Second Coming

[Mikeenders]

I actually do not see any hard evidence that it is either happening soon or not happening soon. Paul simply says that a few things must happen before the end comes. If anything, I see implicit evidence that it was soon, seen the man of lawlessness was "already" at work.

to be honest Joe I can't see how you cannot see it. its pretty obvious to me as a simple sequence of logic.

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. "

Why would they have been troubled? The text tells us - they had received information that might lead them to believe the day was at hand. That is what would have been troubling. Paul then states

Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means

Now if the day was at hand how would it have been a deception? The pasage is therefore indicating that the day was NOT at hand (and he states why - because what was necesary by sign to happen had not happened). Its really beyond me how this can be denied by anyone looking at the text. I'm not being theatrical. I really find it baffling.

As far as Revelation goes, if it was written prior 70AD or 95AD, I think the author was speaking of events that were applicable very soon

Well you are completely ignoring what I said here. How do you claim that Revelation is to cover what is soon to happen when it covers even events a thousand years after the reign of Christ. No matter what you think that reign is - how does a thousand years fit your concept of soon? So again as a logical sequence of logic -. If it covers events that are not soon no one can claim that everything or even most of what is in Revelation has to happen soon. The only thing that does in fact happen soon is what is said to seven real churches that really existed and that should be no surprise because revelation actually starts out as a letter to those seven churches.

He obviously had a specific audience in mind, and emphasized imminent events occuring. To say that all (not that you are saying this) events are happening 2000+ years later seems rather silly to me

Well if I didn't say that then why are you writing that in a response to me? I see some of things as relating to the churches happening soon but I've proven that some events are way out over a thousand years.

A prior 70AD writing, with much of Revelation referring to the destruction of Jerusalem makes the most sense..to me anyhow

well of course it does because you are a Preterist. Thats obvious. why? Well look at your response

But like I say, I have not seen the reasons for the dating of the book (do have kenneth gentry's book that gives evidence for it being an early date that I have not read yet)

So at least as far as you are concerned you've made the decision without even looking at the evidence because you rule out the possibility of another temple.

[quote]I think the book of Revelation can say things are happening soon...and consequently have some things actually happen soon, and have some of the events BEGIN to happen but not fully happen....and still be consistent. [quote]

Good then the only thing that you have a problem with my response is that I believe that some things can happen soon (as you do) think that some things begin to happen soon (as you do) but that you forbid (by what logic I don't know) that some things wouldn't happen for long periods of time exceeding a thousand years. And that even though the text point blanks tells us of events that won't happen soon.

So I can't follow you logically. the only thing I can figure is that you think there is some formula to determine how much of Revelations should happen soon and what shouldn't but there is no rule coming from the text. What aappens to the churches soon meets the conditions of soon that John starts off with.

Let me ask you this...do you think Paul, Peter, James, etc... teach that something major is going to happen soon in their NT writings?

The early church I see isn't about setting dates but looking at signs precisely as commanded by Christ. Paul straight up states in the same passage in Thessalonians that a teaching about the day of Christ being "at hand" without reference to signs being fulfilled is DECEPTION.

The reality is none of the apostles knew when Christ was coming back. thats why the early church is called to watch and yes when something can happen at any time (once the signs come in) then the return of Christ has a sense of eminence. I think the passage in Revelation and thessalonians is pretty representative of Preterists proof texts. Either greatly over reaching or a tad too simplistic which is why I maintain there is little to Preterism than the insistence that something magically happens when you put "this" with "generation" and words that have at least two meanings seperately must be forced to have only one when put together.

My problem (that I love having) is that in my ministry I spend too much time in the OT (particulary in the Prophets). The same OT that if we did not have we would not even have the concept of Messiah. As I see it Christians who have no root in the OT but see Messiah merely from a gentile perspective have little sense of the depth of what was promised in The OT about Messiah, Israel and a Davidic kingdom reigning out of Jerusalem. God made some pretty unambiguous promises that cant be mauled and perverted to suit the whims of modern christians who wish to yank Christ out of his Hebrew roots.

There is absolutely NO basis NONE, NADA, ZIP that indicates that a heavenly reign satisfies the promise that God made to Israel. Jersalem and David's throne. All the passages that speak of Messiah's exaltation speak of Israel as a nation and as a kingdom being restored with that exaltation. Making AD 70 that fulfillment would be a cruel joke.

[Mikeenders]

I take your points and renew my apology for a hasty and ill-conceived response to your off-hand comment.

Sorry John. I buried it in my essay :) I accepted your apology. The response is no longer an isssue with me.

[joejackamy]

[QUOTE=Mikeenders;2801384]to be honest Joe I can't see how you cannot see it. its pretty obvious to me as a simple sequence of logic.

Well...I have never been accused of being intelligent! :) However, despite my lack of brain power, it does make a big difference on what version one is using. I was looking at the NIV, which says “...saying that the day of the Lord has already come.” v. 2

The version you reference says “..the day of Christ is at hand.” Which I agree would certainly suggest a happening very soon idea, which would mean that it is not happening soon. I have not done much comparative studies on many different translations, but perhaps it would be a good idea.

Do you have any good reason why your “at hand” would be more accurate than the “already come”? This translation issue would seem to make all the difference. This question is not meant to challenge or disagree with you...it is in the tone of an honest question since I do not know any greek, etc.

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. "

Why would they have been troubled? The text tells us - they had received information that might lead them to believe the day was at hand. That is what would have been troubling.

They would be troubled if they thought it already occurred of course. That would trouble me greatly if I lived at that time. If the correct translation is "at hand" and not "already come", than I would totally agree with your sentiment. But, if a better translation is “already come”...than certainly you can see how this would not teach that His coming is NOT at hand.

Paul then states

Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means

Now if the day was at hand how would it have been a deception? The pasage is therefore indicating that the day was NOT at hand (and he states why - because what was necesary by sign to happen had not happened). Its really beyond me how this can be denied by anyone looking at the text. I'm not being theatrical. I really find it baffling.

It could still be a deception if people were teaching that it has "already come"...because it did not. And the sign that must occur was the man of lawlessness to be revealed, who Paul says was "already" at work...which could imply a soon fulfillment.

Well you are completely ignoring what I said here. How do you claim that Revelation is to cover what is soon to happen when it covers even events a thousand years after the reign of Christ. No matter what you think that reign is - how does a thousand years fit your concept of soon? So again as a logical sequence of logic -. If it covers events that are not soon no one can claim that everything or even most of what is in Revelation has to happen soon. The only thing that does in fact happen soon is what is said to seven real churches that really existed and that should be no surprise because revelation actually starts out as a letter to those seven churches.

If I ignored what you said about Revelation, I apologize. I did not articulate very well. At the end my comments I said “I think the book of Revelation can say things are happening soon...and consequently have some things actually happen soon, and have some of the events BEGIN to happen but not fully happen....and still be consistent.”

By this I meant that Revelation could have some things fulfilled very soon since he was speaking to specific churches, and some things begin to happen but not fully occur (rather only BEGIN, ie Millennium) and still be consistent, as in non-contradictory. I do believe that some things happened soon and some things did not. We are in agreement here. So to answer your question of “how does a 1000 years fit your concept of soon”...I would say some things did happen soon and others begun (Millennium reign of Christ) but not fully fulfilled (second coming, judgement, consummation)

Well if I didn't say that then why are you writing that in a response to me? I see some of things as relating to the churches happening soon but I've proven that some events are way out over a thousand years.

I did not say that in response to you because this is a dialogue, and not everything I say has to be directly in response to something you said. Certainly, I can bring new thoughts in to the conversation. I am trying to learn about these issues, and I wanted to let you know where I stand. S pecifically in this case, I do not believe ALL of Revelation was for the very distant future as I have heard some claim.

well of course it does because you are a Preterist. Thats obvious. why? Well look at your response

Again, this is my bad communication skills. Implicit (poorly so after reading in again) in my thoughts anyhow were “IF Revelation was a prior 70AD writing...” I honestly do not know and have not researched it yet as to when it was written. I would not disagree that I am a preterist...an orthodox, partial, whatever it is called. My profile does show that as well. The reason for my original post was because I came across a full, heretical preterist that said things like the Second Coming already happened. I honestly never heard of this before, and briefly looked into some of of his points and it did appear that many NT texts seemed to teach something was going to happen soon.

