Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Angels? You must remember there are many areas within the scriptures that denote "angels" as real people, specifically, God, or Christ's followers...i.e. His disciples. The elect, are none other than the Israel remnant who were saved under Christ during the transitional period between 30-70 when the circumcised and uncircumcised Israleites spread throughout the empire, inclusive of Israel, were brought back under one shepherd. In addition, it is not without significance, that this gathering of the saints in Matt 24:31, is preceded by the great sound or voice (marginal rendering) of a trumpet....think Jericho. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob heard "this" trumpet. It therefore signaled the universal gathering of saints from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven, (Mk.13:27; 2 Thess.2:1; Heb.10:25), as well as the raising of the patriarchs and prophets from the dead, (Rom.4:16; Heb.11:39-40). This can be none other than the trump of God of 1 Thess.4:16, and the last trump of 1 Cor.15:52. If not, then do the scriptures teach two separate gatherings preceded by two universal trumpets? Why make them all the more confusing (a fact evidenced by the attempt to divide Matthew 24), by placing them both at a coming of Christ, a consummation of an age, a gathering together of the elect in the clouds, and an inheriting of the kingdom, (Matt.8:11-12, 24:3, 30-31, 34; 1 Cor.15:23-24, 50-52; 1 Thess.4:14-17)? It should be readily apparent that the trumpet is one and the same. Equally certain is the fact that Matthew 24 places the sounding of that trumpet at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, before that first-century generation passed, (Matt.24:31,34). Israel was raised, as a corporate body in faith, from the dead, and benefited the world. That's why Christianity never died. We have what was promised.
This type of interpreting sounds like something that requires a degree in rocket science to simply understand the simple words allegedly spoken by Jesus, Scio.
If what you say is true, then how do we explain the anticipation of a returning Jesus found in books written AFTER the destruction of the temple, such as II Peter (where early Christians were clearly being mocked about this so-called return of Jesus), Jude and the book of Revelation. If as you say, Jesus' "return" and all the other predicted hoopla (written in Jewish code language not meant to be taken literal), then why was it still evident that early Jewish and Gentile Christians were expecting Jesus to return? Did they miss the memo it was not going to be a physical return?
I don't deny some of what Jesus said was not symbolic language, but I think the basic understanding was that after he died, he was physically going to return to rescue his people and set up a new Israel.
I've said time and time again that the preterist realizes the embarrassment of believing Jesus, after 2,000 years, is still on his way and also realizes he was speaking to the folks before him and NOT people 2,000 years (and counting) in the future. But since there is no record of this grand spectacle of boom and bang, then his words have to be interpreted into some covert, spiritualized, "deeper meaning" language to get around the no-show.
The futurists are running around believing the sky is falling and Jesus is somewhere near Mars and should be here shortly. The Preterist believes he already came back, but not the way it is understood just by reading on the surface. The skeptic (like me) does not even believe Jesus was all that to even have this kind of authority over reality.
It is easy to spot straw man arguments. They usually contain "every, always and never." It reveals an ignorance and inability to establish the basis for making any discrimination. There is plenty of knowledge today from which to make the appropriate interpretations of scripture and prophecy. The all-or-nothing nonsense has no credibility.
RESPONSE:
>>There is plenty of knowledge today from which to make the appropriate interpretations of scripture and prophecy<<
Yes, those who use their left brain (logical reasoning) and those who use their left brain (fantacy and imagination) frequently come to vastly different answers when interpreting scripture.
But regarding the basic issue, the sun hasn't been darkened, the moon did not stop giving its light, and the stars didn't fall from the sky for more then 2000 years after Jesus (or his biographers) and Paul prophecised what was going to happen while some were sill alive within their generation.
They were in error, so we can conclude that they were not divinely inspired. Unless, of course, God makes mistakes.
This type of interpreting sounds like something that requires a degree in rocket science to simply understand the simple words allegedly spoken by Jesus, Scio.
If what you say is true, then how do we explain the anticipation of a returning Jesus found in books written AFTER the destruction of the temple, such as II Peter (where early Christians were clearly being mocked about this so-called return of Jesus), Jude and the book of Revelation. If as you say, Jesus' "return" and all the other predicted hoopla (written in Jewish code language not meant to be taken literal), then why was it still evident that early Jewish and Gentile Christians were expecting Jesus to return? Did they miss the memo it was not going to be a physical return?
I don't deny some of what Jesus said was not symbolic language, but I think the basic understanding was that after he died, he was physically going to return to rescue his people and set up a new Israel.
I've said time and time again that the preterist realizes the embarrassment of believing Jesus, after 2,000 years, is still on his way and also realizes he was speaking to the folks before him and NOT people 2,000 years (and counting) in the future. But since there is no record of this grand spectacle of boom and bang, then his words have to be interpreted into some covert, spiritualized, "deeper meaning" language to get around the no-show.
The futurists are running around believing the sky is falling and Jesus is somewhere near Mars and should be here shortly. The Preterist believes he already came back, but not the way it is understood just by reading on the surface. The skeptic (like me) does not even believe Jesus was all that to even have this kind of authority over reality.
All those books above mentioned were written prior to the fall of the temple.
The internal evidence is clear as day. The epistles of Barnabas, written roughly between 71-73 AD, takes care of any discrepancy of the apostolic theme. In actuality, all the early church fathers up until about the 4th century were amillennial, believed that the second coming, or parouisa already took place, and we were living in the NEw heavens and Earth,
All those books above mentioned were written prior to the fall of the temple.
The internal evidence is clear as day. The epistles of Barnabas, written roughly between 71-73 AD, takes care of any discrepancy of the apostolic theme. In actuality, all the early church fathers up until about the 4th century were amillennial, believed that the second coming, or parouisa already took place, and we were living in the NEw heavens and Earth,
Your argument I have already dealt with on several levels.
Nothing you say is new to me....so keep 'em coming.
All of those boks were written before the fall of the temple? Well of course because if it was proven otherwise then your interpretations would not be accurate, right? Well, there are quite a few folks who would doubt that those books were written before the fall of the temple and not after, notably II Peter. I will deal with that a little later.
All of those boks were written before the fall of the temple? Well of course because if it was proven otherwise
hen your interpretations would not be accurate, right? Well, there are quite a few folks who would doubt that those books were written before the fall of the temple and not after, notably II Peter. I will deal with that a little later.
In ca. 190 A.D., Clement supplements (Irenaeus) from Alexandria, Egypt, writing:
“The Gospels containing the genealogies were written first.
[Then] as Peter had preached the Word at ROME publicly,
by the Spirit declaring the Gospel, many who were present
requested that Mark …should write them out.
And having composed the Gospel,
he gave it to those who had requested it…
Last of all, John…being persuaded by his friends, but inspired
by the SPIRIT, composed a Spiritual Gospel.” Eusebius, History of the Church 6.14 – citing Clement of Alexandria
Luke’s was completed in Corinth of Achaia in 50-51 A.D., approximately 5 years before Matthew’s in Jerusalem.
Bring it on Insane...I can prove to you by internal and external evidence compiled together, that ALL the NT books were written before 68 AD.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
