I agree...you could start by removing that pretribulationist humor page thats a blatant slam ( which I mentioned before and Steve Gregg condoned) and I didnt make a statement like Allyn just did ( Wife beater)..and a past comment that mdh even commented on where Allyn said something like "(oh dont worry Crusader is just to dumb to understand what we are saying)"...I agree everyone here could be nicer and more respectful...but dont go putting the whole thing on me pleaaaaaaaaaase...I like it here and plan on staying...
Crusader
If there is to be no millineum.......
Crusader,
That was cute what you did last night - pulling your response to Allyn about him getting a divorce. So don't say you didn't make a statement like Allyn did. I read it, then you changed it.
JD
That was cute what you did last night - pulling your response to Allyn about him getting a divorce. So don't say you didn't make a statement like Allyn did. I read it, then you changed it.
JD
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
-
_AARONDISNEY
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:39 pm
- Location: southernINDIANA
Steve,
I read your entire thing on how dispensationalists need to be corrected and are hostile to your points. Well, I am going to cool my tone. You are abslolutely right on that point. I am opposed to your doctrine and I cannot answer all of your challenges as you have rightly asserted because I am new to this study. But there are troubling things of this preteris/Amil view in my opinion.
I understand you approach it with incredible sincerity, but I would like to continue to discuss it. You have asserted that I do not answer the challenges. From this point on - if I can't I will simply say I can't. Which is not a shameful thing considering how new I am to trying to understand this. But I did pose a question prior to your post that did not get answered by anyone on this thread. That isn't to say it can't be answered (although probably not to my satisfaction) but I would like to ask you how you correlate problem passages to your doctrine. I would also appreciate it if your tone were less "I'm right and everyone else is absolutely wrong and they just don't realize it yet"- It makes it difficult to read your posts without the words going through a screen of anti-preterism. I know I have been guilty of the same and plan to stop that as well as the attacks of your teachings.
The question I had was this..........
Luke 13
28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.
If this is now the Kingdom, where exactly is Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob since Jesus said we would see this in this Kingdom? I do not believe this to be a spiritualization of saying we will "join" them because it says we will "see" them. Please, someone, answer this question. Thank you
Aaron
I read your entire thing on how dispensationalists need to be corrected and are hostile to your points. Well, I am going to cool my tone. You are abslolutely right on that point. I am opposed to your doctrine and I cannot answer all of your challenges as you have rightly asserted because I am new to this study. But there are troubling things of this preteris/Amil view in my opinion.
I understand you approach it with incredible sincerity, but I would like to continue to discuss it. You have asserted that I do not answer the challenges. From this point on - if I can't I will simply say I can't. Which is not a shameful thing considering how new I am to trying to understand this. But I did pose a question prior to your post that did not get answered by anyone on this thread. That isn't to say it can't be answered (although probably not to my satisfaction) but I would like to ask you how you correlate problem passages to your doctrine. I would also appreciate it if your tone were less "I'm right and everyone else is absolutely wrong and they just don't realize it yet"- It makes it difficult to read your posts without the words going through a screen of anti-preterism. I know I have been guilty of the same and plan to stop that as well as the attacks of your teachings.
The question I had was this..........
Luke 13
28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.
30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.
If this is now the Kingdom, where exactly is Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob since Jesus said we would see this in this Kingdom? I do not believe this to be a spiritualization of saying we will "join" them because it says we will "see" them. Please, someone, answer this question. Thank you
Aaron
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Aaron,
I believe that the Jews (children of the kingdom) who will be cast out because of their unbelief will see, on the day of judgment, if not before, that the Gentiles from the north, south, east and west have sat down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom. See also the context and wording of the parallel passage in Matthew 8:10-12.
This influx is happening now, of course, since the Bible clearly says that the kingdom was established by Christ at His first coming, and that those who are true disciples of His are presently a part of it (Luke 17:20-21/ Matt.12:28/ Col.1:13/ Rom.14:17/ Rev.1:6; 5:10).
In a sense, that can be seen by anyone who has spiritual sight—even as Nathanael was told he would "see" the angels of God "ascending and descending on the Son of Man" (John 1:51—a phrase that even most dispensationalists do not take literally).
However, some things that are now present (like the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom) will not be seen or acknowledged by the unbelievers until Jesus returns (e.g., Phil.2:10/Rev.3:9).
I believe that the Jews (children of the kingdom) who will be cast out because of their unbelief will see, on the day of judgment, if not before, that the Gentiles from the north, south, east and west have sat down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom. See also the context and wording of the parallel passage in Matthew 8:10-12.
