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

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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]

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Esaias

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]

Originally Posted by JamesGlen

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]

Originally Posted by Aquila

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.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

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]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

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.