twisted imminency doctrine

[Spiritual Jew]

Just as when a fig tree sprouts leaves, you know summer is near, SO ALSO when the apostles were to see the events of the Olivet discourse occurring ( false Christs, mass falling away, gospel going to the whole oikoumene), then they would know He was near/the kingdom of God was near.

The Long Journey/bridegroom tarrying refers to Christ’s ascension and long awaited return.

If there are writings in the NT that demonstrate the apostles claiming, around the time of the ascension, that Christ’s return was imminent, your argument would be valid.

LOL. So, going by what the God of the Universe, Jesus Christ Himself, said is not valid to you? He said His second coming would not occur for "a long time", but, yes, let's just ignore that. Also, let's just ignore the context in which Peter talked about the timing of His second coming in 2 Peter 3 when interpreting 1 Peter 4:7.

However, since there are no statements like this, your argument for me to reconcile a long time and near doesn’t really make any sense.

So, Jesus saying it doesn't matter since we can't find Paul or Peter saying it. I didn't realize that you held Jesus's words in such low regard.

Why would the apostles claim Jesus’ parousia is near around the time of his ascension, before many of the events of the Olivet discourse? That would be contrary to the parable of the fig tree.

Quite the opposite, The NT statements of the being short, near, in a little while without delay, and its the last hour, were written decades (a long time) after the ascension

I truly have no idea of what you're saying here. He hasn't come back yet, so that alone should give you an idea of how to understand those verses. But, no, you insist on clinging to your false preterist doctrine instead.

So if Jesus said when you see all these things happening - persecution, famine, false Christs, gospel going to the oikoumene, mass falling away, etc…then you will know the time is near, just as you know summer is near when the fig tree sprouts leaves, THEN why were the apostles writing “it was near” decades later (a long time) after many of the events of the OD occurred and near the destruction of Jerusalem?

You have an interesting way of defining a long time. You really think 40 years is a long time? The apostles were not writing about the destruction of Jerusalem, they were writing about the second coming of Jesus Christ. Those things are not the same no matter how much you want them to be. Jesus did not come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD. You have to force that into scripture in order to keep your false preterist doctrine afloat. I already talked about what they meant when they said His second coming was near and you didn't even address what I said. Peter gave the context of what that means in 2 Peter 3. I'm sure when he wrote about "the end of all things" in 1 Peter 4:7, he was talking about the same thing he wrote about in 2nd Peter 3. So, His coming being near is from the Lord's perspective, not man's. But, there was also nothing that said exactly how long it would have to be until His coming, so Peter and Paul both taught all of their readers (including us) to be ready for His return.

I think Peter knew it would not likely happen any time soon at the time he was writing his letters and that's why he pointed out how it wasn't taking him long to return from His perspective even if it seemed that way to some from man's perspective. He indicated that it couldn't be considered a long time from His perspective no matter how long it takes because one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day to Him. He is not affected by time. You are only ever looking at things from man's perspective, so that's why you don't understand how His coming could have been both near and a long time away at the same time.

 

[RandyPNW]

“HOUR” :
My argument wasnt that the word “hour” must mean a literal 60 minutes, so I apologize if there was any confusion. I agree the Greek word for hour, while can be a literal 60 minutes, can also mean a finite season/time span. I believe John was stating it’s the “last hour” or “last season” or “last time”.

Yes, that was my point, that "hour" was not to be understood literally. It is a matter of determining what is meant *idiomatically.*

“The term "eschatos" is used in the New Testament to denote the last in a series, the final stage, or the utmost degree of something. It often refers to the end times or the final events in God's redemptive plan, commonly known as eschatology. It can also describe the last or least in terms of rank or importance.” (Strong's Greek: 2078. ἔσχατος (eschatos) -- Last, final, utmost, extreme)

We aren't determining, strictly, the meaning of the word "last." Rather, we are reading "last hour," and must determine what "hour" represents in context.

So we can't just say the "last hour" is the *last* as in the very end of the age, ie the eschaton. 2 points here...
1) John applied "last hour" to his own time. Obviously, that was not the "eschaton," since Antichrist had not come yet, and it's been 2 millennia since that time.
2) an "hour" is a segment of time, which when applied as an idiom must determiine the period to which it applies, whether to the entire NT period, or strictly to the eschaton. If it applies to the entire NT period, which it apparently does, then it cannot apply strictly to the eschaton.

“. of the time nearest the return of Christ from heaven and the consummation of the divine kingdom, the following phrases are used: ἐσχάτῃ ὥρα, 1 John 2:18; ἐν καιρῷἐσχάτῳ 1 Peter 1:5” - thayers Greek lexicon

As I said, "last hour" cannot, logically, apply to the eschaton, since John applied it to his own day as well. So his reference to things that appear to you to be strictly "eschaton" must either be included in the entire NT age, or they must be explained in some other way, such as some form of pre-fulfillment, eg inaugurated eschatology.

So John knew it was the “eschatological” or last hour because the antichrist, that they heard was coming, had already arrived. ****Since John literally said it was the eschatological or last hour because the antichrist had come, I disagree with your assertion that it is not related to eschatology****

We must be interpreting 1 John differently because I read that John heard that Antichrist was *still to come.* And you seem to think he heard that Antichrist had already come??

1 John 2:18-19 18Children, it is the last (eschatos) hour; and just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last (eschatos) hour.

1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

Yes, the *spirit* of Antichrist was already in existence in John's day. But the Antichrist himself had not yet come, although preliminary antichrists were already present. That's how I read it.

“World history depicted as one day” seems like another philosophical gymnastic maneuver in order to change the meaning of words, so I can’t agree with that understanding.

I resent the insistent claim that I'm trying to play "gymnastics!" I'm being honest with you, friend! If the "last hour" in my system includes the *entire NT period,* that would imply that the metaphor of a "day" would include a much larger portion of world history, would it not?

As to the olivet discourse, I hold the partial preterist position, and do not believe the olivet discourse refers to a 2nd advent.

I'm not a Partial Preterist, but I do agree with PPs on some of this. The main focus of the Olivet Discourse was on the destruction of the Temple in the generation of Jesus. But questions were made about the coming of the Kingdom as well.

So I believe Jesus distinguished the eschaton and the 70 AD event in his mind, making the 70 AD event imminent, while the eschaton would follow the preaching of the Gospel to all nations and the dispersion of Israel in the "greatest tribulation" in Israel's history. That means, the Kingdom would come long after the 70 AD event, and the end of the age would require a great length of time. In effect, Christ's Coming itself was not imminent, and Pretribbers are wrong to claim so.

I absolutely agree the fig tree parable of “near” refers to the destruction of the temple/jerusalem and the fulfillment of Daniel 7: 13-14 - son of man coming on the clouds in and around 70ad.

I do not see the Son of Man coming on the clouds in 70 AD! But I do see the Son of Man revealing himself in the historical judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It was not an eschatological coming, but rather, an historical coming, much as God came in judgment in 586 BC.

Though this fulfillment of Daniel 7:13-14 makes more sense when the “original Greek” or OG manuscript is read. Instead of the son of man coming “to” the ancient of days, the OG says the son of man came on the clouds “as” the ancient of days.

I see the Son of Man descending with the clouds. And then, a parenthetical insertion is made to explain why he was coming. He appears in the courtroom in heaven to appeal to God, his Father, for the authority to defeat Antichrist and to establish God's Kingdom on earth. So Christ does appear before God, his Father, and demonstrates this authority when he descends from heaven.

When Jesus’ audience was to see the events of the Olivet discourse happening, they would know the coming of Christ and his kingdom was near, just as when a fig tree sprouts leaves, then summer is near

I see the Fig Tree sprouting leaves as representing the Birth Pain signs, which presage the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The odd thing about it is that the season depicts the approach of Summer, which is generally a positive thing in terms of the harvest. But in this case, Jesus came and the harvest was largely lost on Israel. This did not depict Christ's 2nd Coming.

You can’t call out pre trib rapturists for twisting “imminence” and then go on to perform philosophical gymnastics to twist imminence into meaning its polar opposite.

Since you don't seem to really grasp what my position is, I would ask you to review it before passing judgment on how "inconsistent" I am. I've been studying this a long time....

 

[claninja]

LOL. So, going by what the God of the Universe, Jesus Christ Himself, said is not valid to you? He said His second coming would not occur for "a long time", but, yes, let's just ignore that. Also, let's just ignore the context in which Peter talked about the timing of His second coming in 2 Peter 3 when interpreting 1 Peter 4:7.

So, Jesus saying it doesn't matter since we can't find Paul or Peter saying it. I didn't realize that you held Jesus's words in such low regard

I truly have no idea of what you're saying here. He hasn't come back yet, so that alone should give you an idea of how to understand those verses. But, no, you insist on clinging to your false preterist doctrine instead.

I agreed the man’s long journey and the bridegroom tarrying refer to a long period of time, in my previous post, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

I’ll use an earthly example to help explain my argument if you are having a difficult time.

I tell my wife I am going to build a house but it will take a long time before we can move in. She asks me when will she know the time is near to move in. I respond by saying when the roof is finished, the siding fastened, the windows put, and the interior walls are painted, then the time is near for us to move in.

so, in which scenario is it appropriate for my wife to say the time is near to move in?

A.) there is only a hole dug, with no foundation poured

B.) the roof is finished, the siding fastened, the windows put in, and the interior walls painted.


Or how about this example:

When a fig tree sprouts leaves, summer is near.

So, what is the best answer for When is summer near?

A.) no leaves on the fig tree

B.) leaves on the fig tree.

My position is point (B) in both scenarios.

With that understanding, It doesn’t make any sense for the writers of the NT to claim the coming of Christ is near before they witness the events of the Olivet discourse occurring.

So, for you, does the fig tree parable’s use of “near” mean literally near or metaphorically “nearness according to God but could be literally thousands of years to man”?

You have an interesting way of defining a long time. You really think 40 years is a long time?

Yes, I do think 40 years is a long time. For example, I would say forty years of wandering in the desert before entering the promised land, in order for a whole generation to die off, was a long time.

I already talked about what they meant when they said His second coming was near and you didn't even address what I said. Peter gave the context of what that means in 2 Peter 3. I'm sure when he wrote about "the end of all things" in 1 Peter 4:7, he was talking about the same thing he wrote about in 2nd Peter 3. So, His coming being near is from the Lord's perspective, not man's. But, there was also nothing that said exactly how long it would have to be until His coming, so Peter and Paul both taught all of their readers (including us) to be ready for His return.

Why would you expect me to address everything in your post if you didn’t address the main point of my post - the fig tree parable? Anyways…..

Here’s my take on 2 peter 3. It makes ZERO sense for scoffers to scoff “WhErE is HIs CoMiNg?” If the early Christians did NOT expect NOR teach Christ to come soon within their generation. BUT if the early Christians did preach that Christ was coming literally soon, such as Peter in his previous letter (1 Peter 4:7), then it would make sense for scoffers to scoff.

So example, let’s say a 9 year child tells his classmates his dad promised to buy him a sports car when he turns 16. It would make zero sense for his classmates to scoff to the 9 year old, “so where is the sports car?”

So, I’m starting 2 peter 3 off with that in mind —-> early Christian’s believed the coming of Christ was soon, and scoffers were scoffing “when?” So, Peter, who had previously taught that it was near in his previous letter simply states God is living outside of time, and is not slow as some some understand, and that the promise of a new heavens and new earth, which was promised several hundreds years before is still going to happen, despite everything continuing on as normal since the creation, is going to happen. I don’t in anyway believe Peter made a blanket statement that now “near” means near in “Gods mind”.

I think Peter knew it would not likely happen any time soon at the time he was writing his letters

Then he lied in 1 Peter 4:7

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I agreed the man’s long journey and the bridegroom tarrying refer to a long period of time, in my previous post, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

I agreed the man’s long journey and the bridegroom tarrying refer to a long period of time, in my previous post, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm talking about you having a strange idea about how long is a long time. I do not see Jesus coming back within 40 years of Him saying that as being a long time if He was talking about supposedly coming in 70 AD, which He did not.

