How Do You Ride a Horse, a Cloud, and a Throne?

[TK Burk]

Preachers that teach the prophecy view of Dispensationalism believe there will be a future “coming of Jesus Christ.” These preachers describe this time to include protection for God’s people and judgment for those in rebellion against Him. For this event, these preachers say this “return” will literally occur three very different ways. Here are the verses they use for this:

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

So, Jesus is coming on a white horse. However, they also say this:

Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

So, it’s a white horse and a white cloud? But wait, they also use this verse:

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

These same Dispensational preachers say the above verses must be read as literal occurrences. So, they have a physical Jesus simultaneously sitting on an actual horse, cloud, and throne. But can a physical body of Jesus be on all three of those things at the same time? Simple answer—He can’t. But a person who understands how prophetic imagery is used in biblical prophecy, they can explain how these three things are not in conflict, but instead that they emphasize the meaning of each other. In an effort to prove this, look at the following example of how prophetic imagery is used in the Bible:

Acts 1:9-11
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received 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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

In this passage, Jesus is said to be coming again in “like manner” as the disciples saw Him go. Nowhere do we see a horse or throne here. This absence makes this passage problematic if a horse, a cloud, and a throne is to “literally” be found during a physical coming of Jesus. Since every verse in the Bible agrees together, we need to look deeper to see how these three items agree with each other within the passages where they are found. To do this we must first ask if the issue in Acts 1 is the “cloud” or the “manner” in which Jesus departed? If it is the cloud, then the missing horse and throne are a problem for the Dispensationalist. But if this cloud is a reference to “the manner” in which Jesus is to return, then we can find agreement. I say this because the Bible uses images like clouds, horses, and thrones as prophetic imagery. By using this hermeneutic, much of the meaning of the Bible’s prophetic language can be properly interpreted. Some examples of the Bible’s usage of imagery is Jesus being a lamb and a shepherd, a sacrifice and a priest, a servant and a master, an advocate and a judge, a son and a father. Each of these pairings of images conflict with one another. For instance, how can Jesus be both a lamb and a priest? No one I know teaches that Jesus was a literal wooly lamb or a literal Temple Priest. Instead, they see these as images of something deeper for which He is known. So, why shouldn’t that same hermeneutic be used to explain a horse, a cloud, and a throne being used in verses about His return? With that in mind, look at how these three images all harmonize in what was prophesied to occur during that time.

In prophetic imagery, clouds are associated with God’s power and His glory. See Isaiah 19:1; Jeremiah 4:13-14; Ezekiel 30:3, Ezekiel 30:18-19; Nahum 1:2-6; Joel 2:1-9; Nahum 1:2-6; Zephaniah 1:14-17; Joel 2:1-9

A horse in prophecy represents the unfaithfulness of man, as well as the swiftness and the power of God. See Deuteronomy 20:1-4; Psalms 20:7, Psalms 33:17-19, Psalms 147:10-11; Proverbs 21:31; Zechariah 1:8, Zechariah 6:3-8, Zechariah 9:10, Zechariah 12:3-5, Zechariah 14:20; Hosea 1:7; Revelation 6:2-8; Job 39:19

Verses referring to God’s throne uses that imagery to represent His authority. See Psalms 103:19; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34-35, Matthew 19:28; Luke 1:32;

To see if I am using these three images correctly, look up the abovementioned verses. Then read each of them using the included meanings within the context where the verses are found. Don’t take my word for it. Study it through. I’ve found the Bible is easily understood if you use the tools found within itself to interpret its meaning. That takes study and commitment, for you cannot know what the Bible says until you fully devour what is found on its pages. This explains why many of the Bible’s truths are called a “mystery.” It is also why Jesus spoke in parables. Neither a mystery or a parable is to remain hidden. Instead, they are purposed by God so that only the sincere will find their meanings. (See Matthew 13:10-13; Luke 8:10; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Ephesians 3:4-5)

So, what does it mean that Jesus will return on a white cloud, a white horse, and a white throne? It means He would come in God’s power and in His glory, to bring judgment against unfaithful men with the swiftness and the power of God, while acting in the authority of the Almighty. This interpretation does not involve literal clouds, horses or thrones, instead, it uses the prophetic imagery found in the Bible. Therefore, this interpretation does not conflict—but instead agrees—with the other verses that speak of what was to occur during this coming of the Lord.

This study is found online HERE (http://tkburk.com/how-do-you-ride-a-horse-a-cloud-and-a-throne/).

To see more on Jesus coming in a cloud, go to THIS STUDY (http://tkburk.com/jesus-christ-coming-in-the-clouds/).

[Sean]

These same Dispensational preachers say the above verses must be read as literal occurrences. So, they have a physical Jesus simultaneously sitting on an actual horse, cloud, and throne. But can a physical body of Jesus be on all three of those things at the same time? Simple answer—He can’t.


Only if Jesus is not omnipresent, he cant.

But Jesus IS omnipresent.

Be sure of that.

[Sean]

If the Bible says Jesus and His saints are coming riding horses in this detailed description....



11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.



Believe it, because denying it would be terribly, spiritually unhealthy....



19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

[Originalist]

Preachers that teach the prophecy view of Dispensationalism believe there will be a future “coming of Jesus Christ.” These preachers describe this time to include protection for God’s people and judgment for those in rebellion against Him. For this event, these preachers say this “return” will literally occur three very different ways. Here are the verses they use for this:

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

So, Jesus is coming on a white horse. However, they also say this:

Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

So, it’s a white horse and a white cloud? But wait, they also use this verse:

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

These same Dispensational preachers say the above verses must be read as literal occurrences. So, they have a physical Jesus simultaneously sitting on an actual horse, cloud, and throne. But can a physical body of Jesus be on all three of those things at the same time? Simple answer—He can’t. But a person who understands how prophetic imagery is used in biblical prophecy, they can explain how these three things are not in conflict, but instead that they emphasize the meaning of each other. In an effort to prove this, look at the following example of how prophetic imagery is used in the Bible:

Acts 1:9-11
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received 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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

In this passage, Jesus is said to be coming again in “like manner” as the disciples saw Him go. Nowhere do we see a horse or throne here. This absence makes this passage problematic if a horse, a cloud, and a throne is to “literally” be found during a physical coming of Jesus. Since every verse in the Bible agrees together, we need to look deeper to see how these three items agree with each other within the passages where they are found. To do this we must first ask if the issue in Acts 1 is the “cloud” or the “manner” in which Jesus departed? If it is the cloud, then the missing horse and throne are a problem for the Dispensationalist. But if this cloud is a reference to “the manner” in which Jesus is to return, then we can find agreement. I say this because the Bible uses images like clouds, horses, and thrones as prophetic imagery. By using this hermeneutic, much of the meaning of the Bible’s prophetic language can be properly interpreted. Some examples of the Bible’s usage of imagery is Jesus being a lamb and a shepherd, a sacrifice and a priest, a servant and a master, an advocate and a judge, a son and a father. Each of these pairings of images conflict with one another. For instance, how can Jesus be both a lamb and a priest? No one I know teaches that Jesus was a literal wooly lamb or a literal Temple Priest. Instead, they see these as images of something deeper for which He is known. So, why shouldn’t that same hermeneutic be used to explain a horse, a cloud, and a throne being used in verses about His return? With that in mind, look at how these three images all harmonize in what was prophesied to occur during that time.

In prophetic imagery, clouds are associated with God’s power and His glory. See Isaiah 19:1; Jeremiah 4:13-14; Ezekiel 30:3, Ezekiel 30:18-19; Nahum 1:2-6; Joel 2:1-9; Nahum 1:2-6; Zephaniah 1:14-17; Joel 2:1-9

A horse in prophecy represents the unfaithfulness of man, as well as the swiftness and the power of God. See Deuteronomy 20:1-4; Psalms 20:7, Psalms 33:17-19, Psalms 147:10-11; Proverbs 21:31; Zechariah 1:8, Zechariah 6:3-8, Zechariah 9:10, Zechariah 12:3-5, Zechariah 14:20; Hosea 1:7; Revelation 6:2-8; Job 39:19

Verses referring to God’s throne uses that imagery to represent His authority. See Psalms 103:19; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34-35, Matthew 19:28; Luke 1:32;

To see if I am using these three images correctly, look up the abovementioned verses. Then read each of them using the included meanings within the context where the verses are found. Don’t take my word for it. Study it through. I’ve found the Bible is easily understood if you use the tools found within itself to interpret its meaning. That takes study and commitment, for you cannot know what the Bible says until you fully devour what is found on its pages. This explains why many of the Bible’s truths are called a “mystery.” It is also why Jesus spoke in parables. Neither a mystery or a parable is to remain hidden. Instead, they are purposed by God so that only the sincere will find their meanings. (See Matthew 13:10-13; Luke 8:10; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Ephesians 3:4-5)

So, what does it mean that Jesus will return on a white cloud, a white horse, and a white throne? It means He would come in God’s power and in His glory, to bring judgment against unfaithful men with the swiftness and the power of God, while acting in the authority of the Almighty. This interpretation does not involve literal clouds, horses or thrones, instead, it uses the prophetic imagery found in the Bible. Therefore, this interpretation does not conflict—but instead agrees—with the other verses that speak of what was to occur during this coming of the Lord.

This study is found online HERE (http://tkburk.com/how-do-you-ride-a-horse-a-cloud-and-a-throne/).

To see more on Jesus coming in a cloud, go to THIS STUDY (http://tkburk.com/jesus-christ-coming-in-the-clouds/).

Excellent post. Jesus' physical body is not Omni-present. But you must understand, there is at least one on AFF who takes the imagery of Revelation so literally they think that they will see a Lamb with seven horns and eyes in Heaven "because the Bible says so".

[Sean]

That is a misrepresentation. There is a minor amount of symbolism used to describe Jesus' attributes.

Fake news just exposed.

[Sean]

If the Bible says Jesus and His saints are coming riding horses in this detailed description....



11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.



Believe it, because denying it would be terribly, spiritually unhealthy....



19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Interestingly, this is the first time(during 2017) that I have heard Christians teach that their God, Jesus Christ, can only appear visibly in a normal human body, one place at a time.

I will ask my minister friends out and about if they believe that as fact, or if this is a new concept.:nod

[Sean]

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


The underlined will need a TV in every home to accomplish this feat, if Jesus is not omnipresent.(a 6' Jesus directly over my home as I look up would be indistinguishable 2 blocks away...he would have to make countless millions of revolutions around the earth)


Will Jesus need TBN after all?

[JamesGlen]

Preachers that teach the prophecy view of Dispensationalism believe there will be a future “coming of Jesus Christ.” These preachers describe this time to include protection for God’s people and judgment for those in rebellion against Him. For this event, these preachers say this “return” will literally occur three very different ways. Here are the verses they use for this:

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

So, Jesus is coming on a white horse. However, they also say this:

Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

So, it’s a white horse and a white cloud? But wait, they also use this verse:

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

These same Dispensational preachers say the above verses must be read as literal occurrences. So, they have a physical Jesus simultaneously sitting on an actual horse, cloud, and throne. But can a physical body of Jesus be on all three of those things at the same time? Simple answer—He can’t. But a person who understands how prophetic imagery is used in biblical prophecy, they can explain how these three things are not in conflict, but instead that they emphasize the meaning of each other. In an effort to prove this, look at the following example of how prophetic imagery is used in the Bible:

Acts 1:9-11
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received 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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

In this passage, Jesus is said to be coming again in “like manner” as the disciples saw Him go. Nowhere do we see a horse or throne here. This absence makes this passage problematic if a horse, a cloud, and a throne is to “literally” be found during a physical coming of Jesus. Since every verse in the Bible agrees together, we need to look deeper to see how these three items agree with each other within the passages where they are found. To do this we must first ask if the issue in Acts 1 is the “cloud” or the “manner” in which Jesus departed? If it is the cloud, then the missing horse and throne are a problem for the Dispensationalist. But if this cloud is a reference to “the manner” in which Jesus is to return, then we can find agreement. I say this because the Bible uses images like clouds, horses, and thrones as prophetic imagery. By using this hermeneutic, much of the meaning of the Bible’s prophetic language can be properly interpreted. Some examples of the Bible’s usage of imagery is Jesus being a lamb and a shepherd, a sacrifice and a priest, a servant and a master, an advocate and a judge, a son and a father. Each of these pairings of images conflict with one another. For instance, how can Jesus be both a lamb and a priest? No one I know teaches that Jesus was a literal wooly lamb or a literal Temple Priest. Instead, they see these as images of something deeper for which He is known. So, why shouldn’t that same hermeneutic be used to explain a horse, a cloud, and a throne being used in verses about His return? With that in mind, look at how these three images all harmonize in what was prophesied to occur during that time.

In prophetic imagery, clouds are associated with God’s power and His glory. See Isaiah 19:1; Jeremiah 4:13-14; Ezekiel 30:3, Ezekiel 30:18-19; Nahum 1:2-6; Joel 2:1-9; Nahum 1:2-6; Zephaniah 1:14-17; Joel 2:1-9

A horse in prophecy represents the unfaithfulness of man, as well as the swiftness and the power of God. See Deuteronomy 20:1-4; Psalms 20:7, Psalms 33:17-19, Psalms 147:10-11; Proverbs 21:31; Zechariah 1:8, Zechariah 6:3-8, Zechariah 9:10, Zechariah 12:3-5, Zechariah 14:20; Hosea 1:7; Revelation 6:2-8; Job 39:19

Verses referring to God’s throne uses that imagery to represent His authority. See Psalms 103:19; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34-35, Matthew 19:28; Luke 1:32;

To see if I am using these three images correctly, look up the abovementioned verses. Then read each of them using the included meanings within the context where the verses are found. Don’t take my word for it. Study it through. I’ve found the Bible is easily understood if you use the tools found within itself to interpret its meaning. That takes study and commitment, for you cannot know what the Bible says until you fully devour what is found on its pages. This explains why many of the Bible’s truths are called a “mystery.” It is also why Jesus spoke in parables. Neither a mystery or a parable is to remain hidden. Instead, they are purposed by God so that only the sincere will find their meanings. (See Matthew 13:10-13; Luke 8:10; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Ephesians 3:4-5)

So, what does it mean that Jesus will return on a white cloud, a white horse, and a white throne? It means He would come in God’s power and in His glory, to bring judgment against unfaithful men with the swiftness and the power of God, while acting in the authority of the Almighty. This interpretation does not involve literal clouds, horses or thrones, instead, it uses the prophetic imagery found in the Bible. Therefore, this interpretation does not conflict—but instead agrees—with the other verses that speak of what was to occur during this coming of the Lord.

This study is found online HERE (http://tkburk.com/how-do-you-ride-a-horse-a-cloud-and-a-throne/).

Fantastic stuff...But the word “above mentioned” in the above link, next to last paragraph, should be two words instead of one...simply unacceptable grammar we can’t have. :D



To see more on Jesus coming in a cloud, go to THIS STUDY (http://tkburk.com/jesus-christ-coming-in-the-clouds/).
.

[houston]

Maybe Jesus sits on the throne that is on the horse that is on the cloud?

[Sean]

Maybe Jesus sits on the throne that is on the horse that is on the cloud?

Omnipresence. You got it.

[Sean]

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.







Fake news???

[Sean]

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


The underlined will need a TV in every home to accomplish this feat, if Jesus is not omnipresent.(a 6' Jesus directly over my home as I look up would be indistinguishable 2 blocks away...he would have to make countless millions of revolutions around the earth)


Will Jesus need TBN after all?

Do non-omnipresentists even realize the logistics of Jesus having to appear to every eye?

[TJJJ]

Sean, you lost the entire point of what the Brother was asking.

You are so phariseeical that you can only see one thing, physical.

Lets put this in basic english for you.

If the coming of the Lord in Acts 1 is physical, and it is in like manner as he went up, ie physical, then how can he also come back riding a horse, riding a cloud, or riding a throne?

Can you not answer that question beyond.... TBN?

[Sean]

Fact is, when Jesus does return in Rev 19, he will need to heal all the blind on earth so they CAN see him....



Isaiah 35
4 Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.

5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.

[Sean]

Sean, you lost the entire point of what the Brother was asking.

You are so phariseeical that you can only see one thing, physical.

Lets put this in basic english for you.

If the coming of the Lord in Acts 1 is physical, and it is in like manner as he went up, ie physical, then how can he also come back riding a horse, riding a cloud, or riding a throne?

Can you not answer that question beyond.... TBN?
We have been debating this a long time.

Jesus can appear in any form, any time, anywhere, and multiple places at once.

He is fully indwelled of every teency bit of God, bodily.

[TJJJ]

Fact is, when Jesus does return in Rev 19, he will need to heal all the blind on earth so they CAN see him....



Isaiah 35
4 Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you.

5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.

Isa 35 is a prophecy of the first coming of Jesus and the Gospel Message. Already fulfilled Sean. Sorry, go back to sleep.

[Sean]

He came in vengeance and recompence?

[Sean]

Read the verse.

[Sean]

Read the rest....



6 Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert.

7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.

8 And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

9 No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there:

10 And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.




Still unfulfilled.

[TJJJ]

We have been debating this a long time.

Jesus can appear in any form, any time, anywhere, and multiple places at once.

He is fully indwelled of every teency bit of God, bodily.

Then why are you posting on this thread?

Jesus as God can appear anywhere at once. But the physical body of the resurrected Lamb of God?

So the question that Bro Burke is asking is this.....

In the four instances of the coming of the Christ mentioned... How do you think he is going to come back?

Like in Acts 1 - Physical body goes up, physical body comes down?

Rev 19- on a horse?

Rev 14, on a white cloud?

Rev 20 on a throne?

Which of the four will it be Sean, c'mon, take a number between 1-4.

[Sean]

Isaiah 35 is none other than the 2nd coming of Christ.

[Sean]

Then why are you posting on this thread?

Jesus as God can appear anywhere at once. But the physical body of the resurrected Lamb of God?

So the question that Bro Burke is asking is this.....

In the four instances of the coming of the Christ mentioned... How do you think he is going to come back?

Like in Acts 1 - Physical body goes up, physical body comes down?

Rev 19- on a horse?

Rev 14, on a white cloud?

Rev 20 on a throne?

Which of the four will it be Sean, c'mon, take a number between 1-4.

All 3.

He can appear in your house and mine also.(simultaneously)

Do you believe that?

[TJJJ]

He came in vengeance and recompence?

What did John the Baptist say?

Mat 3:1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Mat 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leather girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan,
Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Mat 3:10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mat 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Fulfilled Sean, fulfilled.

[TJJJ]

Isaiah 35 is none other than the 1st coming of Christ.

Amen:happydance

[Sean]

1st coming....


For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.



2nd coming....



Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

[Sean]

Isaiah 35 is none other than the 2nd coming of Christ.

Fact

[TK Burk]

Excellent post. Jesus' physical body is not Omni-present. But you must understand, there is at least one on AFF who takes the imagery of Revelation so literally they think that they will see a Lamb with seven horns and eyes in Heaven "because the Bible says so".

Thanks for the kind words.

I think I know the one you speak of. I believe they are a troll. So, I’m tryng to ignore their posts.

[TK Burk]

Maybe Jesus sits on the throne that is on the horse that is on the cloud?

King of the Mountain, right?

[Sean]

Sacrilege.

[Pressing-On]

Preachers that teach the prophecy view of Dispensationalism believe there will be a future “coming of Jesus Christ.” These preachers describe this time to include protection for God’s people and judgment for those in rebellion against Him. For this event, these preachers say this “return” will literally occur three very different ways. Here are the verses they use for this:

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

So, Jesus is coming on a white horse. However, they also say this:

Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

So, it’s a white horse and a white cloud? But wait, they also use this verse:

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

These same Dispensational preachers say the above verses must be read as literal occurrences. So, they have a physical Jesus simultaneously sitting on an actual horse, cloud, and throne. But can a physical body of Jesus be on all three of those things at the same time? Simple answer—He can’t. But a person who understands how prophetic imagery is used in biblical prophecy, they can explain how these three things are not in conflict, but instead that they emphasize the meaning of each other. In an effort to prove this, look at the following example of how prophetic imagery is used in the Bible:

Acts 1:9-11
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received 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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

In this passage, Jesus is said to be coming again in “like manner” as the disciples saw Him go. Nowhere do we see a horse or throne here. This absence makes this passage problematic if a horse, a cloud, and a throne is to “literally” be found during a physical coming of Jesus. Since every verse in the Bible agrees together, we need to look deeper to see how these three items agree with each other within the passages where they are found. To do this we must first ask if the issue in Acts 1 is the “cloud” or the “manner” in which Jesus departed? If it is the cloud, then the missing horse and throne are a problem for the Dispensationalist. But if this cloud is a reference to “the manner” in which Jesus is to return, then we can find agreement. I say this because the Bible uses images like clouds, horses, and thrones as prophetic imagery. By using this hermeneutic, much of the meaning of the Bible’s prophetic language can be properly interpreted. Some examples of the Bible’s usage of imagery is Jesus being a lamb and a shepherd, a sacrifice and a priest, a servant and a master, an advocate and a judge, a son and a father. Each of these pairings of images conflict with one another. For instance, how can Jesus be both a lamb and a priest? No one I know teaches that Jesus was a literal wooly lamb or a literal Temple Priest. Instead, they see these as images of something deeper for which He is known. So, why shouldn’t that same hermeneutic be used to explain a horse, a cloud, and a throne being used in verses about His return? With that in mind, look at how these three images all harmonize in what was prophesied to occur during that time.

In prophetic imagery, clouds are associated with God’s power and His glory. See Isaiah 19:1; Jeremiah 4:13-14; Ezekiel 30:3, Ezekiel 30:18-19; Nahum 1:2-6; Joel 2:1-9; Nahum 1:2-6; Zephaniah 1:14-17; Joel 2:1-9

A horse in prophecy represents the unfaithfulness of man, as well as the swiftness and the power of God. See Deuteronomy 20:1-4; Psalms 20:7, Psalms 33:17-19, Psalms 147:10-11; Proverbs 21:31; Zechariah 1:8, Zechariah 6:3-8, Zechariah 9:10, Zechariah 12:3-5, Zechariah 14:20; Hosea 1:7; Revelation 6:2-8; Job 39:19

Verses referring to God’s throne uses that imagery to represent His authority. See Psalms 103:19; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34-35, Matthew 19:28; Luke 1:32;

To see if I am using these three images correctly, look up the abovementioned verses. Then read each of them using the included meanings within the context where the verses are found. Don’t take my word for it. Study it through. I’ve found the Bible is easily understood if you use the tools found within itself to interpret its meaning. That takes study and commitment, for you cannot know what the Bible says until you fully devour what is found on its pages. This explains why many of the Bible’s truths are called a “mystery.” It is also why Jesus spoke in parables. Neither a mystery or a parable is to remain hidden. Instead, they are purposed by God so that only the sincere will find their meanings. (See Matthew 13:10-13; Luke 8:10; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Ephesians 3:4-5)

So, what does it mean that Jesus will return on a white cloud, a white horse, and a white throne? It means He would come in God’s power and in His glory, to bring judgment against unfaithful men with the swiftness and the power of God, while acting in the authority of the Almighty. This interpretation does not involve literal clouds, horses or thrones, instead, it uses the prophetic imagery found in the Bible. Therefore, this interpretation does not conflict—but instead agrees—with the other verses that speak of what was to occur during this coming of the Lord.

This study is found online HERE (http://tkburk.com/how-do-you-ride-a-horse-a-cloud-and-a-throne/).

To see more on Jesus coming in a cloud, go to THIS STUDY (http://tkburk.com/jesus-christ-coming-in-the-clouds/).

Excellent post! :thumbsup:thumbsup

[Sean]

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showpost.php?p=1510990&postcount=12




It just baffles me that non-omnipresentists would oppose the actuality of Rev 1:7.

[Originalist]

Thanks for the kind words.

I think I know the one you speak of. I believe they are a troll. So, I’m tryng to ignore their posts.

The one in question believes he/she gets to define what one is saying instead of the one saying it. You may respectfully clarify your remarks, but he/she goes beyond disagreeing and says, "no, you are saying this". But if all cease acknowledging that he/she exists, the strife will vanish.

[TK Burk]

Excellent post! :thumbsup:thumbsup

Thank you!

[TK Burk]

The one in question believes he/she gets to define what one is saying instead of the one saying it. You may respectfully clarify your remarks, but he/she goes beyond disagreeing and says, "no, you are saying this". But if all cease acknowledging that he/she exists, the strife will vanish.

I cannot agree with you more!! :highfive:thumbsup

[houston]

Omnipresence. You got it.

That’s not omnipresence. Wow.

[Esaias]

Just a note: The description in Acts ch 1 is not a symbolic vision, but a description of an actual, historical and literal event, coupled with a declaration that the return would be in the "same manner" as the departure.

The two scenes in the Apocalypse are clearly symbolic visions using apocalyptic imagery.

[JamesGlen]

Preachers that teach the prophecy view of Dispensationalism believe there will be a future “coming of Jesus Christ.” These preachers describe this time to include protection for God’s people and judgment for those in rebellion against Him. For this event, these preachers say this “return” will literally occur three very different ways. Here are the verses they use for this:

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

So, Jesus is coming on a white horse. However, they also say this:

Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

So, it’s a white horse and a white cloud? But wait, they also use this verse:

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

These same Dispensational preachers say the above verses must be read as literal occurrences. So, they have a physical Jesus simultaneously sitting on an actual horse, cloud, and throne. But can a physical body of Jesus be on all three of those things at the same time? Simple answer—He can’t. But a person who understands how prophetic imagery is used in biblical prophecy, they can explain how these three things are not in conflict, but instead that they emphasize the meaning of each other. In an effort to prove this, look at the following example of how prophetic imagery is used in the Bible:

Acts 1:9-11
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received 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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

In this passage, Jesus is said to be coming again in “like manner” as the disciples saw Him go. Nowhere do we see a horse or throne here. This absence makes this passage problematic if a horse, a cloud, and a throne is to “literally” be found during a physical coming of Jesus. Since every verse in the Bible agrees together, we need to look deeper to see how these three items agree with each other within the passages where they are found. To do this we must first ask if the issue in Acts 1 is the “cloud” or the “manner” in which Jesus departed? If it is the cloud, then the missing horse and throne are a problem for the Dispensationalist. But if this cloud is a reference to “the manner” in which Jesus is to return, then we can find agreement. I say this because the Bible uses images like clouds, horses, and thrones as prophetic imagery. By using this hermeneutic, much of the meaning of the Bible’s prophetic language can be properly interpreted. Some examples of the Bible’s usage of imagery is Jesus being a lamb and a shepherd, a sacrifice and a priest, a servant and a master, an advocate and a judge, a son and a father. Each of these pairings of images conflict with one another. For instance, how can Jesus be both a lamb and a priest? No one I know teaches that Jesus was a literal wooly lamb or a literal Temple Priest. Instead, they see these as images of something deeper for which He is known. So, why shouldn’t that same hermeneutic be used to explain a horse, a cloud, and a throne being used in verses about His return? With that in mind, look at how these three images all harmonize in what was prophesied to occur during that time.

In prophetic imagery, clouds are associated with God’s power and His glory. See Isaiah 19:1; Jeremiah 4:13-14; Ezekiel 30:3, Ezekiel 30:18-19; Nahum 1:2-6; Joel 2:1-9; Nahum 1:2-6; Zephaniah 1:14-17; Joel 2:1-9

A horse in prophecy represents the unfaithfulness of man, as well as the swiftness and the power of God. See Deuteronomy 20:1-4; Psalms 20:7, Psalms 33:17-19, Psalms 147:10-11; Proverbs 21:31; Zechariah 1:8, Zechariah 6:3-8, Zechariah 9:10, Zechariah 12:3-5, Zechariah 14:20; Hosea 1:7; Revelation 6:2-8; Job 39:19

Verses referring to God’s throne uses that imagery to represent His authority. See Psalms 103:19; Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:34-35, Matthew 19:28; Luke 1:32;

To see if I am using these three images correctly, look up the abovementioned verses. Then read each of them using the included meanings within the context where the verses are found. Don’t take my word for it. Study it through. I’ve found the Bible is easily understood if you use the tools found within itself to interpret its meaning. That takes study and commitment, for you cannot know what the Bible says until you fully devour what is found on its pages. This explains why many of the Bible’s truths are called a “mystery.” It is also why Jesus spoke in parables. Neither a mystery or a parable is to remain hidden. Instead, they are purposed by God so that only the sincere will find their meanings. (See Matthew 13:10-13; Luke 8:10; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4; Ephesians 3:4-5)

So, what does it mean that Jesus will return on a white cloud, a white horse, and a white throne? It means He would come in God’s power and in His glory, to bring judgment against unfaithful men with the swiftness and the power of God, while acting in the authority of the Almighty. This interpretation does not involve literal clouds, horses or thrones, instead, it uses the prophetic imagery found in the Bible. Therefore, this interpretation does not conflict—but instead agrees—with the other verses that speak of what was to occur during this coming of the Lord.

This study is found online HERE (http://tkburk.com/how-do-you-ride-a-horse-a-cloud-and-a-throne/).

To see more on Jesus coming in a cloud, go to THIS STUDY (http://tkburk.com/jesus-christ-coming-in-the-clouds/).



IMO, Acts 1:9-11 is NOT prophetic imagery. The “clouds” mentioned in that verse in Acts 1 has zero to do with purposing enlightenment of a coming judgement, regarding the phrase “ in like manner”.

When the angel told them that he would come in like manner as he left, he did not wink at them and suddenly revelation came upon them of a “Old Testament clouds judgment”, neither would they have thought that at all, would they?

There is no way at all, IMO, that those seeing him ascend into heaven would’ve thought, oh he’s coming back in judgment because he went away ascending into the clouds... even if they knew the Old Testament passages regarding coming in clouds represented judgment, and they likely did.

Prophetic imagery in the book of Revelation is great, but I think it is error to pin it on Acts 1, Specifically as being understood as prophetic imagery by those who saw his ascension.

The q is: Who in those days would’ve understood and interpreted Jesus this ascension as a coming back in judgment, and why would they?

Or is this only a revelation to those that have read the book of Revelation, and look back at His ascension recording, and the lightbulb turned on that he meant judgment?


Does it matter at all what they would’ve thought when they seen him go in the clouds?


IMO, The burden of proof is upon someone to prove THOSE people to have interpreted his ascension MANNER as prophetic imagery, aka: a later return in JUDGEMENT. ( if that is not the burden of proof, then what is? )
(.... no matter what the interpretation is of those that have read the book of Revelation since then).


However, maybe in your mind you do not feel that those having seen the Ascension would’ve interpreted it as a coming back and judgment… ? Please explain your thoughts on that.

[Aquila]

Preachers that teach the prophecy view of Dispensationalism believe there will be a future “coming of Jesus Christ.” These preachers describe this time to include protection for God’s people and judgment for those in rebellion against Him. For this event, these preachers say this “return” will literally occur three very different ways. Here are the verses they use for this:

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

So, Jesus is coming on a white horse. However, they also say this:

Revelation 14:14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

So, it’s a white horse and a white cloud? But wait, they also use this verse:

Revelation 20:11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.


Intellectual honesty would define these things as the futurist sees them:

Christ comes on a white horse at the Second Coming and destroys the armies of the beast and the false prophet at the end of the Great Tribulation:

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.


The reference in Revelation 14 is a spiritual reference to the harvesting of souls during the Tribulation. In futurism, this is a spiritual reality, not a physical one:

Revelation 14:14-19
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

The final reference is a reference to an event that Futurists believe will transpire after the future Millennium, it takes place as part of the Great White Throne Judgment:

Revelation 20:11-13 King James Version (KJV)
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

So, in futurism, these are not all the same event.

Now...

Preterists typically interpret these events as all being the same event. So, it would be fair to ask a Preterist if Christ comes on a horse, on a cloud, or on a throne. However, Preterism is an interesting animal. Why? Because Preterism interprets the single coming that they see in these texts "spiritually" (much the same as Futurists interpret Revelation 14). So, technically Preterism doesn't see Christ literally coming on a horse, a cloud, or a throne. They see these as "symbols" depicting a specific spiritual reality related to whatever given perspective of this singular coming they believe is presented in the text itself. And the Partial Preterists have very limited texts that even they believe depict the actual physical second coming (Revelation 20:11 being one of them). So, not even Preterism can be called on this argument.

Dare I say, this is a red herring? lol

[Sean]

TK has a hit a white section of his jigsaw puzzle and is trying to force the pieces into place.

[TK Burk]

IMO, Acts 1:9-11 is NOT prophetic imagery. The “clouds” mentioned in that verse in Acts 1 has zero to do with purposing enlightenment of a coming judgement, regarding the phrase “ in like manner”.

When the angel told them that he would come in like manner as he left, he did not wink at them and suddenly revelation came upon them of a “Old Testament clouds judgment”, neither would they have thought that at all, would they?

There is no way at all, IMO, that those seeing him ascend into heaven would’ve thought, oh he’s coming back in judgment because he went away ascending into the clouds... even if they knew the Old Testament passages regarding coming in clouds represented judgment, and they likely did.

Prophetic imagery in the book of Revelation is great, but I think it is error to pin it on Acts 1, Specifically as being understood as prophetic imagery by those who saw his ascension.

The q is: Who in those days would’ve understood and interpreted Jesus this ascension as a coming back in judgment, and why would they?

Or is this only a revelation to those that have read the book of Revelation, and look back at His ascension recording, and the lightbulb turned on that he meant judgment?


Does it matter at all what they would’ve thought when they seen him go in the clouds?


IMO, The burden of proof is upon someone to prove THOSE people to have interpreted his ascension MANNER as prophetic imagery, aka: a later return in JUDGEMENT. ( if that is not the burden of proof, then what is? )
(.... no matter what the interpretation is of those that have read the book of Revelation since then).


However, maybe in your mind you do not feel that those having seen the Ascension would’ve interpreted it as a coming back and judgment… ? Please explain your thoughts on that.

So, what did the angels mean when they told the disciples they would see Jesus "come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven"?

[mfblume]

Isa 35 is a prophecy of the first coming of Jesus and the Gospel Message. Already fulfilled Sean. Sorry, go back to sleep.

Why do you engage this dude?

[mfblume]

Just a note: The description in Acts ch 1 is not a symbolic vision, but a description of an actual, historical and literal event, coupled with a declaration that the return would be in the "same manner" as the departure.

The two scenes in the Apocalypse are clearly symbolic visions using apocalyptic imagery.

I agree with this.

[TK Burk]

Intellectual honesty would define these things as the futurist sees them:

Christ comes on a white horse at the Second Coming and destroys the armies of the beast and the false prophet at the end of the Great Tribulation:

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.


The reference in Revelation 14 is a spiritual reference to the harvesting of souls during the Tribulation. In futurism, this is a spiritual reality, not a physical one:

Revelation 14:14-19
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

The final reference is a reference to an event that Futurists believe will transpire after the future Millennium, it takes place as part of the Great White Throne Judgment:

Revelation 20:11-13 King James Version (KJV)
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

So, in futurism, these are not all the same event.

Now...

Preterists typically interpret these events as all being the same event. So, it would be fair to ask a Preterist if Christ comes on a horse, on a cloud, or on a throne. However, Preterism is an interesting animal. Why? Because Preterism interprets the single coming that they see in these texts "spiritually" (much the same as Futurists interpret Revelation 14). So, technically Preterism doesn't see Christ literally coming on a horse, a cloud, or a throne. They see these as "symbols" depicting a specific spiritual reality related to whatever given perspective of this singular coming they believe is presented in the text itself. And the Partial Preterists have very limited texts that even they believe depict the actual physical second coming (Revelation 20:11 being one of them). So, not even Preterism can be called on this argument.

Dare I say, this is a red herring? lol

Preterists see these texts "spiritually," and you don't? Have you not read how much "spiritual" interpretation you use in your own explanations? Maybe you can explain why Jesus needs a physical sickle to harvest souls?

[Sean]

From 'brother" to "dude".

Dude Sean now?....LOL

[Sean]

So, what did the angels mean when they told the disciples they would see Jesus "come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven"?

Did it say that "they" would see him come?...





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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

[Aquila]

Preterists see these texts "spiritually," and you don't? Have you not read how much "spiritual" interpretation you use in your own explanations? Maybe you can explain why Jesus needs a physical sickle to harvest souls?

Apocalyptic imagery in apocalyptic Scripture is clearly flexible in how it can be interpreted, seeing that it is almost always symbolic.

Other portions of Scripture that are not apocalyptic should be read at face value unless the text itself illustrates that the statement is a euphemism or parable.

[TK Burk]

Just a note: The description in Acts ch 1 is not a symbolic vision, but a description of an actual, historical and literal event, coupled with a declaration that the return would be in the "same manner" as the departure.

The two scenes in the Apocalypse are clearly symbolic visions using apocalyptic imagery.

So, please explain the "manner" they would see.

[TK Burk]

Apocalyptic imagery in apocalyptic Scripture is clearly flexible in how it can be interpreted, seeing that it is almost always symbolic.

Other portions of Scripture that are not apocalyptic should be read at face value unless the text itself illustrates that the statement is a euphemism or parable.

Ahh, so you also use "spiritual" imagery. So why call foul when we do?

[Aquila]

Preterists see these texts "spiritually," and you don't? Have you not read how much "spiritual" interpretation you use in your own explanations? Maybe you can explain why Jesus needs a physical sickle to harvest souls?

Let me wax spiritual for a moment to illustrate a point. Let's look at the text:

Revelation 14:14-16 (KJV)
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

This text depicts what is believed by some to be the harvest of the first fruits, the first century Christians who were who obeyed the Gospel and fled Jerusalem before the Roman invasion. Historical theologians agree, first century Christians who heeded Christ's words escaped one of the single greatest atrocities to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people. This was more than an atrocity, however, it was...the wrath of God, a coming in judgment against an apostate and rebellious people. A desolation of the entire Old Covenant system that had been corrupted by Judah's spiritual arrogance and earthly greed.

Other theologians believe that this text depicts a future "harvest" of souls during a future Great Tribulation. This position is rather popular in modern Christianity. But perhaps there's more here than we realize.

What does that mean for us?

God never changes. God has reaped and He will reap. He continues to reap even today.

As we go about our day to day routines and duties there is a spiritual harvesting taking place. In the heavenlies the Son of Man, the King of Glory, has a sharp sickle in His hand and He is reaping. As every soul goes about their busy day there is a reaping. A separating. Christ is separating His wheat from the chaff. This happens daily, hourly, even minute by minute. Countless souls are experiencing their very own coming in judgment as you read this. Many others are experiencing an escape from the penalty of their sins through the blood of Christ.

But this also speaks to the future. We can't predict the events that will transpire in the future, but we can know one thing...Christ is coming. And it might be tonight or it might be 100 years from now. But as He tarries, there is a drawing of His people closer to Himself in preparation for that great and terrible day. When that day comes, He will appear and bring the consumation of all things. The harvest of the earth will have been reaped. The righteous will escape eternal judgment. The wicked will be judged and will suffer eternal desolation in Hell. Christ is reaping His harvest as I write this, even as you read this.

Are you unaware of this reaping? Are you caught up in the business of life and your day to day activities that you have forgotten that there is a harvesting of souls taking place around you in the spirit? Will you be caught unprepared and entangled in the activities, pride, and lust of this world when the Lord returns?

Obey the Gospel. Dedicate yourselves to prayer. Dedicate yourselves to meditating upon the Scriptures and contemplating their truth daily. Seek obedience. Bear spiritual fruit so that you will be ripe for the harvest of souls. And you will not be found unprepared. There will be no need to fear the reaper.

[Sean]

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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.


The disciples were NEVER told that they would see Jesus return here.

[JamesGlen]

So, what did the angels mean when they told the disciples they would see Jesus "come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven"?

I believe the question is better stated, “what did the angels mean to bring to the those disciples’ understanding, when they told the disciples they would see Him "come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven?”

What exactly were they to understand?

Option 1) He would futurely literally be seen appear out of the clouds, just as he ascended into them.

2) He would come in judgment just as he ascended in judgment (like manner).

Which of these options were reasonably purposed by the angels words to give them enlightenment/understanding...they who watched him ascend?


Option 2 is not a realistic option, IMO, he did not leave in judgement...nor would the angel have the intentions of giving them apocalyptic judgement enlightenment by saying “in like manner as you have seen him ascend into heaven”...

[Aquila]

Ahh, so you also use "spiritual" imagery. So why call foul when we do?

Ummm... where did I cry foul of anyone using spiritual imagery?

[Aquila]

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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.


The disciples were NEVER told that they would see Jesus return here.

This text is a good example of a text that is NOT apocalyptic imagery. The disciples actually beheld the risen Christ physically ascend into the Heavens. And the angel clearly told them that Christ would return in the same manner as he departed. Thus, Christ will one day physically descend from the Heavens to the earth.

There is no need to "spiritualize" this text. It is a conversation about a witnessed event.

Theologically speaking, this text single handedly refutes Full Preterism.

Now, for Futurism, one could ask, "Did Jesus ascend with a white horse?" Obviously he didn't. Therefore, even in Futurism, the reference to Christ returning on a "white horse" could be a part of spiritual imagery depicting the returning Christ being fully prepared to righteously wage war.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 King James Version (KJV)
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

[Sean]

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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.


Clearly the future 2nd coming of Christ.

[Aquila]

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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.


Clearly the future 2nd coming of Christ.

And all Futurists, Historicists, and Partial Preterists said, "Amen".

[Aquila]

Personally, I think if the Parousia took place today, some might be at work while others might be out in their yards or in parks when suddenly... a blinding brilliance will fill the sky... and the elect will instantly find themselves transformed (in the twinkling of an eye) and drawn into the light of His coming.

If the Partial Preterists are right, what will follow is a fire that will consume all creation... and the Great White Throne Judgment will begin.

Regardless of one's view of prophecy... for the elect... the question of a white horse vs. a cloud, or even a throne, on that day will be mute.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1566979598/image.jpg

[Sean]

It says "in like manner", not "exactly like".


If we take away the white horses of Rev 19, then we commit this...



19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



The description of the 2nd coming of Christ is the last thing we should be tinkering with.

[Aquila]

It says "in like manner", not "exactly like".


If we take away the white horses of Rev 19, then we commit this...



19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.



The description of the 2nd coming of Christ is the last thing we should be tinkering with.

I do see your concern. However, I would only ask that you try to realize that understanding what the white horse means spiritually isn't the same as taking it away.

After all, Christ came into my life, riding a white horse, just when I needed Him the most.

Can you dig it? :)

[Sean]

I believe the question is better stated, “what did the angels mean to bring to the those disciples’ understanding, when they told the disciples they would see Jesus "come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven?”

What exactly were they to understand?

Option 1) He would futurely literally be seen appear out of the clouds, just as he ascended into them.

2) He would come in judgment just as he ascended in judgment (like manner).

Which of these options were reasonably purposed by the angels words to give them enlightenment/understanding...they who watched him ascend?


Option 2 is not a realistic option, IMO, he did not leave in judgement...nor would the angel have the intentions of giving them apocalyptic judgement enlightenment by saying “in like manner as you have seen him ascend into heaven”...

They DID NOT tell the disciples that they would see Jesus return.:nod

[Sean]

I do see your concern. However, I would only ask that you try to realize that understanding what the white horse means spiritually isn't the same as taking it away.

After all, Christ came into my life, riding a white horse, just when I needed Him the most.

Can you dig it? :)

I totally dig it Bro., but my first introduction to Him was with a white light, not a white horse.

He is saving that introduction for all the world to SEE.

[Aquila]

I totally dig it Bro., but my first introduction to Him was with a white light, not a white horse.

He is saving that introduction for all the world to SEE.

What breed or variation of horse do you think he'll be riding?

[Aquila]

They DID NOT tell the disciples that they would see Jesus return.:nod

I have to play the devil's advocate here. Did the angels tell the disciples that they specifically wouldn't see Jesus return?

[TJJJ]

What breed or variation of horse do you think he'll be riding?

No kidding here,...

I know a preacher in Colorado that sang a song about his mule named "Whiskey", that had been shot in his hunting camp.

He sang that when Jesus came back on his white horse maybe this preacher would be able to ride his mule named "whiskey" in the triumphant entry into glory.

No kidding!

So not only will there be a physical resurrection of the man but also of the mule.

Aaaamaaaaaazing!

[jediwill83]

No kidding here,...

I know a preacher in Colorado that sang a song about his mule named "Whiskey", that had been shot in his hunting camp.

He sang that when Jesus came back on his white horse maybe this preacher would be able to ride his mule named "whiskey" in the triumphant entry into glory.

No kidding!

So not only will there be a physical resurrection of the man but also of the mule.

Aaaamaaaaaazing!

Ole whiskey sounds like quite the mule.

[TJJJ]

Ole whiskey sounds like quite the mule.

After I heard the song I made up a verse about my donkey named "Vodka".

[jediwill83]

After I heard the song I made up a verse about my donkey named "Vodka".

4 Mules of the Alcoholic Apocalypse

Rum
Vodka
Malt Liqour
Ole Whiskey

gonna smite the world with bad decisions and hangovers

[n david]

4 Mules of the Alcoholic Apocalypse

Rum
Vodka
Malt Liqour
Ole Whiskey

gonna smite the world with bad decisions and hangovers
:lol

[houston]

What breed or variation of horse do you think he'll be riding?


https://photos.smugmug.com/Events/Budweiser-Clydesdales-Horses/i-q3NmsnV/2/2762d36b/L/DSC_3365-L.jpg

[Aquila]

https://photos.smugmug.com/Events/Budweiser-Clydesdales-Horses/i-q3NmsnV/2/2762d36b/L/DSC_3365-L.jpg

:heeheehee

[Aquila]

No kidding here,...

I know a preacher in Colorado that sang a song about his mule named "Whiskey", that had been shot in his hunting camp.

He sang that when Jesus came back on his white horse maybe this preacher would be able to ride his mule named "whiskey" in the triumphant entry into glory.

No kidding!

So not only will there be a physical resurrection of the man but also of the mule.

Aaaamaaaaaazing!

:lol

That's awesome! LOL

[Sean]

I have to play the devil's advocate here. Did the angels tell the disciples that they specifically wouldn't see Jesus return?

No, but they only said Jesus would return in like manner.

These guys have blatantly said the angels told them THEY would see Jesus' return.

All these years they have been saying that, which is absolutely false.

[Esaias]

So, please explain the "manner" they would see.

"They would see" is not in the text. Jesus would return in the same manner they saw Him leave: He would descend from heaven. His ascension was personal, bodily, and occurred at a definite moment in time. His return then would be personal, bodily, and at a definite moment in time.

The angels' primary concern was to comfort the disciples that Jesus would, in fact, return. Not so much to give a detailed, play by play description of that return, but to affirm the certainty of His actual, personal return.

[Sean]

What breed or variation of horse do you think he'll be riding?

I saw the posts.

Dont mock the Bible.

Preterists live in the gutter of Bible mocking, and I expect much more dignity from you, Chris.

[mfblume]

Some people will never see the distinction between their interpretations of the bible and the bible. How arrogant can people get?

[Originalist]

Some people will never see the distinction between their interpretations of the bible and the bible. How arrogant can people get?



Why even engage the guy is what I want to know. You hit the nail on the head.

[Sean]

Some people will never see the distinction between their interpretations of the bible and the bible. How arrogant can people get?

Mike, just reverence the words of the Bible, and dont joke it into another meaning.

Everyone hates to be disciplined, but it pays dividends when one corrects the error of his ways.


Thanks.

[TK Burk]

"They would see" is not in the text. Jesus would return in the same manner they saw Him leave: He would descend from heaven. His ascension was personal, bodily, and occurred at a definite moment in time. His return then would be personal, bodily, and at a definite moment in time.

Actually, it is.

"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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." (Act 1:11)


So, the "manner" is just a physical body going up and a physical body coming down? And somehow this was to happen though they would not "see" it? Please explain.

[TK Burk]

Some people will never see the distinction between their interpretations of the bible and the bible. How arrogant can people get?

Why even engage the guy is what I want to know. You hit the nail on the head.

:highfive

[houston]

I saw the posts.

Dont mock the Bible.

Preterists live in the gutter of Bible mocking, and I expect much more dignity from you, Chris.

