Acts 8:55

[stevencarrwork]

Here Stephen says he saw Jesus standing at the right-hand side of God.

Ephesians 1:19-20 'That power is like the working of his mighty strength, wehich he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms...'

When did Jesus assume the heavenly throne? Was it in 70 AD as the Bible says?

[stevencarrwork]

I'm disappointed that, once again, few Christians appear able to answer questions.

And then they complain that atheists have such a poor understanding of their beliefs.

[spl_cadet]

03-10-2003 @ 02:22 PM
stevencarrwork:
When did Jesus assume the heavenly throne? Was it in 70 AD as the Bible says?

Where does the Bible state that? I've always seen it as 33 AD when He ascended into Heaven.

[stevencarrwork]

03-11-2003 @ 03:15 PM
spl_cadet:



Where does the Bible state that? I've always seen it as 33 AD when He ascended into Heaven.

I was trying to see if the following Christian statement is true 'Preterists say a parousia happened in 70 AD -- when Jesus assumed the heavenly throne.'

Are you saying that that statement is nonsense?

[The Curtmudgeon]

03-11-2003 @ 10:12 AM
stevencarrwork:



I was trying to see if the following Christian statement is true 'Preterists say a parousia happened in 70 AD -- when Jesus assumed the heavenly throne.'

Are you saying that that statement is nonsense?

As phrased, the statement is not nonsense, it's a simple fact that nobody disagrees with. Preterists certainly say that Jesus assumed the heavenly throne in 70 AD. Even non-Preterists like myself agree that Preterists say that.

If you meant to ask if the statement "Jesus assumed the heavenly throne in 70 AD" is nonsense, then I and other PreMillists would agree that it is. We believe Preterists to be mistaken when they claim that 70 AD marks the Parousia.

Steven, your beef here is not with Christians, it is with Preterists. The statement "Jesus assumed ... in 70 AD" is not a Christian statement per se, but only a Preterist statement (just as the statement, "Jesus is coming in the near future to Rapture His Church" is not a Christian statement per se, it is only a PreMillennialist statement).

The (both are Christian, but both cannot be right) Curtmudgeon

[spl_cadet]

03-11-2003 @ 08:12 AM
stevencarrwork:
I was trying to see if the following Christian statement is true 'Preterists say a parousia happened in 70 AD -- when Jesus assumed the heavenly throne.'

Are you saying that that statement is nonsense?

Well, seeing as how I'm not a preterist, what do you think I think?

[jpholding]

stevencarrwork:

I'm disappointed that, once again, few Christians appear able to answer questions.


You should probably be more disappointed that they don't care to divert from other discussions to spend valuable time enlightening you on these sort of "Alexander Dumas" questions. Sort of like Rohrbaugh realizing likely that he was talking to a dead horse and not writing you back, if that is true.

It was only 24 hours or so, Stevie. Sit down and wait your dadblamed turn. Our lives don't revolve around you.

I'll ask you one question in reply: Is standing on the right side of someone else's throne the same as assuming one's own throne?

Think it through and let us know when you get the point. :hrm:

[stevencarrwork]

03-11-2003 @ 08:23 PM
jpholding:

I'll ask you one question in reply: Is standing on the right side of someone else's throne the same as assuming one's own throne?

Think it through and let us know when you get the point. :hrm:

This question has already been answered by the Christians on this thread, with a 'yes'.

spl_cadet said it happened in 33 AD.

[jpholding]

Wow, Stevie, that sure does the trick. With your usual sav-wah-fair.

Try answering my question before you swallow the blunderbuss.

[stevencarrwork]

03-12-2003 @ 12:20 AM
jpholding:

Wow, Stevie, that sure does the trick. With your usual sav-wah-fair.

Try answering my question before you swallow the blunderbuss.

I gave the answer given to me by Christians on this thread.

[jpholding]

You evaded per your usual methods, Stevie. Why would I expect any less from someone from :bow: to Farrell Till?

[dhpierson]

Haha, Mr. Holding! Still causing trouble I see. :thumb: Outstanding. Simply outstanding. :wink:

[stevencarrwork]

03-12-2003 @ 01:00 AM
jpholding:

You evaded per your usual methods, Stevie. Why would I expect any less from someone from :bow: to Farrell Till?

It is spl-Cadet who you should address the question to.

I think the Bible says that Jesus ascended the heavenly throne in 70 AD. When have I ever claimed that the Bible says differently? I gave some Bible quotes, asking what people thought of them, as I wasn't sure what they meant, and I was astonished when spl-cadet said it was in 33 AD. I wonder how he can justify that.

[spl_cadet]

03-11-2003 @ 05:25 PM
stevencarrwork:
I think the Bible says that Jesus ascended the heavenly throne in 70 AD. When have I ever claimed that the Bible says differently? I gave some Bible quotes, asking what people thought of them, as I wasn't sure what they meant, and I was astonished when spl-cadet said it was in 33 AD. I wonder how he can justify that.

Simple, I'm not a preterist.

[jpholding]

dhpierson, welcome! :smile:

It is spl-Cadet who you should address the question to.

Keep playing dodgeball -- it makes you look just the way I want you to.

I think the Bible says that Jesus ascended the heavenly throne in 70 AD. When have I ever claimed that the Bible says differently

Not the question at issue. Let's see you provide cites proving your point, and explain why. I do not argue that showing that Jesus did not assume a throne formally requires buying the whole preterist package -- either side can live with either view.

I have anticipated your response already, so be careful.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I can't wait to hear THIS one. :rofl:

[stevencarrwork]

03-12-2003 @ 02:13 PM
jpholding:

I think the Bible says that Jesus ascended the heavenly throne in 70 AD. When have I ever claimed that the Bible says differently

Not the question at issue. Let's see you provide cites proving your point, and explain why.


I would like to cite http://www.tektonics.org/tillpfft05.html

The author, whose real name I cannot give, writes 'Preterists say a parousia happened in 70 AD -- when Jesus assumed the heavenly throne.'

I think you will have to ask the author why he thinks the Bible says Jesus assumed the heavenly throne in 70 AD, rather than 33 AD, when he was seen at the right-hand of God. I'm simply quoting what I am assured is true.

[Dee Dee Warren]

:rofl:

Steve, do you hit your head when you try to stand up in that box?? I do not have my article archive here with me... I have some very interesting things to post.

[jpholding]

Gee, we're still waiting for Stevie to answer the question. Maybe he's like one of those brontosaurs that doesn't know his tail has been chopped off for at least several minutes until after it happens.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Ouch. That brought up a very disturbing mental picture. Yikes!!

[Sheepdog]

holy cow steven, that is a full blown contradiction! i must remit my faith, my whole system of belief, etc over this! congratulations, you have converted me to militant skepticism.

oh wait, being "at the right hand of God" and being "on a throne at the right hand of God" are two different things. nevermind




:rofl:


(not to mention that the former is from a vision and the latter is in an apoctoalyptic context, so both are figurative from the get-go)

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 07:23 AM
Sheepdog:

oh wait, being "at the right hand of God" and being "on a throne at the right hand of God" are two different things. nevermind



(not to mention that the former is from a vision and the latter is in an apoctoalyptic context, so both are figurative from the get-go)

It is not I who says these are the same thing, but people like spl_cadet. It is he , to whom you should address your question.

As for your bizarre claim that the throne is figurative. Where did you dig that up from????

http://www.tektonics.org/tillpfft05.html
'We hold that Jesus assumed a real throne in heaven.'

Christians (note the we, just like in John 20:13, where the 'we' denotes more than one person), say it was a real throne.

As the article explains, Jesus could not have assumed the throne until the '....present powers that were occupying the holy city.' were dethroned. So until the Roman procurators (the powers occupying the holy city) had been dethroned in the rebellion, Jesus could not have assumed this real throne.

It is similar to the 'enthronement of the Son of Man' (to quote the writers again) in Daniel 7 , which specifically talks about the Son of Man assuming a throne.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Why did I get this urge to want to embarrass you in the Gym on this one too?

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 09:34 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Why did I get this urge to want to embarrass you in the Gym on this one too?

You mean a proposition like 'RESOLVED The Bible states Jesus assumed the Heavenly Throne in 70 AD', where I will be affirming and you denying?

[Faramir]

03-13-2003 @ 04:34 AM
Dee Dee Warren:

Why did I get this urge to want to embarrass you in the Gym on this one too?




03-13-2003 @ 10:24 AM
stevencarrwork:


You mean a proposition like 'RESOLVED The Bible states Jesus assumed the Heavenly Throne in 70 AD', where I will be affirming and you denying?

Based on this thread so far how about this:

RESOLVED. The Bible states that Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand side of God. Some preterist have stated that Jesus assumed the Heavenly throne in 70 AD. This is an obvious contradiction.

Steve would take the affirmative and Dee Dee the negative.

?

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 04:34 PM
Faramir:







Based on this thread so far how about this:

RESOLVED. The Bible states that Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand side of God. Some preterist have stated that Jesus assumed the Heavenly throne in 70 AD. This is an obvious contradiction.

Steve would take the affirmative and Dee Dee the negative.

?

Hardly worth having a debate. Dee Dee would win easily.

Both statements are true. Two true statements cannot contradict each other.

[Faramir]

03-13-2003 @ 11:34 AM
Faramir:
Based on this thread so far how about this:

RESOLVED. The Bible states that Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand side of God. Some preterist have stated that Jesus assumed the Heavenly throne in 70 AD. This is an obvious contradiction.

Steve would take the affirmative and Dee Dee the negative.

?




03-13-2003 @ 11:51 AM
stevencarrwork:



Hardly worth having a debate. Dee Dee would win easily.

Both statements are true. Two true statements cannot contradict each other.

OK then how about this?

RESOLVED. The Bible states that Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand side of God. The bible states that Jesus assumed the Heavenly throne in 70 AD. Both of these statements can not be true, therefore the Bible contradicts itself.

Steve would take the affirmative and Dee Dee the negative.

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 05:10 PM
Faramir:


RESOLVED. The Bible states that Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand side of God. The bible states that Jesus assumed the Heavenly throne in 70 AD. Both of these statements can not be true, therefore the Bible contradicts itself.

Steve would take the affirmative and Dee Dee the negative.

I think spl-cadet is the best person to take the affirmative here. I gave spl-cadet the cites and proofs that Jesus assumed the heavenly throne in 70 AD, and he claimed it was in 33 AD.

Anyway, it is not contradictory. Jesus may have assumed the heavenly throne in 33 AD, got off it, and then assumed it again in 70 AD.

If I can show , in just 3 lines, that these statements are not in the least contradictory, do you think I am going to debate an expert like Dee Dee on this resolution?

[Hitch]

Wow


What a new and exciting idea.

Play word games and whine.

You're boreing Steve.

You can do better?

Hitch

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 05:17 PM
Hitch:

Play word games and whine.

You're boreing Steve.

You can do better?



OK how about? RESOLVED that Christians like spl_cadet and JP Holding contradict each other about when Jesus assumed the heavenly throne.

I will take the affirmative and Dee Dee will take the negative.

[Sheepdog]

03-13-2003 @ 02:50 AM
stevencarrwork:

It is not I who says these are the same thing, but people like spl_cadet. It is he , to whom you should address your question.

if you don't see a contradiction, why continue posting? the way it looks, he dropped out of discusion ages ago. from what i can tell, he is the only one here who saw the ascension as the same time Jesus took the heavenly throne.


As for your bizarre claim that the throne is figurative. Where did you dig that up from????

you don't know anything about apoctalyptic literature, do you????


http://www.tektonics.org/tillpfft05.html
'We hold that Jesus assumed a real throne in heaven.'

Christians (note the we, just like in John 20:13, where the 'we' denotes more than one person), say it was a real throne.

so this includes every Christian from fundies to liberals and everyone in between, form the "ivory towers" in America to the tribal mission fields in Africa? it is probably close to the truth, but to take "we" as meaning all Christians (when in context it coule rightly mean "we pretersits"), nevertheless it is a hasty generalization.

whether figurative of not, the meaning is the same: the throne represents a place of ultimate authority.


As the article explains, Jesus could not have assumed the throne until the '....present powers that were occupying the holy city.' were dethroned. So until the Roman procurators (the powers occupying the holy city) had been dethroned in the rebellion, Jesus could not have assumed this real throne.

yup, except i understood the "powers" in question to be the Jewish authority. but then again, since Jerusalem was desolated (all powers in general removed) in AD70, you may be right by technnicality.


It is similar to the 'enthronement of the Son of Man' (to quote the writers again) in Daniel 7 , which specifically talks about the Son of Man assuming a throne.

which is also apoctalyptic literature.

[stevencarrwork]

03-13-2003 @ 07:23 AM
Sheepdog:

oh wait, being "at the right hand of God" and being "on a throne at the right hand of God" are two different things. nevermind



OK, I admit you got me there. I put my hands up. Sorry. Being on a throne at the right hand of God is a different thing from being at the right hand of God.

I misunderstood the Apostle's Creed

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell. [see Calvin]

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Stephen saw Jesus at the right hand of God, but it was 37 years later before Jesus sat down at the right hand of God (probably to take the weight of his legs)

Every day I learn more about Christian beliefs.

[Faramir]

03-13-2003 @ 12:21 PM
stevencarrwork:



OK how about? RESOLVED that Christians like spl_cadet and JP Holding contradict each other about when Jesus assumed the heavenly throne.

I will take the affirmative and Dee Dee will take the negative.


Now that makes sense.

JP is a preterist, and spl_cadet says he is not. But yet there is disagreement. :doh:

I don't see anyone denying that .

I would like to take the affirmative in that one myself.

Sounds like that shoule be a debate between preterist and non-preterist. Not a Christian and an Atheist.

Or are you trying to say that Christianity must be wrong becasue Christians can't agree as to when Jesus assumed the throne.

That would be like claiming that evolution must be wrong because Evolutionist can't agree if punctuated equlibrium is valid or not.

What is your point here? I really would like to know.

[jpholding]

Welcome to the club, guys. I've been reading this sort of crap from Stevie for the past 7 years. :smile: Same old Stevie.

When he can, he tries to sow dissension.

When he gets beat, he changes the subject.

From "ancient people would be too stupid to block a river" to "people who think sun dogs look like suns are deluded" -- Stevie, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I imagine most people would love to be that consistent over a lifetime. :xmm:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Steven:

You left me hanging with some questions in the Gym thread we are currently negotiating.. when you get a chance if you could please respond.

[Hitch]

03-13-2003 @ 07:23 PM
jpholding:

Welcome to the club, guys. I've been reading this sort of crap from Stevie for the past 7 years. :smile: Same old Stevie.

When he can, he tries to sow dissension.

When he gets beat, he changes the subject.

From "ancient people would be too stupid to block a river" to "people who think sun dogs look like suns are deluded" -- Stevie, the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I imagine most people would love to be that consistent over a lifetime. :xmm: Then you should have known better

LOL


H

[Jason Clark]

I think the pre millenial view is that when Jesus sat down it was on his fathers throne, and that in the future he will sit down on the throne of David in the new Jerusalem.

However the image of the new Jerusalem is taken from apocalyptic literature so...

Symbolic of dominion perhaps?

[dynomite]

Please pardon my ignorance, but where would preterism leave an opening for a "second coming", especially if you see the parousia, which I can accept isn't a technical term, and the whole right hand shabang with 1 Co. 15 where he won't leave the Father's right hand until he conquers all enemies, but you think the enemies are the Romans occupying the holy city. Dee Dee is sees it as a foul heresy, but I'm confused. I'm computer illiterate, so hopefully I can get back to this thread...I will get here the way I started, a link off tektonics.org, which is a good site by the way.

[Hitch]

03-14-2003 @ 04:47 AM
dynomite:

Please pardon my ignorance, but where would preterism leave an opening for a "second coming", especially if you see the parousia, which I can accept isn't a technical term, and the whole right hand shabang with 1 Co. 15 where he won't leave the Father's right hand until he conquers all enemies, but you think the enemies are the Romans occupying the holy city. Dee Dee is sees it as a foul heresy, but I'm confused. I'm computer illiterate, so hopefully I can get back to this thread...I will get here the way I started, a link off tektonics.org, which is a good site by the way. You've mixed up a few items dyno. According to apostolic definition the 'last enemy is death' and this is what is in view in Co 15. The Second Coming, the 'last day' of history, is the bodily return of Christ the point of the general resurrection of man.

The heresy is is the denial of a bodily return of Christ. Which is not a doctrine of orthodox preterists.

Take care

Hitch

[Hitch]

03-14-2003 @ 02:14 AM
Jason Clark:

I think the pre millenial view is that when Jesus sat down it was on his fathers throne, and that in the future he will sit down on the throne of David in the new Jerusalem.

However the image of the new Jerusalem is taken from apocalyptic literature so...

Symbolic of dominion perhaps? Pretty good nutshell version JC. Our basic problem with that view is its backwards focus. The Throne of Dave was and is a shadow of the real throne Christ occupies today. The natural comes first but is always inferior to the spiritual. The temporal is visible and finite while the spiritual is invisible and infinite.



Take care

hitch