Yes, Jesus said he was coming quickly, not soon. Quickly means suddenly, without warning, in the twinkling of an eye, no time to repent.
Tracing the Origins of Coming on the Clouds
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Logos1, Jan 13, 2013.
Page 4 of 11
-
-
My Kingdom for a Stradivarius
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. -
Better late to the party than never
I salute your martial arts skills. -
Wishful thinking does not make logic
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 make this too easy my young Padawan
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 And if something is old and outdated, it’s close to disappearing.”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. -
If Christ meant a physical return why isn't there even 1 verse that says physical
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
Bible verses prove you have tiackwards
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. -
I may have to start calling you no verses John since you don't use bible verses
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. -
Smug, glib, and arrogant is no way to go through life, son (thank you Dean Wermer for the inspiration).
-
-
Thanks for your help Herald
Thank you my good fellow. -
I got a warm fuzzy
Live is tough as a futurist alright. -
-
Waitress, could I have some more insults please
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! -
You do know that there is psychological and medical help for obsessive-compulsive behavior.
-
It would take better than this to rattle me
Page 4 of 11