Tracing the Origins of Coming on the Clouds

[Logos1]

You don't mind if I roll all your replies into one do you John

Once again I'll skip the extraneous material, the silly SW stuff and the jealous insults about my Greek training, experience and ability.

You are misinterpreting John 3:13. First of all, the Greek term for "ascended" is anabainw, which is the term used for purposeful "going up" such as "going up to Jerusalem." The word used for Enoch being "translated" in Heb. 11:5 is metatiqhmi, a different word entirely. The point is that Jesus could go up to Heaven on His own, but Elijah and Enoch were taken up by the Lord--two different concepts. So simply because Jesus could ascend into Heaven on His own does not mean that no human other than Jesus ever went there. Other humans were taken there either miraculously like Elijah and Enoch, or at death.

That should be enough to prove my point, though I could also discuss the verb tense used.
First of all, I don't remember any preterist saying to me in particular that they believed in a literal ascension. Maybe you can give me a link on the BB to show they have. Secondly, you are using the word "accession" not "ascension." Why?

Please be clear. Do you believe in a literal, physical ascension of Christ to Heaven, or do you not?
I have no problem with Christ referring back to 7:13. And as I have pointed out contra your OP and your unsupported opinion, the pagan idea is Baal controlling the weather, not descending to earth "on a cloud" as you keep putting it. So the pagan belief is different from the OT passages, thus meaning they did not influence the Word of God. You've not yet answered this point--I don't think you can.

See my other post on Acts 1:11--Christ ascended physically to Heaven, according to Luke a historical event, so "this same Jesus" (outoV o ihsouV) will descend "in the same way" (outwV). That is a physical return clearly stated in the Word of God.

And, finally my dearest young Padawan—if I was going to write a reply for you to prove that you are a one trick pony and hopelessly out of your depth when not regaling us with your ability to channel the greek authors—I couldn’t have given any stronger testimony against you than you did to convict yourself in this post.

After the obligatory dog and pony show of your greek talents you have utterly failed to grasp the general concept of God and His relationship to sinful man.

That is your main problem my young Padawan—it’s not about getting lost in the details of greek translation—it’s about our relationship with God.

Feel free to use any term you want to describe Elijah and Enoch being carried into heaven. Heaven here can’t mean heaven as in the place where God dwells because until the atoning work of Christ is complete the sinful nature of man would prevent them from entering into God’s presence.

It’s laughable that you think you can bedazzle me with your greek skills to prove Enoch went to heaven before death while you conveniently ignore Hebrews 11:13 that says all these died after mentioning Enoch just a few verses before.
**
You are making my point for me when you cite the pagan god Baal being associated with controlling the weather and the related references such as cloudrider, chariot in the clouds, coming on clouds etc does not mean a literal, physical, historical appearance of a deity Christian or pagan being seen flying through the sky. Such being the case when the bible uses the term the Son of man coming on the clouds there is no precedence to believe Christ will be literally seen in the sky above.
**
Is it possible that you actually believe that the way you cherry pick verses out of Acts 1:1-11 and selectively apply meaning to them in order to twist them into meaning that Christ will physically, literally, and historically fly back down through the sky validates your supposition. Acts 1:1-11 taken as a whole doesn’t support that conclusion. The balance of the bible doesn’t support any such notion. Only someone who fixed the conclusion before reading the scripture could claim such an interpretation. LOL 2x.
**
First of all you quote me:

As for Christ accession every preterist I know of here repeatedly tells you we believe in the literal accession—you just don’t want to allow us to believe it.

Then you say “Please be clear. Do you believe in a literal, physical ascension of Christ to Heaven, or do you not?”

What language do I need to say it in for you to accept it? Futurist don’t own a literal ascension of Christ. I know Tom told you so and I have said it before but you only hear what you want to hear. You are a hoot John—you quote me on something then turn around and ask if I was saying it—do you think little green men hacked the BB and wrote my post for me? LOL 2x

I’ll close by saying thank you to all for your time and devotion in your posting here today.

 

[John of Japan]

As usual, I'm going to skip the strange attacks on my Greek abilities (ironic in view of that Greek screen name), the silly Star Wars stuff and the irrelevant material.

...you conveniently ignore Hebrews 11:13 that says all these died after mentioning Enoch just a few verses before.

You've missed the point. So I'll make it in a different way and even skip the Greek that you so strenuously oppose. Christ was "going up" which indicates he was the originator of the action. Others have gone to Heaven by being taken there by God, not by ascending by themselves. This makes your point invalid. Do you understand now?

You are making my point for me when you cite the pagan god Baal being associated with controlling the weather and the related references such as cloudrider, chariot in the clouds, coming on clouds etc does not mean a literal, physical, historical appearance of a deity Christian or pagan being seen flying through the sky. Such being the case when the bible uses the term the Son of man coming on the clouds there is no precedence to believe Christ will be literally seen in the sky above.

Let me see. Baal controlling the weather, or Christ coming back to earth? Nope, no comparison. The concepts are still different, and no matter how you try you can't make Baal and Christ similar.

Is it possible that you actually believe that the way you cherry pick verses out of Acts 1:1-11 and selectively apply meaning to them in order to twist them into meaning that Christ will physically, literally, and historically fly back down through the sky validates your supposition. Acts 1:1-11 taken as a whole doesn’t support that conclusion. The balance of the bible doesn’t support any such notion. Only someone who fixed the conclusion before reading the scripture could claim such an interpretation. LOL 2x.

You have still not answered my point. We can do it in English so you'll not so strenuously object to the Greek in which the NT was written. I'll even use the HCSV for you: "This Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come in the same way that you have seen Him going into heaven" (Acts 1:11). Now, you say you believe in a physical literal ascension of Christ, here described. Therefore, if Christ is coming back "in the same way" then He is coming back literally and physically. Tell me how that is not true. Exegete!

Now, exegesis (Greek or English) must be done according the context, correct? I don't see anything in the context to change the exegesis, do you? You say that vv. 1-11 "taken as a whole" don't support my conclusion. Please explain how that is. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Come on, work with me here. Exegete!!

What language do I need to say it in for you to accept it?

Well, for starters, how about being clear in your English? You said "accession," not "ascension."

Futurist don’t own a literal ascension of Christ. I know Tom told you so and I have said it before but you only hear what you want to hear.

I don't understand why this is a sore point with you. Why did it take so long for you to stand up for what you believe? Ask me as many times as you want if I believe in a literal ascension of Christ, and every single time I'll immediately say, "Yes!"

I’ll close by saying thank you to all for your time and devotion in your posting here today.

You're welcome.

 

[OldRegular]

You are right of course—and I know they realize it too. They just can’t make a valid counter argument based on scripture so they twist what is well established and documented in scholarly works to change the context it is used in.

O_Great Word-1

Your doctrine is wrong, therefore, cannot be supported by Scripture. As a consequence you have argued nothing based on Scripture just made a few snotty remarks such as Jesus Christ "flying across the sky"! I suspect you have become enthralled with Star Wars and borrowed some of their theology!

 

[OldRegular]

I love how you have twisted around coming in the clouds and flying across the sky. I’m the one who is making the point that coming in the clouds doesn’t mean Jesus goes flying across the sky—it’s the futurists who insists it does mean Jesus literally goes flying across the sky and every eyeball will see him. On this page and the next page JOJ is adamant that Jesus went flying up into the clouds physically and will fly back down physically. Maybe you two need to get together to coordinate a consistent futurist position. LOL.

I have been on this board since 2004 and you are the only person to use the term "flying across the sky' in reference to Jesus Christ. You may think your posts are witty but they are not. They are childish at best!

There are some preterists on this Board who make rational posts discussing Scripture. You don't fall into that category

 

[InTheLight]

Dear Lighted one,

LOL, you keep saying that but you keep coming back here to read what I post—why don’t you just go away if you are so disgusted with it—I don’t think you can leave.

Thanks for the challenge. Into the killfile for thee.

 

[Logos1]

Make the third time a charm

Thanks for the challenge. Into the killfile for thee.

Three days and three threats to leave, LOL. I’ll believe it when I see it.

 

[Logos1]

O_Great Word-1

Your doctrine is wrong, therefore, cannot be supported by Scripture. As a consequence you have argued nothing based on Scripture just made a few snotty remarks such as Jesus Christ "flying across the sky"! I suspect you have become enthralled with Star Wars and borrowed some of their theology!

OR,

Your lack of a counter argument based on scripture is tantamount to conceding you don’t have a counter argument.

It is most interesting that you don’t like to say that Jesus flies across the sky as futurist are so fond of telling us is what happens in Rev 1:7—does that mean you concede the point that Jesus is not being seen by every eyeball in Rev 1:7? Does that mean you don’t think there is a literal and physical return of Christ—you seem to back yourself into advocating a preterist position quite nicely!

The Great Word-1

 

[Logos1]

Today's lesson for a Young Padawan

As usual, I'm going to skip the strange attacks on my Greek abilities (ironic in view of that Greek screen name), the silly Star Wars stuff and the irrelevant material.
You've missed the point. So I'll make it in a different way and even skip the Greek that you so strenuously oppose. Christ was "going up" which indicates he was the originator of the action. Others have gone to Heaven by being taken there by God, not by ascending by themselves. This makes your point invalid. Do you understand now?

Let me see. Baal controlling the weather, or Christ coming back to earth? Nope, no comparison. The concepts are still different, and no matter how you try you can't make Baal and Christ similar.

You have still not answered my point. We can do it in English so you'll not so strenuously object to the Greek in which the NT was written. I'll even use the HCSV for you: "This Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come in the same way that you have seen Him going into heaven" (Acts 1:11). Now, you say you believe in a physical literal ascension of Christ, here described. Therefore, if Christ is coming back "in the same way" then He is coming back literally and physically. Tell me how that is not true. Exegete!

Now, exegesis (Greek or English) must be done according the context, correct? I don't see anything in the context to change the exegesis, do you? You say that vv. 1-11 "taken as a whole" don't support my conclusion. Please explain how that is. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Come on, work with me here. Exegete!!
Well, for starters, how about being clear in your English? You said "accession," not "ascension."

I don't understand why this is a sore point with you. Why did it take so long for you to stand up for what you believe? Ask me as many times as you want if I believe in a literal ascension of Christ, and every single time I'll immediately say, "Yes!"

You're welcome.

My Dear Young Padawan,

You ever so slightly misunderstand me—when I point out that you are a one trick pony—I’m not criticizing your greek skills—I’m merely pointing out your lack of other skills. You gots a greek hammer and every issue to you is a greek nail to be hammered.

But I’ll have to say reading your posst you do have a talent for putting words in people’s mouths that they didn’t say then debating the words you put in their mouths. And, you make comparisons they didn’t make and criticize the comparison you imputed to them for being wrong—surely that must count as a talent.

You make a truly curious argument. You don’t deny that when Hebrews 11:13 states these all died and Enoch is one of the specific people mentioned in that group. Since we know an unclean Enoch not yet washed in the blood of Christ’s atonement couldn’t possibly have entered the presence of God—you are making an argument that God transported a dead body to heaven. A bit weird if I do say so myself.
*********
Here is one of the weird comparisons that you put in my mouth—that Baal and Christ are similar—I have to chuckle at how if you can’t get the words out of me you want you are quick to just post them for me and proceed to argue against them. LOL.

Why don’t you copy and paste where I said they were alike, umm?

What you refuse to under any circumstances and all posts is to support the notion that coming on the clouds (or cloud riding, or riding the wind, or the chariots of heaven etc., etc.) can be associated with anybody claiming it meant a physical, embodied deity being literally seen in the sky. It never happened in the NT, or the OT, or any pagan writings that predated the Jewish manuscripts. Only in the minds of modern day futurists does it mean something that it never meant before.

I’ve never known the first preterist who had any sore points about saying Jesus had a physical body at least part of the time after the resurrection while he was on earth. It wouldn’t be logical to say he had a physical body all the time since he passed through closed doors and walls. Further, at his ascension he left earth in his physical form, but somewhere along the way he transformed into a spiritual body to enter heaven.
***********
You get all your notion that Christ returns physically by limiting your view to one verse where it says come in in the same manner and pick your meaning for come in. You don’t like to make your cherry picked verses consistent with the balance of the bible since it would ruin your pet theories.

When Christ says His kingdom is not of this world in John 18:36 and luke 17:20 that it does not come with observation the balance of the bible ruins your desire for physical return so you tear these verse out of the bible.

Since verse 1:9 says he disappeared into a cloud you ignore it as well.

Taken as a whole the scene in Acts 1:9-11 does not even deal with His return since as you so often love to point out Christ was going up—he came in to heaven—since the Apostle couldn’t see him come into heaven since he was out of their view(an inconvenient fact of verse 9)—the angles testify that he will come into heaven in the same manner as the apostles saw him ascend until he passed out of their view.

You can’t attach the scene in Acts to Rev 1:7 and say every eyeball will see him return by flying across the sky since we have already established that coming on the clouds has never meant anybody would see a deity embodied and literally flying across the sky.

The Acts ascension merely gets Christ into heaven and leaves the time and nature of his return to other parts of scripture. You can claim otherwise till you are blue in the face and you can have a temper tantrum screaming your one verse means He comes back physically—the one thing you can’t do is square it with the balance of scripture.

Of course your debunked theory about a physical return would run into a whole other problem with the timing since the bible tells us over a hundred times His coming will be soon and two thousand years later isn’t soon. Only the coming in judgment against Jerusalem squares with the timing requirement.

You see my young Padawan—when it comes to bible exegesis you are still low on the learning curve. To advance past beginner level you must get past putting words in other people’s mouths, making faulty comparisons, ignoring how the balance of the bible relates to your cherry picked verses, and square your theories with the timing requirement.

Futurism has been a failure for 2,000 years and preterism has been right for 2,000 years. A fact you can’t exegete your way around.

Your welcome in advance.

 

[OldRegular]

OR,

Your lack of a counter argument based on scripture is tantamount to conceding you don’t have a counter argument.

It is most interesting that you don’t like to say that Jesus flies across the sky as futurist are so fond of telling us is what happens in Rev 1:7—does that mean you concede the point that Jesus is not being seen by every eyeball in Rev 1:7? Does that mean you don’t think there is a literal and physical return of Christ—you seem to back yourself into advocating a preterist position quite nicely!

The Great Word-1

Your problem Wordy-1 is that you have a childish concept of God. You refuse to let God be God. You apparently want to retain the childish pre-incarnate anthropomorphic view of God. If God the Son desires that every eye shall behold Him when He returns then every eye shall behold Him. It really is that simple!

 

[asterisktom]

I did that on this thread and asterisktom was not able to answer my points from the Greek: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=71628

Ouch! John of Japan gives me a short, sharp, shock.

I had to refresh my memory of my putative demise in that thread and - surprise - there was no such thing.

In fact most of my comments to you, J of J, went unanswered.

I made a good case for the Preterist position on that topic. But I guess I cannot convince you of what you have trained yourself not to see.

I will be coming back to the States in a couple of weeks so - after jet lag and settling down - I look forward to more consistent unhindered access to this site.

 

[thomas15]

.......like a bad penny.

 

[John of Japan]

As usual, I'll delete the extraneous material, personal attacks and silly, immature master/padawan statements.

You make a truly curious argument. You don’t deny that when Hebrews 11:13 states these all died and Enoch is one of the specific people mentioned in that group. Since we know an unclean Enoch not yet washed in the blood of Christ’s atonement couldn’t possibly have entered the presence of God—you are making an argument that God transported a dead body to heaven. A bit weird if I do say so myself.

I take the Bible as is, even when I can't explain it. The Bible says that Enoch didn't see death. I believe it.

I’ve never known the first preterist who had any sore points about saying Jesus had a physical body at least part of the time after the resurrection while he was on earth. It wouldn’t be logical to say he had a physical body all the time since he passed through closed doors and walls. Further, at his ascension he left earth in his physical form, but somewhere along the way he transformed into a spiritual body to enter heaven.

You get all your notion that Christ returns physically by limiting your view to one verse where it says come in in the same manner and pick your meaning for come in. You don’t like to make your cherry picked verses consistent with the balance of the bible since it would ruin your pet theories.

Let's try a logical syllogism. (If A=B and B=C then A=C.) If you believe that Christ had a physical body at His ascension (A), and you believe that the Bible says He will return in the same way (B) then you must believe that He will return in a physical body. Preterism doesn't believe this, making preterism illogical. The logical syllogism is foreign to preterist exegesis.

When Christ says His kingdom is not of this world in John 18:36 and luke 17:20 that it does not come with observation the balance of the bible ruins your desire for physical return so you tear these verse out of the bible.

This is basic grammar. Christ used the present tense "is." That doesn't mean His kingdom will never be of this world. In 1996 my church was in Yokohama. It would have been pretty ridiculous for me to say, "My church will never be (future) in Hokkaido because it is now (present tense) in Yokohama.

Since verse 1:9 says he disappeared into a cloud you ignore it as well.

I'm laughing here. This is so ridiculous. I'm fully aware that He disappeared into a cloud. I believe it. So what? Does this then mean He didn't ascend bodily?

Taken as a whole the scene in Acts 1:9-11 does not even deal with His return since as you so often love to point out Christ was going up—he came in to heaven—since the Apostle couldn’t see him come into heaven since he was out of their view(an inconvenient fact of verse 9)—the angles testify that he will come into heaven in the same manner as the apostles saw him ascend until he passed out of their view.

Christ "will come" (v. 11). Sounds like His return to me. Yet you say the passage "does not even deal with His return." I'm laughing again. The problem with preterism is that it has so many problems.

You can’t attach the scene in Acts to Rev 1:7 and say every eyeball will see him return by flying across the sky since we have already established that coming on the clouds has never meant anybody would see a deity embodied and literally flying across the sky.

You established no such thing. You simply spiritualized the Scriptures. I believe them literally, letting God say exactly what He means. It's much easier, and it takes the authority ouot of my hands and puts it in God's. When it says Jesus will come in the clouds, I simply believe it.

You interpret literally at the grocery store ("Hmm. $5 a pound."), on the job ("I need that by 5:00.") and at home ("Why can't I have that toy, Daddy?"). But you don't when you read the Bible. That's pretty poor language usage. Makes you the king. You can interpret the Bible any way you want, because it isn't literal.

Of course your debunked theory about a physical return would run into a whole other problem with the timing since the bible tells us over a hundred times His coming will be soon and two thousand years later isn’t soon. Only the coming in judgment against Jerusalem squares with the timing requirement.

Actually, the Bible says He will come "quickly," which is the manner of His coming, not the timing. But let's say it's the timing. Then even preterists have a time problem. If it was said in 60 AD that He would come soon, and He didn't come until 70 AD, how is 10 years soon? The "time statements" argument of preterism is bogus.

All the other material in this post by Logos1 (Greek name though he hates Greek) is extraneous.

 

[Logos1]

You are dresses like a Young Padawan...Sir Good Sir Knight

O_Great Word-1

Your doctrine is wrong, therefore, cannot be supported by Scripture. As a consequence you have argued nothing based on Scripture just made a few snotty remarks such as Jesus Christ "flying across the sky"! I suspect you have become enthralled with Star Wars and borrowed some of their theology!

I’m confused OR who are you criticizing for SW references? Does it bother you all that much that JOJ is dressed like a young Padawan in his picture?

Don’t be so hard on him—he is probably like the poor woman in MP and the Holy Grail when the mob seized him and dressed him like a Young Padawan. I’m sure he would tell us “they dressed me like a young Padawan.”

There are ways of telling if he is a young Padawan…. Sir Bedivere

 

[Logos1]

In for a penny in for a pound

.......like a bad penny.

Don’t be so hard on yourself Thomas. Where else are you going to see post this exciting and the struggles of futurism so blatantly laid bare for all to see.

Tomorrow you can make it 5 for 5. Let me welcome you back in advance. Have a good day my friend.

 

[Logos1]

Your bible must light to carry around after you tear out the verses you don't like

I take the Bible as is, even when I can't explain it. The Bible says that Enoch didn't see death. I believe it.

You have yet again proved my point about Acts 1:9-11. You see the verses you want to see and ignore those next to it so you can construct your view of the bible with utter disregard for verses you don’t like just like you do in Hebrews 11 taking verses close to one another clinging to what you choose to like and ignoring verses that don’t fit your personal theology.

This is called cafeteria Christianity. Just pick and choose what you like from Christianity and ignore the rest. This does explain a lot my young Padawan.

You established no such thing. You simply spiritualized the Scriptures. I believe them literally, letting God say exactly what He means. It's much easier, and it takes the authority ouot of my hands and puts it in God's. When it says Jesus will come in the clouds, I simply believe it.

A curious statement for one who takes passages from Acts and Hebrews and readily ignores verses close to one another while building his theology around nearby verses he likes. It points out how futurism is like Cafeteria Christianity on steroids.

Actually, the Bible says He will come "quickly," which is the manner of His coming, not the timing. But let's say it's the timing. Then even preterists have a time problem. If it was said in 60 AD that He would come soon, and He didn't come until 70 AD, how is 10 years soon? The "time statements" argument of preterism is bogus.

Quickly is merely one of the soon coming statements about Christ’s return. Coming in the life time of those in the audience can easily be referred to as quickly relative to extending His coming thousands of years in the future. You again completely ignore the 100 plus time statements in the bible about his soon return by trying to schmooze over them. Again you simply ignore all the verses that are inconvenient to you and pretend they aren't there.

The timing statements alone prove futurism is bogus. Since you can’t deal with them you just ignore all 100 plus of them.

 

[Logos1]

Drum Roll Please...JOJ is about to do something most interesting

My Young Padawan I’m not spending too much time pointing out your failures in the previous posts tonight because I’m just dying to hear your theory on why would Christ return in a physical, literal way!

The bible clearly establishes He isn’t going to establish a kingdom on earth in John 18:36—my kingdom is not of this earth—unless you are going to call Christ a liar.

Since Christ says Himself He isn’t going to establish a kingdom on this earth—what would be the point in His coming back in a literal, physical, historical manner?

There are no verses that suggest what he would do if He came back in a literal, physical way. The apostles don’t say He is coming back literally nor do they suggest a reason for Him needing to.

I really can’t wait to hear you exegete what His purpose would be in coming back literally…could you please explain based on verses that are in the bible!

This ought to be fascinating.

 

[OldRegular]

I’m confused OR who are you criticizing for SW references? Does it bother you all that much that JOJ is dressed like a young Padawan in his picture?

Don’t be so hard on him—he is probably like the poor woman in MP and the Holy Grail when the mob seized him and dressed him like a Young Padawan. I’m sure he would tell us “they dressed me like a young Padawan.”

There are ways of telling if he is a young Padawan…. Sir Bedivere

When John takes as a pseudonym a reference to deity then perhaps there will be something meriting personal criticism. Otherwise, God gave you two ears, two eyes, one mouth, and hopefully one brain; so put it to good use!

 

[John of Japan]

When John takes as a pseudonym a reference to deity then perhaps there will be something meriting personal criticism. Otherwise, God gave you two ears, two eyes, one mouth, and hopefully one brain; so put it to good use!

Thank you, OldRegular. :wavey:

It's hard for me to believe the silliness that has arisen on this thread from what I'm wearing. Surely Logos1 is not so ignorant as not to recognize a judo/jujutsu gi (uniform). And I'm sitting in a traditional Japanese tatami (grass mat) room in the house we formerly lived in here in Hokkaido. The picture is Japanese to the extreme. I could walk down the street here like that and not get a second look. In fact, the clothing design is not only used for the martial arts in Japan, it is common to street vendors and others. It's simply the traditional Japanese clothing design.

Having this picture there reminds me of the wonderful trip we made to Hong Kong some years ago, where I preached after a big demonstration in which I demonstrated my kung fu (talk about taking coals to Newcastle!) and my jujutsu along with the Chinese martial artists doing their arts. Then I preached and two young men were saved. I also taught jujutsu at the Christian martial artists' kwoon (school).

It also reminds me of the martial arts ministry trip I took to Australia, where I taught my kung fu and preached at a banquet. The large patch on this uniform was given to me by the director of the Australia Jujutsu Federation.

On the other hand, in the Star Wars context, Logos1 is wrong. A Japanese-type outfit was worn by Luke Skywalker when he worked for his uncle, long before he became Obi Wan's apprentice. So it was a common style in "a galaxy far away," not just for the padawan. Logos1 is only embarrassing himself with his lack of knowledge.

As for being his silly insistence that I'm his "padawan", I've been in the Asian martial arts for 40 years or more, and am intimately familiar with the so-called master-disciple relationship. My only master is Jesus Christ (Matt. 23:8). Logos1 doesn't come close to being my master in any way, shape or form.

I finally figured out what he is doing with all this silliness. He's "trash-talking" like a 16-year-old playing basketball. It doesn't seem appropriate for a serious discussion of the Word of God, but maybe that's how he wants his maturity level to be judged.

 

[John of Japan]

Once again I'll ignore the trash talking and answer what is left of substance (not much).

You have yet again proved my point about Acts 1:9-11.

So you have no answer for my logical syllogism.

Quickly is merely one of the soon coming statements about Christ’s return. Coming in the life time of those in the audience can easily be referred to as quickly relative to extending His coming thousands of years in the future.

No, quickly means a kind of action. "He quickly picked up the book" is not referring to how long it took him, but how he picked it up. I'd refer to the Greek words here, but you clearly oppose all mention of the Greek (thus illustrating the preterist weakness in this area).

So, you mean, you honestly think that "quickly" or "soon" can mean "within ten years" or "within my lifetime"?

The husband says, "I'm going to the gym to play basketball and trash talk like Logos1 taught me to. I'll be home soon." Then ten years later he shows up and says as he comes in the door, "Honey, I'm home." And the wife says, "I thought you said you'd be home soon." He answers, "Well, I am home soon. Logos1 taught me that ten years can mean soon." :laugh:

 

[John of Japan]

As usual, I'm eliminating the trash talk of Logos1.

The bible clearly establishes He isn’t going to establish a kingdom on earth in John 18:36—my kingdom is not of this earth....

So you have no answer for my point that Jesus was speaking then in the present tense.

...what would be the point in His coming back in a literal, physical, historical manner?

When Christ comes back to establish a literal kingdom on earth, it will be to glorify God. All attempts at human kingdoms have failed, including the Babylonian Empire and other empires, including the American republic. Only Christ will be able to establish a stable, just kingdom on earth, and He will do it for 1000 years, thus proving forever His sufficiency, His power and might, His justice and so many other things. God will be glorified.