Tracing the Origins of Coming on the Clouds

[Winman]

Once again I'll ignore the trash talking and answer what is left of substance (not much).
So you have no answer for my logical syllogism.
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:

Yes, Jesus said he was coming quickly, not soon. Quickly means suddenly, without warning, in the twinkling of an eye, no time to repent.

 

[HisWitness]

Yes, Jesus said he was coming quickly, not soon. Quickly means suddenly, without warning, in the twinkling of an eye, no time to repent.

Maybe since they did not know the day or hour he was coming back--but they knew he would be back in their lifetime-that generation--they used the word SOON or SHORTLY to denote within their own lifetimes

 

[Logos1]

My Kingdom for a Stradivarius

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!

So much righteous indignation is music to my ears—the reason there is so much of it and no bible verses to support futurism is to deflect attention from the fact that futurists have no verses to support their position of a coming of Christ in our future and no verses that support a physical coming either. Not one verse of scripture to bolster their position so they are left attacking those who don’t agree with them. Maestro could we get a Stradivarius to accompany this whining.

I’ll start with you OR,

I personally love John’s attire. I think he looks very cute in it. I hope he keeps that picture up for all time.

And, I can wax indignant too OR—I’m proud to call John my Young Padawan and stand by him as he grows and develops his biblical skills under my scripture supported posts. You may laugh now OR, but just you wait—I’ll develop John into a monster Preterist Jedi all too soon and I’ll unleash him on these bogus and immature futurist’s theories. You’ll see.

In the meantime OR why don’t you show us just one single verse where Christ says He will be a long time coming back or that He will come back in a physical body? If either was true why wouldn’t they be in the bible?
The fact is Christ says he would be coming quickly as in soon.
Rev 22:20 …I am coming quickly.

1 Thel 4:15 We who are still alive when Christ returns

John 18:36 my kingdom is not of this world

And now let the scripture less whining begin—it’s Stradivarius time again.

 

[Logos1]

Better late to the party than never

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.

Well John big-time congrats you finally figured out the Young Padawan reference. Some folks thought you would never get a clue—but not me—I had total faith in your ability to eventually figure it out. And, you are a handsome devil in that pic and I like it a lot so please do keep it up.

I salute your martial arts skills.

 

[Logos1]

Wishful thinking does not make logic

So you have no answer for my logical syllogism.

My dear young Padawan we might need to spend some more time on our logic lesson.

What constitutes logical syllogisms for futurists is merely imputing your own meaning onto a verse. If this was a legit way to view the verse then the balance of the bible would support it; however, the opposite is true. No verse anywhere says Christ will return in a physical body.

 

[Logos1]

You make this too easy my young Padawan

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).

Since the book of Revelation was written a few years before 70 AD even by your own definition of quickly it would only be a few years until His return in judgment in 70 AD. (Don’t waste time trying to say Revelation was written after 70 AD—Tom has bested you in that discussion every time you drudge it up)

It is you my young Padawan who has no answer for all those instances in the bible where other issues are being addressed beside the specific timing of Christ’s return and those events each and every one confirm that His coming and the end of the age are near such as Hebrews 8:13 When it says “new, it makes the first obsolete. And if something is old and outdated, it’s close to disappearing.”

You notice the timing here also confirms that the old covenant is in its last days.

Or Hebrews 10:25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Or Hebrews 10:37 Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay;

1 Cor 7:29 This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,

Wouldn’t you have to agree how amazing it is that all these little indirect references to the timing of Christ’s return sprinkled all through the bible that are dealing with other issues all support the preterist view that Christ is coming soon and not a single one of them supports a far off coming of Christ or the futurist view.

 

[Logos1]

If Christ meant a physical return why isn't there even 1 verse that says physical

Hoisted on your own petard again my young Padawan. I see you failed to find even one verse to mention that says Christ will return for a literal kingdom on earth. Where is your verse where, just one verse that actually says Christ will establish a literal, physical, historical kingdom on earth.

Shameless invoking of commentary as scripture is beneath any Young Padawan of mine John.

Don’t dribble on about failed human kingdoms—show us one verse any where that says Christ will come physically – not silly syllogisms where you torture scripture--just one verse straight up that supports your position.

Preterists have all these verses that straight up support our position and yet you have none, nada, zip, zero, and zilch to support a future to us, physical return.

Face it my Young Padawan you are arguing against the inspired Word as it was written and intended to be understood.

You have aligned yourself contrary to the voice of scripture.

 

[John of Japan]

What constitutes logical syllogisms for futurists is merely imputing your own meaning onto a verse. If this was a legit way to view the verse then the balance of the bible would support it; however, the opposite is true. No verse anywhere says Christ will return in a physical body.

You have it backwards. It is the preterist who must prove that somehow Christ is now a disembodied spirit.

You said that sometime between earth and Heaven Christ's body became a spiritual body. If this were true it would disprove my logical syllogism. However, you cannot prove that. All Bible believers agree that Christ had a physical body after His resurrection, because He Himself insisted upon it in Luke 24:39.

And before you quote 1 Cor. 15:44, note that simply because a body is spiritual does not mean it is a spirit. All through 1 Cor. (2:15, 3:1, 14:37) and other epistles (Gal. 6:1, etc.), Paul talks about believers being spiritual. And those are believers with physical bodies, not disembodied spirits. Christ has never been disembodied ever since the incarnation.

 

[John of Japan]

Well John big-time congrats you finally figured out the Young Padawan reference. Some folks thought you would never get a clue—but not me—I had total faith in your ability to eventually figure it out. And, you are a handsome devil in that pic and I like it a lot so please do keep it up.

I salute your martial arts skills.

Thank you for the compliments. That's a nice change from your trash talking. But hey, the wife and I just finished watching the double trilogy. And I had a son who grew up loving SF like I do. So your assumption that I didn't know what a padawan was shows you know next to nothing about me. You would impress more on the BB if you stopped your trash talking and took a genuine interest in people--and that is sincere advice.

 

[John of Japan]

Since the book of Revelation was written a few years before 70 AD even by your own definition of quickly it would only be a few years until His return in judgment in 70 AD. (Don’t waste time trying to say Revelation was written after 70 AD—Tom has bested you in that discussion every time you drudge it up)

Right, Tom bested me. Show me the URL. Seems like once he named one scholar who supported a pre-70 AD date for Revelation after I named several. But the vast majority of modern evangelical scholars (including non-dispensationalists) support a post 70 date. Let's see:

Carson, Moo & Morris (An Introduction to the NT, p. 476): 81-96 AD.
Henry Theissen (Introduction to the NT, p. 323): 95-96.
Robert Gundry (A Survey of the NT, p. 365): 81-96.
Merrill Tenney (The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 721): 81-96.
G. E. Ladd ("Revelation" in the revised ISBE, vol. 4, p. 81-96.
etc. etc.

I'm out of time.

 

[Logos1]

Bible verses prove you have tiackwards

You have it backwards. It is the preterist who must prove that somehow Christ is now a disembodied spirit.

You said that sometime between earth and Heaven Christ's body became a spiritual body. If this were true it would disprove my logical syllogism. However, you cannot prove that. All Bible believers agree that Christ had a physical body after His resurrection, because He Himself insisted upon it in Luke 24:39.

And before you quote 1 Cor. 15:44, note that simply because a body is spiritual does not mean it is a spirit. All through 1 Cor. (2:15, 3:1, 14:37) and other epistles (Gal. 6:1, etc.), Paul talks about believers being spiritual. And those are believers with physical bodies, not disembodied spirits. Christ has never been disembodied ever since the incarnation.

Once again John you are hoisted on your own petard—you can’t find a verse that supports your fanciful claim—just your twisted, tortured view of scripture. I have actual bible verses.

1 Corinthians 15:50 tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. And need I remind you about John 18:36 His Kingdom not being of this world.

You are left to surmise your own scheme for your claims and I quote bible verses.

 

[Logos1]

I may have to start calling you no verses John since you don't use bible verses

Right, Tom bested me. Show me the URL. Seems like once he named one scholar who supported a pre-70 AD date for Revelation after I named several. But the vast majority of modern evangelical scholars (including non-dispensationalists) support a post 70 date. Let's see:

Carson, Moo & Morris (An Introduction to the NT, p. 476): 81-96 AD.
Henry Theissen (Introduction to the NT, p. 323): 95-96.
Robert Gundry (A Survey of the NT, p. 365): 81-96.
Merrill Tenney (The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 721): 81-96.
G. E. Ladd ("Revelation" in the revised ISBE, vol. 4, p. 81-96.
etc. etc.

I'm out of time.

John your dating attempts at Revelation are child's play to brush aside. In regards to Tom--he has so many post I'll let you look it up and not bother myself to look through all the fine work he has done here. I'm sure you have more time for such things than I do.

There are a few problems with your attempts at dating revelation to the 90's. I can quote plenty of sources that put it in the 60's and even though more people think it is in the 90's today that was not always the case--if you go back a few hundred years more people thought it was in the 60's. It changes over time and is not set.

It doesn't prove anything for us to get into a contest as to who can make a longer laundry list of who thinks it was written when. That can go on forever and in the end doesn’t prove anything. A better way is what does the internal evidence in the book of Revelation itself indicate--and that all points to an early date.

Since you are so fond of making trivial list here is mine--just to make the point I'll post one more reference than you did:

George Ladd, A commentary on Revelation
Steve Gregg Revelation: Four Views
A. T. Robinson Redating the New Testament
A. N. Wilson, Paul: The Mind of the Apostle
Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown; Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
Robert Young: Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible

And here is some of the internal evidence that is the real meat of the argument--none of which is on your side I might add:

1. Revelation says the events must soon take place--if it is written in the 60's then the destruction of Jerusalem is near at hand. If it is written in the 90's no historical events were near at hand.

2. There is no mention of the destruction of the temple. Since Jesus prophesized its destruction no Apostle writing Revelation would fail to mention how Christ's prophecy had been fulfilled in such sweeping fashion.

3. In Chapter 11 John is sent to measure the temple which bears witness to the fact that the temple is still standing at the time of the writing. In the 90's there is no temple to go measure since it was destroyed in 70 AD

4. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 indicate the Judaizers are persecuting the churches. This is consistent with all the bible verses telling of how the Jewish leaders are persecuting the Christians.

5. Revelation 2:2 speaks of other apostles indicating that not only John, but some of the other apostles are still alive at the time of the writing since it is plural--futurists point to tradition that claims all the other apostle, but John were dead by the 90's so this would force an earlier dating.

Again just like an all the other areas where you don't have a verse to stand on such as a long-time in the waiting future coming of Christ and no verses to actually say he is coming in a physical or literal way you don't have any internal verses that support you either.

Futurism runs of fumes of verses. Preterism runs on high octane when it comes to actual scripture.

I don't blame you for just ignoring my post from yesterday--you don't have any scripture verses to make your case with either from a future to us coming or a physical coming. And, today you just dug the proverbial hole deeper by letting me illustrate how the internal evidence of Revelation all supports the early dating.

Thank you my Young Padawan--you do make me look good.

 

[Herald]

Smug, glib, and arrogant is no way to go through life, son (thank you Dean Wermer for the inspiration).

 

[Yeshua1]

John your dating attempts at Revelation are child's play to brush aside. In regards to Tom--he has so many post I'll let you look it up and not bother myself to look through all the fine work he has done here. I'm sure you have more time for such things than I do.

There are a few problems with your attempts at dating revelation to the 90's. I can quote plenty of sources that put it in the 60's and even though more people think it is in the 90's today that was not always the case--if you go back a few hundred years more people thought it was in the 60's. It changes over time and is not set.

It doesn't prove anything for us to get into a contest as to who can make a longer laundry list of who thinks it was written when. That can go on forever and in the end doesn’t prove anything. A better way is what does the internal evidence in the book of Revelation itself indicate--and that all points to an early date.

Since you are so fond of making trivial list here is mine--just to make the point I'll post one more reference than you did:

George Ladd, A commentary on Revelation
Steve Gregg Revelation: Four Views
A. T. Robinson Redating the New Testament
A. N. Wilson, Paul: The Mind of the Apostle
Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown; Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
Robert Young: Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible

And here is some of the internal evidence that is the real meat of the argument--none of which is on your side I might add:

1. Revelation says the events must soon take place--if it is written in the 60's then the destruction of Jerusalem is near at hand. If it is written in the 90's no historical events were near at hand.

2. There is no mention of the destruction of the temple. Since Jesus prophesized its destruction no Apostle writing Revelation would fail to mention how Christ's prophecy had been fulfilled in such sweeping fashion.

3. In Chapter 11 John is sent to measure the temple which bears witness to the fact that the temple is still standing at the time of the writing. In the 90's there is no temple to go measure since it was destroyed in 70 AD

4. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 indicate the Judaizers are persecuting the churches. This is consistent with all the bible verses telling of how the Jewish leaders are persecuting the Christians.

5. Revelation 2:2 speaks of other apostles indicating that not only John, but some of the other apostles are still alive at the time of the writing since it is plural--futurists point to tradition that claims all the other apostle, but John were dead by the 90's so this would force an earlier dating.

Again just like an all the other areas where you don't have a verse to stand on such as a long-time in the waiting future coming of Christ and no verses to actually say he is coming in a physical or literal way you don't have any internal verses that support you either.

Futurism runs of fumes of verses. Preterism runs on high octane when it comes to actual scripture.

I don't blame you for just ignoring my post from yesterday--you don't have any scripture verses to make your case with either from a future to us coming or a physical coming. And, today you just dug the proverbial hole deeper by letting me illustrate how the internal evidence of Revelation all supports the early dating.

Thank you my Young Padawan--you do make me look good.

So when did you receive your glorified Body?

 

[Logos1]

Thanks for your help Herald

Smug, glib, and arrogant is no way to go through life, son (thank you Dean Wermer for the inspiration).

LOL, Futurists--they are all insults and no verses to support their bankrupt ideas. Of course when the Holy Scriptures don't provide any verses to make your point with that leaves you only insults to work with. It's not really your fault so I don't take umbrage. In fact I appreciate your dropping by to insult me because it proves the total truthfulness of preterism and the deception of futurism.

Thank you my good fellow.

 

[Logos1]

I got a warm fuzzy

So when did you receive your glorified Body?

What more insults and still no verses--makes me feel smug--you guys just line up to make me look good and I thank you for it yet again pointing out that futurism lives off of false ideas and shuck and jive torturing of verses. But you can't point out a single verse to make your point that I don't make you look silly with--sorry, but somebody has got to do it.

Live is tough as a futurist alright.

 

[OldRegular]

Preterists have all these verses that straight up support our position and yet you have none, nada, zip, zero, and zilch to support a future to us, physical return.

If you have the Scripture why not post them and give your interpretation instead of making snotty, childish remarks? The truth is you are trying to defend the indefensible. All your snotty, childish comments do is show the intellectual and Scriptural shallowness of your false doctrine.

 

[Logos1]

Waitress, could I have some more insults please

If you have the Scripture why not post them and give your interpretation instead of making snotty, childish remarks? The truth is you are trying to defend the indefensible. All your snotty, childish comments do is show the intellectual and Scriptural shallowness of your false doctrine.

LOL—yet more proof that preterism is the only correct interpretation of prophecy. OR I look forward to seeing you lob an insult grenade my way every day. I put up scripture daily (as you well know) and you never challenge any of it with counter scripture because there is not any to put up.

So far in this thread we’ve seen that:

1. “coming on the clouds” has never meant a literal body flying through the sky.

2. There is no scripture that states Christ will be coming back a long time in the future.

3. All scripture agrees Christ would return soon.

4. There is not one verse of scripture that says Christ will return in a physical body.

5. The internal verses of Revelation all support the early dating of its writing before 70 AD.

6. John has mistakenly used a logical syllogism to try and cheat a physical return into existence. That has given me a great idea for a response—so good I’m not going to bury it deep in this thread, but when I get ready I’ll point out its fallacy in a new thread.

And you kind sir haven’t even attempted a serious, scriptural rebuttal to any of it. Could it be because you can’t find verses to rebut it?

It the same broken record every day—just deny it’s true, say it’s sacrilegious, scream immature, childish, snotty, yada, yada.

I take it all as proof positive that you are speechless in the face of the truth and vindication of the ultimate superiority of
preterism.

Thank you for you insults—may I have some more please!

 

[OldRegular]

LOL—yet more proof that preterism is the only correct interpretation of prophecy. OR I look forward to seeing you lob an insult grenade my way every day. I put up scripture daily (as you well know) and you never challenge any of it with counter scripture because there is not any to put up.

That is false. You occasionally make claims as to what a particular verse might say but that is it!

So far in this thread we’ve seen that:

1. “coming on the clouds” has never meant a literal body flying through the sky.

That is correct. Superman might fly, birds fly, planes fly, but Jesus Christ does not fly.

2. There is no scripture that states Christ will be coming back a long time in the future.

This is because you are ignorant of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture.

3. All scripture agrees Christ would return soon.

So when did He return?

4. There is not one verse of scripture that says Christ will return in a physical body.

He will return in the same manner He ascended. You can learn this truth if you take time to read the appropriate Scripture instead of fixating on Star Wars characters!

5. The internal verses of Revelation all support the early dating of its writing before 70 AD.

So what! There are numerous Scripture that prophecy the return of Jesus Christ. Revelation is mostly written in apocalyptic form and apparently beyond your understanding!

6. John has mistakenly used a logical syllogism to try and cheat a physical return into existence. That has given me a great idea for a response—so good I’m not going to bury it deep in this thread, but when I get ready I’ll point out its fallacy in a new thread.

I am not holding my breath! I doubt that John is holding his!

And you kind sir haven’t even attempted a serious, scriptural rebuttal to any of it. Could it be because you can’t find verses to rebut it?

Rebuttal of what? You have presented nothing worth rebutting.

It the same broken record every day—just deny it’s true, say it’s sacrilegious, scream immature, childish, snotty, yada, yada.

You have described your posts well but don't be too hard on yourself. Just quit obsessing about John and his attire. Also it would help if you would quit watching the Star Wars stuff. One is perhaps understandable buy continuously? Really now!

You do know that there is psychological and medical help for obsessive-compulsive behavior.

I take it all as proof positive that you are speechless in the face of the truth and vindication of the ultimate superiority of
preterism.

You have demonstrated nothing other than the fact that "full preterism" is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture and must be considered false!

 

[Logos1]

It would take better than this to rattle me

That is false. You occasionally make claims as to what a particular verse might say but that is it!
That is correct. Superman might fly, birds fly, planes fly, but Jesus Christ does not fly.
This is because you are ignorant of Scripture and the interpretation of Scripture.
So when did He return?
He will return in the same manner He ascended. You can learn this truth if you take time to read the appropriate Scripture instead of fixating on Star Wars characters!
So what! There are numerous Scripture that prophecy the return of Jesus Christ. Revelation is mostly written in apocalyptic form and apparently beyond your understanding!
I am not holding my breath! I doubt that John is holding his!
Rebuttal of what? You have presented nothing worth rebutting.
You have described your posts well but don't be too hard on yourself. Just quit obsessing about John and his attire. Also it would help if you would quit watching the Star Wars stuff. One is perhaps understandable buy continuously? Really now!
You do know that there is psychological and medical help for obsessive-compulsive behavior.
You have demonstrated nothing other than the fact that "full preterism" is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture and must be considered false!

Very weak attempt at insulting on all accounts--put some heart in it OR--I was hoping better from you, LOL, LOL, LOL