Could Barak Obama be the Anti Christ?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by mfblume

As a partial preterist, I know this view is consistent with all full preterists, but not all partial preterists.

Is there a standard partial preterist view on this?
And what is your view?

[shag]

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Mat 5:18)

According to this verse, would the interpretaion be only 2 options?:

1.) We are still under the old law, and heaven and earth have not passed away. (whatever exactly that could mean, and be understood by the listeners that were there in Matt. 5:18.

2.) We are not still under the old law, due to the cross fullfillment of abolishing it, therefore, heaven and earth will have to had passed away(whatever exactly that meant to be understood by the listeners that were there in Matt. 5:18), by the time of the crucfixion.

Are these not the only 2 options according to that verse?

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I disagree.

Jesus emphasized the fact that BEFORE SOME of them DIE they would see this coming. That means that there was going to pass enough time that some might wonder if it ever happens, and perhaps not see it until a short time before they die, while others hearing him that day would have died. If he meant next week at the transfiguration, then in order for him to emphasize the fact they would not die before it happens necessitates that his audience was either so old that it was questionable they would survive another week, or else they were very old people who might not live quite over another week.

Again, he emphasized SOME would not die before this happens.

After looking into it, I have to wholeheartedly disagree.

Matthew 16:28 (Young's Literal Translation)

28Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'

According to your reading, the emphasis implies that some would die before it happened, and some would not.
I think the context rather, implies that some of them would SEE IT and some of them would not. In other words, not every one who heard his words that day would get to see his transfiguration. As we see, a few days later, only 3 of them were chosen to see it, and the others were not.

This was a magnificent sight that a select few that many saints would love to see in their lifetime. But only those chosen three would be allowed to see it.

[shag]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

After looking into it, I have to wholeheartedly disagree.

Matthew 16:28 (Young's Literal Translation)

28Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'

According to your reading, the emphasis implies that some would die before it happened, and some would not.
I think the context rather, implies that some of them would SEE IT and some of them would not. In other words, not every one who heard his words that day would get to see his transfiguration. As we see, a few days later, only 3 of them were chosen to see it, and the others were not.

This was a magnificent sight that a select few that many saints would love to see in their lifetime. But only those chosen three would be allowed to see it.

It seems to me, we must chose if verse 28 goes with verse 27, or verse 1 of the next chapter. The "assuredly" preceding the rest of verse 28, leads me to believe that Jesus is saying, "What I'm saying when I told you (verse 27) is.... (linking 27 with 28)

27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

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

Matt. 17 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, led them up on a high mountain by themselves; 2 and He was transfigured before them.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Is there a standard partial preterist view on this?
And what is your view?

From the partial Preterist book DAYS OF VENGEANCE:

David Chilton (1987)
"Moreover, the phrase heaven and earth in these contexts does not, as Owen pointed out, refer to the physical heaven and the physical world, but to the world-order, the religious organizations of the world, the "House" or Temple God builds in which He is worshipped." (Days of Vengeance., p. 544)

Another PARTIAL PRETERIST writing:

Gary DeMar (1996)
"Jesus does not change subjects when He assures the disciples that "heaven and earth will pass away." Rather, He merely affirms His prior predictions, which are recorded in Matthew 24:29..31. Verse 36 is a summary and confirmation statement of these verses.(6) Keep in mind that the central focus of the Olivet Discourse is the desolation of the "house" and "world" of apostate Israel (23:36). The old world of Judaism, represented by the earthly temple, is taken apart stone by stone (24:2). James Jordan writes, "each time God brought judgment on His people during the Old Covenant, there was a sense in which an old heavens and earth was replaced with a new one: New rulers were set up, a new symbolic world model was built (Tabernacle, Temple), and so forth."(7) The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant with new leaders, a new priesthood, new sacraments, a new sacrifice, a new tabernacle (John 1:14), and a new temple (John 2:19; 1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:21). In essence, a new heaven and earth.

The darkening of the sun and moon and the falling of the stars, coupled with the shaking of the heavens (24:29), are more descriptive ways of saying that "heaven and earth will pass away" (24:35). In other contexts, when stars fall, they fall to the earth, a sure sign of temporal judgment (Isaiah 14:12; Daniel 8:10; Revelation 6:13; 9:1; 12:4). So then, the "passing away of heaven and earth" is the passing away of the old covenant world of Judaism led and upheld by those who "crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Corinthians 2:8). "

"John Owen, the Puritan scholar, knows his Bible better than most of the rest of us, and he tells us exactly where the Old Testament foretells a 'new heaven and earth."

"Owen is right on target, asking the question that so many expositors fail to ask: Where had God promised to bring "new heavens and a new earth" The answer, as Owen correctly states, is only in Isaiah 65 and 66 - passages which clearly prophesy the period of the Gospel, brought in by the work of Christ." (ibid., p. 495)

"Because of what may be called the 'collapsing universe' terminology used in this passage, many have assumed that St. Peter is speaking of the final end of the physical heaven and earth, rather than the dissolution of the Old Covenant world order." (Last Days Madness, p. 540)

I would say most partial preterists agree with full preterists in this one.

My view has not focused on that detail very much. I can see Isaiah 51:16 proposing what Bro Burk said.

I like what David Chilton wrote:

There is heaven and earth, but no “under-the-earth,” the abode of Leviathan. What St. John reveals to us is the eschatological outcome of the comprehensive, cosmic reconciliation celebrated by St. Paul: “For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven” (Col. 1:19-20).1 Yet this vision of the new heaven and earth is not to be interpreted as wholly future. As we shall see repeatedly throughout our study of this chapter, that which is to be absolutely and completely true in eternity is definitively and progressively true now. Our enjoyment of our eternal inheritance will be a continuation and perfection of what is true of the Church in this life. We are not simply to look forward to the blessings of Revelation 21 in an eternity to come, but to enjoy them and rejoice in them and extend them here and now. St. John was telling the early Church of present realities, of blessings that existed already and would be on the increase as the Gospel went forth and renewed the earth.

Salvation is consistently presented in the Bible as recreation.z This is why creation language and symbolism are used in Scripture whenever God speaks of saving His people. We have seen how God’s deliverances of His people in the Flood and the Exodus are regarded by the Biblical writers as provisional New Creations, pointing to the definitive New Creation in the First Advent of Christ. Thus, God spoke through Isaiah of the blessings of Christ’s coming Kingdom:

Chilton makes a good poiont in saying the only reference in the Old Testament to a new heaven and earth is in Isaiah 65.

Isaiah 65:17-25 KJV For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. (18) But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. (19) And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. (20) There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. (21) And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. (22) They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. (23) They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. (24) And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. (25) The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

Chilton noted that a new heaven and earth that still had death in it cannot refer to eternity future.

Originally Posted by Chilton

This cannot be speaking of heaven, or of a time after the end of the world; for in this “new heaven and earth” there is still death (though at a very advanced age – “the lifetime of a tree”); people are building, planting, working, and having children. Isaiah is clearly making a statement about thzk age, before the end of the world, showing what future generations can expect as the Gospel permeates the world, restores the earth to Paradise, and brings to fruition the goals of the Kingdom. Isaiah is de- scribing the blessings of Deuteronomy 28 in their greatest earthly fulfillment. Thus, when St. John tells us that he saw “a new heaven and earth,” we should recognize that the primary significance of that phrase is symbolic, and has to do with the blessings of salvation.

Millennialists say this new heaven and earth is after the end of the world after the millennium. They say the millennium sees people live long lives and then die, but Isaiah 65 said this is true of the new heaven and earth, and that contradicts the thought of this this long living being a millennium issue !!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

After looking into it, I have to wholeheartedly disagree.

Matthew 16:28 (Young's Literal Translation)

28Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.'

According to your reading, the emphasis implies that some would die before it happened, and some would not.
I think the context rather, implies that some of them would SEE IT and some of them would not. In other words, not every one who heard his words that day would get to see his transfiguration. As we see, a few days later, only 3 of them were chosen to see it, and the others were not.

This was a magnificent sight that a select few that many saints would love to see in their lifetime. But only those chosen three would be allowed to see it.

I cannot see how you conclude this. You are saying that some not seeing the Lord's coming meant they would not taste death. How does tasting death have to do with not seeing the transfiguration? That is stretching, things, to say the least, bro. Jesus mentioned death, not me.

Read Mtt 21:40 and try to realize that at least one reference to His coming was speaking about close destruction, as the pharisees knew themselves according to the rest of Matt 21. Consider Matt 16 might be referring to the same thing.

[mfblume]

TRF,

If Matt 16's coming would be fulfilled the next week at the transfiguration, how in the world would EVERY MAN get his reward.

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.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by mfblume

TRF,

If Matt 16's coming would be fulfilled the next week at the transfiguration, how in the world would EVERY MAN get his reward.

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.

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.""

[shag]

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.""

Would not the "verily" link the 2 verses together as the being the same event. I assumed that in any other biblical reference example, the "verily" is trying/pushing to get a point or thot across.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by shag

Would not the "verily" link the 2 verses together as the being the same event. I assumed that in any other biblical reference example, the "verily" is trying/pushing to get a point or thot across.

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.