This influx is happening now, of course, since the Bible clearly says that the kingdom was established by Christ at His first coming, and that those who are true disciples of His are presently a part of it (Luke 17:20-21/ Matt.12:28/ Col.1:13/ Rom.14:17/ Rev.1:6; 5:10).
In a sense, that can be seen by anyone who has spiritual sight—even as Nathanael was told he would "see" the angels of God "ascending and descending on the Son of Man" (John 1:51—a phrase that even most dispensationalists do not take literally).
However, some things that are now present (like the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom) will not be seen or acknowledged by the unbelievers until Jesus returns (e.g., Phil.2:10/Rev.3:9).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_AARONDISNEY
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:39 pm
- Location: southernINDIANA
Thanks for the response Steve,
I will probably be here and there as I go through looking at passages and get an understanding of your (or any other partial pret that responds) take on things...
One more...
Luke 22
28Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
When (now or future) did the 12 disciples sit on thrones and judge the tribes of Israel? I would imagine this would be a future event. I'm certain you will spiritualize this, but I have just never heard what you make of it.
I'm actually just reading through the gospels and coming across these things about the Kingdom and I am trying to see how you would understand these things. I'm not getting these questions from anything I've heard from somewhere else. These are just questions I have.
Thank you for taking time to show me the preterist view of these things.
I tend to try to take it literally if it seems appropriate and I still understand that we will one day literally see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom, but I am mainly asking these questions to learn the ins and outs of preterism and amillenialism.
Thanks again
Aaron
I will probably be here and there as I go through looking at passages and get an understanding of your (or any other partial pret that responds) take on things...
One more...
Luke 22
28Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
When (now or future) did the 12 disciples sit on thrones and judge the tribes of Israel? I would imagine this would be a future event. I'm certain you will spiritualize this, but I have just never heard what you make of it.
I'm actually just reading through the gospels and coming across these things about the Kingdom and I am trying to see how you would understand these things. I'm not getting these questions from anything I've heard from somewhere else. These are just questions I have.
Thank you for taking time to show me the preterist view of these things.
I tend to try to take it literally if it seems appropriate and I still understand that we will one day literally see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom, but I am mainly asking these questions to learn the ins and outs of preterism and amillenialism.
Thanks again
Aaron
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I would have no problem with a literal interpretation of any of these passages about the kingdom, since I believe (with all amillennialists that I am aware of) in a future fulfillment of the kingdom's universal rule.
When Jesus comes, it would not hurt my view at all if the twelve apostles were to sit on twelve literal thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. This would not take long. It certainly does not in any sense support a belief in a millennium, unless the existence of such can be proved from sound exegesis of other passages.
It would also not disappoint me if the Jews of Jesus' generation would, on that day, see Gentiles sitting at a table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—as per the previous passage you asked about. Once again, this in itself does not contribute any information for or against the existence of a future millennium.
Amillennialists believe that there will be a new heaven and a new earth when Jesus returns. Every feature that dispensationalism applies to the millennium can easily be applied, instead, to the new heavens and the new earth (in fact, that is exactly what Isaiah 65:17-25 does).
Having said that, you are correct in assuming that I spiritualize the passage about which you are inquiring. The time of this reign of the twelve apostles, in the parallel passage in Matthew 19, is said to be during "the regeneration" (Matt.19:28). I believe this may well speak of the church age, since this is the period during which men experience regeneration (Titus 3:5).
To say that the apostles would "eat and drink at my [the Lord's] table" may readily be understood as the communion meal, which Paul refers to as "the Lord's table" (1 Cor.10:21). Jesus continues to commune with His people there (1 Cor.10:16).
I take "thrones" as a symbol of authority or rule. This is a common way of using the term. We use the image this way ourselves, for example, when we talk of the need to have "Jesus on the throne" of our hearts. There are biblical examples of such non-literal usage of the word "throne":
"Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, Have fellowship with You?" (Psalm 94:20).
"It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness." (Proverbs 16:12)
“I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is." (Revelation 2:13)
In none of these cases are we to understand a literal chair to be intended by the use of "throne." See also Psalm 89:4, 14, 29, 36, 44.
In speaking thus of the apostles' authority, it may refer merely to their general authority to rule the church (James referred to his Christian readers as "the twelve tribes"—James 1:1)—or, more probably, refers to their special assignment to represent Christ and His rule in their outreach to "the twelve tribes" of natural Israel. So they seemed to take it. This would seem to be the basis for their opinion that, while Paul and Barnabas were sent to the Gentiles, Peter, James and John had to focus their efforts on winning "the circumcision" (Gal.2:7-9).
When Jesus comes, it would not hurt my view at all if the twelve apostles were to sit on twelve literal thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. This would not take long. It certainly does not in any sense support a belief in a millennium, unless the existence of such can be proved from sound exegesis of other passages.
It would also not disappoint me if the Jews of Jesus' generation would, on that day, see Gentiles sitting at a table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—as per the previous passage you asked about. Once again, this in itself does not contribute any information for or against the existence of a future millennium.
Amillennialists believe that there will be a new heaven and a new earth when Jesus returns. Every feature that dispensationalism applies to the millennium can easily be applied, instead, to the new heavens and the new earth (in fact, that is exactly what Isaiah 65:17-25 does).
Having said that, you are correct in assuming that I spiritualize the passage about which you are inquiring. The time of this reign of the twelve apostles, in the parallel passage in Matthew 19, is said to be during "the regeneration" (Matt.19:28). I believe this may well speak of the church age, since this is the period during which men experience regeneration (Titus 3:5).
To say that the apostles would "eat and drink at my [the Lord's] table" may readily be understood as the communion meal, which Paul refers to as "the Lord's table" (1 Cor.10:21). Jesus continues to commune with His people there (1 Cor.10:16).
I take "thrones" as a symbol of authority or rule. This is a common way of using the term. We use the image this way ourselves, for example, when we talk of the need to have "Jesus on the throne" of our hearts. There are biblical examples of such non-literal usage of the word "throne":
"Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, Have fellowship with You?" (Psalm 94:20).
"It is an abomination for kings to commit wickedness, For a throne is established by righteousness." (Proverbs 16:12)
“I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is." (Revelation 2:13)
In none of these cases are we to understand a literal chair to be intended by the use of "throne." See also Psalm 89:4, 14, 29, 36, 44.
In speaking thus of the apostles' authority, it may refer merely to their general authority to rule the church (James referred to his Christian readers as "the twelve tribes"—James 1:1)—or, more probably, refers to their special assignment to represent Christ and His rule in their outreach to "the twelve tribes" of natural Israel. So they seemed to take it. This would seem to be the basis for their opinion that, while Paul and Barnabas were sent to the Gentiles, Peter, James and John had to focus their efforts on winning "the circumcision" (Gal.2:7-9).
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Hi Ely,
Yeesh, a lot has happened in since your last post earlier today! Here's my response, but first...
Ely,
It seems to me that you’re basing a lot of your interpretation on what Jesus didn’t say or what you think He should’ve said if He had meant such-and-such. That approach strikes my as faulty because it’s built on assumptions (whereas we do know pretty clearly what the popular Jewish view of the “Kingdom of God” was prior to Jesus).
Another thing that I think is worth keeping in mind is that Luke wrote the Book of Acts (under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration) with a purpose in mind. As such, it goes in a particular direction towards that purpose. Jesus (and the Apostles) didn’t have a team of scribes following around like reporters, scribbling down every word or exchange. The sayings and stories of Jesus were first passed around orally, and only committed to papyrus decades later. The Gospel writers framed their accounts in very intentional ways – with specific audiences in mind and specific points to make. The overarching point of Luke’s Book of Acts seems to be to illustrate the spread of the Kingdom outwards from Jerusalem throughout the Roman Empire. Again I maintain that the exchange between Jesus and His disciples in Acts 1 is a setup for Acts 2, which in turn is the launching pad for the rest of the book.
It’s interesting that you brought up Luke 19:11-27. Jesus is responding to the fact that “…the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.” (v. 11), which again plays into the “now/not yet” view of the Kingdom” In the parable, however, Jesus is the King who has returned. He is not speaking about a future second coming (although I do believe there will be a second coming) but about his present incarnation at that time. He is enacting what Malachi wrote about: “Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, who you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.” (Mal 3:1-2). Later in Luke 19 Jesus “cleanses” the temple. This is the return of Yahweh to Zion, but, as Jesus says in 19:44, “…you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” Jesus, the nobleman, had returned, incarnate, and was warning about judgment that was at hand.
Peter’s address to the crowd at Pentecost begins with the assertion that this is what was spoken of by the prophet Joel. Peter is saying that the time they were in at that point was the “last days”. And yes, he quotes from Psalm 110. The people understood that the threat of judgment was hanging over their heads; “…this corrupt generation” (v. 40), not people in the distant future. And, of course, He did come with judgment in 70 A.D.
Yeesh, a lot has happened in since your last post earlier today! Here's my response, but first...
Good point, Paidion. I was thinking more in terms of the setting that Jesus came into, but yes, after Jesus there was a new sect. It’s probably worth pointing out also that after 70 A.D. the Essenes and Sadducees seem to have disappeared. The Zealots, it seems ended at Masada in 73 A.D. (although it could be argued that they had a brief revival at the Bar Kochba rebellion in 132 A.D.). It seems that only two sects remained after that; the Pharisees and the Nazarenes (Christians).There was one other sect of Jews --- those who believed that Jesus was the Messiah, and that John the Baptizer and He had introduced the Kingdom to the people, and that the King had died and been raised again to life. These were the Nazarenes.
Ely,
Actually, I was first taught to see Acts 1 that way in a Dispensational church. When I later embraced Amillennialism though, it naturally carried forward. Although it’s pretty clear what the term “kingdom of God” meant to most 1st Century Jews, what Jesus meant by the term has occupied theologians for nearly 2,000 years. It seems that there was clearly a “now” aspect (“the Kingdom of God is at hand”) and a future aspect. This has come to be known as the “now/not yet” or “present/future” reality of the Kingdom. Perhaps it helps to understand also that the Greek word translated as “kingdom” (basilea) might better be translated as “kingship”, ie. “rule and reign”. The question then is if the “future” aspect of the Kingdom is a gradual, steady progression or a sudden future event or some mixture thereof.However, it seems to me that you guys face real problems trouble when it comes to the apostles' and Jesus' words in Acts 1. It looks to me as though you guys are being forced (by your amill framework) to import ideas into the text to try and make out like the apostles were wrong in their thinking concerning the Kingdom. But this is not borne out by the text itself IMO. Remember, Jesus had spent 40-odd days talking about "things pertaining to the Kingdom" (Acts 1:3). It would seem strange if after having sat under such teaching from the Master Teacher specifically concerning the Kingdom - that the apostles would still have an understanding of the Kingdom which was no more enlightened than their unbelieving Jewish brethren. And if this were the case, Jesus needed only to say so. But He didn't. If He didn't say that they were wrong, what right do we have to say so?
It seems to me that you’re basing a lot of your interpretation on what Jesus didn’t say or what you think He should’ve said if He had meant such-and-such. That approach strikes my as faulty because it’s built on assumptions (whereas we do know pretty clearly what the popular Jewish view of the “Kingdom of God” was prior to Jesus).
Another thing that I think is worth keeping in mind is that Luke wrote the Book of Acts (under the Holy Spirit’s inspiration) with a purpose in mind. As such, it goes in a particular direction towards that purpose. Jesus (and the Apostles) didn’t have a team of scribes following around like reporters, scribbling down every word or exchange. The sayings and stories of Jesus were first passed around orally, and only committed to papyrus decades later. The Gospel writers framed their accounts in very intentional ways – with specific audiences in mind and specific points to make. The overarching point of Luke’s Book of Acts seems to be to illustrate the spread of the Kingdom outwards from Jerusalem throughout the Roman Empire. Again I maintain that the exchange between Jesus and His disciples in Acts 1 is a setup for Acts 2, which in turn is the launching pad for the rest of the book.
I guess I don’t see the distinction between the “interim period” that you speak of and the “now/not yet” view that I mentioned above. As an amillennialist, I understand this to the be the “interim period” prior to His return which will be the consummation.Also, this idea that Jesus was radically altering reforming the Jews' concept of the Kingdom during His three years' ministry. On the contrary, His many Kingdom teachings and parables were aimed at showing the interim period between His first coming and His second coming. Luke 19:11-27 is a classic example of this. Hence, on the day of Penetecost, Peter quoted Psalm 110 to show that Jesus was going to return at which point He would come with His war clothes: "the LORD said to my Lord, sit at My right hand till I make your enemies Your footstool." Peter's point was that Jesus had ascended to heaven in fulfulment of prophecy and this same Jesus was going to return to earth to reign and rule over it - in fulfilment of prophecy. The nobleman had (and still has) gone to a far country to receive a kingdom and He will be returning. In the meantime, His slaves are to 'do business' for Him (make disciples, live holy and pleasing unto Him, persevere unto the end) until He returns.
It’s interesting that you brought up Luke 19:11-27. Jesus is responding to the fact that “…the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.” (v. 11), which again plays into the “now/not yet” view of the Kingdom” In the parable, however, Jesus is the King who has returned. He is not speaking about a future second coming (although I do believe there will be a second coming) but about his present incarnation at that time. He is enacting what Malachi wrote about: “Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, who you desire, will come,” says the Lord Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.” (Mal 3:1-2). Later in Luke 19 Jesus “cleanses” the temple. This is the return of Yahweh to Zion, but, as Jesus says in 19:44, “…you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” Jesus, the nobleman, had returned, incarnate, and was warning about judgment that was at hand.
Peter’s address to the crowd at Pentecost begins with the assertion that this is what was spoken of by the prophet Joel. Peter is saying that the time they were in at that point was the “last days”. And yes, he quotes from Psalm 110. The people understood that the threat of judgment was hanging over their heads; “…this corrupt generation” (v. 40), not people in the distant future. And, of course, He did come with judgment in 70 A.D.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Mort -
Having said that last point, i don't have aproblem with the "now and not yet" aspect of the kingdom. But I'm still getting to grips with it. It seems to me that we as exegetes are required to weigh up each scripture and see which aspect(s) of the Kingdom (now or not yet) it is emphasising. For example, when Paul says the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, it seems clear that he's speaking eschatologically. But when he writes that the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness joy etc. etc. he's clearly emphaissing the "now aspect." I guess the main difference between us is that you tend to put more into the now aspect (apart form the when you think that AD70 is in view), wheras I would put more into the "not yet" aspect.
btw - thanks for your thoughts on Luke 19. I must say that I disagree with your analysis. You say that Jesus is "not speaking about a future second coming.. but about his present incarnation at that time." But the whole reason that Jesus spoke the parable was that the Jewish people he was speaking to (Zacheaus and co) thought the Kingdom would appear immediately. We know that their idea of the Kingdom was of a glorious reign of Messiah from Jerusalem. You again seem to be suggesting that Jesus was trying to get across a completely different idea of the Kingdom (i.e. the Kingdom would appear in AD70). But I don't see that. To me, it seems far more natural to uderstand the parable within the normal undertsanding of the Kingdom which Jesus' audience had. if we do, then wemust conclude that Jesus was speaking the parable to make clear that that aspect of the Kingdom (glorious reign of Messiah "as warlord") was not going to come for a while.
But, I guess it's a case of bringing different ideas and assumptions to the text. You have certain assumptions and so interpret the text with AD70 in mind. I have different assumtpions and thus intepret it with ADSecondComing in mind!
I guess the real issue is, which set of assumptions are correct! hmmmmmm.....
Ely
Actually I am basing my own personal interpetation on what the apostles and jesus did say! It seems that if we go by what they did say and then compare it with what the prophets of old were saying, there seems to be a very definite continuity - which (IMO) continues throughout the NT. i.e. The Kingdom of God on earth was the hope of the OT saints, and continued to be the final hope of the NT saints. Plus, I'm not really seeing this shift in emphasis in Acts 2. Nothing in the text requires me to envisage that the apostles ever stopped holding to the same 'Kingdom' idea as they would have been raised with.It seems to me that you’re basing a lot of your interpretation on what Jesus didn’t say or what you think He should’ve said if He had meant such-and-such. That approach strikes my as faulty because it’s built on assumptions (whereas we do know pretty clearly what the popular Jewish view of the “Kingdom of God” was prior to Jesus).
Having said that last point, i don't have aproblem with the "now and not yet" aspect of the kingdom. But I'm still getting to grips with it. It seems to me that we as exegetes are required to weigh up each scripture and see which aspect(s) of the Kingdom (now or not yet) it is emphasising. For example, when Paul says the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, it seems clear that he's speaking eschatologically. But when he writes that the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness joy etc. etc. he's clearly emphaissing the "now aspect." I guess the main difference between us is that you tend to put more into the now aspect (apart form the when you think that AD70 is in view), wheras I would put more into the "not yet" aspect.
btw - thanks for your thoughts on Luke 19. I must say that I disagree with your analysis. You say that Jesus is "not speaking about a future second coming.. but about his present incarnation at that time." But the whole reason that Jesus spoke the parable was that the Jewish people he was speaking to (Zacheaus and co) thought the Kingdom would appear immediately. We know that their idea of the Kingdom was of a glorious reign of Messiah from Jerusalem. You again seem to be suggesting that Jesus was trying to get across a completely different idea of the Kingdom (i.e. the Kingdom would appear in AD70). But I don't see that. To me, it seems far more natural to uderstand the parable within the normal undertsanding of the Kingdom which Jesus' audience had. if we do, then wemust conclude that Jesus was speaking the parable to make clear that that aspect of the Kingdom (glorious reign of Messiah "as warlord") was not going to come for a while.
But, I guess it's a case of bringing different ideas and assumptions to the text. You have certain assumptions and so interpret the text with AD70 in mind. I have different assumtpions and thus intepret it with ADSecondComing in mind!
I guess the real issue is, which set of assumptions are correct! hmmmmmm.....
Ely
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Christ Jesus" Titus 2:13
www.lasttrumpet.com
www.pfrs.org
www.lasttrumpet.com
www.pfrs.org
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Well said, Ely. Thanks for the thoughtful exchange.
One clarification:
Jesus was trying to get across a completely different idea of the Kingdom than what the Jews were expecting - something that transcended an earthly government. Something that was rooted in the hearts of men and women.
One clarification:
I don't believe that Jesus taught that the Kingdom would appear in AD70. He came in judgment in AD70 and warned about that during His earthly ministry (in Matthew 24-25 for example). But the Kingdom appeared (the "now" part anyway) with the ministry of the incarnate Jesus, particularly His death and resurrection. I simply believe that the Kingdom has continued to permeate mankind since that time (like leaven in dough). I see it as a continuum which will ultimately reach fullness (at His return).You again seem to be suggesting that Jesus was trying to get across a completely different idea of the Kingdom (i.e. the Kingdom would appear in AD70).
Jesus was trying to get across a completely different idea of the Kingdom than what the Jews were expecting - something that transcended an earthly government. Something that was rooted in the hearts of men and women.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_AARONDISNEY
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 10:39 pm
- Location: southernINDIANA
Hello again, everyone.
It's the guy that's trying to get a grasp of things.
I understand that the Amils think of the Kingdom as already here. And I have to admit, some scriptures do seem to say this is the case. I was reading Ely's post and he stated a "now and not yet" type of scenario. That seems to be the conclusion that I am also coming to. Although it is far from a complete conclusion.
I was reading through Luke yesterday, and I was wondering what some of the Amils thought of this.
I'll just kind of pick it up in the middle of when he's giving them the signs to look out for concerning either 70AD or a future tribulation (depending on what position you take).....
[20] And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
[21] Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
[22] For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
[23] But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
[24] And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
[25] And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
[26] Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
[27] And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
[28] And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
[29] And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
[30] When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
[31] So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
The part that I have italicized and underlined states that after all these signs and (according to you) the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, they would know that the "Kingdom Of God" is nigh at hand.
It may have been a false assumption of mine, but I understood your position to be that at the death, and resurrection of Christ, (or possibly at pentecost) the Kindgom of God began. However, this seems to be saying it is after the tribulation that either has taken place or will take place.
Because it is not even until "these things come to pass" that the Kingdom is nigh at hand.
If indeed the Kingdom began after 70AD, then the 70 weeks prophecy would once again have to stretch another 40 years since that would be when the most Holy (One) would be anointed as King.
I hope I didn't mangle my statement/question too badly there, but if anyone can make sense of what I just posed to you, please respond. Thank you
Aaron
It's the guy that's trying to get a grasp of things.
I understand that the Amils think of the Kingdom as already here. And I have to admit, some scriptures do seem to say this is the case. I was reading Ely's post and he stated a "now and not yet" type of scenario. That seems to be the conclusion that I am also coming to. Although it is far from a complete conclusion.
I was reading through Luke yesterday, and I was wondering what some of the Amils thought of this.
I'll just kind of pick it up in the middle of when he's giving them the signs to look out for concerning either 70AD or a future tribulation (depending on what position you take).....
[20] And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
[21] Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
[22] For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
[23] But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
[24] And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
[25] And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
[26] Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
[27] And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
[28] And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
[29] And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees;
[30] When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
[31] So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
The part that I have italicized and underlined states that after all these signs and (according to you) the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, they would know that the "Kingdom Of God" is nigh at hand.
It may have been a false assumption of mine, but I understood your position to be that at the death, and resurrection of Christ, (or possibly at pentecost) the Kindgom of God began. However, this seems to be saying it is after the tribulation that either has taken place or will take place.
Because it is not even until "these things come to pass" that the Kingdom is nigh at hand.
If indeed the Kingdom began after 70AD, then the 70 weeks prophecy would once again have to stretch another 40 years since that would be when the most Holy (One) would be anointed as King.
I hope I didn't mangle my statement/question too badly there, but if anyone can make sense of what I just posed to you, please respond. Thank you
Aaron
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: