Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 183
  1. #21
    I'll no doubt rehash some of what has already been said, but I want to address the earlier comments below which I feel are typical and foundational to the errant interpretation of a return of Jesus in His resurrected body.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Joe for the sake of argument (so not to argue ad infinitum) let's take the passage of Acts 1:9-11, and substitute the word 'heaven' with 'cloud.' Now I hope you at least agree that the disciples literally saw Jesus ascend from the ground up into the sky until a cloud hid him from their sight, as the passage reads. Now with that said:

    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 (the) cloud* 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 (the) cloud*? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into (the) cloud,* shall so come in this (or that)*(hon) manner* (tropon) as ye have seen him go into the cloud.*'

    Catch that? The angels said in verse 11, 'this same Jesus' you 'literally saw' bodily 'rise up' and 'enter' cloud/heaven will come in that manner*-the manner in which 'you have 'seen' him rise and 'enter,' the cloud/heaven.' Now since Christ is to 'descend' from cloud/heaven in his return, the words of the angel would mean- as he was 'seen entering' the cloud/heaven, Jesus shall be 'seen exiting' the cloud/heaven in the full sight of men.
    Substituting 'cloud' for 'heaven' effectively equates the two words, but they are not the same. The text records Jesus' resurrected body vanishing from their sight when He entered the cloud, but the angels did not say He bodily entered heaven, only that He was taken up to heaven and would return in like manner. If this was all that spoke of His return, bodily might be inferred, but this is not all. This post is typical of futurists isolating a passage and reading into it more than is there based on their presuppositions, instead of taking a Berean approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    Now a question to ponder on: If Christ was NOT to be visibly seen at his coming what 'logic' would it make for God to specifically send two angels (representing witnesses in God's eyes) to personally make that declaration promise? And repeated through the Holy Spirit's Inspiration in the epistles by the apostles when he would come for his saints? 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:16-17; Heb. 9:28.
    I have no doubt the people in those verses did see Christ at His coming, but that occurred in the supernatural realm. Henry and other futurists as well as partial preterists will not allow 'WE' in those passages to refer to Paul and his contemporaries and their expectations, but will allow it in non-eschatological passages such as: We have here but five loaves, and two fishes.; ... Of whom we have many things to say,; ... Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. ...and many more.

    I'm sure all would agree 'WE' in the following referred to first century saints, but it seems few pay any attention to what is really being said:

    (NASB) 1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- 3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.

    (NASB) 1 John 3:2 Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is.

    If it was Jesus' resurrected physical body - which they had heard, seen, and touched - that continued beyond the cloud to heaven, and if they were to be like Him, why would they not know what they would be like?

    In post 4 Henry wrote:

    As I noted, since Christ is to 'descend' from the clouds of heaven in his return, the words of the angel would mean- as he was seen entering the cloud and into heaven by his disciples, Jesus shall be seen returning from the clouds of heaven in Glory in the full sight of men just as he proclaimed in the NT.
    Jesus made no such proclamation. Here is what He said about His coming:

    (NASB) Matthew 24:30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

    (NASB) Mark 13:26 "Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN CLOUDS with great power and glory.

    (NASB) Luke 21:27 "Then they will see THE SON OF MAN COMING IN A CLOUD with power and great glory.

    Jesus said His coming would be ON or IN cloud(s), but He never said FROM clouds. Jesus' words illuminate what the angels said in Acts 1:11, i.e., as He continued from the cloud to heaven, so His return would be from heaven to the cloud(s). That would agree with Jesus' description of His return. The majority of futurists disagree with Jesus. For more on this and the nature of His body that ascended to heaven, see RESURRECTION OF WHICH BODY? Part 1 & 2 at http://tom.ad70.net/.
    Blessings, Tom Case

    Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Matthew 16:28

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,958
    I don't understand why you expect me to accept your answer that Caiaphas and the others (if they lived till 70 A.D.) saw (metaphorically, spiritually) Jesus “coming in the clouds of heaven in 70 A.D. by the signs;” yet you reject my answer of how they “saw” (perceived) Jesus “hereafter” also through the same means, “miraculous signs.”
    Because I believe I know why you don't want to admit that they may have seen this in 70AD. Doing so would support the Preterist interpretation of Jesus coming in the clouds. You rightly interpret Matthew 26 metaphorically. But how is this any different with Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation 1? They are the same statements; all say He (Jesus) comes with the clouds. There's nothing surprising about this statement as it was used in the Old Testament on passages we know are fulfilled (example: Jeremiah 4).

    So knowing that they say the same thing, your next equation is to prove how or why you believe each passage which explains Jesus coming in the clouds is to be distinguished form metaphorical to literal. That, as you already know, is impossible to do. In my strongest opinion, based on the biblical sense from previous fulfillment's, and what was to be fulfilled in their (first century Jews) lifetime, it is all one fulfillment spoken metaphorically. They did indeed see Jesus coming in the clouds of destruction.

    Okay, your answer is they “saw” metaphorically his coming through signs of Jerusalem's fall.
    I love you.

    My answer is like I said, Caiaphas and the others “perceived,” understood what Jesus said, though their hearts were hardened, by the same means, by miraculous signs done by and through the apostles. This is how “they” would “see” Jesus coming “hereafter” on the clouds of heaven. They would not “literally see” Jesus coming on clouds., and I gave the reason for that.
    As stated, I already understood your interpretation being metaphorically. And again, I love you.

    Like I said in my post, the “context” is what determines when we are to take scripture metaphorically or when we are not to. Mt. 26:64 is to be taken in the spiritual or metaphoric way, the Acts passage is a different matter altogether.

    Mt. 26:64 is different in its application than Acts 1:9-11. The Matthew passage is metaphorical in context, and given specifically to Caiaphas and the priests, and was fulfilled in that sense, spiritually in their lifetime. The wording of the passage confirms that. “When” is impossible to answer, in any case it would only be speculation. (Who were "they" besides Caiaphas that were there at the trial? How long did they live? Were "they" there in 70 A.D. etc.?).The Acts passage was prophetic for a different time and has a literal fulfillment as I've shown in my posts.
    I don't believe that it's impossible for He tells them that all of those things would happen in their lifetime. Now it wasn't them He told that to, but the Apostles. For when He says, "all of this will come upon this generation" and again, "for this people will suffer great wrath and Tribulation", the "when" is no longer a problem. Contextually, and historically, we know all of this was fulfilled in the 60's - 70's AD. Granted the exact date is difficult to determine, but that isn't what I'm concerned about. The primary focus was to show that Jesus coming in the clouds (Mark 13, Luke 21, Mathew 24, and Revelation 1) are all metaphorically; the Bible is our tutor which lists examples of this truth, and so there should be no doubt.

    The words given in Mt. 26:64, “shall see” is “optanomai,” a cognate of “horao” which has the meaning of “to look upon” or “to perceive” spiritually. In Acts, “as you- “have seen” is “theaomai” which means “to behold,” to “look upon.” These words and its context is what confirms the meaning of Mt. 26:64 and Acts 1:9-11. Now I hope I've made my answer clear as to your question.

    God bless---Twospirits
    Not so fast Henry. You're doing it again. You're inferring what you think the point was of the Angel and are over-interpreting what may have been a spiritual message being given to the Apostles. Did the Angel really tell the Apostles that Jesus would return in the same way they saw Him depart? Maybe, but that would be an odd message compared to Jesus directly telling them and He would come in the clouds. It's as though you're trying to isolate Acts chapter 1 from the rest of the Bible when it speaks of God coming in judgment.

    Acts chapter 1 may, on the surface, appear to be stating that Jesus would come in the manner He departed. But that's isn't what the text says. The Angel merely states that "This Jesus who was taken from you, shall come in "LIKE MANNER" as you have seen Him go into heaven.."

    HOW DID JESUS GO INTO HEAVEN? By vanishing behind the cloud. This matches with the very words of Jesus that His Parasouia would be with the clouds. And here we have the Angel denoting the return of Jesus being in like manner as His entrance into heaven; behind clouds. So this interpretation matches.

    Your interpretation doesn't not match the rest of scripture, and that's my problem with this position. So now we get to the 2nd question. How many "comings" of Jesus are there? You admit that Jesus came in clouds in the first century, although you say it's impossible to determine the "when". But then you use Acts 1 to speak of an entirely different "coming". You can't have it both ways. Jesus never mentioned more than one "coming" and only one is permitted. Now from a personal standpoint, Jesus comes every day, within every generation, and is expected of a king who's responsibility is to govern the affairs of this world. But that's beside the point. You admit He came spiritually, and they perceived it spiritually (if not blinded but still seeing it) in the first century. But then you speak of a literal, bodily, physical appearance of Jesus being seen in the sky at a future coming; this makes more than one coming of Jesus. But scripture testifies against this idea:

    Hebrews 9:28
    so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.


    Even the author of Hebrews shows that Jesus came the first time to bear the sins of the world. He was to come a second time to bring salvation to those who were waiting for it.

    In Revelation, Jesus promised some within the 7 churches to hold on to what they had until He came; this promise was not void into a long distant wait; it was near them:

    24 “Now to you I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put on you no other burden. 25 But hold fast what you have till I come. 26 And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations—
    27 ‘ He shall rule them with a rod of iron;
    They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’[j]—
    as I also have received from My Father; 28 and I will give him the morning star.
    29 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’


    Jesus here tells the faithful saints in Thyratira to hold on to what they had until He comes. Now if Jesus had no intention on coming within their life time, why would He say, "Until I come"? If His coming were in the distant future, they would not be able to "hold on to what they have until He came" because they would be long dead, thereby limiting the amount of time they have to "hold on to what they have". So the gramatically natural statement would have been, "hold on to what you have until the end of your life so that when I come in the future, I will award you the nation. But that's now how He worded His encouragement to hold fast; He specifically worded His encouragement with the sure promise that He was getting ready to come, especially to test those on the entire inhabited earth (where people live); and this coming was very near. That's why John tells them that Jesus, the one who is to be seen riding the clouds, and even those who pierced Him would "perceive" spiritually, would all witness this awesome event; both the good and the bad.

    Therefore, there is only 2 comings; the first to bear sins, and the last to bring salvation to those who held on to what they had, during times of great distress and trouble.

    I'm sorry my friend. Now while I appreciate you discussing these things with me, you cannot have it both ways. I admire your efforts in interpreting Greek, but to be honest, I trust the Greek speaking Church fathers of the GOC before I trust an American who studies ancient Greek from a 21st century perspective. Nobody ever said that the Bible was written with the highest level of grammar, and so we shouldn't treat it as such. But you can't have it both ways; spiritual one moment, but physical the next; this generates more than 2 comings of Jesus.

    So how can you say Acts 1 is a future physical coming of Jesus, but Matthew 26 is a spiritual coming that happened in the first century?

    Joe
    Last edited by TheForgiven; 10-03-2011 at 08:41 PM.
    Israel is more than just a race; it is more than just a nation; it is the people of God, from faith, by faith, and only faith. Those who assemble in the name of Christ Jesus, embrance Israel because they are Israel

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,958
    Jesus said His coming would be ON or IN cloud(s), but He never said FROM clouds. Jesus' words illuminate what the angels said in Acts 1:11, i.e., as He continued from the cloud to heaven, so His return would be from heaven to the cloud(s). That would agree with Jesus' description of His return. The majority of futurists disagree with Jesus. For more on this and the nature of His body that ascended to heaven, see RESURRECTION OF WHICH BODY? Part 1 & 2 at http://tom.ad70.net/.
    __________________
    Blessings, Tom Case
    You hit the nail right on the head my friend.

    Joe
    Israel is more than just a race; it is more than just a nation; it is the people of God, from faith, by faith, and only faith. Those who assemble in the name of Christ Jesus, embrance Israel because they are Israel

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    I don't understand why you expect me to accept your answer that Caiaphas and the others (if they lived till 70 A.D.) saw (metaphorically, spiritually) Jesus 'coming in the clouds of heaven in 70 A.D. by the signs;' yet you reject my answer of how they 'saw' (perceived) Jesus 'hereafter' also through the same means, 'miraculous signs.'

    Okay, your answer is they 'saw' metaphorically his coming through signs of Jerusalem's fall.

    My answer is like I said, Caiaphas and the others 'perceived,' understood what Jesus said, though their hearts were hardened, by the same means, by miraculous signs done by and through the apostles. This is how 'they' would 'see' Jesus coming 'hereafter' on the clouds of heaven. They would not 'literally see' Jesus coming on clouds., and I gave the reason for that.

    Like I said in my post, the 'context' is what determines when we are to take scripture metaphorically or when we are not to. Mt. 26:64 is to be taken in the spiritual or metaphoric way, the Acts passage is a different matter altogether.

    Mt. 26:64 is different in its application than Acts 1:9-11. The Matthew passage is metaphorical in context, and given specifically to Caiaphas and the priests, and was fulfilled in that sense, spiritually in their lifetime. The wording of the passage confirms that. 'When' is impossible to answer, in any case it would only be speculation. (Who were "they" besides Caiaphas that were there at the trial? How long did they live? Were "they" there in 70 A.D. etc.?).The Acts passage was prophetic for a different time and has a literal fulfillment as I've shown in my posts.

    The words given in Mt. 26:64, 'shall see' is 'optanomai,' a cognate of 'horao' which has the meaning of 'to look upon' or 'to perceive' spiritually. In Acts, 'as you- 'have seen' is 'theaomai' which means 'to behold,' to 'look upon.' These words and its context is what confirms the meaning of Mt. 26:64 and Acts 1:9-11. Now I hope I've made my answer clear as to your question.

    God bless---Twospirits
    A big problem on this forum seems to be that there is a mixing up of the words allegory and spiritual and metaphorical and literal.
    Almost to the point of the story of Babylon.

    Allegory and metaphor and parable are stories that symbolically point to truths. In other words what the types (symbolic elements to the story) point to are the reality. (anti-types) Old Testament stories point to or prophecy Realities to come.

    True Spiritual visions and seeing things that others sometimes do not are not evidence that those things do not exist.
    In fact the Spiritual gifts that are promised are by their very nature "exclusive" to normal outward vision.

    Spiritual vision is Literal. Though it cannot be confirmed by someone who is only capable of seeing with natural sight.

    Discernment of spirits, for example, is one of the Spiritual gifts. Does everyone see spirits? No.



    2ki 6:14 Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about.
    2ki 6:15 And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, an host compassed the city both with horses and chariots. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do?
    2ki 6:16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.
    2ki 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.
    2ki 6:18 And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed unto the LORD, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha.

    The "young man" saw nothing until the Lord opened his eyes.
    After the Lord opened his eyes he was able to see what Elisha was already aware of.

    There is no metaphor involved in the second coming.
    It is Literal, Actual, and Spiritual.

    It just did not and will not be experienced by everyone at the same time. And some will not see it. It is not and was not a physical coming (visible by everyone at the same time and place)
    It is/was a Spiritual occurance. A Reality. Just as available now as it was back then. Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

    Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

    Spiritual IS literal. It is also Real.
    Metaphor and allegory are symbolic sories that point to that which is Real.

    Bob

  5. #25
    TheForgiven wrote,

    Because I believe I know why you don't want to admit that they may have seen this in 70AD. Doing so would support the Preterist interpretation of Jesus coming in the clouds.
    No, it is because it would only be speculation on my part that they, Caiaphas and the other priests lived that long, which is highly doubtful. The law stipulated to be a priest of God one needed to reach the age of 30 years. Caiaphas was made high priest in 18 A.D. (see Josephus), this would make Caiaphas at least 82 years old in A.D. 70. And the others would at least be 70 years and older when counting from 30 A.D.

    So knowing that they say the same thing, your next equation is to prove how or why you believe each passage which explains Jesus coming in the clouds is to be distinguished form metaphorical to literal.
    By looking to the main passages and its context that speak of Christ's coming would determine that.

    Not so fast Henry. You're doing it again. You're inferring what you think the point was of the Angel and are over-interpreting what may have been a spiritual message being given to the Apostles. Did the Angel really tell the Apostles that Jesus would return in the same way they saw Him depart? Maybe, but that would be an odd message compared to Jesus directly telling them and He would come in the clouds. It's as though you're trying to isolate Acts chapter 1 from the rest of the Bible when it speaks of God coming in judgment.
    It is clear that the angels told the disciples Jesus would be 'seen' (by sight) coming just as the disciples 'saw' with their 'eyes' Jesus ascend into the air, this is my argument. No, its not 'an odd message' and its not unusual in scripture for one passage to give more details than another passage which speaks of the same event. Case in point, Christ's coming. Looking to those 'coming passages' each gives different details and events when speaking of His coming: with clouds; with angels; with flaming fire; etc.

    Acts chapter 1 may, on the surface, appear to be stating that Jesus would come in the manner He departed. But that's isn't what the text says. The Angel merely states that "This Jesus who was taken from you, shall come in "LIKE MANNER" as you have seen Him go into heaven.."
    The 'like manner' of 'how' he will return is given in the words of the angels as I noted above, Jesus would be 'seen' by men, as he was seen leaving by men ie. Jesus' disciples. The crucial point of the passage is Jesus' return in Glory will be 'seen by men,' as he was seen entering heaven. The disciples seen Jesus in his Glory at the transfiguration, he shined as the sun and was bright as light. The 'coming passages' all mention this 'Glory.'

    Your interpretation doesn't not match the rest of scripture, and that's my problem with this position. So now we get to the 2nd question. How many "comings" of Jesus are there? You admit that Jesus came in clouds in the first century, although you say it's impossible to determine the "when". But then you use Acts 1 to speak of an entirely different "coming". You can't have it both ways. Jesus never mentioned more than one "coming" and only one is permitted.
    Joe, you really need to read my posts more carefully before you answer things you say I said when I did not make such a statement. No, I did not say 'Jesus came in clouds' in the 1st century. Here's what I said in post #17 in answer to your question. 'I hold that the judgment prophecy 'of the fall of the temple' was fulfilled in 70 A.D., but the coming of Christ (emphasis added; metaphorically or otherwise) did not occur.'

    When I said its impossible to determine 'when they perceived it," it was 'specifically' in reference to the prophecy Jesus privately gave to the priests of Mt. 26:64, not to his 70 A.D. coming, metaphorically or otherwise.

    You admit He came spiritually, and they perceived it spiritually (if not blinded but still seeing it) in the first century. But then you speak of a literal, bodily, physical appearance of Jesus being seen in the sky at a future coming; this makes more than one coming of Jesus.
    No, I didn't say Jesus came spiritually, I said what Jesus prophesied against them (judgment), the fall of Jerusalem was fulfilled in 70 A.D. I said that Caiaphas and the priests perceived what Jesus stated spiritually, that is correct.

    This does not make more than one coming of Jesus, there is only one coming of Jesus. I said in post #17 that Mt. 26:64 is different in its 'application' than Acts 1:9-11. The Matthew passage is more metaphorical in context, and given specifically to Caiaphas and the priests privately. The other 'coming passages' specifically speak of 'people of the earth' witnessing this coming with clouds; with angels; with flaming fire; etc.

    Jesus here tells the faithful saints in Thyratira to hold on to what they had until He comes. Now if Jesus had no intention on coming within their life time, why would He say, "Until I come"?
    You misunderstand the passage. He was speaking of holding on to the doctrine of Christ, compared to the false doctrine of the prophetess Jezebel they were teaching. (26), 'who keeps my doctrine until the end' and they would be rewarded as Jesus was. (27) 'As I also received from my Father.' When did Jesus receive this from his Father? After his death, this is 'the end' in verse 26 he speaks of concerning the saints. If they kept his doctrine till the end (death) he would reward them when he comes 'to resurrect and reward them.'

    I admire your efforts in interpreting Greek, but to be honest, I trust the Greek speaking Church fathers of the GOC before I trust an American who studies ancient Greek from a 21st century perspective.
    How is 'this American' interpreting Greek? The Greek scholars through the years are the ones who interpreted and translated ancient Greek, not 'this American!'

    So how can you say Acts 1 is a future physical coming of Jesus, but Matthew 26 is a spiritual coming that happened in the first century?
    See my explanation above.

    God bless---Twospirits
    "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    No, it is because it would only be speculation on my part that they, Caiaphas and the other priests lived that long, which is highly doubtful. The law stipulated to be a priest of God one needed to reach the age of 30 years. Caiaphas was made high priest in 18 A.D. (see Josephus), this would make Caiaphas at least 82 years old in A.D. 70. And the others would at least be 70 years and older when counting from 30 A.D.
    I hope you folks realize that the "ye" (or you) in that passage is PLURAL, and refers not just to Caiaiphas. You may be right about the priestly age, but could you share with us the proof for that statement? What age did one need to be in order to be part of the council? What age was required to be a scribe or elder?

    Matthew 26:57 - And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

    Matthew 26:59 - Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;

    Matthew 26:64 - Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

  7. #27
    TruthSeeker1959 wrote,

    I hope you folks realize that the "ye" (or you) in that passage is PLURAL, and refers not just to Caiaiphas. You may be right about the priestly age, but could you share with us the proof for that statement? What age did one need to be in order to be part of the council? What age was required to be a scribe or elder?
    I was giving Joe an example in answer to his question, I wasn't out to write a book on the subject!

    God bless---Twospirits
    "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away" (Rev. 21:4).

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,958
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    No, it is because it would only be speculation on my part that they, Caiaphas and the other priests lived that long, which is highly doubtful. The law stipulated to be a priest of God one needed to reach the age of 30 years. Caiaphas was made high priest in 18 A.D. (see Josephus), this would make Caiaphas at least 82 years old in A.D. 70. And the others would at least be 70 years and older when counting from 30 A.D.



    By looking to the main passages and its context that speak of Christ's coming would determine that.



    It is clear that the angels told the disciples Jesus would be “seen” (by sight) coming just as the disciples “saw” with their “eyes” Jesus ascend into the air, this is my argument. No, its not “an odd message” and its not unusual in scripture for one passage to give more details than another passage which speaks of the same event. Case in point, Christ's coming. Looking to those “coming passages” each gives different details and events when speaking of His coming: with clouds; with angels; with flaming fire; etc.



    The “like manner” of “how” he will return is given in the words of the angels as I noted above, Jesus would be “seen” by men, as he was seen leaving by men ie. Jesus' disciples. The crucial point of the passage is Jesus' return in Glory will be “seen by men,” as he was seen entering heaven. The disciples seen Jesus in his Glory at the transfiguration, he shined as the sun and was bright as light. The “coming passages” all mention this “Glory.”



    Joe, you really need to read my posts more carefully before you answer things you say I said when I did not make such a statement. No, I did not say “Jesus came in clouds” in the 1st century. Here's what I said in post #17 in answer to your question. “I hold that the judgment prophecy “of the fall of the temple” was fulfilled in 70 A.D., but the coming of Christ (emphasis added; metaphorically or otherwise) did not occur.”

    When I said its impossible to determine “when they perceived it," it was “specifically” in reference to the prophecy Jesus privately gave to the priests of Mt. 26:64, not to his 70 A.D. coming, metaphorically or otherwise.



    No, I didn't say Jesus came spiritually, I said what Jesus prophesied against them (judgment), the fall of Jerusalem was fulfilled in 70 A.D. I said that Caiaphas and the priests perceived what Jesus stated spiritually, that is correct.

    This does not make more than one coming of Jesus, there is only one coming of Jesus. I said in post #17 that Mt. 26:64 is different in its “application” than Acts 1:9-11. The Matthew passage is more metaphorical in context, and given specifically to Caiaphas and the priests privately. The other “coming passages” specifically speak of “people of the earth” witnessing this coming with clouds; with angels; with flaming fire; etc.



    You misunderstand the passage. He was speaking of holding on to the doctrine of Christ, compared to the false doctrine of the prophetess Jezebel they were teaching. (26), “who keeps my doctrine until the end” and they would be rewarded as Jesus was. (27) “As I also received from my Father.” When did Jesus receive this from his Father? After his death, this is “the end” in verse 26 he speaks of concerning the saints. If they kept his doctrine till the end (death) he would reward them when he comes “to resurrect and reward them.”



    How is “this American” interpreting Greek? The Greek scholars through the years are the ones who interpreted and translated ancient Greek, not “this American!”



    See my explanation above.

    God bless---Twospirits
    I'm trying to avoid the line-by-point approach to this discussion. So please forgive me if I overlook some of your points. I'll keep it straight to the point.

    Caiaphas living to see 70AD is not subject for debate without any historical facts. Speculating his death prior to 70AD, thereby disabling any fulfillment of him seeing Jesus coming in the clouds is a moot point. While it was true for the average population to die before reaching age 40, Caiaphas, being a wealthy high priest (as was common among rich Jews who held the office of High Priest) would no doubt have lived long enough. Their wealth is one reason why Jesus condemned them; those who gained their wealth and living from the priesthood, and perverted the temple of God into a market place. At any rate, when He told them that they would see His coming, it may not have been directly pointed at Caiaphas specifically, but all who were responsible for His arrest. But on a side note, I personally believe that he lived long enough to see the destruction of Jerusalem with the cloud of Jesus returning as He said He would.....in clouds.

    Now about Acts chapter 1, you insist that the Angel was concentrating on the fact that Jesus was bodily lifted from the ground into the sky. But you are including His ground-to-sky with His entrance into heaven. But He did not say that. He simply said, "as you saw Him go into heaven". How did He go into heaven? By vanishing behind a cloud. That's it! Nothing more, nothing less. What you are proposing is that the Angel was referring to the very moment when His feet no longer touched the ground, up to the point He vanished behind a cloud. But there's nothing to directly suggest that; this is merely an inference, understandably made by reading the text. My argument is that he may not have been talking about His ascension. Even so, it does not match the rest of scripture.

    Now in response to the 2 or more comings of Jesus, all of them are isolated in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Revelation 1, and Luke 21. Matthew 26 is part of the Mathew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and Revelation 1, which reads, "Behold, He comes with the clouds, and every one shall see Him; even those who pierced Him". John's description of Jesus coming with the clouds is the very same metaphoric expression Jesus used when He answered the questions of the Apostles in the OD. This means that Acts chapter 1 cannot be isolated as it's own Prophetic type of fulfillment, as you are doing. You believe rightly that the expression "coming with the clouds" is metaphoric, but then you discount that as a type of His coming. You then thwart Revelation into an Acts 1 type of fulfillment (which I've just proven to you as false) as though these were separate events to be fulfilled; this is completely wrong.

    With respect to the Greek language, you are no Greek scholar. I respect your opinions, but not to the point of accepting it as a professional translation. All you are doing is twisting and exaggerating certain words in order to support your eschatology. Of course, you're not the only one who does this. But I believe wholeheartedly that you are wrong. You are a single man who does not speak Greek, nor ancient Greek, and are adopting to an unprincipled method of self-interpretation. You're skewing words into oblivion to make them sound more than what they are, and are assuming that the truth of scripture can only be found by the intense criticism of certain words. I understand the need for doing this from time-to-time. But the way you do it is against any verse that does not suite your eschatology, you dissect words or phrases to restructure them according to your liking. If Greek scholars felt the way that you do, why hasn't there been an updated Bible translations to support your opinionated translations? I did not need an explanation of the Greek in order to know that Matthew 26 was metaphoric in nature. You had to examine the word in order to come to that conclusion, which even then doesn't explain it. You then use this same approach to Acts chapter 1 and insist that the Greek structure of that sentence "like manner" must mean His coming would be visible. I know you WANT to believe Acts 1 insists on a visible return, but your "want" does not make it "truth". There's no Biblical statement or verse that says EVERYONE on this planet earth must see Jesus descending from the sky to the ground. If Christ descended to modern secular Israel, how will wee in America see this? Television? Granted. But let's not forget about the South American Indians who don't even have a TV set. I believe you get my point. There's no need to exaggerate on the word "all".

    Lastly, Jesus says to the faithful in Thyratira, "hold on to what you have until I come...". You can't hold on to what you have until someone comes if the person never comes; this is common sense. While it is true, He's telling them to hold on to the truth until He comes, Jesus was not stating this as though they had to hold to truthful doctrine until they die, but until He comes; this is a definite time-statement that Henry is choosing to ignore. Let's read the verse again:

    24 “Now to you I say, and to the rest in Thyatira, as many as do not have this doctrine, who have not known the depths of Satan, as they say, I will put on you no other burden. 25 But hold fast what you have till I come.

    How can you get around that straight and obvious point? Hold fast until I come? How much sense does it make for Jesus to request or encourage this, if He never had any intention in "coming"? No doubt He would have said, "Hold fast what you have until the end...." but that's not what He said; He specifically mentioned "until I come". But nooooo! Henry doesn't like this statement as it's written because it contradicts His expectation of Acts chapter 1; ascending, descending for ALL to see. Sorry Henry, but you've been proven wrong.

    John in Revelation chapter 1 shows that Jesus coming in the clouds (metaphoric) is the same type of coming in Matthew 26, which from John's perspective was quite near. This then supports the truth of what Jesus said to Thyratira that He was about to come. That's why He encourages them to hold on to truth that they had UNTIL HE COMES. Henry, of course, subverts this simple little verse into reading, "Hold on to what you have to the end (when you die) so that when I do come, you will not loose your reward". No doubt he will go through great lengths to dissect Revelation 2:24 to make it read as he wants.

    Folks. Henry rightfully admits that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about the return of Jesus coming with the clouds, but then insists that there will be a physical return of Jesus identical to Acts 1 of His ascension. Yet there's not enough in Acts chapter 1 to suggest that all would see Him descend, ESPECIALLY when "all" didn't see Him ascend. So shouldn't we be saying that His descending would be the same as His ascension; in private with only a few to see? We know that only a few saw Him ascend into heaven, and per the Angle, His return must be in "like manner". Therefore how can everyone see His return be in "like manner" for everyone to see, if only a handful saw Him?

    In conclusion, Henry separates Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21 from Acts chapter 1, and even Revelation. Yet Revelation chapter 1 is the very same "cloud coming Jesus" as the Gospels. That alone is proof enough that the weight of my explanation falls in my direction. The only verse Henry appeals to is Acts 1 of His ascension. Henry even contradicts himself in believing Mathew, Mark, and Luke wrote of a metaphoric coming of Jesus, but then destroys this belief with the fact he believes Revelation is still yet to begin. In Revelation chapter 1, we read, "Behold! He comes with the clouds". IS THIS METAPHORIC OR LITERAL, Henry?

    The ball is in your court?

    Joe
    Last edited by TheForgiven; 10-04-2011 at 06:44 PM.
    Israel is more than just a race; it is more than just a nation; it is the people of God, from faith, by faith, and only faith. Those who assemble in the name of Christ Jesus, embrance Israel because they are Israel

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by Twospirits View Post
    I was giving Joe an example in answer to his question, I wasn't out to write a book on the subject!

    God bless---Twospirits
    So reactionary!!! You brought the topic up. I just asked a simple question which I figured would be at your finger tips regarding proof of age for priests. Sheesh!

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    800
    Hi all,

    Light, clouds, in the clouds of heaven, into a cloud etc.,

    The angels were speaking about the manner in which Jesus came.
    Why???
    Because it was so different from what we are used to as human beings with natural sight.

    Mt 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
    Mt 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

    We can see clouds and light but our hands would pass right through.
    It is less substantial.
    Jesus is telling the council that from then on they would see him differently.
    This has to do with the resurrected body. Paul covers it and it is obvious that those who he is speaking to are having trouble understanding because he calls them fools.


    1co 15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
    1co 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 1co 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
    1co 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

    1co 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
    1co 15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
    1co 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
    1co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
    1co 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
    1co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

    Paul is speaking of flesh, bodies and Glory (light) all manifestations (flesh), some more substantial than others.
    The substantial flesh is buried and the less substantail is raised a different body. A spiritual body.
    So Paul is using the things of this earth, the natural to illustrate the spiritual.

    When Jesus is speaking with Caiaphas and the council he is pointing out the same thing. From now on I will be coming in a different way. Implying that he was the Christ.
    In Acts the angels are saying the same thing. The manner of seeing him will be different.

    Matthew 24 and Luke 17 equate the same event:

    Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

    Lu 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
    NTB SCO STR
    Lu 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

    Yet Luke is speaking about an "internal event." The coming of the Kingdom.

    Re 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye (singular)shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

    So, when will this happen? It does not happen with outward observation, it is within us, we cannot know the times or the seasons etc.,
    It happens when our eyes open,.. or rather our EYE (singular.)

    Mt 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
    Mt 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

    So, this experience of seeing Jesus come began happening in that generation.
    It happened to Paul and Stephen and John and many others most likely.
    It has also been happening ever since ("Hereafter,") to all those it has happened to. Those who's Eyes were opened.

    He had to leave before he could come again. He came in that generation and also came again in that generation after the ascension in a resurrected body to those who saw him.

    Bob

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •