We are in the new earth

Participant

Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 15 2009,14:40)

t,
Men with degrees have been telling us for two thousand years that Jesus is coming “soon.” Will the word “soon” ever mean “soon?”

thinker

November 15, 2009 at 5:58 pm#156873

Participant

Hi TT,
The bridegroom is delayed.
Get oil.

November 16, 2009 at 6:24 am#157074

Participant

Jack

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 13 2009,14:29)

I can no longer take futurists seriously because of all their double talk. So I am not at all impressed by their “scholarship” in the area of eschatology.

Since you can no longer take me seriously then I will no longer take you seriously!

You totally in my opinion deny the clear meaning of scriptures!

You didn't even address AT Robertsons commentary but chose to take Barnes out of context and expound with all kinds of oppologetics.

This debate is getting nowhere because you will not address certain specific points but pick and choose what you like and ignore the rest!

If you expect anybody to take you seriously then you will also address certain scriptures with out simply claiming that you know what you are talking about and go off on futurist by claiming they are wrong and you are right because you have studied for 20 years! You are starting to sound like someone who thinks he knows it all Jack!

I am growing weary of this dialogue because clear words do not mean anything it seems. Frankly it is a waste of time.

I am not saying that I am quiting but I will not continue with all this spin if it keeps on. You can claim victory if you like, frankly it makes no difference to me because I know what and in whom I have believed and nothing you have shown me has at this point even given me one reason why I should consider Jesus has already come.

November 16, 2009 at 7:32 am#157078

Participant

Hi All

Here is an example of someone not being true in oppologetics…

Jack says…

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 13 2009,14:29)

Even Barnes who you invoked says that there may be a considerable interval:

But then Jack quotes Barnes…

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 13 2009,14:29)

There may be a considerable interval between the resurrection of the pious and the time when the living shall be caught up to meet the Lord….The meaning is, that after the dead are raised, or the next thing in order, they and the living will ascend to meet the Lord (p. 48)

Notice, how Jack implies that Barnes means a “Long” interval and that some how this may agree with the Preterist interpretation that the interval is for centuries since according to them Christ has already come and the “**CAUGHT UP TOGETHER WITH THEM IN THE CLOUDS**” is when you and I die!

But now lets look at Barnes actual words in context where Jack clipped out part of his statement which is a common practice of those with an agenda and who have to distort the truth to support their agenda!

Barnes actually said…

“There may be a considerable interval between the resurrection of the pious and the time when the living shall be caught up to meet the Lord, “for the change is to take place in them which will fit them to **ascend with those who have been raised**. The meaning is, that after the dead are raised, or the next thing in order, they and the living will ascend to meet the Lord.“

This is the part that Jack clipped out…

for the change is to take place in them which will fit them “to ascend with those who have been raised“.

Notice that Barnes says this interval is to take place to fit them so that they may “ASCEND WITH THOSE” who have been raised. Common sense tells us this is like a twinkling of an eye.

But Jack says that Barnes and futurist are double talking, when it is clear that Barnes is simply describing the order of events and that the considerable interval is not a long time and the double talking is not Barnes.

Then Jack proceeds in saying…

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 13 2009,14:29)

Paul's statement about their being preserved to the coming of the Lord cannot mean both His actual coming and a metaphorical “coming” at death.

I can no longer take futurists seriously because of all their double talk. So I am not at all impressed by their “scholarship” in the area of eschatology.

Paul said that they would be preserved to the coming of the Lord. So if your “brief interval” theory is correct, then the saints were raptured. Who then preached the gospel after they were caught up?

You don't get it do you Jack? Jesus didn't come therefore the saints were not raptured and and the Gospel is preach until this day!

And as far as them being preserved “Blameless untill his coming” we know it cannot mean what you say for Paul died and was not preserved until his coming according to your interpretation of the verse!

