Featured Spiritual Interpretation....pt4

And He will! And the Christians of the time also knew what He meant, that's why they built camps OUTSIDE Jeruselam, for they knew Jesus prediction. You don't seem to be understanding, it's metaphorical language, edthe Lord "Came in the clouds" when Egypt was destroyed, yet no God didn't come down and say Hi, it's a way of speaking, likewise when Israel was destroyed by the hands of the Babylonians, "the Lord CAME IN THE CLOUDS", THIS WAS CHRISTS ENTIRE POINT, you will see ME, the SON OF MAN, this time coming in the clouds, Chief Priest immediately understands what He's saying, tears His robe.

So YES He CAME IN THE CLOUDS, just as He did in the OT, THAT'S THE POINT. And yes, later He will return the same way He left, you are getting the two confused, one is Israels judgement for rejecting their Messiah, second is second coming.

 

8 But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they were looking stedfastly into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 who also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven. Acts 1

Where is "all eyes shall see Him, and the dead in him will arise, and those alive be glorified" in the text?

The angels in Acts didn't say all that. You make this stuff up as you go along don't you?

 

Hello Calv1.
I was actually referring to the text that Kyredneck quoted-- Luke 12:49-53).

I agree that Matthew 23:34 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. What I don't believe is that the whole of the Olivet Discourse refers to that. For instance, I don't think that Matthew 23:4-14 fit with AD 70 at all.
In Matthew 23:32-34, the Lord Jesus is talking about coming signs: "When you see all these things, know that it is near-- at the doors!" That's AD 70; people could see it coming and run (vs. 15-16).
But there is another Day coming for which there is no date and no signs. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, but My Father only' (Matthew 23:36). That day is going to come like a thief in the night (v.43). 'Watch therefore because you do not know what hour your Lord is coming!"
AD 70 is an event that was accurately predicted by the Lord Jesus, but it is not the end of prophecy.

What about the Christians in the 3rd Century, suffering far worse and far more widely than anything Nero inflicted?

 

Hey nice to meet you! You know I was raised Atheist but always believed anyways! Officially a Christian at 18, and IGNORANT OF SCRIPTURE. I read many bad books, IE "Late Great Planet Earth", but for some reason became an obsessive, almost unhealthy student of scripture last twenty years.

I say that because in that time, I've seen passages that I was CERTAIN meant one thing, but upon seeing it laid out, AND studying the period, IE what did "World" to the first century Jew mean? It's meant "More than us"! Paul said "the gospel has gone out to the entire world", well we know it didn't literally, he meant "Out to others than Jews", up until them it was ALL ABOUT JUDAISM. So "End of the Age" is not "End of time", but "End of the Old Covenant Age", so when He said "You know the END is near", what end? End of the OT Age. Same with "Coming in the Clouds", every Jew knew that was bad news, when that was written OT it meant TOTAL DESTRUCTION.

I know what you mean about 3rd century, but NOTHING surpasses, for the Jew, THE ORACLES OF THEIR WORSHIP, think about it, it would be if all Churches and bibles dissapeared. The OLD COVENANT WAS DESTROYED.

I don't like talking Eschatology, but I would encourage you to look at some short Preterist videos on YouTube, of course there is tons of junk, but I think if you look at it, you'll say "Yes, that makes perfect sense, of course they weren't talking to people 2000 years in the future, in fact John even says "The things that will SHORTLY come to pass". Do you know that our understanding, you know tribulation, then anti-christ, then second coming, that was all drempt up by a crazy man named John Darby, born in 1835 he departed the Church of England to form the "Brethren", he was one of those "Only I have the truth, you disagree with me you're a heretic", even Spurgeon called him out Somehow his wacky teaching found it's way into Scofields commentary, from there to Hal Lindsey, Lindsey to the masses, until today it's the norm, but well read Hal Lindsey, and I don't recommend Lindsey, I don't like him for many reasons, but his "Apocalypse Code" is pretty close to the truth. Hope I didn't sound arrogant above, many wipe the floor with me, I just was trying to say that I was CONVINCED of these things, "End of the Age", sure that means end of time, NO, no it doesn't

Well thanks for letting me ramble, we are IN the 1000 year Millenium, remember "1000" in Scripture NEVER means 1000, it ALWAYS refers to long period, and yes Satan is bound, and yes the Saints are ruling and reigning with Him, as will we soon. Think, this used to always bother me, if we die to "EVER be with the Lord", yet return, then after 1000 years Satan escapes, how can I be sure I won't fall for it and sin, it's crazy, it's anti-security, its ONE LINE IN A ALREADY CONFUSING BOOK, yet they base an entire eschatological system off it!

thanks

 

ROFL, *Martin goes into convulsions*

 

When was the beginning of the, "age," of the phrase, the end of the age?

Does the end of the age have anything to do with Rom. 8:23?

Luke 20:34,35.

 

First Covenant to end of the first covenant, big deal! Romans 8:23? It's just talking about the Creation groaning, us waiting for our adoption, not sure I get your point.

Tell you what, just look into preterism, I'm NOT a Preterist, but watch some of their videos, you'll at least see some truths, I wish I could say "Watch this one", because many go too far, but it fits like a glove! I know we always think Rev is in the future, I promise, well modern America is the ONLY PLACE that thinks Rev is future, go anywhere, ask them, they'll say "Happened first century", because they just read it in context, we have read all of the left behind nonsense, or Lindsey, but it is fascinating. Philosopher Bertrum Russel used the Olivet Discourse to, successfully prove to himself and many others that Christ was a false prophet. CS Lewis, whose theology is awful called it "Our most embarrassing chapter", THEY JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, the SON OF MAN CAME IN THE CLOUDS, twice the "LORD CAME IN THE CLOUDS", what happened, destruction each time, first century Christians got it, they built villages out of Jerusalem, it's a lot of fun to study it

 

Nice to meet you too!
Just so that you know, I'm Amil, not Premil, and having been saved in a Plymouth Brethren Chapel, I know all about J.N. Darby (you have his dates wrong; he was born in 1800).
I believe that Acts 1:11 refutes an invisible return of Christ, whether Preterist or Pretrib, but so long as you're not Hyper-preterist, we shan't fall out too much.

 

When did Jesus come in the clouds? And in what direction was he moving?

He was asked a simple question & gave a straight answer:

Mat. 26:63 But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, ‘I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.’
64 ‘You have said so,’ Jesus replied. ‘But I say to all of you: from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’
65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ‘He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.​

From now on ... Jesus was quoting Daniel -

Dan. 7::13 ‘In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence.
14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.​

He was ascending to claim his Kingdom.

 

A fine example:

8 And their dead bodies lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. Rev 11

Whenever the Spirit 'points' you to 'go beyond the letter' is certainly when you're justified to do so. And it's FUN! And an excellent way to learn. And it should provide an opportunity for noble students of the word to put their heads together and search the scriptures "to see if these things be so".

Babylon, Sodom, Egypt, Jerusalem. Rev 11:8 is a 'pointer' directing us to find their connections.

Comments?

[add]

The NT actually contains many of these 'pointers' to search deeper than the letter when the eye is adjusted to look for them.

 

So, since I believe in and use the grammatical-historical-theological method of interpretation, I'm a crazy cultist or heretic?

The truth is, often cults are started or propagated with "spiritual" interpretations. For example, the JWs thought Jesus was coming back in 1914, but when He didn't come physically they changed their doctrine to say He came "spiritually."

And by the way, Herman Eutics is a guy's name, but hermeneutics is the science of interpretation, Just sayin'.

 

No, he didn't say that. No where did he mention any method you use. And he didn't mention you by name.

This thread is not about you personally.

 

But I'll mention it. If your "grammatical-historical-theological method of interpretation" leads you to choose 'history' over the plain teaching of scripture, it STINKS! I want nothing to do with it.

Apocalyptic as literary genre and interpreting Revelation

 

Amen! Out of the mouth of babes!

 

I don't know that I'm rubbed the wrong way about these doctrines. I do get frustrated, though, when I can't get straight answers from you guys, like in the original thread when no one would tell me why you think it's okay to spiritualize prophetic interpretation, given that the prophecies of the incarnation were all literally fulfilled. My inescapable conclusion is that the typical preterist or amil person has not thought that through.

And in this thread I've asked you what the purpose of figures of speech in the Bible is. What do you think?

 

See post #50, this thread.

(of course it'll be difficult for you to comply since you have me on ignore)

 

So that we can marvel as David:

162 I rejoice at thy word, As one that findeth great spoil. Ps 119

And pray as David:

18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold Wondrous things out of thy law. Ps 119

How many books of the Bible did David have then? Not many. We, on the other hand, have the whole gem.

 

I understand your viewpoint, but think that AD 70 was not when God totally reject Israel, as he rejected mainly their spiritual leadership! God still has future plans for them, as evidenced by Him fighting for their cause at final war called Armageddon!