Featured Tracing the Origins of Coming on the Clouds

I get it. So Luke lied when he said that Jesus went up into the clouds in Acts 1:9. And he got that from the pagans. And of course Elijah didn't go up in a whirlwind into the sky because that would be a pagan idea. So the writer of 2 Kings also lied, because no one literally flies in the Bible.

 

Actually, those were fake clouds made of a giant cotton ball filled with helium.

 

Add to the list of liars Paul who in 2 thess ch 2 told us Jesus would not return until the apostasy comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed who will be slain by Christ when he returns.

 

Very funny! :laugh:

 

If I'm not a preterist by age 61, you certainly aren't going to make me one.

How condescending of you. But my students from two Bible schools pastoring or otherwise serving God all around Japan would be surprised at your opinion.

I use the Greek text, though, because you preterists can't answer it. I don't know of a single Greek scholar who has turned out to be a preterist. And the laughably low scholarship level of preterism can be seen in such places as the very low level of Greek knowledge of the editors of the so-called Fulfilled Covenant Bible, the preterist revision of the KJV.

If you were truly a theological Yoda, you would have understood my point. You didn't so let me explain. Your thread is built around the premise that a coming in the clouds of our Savior is not Biblical, but came from pagan sources, correct? My point in listing Elijah and so forth is that there is historical precedent in the Word of God for Christ "flying across the sky" as you put it. It is by no means a thing of pagan origin for God to make humans fly without machines (surely you don't deny a literal Ascension), as I easily showed from the Bible.

Now, if you pretend to scholarship in the areas of Biblical history and source criticism as your OP suggests, prove the pagan origin of a coming in the clouds. You gave no scholarly sources. What are your sources for a pagan origin? Yes, Baal was known as a "storm god" (revised ISBE, "Baal" article, Vol. 1, p. 377). But to prove your OP you have to prove (1) where and how did the Baal worshippers believed he would come in the clouds as a second coming, and (2) how Biblical writers got their views from the pagan sources.

The problem with source criticism, yours and Q (as I proved on another thread) and Deutero-Isaiah and JEDP (not "Jedi", sorry) is that it is always unproven speculation.

 

I merely pointed out the complete lack of Greek scholarship in the preterist camp, as illustrated by the poorly edited FCB. (How could I fear something so poorly done. Did you even look at the threads on that?) I said nothing about my "glorious greek text" as you put it. In fact, I can disprove preterism from any Greek text,of which I have many: TR, several USBs, the Robinson Pierpont, the Zane-Hodges, even an 1880s Westcott-Hort. But hey, I'll not try to derail your thread as you have. :type:

What I'm opposing is exactly this. You say in this post, "the term coming on the clouds traced from the New Testament back into the Old Testament even back into pagan literature...." I completely disagree with this statement. You are doing source criticism here, and that comes from liberalism. You can't prove that the Biblical coming in clouds has any source in pagan religion.


Christ of course came in judgment against Jerusalem.

When you take Elijah out of context and try to say that God taking a physical body on earth and transporting it to another location on earth is the same as a spiritual body in heaven turning into a physical body and appearing in earth’s atmosphere are the same thing you prove you out of your depth on this one—if you had a legitimate counter argument you wouldn’t have to try to twist the Elijah story into something it isn’t.

Prove that the OT got their concept from Ugaritic literature. You can't, nor can any scholar on earth. It is simply speculation, just like

Therefore, the OT and NT statements of a coming in clouds stands alone, apart from pagan literature. Christ will come literally just as He went into Heaven literally in Acts 1. The promise is there in v. 11. I asked and you didn't answer:

Do you believe in a literal ascension of Christ into Heaven?

Now you have it. Since the Baal religion never had a 2nd coming, then there is no parallel with Christ's second coming, clouds or no clouds. The Baal "cloud rider" idea is actually a doctrine of weather control, not coming to earth. There is no parallel.

Prove that the Hebrew writers borrowed from Baal sources. I don't believe it. The one true God inspired the Hebrew OT, not Baal.

Note the writer Allen's statement, "it is likely that the Baal myth assimilated into Scripture...." Note then Goldingay's words: "...also suggest, an acquaintance with..." etc. What vague, unsubstantiated statements. How sad that a Liberty scholar would stoop to liberal-type source criticism, if that is indeed what he has done.

You've not proven your point, but only quoted vague speculation.

And you prefer insults, accusing me of dishonesty, to actual debate.

 

Sorry everyone, I messed up in my last post, making it look like these are my words when they were those of Logos1. I'll now respond to this while ignoring his charge that I am twisting Scripture.

Elijah was not taken from one location to another on earth, since the Bible clearly says he was taken into heaven. But I know you'll simply dodge and say that was "the sky."

Let's try Enoch then. The Bible clearly says in Heb. 11:5 that he was translated so he would not see death. This is obviously a trip away from earth, not to just some other place on earth.

But let's go back to Christ. Logos1 has not had a chance to answer my question as to whether he believes in a literal ascension or not. I'll be waiting.

In the meantime, I'm curious Logos1. If you are so allergic to Greek and so against my using it in our discussions (and I will use it again when appropriate), why did you choose a screen name with a Greek word? Just wondering.

 

Wow... I love Star Wars as much as the next guy (nerd?). But the allusions have got to go.

Speaking of allusions, would it not seem most likely that the origin or source for "coming on the clouds" is from Daniel 7:13, "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him."???

What is interesting is that the son of man in that text is coming TO God not FROM God. So what do we make of that in light of Rev. 1:7 and other places such as in the Olivet Discourse?

 

63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
64 Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Mt 26

Christ may have been speaking to Caiaphas here, but it's interesting to note that Josephus records that Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas (Jn 18:13, Lk 3:2, Acts 4:6), perished in the seige of Jerusalem 70 AD.

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".[/

 

Logos1--your smarmy and condescending presentation of your theological position has caused me to shun future study of the preterist viewpoint. It's a consistent theme with preterist posters here on BB, but you've taken it way over the top.

 

"smarmy" that is a good word for it.

 

Yes and he proves that misery loves company which is quite possibly one of the reasons they don't give up.

 

And just where does Scripture tell us that Caiaphus associated the remarks of Jesus Christ with Daniel 7:13?

Where do you get this "fly across the sky" nonsense?

Just where in the Old Testament does it refer to the one you call Yahweh coming on the clouds?

You correctly state that Jesus Christ does not refer to Himself as "going to fly through the sky". Again where is the reference to Daniel?

I believe your problem is the faulty translation, NIV. Young's Literal renders the verse as follows: Sing ye to God--praise His name, Raise up a highway for Him who is riding in deserts, In Jah is His name, and exult before Him.

The ASV renders it thus: Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: Cast up a highway for him that rideth through the deserts; His name is Jehovah; and exult ye before him.

Your problem seems to be an overactive imagination. Just which Scripture talks about Jesus Christ riding across the sky on a cloud?

Your problem still seems to be an overactive imagination to say nothing about your fault interpretation! Jesus Christ "riding across the sky"???.:applause:

 

Seriously now S/N! Just how do you fill a cotton ball with helium? Your imagination is more imaginative than that of Logos-1!