70 A.D. passage...or future?

[Guest]

Hello Ely......

you said.........Nothing. But that's kind of my point! You are talking as though this passage must be understood to be referring to AD70. I have suggested two possible alternative interpretations. You haven't successfully shown (in my mind at least) why these interpretations are disallowed.

Steve had mentioned that maybe i am doing interpretation too simply.......and that may be so.....But i prefer to take the plain meaning with scripture........such as the time references........that got me from dispensationalist to part. pret. I say that because it seems to me the plain meaning is on the side of mr. psycho........and so the burden of proof seems to be on you to show why its NOT them that paul is speaking of. I dont think he needs to show why your alternatives are wrong when the plain meaning doesnt necesitate anyone do so.

You said...........For me, the bottom line is this: Paul's apparent expectance that these things would happen soon does not require the events had to happen soon.

I have heard these thoughts before with dispensationalists explaining the doctrine of immenecy. But this thought of false expectation seems to deny inspiration. How could Paul be inspired by the spirit and receive wrong expectations??

shalom,

JImd

[Guest]

Just a quick question, psychomike.
Do you believe that Jesus was raised up from among the people that came out of Egypt with Moses?


Deut 18:15
15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;(KJV)

These pronouns seem to be indicating (from the point of view you are taking) these particular people and this Prophet (Jesus) must come from this particular group. And these particular people must hearken unto him.

Exactly right.

Another one is:

Isa 40:1 Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.
Isa 40:2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the LORD's hand double for all her sins.
Isa 40:3 A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.
Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be made low; the uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain.
Isa 40:5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."


So wouldn't the people who first heard/read this take comfort? Yet this was not fulfilled for hundreds of years in John the Baptist.

Here's a better one:

2Sa 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

Yet Solomon didn't sit on this throne forever, even though Solomon quoted this promise of God when the temple was completed. Yet it was not fulfilled until Jesus fulfilled it as Peter states in Acts 2:29+.

If you argue that 2 Thes 1 must have taken place in their lifetime, then what do you do will all the OT prophecies that didn't occur for hundreds of years?

While it may seem the most straightforeward reading of the text, it still is imposing a method of interpretation that may not be correct. By looking at prohecies in the OT, it seems clear that they can have a long range fulfillment.

And for the record, I believe 2 Thes 1 is still future.
I forgot to answer that before.

My understanding SEAN, from the other posts in the other thread, was that there is many Parousia's, but only One DAY of the LORD, which is the coming of 70 AD...................IS THis Right?????

No, the day of the Lord is a generic term for God's judgement. One day there will be a final day of the Lord where the earth will burned up.

The OT is full of "the day of the Lord" language and it refers to different points in history where God judged nation(s).

The "day of the Lord" in 70AD was judgement on Jerusalem. But remember that He must reign until the last enemy is defeated, which is death. That has not happened yet because there is still death going on.

Is that not the most natural way to read 1 Cor 15:55? When death is defeated there is no more people dead or dying. Jesus reigns until this last enemy is defeated. Jerusalem was apparently one of the first enemies of Christ to defeat, not the last.

[_Ely]

You said...........For me, the bottom line is this: Paul's apparent expectance that these things would happen soon does not require the events had to happen soon.

I have heard these thoughts before with dispensationalists explaining the doctrine of immenecy. But this thought of false expectation seems to deny inspiration. How could Paul be inspired by the spirit and receive wrong expectations??

Hey Jim.

This question is about the nature of inspiration. What does it mean that Paul was inspired by the Spirit? Steve Gregg often points out something interesting. In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul said:

"14 I thank God that I (baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name."

Sounds quite definite doesn't it? But then he says:

"16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other."

This is direct contradiction to the previous statement. First he said he baptised no-one except Crispus and Gaius. Then he remembers that he also baptised thehousehold of Stephanas and then admits that he is not sure who esle he may have baptised. One of these two verses is incorrect, most likely verse 15. Does this mean that it was not inspired by the Spirit? No. So what then? Well, "inspiration" apparently doesn't require that the writers themselves to be infallibly correct in everything they wrote.

Thus, Paul apparently expected Christ's parousia to occur within his lifetime and wrote accordingly. The fact that it didn't (see below), doesn't alter the fact that his writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

God knows when the Christ will be revealed from heaven, but He has arranged things so that each and every generation of belivers could potentially be the one to witness the coming, and lives with this hope in mind (e.g Titus 2:11-13).

In Paul's lifetime?
As I understand it, preterists see the coming of Jesus referred to in 2 Thessalonians 1 as being the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. But I'm led to believe that Paul was killed by Nero, who commited suicide in AD68. If this be true, then even in the preterist understanding, Jesus wasn't revealed in flaming fire in Paul's lifetime!

Something to mull over

Ely

[Guest]

Ely...Sean...Good work. I concede your points. Although I think I will side with what Steve brought up the other day with Jim. Just because you see the word parousia doesn't always mean there will be only one or one kind of parousia. In other words, just because the comfort promised is far in one passage doesn't mean it has to be in all others. Does that make sense? I hope it does.

Interesting side point Sean. If that Isaiah 40 passage was talking about Christ's first coming you almost have to wonder what is meant by "ALL FLESH" seeing His glory. Did all flesh over all the planet see His glory? Not unless they had some primative form of sattelite TV.

Thank you for your thoughts gentlemen. I will be back in a couple of hours with more as to why I think 2 thessalonians 1 was a first century event.

8) Mike

[Guest]

Sean, Ely... nice work.

I need some help on a couple of passages that I have been trying to reconcile for quite a while.

Zech 12-14 parallel passages with Matt, Mark Luke - discourse passages.

Sorry for not putting verses up. I know your familiar with it.

Most agree that they are parallel passages. Problem I see is... what Zech describes didn't seem to happen in A.D. 70.

Any thoughts.

[Guest]

2 Peter 3

My understanding from the Full Preterist side is that the elements are the Old and New Covenants.

Any thoughts on this from anyone?

The plain meaning of the Greek and context of the passage doesn't seem to indicate that. Although the Full Preterist will argue big on the plain meaning of the text, when it comes to passages like this usually that changes.

This is not a shot at the Full Preterist. I'm just curious if anyone see it the way I do.

[Guest]

2 Peter 3

My understanding from the Full Preterist side is that the elements are the Old and New Covenants.

Any thoughts on this from anyone?

The plain meaning of the Greek and context of the passage doesn't seem to indicate that. Although the Full Preterist will argue big on the plain meaning of the text, when it comes to passages like this usually that changes.

This is not a shot at the Full Preterist. I'm just curious if anyone see it the way I do.

Hey Ron, It's not that the preterist shifts their method of interpretation, it's that they consider the context of the New Testament as a whole. As a singular message told by a number of different authors. In that one author is going to be substantianted by the others. It's an organic message told by different authors sometimes using the same words sometimes different and often very picturesque but it's always the same story.

Paul used the same words(ELEMENTS) as Peter in talking about the Old Covenant Legal...Works system. The author of Hebrews did too. I believe this word is used some 7 times in the N.T. Never is it used to talk about elements as we understand them from our 21st century periodic table. Here is how it is used in the rest of the N.T.

Hebrews 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles(stoichion) of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food.

Galatians 4:3;9 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements(stoichion) of the world...But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements(stoichion), to which you desire again to be in bondage?

Col. 2:8, 20-22 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles(stoichion) of the world, and not according to Christ...Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles(stoichion) of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men?

The word stoichion is NEVER used in the Bible to speak of hydrogen, oxygen and helium. Maybe I am too simplistic, but it seems to me that if God is going to communicate something to man, He is going to use language that they are familiar with and are going to understand. I don't know that the Bible was ever meant to be enigmatic to it's readers. Now does this mean that Peter couldn't have used this word that they would have been familiar with to mean something completely different. Sure...Why not. But the better question would be...Why?

The burden of proof is not on the full preterist...But it is upon those that say that elements mean isn't speaking of the principles of the Law.

So my challenge is to you that say that elements means rocks and water to prove it etymologically.

Brothers it's time we move beyond the elementary principles of our KJV only mentality regarding inspiration of our English versions and move on to a better understanding of the original languages and culture. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

Let's move on brothers...8) Mike

[_Ely]

Hey Jim (and all),

Concerning 2 Peter 2. Here's the main reasons why I don't think it's referring to AD70 or any other event in history:

1. Peter parallels the flood with the coming judgment. As the flood directly effected the entire globe, so the coming fire will direcftly effect the entire globe (not just an insignificant corner of the Roman Empire).

2. As literal water 'destroyed' the previous globe, so literal fire will destroy the present globe.

3. Isaiah 65:17 and onwards speaks of the New Heavens and New Earth as a time when Jerusalem would be restored, not destroyed and left desolate as it was in AD70.

Incidentally, I don't think that Peter is predicting the complete anhialation of the Heavens and Earth because the old heavens and earth were not anhialated by the flood. (Btw, I'm still unsure whether or not Revelation 21-22 should best be understood as as referring to the Millennium or to the post-Millennial times.)

As for Zechariah 12-14, I understand these passages to be referring to yet future events. 14:8-20 are referring to the same thing as Isaiah referred to in the New Heavens and New Earth passage. There is a thread on this forum on these passages where you can get an idea of the "hermeneutic grid" which amillennialists/preterists use to intepret such prophetic passages in the OT: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=251

Ely

[Guest]

[Hey Ron, It's not that the preterist shifts their method of interpretation, it's that they consider the context of the New Testament as a whole. ]

Ely hit where I was going with this. Mike it doesn't fit the context of the passage itself.

[Brothers it's time we move beyond the elementary principles of our KJV only mentality regarding inspiration of our English versions and move on to a better understanding of the original languages and culture. For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.]

Thanks for the exhortation friend. As well, lets not move past the simplicity that is in Christ. Lots of heady folks that can tear me up with Greek. They're also on that broad road to destruction.

[Guest]

Hey Jim (and all),

Concerning 2 Peter 2. Here's the main reasons why I don't think it's referring to AD70 or any other event in history:

1. Peter parallels the flood with the coming judgment. As the flood directly effected the entire globe, so the coming fire will direcftly effect the entire globe (not just an insignificant corner of the Roman Empire).

2. As literal water 'destroyed' the previous globe, so literal fire will destroy the present globe.

3. Isaiah 65:17 and onwards speaks of the New Heavens and New Earth as a time when Jerusalem would be restored, not destroyed and left desolate as it was in AD70.

Incidentally, I don't think that Peter is predicting the complete anhialation of the Heavens and Earth because the old heavens and earth were not anhialated by the flood. (Btw, I'm still unsure whether or not Revelation 21-22 should best be understood as as referring to the Millennium or to the post-Millennial times.)

As for Zechariah 12-14, I understand these passages to be referring to yet future events. 14:8-20 are referring to the same thing as Isaiah referred to in the New Heavens and New Earth passage. There is a thread on this forum on these passages where you can get an idea of the "hermeneutic grid" which amillennialists/preterists use to intepret such prophetic passages in the OT: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=251

Ely

Now wait just a cotton pickin minute. Let me get this straight. You think that 2 Peter 3 is speaking of a literal New Heaven and New Earth. The same one spoken of in Revelation 21-22?

Rev 21:1;4 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away...And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Isaiah 65:17; 20 “ For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind...No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.

Now if you make the New Heavens and Earth speak of a future time after the LAST DAY where there is no more death, then you have a problem. Isaiah says that there will still be death there.

Could you please explain this to me.

Thank you...8) Mike