This just in, Futurists. Nineveh will be destroyed!

[asterisktom]

So again we either apply all written inspired text to mean all believers of all time or it applies only yo those it was written too. Either we have hope in all scripture or we have no hope and are all condemned.

Speaking of condemnation. "What thou doest, do quickly". Are you going to apply that verse to your life?

 

[revmwc]

It is not a case of either/or but of both/and. The passage is written both to the Thessalonians and for us.

Your interpretation makes it be to us - and not concerning the Thessalonians at all. You would, in effect, snatch the Epistle out of needy, persecuted 1st-century Thessalonian hands and tell them, "This doesn't concern you!".

My interpretation, the Preterist interpretation, is that the letter was written primarily to them. The promise - just as it was stated, was fulfilled in their life time (some of them). The principals and the teachings associated with this passage ( and I can easily see half a dozen good points from these two verses alone) are for Christians of all ages.

Paul and all early N.T. believers believed in an emminent return, thus Paul saying hEmeis (us) we the ON-THERAFTER WE THE Living THE ones-Surviving simultaeously Shall-be-BEING-SNATCHED IN CLOUDS INTO MEETING of THE MASTER INTO AIR, this is from interlinear.

Fairly clear those survivng believers who are the Living at the time of His return will meet the Master in the Air. Greek hEmeis can mean us, we or ourselves. It wasn't ranslated nor does it mean in this case we-ourselves or Paul would have been talking about those of his time. The common we for those reading it is used actually it could have said us those of us who are a living at the time, never the less Paul use in teh original makes it very clear he meant believers living at the time of the Return for the church.

 

[revmwc]

Speaking of condemnation. "What thou doest, do quickly". Are you going to apply that verse to your life?

He was as it is said speaking directly to Judas it was real clear that commend was meant for Judas only, otherwise all the disciples would have done quickly what Judas was going to do.

 

[HankD]

This was uncalled for. And I am not going to get into a discussion with you on "this adverse element". To do so would be to truly delve into that element.

If you disagree do so, but do it with Scripture and reasoning. Don't presume to talk to me about quenching the Spirit.

Tom, again I think you took this the wrong way brother.

The fault on my part is for not expanding on the definition of this "adverse element".

Again it's understandable seeing the pile-up on you and Logos1.

The "adverse element" is the mean spiritedness that has arisen in this debate and its from both sides.

Personally, I think you have shown a lot of restraint, yes, you could improve (as well as I) and I believe you will.

To be honest, I think you have been more on the receiving than the giving side.

But then are we not instructed (myself and everyone else included) to refrain from exchanging insults (and I believe even innuendo) and not to throw the rocks back at the thrower?

1 Peter 3

8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
10 For he that will love life, and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile:
11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.
12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.​

Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.​

So, on the contrary, I believe it is called for - being understood that it is necessary to direct it to the two debating sides, myself included and that we should be mindful that is not just a debate but a Christian debate.

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

Paul and all early N.T. believers believed in an emminent return, thus Paul saying hEmeis (us) we the ON-THERAFTER WE THE Living THE ones-Surviving simultaeously Shall-be-BEING-SNATCHED IN CLOUDS INTO MEETING of THE MASTER INTO AIR, this is from interlinear.

Fairly clear those survivng believers who are the Living at the time of His return will meet the Master in the Air. Greek hEmeis can mean us, we or ourselves. It wasn't ranslated nor does it mean in this case we-ourselves or Paul would have been talking about those of his time. The common we for those reading it is used actually it could have said us those of us who are a living at the time, never the less Paul use in teh original makes it very clear he meant believers living at the time of the Return for the church.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You effectively just atomized the whole passage.
And then pointed out the atoms to me!

Let me give you some of this atomizing. I am looking at your word "return". I am seeing the idea of "turning" and then "turning again" This is the "re-" part.

So here is my proof that when Christ comes He will do that well-charted U-turn where He will go up to the heavens again with the saints. Cool. And I got it all from your word "return".

Why don't we look at Thessalonians like it was an actual letter to actual people in dire need of a promise and direction?

Instead of putting it through a lexical paper-shredder.

 

[asterisktom]

He was as it is said speaking directly to Judas it was real clear that commend was meant for Judas only, otherwise all the disciples would have done quickly what Judas was going to do.

Now we are getting somewhere. The Thessalonians passage was a direct promise to the Thessalonians.

 

[revmwc]

Now we are getting somewhere. The Thessalonians passage was a direct promise to the Thessalonians.

That is not how Paul said it, Jesus looked directly at Judas and said what you do, do quickly. We (today) know what He meant and who He directed it at. The hEmeis (us, we or we ourselves) as it means is translated "we". Not we ourselves, the distinction of the grammatical use is clear. "We" meaning those alive at the time of the return. To say it was an exclusive passage for just those Thessalonicans is to say that the church is not in existence today. Revelation makes it clear in the tribulation the 144,000 Jews will begin to evangelize after the church has been Snatched away. That didn't happen in 70 A.D. also very clear is after the Snatching away there would be 7 years of Tribualtion of which the last 3 1/2 we would see the Abomination that maketh desolate set up as Daniel prophisied. Again none of this has happened. That means Christ did not return in 70 A.D. that also shows the Holy Spirit meant "we" as those who were alive and remaining when Christ came and snatched out the church.

You must be able to explain the 144,000 Jews, 12,000 from each tribe as described by John evangelizing the world after the snatching away, if Christ came in 70 A.D. then when did those witnesses testify. When did the two witnesses come and preach Christ in Israel as John spoke and their bodies lay in the streets for three days and the whole world knew of it? When did these things occur?

 

[asterisktom]

That is not how Paul said it, Jesus looked directly at Judas and said what you do, do quickly. We (today) know what He meant and who He directed it at. The hEmeis (us, we or we ourselves) as it means is translated "we". Not we ourselves, the distinction of the grammatical use is clear. "We" meaning those alive at the time of the return. To say it was an exclusive passage for just those Thessalonicans is to say that the church is not in existence today. Revelation makes it clear in the tribulation the 144,000 Jews will begin to evangelize after the church has been Snatched away. That didn't happen in 70 A.D. also very clear is after the Snatching away there would be 7 years of Tribualtion of which the last 3 1/2 we would see the Abomination that maketh desolate set up as Daniel prophisied. Again none of this has happened. That means Christ did not return in 70 A.D. that also shows the Holy Spirit meant "we" as those who were alive and remaining when Christ came and snatched out the church.

You must be able to explain the 144,000 Jews, 12,000 from each tribe as described by John evangelizing the world after the snatching away, if Christ came in 70 A.D. then when did those witnesses testify. When did the two witnesses come and preach Christ in Israel as John spoke and their bodies lay in the streets for three days and the whole world knew of it? When did these things occur?

I give up. I get tired of repeating myself - and then having what I repeated still ignored.

Let's just stick a fork in this thread and call it "done".

 

[DHK]

So after all this the bottom line is you just can't prove he didn't return in 70 AD. Once again you just answer the question with a question.

It seems you are pretty quick on the draw to ask for proof that he came, but when the shoe is on the other foot you are left holding an empty bag.

Just as i thought. Thanks for proving my point.

you just can't prove he didn't return in 70 AD.

it is called a universal negative which is a logical fallacy.

In order for anyone to prove that he did not come in 70 A.D. he would have to develop a time machine and go back in time to that era. And then he would have to search the world over. He would have to look in every forest, wilderness, in every city, village, house, in every mountain, on every hilltop, in every square inch of the entire world--both known and unknown to prove that he did not come in 70 A.D. It is impossible to prove.

A universal negative is a logical fallacy. To claim such is illogical. Your entire premise then rests on a premise that is faulty to begin with, that is impossible to prove. Sorry, but this is like a fairy tale, when examined purely from a logical and scientific viewpoint. It has no grounds for factual evidence.

 

[Iconoclast]

Nineveh is not symbolic. Neither was its judgment. It was a real judgment. But it was written in symbolic language.

Jerusalem is not symbolic. Neither was its judgment. It was a real judgment. But it was written in symbolic language.

Both Revelation and the Old Testament prophets (Nahum, Zechariah, etc.) are prophetical literature. They are written in the same way. And, especially when the same types of terms are being used - clouds, fire, mountains shaking, melting, God on clouds, on horses, etc. - we should treat them the same: Symbolic representation of spiritual truth.

Tom,
Not sure what coffee you are drinking this week....but stick with it:thumbs:

Another good thought provoking post...thank you also for the verses offered.
I am a partial preterist....but this is clearly the correct way to understand the language of most all of the prophetic portions.
Futurists short circuit when they first see the question posed this way,I know I did.:laugh::laugh: Growth spiritually many times means change!

 

[revmwc]

Tom,
Not sure what coffee you are drinking this week....but stick with it:thumbs:

Another good thought provoking post...thank you also for the verses offered.
I am a partial preterist....but this is clearly the correct way to understand the language of most all of the prophetic portions.
Futurists short circuit when they first see the question posed this way,I know I did.:laugh::laugh: Growth spiritually many times means change!

I didn't short circuit I saw it as he meant it skewed to the preterist point of view.

It started a good debate that what it was meant to do. I notice you didn't comment in it until now. BTW did I read you to say you were amil now I see partial preterist, what is the difference in amil and preterist?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1 Thessalonians 4: 14
'For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 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.'

