|
|
Post by Allyn on Dec 22, 2012 9:53:27 GMT -5
Morris, I respect your right to hold to a future return of Christ, but you have been exposed to preterism and have probably read some of the finest articles we have to offer, but what is it that keeps you holding on to that hope of a future return?
|
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Dec 22, 2012 14:39:52 GMT -5
Morris, I respect your right to hold to a future return of Christ, but you have been exposed to preterism and have probably read some of the finest articles we have to offer, but what is it that keeps you holding on to that hope of a future return? I think there are two main sticking points that keep Futurists and Partial Preterists bound to this idea of a future return of Christ. The first revolves around the resurrection as outlined by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15, and the argument goes something like this: a physical resurrection of Christ means a physical resurrection for us and that only happens when He physically returns. I'm not going to address this issue now because, quite frankly, I have other things I need to get done today and addressing that would keep me from getting my "honey-do" list done. The second argument for His future return I read most often repeated comes from Romans 8, and this is by far the easiest one to refute given my time constraints. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation [pas ktisis] groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. Romans 8:20-23 (NASB) When Futurists and Partial Prets read this passage from Romans, the first mistake they make is reading "whole creation" the same way they read "whole world" or "whole earth." They take it - in extreme cases - to mean every rock, hill, tree, dog, and cat will be redeemed from the corruption of Adam's sin when Christ returns. The first thing they miss is those two little words Paul wrote " until now." Let's allow that to slide for now. But the bigger issue is that they only see these verses in isolation and not part of a bigger picture, i.e. they fail to let scripture interpret scripture. So what does "whole creation" mean in this context? Human beings, both Jew and Gentile! The antecedent for this understanding comes from Mark's version of the great commission: And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation [pas ktisis]. Mark 16:15 (NASB) The same Greek words for "whole creation" in Romans 8 are the same Greek words for "all creation" in Mark 16! These words are further placed in the context of human beings by the following words from Mark's gospel: " He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. Mark 16:16 (NASB) As human beings - not rocks, trees, dogs, cats, or rivers - are the only things capable of coming to a saving belief in Jesus Christ, clearly "all creation" can only refer to humanity and our need for the savior. Finally, this Greek phrase "pas ktisis" is also seen in Colossians 1:23: if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation [pas ktisis] under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister. Colossians 1:23 (NASB) Paul was not made a minister to the planet. He was made a minister to the Gentiles (Romans 15:16, Galatians 2:8-9, to name a few). And finally, just to close this loop, this verse in Colossians 1:23 is consistent with what Mark wrote in his gospel: And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed. Mark 16:20 (NASB) Knowing this keeps me from ever returning to the futurist paradigm. |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Dec 24, 2012 11:56:32 GMT -5
Morris, I respect your right to hold to a future return of Christ, but you have been exposed to preterism and have probably read some of the finest articles we have to offer, but what is it that keeps you holding on to that hope of a future return? I never said that I hold to a future return of Christ in this thread. I currently believe that much of the NT passages concerning a coming/appearance of Christ in Judgement was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem. My entire discussion here has zero to do with a future return, nor am I suggesting that mello means something that's not to occur until thousands of years later. All that I'm saying is that mello is being pigeon-holed in its meaning. It is claimed that mello means 'about to' (and I agree that is one of its applications). The only way we know that is by the scholars that tell us that is what it means. We seem adamant that they are correct in this yet also claim they are incorrect on the other aspects of the meaning of the same word. I personally find that rather 'choosey'. If I am to except that they are correct in one part, I must also except that they are correct in the others, at least until such time that I can argue their definitions from an extremely scholarly position in the knowledge of Greek. I don't see that happening any time soon. Another of my issues with mello having the exclusive meaning of 'about to', is that it means "not quite, ready to, on the verge of, as in I was about to leave when it began to rain, or He hasn't finished yet but he's about to", which does not really convey years later at all. I'm sure some will be fine with using 'about to' to mean "on the verge of ____ in a few years from now", but that doesn't appear to be a correct usage of 'on the verge of'. It would be nice for me to say that "I'm about to buy a new house", but I guarantee that people will not be thinking I mean a few years down the road. I realize that it sounds very good to be able to say that the NT writers are speaking of things that would happen within a few years or decades, but proving it by saying 'mello' means "on the verge of" in reference to events that far away is, according to all the research I have done, inaccurate. I don't know if I'll have access to this site over the holidays, so I'll wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.  |
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Dec 25, 2012 3:40:44 GMT -5
This isn't a logical argument. If the meaning "about to" works in every case where it is translated "about to", then this isn't mistranslating it.
