This just in, Futurists. Nineveh will be destroyed!

[asterisktom]

Originally Posted by revmwc View Post
Sorry to correct you but there was a time in history that all these animals lived peacefully.
Carnivours didn't start eating meat untile after the flood. These paasage throw dispell the evolutionist view of all these flesh eating animlas millions of years ago don't they.

The Isaiah passage just tells us God will reinstute.
------------------------------------------

If Christ came in 70 A.D. God hasn't reinstated that. Why? when is this gong to happen. Your premise is full of holes, and this is just one of the more glaring examples.

I am working on a response to you and to ashleysdad, at least on what your two posts have in common. But I can tell you right now that over half of my response to futurists' supposed dilemma for Preterists is the single answer: This happens spiritually, or metaphorically - not literally.

A case in point is this verse you commented on just now.

There will never be a time when wolves and lambs will live together peacefully. There is a time - right now - when wolves and lambs dwell together, metaphorically. Christ said, "Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves." Matt. 10:16.

Why, Oh, why, when people read this Isaiah passage, don't they see this Matthew connection from our Lord's own lips. Instead they draw upon this fairy tale Millennium scenario that has nothing to do with God's stated purpose for mankind.

 

[revmwc]

Originally Posted by revmwc View Post
Sorry to correct you but there was a time in history that all these animals lived peacefully.
Carnivours didn't start eating meat untile after the flood. These paasage throw dispell the evolutionist view of all these flesh eating animlas millions of years ago don't they.

The Isaiah passage just tells us God will reinstute.
------------------------------------------



I am working on a response to you and to ashleysdad, at least on what your two posts have in common. But I can tell you right now that over half of my response to futurists' supposed dilemma for Preterists is the single answer: This happens spiritually, or metaphorically - not literally.

A case in point is this verse you commented on just now.

There will never be a time when wolves and lambs will live together peacefully. There is a time - right now - when wolves and lambs dwell together, metaphorically. Christ said, "Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves." Matt. 10:16.

Why, Oh, why, when people read this Isaiah passage, don't they see this Matthew connection from our Lord's own lips. Instead they draw upon this fairy tale Millennium scenario that has nothing to do with God's stated purpose for mankind.

Since you involved me in the post I would hope you expected a response.
We are still sheep in the midst of wolves that hasn't changed in fact the wolves devouring Christians increased after 70 A.D. and then the big bad wolf took a form of the sheep and became a wolf in sheeps clothing. When the emporor Constantine formed a branch of Governnment to control Christianity. It still exist today. That wolf devoured even more like, Wycliffe and Tyndale just to name a few. If you went against it's doctrine you were executed. Today not in america but in many countires believers are tortured and killed for their faith. Satan is still seeking whom he may devour. Isaiah was a literal event to come, in the kingdom as the world reverts back to the time before Noah and even the fall that mankind and animals ate no flesh but were all vegitarians. Just as it was pre-flood and in the Garden so shall the time Christ restores peace on earth for all mankind in His milinial kingdom.

 

[asterisktom]

The Testimony of God's Word:

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:7)

Then there is still the passage that says "every eye shall see Him" This again cannot referr to s spiritual event as eyes cannot see a spiritual event and yet the text is quite clear that every eye shall see Him. I heard somebody say that "every eye" saw Him in the form of the Roman Legion that destroyed Jerusalem, but this is a very weak interpretation. First in that scenario not every eye saw Him. Only the people in the vicinity of Jerusalem saw this event. Not even all the Jews saw this event. Second, Revelation makes it clear that when every eye sees Him they will recognize Him and it will not be a misunderstood appearing but He will appear in power and clearly recognizable.

I don't know when I will be able to answer all of these questions, but I thought it would be convenient for me to start with a topic that both of you mentioned, and that is Rev. 1:7 "Every eye shall see Him."

I hope you both don't mind that I lumped you together on this point.

My short answer is this - in two parts:
1. Revelation is a prophecy book, not a historical one.
2. Words in this verse have been misinterpreted or misconstrued.

Any discussion of Revelation should take into account two facts. They are found in the first three verses:

"1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near."

1. The events described in this book were to happen shortly. Not be dragged out for 2000 years. This is shown by two indications in the above passage. "must shortly take place", and "the time is near".

2. Also in the very first verse is a word that is very often overlooked - or undertranslated, rather - and that is the word NKJV renders as "show". The Greek word actually refers to show by signs (as in symbols). Hendriksen has much more to say on this in his "More than Conquerors".