AT Robertson the world renowned Greek Grammarian writes…

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Then (epeita). The next step, not the identical time (tote), but immediately afterwards. Together with them (ama sun autoiß). Note both ama (at the same time) and sun (together with) with the associative instrumental case autoiß (the risen saints). Shall be caught up (arpaghsomeqa). Second future passive indicative of arpazw, old verb to seize, to carry off like Latin rapio. To meet the Lord in the air (eiß apanthsin tou Kuriou eiß aera). This special Greek idiom is common in the LXX like the Hebrew, but Polybius has it also and it occurs in the papyri (Moulton, Proleg., p. 14, n. 3). This rapture of the saints (both risen and changed) is a glorious climax to Paul's argument of consolation. And so (kai outwß). This is the outcome, to be forever with the Lord, whether with a return to earth or with an immediate departure for heaven Paul does not say. To be with Christ is the chief hope of Paul's life (1 Thessalonians 5:10; Philippians 1:23; Colossians 3:4; 2 Corinthians 5:8). Source

I think I will stick to the clear meaning of the text which is brought out by the experts like AT Robertson which Jack cannot fault or claim that he knows more than he I hope!

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that “we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep“. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and “the dead in Christ shall rise first“: “Then we which are alive and remain SHALL BE CAUGHT UP TOGETHER WITH THEM IN THE CLOUDS, to meet the Lord in the air“: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 1 Thess 4:15-17

Again, the Preterist denys the resurrection for they say that we go straight to heaven when we die and recieve a new body and our bodies are not raised and changed by this corruption putting on incorruption! 1 Cor 15:53-55

Jack is totally ignoring scriptures like this…

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: “WHO SHALL **CHANGE OUR VILE BODY**, THAT IT MAY BE FASHIONED LIKE UNTO HIS GLORIOUS BODY, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Phil 3:20, 21

November 16, 2009 at 5:31 pm#157112

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 16 2009,17:24)

Jack

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 13 2009,14:29)

I can no longer take futurists seriously because of all their double talk. So I am not at all impressed by their “scholarship” in the area of eschatology.

Since you can no longer take me seriously then I will no longer take you seriously!

You totally in my opinion deny the clear meaning of scriptures!

You didn't even address AT Robertsons commentary but chose to take Barnes out of context and expound with all kinds of oppologetics.

This debate is getting nowhere because you will not address certain specific points but pick and choose what you like and ignore the rest!

I am growing weary of this dialogue because clear words do not mean anything it seems. Frankly it is a waste of time.

Yes Keith. Clear words do not mean anything it seems. Jesus said to Caiaphas, “from this time onward you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of glory.” Hebrews 10:37 says, “In a very little while He that will come will come, and will not tarry.”

As you dismiss Jesus and the apostles so I dismiss A.T. Robertson. My faith stands in the power of God and not in the wisdom of men. Robertson's remarks do not compute. Paul said that the dead in Christ shall rise FIRST. Paul added, “AFTERWARDS, we who are alive and REMAINING shall be caught up to join them….”

The word “remaining” is a present participle and indicates their remaining in continuous linear time. So if the living would be caught up with the dead then the dead hang around on the earth after being raised.

Paul throws another wrench in the futurist theological works. he daid that each man would be raise “IN HIS OWN ORDER.”

Paul said that Christ was first in time, then every man after that in his own time.

NIV:“But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.” NIV

YLT:“and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ's, in his presence”,

Note that the YLT says “those who are Christ's in his presence.”

So when Christ would come back to raise the dead He raises them up in their own turn in or during His subsequent presence. He would come back and in His presence He raises the dead each in his own turn.

How long would this take Keith? Each man who sleeps must FIRST be raised before the living may be caught up.

If the futurist rendering of “ama sun” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is correct and the living were caught up with the dead, then who preached the gospel after that? Paul clearly put the coming of Christ in his own generation as did Jesus.

Don't try to tell me that Robertson's rendering was not skewed just a little due to his futurist glasses.

Jesus said that the end of their age would come soon after the world wide preaching of the gospel. Paul said that this had happened:

Colossains 1:6:“because of the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the world, and is bringing forth fruit, as it is also among you since the day you heard and knew the grace of God in truth;”

Colossians 1:23:“…if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.”

Do these “clear words” mean anything to you Keith? Or do you have a long interval yourself between the worldwide preaching of the gospel which happened in Paul's time and the second coming? Btw, in verse 6 Paul said that our “hope is laid up in heaven” and not in some carnal, earthly kingdom.

thinker

November 16, 2009 at 5:51 pm#157113

Participant

Hi TT,
He has yet to return so your ideas are wrong.

November 16, 2009 at 6:52 pm#157125

Participant

WorshippingJesus said:

Quote

TO ALL:

I marvel that Keith said that I imply that Barnes meant a “long” interval. He even put the word “long” in quotes as if I used that very word. The funny thing about this is that Keith cited what I said and I used the word “considerable” just as Barnes said. Here is what I said that Barnes said which Keith even quotes me:

Quote

Even Barnes who you invoked says that there may be a considerable interval:

There it is! I said that Barnes said that there may be a “considerable” interval and Keith quoted me word for word. Then he changes what I said and accuses me of saying that Barnes said a “long” interval putting the word “long” in quotations.

Read my post on page 12. I did not say that Barnes said that there was a “long” interval. Neither did I say that Barnes “considerable” theory supported preterism. My brother is now hearing things.

WJ quoting Barnes:

Quote

for the change is to take place in them which will fit them “to ascend with those who have been raised”.

But Barnes still said that there may be a “considerable interval” between the resurrection of the dead and the catching up of all together. Keith “cut” this out. So he should take the beam out of his own eye.

WJ:

Quote

I NEVER attributed “double talk” to Barnes in reference to his comments on the interval. I said that his explanation of 5:23 was double talk. Go back and read my post. Paul assured the saints at Thessalonica that their body, soul and spirit would be preserved blameless to the coming of the Lord Jesus.” Barnes says this means “until He should come to remove them by death, or to wind up the affairs of the world” (p. 63).

This is what I said is “double talk” in reference to Barnes. Paul did NOT say that they would be preserved bameless either by death or until the Lord's coming. Paul said that they would be preserved “UNTIL the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

See my post on page 12. Our brother is hearing what he wants to hear.

WJ:

Quote

Folks, I have explained this to Keith already. Jesus said that “some” would remain alive to His coming. Jesus said that He was telling the “truth” in saying this:

Quote

” Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Matthew 16:28

Jesus said that “some would remain” and Paul's language implies no more that SOME MUST remain to His coming. Jesus said that He was speaking “truly.”

IF JESUS WAS SPEAKING “TRULY” AS HE CLAIMED THEN SOME MUST REMAIN TO HIS COMING!

Keith's idea that ALL must remain for Paul's statement to be realized by the Thessalonians is totally ludicrous!

I ask you: Was Jesus speaking TRULY as He claimed or not?

Keith's futurism seems to depend heavily on the death of Paul before Christ's return. His futurism depends too much on A.T. Robertson also. The NEB was also done by a team of scholars and they disagree with Robertson's rendering of “ama sun.” The NEB rendering “we shall be caught up to join them” is more in line with the Biblical chronology. Let Keith be warned of the “I am of Apollos” or the “I am of Robertson” attitude.

Friends, our faith is to stand in the power of God and not in the wisdom of men as it seems is the case with Keith. Jesus said to His disciples that SOME of them would remain to His coming. HE SAID THAT HE WAS SPEAKING “TRULY”. THIS IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!

thinker

November 16, 2009 at 6:57 pm#157129

Participant

Hi TT,
They still are alive to God, with Isaac and Jacob and Elijah…

November 16, 2009 at 8:46 pm#157152

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 16 2009,12:31)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Nov. 16 2009,17:24)

Jack

thethinker,Nov. wrote:

I can no longer take futurists seriously because of all their double talk. So I am not at all impressed by their “scholarship” in the area of eschatology.

Since you can no longer take me seriously then I will no longer take you seriously!

You totally in my opinion deny the clear meaning of scriptures!

