I don't think I am contradicting myself at all. I think you might be misunderstanding. They did not make time predictions. While they believed that the words used could refer to a short time span, they also understood that they did not necessarily refer to a short time span. So if they believed that Jesus "soon" return was in their lifetime, they were wrong about the timing, but not about the "soon" return because they understood what it meant (which apparently you don't).
Because the NT stresses the need for readiness.
Of course James wasn't a false prophet. It should be clear that Jesus was not referring to the type of statements that he inspired James to make.
I see your question. Your original post appeared to put that in the mouth of Jesus, when in fact Jesus was putting in the mouth of others. There is no doubt that the word can have a temporal meaning. But there is also no doubt that it doesn't always have that. Failure to make these distinctions make for bad theology.
Huh?? Jesus said (esssentially), "when I return X, Y, and Z will happen." Therefore when X, Y, and Z don't happen, we can safely conclude that he didn't return.
But that was the fault of their understanding. It would be like you trying to put a meaning on words that they don't have in that context.
Perhaps.
Absolutely. I consider it every day. These kinds of discussions raise that issue again, and each time I work through I reevaluate what I believe and so far have found no reason to change.
If your wife told you dinner would be ready soon, and it wasn't ready for 40 years, I don't think you would approve of her use of "soon." If your wife went to be and you told her you would be there soon, and you didn't come to bed for four more hours, I am guessing she wouldn't approve of your use of soon.
I wouldn't use even vieled profanity against God's words. But I don't think this passage is a real problem.
The issue. It sounds like you are just repeating what you have heard others say.
I don't have time to go deeper here because of other priorities though I would encourage you to. I think this issue of time statements is a key one. When you miss them, you end up trying to force things into events that really isn't there and it does extreme injustice to the Scriptures.
RC Sproul and Eschatology........
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Grasshopper, Mar 20, 2009.
Page 3 of 6
-
-
-
thegospelgeek said: ↑Wrong, they are time statements. Just relative statements not absolutes. But I think you know that.Click to expand...
If these statements are not absolutes then why does MacArthur write a book like this: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802407285/?tag=baptis04-20
Funny, MacArthur, Lindsey. Hagee,LaHaye etc.... they all seem to think they know what time statements mean. But apparently thier "near" means something different than the NT writer's "near".
Food for thought: http://www.americanvision.org/article/receive-a-response-from-john-macarthur-and-get-free-books/
Whatever he chose. I am not an Author of the Bible.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Unbelievable statement.
Heb 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.Click to expand...
BTW, Haggai uses a similar phrase in Haggai 2:6 to refer to the end of the age and the rebuilding of the millennial temple. Even if you think the millennial temple is the church or heaven or something else. Haggai 2:6 was written in 520B.C., and uses "little while" to refer to events that are, at best, 500 years away, and probably at least 2500 years away since it is virtually impossible to put any meaningful interpretation on Haggai that has it already fulfilled.
So will you admit that these time statements can refer to periods of time longer than your forty years or so?
You just said they didn't make time predictions.Click to expand...
Any evidence? You keep repeating this but with no examples.Click to expand...
Again, I have to wonder, if you have studied this enough to have such a dogmatic opinion on it, why are you asking me for examples? You should know them if you know enough to be this dogmatic about it.
So which is it? They understood what those words meant or they did not?Click to expand...
I have no doubt that they thought Christ would return in their lifetime. That doesn't mean they were right in that understanding. But you notice they never predicted that Christ would return in their lifetime.
I think all your quotes are correct, as I look at them briefly and out of context. BTW, one of the key reasons amillennialism exists is because people in the early centuries expected an earthly kingdom because they saw it in the Bible and when it didn't come in their timing, they thought they must have misunderstood. So they created a different kind of kingdom.
Why is it clear?Click to expand...
What? Jesus did say it:
Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.Click to expand...
Yet you say they are speaking of different things?Click to expand...
But x,y and z are couche in t. t being time statements. You just choose to ignore or redefine t.Click to expand...
He tries to honestly deal with both the time and events. He doesn't just casually dismiss time.Click to expand...
You've proved my point. Those words have meaning. If your wife tells you dinner is ready soon, what do you think it means?Click to expand...
Guess you've decided to go back to the gutterClick to expand...
so I'll say in response that your arrogance once again comes throughClick to expand...
and it appears you feel you're an expert on this subject because you've read "Left Behind" cover to cover and Jack VanImpe is a weekly viewing experience for you.Click to expand...
I am no expert on this topic. There is much that I need to learn. I have studied it a bit however.
Your only argument is time statements are useless in determining the time of fulfillment.Click to expand...
What I have said was that the time statements of Scripture not always used in reference to a definable span, but to necessary events. The fact that somethign is "soon" means that nothing else has to happen. It is imminent.
Again, I urge you not to make personal attacks. Simply because we disagree is no reason to call me arrogant or any other thing. Talk about issues. -
Pastor Larry said: ↑Do you know what the author of Hebrews (AH) was quoting there? He was quoting Habakkuk which was written almost 700 years before. His point there was certainty of the event.
BTW, Haggai uses a similar phrase in Haggai 2:6 to refer to the end of the age and the rebuilding of the millennial temple. Even if you think the millennial temple is the church or heaven or something else. Haggai 2:6 was written in 520B.C., and uses "little while" to refer to events that are, at best, 500 years away, and probably at least 2500 years away since it is virtually impossible to put any meaningful interpretation on Haggai that has it already fulfilled.
So will you admit that these time statements can refer to periods of time longer than your forty years or so?Click to expand...
They didn't. Saying that something will happen soon is not a time prediction along the lines of "within 40 years" (which isn't soon by many definitions anyway). When I say time predictions, I am referring to defining a period of time.Click to expand...
Yes, James, Peter, Jesus, Paul, Haggai and others all used these terms to refer to things that were not "soon" they way you are defining it.Click to expand...
Again, I have to wonder, if you have studied this enough to have such a dogmatic opinion on it, why are you asking me for examples? You should know them if you know enough to be this dogmatic about it.Click to expand...
I will repeat what I have already said: To say something will happen soon is not the same as saying it will happen in 40 years. Surely you can see that difference. If "soon" means "ready to happen," it does not imply a time frame necessarily.Click to expand...
Mat 21:20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!
Perhaps you can go through the list and pick out the usages that fit your definition.
I have no doubt that they thought Christ would return in their lifetime. That doesn't mean they were right in that understanding. But you notice they never predicted that Christ would return in their lifetime.Click to expand...
Because James said it under the inspiration of the Spirit. He can't be a false prophet.Click to expand...
Yes, Jesus was quoting what others would say. There will come some who will say two things: "I am the Christ" and "The time is near." He then says, "Do not go after them."
Isn't that obvious? What is your question? You think James was a false prophet that Jesus was warning people not to go after?Click to expand...
The fact that I don't define it like you do doesn't mean I have redefined it. You may be the one who has done that. You don't seem to get that though.Click to expand...
Gotta love that logic, for those who think near, soon, at hand etc....actually mean a short period of time we are the ones who redefine the terms.
I really don't think you grasp the issues. If t is an elastic statement (which it clearly is), then X, Y, and Z help us to know when it comes.Click to expand...
In a few minutes, perhaps a half hour or so. It doesn't mean 40 years. If you are correct, then "soon" would mean 40 years or so. And that is plainly wrong.Click to expand...
Nice personal attack again. Stop with this. Debate issues. Knowing and being able to explain something (however ineptly) is not arrogance.Click to expand...
I am no expert on this topic. There is much that I need to learn.Click to expand...
As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise."
What I have said was that the time statements of Scripture not always used in reference to a definable span, but to necessary events. The fact that somethign is "soon" means that nothing else has to happen. It is imminent.Click to expand...
Again, I urge you not to make personal attacks. Simply because we disagree is no reason to call me arrogant or any other thing. Talk about issues.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Somebody needs to take thier own advice and do some studying on the subject. Perhaps start with Ezra 5 and 6 and pay close attention to Ezra 6:14. Then go read Haggai.Click to expand...