So, getting to 1:7, we need to realize that the event here will be a soon one from the standpoint of the reader. It was, after all, given as a consolation and encouraging promise to them, although it is also instructive for saints of all ages. Also, we need to always keep in mind that we have a lot of symbolism and imagery. We must not fall into the trap of literalizing what God's Word presents to us metaphorically.

Now to the 7th verse:
"7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen. "

7 Ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν, καὶ ὄψεται αὐτὸν πᾶς ὀφθαλμὸς καὶ οἵτινες αὐτὸν ἐξεκέντησαν, καὶ κόψονται ἐπ’ αὐτὸν πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. ναί, ἀμήν.

There are words here, once again, that have often been misconstrued. Specifically: "See" and "tribes" and "earth".
Nowhere in the Bible need the word "tribes" (φυλῆ) be translated as "countries", "peoples" or "kindred". The overriding usagfe in the NT and in the LXX of the OT refers to the Jewish tribes. That is the case here as well.

Likewise the word translated "earth" is better rendered land. Land of Israel. Thus the phrase "all the tribes of the earth" should rather be "all the [Jewish] tribes of the land [of Judea]" (αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς). It would have been more a proof fro fturists if John had chosen OIKOUMENE or KOSMOS, but instead he used GE, a word that at some times means more than the land, but most often just "land".

This is all I have time for now. I need to also get to "see", a word whose variety of meanings many people do not properly see. The word can be both descriptuve of physical seeing and of perception. John's use here is more in line with that of his usage in John 16:16

“A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father.”

 

[DHK]

You don’t have any intellectual response just a constant, broken refrain of prove it. You have sufficient proof—you just don’t want to accept it. That is your problem not mine. As Tom pointed out you value your system more than scripture.

I have more proof that Christ came in 1948 than you do that he came in 70 A.D. Harold Camping makes a pretty good case too. There is no evidence for any spiritual return just as there is no such thing as a spiritual resurrection, as the J.W.'s claim. It is not I that is not dealing with things of reality here. You want proof of things non-existent. How absurd is that?

We know (or at least I do) that the bible is inerrant so when Paul said in 1 Thess 4:14 “we who are still alive at the Lord’s coming” and it was written to the Thessalonians and not to you then that would have to mean Thessalonians were alive when Christ came. No logical way around it. Sorry. Logically you are painted into a corner. That is just the way it is.

A little grammar is in need here. Please pay attention:

Do you recognize these words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the people Who are the people being referred to? The writers of course! Or at least the writers and the American citizens of that time making (according to your kind of grammar) your American Constitution null and void for today. This is the kind of logic that you are applying to the Bible.

Your denial won’t change it (but feel free to deny it if it makes you feel better).

If I am denying the Bible you are denying that you have a Constitution to live under. Learn some grammar!

We also know Matt 24:3 The disciples asked what is the sign of your coming and the end of the age. See the “and” between these and note these events are linked with one another. Then in ver. 29 Jesus replies Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened etc (reference to the fall of nations, cities, etc---in this case Jerusalem) and they will see the Son of Man coming on the Clouds—which we know from earlier similar scripture Isaiah 19:1 means you don’t see Jesus come in the sky but see his presence in the Roman armies sacking Jerusalem.

First, the Jews always referred to His Coming as one in power in Glory, as described in Mark 8:38, never an invisible one. He would come with his angels. He was coming to set up his kingdom. That is what they expected then, and most of them rejected Him on that basis. "He came to his own and his own received him not."
Even his own disciples:
"Lord, will thou at this time set up thine kingdom?"
They were still expecting an earthly kingdom after the resurrection and before the ascension. The AND refers to the thousand years of Kingdom rule by Christ, and then will come the end of the age. That is what was being asked.

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Matthew 24:3)
--3 Questions separated by two "ands."

So where are we—I can give proof that he did come and you can’t prove he didn’t come. Looks like Preterism is superior to futurism by any normal standard.

Pluto is made up of blue cheese. It is inhabited by little green men who also eat blue cheese. They will be very kind to you in the judgment day if you do what they say. If you want to know what they demand of you ask me. I have their instruction manual.
That is an example. I can claim anything I want and you can't prove me wrong. That is the basis on how cults are started. I believed in Christianity on the basis of the literal resurrection of Christ and that it could not be proven wrong. My faith is not blind, but you are operating on a blind faith on something that cannot be proven. It has as much proof as the invention of my little cult above. You can't prove me wrong. So why not believe me??