I’ll use an earthly example to help explain my argument if you are having a difficult time.

I'm not having a difficult time. The problem is not related to not being able to understand what you're saying in relation to something being near, the problem is that you are only looking at it from a human perspective and not from the Lord's perspective. Peter talked about the time that it will take for Jesus to come back from the Lord's perspective in 2 Peter 3:8-9 so there's no reason to think he wasn't talking from that perspective in 1 Peter 4:7 as well.

I tell my wife I am going to build a house but it will take a long time before we can move in. She asks me when will she know the time is near to move in. I respond by saying when the roof is finished, the siding fastened, the windows put, and the interior walls are painted, then the time is near for us to move in.

so, in which scenario is it appropriate for my wife to say the time is near to move in?

A.) there is only a hole dug, with no foundation poured

B.) the roof is finished, the siding fastened, the windows put in, and the interior walls painted.


Or how about this example:

When a fig tree sprouts leaves, summer is near.

So, what is the best answer for When is summer near?

A.) no leaves on the fig tree

B.) leaves on the fig tree.

My position is point (B) in both scenarios.

With that understanding, It doesn’t make any sense for the writers of the NT to claim the coming of Christ is near before they witness the events of the Olivet discourse occurring.

So, for you, does the fig tree parable’s use of “near” mean literally near or metaphorically “nearness according to God but could be literally thousands of years to man”?

I believe it means literally near there, but not in verses like 1 Peter 4:7 and James 5:8. When it comes to 1 Peter 4:7, at least, we should keep 2 Peter 3:8-9 in mind which shows that when it came to how long it was taking Jesus to return, Peter thought about it in terms of how long it is from God's perspective, not from man's perspective.

And, again, He hasn't come yet. You can't win this argument no matter what you do because He hasn't come yet. We can talk about "a long time" means or "near" means and other aspects of this, but the bottom line is that His second coming has not yet occurred and you can do absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise.

Yes, I do think 40 years is a long time. For example, I would say forty years of wandering in the desert before entering the promised land, in order for a whole generation to die off, was a long time.

You are equating the time it would take for Jesus to come again to wandering and suffering in the desert for 40 years as if those things are comparable? It's not like it's that hard for people to wait for Him to come again. It's not comparable to having to suffer in the desert for 40 years. So, I don't buy it that 40 years could be considered a long time in the same context of what Jesus was talking about in relation to Him coming back.

Why would you expect me to address everything in your post if you didn’t address the main point of my post - the fig tree parable?

It's not about what I expect you to address. I expect you to have read what I had already said which already addressed what you were saying. If you don't think so, then so be it. I can't help that. I will say whatever I want to say just as you will. If you're not satisfied with it, then that's too bad. You can ask questions for clarification about what I said if necessary or address what I said. Or not. Whatever. No matter what you say, the coming of Jesus that is referenced by Jesus Himself, James, Peter and Paul hasn't happened yet. That should be your starting point when determining what the verses we're talking about mean, but unfortunately, it's not.

Anyways…..

Here’s my take on 2 peter 3. It makes ZERO sense for scoffers to scoff “WhErE is HIs CoMiNg?” If the early Christians did NOT expect NOR teach Christ to come soon within their generation. BUT if the early Christians did preach that Christ was coming literally soon, such as Peter in his previous letter (1 Peter 4:7), then it would make sense for scoffers to scoff.

You just don't get it. No one knew when He was coming for sure, so they could not say with certainty that His coming was literally soon. Jesus pointed out that no one knew the day or hour. He also said it would be a long time, but that's obviously not specific. People like you think 40 years is a long time, so, for all anyone knew, there was at least the potential that He could come during their lifetimes. His coming was always approaching regardless. So, since no one knew for sure when it would be, people should always be ready for it. And that is what early Christians preached. So, yeah, scoffers would scoff at that, thinking He should have come by now. But the scoffers, like you, didn't understand that His coming was always near from the Lord's perspective. And since no one knew the day or hour, there was nothing that said it couldn't happen in their lifetimes even though there also was nothing that said it had to be in their lifetimes. Because of that, everyone was told to be ready for it. And that is true ever since. We should still be ready for it in our lifetimes because we still don't know the day or hour.

Look, His second coming is a global event, as evidenced by passages like Luke 21:33-36 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. So, when Jesus talked about signs that His coming would be near and when Paul wrote about signs that would indicate it is near and when Peter and James talked about it being near, it is in the context of things happening globally which would indicate that. Such as the mass falling away Paul talked about. Jesus referred to that as well and associated it with wickedness increasing and the love of most growing cold. That did not happen before 70 AD as you falsely believe. Not on a global scale, which is the context of what Jesus talked about and Paul wrote about. If you look at what has happened more recently in the world with the large scale acceptance of wicked things like abortion, pornography, witchcraft, homosexuality and other things then it shouldn't be hard to see that the time we're living in now may very well be the time just before the second coming of Christ.

So example, let’s say a 9 year child tells his classmates his dad promised to buy him a sports car when he turns 16. It would make zero sense for his classmates to scoff to the 9 year old, “so where is the sports car?”

So, I’m starting 2 peter 3 off with that in mind —-> early Christian’s believed the coming of Christ was soon, and scoffers were scoffing “when?”

They believed it COULD be soon, not that it necessarily would be soon. That's what you're missing. No one knew when it would occur. And, the fact of the matter is that He hasn't come back yet. You need to set all this other stuff aside and start your journey to the truth of this matter with the fact that He hasn't come yet and then go from there. If you want to insist that they were saying His coming was for certain literally near, then they were lying to everyone about that and we both know they wouldn't do that.

So, Peter, who had previously taught that it was near in his previous letter simply states God is living outside of time, and is not slow as some some understand, and that the promise of a new heavens and new earth, which was promised several hundreds years before is still going to happen, despite everything continuing on as normal since the creation, is going to happen. I don’t in anyway believe Peter made a blanket statement that now “near” means near in “Gods mind”.

Why not? That was clearly how Peter looked at the timing of Christ's coming. Why can you not see what he wrote in 2 Peter 3:8-9 and realize that when he said it was near, he meant from the Lord's perspective? He went out of his way to prove that the scoffers who thought He was talking too long to come were wrong because no amount of time could be too long for Him to come from His eternal perspective, which is all that matters. No one should have expected Him to come in any certain amount of time because that was entirely dependent on Him deciding when the right time would be based on His desire for none to perish and everyone to come to repentance.

Then he lied in 1 Peter 4:7

No, he did not. Again, he was speaking from the Lord's perspective of time just as he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9. Why you would not want to take what he wrote in 2 Peter 3:8-9 into account regarding this is baffling to me. Peter was talking about the second coming of Christ, which is a global event which will involve the burning up of the heavens and the earth. You may notice that the heavens and the earth are still here and have not yet been made new, so He hasn't come yet. Simple as that. Peter didn't lie, he told the truth. The end of all things is near. Scoffers have said otherwise for a long time now (from the human perspective) because they only look at things from a human perspective and never try to look at things from the Lord's perspective.

Here is the bottom line regarding all of this. Jesus did not come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD. There's no way around that. All of the references in scripture to His second coming, such as in the Olivet Discourse, 1 Thess 4:14-5:3, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 1 Cor 15:22-23, 1 Peter 4:7, James 5:8, 2 Peter 3:10-12, Rev 19:11-21 and others, refer to His future visible, global second coming when He will descend in like manner from heaven as how He ascended to heaven from earth. Until you see that you're just not going to get it.

 

[claninja]

I'm talking about you having a strange idea about how long is a long time. I do not see Jesus coming back within 40 years of Him saying that as being a long time if He was talking about supposedly coming in 70 AD, which He did not.


I'm not having a difficult time. The problem is not related to not being able to understand what you're saying in relation to something being near, the problem is that you are only looking at it from a human perspective and not from the Lord's perspective. Peter talked about the time that it will take for Jesus to come back from the Lord's perspective in 2 Peter 3:8-9 so there's no reason to think he wasn't talking from that perspective in 1 Peter 4:7 as well.


I believe it means literally near there, but not in verses like 1 Peter 4:7 and James 5:8. When it comes to 1 Peter 4:7, at least, we should keep 2 Peter 3:8-9 in mind which shows that when it came to how long it was taking Jesus to return, Peter thought about it in terms of how long it is from God's perspective, not from man's perspective.

And, again, He hasn't come yet. You can't win this argument no matter what you do because He hasn't come yet. We can talk about "a long time" means or "near" means and other aspects of this, but the bottom line is that His second coming has not yet occurred and you can do absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise.


You are equating the time it would take for Jesus to come again to wandering and suffering in the desert for 40 years as if those things are comparable? It's not like it's that hard for people to wait for Him to come again. It's not comparable to having to suffer in the desert for 40 years. So, I don't buy it that 40 years could be considered a long time in the same context of what Jesus was talking about in relation to Him coming back.


It's not about what I expect you to address. I expect you to have read what I had already said which already addressed what you were saying. If you don't think so, then so be it. I can't help that. I will say whatever I want to say just as you will. If you're not satisfied with it, then that's too bad. You can ask questions for clarification about what I said if necessary or address what I said. Or not. Whatever. No matter what you say, the coming of Jesus that is referenced by Jesus Himself, James, Peter and Paul hasn't happened yet. That should be your starting point when determining what the verses we're talking about mean, but unfortunately, it's not.


You just don't get it. No one knew when He was coming for sure, so they could not say with certainty that His coming was literally soon. Jesus pointed out that no one knew the day or hour. He also said it would be a long time, but that's obviously not specific. People like you think 40 years is a long time, so, for all anyone knew, there was at least the potential that He could come during their lifetimes. His coming was always approaching regardless. So, since no one knew for sure when it would be, people should always be ready for it. And that is what early Christians preached. So, yeah, scoffers would scoff at that, thinking He should have come by now. But the scoffers, like you, didn't understand that His coming was always near from the Lord's perspective. And since no one knew the day or hour, there was nothing that said it couldn't happen in their lifetimes even though there also was nothing that said it had to be in their lifetimes. Because of that, everyone was told to be ready for it. And that is true ever since. We should still be ready for it in our lifetimes because we still don't know the day or hour.

Look, His second coming is a global event, as evidenced by passages like Luke 21:33-36 and 2 Peter 3:10-12. So, when Jesus talked about signs that His coming would be near and when Paul wrote about signs that would indicate it is near and when Peter and James talked about it being near, it is in the context of things happening globally which would indicate that. Such as the mass falling away Paul talked about. Jesus referred to that as well and associated it with wickedness increasing and the love of most growing cold. That did not happen before 70 AD as you falsely believe. Not on a global scale, which is the context of what Jesus talked about and Paul wrote about. If you look at what has happened more recently in the world with the large scale acceptance of wicked things like abortion, pornography, witchcraft, homosexuality and other things then it shouldn't be hard to see that the time we're living in now may very well be the time just before the second coming of Christ.


They believed it COULD be soon, not that it necessarily would be soon. That's what you're missing. No one knew when it would occur. And, the fact of the matter is that He hasn't come back yet. You need to set all this other stuff aside and start your journey to the truth of this matter with the fact that He hasn't come yet and then go from there. If you want to insist that they were saying His coming was for certain literally near, then they were lying to everyone about that and we both know they wouldn't do that.


Why not? That was clearly how Peter looked at the timing of Christ's coming. Why can you not see what he wrote in 2 Peter 3:8-9 and realize that when he said it was near, he meant from the Lord's perspective? He went out of his way to prove that the scoffers who thought He was talking too long to come were wrong because no amount of time could be too long for Him to come from His eternal perspective, which is all that matters. No one should have expected Him to come in any certain amount of time because that was entirely dependent on Him deciding when the right time would be based on His desire for none to perish and everyone to come to repentance.



No, he did not. Again, he was speaking from the Lord's perspective of time just as he did in 2 Peter 3:8-9. Why you would not want to take what he wrote in 2 Peter 3:8-9 into account regarding this is baffling to me. Peter was talking about the second coming of Christ, which is a global event which will involve the burning up of the heavens and the earth. You may notice that the heavens and the earth are still here and have not yet been made new, so He hasn't come yet. Simple as that. Peter didn't lie, he told the truth. The end of all things is near. Scoffers have said otherwise for a long time now (from the human perspective) because they only look at things from a human perspective and never try to look at things from the Lord's perspective.

