• 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.

The NATURE of the resurrection, second coming, Heavens & Earth passing, etc.

Discussion in 'Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum' started by parousia70, Mar 17, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    ON MATTHEW 24:34:

    Shane it is very telling that translations don't ever "correct" Matthew 24:34 to mean "THAT FUTURE" generation. If anything, they go just the opposite:

    New English Bible:
    "I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all."

    Today's English Version:
    "Remember this! All these things will happen before the people now living have all died."

    Moffatt's Translation:
    "I tell you truly, the present generation will not pass away, till all this happens."

    Contemporary English Version:
    I can promise you that some of the people of this generation will still be alive when all this happens.

    Weymouth's Translation:
    "I tell you in solemn truth that the present generation will certainly not pass away until all this has taken place."

    King James:
    "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

    It is interesting to see that many well-known leaders of Church history understood the plain meaning of Matthew 24:34. See the following:
    The full force of this passage cannot be denied, and great men of faith have never tried to play with it so as to distort it. Even the Church's early fathers saw this verse for what it is:

    There are many more I could cite. But, Jesus cleary spoke concerning his own generation. Matt 24:33 even states that the apostles would see the endtimes happen! So why shouldn't that even further demand a fulfillment in the 1st century?
     
  2. Shane Roach

    Shane Roach Well-Known Member

    +1,229
    Christian
    Both Paul and the writer of Revelation speak of being taken up in the Spirit and being shown great things concerning the future, so they saw the endtimes for sure without passing away. Who knows who else was taken up in such manner? I don't know. Catholics insist Mary was taken up as some of the ancient prophets, without having died. I don't know. Point is there are many ways to fulfill this verse without insisting that the entire body of the text of Revelation be re-interpreted ignoring the verses that folk understand as talking about the New Jerusalem.

    You fairly consistently ignore large parts of my posts, which makes your posts unhelful. I already understand quite intimitely exactly what it is you believe about Matt 24:33. We need not cover this ground repeatedly, as it adds nothing to my understanding.

    What of the other questions I have raised? Have you any information whatsoever?

    You focus is always continually on that one verse, and as I have said several times, the problems come when trying to bring the REST of the Bible in line with this interpretation of the verse.
     
  3. rollinTHUNDER

    rollinTHUNDER Veteran

    +8
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Hello GW,
    You have not successfully answered my question. You did, however, claim that Jesus would be considered a false Prophet if He failed to come to them as He promised. If you are correct, and Jesus did come and 66- 70 A.D. was Israels greatest day, then our History books would be able to show who exactly did overcome (by name), but I can't even come up with one name of one saint who was given authority over any nation. Which saints overcame the nations, and dashed them to pieces like pottery?? It seems that they are the ones who got dashed?? Hmmmmmmm ??? Your Messiah wasn't very mighty was he?? Oh- ye of little faith.
     
  4. 1Mamifestation70a.d

    1Mamifestation70a.d New Member

    24
    +0
    Willils

    OOPS, I did it again, by your definition, when I quote scripture which contradicts what you believe to be a 'clear' scripture then I am 'adding to scripture'. Wow, that's really a creative definition. Good luck trying to convince anyone else to accept your position.

    Have you ever thought to yourself that John may have had somthing else in mind other then a literal event? After all Jesus was his teacher
     
  5. 1Mamifestation70a.d

    1Mamifestation70a.d New Member

    24
    +0
    Thunder

    Hello parousia, GW and Mami,
    Assuming that you all believe in the same theory, that the 1000 years of Christs reign has already come and gone, and now we are living in the New Earth, when did Christ fulfill the following verses?? I think the whole world missed it, and even our History books failed to mention it.


    Thunder please point out in a History book ware God created the heavens and the earth? Please point out in a History book ware Adam and Eve sin death was passed on to "all man." Please point out in a History book ware is said it "rained on the earth forth days and forty nights.

    Please point out in a History book ware it says God came down and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another speech (Genesis 11:7) Please point out in a History book ware the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19: 24) Please point out in a History book ware it says in the days of Moses "all the face of the earth was darken because of locusts." Exodus 10:14

    Please point out in a History book ware it says the Lord struck "all the firstborn in the land of Egypt." Exodus 12:29) Please point out in a History book ware the Lord divided the Red Sea. (Exodus 14:21)

    Please point out in a History book ware the heavens, and the earth were removed out of there place when the "Medes came against Babylon." (Isaiah 13:1-22)

    Please please please point out in a History book ware it tells about the "birth of the Lord Jesus Christ." All these thing happened and not one is in our history book. But did the world missed it? NO!

