Featured Let Jesus be Jesus and Preterism Rings and Reigns all through the Bible

WOW...This, in no way demonstrates the point you are trying to make. Jesus did say:

Mar 14:62 And Jesus said, I am:

This is in direct answer to the High Priest's question in the previous verse:
Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?

and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Indeed Jesus plainly states that they shall see that is future...two things:the Son of man sitting and coming in the clouds

It would appear that Jesus is, in fact, claiming that there will be a future event in which all will witness such a thing...

But even if that is not the case...the entire point is that Jesus was being accused of blasphemy: Your interpretation that a cloud is associated with Divinity is well taken....Jesus was being accused of blasphemy for claiming to be God!! but it does nothing to deny that Jesus was not also stating that he... the Son of man, shall be seen doing those two distinct things. In fact...unless you are super-imposing a predjudiced notion upon those verses...They plainly and clearly state (at face value) precisely the very thing you are arguing against. You seem to think that the Old Testament references to the presence of God being associated with clouds implies that that could be the ONLY Point that Jesus was trying to convey. If he is indeed God (and Christians believe he is)...Then it stands to reason that: at his return: he will come down in the clouds, as the verse says.

Jesus is Christ and the Son of Man, and the Son of God
and You will see Him sitting at the right hand of God, and "Coming in the clouds"

How does Jesus' saying You will see me coming in the clouds, not, in fact mean that: We will see him coming in the clouds?????

You have damaged your own point of view and supported another.

 

Have no fear, a certain disney character and a few others have been doing well handing out insults! Better get crackin if you want to catch up!

 

It is amazing just how many people reject one error by going to the opposite extreme and embrace the oppsoing error, so for example Hyper Calvinists become Arminian, and vice versa - or futurists become preterists and vice-versa, when the truth lies with the historists who see elements of furturism in prophecy, but equally see elements also fullfilled

As for the OP, for once I find myself agreeing with HoS I don't get the arguement.

 

.....sniff.....sniff

.....sniff....sniff

...ah, couldn't be, not again, surely not.....

 

Logos has given An example that needs to be addressed;

Unless and until anyone addresses this verse in Isa. and others like it, you are not really answering the OP.:type::type:

 

Gill on Matthew 26:64:

Ver. 64. Jesus saith unto him, thou hast said,.... That is, thou hast said right; or as Mark expresses it, "I am", Mr 14:62, the Christ, the anointed of God, who was so from everlasting, and in time; being before the world was, installed into, and invested with the office of mediator; and in the fulness of time, anointed with the holy Spirit without measure: he might truly say he was the Messiah, since all the characters of him in the books of the prophets, met in him; and all the miracles he was to work in proof of his Messiahship were wrought by him: as also that be was the Son of God, not by creation, as angels and men; nor by adoption, as saints; nor as man, or in the human nature, in which he was the son of man, and not the Son of God; nor was he begotten as man, whereas he is called the only begotten Son, and the begotten of the Father; and was he the Son of God as man not the first, but the third person must be his Father; besides, he was the Son of God before his incarnation: nor as mediator neither; be was the Son of God, antecedent to his office as mediator; his sonship is distinct from it, is an illustration of it, and what puts virtue into it; but he is so as God, as a divine person, by natural and eternal filiation; being begotten of the Father in the divine essence, and of the same nature; and having the same perfections with him, and in all things equal to him; and is the sense in which he always affirmed God to be his Father, and himself to be his Son. For this phrase, "thou hast said", as answering to an affirmation, "I am", See Gill on "Mt 26:25". Now, though Christ had so fully answered to the adjuration, and so strongly affirmed himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God, yet he knew they would not believe; and therefore refers them to an after proof thereof, which whether they would or not, would oblige them to acknowledge the whole:

nevertheless, I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the son of man, sitting at the right hand of power: the Vulgate Latin, and Munster's Hebrew Gospel, read "the power of God", as in Lu 22:69, though it is not absolutely necessary; for "power" designs God himself, who is all powerful; as appears by the creation of all things out of nothing, the upholding of all things in their being, the redemption of men, the conversion of sinners, and the preservation of his saints. In the Jewish writings {e}, God is frequently called, hrwbgh, "the power": such a thing, say they, we have heard, hrwbgh ypm, "from the mouth of power", or might; that is, from God himself: and so he is by the Grecians called dunamiv, "power" {f}: by "the son of man", is meant Christ in the human nature; who then appeared at their bar as a mere man, in a very despicable form and condition, but hereafter they should see him in a more glorious one, and at "the right hand of God": a phrase expressive of his exaltation, above all creatures whatever: respect is had to the prophecy of him in Ps 110:1. "Sitting" there, denotes his having done his work; and his continuance in his exalted state, until all enemies are subdued under him: and when he says they should "see" him, his meaning is not, that they should see him at the right hand of God with their bodily eyes, as Stephen did; but that they should, or at least might, see and know by the effects, that he was set down at the right hand of God; as by the pouring forth of the holy Spirit upon his disciples, on the day of pentecost; by the wonderful spread of his Gospel, and the success of it, notwithstanding all the opposition made by them, and others; and particularly, by the vengeance he should take on their nation, city, and temple; and which may be more especially designed in the next clause;

and coming in, the clouds of heaven. So Christ's coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, as it is often called the coming of the son of man, is described in this manner, Mt 24:27. Though this may also be understood of Christ's second coming to judgment, at the last day; when as he went up to heaven in a cloud, he will return, and come also in the clouds of heaven; see Ac 1:9 Re 1:7, when he will be seen by the eyes of all, good and bad; and when this sanhedrim, before whom he now was, will see him also, and confess that he is Lord and Christ, and the Son of God. Though the former clause seems to have regard to what would quickly come to pass, and what they should soon observe, and be convinced of; for ap' arti, rendered "hereafter", may be translated "henceforwards"; or as it is in the Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, "from this time"; meaning, that in a very little while, they should begin to see the effects of his being set down at the right hand of God, and which would be full proofs of it, and should see him come in the clouds of heaven, at the last day: reference seems to be had to Da 7:13, where one like unto the son of man is said to come in the clouds of heaven, and which is understood of the Messiah by many, both of the ancient and modern Jews {g}: with whom one of his names is "Anani" {h}, which signifies "clouds"

 

With a post like this, you should have continue taking a time off.

 

When Jesus came the first time it was a physical appearance. We are told that when he returns, it will be in like fashion (to his ascension). Simple.

 

Icon...There is really nothing to answer:

I, do not, nor would anyone take issue with his statement that there appears to be a correlation between the very Presence of God, and his appearing in clouds....

His point was perfectly well taken. I admitted such here:

No body will "adress" this, in the sense that no one will likely disagree with him on it. Are we required to argue against these verses? We agree with his general point that "Divinity" is often described as being associated with riding upon clouds...It is ALSO often described as riding upon Cherubs too...So What?
But what then follows????

Jesus is here...(according to dispy's) claiming to return while "riding on clouds"...He is God, and IF he does return, in a future sense, as a Dispy would claim, then it stands to reason that it is expected that he might do so. So what?

The point he was trying to make simply doesn't follow from his argument... It is non-sequitor.

 

He is trying to say that if Scripture says "Look! God is riding on clouds and is coming..." yet we can expect that people of Egypt did not literally see a person on clouds, why do we have to believe that "You shall see the Son of Man coming on a cloud" implies that this statement cannot be fulfilled in A.D. 70 because no one saw Jesus visibly in human form in the sky?

 

Why should we expect this? Why assume the Egyptians didn't literally see this? Why could they not have literally seen it? Even giving your interpretation...according to God's Word:

Isa 19:1 ¶ The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of

be•holdbɪˈhoʊld(v.; interj.)be•held, be•hold•ing

1.(v.t.)to observe; look at; see.

2.(interj.)look; see.

1.behold, lay eyes on(verb)

see with attention

"behold Christ!"

1.Behold(verb)

to have in sight; to see clearly; to look at; to regard with the eyes

2.Behold(verb)

to direct the eyes to, or fix them upon, an object; to look; to see

 

There is zero record, no proof, nothing, zip, no literature. The wind blows and no see where it comes from or where it goes to but you know it's there, you see the effect.

 

How did God come in the Isa 19 passage"

http://postmillennialism.com/2012/08/dispensational-literalism-and-the-first-coming/

 

While it speaks of Divinity....it speaks of a coming in judgement....Jesus did not physically return in 70 ad,,,he came in judgement

 

Well...no he didn't come "Physically" as you say....and any Dispy actually already knows this (or believes it anyway).....This is so much in accordance with Dispy thought!!!! No dispy thinks this...we think the opposite actually...We are familiar with the historical factoid that Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70, and we DON'T think that we should expect to see Jesus returning in a cloud (in A.D. 70) This is only one of the myriad of reasons that we do not think that your philosophy is accurate...


If he stated he would come "in the clouds" (we believe he did) and he did NOT already do so in A.D. 70 (that's your claim)than it would stand to reason that it is yet future...Wouldn't it??
We actually think that that will come LATER.....We don't assume it already occured....We think it Hasn't occured you guys have already given us the pearl that it hasn't already happened haven't you?....Get it?

 

Isn't there an already-but-not-yet sense of many prophetic passages in both Testaments?

For example in Matthew 24:15-21, Jesus quotes Daniel's prophecy which obviously was fulfilled before the time of Christ by Antiochus Epiphanes (a type of Nero? A type of a yet-future Antichrist?), but Jesus applies the same prophecy to some event future to His earthly ministry.

And of course there is the already-but-not-yet sense of other passages like the sense in which we are made righteous "from the foundation of the world" before were were born and could regenerated, repent and believe. Already. But not yet. We are redeemed and have eternal life. Yet we die physically and wait for our inheritance. Already given. But not yet fully actualized.

I tend towards preterism myself, and tend to label those who believe that the Second Coming has already taken place as hyper-preterists rather than calling myself a "partial" preterist. But I'm here to listen and learn, and just to ask questions when something seems unclear to me.

How do Dispensationalists deal with the already-but-not-yet aspects of so many passages of Scripture? I think there is a lot of Scriptural prophecy yet to be fulfilled (Christ will return and catch away His Bride and judge the Earth, etc), but that in a very real and historically real sense has already been fulfilled. Jesus' use of the Daniel passage seems to demonstrate that even He thought prophetic passages have "multiple fulfillments" and multiple applications.

Have I misinterpreted this? Do prophetic passages have multiple fulfillments?

Thanks in advance for thoughtful comments,
Robin

 

How did he appear to Moses on the mountain? How did he appear to the Israelites leaving Egypt? They didn't see him but they knew for certain he was there.