It is obvious that Paul meant 'We Christians who are alive....etc.' and for a very good reason. Paul did not know the date of our Lord's return any more than anyone else (Mark 13:32 etc.). He therefore did not know whether anyone living would see the Lord's coming. And if any of them did see it, they kept mighty quiet about it. :laugh:

Steve

 

[mandym]

Why is it so hard for Futurists to understand that the same Bible, using the same kind of imagery in Zechariah and Revelation, is to be understood in the same manner?
I know why. They are committed to a system. They seem to honor that system (dispensationalism) more than they honor the Bible.

And how do statements like this promote kindness to one another?

 

[asterisktom]

1 Thessalonians 4: 14
'For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 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.'

It is obvious that Paul meant 'We Christians who are alive....etc.' and for a very good reason. Paul did not know the date of our Lord's return any more than anyone else (Mark 13:32 etc.). He therefore did not know whether anyone living would see the Lord's coming. And if any of them did see it, they kept mighty quiet about it. :laugh:

Steve

Paul did not know the date, of course. But he knew the words of Christ that "all of these things" would come upon "this generation". And he also knew the other sayings of Christ, like the persecuted disciples not having gone through all the cities of Judaea until Christ Himself would come. These are just two of the dozen or so indications from our Lord's own lips that He would come back within that lifetime.

And, realizing that these time-indicators were all spoken a couple decades before Paul's writing to the Thessalonians, it was a simple matter of logic and belief in God's promise to know that many would be alive when Christ came into His Kingdom.

 

[DHK]

1 Thessalonians 4: 14
'For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 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.'

It is obvious that Paul meant 'We Christians who are alive....etc.' and for a very good reason. Paul did not know the date of our Lord's return any more than anyone else (Mark 13:32 etc.). He therefore did not know whether anyone living would see the Lord's coming. And if any of them did see it, they kept mighty quiet about it. :laugh:

Steve

And if it really did happen at that time, every person since then would not be saved, and would have no chance of being saved.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)

 

[asterisktom]

I had written:

Why is it so hard for Futurists to understand that the same Bible, using the same kind of imagery in Zechariah and Revelation, is to be understood in the same manner?
I know why. They are committed to a system. They seem to honor that system (dispensationalism) more than they honor the Bible.
----------------------------------------------------------

And how do statements like this promote kindness to one another?

Promoting kindness is not the 1# priority in all of these discussions. It should never be far from our thoughts, but truth must be paramount. The Bible says we should speak the truth in love. I believe that is what I did - and do.

I think you are mistaking plain-speaking for ill-speaking. There is a difference, but in this age it is harder and harder to point this out. I will say it again, and it is without any rancor, but with conviction: Futurists are committed to a system. It skews their perception of what would otherwise be plain statements from God's Word.

 

[asterisktom]

And if it really did happen at that time, every person since then would not be saved, and would have no chance of being saved.

And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)

It only seems that way to you because you are committed to your system, You are connecting the dots in such a way to make you come to that conclusion. Read the whole passage.

I started to get into a detailed discussion here, but what for? I'll save it for later.

 

[mandym]

I had written:

Why is it so hard for Futurists to understand that the same Bible, using the same kind of imagery in Zechariah and Revelation, is to be understood in the same manner?
I know why. They are committed to a system. They seem to honor that system (dispensationalism) more than they honor the Bible.
----------------------------------------------------------


Promoting kindness is not the 1# priority in all of these discussions. It should never be far from our thoughts, but truth must be paramount. The Bible says we should speak the truth in love. I believe that is what I did - and do.

I think you are mistaking plain-speaking for ill-speaking. There is a difference, but in this age it is harder and harder to point this out. I will say it again, and it is without any rancor, but with conviction: Futurists are committed to a system. It skews their perception of what would otherwise be plain statements from God's Word.

Or maybe they just believe that "system" after intelligently and with great reason researching the issue. Two people can disagree without making such condemning remarks. And just to use a little plain speaking you can put lip stick on a skunk but it will still stink. And that is what you have done with your defense of your condemning remarks.

Truth is I made no mistake. Your words are ill and full of rancor not plain and convicting.

 

[asterisktom]

Or maybe they just believe that "system" after intelligently and with great reason researching the issue. Two people can disagree without making such condemning remarks. And just to use a little plain speaking you can put lip stick on a skunk but it will still stink. And that is what you have done with your defense of your condemning remarks.

Truth is I made no mistake. Your words are ill and full of rancor not plain and convicting.

OK, you spoke what was on your mind. And you did it right to me. That's good. This is a discussion board.

Now please tell me what exactly I wrote that was condemnatory.

 

[mandym]

OK, you spoke what was on your mind. And you did it right to me. That's good. This is a discussion board.

Now please tell me what exactly I wrote that was condemnatory.

Sure:

They are committed to a system. They seem to honor that system (dispensationalism) more than they honor the Bible.

Very ugly words.