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.
True, but IMO only if we come to verses like I quoted in Acts 1:9-11 and 1 Thes 4:16-18 with a preconceived notion that these are past events, will we interpret them in that way. To me, to simply read these verses alone and assign them to a past, non-literal event would take somewhat of a stretch!
It's not only these verses though.. the whole tenor of the NT is about looking forward, preparing, being ready, and encouraging others to be ready for a time that is to come.
EDIT: I'd be interested in hearing the points wherein you disagreed with John Noe, or the points he was unable to address.. just for discussion. Haven't read the book.
I've mentioned this in other threads ... but again ... just mho ...
The books of the new testament and specifically the new testament letters can be very dangerous pieces of work if not kept in the context of when they were written. The letters were written by specific people to specific people of the day for specific purposes ... they were not written to people 2000 years later. Sometimes instructions to one group of people in one letter differ greatly from instructions given to other groups of people. This is why unbelievers point can point to so many "apparent" contradictions in biblical text.
The books of the new testament have been preserved for us and there is teaching and guidance there that we would do well to study very carefully. But, to assume they speak directly to us ... I think ... can lead to faulty doctrine, faulty conclusions, and unsubstantiated assumptions.
In your quote above, you mention ... "To me, to simply read these verses alone and assign them to a past, non-literal event would take somewhat of a stretch."
I agree. We should not consider passages alone or out of context. But, I would take that a step further and contend that it is very important to consider the entire bible - use scripture to help interpret scripture. By comparing new testament end times passages against old testament ones sheds a lot of light on the topic ... especially between Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc.
I also think we have to be careful with the word "literal". I'm not contending the return of Christ may have been a "non-literal" event. But, there is a difference between literal-physical (corporal) and literal-spiritual. Futurists like to point to the passage that refers to Christ's ascension and his return "in the same way". We are not specifically told that his return will be "physical", we interpret "in the same way" to mean a physical return but there are other interpretations for "literal return that is not "physical" that are biblically defensible. I won't get into the details here, because that would be a very long post. But, you can reference John Noe and other documents from preterist websites for those arguments. Go directly to the source, because I could not explain them nearly as well.
Not saying I agree with those preterists interpretations of a return of Christ, but I do consider them. I probably fall somewhere between full and partial preterist in my view ... but am still open to the futurist view ... just find myself leaning away from that more and more. I have also thoughtfully considered the historicist view. It seems each view has biblically defensible perspectives in certain areas that proponents of one of the other views cannot quite adequately refute.
That is what I experienced with John Noe. Cannot remember the exact questions that he could not answer but I beleive much of it concerned isolated passages. One in particular is the passage that "all nations would mourn" ... and if the end of the age would refer only to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. My question to John Noe was why would all nations mourn at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple? Certainly the majority of the nations within the Roman empire would not have mourned the loss of this city. Others nations certainly would not know if it or simply would not even care. So, that didn't completely jive with me.
Another issue I had with John Noe was how he would take certain timeline passages as literal and others as figurative. He seemed to do this selectively - as he needed to support his assertions. When I called him on this issue, he stopped returning my e-mails. Go figure.
I've mentioned this in other threads ... but again ... just mho ...
The books of the new testament and specifically the new testament letters can be very dangerous pieces of work if not kept in the context of when they were written. The letters were written by specific people to specific people of the day for specific purposes ... they were not written to people 2000 years later. Sometimes instructions to one group of people in one letter differ greatly from instructions given to other groups of people. This is why unbelievers point can point to so many "apparent" contradictions in biblical text.
The books of the new testament have been preserved for us and there is teaching and guidance there that we would do well to study very carefully. But, to assume they speak directly to us ... I think ... can lead to faulty doctrine, faulty conclusions, and unsubstantiated assumptions.
In your quote above, you mention ... "To me, to simply read these verses alone and assign them to a past, non-literal event would take somewhat of a stretch."
I agree. We should not consider passages alone or out of context. But, I would take that a step further and contend that it is very important to consider the entire bible - use scripture to help interpret scripture. By comparing new testament end times passages against old testament ones sheds a lot of light on the topic ... especially between Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc.
I also think we have to be careful with the word "literal". I'm not contending the return of Christ may have been a "non-literal" event. But, there is a difference between literal-physical (corporal) and literal-spiritual. Futurists like to point to the passage that refers to Christ's ascension and his return "in the same way". We are not specifically told that his return will be "physical", we interpret "in the same way" to mean a physical return but there are other interpretations for "literal return that is not "physical" that are biblically defensible. I won't get into the details here, because that would be a very long post. But, you can reference John Noe and other documents from preterist websites for those arguments. Go directly to the source, because I could not explain them nearly as well.
Not saying I agree with those preterists interpretations of a return of Christ, but I do consider them. I probably fall somewhere between full and partial preterist in my view ... but am still open to the futurist view ... just find myself leaning away from that more and more. I have also thoughtfully considered the historicist view. It seems each view has biblically defensible perspectives in certain areas that proponents of one of the other views cannot quite adequately refute.
That is what I experienced with John Noe. Cannot remember the exact questions that he could not answer but I beleive much of it concerned isolated passages. One in particular is the passage that "all nations would mourn" ... and if the end of the age would refer only to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem. My question to John Noe was why would all nations mourn at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple? Certainly the majority of the nations within the Roman empire would not have mourned the loss of this city. Others nations certainly would not know if it or simply would not even care. So, that didn't completely jive with me.
Another issue I had with John Noe was how he would take certain timeline passages as literal and others as figurative. He seemed to do this selectively - as he needed to support his assertions. When I called him on this issue, he stopped returning my e-mails. Go figure.
Greetings Fighting For Air: It would help a lot if we knew what verse or verses you are referring to which deal with the nations mourning. Revelation 18? If you are referring to that chapter and verse 9, may I suggest that you compare it to verse 11. The merchants of the earth mourned over her because their livelihood had been greatly affected--"no one buys their merchandise anymore." The same is true of the kind of mourning we see from the kings of the earth in verse 5. The source of much of their lustful pleasure was gone with the loss of the city--their fornication and luxurious living in that city was gone!
If these were not the verses you had in mind, could you please provide the correct ones? Thank you. Also, to which John Noe work are you referring?
Not saying I agree with those preterists interpretations of a return of Christ, but I do consider them. I probably fall somewhere between full and partial preterist in my view ... but am still open to the futurist view ... just find myself leaning away from that more and more. I have also thoughtfully considered the historicist view. It seems each view has biblically defensible perspectives in certain areas that proponents of one of the other views cannot quite adequately refute.
Thank you for your thoughtful post.. some comments...
I think that labeling different "views" may sometimes do more harm than good for the sincere seeker. For example, someone may start questioning the futurist view, and start realizing that some of these issues may be incorrect.. but then they read up on another view which goes completely the other way.. and they go for that, instead of search it out for themselves. (It does appear that you are not afraid to search out the truth for yourself.. good on you!) Not sure if I'm making myself clear on this... but rather than saying "I subscribe to this view", or "that one", and try to make the Bible fit the view, we need to rely on the Holy Spirit. (but we're so human!) Once again, it appears that this is your desire.
I don't know a "label" for my view.. maybe you do? Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, to say "it's all in the future" and then have questions, and as a result to say "it's all in the past" may not be the correct way. Rather, each point needs to be examined on its own.
I would also question the point about "all nations would mourn" simply referring to the fall of Jerusalem.. it seems, even from other scriptures, that this will be a world-wide event, not simply something happening at one place on the earth.
I also agree with you that we must take the whole message of the Bible in view, and not take solitary scriptures out of context. I believe that the Truth fits perfectly together...
Greetings Fighting For Air: It would help a lot if we knew what verse or verses you are referring to which deal with the nations mourning. Revelation 18? If you are referring to that chapter and verse 9, may I suggest that you compare it to verse 11. The merchants of the earth mourned over her because their livelihood had been greatly affected--"no one buys their merchandise anymore." The same is true of the kind of mourning we see from the kings of the earth in verse 5. The source of much of their lustful pleasure was gone with the loss of the city--their fornication and luxurious living in that city was gone!
If these were not the verses you had in mind, could you please provide the correct ones? Thank you. Also, to which John Noe work are you referring?
Preterist(Full)
Cannot remember exactly since I dropped this topic a few years back after several years of pretty intensive study. I would have to go back and find my notes if I still have them. I made pages and pages of notes as I was reading and referencing and cross referencing different passages of scripture.
The Noe book i was reading at the time was "The Left Behind Delusion".
Thank you for your thoughtful post.. some comments...
I think that labeling different "views" may sometimes do more harm than good for the sincere seeker. For example, someone may start questioning the futurist view, and start realizing that some of these issues may be incorrect.. but then they read up on another view which goes completely the other way.. and they go for that, instead of search it out for themselves. (It does appear that you are not afraid to search out the truth for yourself.. good on you!) Not sure if I'm making myself clear on this... but rather than saying "I subscribe to this view", or "that one", and try to make the Bible fit the view, we need to rely on the Holy Spirit. (but we're so human!) Once again, it appears that this is your desire.
I don't know a "label" for my view.. maybe you do? Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, to say "it's all in the future" and then have questions, and as a result to say "it's all in the past" may not be the correct way. Rather, each point needs to be examined on its own.
I would also question the point about "all nations would mourn" simply referring to the fall of Jerusalem.. it seems, even from other scriptures, that this will be a world-wide event, not simply something happening at one place on the earth.
I also agree with you that we must take the whole message of the Bible in view, and not take solitary scriptures out of context. I believe that the Truth fits perfectly together...
Blessings in your walk!
Yah ... I don't articulate my leanings on this topic as well as I should... but they are just leanings. I have not tried to rule out one position or the other ... have just tried to compare them as objectively as possible. Try to do the whole "test all things and hold fast to that which is true."
The only futurist stuff that really gets in my craw is the the constant newspaper eschaetology - finding the end times in every natural disaster, hurricane, earthquake, military conflict, etc. It gets tiring when it goes on for decades and decades and everyone still keeps buying into it.
Yah ... I don't articulate my leanings on this topic as well as I should... but they are just leanings. I have not tried to rule out one position or the other ... have just tried to compare them as objectively as possible. Try to do the whole "test all things and hold fast to that which is true."
The only futurist stuff that really gets in my craw is the the constant newspaper eschaetology - finding the end times in every natural disaster, hurricane, earthquake, military conflict, etc. It gets tiring when it goes on for decades and decades and everyone still keeps buying into it.
Good thoughts. Yes, it seems like in modern-day Christianity what is most "sensational" seems to be taking the place of what is "true".
Back to preterism and Christ's return, another thing that makes me have a question is this: Jesus clearly said that He had no idea when when He would return.. only the Father knew. Yet full preterism states that He was speaking to a certain group and telling them that He would return in a specific timeframe.. So either Jesus was not being entirely honest when He said only the Father knew the time, or He didn't realize what He was saying... and in that case, WE know more about what He was saying than He did (because what He was saying was "so clearly for a certain time")!
Good thoughts. Yes, it seems like in modern-day Christianity what is most "sensational" seems to be taking the place of what is "true".
Back to preterism and Christ's return, another thing that makes me have a question is this: Jesus clearly said that He had no idea when when He would return.. only the Father knew. Yet full preterism states that He was speaking to a certain group and telling them that He would return in a specific timeframe.. So either Jesus was not being entirely honest when He said only the Father knew the time, or He didn't realize what He was saying... and in that case, WE know more about what He was saying than He did (because what He was saying was "so clearly for a certain time")!
Amen!
PS. had to put smiley faces to make up 10 characters.... But they fit as well!!
Good thoughts. Yes, it seems like in modern-day Christianity what is most "sensational" seems to be taking the place of what is "true".
Back to preterism and Christ's return, another thing that makes me have a question is this: Jesus clearly said that He had no idea when when He would return.. only the Father knew. Yet full preterism states that He was speaking to a certain group and telling them that He would return in a specific timeframe.. So either Jesus was not being entirely honest when He said only the Father knew the time, or He didn't realize what He was saying... and in that case, WE know more about what He was saying than He did (because what He was saying was "so clearly for a certain time")!
cg81: Where does it say that Jesus had "no idea when He would return?" Jesus did not know the DAY or the HOUR--but He knew the time frame:
"THIS GENERATION will by no means pass away till all these things take place" (Matthew 24:34).
Jesus was being entirely honest, cg81, when He said only the Father knew--meaning only the Father knew the DAY and the HOUR. Again, if you are really concerned about what Jesus said concerning His return, why don't you take His words at face value? Clearly, He said to His disciples standing right there with Him--
Matthew 24:4--Take heed that no one deceives you" (My disciples standing right here with Me). Matthew 24:6--YOU (My disciples standing right here with Me) will hear of wars and rumors or wars. See that YOU (My disciples standing right here with Me) are not troubled. Matthew 24:9--THEN (during the events of verses 7 and 8) they will deliver YOU (My disciples standing right here with Me) up to TRIBULATION and kill YOU (My disciples standing right here with Me), and YOU (My disciples standing right here with Me) will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. Matthew 24:15--Therefore (because of all the things of which He just warned THEM), when YOU (My disciples standing right here with Me) see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place . . . . Matthew 24:23 (see also verse 26)--THEN (during this same time frame) if anyone says to YOU (My disciples standing right here with Me), "Look, here is Christ!" . . . do not believe it. Matthew 24:32--Now [YOU--My disciples standing right here with Me] learn the parable of the fig tree. When its branch has already become tender . . . YOU (My disciples standing right here with Me) know that summer is near. Matthew 24:33--So YOU (My disciples standing right here with Me) also, when YOU (My disciples standing right here with Me) see ALL these things, know that it (His coming) is NEAR--at the doors! Matthew 24:34--Assuredly, I say to YOU (My disciples standing right here with Me) THIS GENERATION will by no means pass away till ALL THESE THINGS take place. Matthew 24:42--[YOU] watch therefore, for YOU do not know what hour your Lord is coming. Matthew 24:44--Therefore YOU also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour YOU do not expect.
Again, Jesus did not know the DAY or the HOUR but He certainly knew the time frame--within HIS generation. A.D. 70!
Preterist(full)
ps. The capital letters are meant for emphasis only and not "in your face."
Again, if you are really concerned about what Jesus said concerning His return, why don't you take His words at face value? Clearly, He said to His disciples standing right there with Him--
The other approach to Scripture have sometimes been given the label of "historicism" or the "church-historical approach."
Applying this to the subject of tribulation, for example, the great tribulation has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen in especially severe form just before Christ's return.
Scripture does not teach a special period of seven years of tribulation at the end of time. It teaches that the whole New Testament era will be a time of tribulation for the church with an intense period of tribulation at the end. The three and one half years described repeatedly in Revelation (time, times, and half a time, forty-two months) is a figurative expression for the whole New Testament era. This is especially apparent in Revelation 12, where the three and one half years begins with Christ's ascension and ends with his return. The millennium in Revelation 20 is not a 1000 year rule of Christ on this earth after believers have been raptured away from the world. It is the whole time of the New Testament era.
Books by William E. Cox (a Reformed theologian) are also trustworthy and helpful on these subjects. These are suggestions that, if followed, will lead you to other sources.
Good thoughts. Yes, it seems like in modern-day Christianity what is most "sensational" seems to be taking the place of what is "true".
Back to preterism and Christ's return, another thing that makes me have a question is this: Jesus clearly said that He had no idea when when He would return.. only the Father knew. Yet full preterism states that He was speaking to a certain group and telling them that He would return in a specific timeframe.. So either Jesus was not being entirely honest when He said only the Father knew the time, or He didn't realize what He was saying... and in that case, WE know more about what He was saying than He did (because what He was saying was "so clearly for a certain time")!
You are correct, Jesus does not know when He will return. Matthew 24:36 "However, no one knows the day or the hour when these things will happen, not even the angles in Heaven, or the Son Himself, only the Father knows".
Jesus's second coming will be swift and sudden, no opportunity for last minute repentance or bargaining. The choice we have made will determine our eternal destiny.
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.
Go figure. 
