Featured Creeds vs. Bible

The days of His flesh were those years of His Incarnation. BTW, I would to hear you - or from anyone else here - what "days of His flesh" means to you. My position is that an unbiased interpretation - that is, not running to a commentary - would be to assume that these "days" were bracketed by periods that were not "flesh". Seeing that we are speaking of Christ that would be both directions of eternity of not being in the flesh.

There are no inspired historical records seeing that Scripture was closed with the event itself. There are uninspired but still helpful historical accounts from Josephus, Tacitus, and others

"In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightening flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure." - the Histories 5.13

"Parousia" means "presence" so, no, I do not believe He will appear in the eschatological sense. He is here now. When we die, of course, we will be with Him in a more intimate sense. "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord".

 

Not sure why you say this. I would rather be friendly than make enemies. All I am doing is writing what I believe. And asking for Scriptural feedback, not traditional. I have benefited immensely from this board and had to modify my views on several points. But that was when there was Scriptural interaction.

 

At what point is my reading divorced from the text? Saying isnt proving.

 

The beliefs were new to me too. I finally accepted them during a Bible study I led on Hebrews. I started out Amill and ended up Preterist. I knew even then that there was a lot of opposition to this view. Try as I may I just could not unconnect the dots I saw in Scripture. I was honestly looking for some sort of "moderate" position, hopefully through some balancing feedback from other Christians. But to my surprise there was a lot of animosity from former friends. Almost as surprising were the rebuttals I received. Most of them were either "The church has never believed this, Creeds X, Y, Z say this ... etc." or they were just plain insulting.

The church I am a member of is Independent Baptist, though I have not been able to attend for a good while, being out of the country for so long. For a while I went to a Southern Baptist church in Del Rio, Texas, but the new preacher put a stop to my teaching anymore. Though he kindly allowed me to warm the pew.

 

Yes, indeed, we are all still waiting for those Chaldeans, that "bitter and hasty nation" to fill the land. Hab. 1.6.

It is you that is linking those NT verses with Habakkuk 2.3, not the Bible.

 

I am not going to repeat myself to accomodate you. In posts 25, 27, 30, 118, and 121 I showed plenty of connections on the larger question of timing. I might also add KyRedneck's post 129.

None of which you responded to. Unless you consider snide one-liners a response.

I also had responded to your specific point here on an earlier thread. It also received no answer.

A common situation I encounter is when I present verses A, B, C, and D. And the response is to ignore those and say, "How about verse L?"

 

Let's try it a different way.

1.The marriage passage addresses the contemporary hearers, not us.
2. For them there is no male or female.
3. The Law was finished the same time the marriage issue was done away with - for them.
4. That passage says nothing about our situation today.

 

There are two or three foundational misunderstandings that are at the root of much of modern eschatological misinterpretation.

1. Eschatology has to do with the last days of the Jewish people as a covenant nation.
2. Eschatological passages of the New Testament must be interpreted divorced from their Old Testament.
3. Almost all of the New Testament eschatological passages are not worldwide in application but are limited to a certain time ("this generation") and a certain place (the land of Israel, not the world, the city of Jerusalem not Rome).