Results 81 - 100 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183649 | ||
Hi Brad, My point is partly that we do not necessarily have to say 'this position is right' or 'this position is wrong'. Very often there is truth in a number of positions because the Bible has a number of factors in mind. That is why people have garnered them from The Scriptures. Thus the fact that Jesus in some way 'came' in the destruction of Jerusalem does not necessarily signify that He will not come personally at His second coming, and vice versa. The problem lies in our trying to fit divers verses into a single picture. See the commentary on http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
82 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183684 | ||
Hi Coper Thank you for your reply. My point was that 'Th Second Coming' was not a Biblical phrase as though it was a subject in itself. But you will note that I did also say that there would only be two physical comings (thus ruling out a rapture before the final consummation). But if Jesus could say 'Lo I am with you always' then clearly He was intending to return in invisible power to accompany His disciples on their worldwide mission. Further more He said, 'If a man loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him' thus having in mind many comings. Compare also Revelation 3.20 which teaches the same. See http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp |
||||||
83 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183685 | ||
Hi Tim. The danger with labels is that we can begin to isolate ideas. As with Futurists there are different types of Preterist. There are many who both believe that Jesus in some sense came at the destruction of Jerusalem (and at Pentecost) but still believe in His return in glory. Cearly those who do not believe in a visible return of Christ must be seen as stretching Scripture, but that is not true of all Preterists. See the Commentary on Revelation at http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ which coul be described as both preterist and futurist. It is all a matter of definition. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
84 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183691 | ||
It concerns me Mark that you can say 'if one only interprets Scripture in the way that Scripture presents itself, then a futurist view of Jesus' coming in power and glory, and of the 1000 year reign is the only view allowed by Scripture.' I know of no Scripture that says 'there will be a millennium which will follow the second coming of Christ'. Indeed the truth is that if there is a doctrine of such a time it is completely ignored in the New Testament Gospels and letters. Can you really see pre-millennialists of the present time never mentioning the millennium clearly? That surely suggests that the New Testament writers did not belive in a millennium. There is only one New Testament Scripture that you could point to as possibly teaching a millennium and that is Revelation 20.1-7. But it is very doubtful if that is teaching a millennium after the second coming of Christ. Revelation 20 is a new vision, and it is a summary of what has gone before. Jesus Himself spoke of Satan being bound in His day (Mark 3.27). It is a way of indicating that God has limited his power. He could not literally be bound because he has no body. Those who were martyred for Christ, and those who refused to receive the mark of the wild beast enjoy the 'first resurrection'. That is the resurrection described in Ephesians 1.19-2.6 in which all who are Christ's have a part. 'You has He made alive --- who were dead in trespasses and sins'. And from then on they reigned with Christ whether they were on earth or raised up to be with Him as Paul says in Philippians 1.20-23. The 'thousand years, is the ideal period ahead for Christians before His coming. (It does not actually say that it will not be longer than that). Such huge round numbers were rarely if ever used literally. Most people were not numerate. It simply indicated a long period. Peter confirms this when he is the only one to mention the thousand years and there he refers it to the period between Christ's first coming and His second coming. The loosing of Satan for a little while is described in Revelation 9.1-11; 12.12. Thus Revelation 20.7 refers to a period after the time when God's people have been witnessing for some time and before the second coming. Thus it has already been described in Revelation. Now I realise that you probably interpret Revelation differently from me. But it is not on a basis on which all evangelical Christians can agree. My view of the whole of Revelation is that apart from Chapters 21-22 it is all speaking about what you would presumably call 'the church age', and that it began at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ. Now I do not question your right to disagree with me. But I do object (in friendly fashion) to your saying that I am not interpreting the Scripture literally. I certainly do believe in the fact that Jesus Christ will come personally in glory at the consummation, but I do also believe that the whole Book of Revelation (apart from chapters 21-22) has been in process of fulfilment through the centuries. That is the whole purpose of John's symbolism. It is to some extent applicable in every generation. In fact it is quite clear that the book comes up to the time of the second coming a number of times in different visions (e.g. Revelation 6.12-17; 14.14-20; 19.11-21). All this is open to interpretation, but it cannot be denied that it is to take it literally in so far as symbolism can be taken literally. See for this interpretation the commentary on http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
85 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183735 | ||
Hi Coper Thank you for your question about Revelation 3.10. Firstly we should point out that 'about to come on the whole world' is an interpretive translation. Literally it is 'is coming on the whole world' (no time frame). But this is talking about the hour of testing not the Parousia. Such hours of testing have come again and again through history. It certainly cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem for that was of very limited effect, however intense it might have been for those involved. This trial was to be widespread. 'On the whole world' was looking from John's perspective of the world of his day. It was hyperbole. Compare 'from every nation under heaven' in Acts 2.5 and 'your faith is proclaimed in all the world' in Romans 1.8 neither of which can be taken literally. John was talking of widespread trials and testings. Certainly the first century Christians experienced such an 'hour of trial'. Christians through the ages have experienced such hours of trial. Many are similarly experiencing an hour of trial today. To all such Jesus said 'I am coming soon'. But as Peter makes clear 'soon' in Gods timetable can be a thousand years, and we can add two thousand years. For with God that is but 'two days' (2 Peter 3.3-10). The same applies to 'the last hour' in 1 John 2.18. It is likening history to a day and saying that we are in the final hour. But again we need to remember that with God an hour can be what we see as a long time. Just as the church has been in 'the last days' for two thousand years (Hebrews 1.1-3: Acts 2.17). Best wishes jonp | ||||||
86 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183743 | ||
Rehi Coper You ask for a timeframe. Jesus gave a clear time frame in Luke 21 (Matthew 24/Mark 13). He spoke first of 'these things'. Then He spoke of what would follow 'these things'. Of 'these things' (what led up to the destruction of Jerusalem) He said that they would happen in their generation. They were the leaves on the fig tree (Luke 21.29-30). But of His glorious coming which would follow 'these things' He said that He did not know the time (Mark 13.32). If He did not know the time of it He could not possibly be saying when it would occur. He also said that it would come at the end of the times of the Gentiles, which themselves would follow the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21.20-24). How then can His words about His glorious coming refer to that destruction? See Luke 21.20, 24, 27. Matthew omits some of this simply describing it as 'great tribulation', a tribulation which lasted from the destruction of Jerusalem to the present day in accordance with Deuteronomy 28 and occurs during the times of the Gentiles. With regard to Matthew 16 he said that some in that generation would not die until He came on the clouds of Heaven to the throne of God to receive Kingly Rule as in Daniel 7.13-14. That coming was from earth to Heaven as Daniel makes quite clear. It has nothing to do with His glorious appearing on earth. |
||||||
87 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183757 | ||
Hi You may believe that Revelation is all chronological, but it does not say so. In fact 6.12-14 if taken literally must mean that the second coming has happened and that there can be no millennium after that as there will be no world. If the stars have fallen to earth (just one would devastate the earth) and the sky has vanished like a scroll and all the mountains and islands have removed from their place humanity could not possibly survive. The fact is that there are a number of visions in Revelation each leading up to the time of the second coming e.g. to 6.12-17 which refers to the second coming; to 14.14-20 which refers to the second coming; to 19.11-21; to 20.11-15 to take four clear examples. It is clear that you actually know little about the use of numbers in the ancient world. It is my specialist field. Most military leaders could not count. They relied on a few experts. They mainly counted their soldiers by the numbers of military units. But a century under a centurion might only contain sixty soldiers. But they would still count it as a century. Weavers and herders would be unlikely to be able to count beyond say twenty, and many not even as many as that (they had not been to school) and they did not need to. The herder knew all his animals and could tell whether there was a gap. Numbers were used roughly. Few people could count very far, beyond say ten or twenty. Thus the third day meant the same as three days and three nights, and so on. Nor were years in Palestine counted on the basis of orbits round the sun. They were based on twelve moon periods, with every now and then a third month introduced in order to keep the seasons in tune. So, no, speaking of 1000 years as a round number is not making it symbolical. It is looking at numbers as they were used in those days. This is an historical fact not a matter of interpretation (or indeed of argument. It is so). You have not explained how it is that chapter 20 repeats all the events that have happened previously. It is history repeating itself gone too far. It really is not good enough to quote some verses and say - 'Look they say what I said'. The problem is that large numbers of evangelical Christians do not agree with you. And anyway no one takes the whole Bible absolutely literally, not even you. Do you believe that we have to hate fathers and mothers. Do you cut your hand off when it sins? Of course not. But you would have to if you took the Bible literally. So we all have to judge when to take something literally and when not. And no, one questionable passage is not sufficient to demonstrate such an important doctrine. If it was not important enough for Paul and Jesus to mention it is highly questionable. You cannot really sensibly avoid the fact. And if we decide to rely on the fact that Jesus and Paul would have taught such an important doctrine if it was true I suggest that we are taking a very sensible position. A chapter from a book which clearly contains much symbol cannot overturn that. Best wishes Peter |
||||||
88 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183761 | ||
Hi Mark Thank you for your gracious permission for me to reply just once more. I will do so mainly to avoid misunderstanding. I did not say that no one could count in the 1st century, only that counting beyond ten or twenty and calculating mathematically was beyond the vast majority, and with many their limitation would be counting to three. There was little education available except for the wealthy and little reason to count and the synagogue schools were concerned with teaching people to read so that they could understand the Law, not with mathematics. Of course some were trained in numeracy, but they would be a comparatively small minority. Tradesmen would use tally sticks, and when they wanted to make an order they sent along sufficient tally sticks to indicate what they wanted. They did not need to use numbers. And so on. You tell me that the stars falling from heaven are really angels. Now it is true that there are places where it is made quite clear in the context that stars refer to angels. But not in a context like this one where all the references are to natural phenomena. In interpretation consistency is required. And there is no need to introduce angels here. So you see here it is I who am literal and you resort to symbolism, and may I gently suggest that the reason that you do so is because you recognise that the literal will not support your position. Thus you give your case away. You are not a literalist after all, only where it is not inconvenient. And that is why I objected to your suggesting that there was only one possible interpretation of Revelation 20. My interpretation there is equally as literalistic as yours. For while God can count, when He is speaking to men He speaks in terms that they would understand. And they would not understand a thousand literally. They had no conception of a literal one thousand. It was just a very large number. That was the literal meaning to them. You say that I must justify my contention that Revelation 20 is a recap of what has gone before. If you will look back at my first presentation you will find that that is precisely what I did. Incidentally the verb used of the sky is to 'roll up' like a scroll. That is much more than it being parted. It literally mean that the sky is longer spread out but bundled up in a roll. And it says of the mountains that they will be moved out of their place. Now I take all this literally as indicating the end of the world (as also in Revelation 20.11 - another recap) But I must ask myself, do you? Of course I appreciate that you cannot because of your views. You say that I should notice the references to 'after this --. But the question is, does that refer to the writer and his visions or does it refer to chronological sequence. I would suggest that it is the writer's movements and experiences that are in mind. You are happy to avoid seeing God as a bird. Good. But you then say we must demonstrate from the text what God intends us to know. Well I have done that for Revelation 6 (and for Revelation 20 when I commenced). That is what we all seek to do. But in the wider context we must sometimes do what you have done on Revelations 6. Recognise that symbolism MIGHT be involved. But we must not determine our use of symbolism simply in terms of what fits our position. We must do it in the light of the whole of Scripture. You will see symbolism where I do not. I will see picture language (symbolism is a loaded term) where you do not. But we should not therefore suggest that somehow one of us is more literal than the other. That was my argument in the first place. That we both see literal positions and positions which are based on picture language. It is necessary to use language in a way that people will understand. That is why the Old Testament prophets presented heavenly truths in terms of life on earth. It was the only thing that the people would understand. But they spoke better than they knew, as the New Testament makes clear. In fact if you carefully look at the language that you use you will be surprised how much of it is in fact picture language, and not literal at all. We are so used to it that we do not realise it. How boring it would be if we removed all picture language from our conversation. I do not want to convert you to my position. It is not the details that matter (neither of us can change what will happen) but underlying truth. All I ask is that you do not claim somehow to be 'more literal' than others when you turn to seeing things in picture language when it suits you. Best wishes and God bless you. It has been pleasant having a discussion with you. jonp | ||||||
