Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183722 | ||
Mark, Thanks for your compliment and your further questions. I would say first that I believe that the "first days", as far as the NT is concerned, is the old covenant period which was in force for, I believe, 1500 years or so. That would mean that the 2000 year "last days" are longer, by 500 years and counting, than the entire period that was said to be ending. Again, take a look at the Heb. 8:13 passage. I don't think that the burden of proof is on me or anyone else to show that the details of the relevant prophecies took place literally or spiritually in the past. Again, if the time-frame clearly spelled out in Scripture places these prophetic events in the first century the authority of Scripture itself depends on whether or not they took place as predicted. That is why I've said that we should thoroughly study the time-frames to settle the issue. If they show an imminent coming of Christ, then he, by necessity, returned in the first century. If they indicate no such imminency, then the question is open regarding a future coming. So, the burden of proof lies with you and others to eliminate the idea of an imminent coming of Christ from a first century perspective. With respect, Coper |
||||||
2 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Morant61 | 183744 | ||
Greetings Coper! You wrote to Brad: "hat is why I've said that we should thoroughly study the time-frames to settle the issue. If they show an imminent coming of Christ, then he, by necessity, returned in the first century." In other words, you have already predetermined how any conversation about this topic is going to turn out since you have defined the terms to fit your position. Where exactly does Scripture define an imminent return as necessarily a first century return? This seems to be an assumption on your part. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183924 | ||
Tim, First, my intention was not to define the terms to "fit my position". I thought I was clear as to my motive. I asked if we could limit our discussions, at least initially, to the clear time frame of the NT and the audience to whom it was originally directed. Because, if we were to open it up to every relevant topic it would be endless and little would be accomplished. This is why I felt we could establish a foundation based on the more clear teachings of Scripture then we could go on to interpret the more obscure. By doing this we could eliminate unnecessary diversions. You asked, "Where exactly does Scripture define an imminent return as necessarily a first century return?" Scripture does not use the word "imminent" to my knowledge. However, most of the posts have expressed the fact that the NT repeatedly uses words like soon, near, at hand, about to be etc. to frame the coming events. How do you define these terms? Again, you would better understand the preterist perspective if you viewed the words of the NT writers from the perspective of their audiences. Have you done that? If you lived in that generation and heard Jesus and the Apostles speak those words how would you interpret them? Let me know what you come up with. Coper |
||||||