Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
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 | 183675 | ||
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 |
||||||
2 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jlhetrick | 184851 | ||
Coper, You wrote: "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." Respectfully I must say that your standard that others must use "this hermeneutic" in other words, Your interpretation then they "open themselves up to all the abuses that we've all seen" is perhaps the most telling of anything you have written thus far. You have essentially stated that any interpretation other than yours (specifically concerning Matt 28:16-20) is an abuse. WOW! You have just declared yourself an authority. I'm afraid that, based on your teachings, I can't accept that. However, as a self-declared authority (in my opinion) can you please explain a couple of things regarding Matt 28:16-20. Was Jesus' command to the eleven as you assert, or was it to the Church of which He is the head? If we are to believe your hermeneutics then we must absolutely accept that the eleven failed to fulfill the command of Christ. After all, we know from record that they did not in fact reach every nation with the gospel. We also know absolutely that every nation still has not been reached with the gospel. So my concern is that if the rest of Christendom was to accept your interpretation and belief on the issue, the church would not be continuing to do the work of the Kingdom. I can appreciate that viewing the "Great Commission" as a "principle" instead of a command would lend convenience to many who wish not to take seriously the responsibilities of reaching the lost. But I would seriously caution calling the position the majority of Christians take on this command as being an "abuse". Still hoping to shed light, Jeff |
||||||
3 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 184880 | ||
Jeff, You're right. I shouldn't have precluded other views. I'm not dogmatic about my opinion, it's just that, an opinion. I would like to share with you why I've arrived at the position you can't accept. Matt. 28:16-20 clearly states that it was directed to the eleven disciples. I don't see how that's debatable but maybe it is. Notice especially verses 18-20: 18And Jesus came and said to THEM, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded YOU. And behold, I am with YOU always, TO THE END OF THE AGE." I see Rom. 16:25,26 and Col. 1:23 (notice the past tense) to be the fulfillment of Matt. 24:14 and Matt. 28:19,20. When viewed in light of these passages, the eleven did not fail to fulfill the command of Christ. They succeeded and were victorious. If you and others see it differently that's fine. It's nothing to divide over. I would rather use Rom. 10:14-17 as the reason we preach the gospel. One may call it a matter of semantics but I think it is more in line with the meaning and context of Scripture. I am not one of the "many who wish not to take seriously the responsibilities of reaching the lost" and I apologize for implying that the majority of Christians are guilty of abusing Scripture. That was putting it too harshly and went further than I intended. I just think that when we share our opinion of Scripture we should make every effort to frame them in their proper context. Thanks again for your patience and hearing me out. Coper |
||||||
4 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Hank | 184881 | ||
Coper: With your preterist views I patently disagree, which means that I disagree with virtually everything you have written on this forum, inasmuch as, by and large, you have been on this single track since you registered. Early on, however, you did make one statement with which I've no problem agreeing in light of your subsequent posts, which validate it. You admitted that eschatology had become an obsession with you, and your posts corroborate your admission. But friend Coper, this forum is no place to vent one's spleen of obsessions. The guidelines instituted by our friends at Lockman Foundation are there for the smooth operation of SBF and the benefit of its many readers and active contributors. They simply must be honored, and if they are not, errant registrants will lose their privilege to post to SBF. That's how it is. May we enjoin you to read carefully the terms of use if you have any serious intention of continuing to post to the forum? And as for this practically interminable marathon with the preterist brand of eschatology, it's past time to put it back in the box and let it rest. In plain language, knock it off! --Hank | ||||||