O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
If Christ has not come, then we are still waiting to be where he is.
John 14:3 “And I go and prepare a place for you, I will come
back and take you to be with me that you also may be where
John 14:18 “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come
John 14:28 “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and
I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would
be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is
greater than I."
Time text for the the coming of the Kingdom.
1Co 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 1Co 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
How many Kingdoms are coming? And how would the 1st century Christians know?
Luk 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
Luk 21:31 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Luk 21:32 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place.
Jesus "Luk 24:44 Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Mar 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."
My challenge to my futurist friends is to show me with the scriptures that Jesus spoke of...the same scriptures Paul and all the Apostles spoke of teaches two comings one a spiritual and one a physical separated by 2,000 years and counting.
One Kingdom that came at 70AD and another at some point in the future.
Great post John. I try to make the same point with my futurist friends. The fact that it was at the 2nd coming when the true Children of God would be revealed means there is a whole lot of assuming going on when Christians call themselves God's Children. Biblically, they can't do that until after the 2nd coming.
Really, when you get down to it, most of Christianity borrows from a FP paradigm without even knowing it. It's no wonder atheists that know their Bibles can send most Christians for a loop.
Thats why they insert another coming and this is what i'm trying to get an answer to.How do they exegeticaly (new word) :) Transfer promises to OT Israel to the Church?
This is a big problem for the honest futurist and I've seen some very clever tries but none that stick to the wall for long.
Hey i guess in the end we'll all be Full Preterist at some point!
I am with you all the way. I have asked that question to Gary DeMar over and over. Never get an answer.
Are you suggesting there is an actual "context" and a particular audience in these verses? And, for that matter by extension, are you actually promoting a belief that all the epistles addressed to specific people may have been truly intended for them and that I am not allowed to focus on a word or two within a few verses (leaving the context of the entire epistle) to make my case that the epistles may be speaking more for me, or my progeny to come, than to them? I mean, which scholars are you buying into anyway?
Do you steal candy from helpless babies too? Bad boy.:-)
Babies these days have more money then candy!
Yeah it would be nice to see our friends deal with context and audience relevancy.It's bad enough they have just throw the time text out the window.
Thanks for bringing some common sense humor in Ron.Really appreciate it Brother.
Thanks John. All kidding aside, I know of no scholar that would not expect to have each verse considered within its passage, each passage considered within its chapter, then on to the entire epistle and outward from there to the analogy of scripture as the most reasonable method useful to get the fullest grasp of the intended message.
And yes, babies do have more cash than candy these days - lol. Good one.
Blessings my friend.
Your right there is no rush...on the contrary it would be better if we all took more time in our responses.Sometimes i think conversations get side tracked or "go south" because we try to respond too quickly and in our haste we may not take the time and do the study needed to give a better response.
But I'm confused by your comment "making time for posts is rare (and discouraged - everyone who knows I partake in this roll their eyes at the waste of time, including my wife; and they are probably right, I have so many good books still unread)"
You and Phil are probably two of the most respected opponents of Full Preterism that post here.Your both knowledgeable and respectful and i can assure you it's not a waste of time.I know your a young man with a family just like many of our members. So please don't feel rushed or that your wasting your time.
Your time and interaction are both appreciated.
Thank you so much for your kind and encouraging words, John. You and others have always treated me with patience and respect, here and on other forums, and seeing as my perspective is antithetical to full (among other flavors of) preterism, it is a gesture filled with grace.
Thank you again, Brother. And peace to all those that have and continue to extend like courtesy and consideration.
Hey John, it all comes down to God the Father being reliable or not to His word. Admitting the time texts as fueling the expectations of the first century Christians is no small matter. If there's any confusion it surely rests on the believer and not on God himself.
You've seen this before, from C.S. Lewis. He understood the time texts plain enough. But, look at the treatment of God the Father that seems to elude Lewis:
Mr. Lewis has the timing language down as our Lord said it, and also that of all the Apostles, in over 100 new testament verses. The Greek is emphatic regarding the "tense" of imminentness in all the new testament. C.S. Lewis understood these vereses to be the case. The issue is if one is to say, as Lewis (and Albert Schweitzer along with others), that Jesus (and Paul and all the apostles) were "wrong", and "the sponsors of a delusion", then how on earth can anyone place any confidence in anything they had to say if they were so in error on this monumental topic?
You summed things up pretty well. I think what you have laid out here is one of the biggest problems in the Church today.Like you pointed out even Christians think Jesus was mistaken.How can you expect skeptics and others to take the Bible serious if he was wrong about his return?
I agree with you "Jesus kept his word"