Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
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 | 183652 | ||
BradK, I once read a quote that said: "If your premise is off your findings will be off." The only way preterism can be true, in my opinion, is if the premise of those who have believed in a yet future return of Christ has been off. I am coming to the conclusion that it is possible that, in the area of eschatology, otherwise orthodox believers may have missed the boat. This is why I've tried to focus on the time-frame references and audience relevance. It's not my intention to beat a dead horse here. I really believe that if the focus of the NT writers (and by extension God Himself) was primarily to communicate to their first century audience the events surrounding the end of the old covenant age, the futurist might well be mistaken. Once one concedes that NT Scripture outlines a time-frame that clearly speaks in terms of imminence (soon, at hand, near etc.) then the predicted events, by necessity, must be explained within those time-frame parameters. The futurist must attempt to manipulate the time-frames in order to explain events they see as not taking place imminently as predicted. That is why they develop such things as dual fulfillment theories and the idea that God doesn't exist in time etc. So, within the time-frame parameters of the NT, the Acts 1:11 passage would have to be explained in light of the fact that Jesus returned, as he said he would, within that generation. When God said that he would "come on the clouds" in Is. 19:1, he did exactly that. It was a literal fulfillment. However, he came in the form of the Assyrian army to destroy Egypt. So, when Jesus said that he would come in the clouds just as they had seen him go (in the clouds) couldn't he have come in the form of the Roman army? That is Scripture being consistent with Scripture, is it not? I'm not prepared to conclude that the NT writers were false prophets and I'm not comfortable explaining away the time-frames. So, the only alternative is preterism. The time-frame is one of the more clear teachings that I've found in Scripture. And, I've been taught that we should interpret the obscure in light of the clear. For that reason I think it would be helpful to discuss this issue from the time-frame and audience relevance perspective. In humility and grace, Coper |
||||||
2 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Morant61 | 183661 | ||
Greetings Coper! I have been trying to follow your posts on this topic, but I have not had a chance to respond as of yet. Your contention has been that we need to take Scripture at face value and that 'soon' means 'soon' and that 'near' means 'near'. Yet, in regards to Acts 1:11, it seems to me that you are doing what you accuse the futurists of doing, but even worse. :-) Acts 1:11 says, "‘‘Men of Galilee,” they said, ‘‘why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”" They had just seen the physical body of Jesus ascend into Heaven on a cloud. Doesn't the face value sense of the passage demand that Jesus would also physically descend from Heaven on a cloud? Otherwise, doesn't the phrase 'will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven' lose all meaning? ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183669 | ||
Tim, Thanks for your input. Any attempt to shed light on this issue is much appreciated. It seems that you may have read more into the Acts 1:11 passage than is written. The passage never uses the word "physically". It does say "This same Jesus" or "This Jesus will come in just the same way as you have watched him go". He ascended "in a cloud", and he would return "in a cloud". I don't think the first century mindset would have any problem relating to the use of this "cloud coming" metaphor. This is why I quoted Is. 19:1 earlier. God was going to come "riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt". Then he fulfilled that prophecy by destroying Egypt. Did God come to Egypt riding on a swift cloud? Absolutely! But, did he come physically? No. He came in the form of the Assyrian army. How do you view the NT time-frame passages that we've been discussing? As I've written earlier, in my opinion, one must begin with the clear time-frame references spelled out in Scripture and keep in mind the relevance to the original audience in order to place the more obscure passages into the proper context. Thanks again for your time. Coper |
||||||
4 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | BradK | 183672 | ||
Hello Coper, Some questions arise from your reply to Tim: 1.Why do you think, "It seems that you may have read more into the Acts 1:11 passage than is written? How so?; 2. If we are talking about Acts 1:9, what makes you conclude "cloud coming" is metaphorical? I don't see this:-) Again, to continue, Dr. Mal Couch writes, "While the entire verse of Acts 1:11 describes a literal taking up of the Lord into heaven, how He comes again is the focus that is most important. Notice how the disciples saw ("blepo") visually His bodily ascension, in like manner He will return—visually and literally. Concerning that return the Greek text reads, Likewise, He shall come (Fut.) in the exact manner you saw Him "going" into the heaven. Likewise is houtos in Greek and means "in this way."[i] "In this manner."[ii] Or, "in the way it was done."[iii] And, "just like."[iv] Thus, "in the very same way" He shall come. This idea is fortified with the expression, in the exact manner ("hon tropon"). According to the great Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, Luke the author of Acts, reinforces the idea of "how" Jesus will return by using this expression, and by using hon tropon. He writes, "(houtos … hon tropon) This points to the same idea twice. "So in like manner." Luke points to the fact of his second coming and the manner of it also …" (Word Pictures) Along with houtos, hon tropon rebuts loud and clear the main thesis of the preterist position, and that is, that Christ will return in some figurative or spiritualized form and not bodily, literally, and visibly, as the Scriptures say. In the Exact Manner (hon tropon) Scholars who are not premillennial and/or futurists agree on the meaning of this expression. The little word hon is an accusative, singular, masculine form of the relative pronoun hos generally translated which, that which. Joined to tropon, the expression is going to be: in exactly the same way. In other words, "as Jesus went into the heaven in an absolute physical and visible way, He will in just the same manner, physically and visibly, return!" Hon tropon leaves no possibility for the preterist interpretation of simply a spiritual return of Christ and not a visible coming back to earth." 3. Lastly, why must the meaning of scripture only be confined to what was relevant to the original audience? Where is the support for this? The logical extreme is, then, scripture has no real meaning for any of us! Certainly this is not what you're postulating? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
5 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183674 | ||
BradK, It would have been helpful to me if you would have addressed the Is. 19:1 passage that I compared to the Acts 1:11 passage. Again, the manner of his ascension was "in a cloud". That's indisputable. That's how he ascended. They were then told that he would come again in the same manner that he left: "in a cloud". I read nothing further into the text. The text does not address the question of physicality. To say that his return must be in the same physical body that ascended is reading more into the text than is necessary. The Apostle John was present when Jesus ascended, right? John would later say: Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we shall be. We know that when He appears we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is (I John 3:2). If Jesus was going to return in the same physical body that ascended, John would have known exactly what he would look like and would be able to relate that to his audience. However, he clearly said that it hadn't appeared up to that point how he would appear at his coming. Also, in order to apply his coming to any generation other than the one living at that time one must ignore the time-frame setting of the entire NT. Let's settle the "When" of Christ's coming as taught in Scripture then we can move onto the "What" (what manner, what body etc.). You asked: Why must the meaning of Scripture only be confined to what was relevant to the original audience? I have never stated, to my knowledge, that the Scripture is only relevant to the original audience. I only believe that one must begin with audience relevance in order to determine the context of Scripture. I'll give you an example. Matt. 28:16-20 is called the great commission. To whom was it addressed? Verse 16 says explicitly that it was to the eleven remaining disciples. Was it written to us? No. It is history. And, they proceeded to do just as Christ commanded them. If one chooses to apply that to themselves and others, I believe that they are misusing the direct command of Christ to the eleven. If one does not use this hermeneutic they open themselves up to all the abuses that we've all seen. One can make the Word say and mean anything they want it to. As far as what Scripture means for us today, we live by the priciples given, not the direct commands such as the example above. Coper |
||||||