Why Caiaphas must have seen Christ's coming

[Twospirits]

CWH wrote:

Yeah, I know you have a problem with Acts 1, and Acts 1 will continue to haunt you.

Kangaroo Jack replied,

I assume you are speaking about Acts 1:11. What about it? It meant nothing more than Christ would certainly return. It did NOT imply that He would return physically as He departed.

The Greek "hon tropon" does not mean "in like manner" as the Futurists render it. The expression is used in only four other instances in the new testament and the Futurists translations do not render it "in like manner" in those instances. This exposes their bias in Acts 1:11.

It should read,
Quote:
This same Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven, will so certainly come as you saw Him go into heaven.

The Greek word “on” is to mean “this” or “that,” Strong's 3739. The Greek word “tropon” is to mean “manner” or “fashion,” Strong's 5158. So “on tropon” means in “that manner” or “that fashion, and is not to mean “certainly.” (So who's being biased here?). The words do not mean “certainty” in coming but rather in the “manner” of his coming which is to be visible as was his ascension.

The argument is in what manner did the apostles see Jesus go into heaven? The primary emphasis in these verses is on the visible manner of his ascension. The ascension of Jesus occurred “as they were looking on” (Acts 1:9). As Jesus departed and rose they were “gazing” intently (v. 10). The two men in white asked the apostles why they are standing there “looking into heaven (v. 11). It explicitly states that the apostles “saw him go into heaven” (v.11).

The two men in white tell the apostles that Jesus will come in “that manner” that they saw him go. Since the manner of his ascent was visible and bodily, the manner in which he will return will likewise be visible and bodily.

Acts 1:9, “And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.”

Both Acts 1:10 and 1:11 describe the apostles looking up intently into the sky. This confirms that the apostles had to have seen Jesus, and at a point Jesus AND the cloud moving upward some distance.

Verse 9 does not specify precisely “when” the cloud took him from their sight. But this does not mean that Jesus could not be seen by the apostles when the cloud first surrounded him. It simply means at some point in the ascension he was no longer visible to them.

According to Luke, the lifting up of Jesus was a visible event witnessed by the apostles. Whether he was lifted up with the cloud or was lifted up to a cloud the manner of his going up was visible and bodily. Thus the manner of his coming will likewise be visible and bodily.

Kieth Mathison wrote a paper on Acts 1:9-11 in which he mentions the “Cloud” that Jesus ascended in. He writes: “If the cloud ascended with Jesus, then the cloud is much more a reference to the Glory cloud.” Acts 1:9 being an allusion to Dan. 7:13-14. “Daniel describes a vision in which he saw one like a “son of man” coming with the clouds of heaven up to the ancient of days to receive a kingdom. Since Daniel's vision is a vision of one coming with the clouds to the Ancient of days in heaven and receiving a kingdom, is the ascension of Christ part of what Daniel foresaw? (He notes) “it seems quite possible, especially when we consider the fact that in Acts 2, Peter declares that Jesus rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, was seated at the right hand of God, and made both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:22-36).

God bless---Twospirits

[Brother Les]

Henry, can you break down better, who...said what....?

Your 'quote' box has CWH, as if he wrote everything in that 'box', and the 'main body' of the post reads as if Kangaroo jack wrote it.....

[TheForgiven]

Hey there LES. I think we already know what Henry's belief is on this. If you refer to the illustration I gave about my friend being slapped in the face, and the person who slapped my friend threatening to slap me, the text is clear. What Henry and others are suggesting is "how" my friend was slapped, and not the very fact that he was slapped. All they focus on is which hand the person used, and how fast his swing speed was. Thus they miss out on the simple point that my friend was slapped, so I'm to be slapped in the "same way" that my friend was slapped; speed of swing, hand used, etc. So in my illustration, am I concerned at all how my friend was slapped? Or am I merely concerned about getting slapped period? When the Angel tells them that, "This Jesus who was taken from you into heaven, will so come as He ascended into heaven..", meaning he was taken from you with a promise (so that the Holy Spirit could could), and He would return from heaven (to carry out His will and judgment) with a promise to deliver them from the wrath that was to come.

An example of this found in scripture is with Moses, who was told, "are you going to kill me as you did the Egyptian?" As though the Hebrew arguing with Moses was more concerned about the method Moses used to kill the Egyptian; this is how they interpret Acts chapter 1.

Besides, Henry misses the other point. Notice how they only focus on His ascension, but not how He entered heaven. Now did the Angel said that Jesus would descend the same way He ascended? No, but that is how they are interpreting Acts chapter 1.

But how did Jesus enter heaven? He vanished behind a cloud. Unfortunately, there isn't enough information in the text to know whether or not this was a physical cloud as we see every day in the sky, or was it a cloud of heaven, as in power. Who knows?

Even so, there's no point in reasoning with them. They've already made up their mind that the Angel was more focused on the "manner" Jesus ascended, so they therefore expect His return to be EXACTLY as His ascension. But then they've got a very huge problem, because Revelation doesn't describe His ascension riding a white horse. Or did Jesus stop by the nearest stable, and buy a horse for His return? OK, that's just a little side humor. But no, Jesus did not depart into heaven riding a horse, so why should we expect Him to return riding a horse? Oh but we can't because Acts chapter 1 says that His return must be "EXACTLY" as how He ascended, and then vanished into heaven.

If there's a single pattern that could be used to define the method of Interpretation from Futurism is in this one phrase, "eye sight". All fulfillment of Prophesy must be accomplished by eye-sight determination as physical evidence and proof. Remember, this was the same rule used by the Pharisees and Scribes who said that Elijah must first come before the Messiah could come.

Now if we want to play by their own rules, then they still have another problem. When Jesus ascended into heaven, it was only by their (Apostles) sighting; no one else witnessed this. THEREFORE, His return, if it must be physically seen, must be in like manner as His ascension; only by their sighting and witness....again, playing by their own rules of interpretation.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Richard and I have discussed "Hon-Tropon" before. Here's a clip of this old post:

Brother Richard,

Could you compare the Greek text for these two passages:

Acts 1:9-10 (NKJV) Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

Luke 13:34 (NKJV) "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

Notice the words in red. Are the Greek words the same in these two passages? [hon tropon] I ask because if Futurist insists that Acts chapter 1 is an "EXACT" representation of what they were witnessing, then shouldn't have Christ literally meant that He wanted to gather the Jews as Hens under its wings? Both expressions were metaphoric in nature, yet Futurist insist that Acts chapter 1 was not metaphoric, but literal.

But first, could you compare the two passages and see if the same Greek word is used?

Joe

As you can see, the phrase "Hon-Tropon" does not mean "exact" as Henry and Cheow keep erroneously suggesting. It's simply a figure of speech. Jesus describes His desire to gather the Jews under his protection, as a hen gathers its young under her wings for protection. In the same way, the Angel is simply saying that Jesus vanished into heaven in a cloud of power, and His return would mimic the likeness of His entrance into heaven; in a cloud of power. Thus the primary point is not HOW He entered heaven, but the promise of His entrance into heaven, would be just as promising as His return...something along that lines.

Hon Tropon does not mean exactness. Not sure how many different ways we can continue to explain to them.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Here's a good explanation from B. W. Keith of the phrase Hon-Tropon. He does a very good job explaining the exaggeration Futurists use on Acts chapter 1.


THIS SAME JESUS.

Probably no passage of Scripture has been the subject of more discussion and less understood, than Acts 1:11. "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking towards the heavens? This Jesus, who is taken up from among you into the heavens, shall so come in the manner in which you saw him go into the heavens." (Emphatic Diaglott.)

It will not be necessary, for the benefit of those who are in the light, in regard to the "Tabernacle and Its Teachings," to say very much upon this subject. Those who understand the sacrifices, will certainly not be looking up into the heavens, expecting to see, with their fleshly eyes, Jesus coming in the flesh. They have learned that the eyes, with which we see in this age are the eyes of the understanding --Eph. 1:18; which are certainly the very best kind of eyes. And they have learned, also, that even though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now we know him so no more. 2 Cor. 5:16. rev. ver. So we see that what is true of the members of his body, is true of him, as the head. Having given his (animal) body as a sacrifice for us, it must be dissolved, and to him was given a new body, a house not made with hands, etc.--2 Cor. 5:1.

Having sacrificed his human nature, there was given to him a new nature--the Divine.

Paul says: But some will say, how are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come? Oh, senseless man, that which thou sowest is not quickened--made alive--except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, etc., but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed its own body.

The world at large have been sown with the natural seed--human nature --and will be raised with the natural bodies; while the new--divine--nature, becomes a new seed, and requires a new body; and God giveth to every seed its own body, etc., 1 Cor. 15:35,38. Before his crucifixion, Jesus had that treasure--the divine nature in an earthen vessel--body-- 2 Cor. 4:7; in him dwelt all the fullness of the divine nature, in a body [R341 : page 5] --Col. 2:9(Rotherham); so that new seed was sown in a natural body (earthen vessel); and raised in a spiritual body.

It should be noticed that the word same is left out of the passage under consideration, by the Em. Diaglott-- it not being in the Greek.

The blinding phrase is, in like manner. Let us examine the Greek term, hon tropon, rendered like manner, in Acts 1:11; giving all the passages where it occurs, and putting the English translation in italics; then let those who are so tenacious about the exact manner, be just as tenacious in all the passages where it occurs. Now as (hon tropon) James and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these resist the truth. 2 Tim. 3:8. Read Exodus, 7th and 8th chapters in regard to those magicians--Satan's mediums. Wilt thou kill me, as (hon tropon) thou didst the Egyptian yesterday? Acts 7:28.

Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as (hon tropon --like manner) a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Matt. 23:37and Luke 13:34.

Will anybody claim the exact manner in any of the references given, especially the last? Is not the true idea that just as certainly as one thing has been done, another will be done?

As certainly as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, so Jesus would have gathered Jerusalem's children; but we think no one would insist upon the exact way. Jesus said, If I go and prepare a place-- official position, by preparing us for it--for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, etc.--John 14:3. All the Angels could mean in Acts 1:11(the only remaining passage where hon tropon occurs), is: ye men of Galilee why do you stand looking up into heaven? This Jesus has gone away as he said he would, and he will as surely come again, as he said he would.

Really there is nothing in the passage as to the manner of coming, but a positive declaration that he would come.

Other Scriptures teach the manner and time. We have taken heed in our hearts, to the sure word of prophecy; and the eyes of our understanding have been enlightened; because, as we see the "day star" --(phosphorus--light-bringer--E.D.) has arisen. 2 Pet. 1:19. It is contrary to the teachings of the types of the old and the positive statements of the new Testament, to expect that Jesus will come again in the flesh.

The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. 2:14.

B. W. KEITH.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So you believe Jesus came like an invisible wind to come and destroy Jerusalem and the Temple. Why would Jesus want to do this Himself? He made use of the Romans. He always appeared to His apostles even after his resurrection physically never invisibly like a wind.

Say what? You believe that the LORD (YHVH) was visible when he came on a swift cloud to Egypt?

Isaiah 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

We've only explained this to you a million and two times now. Please explain why you do not understand.

[duxrow]

Right hand according to Emily Post..?

As a lefty myself, growing up to play softball where all others were 'righties', I didn't know you could stand on the other side of the plate, so forced myself into that ambidextrous situation. The 700 sharpshooting lefties in Judg20:16 and the "son of the right hand" (Benjamin, Gen35:18) may have registered more with myself on this account, and I saw where Joseph planted his silver cup in Benjamin's sack, as a figure of the CUP which God gave Jesus. So I continue to understand how Jesus will ALWAYS be (in my mind, in these times..) seated at the right hand of the Father. (Maybe John-Baptist on the left?)
Great subject--thanks.

[Twospirits]

TheForgiven wrote,

Richard and I have discussed "Hon-Tropon" before. Here's a clip of this old post:

Brother Richard,

Could you compare the Greek text for these two passages:

Acts 1:9-10 (NKJV) Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

Luke 13:34 (NKJV) "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing!

Notice the words in red. Are the Greek words the same in these two passages? [hon tropon] I ask because if Futurist insists that Acts chapter 1 is an "EXACT" representation of what they were witnessing, then shouldn't have Christ literally meant that He wanted to gather the Jews as Hens under its wings? Both expressions were metaphoric in nature, yet Futurist insist that Acts chapter 1 was not metaphoric, but literal.

But first, could you compare the two passages and see if the same Greek word is used?

Joe

As you can see, the phrase "Hon-Tropon" does not mean "exact" as Henry and Cheow keep erroneously suggesting. It's simply a figure of speech. Jesus describes His desire to gather the Jews under his protection, as a hen gathers its young under her wings for protection. In the same way, the Angel is simply saying that Jesus vanished into heaven in a cloud of power, and His return would mimic the likeness of His entrance into heaven; in a cloud of power. Thus the primary point is not HOW He entered heaven, but the promise of His entrance into heaven, would be just as promising as His return...something along that lines.

Hon Tropon does not mean exactness. Not sure how many different ways we can continue to explain to them.

First, concerning Luke 13:34, Jesus' use of the words 'as a hen' (hon tropon) was used here as an 'illustration' to make a point as the context reads. As hens literally gather their chicks under their wings for protection so was this Jesus' desire. But the 'context' of Acts 1:9-11 is not an 'illustration' or figure of speech where 'hon tropon' is given. The context is quite different than the 'hon tropon' illustration used in Luke 13:34.

Here is the literal translation of Luke 13:34: 'O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, that way* (hon tropon; that way, manner) (a) hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!'

You (and B.W. Kieth's article) keep saying that I am suggesting or insisting that Jesus will come in the EXACT way as he ascended. I never said that, you are putting words in my mouth again. I used the words of the Inspired text concerning his return, and they are:

Acts 1:9-11, 'And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. (10) And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; (11) Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in this manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.'

The emphasis and main point of the passage is that as Jesus was 'visibly seen' by men going up into heaven, so he shall be 'visibly seen' by men in his coming out from heaven at his return. THAT is the main emphasis of the passage concerning his coming as stated by the two men in white. This parallels Rev. 1:7.

Based on the way these words are used elsewhere in the NT, it is unnecessary, nor is it needed to press the words 'hon tropon' to mean 'exactly the same in every detail.' Only that Jesus' return will be 'visible' and seen by men as the passage clearly states. And this certainly did not happen in 70 A.D., but has yet to happen as scripture states.

God bless---Twospirits

[TheForgiven]

The emphasis and main point of the passage is that as Jesus was “visibly seen” by men going up into heaven, so he shall be “visibly seen” by men in his coming out from heaven at his return. THAT is the main emphasis of the passage concerning his coming as stated by the two men in white. This parallels Rev. 1:7.

Based on the way these words are used elsewhere in the NT, it is unnecessary, nor is it needed to press the words “hon tropon” to mean “exactly the same in every detail.” Only that Jesus' return will be “visible” and seen by men as the passage clearly states. And this certainly did not happen in 70 A.D., but has yet to happen as scripture states.

I understand your point and why you insist that the main theme of the Angel's point was "how" Jesus was going to return. You insist that His ascension into heaven must be visible, but that was not implied nor directly mentioned by the Angel. That's just something you cling to even though the text doesn't necessarily over-emphasize the idea as you are doing. Besides, Jesus did not enter Heaven visibly; He vanished behind a cloud as He entered into heaven. His visibility was only as He ascended upward into the sky. But doesn't this also presume that one must ascend towards the sky before getting into heaven? How did Jesus enter heaven? By vanishing as He did at other times even while on the ground; the same for other documents Angels who appeared even to Mary; they did not have to ascend into the sky. Why is this important? Because, it's clear that you are over-emphasizing the main point of Acts chapter 1. Did the Angel mean that Jesus would come again as He ascended into the sky? Or did He mean Jesus would come again as He entered into heaven; behind clouds?

It's your choice. But it's quite clear that the choice you cling to is again, based on lack of faith and relies solely on eye-sight. In fact, you could summarize the entire Futurist eschatology on eye-sight.

Sorry bro, but I just don't see you following truth here. The Jews relied on eye-sight as well. Elijah didn't come, so like you, they rejected the Messiah. And I'm quite sure if you were there with them, you would have followed the same pattern of disbelief; even I just to be fair.

Joe

[Kangaroo Jack]

The emphasis and main point of the passage is that as Jesus was “visibly seen” by men going up into heaven, so he shall be “visibly seen” by men in his coming out from heaven at his return.

This is YOUR assumption. The "MAIN POINT" was to give the disciples ASSURANCE that Jesus would CERTAINLY return. The main point of the passage is that Jesus would return AS CERTAINLY as He departed. As an illustration let's say a man was late for work and he grabs his brief case and he RUNS out the house to his car. The child cries to his mommy thinking that his daddy is not coming back. So the mommy says to the child, "Daddy will come home just as you have seen him leave."

Do the mommy's words imply that the man will return home in the exact same manner that he left? Of course not. Just because the daddy ran off to work does not infer that he will run from work to home. The "MAIN POINT" is to ASSURE the child that his daddy will CERTAINLY return.

Just as the child gazes at His daddy's running out as an indication that he will not return, so the disciples gazed at Christ's ascension as a sign that He would not return. The "MAIN POINT" was to ASSURE the child of his daddy's CERTAIN return. Ergo....

Based on the way these words are used elsewhere in the NT, it is unnecessary, nor is it needed to press the words “hon tropon” to mean “exactly the same in every detail.”

Correct. And the fact that Futurists translations render it "in like manner" ONLY in Acts 1:11 shows their presupposed bias.

Only that Jesus' return will be “visible” and seen by men as the passage clearly states. And this certainly did not happen in 70 A.D., but has yet to happen as scripture states.

This is YOUR assumption. Besides, Jesus has His body from heaven now which Paul said is "UNSEEN" (2 Cor. 4:16-5:5).

KJ