Aquila, your pimp daddy is here to put you in your place.

[houston]

Actually, it is.

"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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." (Act 1:11)


So, the "manner" is just a physical body going up and a physical body coming down? And somehow this was to happen though they would not "see" it? Please explain.

But that still does not say that THEY will see him

[TK Burk]

But that still does not say that THEY will see him

I was pushing the point to see what would be said about the "manner" of this return. I believe those who would see this refers to those of that generation, of which John would have been to only surviving apostle. There are many verses that confirm this generation timeframe. I also believe the "manner" of this coming is more than just an up and down physical journey. I believe the clouds refer to something more since they are used many times in the Bible to speak of God's power and His glory. The apostles would know this. This type return is also confirmed in Scripture. Thus, I see this "manner" and "clouds" agreeing together to form a prophetic message as to what will occur during that return of Christ.

[Esaias]

Actually, it is.

"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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." (Act 1:11)


So, the "manner" is just a physical body going up and a physical body coming down? And somehow this was to happen though they would not "see" it? Please explain.

The text doesn't say they would see His return. Whether they would or not is simply not addressed. They saw Him ascend, and it was said He would return in the same manner they saw Him leave, not that they would see Him return.

He bodily ascended to heaven, and He will return in the same manner, that is, bodily.

What are the characteristics or "manner" of His ascension?

1. Personal. He Himself ascended.
2. Bodily. He Himself ascended with or "in" His own actual glorified human body.
3. Visible. He was seen, actually seen, by His disciples, with their actual eyes. He did not ascend invisibly or allegorically.
4. Local. He ascended from an actual physical location in Judea.
5. Temporal. He ascended at a specific point in time. Also, His ascension was not instantaneous or a mere moment, but obviously took some amount of time, however small.
6. Limited. His ascension was not witnessed by everyone but only by a select group of disciples.
7. In the daytime. It seems His ascension occurred during the daylight hours? Although that may be debatable.

When we look at other scriptures pertaining to His return, we can rule out no. 7 as being irrelevant. Nothing to my knowledge states He would return during either the am or pm. Thus, that is not subject to knowing.

We can expand on no. 6, since we elsewhere read "every eye shall see Him" and other scriptures which indicate that at least the whole body of saints will see Him. So His appearing to everyone may not be the exact moment of His initial return when the saints rise to meet Him. It is likely that He will return, gather the resurrected saints together unto Him, then proceed with the remainder of His coming. If He is returning bodily it stands to reason He will return to a particular location, most likely Mt Zion (since God has repeatedly stated that location holds significance to Him). If He is returning at a definite time in which the saints are resurrected and also to execute judgment against His enemies it follows that His return will traverse a period of time (however small) and not be wholly completed in a mere instant. And if "this same Jesus" is to return, then it will be the return of a glorified, resurrected descendant of David who was crucified in the first century and in Whom all the fullness of deity dwells bodily. In other words, that SAME Jesus who ascended will be the same One Who returns.

[Sean]

But that still does not say that THEY will see him

Right, now TK needs to go explain that to the church he pastors.

[Esaias]

I was pushing the point to see what would be said about the "manner" of this return. I believe those who would see this refers to those of that generation, of which John would have been to only surviving apostle. There are many verses that confirm this generation timeframe. I also believe the "manner" of this coming is more than just an up and down physical journey. I believe the clouds refer to something more since they are used many times in the Bible to speak of God's power and His glory. The apostles would know this. This type return is also confirmed in Scripture. Thus, I see this "manner" and "clouds" agreeing together to form a prophetic message as to what will occur during that return of Christ.

The problem is the passage in Acts 1 is an eyewitness account of an historical happening, and not an apocalyptic vision nor a prophetic monologue using OT imagery. It would be different if Jesus simply disappeared, and angels said "Ye men of Galilee, Jesus shall return in the clouds of judgment flying on the pinions of the Almighty, with the seraphic chariot of Jehovah and the arrows of Divine Justice..."

Rather, they saw Him ascend up into the sky, into a cloud whereupon they lost sight of Him. And angels said "He's coming back in the same manner that He left." He literally did that, they literally saw it, and according to the holy angels He would come back the same way.

[TK Burk]

The problem is the passage in Acts 1 is an eyewitness account of an historical happening, and not an apocalyptic vision nor a prophetic monologue using OT imagery. It would be different if Jesus simply disappeared, and angels said "Ye men of Galilee, Jesus shall return in the clouds of judgment flying on the pinions of the Almighty, with the seraphic chariot of Jehovah and the arrows of Divine Justice..."

Rather, they saw Him ascend up into the sky, into a cloud whereupon they lost sight of Him. And angels said "He's coming back in the same manner that He left." He literally did that, they literally saw it, and according to the holy angels He would come back the same way.

So, Jesus' return is not about an apocalyptic event? And the OT does not prophesy of a time when the Lord would bring forth an apocalyptic event? Are you sure about that? Please explain.

[Esaias]

So, Jesus' return is not about an apocalyptic event?

I never said that. I said the text in Acts 1 is not apocalyptic imagery but descriptive narrative.

And the OT does not prophesy of a time when the Lord would bring forth an apocalyptic event? Are you sure about that? Please explain.

I never said the OT does not prophesy of a time when the Lord would bring forth an apocalyptic event. And yes, I am sure that I never said such a thing. So (one) explanation is that you have completely misunderstood my words.

:heeheehee

The problem is the passage in Acts 1 is an eyewitness account of an historical happening, and not an apocalyptic vision nor a prophetic monologue using OT imagery.

I spoke about the passage, ie the "text" in Acts 1. I said of that passage, that is to say, concerning that text, that it is an eyewitness account of an historical happening, ie a descriptive narrative. I said concerning that text that the text is not an apocalyptic vision - nobody was in a trance or seeing symbolic visions, there is nothing in the text to suggest any such thing. I said the particular text under consideration is not a prophetic monologue using OT imagery, which is obvious as it is simply Luke recording what the disciples experienced.

I never said the return of Jesus would not be an apocalyptic event, I did not say the OT does not describe apocalyptic events. I said the text in Acts 1 is not apocalyptic imagery, symbolic visions, or prophetic monologue using OT symbolism, but instead is simple descriptive narrative.

[Esaias]

I was pushing the point to see what would be said about the "manner" of this return. I believe those who would see this refers to those of that generation, of which John would have been to only surviving apostle.

Can you explain where in Acts ch. 1 you see evidence that only "those of that generation" would see Jesus return in the same manner in which he left?

[houston]

You all are ruining Christmas for me

[Esaias]

You all are ruining Christmas for me

Good, you don't need that Baal sun worship junk anyway.

:happydance

[TK Burk]

Can you explain where in Acts ch. 1 you see evidence that only "those of that generation" would see Jesus return in the same manner in which he left?

The Bible does not compartmentalize its message in neat chapters and verses. Man did that, not God. So, my answer to you would be by verses such as what's found in Acts 2. Here's what Peter said there:

"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Act 2:40)

This message to save yourself from "THIS rebellious generation" is no different a message than the disciples in Acts 1 had already heard in verses such as these: Matthew 11:16, Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42, Matthew 23:36, Matthew 24:34; Mark 8:12, Mark 13:30, Luke 11:30, Luke 11:31, Luke 11:32, Luke 11:50, Luke 11:51, Luke 17:25, Luke 21:32.

The disciples knew Jesus prophesied judgment was to come to their generation. So, when they heard the Heavenly message about the "manner" in which He would return in Acts 1, they applied that to what they had been taught. To imagine their memory of what was foretold about that generation somehow failed them in Acts 1 is pretty hard to imagine.

[TK Burk]

I never said that. I said the text in Acts 1 is not apocalyptic imagery but descriptive narrative.



I never said the OT does not prophesy of a time when the Lord would bring forth an apocalyptic event. And yes, I am sure that I never said such a thing. So (one) explanation is that you have completely misunderstood my words.

:heeheehee

The problem is the passage in Acts 1 is an eyewitness account of an historical happening, and not an apocalyptic vision nor a prophetic monologue using OT imagery.

I spoke about the passage, ie the "text" in Acts 1. I said of that passage, that is to say, concerning that text, that it is an eyewitness account of an historical happening, ie a descriptive narrative. I said concerning that text that the text is not an apocalyptic vision - nobody was in a trance or seeing symbolic visions, there is nothing in the text to suggest any such thing. I said the particular text under consideration is not a prophetic monologue using OT imagery, which is obvious as it is simply Luke recording what the disciples experienced.

I never said the return of Jesus would not be an apocalyptic event, I did not say the OT does not describe apocalyptic events. I said the text in Acts 1 is not apocalyptic imagery, symbolic visions, or prophetic monologue using OT symbolism, but instead is simple descriptive narrative.

But you cannot separate the "coming" from what is to happen during that coming. Thus, the "manner" applies to what would happen during that time.

[JamesGlen]

The Bible does not compartmentalize its message in neat chapters and verses. Man did that, not God. So, my answer to you would be by verses such as what's found in Acts 2. Here's what Peter said there:

"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Act 2:40)

This message to save yourself from "THIS rebellious generation" is no different a message than the disciples in Acts 1 had already heard in verses such as these: Matthew 11:16, Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42, Matthew 23:36, Matthew 24:34; Mark 8:12, Mark 13:30, Luke 11:30, Luke 11:31, Luke 11:32, Luke 11:50, Luke 11:51, Luke 17:25, Luke 21:32.

The disciples knew Jesus prophesied judgment was to come to their generation. So, when they heard the Heavenly message about the "manner" in which He would return in Acts 1, they applied that to what they had been taught. To imagine their memory of what was foretold about that generation somehow failed them in Acts 1 is pretty hard to imagine.

Therein is the cruxt of this issue....basically, you believe that based on the disciples understanding of old covenant imagery, and what Jesus talk to him during his 3 1/2 years regarding the coming judgment on that generation, that they would interpret the angels words in like manner as judgment, because since Jesus ascended up and disappeared into the clouds, and knowing that the disciples would have interpreted old covenant lingo of God coming in the clouds as judgment, then they would have interpreted the angels “in like manner as you have seen him ascend”, as the AD 70 judgment siege.

I assume you believe they understood the angel’s words as the coming judgement, right then and there when they heard the angel say, “in like manner as you saw Him leave, correct? And do you also believe they would have interpreted the angel’s words as Jesus returning, without having a physical body?

[Aquila]

No, but they only said Jesus would return in like manner.

These guys have blatantly said the angels told them THEY would see Jesus' return.

All these years they have been saying that, which is absolutely false.

I've never heard a Preterist say that. However, I have heard them point out Christ's rather direct statement to the disciples in Matthew,

Matthew 24:15
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:

The language would indicate that Jesus at the very least implies that this would take place at some point within their generation. Hence:

Matthew 24:33-34
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

This would all point to a first century fulfillment. I'm not trying to argue for Preterism, I'm just wanting to be intellectually honest with the text.

[Sean]

I've never heard a Preterist say that. However, I have heard them point out Christ's rather direct statement to the disciples in Matthew,

Matthew 24:15
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:

The language would indicate that Jesus at the very least implies that this would take place at some point within their generation. Hence:

Matthew 24:33-34
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

This would all point to a first century fulfillment. I'm not trying to argue for Preterism, I'm just wanting to be intellectually honest with the text.

What do you mean you never heard them say that?

TK just said it a couple days ago and we have been quoting him.

He did not deny he said it also.

[Sean]

But you cannot separate the "coming" from what is to happen during that coming. Thus, the "manner" applies to what would happen during that time.

Chris, this is TK trying to MAKE it say that.:nod

[Sean]

And he represents ALL preterists!

[Aquila]

What do you mean you never heard them say that?

TK just said it a couple days ago and we have been quoting him.

He did not deny he said it also.

I'm talking about Preterists outside of this discussion.

[Sean]

Esaias just spanked TK for his presupposition of Acts 1.

Go back and read the last page and you will see.

[Sean]

I'm talking about Preterists outside of this discussion.

I have heard them do the TK shuffle of Acts 1, but cannot retrieve the quotes.

I really don't know how to find that stuff from back in the day.

Maybe its in Mikes book?

[Aquila]

What we do know is that it is a historical fact that as the Roman legions began entering Judaea, and began surrounding Jerusalem, the Christian communities of Judea saw these events as being the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy against Jerusalem. Upon seeing these things, multiplied thousands of Christians began to pack up and flee Judea, as Christ had admonished believers to do upon seeing Jerusalem surrounded by armies. A significant number of these Christians fled to Pella and sought refuge there. Soon after, the Romans began their siege of Jerusalem. Historians note that the historical accounts of the Roman invasion appear to indicate that not a single Christian was killed in the siege.

It's clear that by obeying the literal understanding of Christ's words, as recorded in the Olivet Discourse, the first century church in Judea was spared total annihilation. Not only that, but the literal understanding of Christ's words that speak to a first century fulfillment indicates that the siege of 70 AD, and the destruction of the temple, was a final judgment upon unbelieving Israel, and the end of the entire Mosaic system. During this time the entire region was afire with apocalyptic expectation. However, as the events unfolded and Jerusalem fell, it is as though an orchestra had reached a crescendo... leaving a single note hanging in the air. Why? Although everything that Christ warned of appeared to manifest in vivid fulfillment... Christ had not returned. This has led to many skeptics claiming that Christ's prophecies failed.

Or... was this prophecy by Christ symbolic? Was his "return" in "the clouds" a return of Him in spirit to execute judgment on Judea? Preterism embraces this understanding.

This prophecy is a living prophecy. The destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of the Jews is something that has had a very real affect on the world even unto this day. Why do Jews weep and pray at the wailing wall? Why do they pray for the rebuilding of the temple? Because it was destroyed, just as Jesus said it would be. The very day to day reality lived by every Jew on the planet testifies to Christ's supremacy over their apostate religious system and legalism. The modern Jew is in the predicament they are in because... they rejected Christ and crucified Him... and as a result, He brought judgment upon them. Preterist or not... only the spiritually blind would deny that Christ came in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70.

One thing that Preterism does is that it provides peace. If one accepts that Christ's prophecies were fulfilled in that generation, just as He said they would be, then we can gaze into history and see Christ's rule and providence from Heaven as God, it is Jesus who truly rules the nations. It is Christ who allows kingdoms to rise and brings them to their knees. It is Christ who brought the fall of Jerusalem, Christ who brought the fall of Rome, Christ who brought the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, Christ who brought the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Christ who brought the fall of the British Empire, Christ who brought the fall of the Axis Powers, Christ who brought the fall of the USSR, and as we see the circumstances unfolding in our day... it is Christ who is perhaps even preparing to come in judgment against... America.

Why does this bring peace? Because it solidly affirms Christ as the ruler of all nations, it affirms Christ as the very author of history.

What are other ways Preterism brings peace? It ends the endless "speculation" of cooks and quacks who keep writing books like, 88 Reasons Why the World Will End In 1988. It ends the constant and feverish quest to pin the tail on the Antichrist, or the ten nations that comprise the end time "Beast". To serious theologians who truly consider the very real implications of these attempts to interpret prophecy from the newspaper, this can cause enough stress to cause ulcers. For the Preterist believer, one lives one day at a time, advancing the Gospel. And the believer is simply waiting for that day when Christ will truly suddenly appear in the fullness of His glory and bring an end to all the suffering in our world... forever. There isn't a need to discover who the Beast is or contemplate how one will survive the 7 trumpets. It is understood that the spirit of antichrist is present throughout the world, and has been for thousands of years, and will be until Christ returns. It is also understood that Christ currently rules from Heaven and can bring judgment upon nations that oppose the advancement of the Gospel. And perhaps that's what we're seeing in the Middle East today as the entire region becomes more and more unstable with regimes who have opposed the Gospel weakening.

Since AD 70... a single note has hung in the air. The end will come when Christ appears. And it will ALL be over.

[Sean]

What are other ways Preterism brings peace? It ends the endless "speculation" of cooks and quacks who keep writing books like, 88 Reasons Why the World Will End In 1988.

Pretrerists are not sensationalists also?

Check out planet preterist and preterist archives for backward sensationalism.

Preterists bring peace?.....LOL(DB)

[Esaias]

The Bible does not compartmentalize its message in neat chapters and verses. Man did that, not God.

I am a firm believer in the idea that context matters. Your mileage may vary.

So, my answer to you would be by verses such as what's found in Acts 2. Here's what Peter said there:

"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Act 2:40)

This message to save yourself from "THIS rebellious generation" is no different a message than the disciples in Acts 1 had already heard in verses such as these: Matthew 11:16, Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42, Matthew 23:36, Matthew 24:34; Mark 8:12, Mark 13:30, Luke 11:30, Luke 11:31, Luke 11:32, Luke 11:50, Luke 11:51, Luke 17:25, Luke 21:32.

The disciples knew Jesus prophesied judgment was to come to their generation. So, when they heard the Heavenly message about the "manner" in which He would return in Acts 1, they applied that to what they had been taught. To imagine their memory of what was foretold about that generation somehow failed them in Acts 1 is pretty hard to imagine.

Acts 1 says nothing about what the disciples "applied" to the angels' words. It says this:


Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received 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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

He was there, conversing with them. He ascended up into the sky, and disappeared into a cloud. The angels told them He would come from heaven in the same manner that they saw Him depart into heaven.

Does the Bible describe additional details about additional events surrounding His return? Sure. But those additional details cannot be used to claim that He will not descend from heaven in the same manner that He ascended to heaven.

Other translations say it thusly:

Acts 1:9-11 ABP And [these things having said], of their looking, he was lifted up, and a cloud undertook him from their eyes. (10) And as they were gazing into the heaven at his going, and behold, [men two] stood by them in [attire white], (11) ones who also said, Men, Galileans, why do you stand looking into the heaven? This Jesus, the one being taken up from you into the heaven, so shall come in which manner you saw him going into the heaven.

Acts 1:9-11 Bishops And when he had spoken these thynges, whyle they behelde, he was taken vp an hye, and a cloude receaued hym vp out of their syght. (10) And while they loked stedfastly vp towarde heaue, as he went, beholde, two men stoode by them in whyte apparell, (11) Which also sayde: Ye men of Galilee, why stande ye gasyng vp into heauen? This same Iesus, which is taken vp from you into heauen, shall so come, euen as ye haue seene hym go into heauen.

Acts 1:9-11 LITV And saying these things, as they looked on, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him from their sight. (10) And as they were intently looking into the heaven, He having gone, even behold, two men in white clothing stood by them, (11) who also said, Men, Galileans, why do you stand looking up to the heaven? This Jesus, the One being taken from you into the heaven, will come in the way you saw Him going into the heaven.

Acts 1:9-11 ESV 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 were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, (11) and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

But you cannot separate the "coming" from what is to happen during that coming. Thus, the "manner" applies to what would happen during that time.

The issue is not "what is to happen during that coming" so much as it is the "manner in which" He ascended, which will be the same "manner" in which He will descend. The "manner" applies to what it actually applies to in the text, which is the actual ascension of Jesus. The angels said He would come in the same way He left. How did He leave? On the dust clouds of the Roman armies? No, He literally floated up into the sky into a cloud out of their sight. And He will return the same way.

It might offend our sensibilities, but that's what the good Book plainly says. "Never trade what the Bible clearly says for something you wish it to say. - TK Burk.

:highfive

[Esaias]

What we do know is that it is a historical fact that as the Roman legions began entering Judaea, and began surrounding Jerusalem, the Christian communities of Judea saw these events as being the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy against Jerusalem. Upon seeing these things, multiplied thousands of Christians began to pack up and flee Judea, as Christ had admonished believers to do upon seeing Jerusalem surrounded by armies. A significant number of these Christians fled to Pella and sought refuge there. Soon after, the Romans began their siege of Jerusalem. Historians note that the historical accounts of the Roman invasion appear to indicate that not a single Christian was killed in the siege.

It's clear that by obeying the literal understanding of Christ's words, as recorded in the Olivet Discourse, the first century church in Judea was spared total annihilation. Not only that, but the literal understanding of Christ's words that speak to a first century fulfillment indicates that the siege of 70 AD, and the destruction of the temple, was a final judgment upon unbelieving Israel, and the end of the entire Mosaic system. During this time the entire region was afire with apocalyptic expectation. However, as the events unfolded and Jerusalem fell, it is as though an orchestra had reached a crescendo... leaving a single note hanging in the air. Why? Although everything that Christ warned of appeared to manifest in vivid fulfillment... Christ had not returned. This has led to many skeptics claiming that Christ's prophecies failed.

Or... was this prophecy by Christ symbolic? Was his "return" in "the clouds" a return of Him in spirit to execute judgment on Judea? Preterism embraces this understanding.

This prophecy is a living prophecy. The destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of the Jews is something that has had a very real affect on the world even unto this day. Why do Jews weep and pray at the wailing wall? Why do they pray for the rebuilding of the temple? Because it was destroyed, just as Jesus said it would be. The very day to day reality lived by every Jew on the planet testifies to Christ's supremacy over their apostate religious system and legalism. The modern Jew is in the predicament they are in because... they rejected Christ and crucified Him... and as a result, He brought judgment upon them. Preterist or not... only the spiritually blind would deny that Christ came in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70.

One thing that Preterism does is that it provides peace. If one accepts that Christ's prophecies were fulfilled in that generation, just as He said they would be, then we can gaze into history and see Christ's rule and providence from Heaven as God, it is Jesus who truly rules the nations. It is Christ who allows kingdoms to rise and brings them to their knees. It is Christ who brought the fall of Jerusalem, Christ who brought the fall of Rome, Christ who brought the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, Christ who brought the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Christ who brought the fall of the British Empire, Christ who brought the fall of the Axis Powers, Christ who brought the fall of the USSR, and as we see the circumstances unfolding in our day... it is Christ who is perhaps even preparing to come in judgment against... America.

Why does this bring peace? Because it solidly affirms Christ as the ruler of all nations, it affirms Christ as the very author of history.

What are other ways Preterism brings peace? It ends the endless "speculation" of cooks and quacks who keep writing books like, 88 Reasons Why the World Will End In 1988. It ends the constant and feverish quest to pin the tail on the Antichrist, or the ten nations that comprise the end time "Beast". To serious theologians who truly consider the very real implications of these attempts to interpret prophecy from the newspaper, this can cause enough stress to cause ulcers. For the Preterist believer, one lives one day at a time, advancing the Gospel. And the believer is simply waiting for that day when Christ will truly suddenly appear in the fullness of His glory and bring an end to all the suffering in our world... forever. There isn't a need to discover who the Beast is or contemplate how one will survive the 7 trumpets. It is understood that the spirit of antichrist is present throughout the world, and has been for thousands of years, and will be until Christ returns. It is also understood that Christ currently rules from Heaven and can bring judgment upon nations that oppose the advancement of the Gospel. And perhaps that's what we're seeing in the Middle East today as the entire region becomes more and more unstable with regimes who have opposed the Gospel weakening.

Since AD 70... a single note has hung in the air. The end will come when Christ appears. And it will ALL be over.

I don't think you understand preterism.

[Esaias]

"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Act 2:40)

This message to save yourself from "THIS rebellious generation" is no different a message than the disciples in Acts 1 had already heard in verses such as these: Matthew 11:16, Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42, Matthew 23:36, Matthew 24:34; Mark 8:12, Mark 13:30, Luke 11:30, Luke 11:31, Luke 11:32, Luke 11:50, Luke 11:51, Luke 17:25, Luke 21:32.

The disciples knew Jesus prophesied judgment was to come to their generation. So, when they heard the Heavenly message about the "manner" in which He would return in Acts 1, they applied that to what they had been taught. To imagine their memory of what was foretold about that generation somehow failed them in Acts 1 is pretty hard to imagine.

If we follow this logic to its rational conclusion, it would mean tht Acts 2:38 is for that generation, not ours. The people were to be saved from THAT wicked and perverse generation, which you seem to interpret as meaning they were to save themselves from the divine judgment coming on that generation in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem. Which seems strange to me, couldn't Peter have simply said "get out of Jerusalem until the Romans destroy it"?

Perhaps you could show how Peter's words to THAT generation have any relevance to us now, almost 2,000 years later?

[Esaias]

If we follow this logic to its rational conclusion, it would mean tht Acts 2:38 is for that generation, not ours. The people were to be saved from THAT wicked and perverse generation, which you seem to interpret as meaning they were to save themselves from the divine judgment coming on that generation in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem. Which seems strange to me, couldn't Peter have simply said "get out of Jerusalem until the Romans destroy it"?

Perhaps you could show how Peter's words to THAT generation have any relevance to us now, almost 2,000 years later?

A follow up question seeking more clarification:

How would being baptised in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Ghost save someone from a Roman invasion of Judea and siege of Jerusalem some 40 years later?

[JamesGlen]

I was pushing the point to see what would be said about the "manner" of this return. I believe those who would see this refers to those of that generation, of which John would have been to only surviving apostle. There are many verses that confirm this generation timeframe. I also believe the "manner" of this coming is more than just an up and down physical journey. I believe the clouds refer to something more since they are used many times in the Bible to speak of God's power and His glory. The apostles would know this. This type return is also confirmed in Scripture. Thus, I see this "manner" and "clouds" agreeing together to form a prophetic message as to what will occur during that return of Christ.


The bolded is interesting, in light of John 21:22

[mfblume]

If we follow this logic to its rational conclusion, it would mean tht Acts 2:38 is for that generation, not ours. The people were to be saved from THAT wicked and perverse generation, which you seem to interpret as meaning they were to save themselves from the divine judgment coming on that generation in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem. Which seems strange to me, couldn't Peter have simply said "get out of Jerusalem until the Romans destroy it"?

Perhaps you could show how Peter's words to THAT generation have any relevance to us now, almost 2,000 years later?

Why would Acts 2:38 be applicable only to the first century believer, simply because Peter referred to a benefit they would experience in being saved from their wicked generation applicable to their time alone, while mentioning a universal plan of salvation for everyone? Peter mentioned the sun turning black and moon to blood to those people, and that's not saying Acts 2:38 is only for the people who see the sun turn black and moon to blood. Why should the other?

[Esaias]

Why would Acts 2:38 be applicable only to the first century believer, simply because Peter referred to a benefit they would experience in being saved from their wicked generation applicable to their time alone, while mentioning a universal plan of salvation for everyone? Peter mentioned the sun turning black and moon to blood to those people, and that's not saying Acts 2:38 is only for the people who see the sun turn black and moon to blood. Why should the other?


Originally Posted by TK Burk View Post
"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Act 2:40)
This message to save yourself from "THIS rebellious generation" is no different a message than the disciples in Acts 1 had already heard in verses such as these: Matthew 11:16, Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42, Matthew 23:36, Matthew 24:34; Mark 8:12, Mark 13:30, Luke 11:30, Luke 11:31, Luke 11:32, Luke 11:50, Luke 11:51, Luke 17:25, Luke 21:32.

The disciples knew Jesus prophesied judgment was to come to their generation.

I'm not sure how else to take brother Burk's words here, hence my statement and my question. But I'll wait for him to respond.

[Sean]

Why would Acts 2:38 be applicable only to the first century believer, simply because Peter referred to a benefit they would experience in being saved from their wicked generation applicable to their time alone, while mentioning a universal plan of salvation for everyone? Peter mentioned the sun turning black and moon to blood to those people, and that's not saying Acts 2:38 is only for the people who see the sun turn black and moon to blood. Why should the other?

Mike, do you, like TK, think this verse is saying that those disciples were told by the angels that they would see Jesus' return?....




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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

[Aquila]

Pretrerists are not sensationalists also?

Check out planet preterist and preterist archives for backward sensationalism.

Preterists bring peace?.....LOL(DB)

For those who have grown weary of always being afraid and always hearing the next great theory of who the Beast is, it brings considerable peace.

[Aquila]

I don't think you understand preterism.

I believe that most Preterists don't understand Preterism. Oh, they understand the "interpretation" and can debate the principles of interpretation. But rarely have I heard a Preterist wax spiritual and expound upon the implications of Preterism, especially as it might relate Christian history and to living prophecy today.

If Preterism is true... then Christ is the Lord of History, much like what one finds in Historicism. Christ rules from the Heaven above and permits nations to rise, and puts them down, all according to His own will and timing. Also, nations that reject Him and refuse the new covenant are not much unlike ancient Israel. And so, we can expect Him to come in judgment against them too. Partial Preterism also maintains a degree of eminency. Since 99% of prophecy is fulfilled, all we await is the bright and fiery coming of Christ to establish the eternal state. And this final coming may be in five minutes, later tonight, tomorrow, next week, a month from now, or even a year to ten years, or more.

The implications of Preterism fascinate me quite a bit. But interestingly, as I discuss them with established "Preterists", I discover that they're so caught up in historical categorization of AD 70, that they can't see what it would all mean for us today in an applied theological framework. At least, that's been my experience.

[Aquila]

If we follow this logic to its rational conclusion, it would mean tht Acts 2:38 is for that generation, not ours. The people were to be saved from THAT wicked and perverse generation, which you seem to interpret as meaning they were to save themselves from the divine judgment coming on that generation in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem. Which seems strange to me, couldn't Peter have simply said "get out of Jerusalem until the Romans destroy it"?

Perhaps you could show how Peter's words to THAT generation have any relevance to us now, almost 2,000 years later?

I see where you're going, but I think you're overlooking one thing about Acts 2:38. In context, it reads...

Acts 2:37-39 King James Version (KJV)
37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

If the Lord our God is still calling souls to Himself, then they too are expected to obey Acts 2:38, even today.

[Aquila]

A follow up question seeking more clarification:

How would being baptised in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Ghost save someone from a Roman invasion of Judea and siege of Jerusalem some 40 years later?

Again, I see your logic and where you're going with it. However, I'd say that your question is a bit too narrow, or specific. It isn't that Acts 2:38 was to save someone from the Roman invasion of Judea and their subsequent siege of Jerusalem. It was to save them from the King of Kings, who comes in judgment against the wicked, beginning with the prophetic doom He pronounced on Jerusalem. And while most Preterists might not elaborate on it, Christ still reigns from Heaven and comes in judgment against the wicked today. And in the end, when the Gospel has accomplished all that Christ desires it to accomplish, Christ will come in flaming fire, with the holy angels, and shall gather before Him every soul that has ever lived. The books will be opened, and mankind will be judged.

Acts 2:38 is the soul's only escape from Christ's judgment.

[Aquila]

My biggest issue with Preterism is the Amillennialism that appears to be the default position on the Millennium. Try as I might, I can't quite fit what Scripture appears to state about the Millennium, and it's implications, into the church age. It's easier for me to see how the events of AD 70 fulfilled the majority of the prophecies contained in the Olivet Discourse and the Revelation, yet we still be waiting for the return of Christ and the beginning of the Millennium, much like how many Historicists see it.

[TK Burk]

Therein is the cruxt of this issue....basically, you believe that based on the disciples understanding of old covenant imagery, and what Jesus talk to him during his 3 1/2 years regarding the coming judgment on that generation, that they would interpret the angels words in like manner as judgment, because since Jesus ascended up and disappeared into the clouds, and knowing that the disciples would have interpreted old covenant lingo of God coming in the clouds as judgment, then they would have interpreted the angels “in like manner as you have seen him ascend”, as the AD 70 judgment siege.

I assume you believe they understood the angel’s words as the coming judgement, right then and there when they heard the angel say, “in like manner as you saw Him leave, correct? And do you also believe they would have interpreted the angel’s words as Jesus returning, without having a physical body?

Clouds used in prophetic language represented God's "glory" and His "power". The "manner" in Acts 1 speaks of Jesus ascending in glory and in power and later returning in glory and in power. That is what I wrote.

We see Jesus' same usage of clouds in prophetic imagery in these verses:

Luke 21:27
And then shall they see the Son of man COMING IN A CLOUD with POWER and great GLORY.

Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with POWER and great GLORY.

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.

Mark 13:26
And then shall they see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS with great POWER and GLORY.

Mark 14:62
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven.

Peter heard this and preached in Acts 2:40 that those in his audience should save themselves from what was coming to THAT rebellious generation.

To be clear, of course, the clouds were literal clouds in Acts 1. However, both Moses and Joshua had literal "cloud" experiences, but the Bible uses those clouds to represent something more than a fluffy mass of condensed water vapor floating in the atmosphere.

So, can you explain how after hearing Jesus say what He did about "clouds" and "glory" and "power" that the apostles did not associate a (then) coming judgment in "glory" and in "power" with what they experienced in Acts 1?

[Sean]

For those who have grown weary of always being afraid and always hearing the next great theory of who the Beast is, it brings considerable peace.

Chris, the preterists are not a peaceful opposition to futurism.

They can go ballistic if you oppose them, just like anyone else can.

They are no different than any other fringe group, but are determined to make the book of Rev, the prophecies to future national Israel and the prophecies of Jesus of the end time completely irrelevant to our day in the Church Age.

This is not a "to each his own" doctrine, but is carefully crafted by "redefinition masters" to cause the bride to sleep real sound at the rapture of the Church.:nod

[Sean]

Clouds used in prophetic language represented God's "glory" and His "power". The "manner" in Acts 1 speaks of Jesus ascending in glory and in power and later returning in glory and in power. That is what I wrote.

We see Jesus' same usage of clouds in prophetic imagery in these verses:

Luke 21:27
And then shall they see the Son of man COMING IN A CLOUD with POWER and great GLORY.

Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with POWER and great GLORY.

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.

Mark 13:26
And then shall they see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS with great POWER and GLORY.

Mark 14:62
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven.

Peter heard this and preached in Acts 2:40 that those in his audience should save themselves from what was coming to THAT rebellious generation.

To be clear, of course, the clouds were literal clouds in Acts 1. However, both Moses and Joshua had literal "cloud" experiences, but the Bible uses those clouds to represent something more than a fluffy mass of condensed water vapor floating in the atmosphere.

So, can you explain how after hearing Jesus say what He did about "clouds" and "glory" and "power" that the apostles did not associate a (then) coming judgment in "glory" and in "power" with what they experienced in Acts 1?
Reading between the lines again?




LOL

[Sean]

TK, when did those Jews at Jesus' trial see the 2nd coming?(please provide evidence)


Thanks.

[Sean]

TK, did this event happen in 70ad?



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



If so, please provide evidence.

Thanks.

[Aquila]

Clouds used in prophetic language represented God's "glory" and His "power".

Amen. However, I believe this is only true when used in symbolic, poetic, or apocalyptic writing. It would appear that the writer of Acts is describing an actual event wherein an actual cloud received Christ out of their sight.

[Sean]

Then what does "air" represent?



17 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.

[Aquila]

Then what does "air" represent?



17 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.

Sean,

One thing I always find troubling with Preteristic understanding is how they force the symbolic meaning of things on parts of Scripture that are not symbolic in nature. The Bible is comprised of many genres of literature such as history, didactic teaching, poetry, wisdom literature, apocalyptic literature, and biography. When reading poetry, wisdom literature, and apocalyptic literature, I believe it is safe to consider that references to "clouds" etc. might be regarded symbolically or allegorically and defined in accordance to the text. However, when reading history, didactic teaching, and biography... a cloud is a cloud.

In the text you mention above, Paul is offering plain teaching. And so, we can be assured that being caught up in the "air" means exactly that... being caught up into the air, the sky and space above the earth. Now, the nature of our being at that point might be debatable. But the clear meaning isn't. At least, that's my opinion.

For example, if I write a poem about seeing my son dancing on the clouds with joy and happiness over his Christmas gift, you can safely assume that the "clouds" I'm speaking of are not literal clouds, but rather I'm only using symbolic, poetic, or allegorical language to depict the high degree of my son's happiness. However, if I write you a letter and describe the clouds I'm seeing as I look out the window, you can safely assume that the "clouds" I speak of are actually "clouds". I believe that Acts 1:9 is such an instance. The cloud mentioned was simply... a cloud.

[Sean]

Yes Chris, clouds are in the air, therefore when Jesus returns or prior to that, meets his saints in the clouds, it means clouds, lest air does not mean air anymore.:thumbsup

[Esaias]

"And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Act 2:40)

This message to save yourself from "THIS rebellious generation" is no different a message than the disciples in Acts 1 had already heard in verses such as these: Matthew 11:16, Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42, Matthew 23:36, Matthew 24:34; Mark 8:12, Mark 13:30, Luke 11:30, Luke 11:31, Luke 11:32, Luke 11:50, Luke 11:51, Luke 17:25, Luke 21:32.

The disciples knew Jesus prophesied judgment was to come to their generation. So, when they heard the Heavenly message about the "manner" in which He would return in Acts 1, they applied that to what they had been taught. To imagine their memory of what was foretold about that generation somehow failed them in Acts 1 is pretty hard to imagine.

If we follow this logic to its rational conclusion, it would mean tht Acts 2:38 is for that generation, not ours. The people were to be saved from THAT wicked and perverse generation, which you seem to interpret as meaning they were to save themselves from the divine judgment coming on that generation in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem. Which seems strange to me, couldn't Peter have simply said "get out of Jerusalem until the Romans destroy it"?

Perhaps you could show how Peter's words to THAT generation have any relevance to us now, almost 2,000 years later?

A follow up question seeking more clarification:

How would being baptised in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Ghost save someone from a Roman invasion of Judea and siege of Jerusalem some 40 years later?

[jediwill83]

If we follow this logic to its rational conclusion, it would mean tht Acts 2:38 is for that generation, not ours. The people were to be saved from THAT wicked and perverse generation, which you seem to interpret as meaning they were to save themselves from the divine judgment coming on that generation in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem. Which seems strange to me, couldn't Peter have simply said "get out of Jerusalem until the Romans destroy it"?

Perhaps you could show how Peter's words to THAT generation have any relevance to us now, almost 2,000 years later?

A follow up question seeking more clarification:

How would being baptised in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Ghost save someone from a Roman invasion of Judea and siege of Jerusalem some 40 years later?


Except that Peter specifies that "The promise is unto you, and to your children and all them afar off, even as many as our Lord God shall call."

[Esaias]

Except that Peter specifies that "The promise is unto you, and to your children and all them afar off, even as many as our Lord God shall call."

I'm waiting on brother Burk to answer before I comment.

:)

[TK Burk]

I am a firm believer in the idea that context matters. Your mileage may vary.

I believe the same about context. However, you're not showing yourself to be a devoted adherent to the same.

Acts 1 says nothing about what the disciples "applied" to the angels' words. It says this:

Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received 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 like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Ok, so the context of this passage says what happened there, and what was to later happen in the same manner, only applied to "ye men of Galilee," which would be the men standing there at that time. They were the ones to see this manner of Jesus' ascension and they would the ones to see His return. So, unless you believe that group of men are still alive in the Middle East, then this manner of return is long past.

He was there, conversing with them. He ascended up into the sky, and disappeared into a cloud. The angels told them He would come from heaven in the same manner that they saw Him depart into heaven.

I noticed you did not reconcile your opinion with all the verses I included that use a cloud with Jesus coming in glory and in power. Again, context is king.

Does the Bible describe additional details about additional events surrounding His return? Sure. But those additional details cannot be used to claim that He will not descend from heaven in the same manner that He ascended to heaven.

Again, look at what else is said about Jesus coming in clouds with power and glory.

Trinitarians use your same argument when "proving" the Trinity is in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19. Yet, when you include what is said in Acts 2:38, you see that Jesus actually taught there is only One God. Thus, it takes the WHOLE counsel of God's word to truly prove something is biblical.

Other translations say it thusly:

Acts 1:9-11 ABP And [these things having said], of their looking, he was lifted up, and a cloud undertook him from their eyes. (10) And as they were gazing into the heaven at his going, and behold, [men two] stood by them in [attire white], (11) ones who also said, Men, Galileans, why do you stand looking into the heaven? This Jesus, the one being taken up from you into the heaven, so shall come in which manner you saw him going into the heaven.

Acts 1:9-11 Bishops And when he had spoken these thynges, whyle they behelde, he was taken vp an hye, and a cloude receaued hym vp out of their syght. (10) And while they loked stedfastly vp towarde heaue, as he went, beholde, two men stoode by them in whyte apparell, (11) Which also sayde: Ye men of Galilee, why stande ye gasyng vp into heauen? This same Iesus, which is taken vp from you into heauen, shall so come, euen as ye haue seene hym go into heauen.

Acts 1:9-11 LITV And saying these things, as they looked on, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him from their sight. (10) And as they were intently looking into the heaven, He having gone, even behold, two men in white clothing stood by them, (11) who also said, Men, Galileans, why do you stand looking up to the heaven? This Jesus, the One being taken from you into the heaven, will come in the way you saw Him going into the heaven.

Acts 1:9-11 ESV 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 were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, (11) and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."

None of those disagree with the verses I included about Jesus coming in a cloud with power and glory. And when they are taken in context with those verses, they agree.

The issue is not "what is to happen during that coming" so much as it is the "manner in which" He ascended, which will be the same "manner" in which He will descend. The "manner" applies to what it actually applies to in the text, which is the actual ascension of Jesus. The angels said He would come in the same way He left. How did He leave? On the dust clouds of the Roman armies? No, He literally floated up into the sky into a cloud out of their sight. And He will return the same way.

The "manner" is Jesus ascended in power and glory and He will return in the same manner--in power and in glory. Was there a literal cloud? Yes. Was it there for more than just being a fluffy visible mass of condensed water vapor floating in the atmosphere? Well, in the other verses where Jesus connected a cloud with Him coming in power and glory it was.

It might offend our sensibilities, but that's what the good Book plainly says. "Never trade what the Bible clearly says for something you wish it to say. - TK Burk.

:highfive

Cute. But, so far you've not shown I violated any such thing.

[Sean]

Then what does "air" represent?



17 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.

TK?

[Esaias]

I believe the same about context. However, you're not showing yourself to be a devoted adherent to the same.

I am sticking to the context of Acts ch 1 in regards to what was going on there.



Ok, so the context of this passage says what happened there, and what was to later happen in the same manner, only applied to "ye men of Galilee," which would be the men standing there at that time. They were the ones to see this manner of Jesus' ascension and they would the ones to see His return. So, unless you believe that group of men are still alive in the Middle East, then this manner of return is long past.

Incorrect. There is nothing in the text that says THEY would see Jesus return. The angels simply said He would return in the same manner. If I got dressed in my uniform, and boarded a naval transport ship to a full military band fanfare with crowds waving flags and throwing confetti, and someone said to the onlookers "He shall return in the same manner", it does NOT mean the same people in the send off crowd will be the same people in the homecoming crowd. By claiming the men standing there who saw Jesus ascend would be the same men who would see Him come "in the same manner", you are eisegeting what is not only not in the text, but that which is not even remotely a necessary inference.

If your approach were correct, then ONLY those disciples who saw Him leave would see Him return, and ALL those who saw Him leave would see Him return. Yet you yourself admit that is not the case. Hence, you refute yourself.

:)



I noticed you did not reconcile your opinion with all the verses I included that use a cloud with Jesus coming in glory and in power. Again, context is king.

I have no need to reconcile the words of Scripture in Acts 1 with the words of Scripture in other passages, because I see no conflict between any of them. What I did not do was accept your opinion of what Acts 1 means.



Again, look at what else is said about Jesus coming in clouds with power and glory.

None of which changes the fact that the angels told the disciples Jesus would come again in the same manner in which they saw Him leave - bodily ascending into heaven. Thus, His return would be a bodily descent from heaven.

Your view nullifies what the angels said, because in your view Jesus does not actually descend or return from heaven in the same MANNER IN WHICH HE LEFT. My acceptance of what the angels said does not nullify anything else said in Scripture. As I said before, that other things may attend the Lord's return does not change the fact that He will return in the same manner in which He left. But in your view, they do.

Trinitarians use your same argument when "proving" the Trinity is in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19. Yet, when you include what is said in Acts 2:38, you see that Jesus actually taught there is only One God. Thus, it takes the WHOLE counsel of God's word to truly prove something is biblical.

I agree it takes the whole counsel of God to understand doctrine, but I also believe "the scripture cannot be broken". I do not believe that one passage of scripture can nullify and make void another passage of scripture. Your doctrine is asserting that Jesus will not in fact return in the same manner as which He left. Did He leave on the dust clouds of Imperial Roman armies? Was His ascension invisible to the eye? Was His ascension a leaving in judgment? Or was His ascension visible to the eye, personal and bodily, actually "physically" ascending up into the heavens?




The "manner" is Jesus ascended in power and glory and He will return in the same manner--in power and in glory. Was there a literal cloud? Yes. Was it there for more than just being a fluffy visible mass of condensed water vapor floating in the atmosphere? Well, in the other verses where Jesus connected a cloud with Him coming in power and glory it was.

When Jesus came, according to your belief, was there a visible cloud in the sky from which He literally and bodily descended, visible to all present?

[TK Burk]

On the dust clouds of the Roman armies? No, He literally floated up into the sky into a cloud out of their sight. And He will return the same way.

Since this may be seen as an insinuation, I have never one time believed, taught, or written that the clouds are dust from the Romans.

Just wanted to clear that up. :thumbsup

[Esaias]

Since this may be seen as an insinuation, I have never one time believed, taught, or written that the clouds are dust from the Romans.

Just wanted to clear that up. :thumbsup

Okay, glad to get that clarified.

How's brother Benincasa? Do we need to do a quick fundraiser for his new laptop?

[TK Burk]

If we follow this logic to its rational conclusion, it would mean tht Acts 2:38 is for that generation, not ours. The people were to be saved from THAT wicked and perverse generation, which you seem to interpret as meaning they were to save themselves from the divine judgment coming on that generation in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem. Which seems strange to me, couldn't Peter have simply said "get out of Jerusalem until the Romans destroy it"?

Perhaps you could show how Peter's words to THAT generation have any relevance to us now, almost 2,000 years later?

There are no verses that place an ending of the gospel. As a matter of fact, the Bible is clear that the gospel is everlasting and if there ever is another one it is to be accursed.

However, when it comes to Jesus coming to bring judgment against the rebellious old covenant people, there are several verses that say that will happen during the same generation in which Jesus taught.

I can provide verses for either of the above points if you wish.

[Esaias]

There are no verses that place an ending of the gospel. As a matter of fact, the Bible is clear that the gospel is everlasting and if there ever is another one it is to be accursed.

However, when it comes to Jesus coming to bring judgment against the rebellious old covenant people, there are several verses that say that will happen during the same generation in which Jesus taught.

I can provide verses for either of the above points if you wish.

Yes, but Peter spoke to THAT GENERATION. He offered them salvation from a PARTICULAR COMING JUDGEMENT, did he not? If that offered salvation is to be saved from "THIS generation", then the salvation being offered and spoken about in Acts 2 is from THAT PARTICULAR GENERATION. Are there two offers of salvation? How would we know? Is it not true that the only way we could know would be if it were written in the Bible?

And if the offer of salvation in Acts 2 is an offer of salvation from the judgement against Jerusalem in AD 70, then it clearly does not apply to us, today.

And, just in case you missed it, I repeat my earlier question:

Just exactly how does repenting and being baptised in Jesus name and being filled with the Holy Ghost save someone from the Roman destruction of Jerusalem 40 years later?

[Esaias]

BTW, brother Burk, if and when you have time, I'd like your contributions to the thread I started "Salvation depends on doctrine" here in the Fellowship Hall. I'm hoping others will chime in as well, because I want to get to the meat of the question: How do we determine DOCTRINE?

[TK Burk]

A follow up question seeking more clarification:

How would being baptised in the name of Jesus and receiving the Holy Ghost save someone from a Roman invasion of Judea and siege of Jerusalem some 40 years later?

Ok, I guess I need to list some verses for this one.

The men who were in the Upper Room and heard Peter's message were part of the same generation that was to see the prophesied 70AD judgment. We know they were Jews, so that judgment did affect them. Hence, "save yourselves from THIS rebellious generation." The saving involved entering into the New Covenant, which thus removed them from the Old Covenant, which removed those from being taken in said judgment and placed among those who would be left behind to live.

Luke 21:20-22
20....And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21....Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22....For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Who was this warning to? Those in Judea who would see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. When was this to happen? During "the days of vengeance." And when would that take place?

Luk 21:32....Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 24:34....Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Mar 13:30....Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

There are more passages, but these are enough to show that the (then) coming judgment was to happen during a time of that generation.

That judgment came 40 years after Jesus' ministry ended, which equates to a biblical generation.

[TK Burk]

The bolded is interesting, in light of John 21:22

:highfive

Otherwise, John wandering somewhere still waiting.

[TK Burk]

Amen. However, I believe this is only true when used in symbolic, poetic, or apocalyptic writing. It would appear that the writer of Acts is describing an actual event wherein an actual cloud received Christ out of their sight.

Do you think the clouds found with Moses and with Joshua were literal clouds?

What about the clouds Jesus spoke of in these verses?

Luke 21:27
And then shall they see the Son of man COMING IN A CLOUD with POWER and great GLORY.

Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with POWER and great GLORY.

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.

Mark 13:26
And then shall they see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS with great POWER and GLORY.

Are they literal or spiritual?

And since the angels in Acts 1 were prophesying of what was to come, tell me how you determine those clouds were literal and not spiritual?

[Esaias]

Ok, I guess I need to list some verses for this one.

The men who were in the Upper Room and heard Peter's message were part of the same generation that was to see the prophesied 70AD judgment. We know they were Jews, so that judgment did affect them. Hence, "save yourselves from THIS rebellious generation." The saving involved entering into the New Covenant, which thus removed them from the Old Covenant, which removed those from being taken in said judgment and placed among those who would be left behind to live.

Luke 21:20-22
20....And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21....Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22....For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Who was this warning to? Those in Judea who would see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. When was this to happen? During "the days of vengeance." And when would that take place?

Luk 21:32....Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 24:34....Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Mar 13:30....Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

There are more passages, but these are enough to show that the (then) coming judgment was to happen during a time of that generation.

That judgment came 40 years after Jesus' ministry ended, which equates to a biblical generation.

So then if a Jew rejected Peter's message, but decided to move out of Jerusalem, and happened to not be in Jerusalem in AD 70... they got saved by accident? Outside of Acts 2:38?

See, that's where I am having the difficulty here. The prophesied judgment was for THAT GENERATION. Therefore the proferred salvation was also for THAT GENERATION. Since the judgment was for THAT GENERATION, it is NOT for OUR generation, or any other generation. And therefore, the proferred salvation would not be for our generation, or any other generation.

Peter even said "the promise is unto you, your children, and even those far away"... meaning the people living in that time, even if they were far away from Jerusalem. Which again causes me to wonder: if the judgment was regarding Jerusalem's destruction by Rome in AD 70, then how could anyone who was far away be threatened with said judgment? Somebody living in say Susa, Persia would not be in any danger whatsoever of Rome destroying Jerusalem....

[Sean]

Do you think the clouds found with Moses and with Joshua were literal clouds?

What about the clouds Jesus spoke of in these verses?

Luke 21:27
And then shall they see the Son of man COMING IN A CLOUD with POWER and great GLORY.

Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with POWER and great GLORY.

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.

Mark 13:26
And then shall they see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS with great POWER and GLORY.

Are they literal or spiritual?

And since the angels in Acts 1 were prophesying of what was to come, tell me how you determine those clouds were literal and not spiritual?

All literal.

Spiritual is invisible to humans.

[Sean]

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

[TK Burk]

So then if a Jew rejected Peter's message, but decided to move out of Jerusalem, and happened to not be in Jerusalem in AD 70... they got saved by accident? Outside of Acts 2:38?

See, that's where I am having the difficulty here. The prophesied judgment was for THAT GENERATION. Therefore the proferred salvation was also for THAT GENERATION. Since the judgment was for THAT GENERATION, it is NOT for OUR generation, or any other generation. And therefore, the proferred salvation would not be for our generation, or any other generation.

Peter even said "the promise is unto you, your children, and even those far away"... meaning the people living in that time, even if they were far away from Jerusalem. Which again causes me to wonder: if the judgment was regarding Jerusalem's destruction by Rome in AD 70, then how could anyone who was far away be threatened with said judgment? Somebody living in say Susa, Persia would not be in any danger whatsoever of Rome destroying Jerusalem....

I apologize for assuming all would mean what entering the "New Covenant" meant. It means their sins were redeemed by the salvific work of Jesus Christ. This came by them repenting, being baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of their sins, and then being filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost, as commanded in Acts 2:38 and elsewhere.

Once they became believers they would also heed Jesus's warning to flee Jerusalem when they saw it surrounded by armies. History records every Christian did this, which left only those Old Covenant believers remaining.

I hope that clarifies my point.

[Esaias]

I apologize for assuming all would mean what entering the "New Covenant" meant. It means their sins were redeemed by the salvific work of Jesus Christ. This came by them repenting, being baptized in Jesus' name for the remission of their sins, and then being filled with the gift of the Holy Ghost, as commanded in Acts 2:38 and elsewhere.

Once they became believers they would also heed Jesus's warning to flee Jerusalem when they saw it surrounded by armies. History records every Christian did this, which left only those Old Covenant believers remaining.

I hope that clarifies my point.

So having one's sins forgiven and being redeemed by the work of Christ would save people from the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome? I'm not understanding how, IF the promised judgment was for THAT generation at THAT time, and the proferred salvation and deliverance was for THAT generation at THAT time, and all had respect to the coming AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem by Rome, how that has anything whatsoever to do with any of us today, or how it would have anything to do with anyone outside of Jerusalem (or perhaps Judea) back then?

I'll have to chew on this for awhile. Maybe I'm not making myself clear, so maybe you are misunderstanding what issue I'm having with this. Or maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying.

I'll think about this and be back.

[Aquila]

Do you think the clouds found with Moses and with Joshua were literal clouds?

A literal cloud by day, and pillar of fire by night. Yes.

What about the clouds Jesus spoke of in these verses?

Luke 21:27
And then shall they see the Son of man COMING IN A CLOUD with POWER and great GLORY.

Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS of heaven with POWER and great GLORY.

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.

Mark 13:26
And then shall they see the Son of man COMING IN THE CLOUDS with great POWER and GLORY.

Are they literal or spiritual?

Since Jesus was speaking apocalyptically (symbols of sun darkened, moon turning to blood, stars falling, etc.), I'd say that a strong case can be made that clouds Jesus spoke of depict a spiritual reality, not a physical one.

And since the angels in Acts 1 were prophesying of what was to come, tell me how you determine those clouds were literal and not spiritual?

Since Jesus had just literally ascended, the angels were providing a literal description of His return.

Not every reference to clouds is literal. Nor is every reference to clouds symbolic or spiritual.

[Sean]

I guess you are right Chris, preterist doctrine can cloud the mind from literal truth.

[TK Burk]

So having one's sins forgiven and being redeemed by the work of Christ would save people from the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome? I'm not understanding how, IF the promised judgment was for THAT generation at THAT time, and the proferred salvation and deliverance was for THAT generation at THAT time, and all had respect to the coming AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem by Rome, how that has anything whatsoever to do with any of us today, or how it would have anything to do with anyone outside of Jerusalem (or perhaps Judea) back then?

I'll have to chew on this for awhile. Maybe I'm not making myself clear, so maybe you are misunderstanding what issue I'm having with this. Or maybe I'm just not understanding what you are saying.

I'll think about this and be back.

Maybe I could understand your confusion better if you'd explain what you believe is said in Acts 2:40?

Obeying Acts 2:38 is not the end of salvation, but rather the beginning. The Great Commission is to teach, to convert, and to teach all things. In Acts 2, Peter taught, he gave the message for conversion, and then he went further and taught more things.

Peter told the Jews that day to obey Acts 2:38 for salvation. He also said they should save themselves from a judgment coming against their untoward generation. So, their sins were saved through obeying Acts 2:38. This salvation also placed them in the group that would miss that coming judgment, since they--as believers--would obey what Jesus taught in Luke 21:20.

But how is being Born Again also involved with "saving yourself"? Only Jesus can forgive sins, so how were they to "save yourselves"? I believe obeying Acts 2:38 saves a person from their sins. But this "save yourselves" is about those then obeying what Jesus said to do when they saw that coming judgment. No unbelieving Jew would obey Jesus, so they would be the ones who would suffer the (then) coming judgment of that untoward generation.

I never said that rebellious generation had anything to do with us today. They wouldn't have anything to do with us today any more than the 3,000 baptized has anything to do with us today. The Bible is not written to us but for us. Peter's message was spoken to the listeners that day, but his message is for all mankind, as confirmed in Acts 2:39. Thus, the 3,000 were saved that day by obeying Acts 2:38, and everyone since that time until now is saved by obeying that same Acts 2:38 message. Today, reading 3,000 were baptized after hearing what Peter preached helps us see the necessity of Acts 2:38 for salvation. But, that same Acts 2 message included Peter delivering a warning to the people that day that they should escape the judgment coming against their crooked generation. Since it was a warning to that audience, we know that judgment is now past and not for us today.

[TK Burk]

A literal cloud by day, and pillar of fire by night. Yes.

Since Jesus was speaking apocalyptically (symbols of sun darkened, moon turning to blood, stars falling, etc.), I'd say that a strong case can be made that clouds Jesus spoke of depict a spiritual reality, not a physical one.

Since Jesus had just literally ascended, the angels were providing a literal description of His return.

Not every reference to clouds is literal. Nor is every reference to clouds symbolic or spiritual.

Please, explain how you know the clouds in Matthew 24:30, Matthew 26:64, Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27 are not literal clouds.

Wasn't Jesus literally coming in "power" and in "glory"?

So, what biblical evidence did you use to decide these clouds were not literal as well?

[Esaias]

Maybe I could understand your confusion better if you'd explain what you believe is said in Acts 2:40?

Obeying Acts 2:38 is not the end of salvation, but rather the beginning. The Great Commission is to teach, to convert, and to teach all things. In Acts 2, Peter taught, he gave the message for conversion, and then he went further and taught more things.

Peter told the Jews that day to obey Acts 2:38 for salvation. He also said they should save themselves from a judgment coming against their untoward generation. So, their sins were saved through obeying Acts 2:38. This salvation also placed them in the group that would miss that coming judgment, since they--as believers--would obey what Jesus taught in Luke 21:20.

But how is being Born Again also involved with "saving yourself"? Only Jesus can forgive sins, so how were they to "save yourselves"? I believe obeying Acts 2:38 saves a person from their sins. But this "save yourselves" is about those then obeying what Jesus said to do when they saw that coming judgment. No unbelieving Jew would obey Jesus, so they would be the ones who would suffer the (then) coming judgment of that untoward generation.

I never said that rebellious generation had anything to do with us today. They wouldn't have anything to do with us today any more than the 3,000 baptized has anything to do with us today. The Bible is not written to us but for us. Peter's message was spoken to the listeners that day, but his message is for all mankind, as confirmed in Acts 2:39. Thus, the 3,000 were saved that day by obeying Acts 2:38, and everyone since that time until now is saved by obeying that same Acts 2:38 message. Today, reading 3,000 were baptized after hearing what Peter preached helps us see the necessity of Acts 2:38 for salvation. But, that same Acts 2 message included Peter delivering a warning to the people that day that they should escape the judgment coming against their crooked generation. Since it was a warning to that audience, we know that judgment is now past and not for us today.

Okay, so you are saying Peter had two distinct but connected messages in Acts 2: One, for people to be saved from their sins, and Two, for people to make preparations to escape Jerusalem before it was destroyed by the Romans. Is that correct? So that Acts 2:40 was about escaping the siege and destruction of Jerusalem?

If that's correct, then what is Acts 2:38 about? What would they be saved from if they obeyed v 38?

And, what is the hermeneutic that identifies which parts are for us, and which parts are only for "that generation"?

[TK Burk]

Okay, so you are saying Peter had two distinct but connected messages in Acts 2: One, for people to be saved from their sins, and Two, for people to make preparations to escape Jerusalem before it was destroyed by the Romans. Is that correct? So that Acts 2:40 was about escaping the siege and destruction of Jerusalem?

If that's correct, then what is Acts 2:38 about? What would they be saved from if they obeyed v 38?

And, what is the hermeneutic that identifies which parts are for us, and which parts are only for "that generation"?

Did you read my last post to you? I'm thinking you did not since I explained in detail everything you asked.

[Esaias]

Did you read my last post to you? I'm thinking you did not since I explained in detail everything you asked.

I read it. I asked if I understood you correctly. Did I misunderstand? Are you not saying Acts 2:40 was a warning for them to beware of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and Acts 2:38 is about remission of sins?

I had two follow up questions, 1) what were they to be saved from in regards to remission of sins, and 2) what is the hermeneutical rule that informs us as to what in Scripture is for us and what is strictly limited to the original audience?

I did not see the answers to those two q's in your post. Maybe I missed them? If so please point them out to me.

[TK Burk]

I read it. I asked if I understood you correctly. Did I misunderstand? Are you not saying Acts 2:40 was a warning for them to beware of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and Acts 2:38 is about remission of sins?

I had two follow up questions, 1) what were they to be saved from in regards to remission of sins, and 2) what is the hermeneutical rule that informs us as to what in Scripture is for us and what is strictly limited to the original audience?

I did not see the answers to those two q's in your post. Maybe I missed them? If so please point them out to me.

I must have missed it. Where did you explain what you believe is said in Acts 2:40.

Do you believe that "save yourselves from 'THIS' untoward generation" is for today?

Also, please do include how a person "saves themselves" after what is said in Acts 2:38.

[Esaias]

I must have missed it. Where did you explain what you believe is said in Acts 2:40.

Do you believe that "save yourselves from 'THIS' untoward generation" is for today?

I did not explain my understanding of the verse. I'm asking questions, trying to increase my understanding, not push a particular interpretation.

:)

[houston]

I read it. I asked if I understood you correctly. Did I misunderstand? Are you not saying Acts 2:40 was a warning for them to beware of the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and Acts 2:38 is about remission of sins?

I had two follow up questions, 1) what were they to be saved from in regards to remission of sins, and 2) what is the hermeneutical rule that informs us as to what in Scripture is for us and what is strictly limited to the original audience?

I did not see the answers to those two q's in your post. Maybe I missed them? If so please point them out to me.

TK,

Please answer this.

[TK Burk]

TK,

Please answer this.

I did.

Maybe I could understand your confusion better if you'd explain what you believe is said in Acts 2:40?

Obeying Acts 2:38 is not the end of salvation, but rather the beginning. The Great Commission is to teach, to convert, and to teach all things. In Acts 2, Peter taught, he gave the message for conversion, and then he went further and taught more things.

Peter told the Jews that day to obey Acts 2:38 for salvation. He also said they should save themselves from a judgment coming against their untoward generation. So, their sins were saved through obeying Acts 2:38. This salvation also placed them in the group that would miss that coming judgment, since they--as believers--would obey what Jesus taught in Luke 21:20.

But how is being Born Again also involved with "saving yourself"? Only Jesus can forgive sins, so how were they to "save yourselves"? I believe obeying Acts 2:38 saves a person from their sins. But this "save yourselves" is about those then obeying what Jesus said to do when they saw that coming judgment. No unbelieving Jew would obey Jesus, so they would be the ones who would suffer the (then) coming judgment of that untoward generation.

I never said that rebellious generation had anything to do with us today. They wouldn't have anything to do with us today any more than the 3,000 baptized has anything to do with us today. The Bible is not written to us but for us. Peter's message was spoken to the listeners that day, but his message is for all mankind, as confirmed in Acts 2:39. Thus, the 3,000 were saved that day by obeying Acts 2:38, and everyone since that time until now is saved by obeying that same Acts 2:38 message. Today, reading 3,000 were baptized after hearing what Peter preached helps us see the necessity of Acts 2:38 for salvation. But, that same Acts 2 message included Peter delivering a warning to the people that day that they should escape the judgment coming against their crooked generation. Since it was a warning to that audience, we know that judgment is now past and not for us today.

[Esaias]

Well, I can't find an explanation of the hermeneutical rule that can guide the student in determine what is "for us" and what is strictly "for them".

I also didn't see a clear explanation of what Acts 2:38 is supposed to save people from. I know brother Burk said "from their sins" but what does that mean? If a person back then did not respond favorably to Peter's message about repentance, baptism, and the Spirit, what would happen to them? And since Peter was speaking TO that crowd, how do we know which part(s) of his message are "for us"? How do we know his whole message wasn't just for them, back there?

[TK Burk]

Well, I can't find an explanation of the hermeneutical rule that can guide the student in determine what is "for us" and what is strictly "for them".

I also didn't see a clear explanation of what Acts 2:38 is supposed to save people from. I know brother Burk said "from their sins" but what does that mean? If a person back then did not respond favorably to Peter's message about repentance, baptism, and the Spirit, what would happen to them? And since Peter was speaking TO that crowd, how do we know which part(s) of his message are "for us"? How do we know his whole message wasn't just for them, back there?

You don't know how Acts 2:38 applies to salvation? You don't know what being saved "from your sins" means? Brother, you need a lot more help than an explanation of my study. Maybe someone near you could teach you a Home Bible study?

Since you don't even understand the basics of Acts 2:38, it is a waste of time to answer you anything further on this study. I do have other studies on the foundational truths of salvation on my Website that you could look through.

[Aquila]

Please, explain how you know the clouds in Matthew 24:30, Matthew 26:64, Mark 13:26 and Luke 21:27 are not literal clouds.

Wasn't Jesus literally coming in "power" and in "glory"?

So, what biblical evidence did you use to decide these clouds were not literal as well?


That's a fair question. In each of these passages Jesus is prophesying about the destruction of Jerusalem. He speaks, using apocalyptic OT imagery such as the sun being darkened, the moon turning to blood, and the stars falling. All of these were used in relation to the deduction of nations in the OT. For example:

ISAIAH 13:9-11
"See, the day of the Lord is coming - a cruel day, with wrath and fierce anger - to make the land desolate and destroy the sinners within it. The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light. I will punish the world for its evil." [NIV]

This passage, so similar in form to the words of Christ and speaks of the destruction of the land of Babylon. This section is one of the "burdens" of various kingdoms that Isaiah was prophesying against. The "day of the Lord" was, as previously noted, the actual war event when, in this instance, Babylon was conquered by the Medes. In verse 17, God says, "behold, I will stir up the Medes against them." Note also, that God punished the "world" for its evil - that is, the Babylonian "world."

The imagery of the STARS WILL NOT SHOW THEIR LIGHT, the SUN DARKENED, and MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, simply reflects the great distress, despair, and desolation of the Babylonians when this terrible thing happened to them. It was as if the "sun went down on their nation," as we might say it today.

The stars and physical universe did not go dark because the Medo-Persian empire supplanted the Babylonian one. This language is figurative.

Also consider:

EZEKIEL 30:18; 32:7-8
"At Tehaphnehes also the day shall be darkened, when I shall break there the yokes of Egypt: and the pomp of her strength shall cease in her: as for her, a cloud shall cover her, and her daughters shall go into captivity." And when I shall put thee [Pharaoh] out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord God."

Here, we see a prophecy concerning Egypt. That nation would be destroyed by God, using the Babylonians (Ezek. 30:10) in 572 B.C. This destruction would cause the DARKNESS of distress and desolation to the conquered peoples of Egypt.

These are just two examples. However, the very same figurative language is used in prophecy as it relates to the deduction of Judah in the Assyrian attack leading to he Jewish captivity in 721 BC and elsewhere.

With these things in mind, read Christ's words again:

MATTHEW 24:15-30
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29 “Immediately after the distress of those days
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Christ is clearly using OT apocalyptic language that is figurative, or symbolic, of the total doom and destruction of a nation. However, here the destruction Jerusalem is in view.

Notice that what is reflected in the clouds on this day is "the sign of the Son of Man", and it is in this "sign" that the Son of Man is to be seen as coming in power and great glory. What was the "sign" that would slow the entire Jewish nation that the Son of Man had come? The very destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and as a result...the destruction of the entire, now obsolete, system of the Old Covenant.

But what we see in Acts 1 is different. It's an actual description of a literal event witnessed real time by the disciples. Let's read:

ACTS 1:9-11
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

Jesus literally ascended into the sky and, at a given point, literal cloud covered him from their sight. It wasn't a symbolic prophecy, it was an event being witnessed. And so the message of the angels indicates that when Christ returns, he'll literally descend from the heavens.

I pray my answer helps the Futurist understand why Preterists see the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of the Oliver Discourse as being figurative prophetic language. I also pray that Preterists can understand why the cloud reference in Acts 1 is a reference to a literal cloud.

To the unwary Preterist, it becomes easy to make the error that every cloud in Scripture is figurative. But that is an unbalanced approach, because it doesn't draw distinction between passages wherein figurative prophetic language is being used and passages wherein simple conversational language, or actual descriptive language, is being used.

All art punished. ;)

[Esaias]

You don't know how Acts 2:38 applies to salvation? You don't know what being saved "from your sins" means? Brother, you need a lot more help than an explanation of my study. Maybe someone near you could teach you a Home Bible study?

Since you don't even understand the basics of Acts 2:38, it is a waste of time to answer you anything further on this study. I do have other studies on the foundational truths of salvation on my Website that you could look through.

Well, that turned out interesting. I was trying to get YOU to explain YOUR understanding of these things.

No matter, I've learned all I need to know about preterist hermeneutics from you the last couple of days: it's like pulling teeth getting you to answer very simple questions. Likely because you can see where those questions lead, and you don't want to go there and face the reality: You have no sound, rational, consistent basis for thinking ANYTHING in the Bible actually applies to anybody today.

Notice the bolded part. You certainly DO think various parts apply to us today. The problem is your hermeneutic is essentially "pick what you like here, drop what you like there". In other words, inconsistent and random, no SOUNDNESS to it. And rather than just admit you don't want to face the implications of your preterist scheme of interpretation, you wave it all away with "Bah! I don't have to explain such deeeeep thoughts to a little theologicall girly man like you!" No, you'd rather hit the gymn and pump some preterist iron with the guys and stare at yourselves in the mirror.

lol

All good and well. Just another reason I reject preterism. No answers to really basic, fundamental questions.

Later gator!

[Esaias]

Tell the elder in Florida I hope all's doing well. And that you, brother Burk, lost your seat on the road trip. He'll understand. :)

[houston]

You don't know how Acts 2:38 applies to salvation? You don't know what being saved "from your sins" means? Brother, you need a lot more help than an explanation of my study. Maybe someone near you could teach you a Home Bible study?

Since you don't even understand the basics of Acts 2:38, it is a waste of time to answer you anything further on this study. I do have other studies on the foundational truths of salvation on my Website that you could look through.

Harsh. He’s asking how you determine what is relevant only to the audience and what is for us today.

SMH

[JamesGlen]

I suppose this is all apocalyptic language ....:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=Cloud&t=KJV&ss=1#s=s_primary_0_1




And the end result of trying to put a square peg in a round hole, because of preconceived notions, removes all hope. Judgement, nope that’s past. Resurrection, nope that’s past, a last day, nope done happened... A world without sin and heartache, nope not there...10,000 years from now, nothing different.... Zero hope. What about hope in the cross? Nope, Jesus didn’t even do that, not until AD 70 did.

What a sad painful thing to see such a genuine intellectual scholar of a man go from one position of false doctrine(editor for E.T.) to be so very objective, to move to the extreme opposite position of NO HOPE in anything....

And too prideful it seems, to genuinely purposefully answer straight forward questions, but instead replying with sarcasm.
What spirit is that of? Holy Spirit?



And now abideth faith in the past, no hope in the future, and love?


Sam Frost escaped its clutches when he started seeing the end result of AD70 repainting EVERYTHING from the gospel of the the cross to a disciple’s hope in basically anything.

[TK Burk]

Well, that turned out interesting. I was trying to get YOU to explain YOUR understanding of these things.

Which I did.

No matter, I've learned all I need to know about preterist hermeneutics from you the last couple of days: it's like pulling teeth getting you to answer very simple questions. Likely because you can see where those questions lead, and you don't want to go there and face the reality: You have no sound, rational, consistent basis for thinking ANYTHING in the Bible actually applies to anybody today.

So, your questions about Acts 2 is “all I need to know about preterist hermeneutics”?

Seriously?

How exactly does that equate to discovering “all” you “need to know about preterist hermeneutics”?

I also didn't see a clear explanation of what Acts 2:38 is supposed to save people from. I know brother Burk said "from their sins" but what does that mean? If a person back then did not respond favorably to Peter's message about repentance, baptism, and the Spirit, what would happen to them? And since Peter was speaking TO that crowd, how do we know which part(s) of his message are "for us"? How do we know his whole message wasn't just for them, back there?

“What Acts 2:38 is supposed to save people from”? What being saved “from their sins” means? What would “happen to them” if they “did not respond favorably to Peter's message about repentance, baptism, and the Spirit”? Those are questions about soteriology, not eschatology. You were asking these questions in sincerity, weren't you? If you were, then I answered you accordingly.

Concerning how we know what was “to” them and what was “for us,” I already explained that.

I never said that rebellious generation had anything to do with us today. They wouldn't have anything to do with us today any more than the 3,000 baptized has anything to do with us today. The Bible is not written to us but for us. Peter's message was spoken to the listeners that day, but his message is for all mankind, as confirmed in Acts 2:39. Thus, the 3,000 were saved that day by obeying Acts 2:38, and everyone since that time until now is saved by obeying that same Acts 2:38 message. Today, reading 3,000 were baptized after hearing what Peter preached helps us see the necessity of Acts 2:38 for salvation. But, that same Acts 2 message included Peter delivering a warning to the people that day that they should escape the judgment coming against their crooked generation. Since it was a warning to that audience, we know that judgment is now past and not for us today.

If that was not to your liking, you should have answered and explained why.

I told you that knowing where you were would help me better answer your questions. That is why I asked for your view of Acts 2:40. You said you refused. So, now you hang me out to dry because I was unable to respond with what you wanted to hear? I showed you where I did respond. In an honest discussion, you would respond with a positive response, or you would explain how you saw what I said differently.

Notice the bolded part. You certainly DO think various parts apply to us today. The problem is your hermeneutic is essentially "pick what you like here, drop what you like there". In other words, inconsistent and random, no SOUNDNESS to it. And rather than just admit you don't want to face the implications of your preterist scheme of interpretation, you wave it all away with "Bah! I don't have to explain such deeeeep thoughts to a little theologicall girly man like you!" No, you'd rather hit the gymn and pump some preterist iron with the guys and stare at yourselves in the mirror.

That's is a lot of creative jargon. I'm sure you felt some tinge of delight when you used it to stretch the truth of what I said and misrepresent me.

Let me share with you a very basic study of Acts 2.

What I believe about Acts 2 is what I was first taught in my Bible Study right after I was Born Again. Within the first week or two I was sharing it with everyone I could. Many of them saw it and came to church with me. So, this is a very basic lesson.

In Acts 2, Peter preached the message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, which he had just received (Acts 2:1-4). Jesus prophesied this message would take place (Luke 24:47). Peter preached this in the upper room after tarrying in Jerusalem as commanded by Jesus (Luke 24:49). There were also pious Jewish men at that Feast of Pentecost who came from different countries of the Jewish diaspora (Acts 2:5-11). These men did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. Peter preached to them prophecies that spoke of Jesus and told them they were among those guilty of the crucifixion of their “Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:14-37). When they saw this, they asked what they should do because of their sin (Acts 2:37), Peter responded with Acts 2:38.

My Bible teacher was very knowledgeable of the scriptures. He was also a great soul winner and very wise in answering the arguments against Apostolic doctrines. So, to help me, he taught me about Acts 2:39. There it says (I am adding bracketed comments to help you better understand]: "For the promise is unto you [those there that day], and to your children [the next generations], and to all that are afar off [the Samaritans and the Gentiles], even as many as the Lord our God shall call [all who would be saved in future generations]." (Act 2:39)

And I already told you that same thing in much shorter way.

Peter's message was spoken to the listeners that day, but his message is for all mankind, as confirmed in Acts 2:39. Thus, the 3,000 were saved that day by obeying Acts 2:38, and everyone since that time until now is saved by obeying that same Acts 2:38 message.

I did earlier tell you I would not assume you knew anything. Yet, I assumed you already knew this is how Acts 2:39 is commonly taught by Apostolics. I also assumed you were familiar enough with Bro. Benincasa’s stance on Acts 2:38 to know I would share his same position. Did I assume too much? I don’t think so.

lol

All good and well. Just another reason I reject preterism. No answers to really basic, fundamental questions.

Later gator!

Tell the elder in Florida I hope all's doing well. And that you, brother Burk, lost your seat on the road trip. He'll understand. :)

Ahh, there it is—now we see your sheep suit.

I told Bro. Benincasa last Monday you were playing this game. He assured me you were too kind for that. But as he is famous for saying, “time proves all things.”

If you were serious about getting answers, you would have given me your view of Acts 2:40. I told you your response would better gauge my response to you. But now we see you really did not care what I said. You were just looking for excuses to refuse what you’re perhaps afraid to admit. If you needed me to disprove what you see about Fulfilled Eschatology, then you need to crack open your Bible more. I do not need Futurists to prove what I believe about Eschatology, any more than I need Trinitarians to prove what I believe about Theology.

So, you’re not secure enough in your eschatological position to reply where I’m wrong. But instead, you’re so insecure you need me to make you feel you’re right? I am humbled by your confidence but trust me, I am not the proof you need.

Then you allege I did for not answer your questions (which I did) to your satisfaction (though you never explained why), yet you refused (which you admitted) to answer my questions, and somehow that confirms your own prophetic position is biblical? Hey, if it makes you sleep at night, knock yourself out….

As far as seeing you afterwhile, Crocodile, I won’t lose one speck of my identity in Christ by not being invited on your road trip.

[TK Burk]

Harsh. He’s asking how you determine what is relevant only to the audience and what is for us today.

SMH

He asked me questions about soteriology. I answered him accordingly. How is that harsh?

I had already explained how Acts 2:38 was for both those of the First Century as well as every century after. He never explained how he did not agree. He also did not explain how I was in error in what I said in Acts 2:40.

So, I'm harsh? I'm sorry you see it that way.

[TK Burk]

I suppose this is all apocalyptic language ....:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=Cloud&t=KJV&ss=1#s=s_primary_0_1


And the end result of trying to put a square peg in a round hole, because of preconceived notions, removes all hope. Judgement, nope that’s past. Resurrection, nope that’s past, a last day, nope done happened... A world without sin and heartache, nope not there...10,000 years from now, nothing different.... Zero hope. What about hope in the cross? Nope, Jesus didn’t even do that, not until AD 70 did.

What a sad painful thing to see such a genuine intellectual scholar of a man go from one position of false doctrine(editor for E.T.) to be so very objective, to move to the extreme opposite position of NO HOPE in anything....

And too prideful it seems, to genuinely purposefully answer straight forward questions, but instead replying with sarcasm.
What spirit is that of? Holy Spirit?



And now abideth faith in the past, no hope in the future, and love?


Sam Frost escaped its clutches when he started seeing the end result of AD70 repainting EVERYTHING from the gospel of the the cross to a disciple’s hope in basically anything.

No hope? I had no hope when I was a Futurist and was told the Church was so weak and anemic that it would need rescuing. No, I have hope.

I know Sam Frost. He is from my hometown and his cousin was my best friend in elementary school. He and I have talked before. He is no Apostolic, so we do not agree on much. I'm sure he'd be happy to know he's your hero.

[Esaias]

See? Anything but an answer to the question.

Sheep suit? That's a good one. People who ask you to actually demonstrate the veracity of your doctrine are just wolves in sheep suits, I guess? Well, when trying to fleece a sheep who balks I guess it's best to play sour grapes and say "Meh, he's got no wool to begin with."

Carry on.

[TK Burk]

See? Anything but an answer to the question.

Sheep suit? That's a good one. People who ask you to actually demonstrate the veracity of your doctrine are just wolves in sheep suits, I guess? Well, when trying to fleece a sheep who balks I guess it's best to play sour grapes and say "Meh, he's got no wool to begin with."

Carry on.

I have answered what you asked me about Acts 2 so many times now. Maybe now you could explain what is not meeting your satisfaction?

Did you like that sheep suit? I came up with it today. I did not use it because you asked me questions. I enjoy talking Bible. I just do not enjoy being misrepresented, which you did again by claiming I do not like people asking me questions.

My answers may not have satisfied your inquiry, but you cannot--honestly--say I did not try--which you did.

So, again with the, I did not answer your question? I've already answered so many of your questions. Please, ask that one question I still have not answered you.