• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Acts 1:9-11 utterly refutes Hyper-preterism

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
God the SDon PUT ON HUMANITy, to become as one of us, yet without a sin nature, God and prefect humanity forever linked as One being with 2 natures!

God actually changed, becoming forever the GodMan!

Jesus is in heaven, the one person of the Holy trinity still in physical glorified form!

Did not 'add" to perfection, but did change to being what he was not before!

SAME Jesus that ate with the Apostles after being raised from death will be in same form as they saw HIM, just with all of his glory restored!

You still did not answer my very first question. But I am not holding my breath.

Neither did you see the logical connection between the questions. You seem to be so caught up in your belief here you are not willing to consider how they contradict Scripture on many points.

Here are just one example, You wrote:
"God actually changed, becoming forever the GodMan!"

God writes:
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." - Heb. 13:8

"For I am the LORD, I change not;" - Malachi 3:6

If interested, you can take a look at this study I wrote as part of a series on the attributes of God:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/566088201/2-the-perfections-of-god/

We need to always be lining up what we believe with Scripture. Agreed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
You still did not answer my very first question. But I am not holding my breath.

Neither did you see the logical connection between the questions. You seem to be so caught up in your belief here you are not willing to consider how they contradict Scripture on many points.

Here are just one example, You wrote:
"God actually changed, becoming forever the GodMan!"

God writes:
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." - Heb. 13:8

"For I am the LORD, I change not;" - Malachi 3:6

If interested, you can take a look at this study I wrote as part of a series on the attributes of God:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/566088201/2-the-perfections-of-god/

We need to always be lining up what we believe with Scripture. Agreed?

per the Bible, God became a man...

NEVER happened before, God did actually change!

Went from Being of Spirit, to a being of flesh and blood!
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
per the Bible, God became a man...

NEVER happened before, God did actually change!

Went from Being of Spirit, to a being of flesh and blood!

OK, I give up.

I only have Scripture. What is that in comparison to your preconceived, tightly clenched notions.

FWIW, I am not arguing that Christ did not assume our nature during the days of His flesh.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
OK, I give up.

I only have Scripture. What is that in comparison to your preconceived, tightly clenched notions.

FWIW, I am not arguing that Christ did not assume our nature during the days of His flesh.

You do mean biblical notions, correct?
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OK, for those who want to see my answer again, here it is again. This is from 12/29 on a different thread. Same question:

The key issue here is just what the purpose of communion should be. Preacher4truth wrote:

"Since we are instructed to do such as a memorial to Christ, and to signify His returning"

Let's look at the verse:

" For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. " - 1 Cor. 11:26

Now there is signifying happening in this verse, but it is not the Lord's coming. It is the Lord's death. When I said that "There is no such verse" I merely meant that the verse was being used to say what it did not say.

Now, as to whether Preterists should now no longer observe Communion, since we believe the Lord's Parousia is already here: We are certainly free to observe it. Personally I always look forward to Communion.

The pivotal word here is that "until". This is just like the "until" in the Great Commission. Christ will be with us until "the end of the age".

Does this mean that after the end of the age Christ will no longer be with us? Of course not. Wherever we place the "end of the age", both Preterists, and futurists understand that Christ is still with us, and will be forever.

The same applies to this passage that you brought up.

There are three or four other passages in the Bible which uses the "until" in this (seemingly) misleading sense. If needed, I can dig them up.
This is so terribly misleading that I simply can't let it pass.
Why did Paul , say 'Ye do shew forth the Lord's death til He come'? He could have said, 'Ye do shew forth the Lord's death' and left it at that. There must be a significance in the words 'Til He come.' And of course there is. When the Lord Jesus returns, we won't be celebrating the Lord's Supper, we'll be doing something altogether better (Isaiah 25:6-8) in His very presence.

Now what about 'the end of the age' in the Great Commission? It's exactly the same. There must be a significance in our Lord telling us that He wil be wit us 'even to the end of the age, otherwise He wouldn't have said it. The Great Commission itself is only 'to the end of the age.' Then it ceases. So no the Lord Jesus won't be with us in our evangelism after the end of the age for the very good reason that there will be no more evangelism. He will be with us after that time in an altogether more wonderful way.

Steve
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I can't help noticing that none of the Hyper-preterists have made the least effort to refute my O.P. They will write about anything else, but not that.
So just in case they've forgotten what this thread is about, here is the O.P. again.

I posted this on another thread recently, but none of the Hyper-preterists seemed to want to make a comment on it, so here it is again.

The meaning of the word 'see' is determined in English by the context. Its usual meaning is to see with the eyes, to make visual contact. If I were to say to someone, "I saw your sister yesterday" he would naturally suppose that I had seen her with my eyes, unless of course I added, "In a dream." If, on the other hand, I say to someone, "I see what you mean," he will understand that I am using the word 'see' in the sense of comprehending. The context decides.

Greek is no different. The context will determine the meaning, although the wide variety of words for 'see' used will also be helpful. Now let's look at Acts 1:9-11.

v 9. 'Now when [Jesus] had spoken these things, while [the Apostles] watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight'

The Greek word translated 'watch' here in the NKJV is blepo, which is one of the main words for seeing. I recommend a word search, which will reveal that in the vast majority of cases it means to see with the eyes. Therefore, unless there is some over-riding contextual reason to do otherwise, blepo should be taken to mean simply 'see.' The Greek construction is a Genitive Absolute: 'With them watching' would be a literal translation. The NIV translates it as 'Before their very eyes'. If you look also at Luke's other account of the Ascension (Luke 24:50f), it seems that as He was in the act of blessing them, with arms raised, He levitated and rose into the sky while the Apostles watched. He rose upwards until a cloud obscured the Apostles' sight of Him.

v10. 'And while they looked steadfastly (Gk. atenizo) towards heaven as He went up , behold, two men stood by them in white apparel.'

They had been looking up as the Lord rose and remained looking (open-mouthed, no doubt) after He disappeared. The Greek word atenizo always means to look closely, or to fasten the eyes upon something.

v11. 'Who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing (Gk. emblepo) up into heaven? This same Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw (Gk. theaomai) Him go into heaven."'

Emblepo, tranlated 'gaze' here, usually means, 'to turn one's eyes upon' or simply to 'look.' In Matt 6:26, it could be translated 'consider,' but there is no reason to suppose that the Apostles were 'considering' the heavens. The Greek word for 'saw' in v11 is theaomai which again always means to 'view' or 'observe attentively' with the eyes.

I don't know what could be clearer than this. The Apostles saw with their eyes Jesus rise at least part of the way towards heaven. He left visibly; He will return visibly 'in like manner'. People saw Him leave; people will see Him return. He left with a physical body (Luke 24:38-43); He will return in a physical body. A cloud parted them from Him; a cloud will part to reveal Him (Rev 1:7; cf. 19:11).

These verses utterly refute Hyper-preterism. It is just the end of the story. The context and the language simply will not allow the idea of an invisible departure, and will therefore not allow the idea of an invisible return.

Come on then, you H.P.s! Defend your beloved doctrine!

Steve
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
This is so terribly misleading that I simply can't let it pass.
Why did Paul , say 'Ye do shew forth the Lord's death til He come'? He could have said, 'Ye do shew forth the Lord's death' and left it at that. There must be a significance in the words 'Til He come.' And of course there is. When the Lord Jesus returns, we won't be celebrating the Lord's Supper, we'll be doing something altogether better (Isaiah 25:6-8) in His very presence.

Now what about 'the end of the age' in the Great Commission? It's exactly the same. There must be a significance in our Lord telling us that He wil be wit us 'even to the end of the age, otherwise He wouldn't have said it. The Great Commission itself is only 'to the end of the age.' Then it ceases. So no the Lord Jesus won't be with us in our evangelism after the end of the age for the very good reason that there will be no more evangelism. He will be with us after that time in an altogether more wonderful way.

Steve

This is so terribly misleading that I simply can't let it pass. The very use of the word is intended to cast me in a nefarious light, as if I am perhaps twirling my mustache and chortling with glee at my dupes. But I come to expect this from MM.

This post mistaken in its misuse of this Old Testament passage, using it divorced from context. Let us take a look at this wonderful passage, including one verse further down, Isa. 26:6-9. In this post I am just going to deal with this Isaiah passages that Steve merely tagged, not understanding the application of it:

And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.

And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations.

He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.


The important question here is timing. When does this take place? We can either go to our preconceived notions, reading mechanically from the futurist play book, or we can just do a bit more of study in the Scriptures. When we do this we can see that the above passage refers to the time of the church, not some future time.

The passage links "veil" and "death". This is very similar to what we find in 2 Cor. 3:12-15

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished*:

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.


Then we have this mention of "death" inverses 6- 7:

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:


The Old Covenant is spoken of as a "ministration of death". It is also spoken of as a veil upon the hearts of the people. But the veil is taken away in Christ, as we read in verses 14-15.

The veil itself was typified by the Temple veil, which kept the worshipers of the Old Covenant from entering into the true center of inner worship, the Holy of Holies. The veil was torn away when Messiah's flesh was "torn", making way for this new of access to God, Matt.27:51; Heb. 10:20.

Why am I mentioning all this? Because the destruction of the veil in this Isaiah passage is the same as the taking away (or tearing) of the veil in those New Testament passages.

This is the new life we have in Christ now, not some supposed future consummation. This is the new heavens and the new earth. It is not that the old earth goes away in its outward form, it is that we now live in a new reality in Christ.

With this in mind, Paul alludes to Isaiah 25:8 in 1 Cor. 7:29-31:

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.


First of all we have Paul's Preteristic idea that "the times short". Poor inspired Apostle! He didn't have the benefit of the latest Thomas Ice scholarship or he wouldn't have blundered so.

Then,in closing, look at Isaiah 25:9. Once again, this is Christ opening up the new way through His death and resurrection, opening the way for new life in Him. Why go to the extravagance of seeing this as some future event when it fits so well with what you read in the New Testament?
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I can't help noticing that none of the Hyper-preterists have made the least effort to refute my O.P. They will write about anything else, but not that.
So just in case they've forgotten what this thread is about, here is the O.P. again.



Come on then, you H.P.s! Defend your beloved doctrine!

Steve

Put your tin horn down. This has been dealt with before. Look in the archives, if you want. I specifically remembered dealing with this very thing.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
This is so terribly misleading that I simply can't let it pass. The very use of the word is intended to cast me in a nefarious light, as if I am perhaps twirling my mustache and chortling with glee at my dupes. But I come to expect this from MM.

This post mistaken in its misuse of this Old Testament passage, using it divorced from context. Let us take a look at this wonderful passage, including one verse further down, Isa. 26:6-9. In this post I am just going to deal with this Isaiah passages that Steve merely tagged, not understanding the application of it:

And in this mountain shall the LORD of hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined.

And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations.

He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it.

And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.


The important question here is timing. When does this take place? We can either go to our preconceived notions, reading mechanically from the futurist play book, or we can just do a bit more of study in the Scriptures. When we do this we can see that the above passage refers to the time of the church, not some future time.

The passage links "veil" and "death". This is very similar to what we find in 2 Cor. 3:12-15

Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished*:

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.


Then we have this mention of "death" inverses 6- 7:

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:


The Old Covenant is spoken of as a "ministration of death". It is also spoken of as a veil upon the hearts of the people. But the veil is taken away in Christ, as we read in verses 14-15.

The veil itself was typified by the Temple veil, which kept the worshipers of the Old Covenant from entering into the true center of inner worship, the Holy of Holies. The veil was torn away when Messiah's flesh was "torn", making way for this new of access to God, Matt.27:51; Heb. 10:20.

Why am I mentioning all this? Because the destruction of the veil in this Isaiah passage is the same as the taking away (or tearing) of the veil in those New Testament passages.

This is the new life we have in Christ now, not some supposed future consummation. This is the new heavens and the new earth. It is not that the old earth goes away in its outward form, it is that we now live in a new reality in Christ.

With this in mind, Paul alludes to Isaiah 25:8 in 1 Cor. 7:29-31:

But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.


First of all we have Paul's Preteristic idea that "the times short". Poor inspired Apostle! He didn't have the benefit of the latest Thomas Ice scholarship or he wouldn't have blundered so.

Then,in closing, look at Isaiah 25:9. Once again, this is Christ opening up the new way through His death and resurrection, opening the way for new life in Him. Why go to the extravagance of seeing this as some future event when it fits so well with what you read in the New Testament?

You do realise that 'soon/shortly" is same as "All" depending on the contex and Greek/hebrew terminolgy used...

Does NOT always mean same thing!
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You do realise that 'soon/shortly" is same as "All" depending on the contex and Greek/hebrew terminolgy used...

Does NOT always mean same thing!

So when Paul, under the inspiration of God, wrote "the time is short" he was, choose one:
1. Mistaken - under inspiration?
2. Purposefully deceptive or vague? (The same person who said, "Let your 'Yes", be "Yes" and your "No" be "No".)
3. Passing bad information - from God?

What?

"Shortly" means "shortly". "Soon" means "soon".

Plus, besides these time-verses that have "shortly" and "soon" that you futurists dance around, there are many others that do not have those terms but still speak of a soon-coming of Christ in the lifetimes of at least some of His generation.
 

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
So when Paul, under the inspiration of God, wrote "the time is short" he was, choose one:
1. Mistaken - under inspiration?
2. Purposefully deceptive or vague? (The same person who said, "Let your 'Yes", be "Yes" and your "No" be "No".)
3. Passing bad information - from God?

What?

"Shortly" means "shortly". "Soon" means "soon".

Plus, besides these time-verses that have "shortly" and "soon" that you futurists dance around, there are many others that do not have those terms but still speak of a soon-coming of Christ in the lifetimes of at least some of His generation.
More likely just an ignorant man who does not know what "time is short" means. "Time is short" is Paul reminding Christians that life on this earth is short and we should be concentrating on things above and not on things below.

And "shortly" in Revelation 1 does not mean "soon to happen" but rather describes the duration of the event once it begins.

Everybody except those with faulty exegesis skills understands this. Of course if you have to twist scripture to explain your faulty doctrine your conduct is understandable. But it is better to allow the scriptures to speak for themselves rather than try to twist them to conform to your warped view of eschatology.
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
More likely just an ignorant man who does not know what "time is short" means. "Time is short" is Paul reminding Christians that life on this earth is short and we should be concentrating on things above and not on things below.

And "shortly" in Revelation 1 does not mean "soon to happen" but rather describes the duration of the event once it begins.

Everybody except those with faulty exegesis skills understands this. Of course if you have to twist scripture to explain your faulty doctrine your conduct is understandable. But it is better to allow the scriptures to speak for themselves rather than try to twist them to conform to your warped view of eschatology.

This shoddy exegesis on your part, professor, is less excusable than for many here, because you assumedly have had the skills and opportunity to get to the truth of this matter. Instead you presume to do just what you accuse me of, twisting Scripture to conform to your warped and Christ-demeaning eschatology.
 

Logos1

New Member
Drag around all you want Tim, but once you get on the Roman road make it snappy

And "shortly" in Revelation 1 does not mean "soon to happen" but rather describes the duration of the event once it begins.

LOL,

This is the dime store novel version of biblical commentary.

Jesus says I am coming quickly means not shortly or quickly, but when events start to happen they will happen quickly.

Paul tells Timothy to come to him quickly using same Greek word means come to him quickly. (And all this time I thought it mean drag around all you want to Timothy, but when you start your trip to Rome make it quick)

Only the preconceived bias and scripture twisting of futurism could produce such laughable conclusions and take itself seriously.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
LOL,

This is the dime store novel version of biblical commentary.

Jesus says I am coming quickly means not shortly or quickly, but when events start to happen they will happen quickly.

Paul tells Timothy to come to him quickly using same Greek word means come to him quickly. (And all this time I thought it mean drag around all you want to Timothy, but when you start your trip to Rome make it quick)

Only the preconceived bias and scripture twisting of futurism could produce such laughable conclusions and take itself seriously.
Of course, Hyper-preterism requires the words 'soon' or 'quickly' to be taken absolutely literally. 'See' or 'watch' on the other hand must on no account be taken literally, and every other part of Scripture must be turned into a sort of wax nose to be pushed and poked out of context in order to satisfy the wretched eisgesis of H.P.

However, perhaps its time to look at what the Scriptures have to say about time.

'Then the Lord answered me and said:
"Write the vision
And make it plain on tablets,
That he may run who reads it.
For the vision is yet for an appointed time;
But at the end it will speak, and it will not lie.
Though it tarries, wait for it;
Because it will surely come,
It will not tarry."'

Hab 2:2-3 (NKJV)

This is strange, isn't it? On the one hand, Habakkuk's revelation will tarry, and its readers will have to wait for it; on the other hand, it won't tarry. What this means is that God's timings are different from ours. He has an appointed time for all the events of history and nothing is slow to Him. On the other hand, humans are impatient for God to act, but they just have to wait.

"For thus says the Lord of hosts: 'Once more (it is a little while) I will shake heaven and earth, the sea and dry land; and I will shake all nations, and they shall come to the Desire of All Nations, and I will fill this temple with glory,' says the Lord of hosts.'"
Hag 2:6-7 (NKJV)

This prophecy has a dual fulfilment. It refers to the Lord Jesus coming to the Temple, but it also refers (according to Heb 13:26) to the end of time. 'A little while' therefore refers to a period of at least 500 years. Again, God's timings are not ours.

'....Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 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 creation."
2 Peter 3:3-4 (NKJV)

We have, of course, no bigger scoffer than Logos 1.

'But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.'

2 Peter 3:8-10 (NKJV)

Here the Apostle kindly spells out for us what is implied in the Habakkuk and Haggai verses. God's timings are not ours. You may take the 'thousand years' literally, or you may take it, as I do, as meaning all the time that is, but either way, the time is as a blink of God's eye. To paraphrase Habakkuk, the prophecy of Christ's return awaits an appointed time. If the Lord tarries, we just have to be patient and wait for Him, for He will come and will not tarry. He is coming quickly, but not according to our definition of quickness.

'For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.'
Phil 3:20-21 (NKJV)

The Philippians were eagerly awaiting the return of Christ. So were the Thessalonians (1 Thes 1:10) and the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:7). What happened to them in AD 70? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! They wouldn't even have heard about the fall of Jerusalem for some weeks or months, and it made absolutely no difference to them. Did anything happen to their 'lowly bodies'? Were they conformed to Christ's glorious body? Nope! They just kept on getting older and wrinklier just as they had in AD 69, and would continue to do in AD 71 and after. What a let down!

We too are eagerly to await the Return of Christ. It is God's will for all generations of Christians to do so (Matt 25:13; 2 Peter 3:11-13). It is our blessed hope (Titus 2:13), and if it doesn't happen in our lifetimes then we, like Abraham, will 'die in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off' (Heb 11:13), and we will rise to greet Him (1 Thes 4:17) as a bride goes out to meet her husband (Matt 25:6), when He shall come.

Steve
 
Top