I am not sure what you are referring to then.
For example does wine (oinos, yayin) mean wine or grape juice? It depends on the context doesn't it?
Most of these groups that you mention arose during the inter-testamental period and are not even referred to in the OT. We are speaking of an OT phrase, not NT. As I mentioned this phrase, "The Day of the Lord," can be found as far back as in Mosaic literature (Deuteronomy), and in almost every book from thereon. It was an important doctrine. I am speaking from a Biblical point of view.
I am looking at it from a Biblical point of view. Think Biblical theology.
What did the prophets say. How did the people react.
The Jews had their opportunity:
"He came to his own but his own received him not" (John 1:11).
--"The Day of the Lord" is taught far more clearly in the OT then the coming of the Messiah, although both are often taught together. Christ's first coming is often obscured by the teaching of "The Day of the Lord." They thought that Christ was coming then to set up His Kingdom and were disappointed when he didn't.
Christology is not well defined in the OT, but the Day of the Lord is.
The Day of the Lord has much to do with judgment.
In the OT Christ is concealed; in the NT Christ is revealed.
Other doctrines are found and taught far more clearly then Christology in the OT.
To be a light to the Gentiles.
No problem for the long post. I gave you my answer to the purpose of Israel, and don't agree with much of what you have written in the last paragraph.
Preterism and the Necessity of Honoring the Timing Statements of Christ’s Return
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Logos1, Oct 3, 2011.
Page 5 of 5
-
Riddle me this Batman
My good fellow if you wanted to know the answer to your riddle why are we still waiting for the last Martyr to be killed why didn’t you just come out and ask?
Answer: In regards to biblical prophecy the last martyr was killed in 70 AD.
Bonus answer: Any and all other judgments, prophecies, and requirements for the “second coming” of the Lord took place by that time also.
Extended discussion: You could have taken a short cut to this answer through many paths. Obviously any legit reading of Matt 24 ties the destruction of the temple, the end of the age, and the coming of the Lord all together. We know as a historical fact that Jerusalem was destroyed then. We know the end of the age referred to the Old Covenant and anything related to the Old Covenant had to be concluded at the destruction of the temple hence we have to acknowledge the second coming of the Lord then. This would by necessity wrap up all requirements for that event to take place.
Additional thoughts: As long as people are on earth there will no doubt be some people killed in service of the Lord. Very unfortunate, but a fact none the less. These martyrs are not a part of biblical prophecy just like the modern day state of Jerusalem is not a part of biblical prophecy. It is a political state and not in a covenant relationship with God.
Sad state of affairs: It is unfortunate that a relative new comer to eschatological thought (Dispensationalism in the 1800s through John Darby and company) have confused so many good Christians about how to apply a little context to bible prophecy. At least we can take comfort in the fact that Dispensationalism has seen its high tide is wilting under the sunlight of truth and more and more people are leaving it in the dust bin of eschatology where it belongs. John Darby RIP.
“Your understanding of the inspiration of Scripture is utterly astounding!” Mel
Why thank you Mel! -
Your earlier post suggested God came in a form that would allow Christ to come the same way and fulfill a literal, physical Jesus in the sky, clouds rollback, every eyeball see him type of second coming. Your theophanies are quite a different manifestation of God and don’t allow for the aforementioned type of second coming.
But that point aside.
You don’t need to worry I am in no way angry with you nor anyone else here and if I were I would be smart enough not to continue debating and doing something that causes me such stress.
As we have agreed before the points that unite us are much more numerous than matters of eschatology that divide us.
I consider you a true brother in Christ and one day we will meet on the other side and just think how we can talk over old times posting on the BB then.
I use to be a very determined dispy myself. But a search for truth was stronger than my devotion to anyone view of eschatology. When the Preterist argument became compelling to me I had no problem adopting a better understanding of biblical prophecy. I understand that others are still on that journey.
I welcome disagreement with my views and I want the best arguments any other view point can offer to mine. I welcoming challenging thought whenever I can find it.
I don’t take anything you say as a personal slight against me. I hope you don’t ever think I make anything personal with you. You are in fact one of my favorite futurists. One who is honorable, respectful, and an example to others.
I guess being a Preterist forces one to expect no quarter in these forums and have an edge that some people find abrasive when you disagree with them. I think anybody who is going to stress over a forum should be doing other things with their time.
But rest assured Hank I take no personal offense over anything you say and count you as a brother in Christ and look forward to our meeting over on the other side one day. -
I do find it rather entertaining how futurists try to hang their last defense of the timing of Christ’s coming on a very technical definition of coming quickly. I think it would be fair to say it illustrates just how desperate and bankrupt futurism is to make their last defense on such a supposed technical understanding of “quickly” in view of the broader context of the first century fulfillment of Christ’s coming.
I mean just ignore the fact that he said in this generation, the one who pierced him see him coming, the high priest see him coming, the Apostles not finish going through the towns of Jerusalem before his comes, tying his coming to the destruction of Jerusalem, etc.
If you could forget about your preconceived notions and just step back and read this as a normal person you could get a better feel for just how ludicrous this sounds. -
DHK,
You said “The definition of a word is best defined by context. Context is king...”
You should take this advice to heart when you look at the numerous first century references to Christ’s coming and it would be very easy to see the overwhelming context of a first century fulfillment of Christ’s return. -
Preterist Study Bible
Well gentlemen I will be away over the weekend and won’t be able to post any more till Monday at best. This thread will probably reach its maximum allowed length by then. I should get back to other duties for a while so may not be posting again right away.
I saw plenty of throwing stuff against the wall here, but no real rebuttal of the simple fact that if we don’t honor the first century context of Christ’s return then we are undermining the clear meaning of biblical language on Christ’s return and if we can’t honor and respect what the bible tells us on that subject then all the other tenants of Christianity are rendered just as meaningless. Once we establish that we don’t really understand God’s communication on timing then we establish we don’t know how to understand His communication to us period.
I’ll leave you on a high note.
There is a coming Preterist study bible. Web site is www.bibleprophecyfulfilled.org
It will correct many poorly rendered greek terms in most translations such as oikoumene which is commonly translated as whole world when it is actually referring to the Roman world.
And, restoring the Greek word mello (about to) which is an imminent time indicator to the Holy Scriptures. The NIV for examples omits it 85 times.
I shall return as time permits. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Steve -
We should all expect some ad hominem responses in a lively debate and it's good to "clear the dust".
And you are correct, I have curtailed a lot of my responses here at the BB as I see many others have as well but perhaps not for the same reasons.
HankD -
-
-
Here we are speaking of prophecies, prophetic utterances; there we were speaking of definition of words. You can't yank the definition of a word out of its context and force a modern English definition into it. That is plain nonsense. -
-
-
Just read the entire chapter for your answer. Just because you do not understand how it was fulfilled doesn't mean it wasn't fulfilled as Christ promised, when He promised. He is the creator of language & verbal communication. I have no problem believing Him when He used specific grammatically correct & time language which pointed directly to the generation to whom he was speaking. You refuse to read prophetic, apocalyptic language within its proper literary context; preferring to interpret it as literal, historical language, but you have no problem assuming that Christ's specific descriptions of the timing of those events are not to be taken literally; in their proper grammatical contexts. Gotta love situational hermeneutics.
-
-
If you are going to just fall back on 2 Peter 3:8, then I must conclude that you are also a theistic evolutionist; since it is just as unnatural to apply that verse to Christ's time statements as it is to apply it to the creation account. -
Page 5 of 5