Could Barak Obama be the Anti Christ?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

vs 27 and 28 are not talking about the exact same event.

vs 27 is referring to his coming in the glory with his angels, i.e. his return after his resurrection that was to come.
The coming referred to in v 28 is a the same manifestation Deacon Blues referred to earlier... "Peter, who was there, indicates in II Peter 1:16-18 that, at this holy mount, they witnessed the "power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" as follows:

"For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (17) For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (18) And this voice which came from heaven we heard, WHEN WE WERE WITH HIM IN THE HOLY MOUNT.""

Incorrect. Peter was describing the overall concept of the Lord's coming and verified his accuracy of speaking of something he wrote earlier that was apart from anything to do with the transfiguration. He wrote in his earlier epistle of the coming of the Lord, and that was not the transfiguration he spoke about:

1 Peter 1:7 KJV That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:


He also stated in the second epistle that he was reminding them of things he said formerly.

2 Peter 3:1 KJV This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:


John Gill explained it thusly:

This therefore was to be understood of an after coming of his, which the apostle had wrote of, and made known in his former epistle, 1Pe_1:7 and which he puts them in mind of in this, 2Pe_3:1, nor is the word παρουσια, used of any other coming of Christ, and this will be with power; and it designs his more near coming to take vengeance on the Jewish nation, and deliver his people from the afflictions and persecution they laboured under, and which was with great power;

The context of 2 Peter 1 is entrance into the Kingdom of God.

2 Peter 1:10-11 KJV Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: (11) For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.


Verse 16 has Peter saying His preaching of the Lord's coming was not a fable.

Jesus never CAME in the Transfiguration. How can you say HE CAME when He was transfigured?

The reason he mentioned the transfiguration was not to indicate that was the COMING of Jesus he referred to, but because Peter personally saw Christ transfigure to prove He indeed was the Messiah who said He would come again. Peter heard God's voice speak of Christ as Messiah. The transfiguration was associated with the coming of Jesus much later because He appeared that day in the manner in which He will appear when he comes. He was transfigured in such a manner in which He will in the future appear, that they knew His future coming was unable to be doubted. The transfiguration was a reference point to prove Christ's later coming in glory.

So verse 27 and 28 are indeed speaking of the same coming since both mention and coming, and the transfiguration was NOT A COMING. It can be a TOKEN of the coming that had not yet occurred yet. But it was not a coming.

And you never explained why DEATH was mentioned in verse 28.

Matthew 16:27-28 KJV For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. (28) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.


It should have read that there were some there who would not taste death (you do not say why death is mentioned) til they saw the son of man TRANSFIGURED -- NOT COMING -- in glory. But it does not say that. How is the transfiguration a COMING of the Lord?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It should have read that there were some there who would not taste death (you do not say why death is mentioned) til they saw the son of man TRANSFIGURED -- NOT COMING -- in glory. But it does not say that. How is the transfiguration a COMING of the Lord?

It seems clear that Peter referred to it as a "coming" when he spoke of the transfiguration in II Peter 1:16-18

2 Peter 1:16-18 (King James Version)

16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

It seems clear that Peter referred to it as a "coming" when he spoke of the transfiguration in II Peter 1:16-18

2 Peter 1:16-18 (King James Version)

16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

You never even read what I said.

As I already explained, Peter was not saying that was a coming, but was the verification for the yet-future coming. It's not what Peter said that is the problem, but how we are reading it. Since it was not a coming in any way, shape or form, it was obviously only an event somehow associated with the coming.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

TK, are you a full or a partial preterist?

I used to answer questions like this by saying, "I am FULLY presuaded that Preterism is correct, and I am very PARTIAL to it!"

I am an Apostolic Full Preterist.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Is the position you stated [above] shared by both full and partial preterists?

That would depend on the individual. However, I know many who do.

[shag]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

It can, but not always.

"Verily" used before a sentence essentially means the same as "truly", or "indeed". It is a word used for emphasis... but it doesnt necessarily mean it is directly linking to, or reinforcing, the statement made previously.

A thought to consider concerning Matt. 16:27,28:

An examination of Strong's Exhaustive Concordance reveals that the word "verily" is used some 95 times in the New Testament.

Unless "verily" is used as introductory and not for emphasis in Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1 there are only three places in all of the New Testament where the word is used to introduce a new subject. In all other occurrences, that is 92 out of 95 instances, the word is always used to emphasize a statement about a subject that is already under consideration. The exceptions are John 10:l; 13:21; and Hebrews 9:11.

Now when a word is used in such a consistent manner, with so few exceptions, unless one has some overwhelming contextual reason for doing so they must go with the normal definition and usage.

Where is the contextual evidence to demand that "verily" introduces a new subject in Matthew 16:28/Mark 9:1?

[SDG]

It's a hoot to see how the preterists on this site smack futurists around ... silly.Really ... not one futurist offered anything against their biblical blitzkreig on the idea of an Antichrist man ....Not one.

All that is offered up is ... well .... I don't want to talk about 70 a.d.?
They haven't ....

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

It's a hoot to see how the preterists on this site smack futurists around ... silly.Really ... not one futurist offered anything against their biblical blitzkreig on the idea of an Antichrist man ....Not one.

All that is offered up is ... well .... I don't want to talk about 70 a.d.?
They haven't ....

Doesn't it ultimately come down to that? The dates of the documents?

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

It's a hoot to see how the preterists on this site smack futurists around ... silly.Really ... not one futurist offered anything against their biblical blitzkreig on the idea of an Antichrist man ....Not one.

All that is offered up is ... well .... I don't want to talk about 70 a.d.?
They haven't ....

Dan I have much more to my life than to exhaust the subject of 70 AD and frankly I've never talked to preterists before so I am still educating myself about what they believe and how they interpret scripture. These guys have built their identity around this stuff, its only a side issue to me. They still haven't adequately in my mind answered the fact that Peter identifies the "coming" as the transfiguration. Pretty plain and clear. Cutting and pasting their talking points from what I am sure are volumes and volumes of debaties online don't impress me, they still can't make it all fit the 70 AD paradigm. They have to prove it all fits into that model and they haven't and can't.

[shag]

The way I see it, if Jesus is trying to get a point across to his listeners, that the things that he is talking about will come upon the very people he is talking to, then what better way is there for him to tell them, than saying to them that "these things will come upon this generation?

Just like the very 1st verse of revelation, of the things which are SHORTLY to come. If it did actually mean, those things would happen right away, then how else in the world would he word it to make the reader understand that was what he meant?

AT HAND, THIS generation(when and who was he talking to?) SHORTLY to come to pass.

Some of the explanations for this stuff makes me think of evolutionists who try to fix their unanswered questions by distancing time, whether it is 2000 years, or 200 million years.
Again, if Jesus(or John for that matter) was trying to get a point across of certain things happening in that day, how else could he have worded it to make us better understand, that was what he meant?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Doesn't it ultimately come down to that? The dates of the documents?

Never. The contents of the documents is first and foremost. I think the dating can be proved an earlier date. But I think that is a distraction. The contents must supercede anything those contents did not mention, like dating. Both sides should emphasize the contents and message.