But don’t let normal standards get in the way of defending your system. After all you make a mockery of the words soon and quickly in reference to Christ’s return by trying to drag them out 2,000 years.

All my beliefs have some basis in fact. Faith must have a basis in fact. The object of my faith is Christ. The reason of my faith in Christ is His resurrection. They are not myths. As he went so he shall come. Physically. Every eye shall see him. I don't believe in those thing which have no basis in fact.

At some point a logical man would say you know maybe I misunderstood the nature of Christ’s return and should look around for another more rational explanation.

I don't believe that Christ has returned because he hasn't returned. Just because he hasn't returned is no reason to doubt the Scriptures.

 

[revmwc]

I guess you are trying to make reference to a rapture event with these bodies all over the place. Well being that God’s not a dispensalist there was no rapture event. There were lots of dead Jewish bodies all over Palestine 67 - 70 AD if you read your history of that period. The bodies came from the fulfillment of the promise that Christ would come in judgment against those persecuting Christians. Estimates range to over a million at Jerusalem alone not to mention all the other places of Jewish massacre throughout the Roman Empire.

The bible foretells this in 2Thess1: 6-8.

6 since it is righteous for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and [to reward] with rest you who are afflicted, along with us. [This will take place] at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with His powerful angels, 8 taking vengeance with flaming fire on those who don't know God and on those who don't obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Even the flaming fire was literally fulfilled in the burning of Jerusalem.

Hmmm, sounds like literal evidence to me—I guess you are happy now right.

Any rational person seeking truth and not defending the indefensible would give up on a system that has been wrong for 2,000 years. There is wrong and there is tragically wrong and there is so wrong it is laughing stock territory. You have been there a long time now.

Your ignoring the soon, quickly, at hand statements of the bible makes a mockery of the bible when you twist them to mean thousands of years into the future.

revmwc how long do you have to be wrong to give up on a system that is beyond hopeless—2,000 years, 20,000 years, 2 million years, are you still going to pretend it is soon 2 billion years from now.

Futurism—a sad collection of errors, misinterpretations, and broken expectations—making a laughing stock out of its blind followers.

2 Peter 3: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 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.
5 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:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 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.
8 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.

It is amazing how Peter knew of the preterist even in his day and let us know that they would be scoffing at the truth in our day!

2 Thesalonians 2:
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Paul tells us that there must be a falling away from the church and that the man of sin be revealed before Christ return. So again when did a falling away from the church occur before 70 A.D. I believe history says the church was increasing not having a falling away. When was the man of sin revealed, these are not spiritual events these are literal, things that would be seen for signs of Christ return.

2 Timothy 4: 8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.

I still love His soon coming and there is laid up for me a crown of Righteousness. One is there for all who in these last days are looking for and loving His appearing.

 

[DHK]

Sorry to correct you but there was a time in history that all these animals lived peacefully. In the Garden of course but if you read Genesis 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Then look at Genesis 9:
2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Carnivours didn't start eating meat untile after the flood. These paasage throw dispell the evolutionist view of all these flesh eating animlas millions of years ago don't they.

The Isaiah passage just tells us God will reinstute.

The problem for the preterist is that he cannot show where this prophetic event in Isaiah 11 has happened. All the verses in Isaiah 11 are spoken in future tense and do not refer back to the Garden of Eden. It is a prophetic event, something that we have not seen )from the time of the Garden of Eden onward), something that Tom and others cannot account for.

 

[revmwc]

The problem for the preterist is that he cannot show where this prophetic event in Isaiah 11 has happened. All the verses in Isaiah 11 are spoken in future tense and do not refer back to the Garden of Eden. It is a prophetic event, something that we have not seen )from the time of the Garden of Eden onward), something that Tom and others cannot account for.

That I realize very much but you said at no time in history.

 

[DHK]

I am working on a response to you and to ashleysdad, at least on what your two posts have in common. But I can tell you right now that over half of my response to futurists' supposed dilemma for Preterists is the single answer: This happens spiritually, or metaphorically - not literally.

Of course Tom.
The Resurrection was metaphorical.
The Return of Christ was metaphorical.
Our resurrection will be metaphorical.
The actual way of salvation is metaphorical.
The entire sacrifice and atonement for our sins is metaphorical.
It is just a metaphorical book full of fairy tales where one can make it say anything they want to.

 

[asterisktom]

The problem for the preterist is that he cannot show where this prophetic event in Isaiah 11 has happened. All the verses in Isaiah 11 are spoken in future tense and do not refer back to the Garden of Eden. It is a prophetic event, something that we have not seen )from the time of the Garden of Eden onward), something that Tom and others cannot account for.

I certainly can account for it. I did account for it. It just didn't register with you. But that is not my fault.

 

[asterisktom]

Of course Tom.
The Resurrection was metaphorical.
The Return of Christ was metaphorical.
Our resurrection will be metaphorical.
The actual way of salvation is metaphorical.
The entire sacrifice and atonement for our sins is metaphorical.
It is just a metaphorical book full of fairy tales where one can make it say anything they want to.

A little snippy, are we?

I said "over half", not "all".

Cute comments like the above remind me - again - that maybe I'm just wasting my time with you.

 

[revmwc]

I certainly can account for it. I did account for it. It just didn't register with you. But that is not my fault.

You said it is "metaphorical" (actually Isa was a metaphore), like the Greek Gods had all the Metaphorical things they did. So the return of Christ in 70 A.D. is a metaphore not a real literal event it's like Greek Mythology and we only need to believe it that way to agree with the preterist. Sorry God doesn't work His promises in mataphores, if He did then Christ first advent would have only been needed metaphorically not literally. Is that what you are saying that Christ coming at His first advent was a mataphorical event just really spiritual not literal?

Sorry I can't and won't accept it that way. Neither will I accept a metaphorical (spiritual) kingdom or return of Christ. God said it would happen literally I believe it that way.

 

[asterisktom]

It is just a metaphorical book full of fairy tales where one can make it say anything they want to.

The reason the Bible's spiritual message seems like a fairy tale to you is that you won't let go of the fairy tale book that you have, telling of physical sacrifices in the future, lambs and wolves together, a giant cube-in-the-sky Jerusalem.

You are so keen on the literal and concrete, just like the Jews were of the 1st century. They looked for a literal Elijah (and missed the spiritual one John the Baptist, the only Elijah that will ever come), for a literal kingdom, missing out on the true kingdom, a literal temple (actually using Christ's Preterist-sounding spiritual, invisible temple as evidence to kill Him).

You believe your fairy tale, DHK. It doesn't appeal to me at all. It doesn't have the ring of truth or scriptural authenticity either.

 

[DHK]

The reason the Bible's spiritual message seems like a fairy tale to you is that you won't let go of the fairy tale book that you have, telling of physical sacrifices in the future, lambs and wolves together, a giant cube-in-the-sky Jerusalem.

You are so keen on the literal and concrete, just like the Jews were of the 1st century. They looked for a literal Elijah (and missed the spiritual one John the Baptist, the only Elijah that will ever come), for a literal kingdom, missing out on the true kingdom, a literal temple (actually using Christ's Preterist-sounding spiritual, invisible temple as evidence to kill Him).

You believe your fairy tale, DHK. It doesn't appeal to me at all. It doesn't have the ring of truth or scriptural authenticity either.

Elijah is a good example.
John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah.
He was not that Elijah that was prophesied to come.
Often a prophecy has a near and a far fulfillment. John was that near and partial fulfillment. But as Malachi looked down the road of prophecy he saw another Elijah on the horizon, one that is still yet to come; one that I believe will appear in Revelation chapter 11 as one of the two witnesses. Elijah has not died yet. The Bible says that all men will die. There Elijah will do great wonders and there he will die.

A rule of thumb in hermeneutics is to take the Bible literally in all cases unless the immediate context gives direct instruction to take it otherwise, such as in a metaphor, simile or or obvious figure of speech. This is a basic rule of hermeneutics. I don't see any reason one should avoid it, thus voiding the literal and still future coming of Christ.

 

[asterisktom]

Elijah is a good example.
John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah.
He was not that Elijah that was prophesied to come.
Often a prophecy has a near and a far fulfillment. John was that near and partial fulfillment. But as Malachi looked down the road of prophecy he saw another Elijah on the horizon, one that is still yet to come; one that I believe will appear in Revelation chapter 11 as one of the two witnesses. Elijah has not died yet. The Bible says that all men will die. There Elijah will do great wonders and there he will die.

A rule of thumb in hermeneutics is to take the Bible literally in all cases unless the immediate context gives direct instruction to take it otherwise, such as in a metaphor, simile or or obvious figure of speech. This is a basic rule of hermeneutics. I don't see any reason one should avoid it, thus voiding the literal and still future coming of Christ.

This is a rule of man's thumb. Actually, it goes contrary to the main thrust of the Bible, spiritual truth.

Consider Elijah. You say there are two Elijah's. Christ said "Elijah is come already, and they have done to him whatever they desired." The disciples then knew that Elijah was John the Baptist. Not literally, as in reincarnation, but in the spiritual sense intended.

Christ said Elijah came.
You say he is still coming - per your system.
Your system is making you go contrary to Christ's plain words.

 

[DHK]

This is a rule of man's thumb. Actually, it goes contrary to the main thrust of the Bible, spiritual truth.

Consider Elijah. You say there are two Elijah's. Christ said "Elijah is come already, and they have done to him whatever they desired." The disciples then knew that Elijah was John the Baptist. Not literally, as in reincarnation, but in the spiritual sense intended.

Christ said Elijah came.
You say he is still coming - per your system.
Your system is making you go contrary to Christ's plain words.

All Scripture is in harmony with each other. Perhaps Christ was speaking in parables so that those around him could not completely understand.
I believe John's father knew exactly who is son was

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (Luke 1:17)


But he also knew that Elijah was yet to come.

 

[asterisktom]

All Scripture is in harmony with each other.

Yes. An important principle.

Perhaps Christ was speaking in parables so that those around him could not completely understand.

No. Do you not remember the situation? He was speaking to His own disciples. Further explaining the truth to them just as He did with the 7 kingdom parables in Matt. 13.

To the outsiders he spoke in parables. To His disciples He explained those parables. Sometimes with an admonishment on their denseness. (BTW, this is not a swipe at you, but a comment about them, the disciples.)

I believe John's father knew exactly who is son was

Not the point. John was also Elijah, according to Christ. John himself was unclear on this (at least at the first) just as he, for a short while at least, grew somewhat doubtful whether Jesus was the Christ. "Are You the Christ, or look we for another?"

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. (Luke 1:17)

This is exactly what John the Baptist's mission was. Read Isaiah 40:1-4, Hosea 2:14-15. When he said "Remove the stones from the highway" he wasn't speaking literally, but of having an attitude to match a professed repentance. Many Pharisees came to be baptized by him, but he called them "snakes". Because they would not repent, most of them.

And because they would not repent they killed the messenger instead. In Christ's words, "They have done to him what they desired." And Christ foresaw in his death a foreshadow of His own treatment at their hands.

But he also knew that Elijah was yet to come.

You have no verse for this.

With this topic in mind I thought it would be good to bump this month-old post of mine, also dealing with Elijah and John the Baptist:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=71653

 

[J.D.]

Perhaps Christ was speaking in parables so that those around him could not completely understand.

Very disappointing - you can do better than that, can't you? You know, you CAN be a futurist WITHOUT creating another Elijah out of thin air. But your dispensational community won't allow it.

Jesus said that "Elijah IS come", and "this IS Elijah". Can it be more plain and obvious?

 

[DHK]

Not the point. John was also Elijah, according to Christ. John himself was unclear on this (at least at the first), just as he for a short while a least grew somewhat doubtful whether Jesus was the Christ. "Are You the Christ, or look we for another?"


This is exactly what John the Baptist's mission was. Read Isaiah 40, Hosea 2. When he said "Remove the stones from the highway" he wasn't speaking literally, but of having an attitude to match a professed repentance. Many Pharisees came to be baptized by him, but he called them "snakes". Because they would not repent, most of them.

Because they would not repent they killed the messenger instead. In Christ's words, "They have done to him what they desired." And Christ foresaw in his death a foreshadow of His own treatment at their hands.


You have no verse for this.

And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (John 1:21-26)

John himself denied that he was Elijah, but as Scripture foretold, and he verified, "one crying in the wilderness" a forerunner of Christ.

 

[asterisktom]

Very disappointing - you can do better than that, can't you? You know, you CAN be a futurist WITHOUT creating another Elijah out of thin air. But your dispensational community won't allow it.

Jesus said that "Elijah IS come", and "this IS Elijah". Can it be more plain and obvious?

Thank you, J.D. Just so you know, I don't presume that these comments of DHK's are typical of all futurists. I do respect the "dispensational community", as you style it, seeing that we are brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[asterisktom]

And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (John 1:21-26)

John himself denied that he was Elijah, but as Scripture foretold, and he verified, "one crying in the wilderness" a forerunner of Christ.

I already covered this, DHK, as well as his unclearness, at a low point in his ministry, whether Jesus was the Christ.

Whose word would you credit more: a mere man or Christ?
Why don't you take Christ's word for it? Why does one even have to argue this?