RC Sproul and Eschatology........

[Pastor Larry]

So which is it? Did the apostles understand that these words had an elastic meaning or did they not understand that?

I don't think I am contradicting myself at all. I think you might be misunderstanding. They did not make time predictions. While they believed that the words used could refer to a short time span, they also understood that they did not necessarily refer to a short time span. So if they believed that Jesus "soon" return was in their lifetime, they were wrong about the timing, but not about the "soon" return because they understood what it meant (which apparently you don't).

If "nigh" has a very elastic meaning and could mean anything from 1 day to 2000 years, why would Jesus care if people said the time is "nigh"?

Because the NT stresses the need for readiness.

James wasn't a false prophet for claiming His coming was near, even though Jesus said anyone who says so is a false prophet.

Of course James wasn't a false prophet. It should be clear that Jesus was not referring to the type of statements that he inspired James to make.

I asked you what Jesus meant by using the word "near."

I see your question. Your original post appeared to put that in the mouth of Jesus, when in fact Jesus was putting in the mouth of others. There is no doubt that the word can have a temporal meaning. But there is also no doubt that it doesn't always have that. Failure to make these distinctions make for bad theology.

Thank you for finally admiting you interpret the time statements in light of the events.

Huh?? Jesus said (esssentially), "when I return X, Y, and Z will happen." Therefore when X, Y, and Z don't happen, we can safely conclude that he didn't return.

The Jews missed the coming of their Messiah in much the same way, He wasn't what they expected so clearly the time was not fulfilled.

Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

But that was the fault of their understanding. It would be like you trying to put a meaning on words that they don't have in that context.

Perhaps looking at OT example of coming on the clouds would be useful?

Perhaps.

Have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong?

Absolutely. I consider it every day. These kinds of discussions raise that issue again, and each time I work through I reevaluate what I believe and so far have found no reason to change.

Considering the Mosaic economy was 1500 years or so, I think the last 40 would quailfy as pretty soon.

If your wife told you dinner would be ready soon, and it wasn't ready for 40 years, I don't think you would approve of her use of "soon." If your wife went to be and you told her you would be there soon, and you didn't come to bed for four more hours, I am guessing she wouldn't approve of your use of soon.

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Darn those scriptures, they keep getting in the way.

I wouldn't use even vieled profanity against God's words. But I don't think this passage is a real problem.

Research what?

The issue. It sounds like you are just repeating what you have heard others say.

We can go much deeper if you would like. But lets first grasp the easy stuff...time statements.

I don't have time to go deeper here because of other priorities though I would encourage you to. I think this issue of time statements is a key one. When you miss them, you end up trying to force things into events that really isn't there and it does extreme injustice to the Scriptures.

 

[Grasshopper]

I don't think I am contradicting myself at all. I think you might be misunderstanding. They did not make time predictions.

Unbelievable statement.
Heb 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

While they believed that the words used could refer to a short time span

,

You just said they didn't make time predictions.

they also understood that they did not necessarily refer to a short time span.

Any evidence? You keep repeating this but with no examples.

So if they believed that Jesus "soon" return was in their lifetime, they were wrong about the timing, but not about the "soon" return because they understood what it meant (which apparently you don't).

So which is it? They understood what those words meant or they did not? You keep hedging you bets with "if". Apparently I'm not alone in my misunderstanding even those who are non-preterist understand what I do. You seem to be the only one who thinks they understood time statements to be elastic:

Thomas Ice
"It is probably true that the disciples thought of the three events (the destruction of the temple, the second coming, and the end of the age) as one event.
Charles L. Holman (1998)
"The fact that the Synoptic Gospels portray the expectation of an imminent parousia of the Son of man that is rooted in the message of Jesus is undeniable." ("The idea of an Imminent Parousia in the Synoptic Gospels," Studia Biblica et Theologica 3; p. 30)

Tim LaHaye (1998)
"The apostles and first century church universally expected His return in their lifetime, which is why they were so motivated to live holy lives and so dedicated to evangelism and reaching the world for Christ." ("The Signs of the Times Imply His Coming," in 10 Reasons Why Jesus is Coming Soon: Ten Christian Leaders Share Their Thoughts: Multnomah, p. 191)
F.W. Robertson
"In the first centuries the early Christians believed that the millennial advent was close; they heard the warning of the apostle, brief and sharp, "The time is short." " (Sermon on the Illusiveness of Life.)
Theodore Robinson
"...it is clear that for some reason or other the first generation of Christians did expect his speedy return, and if this impression was not based on his own language, whence could it have come?" (The Gospel of Matthew, p. 195).
Stephen S. Smalley (1964)
"In the earlier Pauline epistles, I and II Thessalonians, the parousia seems to be expected in Paul's own lifetime (I Thess 2:19); it is associated with the "day of the Lord," which is felt to be "at hand" (5:2). Quite clearly, whatever Paul expected, he expected it to happen soon, and no doubt within his own lifetime." ("The Delay of the Parousia," Journal of Biblical Literature 83; p. 48)
Joseph Plevnik (1997)
"Paul expected the Lord to come soon; his statement that "we shall not die" suggests this. And he clearly states in 1 Cor 7:29,31 that "the appointed time has grown short" and that "the present form of this world is passing away. As 1 Cor. 7:25-31 clearly shows, Paul is convinced that he is living in the last generation on earth." (Paul and the Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation; Hendrickson; p. 158-159)

"To Paul's thinking, the parousia has not receded into the distant future; he keeps on talking about the near approach of the end. In Phil 4:5 he asserts, "The Lord is near (ho kyrios engys)," and in Rom 13:11 -12 he states, "Salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone, the day is near." (ibid., 159-160)
"How close is the parousia, according to Paul? As G. Klein observes, the first person plural in 1 Thess 4:15,17 indicates that he thinks he will live to see the Lord's coming." (ibid., 278)

Of course James wasn't a false prophet. It should be clear that Jesus was not referring to the type of statements that he inspired James to make.

Why is it clear?

I see your question. Your original post appeared to put that in the mouth of Jesus, when in fact Jesus was putting in the mouth of others. There is no doubt that the word can have a temporal meaning. But there is also no doubt that it doesn't always have that. Failure to make these distinctions make for bad theology.

What? Jesus did say it:

Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Then James issued the statement:

Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

Yet you say they are speaking of different things?

"Jesus was not referring to the type of statements that he inspired James to make"

Huh?? Jesus said (esssentially), "when I return X, Y, and Z will happen." Therefore when X, Y, and Z don't happen, we can safely conclude that he didn't return.

But x,y and z are couche in t. t being time statements. You just choose to ignore or redefine t. This is the main jest of Sproul's series. He tries to honestly deal with both the time and events. He doesn't just casually dismiss time.

But that was the fault of their understanding. It would be like you trying to put a meaning on words that they don't have in that context.

You mean like "soon" and "near" meaning thousands of years?

If your wife told you dinner would be ready soon, and it wasn't ready for 40 years, I don't think you would approve of her use of "soon." If your wife went to be and you told her you would be there soon, and you didn't come to bed for four more hours, I am guessing she wouldn't approve of your use of soon.

You've proved my point. Those words have meaning. If your wife tells you dinner is ready soon, what do you think it means?

I wouldn't use even vieled profanity against God's words. But I don't think this passage is a real problem

.

Thomas Ice
"It’s true that every other use of the phrase "this generation" in the New Testament, does refer to Jesus’ contemporaries because the context supports that."

FF Bruce
"The phrase "this generation" is found too often on Jesus' lips in this literal sense for us to suppose that it suddenly takes on a different meaning in the saying we are now examining. Moreover, if the generation of the end-time had been intended, 'that generation' would have been a more natural way of referring to it than 'this generation. (The Hard Sayings of Jesus, p. 227)

The issue. It sounds like you are just repeating what you have heard others say.

Guess you've decided to go back to the gutter, so I'll say in response that your arrogance once again comes through and it appears you feel you're an expert on this subject because you've read "Left Behind" cover to cover and Jack VanImpe is a weekly viewing experience for you. You have written nothing in response that would lead be to believe otherwise. Your only argument is time statements are useless in determining the time of fulfillment.

 

[Grasshopper]

Wrong, they are time statements. Just relative statements not absolutes. But I think you know that.

Yes I do, but Pastor Larry doesn't think they are time statements.

If these statements are not absolutes then why does MacArthur write a book like this: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802407285/?tag=baptis04-20

Funny, MacArthur, Lindsey. Hagee,LaHaye etc.... they all seem to think they know what time statements mean. But apparently thier "near" means something different than the NT writer's "near".

Food for thought: http://www.americanvision.org/article/receive-a-response-from-john-macarthur-and-get-free-books/

Whatever he chose. I am not an Author of the Bible.

So you cannot give me any words or phrases that God could have used to express to the 1st century audience that the events would occur in their lifetime?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Unbelievable statement.
Heb 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

Do you know what the author of Hebrews (AH) was quoting there? He was quoting Habakkuk which was written almost 700 years before. His point there was certainty of the event.

BTW, Haggai uses a similar phrase in Haggai 2:6 to refer to the end of the age and the rebuilding of the millennial temple. Even if you think the millennial temple is the church or heaven or something else. Haggai 2:6 was written in 520B.C., and uses "little while" to refer to events that are, at best, 500 years away, and probably at least 2500 years away since it is virtually impossible to put any meaningful interpretation on Haggai that has it already fulfilled.

So will you admit that these time statements can refer to periods of time longer than your forty years or so?

You just said they didn't make time predictions.

They didn't. Saying that something will happen soon is not a time prediction along the lines of "within 40 years" (which isn't soon by many definitions anyway). When I say time predictions, I am referring to defining a period of time.

Any evidence? You keep repeating this but with no examples.

Yes, James, Peter, Jesus, Paul, Haggai and others all used these terms to refer to things that were not "soon" they way you are defining it.

Again, I have to wonder, if you have studied this enough to have such a dogmatic opinion on it, why are you asking me for examples? You should know them if you know enough to be this dogmatic about it.

So which is it? They understood what those words meant or they did not?

I will repeat what I have already said: To say something will happen soon is not the same as saying it will happen in 40 years. Surely you can see that difference. If "soon" means "ready to happen," it does not imply a time frame necessarily.

I have no doubt that they thought Christ would return in their lifetime. That doesn't mean they were right in that understanding. But you notice they never predicted that Christ would return in their lifetime.

I think all your quotes are correct, as I look at them briefly and out of context. BTW, one of the key reasons amillennialism exists is because people in the early centuries expected an earthly kingdom because they saw it in the Bible and when it didn't come in their timing, they thought they must have misunderstood. So they created a different kind of kingdom.

Why is it clear?

Because James said it under the inspiration of the Spirit. He can't be a false prophet.

What? Jesus did say it:

Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Yes, Jesus was quoting what others would say. There will come some who will say two things: "I am the Christ" and "The time is near." He then says, "Do not go after them."

Yet you say they are speaking of different things?

Isn't that obvious? What is your question? You think James was a false prophet that Jesus was warning people not to go after?

But x,y and z are couche in t. t being time statements. You just choose to ignore or redefine t.

The fact that I don't define it like you do doesn't mean I have redefined it. You may be the one who has done that. You don't seem to get that though. I really don't think you grasp the issues. If t is an elastic statement (which it clearly is), then X, Y, and Z help us to know when it comes.

He tries to honestly deal with both the time and events. He doesn't just casually dismiss time.

Nor do I.

You've proved my point. Those words have meaning. If your wife tells you dinner is ready soon, what do you think it means?

In a few minutes, perhaps a half hour or so. It doesn't mean 40 years. If you are correct, then "soon" would mean 40 years or so. And that is plainly wrong.