Here is the bottom line regarding all of this. Jesus did not come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD. There's no way around that. All of the references in scripture to His second coming, such as in the Olivet Discourse, 1 Thess 4:14-5:3, 2 Thess 1:7-10, 1 Cor 15:22-23, 1 Peter 4:7, James 5:8, 2 Peter 3:10-12, Rev 19:11-21 and others, refer to His future visible, global second coming when He will descend in like manner from heaven as how He ascended to heaven from earth. Until you see that you're just not going to get it.

All of this misses the entire point of the fig tree parable, and the point of my argument.

It’s not “when the fig tree sprout leaves then possibly, maybe, summer could be near”.

It’s “when the fig tree sprouts leaves, YOU KNOW SUMMER IS NEAR”

So also, when the apostles would see all these things, THEN THEY WOULD KNOW HE IS NEAR, RIGHT AT THE DOOR”.

“32Now learn this lessone from the fig tree: As soon as its branches become tender and sprout leaves, you know that summer is near. 33So also, when you see all these things, you KNOW that He is near, right at the door”

WHY would the NT authors write His coming was near, considering the parable of the fig tree and that they WOULD KNOW it was near when they saw all those things of the Olivet discourse, if they didn’t actually know for sure?

It seems completely nonsensical to argue “decades after the death of Christ, the NT authors wrote Christs coming was near, but they really didn’t know for sure and also near in those instances mean near in Gods time not man’s” when Christ literally told them they would KNOW He is near (the literal sense of near according to you) when they were to see the events of the OD

How in the world can they know it’s near in the olivet discourse, but then not really know decades later when they were living through the events of the olivet discourse, which were the events telling them they would know it was near, as in the parable of the fig tree?



- - - - - -

In regards to your other points

- I don’t believe the phrase “son of man coming on the clouds” refers to a literal, physical, bodily descending, but instead a reference to Daniel 7:13-14. So in that sense, I completely agree Christ didn’t literally descend in bodily form in 70ad. But I do believe Daniel 7:13-14 was fulfilled. I don’t believe the OD is about a literal global event like you do.

- I agree Jesus didn’t come in 70ad, according to how you interpret “the son of man coming on the clouds”.

- I don’t agree the belief that 40 years is a long time is “strange”. I mean the Bible says 20 years is a “long time”. So yea, I’m going to completely disagree with you here. To call my belief strange is grasping at straws

1 Samuel 7:2 The Ark remained in Kiriath-jearim for a long time—twenty years in all. During that time all Israel mourned because it seemed the LORD had abandoned them.

- I am not God, so I can’t necessarily understand how God views time. So Sure, anything can be near to God, who lives outside time, but that doesn’t help me know when something is literally near in time, especially if Jesus, the God of universe, basically said “when these things happen, Know my coming is near”.

 

[claninja]

Yes, that was my point, that "hour" was not to be understood literally. It is a matter of determining what is meant *idiomatically.*

We aren't determining, strictly, the meaning of the word "last." Rather, we are reading "last hour," and must determine what "hour" represents in context.

So we can't just say the "last hour" is the *last* as in the very end of the age, ie the eschaton. 2 points here...
1) John applied "last hour" to his own time. Obviously, that was not the "eschaton," since Antichrist had not come yet, and it's been 2 millennia since that time.
2) an "hour" is a segment of time, which when applied as an idiom must determiine the period to which it applies, whether to the entire NT period, or strictly to the eschaton. If it applies to the entire NT period, which it apparently does, then it cannot apply strictly to the eschaton.

As I said, "last hour" cannot, logically, apply to the eschaton, since John applied it to his own day as well. So his reference to things that appear to you to be strictly "eschaton" must either be included in the entire NT age, or they must be explained in some other way, such as some form of pre-fulfillment, eg inaugurated eschatology.

We must be interpreting 1 John differently because I read that John heard that Antichrist was *still to come.* And you seem to think he heard that Antichrist had already come??

Yes, the *spirit* of Antichrist was already in existence in John's day. But the Antichrist himself had not yet come, although preliminary antichrists were already present. That's how I read it.

Here’s how I read 1 John 2:18-19, I’ll use an illustration to help:

awhile back you had heard Pepsi zero is coming, and now Pepsi zero has appeared in many grocery stories —->
so also, John’s audience had heard, in the past, antichrist is coming and now many antichrists had appeared. (There is no “the” Antichrist in the original Greek. “the” is an inserted article in the English).

So, they heard antichrist was coming, and now many antichrists have risen and gone out from the church, and this is the reason they know it’s the last (eschaton) hour or last (eschaton) time.

The coming of antichrist, or spirit of the antichrist, resulted in many going out from the church (mass falling away: 1 John 2) and many false prophets going to it the world (1 John 4).

Jesus said false prophets would arise and many would fall away prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:9-10). These would be some of the signs that would occur that would denote His coming was near (Matthew 24:33).

So when they were happening in John’s time, then they knew it was the “last hour” prior to destruction of Jerusalem/temple

 

[Spiritual Jew]

All of this misses the entire point of the fig tree parable, and the point of my argument.

It’s not “when the fig tree sprout leaves then possibly, maybe, summer could be near”.

I'm not even saying that. I believe Jesus was indicating that His coming WOULD be literally near once the things that He said would happen that would indicate His coming was near actually happened. I'm sure we don't agree on what those things are. But, we agree that whatever they were, He indicated that those things would indicate that His second coming was near just as the the fig tree sprouting leaves indicates that summer is near.

What you're missing about what I'm saying is that I don't believe the word "near" has the same context in that verse about the fig tree as it does in verses like 1 Peter 4:7 and James 5:8. I've said multiple times now that I believe the context of those other verses is in relation to God's timing, not man's and I used 2 Peter 3:8-9 to support that in relation to what Peter wrote in 1 Peter 4:7 and I think James was writing from that same perspective. The Lord's return was always near from His perspective because His perspective is eternal. He is not affected by time. So, that's why Peter pointed out that while some might say He was being slow to return, that is not actually the case from His eternal perspective where to Him there's no difference between one day and a thousand years.

It’s “when the fig tree sprouts leaves, YOU KNOW SUMMER IS NEAR”

Yes, and I agreed with that. You must not be reading everything I'm saying.

So also, when the apostles would see all these things, THEN THEY WOULD KNOW HE IS NEAR, RIGHT AT THE DOOR”.

“32Now learn this lessone from the fig tree: As soon as its branches become tender and sprout leaves, you know that summer is near. 33So also, when you see all these things, you KNOW that He is near, right at the door”

WHY would the NT authors write His coming was near, considering the parable of the fig tree and that they WOULD KNOW it was near when they saw all those things of the Olivet discourse, if they didn’t actually know for sure?

I've already answered this question multiple times. You are clearly not reading everything I'm saying. They were talking from the Lord's perspective, not man's. It may not have been literally near from man's perspective, but it is from the Lord's perspective. So, no one can say "Hey, I thought you said His return was near, but He hasn't even come back yet. You lied to me.". The response to that kind of thinking is what Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:8-9. What matters is how long it's taking from the Lord's perspective and it's not taking long at all from His perspective. Christ's followers are told to watch and be spiritually alert and ready at all times regardless of whether He actually comes in our lifetimes or not. For all anyone knows, He could return during our lifetimes, so we should be ready.

There is a major problem in your view that you can't get around. He hasn't come back yet. You are making no effort to adjust your doctrine accordingly and instead you try to say that He came in 70 AD. He did not. The verses about His coming are not about 70 AD, they are about His glorious second coming when He will come in like manner from heaven as He ascended to heaven, which was visibly and bodily (Acts 1:9-11).

It seems completely nonsensical to argue “decades after the death of Christ, the NT authors wrote Christs coming was near, but they really didn’t know for sure

His coming was near from the Lord's eternal perspective. Jesus clearly said that no one except the Father knew the day or hour and the things that would indicate that Christ's second coming was near, such as a mass falling away from the faith, increase in wickedness and the love of most growing cold had not yet occurred before 70 AD. Also, once again, Christ's second coming is a global and visible event, according to scripture. When He comes His people will be literally gathered up to Him "in the air" (1 Thess 4:14-17) and that clearly has not yet happened. Your doctrine, like pre-tribs, has an extra coming of Jesus that is not taught anywhere in scripture. You have three comings of Christ instead of the two that scripture teaches.

and also near in those instances mean near in Gods time not man’s” when Christ literally told them they would KNOW He is near (the literal sense of near according to you) when they were to see the events of the OD

Why do you not allow that different verses can talk about His return being near in different contexts? Again, in 2 Peter 3:8-9 you can see that Peter talks about the timing of His return in relation to His perspective so why would you think they could never write anywhere else about the timing of His return from His perspective? Only in that passage? Why?

How in the world can they know it’s near in the olivet discourse, but then not really know decades later when they were living through the events of the olivet discourse, which were the events telling them they would know it was near, as in the parable of the fig tree?

This is the problem with your view. The Olivet Discourse is not just about what happened in 70 AD. You are sadly mistaken about that. It's about both what happened in 70 AD AND about Christ's future second coming at the end of this temporal age during which people get married and they die (Luke 20:34-36). He will come at the end of this temporal age to usher in the eternal age to come when people will no longer get married or die.

If you think the Olivet Discourse is only about a supposed coming of Christ in 70 AD then tell me how the elect were gathered in 70 AD. Tell me exactly how all people were gathered before His throne to be judged in 70 AD (Matt 25:31-46). It's not reasonable at all to think that the Olivet Discourse is only about 70 AD and it's also not reasonable to think that Jesus came in any way, shape or form in 70 AD.

In regards to your other points

- I don’t believe the phrase “son of man coming on the clouds” refers to a literal, physical, bodily descending, but instead a reference to Daniel 7:13-14. So in that sense, I completely agree Christ didn’t literally descend in bodily form in 70ad. But I do believe Daniel 7:13-14 was fulfilled. I don’t believe the OD is about a literal global event like you do.

Daniel 7:13-14 is about Christ's ascension to heaven. You think the Olivet Discourse is about His ascension to heaven? The point I was making about that passage is simply that similar phrases being used in different verses do not automatically make them about the same event. Daniel 7:13-14 is about His ascension. Matthew 24:30 is not about His ascension and is instead about His second coming even though both passages talk about Him coming with (or in) the clouds of heaven. In one case, He came TO heaven in the clouds of heaven and in the other He comes FROM heaven in the clouds of heaven.

- I agree Jesus didn’t come in 70ad, according to how you interpret “the son of man coming on the clouds”.

He didn't come at all in 70 AD. Do you think that Jesus never referred to His future visible second coming?

- I don’t agree the belief that 40 years is a long time is “strange”. I mean the Bible says 20 years is a “long time”.

Where does it say that?

So yea, I’m going to completely disagree with you here. To call my belief strange is grasping at straws

It's not grasping at straws at all to have a different understanding of what "a long time" would be. It's obviously a subjective thing, but it's not grasping at straws to have an opinion on that.

1 Samuel 7:2 The Ark remained in Kiriath-jearim for a long time—twenty years in all. During that time all Israel mourned because it seemed the LORD had abandoned them.

The context of this verse is completely different than the context of how long it would be for Jesus to come again. In this case, 20 years was considered a long time because the people of Israel were being oppressed by the Philistines every day and they were not able to gather for worship or do anything they wanted to do and they were wondering if God had abandoned them. They were suffering greatly every day. Probably 5 years would've seemed like a long time to them under those circumstances at that time. That's a completely different context than simply waiting for Jesus to come again. I hardly think that Jesus would have considered 20 years or 40 years to be a long time for Him to come again. But, believe what you want about that. He hasn't come yet, regardless.

- I am not God, so I can’t necessarily understand how God views time. So Sure, anything can be near to God, who lives outside time, but that doesn’t help me know when something is literally near in time, especially if Jesus, the God of universe, basically said “when these things happen, Know my coming is near”.

I'm not denying what Jesus said about knowing when His coming is near. I'm agreeing that whenever those things happened His coming would be literally near at that point just as summer is literally near when the leaves of a fig tree begin to sprout. I'm saying that when Peter and James said His coming was near, it was in relation to the Lord's perspective. I believe they were talking from the same perspective as Peter wrote about in 2 Peter 3:8-9 where he indicated that no one should think that He was being slow to fulfill the promise of His coming since He wasn't being slow from His perspective, which is what really matters. So, to say that His coming was near would not be a lie even if from man's perspective He is taking a long time to return.

 

[RandyPNW]

so also, John’s audience had heard, in the past, antichrist is coming and now many antichrists had appeared. (There is no “the” Antichrist in the original Greek. “the” is an inserted article in the English).

I don't see the lack of a definite article as indicative of anything with respect to what you're saying. There are reasons for dropping the article without requiring a specific entity be excluded.

That is, I believe that even without the definite article, THE Antichrist can be referred to, as in the Little Horn of Dan 7.

I do recognize that there are other points of view, tying Paul's statement about "Antichrist" to the "False Christs" of the Olivet Discourse. I don't agree, however. Looking at NT eschatology overall, there is a constant theme of reliance upon Dan 7, with a literal ruler and emperor, presiding over a confederation of 10 nations in Europe. This idea is pervasive in the NT Scriptures, in 2 Thes 2, in 1 John 2, and in Rev 13.

So, they heard antichrist was coming, and now many antichrists have risen and gone out from the church, and this is the reason they know it’s the last (eschaton) hour or last (eschaton) time.

Yes, I accept that you have a different view of who "Antichrist" is in 1 John 2. My view of the "Last Hour" is, as I said, representative of the NT Age as the last dispensation in God's plan to recover the world. Once Christ died for sin, the final hour of Salvatioin for Abraham's "many nations" takes place.

Dispensationalists tend to separate the current age of Gentile Salvation from a future eschaton in which Israel becomes the new focus of Salvation. This would confuse the "Last Hour," as I see it, perhaps rendering the "Last Hour" the period of "Great Tribulation" envisioned by Dispensationalists.

I believe Israel will get saved, politically, as a nation in the next age, ie in the Millennial Age. The current age is the age of Salvation for both Gentiles and Jews. What happens in the Millennial Age is a "New Day," and follows the "Last Hour" of the present age.

The coming of antichrist, or spirit of the antichrist, resulted in many going out from the church (mass falling away: 1 John 2) and many false prophets going to it the world (1 John 4).

Jesus said false prophets would arise and many would fall away prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:9-10). These would be some of the signs that would occur that would denote His coming was near (Matthew 24:33).

I believe, as I said, that the Birth Pain signs, and the Fig Tree metaphor, were indicative of the proximity of the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I don't think they indicated it was the eschaton, or the nearness of Christ's Return.

What signalled the "Last Hour" was Christ's death and resurrection, rendering this the "Age of Salvation." Jesus did say that the Kingdom was being proclaimed in advance of the Kingdom, and that the proclamation of this Kingdom indicated it was "near," in a relative sense. That sense of "nearness" is in the same sense as we may suggest the current age is the "Last Hour."

The Kingdom's realization was not near in terms of precise time, but only "near" in the sense of the proximity of our legal Salvation to its realization in the Kingdom of Heaven. When we get saved, for us Immortalization is right around the corner, relatively speaking. It has become a fixed reality, and is immediately evident in our changed lives.

So when they were happening in John’s time, then they knew it was the “last hour” prior to destruction of Jerusalem/temple

Actually, I think the "Last Hour" began even before the signs of Jerusalem's imminent fall in 70 AD. The "Last Hour" began when Jesus rose from the dead, in my opinion. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[claninja]

I believe Jesus was indicating that His coming WOULD be literally near once the things that He said would happen that would indicate His coming was near actually happened.

No one knew when He was coming for sure, so they could not say with certainty that His coming was literally soon.

In one instance you state it “would” be near when certain things happen. Then In another instance you state “they could not say with certainty that it was literally soon”. I think this is where some confusion might be coming from.

Jesus said “when they saw all these things (events of the Olivet discourse), then they WOULD KNOW he is near” in Matthew 24:33. So contrary to your statement in post 44, they in fact could say it was literally soon or near with certainty when events from the olivet discourse were to happen, according to Matthew 24:33.

So if James, John, Paul, or Peter were living through the events of the Olivet discourse, then they could say the parousia was literally near with certainty.

“a days as a thousand years AND a thousand years as a day” or “God’s time” doesn’t address my point and is an inappropriate use of the passage as a proof text —>

2 peter 3 was written prior to the destruction of Israel (otherwise it’s a forgery as Peter died prior to 70ad).

2 peter 3 addresses scoffers scoffing “where is the promise of his coming?” Scoffers making this remark, contextually, make the most sense if a literal near parousia was taught/believed by the NT authors. Remember the NT authors can know for certain if the parousia is literally near or not depending on if the events of the Olivet discourse were occurring. So the evidence still points to a belief in literal near parousia known with certainty by the early church.

Vs 8-9 do NOT address if the parousia is near or far in man’s understanding of time. Nor does it say “near” means God’s time. it simply states God is not slow, as some understand slow, to keep his promises as he is “outside of time”.

If you can show me where it says the parousia is “near” in “God’s time” and could be still thousands of years away, then I’ll concede to your interpretation. Though, Unfortunately for you, that’s not what the passage says all. That seems to be more of an eisegesis

Daniel 7:13-14 is about Christ's ascension to heaven. You think the Olivet Discourse is about His ascension to heaven? The point I was making about that passage is simply that similar phrases being used in different verses do not automatically make them about the same event. Daniel 7:13-14 is about His ascension. Matthew 24:30 is not about His ascension and is instead about His second coming even though both passages talk about Him coming with (or in) the clouds of heaven. In one case, He came TO heaven in the clouds of heaven and in the other He comes FROM heaven in the clouds of heaven.

I don’t believe the allusion to Daniel 7:13-14 in the olivet discourse is in regards to the ascension (masoretic text).

However, Daniel 7:13-14 in the Old Greek (OG) translation has the son of man coming on the clouds “as” or “like” the ancient of days instead of “to” the ancient of days (like the masoretic text). Since the NT authors often quoted from the OG translation, it’s more probable that the olivet discourse is alluding to this translation of Daniel 7:13-14.

(Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man)

So I think it’s more plausible that the “son of man coming on the clouds” in the olivet discourse is alluding to the OG translation of Daniel 7:13-14, where the son of man comes on the clouds as the ancient of days. So Just as the ancient of days descended from heaven on the clouds in judgement upon nations in the OT, Christ would come on the clouds, “as” the ancient of days, with his kingdom, in judgment upon Israel.

I don’t believe Daniel 7:13-14 refers to a literal, physical and bodily descension of the son of man, and so I don’t believe the olivet discourse refers to that.

The context of this verse is completely different than the context of how long it would be for Jesus to come again. In this case, 20 years was considered a long time because the people of Israel were being oppressed by the Philistines

You asked me if I believed 40 years was a long time. I said yes. You said that’s “strange”. That’s grasping at straws.

Now you agree that 20 years was a long time for Israel to be under philistine oppression? Would you agree 40 years was a long time to journey through the desert until a generation died off as punishment from God?

 

[RandyPNW]

In one instance you state it “would” be near when certain things happen. Then In another instance you state “they could not say with certainty that it was literally soon”. I think this is where some confusion might be coming from.

There is confusion when we conflate two different kinds of "expectation" extracted from two distinct sources. Each example of "expectation" must be addressed in its own particular context, or there will be this "confusion."

Jesus said “when they saw all these things (events of the Olivet discourse), then they WOULD KNOW he is near” in Matthew 24:33. So contrary to your statement in post 44, they in fact could say it was literally soon or near with certainty when events from the olivet discourse were to happen, according to Matthew 24:33.
So if James, John, Paul, or Peter were living through the events of the Olivet discourse, then they could say the parousia was literally near with certainty.

So this particular context, the Olivet Discourse, identifies a particular kind of "expectation," namely the expectation that the events Jesus described would take place. Although Jesus' Coming and Kingdom are in focus, the major focus, as indicated by Jesus, was on the approaching desolation of Jerusalem and the temple, which took place in 70 AD. This is not to be confused with expectation of Jesus' Coming, in my opinion.

“a days as a thousand years AND a thousand years as a day” or “God’s time” doesn’t address my point and is an inappropriate use of the passage as a proof text —>

2 peter 3 was written prior to the destruction of Israel (otherwise it’s a forgery as Peter died prior to 70ad).

2 peter 3 addresses scoffers scoffing “where is the promise of his coming?” Scoffers making this remark, contextually, make the most sense if a literal near parousia was taught/believed by the NT authors. Remember the NT authors can know for certain if the parousia is literally near or not depending on if the events of the Olivet discourse were occurring. So the evidence still points to a belief in literal near parousia known with certainty by the early church.

Vs 8-9 do NOT address if the parousia is near or far in man’s understanding of time. Nor does it say “near” means God’s time. it simply states God is not slow, as some understand slow, to keep his promises as he is “outside of time”.

If you can show me where it says the parousia is “near” in “God’s time” and could be still thousands of years away, then I’ll concede to your interpretation. Though, Unfortunately for you, that’s not what the passage says all. That seems to be more of an eisegesis

Well, I note your comments as reasonable, but I agree with the brother, that this kind of "expectation" and "nearness" is associated with "God's timeclock," so to speak. It is not the same as the Disciples' expectation of an approaching, imminent fall of Jerusalem by the Romans. We must not conflate expectation of the 70 AD event with expectation concerning Christ's 2nd Coming!

Peter was describing God's sense of relative nearness in regard to Salvation history. Whereas ages had existed in which Salvation was only hinted at, and fulfilled in part, actual Salvation took place on the Cross, making the coming of Eternal Life "near." That is our expectation, once we've been saved, that we are already able to put on our garments of righteousness and expect a relatively soon resurrection. This is a different kind of "nearness," as expressed by Peter specifically and explicitly.

We are so to expect Christ's Coming and Kingdom "soon," but not in the way the Disciples of Jesus were told to expect an imminent fall of Jerusalem, which took place in 70 AD. That event, and the Eschaton were not to be conflated in Jesus' Discourse.

Jesus addressed both issues distinctly and separately. The 70 AD event would be seen in the generation of his Disciples and directly. The 2nd Coming, on the other hand, would follow a long Jewish Diaspora and take place with preliminary signs and yet without being given a specific day and hour. It could be anticipated by preliminary signs, but could not be pinpointed exactly.

In a sense the 70 AD event and Jesus' 2nd Coming are comparable because both events would take place without a certain time and date. However, both events would have preliminary signs giving evidence of their nearness. And this was a completely different kind of "nearness" than the "nearness" of Christ's Coming to the time of Jesus, which was "God's timeclock."

The preliminary signs of the 70 AD event were provided by Jesus as "Birth Pains." The preliminary signs of Jesus' 2nd Coming consist of the preaching of the Gospel to all nations, the Jewish Diaspora, and the rise of Antichrist and Christian apostasy.

I don’t believe the allusion to Daniel 7:13-14 in the olivet discourse is in regards to the ascension (masoretic text).

However, Daniel 7:13-14 in the Old Greek (OG) translation has the son of man coming on the clouds “as” or “like” the ancient of days instead of “to” the ancient of days (like the masoretic text). Since the NT authors often quoted from the OG translation, it’s more probable that the olivet discourse is alluding to this translation of Daniel 7:13-14.

Interesting! I didn't know that. I personally think the Son of Man approaches God in a heavenly courtroom, similar to how it is portrayed in Rev 4-5. I believe it describes the mandate that is involved in Jesus descent from heaven to the earth.

In other words, the Son of Man is depicted as descending from heaven to establish God's Kingdom on earth in Dan 7. However, immediately after this a scene is given, explaining, parenthetically, what Jesus is descending from heaven to do--namely establish God's Kingdom on earth by divine mandate. So he may be coming as representative of the Ancient of Days, or God Himself.

I don't believe Jesus' return to earth "in the same way he left" implies he will appear in the same form that he left. Our glorified bodies are said, by Paul, to be very different from our mortal bodies. These sinful, mortal bodies are a kind of "seed" leading to a product that may be almost unrecognizable, if it wasn't for the revelation that accompanies it.

When Jesus and the glorified Church returns from heaven I think it will be in a new form, designed to rule the earth in a measured Christian way. However, I also believe the mortal earth will continue for another thousand years, being ruled, invisibly, by the Church in heaven. That is, the Church will provide a spiritual influence much as God uses invisible angels in our own day.

You may or may not agree with these things. And I may be right or wrong. I just thought I'd give you some of the thoughts I've had on this subject, meditating on it and praying about it for many years...

 

[Spiritual Jew]

In one instance you state it “would” be near when certain things happen. Then In another instance you state “they could not say with certainty that it was literally soon”. I think this is where some confusion might be coming from.

I'm not saying they never could say that. I'm saying they couldn't say that at the time they wrote their letters. For instance, Paul wrote about a mass falling away occurring at some point in the future in 2 Thessalonians 2 and he indicated that would occur before the second coming of Christ and our being gathered to Him. That falling away wasn't happening at the time since Paul talked about it because he only talked about it in future tense. So, he could not say for certain that Jesus's return was near at that time. Hopefully, that clears up what I meant to say. If not, let's just agree to disagree and move on because it's just not worth trying to spell everything out.

Jesus said “when they saw all these things (events of the Olivet discourse), then they WOULD KNOW he is near” in Matthew 24:33.

I am not disagreeing with that.

So contrary to your statement in post 44, they in fact could say it was literally soon or near with certainty when events from the olivet discourse were to happen, according to Matthew 24:33.

If they saw those things happening, sure. I did not say otherwise. But, I don't believe those things included what happened in 70 AD. I differentiate between a local event that Jesus talked about, which occurred in 70 AD and a global event that has not yet happened. I believe He was talking about the global event of His future glorious second coming when talking about when they would know it was near, but would not know the day or hour (Matt 24:36).

So if James, John, Paul, or Peter were living through the events of the Olivet discourse, then they could say the parousia was literally near with certainty.

Yes. I didn't say otherwise. I'm saying they did not live through the events of the Olivet Discourse that would occur near the second coming of Christ. Some of them did live through the events that led up to 70 AD, but that was not His second coming. That's where you are confused. You are not recognizing that Jesus talked both about a local event in Judea and Jerusalem as well as the global event of His second coming at the end of this temporal age.

The gathering of the elect and the judgment of all people most certainly did not happen in 70 AD, so how you can think that the entire Olivet Discourse is about what happened in 70 AD boggles my mind.

“a days as a thousand years AND a thousand years as a day” or “God’s time” doesn’t address my point and is an inappropriate use of the passage as a proof text —>

I disagree. Not much more I can say since I've already made the point multiple times. If you can't see my point, then there's nothing I can do about it.

2 peter 3 was written prior to the destruction of Israel (otherwise it’s a forgery as Peter died prior to 70ad).

So? It's clearly not referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, but rather the destruction of the entire earth.

2 peter 3 addresses scoffers scoffing “where is the promise of his coming?” Scoffers making this remark, contextually, make the most sense if a literal near parousia was taught/believed by the NT authors.

No, it makes sense if it was taught that it potentially could occur soon. Look. It hasn't happened yet. His parousia is His second coming which will be in like manner to His ascension (visible and bodily - Acts 1:9-11). You have been duped by false preterist doctrine that has convinced you that Jesus came in 70 AD even though He didn't come in any way, shape or form in 70 AD. The references to His second coming in the Olivet Discourse in the Olivet Discourse and in verses like 1 Corinthians 15:22-23, 1 Thess 4:14-17, James 5:8 and others all refer to His yet future glorious, visible second coming. There is no way they could have taught that His coming was literally soon at that time because that would mean they were lying. Your starting point should be the fact that He hasn't come yet and then you go from there to understand the context of these verses we're talking about.

Remember the NT authors can know for certain if the parousia is literally near or not depending on if the events of the Olivet discourse were occurring.

Please stop telling me this as if I said otherwise. I never did.

So the evidence still points to a belief in literal near parousia known with certainty by the early church.

There is no evidence of that at all. There can't be! He hasn't come yet! I can't even believe I'm having this discussion.

Vs 8-9 do NOT address if the parousia is near or far in man’s understanding of time. Nor does it say “near” means God’s time. it simply states God is not slow, as some understand slow, to keep his promises as he is “outside of time”.

It implies that His coming is not ever far away from His eternal perspective, so from His perspective it's always near. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

If you can show me where it says the parousia is “near” in “God’s time” and could be still thousands of years away, then I’ll concede to your interpretation.

I can't force you to be able to discern what verses are saying. If you can only understand verses that are explicitly spelled out to you without any discernment required, then....that's unfortunate for you.

Though, Unfortunately for you, that’s not what the passage says all. That seems to be more of an eisegesis

It may not say it explicitly, but I'd like you to tell me where scripture ever teaches that you can't understand anything written in it unless it is explicitly spelled out to us. Is that what you see described in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16?

I don’t believe the allusion to Daniel 7:13-14 in the olivet discourse is in regards to the ascension (masoretic text).

The Olivet Discourse does not allude to Daniel 7:13-14 at all. That passage relates to His ascension and His ascension has nothing to do with the Olivet Discourse.

However, Daniel 7:13-14 in the Old Greek (OG) translation has the son of man coming on the clouds “as” or “like” the ancient of days instead of “to” the ancient of days (like the masoretic text). Since the NT authors often quoted from the OG translation, it’s more probable that the olivet discourse is alluding to this translation of Daniel 7:13-14.

I completely disagree. I'm not buying this at all. When it says "they brought him near before him", what do you think that is saying? That they brought Him near before Himself?

Look at the similarities between Daniel 7:13-14 and Ephesians 2:19-22, which refers to His resurrection and ascension and what became true at that time:

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. 14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Ephesians 2:19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, 21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: 22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Look at the similarities to the parts I bolded in red and in blue in the two passages. Based on what Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:19-22, the time when Jesus was given "dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him" was at the time of His resurrection and ascension. So, it's clear to me that Daniel 7:13-14 refers to His ascension TO heaven and not to Him coming FROM heaven in judgment, as you believe.

(Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man)

So I think it’s more plausible that the “son of man coming on the clouds” in the olivet discourse is alluding to the OG translation of Daniel 7:13-14, where the son of man comes on the clouds as the ancient of days. So Just as the ancient of days descended from heaven on the clouds in judgement upon nations in the OT, Christ would come on the clouds, “as” the ancient of days, with his kingdom, in judgment upon Israel.

I don’t believe Daniel 7:13-14 refers to a literal, physical and bodily descension of the son of man, and so I don’t believe the olivet discourse refers to that.

Yes, but you believe it refers to the same coming of the Son of man on the clouds of heaven referenced in Matthew 24:30 and that can't be true since it refers to His ascension and I'm sure you would agree that Jesus was not referring to His ascension in Matthew 24:30.

You asked me if I believed 40 years was a long time. I said yes. You said that’s “strange”. That’s grasping at straws.

No, it's true to me and not grasping at straws at all. You don't dictate what is strange to me.

Now you agree that 20 years was a long time for Israel to be under philistine oppression?

I never disagreed with that. I disagree with the idea of that amount of time in general being a long time. It certainly can seem like a long time while you're being oppressed the way they were. But, in general, that is not a long time. Does context mean anything to you?

 

[claninja]

Well, I note your comments as reasonable, but I agree with the brother, that this kind of "expectation" and "nearness" is associated with "God's timeclock," so to speak.

Absolutely agree that God’s purposes occur on His own “time clock”, which is beyond our comprehension. Everything can be equally near and far to a God who is outside time.

Which brings me to another thought on 2 peter 3, so thanks for responding to my post, otherwise this would not have crossed my mind —->

Notice “foretold”

2 peter 3: 2by recalling what was foretold by the holy prophets

The promises of the parousia and new heavens and earth were foretold by the prophets between 500 and 1000 years before Christ without any kind of time frame of when they would occur. The scoffers also state that everything has been the same with creation since “our fathers” passed away.

“Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation.”

Peter then points out the that this scoff is a lapse in memory on their part . Not everything continued the same, the flood destroyed the world of that time.

“5But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6through whichb the world of that time perished in the flood.”

So already the scoffers are wrong.


So, if the scoffers are not directly scoffing at the NT authors belief a “soon” parousia as @Spiritual Jew states (to which i can agree is plausible) , maybe they could be scoffing at the promises of the parousia and new heavens and earth as foretold by the prophets 500 to 1000 years ago.

In other words, from the scoffers point of view, “it’s been 500-1000 years since it was prophesied by the OT prophets, so where’s the promise of his coming and new heavens and earth?!?!”

To which Peter responds, “to God, 1000 years is as a day and a day as a thousand years. God is not slow to fulfill the promises a foretold by the prophets, as some understand slowness”.

So this idea of “God’s time” is in relation to the fulfillment of the promises given 500 to 1000 years before, and NOT to the “near” or “soon” time statements of the NT.

Now, if God said, in the OT, that he would soon and in near time fulfill his promises of a new heaven and new earth, we could argue near means “God’s time”, and thus could argue the NT time statements of near can also mean “Gods time”. BUT he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t specifically say a time frame at all, only that it will happen.



So the argument that the “near” statements must mean God’s time in the NT, is impractical and inconsistent. Thus the “near” time statements should refer to the soon impending destruction of Jerusalem and not a 2nd advent, thousands of years away.

I think this might be a more plausible way to view 2 peter 3.

 

[RandyPNW]

Absolutely agree that God’s purposes occur on His own “time clock”, which is beyond our comprehension. Everything can be equally near and far to a God who is outside time.

Which brings me to another thought on 2 peter 3, so thanks for responding to my post, otherwise this would not have crossed my mind —->

Notice “foretold”

2 peter 3: 2by recalling what was foretold by the holy prophets

Yes, Peter is talking about how the Gospel letters relate that Christ came to fulfil specific prophecies that alluded to his life and earthly ministry. The "command" of Jesus was to abide in him and to love God and the brethren.

2 Pet 3.2 I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

So what was it that scoffers scoffed at? Jesus had said that false Christs and false prophets would come. In the same way there had been false prophets and disobedient men from the time of Abraham, when the promises were first made on behalf of Israel and the world.

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

This is a general attitude held by those who are disobedient to God's word and who actually actively resist God's word. They want things to remain as they are, unjudged, without any need for a divine remedy for sin and wickedness. They define "wickedness" different than the way God does. And this is the way it has always been since Adam and Eve capitulated to the temptation to sin.

But God has always promised a remedy to the problem of the integrity of His word in the face of human rebellion. And the promise of final judgment has been forwarded all through history among God's people, despite the fact sin has continued to be tolerated.

5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

This is a clear indication that not just promises were made but that God, at times, takes decisive action. And it indicates that one day, when God's plan is fully developed, that the world will be completely judged and changed.

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. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

This isn't saying that the judgment is "near," but that this long, painful process does not indicate that things will remain the same forever, with sin not completely judged.

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.

This also isn't saying that judgment is near, chronologically, since it has already been insinuated that the process is long and painful. It is stating that there is definitive evidence in history that God does not always allow things to go on indefinitely without bringing about abrupt judgmental changes.

This will surprise the world, who grow accustomed to things not being decisively and comprehensively judged. When Peter said this, it was not soon to being fulfilled. But he stated that the world will continue to live as if there is no tomorrow, and will then be judged by their lack of sense.

The promises of the parousia and new heavens and earth were foretold by the prophets between 500 and 1000 years before Christ without any kind of time frame of when they would occur. The scoffers also state that everything has been the same with creation since “our fathers” passed away.

“Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation.”

Peter then points out the that this scoff is a lapse in memory on their part . Not everything continued the same, the flood destroyed the world of that time.

Yes, they forget because the focus of the unbeliever is on his own independence, which seems to be tolerated by God for very long stretches of time. He begins to feel he has "won his independence from God," and has obtained his own personal kingdom on earth. Not even death will separate him from this achievement. But judgment is coming.

“5But they deliberately overlook the fact that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6through whichb the world of that time perished in the flood.”

So already the scoffers are wrong.

So, if the scoffers are not directly scoffing at the NT authors belief a “soon” parousia as @Spiritual Jew states (to which i can agree is plausible) , maybe they could be scoffing at the promises of the parousia and new heavens and earth as foretold by the prophets 500 to 1000 years ago.

The scoffers are not just mocking the claim of Jesus that the "Kingdom is near," but also that the world will be finally judged at all. They would mock both ideas.

Jesus, in declaring his Gospel that the Kingdom is near was actually calling on men to prepare immediately, in view of the fact that the seemingly eternal state of man's rebellion will be cut short. In this way the Kingdom is near, by hanging over all our heads the "sword of Damacles." We are all presently being scrutinized for judgment.

This is as much a geographical nearness as a chronological nearneses on God's timeclock. Since Christ has died, judgment is indeed near to all of us. The die has been cast, and now eternal judgment is inevitable and proximate to everyone.

In other words, from the scoffers point of view, “it’s been 500-1000 years since it was prophesied by the OT prophets, so where’s the promise of his coming and new heavens and earth?!?!”

To which Peter responds, “to God, 1000 years is as a day and a day as a thousand years. God is not slow to fulfill the promises a foretold by the prophets, as some understand slowness”.

So this idea of “God’s time” is in relation to the fulfillment of the promises given 500 to 1000 years before, and NOT to the “near” or “soon” time statements of the NT.

Actually, I believe it is both. Scoffers are not just laughing at the seeming failed resolve, in time, of endless rebellion, but also in the promise that Jesus had brought that judgment even closer by his going to the cross. It was a judgment upon all who do not accept his grace.

Now, if God said, in the OT, that he would soon and in near time fulfill his promises of a new heaven and new earth, we could argue near means “God’s time”, and thus could argue the NT time statements of near can also mean “Gods time”. BUT he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t specifically say a time frame at all, only that it will happen.

Right, the Scriptures do not give calendar dates for many of the fulfillment of God's promises. The overall process continues as if there will never be a resolution to the problem of sin.

But the Flood was predicted, Jesus' 1st coming was predicted, certain Israeli judgments were given precise times of duration, etc. So, some things are timed. But the whole process has an unknown duration, with unpredictable twists and turns.

This isn't about a specific chronology overall, but rather, about believing in such a way that things will change for the better, that a person can clean up his life in preparation for it. There is no hurry to live a godly life. It is a decision we make no matter what the time frame. But the assumption has always been that it is a long process, seemingly unchanging until God suddenly judges, after many years of showing patience.

So the argument that the “near” statements must mean God’s time in the NT, is impractical and inconsistent. Thus the “near” time statements should refer to the soon impending destruction of Jerusalem and not a 2nd advent, thousands of years away.

I think this might be a more plausible way to view 2 peter 3.

I do think that the NT statements had a certain urgency when speaking of Israel's imminent judgment in 70 AD. I distinguish this from the time frame of the coming of the Kingdom because that must account for a long period of Jewish Diaspora which Jesus said would follow the 70 AD event.

Nevertheless, Jesus indicated he had a Gospel of a near Kingdom, indicating men are called upon to act now, no matter how long it takes, no matter how many nations the Gospel has to reach out to. But this indicates it must be a long process, chronologically.

But it does not contradict the sense of "nearness" of the Kingdom that Jesus was declaring in context. In context he was speaking about God's judgment at the cross, and its immediate repurcussions in our lives and in the decisions we're already making. In this sense the Kingdom is not chronologically near, but rather, near in the geographical sense, in the sense of urgency to deal with an immediate problem.

You can call this "God's time clock," but I personally prefer calling it a "geographical nearness," because the Kingdom is already pressing upon us. That's why Peter saw chronological time as being irrelevant. It is our immediate need to respond to the Gospel of the Kingdom that renders it near to our lives at present. No matter how long it takes, our immediate need is to live godly lives.

 

[claninja]

So, he could not say for certain that Jesus's return was near at that time. Hopefully, that clears up what I meant to say. If not, let's just agree to disagree and move on because it's just not worth trying to spell everything out.

Completely agree with your example in 2 Thessalonians. Paul says it hasn’t happened or isn’t near (depending on translation) because some things haven’t happened yet. Paul knew with certainty it hadn’t happened or wasn’t near (again depending on the translation used for near/occurred).

But It’s definitely NOT “it may be near but not for sure”. As you argued earlier in post 44

Instead, It’s definitely “it’s not near for sure, as certain things haven’t happened yet”

So the apostles can know when it is near and when it is not. There is no “maybe it’s near but we can’t know for sure” as you said in post 44

There is no evidence of that at all. There can't be! He hasn't come yet! I can't even believe I'm having this discussion.

There are literal claims in the NT that the parousia “had drawn near” or that the coming was “in a little while and without delay” or that it was “soon”.

If these aren’t meant to be taken as literal, and instead must be interpreted to mean something else, how should the NT authors have described “near” so that we knew it was literal?

If the apostles cannot possibly say it was near, even though they did, then who gets to say it’s literally near?

I can't force you to be able to discern what verses are saying. If you can only understand verses that are explicitly spelled out to you without any discernment required, then....that's unfortunate for you.

It may not say it explicitly, but I'd like you to tell me where scripture ever teaches that you can't understand anything written in it unless it is explicitly spelled out to us. Is that what you see described in 1 Corinthians 2:9-16?

There is no evidence of that at all. There can't be! He hasn't come yet! I can't even believe I'm having this discussion.

It implies that His coming is not ever far away from His eternal perspective, so from His perspective it's always near. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

I’m trying to understand the context of why Peter used that statement of “a thousand years as a day and a day as a thousand years….God is not slow to fulfill his promises as some count slow”

What are the scoffers scoffing at is an important assessment. Are the scoffers scoffing at the near time statements of the NT? Are the scoffers scoffing at the promises foretold by the prophets 500-1000 years prior to Peter’s day?

What would you say the scoffers are scoffing at if not the above?

After this discussion, I’m now more inclined to believe the scoffers were scoffing at the promises “foretold by the prophets”.

“Where is the promise of his coming? Since our fathers died, everything continues on the same since creation”. (Though Peter points out that it actually hasn’t continued the same since creation due to the flood destroying the world).

God promised, in the OT—> 500-1000 years prior to Peter, that there would be a new heavens and earth and that the messiah would restore all things.

I think the scoffers are scoffing at this, at least in part.

In other words, they are scoffing “where is this promised parousia and new heavens and earth, that was foretold 500-1000 years ago by the prophets ? - it’s been a long time and nothing has happened in creation since our fathers died”

And peter’s response seems to be that 1.) they are wrong because the flood happened and 2.) God is not slow to fulfill THOSE promises, made in the OT 500-1000 years ago, as some count slow, for with Him 1 day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as 1 day.

now if, IN THE OT, God foretold through his prophets, the coming of the messiah and the new heavens and earth would be “near”. You could say near in “God’s time”. This example then could be applied consistently to the NT near time statements of the parousia —> Near means God’s time. It would be a strong argument. But it doesn’t, and so forcing 2 peter 3 to be a blanket statement is wildly inappropriate and doesn’t address the context at what Peter is actually addressing.

the OT never tells us the coming the messiah and NHNE would be soon or near. It simply foretells that it will happen.
And since it hadn’t happened yet in Peter’s day 500-1000 years later, the scoffers are scoffing “what gives, it’s the last days, right?”

So Peters statement in 2 peter 3:8-9 is not a blanket statement to make all the NT “near” time statements as “God’s time”. Its a statement reflecting on when God made those promises between 500 to 1000 years prior to to Peter’s day.

God is not slow to fulfill those promises, for him a day is as a thousand year and a thousand years as a day.

The Olivet Discourse does not allude to Daniel 7:13-14 at all. That passage relates to His ascension and His ascension has nothing to do with the Olivet Discourse.

Please look up definition of allude. Allusion doesn’t mean fulfill. If the son of man coming on the clouds in the OD doesn’t allude to Daniel 7’s son of man coming on the clouds, what OT passage does it allude to? Is Jesus pulling “son of man coming on the clouds” out of thin air?

completely disagree. I'm not buying this at all. When it says "they brought him near before him", what do you think that is saying? That they brought Him near before Himself?

Doesn’t really matter if you agree or not. The old Greek text has the son of man coming on the clouds “as” or “like” the ancient of days. Please see I posted for reference if you need evidence. Additionally, here is the line —>

“I was looking in a dream of the night and behold, upon on the clouds of heaven came (ἤρχετο) one like (ὡς) a son of man, and like (ὡς) an ancient of days he was present, and the bystanders were present with him.”

Christ being on the clouds equates him to being like the ancient of days

Psalm 68:4
Sing to God! Sing praises to His name.
Exalt Him who rides on the clouds

Isaiah 19:1 Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud;

So, imho, Matthew alludes to the OG text of Daniel 7, and the son of man coming on the clouds like the ancient of days.

I never disagreed with that. I disagree with the idea of that amount of time in general being a long time. It certainly can seem like a long time while you're being oppressed the way they were. But, in general, that is not a long time. Does context mean anything to you?

Doesn’t answer the question that I asked. Since you believe 20 years of philistine oppression is a long time, then do you believe 40 years of journeying through the desert until a whole generation dies out as punishment by God is a long time?

 

[RandyPNW]

There are literal claims in the NT that the parousia “had drawn near” or that the coming was “in a little while and without delay” or that it was “soon”.

If these aren’t meant to be taken as literal, and instead must be interpreted to mean something else, how should the NT authors have described “near” so that we knew it was literal?

Christ's coming is depicted in a preliminary sense in the context of historical judgments, and he is also depicted as coming in an eschatological sense. It is context that determines what kind of coming is taking place, and it is this that determines how "near" is being used.

For example, Jesus' coming is depicted as a preliminary coming--not an eschatological, Coming in Luke 17. Jesus was coming chronologically *soon* because those who were offending God among the Jews were actually in imminent danger of Christ's judgment in 70 AD.

Actually, both eschatological and preliminary elements of Jesus' coming is given in Luke 17, but they are divided between the judgment of 70 AD and the Son of Man coming with the clouds. The Son of Man coming with the clouds is eschatological, and is depicted, in context, as "near" only in the sense of it impacting mankind in preliminary, historical forms.

The judgment of 70 AD was literally expressed as "near" chronologically, because Jesus said it would be in "this generation." But his eschatological Coming was expressed as far off, to take place following an age-long Jewish tribulation and Diaspora.

Jesus had said that his Gospel was of a rather "soon" coming Kingdom. But in context, this is understood in the more immanent sense of "soon," even though it is the eschatological Kingdom being ultimately referred to. It has to do with its immediate impact on the world in light of historical examples of judgment, such as happened in 70 AD.

And it also has to do with historical means given mankind for access to Jesus' Kingdom. It was an offer to men of entrance into that Kingdom, via historical membership, well before the eschatolgoical Kingdom actually comes.

If the apostles cannot possibly say it was near, even though they did, then who gets to say it’s literally near?

The context.

I’m trying to understand the context of why Peter used that statement of “a thousand years as a day and a day as a thousand years….God is not slow to fulfill his promises as some count slow”

There are historical processes that bring the impact of the Kingdom near to our lives. The eschatological Kingdom has not arrived for many, many years. And yet, it was near to each person in historical impact.

Christ's Kingdom was affecting them in their own time frame, and as such they could enter the path that leads immediately to that eternal Kingdom. The life was near, and then immediately accessed. But the full inheritance has remained far off.

And since it hadn’t happened yet in Peter’s day 500-1000 years later, the scoffers are scoffing “what gives, it’s the last days, right?”

Scoffers do not experience the life of the Kingdom immediately because they've chosen to go their own way. In choosing independence from the revelation of God they don't see God and think His Kingdom will never come.

Actually, the Kingdom remains near to each of us, both geographically and chronologically because we can access it now. Scoffers reject it, and see no change because they've rejected the means of that change.

I should add to this the sense in which Jesus literally came offering a "near" Kingdom. He was literally standing in their midst, "near" to them. He was "near" to them so that they would receive from him the words of life--of eternal life. It had to be accessed via him.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Completely agree with your example in 2 Thessalonians. Paul says it hasn’t happened or isn’t near (depending on translation) because some things haven’t happened yet. Paul knew with certainty it hadn’t happened or wasn’t near (again depending on the translation used for near/occurred).

But It’s definitely NOT “it may be near but not for sure”. As you argued earlier in post 44

Instead, It’s definitely “it’s not near for sure, as certain things haven’t happened yet”

So the apostles can know when it is near and when it is not. There is no “maybe it’s near but we can’t know for sure” as you said in post 44

I don't recall what I said in that post and didn't look it up before responding to this. Maybe I misspoke for all I can recall. Regardless of what I had said, I'll just clarify now that I don't believe no one could ever know that it's near, so if I said that, then it was a mistake and didn't accurately reflect what I actually believe.

There are literal claims in the NT that the parousia “had drawn near” or that the coming was “in a little while and without delay” or that it was “soon”.

If these aren’t meant to be taken as literal, and instead must be interpreted to mean something else, how should the NT authors have described “near” so that we knew it was literal?

If the apostles cannot possibly say it was near, even though they did, then who gets to say it’s literally near?

Remember, I'm saying they were saying it was near from the Lord's perspective and I've used 2 Peter 3:8-9 to support that, even though you don't understand why (I can't help that). It was not near when they wrote their letters. He has not yet come, so that isn't possible that it was near at that time. That's the bottom line. No matter what we say about this topic, it's clear to me, and I can't be convinced otherwise, that His second coming that He talked about in the Olivet Discourse and that is referenced in passages like 1 Thess 4:14-17, 1 Cor 15:22-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-13 has happened yet.

I’m trying to understand the context of why Peter used that statement of “a thousand years as a day and a day as a thousand years….God is not slow to fulfill his promises as some count slow”

It's clearly in relation to the time it was taking for Jesus to come because the promise being referenced there (2 Peter 3:8-9) is the promise of His coming that Peter had just referenced shortly before that in verse 4.

What are the scoffers scoffing at is an important assessment. Are the scoffers scoffing at the near time statements of the NT? Are the scoffers scoffing at the promises foretold by the prophets 500-1000 years prior to Peter’s day?

What would you say the scoffers are scoffing at if not the above?

The first option you mentioned. They clearly are scoffing at the promise of His second coming because that is what 2 Peter 3:3-4 indicates. They mockingly ask "where is the promise of His coming"? The promise of His second coming is not even foretold by the prophets 500-1000 years prior to Peter's day as far as I know, so they couldn't have been scoffing at that.

After this discussion, I’m now more inclined to believe the scoffers were scoffing at the promises “foretold by the prophets”.

How can that be? Where did the prophets from 500-1000 years prior to Peter's day after write about the promise of Christ's second coming?

“Where is the promise of his coming? Since our fathers died, everything continues on the same since creation”. (Though Peter points out that it actually hasn’t continued the same since creation due to the flood destroying the world).

God promised, in the OT—> 500-1000 years prior to Peter, that there would be a new heavens and earth and that the messiah would restore all things.

I think the scoffers are scoffing at this, at least in part.

Hmm. No, I don't think so. The OT does reference the new heavens and new earth, but where does it ever reference a second coming of the Messiah? I don't think His second coming was revealed until the NT.

In other words, they are scoffing “where is this promised parousia and new heavens and earth, that was foretold 500-1000 years ago by the prophets ? - it’s been a long time and nothing has happened in creation since our fathers died”

Again, I don't see anywhere in the OT where the parousia of Christ is promised.

And peter’s response seems to be that 1.) they are wrong because the flood happened and 2.) God is not slow to fulfill THOSE promises, made in the OT 500-1000 years ago, as some count slow, for with Him 1 day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as 1 day.

I disagree. Peter was talking about the promise of Christ's second coming that was talked about and written about by the apostles and THAT is what they were scoffing at. The mention of the flood relates to how those scoffers willfully ignore that God had destroyed the world in the past. Since He did that in the past, there was no reason for them to think He couldn't do it again, as He will do when Jesus comes again, which is why Peter said in 2 Peter 3:6-7... "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire". If they wouldn't have been ignorant about the flood and acknowledged that event, then they would've been far less likely to scoff at Jesus coming again to destroy the world by fire this time.

now if, IN THE OT, God foretold through his prophets, the coming of the messiah and the new heavens and earth would be “near”. You could say near in “God’s time”. This example then could be applied consistently to the NT near time statements of the parousia —> Near means God’s time. It would be a strong argument. But it doesn’t, and so forcing 2 peter 3 to be a blanket statement is wildly inappropriate and doesn’t address the context at what Peter is actually addressing.

the OT never tells us the coming the messiah and NHNE would be soon or near. It simply foretells that it will happen.
And since it hadn’t happened yet in Peter’s day 500-1000 years later, the scoffers are scoffing “what gives, it’s the last days, right?”

So Peters statement in 2 peter 3:8-9 is not a blanket statement to make all the NT “near” time statements as “God’s time”. Its a statement reflecting on when God made those promises between 500 to 1000 years prior to to Peter’s day.

God is not slow to fulfill those promises, for him a day is as a thousand year and a thousand years as a day.

Again, it doesn't refer to any OT promises (plural), it refers to the promise (singular) of Jesus's (second) coming, which was never explicitly referenced in the OT.

Please look up definition of allude. Allusion doesn’t mean fulfill.

No need. I know what it means and I said what I did based on what it means. I didn't say it means fulfill. My point isn't just that Matthew 24:30 and Daniel 7:13-14 are not the same event. I'm saying that Matthew 24:30 has NOTHING to do with Daniel 7:13-14 at all because Matthew 24:30 refers to His future second coming FROM heaven while Daniel 7:13-14 refers to His ascension TO heaven after His resurrection.

If the son of man coming on the clouds in the OD doesn’t allude to Daniel 7’s son of man coming on the clouds, what OT passage does it allude to?

Why does it have to allude to any OT passage?

Is Jesus pulling “son of man coming on the clouds” out of thin air?

Why can't He use similar wording to describe His coming FROM heaven to what is used in the OT regarding His ascension? Why does Matthew 24:30 have to be an allusion to Daniel 7:13-14? I don't get that. And even if it was an allusion to that, who cares? Why are we even talking about this? What difference does it make? His ascension was visible. People literally saw Him ascend into the air towards heaven. And people will see Him visibly come from heaven as well, according to Acts 1:9-11.

Doesn’t really matter if you agree or not. The old Greek text has the son of man coming on the clouds “as” or “like” the ancient of days. Please see I posted for reference if you need evidence.

To be clear, I don't care what you say, either. The fact of the matter is that what is described to be true after He comes on the clouds of heaven in Daniel 7:13-14 matches what it says was true when He ascended to heaven at the right hand of the Father in Ephesians 1:19-22. Are you trying to deny that Daniel 7:13-14 refers to His ascension? If so, did you compare Daniel 7:13-14 to Ephesians 1:19-23?

Additionally, here is the line —>

“I was looking in a dream of the night and behold, upon on the clouds of heaven came (ἤρχετο) one like (ὡς) a son of man, and like (ὡς) an ancient of days he was present, and the bystanders were present with him.”

Christ being on the clouds equates him to being like the ancient of days

Psalm 68:4
Sing to God! Sing praises to His name.
Exalt Him who rides on the clouds

Isaiah 19:1 Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud;

So, imho, Matthew alludes to the OG text of Daniel 7, and the son of man coming on the clouds like the ancient of days.

And I still disagree. So be it.. Let's move on from this.

Doesn’t answer the question that I asked. Since you believe 20 years of philistine oppression is a long time, then do you believe 40 years of journeying through the desert until a whole generation dies out as punishment by God is a long time?

Under the circumstances, it was a long time. They suffered a lot and I'm sure it seemed like a longer time than it actually was because of that. You won't talk about this in relation to the context of what would constitute a long time under certain circumstances. If 20 years of Philistine oppression throughout that time is no different to you compared people not suffering greatly like that for 20 years, then I don't know what to tell you. If you see no difference and think 20 years or 40 years is a long time no matter the circumstances, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I really don't think that Jesus only had a 20 year or 40 year time period in mind when He said He would be gone a long time. Regardless, He still hasn't come yet, so it's for sure been a long time at this point from the human perspective.

 

[claninja]

I don't recall what I said in that post and didn't look it up before responding to this. Maybe I misspoke for all I can recall. Regardless of what I had said, I'll just clarify now that I don't believe no one could ever know that it's near, so if I said that, then it was a mistake and didn't accurately reflect what I actually believe.

Here it is:

You just don't get it. No one knew when He was coming for sure, so they could not say with certainty that His coming was literally soon.

IF the apostles cannot say its literally soon (James 5:8-9, Hebrews 10:37), who can? Who gets to declare that the events in the OD are occurring and that Christs coming is literally near, since the apostles can’t?

I mean on CF alone, there are numerous failed predictions all the time, and no one really seems to know or agree on what events actually mean Jesus’ parousia is literally near, given the fig tree parable.

Remember, I'm saying they were saying it was near from the Lord's perspective and I've used 2 Peter 3:8-9 to support that, even though you don't understand why (I can't help that). It was not near when they wrote their letters. He has not yet come, so that isn't possible that it was near at that time. That's the bottom line. No matter what we say about this topic, it's clear to me, and I can't be convinced otherwise, that His second coming that He talked about in the Olivet Discourse and that is referenced in passages like 1 Thess 4:14-17, 1 Cor 15:22-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-13 has happened yet.

It's clearly in relation to the time it was taking for Jesus to come because the promise being referenced there (2 Peter 3:8-9) is the promise of His coming that Peter had just referenced shortly before that in verse 4.

The first option you mentioned. They clearly are scoffing at the promise of His second coming because that is what 2 Peter 3:3-4 indicates. They mockingly ask "where is the promise of His coming"? The promise of His second coming is not even foretold by the prophets 500-1000 years prior to Peter's day as far as I know, so they couldn't have been scoffing at that.

How can that be? Where did the prophets from 500-1000 years prior to Peter's day after write about the promise of Christ's second coming?

Hmm. No, I don't think so. The OT does reference the new heavens and new earth, but where does it ever reference a second coming of the Messiah? I don't think His second coming was revealed until the NT.

Again, I don't see anywhere in the OT where the parousia of Christ is promised.

I disagree. Peter was talking about the promise of Christ's second coming that was talked about and written about by the apostles and THAT is what they were scoffing at. The mention of the flood relates to how those scoffers willfully ignore that God had destroyed the world in the past. Since He did that in the past, there was no reason for them to think He couldn't do it again, as He will do when Jesus comes again, which is why Peter said in 2 Peter 3:6-7... "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire". If they wouldn't have been ignorant about the flood and acknowledged that event, then they would've been far less likely to scoff at Jesus coming again to destroy the world by fire this time.

Again, it doesn't refer to any OT promises (plural), it refers to the promise (singular) of Jesus's (second) coming, which was never explicitly referenced in the OT.

As stated previously , “in part”. I believe the scoffers were scoffing “in part” at the OT testament prophesies, as taught by the NT apostles.

2 peter 3 mentions 2 promises —> the parousia AND the new heavens and new earth. So more than one promise is mentioned in the passage.

1.) The promise of the New heavens and earth, was foretold in Isaiah, around 500-700 years before Peter’s day. That ones pretty easy to find.

2.) The OT does not explicitly mention the Christ being buried for 3 days and then raising up, and yet Christ said multiple times that his death, and being buried for 3 days, and resurrection would fulfill scriptures. So the idea that the parousia isn’t explicitly mentioned in the OT doesn’t mean it’s not there. What’s more is that we can demonstrate that the idea of Christ returning from heaven was foretold by the prophets as stated by Peter—>

In Acts 3, Peter states the prophets foretold of the messiah being received in heaven “until” the restoration of all things.

