Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128155 | ||
Good afternoon everyone. I have read through this line of posts, and I have some questions for both sides. 1) Those arguing against the 1st century return: Jesus said his coming would be like a thief in the night, like lightning flashes from west to east, like in the days of Noah or Sodom, that they wouldn't know until it was too late. Is it possible that He came, and no one documented it because the nature of the return was such that no one but certain elect recognized it for what it was? Is it possible that He came, but no one saw it in the strictest sense as we expect because, like lightning flashes, the coming was over and done before they knew it, bringing in the New Kingdom with the destruction of Jerusalem? 2) Those arguing for a 1st century return: Do you have reasonable explanations for the post-apostolic writings that still expected His return? Besides the obvious wrath God took upon Jerusalem which is not conclusive to the return, only to judgment, do you have any other reason to believe the return took place? 3) Those arguing against a 1st century return, do you have an explanation to refute the coincidence that Nero Caesar counted in Hebrew equals 666 by the Hebrew numbering system, he persecuted the Christians for 42 full months (Dec. 64 - May 68), died by the sword, was one of seven rulers (Julius, Antony, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero), one of which was slain (Julius), that Vespasian and Titus came to make war on Israel, speaking with the authority of Caesar while not being Caesar, and all this in accordance with Rev. 13? 4) Those arguing for a 1st century return: How do you reckon the thousand year reign spoken of in the Revelation without spiritualizing it into something metaphorical (barring any obvious context to suggest it should be viewed as such)? 5) Those arguing against a 1st century return: What explanation do you have for the plain statements in Matthew posted in this thread without spiritualizing them into something metaphorical to suggest that "here now" language is intended to represent "there then" meaning without any reasonable cause outside of premillenialism theology? 6) Those arguing for a 1st century return: What is your explanation of the two witnesses in Revelation that die for 3 1/2 days and are resurrected and taken up to heaven? As this is a preliminary to the return that doesn't take place until later in the book, do you have a reasonable/historical explanation for these two persons without spiritualizing them as metaphorical to substantiate a preterist theology? 7) Those arguing against a 1st century return: Do you have an explanation for the coincidence of approximately 3 years 7 months from the beginning of the seige around the passover of 66 until the destruction of the temple and Titus standing in the Holy of Holies in Tammuz/Ab of 70, and then roughly another month until the complete taking of Jerusalem in Elul of 70, all in accordance with Daniel who described 1290 days from the ceasing of the normal sacrifice (which happened after this last passover due to famine, then destruction of the temple proper) to the abomination that makes desolate standing in the Holy Place, then another month until upper Jerusalem was taken? 8) Those arguing for a 1st century return: If the return has happened already, and we are in the kingdom of Christ on earth, can you give an explanation why there is still horrible crime, etc., when God is supposed to wipe away all tears, and that there would be no more death? Please be objective, or stop discussing the topic. Some of you are already stepping over the line into insults, and that is not becoming of Christians. Xerxes |
||||||
2 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Morant61 | 128156 | ||
Greetings Xerxes! That is a lot of questions! :-) Allow me to touch upon one for now. Here is something I have previously posted concerning the mark of the beast being associated with Nero. ************************************** There are three very significant problems with identifying the mark as standing for Nero. 1) The verse does not explain how this number is obtained or even what it means. Therefore, one must assume that the writer intended his readers to assign numerical values to the letters and add them up. This is a major assumption. 2) Secondly, the variant reading of '616' as oppossed to '666' is very weak. '666' doesn't work with Nero at all, yet it is the far better attested reading. 3) Finally, even the '616' reading only works with a little 'help'. Here is what Leon Morris says in his Tyndale New Testament Commentary on Revelation: "In modern times the most favoured solution is 'Nero Caesar' (if the final letter be omited to give the equivalent of the Latin spelling of the name the total is 616, the variant reading). But to get this result we must use the Greek form of the Latin name, transliterated into Hebrew characters, and with a variant spelling at that (the vowel letter y has to be omitted from qysr)." (pg. 169). This seems like an awful lot of 'help' to force the word to mean something which is not apparent in the text! ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128157 | ||
