Second Coming

[Mikeenders]

Ca

...since this could be speaking of his coming in judgement on Jerusalem in 70AD.

I have been recently confronted with hyperpreterism and am questioning things at this point.

Preterists would have you forget that the The New Testament is built up on the Old and that essentially Christianity is Jewish. Jesus Christ means that Jesus is the anointed one - the Messiah spoken of by the Jewish prophets.

The second coming of Christ is the coming that fulfills all passages of Messiah not yet fulfilled in the Jewish scriptures. In this coming Messiah is to save Jerusalem not destroy it and he is to be accepted as the KIng of Israel. Jesus himself said you shall not see me again until you say Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. There was no coming of Christ in 70 AD. The old and new testament call for two comings of Christ and only two. The second coming is not and cannot be a coming in judgement against Jerusalem but must result in the salvation of it. There are countless prophecies of that salvation.

All that Preterism has going for itself is its alleged solution to a problem in Matthew 24s "this generation" that is based on faulty assumptions to begin with and a definition of the word "this" that neither holds up in Greek or English.

[eschaton]

Joe,

Sometimes a more modern translation helps.

2:1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers,
2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.
3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. NIV

Paul doesn't say that the day is coming soon, but says don't let anybody fool you into thinking that day has already come, as the gnostics were prone to do. He doesn't say anything about the day coming soon, but he is talking about the final judgement here. Surely Christ's second coming is spiritual and he comes daily in the church. I have included a couple of quotes from Augustine from the book I have told you about.

Many passages I omit, because, though they seem to refer to the last judgment, yet on a closer examination they are found to be ambiguous, or to allude rather to some other event,-whether to that coming of the Saviour which continually occurs in His Church, that is, in His members, in which comes little by little, and piece by piece, since the whole Church is His body, or to the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem. For when He speaks even of this, He often uses language which is applicable to the end of the world and that last and great day of judgment, so that these two events cannot be distinguished unless all the corresponding passages bearing on the subject in the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are compared with one another,-for some things are put more obscurely by one evangelist and more plainly by another,-so that it becomes apparent what things are meant to be referred to one event… City of God, Book XX Ch. 5


And now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent me." It was Himself who was speaking as the Lord God; and yet we should not have understood that it was Jesus Christ had He not added, "And now the Lord God and His Spirit hath sent me." For He said this with reference to the form of a servant, speaking of a future event as if it were past, as in the same prophet we read, "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, "not "He shall be led;" but the past tense is used to express the future. And prophecy constantly speaks in this way. City of God, Book XX, Ch. 30

2 Peter 3:3-9 is good too, but often full preterists will compare that to the language of Hebrews 8 and claim it is talking about the destruction of the old covenant, which they see embodied in the 70 A.D. Temple. Note that Hebrews is actually talking about the tabernacle of Moses and not the 70 A.D. temple (8:5).

Thanks Eschaton.

My problem with 2 Thess 2 is that it seems to strongly imply that it is happening soon. "...that the day of Christ is at hand" tells me that Paul was teaching that it was going to happen soon.

When you say to be careful not to confuse the Second Coming with HIs continual "coming" in the church...what do you mean? Are you saying that some of the "coming" passages simply refer to His coming in a general sense and not the final judgement?

Thanks.

-Joe

[John Reece]

All that Preterism has going for itself is its alleged solution to a problem in Matthew 24s "this generation" that is based on faulty assumptions to begin with and a definition of the word "this" that neither holds up in Greek or English.

What you are asserting has been argued extensively here at TWeb, and refuted by me and others quite a number of times ― so conclusively and so often that we tend to let such assertions as you have made slide by without response, 'cause it's boring and wearisome.

See, for instance, this thread.

[Mikeenders]

What you are asserting has been argued extensively here at TWeb, and refuted by me and others quite a number of times ― so conclusively and so often that we tend to let such assertions as you have made slide by without response, 'cause it's boring and wearisome.

See, for instance, this thread.

and you are under some illusion that I am not aware of the arguments or that Tweb is somehow the only place where the subject has been debated on both sides? and that merely claiming with assorted hand waving that something is conclusive makes it so? I'd get bored easily myself if I were given to reasoning with such assumptions. I'm fully aware of the various takes and arguments. Enough so to say that when someone on the other side claims the word "conclusive" he is certainly blowing steam and not substance.

Incidentally i haven't asserted my position on Matthew 24. I'd have to get into the entire context. I merely referred to it in passing. Proverbs warns us about answering people they haven't heard fully by making assumptions. So at this point I have my own yawn developing.

[Little Shepherd]

Dispensationalists would have you forget that the The New Testament is built up on the Old and that essentially Christianity is Jewish.

Fixed your typo.

ETA: I'm not saying that all dispensationalists do this, but their belief in a strict division between the Church and Israel does make them more prone to this.

[John Reece]

Incidentally i haven't asserted my position on Matthew 24.

You did assert this:

All that Preterism has going for itself is its alleged solution to a problem in Matthew 24s "this generation" that is based on faulty assumptions to begin with and a definition of the word "this" that neither holds up in Greek or English.

Would you care to debate your assertion of 'a definition of the word "this" that neither holds up in Greek or English"?

[Mikeenders]

You did assert this:

Really? Feel free then to assert my position on Matthew 24. Or better yet please do tell where I have ever asserted what Mickey did in the thread that you allege is "What you are asserting"? I mean it. Need an answer to that not a dodge. If I commit to debating anyone it has to be purposeful and it is most certainly is not if they are not honest and just generally lacking in respect for others and their positions..

Before being quite so haughty you might read more carefully and quit assuming you know my position before you've heard it. According to proverbs it is a mark of wisdom. Not doing so gets Proverbs sternest rebuke in regard to wisdom (with a word I will not call you).

As for debating on the single word "this" - though I see you, Dee Dee and Mickey did the go around on it - Its a fool's game. The word "this" outside of the context is not precise enough to settle the issue and anyone that thinks it is is delusional or is looking for a way to pass his day and pat his ego. That was precisely my point. In both English and Greek you cannot determine the meaning of this outside of its context. If the definition of the word "this" and the gramatical construct could have settled the issue conclusively then the issue would have been solved long ago.

I had intended to share my thoughts on the issue of Matthew 24 at length later so I certainly am not shying from discussing the entire scope of that passage within its context. Or better yet since you claim to know what my positions are on it perhaps you can point me to another older discussion that I can add to (rather than creating another on the subject) that accurately represents my position.

Your first try was a miserable failure. I wonder why that might be?

[seanD]

I have a question. If "this generation" meant Jesus' generation only, why did he say there will be no sign given to "this" generation but the one given to the prophet Jonah? Surely his generation saw miracle after miracle, many of which convinced them that he was the Messiah. In fact, his statement actually makes more sense in the context of the subsequent generations that didn't see any signs from Jesus. So could it be that "this generation" was used by Jesus in a broader sense?

[Mikeenders]

Fixed your typo.

ETA: I'm not saying that all dispensationalists do this, but their belief in a strict division between the Church and Israel does make them more prone to this.

Possibly but certainly not more than the Preterist who is forced to change the plain meaning of literally scores of Old Testament (and quite a few NT ) passages and interpets the New Testament out of its jewish context. There is no room for any coming of the Messiah that neither is sacrificial nor physically redemptive to Israel in any of the Hebrew scriptures.

In fact any reign of Messiah that does not involve reigning physically out of Jerusalem is a foreign concept. Proper theology sees the church wrapped into the future of Israel the nation not the other way around. The question of the disciples concerning the end of the age in the context of the prophets demands the messiah - a physical descendant of David - to be reigning out of Jerusalem and theres nowhere where Jesus "corrects" that idea. Why should he? At the time it would have been blatantly against all of written scripture that embodies who Christ is and will be.


Sorry but Preterists pervert dozens of scriptures to claim to not be perverting Matthew 24 all because they make defiinitve statements about what the phrase "this generation" means. Preterists have no other proof text worth a grain of salt outside of those two words and most know it but won't admit it.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Possibly but certainly not more than the Preterist who is forced to change the plain meaning of literally scores of Old Testament (and quite a few NT ) passages and interpets the New Testament out of its jewish context. There is no room for any coming of the Messiah that neither is sacrificial nor physically redemptive to Israel in any of the Hebrew scriptures.

Heh. Thanks for the laugh, because we all know Jews interpreted astronomical terminology literally.

In fact any reign of Messiah that does not involve reigning physically out of Jerusalem is a foreign concept. Proper theology sees the church wrapped into the future of Israel the nation not the other way around. The question of the disciples concerning the end of the age in the context of the prophets demands the messiah - a physical descendant of David - to be reigning out of Jerusalem and theres nowhere where Jesus "corrects" that idea. Why should he? At the time it would have been blatantly against all of written scripture that embodies who Christ is and will be.

Actually, it requires that he sit on David's throne forever. Tell me, is David's throne occupied today?

Sorry but Preterists pervert dozens of scriptures to claim to not be perverting Matthew 24 all because they make defiinitve statements about what the phrase "this generation" means. Preterists have no other proof text worth a grain of salt outside of those two words and most know it but won't admit it.

And this just makes me laugh. It's going to be amusing to see you go up against John Reece on this one.