Guess you've decided to go back to the gutter

I haven't gone back because I am not in the gutter now and never was there previously.

so I'll say in response that your arrogance once again comes through

Nice personal attack again. Stop with this. Debate issues. Knowing and being able to explain something (however ineptly) is not arrogance.

and it appears you feel you're an expert on this subject because you've read "Left Behind" cover to cover and Jack VanImpe is a weekly viewing experience for you.

I have never read one word of "Left Behind" and haven't seen more than 2 or 3 minutes of Jack Van Impe, though I did see him in a restaurant once in Troy.

I am no expert on this topic. There is much that I need to learn. I have studied it a bit however.

Your only argument is time statements are useless in determining the time of fulfillment.

Can you demonstrate anywhere I have made this argument?

What I have said was that the time statements of Scripture not always used in reference to a definable span, but to necessary events. The fact that somethign is "soon" means that nothing else has to happen. It is imminent.

Again, I urge you not to make personal attacks. Simply because we disagree is no reason to call me arrogant or any other thing. Talk about issues.

 

[Grasshopper]

Do you know what the author of Hebrews (AH) was quoting there? He was quoting Habakkuk which was written almost 700 years before. His point there was certainty of the event.

BTW, Haggai uses a similar phrase in Haggai 2:6 to refer to the end of the age and the rebuilding of the millennial temple. Even if you think the millennial temple is the church or heaven or something else. Haggai 2:6 was written in 520B.C., and uses "little while" to refer to events that are, at best, 500 years away, and probably at least 2500 years away since it is virtually impossible to put any meaningful interpretation on Haggai that has it already fulfilled.

So will you admit that these time statements can refer to periods of time longer than your forty years or so?

Somebody needs to take thier own advice and do some studying on the subject. Perhaps start with Ezra 5 and 6 and pay close attention to Ezra 6:14. Then go read Haggai.

They didn't. Saying that something will happen soon is not a time prediction along the lines of "within 40 years" (which isn't soon by many definitions anyway). When I say time predictions, I am referring to defining a period of time.

Since the NT was written only a few years before the fall of Jerusalem we are not really talking about 40 years. In most cases less than 10 and in the case of Hebrews probably less than 4 or 5. Yea, that qualifies as a near event.

Yes, James, Peter, Jesus, Paul, Haggai and others all used these terms to refer to things that were not "soon" they way you are defining it.

Still waiting on examples. Oh yes, I forgot, you're too busy.

Again, I have to wonder, if you have studied this enough to have such a dogmatic opinion on it, why are you asking me for examples? You should know them if you know enough to be this dogmatic about it.

I have studied it and have found no usage of those terms that equate to thousands of years. I have also quoted those inspired writers but you have not yet given one example of how "near" means 2000 years.

I will repeat what I have already said: To say something will happen soon is not the same as saying it will happen in 40 years. Surely you can see that difference. If "soon" means "ready to happen," it does not imply a time frame necessarily.

So now soon means "ready to happen"? Here is the first occurance of soon I found using my KJV search:

Mat 21:20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

Perhaps you can go through the list and pick out the usages that fit your definition.

I have no doubt that they thought Christ would return in their lifetime. That doesn't mean they were right in that understanding. But you notice they never predicted that Christ would return in their lifetime.

Paul did and Jesus did.

Because James said it under the inspiration of the Spirit. He can't be a false prophet.

Exactly.

Yes, Jesus was quoting what others would say. There will come some who will say two things: "I am the Christ" and "The time is near." He then says, "Do not go after them."

Isn't that obvious? What is your question? You think James was a false prophet that Jesus was warning people not to go after?

Why was James able to say the time had drawn near when Jesus said beware of such men?

The fact that I don't define it like you do doesn't mean I have redefined it. You may be the one who has done that. You don't seem to get that though.

Gotta love that logic, for those who think near, soon, at hand etc....actually mean a short period of time we are the ones who redefine the terms.

I really don't think you grasp the issues. If t is an elastic statement (which it clearly is), then X, Y, and Z help us to know when it comes.

Yes, I;m just a big dummy.or is it dummie?

In a few minutes, perhaps a half hour or so. It doesn't mean 40 years. If you are correct, then "soon" would mean 40 years or so. And that is plainly wrong.

Is 10 years too long for you as well?

Nice personal attack again. Stop with this. Debate issues. Knowing and being able to explain something (however ineptly) is not arrogance.

Then perhaps you should refrain from charging me with having not studied the subject or just repeating what I've heard.

I am no expert on this topic. There is much that I need to learn.

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise."

What I have said was that the time statements of Scripture not always used in reference to a definable span, but to necessary events. The fact that somethign is "soon" means that nothing else has to happen. It is imminent.

So now soon means imminent.

Again, I urge you not to make personal attacks. Simply because we disagree is no reason to call me arrogant or any other thing. Talk about issues.

Then quite assuming I have not studied this topic. Don't let the "moderator" tag go to your head.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Somebody needs to take thier own advice and do some studying on the subject. Perhaps start with Ezra 5 and 6 and pay close attention to Ezra 6:14. Then go read Haggai.

I have. I taught through the post-exilic historical books, and have taught the Minor Prophets several times. I am doing doctoral work on the post-exilic writings and prophets, and will write my dissertation on some aspect of the kingdom in the post-exilic era. So suffice it to say that whatever our disagreements, I am not new to this subject.

Since the NT was written only a few years before the fall of Jerusalem we are not really talking about 40 years. In most cases less than 10 and in the case of Hebrews probably less than 4 or 5. Yea, that qualifies as a near event.

So if your wife told you that dinner was near and she really mean 4 or 5 years, would that be satisfactory to you? I doubt it. But you should also note that some of the NT was written after the fall of Jerusalem and uses the same type of "soon" language.

Still waiting on examples. Oh yes, I forgot, you're too busy.

I already gave some, such as Haggai 2 where "a little while" was 500 years in your view, and at least 2500 in a premillennial view. You have cited a number of examples yourself, such as James.

So now soon means "ready to happen"?

Now? No. In some cases, it does and always has, but not in all cases. Everyone who is even remotely familiar with linguistics knows that almost every word has a semantic range. It does not always take the same meaning in every usage.

Here is the first occurance of soon I found using my KJV search:

Mat 21:20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

Here's a good example of why you would be better suited to take my advice and put some time in studying the topic. An English word search, particularly in the KJV, is not a sound method of study. The word used here is παραχρῆμα. Out of all its uses, it is only used in an eschatological context only one time, by Luke, and there ... wait for it ... Jesus is telling his disciples that the kingdom is not coming immediately (Luke 19:11). We need to study the languages that God inspired. The English word "near" or "soon" might be used for several distinct Greek or Hebrew words.

Perhaps you can go through the list and pick out the usages that fit your definition.

Again, that's not a good method of study. You don't go looking for support to "fit a definition." You read the passage and study it and see what it teaches.

Exactly.

So since James was not a false prophet (as you agree) and since he said it was "near" and 2000 years later it has not yet happened, we know that "near" is not a temporal designation in that passage. In the following verse, he talks about being patient, something strange if in fact it were right around the corner. The exhortation to patience seems to indicate that it wasn't "soon" as you are conceiving of it, but still some distance off.

Why was James able to say the time had drawn near when Jesus said beware of such men?

Because they are talking about two different things. Here's an example: If you tell your daughter "Don't go there" and "Go there," we wouldn't accuse you of falsehood. We would assume you mean two different things.

The question is, If Jesus told his followers not to believe people who said they were the Christ and that his coming was near, he would be the one making James' statement false, if he meant what you say he meant. I think the contexts obviously are referring to two different things. I think you hold an untenable position.

Gotta love that logic, for those who think near, soon, at hand etc....actually mean a short period of time we are the ones who redefine the terms.

Let's say that I tell my son, "Don't go there" meaning "the back yard," and you tell your son "Don't go there" meaning "the mall." If my son goes to the mall and you say to him, "Your daddy told you not to go there," you are the one redefining the word becuase you didn't use it as I used it. You used the same word, but used it in a different way. I think that is what you are doing here. You are using the words Scriptures uses (at least an English gloss of it), but are not using it the way that Scripture does.

Yes, I;m just a big dummy.or is it dummie?

I certainly wouldn't say that.

Is 10 years too long for you as well?

Too long for what? Once you allow 4 or 5 years or 40 (from the time of Christ), or 500 (from the time of Haggai), you have no basis on which to restrict it, even if you do have it right. You run into a lot of problems with that.

Then perhaps you should refrain from charging me with having not studied the subject or just repeating what I've heard.

My comments were based on what I see as the evidence you have given here. You don't seem to be interacting with the actual issues.

As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise."

So you think you know it all? That you don't have anything left to learn? Or will you admit with me that you don't know it all?

So now soon means imminent.

Now? No, it always has in some cases. That is not a new thing.

I was flipping today through Renald Showers' book "Maranatha: Our Lord, Come." It would be well worth your time, even if you are not persuaded. It would help you to understand what we are saying, and you wouldn't have to keep asking me for examples. You would know them.

Don't let the "moderator" tag go to your head.

I am not a moderator in this forum. I have no authority here whatsoever.

 

[HankD]

I'm not concerned about any of them, but the words I was referring to were these:

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Now if day means day, and evening and morning mean evening and morning in the literal sense in Genesis, do these words in Revelation literally mean "shortly come to pass" and "time is at hand"?


Somehow I see a 180 coming from many on the Genesis thread.

Why? Put me down for a 180 if you wish but the Book of Genesis has a different purpose from the Book of Revelation.

For the one most obvious reason, Genesis 1 is an historical record of the past while Revelation 1 is a prophetic prediction of things to come.

As to the basic premise made by Sproul in the URL you gave, Jesus, in other places made room in the grand scheme of things for a delayed 2nd coming.​

Matthew 24
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of.​

The purpose, setting and venue of the two books are different.​

Having said that I still therefore believe in a 6 day creation while holding to a delayed Second Coming (followed by a literal 1000 year reign of Christ over the earth).​

If that's a 180 so be it.​

HankD​

 

[rjprince]

I was flipping today through Renald Showers' book "Maranatha: Our Lord, Come." It would be well worth your time, even if you are not persuaded. It would help you to understand what we are saying, and you wouldn't have to keep asking me for examples. You would know them.

His "There Really Is a Difference" is very good as well. Highly readable and clear examination of some key differences between Covenant Theology and Dispensational Premillennialism. Showers has the gift of communication through the written word.

as per the rest, Pastor Larry, AMEN!

RJP

 

[Grasshopper]

I have. I taught through the post-exilic historical books, and have taught the Minor Prophets several times. I am doing doctoral work on the post-exilic writings and prophets, and will write my dissertation on some aspect of the kingdom in the post-exilic era. So suffice it to say that whatever our disagreements, I am not new to this subject.

Okay....since you offered no comments of substance I assume your papaer won't deal with Ezra and Haggai.

So if your wife told you that dinner was near and she really mean 4 or 5 years, would that be satisfactory to you? I doubt it. But you should also note that some of the NT was written after the fall of Jerusalem and uses the same type of "soon" language.

My gosh, for someone who proudly claims they are doing Doctoral work I can't believe you actually would make this analogy of dinner ready in 20 minutes vs. catostophic events in someones near future and claim they must mean the same thing.

I already gave some, such as Haggai 2 where "a little while" was 500 years in your view, and at least 2500 in a premillennial view. You have cited a number of examples yourself, such as James.

I dealt with Haggai, but you have confirmed my suspicions as to why you will not give any examples. It is because, as I have been saying, you define the definition of the time statements by what you think the events are to be.

That why in James 5:8 you could not point to another usage in the NT where near means thousands of years. However I can point to other verses to support my view:

Php 2:30 Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service toward me.


I can do the same for Revelation where shortly is used of when events were to happen:

Acts 22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.

Act 25:4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.

Yet when I asked you for your examples you offered nothing.

Now? No. In some cases, it does and always has, but not in all cases. Everyone who is even remotely familiar with linguistics knows that almost every word has a semantic range. It does not always take the same meaning in every usage.

Correct, but we are talking specifically of the time statements and I'm asking for examples of where near and shortly mean thousands of years as used in the NT. Pointing to the very texts in question does not prove anything.

Here's a good example of why you would be better suited to take my advice and put some time in studying the topic. An English word search, particularly in the KJV, is not a sound method of study.

Then use any method you wish, but give some examples.

The word used here is παραχρῆμα. Out of all its uses, it is only used in an eschatological context only one time, by Luke, and there ... wait for it ... Jesus is telling his disciples that the kingdom is not coming immediately (Luke 19:11). We need to study the languages that God inspired. The English word "near" or "soon" might be used for several distinct Greek or Hebrew words.

Thats very good, but whose talking about immediately? I'm not. So show us all where that word is ever used to descibe something thousands of years in the future. Soon is probably not the word to show us but rather near or at hand since I don't believe soon is used in any passages we are debating.

Again, that's not a good method of study. You don't go looking for support to "fit a definition." You read the passage and study it and see what it teaches.

I read James 5:8-9 and read this:

Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
Jas 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

It seems quite clear how to read it. If nigh isn't clear the "judge standeth before the door" makes it quite clear the nearness of the event.

It doesn't take a wild-eyed heretic to see this simple interpretation.

Albert Barnes

For the coming of the Lord draweth nigh - Compare Rev_22:10, Rev_22:12, Rev_22:20; the notes at 1Co_15:51. It is clear, I think, from this place, that the apostle expected that that which he understood by "the coming of the Lord" was soon to occur; for it was to be that by which they would obtain deliverance from the trials which they then endured. See Jam_5:7. Whether it means that he was soon to come to judgment, or to bring to an end the Jewish policy and to set up his kingdom on the earth, or that they would soon be removed by death, cannot be determined from the mere use of the language. The most natural interpretation of the passage, and one which will accord well with the time when the Epistle was written, is, that the predicted time of the destruction of Jerusalem Matt. 24 was at hand; that there were already indications that that would soon occur; and that there was a prevalent expectation among Christians that that event would be a release from many trials of persecution, and would be followed by the setting up of the Redeemer’s kingdom.

So since James was not a false prophet (as you agree) and since he said it was "near" and 2000 years later it has not yet happened,

Nice try, but I don't accept the premise.

we know that "near" is not a temporal designation in that passage.

"We" know no such thing. You have yet to make a case other than a sort of circular argument.

" It says the event is near, since it didn't happen like I think it should then near really doesn't mean a short span of time"

That is the entirety of your argument.

In the following verse, he talks about being patient, something strange if in fact it were right around the corner. The exhortation to patience seems to indicate that it wasn't "soon" as you are conceiving of it, but still some distance off.

What do you consider "some distance off"? Furthermore why be patient for an event your great-great-great-great-great-great-great granchildren will never see let alone those to whom he speaks.

Because they are talking about two different things. Here's an example: If you tell your daughter "Don't go there" and "Go there," we wouldn't accuse you of falsehood. We would assume you mean two different things.

Two simple questions:

1, What event is Jesus speaking of here when quoting others:

Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

2. What event is James speaking of here:

Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

The question is, If Jesus told his followers not to believe people who said they were the Christ and that his coming was near, he would be the one making James' statement false, if he meant what you say he meant. I think the contexts obviously are referring to two different things. I think you hold an untenable position.

The reason James can say it was near is because all the signs Jesus gave had been fulfilled.

Let's say that I tell my son, "Don't go there" meaning "the back yard," and you tell your son "Don't go there" meaning "the mall." If my son goes to the mall and you say to him, "Your daddy told you not to go there," you are the one redefining the word becuase you didn't use it as I used it. You used the same word, but used it in a different way. I think that is what you are doing here. You are using the words Scriptures uses (at least an English gloss of it), but are not using it the way that Scripture does.

I think you are throwing dust in the air hoping no one notices.

So you think you know it all? That you don't have anything left to learn? Or will you admit with me that you don't know it all?

Do you think you know it all when commenting on the "days" of Genesis or do you have much to learn?

 

[HankD]

The reason James can say it was near is because all the signs Jesus gave had been fulfilled.

And James is no deceiver but an apostle commissioned by Christ with that very message as were the other apostles...

Hebrews 1

3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?​

Example:
Acts 3

19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.​

Wasn't this supposed to be a comparison of Genesis 1 and Revelation 1 to determine if the "days" of Genesis 1 are "days" or not "days" (in the typical sense)?​

If, based upon the several passages indicating the immediate coming of Jesus Christ soon after His ascension one wants to use the now apparent delayed Second Coming of Jesus Christ (after nearly 2000 years) , to promote 6 "epochs" (or whatever) of Genesis 1 then go ahead.​

Why belabor the point or take delight in confounding one another with "gotchas" (although as I have indicated, I don't think its a "gotcha", an interesting challenge but not a "gotcha")?​

HankD​

 

[Grasshopper]

Wasn't this supposed to be a comparison of Genesis 1 and Revelation 1 to determine if the "days" of Genesis 1 are "days" or not "days" (in the typical sense)?​

If, based upon the several passages indicating the immediate coming of Jesus Christ soon after His ascension one wants to use the now apparent delayed Second Coming of Jesus Christ (after nearly 2000 years) , to promote 6 "epochs" (or whatever) of Genesis 1 then go ahead.​

Why belabor the point or take delight in confounding one another with "gotchas" (although as I have indicated, I don't think its a "gotcha", an interesting challenge but not a "gotcha")?​

HankD​

Actually that was not my intent. I noticed Sproul had a series on eschatology posted on his site and thought some would enjoy and hopefully learn from it. It came on the heels of the Genesis threads where I read comment after comment of how one needs to take the Bible literally and use the normal meanings of words. I find it interesting how many take one appraoch to the age of the earth issue and a completely different approach to eschatological issue.

I think your statements would make an interesting thread as well.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Okay....since you offered no comments of substance I assume your papaer won't deal with Ezra and Haggai.

Actually I have already written on both of those and the comments were judged by doctoral students and professors to be substantive.

My gosh, for someone who proudly claims they are doing Doctoral work

I don't proudly claim it. I rarely mention it. I brought it up to answer your specific charge that I hadn't studied the topic. It was a sort of C.V to give you some idea that I wasn't just blowing smoke here. I have some reason to know what I am talking about.

I can't believe you actually would make this analogy of dinner ready in 20 minutes vs. catostophic events in someones near future and claim they must mean the same thing.

I didn't claim they meant the same thing. But the point is easy to see if you understand the issue. You are claiming that "soon" is a time reference. I am pointing out that you see quite a bit of flexibility in "soon." So you are not as rigid as you pretend to be. You recognize that there is a semantic range to the word.

I dealt with Haggai

Where was that? The only "dealing" I saw was your charge that I needed to study it. BTW, Ezra 6:14 was talking about the post-exilic temple. The people of that time bemoaned its simplicity compared to the Solomonic temple. Haggai 2:6ff is promising a temple whose "latter glory" will be greater than the former glory. That wasn't the Second Temple which was mourned for its comparative simplicity. Furthermore all the nations weren't shaken at that time. It is the Millennial Temple.

but you have confirmed my suspicions as to why you will not give any examples. It is because, as I have been saying, you define the definition of the time statements by what you think the events are to be.

You are dead wrong. I have given examples. You have given examples. I could list more like Rom 13:12. But you will say the same thing about them because you are focused on the wrong thing. You have preemptorily decided on the meaning of the word and any thing that doens't support that is rejected out of hand.

Yet when I asked you for your examples you offered nothing.

Again, that's false. I gave examples and you gave examples.

Correct, but we are talking specifically of the time statements and I'm asking for examples of where near and shortly mean thousands of years as used in the NT. Pointing to the very texts in question does not prove anything.

Interesting. You want proof but when it is given you dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion. That is bad method.

Thats very good, but whose talking about immediately? I'm not.

The text you cited for support was.

I read James 5:8-9 and read this:

Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
Jas 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

It seems quite clear how to read it. If nigh isn't clear the "judge standeth before the door" makes it quite clear the nearness of the event.

Yes, it seems quite clear. But how do you miss it? Jesus has not yet come. The judgment, as described in Scripture, has not yet started. Yet you claim this verse was fulfilled. That makes no sense.

Nice try, but I don't accept the premise.

That doesn't affect the truth of the premise however.

"We" know no such thing. You have yet to make a case other than a sort of circular argument.

" It says the event is near, since it didn't happen like I think it should then near really doesn't mean a short span of time"

That is the entirety of your argument.

then you aren't paying attention. The argument is much more than that.

1. The words in question do not always refer to time spans. They often refer to imminency.
2. The descriptions of the return of the Lord have not yet happened, and thus, we cannot assert that his coming has already happened.

What do you consider "some distance off"?

There is often no way to know.

Furthermore why be patient for an event your great-great-great-great-great-great-great granchildren will never see let alone those to whom he speaks.

Because God said to. It is encouragement to remind us that our suffering is not in vain. this is a common theme in the NT.

1, What event is Jesus speaking of here when quoting others:

Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

As I already explained, he is speaking of the coming of false prophets who would make two claims: 1) I am the Christ (i.e. antiChrist) and 2) the time is near.

Jesus says, "When those claims are made, do not follow those people."

2. What event is James speaking of here:

Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

The coming of the Lord (as you can tell from the words). When you compare these two passages you see that one is coming from false prophets whom we are to reject because they make two false claims, the other is coming from the brother of Jesus, an apostle who was writing under the inspiration of Scripture.

The reason James can say it was near is because all the signs Jesus gave had been fulfilled.

I wouldn't argue.

I think you are throwing dust in the air hoping no one notices.

More bad thinking on your part. It sounds like an attempt to avoid facing the obvious facts of the matter.

Do you think you know it all when commenting on the "days" of Genesis or do you have much to learn?

I have much to learn about everything. On Genesis 1 I have done a fair amount of study. One of my mentors has been published on the topic and has presented at ETS. We have spent considerable time talking about it and I have done some proof reading for him on it. I have also written on the use of yom in Genesis 1. But there is much more to be learned.

but to the point at hand, if you are not going to seriously interact with the issues, this is going nowhere. I should have known that from teh beginning. My past experiences here remind me that people don't often want to deal substantively with issues. They just want to play little games and give retorts, and I am not into that.

Have you read Showers? Have you interacted with the evidence he gives?

 

[HankD]

I find it interesting how many take one approach to the age of the earth issue and a completely different approach to eschatological issue.

Hi Grasshopper, True and I am guilty but arern't we all inconsistent in one area of another?

BTW, that's why I mentioned the literal "Thousand Year" reign of Christ.

But, as a matter of fact, the Bible is a Book which lends itself to a multi-faceted approach as a comparison of Genesis and Revelation proves.

Blessings
HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

So you are not as rigid as you pretend to be. You recognize that there is a semantic range to the word.

Never said otherwise, I just don't strecth them out to absurdity like a Larkin chart.

Where was that? The only "dealing" I saw was your charge that I needed to study it. BTW, Ezra 6:14 was talking about the post-exilic temple. The people of that time bemoaned its simplicity compared to the Solomonic temple. Haggai 2:6ff is promising a temple whose "latter glory" will be greater than the former glory. That wasn't the Second Temple which was mourned for its comparative simplicity. Furthermore all the nations weren't shaken at that time. It is the Millennial Temple.

The Miiennial Temple is a dispie invention. Let me guess your doctoral work is done at a dispie school? Perhpas you can show us where Paul or Jesus taught of the Millennial Temple.

You are dead wrong. I have given examples. You have given examples. I could list more like Rom 13:12.

This is the first I remember.

But you will say the same thing about them because you are focused on the wrong thing. You have preemptorily decided on the meaning of the word and any thing that doens't support that is rejected out of hand.

No that would be you.If it doesn't fit the Left Behind theology it is redefined.

Interesting. You want proof but when it is given you dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion. That is bad method.

That would describe you. I'm not the one taking all the time passages and pushing them thousands of years into the future. You ought to actually watch Sproul's series as he seriously deals with this.

Yes, it seems quite clear. But how do you miss it? Jesus has not yet come. The judgment, as described in Scripture, has not yet started. Yet you claim this verse was fulfilled. That makes no sense.

No sense to a dispie, perfect sense to anyone who pays attention to the words of Jesus and the NT writers.

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

1. The words in question do not always refer to time spans. They often refer to imminency.

Then you just contradicted most dispies who say 1948 was a necessary event to start the eschatological clock.

2. The descriptions of the return of the Lord have not yet happened, and thus, we cannot assert that his coming has already happened

.

Many scholars pre-Darby would disagree and say the events of AD70 was indeed a coming.

Because God said to. It is encouragement to remind us that our suffering is not in vain. this is a common theme in the NT.

Those poor Thessalonians, they probably thought Paul knew what he was speaking of. Boy were they surprised.

As I already explained, he is speaking of the coming of false prophets who would make two claims: 1) I am the Christ (i.e. antiChrist) and 2) the time is near.

What time were they claiming was near?

Jesus says, "When those claims are made, do not follow those people."

Why then would James be safe to follow when he did one of the things Jesus warned of?

I wouldn't argue.

Then you would agree Luke 21:1-26 were fulfilled?

but to the point at hand, if you are not going to seriously interact with the issues, this is going nowhere.

You mean by "seriously", agreeing with everything you write?

I should have known that from teh beginning. My past experiences here remind me that people don't often want to deal substantively with issues. They just want to play little games and give retorts, and I am not into that.

Get over yourself. I've done no such thing.

Have you read Showers? Have you interacted with the evidence he gives?

Sure, I ordered it yesterday, got it this morning and read it all day today taking notes while working.

Have you read Sproul, Spurgeon, Gentry, DeMar, Chilton and have you interacted with the evedince they give?

 

[HankD]

Then you just contradicted most dispies who say 1948 was a necessary event to start the eschatological clock.

Not really, just because men left Israel off their maps for a time does not mean it did not exist. God knows where Israel is whether we acknowledge it's existence or not and the reaches of its boundaries and in fact are found in the Scriptures and the Scriptures "cannot be broken".

The Miiennial Temple is a dispie invention. Let me guess your doctoral work is done at a dispie school? Perhpas you can show us where Paul or Jesus taught of the Millennial Temple.

This is an old road which we've been down before.

There is a precept of learning in the Scripture which declares that an accumulation of the knowledge of the Bible must be gathered and compared. True, some do a better job than others:

Isaiah 28

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:​

Matthew 13

51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.​

In the following passage Jesus promises his Apostles a literal kingdom with literal food and literal thrones:

Luke 22

28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

Compare that precept with Revelation 20​

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.​

This place in Revelation seems the most likely for fulfilling Jesus promise of a literal kingdom with literal food and 12 literal thrones upon which the Apostles shall sit and from which they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel.​

While the earthly temple is not mentioned in revelation 20, the point is there is no reason to disassociate the Luke passage from the the Revelation 20 passages concerning the millenium. The twelve thrones must be housed somewhere in this kingdom where they will sit down with Christ at His table, will eat, drink and reign with Him for 1000 years.​

HankD​

 

[Pastor Larry]

I won’t interact with most of what you say here, Grasshopper, since it really doesn’t say anything at all of substance. I will simply make a few comments.

The Miiennial Temple is a dispie invention.

I actually agree, which shows that the scriptural authors were dispensational in their thinking.

Perhpas you can show us where Paul or Jesus taught of the Millennial Temple.

Why? Is not all of Scripture inspired by God? Do we discount the parts that aren't in red or in the epistles?

Why then would James be safe to follow when he did one of the things Jesus warned of?

James didn’t do one of the things Jesus warned of.

You mean by "seriously", agreeing with everything you write?

No of course not. I mean seriously by actually seriously interacting with it instead of giving one liners. I am fine if people disagree with me. I am not bothered by that at all. But I think we should seriously interact with the whole of Scripture. You have not given evidence here that you have done it. You may have, and simply are not doing so here. In the end, I really don’t care what you believe about this.

Sure, I ordered it yesterday, got it this morning and read it all day today taking notes while working.

You really should interact with the other side. It would be worth your time, if for no other reason than to keep you from making some of the silly kinds of comments and retorts you have made here.

Have you read Sproul, Spurgeon, Gentry, DeMar, Chilton and have you interacted with the evedince they give?

I have read some of these, and others that you have not mentioned here. Why?

 

[Grasshopper]

Not really, just because men left Israel off their maps for a time does not mean it did not exist. God knows where Israel is whether we acknowledge it's existence or not and the reaches of its boundaries and in fact are found in the Scriptures and the Scriptures "cannot be broken".

Pastor Larry says that Christ could have returned at anytime and the NT words mean that, dispies that I grew up with said Israel being reborn in 1948 proves a soon return of Christ. If the events of 1948 fulfill prophecy then the time statements of the NT cannot mean immenency.

There is a precept of learning in the Scripture which declares that an accumulation of the knowledge of the Bible must be gathered and compared. True, some do a better job than others:


In the following passage Jesus promises his Apostles a literal kingdom with literal food and literal thrones:

Luke 22

28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.​

Compare that precept with Revelation 20​

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.​

This place in Revelation seems the most likely for fulfilling Jesus promise of a literal kingdom with literal food and 12 literal thrones upon which the Apostles shall sit and from which they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel.​

Was Jesus asking to eat literal food:

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Is this also literal water:


Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.


Is this a literal throne:


Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;


Or this:


Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?



I understand your point, but I think you are reaching. Especially when Revelation is symbolic in nature.

While the earthly temple is not mentioned in revelation 20, the point is there is no reason to disassociate the Luke passage from the the Revelation 20 passages concerning the millenium. The twelve thrones must be housed somewhere in this kingdom where they will sit down with Christ at His table, will eat, drink and reign with Him for 1000 years.​

Will this Temple be used for sin atonement?​

 

[Grasshopper]

I won’t interact with most of what you say here, Grasshopper, since it really doesn’t say anything at all of substance.

Hmmm.... Mathew 10:23 is of no substance.

And I also understand why you wish not to comment on the poor Thessalonians who probably thought Paul knew what he was speaking about:

2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:


How would the Thessolonians take these words? Is this written for those living in the tribulation? According to dispies the Church is gone but Paul addresses this letter to the Church:


2Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:


Did he offer false hope? Did he not know better?

I actually agree, which shows that the scriptural authors were dispensational in their thinking.

Yea, a bunch of Hal Lindsey's running around the Roman Empire. Makes it even more puzzling why none of them mention this Millennial Temple. You sure read alot about it in modern dispie writings. Is this the Eze. 40-47 Temple?

Why? Is not all of Scripture inspired by God? Do we discount the parts that aren't in red or in the epistles?

So the answer is NO. The NT writers don't mention this Temple.

James didn’t do one of the things Jesus warned of.

I see, so you could claim the time was near and be alright as long as you didn't claim to be the Christ along with it. And of course you didn't answer my question of what "time" was near that these false prophets spoke of.

No of course not. I mean seriously by actually seriously interacting with it instead of giving one liners. I am fine if people disagree with me. I am not bothered by that at all. But I think we should seriously interact with the whole of Scripture.

You mean more than just Romans 13:12? I agree, but you refused to do so.

You have not given evidence here that you have done it.

And your evidence boils down to: it didn't happen the way my dispie books tell me therefore time-statements must be twisted like pretzels. No sarcasm intended, that is exactly what you have laid out.

You really should interact with the other side. It would be worth your time, if for no other reason than to keep you from making some of the silly kinds of comments and retorts you have made here.

You are the otherside and have offered nothing to prove time-statments are stretchable over a period of 2000 plus years other than your presuppositions. You really should listen to the series.

 

[HankD]

Pastor Larry says that Christ could have returned at anytime and the NT words mean that, dispies that I grew up with said Israel being reborn in 1948 proves a soon return of Christ. If the events of 1948 fulfill prophecy then the time statements of the NT cannot mean immenency.

That doesn't make sense grasshopper, John Darby (supposed author of dispensationalism) was born and died long before 1948, how did he come up with "dispensationalism" therefore before Israel was even "reborn" as a nation?

Was Jesus asking to eat literal food:

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Yes, at the Lord's Table and then in person during the millenium.

Is this also literal water:


Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

This is figurative as He says "The water of life"

Is this a literal throne:

Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Yes.

Or this:

Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?

Yes heaven is a literal place and also the throne of God. Earth is also a literal place and the literal footstool of God.

I understand your point, but I think you are reaching. Especially when Revelation is symbolic in nature.

Revelation is both symbolic and literal. The problem is discerning the two. And even when Revelation is symbolic, the symbolism signifies literal events.


Discern as you will, and I will discern as I will. We can still be brothers in the Lord.

Will this Temple be used for sin atonement?

No not IMO, it will be a place of prayer, worship and learning.​

HankD

 

[Pastor Larry]

Hmmm.... Mathew 10:23 is of no substance.

Not sure what your confusion is. The cities of Israel still have not yet been reached with the gospel. But I assume you know that. So why would you claim it is of no substance?

And I also understand why you wish not to comment on the poor Thessalonians who probably thought Paul knew what he was speaking about:

2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:


How would the Thessolonians take these words? Is this written for those living in the tribulation? According to dispies the Church is gone but Paul addresses this letter to the Church:


2Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:


Did he offer false hope? Did he not know better?

Again, not sure what your confusion is. Dispies don't say the church is gone here. In fact, 2 Thess 2 says that there were false rumors that the DOL had already come and Paul was saying it hadn't come. Tribulation (small t) always existed for the church. Paul is not talking about the Tribulation (capital T) here. Paul was encouraging the Thessalonians that the DOL hadn't come yet.

Yea, a bunch of Hal Lindsey's running around the Roman Empire.

What does that mean?

Makes it even more puzzling why none of them mention this Millennial Temple. You sure read alot about it in modern dispie writings. Is this the Eze. 40-47 Temple?

It is the Ezekiel temple. But why would it be mentioned to the church? It is during the kingdom that the temple will exist again, as Ezekiel and Haggai talk about.

So the answer is NO. The NT writers don't mention this Temple.

I didn't say that, but why would they? The temple would have no relevance for the church. Are you saying that God was wrong when he told of an end-time temple?

I see, so you could claim the time was near and be alright as long as you didn't claim to be the Christ along with it.

No.

And of course you didn't answer my question of what "time" was near that these false prophets spoke of.

Probably the end of the world.

You mean more than just Romans 13:12? I agree, but you refused to do so.

I have interacted with every Scripture you have tried to use here, I think. Plus I have interacted with the actual theology of Scripture rather than just proof-texting a few things.

And your evidence boils down to: it didn't happen the way my dispie books tell me therefore time-statements must be twisted like pretzels. No sarcasm intended, that is exactly what you have laid out.

If you think that is what I have laid out, then you are not paying attention. I have said nothing of the sort. I have said that the Scripture gives some very clear indications of what will happen at the return of the Lord. Those have not yet happened. Therefore, the Lord has not returned. I have said that the statements you refer to do not necesssarily refer to short periods of time, and that can be verified from any number of sources that deal seriously with the Scriptures.

As I suspected, I don't think you are really paying attention here. This is proof of that. I haven't read a lot of "dispie books." I have probably read more of the alternative views, to be honest.

You are the otherside and have offered nothing to prove time-statments are stretchable over a period of 2000 plus years other than your presuppositions.

Actually we have. You simply haven't studied enough about the topic. I recommended a place to begin and you treated it with disdain. That's not a good thing. If you don't want to continue to study, that's fine I guess. But I wouldn't treat it lightly. And I would probably stop talking about it.