Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
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 | 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 |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||