I'll do my best to remain pithy and succint in my response.
Steve, I have plenty of reason to surmise that The Holy Spirit's teaching wasn't limited or narrowly applicable to what you suggest, which is extremely odd. Especially when Peter's first sermon, after receiving The Holy Spirit, was partly focused on Joel's last days prophecy. Forgive me, but your bias is clearly evident in your perceived presuppositions regarding some aspect of a futuristic view. So please account for and explain how you've missed the connection between John 14:26 and Acts 2:14-21? The fact is, they were taught by The Holy Spirit concerning the last days. If you were living in the 1st century, you would be sensitive to the then narrative, because the last days were real, in effect, and relevant to their salvation. Those believers were told if they didn't stay the course or persevere, there would be no salvation granted! The reason you are so dismissive of the narrative, is because the last days are irrelvant to your life right now, as it should be, however, this was not the case for the 1st century believers. As a Preterist, I simply engage in getting the historicity and context correct concerning the matter. I'm not making this stuff up, reading the literature is quite convincing concerning what their 'correct' expectation was, as opposed to follow-on generations being eternally wrong. The common sense approach and leverage to the truth goes to the original authors and their immediate audience, not to those who scoff at their understanding of the time, whom they even corrected in their letters!steve wrote:Hi Robby,
Let me work through some of your statements in your last post:
The 12 Apostles were unique, Yeshua said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Therefore, this is noteworthy and advantageous to truth, including "things" regarding the last days.
I have no reason to agree that the "things" mentioned here have to do with the end of the world. The Holy Spirit certainly did teach the disciples all things necessary for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3). It is hard to imagine how any information about the end times would fit into such a category. How is my life or godliness enhanced by any knowledge of the end times—whether by your system or any other? Since Jesus Himself told the same apostles that it was not for them to know the times that the Father put in His own authority, I think we can safely assume that such "times" were not among the "things" that the Holy Spirit would teach them about.
Additionally, you keep bringing up that Yeshua told the disciples they wouldn't know the times. True, but their would be a time when they did, but at that present time in the conversation this knowledge was withheld from them. However the text denotes a "BUT" in vs.8, indicating a change in their knowledge base. Which was clearly evident in Peter's first sermon and follow-on teachings in the church. It is absolute folly to surmise any attempt to claim they would NEVER know??? The context sure doesn't say that, however, The Discourse, Act 1:8 and Peter's first sermon all attest to their knowledge of getting the expectation of the last days correct. Respectfully, I am not persuaded by your argument concerning "The Things" mentioned in John 14:26 not including last days events.
However, The Apostles were told the following, "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near." And yes, this included the second coming.
Well, I disagree Steve. The Revelation makes it pretty clear concerning the nearness of Christ's return as well as, 1 Thess 2:19, 1 Thess 4:15, 1 Thess 5:23, 2 Thess 2:1, And let's not forget James 5:7-8 and 1 John 2:28!steve wrote:This statement cannot be taken at face value without some demonstration that the nearness of the kingdom is synonymous with (or even related to) the second coming of Christ. This is your assumption, but not one that anyone else would be required to make.
So since The Apostles were promised that The Holy Spirit will guide, teach and bring all things back to their remembrance, Peter's claim, "The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer." Is he not declaring his authentic discernment based on what transpired in the Olivet Discourse? Did he not, in-fact, get it right?
You've created a false dichotomy for yourself when their is no separation between the last days, last day, or Christ's return, etc... in the 1st century generation timeline. This is why your dismissive arguments make no sense to me. I've just shown you the consistent narrative concerning the expectation in the 1st century preaching and teaching. IMO, I see a convoluted mess out of what is basically simple to understand. This is what happens when attempting to change the original narrative. Modern day believers are forced to conclude The Writers were wrong, confused, or both. Next thing you know, words don't mean what they say, literal is taken for symbolic and vice versa, all due to not holding fast to the original narrative. Face value seems to be subjected to a new narrative to me!steve wrote:Peter may well have been basing this prediction upon the statements of Jesus in the Olivet Discourse—though there would hardly need to be any special discernment for him to know this. If he is referring to the fall of Jerusalem here (as I believe he is), then he would know, as did all Christians, that Jesus foretold this to occur in their generation. Peter, writing over thirty years later, would know (as anyone familiar with the discourse would know) that the time must be very near. This would not require special revelation being given to Peter. Anyone familiar with Christ's discourse (most Christians probably were) would be able to deduce the same.
Prophet or not, the ability to discern properly rested with The Apostles. So again, Peter said the time was near, because Yeshua said he would know the signs of the time, and you say... what exactly?
Steve, I'm not claiming The Apostles were infallible. However, based on the consistent narrative of all the writings we have, wouldn't it be foolish to believe that their teaching and expectation regarding the last days and Christ's return was not, in-fact, an inspired teaching? Especially when the only dissenters where unbelievers or scoffers! There isn't one N.T. Writer who gives a dissenting argument to the timing of Christ's return, not one! So where are you getting the idea that all of them got it wrong? How am I being unreasonable when you have no data to support your conclusion within the camp of The Authors?steve wrote:What I would exactly say is that the promise of divine instruction given to the apostles was no guarantee that they would be omniscient. As I have pointed out in previous threads, Paul admitted ignorance of certain things, and said he was stating his opinion or his judgment about other things, even in his written epistles. When a man tells you in writing that he does not remember certain things, or doesn't know certain things, it would seem presumptuous for us to deny his statements and to insist that he actually knew all things.
Well Steve, I've gone on long enough and I tried to keep it short and worthy of a response. I do agree that time will tell regarding these things, however, I don't think I'm being unreasonable in my understanding reading the historicity of the narrative 'at face value'.