Here lies Mikeenders. R.I.P.

[seanD]

Mikeenders, they're gonna use the convenient ipso facto argument on you. Since the bible does have allegorical passages in some cases, and since most passages are peppered with symbols, hyperbole, metaphors, and fact smilies, then this gives us the license to interpret anything and everything as allegory that we want and where we want.

[Mikeenders]

Actually, it requires that he sit on David's throne forever. Tell me, is David's throne occupied today?

And you think thats some point against my position exactly how? Davids's throne will be occupied at the second coming so the spiritual reign matches the physical reign at the end of the ages. Precisely how the hebrew scriptures envision it

And this just makes me laugh

It is usually for humans to laugh when they have no answer themselves

. It's going to be amusing to see you go up against John Reece on this one.

Here lies Mikeenders. R.I.P.

Yeah uh-huh you won't get your wish if its going to be another ten page thread with one guy complaining that another guy misapplied Thayers after having to admit that he likewise misapplied it himself.

I await with bated breath the end of my life. Death by forum rhetoric. Should be headline news.

[Mikeenders]

Mikeenders, they're gonna use the convenient ipso facto argument on you. Since the bible does have allegorical passages in some cases, and since most passages are peppered with symbols, hyperbole, metaphors, and fact smilies, then this gives us the license to interpret anything and everything as allegory that we want and where we want.

Yes I know Sean (although in fairness it is a little bit more sophisticated at least with some). Classic forum fallacy they are riding on. New guy to a forum equals new guy to the issues. Happens on just about every forum along with the argument based on forum authority (new guy knows less people than many posted guys) .

Not to worry I'm a big boy :) . it won't b the first time I've picked out a casket and never had to use it. I don't tolerate any arguments from authority, circular reasoning or other fallacious logic.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

And you think thats some point against my position exactly how? Davids's throne will be occupied at the second coming so the spiritual reign matches the physical reign at the end of the ages. Precisely how the hebrew scriptures envision it

Lovely question begging. Don't you know about the contrast between the physical sanctuary and the heavenly one?

It is usually for humans to laugh when they have no answer themselves

No. We laugh when we know someone's about to get theirs handed to them for mouthing off too quickly.

Yeah uh-huh you won't get your wish if its going to be another ten page thread with one guy complaining that another guy misapplied Thayers after having to admit that he likewise misapplied it himself.

I await with bated breath the end of my life. Death by forum rhetoric. Should be headline news.

John Reece is probably the most educated man here on the usage of Greek and Hebrew. I suggest you learn to study the people you disagree with and realize some of them know what they're talking about.

[joejackamy]

2 Peter 3:3-9

³ Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, ⁴ And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. ⁵ For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: ⁶ Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: ⁷ But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. ⁸ But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. ⁹ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Peter (writing roughly a decade before the destruction of Jerusalem) talks about scoffers "in the last days" who will argue that Christ isn't coming back, because nothing has changed since the days when the first Christians "fell asleep". Obviously, it doesn't make any sense to apply this to 70 A.D. when a significant portion, perhaps a majority, of the first generation of Christians were still alive.

Peter's solution is that we shouldn't focus on the "soonness" of the Coming, as (1) God doesn't count time the way we do, and (b) the Lord is long-suffering, and delays His return that more may come to repentance.

The (of course, as a non-preterist I believe a lot more than just the judgment awaits) Curtmudgeon

I certainly agree that Peter does explicitly says that God has a different time table then we do. This verse certainly gives support for a longer time frame Second Coming.

However, for your first point...who do the "fathers" refer to? I do not see it necessarily referring to the first Christians. Why not "fathers" as in patriarchs (especially since he goes back to creation), or the first century christian believers fathers, who could certainly have died. I really do not know who Peter had in mind when he said "fathers".

Part of my issue with this passage in Peter is that both I & II Peter refer often to an "end", "judgement", or revelation of Jesus Christ. Is he referring to two different time periods, end of Jerusalem and Jewish age AND end of history and final consummation? (Below are some of the passages I am referring to)

It would seem a stretch to think he was referring to two different ends...but I am trying to figure this out as I go here and am certainly up for correction.

----
1Pe 1:5 who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1Pe 1:7 that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold that perisheth though it is proved by fire, may be found unto praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ:

I Pe 2:12 having your behavior seemly among the Gentiles; that, wherein they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your good works, which they behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

1Pe 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore of sound mind, and be sober unto prayer:

1Pe 5:4 And when the chief Shepherd shall be manifested, ye shall receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away.

1Pe 4:17 For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God: and if it begin first at us, what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God?

And of course the original 2 Peter 3 passage.

-Joe