    The Bible is NOT a book about history but a book about faith. We believe all these things on God's word that they happen NOT man's word-history. Thay my friend is why the Bible says: But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Hebrews 11:6

    The Bible is a book about faith, not history. :clap:
     
  6. parousia70

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

    +2,609
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    2 Peter 3:10 Clearly states that at Christ's Coming as a "thief in the Night", the "heavens and earth" vanish.
    No 1000 year reign.

    I assume you are referring to Isaiah 65. "opting" as you put it, that Isiah 65 speaks of the Millennnial reign is not an "option" at all given the subject limitation in text itself. True, Many "want" it to be describing the millenium, but the fact remanins that Isaiah is describing the New heavens and earth in that passage.

    I posted the following on another thread sometime ago, but felt it relevant to one of your concerns:

    You noticed there are still sinners in the NH/NE time, therefore, if you
    believe that there will be no sin, no evil in the NH/NE,
    it is not scriptural. Second, there is still
    physical death for it is clearly said that "the child
    shall die". That could not be clearer. And once again,
    to deny it is not scriptural. What is an
    infant and what is an old man? It is not a matter of
    age, since it is said that an infant can be 100 y.o.,
    and same thing about the "sinner". If you consider
    the 100 y.o. child as a baby, then the sinner of 100
    y.o. is also a baby. Now what is a child
    according to God? In Matthew 18, Jesus compares children
    with the heirs of the kingdom. He says that we have to
    be like children to enter His kingdom. Now what is
    an "old man" according to God? "knowing this, that
    our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of
    sin might be done away with, that we should no longer
    be slaves of sin." (Romans 6:6). Old
    man=sinner. There is a rythm in Isaiah 65:20. A parallel is made.
    1-3, 2-4. : "No more shall an infant from there
    live but a few days. For the child shall die one
    hundred years old." "Nor an old man who has not
    fulfilled his days. But the sinner being one hundred years
    old shall be accursed." The one justified by
    Christ is considered as a child even when he dies at 100
    y.o.. He has eternal life, so 100 y.o. is nothing. He
    won't live "but a few days" because when he dies, he
    has eternity ahead of him. But the sinner who
    is 100 y.o. has already fulfilled his days. He is
    accursed for eternal life is not for him. At 100 y.o., the
    just is considered as a child; the sinner as an old
    man. Just like we see in Romans 6:6. Also
    consider Psalm 103:5 "So that your youth is renewed like
    the eagle's." Do you think what is meant here is
    really to become physically younger? No, of course. Just
    like being born again is not to go back in your
    mother's womb. And when you are born again, what are you?

    Bingo! An infant. An infant who has eternal life, an
    infant who won't live but a few days. But if you are not
    born again, you are an old man and you are accursed;
    cut from eternal life.

    The explanation of "child" and "old man" is totally
    scriptural, as I have shown. And if not, you still have to
    explain why one would be called child at 100 y.o.(poor
    moms... raising a child would be a verrrrrry long task!)
    and if at 100 y.o. one is still considered as a
    child, why would he be called a sinner and be accursed
    at such a young age?

    I don't see any problem with a
    born again (spiritually alive) who dies at 100 y.o.
    (physical death). To die at a certain age is a proof of
    physical death, and he is called a child, the same word
    used by Christ to describe His disciples, God's
    children. When you are born again, you are spiritually a
    child, but you will physically die one day and at a
    certain age. What is the problem with that? No
    contradiction here.

    more to come......
    YBIC,
    P70
     
  7. parousia70

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

    +2,609
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Shane ,
    your understanding of this passage provides an opportunity to to point out the true continuity of the preterist position as opposed to your percieved contradictions.

    Viewing the "New Jerusalem" covenantally as I do, and as I believe the Bible teaches, it fits like a glove.

    In the New Covenant today, the gates are always open, and outside the covenant are sorcerors and dogs and adulters and all who comitt lies, yet anyone outside who "thirsts" is free to come in and drink of the life giving waters.

    when you say your view has always been one that all sin and evil have been eliminated, do you not believe in eternal conscious punishemnt for the d*mned?
    If you do, then dosen't your objection have more to do with the "location" of sin and sufering than the mere existance of it?

    The existance of sin no way implies the victory of sin over righteousness nor does it imply a stalemate between the two.
    Sin is defeated every day. It is powerless to prevent anyone from salvation, in fact, EVERYONE who is saved, is a sinner! Just because sin exists, dosen't mean it has any power.
    The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the Law.

    The Law has once for all been declared by God to be "Obsolete". Therefore, sin has been stripped of it's strength. God no longer uses it an any criteria whatsoever in determining who is saved and wh isn't.

    There's a new heavens and earth (covenant) in town, and the rules are set forth thusly:

    We can either choose to remain "in Adam" where we reside from birth, in which case we are condemned whether we sin or not,
    or,
    We can choose to enter "into Christ" in which case we are saved whether we sin or not.

    Sin has been eternally stripped of it's power to prevent man from the presence of God. How much more victory over sin do you need?

    P70
     
  8. 1Mamifestation70a.d

    1Mamifestation70a.d New Member

    24
    +0
    Parousia 70

    in fact, EVERYONE who is saved, is a sinner! Just because sin exists, dosen't mean it has any power. :clap:


    Good point Parousia. However our futurists brothers seem to forget they two are sinners saved by God's grace. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (Romans 3:10) :eek: Jesus came to save the sinners.
     
  9. Shane Roach

    Shane Roach Well-Known Member

    +1,229
    Christian
    That whole disertaion on 100 year old infants and all is a good example of why I am not convinced of the preterist view. The post afterwards is a good illustration of why I don't discard it entirely, as it is much more understandable!

    All that rigamarole for 100 year old infants just to avoid 1000 year literal reign? The problem in 2 Peter is easily understood (as I have already commented) as the "day" being stretched in the metaphorical sense that the word "day" can always be stretched, in or out of Biblical context.

    Another aside, I am not sure what the Bible teaches about eternal conscious punishment. I don't have a problem with it if that is God's will, and I am aware of verses that appear to support eternal conscious punishment, but people have their arguments about those verses as well and it is something I am unfortunately not clear on anymore.

    Instinctively I do believe in it, though. Does this tell you anything at all as far as the preterism/millenialism we are speaking of?

    Interestingly I also believe in a balance of works and faith. Saved by grace, through faith, evinced by works, such that I can be made aware whether my faith is true or not.
     
  10. rollinTHUNDER

    rollinTHUNDER Veteran

    +8
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Hello Mami,
    So that's how you duck the question. The history book didn't say........ Just like you said, "The Bible doesn't say that Jesus would rule for a thousand years (on the earth)." Where do you think He may want to rule then?? In outerspace, or hell maybe??

    Isaiah 66: 1 - "This is what the Lord says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?"

    Heb.10: 13 - "Since that time He waits for His enemies to be made His footstool,"

    There should be no more doubt about it. He will rule and reign on the physical earth for no less than 1000 years. The defense rests !!
     
  11. rollinTHUNDER

    rollinTHUNDER Veteran

    +8
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Would you also want to claim that Jesus was such a fast worker, that he finished the 1000 year reign in three years (66-70 A.D.)??
     
  12. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    All apologies Shane. I do not have time at the moment to tackle the layers of subjects that truly require the creation of separate threads that stick to a single topic as much as possible. (e.g. "The 1000 Years--Symbolic or Not?")

    I have tried to start my conversation with you by showing that Matthew 24:34 means exactly what it says. You say you can see it but that you would need to see how other related topics fit too. How true.

    I assure you that I have asked all your questions of the preterist view in my quest for truth and found answers that satisified me beyond my wildest imaginations. I thought the preterist view was so sillly as to not deserve attention. Boy was I shocked. And I've been a "student" of eschatology for nearly two decades! LOL.

    Anyway, I recommend that at some point separate threads could be started to address topics. Blending all of them into one thread like this makes my head spin -- and it may also make it harder to track, especially for lurkers. I hope to have more time soon (and by soon I don't mean thousands of years :) )

    Blessings to you in Christ Jesus!
     
  13. charlesj

    charlesj Member

    78
    +0
    Christ, our Lord, will not rule on this mudball, His footstool. There is NO place in the bible that teaches or says that Christ will reign on this earth for 1000 years.

    Many "read into" (eisgesis) Rev 20:4ff a 1000 yr reign of Christ on earth, but it's just NOT there. You need to "read out of" (exegete) the scripture. :D

    Your servant in Messiah, Jesus,
    charlesj
     
  14. Phoenix

    Phoenix Senior Member

    520
    +11
    Christian
    Yes GW or others i would love to see threads started tackling some of the questions brought up in this thread, being a lurker at heart :D

    This has been a really good learning thread for me and i hope others as well.

    regards
     
  15. rollinTHUNDER

    rollinTHUNDER Veteran

    +8
    United States
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    If you don't believe that Christ will rule the earth for 1000 years, then where do you suppose He will rule and reign.

    What you both are displaying here is what I would call "Doubting Thomas Faith. What did Jesus Mean when He said, "Blessed are those that have not seen and yet they still believe"??

    1Corr.1: 7-8 - "Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. (8) He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the (day of our Lord Jesus Christ)".
    2 Peter 3: 8 - "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends : With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."
     
  16. parousia70

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

    +2,609
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Boy Thunder, for someone who asserted so strongly that He could not continue in such debate, you sure are debating a lot! LOL, Don't get me wrong, I would much rather you stay and engage us than excuse yourself, it shows character.
    Bring it on!

    About your point above, one question...
    Aren't you always asserting that a 1000 years is as a day to Jesus and visa versa?

    With that hermeneutic, the "thousand year reign" could last only one earth day and still satisfy 1000 years in "Gods time".
    :D

    Seriously though, The 1000 year reign was fulfilled by Jesus in the "generation" between pentacost and 70AD, but was representative of the Davidic Monarchy, with David as the first King in the line, and Christ as the Last.
    That Timeline, interestingly enough but not suprising, was 1000 years!
     
  17. JohnR7

    JohnR7 Well-Known Member

    +191
    Pentecostal
    Married
    >>If you don't believe that Christ will rule the earth for 1000 years, then where do you suppose He will rule and reign.

    Of course He will rule and reign here on Earth for 1000 years. That is why in this final hour whole nations are being won for God. Our church has a 100 person missionary team returning from Swaziland and we are rejoicing that another nation has been won for God.

    We will rule and reign with Jesus and the Capital will be Jerusalem. Every year the nations will have to send a representive to Jerusalem to worship before God. Also, they will take a little trip outside of the city:

    Isaiah 66:24
    "And they shall go forth and look
    Upon the corpses of the men
    Who have transgressed against Me.
    For their worm does not die,
    And their fire is not quenched.
    They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."
     
  18. parousia70

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

    +2,609
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Shane, again, viewing this pasage covenantally as I do, I understand that the "changing" spoken of is a "change" in covenantal status, not some sort of "spiritaphysical" molecular morphing of our physical bodies.

    In the Blink of an eye, we (believers) were/are ushered into Gods presence, never to be seperated again.
    We today can communicate as freely with God as Adam and Eve could in the Garden. A reality that was not available to man until after the Temple fell. (Heb. 9:8)
    YBIC,
    P70
     
  19. parousia70

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

    +2,609
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I touched on this before and it seemed to help, so I'll tackle it again.

    You seem to be equating "heaven" with the "new heavens and earth". I believe they are seperate. I believe heaven is our inheritance, the "promised land", where we go when we die, clothed in our resurrection bodies, to be in Gods mansions forever.

    Conversly, the New Heavens and earth is the "new and everlasting covenant" the "eternal Gospel" which is forever to be preached to Sinners who dwell on the earth.

    While true, when we get to heaven, we will not sin, we will be in a state of "behavioral errorlessness" but it but not in this temporal realm we reside in now, for flesh and blood can not inherit Heaven.

    Revelation 21 & 22 pose diffiult if not impossible problems to overcome for those who view it as describing "heaven", but again, it fits like a glove when you view it covenantally
    ;)
     
  20. Shane Roach

    Shane Roach Well-Known Member

    +1,229
    Christian
    I view things both with an eye towards coveneant and the physical, and not to drop either one entirely out of the picture.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...