Hello Tim. I agree that the variant reading needs a little "help," but I also recognize that if there were Latin speaking Christians say, in Rome, that needed the information imparted to them, then it would be necessary to alter the text appropriately to suit those in question. As I understand it, it doesn't have to be translated to Greek, then to Hebrew, but from Latin to Hebrew. So the variant reading could easily have been transliterated into Latin for the sake of a Latin speaking person, though the number remains the same. In other words, the idea was the name, not so much the language. If you wrote the Greek pronunciation in Hebrew characters, you get 666. If you wrote the Latin pronunciation in Hebrew characters, you get 616. A great majority of Christians in the beginning were Jews, so I don't find by way of reason that it was out of the question for the riddle to be done according to Hebrew lettering. The fact is, whether weak or strong, it still adds up to both numbers without having to play with it beyond writing it in Hebrew, and Nero also fulfilled other requirements of the same passage. Also, I know of no other names that carry such a unique quality in order to add up to both names. The method of obtaining the number is "assumed" in this particular way because of multiple examples (if you insist I'll provide some of them) of "counting names" in secular writings, etc. Understand, I profess neither inclination, whether premillenialist or preterist. I am a seeker of truth, and I am well read on both ends. Personally, I see holes in both theories, and the only way either side can prove their case is to spiritualize what they can't explain or refute. Just as an example, a preterist can't explain the lack of documentation on the return if it happened, or why the 1000 year reign, if such already occured, was filled with horrors and atrocities. Premillenialists on the other hand can't make any sense out of the Olivet discourse without making it "mean" something contrary to what it "says." Because I recognize the flaws in both, I am disposed to neither, and stand on ignorance as to the truth of the matter. Only God knows, else we would all know by now. The debate has been going on for some time. The real point of my post was not to gain information so much as it was to referree. It seems to me that neither side of the debate was willing to give reasonable consideration to the opposite side, and no one will discover anything without objectivity. Even the scholars are willing to bend a little bit if their prior notions on the subject are soundly refuted. Thanks for the response. My hopes and prayers for all of you seeking the truth. Xerxes |
||||||
4 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Morant61 | 128160 | ||
Greetings Xerxes! I am a bit confused my friend! If you were not seeking to gain information, then why did you ask so many questions? :-) The problem with any supposed numbering scheme is that one can 'assume' anything and get whatever answer one desires. I have seen a math problem that will always return the value of one's phone number. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128162 | ||
Hello again Tim. The questions were to provoke to edification. I read the thread of posts with no bias one way or another. I saw a lot of opinions and explanations going both ways, and zero contemplation on either side. How can truth be determined if the group of you discussing a topic cannot be objective? Better a poor and wise youth than an old king beyond correction, right? I know that in my early walk, I was absolutely premillialist. Then someone showed me some things. Because of my firm stance on the one side, I didn't hear what he said. After a few days of contemplation on what he had to say, considering the logic and soundness of his words, I was pursuaded to seek his logic. After a while, I realized that neither theory was sound, and that it was a futile effort to attempt to sway anyone to your particular persuasion. All you can do is offer food for thought and try to provoke those seeking such truths to do so objectively. While I again say that I am of neither persuasion, I can most definitely assert that premillenialism is not based on facts, but the lack of them (i.e. no evidence of the return, no documentation of the tribulation as understood, no documentation on whose name added up to the dreaded number, etc.), and because of predisposed bias, they do not see or hear the preterist argument. They also have a tendency to assign metaphoric meaning to plain passages to support a theory that makes more sense to them than the alternative. The preterist on the other hand base their argument on many historical facts, but they fail to prove the return without spiritualizing it, they are unable to explain pertinent aspects of the Revelation (which require explanations if they truly understand it as they assert), they spiritualize the 1000-year reign because there is no such history to support a time of peace as described in the passages pertaining to the reign. Further, they fail to explain why the persecutions continued beyond 70 AD if Christ had come back to establish his kingdom. So all in all, I'm just trying to provoke the discussion by offering a nonbiased series of questions to make everyone think and edify one another. It is all I have to offer on this subject without provoking instead a measure of strife, which is certainly not my desire or goal, I want to be a part of this community if you would all care to have me. Xerxes |
||||||
6 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | srbaegon | 128165 | ||
Hello Xerxes, If I might add just a bit to the conversation... Though I am still pre-mill, I have come to understand that the study of eschatology (end times) has more to do with how we are to live in light of Christ's return rather than getting the events in exact historical order. Steve |
||||||
7 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128170 | ||
Steve, "Though I am still pre-mill, I have come to understand that the study of eschatology (end times) has more to do with how we are to live in light of Christ's return rather than getting the events in exact historical order." Agreed. I'm just adding some spice to the conversation to provoke to edification in the seeking of truth. Whether the coming is future or past, what matters is that we are living accordingly so that we are up to the standard of the kingdom if that is where we live, or so that we are ready when he comes. What matters is the day to day, not the tomorrow. Xerxes |
||||||