Why hasn't Jesus come back yet?

[sovereigngrace]

I would, but then wouldn’t that be considered a “discussion of full Preterism” which is a rule violation?
Happy to discuss with you over PM if you are truly interested.

Not so! It is only the promotion of that error that is banned. So, why do you disagree with Full Preterism (if you really do)?

 

[DavidPT]

This is a cop out answer. Jesus said that he would return in his own generation.

No He didn't. It matters what context He said that in. The context does not support that He was still referring to first century events at that point.


Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


What coming do you see this coming referring to? It has to be after the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29, and after the sun goes dark, etc. What coming in the first century would that have been? And what would have been the main purpose for this particular coming, to accomplish exactly what after the tribulation of those days, and after the sun goes dark, etc??

 

[DavidPT]

10.Are we still living in an "evil age" or not?
The New Covenant Age, inaugurated by Jesus Christ, where Righteous, Peace and Joy in the Holy Spirit Reside, is NOT a EVIL age. It never ceases to amaze me how many Christians assert their lord Jesus Christ Inaugurated an age of "Evil" at His first Advent. Preposterous.

Assuming you address this, and assuming you are being intellectually honest when addressing this, let's see if it is preposterous then, according to Scripture.

Philippians 2:15 (YLT) that ye may become blameless and harmless, children of God, unblemished in the midst of a generation crooked and perverse, among whom ye do appear as luminaries in the world,


Do you think this speaks of an evil age----in the midst of a generation crooked and perverse? Do you think---that ye may become blameless and harmless, children of God, unblemished---among whom ye do appear as luminaries in the world---is meaning before or after the new covenant age has already begun?

Do you think Philippians 2:15 has already been fulfilled prior to the new convent age, thus not relevant during the new covenant age?

 

[ReesePiece23]

This is a cop out answer. Jesus said that he would return in his own generation.

Yeah, well I'm a cop out kinda' guy.

That's why I like Jesus - he's with it.

 

[Erik Nelson]

This is a cop out answer. Jesus said that he would return in his own generation.

Not quite -- Jesus said "something big" would happen to that generation, of 1st century AD Jews of Jerusalem in Judea...

and "something big" did happen -- the Jewish War, Titus leveling the city & temple and desecrating the same with pagan rituals

Revelation is neither wrong, nor inconsistent with what Jesus spoke in his Olivet Discourse...

please don't try to telescope all of the Divine Judgements of Revelation into a single event...

when you know that there are several distinct events spanning much more than a thousand years!

1. "Beast" defeats "Babylon" at "Armageddon" (Rev 1-18) = pagan empire raising Jerusalem in the Jewish War in 70 AD
2. "Christ" defeats "Beast" at "Wedding Feast" (Rev 19) = Church (body of Christ on earth) overcoming pagan empire under Constantine and his dynasty of Christian emperors in the 4th-5th centuries AD (cp. Council of "Victory" at Nicaea)
   • Millennium = Christian Byzantine empire of Constantinople until 15th century AD
   • Gog & Magog = modern era until today
3. "fire from heaven" (Rev 20:9) = Second Coming at Final Judgement in the future

Please notice the escalating crescendo:

1. city defeated
2. empire defeated
3. whole planet defeated

Only the first of those happened in the 1st century

No He didn't... Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


What coming do you see this coming referring to? It has to be after the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29, and after the sun goes dark, etc. What coming in the first century would that have been? And what would have been the main purpose for this particular coming, to accomplish exactly what after the tribulation of those days, and after the sun goes dark, etc??

yes, the sign is still in heaven at that point

that is not the 2nd Coming of Christ back to earth

Jerusalem conspired to cause the Crucifixion... they received their "just Divine deserts" in 70 AD... which "proved" that Jesus Christ had in fact been exalted to the Right Hand of Heaven... whereat Christ has been seated in exaltation ever since...

the Second Coming back down to earth is still as yet in the future

 

[DavidPT]

Not quite -- Jesus said "something big" would happen to that generation, of 1st century AD Jews of Jerusalem in Judea...

and "something big" did happen -- the Jewish War, Titus leveling the city & temple and desecrating the same with pagan rituals

Revelation is neither wrong, nor inconsistent with what Jesus spoke in his Olivet Discourse...

please don't try to telescope all of the Divine Judgements of Revelation into a single event...

when you know that there are several distinct events spanning much more than a thousand years!

1. "Beast" defeats "Babylon" at "Armageddon" (Rev 1-18) = pagan empire raising Jerusalem in the Jewish War in 70 AD
2. "Christ" defeats "Beast" at "Wedding Feast" (Rev 19) = Church (body of Christ on earth) overcoming pagan empire under Constantine and his dynasty of Christian emperors in the 4th-5th centuries AD (cp. Council of "Victory" at Nicaea)
   • Millennium = Christian Byzantine empire of Constantinople until 15th century AD
   • Gog & Magog = modern era until today
3. "fire from heaven" (Rev 20:9) = Second Coming at Final Judgement in the future

Please notice the escalating crescendo:

1. city defeated
2. empire defeated
3. whole planet defeated

Only the first of those happened in the 1st century




yes, the sign is still in heaven at that point

that is not the 2nd Coming of Christ back to earth

Jerusalem conspired to cause the Crucifixion... they received their "just Divine deserts" in 70 AD... which "proved" that Jesus Christ had in fact been exalted to the Right Hand of Heaven... whereat Christ has been seated in exaltation ever since...

the Second Coming back down to earth is still as yet in the future

At this point in the Discourse, meaning as of verse 30 in Matthew 24, we are past the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29 in Matthew 24, which then is followed by the sun going dark, etc, followed by then seeing the sign of Son of man in heaven, followed by seeing the Son of man coming.

If we look at Matthew 24:29 then Luke 21, together they make it clear as to when the sun going dark is meaning.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

Matthew 24:29 places the events of Luke 21:25-26 immediately after the tribulation of those days. The first century can't be meant. There was nothing like the following happening in the first century---and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

Obviously that is meaning globally and not just locally.

If we look at Luke 21, Matthew 24:29 is meaning after all of the following has been fulfilled first.

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

and shall be led away captive into all nations. But how long do they remain captive of all nations, because however long that is, the captivity has to be fulfilled before Luke 21:25-26 and Matthew 24:29 can be fulfilled, keeping in mind, the coming of the Son of man would be after all of those things. So we are talking about a vast amount of time involving the events recorded in Luke 21:24 before the Son of man can be seen coming, assuming some of these events began in the first century, such as when they are initially led away captive into all nations.

 

[Erik Nelson]

there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars

Haley's comet was visible is 66AD, and Josephus Records, all manner of striking frightful terrible. Heavenly portents over the city of Jerusalem. During the war.

also those are allusions to Old Testament passages -- Isaiah 13:10 (" A prophecy against Babylon"); Isaiah 34:4 -- and may have a more figurative meaning.

We know from Luke 21. We know from Luke's version of the Olivette discourse that Jesus was clearly prophesyings against Jerusalem that he quoted Isaiah 13:10. A judgment against Babylon in his prophecy against Jerusalem proves that Babylon is Jerusalem.

 

[parousia70]

Not so! It is only the promotion of that error that is banned. So, why do you disagree with Full Preterism (if you really do)?

Incorrect. As you can see from the moderator reason given for the previously closed thread of yours, it can't even be discussed, so please refrain from bringing it up here:

MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review

Thread is Now
Permanently Closed

RV: Statement of Purpose - Eschatology Forum Statement of Purpose

Full preterism is not allowed to be discussed
in this Forum.

MOD HAT OFF

I can state in the affirmative, I am a partial preterist for I believe as the creed states: "He shall come again in glory to Judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end"

This is future to us, (and note it precludes an earthly Millennium).
As A Catholic I hold the creed as equally authoritative to me as scripture.
I am a partial preterist because I believe and uphold the Nicene Creed.

 

[parousia70]

Assuming you address this, and assuming you are being intellectually honest when addressing this, let's see if it is preposterous then, according to Scripture.

Philippians 2:15 (YLT) that ye may become blameless and harmless, children of God, unblemished in the midst of a generation crooked and perverse, among whom ye do appear as luminaries in the world,

Do you think this speaks of an evil age----in the midst of a generation crooked and perverse? Do you think---that ye may become blameless and harmless, children of God, unblemished---among whom ye do appear as luminaries in the world---is meaning before or after the new covenant age has already begun?

Do you think Philippians 2:15 has already been fulfilled prior to the new convent age, thus not relevant during the new covenant age?

As long as intellectual honesty is being valued, Where does the Bible teach you to conflate "generation" with "age"?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Incorrect. As you can see from the moderator reason given for the previously closed thread of yours, it can't even be discussed, so please refrain from bringing it up here:



I can state in the affirmative, I am a partial preterist for I believe as the creed states: "He shall come again in glory to Judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end"

This is future to us, (and note it precludes an earthly Millennium).
As A Catholic I hold the creed as equally authoritative to me as scripture.
I am a partial preterist because I believe and uphold the Nicene Creed.

All i have asked you to do is give me Scripture to support that and actually tell me if that is a literal future day that involves a literal appearance of Christ and a literal physical resurrection when all men receive their new bodies?

 

[DavidPT]

As long as intellectual honesty is being valued, Where does the Bible teach you to conflate "generation" with "age"?

I have already explained why, somewhere in one or more of these posts, and/or in one or more of these threads related to this. The context does not support that Jesus was meaning in the first century by 'this generation'. He was no longer talking about first century events at that point in the Discourse. He was talking about events in the end of this age that lead to His physical return to the earth.

It would be totally out of context if Matthew 24:33 plus Matthew 24:35-51 are all speaking of events connected with His coming again in the end of this age, but that Matthew 24:34 is instead speaking of first century events. Nothing intellectually dishonest about this on my part. I have no reason to think that between Matthew 24:33 and verse 51, that all of those verses are connected with His coming in the end of the age except for verse 34. It would be different if none of the verses from verse 33 to verse 51 have to do with Christ's coming in the end of this age. But that's not the case, though.