Since the NT was written only a few years before the fall of Jerusalem we are not really talking about 40 years. In most cases less than 10 and in the case of Hebrews probably less than 4 or 5. Yea, that qualifies as a near event.Click to expand...
Still waiting on examples. Oh yes, I forgot, you're too busy.Click to expand...
So now soon means "ready to happen"?Click to expand...
Here is the first occurance of soon I found using my KJV search:
Mat 21:20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!Click to expand...
Perhaps you can go through the list and pick out the usages that fit your definition.Click to expand...
Exactly.Click to expand...
Why was James able to say the time had drawn near when Jesus said beware of such men?Click to expand...
The question is, If Jesus told his followers not to believe people who said they were the Christ and that his coming was near, he would be the one making James' statement false, if he meant what you say he meant. I think the contexts obviously are referring to two different things. I think you hold an untenable position.
Gotta love that logic, for those who think near, soon, at hand etc....actually mean a short period of time we are the ones who redefine the terms.Click to expand...
Yes, I;m just a big dummy.or is it dummie?Click to expand...
Is 10 years too long for you as well?Click to expand...
Then perhaps you should refrain from charging me with having not studied the subject or just repeating what I've heard.Click to expand...
As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, Surprise, Surprise."Click to expand...
So now soon means imminent.Click to expand...
I was flipping today through Renald Showers' book "Maranatha: Our Lord, Come." It would be well worth your time, even if you are not persuaded. It would help you to understand what we are saying, and you wouldn't have to keep asking me for examples. You would know them.
Don't let the "moderator" tag go to your head.Click to expand... -
Grasshopper said: ↑I'm not concerned about any of them, but the words I was referring to were these:
Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Now if day means day, and evening and morning mean evening and morning in the literal sense in Genesis, do these words in Revelation literally mean "shortly come to pass" and "time is at hand"?
Somehow I see a 180 coming from many on the Genesis thread.Click to expand...
For the one most obvious reason, Genesis 1 is an historical record of the past while Revelation 1 is a prophetic prediction of things to come.
As to the basic premise made by Sproul in the URL you gave, Jesus, in other places made room in the grand scheme of things for a delayed 2nd coming.
Matthew 24
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of.
The purpose, setting and venue of the two books are different.
Having said that I still therefore believe in a 6 day creation while holding to a delayed Second Coming (followed by a literal 1000 year reign of Christ over the earth).
If that's a 180 so be it.
HankDClick to expand... -
Pastor Larry said: ↑I was flipping today through Renald Showers' book "Maranatha: Our Lord, Come." It would be well worth your time, even if you are not persuaded. It would help you to understand what we are saying, and you wouldn't have to keep asking me for examples. You would know them.Click to expand...
as per the rest, Pastor Larry, AMEN!
RJP -
Pastor Larry said: ↑I have. I taught through the post-exilic historical books, and have taught the Minor Prophets several times. I am doing doctoral work on the post-exilic writings and prophets, and will write my dissertation on some aspect of the kingdom in the post-exilic era. So suffice it to say that whatever our disagreements, I am not new to this subject.Click to expand...
So if your wife told you that dinner was near and she really mean 4 or 5 years, would that be satisfactory to you? I doubt it. But you should also note that some of the NT was written after the fall of Jerusalem and uses the same type of "soon" language.Click to expand...
I already gave some, such as Haggai 2 where "a little while" was 500 years in your view, and at least 2500 in a premillennial view. You have cited a number of examples yourself, such as James.Click to expand...
That why in James 5:8 you could not point to another usage in the NT where near means thousands of years. However I can point to other verses to support my view:
Php 2:30 Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of service toward me.
I can do the same for Revelation where shortly is used of when events were to happen:
Acts 22:18 And saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me.
Act 25:4 But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Caesarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither.
Yet when I asked you for your examples you offered nothing.
Now? No. In some cases, it does and always has, but not in all cases. Everyone who is even remotely familiar with linguistics knows that almost every word has a semantic range. It does not always take the same meaning in every usage.Click to expand...
Here's a good example of why you would be better suited to take my advice and put some time in studying the topic. An English word search, particularly in the KJV, is not a sound method of study.Click to expand...
Then use any method you wish, but give some examples.
The word used here is παραχρῆμα. Out of all its uses, it is only used in an eschatological context only one time, by Luke, and there ... wait for it ... Jesus is telling his disciples that the kingdom is not coming immediately (Luke 19:11). We need to study the languages that God inspired. The English word "near" or "soon" might be used for several distinct Greek or Hebrew words.Click to expand...
Again, that's not a good method of study. You don't go looking for support to "fit a definition." You read the passage and study it and see what it teaches.Click to expand...
Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
Jas 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.
It seems quite clear how to read it. If nigh isn't clear the "judge standeth before the door" makes it quite clear the nearness of the event.
It doesn't take a wild-eyed heretic to see this simple interpretation.
Albert Barnes
For the coming of the Lord draweth nigh - Compare Rev_22:10, Rev_22:12, Rev_22:20; the notes at 1Co_15:51. It is clear, I think, from this place, that the apostle expected that that which he understood by "the coming of the Lord" was soon to occur; for it was to be that by which they would obtain deliverance from the trials which they then endured. See Jam_5:7. Whether it means that he was soon to come to judgment, or to bring to an end the Jewish policy and to set up his kingdom on the earth, or that they would soon be removed by death, cannot be determined from the mere use of the language. The most natural interpretation of the passage, and one which will accord well with the time when the Epistle was written, is, that the predicted time of the destruction of Jerusalem Matt. 24 was at hand; that there were already indications that that would soon occur; and that there was a prevalent expectation among Christians that that event would be a release from many trials of persecution, and would be followed by the setting up of the Redeemer’s kingdom.
So since James was not a false prophet (as you agree) and since he said it was "near" and 2000 years later it has not yet happened,Click to expand...
we know that "near" is not a temporal designation in that passage.Click to expand...
" It says the event is near, since it didn't happen like I think it should then near really doesn't mean a short span of time"
That is the entirety of your argument.
In the following verse, he talks about being patient, something strange if in fact it were right around the corner. The exhortation to patience seems to indicate that it wasn't "soon" as you are conceiving of it, but still some distance off.Click to expand...
Because they are talking about two different things. Here's an example: If you tell your daughter "Don't go there" and "Go there," we wouldn't accuse you of falsehood. We would assume you mean two different things.Click to expand...
1, What event is Jesus speaking of here when quoting others:
Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.
2. What event is James speaking of here:
Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
The question is, If Jesus told his followers not to believe people who said they were the Christ and that his coming was near, he would be the one making James' statement false, if he meant what you say he meant. I think the contexts obviously are referring to two different things. I think you hold an untenable position.Click to expand...
Let's say that I tell my son, "Don't go there" meaning "the back yard," and you tell your son "Don't go there" meaning "the mall." If my son goes to the mall and you say to him, "Your daddy told you not to go there," you are the one redefining the word becuase you didn't use it as I used it. You used the same word, but used it in a different way. I think that is what you are doing here. You are using the words Scriptures uses (at least an English gloss of it), but are not using it the way that Scripture does.Click to expand...
So you think you know it all? That you don't have anything left to learn? Or will you admit with me that you don't know it all?Click to expand...Click to expand... -
The reason James can say it was near is because all the signs Jesus gave had been fulfilled.Click to expand...
Hebrews 1
3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?
Example:
Acts 3
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Wasn't this supposed to be a comparison of Genesis 1 and Revelation 1 to determine if the "days" of Genesis 1 are "days" or not "days" (in the typical sense)?
If, based upon the several passages indicating the immediate coming of Jesus Christ soon after His ascension one wants to use the now apparent delayed Second Coming of Jesus Christ (after nearly 2000 years) , to promote 6 "epochs" (or whatever) of Genesis 1 then go ahead.
Why belabor the point or take delight in confounding one another with "gotchas" (although as I have indicated, I don't think its a "gotcha", an interesting challenge but not a "gotcha")?
HankD -
HankD said: ↑Wasn't this supposed to be a comparison of Genesis 1 and Revelation 1 to determine if the "days" of Genesis 1 are "days" or not "days" (in the typical sense)?
If, based upon the several passages indicating the immediate coming of Jesus Christ soon after His ascension one wants to use the now apparent delayed Second Coming of Jesus Christ (after nearly 2000 years) , to promote 6 "epochs" (or whatever) of Genesis 1 then go ahead.
Why belabor the point or take delight in confounding one another with "gotchas" (although as I have indicated, I don't think its a "gotcha", an interesting challenge but not a "gotcha")?
HankDClick to expand...
I think your statements would make an interesting thread as well. -
Okay....since you offered no comments of substance I assume your papaer won't deal with Ezra and Haggai.Click to expand...
My gosh, for someone who proudly claims they are doing Doctoral workClick to expand...
I can't believe you actually would make this analogy of dinner ready in 20 minutes vs. catostophic events in someones near future and claim they must mean the same thing.Click to expand...
I dealt with HaggaiClick to expand...
but you have confirmed my suspicions as to why you will not give any examples. It is because, as I have been saying, you define the definition of the time statements by what you think the events are to be.Click to expand...
Yet when I asked you for your examples you offered nothing.Click to expand...
Correct, but we are talking specifically of the time statements and I'm asking for examples of where near and shortly mean thousands of years as used in the NT. Pointing to the very texts in question does not prove anything.Click to expand...
Thats very good, but whose talking about immediately? I'm not.Click to expand...
I read James 5:8-9 and read this:
Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
Jas 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.
It seems quite clear how to read it. If nigh isn't clear the "judge standeth before the door" makes it quite clear the nearness of the event.Click to expand...
Nice try, but I don't accept the premise.Click to expand...
"We" know no such thing. You have yet to make a case other than a sort of circular argument.
" It says the event is near, since it didn't happen like I think it should then near really doesn't mean a short span of time"
That is the entirety of your argument.Click to expand...
1. The words in question do not always refer to time spans. They often refer to imminency.
2. The descriptions of the return of the Lord have not yet happened, and thus, we cannot assert that his coming has already happened.
What do you consider "some distance off"?Click to expand...
Furthermore why be patient for an event your great-great-great-great-great-great-great granchildren will never see let alone those to whom he speaks.Click to expand...
1, What event is Jesus speaking of here when quoting others:
Luk 21:8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not deceived: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not therefore after them.Click to expand...
Jesus says, "When those claims are made, do not follow those people."
2. What event is James speaking of here:
Jas 5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.Click to expand...
The reason James can say it was near is because all the signs Jesus gave had been fulfilled.Click to expand...
I think you are throwing dust in the air hoping no one notices.Click to expand...
Do you think you know it all when commenting on the "days" of Genesis or do you have much to learn?Click to expand...
but to the point at hand, if you are not going to seriously interact with the issues, this is going nowhere. I should have known that from teh beginning. My past experiences here remind me that people don't often want to deal substantively with issues. They just want to play little games and give retorts, and I am not into that.
Have you read Showers? Have you interacted with the evidence he gives? -
I find it interesting how many take one approach to the age of the earth issue and a completely different approach to eschatological issue.Click to expand...
BTW, that's why I mentioned the literal "Thousand Year" reign of Christ.
But, as a matter of fact, the Bible is a Book which lends itself to a multi-faceted approach as a comparison of Genesis and Revelation proves.
Blessings
HankD -
Pastor Larry said: ↑So you are not as rigid as you pretend to be. You recognize that there is a semantic range to the word.Click to expand...
Where was that? The only "dealing" I saw was your charge that I needed to study it. BTW, Ezra 6:14 was talking about the post-exilic temple. The people of that time bemoaned its simplicity compared to the Solomonic temple. Haggai 2:6ff is promising a temple whose "latter glory" will be greater than the former glory. That wasn't the Second Temple which was mourned for its comparative simplicity. Furthermore all the nations weren't shaken at that time. It is the Millennial Temple.Click to expand...
You are dead wrong. I have given examples. You have given examples. I could list more like Rom 13:12.Click to expand...
But you will say the same thing about them because you are focused on the wrong thing. You have preemptorily decided on the meaning of the word and any thing that doens't support that is rejected out of hand.Click to expand...
Interesting. You want proof but when it is given you dismiss it because it doesn't agree with your preconceived notion. That is bad method.Click to expand...
Yes, it seems quite clear. But how do you miss it? Jesus has not yet come. The judgment, as described in Scripture, has not yet started. Yet you claim this verse was fulfilled. That makes no sense.Click to expand...
Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
1. The words in question do not always refer to time spans. They often refer to imminency.Click to expand...
2. The descriptions of the return of the Lord have not yet happened, and thus, we cannot assert that his coming has already happenedClick to expand...
Many scholars pre-Darby would disagree and say the events of AD70 was indeed a coming.
Because God said to. It is encouragement to remind us that our suffering is not in vain. this is a common theme in the NT.Click to expand...
As I already explained, he is speaking of the coming of false prophets who would make two claims: 1) I am the Christ (i.e. antiChrist) and 2) the time is near.Click to expand...
Jesus says, "When those claims are made, do not follow those people."Click to expand...
I wouldn't argue.Click to expand...
but to the point at hand, if you are not going to seriously interact with the issues, this is going nowhere.Click to expand...
You mean by "seriously", agreeing with everything you write?
I should have known that from teh beginning. My past experiences here remind me that people don't often want to deal substantively with issues. They just want to play little games and give retorts, and I am not into that.Click to expand...
Have you read Showers? Have you interacted with the evidence he gives?Click to expand...
Have you read Sproul, Spurgeon, Gentry, DeMar, Chilton and have you interacted with the evedince they give?Click to expand... -
Then you just contradicted most dispies who say 1948 was a necessary event to start the eschatological clock.Click to expand...
The Miiennial Temple is a dispie invention. Let me guess your doctoral work is done at a dispie school? Perhpas you can show us where Paul or Jesus taught of the Millennial Temple.Click to expand...
There is a precept of learning in the Scripture which declares that an accumulation of the knowledge of the Bible must be gathered and compared. True, some do a better job than others:
Isaiah 28
9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Matthew 13
51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord.
52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
In the following passage Jesus promises his Apostles a literal kingdom with literal food and literal thrones:
Luke 22
28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Compare that precept with Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
This place in Revelation seems the most likely for fulfilling Jesus promise of a literal kingdom with literal food and 12 literal thrones upon which the Apostles shall sit and from which they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel.
While the earthly temple is not mentioned in revelation 20, the point is there is no reason to disassociate the Luke passage from the the Revelation 20 passages concerning the millenium. The twelve thrones must be housed somewhere in this kingdom where they will sit down with Christ at His table, will eat, drink and reign with Him for 1000 years.
HankD -
I won’t interact with most of what you say here, Grasshopper, since it really doesn’t say anything at all of substance. I will simply make a few comments.
The Miiennial Temple is a dispie invention.Click to expand...
Perhpas you can show us where Paul or Jesus taught of the Millennial Temple.Click to expand...
Why then would James be safe to follow when he did one of the things Jesus warned of?Click to expand...
You mean by "seriously", agreeing with everything you write?Click to expand...
Sure, I ordered it yesterday, got it this morning and read it all day today taking notes while working.Click to expand...
Have you read Sproul, Spurgeon, Gentry, DeMar, Chilton and have you interacted with the evedince they give?Click to expand... -
HankD said: ↑Not really, just because men left Israel off their maps for a time does not mean it did not exist. God knows where Israel is whether we acknowledge it's existence or not and the reaches of its boundaries and in fact are found in the Scriptures and the Scriptures "cannot be broken".Click to expand...
There is a precept of learning in the Scripture which declares that an accumulation of the knowledge of the Bible must be gathered and compared. True, some do a better job than others:
In the following passage Jesus promises his Apostles a literal kingdom with literal food and literal thrones:
Luke 22
28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29 And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Compare that precept with Revelation 20
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
This place in Revelation seems the most likely for fulfilling Jesus promise of a literal kingdom with literal food and 12 literal thrones upon which the Apostles shall sit and from which they shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Click to expand...
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Is this also literal water:
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
Is this a literal throne:
Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Or this:
Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?
I understand your point, but I think you are reaching. Especially when Revelation is symbolic in nature.
While the earthly temple is not mentioned in revelation 20, the point is there is no reason to disassociate the Luke passage from the the Revelation 20 passages concerning the millenium. The twelve thrones must be housed somewhere in this kingdom where they will sit down with Christ at His table, will eat, drink and reign with Him for 1000 years.Click to expand...Will this Temple be used for sin atonement?Click to expand... -
Pastor Larry said: ↑I won’t interact with most of what you say here, Grasshopper, since it really doesn’t say anything at all of substance.Click to expand...
And I also understand why you wish not to comment on the poor Thessalonians who probably thought Paul knew what he was speaking about:
2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
How would the Thessolonians take these words? Is this written for those living in the tribulation? According to dispies the Church is gone but Paul addresses this letter to the Church:
2Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Did he offer false hope? Did he not know better?
I actually agree, which shows that the scriptural authors were dispensational in their thinking.Click to expand...
Why? Is not all of Scripture inspired by God? Do we discount the parts that aren't in red or in the epistles?Click to expand...
James didn’t do one of the things Jesus warned of.Click to expand...
No of course not. I mean seriously by actually seriously interacting with it instead of giving one liners. I am fine if people disagree with me. I am not bothered by that at all. But I think we should seriously interact with the whole of Scripture.Click to expand...
You have not given evidence here that you have done it.Click to expand...
You really should interact with the other side. It would be worth your time, if for no other reason than to keep you from making some of the silly kinds of comments and retorts you have made here.Click to expand...Click to expand... -
Grasshopper said: ↑Pastor Larry says that Christ could have returned at anytime and the NT words mean that, dispies that I grew up with said Israel being reborn in 1948 proves a soon return of Christ. If the events of 1948 fulfill prophecy then the time statements of the NT cannot mean immenency.Click to expand...
Was Jesus asking to eat literal food:
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.Click to expand...
Is this also literal water:
Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.Click to expand...
Is this a literal throne:Click to expand...Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;Click to expand...
Or this:Click to expand...Act 7:49 Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest?Click to expand...
I understand your point, but I think you are reaching. Especially when Revelation is symbolic in nature.Click to expand...
Discern as you will, and I will discern as I will. We can still be brothers in the Lord.
Will this Temple be used for sin atonement?Click to expand...
HankDClick to expand... -
Hmmm.... Mathew 10:23 is of no substance.Click to expand...
And I also understand why you wish not to comment on the poor Thessalonians who probably thought Paul knew what he was speaking about:
2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
How would the Thessolonians take these words? Is this written for those living in the tribulation? According to dispies the Church is gone but Paul addresses this letter to the Church:
2Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Did he offer false hope? Did he not know better?Click to expand...
Yea, a bunch of Hal Lindsey's running around the Roman Empire.Click to expand...
Makes it even more puzzling why none of them mention this Millennial Temple. You sure read alot about it in modern dispie writings. Is this the Eze. 40-47 Temple?Click to expand...
So the answer is NO. The NT writers don't mention this Temple.Click to expand...
I see, so you could claim the time was near and be alright as long as you didn't claim to be the Christ along with it.Click to expand...
And of course you didn't answer my question of what "time" was near that these false prophets spoke of.Click to expand...
You mean more than just Romans 13:12? I agree, but you refused to do so.Click to expand...
And your evidence boils down to: it didn't happen the way my dispie books tell me therefore time-statements must be twisted like pretzels. No sarcasm intended, that is exactly what you have laid out.Click to expand...
As I suspected, I don't think you are really paying attention here. This is proof of that. I haven't read a lot of "dispie books." I have probably read more of the alternative views, to be honest.
You are the otherside and have offered nothing to prove time-statments are stretchable over a period of 2000 plus years other than your presuppositions.Click to expand...
Page 3 of 6