Quote:
Originally Posted by good samaritan
My point is not that some of your A. D. 70 fulfillment is wrong, but that you are taking some things literally and some things figuratively and you do it to support your beliefs. When you say the Lord has returned in A. D. 70 any futurists is going to miss what you really believe. Although you are disagreeing about Matthew you don't really disagree about it being as a thief in the night as in sudden and unexpectedly. The resurrection I'm saying. I'm trying to see the common ground.
|
Fair enough. But the coming in
Matthew 24 is only in destruction not resurrection. And no verses refer to the resurrection in that others either. But as far as whether coming is literal or not, I'm getting my views based upon what the bible says about the term in the passages i cited. I can't see a physical return in
Matthew 10, 16 or 23. It's not that i choose to believe one tHing is physical and the other isn't. It's just that he physically never came with some of them having not yet tasted death, but yet he said he'd come then. Same with
Matthew 21:40. He said he'd come and take the kingdom away from the Pharisees and give it to another nation. That wasn't a physical coming either. But yet he called it his coming. So i accept it and it's ramifications.
Threaded Mode