 

[parousia70]

I have already explained why, somewhere in one or more of these posts, and/or in one or more of these threads related to this. The context does not support that Jesus was meaning in the first century by 'this generation'. He was no longer talking about first century events at that point in the Discourse. He was talking about events in the end of this age that lead to His physical return to the earth.

It would be totally out of context if Matthew 24:33 plus Matthew 24:35-51 are all speaking of events connected with His coming again in the end of this age, but that Matthew 24:34 is instead speaking of first century events. Nothing intellectually dishonest about this on my part. I have no reason to think that between Matthew 24:33 and verse 51, that all of those verses are connected with His coming in the end of the age except for verse 34. It would be different if none of the verses from verse 33 to verse 51 have to do with Christ's coming in the end of this age. But that's not the case, though.

I don’t think you realize you have just proven my point, For you have just demonstrated that Even you don’t believe generation and age are the same thing, Which renders your appeal to Philippians 2:15 to support your contention that scripture teaches the new covenant age of the everlasting gospel is an evil age, moot.

 

[Erik Nelson]

I have already explained why, somewhere in one or more of these posts, and/or in one or more of these threads related to this. The context does not support that Jesus was meaning in the first century by 'this generation'. He was no longer talking about first century events at that point in the Discourse. He was talking about events in the end of this age that lead to His physical return to the earth.

It would be totally out of context if Matthew 24:33 plus Matthew 24:35-51 are all speaking of events connected with His coming again in the end of this age, but that Matthew 24:34 is instead speaking of first century events. Nothing intellectually dishonest about this on my part. I have no reason to think that between Matthew 24:33 and verse 51, that all of those verses are connected with His coming in the end of the age except for verse 34. It would be different if none of the verses from verse 33 to verse 51 have to do with Christ's coming in the end of this age. But that's not the case, though.

Those exact verses transition from first century events ("this generation") to future 2nd Coming events ("on that day...")

Dr. Kenneth Gentry powerfully & persuasively pursues the point

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What happened in AD10 to bring the old covenant to an end and introduce the new?

Who claims this occurred? You need to ask them this question.

The kingdom is here now, and is spiritual, and came with the king (Christ) coming to this earth and commencing His earthly ministry. But there is a day coming when He will come in majesty and power and glorify us and creation and introduce His kingdom in all its eternal perfection. Theologians describe this great mystery as the already/not yet.

He will come to earth AFTER his enemies on earth have become friends (a footstool for his feet.)

 

[Jok]

Does anyone find it intriguing that 2000 years ago from today Jesus was a young adult, and that we are a decade away from the 2000 year anniversary of his ministry and resurrection? If it says that nobody knows the day or the hour, does that necessarily mean that we can not know the general time frame? Can't help to sometimes be intrigued that he was in his 20s exactly 2000 years ago.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I have already explained why, somewhere in one or more of these posts, and/or in one or more of these threads related to this. The context does not support that Jesus was meaning in the first century by 'this generation'. He was no longer talking about first century events at that point in the Discourse. He was talking about events in the end of this age that lead to His physical return to the earth.

It would be totally out of context if Matthew 24:33 plus Matthew 24:35-51 are all speaking of events connected with His coming again in the end of this age, but that Matthew 24:34 is instead speaking of first century events. Nothing intellectually dishonest about this on my part. I have no reason to think that between Matthew 24:33 and verse 51, that all of those verses are connected with His coming in the end of the age except for verse 34. It would be different if none of the verses from verse 33 to verse 51 have to do with Christ's coming in the end of this age. But that's not the case, though.

Absolutely!

 

[Davy]

Who claims this occurred? You need to ask them this question.
He will come to earth AFTER his enemies on earth have become friends (a footstool for his feet.)

Our Lord Jesus is coming back not meek as the Lamb slain. He is coming back with a double-edged sword to do battle. He is not going to wait for His enemies to become friends, for that will never happen by themselves. His enemies are going to be 'made' His footstool, as written, and that means by force.

 

[summerville]

No He didn't. It matters what context He said that in. The context does not support that He was still referring to first century events at that point.


Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.


What coming do you see this coming referring to? It has to be after the tribulation of those days meant in verse 29, and after the sun goes dark, etc. What coming in the first century would that have been? And what would have been the main purpose for this particular coming, to accomplish exactly what after the tribulation of those days, and after the sun goes dark, etc??

Do you have evidence for two tribulations?

 

[Davy]

Do you have evidence for two tribulations?

I'm sure you well know he was pointing to the signs of the end that Jesus gave just prior to the parable of the fig tree He gave about the generation. Why not ask about those signs of the end instead, since those are what Jesus referred to when giving the parable of the fig tree prophecy?

 

[summerville]

I'm sure you well know he was pointing to the signs of the end that Jesus gave just prior to the parable of the fig tree He gave about the generation. Why not ask about those signs of the end instead, since those are what Jesus referred to when giving the parable of the fig tree prophecy?

The fig tree bears fruit twice a year.

Jesus told them before the crucifixion that when they see the Abomination of Desolation (like in Daniel) they should flee to the mountains.

They did so.. His followers fled to Pella.

Considering what was going on, the advice of Jesus seems pretty obvious to me.