As "about to" denotes imminence, let's look again at the primary definition of imminence:
imminence
the state of being imminent and liable to happen soon.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
As I wrote before,
Once they had seen the gospel preached throughout the Roman Empire, then they would've been perfectly justified in believing His parousia could happen at any moment. In fact, Peter had to respond to scoffers who were asking why His coming was taking so long. They did not have the advantage of hindsight as we do.
What we know took a few years for Christ's parousia was likely to happen at any moment for them. "About to" is perfectly justified given their perspective, and that's exactly how we have to try to understand them.
|
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Dec 25, 2012 19:02:18 GMT -5
Merry Christmas, one and all!
And Happy New Year, too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 25, 2012 21:07:49 GMT -5
Merry Christmas back at ya! Hope everyone had a blessed day.
|
|
|
|
Post by stormcrow on Jan 2, 2013 5:49:21 GMT -5
Allyn: I found something here you all might want to revisit in your next edition...
Rev. 16:18 So there were voices, and thunders, and lightning; and there was a great earthquake, such as was not since men were upon the land, so mighty an earthquake, and so great.
Rev. 16:19 Then the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon was remembered before God, to give to her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath.
(References taken from the FCB.)
I believe the "great city" (an allusion to first century Jerusalem) being divided into three parts is an allusion to the civil war that divided the city among three factions led by John of Gischala, Simon bar Giora, and Eleazar ben Simon. So when I went to look at the word "earthquake", I was surprised to find this!
Greek NASB Number: 4578
Greek Word: σεισμός
Transliterated Word: seismos
Root: from 4579;
Definition: a commotion, shaking:--
List of English Words and Number of Times Used
earthquake (10),
earthquakes (3),
storm (1).
New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Publications, 1998), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, Under: "4578"
I understand "seismos" is the greek word from which we draw our word "seismology", but clearly it connotes something more generic: a commotion. When we look at synonyms for commotion (a Latin word), here is what we get:
Main Entry: commotion [kuh-moh-shuh n] Show IPA
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: clamor, uproar
Synonyms: ado, agitation, annoyance, backwash, ballyhoo, bedlam, big scene, big stink, brouhaha, bustle, clatter, combustion, confusion, convulsion, discomposure, disquiet, dither, excitement, ferment, fermentation, flap, flurry, furor, fuss, hell broke loose, hubbub, hurly-burly, insurgence, insurrection, lather, mutiny, outcry, pandemonium, perturbation, pother, racket, rebellion, revolt, riot, rumpus, stew, stir, to-do, tumult, turbulence, upheaval, uprising, upset, upturn, vexation, welter, whirl
Antonyms: calm, calmness, peace, quiet, quietude, repose, silence, stillness, tranquility
Which translation of the word "seismos" (earthquake or commotion) better represents the events leading up to Jerusalem's fall, especially as they relate to the Jewish civil war that killed more people in the city than the Romans did?
Just some "thought fodder."
|
|
toml
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by toml on Feb 20, 2013 15:06:01 GMT -5
Has it come out yet? I want one.
|
|
|
|
Post by endtimesdeut32 on Mar 26, 2013 13:59:11 GMT -5
Has "ages" been replaced with generation in 3:5 and 3:21?
|
|
