Results 21 - 23 of 23
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Xerxes Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128159 | ||
Hello Brad. "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky..." Title: The Works of Josephus Author: Josephus, Flavius Wars of the Jew 6.5.3 (289) Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Also, WAS something seen? Title: The Works of Josephus Author: Josephus, Flavius Wars of the Jews 6.5.3 (296-300) Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius [Jyar], a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding the cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the temple,] as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.” Now, "seeing the Son of Man coming on the clouds" versus "if they say here is Christ or there is Christ, don't listen because my coming will be like lightning flashing from west to east" (both paraphrased for brievity) is contradictory. We'll either see him, or we will not see him. It should be noted that "coming in the clouds" is often indicative of "wrath" or "judgment." Psalm 18:7-13 7 Then the earth shook and quaked; And the foundations of the mountains were trembling And were shaken, because He was angry. 8 Smoke went up out of His nostrils, And fire from His mouth devoured; Coals were kindled by it. 9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down With thick darkness under His feet. 10 He rode upon a cherub and flew; And He sped upon the wings of the wind. 11 He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies. 12 From the brightness before Him passed His thick clouds, Hailstones and coals of fire. 13 The LORD also thundered in the heavens, And the Most High uttered His voice, Hailstones and coals of fire. Isaiah 19:1 The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; The idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, And the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them. Ezekiel 38:9 “You will go up, you will come like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land, you and all your troops, and many peoples with you.” Nahum 1:3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power, And the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, And clouds are the dust beneath His feet. I see an established precedent for a symbolic interpretation of Revelation 1:7 based on previous apocalyptic language which is decidedly unique in its phraseology. So again, if the coming can be interpreted as a coming of judgment (and there is an established precedent to say it can), using the figurative invisionment of the Lord coming in the clouds, is it possible that the coming of the Lord came, and while people were looking for a physical man riding a horse with all the host of heaven, instead the form of his coming was a cloud of wrath and judgment? Thus it was seen, but missed, it happened, but was not documented as such, but was still documented inadvertently. If you read my most previous post, you will see that I am of neither persuasion. I do not hold to preterism or premillenialism. Both theories are lacking and are unable to maintain their position without having to allegorize passages to suit their understanding. So understand that I am present an objective discussion, not an argument in favor of preterism. Xerxes |
||||||
22 | 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 |
||||||
23 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |