray Supporter

    +578
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Smaller,

    You are correct.

    Blessings to you brother
     
  12. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    Not so, for even then you would seek to discredit His words in denying them -your eschatology demands it.

     
  13. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    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".

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

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    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".

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

    jenlu Member

    246
    +1
    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...
     
  16. jenlu

    jenlu Member

    246
    +1
    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...
     
  17. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
  18. jenlu

    jenlu Member

    246
    +1
    thanks davo...I was going to do that...
     
  19. davo

    davo Member

    471
    +1
    Yeah LOL -I doubt any of those scriptures you mentioned will get read either:rolleyes:

    davo
     
  20. parousia70

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

    +2,612
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    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>
     
Loading...