RC Sproul and Eschatology........

[Grasshopper]

First of all it doesn’t matter what you call it camping out on the particular names of theses phrases such as “anthropomorphism”, "figure of speech", "hyperbole" or any other term one wants to hang on it.

Actually it does, metaphors and hyperbolic statements are not anthropomophims. Your argument and objection to my position was based on a anthropomorphism. Had you based it on hyperbole or even figures of speech my arguments would have been different. You using anthropomorphism was an easy argument to defeat.

If one says that the Scripture doesn’t mean what it says when being used in a human context then it really doesn’t matter what term you attach to it.

I disagree, metaphors are found in the OT and can be used to determine meaning when used in the NT. 'Coming on the clouds" in the NT seems self explanatory but may have a very different meaning when one is aware of its usage in the OT.

Again it doesn’t matter what you call it. Just because I don’t want to get involved with circular reasoning or be measured by a straw man standard and a pronouncement therefore that my argument is moot doesn’t mean my argument(s) are indeed moot just because of your decree.

When you insist "near" cannot be understood because of an anthropormorphism in Genesis, then yes, your point is moot.

snip, it does not matter the tag you hang on it (anthropomorphic, symbolic, hyperbole, figure of speech, etc…).

It absolutely matters.

In addition, assigning it a name which has more authors in agreement with one’s own view is not the measure of truth when it come to the Scriptures (although I personally don’t completely dismiss the value of the varying opinions of scholars).

Can you name one who suggests time statements are anthropomorphisms?

Yes, in some instances.

12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Here Jesus is clear that he wants to hide the truth from some thus the use of parables. He did no such thing in regards to prophecy. In fact He informed them for their own safety:


Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

No parable there.

This is also evident within the church by observation that there are so many diverse opinions concerning eschatology (as a singular example). Admittedly this is not God’s doing but it is a reality.

You are right, it is not of God's doing. But your arguments say just the opposite.

They cannot all be right, therefore there is a breech of communications between God and man and in the instance of Mark 4 some (howbeit “outsiders”) were not given understanding as the will of God.

That breech was intentional and clearly explained.

And again, as to believers, Peter speaks of our beloved brother Paul who taught things “hard to be understood”.

Which would seem to eliminate a plain literal interpretation as dispies claim.

And if I am the only one who sees this, what difference does that make?

To you nothing, to others it raises red flags.

Just because I don’t give an answer with chapter and verse out of Calvin’s Institutes (as a “for instance”) or Chafer’s Systematic Theology or whoever, doesn’t necessarily make me wrong.

No it doesn't. But just quoting someone........anyone on this might be helpful. I like quoting others occasionally just to show I'm not making it up on the run and that real theologians have seen what I see. Doesn't make me right but at least it lends credibility to my position.

Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness;

This does in fact show us that time to God is very different. It does not say it is a filter to run time-statements through and therefore God didn't give us clear, plain time indicators..

Maybe but possibly not, when Scripture is compared with Scripture (2 Peter 3:8) it could be a subjective proposition as well as one that I have explained before in the apparent modification of what was originally given as in the case of the Ninivites, God promised one thing and something else happened

And we are back to the possibility that Revelation may or may not happen.

In the case of the Luke 21:28 passage the “nigh” is after the phrase “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”. In my view the events of verse 25 are directly following this scriptural episode of the “times of the Gentiles” and is the generation of Israelites which “bring forth fruits” that Jesus referred to in Mathew 21

So now "nigh" is understandable?

43 Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

Who will the Kingdom be taken from, who will it be given to and when will this occur?

Those Israelites of Luke 21:28 are not the Israelites contemporary with the sack of Jerusalem but those which come after the “times” of the Gentiles” are fulfilled and are part of the Tribulation.

Luk 21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Who is the "ye" that Jesus is referring to? Why is it a different group than found here:

Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Where did the shift occur?

The servant must have had a reason for believing that his Lord was delaying His coming .

When was Jesus originally suppose to return?

So what do you mean by this?

My presumption is that you believe that the “New Jerusalem” is a metaphor for heaven the dwelling place of God.

Am I wrong (Don't worry, I won't bully you about it - unless I'm provoked)?

New Covenant=New Heavens and New Earth. (can of worms)

 

[HankD]

"Actually it does, metaphors and hyperbolic statements are not anthropomophims. Your argument and objection to my position was based on a anthropomorphism. Had you based it on hyperbole or even figures of speech my arguments would have been different. You using anthropomorphism was an easy argument to defeat".


Again, IMO, you are mistaken. It does not matter because the basic principle is the same for all these categories When one says that the Scripture does not say what the printed words plainly teach then a credible explanation must be forthcoming.

I disagree, metaphors are found in the OT and can be used to determine meaning when used in the NT. 'Coming on the clouds" in the NT seems self explanatory but may have a very different meaning when one is aware of its usage in the OT.

When you insist "near" cannot be understood because of an anthropormorphism in Genesis, then yes, your point is moot.

It is not moot because the Spirit of God who inspired the Book of Genesis inspired all the others as well.

Can you name one who suggests time statements are anthropomorphisms?

Yes, Dr C. John Collins (although I don’t agree with his premise).

In the journal Presbyterion 20 (1994):109-130, published by Covenant Theological Seminary, Dr. C. John Collins in his essay, "How Old Is the Earth? Anthropomorphic Days in Genesis 1:1–2:3."

"The simplest explanation for these six days is that they are anthropomorphisms: that is, they are `God’s days’" (p. 117).
...
"The seven `days’ of the creation week are an anthropomorphism to describe God’s activity." (p. 120).

Here Jesus is clear that he wants to hide the truth from some thus the use of parables. He did no such thing in regards to prophecy. In fact He informed them for their own safety:

Luk 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
Luk 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

I agree that it is evident in this passage.

No parable there.

You are right, it is not of God's doing. But your arguments say just the opposite.

It is not of God's doing but the fact that one does not know a particular truth is that he/she does know that they do not know that truth.

Another fact is that God could at any time open the mind of believer or unbeliever to know the truth.

So, while God inspired the Scripture He does not immediately give the same depth of illumination to every believer. Therefore there is not always the same degree of understanding in each of His children.

That breech was intentional and clearly explained.

Nevertheless, the breech is there often through no fault of their own being "babes" in Christ, else why the need of the "teachers".

Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Which would seem to eliminate a plain literal interpretation as dispies claim.

That is your opinion.
Dispensationalists often times insist upon a literal interpretation depending upon the syntax, grammar and context of a passage (True they are predisposed to see their view there as we all are).

To you nothing, to others it raises red flags.

Well I'm not ready to change my views so there is not a lot I can do but sympathize with these "others" because I too have seen these red flags here at the BB.

No it doesn't. But just quoting someone........anyone on this might be helpful. I like quoting others occasionally just to show I'm not making it up on the run and that real theologians have seen what I see. Doesn't make me right but at least it lends credibility to my position.

OK, see my quotes by Dr Collins.

This does in fact show us that time to God is very different. It does not say it is a filter to run time-statements through and therefore God didn't give us clear, plain time indicators.

Again, see Dr Collins premise above.

And we are back to the possibility that Revelation may or may not happen.

If it has all happened in the past your question is "moot".
If not, I believe it will but it may not happen the way I believe it will because some of what it says (as your writers suggest) may be "anthropomorphisms" or have meanings that do not agree with the surface readings such as God being "grieved". If He cannot be "grieved" then that would mean that "the wrath of God" may be an anthropomorphism and we can't really know exactly what it means when applied to God.

So now "nigh" is understandable?

Anything is understandable if God gives enlightenment.

Who will the Kingdom be taken from, who will it be given to and when will this occur?

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

This happened sometime before Acts 1:6
Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?


Luk 21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

Who is the "ye" that Jesus is referring to? Why is it a different group than found here:

The "ye" were the believing Jews to whom Jesus was speaking.
Those after the "times of the Gentiles" are fulfilled to whom Jesus is also refering IMO, will be also be believing Jews.

Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

Where did the shift occur?

After the Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

When was Jesus originally suppose to return?

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.


HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

"Actually it does, metaphors and hyperbolic statements are not anthropomophims. Your argument and objection to my position was based on a anthropomorphism. Had you based it on hyperbole or even figures of speech my arguments would have been different. You using anthropomorphism was an easy argument to defeat".


Again, IMO, you are mistaken. It does not matter because the basic principle is the same for all these categories When one says that the Scripture does not say what the printed words plainly teach then a credible explanation must be forthcoming.

You used the argument of an anthropormorphism in Genesis as a basis for questioning "near" and "at hand" in the NT. That is a bad argument.

Yes, Dr C. John Collins (although I don’t agree with his premise).

But why would you reject his premise when your arguments are the same as his?

Nevertheless, the breech is there often through no fault of their own being "babes" in Christ, else why the need of the "teachers".

And I'm trying to "teach" you. You should listen to your Professor.:laugh:

Dispensationalists often times insist upon a literal interpretation depending upon the syntax, grammar and context of a passage (True they are predisposed to see their view there as we all are).

Except when it comes to the simplest concepts, time statements.

OK, see my quotes by Dr Collins.

Again, see Dr Collins premise above.

He suffers from the same illusion of what an antropomorphism is as you do.

http://reformed-theology.org/ice/newslet/bc/bc.97.08.htm

I quote from the article:

Then Collins writes, "The simplest explanation for these six days is that they are anthropomorphisms: that is, they are `God's days'" (p. 117). Right away we have to object: Man (the image of God) is a theomorph; therefore, man's days are copies of God's, not vice versa. By itself, the notion that the days are "anthropomorphic" actually points to their being six normal literal days.

He also says that when God breathed into Adam, this is an anthropomorphism. Is it? It means God imparted the Spirit (breath) of life into man. I submit that Collins is using "anthropomorphism" very loosely and not very carefully here.

Then he submits that when the seventh day says that God was "refreshed" (in Exodus 31:17), this is an anthropomorphism, because God does not get tired and does not need to be refreshed (p. 118). Quite true, but this verb does not occur in Genesis 2, where God rested after the seven days. There is no such anthropomorphism in the actual text of the Seven Days. Thus, Collins's point is irrelevant to the text of Genesis 1.

Collins concludes with this: "The seven `days' of the creation week are an anthropomorphism to describe God's activity. If we wish to specify their relationship to time as we know it, perhaps we may view them as successive periods of undefined length (with perhaps some overlap)" (p. 120). Several observations:

First, if these "days" are simply an exercise in anthropomorphism designed to point to something ineffable, then they need have no relationship to "time as we know it" at all. They are nothing more than a literary figure.

If it has all happened in the past your question is "moot".

What was my question?

If not, I believe it will but it may not happen the way I believe it will because some of what it says (as your writers suggest) may be "anthropomorphisms" or have meanings that do not agree with the surface readings such as God being "grieved". If He cannot be "grieved" then that would mean that "the wrath of God" may be an anthropomorphism and we can't really know exactly what it means when applied to God.

Thus atonement and judgment are unknowable.

Anything is understandable if God gives enlightenment.

Not if nobody knows who are enlightened and who are not.

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

This happened sometime before Acts 1:6
Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

This was your statement that lead to my original question: "Who will the Kingdom be taken from, who will it be given to and when will this occur?"


In the case of the Luke 21:28 passage the “nigh” is after the phrase “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”. In my view the events of verse 25 are directly following this scriptural episode of the “times of the Gentiles” and is the generation of Israelites which “bring forth fruits” that Jesus referred to in Mathew 21

Yet you just said that event occured here:

"This happened sometime before Acts 1:6
Acts 1:6"

Perhaps I'm missing something but it seems you are saying "the times of the Gentiles" are over and have been since Acts 1:6.

Luk 21:7 And they asked him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?
Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.

The "ye" were the believing Jews to whom Jesus was speaking.

Those after the "times of the Gentiles" are fulfilled to whom Jesus is also refering IMO, will be also be believing Jews.

Then these future Jews should be referred to as "they" not the personal pronoun "ye".

Mark 13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

This was your answer to my question:

"When was Jesus originally suppose to return? "

It is quite obvious by now you are not going to answer my question. You keep insisting on a "delayed coming". Yet there is nothing in the verse you quoted that hints at an earlier coming. Therefore there is no reason to call for a "delayed coming". Yet you keep doing just that. Why? If Jesus gave so signs as to the time-frame of His coming why insist on a "delayed" coming?

 

[HankD]

You used the argument of an anthropomorphism in Genesis as a basis for questioning "near" and "at hand" in the NT. That is a bad argument

That is your opinion. You also asked why I cited Dr Collins if I didn’t agree with his illustration. You asked for a name, I gave one.

Dare I to ask if you agree with him that the “days” of Genesis are anthropomorphic?

So here is someone who agrees with two of your approved authors that the literal meaning of a word may not have the meaning that it normally has in the context of human understanding. And indeed this author relates the passage of time to an anthropomorphism.

I fulfilled the request as well as several others, but everytime I do the deck gets reshuffled with a new deal but the same game is played but with new and different rules (oops I forgot Baptists don’t play cards). This game is rigged.

And I'm trying to "teach" you. You should listen to your Professor.

Cute Grasshopper. However I must admit that I have learned from you.
I don’t see eye to eye with most of the preterist view, but I have a better understanding of my preterist brethren and their view and for that I am grateful.

What was my question?

The question (interrogation) concerned whether the Book of Revelation may or may no happen.

I said if preterism is the truth then it is “moot” (to use one of your own words).
Then I said I believe it will happen, followed by a sarcasm: It may not happen the way I believe it will because if God cannot be “grieved” (an anthropomorphism) then “the wrath of God” (a major theme of the Book) may also be an anthropomorphism and we can’t really know what it means.

Notif nobody knows who are enlightened and who are not.

God knows.

You asked about the following scripture and my statements concerning them which were in response to "Who will the Kingdom be taken from, who will it be given to and when will this occur?”

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

This happened sometime before Acts 1:6

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

Here is a more detailed explanation. When Jesus was here, Israel was already in possession of the earthly manifestation of the “kingdom”

Because the leaders of the nation of Israel rejected Christ (their Messiah), He says “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”.

So, by the time Acts 1:6 happens the kingdom had already been taken away from Israel because the disciples ask When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

The answer was it was not time for them to know that.

However in Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

And Romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

So, until Jerusalem come under complete control of Israel, which it has never been since Christ’ ascension, then the Times of the Gentiles are still in affect.

The very first argument Sproul makes concerns this very prophetic proposition but he does a much better job of explanation than I do. You should take a look-see.

When was Jesus originally suppose to return? "

It is quite obvious by now you are not going to answer my question. You keep insisting on a "delayed coming". Yet there is nothing in the verse you quoted that hints at an earlier coming. Therefore there is no reason to call for a "delayed coming". Yet you keep doing just that. Why? If Jesus gave so signs as to the time-frame of His coming why insist on a "delayed" coming?

OK now I see what you want. I agree with Sproul and many others that the Scripture gives the impression that Jesus would return presumably within the apostolic age.

He did not. I simply can’t accept the preterist view and say that somehow Christ returned in AD70

We believe Scripture teaches Christ would come again in that first century generation while some of His original disciples were still alive, to judge the living and the dead.

Found in the public domain at http://www.preterist.org/whatwebelieve.asp

I believe there is a different and better method of the interpretation of the second coming of Christ. I do readily admit that every view I have studied has its “problems”.

Here is an example of the supposed “we” “they” which will also illustrate another difficulty in interpretation.

Acts 1
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Preterism (IMO) has a problem with this “this same Jesus” “taken up” “as He went up” and “in like manner”.

Did He come back in His resurrected body?
Did He come down in like manner as He went up? Since He started from the ground and went up did His feet touch the ground in AD70?

For dispensationalism the problematic part is the “ye” as you pointed out.
Our answer is that the “ye” refer to those believing Jews of the millennium, then as in this passage.

Zechariah 14
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Personally IMO this proposition is less problematic.


HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

That is your opinion. You also asked why I cited Dr Collins if I didn’t agree with his illustration. You asked for a name, I gave one.

I assume you reject his conclusions for the same reason I reject yours.

Dare I to ask if you agree with him that the “days” of Genesis are anthropomorphic?

No, anthropomorphic is the wrong argumentation.

So here is someone who agrees with two of your approved authors that the literal meaning of a word may not have the meaning that it normally has in the context of human understanding. And indeed this author relates the passage of time to an anthropomorphism.

They, to my knowledge, didn't apply time passages as anthropomorphisms.

Your argument against "near" and "at hand" would be better made using "figures of speech" arguments not anthropomorphisms.(I'm tired of typing that word, how about you?)

I fulfilled the request as well as several others, but everytime I do the deck gets reshuffled with a new deal but the same game is played but with new and different rules (oops I forgot Baptists don’t play cards). This game is rigged.

How have I reshuffled the deck? You did give an example, however he does not address the NT time-statements regarding prophecy.

Here is a more detailed explanation. When Jesus was here, Israel was already in possession of the earthly manifestation of the “kingdom”

What scriptures do you base this on?

Because the leaders of the nation of Israel rejected Christ (their Messiah), He says “Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”.

So, by the time Acts 1:6 happens the kingdom had already been taken away from Israel

So it has been given to the Gentiles?

The very first argument Sproul makes concerns this very prophetic proposition but he does a much better job of explanation than I do. You should take a look-see.

I disagree with Sproul on the future significance of modern Israel.

OK now I see what you want. I agree with Sproul and many others that the Scripture gives the impression that Jesus would return presumably within the apostolic age.

Now we are getting somewhere. What scriptures point to a return in the apostolic generation?

He did not. I simply can’t accept the preterist view and say that somehow Christ returned in AD70

What did Jesus mean by these:

Rev 2:5 remember, then, whence thou hast fallen, and reform, and the first works do; and if not, I come to thee quickly, and will remove thy lamp-stand from its place--if thou mayest not reform;
Rev 2:16 `Reform! and if not, I come to thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Were these real threats?

I believe there is a different and better method of the interpretation of the second coming of Christ. I do readily admit that every view I have studied has its “problems”.

We agree.

Here is an example of the supposed “we” “they” which will also illustrate another difficulty in interpretation.

Acts 1
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Preterism (IMO) has a problem with this “this same Jesus” “taken up” “as He went up” and “in like manner”.

I thought He was coming back riding a horse:

Rev 19:11 And I saw the heaven having been opened, and lo, a white horse, and he who is sitting upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness doth he judge and war,

Is that like manner?

Did He come back in His resurrected body?
Did He come down in like manner as He went up? Since He started from the ground and went up did His feet touch the ground in AD70?

Most preterists are partial-preterist and believe He will return again bodily. They see AD70 as a coming not the final coming.

Zechariah 14
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Personally IMO this proposition is less problematic.

That is a debate all in itself. But consider Micah:


Mic 1:3 For lo, Jehovah is going out from His place, And He hath come down, And hath trodden on high places of earth.
Mic 1:4 Melted have been the mountains under Him, And the valleys do rend themselves, As wax from the presence of fire, As waters cast down by a slope.

Speaking of an event long ago.

 

[HankD]

Dear Grasshopper,

I need to take a breather and repeat that we are progressing very slowly because of this rehash, repeat denial, rehash, repeat, denial method.

Also this mincing and parsing, reparsing, of words and the “is”, isn’t”; “is”, “isn’t”; “is”, isn’t” technique are counter productive and confusing to others and I doubt if anyone else is reading these post because of this. Personally and IMO, the goal of this thread should be understanding of the different eschatological points of view of the brethren and not what appears to me to a contest of one-ups-man-ship and getting bogged down in mire of details though related are of little profit.

Also you ask for something, I give exactly what you ask for then you find a reason to dismiss it and/or re-qualify the request several times until the request cannot be forthcoming.

So, having said that I’ll attempt to move forward.

I will separate my answer(s) up into separate segments in the hope that the current viewers will read them. People are more apt to read short posts rather than the ramblings in which we have both become engaged.

RE: Concerning Dr. Collins Anthropomorphic days

I assume you reject his conclusions for the same reason I reject yours

Yes, I think you are correct, however, it is an example you asked for without qualification.

I say “I think so” because I don’t know exactly how you view the “days” (Hebrew YOM) of Genesis 1. I believe they are literal days because of the Hebrew syntax, grammar and context: i.e. The use of cardinal numbers; the “evening and morning” clause and the use of the Hebrew waw consecutive:

Hebrew Verb Construction

While the Hebrew language may seem frightening to some, it really is not. The style of writing of Genesis I is historical, using the waw-consecutive to express consecutive action (waw = and). Biblical historians use this style to: "express actions, events, or states, which are to be regarded as the temporal or logical sequence of actions, events, or states mentioned immediately before." (Ref. 7) What this means for Genesis 1 is that God describes a sequence of events that occur one after the other throughout the creation week. We see this sequence reflected in the English as "And God said," "And there was," or "And it was," with which each verse in Genesis I begins. Each occurrence signifies that some action followed another in a real time sequence.
This is very important as it relates to the events of Genesis 1. Francis Andersen observes: "A string of WP (waw-consecutive) clauses in narrative prose (historical) stages events as occurring in a time sequence one after another. It is implied that one is finished before the next begins, so it is possible to speak of the verbs as 'perfective' in aspect." (Ref. 8) So the events of Genesis 1:14-19 have an opening waw-consecutive "And God said," and a closing pattern of waw-consecutives "and it was evening, and it was morning" separating the 4th day from the previous and subsequent commands God issued. The point for the interpreter is that each day in Genesis 1 must be a completed event! So God began His creation of the sun, moon, and stars on Day 4 and finished them on that same day. This also rules out the concept that the days may overlap in some manner.
Found online in the public domain at: http://ldolphin.org/waw.html

These combined grammatical elements have led me to adopt a literal view of the “days” of Genesis 1.

However the Bible is replete with more generalized uses of b’YOM or b’HaYOM (“In the day” or when anarthrous “in day”).

Even as soon as Genesis 5 and even related to the creation is the more generalized use of YOM (Without a cardinal number and without the definite article which the KJV translators added in the English for clarity to overcome this Hebrew idiomatic usage ).

Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Now you may say that this is inconsistent with a view of a less than literal or modified view of “soon” or “quickly” in the Scripture inspired by Holy Spirit from cover to cover.

However we all do this. I have given my reasons and explanations for this and if you reject them then so be it, at least there is an exchange of views.

In addition this has gone on for these nearly 2000 years in the realm of eschatology (and every other article of Systematic Theology).
We pick and choose those definitions and label at will certain words with “Anthropomorphism”, "figure of speech", "metaphor", "simile", etc, etc… to “make sense” of the total overview of “things to come”.

As far as I am concerned we all (preterist, partial-preterist, dispensationalist) try to put together an eschatological schema that harmonizes with the whole counsel of God. Currently eschatology is still developing howbeit more rapidly than in the previous centuries. This modern development in some ways seems related to the story of the 5 blind men elephant trying to figure out what an elephant looks like.

I will end this part of the response to your latest post and prepare the next one "soon"

HankD

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Grasshopper,

*Yawn* :sleeping_2: your arguement is pointless.

My first question to ask you.

Was the flood over the world of Genesis chapter 9 - literal and physical?

So, my second question, 2 Peter 3:10-13 predicts that the earth shall be burned with fire. Is flame or fire over the earth - literal and phsyical?

Does the WHOLE earth already destroyed with fire yet in the past?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Grasshopper]

Also you ask for something, I give exactly what you ask for then you find a reason to dismiss it and/or re-qualify the request several times until the request cannot be forthcoming.

To be fair to myself, we were discussing NT prophecy statements not Genesis 1. Yes you did provide a source who believes anthropomorphisms apply to “days” in Genesis 1, but as I stated, we weren’t discussing Genesis 1, but rather James 5:8, Rev. 1:1,3 etc….

However we all do this. I have given my reasons and explanations for this and if you reject them then so be it, at least there is an exchange of views.

Actually I don’t have a problem with your view of the “days” of Genesis. I’m about 55/45 on the subject. 55% representing ages instead of 24 hour days.

 

[Grasshopper]

Grasshopper,

*Yawn* :sleeping_2: your arguement is pointless.

So far your post is pointless.:tongue3:

My first question to ask you.

Was the flood over the world of Genesis chapter 9 - literal and physical?

Well, that would depend on your definition of world.

So, my second question, 2 Peter 3:10-13 predicts that the earth shall be burned with fire. Is flame or fire over the earth - literal and phsyical?

Once again, define "earth". Context is key. Also you might want to study what "elements" mean.

As an example, were the Chinese and Native Americans (Indians as they were called in Oklahoma when I was growing up) taxed by Caesar?

Luk 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Does the WHOLE earth already destroyed with fire yet in the past?

In context yes.

I will quote the great John Owen in answer to your question:

"On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text:-

'(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews, some of them believing, others opposing, the faith. Now there was no particular concernment of that generation, nor in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judgment in general ; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation ; and, besides, an ample testimony both to the one and the other of the power and dominion of the Lord Jesus Christ, which was the thing in question between them.

'(2.) Peter tells them, that after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of (vers. 7-13), " We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,' etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. lxv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God shall create these new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Saith Peter, " It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell." But now it is evident from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of Gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of Gospel ordinances to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed Heb. xii. 26-28.

First, There is the foundation of the apostle's inference and exhortation, seeing that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, in a day of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; let others mock at the threats of Christ's coming: He will come- He will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God Himself planted, -the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, -the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinancy against the Lord Christ, shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed: this we know shall be the end of these things, and that shortly." (John Owen on Second Peter)

John Lightfoot takes the same view:

"That the destruction of Jerusalem and the whole Jewish state is described as if the whole frame of the world were to be dissolved. Nor is it strange, when God destroyed his habitation and city, places once so dear to him, with so direful and sad an overthrow; his own people, whom he accounted of as much or more than the whole world beside, by so dreadful and amazing plagues. Matt. 24:29,30, 'The sun shall be darkened &c. Then shall appear the 'sign of the Son of man,' &c; which yet are said to fall out within that generation, ver. 34. 2 Pet. 3:10, 'The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,' &c. Compare with this Deut. 32:22, Heb. 12:26: and observe that by elements are understood the Mosaic elements, Gal 4:9, Coloss. 2:20: and you will not doubt that St. Peter speaks only of the conflagration of Jerusalem, the destruction of the nation, and the abolishing the dispensation of Moses" (vol. 3, p. 452).


I’m currently reading a book on this very subject. Here is an online version:

http://books.google.com/books?id=dNQY2X0hZ5MC&printsec=frontcover#PPP1,M1

 

[HankD]

To be fair to myself, we were discussing NT prophecy statements not Genesis 1. Yes you did provide a source who believes anthropomorphisms apply to “days” in Genesis 1, but as I stated, we weren’t discussing Genesis 1, but rather James 5:8, Rev. 1:1,3 etc….

Granted, but also to be fair to myself, I repeat that the same God which inspired the New Testament also inspired the Old. In additon, we were/are discussing Eschatology of which much in the NT is quotations and allusions to the OT passages including the above mentioned Books of James and Revelation.

I am still going to respond to several inquiries of your post previous to this one.

Circumstances have delayed the response.

HankD

 

[HankD]

First Grasshopper, though retired, I do contract work as a software engineer and I have been called in by the State of WA to do some work for them, so my responses may be less that “quick” as I often work long days at the site and simply crash when I get home. I will try to be as responsive as circumstance allows.

Here is a more detailed explanation. When Jesus was here, Israel was already in possession of the earthly manifestation of the “kingdom”

​

Your response:

What scriptures do you base this on?

There are many, here is one:

1 Chronicles 28
4 Howbeit the LORD God of Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever: for he hath chosen Judah to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over all Israel:
5 And of all my sons, (for the LORD hath given me many sons,) he hath chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel.

And another

Matthew 21
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

What did Jesus mean by these:

Rev 2:5 remember, then, whence thou hast fallen, and reform, and the first works do; and if not, I come to thee quickly, and will remove thy lamp-stand from its place--if thou mayest not reform;
Rev 2:16 `Reform! and if not, I come to thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Were these real threats?

Yes. They mean that He would remove those local churches and/or their gospel witness from their sites because of their compromise. These churches are in the historical part of the Book of Revelation, we don’t know if they repented or not as there is no record except perhaps for the church at Ephesus depending upon the date of both these books and the order in which they were written.

Incidently the verb "to come" when applied to Jesus does not necessarily imply the second coming:

John 6:17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.​

I thought He was coming back riding a horse:

Rev 19:11 And I saw the heaven having been opened, and lo, a white horse, and he who is sitting upon it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness doth he judge and war,

Is that like manner?

In my view (and I realize that I break from many dispensationalists views with my own view) this does not represent the second coming but His preparatory ride to the war called the Battle of Armageddon, the involved nations of which are gathered together in Revelation 16.

Those who do see this as the second coming call this a metaphorical statement of the final victory.

However in Revelation 14:

Revelation 14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.

Jesus has already returned by Revelation 14 and we see Him “standing” on Mount Zion with the redeemed and elected nation of Israel (the nation which Jesus said in Matthew 21 would receive the kingdom and bring forth the proper fruit). In Revelation 7 they are said to be "sealed" (redeemed), and here they have the Fathers name written in their foreheads (signifying special election) IMO of course.

Did He come back in His resurrected body?​

Did He come down in like manner as He went up? Since He started from the ground and went up did His feet touch the ground in AD70? ​

your response:

Most preterists are partial-preterist and believe He will return again bodily. They see AD70 as a coming not the final coming.

So then the following passage is problematic for everyone:

Acts 1
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

In my view the “ye” (2nd person plural) is not specific but general to a class of people: believing messianic Jews.

Generalizations as such are common in the Scripture:

John 4:9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.
…
John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

Acts 18:14 And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you:

These:the “ye” of Acts 1:9-11, IMO are the redeemed and elected messianic Jews who are first described in Revelation 7, before and awaiting His bodily return.

Revelation 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

May God bless you and yours Grasshopper.

HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

First Grasshopper, though retired, I do contract work as a software engineer and I have been called in by the State of WA to do some work for them, so my responses may be less that “quick” as I often work long days at the site and simply crash when I get home. I will try to be as responsive as circumstance allows.

No problem, I'll start narrowing it down a bit and perhaps we won't chase as many anthropomorphic rabbits. Now that I know you're an engineer, this former farm boy feels quite intimidated.


I asked this:

What did Jesus mean by these:

Rev 2:5 remember, then, whence thou hast fallen, and reform, and the first works do; and if not, I come to thee quickly, and will remove thy lamp-stand from its place--if thou mayest not reform;
Rev 2:16 `Reform! and if not, I come to thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Were these real threats?


Your response:

Yes. They mean that He would remove those local churches and/or their gospel witness from their sites because of their compromise. These churches are in the historical part of the Book of Revelation, we don’t know if they repented or not as there is no record except perhaps for the church at Ephesus depending upon the date of both these books and the order in which they were written.

How would He do that ie."come" since He physically was no longer on earth? Would it be in some kind of judgment? Doesn't that make that potential judgment a "coming". If so how would it be any different than calling the events of AD70 a "coming".

If He was willing to "come" and "remove those local churches and/or their gospel witness from their sites because of their compromise," how much more would He come and judge those He called whitewashed tombs and children of the Devil?

Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
Mat 23:33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Incidently the verb "to come" when applied to Jesus does not necessarily imply the second coming:

Partial-preterist would agree and even those who aren't preterist agree:

Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

John Gill allows for such in his comments on the verse above:

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, Mat_24:27.


HankD, your almost there!

John 6:17 And entered into a ship, and went over the sea toward Capernaum. And it was now dark, and Jesus was not come to them.

Jesus was still on earth in the above verse. How would He "come" to the Churches in Revelation?​

Finally, and to me most important, you didn't finish the question I asked. You said:

I agree with Sproul and many others that the Scripture gives the impression that Jesus would return presumably within the apostolic age.

I then asked:

What scriptures point to a return in the apostolic generation?

Since you agree with Sproul, what passages give the impression Jesus was to return in the apostolic generation?



Travel safe.:wavey:

 

[HankD]

No problem, I'll start narrowing it down a bit and perhaps we won't chase as many anthropomorphic rabbits. Now that I know you're an engineer, this former farm boy feels quite intimidated.

Don’t I’m harmless. I also have been a farmer (I had an 88 acre farm with critters in Maine where my wife and I raised 11 children – now that’s intimidation) and I think we need farmers more than we need engineers.

How would He do that ie."come" since He physically was no longer on earth? Would it be in some kind of judgment? Doesn't that make that potential judgment a "coming". If so how would it be any different than calling the events of AD70 a "coming".

Jesus comes to our church every Sunday because He said

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The events of AD70 were a violent destructive judgment upon Israel while the warnings in Revelation 1-3 were threatened judgments upon compromised local churches which has probably happened to many such churches over the centuries.

At one time Harvard Theological Seminary was supported by many gospel preaching churches and now both the school and those churches have become liberal and their candlestick has been removed.

If He was willing to "come" and "remove those local churches and/or their gospel witness from their sites because of their compromise," how much more would He come and judge those He called whitewashed tombs and children of the Devil?

Matthew 13
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

RE: This generation of Matthew 23:

Matthew 23
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

“this generation” reaches back in time to Abel and IMO is a general statement of God’s thoughts as in Proverbs 13 and not simply and only specific to the Nation of Israel in the days of His flesh. They were however of the same spirit.

Proverbs 13
11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

Jesus was still on earth in the above verse. How would He "come" to the Churches in Revelation?

I Explained that above, also He is almighty God and can come in judgment or for any purpose in any way He wishes, bodily or in Spirit, (you know that) whether for judgment or comforting.

In his prayer as our high Priest He says:

John 14
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
…
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

I then asked:

What scriptures point to a return in the apostolic generation?

Since you agree with Sproul, what passages give the impression Jesus was to return in the apostolic generation?

The ones you yourself have quoted:

James 5
8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

But this is a subjective passage. It does not say Behold the coming of the Lord is in AD70.

In fact James is dated at AD45, which would have been a 25 year wait at the door if he came in AD70 according to the preterist view. However would you call someone and tell them you will be over “soon” and then wait 25 years to go over?
Humanly speaking 25 minutes would be more like it. There is a human aspect and a divine aspect to “soon”.

It works the other way as well.
1000 or 2000 year wait is subjectively “nigh” to our eternal God.

2 Peter 3
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

And again I don’t know why He has delayed (humanly speaking) His coming but He has His own way of doing things.

e.g.

Matthew 14
15 And when it was evening, his disciples came to him, saying, This is a desert place, and the time is now past; send the multitude away, that they may go into the villages, and buy themselves victuals.
16 But Jesus said unto them, They need not depart; give ye them to eat.

John 6
5 When Jesus then lifted up his eyes, and saw a great company come unto him, he saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?
6 And this he said to prove him: for he himself knew what he would do.
7 Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.

Or

John 2
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.
22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.

OK, so yes, I believe the Lord was often nebulous in the things He said, both to believer and non-believer alike, on that point I am sure we can both agree. Even after His departure, He sent the Spirit of God to earth and gave spiritual gifts to the church to help us along the way to understand those things which were to be clearly revealed.

Now if Eschatology were exact, understandable, “cut and dry” that would be one thing however it is not and every system has difficulties, I believe most of His children (if not all) choose their view according to a sincere heart as I believe you have Grasshopper. It is IMO a credible view but just not one that I accept. For me the dispensational view (for the most part) is less problematic.

So in the apparent “nigh” coming of the Lord (which has one subjectivity to us but another to God), concerning His “delay” he himself knew what he would do.

And to rehash and repeat - one of the reasons (perhaps): Matthew 24 at the end of the Olivet Discourse:

48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

To "prove" us to warn us not to be abusive to one another, to motivate us to love one another and to add another dimension to the unknowability (not a real word but you get the idea) of His second coming (my opinion of course).

Which proposition you dismiss (the motivational part not the “love one another” part) just as I dismiss some of your propositions concerning "allegorical" passages because they don’t fit the eschatological schematic with which I am comfortable.

Talk with you "soon".
HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

Jesus comes to our church every Sunday because He said

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Actually, in context, that is speaking of Church discipline not whether God is there. Is God not with you in solitude?

The events of AD70 were a violent destructive judgment upon Israel

Is this your opinion or are there scriptures you believe teach this?

Revelation 1-3 were threatened judgments upon compromised local churches which has probably happened to many such churches over the centuries.

And Jesus said they were "comings".

Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Very similar to this verse:

Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Not sure why you can’t allow that the "violent destructive judgment upon Israel" was a "coming", especially when the OT is full of such examples.

Matthew 23
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

"this generation" reaches back in time to Abel and IMO is a general statement of God’s thoughts as in Proverbs 13 and not simply and only specific to the Nation of Israel in the days of His flesh. They were however of the same spirit.

So you take the Scofield approach that "generation" means race?

Matthew 23 is very specific as to who Jesus was speaking. It was those Jews in Jesus’ day.

Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

This is a judgment on disbelieving Old Covenant Israel. They are the children of those who killed the prophets:

Mat 23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

1Th 2:15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

Act 7:52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

It was those Jews who were filling up the measure of their fathers guilt:

Mat 23:32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

1Th 2:16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Jesus warned His Disciples what the Jews would do to them:

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Mat 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

There is no doubt Jesus is speaking to and about the generation of Jews living at the time of Jesus. The woe's were directed at that evil generation.

Judgment would fall on them:


Mat 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

It is no coincidence that the Olivet Discourse follows this passage.

Do you believe Matthew 23 applies to Jews today?

He is almighty God and can come in judgment or for any purpose in any way He wishes, bodily or in Spirit, (you know that) whether for judgment or comforting.

Does AD70 fit this description?

James 5

8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

But this is a subjective passage. It does not say Behold the coming of the Lord is in AD70.

Yet you agree this verse teaches a return in the apostolic generation.

In fact James is dated at AD45, which would have been a 25 year wait at the door if he came in AD70 according to the preterist view. However would you call someone and tell them you will be over "soon" and then wait 25 years to go over?

Humanly speaking 25 minutes would be more like it. There is a human aspect and a divine aspect to "soon".

It says nigh, not soon. But again, you are arguing against yourself. You have already conceded that James 5:8 indicates a return in that generation.

It works the other way as well.

1000 or 2000 year wait is subjectively "nigh" to our eternal God.

But not to whom he prophecy was given. Was God giving the prophecy to His creation or to Himself.

OK, so yes, I believe the Lord was often nebulous in the things He said,

And this is the pillar of dispensationalism, Jesus was unclear. I disagree, I think He was very clear on this subject.

 

[HankD]

Part 1

Jesus comes to our church every Sunday because He said

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

You responded:

Actually, in context, that is speaking of Church discipline not whether God is there.

So what, He is there. He said

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The events of AD70 were a violent destructive judgment upon Israel

You responded :

Is this your opinion or are there scriptures you believe teach this?

You know that I do. From now on I am just not going to answer these questions to which you already know the answer because we have gone down the path so many many times. In addition, I am not going to accept this rehash, repeat, denial technique or the parse, reparse, mince and dice of the same words over and over again.

RE:”Comings” as related to Revelation 3, I already answered this with scripture concerning the verb “to come”. Go back and read them, here are two.

John 14
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
…
23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Not sure why you can’t allow that the "violent destructive judgment upon Israel" was a "coming", especially when the OT is full of such examples.

Because your next step is to use it to promote the preterist view which I don’t accept.

It is a fulfillment of prophecy. It is not the bodily return of Jesus Christ.

Matthew 23

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel
unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

"this generation" reaches back in time to Abel and IMO is a general statement of God’s thoughts as in Proverbs 13 and not simply and only specific to the Nation of Israel in the days of His flesh.
They were however of the same spirit.

your response

So you take the Scofield approach that "generation" means race?

Not exactly, I defined what I meant, go back and read it, also take note that this "generation" reaches back to Abel, the world's first murder victim, He was not a Jew.

Matthew 23 is very specific as to who Jesus was speaking. It was those Jews in Jesus’ day.

Reviewing the whole counsel if God it was only the Jews of Jesus day:

Acts 4
26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

In addition both Jews and the gentiles attempted to kill Paul on several occasions as well.

This is the generation of which Jesus spoke, God-haters, who knowing the truth intellectually reject Him and attempt to kill those who love Him. Some were Jews some were Gentiles.

Also Paul speaking of these idolatrous Gentiles who reject both God and His revelation:
Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

HankD

 

[HankD]

Part 2

It says nigh, not soon. But again, you are arguing against yourself.

You have already conceded that James 5:8 indicates a return in that generation.

"nigh" and "soon" are used by many preterists teachers to indicate that the Lord returned in AD70. It cannot be the Second Coming. Most full preterists teach that ALL the scriptures concerning the second coming were fulfilled in AD70 (I can supply quotes if you wish). This however does not fulfill the Scriptures regarding His bodily return:

I am debating against that AD70 proposition, again go back and read the previous posts and the Scripture concerning his bodily ascension into heaven and His return in “like manner”.

In addition, I used the words "give the impression" concerning the Second Coming within the apostolic age,
I conceded nothing. I then defined what that meant. go back and read it.

Here is a little

But this is a subjective passage. It does not say Behold the coming of the Lord is in AD70

.

Ok so if you called someone and said "I'll be over in the near future" and then stood at their door for 25 years you certainly have some explaining to do.

OK, so yes, I believe the Lord was often nebulous in the things He said,

True, Because He was and I provided Scripture to prove it. Here is another example e.g. Matthew 13 where Jesus had to explain the meaning of the wheat and the tares.

And this is the pillar of dispensationalism, Jesus was unclear. I disagree, I think He was very clear on this subject.

And the pillar of preterism, what is its foundation? The use of “anthropomorphisms”, metaphors, figures of speech, etc to redefine the words of those prophecies of Christ and His apostles to make them all happen in AD70 (except for partial preterists).

In the same context of the literal flood of 2 Peter where you sidestepped the question concerning the literal flood by asking for a definition of Deafposttrib of “the earth”.

The scripture teaches the whole earth was impacted by the literal “water” of the flood of Noah:

Genesis 7
7 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

The important fact is that this was IMO a smokescreen sidestep to avoid his issue concerning the literalness of the final conflagration because it is redefined by preterists to be something other than literal.

Deafposttrib’s observation was not pointless as you claim. The definition of literal water vs. literal fire is the issue. Again the issue is smokescreened by requiring a definition of “elements” so that the question of the literal “fire” does not have to be addressed.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The meaning is evident, the earth was destroyed by water one day it will be destroyed by fire.

Death still reigns in the material universe, its called entropy.
God’s creation is still groaning in travail, and will until the final conflagration bringing in the new heavens and the new earth.

Romans 8
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

It seems that preterists don’t seem to have a problem with redefining terms until the scripture fits their schematic of eschatology.

While I admit that the view is within the realm of possibility, I can’t accept the redefinition of so many scriptures to achieve the credibility for it that you have.

Dispensationalism has its problems but IMO preterism has more.


HankD

 

[Grasshopper]

Part 1

Well it seems as if you have been possesed by the anger Demon so perhaps we should wrap it up. Too bad, I was having fun.

Quote:
The events of AD70 were a violent destructive judgment upon Israel
You responded :

Quote:
Is this your opinion or are there scriptures you believe teach this?
You responded :

You know that I do. From now on I am just not going to answer these questions to which you already know the answer because we have gone down the path so many many times.

I do not know the answer to this question, that’s why I asked. Perhaps you provided passages that you believe taught the AD70 “violent, destructive judgment on Israel". But I sure don’t remember. Would you care to refer me to the post #?

In addition, I am not going to accept this rehash, repeat, denial technique or the parse, reparse, mince and dice of the same words over and over again.

Well words and concepts have meanings and answers have consequences that require follow-ups. Sorry that angers you.

RE:”Comings” as related to Revelation 3, I already answered this with scripture concerning the verb “to come”. Go back and read them, here are two.

How would it manifest itself?? You did not answer that.

Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

How would the removing of the candlestick manifest itself?

Quote:
Not sure why you can’t allow that the "violent destructive judgment upon Israel" was a "coming", especially when the OT is full of such examples.


Because your next step is to use it to promote the preterist view which I don’t accept.

BINGO!!!!! So rather than answer the question you ignore it because it might lend credence to a preterist understanding. That would be like a preterist not commenting on the 1000 years in Revelation because it might promote a dispensational view. Or a Calvinist not commenting on John 3:16 because it might cause someone to reject Calvinism.

It is a fulfillment of prophecy.

Again, point me to your post# where you laid those prophecies out.

It is not the bodily return of Jesus Christ.

I am not making the case that it was. You seem to take the attitude of full-preterism or nothing.

Not exactly, I defined what I meant, go back and read it, also take note that this "generation" reaches back to Abel, the world's first murder victim, He was not a Jew.

And I asked if Matthew 23 still applies to Jews today. No response.

Reviewing the whole counsel if God it was only the Jews of Jesus day:

Acts 4
26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

In addition both Jews and the gentiles attempted to kill Paul on several occasions as well.

So generation doesn't mean just Jews, it means all people. Matthew 23 is a warning to all people?

Then what was the violent destructive judgment upon Israel for? Why were they being punished?

 

[Grasshopper]

Part 2

"nigh" and "soon" are used by many preterists teachers to indicate that the Lord returned in AD70.

Yea, those two words would lead one to that conclusion.

It cannot be the Second Coming.

Full preterist would disagree.

Most full preterists teach that ALL the scriptures concerning the second coming were fulfilled in AD70 (I can supply quotes if you wish).

No need, I have at least 20 books by full-preterist authors in view as I type. I am well aware of what they teach.

This however does not fulfill the Scriptures regarding His bodily return:

And as I have pointed out many times, a bodily return does not rule out a preterist understanding. It must to you, but it does not to most.

I am debating against that AD70 proposition, again go back and read the previous posts and the Scripture concerning his bodily ascension into heaven and His return in “like manner”.

Then we are arguing two different things, because I am not arguing for a full-preterist view specifically as I also showed in my response to you when you quoted Acts 1.

In addition, I used the words "give the impression" concerning the Second Coming within the apostolic age,

I conceded nothing. I then defined what that meant. go back and read it.

You obviously believe it gives more than just an impression because you continually demand a “delayed coming” and have made a case for it. I keep repeating this because you keep making the same argument. On the one hand you say those words don’t mean “at hand” and “near” as we humans understand it, then on the other hand you demand a “delayed return”. If He never indicated He would return at a specific time, THERE IS NO NEED FOR A “DELAYED RETURN” CONCEPT. If however He indicated He would return in the apostolic generation then a “delayed return” concept comes into play, a position you have tried to make.

Ok so if you called someone and said "I'll be over in the near future" and then stood at their door for 25 years you certainly have some explaining to do.

If it was in the context of “this generation” or “some standing here shall not taste of death” or “you shall not go through all the cities of Israel” , or “seal not the word of this book” or “the judge is standing at the door” then I might have a pretty good idea what the last 25 years of a 1500 year Age might mean.

Quote:
OK, so yes, I believe the Lord was often nebulous in the things He said,

True, Because He was and I provided Scripture to prove it. Here is another example e.g. Matthew 13 where Jesus had to explain the meaning of the wheat and the tares.

I don’t believe James 5 or the Olivet Discourse is a parable.

 

[Grasshopper]

Part 3

And the pillar of preterism, what is its foundation? The use of “anthropomorphisms”, metaphors, figures of speech, etc to redefine the words of those prophecies of Christ and His apostles to make them all happen in AD70

No, not anthropomorphisms, that was your guy who used it to prove non 24 hour days in Genesis which you reject.


Metaphors and figures of speech absolutely. When a preterist sees the historical destruction of Babylon described by OT Prophets as such:


Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.


Then sees Jesus use the exact language:


Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

A preterist will assume a figure of speech/metaphor was employed.

Or when the OT Prophets describe the judgment on Idumea described as such:

Isa 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

Then see John in the very symbolic book of Revelation use the same terms:

Rev 6:14 And the heaven departed like a scroll when it is rolled together. And every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

Again the preterist assume metaphors are in play. In fact, the burden of proof is on the dispies to prove the NT Prophets used the exact language in a different manner than the OT Prophets used it.

(except for partial preterists).

That’s a pretty big except and would include many futurist such as Gill, Spurgeon etc….

In the same context of the literal flood of 2 Peter where you sidestepped the question concerning the literal flood by asking for a definition of Deafposttrib of “the earth”.

The scripture teaches the whole earth was impacted by the literal “water” of the flood of Noah:

The important fact is that this was IMO a smokescreen sidestep to avoid his issue concerning the literalness of the final conflagration because it is redefined by preterists to be something other than literal.

Deafposttrib’s observation was not pointless as you claim. The definition of literal water vs. literal fire is the issue. Again the issue is smokescreened by requiring a definition of “elements” so that the question of the literal “fire” does not have to be addressed.

Apparently you are unaware that Hebrew and Greek words have different meanings.

H776
ארץ
'erets
BDB Definition:
1) land, earth
1a) earth
1a1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
1a2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
1a3) earth (inhabitants)
1b) land
1b1) country, territory
1b2) district, region
1b3) tribal territory
1b4) piece of ground
1b5) land of Canaan, Israel
1b6) inhabitants of land
1b7) Sheol, land without return, (under) world

Apparently it is alright for you to hold your definition of “earth” but I am not allowed to hold mine.

Secondly I am more than willing to debate Deafpost on this subject. I gave him answers based on what other scholars had said about 2 Peter 3. But I was not going to waste my time posting a lengthy discussion if he was just going to post and run. As it turned out I was right in doing so. He made one post and never returned. Had he wished to engage further I would have obliged. Since you seem to think I evaded the question perhaps you would like to take up the subject of the New Heavens and New Earth and try to reconcile your views based on Isaiah 65-66, 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21. I am more than willing, but I will ask you questions and look for consistencies in your answers. So go right ahead.

The meaning is evident, the earth was destroyed by water one day it will be destroyed by fire.

Was planet earth destroyed in the flood? I was not aware God had to make another planet after the flood.

Of course this brings up the question of the meaning of this verse:

Gen 8:21 And Jehovah smelled a sweet odor. And Jehovah said in His heart, I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, because the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. And I will not again smite every living thing as I have done.

I guess to paraphrase you and Deafpost, God will no longer kill every one by water, next time He will burn them all to death. Fair?

Death still reigns in the material universe, its called entropy.

In spite of the chance I will once again bring your anger upon me, it comes down to what you mean by “death”.

I guess this verse is still in the future:

2Ti 1:10 But it is now having been manifested by the appearing of our Savior Jesus Christ, who has made death of no effect, bringing life and immortality to light through the gospel;

It seems that preterists don’t seem to have a problem with redefining terms until the scripture fits their schematic of eschatology.

Perhaps it’s because preterist don’t ignore the OT when trying to understand those Hebrew idioms.

While I admit that the view is within the realm of possibility, I can’t accept the redefinition of so many scriptures to achieve the credibility for it that you have.

Re-defining assumes a different meaning than already introduced. I would argue much of what you call “re-defining” is nothing but understanding its intended meaning by looking at its previous usages.

 

[HankD]

I have no demon Grasshopper. and the "anger" you sense is not mine.

I am too tired to do this verbal thrashing right now.

Maybe later.

Bleesing, to you.
I am not angry with you grasshopper.
I did return your insult to dispensationalism in like kind, but no anger.

HankD