Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
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 | Morant61 | 183678 | ||
Greetings Coper! Brad raised some excellent questions. I want to high light one of your responses. You wrote: "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." This is not quite accurate. Who and what did they see ascending in the cloud? They saw the resurrected Jesus, physically ascending in the cloud. So, the natural reading of the text is that the resurrected Jesus, would also physically return in a cloud. To make 'a cloud' mean a literal cloud in the first half of the passage, and then to make it mean 'an army' in the second half of the passage seems like eisgesis to me. It seems to me that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of my friend. You are forcing the verse away from it's natural meaning to fit your preconceived notion about how and when Christ must return. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183716 | ||
Tim, I think I've made my point earlier and it's not been dealt with thoroughly either by Brad or by you. We are discussing the "manner" of his ascension. He ascended in a cloud. Why have there been no comments on the Isaiah passage. It reveals precedence and it is something with which I'm sure the first century audience was familiar. I'll take your position further toward its logical conclusion by asking you a question: When Jesus comes back physically in the future will he be wearing the same robes and sandals that he was wearing at his ascension? If you are consistent you would have to say yes. After all, they saw him ascend in robes and sandals, right? This may sound disrespectful but that's not my intention. Again, as you compare the OT passages regarding "cloud comings", it should become obvious that God was not necessarily speaking in literal terms in the Acts passage. Let's agree to disagree on that point if you can't see the parallels with the OT perspective and continue to focus on the time-frame of the NT. With respect, Coper |
||||||
3 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Morant61 | 183721 | ||
Greetings Coper! With all due respect my friend, I have dealt with the Isaiah passage. I think that you are forcing a meaning on the word 'cloud' that is not justified by the context because the plain meaning disagrees with your interpretation. The Isaiah passage has nothing to do with this passage. The context is different. The phrasing is different. The context is quite clear. In Acts 1, Jesus ascends physically into Heaven and a cloud hid Him from their sight (v. 9). Verse 11 says that He will return in the same manner. Why would He leave physically in v. 9 and return metaphorically in v. 11? As to your hypothetical question, is there some reason in the text that He could not return in the same robe and sandals? :-) You wrote: "Again, as you compare the OT passages regarding "cloud comings", it should become obvious that God was not necessarily speaking in literal terms in the Acts passage." It should be noted that Acts does not say anything about 'coming on a cloud'. There are certainly other passages that do. But, Acts only says that a cloud hid Him from their sight. Was that cloud an army? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183727 | ||
Tim, I stand by what I've said earlier. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I will continue to belabor the point: The burden of proof remains on you and all futurists to explain the imminency passages. God inspired most if not all of the NT writers to inform their audiences that Christ was returning soon. I believe God fulfilled his promise when Christ returned circa 70AD. If I eventually find out that he came in physical form to judge the world, resurrect and rescue his own, I will apologize to you. Until then, I must associate his 70AD return with the Isaiah judgement coming in the form of an army, citing past precedence and in the spirit of Scripture interpreting Scripture. When those living in the first century were told that he was to return in their liftme I don't believe God was playing word games with them or giving them false hope. With respect, Coper |
||||||
5 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | stjohn | 183730 | ||
you are right the coming of Christ was and is imminent: by definition imminent simply means it could but does not imply that it will happen soon. also, I think quickly would be a better translation then soon. peas stj | ||||||
6 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183733 | ||
stjohn, You can't be serious. The word "imminent" has been used in this discussion to describe words and phrases in Scripture. If you think "imminent" is obscure or open ended, you can't just explain "soon" away by replacing it with "quickly". And, even if you do that, you are left with all the other imminency passages. Nice try but it won't work. Coper |
||||||