whitestone
Well-known member
no,,,,I'm going to be raised incorruptible,,,you are the one teaching this is past,you are the one teaching death,,,
ECT NT Eschatology #5: Acts 26 shapes Israel's outcome
- Thread starter Interplanner
- Start date
no,,,,I'm going to be raised incorruptible,,,you are the one teaching this is past,you are the one teaching death,,,
Then why can't the same symbolism be applied to "new earth"?
I'm going to be instantly in the presence of the Lord in an incorruptible body.
Yes the resurrection is past, but that is not teaching death. You are teaching death. You are teaching that when you die, you have to either experience "soul sleep" until a resurrection, or your soul has to go hang out somewhere for what could be thousands of years until you get an incorruptible body for it.
So according to you, it's ok to quote Polycarp.
However, it's apparently not ok to quote any other early church father:
So, according to you, it's ok to quote early church fathers when they support your claim, but if someone else quotes an early church father that doesn't support your claim, then you have to attack that early church father?
Is that what you're doing here?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No I didn't. If this is not describing the Lord Jesus then who is it describing?:
"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:2-4).
Of course since the preterists have no place for the fulfillment of this event in their eschatology you just say that it will never happen!
Interplanner
Well-known member
There is no clear NT quote of this JerryS, and I can't take other people's word for it when the rest of the NT quotes of this part of Zech were about the Gospel event.
Try to come to terms with what Paul says in Acts 26 about the OT. He did not go beyond what Moses and the Prophets said would happen which is the suffering and resurrection of Christ (he says). If he did not go beyond that, should we?
As for the passage itself, I'm not sure at all why the city would get pulverized and then Christ would fight for it. Or does he? Or does he just fight for himself? Do you realize what it says?
Try to come to terms with what Paul says in Acts 26 about the OT. He did not go beyond what Moses and the Prophets said would happen which is the suffering and resurrection of Christ (he says). If he did not go beyond that, should we?
As for the passage itself, I'm not sure at all why the city would get pulverized and then Christ would fight for it. Or does he? Or does he just fight for himself? Do you realize what it says?
HisServant
New member
1.) Jesus throne will never be on earth.. he has said as much.
2.) Throne of Glory is not Davids Throne.
3.) Jewish apocalyptic writing style seem to still be a mystery to you... Revelation is about the end of Judiasm and the Old Covenant. The end of a metaphorical earth (the Jewish world view).
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Does you Bible not have an Old Testament in it?
Does not your Bible say anything about the Lord Jesus retuning to earth as He left?:
"And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 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" (Acts 1:10-11).
The Lord Jesus was standing on the Mount of Olives when He ascended into heaven and this prophecy shows His feet standing on the Mount of Olives when He will return:
"For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east" (Zech.14:2-4).
HisServant
New member
Why would Jesus need to fulfill Zach 14:2-4 yet again?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
He said that when He returns that He will then sit upon His throne:
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).
Then what throne was the Lord Jesus speaking about when He spoke about "the throne his glory"?
When did He fulfill it the first time?
Interplanner
Well-known member
There is definitely a day of judgement coming, but the NT never makes happen in certain places in Israel; it is a worldwide event and quick. And then there are the features that are like the DofJ. He was revealed through it and he ascended to reign on his throne back at the end of the gospels and he manifested that way during the DofJ. The same manner means enthroned. It does not necessarily fix itself to the Mount of Olives.
Interplanner
Well-known member
Jerry,
the Mt25 is still not necessarily on this earth as such. That is why it can be seen as starting at the Resurrection or the Ascension or Pentecost.
Besides we can't confine the meaning down to on earth vs not on earth as though that covers everything. His enthronement was not something that you will see pictures of in the NYT.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So when the Lord's disciples asked Him about the sign of His coming (Mt.24:3) His answer here was not in regard to His coming to earth?:
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory" (Mt.25:31).
You do not have a lick of common sense! If you are right then when the Lord spoke of His "coming" He was actually speaking of His "going."
You preterists prove that you will say anything to defend preterism even if it means butchering what is revealed in the Bible!
You can't even understand the difference between "coming" and "going." A person would have to be a fool to believe anything that you teach!
Interplanner
Well-known member
There are several things that were referred to as coming: the Res, the 40 days from the Res to Pentecost, Pentecost, the incoming of the nations, the DofJ and of course the 2nd coming.
The interesting thing about the intro of Mt24 is that THEY wanted to know about the kingdom; they kept banging on about it even in Acts 1 where they were told to knock it off. But he answered in Mt24 about the utter devastation of the country.
Stop the "you preterist" blanketing. There are many kinds. My particular belief is that the 2nd coming was expected right after the DofJ with the allowance "in the contract" that it could be delayed. It was. So your question for me is actually: who believed what and when?
As Lattourrette's history of the early church shows, coming to terms with the delayed 2nd coming was the biggest challenge of the surviving apostles.
The interesting thing about the intro of Mt24 is that THEY wanted to know about the kingdom; they kept banging on about it even in Acts 1 where they were told to knock it off. But he answered in Mt24 about the utter devastation of the country.
Stop the "you preterist" blanketing. There are many kinds. My particular belief is that the 2nd coming was expected right after the DofJ with the allowance "in the contract" that it could be delayed. It was. So your question for me is actually: who believed what and when?
As Lattourrette's history of the early church shows, coming to terms with the delayed 2nd coming was the biggest challenge of the surviving apostles.