A bit more about "parousia"

I guess no one cares to engage this yet

 

Yes, we agreed there.

Yep. Missed it. Sorry.

Strange, no one interacted with that list or any of the other comments I made on any of the 16 parousia references to the 2nd Coming of Christ at the time. You have your chance. They had their chance. I'm not sure of the point of this thread.

 

If you were looking for dispensationalism, you missed the point of that entire thread.

Nope.

 

Well, since no one engaged a single one of my 17 references to the 2nd Coming of Christ referenced with parousia....

 

Okay. Go to it.

 

I have no idea why this is supposed to be a problem to my position. They obviously did not expect a sudden and glorious coming, so Jesus had to teach them all about it. And no one ever interacted with my comments on the 4 usages of parousia in the Olivet Discourse, so your post is basically moot.

This is precisely what full preterists do: mock our belief in the premillenial return of Christ.

You are adding your thoughts to Scripture, an extremely dangerous thing to do. The Peter passage says nothing about "this generation." The comparison is to the flood, for which there was no promise about a generation, but only a statement from God to only Noah about his righteousness in his generation (Gen. 7:1).

And this points up the fact that there are far more reasons for Christ's 2nd Coming than just judgment, something that none of you preterists or "preterist leaners" dealt with in the slightest in my thread on that.

 

I explained the coming was the same in the OT passages since the word in Hebrew means a physical coming as well, but then you told me the OT passages were anthropomorphism. I don't believe that amounts to a row of beans comparing the comings, but if you do, then you explained it to yourself.

Is like manner, a white horse, or beaming down to the mount of Olives?

And does this antichrist have to be born? And how is this possible if the Rapture is imminent?

 

Figurative language must use physical elements. Thus, the anthropomorphism in Is. 19:1 uses a cloud (an existing item) and riding (a real activity) and coming (a real action) to form the anthropomorphism of God (a spirit, with no physical component until the incarnation) actually riding (something He does not literally do) on a cloud (something no one does because a cloud is not solid). These literal elements make up the figure of speech, which is not meant to be interpreted literally. Here is a definition for you: "figure of speech Ancient term for any form of expression in which the normal use of language is manipulated, stretched, or altered for rhetorical effect" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, by P. H. Matthews, p 138).

Not sure what you are asking with "like manner." That's just a 1611 way to say, "in the same way," so it's not figurative language.

There is no indication in the text that the white horse Jesus will ride is a figure of speech. Since Revelation is apocalyptic literature, there should be a way to tell if the white horse is a metaphor, but there is nothing in the text like that. White horses are real (my Grandpa's Tennessee Walker was "Mac"). And the Mount of Olives is a real place. So I interpret that horse literally.

Again, there are no indications in the Olivet Discourse that the usages of parousia there are figurative, so I interpret them literally.

About "beaming down to the Mount of Olives," I have no idea what you are trying to say there. Never heard of this idea, or interpretation, or whatever it is.

Antichrist may be alive right now. What the Bible says is that he will not be "revealed" until after the apostasia, not that he won't be born (2 Thess. 2:3).

 

I'm not quite sure what your point is here, but as far as I get it I agree.

Actually, the sword coming out of His mouth is a very clear metaphor for the words of Christ's mouth, due to the fact that the sword is a metaphor elsewhere for the Word of God.

I don't really care about any cameras. Every eye seeing Christ in His glory on the Mount of Olives will be a miracle, not a human accomplishment. You might be referencing my comments on a previous thread about everyone nowadays having a cell phone, but I certainly did not mean that was the way it was going to happen. If you think I did, you did not understand my point in referencing world-wide cell phone reception.

 

But how is that possible if the rapture can happen at any moment? Who's in charge of this antichrist?

And no the bible doesn't say anything about a future one world dictator. Your interpretation says that.

 

I wouldn't get to see this "miracle" because Ill disappear and leave my clothes 7 years earlier?

Good thing I am not a airplane pilot.

 

I fail to see the problem with an imminent rapture and an unknown antichrist. As for who's in charge of him, Satan is. But God is in charge of everything. Do you know what providence is?

I have said nothing about a future one world dictator. I don't believe in a future one world dictator unless it be the Lord Jesus Christ, King for 1000 years. Please don't put words in my mouth, but pay attention to what I actually write.

 

If you go up in the Rapture, you come down with Jesus in the 2nd Coming in Glory (Jude v. 14). And the Bible says nothing about leaving your clothes behind in the Rapture. That's pop eschatology. You really need to forget that stuff and read serious writers like Pentecost, McClain, Payne, Paul Lee Tan and many others I could suggest. That way you would quit putting up fluffy straw men in these discussions and actually have substantive posts.

If you actually want to get serious about prophecy and forget the fluff, I suggest you start with The Interpretation of Prophecy, by Paul Lee Tan. Another great one to seriously get started with would be The Millennium Bible, by William Biederwolf. It's an oldie but still great.

 

So God will cause this antichrist to be born? Because once he's born the "rapture" would have to occur within his lifetime.

So the antichrist isn't going to rule the world from a newly furnished temple?