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.
No Jesus did not lie, for he is without sin and telling lies is a sin.
Num 23:19 God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Yes, Jesus did NOT lie and could not lie. Yet critics look at His words and look at how the modern church interprets them as accuse Him of lying and accuse the Church of believing that He lied. If He did not lie (as I also believe He did not), what did He mean when He said He would come in that first-century generation? (Matthew 24:29ff). How does the Church explain why it does not take Jesus at His word?
What did Jesus mean in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 where He promised to come in that generation?
What did He mean in Matthew 10:22-23 where He told His disciples right there with Him that He would return before they personally were able to go through all the cities of Israel?
What did He mean in Matthew 16:27-28 when He said He would return before some of them right there with Him would die?
The skeptics (atheists, liberals, Jews, and Muslims) take Jesus' words literally and look at the modern church's insistence that Christ has not yet returned and call Jesus a false prophet, His disciples false teachers, and Christianity a false religion!
If we insist, in spite of Christ's clear words, that He has not yet returned as He promised, how do we answer the critics?
I believe a millennium is a near infinite expression on time not quite infinite but vast. I believe it is written in Greek but Hebrew in expression like the cattle on a thousand hills(Psalm 50). Revelation says the time is near for all things to commence. I see no reason why the millennium( along time) which had started would need to end as quickly. I also consider the new heavens and new earth to be part of this. The new heaven is in the heavenly kingdom while on earth we are also part of the kingdom. Heaven is not simply the second floor. Its where death is defeated. I also do not believe Revelation is in exact chronological order. I consider chapter 12 to have elements of the past for example.
Ephesians 1
He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
Thus I believe there is an age to come which now is this age. In other words I could say I will have a family shortly. I could buy a house, marry and have a family all within a year. However raising the family may take time even as all I said was fulfilled but not at its end.
Greetings Gwynedd1: How do you reconcile 1 Peter 4:7 with your concept of time: "The end of all things is at hand."
Also, Ephesians 1:21 is one of the mello verses. The Greek text actually reads en to mellonti. There is no verb "to come." The verbal idea is found in the time indicator mello in its dative, singular, participial form. The verse basically says "Not only in this age, but en the about to one." Again, there is no verb "to come" but only the concept of an age that was then about to be!
I agree that Revelation is probably not in chronological order. I do not agree, however, with your assessment of the words "shortly" and "near." Your analogy of having a family has this difficulty. The time indicators of the Revelation do not speak of the initiation of having something and then the progression of that possession. Shortly and near speak of the complete happening of something not the beginning of it and the progression of it.
Revelation 1:1 reads "ha dei genesthai en tachei." Dei is in the present and speaks of inevitability--without a doubt to be. The things John was shown were at that time then inevitable to take place shortly. Not to begin to take place and continue to take place, but to take place. They were inevitable to be (genesthai) shortly.
In Luke 21:28 Jesus said: "Now when these things begin to happen" Mark used the words "archomenon" (begin) and the same word found in Revelation 1:1--genesthai. The meaning is "begin to happen" or "being to be." This demonstrates how easy it would have been for John to indicate that the things he was to be shown were about to "begin" (archo) to happen. That is not the case. The things which John was shown were to shortly come to pass--not begin to come to pass.
Any thoughts on answering the critics concerning Matthew 10, 16, 24 and Mark 13?
EDIT: If you can show me an event where Jesus physically descended from heaven and appeared in body to His disciples after His ascension, then you are right.. I would have no reason to combine this event with any other.
If not, then I have every reason to believe it is an event to come. I'm not gonna call Him a liar!
cg81: What about the event where Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind and and only Elisha was permitted to see it?
When the Syrian armies surrounded Elisha, his servant became extremely afraid. Elisha said to him, "Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them." Elisha prayed that the eyes of his servant be opened and the young man saw the mountain "full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha." These could not be seen unless the Lord opened eyes to see them. What about the two hundred million "horsemen" of the Revelation? Could they not be a heavenly army such as in Elisha's day?
If you read 1 Thessalonians 4 in its context, you see that Paul and those to whom he was writing believed that they personally would be caught up to join those raised from Hades and then together meet the Lord in the air. Not every eye throughout the whole world was to see this. But every eye of that context, including those who pierced Him and Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:64), was to see Him. This also included the tribes of the land. The words "all" and "every" mean "all" and "every," but they can be restricted by the context in which they are found. If there is a youth group meeting and your child comes home and says "everyone was there," did he mean everyone everywhere? Of course not. Yet the word "every" is given it proper understanding. Everyone within that particular context was there!
Who would you expect to record Jesus' return? The scattered Jews? The unbelievers left behind? The Romans who simply wanted it all to go away? When Jesus rose from the dead and left behind the empty tomb, what did those in authority do? They attempted to squelch the reports. It was only because the apostles were still living and the NT was yet to be written that any of it was recorded. With the Church out of the way, the Jews dead and dispersed, the Romans blinded by it all, who was to record this event?
This is the bottom line--this is what we are all faced with. We either cling to our conception of what Christ's return was to be like and redefine or ignore the clear time statements OR we accept the clear time statements and reassess our conception of Christ's return. You do not "see" Christ's return evidenced, so you basically throw out the time indicators. I accept the time indicators and then believe that everything happen when it was supposed to happen even though I may not understand all the details of it.
This is the problem which I presented with this thread. Skeptics see the time indicators as literal and substantive and then point their fingers at those in the Church who redefine them or ignore them. We cannot defend Christ's honor by such tactics.
What did Jesus clearly mean in Matthew 10, 16, 24 and Mark 13? Without the difficulties of presuppositions and preconceived ideas, the critics easily and rightfully accept the time indicators at their face value. How will we answer them apart from the standard and unacceptable and unsatisfactory postponement theories?
If you read 1 Thessalonians 4 in its context, you see that Paul and those to whom he was writing believed that they personally would be caught up to join those raised from Hades and then together meet the Lord in the air. Not every eye throughout the whole world was to see this.
Here are the verses:
1 Thes. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
So what you are saying is that all the dead in Christ before Paul's time rose from the grave already, and Paul and the other believers of his day that were alive and remained were caught up into heaven at a certain point in time? And church history has no record of it?
This is completely illogical, and also contrary to God's plan for the Church. For one thing, how would the Church continue if all believers were whisked away? What happened to being salt and light?
You are only saying this because you are forced to fit this illogical interpretation into your belief, because you are bound by legalistic and intellectual interpretations and terms.
Quote:
The words "all" and "every" mean "all" and "every," but they can be restricted by the context in which they are found.
Preterist, as I've said before, if shortly means SHORTLY and near means NEAR, then every means EVERY and all means ALL. If "every" and "all" can be restricted by the context in which they are found, then so can "shortly" and "near".
Yet critics look at His words and look at how the modern church interprets them as accuse Him of lying and accuse the Church of believing that He lied. If He did not lie (as I also believe He did not), what did He mean when He said He would come in that first-century generation? (Matthew 24:29ff). How does the Church explain why it does not take Jesus at His word?
She is DEAD ON with this. It's because of the (sometimes willful) misunderstanding and misrepresenting of the scriptures on this subject that has indeed given critics fodder to criticize the whole laughable concept of a returning Jesus. Critics actually see the truth of the matter and as long as Christians maintain this idea that Jesus is "coming soon" (for the past 2,000 years, I might add) in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, they will always create the impression that Jesus must have lied.
Oh, by the way, I am a critic and I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
Preterist, if you are looking for an answer to the critics, Peter had a pretty good (and quite timely) one:
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Pet. 3:3-8)
1 Thes. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
So what you are saying is that all the dead in Christ before Paul's time rose from the grave already, and Paul and the other believers of his day that were alive and remained were caught up into heaven at a certain point in time? And church history has no record of it?
This is completely illogical, and also contrary to God's plan for the Church. For one thing, how would the Church continue if all believers were whisked away? What happened to being salt and light?
You are only saying this because you are forced to fit this illogical interpretation into your belief, because you are bound by legalistic and intellectual interpretations and terms.
Preterist, as I've said before, if shortly means SHORTLY and near means NEAR, then every means EVERY and all means ALL. If "every" and "all" can be restricted by the context in which they are found, then so can "shortly" and "near".
EVERY eye shall see Him. Jesus did not lie.
Greetings, cg81: None of these words ever lose their meanings in the context! Near always means near and shortly always means shortly. You might say that "near" when used in the context of an event or a place can be restricted. If something is said to be near Jerusalem, it is restricted to that locality is it not? But near still means near right! When the passover was said to be at hand, was it not restricted to that time frame and that particular passover that was about to take place? But what was at hand was still at hand!
When did I say that "every" does not mean "every" and "all" does not mean "all." Just because "every" and "all" are confined to a certain number of things or people within a specific context does NOT change their meanings--they still mean "every" and "all." And just because "near" and "shortly" are restricted to the time constraints placed upon them does NOT change their meanings. We always, in our everyday lives, use "shortly" and "near" in restricted senses. That is basically the nature of their nuances! They are meant to restrict!
I am correct to say "every dog is a canine." I mean that every dog everywhere throughout all time is, has been, and will always be a canine. If I am at a dog show and am describing the event on my cell phone to a friend and I say "Every dog is big," what do I mean? Do I mean to imply that every dog everywhere throughout all time is big? No, of course not! The term "every" is rightfully restricted to that context and time. There is nothing inherent in the word every that demands that it refer to everything, everywhere, throughout all time.
In summary, the restriction of a word to a particular context and event does not change its meaning. Not everything in the world is equally near to everything else. But when it is said to be near a particular event or place, it is restricted by that context to be near that particular event or place ONLY! But it still means NEAR!
So, I agree--every always means every; all always means all. I never said otherwise. Likewise, near always means near and shortly always means shortly. "The coming of the Lord is AT HAND" (James 5:8). John was shown those things which were in his day to SHORTLY take place; the time was then NEAR (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). The only injustice that is done to these clear time statements is to redefine them--restriction does not lead to redefinement. Redefinement leads to redefinement!
cg81, to whom was Paul writing in 1 Thessalonians 4. What is the context and the audience relevance of this passage? Who are the "we" of this passage? Paul is clearly writing to comfort his contemporaries who are going through horrendous times of persecution. The dead are not forgotten--they were to rise first at Christ's coming in the clouds; Paul and his contemporary living believers were to join them and together they would all meet the Lord in the air. That was their blessed hope! That is the context. WE are not the YE! To say that we are is to misunderstand the content of this passage.
I am not forced by anything other than the natural sense of the passage and the normal usage of language to understand the clear meaning of 1 Thessalonians 4. Whether you agree with me or not, the normal, usual, and first inclination when reading these simple words is to take them as they are written. Any other understanding must be read into it. Were you to give this passage to someone who knew nothing of the Bible and nothing of Christianity, that is exactly how he would read it and understand--just as Paul wrote it. How does such a simple assessment of simple words make me guilty of being "bound" by "legalistic and intellectual
interpretations?"
As for the salt of the earth and who would preach the Gospel if all believers were "raptured" at Christ's appearing, who is in control of salvation? Were not the Scriptures left behind? Were not many who were given the Gospel beforehand able to receive its truths after the fact? They had heard but did not believe; afterward they remembered what they had heard and believed? I do not get the problem here!
Again, how does what you believe refute the skeptics of our day who dishonor our Lord, the inspiration of the Apostles, the veracity of the Scriptures, and the legitimacy of Christianity?
What did Christ mean in Matthew 10, 16, 24, and Mark 13?
Again, how does what you believe refute the skeptics of our day who dishonor our Lord, the inspiration of the Apostles, the veracity of the Scriptures, and the legitimacy of Christianity?
I see no need to refute the skeptics.. the Word itself does that.
As I mentioned above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cg81
Preterist, if you are looking for an answer to the critics, Peter had a pretty good (and quite timely) one:
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Pet. 3:3-8
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.
