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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

"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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

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]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

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

[Sean]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

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]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.