89 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183776 | ||
Hi, Initially three was the limit of counting for everyone. They thought in terms of themselves, their wives and 'everything else' (that was what the original words for two and three among the Sumerians meant). It was true for absolutely everyone!! There are still tribes today, in Indonesia for example, where people cannot count beyond three, and do not want to. A missionary to the Abiponese tribe in South America was astonished at how the people managed to run their affairs, watch over their herds and so on without being able to count beyond three. Until fairly recently the aboriginal tribes in Australia could only count up to three, some four, even fewer up to ten, and one tribe even up to twenty, but not beyond. This is all a matter of historical record. (My brother-in-law, a missionary in Indonesia, testified to the fact among the tribes he lived among ). Counting is natural to you and I because we were brought up to it. But it was not originally natural for mankind. It only really began about five thousand five hundred years ago and resulted in the invention of writing as men began to note numbers down, initially very low ones, and then add signs to indicate what they meant, and then developed the signs, finally developing more advanced scripts, and more advanced numbers. There were, of course, among the Apostles men who came from the more educated classes, James and John were from a fairly wealthy family connected to the chief priestly families, Nathaniel appears to have been very sophisticated. Matthew, of course, had learned to count for the purposes of his job, and would be extremely numerate. Thus some of them would be able to enumerate to a higher level. Matthew 14.19-21 consists mainly of numbers under twenty. The other figure is 'about five thousand'. This was achieved by dividing up the company into groups 'hundreds and fifties'. Both numbers (like the century in the Roman army) would be approximations. They would indicate groups of different sizes. But they would not specifically be exact figures. People of course understood that 'five thousand' meant a large crowd. But the number was used adjectivally rather than numerically. In Deuteronomy 25.3 there would be an expert present who would count the strokes. But again the judges would be more spophisticated people, some of whom could count. In Matthew 18.22 'seventy times seven' simply meant an unspecified amount. I presume you are not really suggesting that Jesus wanted us to count up to four hundred and ninety and then stop. Leviticus 12.2-5 would be regulated by the priests who would tell the woman what to do. For the thirty three she would be told that after four sabbaths she had five days to go. In John 21.11 there was clearly a numerate disciple present including possibly James and John, Nathaniel and even Matthew. No doubt you are amazed at the thought that 'common people' could not count. The idea takes some getting used to. But the evidence is in fact overwhelming. 'Forty days would indicate a few days past a moon period. This was how they thought. Don't believe me. consult the Encyclopaedia Britannica. See also the article on the Use of Numbers on http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
90 | evolving or devolving? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183798 | ||
Hi stjohn You can read your Bible because you learned the meaning of words through secular history and because secular history developd writing. You use a dictionary produced by secular history. Without realising it you are using secular history all the time in order to understand the Bible. Archaeology illuminates the Bible. But of course God arranged it all. Thus it becomes spiritual history. The Bible is full of secular history and if you are going to fully understand it then you need to know about secular history, otherwise you can interpret it in your own terms. But the Bible shows how God arranged secular history to make it spiritual history. If you did not have definitions of common words supplied by secular history you could not even begin to understand much of the Bible. Understanding how numbers were used in secular history is important because all the Bible writers emerged from secular history and used numbers in the way that their contemporaries did. Much of your interpretation of the Bible arises from your own secular background. In fact of course no history is in the end secular because God is involved in it all. So I do not understand your problem. If you are saying that I believe that knowing the thought forms of the societies from which the Bible writers came helps me to understand what they meant you will be quite right. They wrote in those thought forms. If I interpret them in the light of my own thought forms then I am likely to distort them (as so many do). Of course the message of salvation can come through even if I interpret some things wrongly. But it is spiritually lazy not to try to understand the Bible against its background. Best wishes jonp May I suggest that email is better for questions like the one you asked. Unlike you I give my email address. | ||||||
91 | evolving or devolving? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183826 | ||
Hi stj. I will agree that Adam was an intellectual giant within the world in which he lived before the Fall. But he did not know how to split the atom. God had not provided a library. And he had not developed the skill of counting. He did not need it. Life was too idyllic to want to go to school. You must not confuse intelligence with skills that have to be learned. No one is born able to count or read. It has to be learned. I doubt too whether he knew that he had reached 930 years. With all the modern resources at my disposal I find it easy to forget how old I am, for it is not important. Why should Adam want to keep a record of his age? He was far too intelligent to worry about that. I was of course using the term history metaphorically to indicate those who lived in historical times, and to indicate that we learrn from history. Let us not argue about terms. It is the heart of the matter that is important. But happily we may disagree and part friends. I did not answer your question partly because it contained loaded terms which need to be defined,and partly because I felt that you thought that you knew the answer already. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
92 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183906 | ||
Hi, While I can fully agree that Jesus came in judgement on Jerusalem in 70 AD just as He came in power at Pentecost and in what followed I note that no one has mentioned what Luke says. There the position is expressed with total clarity. First the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21.21-24. Then the scattering of the Jews as they are led captive among all nations (Luke 21.24). Then the treading down of Jerusalem during the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21.24). Then the cosmic effects and men fainting for fear at what is to come (Luke 21.25-26). And then the Son of Man will come in power and great glory (Luke 21.27). I fail to see in this how His coming in glory can indicate the destruction of Jerusalem as important events are to take place between them. The 'these things' (which are to happen in that generation) are the indicators of the coming time of redemption, not the time of redemption itself (Luke 21.28), which Jesus did not know (Mark 13.32). They are the leaves that indicate that the Kingly Rule of God is near (Luke 21.29), not the actual coming of the Kingly Rule of God in His coming. There is no question therefore of unfulfilled prophecy. I do not wish to prolong this subject which has been well aired. But it important that we take all Scriptures into account. Perhaps you could be kind enough to explain what you think Luke meant, if he did not mean what he said. All best wishes jonp |
||||||
93 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183935 | ||
Hi Coper. Yes there are Scriptures which refer to Jesus returning in different ways. For example. 'I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you,' (John 14.18). Does this not refer to Pentecost? Again in Matthew 28.20 Jesus says, 'And lo I am with you always'. Does this not have Pentecost in mind?. Again Jesus says, 'If a man loves Me he will keep My word, and My Father will love Him, and we will come to Him and make our home with Him.' Here we have Jesus continually coming a million times over. Again in Matthew 18.20 we read, 'where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.' He could not be in the midst of them without coming! Hebrews 9.28 refers to a physical coming. I did not suggest that Jesus came physically at Pentecost or in the destruction of Jerusalem. My point in using Luke 21 was in order to demonstrate that Jesus made absolutely clear that there was a period of time between what happened to Jerusalem, and His glorious appearing. He demonstrated that there was a fairly large gap between them. Now please do not go off at a tangent. I am waiting to be convinced (I am not a pre-tribulational rapturist). If you can go through Luke 21.20-26 and show me what it means step by step then I will consider that you have an argument. If you cannot then my case is proved. Best wishes jonp |
||||||
94 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183949 | ||
hi Thank you for your attempt at an explanation which I am grateful for. However firstly when I read of Jerusalem surrounded by armies, and then the people being put to the sword and the people being led captive among all nations for the period called the times of the Gentiles I can only see it as special pleading to suggest that this is before Jerusalem was taken. (You rather skipped over that bit :-))) ) That is clearly a picture of the end of the siege. Thus the judgment was over and what follows is AFTER the siege. Thus the coming in glory occurs some time after the judgment on Jerusalem. It seems to me that if words mean anything there can be no doubt about that. In which case it cannot refer to Jesus coming in judgment on Jerusalem. Your very noble attempt to explain it has not in my view succeeded. Perhaps you could think it over again and revise your comments and give a DETAILED explanation of verse 24. What in your view does each clause mean? Verse 25 then follows verse 24 so it cannot refer to the days of the siege. I did not suggest that Jesus came in glory at Pentecost. Then He came in power (Mark 9.1). The difference is carefully maintained. Nor does it say anywhere that He came in glory to judge Jerusalem. Coming in glory is described in Matthew 25.31 as being the judgment at the end of time when the final decisions concerning mankind will be made (Matthew 25.46). That certainly has not happened yet. I regret to have to say that I cannot accept your logic with regard to Revelation 1.7. It sounds to me like playing with words to obtain the meaning that you want. Peerhaps you would be kind enough to explain that in more detail too and do it step by step so that even the slowest of us can see the logic. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
95 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183992 | ||
Hi, I know of nowhere in Scripture where it says that the old covenant cannot pass away until all prophesy is fulfilled. If you are referring To Jesus' words in Matthew 5.18 then I am afraid that you are misunderstanding them. Not one yodh or tittle of the Law will pass away until after this earthly life has ceased, and all prophecy is fulfilled, for until then it will be required by man whichever age he is in. The Law is included in both covenants. Paul was equally concerned that we fulfil the Law as rightly used (Galatians 5.13-15). We are under the Law to Christ (1 Corinthians 9.21). The Law is good when a man uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1.8). Paul had nothing against the Law when used as a mirror. Indeed he commended it. What he rejected was the idea that a man could be justified by the Law. But the Law was never intended to be a means of justification, even under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant offered mercy on the basis of God's gracious redemption (Exodus 20.1-2)and the Law was to be the people's response to that mercy providing a way of atonement and a requirement as to how to live. It was Israel's teachers who misrepresented it. We too need that example of how to live. When we sin as Christians (it is for all sinners, not just unsaved ones) the Law is used lawfully in pulling us up and telling us to get ourselves sorted out, just as it is lawfully used by making the unsaved realise their need of justification in Christ. But we can never be justified in God's eyes by trying to keep it. We are to be justified in Christ first, and then the Law becomes our friend, a necessary signpost on the way. That is why in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus clarified it. We are still required to live by the Sermon on the Mount. But the Sermon is for believers, God's blessed ones (Matthew 5.3-9). So yes the Law is still as solidly required to be kept by God's people as it was. It will never pass away until there are no more sinners to be condemned and no more saints who need guidance. So your question is based on a wrong premiss. It also fails in another way. Are you really suggesting that the Old Covenant did not pass away until 70 AD? It passed away as a result of Jesus' death and resurrection. After that it no longer had any validity for anyone who had heard of Jesus Christ. They either believed or were condemned. Israel was no longer the Jews. Israel was now the people of God who had believed in Jesus, the Israel of God. The old covenant had passed away. But the Law continued in its rightful use, showing God's people how to live. So the new covenant came in, and the old passed away long before the destruction of Jerusalem (see the letter to the Hebrews). Best wishes jonp | ||||||
96 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183996 | ||
Hi Coper. If you read carefully I pointed out that the old covenant had passed away for all who had heard of Jesus Christ. Of course many Jews in the dispersion had not yet heard of Jesus Christ, and so the spiritual ones among them still benefited by the old covenant (just as Gentiles who had not heard of Christ benefited from general revelation and could respond to it and find mercy). Neither of these situations was affected by the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The ones mainly affected had rejected Christ long before. They were therefore no longer benefited by the old covenant. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
97 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 184093 | ||
Hi Tom Your preterism is certainly wonderful. It takes a Roman procurator and turns him into a two horned wild beast who makes fire come down from heaven in the sight of men (a picture indicating a false Elijah) and works great signs so as to deceive those who dwell on earth. (Perhaps you are unaware that two horns means two rulers? compare 17.12) And I never realised before that Gessius Florus did such things. Then you can take an inconvenient verse and move it to another place to suit your theory. But best of all you can take the date of Cyrus, which is firmly fixed by external archaeological evidence and move it a hundred years. And while you are confidently stating that no onw has produced any time sequence which contradicts your theory I seem to remember that I suggested one to you to which you have not yet given a reply. I will repeat it again, 'when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies,then know that its desolation has come near -- and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among all nations and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled -- and then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. (Luke 21.2-0-27. Now what I would like you to do is explain it phrase by phrase, taking each word into account, and tell me what it is saying. For to me it appears to be saying first the destruction of Jerusalem then the scattering of the Jews, then a period following when Jerusalem is trodden down of the Gentiles, and all this FOLLOWED by the coming in glory of Jesus Christ. What I am concerned with is the coming of Jesus Christ, not all the theories about it of which there are too many. And before you play around with the word glory perhaps you will note that in those days the idea of glory related to the visible appearance of God. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
98 | Preterism refuted using Scripture alone? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 184137 | ||
Hi, As I pointed out Revelation often gives its own key to what it is saying. In Revelation 17.12 the horns of a wild beast are declared to be rulers. Thus it seems clear that the same is true in chapter 13. The wild beast with two horns like a lamb probably indicates religious authorities who supported the wild beast (Caligula? Caligula's reign fits the details). They no doubt used conjuring to imitate the wonders described in Scripture. The two horns of a lamb contrast with the Lamb in Revelation 5. They are false prophets, even false Messiahs. Caligula especially had it in for the Jews, as he did for aristocrats. Both refused to worship him. In interpreting Revelation we must let it interpret itself not try to fit it into our theories. I note your surrender on the question of Luke's sequence of events. I did not expect that you would be able to answer it. I have never met any full preterite who could answer it in detail. That is why I am not a preterite although no doubt some would call me part preterite. With cordial best wishes Jonp | ||||||
99 | Matthew 18:18 | Matt 18:18 | jonp | 184281 | ||
Hi The power of binding and loosing was given to a Rabbi when he received 'the key of knowledge' on graduation. It meant that in interpreting the Law, for which he was now seen as qualified he could either bind people to the strict letter of the Law or could loose it a little by giving it a different interpretation. Thus Hillel loosed the Law when he said that a man could divorce his wife if she displeased him. Shammai insisted that it could only be for uncleanness found in her. Thus here the Apostles were being given the authority to make binding regulations for the Christian church and interpret the Scriptures in term of God's requirements with their interpretations being binding on the church because they would be confirmed by Heaven. But this did not of course entitle them just to decide what they liked. In order to fulfil this role they were given a special enduing of the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room (John 20.21-23) when their minds were opened to understand the Scriptures (Luke 24.45) in accordance with Jesus' promises to them earler (John 14.26; 16.13). It was not an authority that was ever passed on. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
100 | Eunuchs incapable of marriage? | Matt 19:12 | jonp | 184417 | ||
Hi, this verse has nothing to say about whether eunuchs can marry. Jesus is illustrating the example of a person who like He did Himself remains single in order better to further the work of Christ, and He does it by comparison with genuine eunuchs who were either born that way or were made that way by men. These 'eunuchs by choice' are not strictly speaking eunuchs at all. They are men who remain single for Christ's sake. There is nothing in the Bible which actually says that eunuchs cannot marry, although clearly there might be problems in consummating the marriage. Under the new covenant God says, 'to the eunuchs which keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please Me, and hold fast My covenant, I will give in My house and within My walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters, I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off' (Isaiah 56.4-5). In other words they are accepted on the same level as anyone else. I cannot doubt that such a eunuch who marries and adopts children in order that he might bring them up to know the Lord is as pleasing to God as an ordinary husband. The exclusion in Deuteronomy 23.1 probably refers to those who had been made eunuchs for religious reasons by following Canannite ideas. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |