You missed the full quote...
That Guess I had missed the part where when God calls them Jews, He really meant Church!
-
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!
The New Interpreters’s Study Bible (no doubt by accident) makes a case for Preterism!
- Thread starter Logos1
- Start date
You missed the full quote...
That Guess I had missed the part where when God calls them Jews, He really meant Church!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Read it again. You will find that the tribe of Dan is not included. Joseph and the half tribe Manasseh are included. Ephraim is also missing. Strange isn't it?
Furthermore they were not called Jews. The name Jew comes from Judah!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The name Jew comes from Judah!
What about Ruth or Rahab or Tamar.
According to the Scripture Christians are spiritual Jews:
Romans 2:28, 29, KJV
28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Colossians 2:9-12, KJV
9. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11. In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12. Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Actually, Apostle paul contention was that those Jews who God had reserved to be unto the Messiah, faithful remnant, were to be considered spiritual isreal, as Jews who were made complete by being found in Christ!
isreal of the flesh were/are jews who rejected Christ, Spiritual isreal those jews who received promised messiah and were saved!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
All Israel under the Old Covenant were not saved.
True, but the Jews who placed faith in God, spiritually ones were, and they are also IF they receive jesus as their promised messiah!
Oh boy! Same old, same old nonsense. You've had all this explained to you before but you just don't learn.
Steve
Are you one of the scoffers of 2Peter 3:3? Just read vs 8-10. Did the heavens pass away with a great noise in AD 70? I don't think so.
He deosn't say that. At that point the Lord Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. However, He was also answering questions about three different things in Matt 24. You need to do a proper study of the chapter to understand it, not pick a verse out of context. I actually went through this on a previous thread and, needless to say, you completely ignored it.
Exactly right. We Christians who are still alive at the Lord's return will meet Him in the air.
What indeed? You're not persuading anyone.
What you don't understand is that when our Lord tells the Apostles that they don't know the 'day or the hour' (Matt 24:36; 25:13), He is using a term meaning that they do not know the exact time nor the approximate time. We are to be ready for the Lord's return whenever it comes.
Well obviously 2Peter 3:8. The fact is, however, that we are to live as though Christ were coming tomorrow (eg. Matt 24:42-44). We are to be ready because Christ may come at any time. This is what makes Hyper-preterism such a false and dangerous doctrine; why would one watch if Christ is never coming back? Now given that our Lord wanted First Century Christians to live as though He might come at any time, He's hardly going to tell them that He won't be back for a couple of thousand years, is He?
Well I have put up. As for you, Acts 1:11 utterly refutes your whole nonsensical scheme, not to mention Rev 1:7. Did every eye see Him? If they did they kept jolly quiet about it. As for 1st Century Christians living outside Palestine, they wouldn't even have known about the fall of Jerusalem until weeks or months after the event. Christ eturned; judgement day occurred; the End of the World happened; the New Heaven and New Earth was ushered in and they would have known nothing! What a nonsense!
A Baptist you may be, but you're no fellow of mine while you hold to this doctrine. The return of Christ is part of the doctrine of Christ and 2John 9 applies. I'm no Dispensationalist, but I'd a hundred times sooner become one than a Hyper-preterist.
Steve
Last edited by a moderator:
So?
What about them? In those days one could convert to Judaism and be under the same covenant as the physical Jews.
Spiritual and physical are 2 different things. God promised Israel an earthly kingdom with Jesus as King. That has not happened yet and it was promised to the physical descendants of Abraham, not Gentiles. The kingdom we partake in at the present time is spiritual, not physical.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Amy.G;1769496 Spiritual and physical are 2 different things. God promised Israel an earthly kingdom with Jesus as King. That has not happened yet and it was promised to the physical descendants of Abraham said:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Martin
Excellent response to Mr. Logos1.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Excellent response to Mr. Logos1.:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
In an earlier post [#7] Logos stated the following:
I had responded to his initial 6 points. Upon reading the above, noting the mention of 2 billion years, I responded, somewhat on a whim, as follows:
Mister Logos1 refused to respond to my question. Actually he hasn’t responded to my persistent questions regarding any witnesses to the supposed return of Jesus Christ in 70 AD. I had posted Scripture showing that the return of Jesus Christ would be visable.
After I asked the above questions regarding the belief of preterists in the bodily resurrection I dug out a book I had not used in sometime, namely: The Last Days According to Jesus by R. C. Sproul. Now Sproul is apparently a partial-preterist. That is he believes in a return of Jesus Christ in 70 AD but he also believes in a general resurrection and judgment at the end of time as we know it.. Mr. Sproul is very gracious to the full-preterists but does note that they do not believe in a future general resurrection of the dead and a subsequent judgment.
So these full-preterists, and Mr. Logos1, seems to cling to that error apparently asserting that a resurrection and rapture of the believers occurred in 70 AD but no more. Now I don’t know where Mr. Logos believes these Saints with a resurrection body are but he does mention 1 Thel, I assume he means 1 Thessalonians.
So we have some of the Saints resurrected and all others since 70 AD are in ‘Limbo”???? I don’t know what Mr. Logos1 believes but he seems to believe that this old fallen world is going to have to shuffle along for at least two billion years.
Now I am not going to try to address all the implications of this fallacious doctrine of full-preterism but God is not the author of confusion and Mr. Logos1 seems to be confused. I will point out again something I noted in my initial question to Mr. Logos1 about the resurrection. The Apostle Paul draws a very close connection between the resurrection of the believers and that of Jesus Christ in 1 Corrinthians 15. In verses 12-16 the Apostle tells us, not just the Corinthians:
12. NOW IF CHRIST BE PREACHED THAT HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD, HOW SAY SOME AMONG YOU THAT THERE IS NO RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD?
13. BUT IF THERE BE NO RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, THEN IS CHRIST NOT RISEN:
14. AND IF CHRIST BE NOT RISEN, THEN IS OUR PREACHING VAIN, AND YOUR FAITH IS ALSO VAIN.
15. YEA, AND WE ARE FOUND FALSE WITNESSES OF GOD; BECAUSE WE HAVE TESTIFIED OF GOD THAT HE RAISED UP CHRIST: WHOM HE RAISED NOT UP, IF SO BE THAT THE DEAD RISE NOT.
16. FOR IF THE DEAD RISE NOT, THEN IS NOT CHRIST RAISED:
I am not shouting Mr. Logos, not even raising my voice, perhaps I should. I am simply using a double emphasis. If you can see the Roman army in Revelation 1:7 perhaps you could hear me.
It appears from the above passage that if the dead are not raised/resurrected the Apostle is saying that Jesus Christ is not resurrected. Can it be, surely not, but can it be that the full-preterist is denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?
How about that Mr. Logos?
I had responded to his initial 6 points. Upon reading the above, noting the mention of 2 billion years, I responded, somewhat on a whim, as follows:
Mister Logos1 refused to respond to my question. Actually he hasn’t responded to my persistent questions regarding any witnesses to the supposed return of Jesus Christ in 70 AD. I had posted Scripture showing that the return of Jesus Christ would be visable.
After I asked the above questions regarding the belief of preterists in the bodily resurrection I dug out a book I had not used in sometime, namely: The Last Days According to Jesus by R. C. Sproul. Now Sproul is apparently a partial-preterist. That is he believes in a return of Jesus Christ in 70 AD but he also believes in a general resurrection and judgment at the end of time as we know it.. Mr. Sproul is very gracious to the full-preterists but does note that they do not believe in a future general resurrection of the dead and a subsequent judgment.
So these full-preterists, and Mr. Logos1, seems to cling to that error apparently asserting that a resurrection and rapture of the believers occurred in 70 AD but no more. Now I don’t know where Mr. Logos believes these Saints with a resurrection body are but he does mention 1 Thel, I assume he means 1 Thessalonians.
So we have some of the Saints resurrected and all others since 70 AD are in ‘Limbo”???? I don’t know what Mr. Logos1 believes but he seems to believe that this old fallen world is going to have to shuffle along for at least two billion years.
Now I am not going to try to address all the implications of this fallacious doctrine of full-preterism but God is not the author of confusion and Mr. Logos1 seems to be confused. I will point out again something I noted in my initial question to Mr. Logos1 about the resurrection. The Apostle Paul draws a very close connection between the resurrection of the believers and that of Jesus Christ in 1 Corrinthians 15. In verses 12-16 the Apostle tells us, not just the Corinthians:
12. NOW IF CHRIST BE PREACHED THAT HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD, HOW SAY SOME AMONG YOU THAT THERE IS NO RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD?
13. BUT IF THERE BE NO RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, THEN IS CHRIST NOT RISEN:
14. AND IF CHRIST BE NOT RISEN, THEN IS OUR PREACHING VAIN, AND YOUR FAITH IS ALSO VAIN.
15. YEA, AND WE ARE FOUND FALSE WITNESSES OF GOD; BECAUSE WE HAVE TESTIFIED OF GOD THAT HE RAISED UP CHRIST: WHOM HE RAISED NOT UP, IF SO BE THAT THE DEAD RISE NOT.
16. FOR IF THE DEAD RISE NOT, THEN IS NOT CHRIST RAISED:
I am not shouting Mr. Logos, not even raising my voice, perhaps I should. I am simply using a double emphasis. If you can see the Roman army in Revelation 1:7 perhaps you could hear me.
It appears from the above passage that if the dead are not raised/resurrected the Apostle is saying that Jesus Christ is not resurrected. Can it be, surely not, but can it be that the full-preterist is denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?
How about that Mr. Logos?
Thank you one and all
First let me thank you all for your comments—yes all of them—the good, the bad, and the ugly. I do read them all and enjoy them all. On behalf of all readers I thank you for the opportunity to think, to challenge positions and beliefs, and sometimes just for the sheer entertainment.
And, I do think it is fair to say we might be making some progress here at least in dispelling the belief that there is a still future so called “Second Coming” of Christ—even if some posters are still struggling with outright acceptance of full Preterism. I understand, I didn’t accept it all in one sitting either. It is a process to adjust long held beliefs to the proper interpretation of scripture. To understand it the way the Apostles meant for it to be understood and not the way you may have been first taught to understand it. But after all it was the Apostles who were divinely inspired and not present day bible teachers.
There are too many comments for me to respond to them all individually so I will try to be fair to everyone and touch on a number of topics.
Keep those cards and letters coming and God Bless!!!!
First let me thank you all for your comments—yes all of them—the good, the bad, and the ugly. I do read them all and enjoy them all. On behalf of all readers I thank you for the opportunity to think, to challenge positions and beliefs, and sometimes just for the sheer entertainment.
And, I do think it is fair to say we might be making some progress here at least in dispelling the belief that there is a still future so called “Second Coming” of Christ—even if some posters are still struggling with outright acceptance of full Preterism. I understand, I didn’t accept it all in one sitting either. It is a process to adjust long held beliefs to the proper interpretation of scripture. To understand it the way the Apostles meant for it to be understood and not the way you may have been first taught to understand it. But after all it was the Apostles who were divinely inspired and not present day bible teachers.
There are too many comments for me to respond to them all individually so I will try to be fair to everyone and touch on a number of topics.
Keep those cards and letters coming and God Bless!!!!
The Return of Jesusfan
Jesusfan,
What took you so long to get back to the party? I thought you were waiting for a special invite or something. Merry Christmas ol’ buddy. I hope Santa is good to you this year.
You didn’t really address a lot of your comments to me, but you did say Isaiah saw the Kingdom fully restored upon the earth by Messiah in Ch. 66.
I so enjoy reading Isaiah. It is a great book isn’t it and it is wonderfully Preterist from start to finish. I enjoy different bible translations and enjoyed reading Ch 66 in the ESV tonight—I just couldn’t find those verses where Isaiah actually said anything about seeing a literal Kingdom restored to the Jews or anyone else upon the earth.
Maybe you could be so kind to post those specific verses for our benefit.
I do think you will see upon close inspection of the Old Testament prophets that they never suggested that God was about building literal Kingdoms and temples he is about building a people and tabernacling with them through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The more you read the OT prophets the more this becomes obvious. But then God owns the whole universe so why would he limit himself to setting up a little kingdom of a few miles centered around Old Covenant Jerusalem when set the Old Covenant aside in its fulfillment and now rules through the New Covenant.
I did notice Isaiah answered many calls by futurists as did the Apostles many times by helping them see a literal fulfillment of a 70 AD return. Notice Is 66:15-16 when he provides proper understanding of his 70 return in the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and a wicked generation. He clearly speaks of His rebuke by fire and flame, that by fire he will enter into judgment, and by his sword flesh and those slain by the Lord will shall be many.
As we all know this is exactly what happened in 70 AD—the burning of the city and temple, the slaying of many Jews—this was literal, this was physical, this was documented in history, and this is indisputable. It makes a disingenuous statement to say there is no physical of the Lord’s return in 70 AD. It was on display for all to see and every eye saw the return of the Lord in judgment as they say in Rev 1:7 which of course actually means discerns that the Roman Army represents the presence of the Lord’s return to judge Israel and revenge the blood of the Saints.
Isn’t it perfect how the bible prophecies work themselves out perfectly without having to have man twist them to realize their fulfillment.
Jesusfan,
What took you so long to get back to the party? I thought you were waiting for a special invite or something. Merry Christmas ol’ buddy. I hope Santa is good to you this year.
You didn’t really address a lot of your comments to me, but you did say Isaiah saw the Kingdom fully restored upon the earth by Messiah in Ch. 66.
I so enjoy reading Isaiah. It is a great book isn’t it and it is wonderfully Preterist from start to finish. I enjoy different bible translations and enjoyed reading Ch 66 in the ESV tonight—I just couldn’t find those verses where Isaiah actually said anything about seeing a literal Kingdom restored to the Jews or anyone else upon the earth.
Maybe you could be so kind to post those specific verses for our benefit.
I do think you will see upon close inspection of the Old Testament prophets that they never suggested that God was about building literal Kingdoms and temples he is about building a people and tabernacling with them through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The more you read the OT prophets the more this becomes obvious. But then God owns the whole universe so why would he limit himself to setting up a little kingdom of a few miles centered around Old Covenant Jerusalem when set the Old Covenant aside in its fulfillment and now rules through the New Covenant.
I did notice Isaiah answered many calls by futurists as did the Apostles many times by helping them see a literal fulfillment of a 70 AD return. Notice Is 66:15-16 when he provides proper understanding of his 70 return in the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and a wicked generation. He clearly speaks of His rebuke by fire and flame, that by fire he will enter into judgment, and by his sword flesh and those slain by the Lord will shall be many.
As we all know this is exactly what happened in 70 AD—the burning of the city and temple, the slaying of many Jews—this was literal, this was physical, this was documented in history, and this is indisputable. It makes a disingenuous statement to say there is no physical of the Lord’s return in 70 AD. It was on display for all to see and every eye saw the return of the Lord in judgment as they say in Rev 1:7 which of course actually means discerns that the Roman Army represents the presence of the Lord’s return to judge Israel and revenge the blood of the Saints.
Isn’t it perfect how the bible prophecies work themselves out perfectly without having to have man twist them to realize their fulfillment.
The Fairest of them All
Merry Christmas Amy,
Nice of you to join us.
Your post naturally refers to those famous verses in Romans 11:26 -27
Romans 11:26-27
English Standard Version (ESV)
26And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
27"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
As we all know this is a direct reference to Isaiah 59:20-21. Therefore we have to turn to those verses to see how all Israel is saved. Let’s look at the actual verses.
Isaiah 59:20-21
English Standard Version (ESV)
20 "And a Redeemer will come to Zion,
to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the LORD.
21"And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore."
And the ASV reads: And a Redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah.
And even the great dispensationalist Darby’s translation reads: 20And the Redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah.
And the NASB reads: A Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” declares the LORD.
And even the less literal CEB reads: A redeemer will come to Zion
and to those in Jacob who stop rebelling, says the LORD.
So we see across the translations that it is not actually saying that all Israel will be saved. It is saying that all those who accept Christ will be saved (turn from transgression)—it is just the basic New Covenant expressed by God through Isaiah and later explained by Jesus. All Israel has the chance to be saved, but like the rest of us they have to accept Christ to obtain that salvation. They don’t get it by default or as a group they have to individually make a decision for Christ.
Of course we all know at what point in history Christ came and provided the opportunity of Salvation to all mankind Jew and Gentile alike. If this hasn’t already been fulfilled then it would obviously mean that Jesus wasn’t the Savior, the Messiah, the Son of God and I don’t think any of us would want to go down that road. Clearly Isaiah and Romans stake out a very Preterist position.
Merry Christmas Amy,
Nice of you to join us.
Your post naturally refers to those famous verses in Romans 11:26 -27
Romans 11:26-27
English Standard Version (ESV)
26And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
27"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."
As we all know this is a direct reference to Isaiah 59:20-21. Therefore we have to turn to those verses to see how all Israel is saved. Let’s look at the actual verses.
Isaiah 59:20-21
English Standard Version (ESV)
20 "And a Redeemer will come to Zion,
to those in Jacob who turn from transgression," declares the LORD.
21"And as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD: "My Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children’s offspring," says the LORD, "from this time forth and forevermore."
And the ASV reads: And a Redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah.
And even the great dispensationalist Darby’s translation reads: 20And the Redeemer will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith Jehovah.
And the NASB reads: A Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” declares the LORD.
And even the less literal CEB reads: A redeemer will come to Zion
and to those in Jacob who stop rebelling, says the LORD.
So we see across the translations that it is not actually saying that all Israel will be saved. It is saying that all those who accept Christ will be saved (turn from transgression)—it is just the basic New Covenant expressed by God through Isaiah and later explained by Jesus. All Israel has the chance to be saved, but like the rest of us they have to accept Christ to obtain that salvation. They don’t get it by default or as a group they have to individually make a decision for Christ.
Of course we all know at what point in history Christ came and provided the opportunity of Salvation to all mankind Jew and Gentile alike. If this hasn’t already been fulfilled then it would obviously mean that Jesus wasn’t the Savior, the Messiah, the Son of God and I don’t think any of us would want to go down that road. Clearly Isaiah and Romans stake out a very Preterist position.
Old Buddies
Old Regular my dear Baptist friend,
Have you ever stopped to think that one day we will meet on the other side! You and me side by side inside the pearly gates and all disagreement put aside. And don’t worry none when that moment comes I predict we will both slap each other on the back with great wisdom and understanding of the scriptures and all be Preterists and wonder how either of us was ever a futurist. I once made the futurist mistake myself and thought Christ was coming back in the future.
I think I can see progress on your part to inch a little closer to the Preterist camp by giving up on claiming that any verses indicate Christ will return a long time into the future.
I can also sense progress since you have made putting words in my mouth as your main debate tactic by claiming that Preterists deny the resurrection of Christ. I don’t know any Preterists that deny the resurrection of Christ, but if that is your best shot—I’m welcoming you to Preterism sooner rather than later I think.
And as for calling me heretical well you are very entertaining in your efforts. I’ve been called a heretic countless times (it has lost any ability to raise anything but laughter on my part) and by now I bet even God is laughing at it—so please entertain us with a creative way of saying it like making it rhyme with something or writing a cute limerick, maybe you could put it to verse and music and write me a song where you call me heretical. I can only hope—I long for a little creativity in my daily dose of heresy. Pretty please!
As for seeing a literal example of the 70 AD coming of Christ from the Old Testament prophets to the New Testament Apostles they spoke in one inspired voice about the fiery destruction and judgment of Jerusalem. You can read my post to Amy above for more in depth comments on the matter. I trust this will allow you to inch a little close yet to the Preterist camp now that you have your actual witnesses testifying to the fulfillment of Christ keeping his word and coming quickly in judgment against the Jews who were persecuting the Christians. Isn’t it great when you can see bible prophecy fulfilled this way and not have to hope you live long enough to see it in your life time.
Old Regular my dear Baptist friend,
Have you ever stopped to think that one day we will meet on the other side! You and me side by side inside the pearly gates and all disagreement put aside. And don’t worry none when that moment comes I predict we will both slap each other on the back with great wisdom and understanding of the scriptures and all be Preterists and wonder how either of us was ever a futurist. I once made the futurist mistake myself and thought Christ was coming back in the future.
I think I can see progress on your part to inch a little closer to the Preterist camp by giving up on claiming that any verses indicate Christ will return a long time into the future.
I can also sense progress since you have made putting words in my mouth as your main debate tactic by claiming that Preterists deny the resurrection of Christ. I don’t know any Preterists that deny the resurrection of Christ, but if that is your best shot—I’m welcoming you to Preterism sooner rather than later I think.
And as for calling me heretical well you are very entertaining in your efforts. I’ve been called a heretic countless times (it has lost any ability to raise anything but laughter on my part) and by now I bet even God is laughing at it—so please entertain us with a creative way of saying it like making it rhyme with something or writing a cute limerick, maybe you could put it to verse and music and write me a song where you call me heretical. I can only hope—I long for a little creativity in my daily dose of heresy. Pretty please!
As for seeing a literal example of the 70 AD coming of Christ from the Old Testament prophets to the New Testament Apostles they spoke in one inspired voice about the fiery destruction and judgment of Jerusalem. You can read my post to Amy above for more in depth comments on the matter. I trust this will allow you to inch a little close yet to the Preterist camp now that you have your actual witnesses testifying to the fulfillment of Christ keeping his word and coming quickly in judgment against the Jews who were persecuting the Christians. Isn’t it great when you can see bible prophecy fulfilled this way and not have to hope you live long enough to see it in your life time.
My fellow Baptist
Steve,
From a good Southern Baptist to a jolly good English Baptist the pleasure is all mine. Just think when we meet on the other side and get a good laugh about once thinking that the soon return of Christ in the bible meant something like thousands of years in the future when the apostles did all they could do to make sure everyone realized it was going to be in their generation. I use to be subject to some pretty silly notions about it being in my future as well. I’m glad I finally realized the Apostles believed, wrote, and taught it would be in their generation and since they are the inspired ones that settled it for me that very day. I aligned my thinking with them.
Matthew 24 is wonderful in explaining how to understand bible prophecy—I think we agree on much more than we realized. Let’s look at a key verse shall we.
Matthew 24:3
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
Signs of the End of the Age
3 While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached Him privately and said, "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what is the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?"
The HCSB is a Baptist translation so it seems appropriate for us to use don’t you agree?
I couldn’t help but notice that even the title of the passage simply stated one thing is being spoken of here--the signs of the end of the age. It doesn’t talk about a distant coming or separate His coming from the end of the age nor separate the end of the age from the destruction of the temple. All three happen in together.
The disciples question had its parts joined by “and” a conjunction which links these three actions together (note they don’t say they are different things and Christ doesn’t correct them and tell them they are different things) so why would anyone want to read more into the passage than is actually there? Maybe you could shed some light on that.
Just like in 1 Thessalonians when Paul didn’t separate those of us who are alive when Christ returns from his first century audience—why would anyone want to rob the first century Christians of Christ’s return. Surely no one could honestly think it would be any comfort to them if Christ came back thousands of years in the future and Paul didn’t say it would be thousands of years in the future. Hmmm, maybe it is just as simple as it looks on the surface Paul actually said in simple language what he meant and it has only been later generations who twisted his original meaning. Shame don’t you think?
I’m not sure how you get Acts 1:11 refuting any part of Preterism, but I trust when you work it out you will be quick to enlighten us. I think you might want to spend a little time in the next few days checking around for the number of verses which say Christ is coming back soon and how many say thousands of years in the future and I’m sure you will want to align your views accordingly because we Baptist are really no nonsense Believers like that. At least I know I am.
Tally Ho!
and
Ya’ll come back now ya-hear! (that is just a little southern way of saying good-by and Godspeed)
Steve,
From a good Southern Baptist to a jolly good English Baptist the pleasure is all mine. Just think when we meet on the other side and get a good laugh about once thinking that the soon return of Christ in the bible meant something like thousands of years in the future when the apostles did all they could do to make sure everyone realized it was going to be in their generation. I use to be subject to some pretty silly notions about it being in my future as well. I’m glad I finally realized the Apostles believed, wrote, and taught it would be in their generation and since they are the inspired ones that settled it for me that very day. I aligned my thinking with them.
Matthew 24 is wonderful in explaining how to understand bible prophecy—I think we agree on much more than we realized. Let’s look at a key verse shall we.
Matthew 24:3
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
Signs of the End of the Age
3 While He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached Him privately and said, "Tell us, when will these things happen? And what is the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?"
The HCSB is a Baptist translation so it seems appropriate for us to use don’t you agree?
I couldn’t help but notice that even the title of the passage simply stated one thing is being spoken of here--the signs of the end of the age. It doesn’t talk about a distant coming or separate His coming from the end of the age nor separate the end of the age from the destruction of the temple. All three happen in together.
The disciples question had its parts joined by “and” a conjunction which links these three actions together (note they don’t say they are different things and Christ doesn’t correct them and tell them they are different things) so why would anyone want to read more into the passage than is actually there? Maybe you could shed some light on that.
Just like in 1 Thessalonians when Paul didn’t separate those of us who are alive when Christ returns from his first century audience—why would anyone want to rob the first century Christians of Christ’s return. Surely no one could honestly think it would be any comfort to them if Christ came back thousands of years in the future and Paul didn’t say it would be thousands of years in the future. Hmmm, maybe it is just as simple as it looks on the surface Paul actually said in simple language what he meant and it has only been later generations who twisted his original meaning. Shame don’t you think?
I’m not sure how you get Acts 1:11 refuting any part of Preterism, but I trust when you work it out you will be quick to enlighten us. I think you might want to spend a little time in the next few days checking around for the number of verses which say Christ is coming back soon and how many say thousands of years in the future and I’m sure you will want to align your views accordingly because we Baptist are really no nonsense Believers like that. At least I know I am.
Tally Ho!
and
Ya’ll come back now ya-hear! (that is just a little southern way of saying good-by and Godspeed)
thomas15
Well-Known Member
A kinder, more compassionate shepherd of the lost that is Logos1 is asking nicely that we all put down our Harper Collins SB and run to our bookshelf and grab our copy of the New Interpreters’s Study Bible (in NRSV) and bask in the glow of the hard hitting, thought provoking conservative Baptist commentary.
Well...
in "that Day", time of the Messianic reign, all nations shall come up to pay Him homage in his city of jerusalem...
When has that happened, or would you be spiritualizing the texts again here?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Mister Logos1
Your habit of twisting words is certainly not unique. Many do it when they can't discuss the point. I did not say that full-preterists deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I simply raised a question precipitated by the Apostle Paul's comments on the resurrection of the body in 1 Corinthians 15, to wit:
You see Logos1 I am simply asking you if full-preterists deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ!
do they also deny that All Christians will have a physical bodily resurrection?
happens at second coming, when did history record that happening?