“Acts 3:21Heaven must take Him in until the time comes for the restoration of all things, which God announced long ago through His holy prophets.”

So the promises of the New Heavens and New earth AND Christ returning from heaven at the restoration of all things, originate in the Old Testament, foretold by the prophets.

The apostles taught what was foretold by the prophets, AND claimed the prophets foretold what was to occur in their days

“Acts 3:24 24Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have proclaimed these days.”

AND decades after the ascension taught that his coming was near (James 5:8-9, Hebrews 10:37, etc..).

These promises, while taught in the NT, ORIGINATED in the OT. Thus, God is not slow to fulfill those promises, that ORIGINATED in the OT and were taught as near to fulfillment in the NT, as some count slow. God’s promises of the restoration, Christ returning from heaven, and the new heavens and earth did not originate in the NT. Therefore, 2 peter 3 is not a blanket statement that “near” means “Gods time” in every instance. Such teaching takes 2 Peter 3 out of context and distorts the context of the other passages.

2 Peter 3, imho, is about God not being slow to the fulfill the promises (that he made in the OT, and that the NT taught was near) as some count slow, for him a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. So I completely disagree with your eisegesis of 2 peter 3:8-9

No need. I know what it means and I said what I did based on what it means. I didn't say it means fulfill. My point isn't just that Matthew 24:30 and Daniel 7:13-14 are not the same event. I'm saying that Matthew 24:30 has NOTHING to do with Daniel 7:13-14 at all because Matthew 24:30 refers to His future second coming FROM heaven while Daniel 7:13-14 refers to His ascension TO heaven after His resurrection.

Why does it have to allude to any OT passage?

Why can't He use similar wording to describe His coming FROM heaven to what is used in the OT regarding His ascension? Why does Matthew 24:30 have to be an allusion to Daniel 7:13-14? I don't get that. And even if it was an allusion to that, who cares? Why are we even talking about this? What difference does it make? His ascension was visible. People literally saw Him ascend into the air towards heaven. And people will see Him visibly come from heaven as well, according to Acts 1:9-11.

Based on your response, it doesn’t seem like you do.

Allusion - “an expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly; an indirect or passing reference.”

Jesus doesn’t say Daniel 7:13-14 is explicitly fulfilled. He stated “they will see the son of man coming on the clouds”. This is meant to call the audience to remember Daniel 7:13-14 and the son of man coming on the clouds “like” the ancient of days.

They would be familiar with the Ancient of days riding on the clouds in the OT, as there are many, many passages that describe God while this. Such imagery of the son of man coming on the clouds like the ancient of days, would equate Jesus with God.

My point is that Matthew seems to be alluding to the old Greek text of Daniel 7:13-14. There are no other passages in the OT of a son of man riding on the clouds. Whether that means the olivet discourse fulfills Daniel 7:13-14 or not, is completely beyond my point.

And I still disagree. So be it.. Let's move on from this.

You disagree with what?

Do you disagree that the OLD Greek manuscript states the son of man came “like the ancient of days on the clouds”?

You disagree that God was depicted as riding on the clouds in the OT?

You disagree Christ coming on the clouds “like the ancient of days” is an expression meant to equate Jesus with God?

Under the circumstances, it was a long time. They suffered a lot and I'm sure it seemed like a longer time than it actually was because of that. You won't talk about this in relation to the context of what would constitute a long time under certain circumstances. If 20 years of Philistine oppression throughout that time is no different to you compared people not suffering greatly like that for 20 years, then I don't know what to tell you. If you see no difference and think 20 years or 40 years is a long time no matter the circumstances, then we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. I really don't think that Jesus only had a 20 year or 40 year time period in mind when He said He would be gone a long time. Regardless, He still hasn't come yet, so it's for sure been a long time at this point from the human perspective.

Great, glad you can agree 40 years is a long time given the context.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

IF the apostles cannot say its literally soon (James 5:8-9, Hebrews 10:37), who can? Who gets to declare that the events in the OD are occurring and that Christs coming is literally near, since the apostles can’t?

You continue to miss the point. They couldn't say it was literally near at that time because IT WASN'T literally near at that time. He still hasn't come yet. Hello? You can't say they were saying His second coming was literally near when it wasn't and He hasn't come yet. You have done NOTHING to show that He came in 70 AD. There is no scripture which teaches that. This is hopeless. I don't want to waste any more time on this.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Based on your response, it doesn’t seem like you do.

You must have a reading comprehension problem then. Because I absolutely do understand what the word means. Probably more than you do.

Allusion - “an expression designed to call something to mind without mentioning it explicitly; an indirect or passing reference.”

Jesus doesn’t say Daniel 7:13-14 is explicitly fulfilled.

And I'm not saying that He did. You can't even discern that I'm not saying that, so what are we doing here? This is a waste of time since you can't understand anything I'm saying.

He stated “they will see the son of man coming on the clouds”. This is meant to call the audience to remember Daniel 7:13-14 and the son of man coming on the clouds “like” the ancient of days.

That's your opinion, but I completely disagree with that. I do not believe He was meaning to allude to Daniel 7:13-14 at all. Why would He? That relates to His ascension, not His second coming, so what would even be the point of Him alluding to that passage?

They would be familiar with the Ancient of days riding on the clouds in the OT, as there are many, many passages that describe God while this. Such imagery of the son of man coming on the clouds like the ancient of days, would equate Jesus with God.

My point is that Matthew seems to be alluding to the old Greek text of Daniel 7:13-14. There are no other passages in the OT of a son of man riding on the clouds. Whether that means the olivet discourse fulfills Daniel 7:13-14 or not, is completely beyond my point.

My point is that He didn't have to be alluding to anything in the OT. Why does that have to be the case? It doesn't really matter if He was or not, though, so I have no interest in continuing to discuss that.

You disagree with what?

Do you disagree that the OLD Greek manuscript states the son of man came “like the ancient of days on the clouds”?

Yes. It says He came "TO the Ancient of Days", not "LIKE the Ancient of Days".

You disagree that God was depicted as riding on the clouds in the OT?

Of course not. I can read about that just as well you can. You know I don't disagree with anything written in the Bible. I just disagree with some of your interpretations of the Bible. And, to be clear, you thinking it says the Son of Man came "LIKE the Ancient of Days" is an interpretation of that text rather than an indisputable English rendering of the text.

You disagree Christ coming on the clouds “like the ancient of days” is an expression meant to equate Jesus with God?

This isn't a valid question to ask me. It doesn't say "LIKE the Ancient of Days", it says "TO the Ancient of Days" because it's about His ascension TO the right hand of the Father in heaven.

Great, glad you can agree 40 years is a long time given the context.

Yes, I can agree that it can be considered a long time in a certain context, but not in the context of how long it would be until Jesus came again. Time spent while suffering the whole time is longer than time spent not suffering the whole time. But, I can't expect you to understand the difference. If 20 or 40 years is a long time in any context, then it's always a long time in your mind. Whatever.

 

[claninja]

You must have a reading comprehension problem then. Because I absolutely do understand what the word means. Probably more than you do.

That's your opinion, but I completely disagree with that. I do not believe He was meaning to allude to Daniel 7:13-14 at all. Why would He? That relates to His ascension, not His second coming, so what would even be the point of Him alluding to that passage?

My point is that He didn't have to be alluding to anything in the OT. Why does that have to be the case? It doesn't really matter if He was or not, though, so I have no interest in continuing to discuss that.

Yes. It says He came "TO the Ancient of Days", not "LIKE the Ancient of Days".

Of course not. I can read about that just as well you can. You know I don't disagree with anything written in the Bible. I just disagree with some of your interpretations of the Bible. And, to be clear, you thinking it says the Son of Man came "LIKE the Ancient of Days" is an interpretation of that text rather than an indisputable English rendering of the text.

This isn't a valid question to ask me. It doesn't say "LIKE the Ancient of Days", it says "TO the Ancient of Days" because it's about His ascension TO the right hand of the Father in heaven.

Again, your response shows you are not actually reading my posts or are having a problem comprending what I am writing. I literally provided the original Greek manuscript quote where it says “like the ancient of days” (post 54) AND a link to an academic paper on this textual variance (Post 49).

There are 3 main versions of Daniel 7:13-14. 1.) masoretic text. 2.) theodotion Greek text 3.) old greek text.

Both the masoretic and theodotion state “to the ancient of days”. However, the old Greek text had “like the ancient of days”.

“To” and “like” are very similar in Greek. “Like” does not contain an epsilon, while “to” does. Some translators (like zeigler - see article) of the old Greek INSERT an epsilon into the text in order to render it “to” instead of like because they believe it is a scribal error. However, this is a translational interpretation, as the epsilon is actually absent from the original text. So if you just google English translation of the old Greek, AND depending on which translation it is, may say “to”. But you would know that if you read the article, which is clear you didn’t, and thus are not comprehending my argument, or are just continuing to have a conversation on something you have no knowledge on.

But other scholars recognize the absence of the epsilon in OG text, and do not insert the epsilon into the translations—>

“Timothy McLay states: Regardless of whether it originated with the OG translator or very soon afterwards, at some point at least some (the only three manuscripts for OG Daniel that we have did!) witnesses to OG Dan 7:13 read and he came as the Ancient of Days. Thus, the textual evidence suggests that during the NT period the text of OG Dan 7:13 could have been read as identifying the Son of Man with the Ancient of Days.”

Old Greek Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew’s Son of Man

The earliest witnesses to Old Greek Dan 7 equate the Son of Man with God and represent a perspective of Dan 7 that likely existed in the first century a.d. This throne vision coheres with the Son of Man sayings in Matthew and indicates that the

www.academia.edu

““I was looking in a dream of the night and behold, upon on the clouds of heaven came (ἤρχετο) one like (ὡς) a son of man, and like (ὡς) an ancient of days he was present, and the bystanders were present with him.” - old Greek

The epsilon being absent from the old Greek text is not an “interpretation” it’s a fact. Again, you would know this if you comprehended my argument or even just read the academic article. But it seems you chose to ignore that and just make up an argument. It’s an objective fact that the old Greek text reads “as the ancient of days” regardless of what you believe and willfully chose to ignore.

The idea is simply that the old Greek text of Daniel equates Christ with the ancient of days, as in all other circumstances the ancient of days is the only one who rides the clouds, but now the son of man is as well.


So now, just to clarify your position, even though Jesus fulfills and alludes to OT prophesies constantly throughout the gospels, in this instance, you believe Jesus is not alluding to Daniel 7:13, the only the passage in the entire OT with the exact same phrase of “son of man coming in the clouds”, in the olivet discourse?


Additionally, here are just some commentaries on Matthew 24:30. I’m curious if any commentaries agree that Jesus is not referencing Daniel 7:13? I can’t seem to find any.

Ellicot commentary on Matthew 24:30:
The vision of Daniel 7:13 supplies, it is believed, the true answer

Benson commentary on Mathew 24:30:
This sign they were led to expect, because Daniel had said prophetically, of the Son of man, (Daniel 7:13,) that he saw him coming in the clouds of heaven, and that there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, &c. Nevertheless, by the coming of the Son of man in the clouds, Daniel meant his interposing for the destruction of his enemies, particularly the unbelieving Jews

You continue to miss the point. They couldn't say it was literally near at that time because IT WASN'T literally near at that time. He still hasn't come yet. Hello? You can't say they were saying His second coming was literally near when it wasn't and He hasn't come yet. You have done NOTHING to show that He came in 70 AD. There is no scripture which teaches that. This is hopeless. I don't want to waste any more time on this.

I’ve never said they said the 2nd advent was near.

The destruction of Jerusalem was literally near, which was associated with the son of man coming on the clouds, just as the ancient of days descended from heaven on the clouds in judgement of nations in the OT. That’s what was literally near to the authors of the NT.

Scripture states it would happen in their generation. So it’s untrue that scripture doesn’t teach this.

Matthew 24:34 34Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place