So at least as far as you are concerned you've made the decision without even looking at the evidence because you rule out the possibility of another temple.

I have not even thought of another temple concept. I have not gotten that far...as I am very new to end of times, prophecy, etc...teachings in the scriptures. My original post was strictly in terms of the Second Coming.

[quote]I think the book of Revelation can say things are happening soon...and consequently have some things actually happen soon, and have some of the events BEGIN to happen but not fully happen....and still be consistent.

Good then the only thing that you have a problem with my response is that I believe that some things can happen soon (as you do) think that some things begin to happen soon (as you do) but that you forbid (by what logic I don't know) that some things wouldn't happen for long periods of time exceeding a thousand years. And that even though the text point blanks tells us of events that won't happen soon.

I do not see where we disagree here...my comments earlier in this post explain that my lack of articulation probably caused misunderstanding. I do agree that some things in Revelation has not occurred. For ex, consummation, Second (final) Coming, final Judgement.

So I can't follow you logically. the only thing I can figure is that you think there is some formula to determine how much of Revelations should happen soon and what shouldn't but there is no rule coming from the text. What aappens to the churches soon meets the conditions of soon that John starts off with.

Not looking for a formula really...just trying to understand the scriptures.

The early church I see isn't about setting dates but looking at signs precisely as commanded by Christ. Paul straight up states in the same passage in Thessalonians that a teaching about the day of Christ being "at hand" without reference to signs being fulfilled is DECEPTION.

The reality is none of the apostles knew when Christ was coming back. thats why the early church is called to watch and yes when something can happen at any time (once the signs come in) then the return of Christ has a sense of eminence. I think the passage in Revelation and thessalonians is pretty representative of Preterists proof texts. Either greatly over reaching or a tad too simplistic which is why I maintain there is little to Preterism than the insistence that something magically happens when you put "this" with "generation" and words that have at least two meanings seperately must be forced to have only one when put together.

My problem (that I love having) is that in my ministry I spend too much time in the OT (particulary in the Prophets). The same OT that if we did not have we would not even have the concept of Messiah. As I see it Christians who have no root in the OT but see Messiah merely from a gentile perspective have little sense of the depth of what was promised in The OT about Messiah, Israel and a Davidic kingdom reigning out of Jerusalem. God made some pretty unambiguous promises that cant be mauled and perverted to suit the whims of modern christians who wish to yank Christ out of his Hebrew roots.

I agree that many, including myself have not a firm understanding of the OT, especially that of prophecy. Sure I have read through the bible many times...but have not particularly studied prophecy. This I hope, starting here, to correct.

There is absolutely NO basis NONE, NADA, ZIP that indicates that a heavenly reign satisfies the promise that God made to Israel. Jersalem and David's throne. All the passages that speak of Messiah's exaltation speak of Israel as a nation and as a kingdom being restored with that exaltation. Making AD 70 that fulfillment would be a cruel joke.

This I do not have enough knowledge to agree or disagree. I have a very limited understanding of the differences we Christians have concerning end times, and the restoration of Israel. Any stance I have right now, which would be orthodox-preterism, post Millennium...is because that is what my traditions (Reformed, Lutheran) has mainly taught on a very limited basis. But, I have always been open to correction...and am starting to look at the arguments on all sides, starting with this hyper, heretical, full preterim thought.

But my question still remains...does the NT teach that anything significant is happening soon? I simply ask because there are many passages that speak of some end, judgement, coming, etc... happening soon (outside of Thess & Revelation, I assume I do not have to list them). And if it is not concerning the Second Coming, I am desiring to know what it is concerning. At this point, I am assuming that these passages refer to 70AD, but again, am seeking the truth where it is found.

Thanks.

-Joe

[joejackamy]

okay, I totally messed up my response in terms of figuring out how to quote your remarks and reply....sorry!

I will try to correct tomorrow.

[joejackamy]

[QUOTE]

to be honest Joe I can't see how you cannot see it. its pretty obvious to me as a simple sequence of logic.

Well...I have never been accused of being intelligent! :) However, despite my lack of brain power, it does make a big difference on what version one is using. I was looking at the NIV, which says “...saying that the day of the Lord has already come.” v. 2

The version you reference says “..the day of Christ is at hand.” Which I agree would certainly suggest a happening very soon idea, which would mean that it is not happening soon. I have not done much comparative studies on many different translations, but perhaps it would be a good idea.

Do you have any good reason why your “at hand” would be more accurate than the “already come”? This translation issue would seem to make all the difference. This question is not meant to challenge or disagree with you...it is in the tone of an honest question since I do not know any greek, etc.

"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. "

Why would they have been troubled? The text tells us - they had received information that might lead them to believe the day was at hand. That is what would have been troubling. Paul then states

They would be troubled if they thought it already occurred of course. That would trouble me greatly if I lived at that time. If the correct translation is "at hand" and not "already come", than I would totally agree with your sentiment. But, if a better translation is “already come”...than certainly you can see how this would not teach that His coming is NOT at hand. There is a big difference in saying something has not already come and saying that something is not at hand.

Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means

Now if the day was at hand how would it have been a deception? The pasage is therefore indicating that the day was NOT at hand (and he states why - because what was necesary by sign to happen had not happened). Its really beyond me how this can be denied by anyone looking at the text. I'm not being theatrical. I really find it baffling.

It would still be a deception if Paul is saying that some were teaching that it has already come. And the sign that must occur was the man of lawlessness to be revealed, who Paul says was "already" at work...which could imply a soon fulfillment.

Well you are completely ignoring what I said here. How do you claim that Revelation is to cover what is soon to happen when it covers even events a thousand years after the reign of Christ. No matter what you think that reign is - how does a thousand years fit your concept of soon? So again as a logical sequence of logic -. If it covers events that are not soon no one can claim that everything or even most of what is in Revelation has to happen soon. The only thing that does in fact happen soon is what is said to seven real churches that really existed and that should be no surprise because revelation actually starts out as a letter to those seven churches.

If I ignored what you said about Revelation, I apologize. I did not articulate very well. At the end my comments I said “I think the book of Revelation can say things are happening soon...and consequently have some things actually happen soon, and have some of the events BEGIN to happen but not fully happen....and still be consistent.”

By this I meant that Revelation could have some things fulfilled very soon since he was speaking to specific churches, and some things begin to happen but not fully occur (rather only BEGIN, ie Millennium) and still be consistent, as in non-contradictory. I do believe that some things happened soon and some things did not. We are in agreement here. So to answer your question of “how does a 1000 years fit your concept of soon”...I would say some things did happen soon and others begun (Millennium reign of Christ) but not fully fulfilled (second coming, judgement, consummation).

Well if I didn't say that then why are you writing that in a response to me? I see some of things as relating to the churches happening soon but I've proven that some events are way out over a thousand years.

I did not say that in response to you because this is a dialogue, and not everything I say has to be directly in response to something you said. Certainly, I can bring new thoughts in to the conversation. I am trying to learn about these issues, and I wanted to let you know where I stand. Specifically in this case, I do not believe ALL of Revelation was for the very distant future as I have heard some claim...and at one time previously thought.

well of course it does because you are a Preterist. Thats obvious. why? Well look at your response

But like I say, I have not seen the reasons for the dating of the book (do have kenneth gentry's book that gives evidence for it being an early date that I have not read yet)

This is my bad communication skills appearing again. Implicit (poorly so after reading in again) in my thoughts anyhow were “IF Revelation was a prior 70AD writing...”. I honestly do not know and have not researched it yet as to when it was written. I would not disagree that I am a preterist...an orthodox, partial, whatever it is called. My profile does show that as well. The reason for my original post was because I came across a full, heretical preterist that said things like the Second Coming already happened. I honestly never heard of this before, and briefly looked into some of of his points and it did appear that many NT texts seemed to teach something was going to happen soon.

So at least as far as you are concerned you've made the decision without even looking at the evidence because you rule out the possibility of another temple.

I have not even thought of another temple concept. I have not gotten that far...as I am very new to end of times, prophecy, etc...teachings in the scriptures. My original post was strictly in terms of the Second Coming.

[quote]I think the book of Revelation can say things are happening soon...and consequently have some things actually happen soon, and have some of the events BEGIN to happen but not fully happen....and still be consistent. [quote]

Good then the only thing that you have a problem with my response is that I believe that some things can happen soon (as you do) think that some things begin to happen soon (as you do) but that you forbid (by what logic I don't know) that some things wouldn't happen for long periods of time exceeding a thousand years. And that even though the text point blanks tells us of events that won't happen soon.

No. I agree that some things...like the Second Coming, consummation, final judgement is yet in the future.

So I can't follow you logically. the only thing I can figure is that you think there is some formula to determine how much of Revelations should happen soon and what shouldn't but there is no rule coming from the text. What aappens to the churches soon meets the conditions of soon that John starts off with.

Not looking for a formula really...just trying to understand the scriptures relating to end times material.

The early church I see isn't about setting dates but looking at signs precisely as commanded by Christ. Paul straight up states in the same passage in Thessalonians that a teaching about the day of Christ being "at hand" without reference to signs being fulfilled is DECEPTION.

The reality is none of the apostles knew when Christ was coming back. thats why the early church is called to watch and yes when something can happen at any time (once the signs come in) then the return of Christ has a sense of eminence. I think the passage in Revelation and thessalonians is pretty representative of Preterists proof texts. Either greatly over reaching or a tad too simplistic which is why I maintain there is little to Preterism than the insistence that something magically happens when you put "this" with "generation" and words that have at least two meanings seperately must be forced to have only one when put together.

Yes...I do think the "this generation" referred to what he said prior and was speaking to that generation of people specifically, at this point. Seems clear to me.

My problem (that I love having) is that in my ministry I spend too much time in the OT (particulary in the Prophets). The same OT that if we did not have we would not even have the concept of Messiah. As I see it Christians who have no root in the OT but see Messiah merely from a gentile perspective have little sense of the depth of what was promised in The OT about Messiah, Israel and a Davidic kingdom reigning out of Jerusalem. God made some pretty unambiguous promises that cant be mauled and perverted to suit the whims of modern christians who wish to yank Christ out of his Hebrew roots.

There is absolutely NO basis NONE, NADA, ZIP that indicates that a heavenly reign satisfies the promise that God made to Israel. Jersalem and David's throne. All the passages that speak of Messiah's exaltation speak of Israel as a nation and as a kingdom being restored with that exaltation. Making AD 70 that fulfillment would be a cruel joke.

This I do not have enough knowledge to agree or disagree. I have a very limited understanding of the differences we Christians have concerning end times, and the restoration of Israel, rebuilt temple, etc.. Any stance I have right now, which would be orthodox-preterism, post Millennium...is because that is what my traditions (Reformed, Lutheran) has mainly taught on a very limited basis. But, I have always been open to correction...and am starting to look at the arguments on all sides, starting with this hyper, heretical, full preterim thought...of an already fulfilled Second Coming.

But my question still remains...does the NT teach that anything significant is happening soon? I simply ask because there are many passages that speak of some end, judgement, coming, etc... happening soon (outside of Thess & Revelation, I assume I do not have to list them). And if it is not concerning the Second Coming, I am desiring to know what it is concerning. At this point, I am assuming that these passages refer to 70AD, but again, am seeking to get a better grasp of these issue.

Thanks.

-Joe

[Mikeenders]

[QUOTE=joejackamy;2802034]

Well...I have never been accused of being intelligent! :)

No No. I wan't saying anyone was dumb. I would never follow that example. Please don't draw that conclusion

However, despite my lack of brain power, it does make a big difference on what version one is using. I was looking at the NIV, which says “...saying that the day of the Lord has already come.” v. 2

I'm not a great lover of NIV and never have been. I think any translation putting it in the past like that is really pushing it. I can accept at the most present, very close etc. (How you post Greek here as I have seen done is still beyond me). Logically however I think the point remains the same given the signs that Paul says hadn't happened. Sequentially there has to be a falling away and then a revelation of "One, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the manifestation of his presence, " Only then can the time be present or very near.

Given the parallels with Matthew 24 I have no issue with "at hand" . Of course many here would probably take issue with me seeing Paul here talking about the abominaton that maketh desolate. I simply do not buy symbollic or spiritual meanings there. Paul means for his readers to take these as signs just as Jesus did.

than certainly you can see how this would not teach that His coming is NOT at hand. There is a big difference in saying something has not already come and saying that something is not at hand.

Like I said the parallels with Jesus's signs are just too close for me to take it out of that context. Once you align the two even if you believe this was AD 70 the falling away and the man of sin being revealed doesn't work out to an "already come" past tense.

So to answer your question of “how does a 1000 years fit your concept of soon”...I would say some things did happen soon and others begun (Millennium reign of Christ) but not fully fulfilled (second coming, judgement, consummation).

Understood but my point to you would be once you concede that some things are in fact not soon you are hard pressed to determine what percentage has to be soon and what doesn't and my point would be that the events that were to happen to the church satisfies the "soon to come".

No. I agree that some things...like the Second Coming, consummation, final judgement is yet in the future.

Umm if you are a Preterist don't you mean his THIRD coming?

Yes...I do think the "this generation" referred to what he said prior and was speaking to that generation of people specifically, at this point. Seems clear to me.

And it seems pretty clear to me in fact wasn't. I don't know what your take on it is but I've never got it to fit logically as a measurement/span of time in that discourse. To me such an observation given the context would have been anywhere from useless to flat out ridiculous. Its fine to talk about the natural passing of a generation as a time period when there is relatively little tribulation but lets say he were talking to Jews at Auschwitz (as an example not a wild interpretation). No one would be thinking about a generation as a time period of aging and then dying and yet thats precisely the assumptions many people come to the passage with when they read the expression "passing away". Thing is The Lord seems to be indicating that those days would be as tumultuos and more so than anytime of national peril possibly than what Jews faced in the 1940s.

I see five compelling reaons from the context for my understanding of it . None of which I can get deeply into at this time (pretty late)

1) The parallel drawn with Heaven and earth passing away is not indiciative of natural passing away so there is no reason not to think of it as an equally "dramatic" passing away.
2) The following phrase that indicates a promise had just been made that could be relied on is much more in keeping with an intent to preserve that could be counted on.
3) The position of the phrase occuring where it does precisely after a parable that has nothing to do with anything else than the proximity of That Day to the signs is better in keeping with a point that would emphasize how fast the Lord would return after those signs were seen.
4) most importanly the fact that the context has already told us why the generation would be in peril, that it would not pass away and why it would not pass away..
5) The Lord had already indicated that a short time would be the mechanism to preserve a generation/ all flesh form passing away.

"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. "

I haven't been able to making any logical seperation between a generation passing way and no flesh being saved.

Any stance I have right now, which would be orthodox-preterism, post Millennium...is because that is what my traditions (Reformed, Lutheran) has mainly taught on a very limited basis. But, I have always been open to correction...and am starting to look at the arguments on all sides, starting with this hyper, heretical, full preterim thought...of an already fulfilled Second Coming.

Kudos. You are way ahead of the game by recognizing where your previous doctrional "lenses MAY distort your views. Unfortunately the Gentile church spends so little time in teaching fundamentals our yound people tend to thing Christ was just Jesus' last name.

But my question still remains...does the NT teach that anything significant is happening soon? I simply ask because there are many passages that speak of some end, judgement, coming, etc... happening soon

I think I have answered this and again I still see Paul as confirming this in that Thessalonians passage. The early church cared about watching for signs not setting dates. If you have some other pasages in mind feel free. I certainly don't see anywhere near the evidence I woul dhave to see to claim that the Lord returned at AD 70.