You didn't even address AT Robertsons commentary but chose to take Barnes out of context and expound with all kinds of oppologetics.

This debate is getting nowhere because you will not address certain specific points but pick and choose what you like and ignore the rest!

I am growing weary of this dialogue because clear words do not mean anything it seems. Frankly it is a waste of time.

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 16 2009,12:31)

Jack you cannot have your cake and eat it too! You are doing what is called… “Eisegesis” which means you are reading into the text you own Ideas!

The key words are “”from this time onward”! You are taking it to mean 40 years later. But Jesus words do not agree with you, for he said “from this time onward” didn't he?

So Jack “from this time onward” could mean 2000 years later since it does not mean from the very moment that Jesus said it, right? Again, you are basing your facts on ambiguity! In fact there is lots of controversy around that verse even in your own camp.

A former Full Preterist shares his perspective on why “Total Fulfillment in AD70” is not only wrong, but also powerfully dangerous. Click here

This former full Preterist states…

Well, “Matthew 26:64 represents the worst argument in support of HyP (Hyper Preterist} yet. After all, it could be understandable to equate the judgment of Matthew 16:27-28 with the undeniable events of AD70. Lightfoot certainly did, although he didn't make the extraordinary leaps with that belief that HyP does.. as though this one judgment was the final judgment of the Lord!

Jesus' prophecy in Matthew 26:64 is consistently listed among the “preterist time indicators” (PretCoz #13) ; and yet, I would be very surprised if most seasoned Preterists who claim such were not actually aware that “there are very serious problems with using this text as an indicator of AD70”. If that is so, it hasn't seemed to have effected the promotion of this passage as a support of the HyP view… But with this passage, there is just no excuse except (at best) a lamentable inability to see beyond the presupposition of AD70 fulfillment or, at worst, callous indifference as to whether it is a tight fit or not. This is the tendency to consider a verse “troublesome” at best or a “trouble text” at worst when it does not support the presupposed conclusion.

So he drops the bombshell…

Anyway, here is the text of Matthew 26:64:
“Jesus says to him, Thou hast said. Moreover, I say to you, From henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Darby ; Weymouth fails with this one)

Here we have yet another “son of man coming” passage which is often HyP'd as a time text pointing to AD70. In fact, I just received a new full preterist book which uses this passage as its cornerstone text upon which their AD70 narrative is built. If I can find it, I'll add the chapter one Matthew 26:64 quote here.

The typical HyP'd argument goes like this: Jesus told Caiaphas that he would see Him (Jesus) coming in His kingdom, which was fulfilled in AD70 when Caiaphas saw Jerusalem crumbling around him at the hands of the Romans.

The sad fact, however, is that Caiaphas was long dead by AD70. ….In 1990, the ossuary of Caiaphas was apparently discovered. This relic has withstood all scholarly attack (so far as I have seen) on epigraphical grounds, including the petina of the inscription and whatnot, and has come out certified as genuine. In this extremely ornate box inscribed with Caiaphas' name lay the bones of a 60 year old man. If it is indeed Caiaphas, and he had lived to see AD70, then he would have been only 8 years old when he began to reign as chief priest in Israel, and was only 20 years old when he condemned Jesus… yet another manifest absurdity.

Even if Caiaphas didn't die around AD40, there is still not the slightest shred of evidence that Caiaphas lived anywhere close to AD70. If he had, there is virtually no chance that A) there would have been time to wait the typical year for his flesh to decay off of his bones for transport to the ossuary, and that B) he would have been so painstakingly laid to rest in an ornate ossuary in his family tomb! His family tomb is south of Jerusalem, in an area that had been controlled by the Romans since around AD68, so all of this time and expenditure renders the case more than highly unlikely.

So you see Jack, your interpretation is at best ambiguous! You have yet to prove anything!

November 16, 2009 at 9:02 pm#157160

Anonymous

Inactive

w.j. God Bless you!!

November 16, 2009 at 9:51 pm#157173

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 16 2009,12:31)

Hebrews 10:37 says, “In a very little while He that will come will come, and will not tarry.”

No I do not dismiss Jesus words or the Apostles, but I do not accept your interpretation of them. So now you know more than AT Robertson? The scriptures you quote are ambiguous because Peter has already given us the definition for time to the Father and that is 1000 years is as a day and a day as 1000 years. So as I have explained before the Apostles according to Jesus did not know the “times or the seasons” which were in the Fathers hand. But to them they believed he was coming soon and that was their hope just as it is our hope today!

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 16 2009,12:31)

The word “remaining” is a present participle and indicates their remaining in continuous linear time

So if the living would be caught up with the dead then the dead hang around on the earth after being raised.

And so you disagree with Barnes and AT Robertson and many thousands of others. No proof except that you claim to know more and walk in a different camp!

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 16 2009,12:31)

Paul throws another wrench in the futurist theological works. he daid that each man would be raise “IN HIS OWN ORDER.”

Paul said that Christ was first in time, then every man after that in his own time.

NIV:“But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.” NIV

YLT:“and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ's, in his presence”,

Notice again the “eisegesis” that Jack uses when he says…

“Christ was first in time” and “after that in his own time”. But the passages he quotes does not use the word time but only shows the order!

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 16 2009,12:31)

Note that the YLT says “those who are Christ's in his presence.”

How long would this take Keith? Each man who sleeps must FIRST be raised before the living may be caught up.

Those that sleep will be first and as the text states “**CAUGHT UP TOGETHER WITH THEM IN THE CLOUDS**” is not those that 2000 years later die! Every translation renders it that way and AT Robertson states…

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

But Jack insist that he knows more and accuses a world renowned Greek Grammarian of being disingenuous!

Jack is an “Interval of time” 2000 years. For that is what you are saying that the text means that all those from 70AD to this day that dies in Christ are the ones that are “**CAUGHT UP TOGETHER WITH THEM IN THE CLOUDS**” therefore bypassing the resurrection! Nope, not true at all!

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 16 2009,12:31)

There is no preaching of the Gospel after he comes again Jack! What are you talking about? The Preterist view is the Gospel was preached throughout the whole world and Jesus came therefore there was no need to preach anymore after 70AD, yet we read that after 70AD men were still preaching the word and dying for their faith. If Jesus sits in the clouds as you say why are his saints still suffering and dieing in the world?

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 16 2009,12:31)

Don't try to tell me that Robertson's rendering was not skewed just a little due to his futurist glasses.

That’s your opinion, and to me it is evident that your rendering is tainted by your Preterist view!

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 16 2009,12:31)

Jesus said that the end of their age would come soon after the world wide preaching of the gospel. Paul said that this had happened:

Then why didn’t Jesus come before Paul died a Martyrs death? According to you Jesus came in 70AD, some 10 years after Paul wrote to the Colossians. Imagine their disappointment!

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 16 2009,12:31)

Do these “clear words” mean anything to you Keith? Or do you have a long interval yourself between the worldwide preaching of the gospel which happened in Paul's time and the second coming?

The Gospel is still being preached to every creature under heaven isn't it Jack?

Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 16 2009,12:31)

Btw, in verse 6 Paul said that our “hope is laid up in heaven” and not in some carnal, earthly kingdom.

You accuse me of believing in an earthly, carnal Kingdom, yet you say we are living in the NEW HEAVENS AND NEW EARTH! Laughable indeed!

November 17, 2009 at 1:41 am#157206

Anonymous

Inactive

TT- Do you know in the new heaven and earth ,there is no more saddness, sickness, tears, not even marriage! We dont even have our glorified bodys yet. We are no way in the new earth!
katjo

November 17, 2009 at 4:49 pm#157299

Participant

WorshippingJesus said:

Quote

Jack you cannot have your cake and eat it too! You are doing what is called… “Eisegesis” which means you are reading into the text you own Ideas!

The key words are “”from this time onward”! You are taking it to mean 40 years later. But Jesus words do not agree with you, for he said “from this time onward” didn't he?

Keith,
Apparently I have not been clear on this. I thought I was. The coming of Christ was a linear event. Caiaphas began to see the coming of Christ starting with His session at the right hand of power to His coming in the clouds of heaven. Jesus told Caiaphas that he would see the whole dang thing including His coming in the clouds. JESUS MEANT WHAT HE SAID! Again, the coming of Christ was a linear event. I hope this clears it up.

WJ:

Quote

So Jack “from this time onward” could mean 2000 years later since it does not mean from the very moment that Jesus said it, right? Again, you are basing your facts on ambiguity! In fact there is lots of controversy around that verse even in your own camp.

Nope! It means that Caiaphas would see Christ's coming before he died. Jesus told His disciples that some of them would not die until they saw His coming in His kingdom.

WJ:

Quote

A former Full Preterist shares his perspective on why “Total Fulfillment in AD70” is not only wrong, but also powerfully dangerous….

So he drops the bombshell…

Is this how you want to do it Keith? If so then I can cite former futurists. Go back to the site where you acquired the statement of the former full preterist and see what he says about the word of Jesus to His disciples that some of them would not die until they saw His coming.

Oh, btw, to my knowledge all those who call themselves “former full preterists” still put Christ's advent in the first century. Did this guy convert to your brand of futurism? AD70 seems problematic even for some preterists. It doesn't matter because Jesus still said that “this generation would not pass until ALL these things take place.” So I can live with Christ's advent stretching beyond ad70 so long as it was completed before that generation passed away.

WJ:

Quote

So you see Jack, your interpretation is at best ambiguous! You have yet to prove anything!

You ignore Christ's word to His disciples that some of them would remain to His coming and then say I haven't proven anything. Was Christ's encounter with Caiaphas the only biblical evidence I offered? How about answering Christ's word to His disciples. Here it is again:

“TRULY, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Be advised that I am ready for the futurist explanation that this was about the transfiguration.

thinker

November 17, 2009 at 5:57 pm#157304

Participant

WorshippingJesus said:

Quote

So now you know more than AT Robertson?

Keith,
You speak as if I offered you no scholarship at all to consider. I gave you the NEB which says, “then we who are alive and remain will be caught up to join them.” The NEB's rendering was done by a group of scholars too you know. I chose the one which works with Paul's chronology. Robertson's rendering does not work. It's that simple. Don't treat me like Paladin who opposes all scholarship. You are essentially saying that the scholarship I chose is stupid and Robertson is the final word. Come down from your high horse bro.

thinker said:

Quote

The word “remaining” is a present participle and indicates their remaining in continuous linear time

WJ's non reply reply:

Quote

And so you disagree with Barnes and AT Robertson and many thousands of others. No proof except that you claim to know more and walk in a different camp!

I originally gave you the Young's Literal Translation. Did you forget? Here it is again:

Quote

then we who are living, who are remaining over, together with them shall be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in air, and so always with the Lord we shall be;

You are studied Keith. Does a participle express continuous action or not? This is one reason why I do not accept Robertson's rendering of “ama sun.” It just don't compute.

WJ on Robertson:

Quote

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

Then (epeita). The next step, not the identical time (tote), but immediately afterwards. Together with them (ama sun autoiß). Note both ama (at the same time) and sun (together with) with the associative instrumental case autoiß (the risen saints). Shall be caught up (arpaghsomeqa). Second future passive indicative of arpazw, old verb to seize, to carry off like Latin rapio. To meet the Lord in the air (eiß apanthsin tou Kuriou eiß aera). This special Greek idiom is common in the LXX like the Hebrew, but Polybius has it also and it occurs in the papyri (Moulton, Proleg., p. 14, n. 3). This rapture of the saints (both risen and changed) is a glorious climax to Paul's argument of consolation. And so (kai outwß). This is the outcome, to be forever with the Lord, whether with a return to earth or with an immediate departure for heaven Paul does not say. To be with Christ is the chief hope of Paul's life (1 Thessalonians 5:10; Philippians 1:23; Colossians 3:4; 2 Corinthians 5:8).

Didn't I ask you not to tell me that Robertsons's vision is not skewed just a little by his futurism? There is no “immediately afterwards” expression in the text is there? The present participle expresses the continual act of remaining. There must be an interval. The word “epeita” often is used to designate an interval and the futurists invoke this word when it fits. For example, commenting on 1 Corinthians 15:24 the Wycliffe Bible Commentary says this:

Quote

“Then, Greek eita, covers an interval, just as closely as the closely related epeita, afterward, of the preceding verse, covers a long interval, the interval of the kingdom of Christ on earth. Every Pauline use of eita involves an interval. Note that the epeita of verse 23 has already covered an interval of 1900 years, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1256-1257

You see that the futurists invoke “eita/epeita” when it suits them. May the Preterists have intervals too?

WJ:

Quote

There is no preaching of the Gospel after he comes again Jack! What are you talking about? The Preterist view is the Gospel was preached throughout the whole world and Jesus came therefore there was no need to preach anymore after 70AD, yet we read that after 70AD men were still preaching the word and dying for their faith. If Jesus sits in the clouds as you say why are his saints still suffering and dieing in the world?

I told you that it took me 20 years to cast off all the remnants of futurism. And you tell me what the preterist view is? Don't you think I investigated thoroughly in that 20 years? I would not have adopted preterism if they did not believe in the gospel message continued.

You say that there is no preaching of the gospel after His coming. You think this because you see Christ's coming as a universal judgment upon all mankind. The full preterist sees Christ's coming as God's final judgment on the Jewish people and that mankind continues to exist.

In Rev. 14:6 John said that he saw an angel with the EVERLASTING gospel to preach to all mankind. Chapter 22:17 says that the Spirit and the Bride invite men to come and drink of the water of life freely. This is in the new earth. Therefore, the preaching of the gospel continues for eternity.

God promised Abraham that He would show mercy to “thousands of generations.” King David said that this word has been commanded to go forth (Ps. 105:8-10; Ex. 20:6; Deut. 7:9).

Charles Spurgeon preached that we are in the new earth. He preached the gospel didn't he?

Quote

C.H. Spurgeon (1834–1892) in a message he once delivered (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Volume 37, Page 354), made the following statement about “heaven and earth” as used in the Scriptures: “Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and now we live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it.”

WJ:

Quote

The Gospel is still being preached to every creature under heaven isn't it Jack?

Yes indeed and in that I rejoice. But it is not our preaching that signals the end of anything. It was the worldwide reach of the gospel
in their age that was the signal of the close of that age. Our preaching goes on forever and ever!

This is all for me today. I am beat.

Jack

November 17, 2009 at 6:12 pm#157306

Participant

Hi TT,
So why do you finish up preaching to those in Christ?
This does not look like the new earth.
And of course it isn't

November 17, 2009 at 7:30 pm#157313

Beloved

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 18 2009,05:12)

Hi TT,
So why do you finish up preaching to those in Christ?
This does not look like the new earth.
And of course it isn't

I may not know too much and can't quote scriptures from the back of my mind or know exactly where they are and pinpoint them.

And I don't know about translations.

And I don't know other texts etc. [that aren't the bible] to use to back me up.

But I totally agree with you.

This isn't the new earth. It doesn't look like it.

If this was the New Earth, this is a pretty screwed up and disappointing New Earth.

November 17, 2009 at 7:43 pm#157315

Beloved

Participant

I mean, I'd figure that a New Earth would be very different than this earth has been since civilization. Which supports the saying “There are no new things under the sun”

The earth right now is no different than when people first came on it. The only thing that's changed is the weather, climates, some lands, and technology, and maybe the habitats of a few species of animals.

When Jesus comes back, I'd think it'd make an actual impact on the entire world as we know it.

Every knee has NOT bowed and every tongue has NOT confessed. That is one thing that surely hasn't happened yet.

November 17, 2009 at 8:23 pm#157321