Same thing or New New Covenant?

[basilfo]

Are these Scriptures speaking of the same thing?


Jer 31:31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Heb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 "For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 13 In that He says, "A new [covenant,"] He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Rev 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them [and be] their God. 4 "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."

[Victor]

Excellent!

How could they be speaking of different things? It would sound forced and artificial.

The parallel is amazing. Hebrews quotes Jeremiah and says that the Old Covenant was "ready to vanish away". Revelation uses the same covenant language of Jer/Heb (in red) and adds a thought that is parallel to the others (in blue). Even the sequence of ideas is the same.

Victor

[Rose]

Excellent!

What is particularly insightful about those verses, is that Jer. and Heb. speak of what is going to be.....and Rev. speaks its fulfillment.

Rev. 21:3 "Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them [and be] their God. 4 "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."

God Bless,

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Are these Scriptures speaking of the same thing?

Jer 31:31 " Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 32 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. 33 "But this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

Heb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- 9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. 10 "For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 13 In that He says, "A new [covenant,"] He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Rev 21:1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them [and be] their God. 4 "And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."

Excellent question Dave! I agree with Victor - all three verses speak of the same thing, which just happens to be the central and culminating point of the entire Bible. There are many other verses that cohere with this, but there are a couple verses that are hard to understand.
Matthew 26:27-29 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

This introduces the question about the meaning of Christ drinking of the fruit of the vine with us in the Kingdom. And we have a similar problem with Paul's statement that the Lord's Supper would proclaim his death "until he comes."
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 23 ¶ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes.
The word "comes" is "erchomai." How should we understand the blue words in these two passages? On the one hand, the red text presents the New Covenant as a present reality in the first century, but the blue text seems to be talking about a future event.

Richard

[Victor]

Excellent question Dave! I agree with Victor - all three verses speak of the same thing, which just happens to be the central and culminating point of the entire Bible. There are many other verses that cohere with this, but there are a couple verses that are hard to understand.
Matthew 26:27-29 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

This introduces the question about the meaning of Christ drinking of the fruit of the vine with us in the Kingdom.

Hey, Richard, what do you find hard to understand in this passage? I understand that you speak about the part in blue.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Matthew 26:27-29 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."
Hey, Richard, what do you find hard to understand in this passage? I understand that you speak about the part in blue.
Good morning Victor,

The blue passage lends itself to a futurist understanding of us (physically?) with Christ in the "Kingdom" drinking wine, which has not happened of course. But if we understand the "Kingdom" as the rule of Christ manifest in the hearts of believers who are the new "Temple of God" (New Jerusalem) then there is no problem. We are currently drinking the "new wine" of the Spirit with Christ even now. Do you think this is what he meant? If not, how would you interpret it?

I don't find this verse particularly challenging but included it because it resonates somewhat with the more difficult passage that says the Lord's Supper proclaims "the Lord's death till He comes." The "till" shows the passage was speaking of an event yet future at the time it was written. If we take the "coming" in that passage as referring to 70 AD, then we would have the implication that the Lord's Supper was no longer a "command" - that it had fulfilled it's purpose since the Lord had come. But this doesn't set very well with how the Church has practiced it.

I'm just thinking out loud because these verses have been central in some of the arguments for futurism, and I wanted to see if we could articulate answers well. Perhaps I should do a quick internet search to see exactly how the futurists use them and use that as a starting point.

Richard

[Rose]

Excellent question Dave! I agree with Victor - all three verses speak of the same thing, which just happens to be the central and culminating point of the entire Bible. There are many other verses that cohere with this, but there are a couple verses that are hard to understand.
Matthew 26:27-29 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28 "For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29 "But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." This introduces the question about the meaning of Christ drinking of the fruit of the vine with us in the Kingdom. And we have a similar problem with Paul's statement that the Lord's Supper would proclaim his death "until he comes."
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 23 ¶ For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. The word "comes" is "erchomai." How should we understand the blue words in these two passages? On the one hand, the red text presents the New Covenant as a present reality in the first century, but the blue text seems to be talking about a future event.

Richard

I think the future event that is being spoken of is the bringing in of the Kingdom that Paul speaks of.
1 Cor. 15:24-26 "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

At the time Jesus was talking to His disciples and Paul was talking to the brethren, the Kingdom had not fully come in, the Old Covenant was still in the process of passing away.

The coming that was spoken of was the bringing in with power and glory the Kingdom, which is what happened when the Old was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. Jesus tells His disciples in the "Lords prayer" to pray for God's Kingdom to come so His will can be done on earth as it is already done in Heaven. I think that is the coming that Jesus is speaking of.

Now the Kingdom of God dwells within us and every time we take the Lord's supper we are able to enjoy a fuller aspect of it because we are not waiting for Him to bring in the Kingdom.....it has come.

God Bless,

Rose

[Bob May]

I think the future event that is being spoken of is the bringing in of the Kingdom that Paul speaks of.
1 Cor. 15:24-26 "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

At the time Jesus was talking to His disciples and Paul was talking to the brethren, the Kingdom had not fully come in, the Old Covenant was still in the process of passing away.

The coming that was spoken of was the bringing in with power and glory the Kingdom, which is what happened when the Old was completely destroyed in 70 A.D. Jesus tells His disciples in the "Lords prayer" to pray for God's Kingdom to come so His will can be done on earth as it is already done in Heaven. I think that is the coming that Jesus is speaking of.

Now the Kingdom of God dwells within us and every time we take the Lord's supper we are able to enjoy a fuller aspect of it because we are not waiting for Him to bring in the Kingdom.....it has come.

God Bless,

Rose


Hi everyone,
I don't see two new covenants here, but it may seem that way being we come so far and then we seem to be waiting for some future fulfillment that we are as yet unaware of.
I really think this goes back to everything was done at the Cross, Resurrection and Pentecost. And, further that it is a matter of us reckoning ourselves alive to God as Paul said.

"Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven..." can be read as a statement of fact, meaning Now, or as a plea for a future event just as accurately.

"..when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."

This, also can be read as some future event concerning all of the heirs to the Promise at once in some far off future or as a statement aimed at each of us as heirs, individually, as each of us open our eyes to the truth that we Are Alive unto God.
So, as each of us realizes the depth and breadth (one at a time) of the Promise, Jesus comes to us.
Again, it can be read either way and make perfect sense.

The benefit of looking at these things as individual spiritual experiences is that it is always close. Just around the corner, .."if I can just get a better understanding of God's presence."
This "reaching" leads to spiritual experience.

Contrarily, look at the many times throughout history when the "Second Coming" was predicted and waited for by thousands. It lead to disappointment
and the turning away of many. Jehovah's Witnesses are a good example, but there were many more.

If the Father, Son, Spirit and the Kingdom of heaven all reside within us, doesn't it make sense to look within for the Coming, rather than for some historical event?

Lu 17:20 "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with OBSERVATION:"

Now, this word, observation, (Strongs #3907) carries the idea of "occular evidence" and "scrupulously observing" as comparing one thing to another, as I understand it.
This idea of occular would seem to speak against looking to the outside world for some event evident to our eyes.

But Jesus does tell us to "watch."

Lu 17:23 "And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them."
24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day."

Mk 13:35 "Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch."

This word "watch", (Strong's #1127) on the other hand, carries the meaning of being "vigilant" and staying "awake." Both of these words, in my opinion, would be fine in describing either and inner (one witnessed by only one person) event or an outer (an event that would be seen by anyone in the vicinity of the event) event.


Now, these verses say that only some of those would be aware of the Son coming in his kingdom. That could very well point to an inward, individual spiritual event, rather than an outward, historical event


Mt 16:28 "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."
Mt 16:28 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.
Mr 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be SOME of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.


Heb 9:28 "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that Look (Strong's #553) For Him shall he appear the Second Time without sin unto salvation."

This word "look" means to "fully expect", to "wait for."

So, again we see an individual experience being described here, for how could the "Second Coming" be an "outward event" when "Waiting" and/or "Expecting" are prerequisites for his appearance?

Bob

[Victor]

Good morning Victor,

The blue passage lends itself to a futurist understanding of us (physically?) with Christ in the "Kingdom" drinking wine, which has not happened of course. But if we understand the "Kingdom" as the rule of Christ manifest in the hearts of believers who are the new "Temple of God" (New Jerusalem) then there is no problem. We are currently drinking the "new wine" of the Spirit with Christ even now. Do you think this is what he meant? If not, how would you interpret it?

I don't know. It could refer to various different things:

Jesus drank wine in his last moments on the Cross. This event was the inauguration of the Kingdom. The seed of the Church - including the beloved disciple who was in the Last Supper - were there at the feet of the Cross. This could be a proleptic fulfillment that pointed to a future and greater one (like the case of John 20:22).
It could be Pentecost. The effects of the outpouring of the Spirit were confounded with the effect of wine. Christ was with them at that moment through the Spirit.
It refers to the moment when we become Christians and start partaking of the Bread and Wine.
It refers to the moment when we are united to Christ in our physical deaths.
I don't find this verse particularly challenging but included it because it resonates somewhat with the more difficult passage that says the Lord's Supper proclaims "the Lord's death till He comes." The "till" shows the passage was speaking of an event yet future at the time it was written. If we take the "coming" in that passage as referring to 70 AD, then we would have the implication that the Lord's Supper was no longer a "command" - that it had fulfilled it's purpose since the Lord had come. But this doesn't set very well with how the Church has practiced it.
This is a very difficult verse in the preterist worldview. In fact, full-blown preterism goes against the most ancient and cherished creeds of the Church. Just about every Christian throughout the centuries have been awaiting for a future coming of Christ. Have all of them been wrong all this time? And it is very strange if this coming refers to 70 AD because it suggests that the breaking of the bread wouldn't have the same meaning and impact after 70 AD.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Good morning Victor,

The blue passage lends itself to a futurist understanding of us (physically?) with Christ in the "Kingdom" drinking wine, which has not happened of course. But if we understand the "Kingdom" as the rule of Christ manifest in the hearts of believers who are the new "Temple of God" (New Jerusalem) then there is no problem. We are currently drinking the "new wine" of the Spirit with Christ even now. Do you think this is what he meant? If not, how would you interpret it?

I don't know. It could refer to various different things:

Jesus drank wine in his last moments on the Cross. This event was the inauguration of the Kingdom. The seed of the Church - including the beloved disciple who was in the Last Supper - were there at the feet of the Cross. This could be a proleptic fulfillment that pointed to a future and greater one (like the case of John 20:22).
It could be Pentecost. The effects of the outpouring of the Spirit were confounded with the effect of wine. Christ was with them at that moment through the Spirit.
It refers to the moment when we become Christians and start partaking of the Bread and Wine.
It refers to the moment when we are united to Christ in our physical deaths.
Those are good possibilities. There is enough ambiguity to allow for a pretty wide latitude of interpretation regardless of one's eschatological predispostions.





I don't find this verse particularly challenging but included it because it resonates somewhat with the more difficult passage that says the Lord's Supper proclaims "the Lord's death till He comes." The "till" shows the passage was speaking of an event yet future at the time it was written. If we take the "coming" in that passage as referring to 70 AD, then we would have the implication that the Lord's Supper was no longer a "command" - that it had fulfilled it's purpose since the Lord had come. But this doesn't set very well with how the Church has practiced it.

This is a very difficult verse in the preterist worldview. In fact, full-blown preterism goes against the most ancient and cherished creeds of the Church. Just about every Christian throughout the centuries have been awaiting for a future coming of Christ. Have all of them been wrong all this time? And it is very strange if this coming refers to 70 AD because it suggests that the breaking of the bread wouldn't have the same meaning and impact after 70 AD.
It seems to me that full-blown preterism differs from the traditions in the creeds only on matters of eschatology, and the creeds are worthless in that regards if they are not based on a valid interpretation of Scripture. The fact that the sheep believed what they were taught tells us nothing of the validity of that teaching.

You ask "Have all of them been wrong all this time?" - I think the answer is an resounding YES in as much as most teachers throughout the history of the Church have expected the "Second Coming" to happen sometime in their own lifetimes or the near future. Stellar examples of primary teachers holding this view includes all the Apostles, the early Fathers, the Reformers, and pretty much every teacher who ever wrote on the topic as far as I can recall off the top of my head. So given this essentially universal track record of being totally wrong (or wrongly interpreted), why should we follow in those footsteps? It is my impression that the early Christian teachers (many of whom were Genitle proselites ignorant of the correct OT interpretation) failed to understand the fundamental message of the Gospel just like the Apostles did when they asked if Jesus was going to set up His earthly Kingdom in physical Israel (Acts 1). They didn't have a clue about God's real plans, and I don't think the early fathers did either. Many of them appear to have been completely ignorant of the most basic elements of the symbolic language of the Bible. Their errors then propogated throughout Church history.

Richard

[gregoryfl]

If the Father, Son, Spirit and the Kingdom of heaven all reside within us, doesn't it make sense to look within for the Coming, rather than for some historical event?

Lu 17:20 "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with OBSERVATION:"

Now, this word, observation, (Strongs #3907) carries the idea of "occular evidence" and "scrupulously observing" as comparing one thing to another, as I understand it.
This idea of occular would seem to speak against looking to the outside world for some event evident to our eyes.
I see things similar to the way you are describing them, although I have much still to consider concerning it. I still have many questions, but there is something about it being revealed from within that just resonates with my spirit and I cannot put it aside.

Ron

[Bob May]

I see things similar to the way you are describing them, although I have much still to consider concerning it. I still have many questions, but there is something about it being revealed from within that just resonates with my spirit and I cannot put it aside.

Ron

Hi Ron,

I, also still have much to consider concerning it.
I also still have many questions.
It also has resonated with my spirit for years and I can't put it aside either.

It is a total turning around of how we habitually think and it is very difficult to sustain looking at it from this perspective. It colors the book of Revelations in a whole new light but I only seem to get pieces at a time.

It "does not compute" with linear "cause and effect" thinking. But it would explain a lot of things. Jesus words quoted above and the reason the Apostles thought that we were in the end times even back then. If I am correct, so were they.

Rev 1:8 "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty."

1: 19 "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;.."

On the other hand, both of the above verses point to the very definition of the Father. He who is "I Am That I Am."

Not a linear being, but timeless. Maybe we have to get timeless in order to understand a lot of what is being said.

Again, Margaret Mcdonald is the only other person that I know of that lays it out in writing. It would be good to read her revelation and meditate on it for a while.

Bob

[gregoryfl]

This verse, to me, sums it up as to how and where this occurs, from within:

2Th 1:10 whenever He may be coming to be glorified in His saints and to be marveled at in all who believe (seeing that our testimony to you was believed) in that day.

This is indeed a process that continues "until Christ may be formed in you!" Gal 4:19.

Preston Eby wrote this very powerful statement. It is so important to be discerned by those who have ears to hear:

"God will not allow us to refuse to see the Christ in each other and then look upon Him in some other form. We will have to recognize Him in our brethren. God will not satisfy our carnal nature by allowing us to see Jesus descending from heaven in clouds of glory while we pass by His body on earth and refuse to see Him in them. It is this message that is coming to us today, it is necessary that we see Him in those who are called and chosen and faithful. If I want to see the Christ I look at you because that is where He is forming Himself and manifesting Himself and glorifying Himself. The body of Christ is not something apart from Christ, not just something the Christ has formed as a separate entity. The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ on this earth IS CHRIST in the earth! When this precious knowledge becomes sweet to our soul we begin to look at one another and BEHOLD HIM. We are looking for HIS APPEARING in His temple, which temple ye are. "And unto them that LOOK FOR HIM shall HE APPEAR..." (Heb. 9:28)."

Ron

[Rose]

Something that we need to pay particular attention to is the fact that when the New Testament was written (meaning the time when Paul and the other Apostles wrote their letters) the New Covenant was not fully ushered in. Paul himself speaks of the Old as being in the process of vanishing away.

So it is important to note that since Revelation is the Capstone book of the Bible, it is a strong pointer towards it being a fulfilled prophecy, otherwise we have the Bible as an unfinished revelation left hanging in the balance.....instead of a complete and fulfilled revelation of Jesus Christ.

History has proved that every prediction of Christs "second coming" starting with the early Church Fathers has proved to be false. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. there is a large space of time when there was no record of what was going on in the Church....a big blank spot in history. So when the early Church Fathers began their writings it was with much speculation about how to interpret Scripture, especially the book of Revelation. This in turn led to many false ideas being passed down as truth.

I strongly feel that the Bible is a finished work, and in order for that to be true the book of Revelation must also be a fulfilled prophecy.

God Bless,

Rose

[gregoryfl]

Something that we need to pay particular attention to is the fact that when the New Testament was written (meaning the time when Paul and the other Apostles wrote their letters) the New Covenant was not fully ushered in. Paul himself speaks of the Old as being in the process of vanishing away.

So it is important to note that since Revelation is the Capstone book of the Bible, it is a strong pointer towards it being a fulfilled prophecy, otherwise we have the Bible as an unfinished revelation left hanging in the balance.....instead of a complete and fulfilled revelation of Jesus Christ.

History has proved that every prediction of Christs "second coming" starting with the early Church Fathers has proved to be false. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. there is a large space of time when there was no record of what was going on in the Church....a big blank spot in history. So when the early Church Fathers began their writings it was with much speculation about how to interpret Scripture, especially the book of Revelation. This in turn led to many false ideas being passed down as truth.

I strongly feel that the Bible is a finished work, and in order for that to be true the book of Revelation must also be a fulfilled prophecy.

God Bless,

RoseI agree wholeheartedly with this Rose, and while it may appear that it is in contrast to what Bob and I are sharing about the coming of Christ as happening in and through his people now, I see it fitting perfectly.

When prophecy is fulfilled, those things which concern it do not cease, but continue. For example, in Revelation 22 people are invited to come. This was fulfilled, and in that fulfillment, today people are still extended that invitation, and will continue into the future.

The fullness of the gentiles and all Israel being saved is something that has been fulfilled, and in that fulfillment people are still coming into that fullness and will continue to into the future.

The law has been fulfilled in Christ, and in that fulfillment it exists as it was meant to be, in the hearts and minds of his people, and will continue to be into the future.

As one more example, we are told that today is a day of salvation, and that was fulfilled, and in that fulfillment today will always be a day of salvation.

So likewise, Christ coming to be glorified in and with his saints has indeed been fulfilled, and in that fulfillment today and into the future he will continue to be glorified in this way. Isaiah was told that there would be no end to the increase of Christ's government, which is his empire, or domain. He recorded this in chapter 9:7. Think about what this means.

There will be no end to people being born and being added to the kingdom of God. It's increase will never cease. This verse was fulfilled, and we see the ongoing effects of its fulfillment, and our children's children will as well.

The Bible is indeed a finished, fulfilled work, and the effects of that fulfillment will never cease to be. Every coming generation will testify to that truthfulness.

Ron

[Bob May]

Hi Rose and Ron,

Rose, you said,

"Something that we need to pay particular attention to is the fact that when the New Testament was written (meaning the time when Paul and the other Apostles wrote their letters) the New Covenant was not fully ushered in. Paul himself speaks of the Old as being in the process of vanishing away."

But before Jesus came and died iot was not yet "in the process" of vanishing away. After he came it was,...and still is. Because everyone has to go through some form of Law first before coming to Grace. ((For the gentile having not the law doing those things contained in the law (trying to be a good person) are a law unto themselves))
It is still a process to each of us individually even though it has been ushered in for 2000 years.

"So it is important to note that since Revelation is the Capstone book of the Bible, it is a strong pointer towards it being a fulfilled prophecy, otherwise we have the Bible as an unfinished revelation left hanging in the balance.....instead of a complete and fulfilled revelation of Jesus Christ."

I think you are correct. It is a fulfilled prophecy that was revealed to John.
John "saw" it.
When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus he said that being "born of the spirit" was a prerequisite to "Enter" the kingdom. Then he repeats himself with the difference that he says to "See" the Kingdom.
The difference between John and us is that he "Saw" something.

By the way, I think we are all three understanding and saying the same things here but merely adding our own perspectives to the mix.

Bob

[Rose]

I agree wholeheartedly with this Rose, and while it may appear that it is in contrast to what Bob and I are sharing about the coming of Christ as happening in and through his people now, I see it fitting perfectly.

When prophecy is fulfilled, those things which concern it do not cease, but continue. For example, in Revelation 22 people are invited to come. This was fulfilled, and in that fulfillment, today people are still extended that invitation, and will continue into the future.

The fullness of the gentiles and all Israel being saved is something that has been fulfilled, and in that fulfillment people are still coming into that fullness and will continue to into the future.

The law has been fulfilled in Christ, and in that fulfillment it exists as it was meant to be, in the hearts and minds of his people, and will continue to be into the future.

As one more example, we are told that today is a day of salvation, and that was fulfilled, and in that fulfillment today will always be a day of salvation.

So likewise, Christ coming to be glorified in and with his saints has indeed been fulfilled, and in that fulfillment today and into the future he will continue to be glorified in this way. Isaiah was told that there would be no end to the increase of Christ's government, which is his empire, or domain. He recorded this in chapter 9:7. Think about what this means.

There will be no end to people being born and being added to the kingdom of God. It's increase will never cease. This verse was fulfilled, and we see the ongoing effects of its fulfillment, and our children's children will as well.

The Bible is indeed a finished, fulfilled work, and the effects of that fulfillment will never cease to be. Every coming generation will testify to that truthfulness.

Ron

Amen to that Ron, :thumb:

God Bless,

Rose

[Rose]

Hi Rose and Ron,

Rose, you said,

"Something that we need to pay particular attention to is the fact that when the New Testament was written (meaning the time when Paul and the other Apostles wrote their letters) the New Covenant was not fully ushered in. Paul himself speaks of the Old as being in the process of vanishing away."

But before Jesus came and died iot was not yet "in the process" of vanishing away. After he came it was,...and still is. Because everyone has to go through some form of Law first before coming to Grace. ((For the gentile having not the law doing those things contained in the law (trying to be a good person) are a law unto themselves))
It is still a process to each of us individually even though it has been ushered in for 2000 years.

"So it is important to note that since Revelation is the Capstone book of the Bible, it is a strong pointer towards it being a fulfilled prophecy, otherwise we have the Bible as an unfinished revelation left hanging in the balance.....instead of a complete and fulfilled revelation of Jesus Christ."

I think you are correct. It is a fulfilled prophecy that was revealed to John.
John "saw" it.
When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus he said that being "born of the spirit" was a prerequisite to "Enter" the kingdom. Then he repeats himself with the difference that he says to "See" the Kingdom.
The difference between John and us is that he "Saw" something.

By the way, I think we are all three understanding and saying the same things here but merely adding our own perspectives to the mix.

Bob

I think you're right Bob, :thumb:

God Bless,

Rose

[gregoryfl]

And how good it is to see the different facets of the same truth. Thanks guys. :thumb:

[Victor]

It seems to me that full-blown preterism differs from the traditions in the creeds only on matters of eschatology, and the creeds are worthless in that regards if they are not based on a valid interpretation of Scripture. The fact that the sheep believed what they were taught tells us nothing of the validity of that teaching.

Oh well, I think you then should revise your Statement of Belief because you seem to reject a portion of it.

I believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ; ... and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
Creeds may be wrong if they are not properly based on Scripture, but on the other hand the escathological portion of the creeds being wrong seems to suggest that God could guide His people in all the other subjects during all these centuries at the same time as He didn't guide them in this specific point. In other words, the almost universally held doctrine of the Christian Church throughout all these centuries has been plain wrong.


You ask "Have all of them been wrong all this time?" - I think the answer is an resounding YES in as much as most teachers throughout the history of the Church have expected the "Second Coming" to happen sometime in their own lifetimes or the near future. Stellar examples of primary teachers holding this view includes all the Apostles, the early Fathers, the Reformers, and pretty much every teacher who ever wrote on the topic as far as I can recall off the top of my head.

Well, at least off the top of my head it seems that there has been a good number of teachers throughout the ages who believed in Christ coming again without associating it with any near-future prediction. Many leaders in the Evangelical churches hold this view, as does the Catholic Church. In fact, they even say that Christ's coming can still take centuries or millenia.


So given this essentially universal track record of being totally wrong (or wrongly interpreted), why should we follow in those footsteps? It is my impression that the early Christian teachers (many of whom were Genitle proselites ignorant of the correct OT interpretation) failed to understand the fundamental message of the Gospel just like the Apostles did when they asked if Jesus was going to set up His earthly Kingdom in physical Israel (Acts 1).

I think teachers who believe in a Second Coming would say that the Apostles believed so because the Spirit had not yet been poured. After Pentecost we don't read about the Apostles holding a belief in a carnal Kingdom.


They didn't have a clue about God's real plans, and I don't think the early fathers did either. Many of them appear to have been completely ignorant of the most basic elements of the symbolic language of the Bible. Their errors then propogated throughout Church history.

Richard

I don't know how accurate this statement really is. It seems like many of the biblical insights we Christians have now were actually antecipated by the Fathers and we are often ignorant of that. For example, it seems that shawn thought of the link between the five porches of John 5 and the Pentateuch (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=783) by himself but Augustine had the same insight much much earlier. It doesn't seem that the Fathers were "completely" ignorant of "the most basic elements" of Bible Typology. It seems the other way around. So, quite a few of them may have been wrong about "the iminent return of Christ" but that doesn't seem to be because they were ignorant of OT symbolism.

Victor

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Oh well, I think you then should revise your Statement of Belief because you seem to reject a portion of it.
I believe ... in one Lord Jesus Christ; ... and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.Creeds may be wrong if they are not properly based on Scripture, but on the other hand the escathological portion of the creeds being wrong seems to suggest that God could guide His people in all the other subjects during all these centuries at the same time as He didn't guide them in this specific point. In other words, the almost universally held doctrine of the Christian Church throughout all these centuries has been plain wrong.


Excellent points Victor! I'm really glad you are bringing this to my attention.

But there is a problem with your assertion. I do not deny that Christ "shall come again in glory." We have never discussed that in any of our many posts in this forum. The only thing I deny is that there are any Biblical passages that clearly and unambiguously teach the popular interpretation of that portion of the Creed. And this leads to another issue that must be considered. The creeds have various interpetations just as does the Bible. The most obvious example is the portion that refers to the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church." Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants all accept this portion, but they interpret it quite differently. And another HUGE difference is the portion that states "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." The RCC interprets that VERY differently than Protestants (and myself).

These questions could be partially settled by determining what the early Christians who wrote the creeds believed, but the results of that discussion would certainly fail to find universal agreement. This is the only reason folks with such widely divergent views can agree on the creeds - they interpret them differently!





You ask "Have all of them been wrong all this time?" - I think the answer is an resounding YES in as much as most teachers throughout the history of the Church have expected the "Second Coming" to happen sometime in their own lifetimes or the near future. Stellar examples of primary teachers holding this view includes all the Apostles, the early Fathers, the Reformers, and pretty much every teacher who ever wrote on the topic as far as I can recall off the top of my head.

Well, at least off the top of my head it seems that there has been a good number of teachers throughout the ages who believed in Christ coming again without associating it with any near-future prediction. Many leaders in the Evangelical churches hold this view, as does the Catholic Church. In fact, they even say that Christ's coming can still take centuries or millenia.

I agree. There are many who teach a "Second Coming" in the indefinite future. But I wonder how many of them that are preterist, such as Hank Hannegraaph and R. C. Sproul, base that doctrine on what they see as the clear an unambigous teaching of Scripture as opposed to felt need to appear "orthodox" by uncritically upholding the popular interpretations of the creeds?





So given this essentially universal track record of being totally wrong (or wrongly interpreted), why should we follow in those footsteps? It is my impression that the early Christian teachers (many of whom were Genitle proselites ignorant of the correct OT interpretation) failed to understand the fundamental message of the Gospel just like the Apostles did when they asked if Jesus was going to set up His earthly Kingdom in physical Israel (Acts 1).

I think teachers who believe in a Second Coming would say that the Apostles believed so because the Spirit had not yet been poured. After Pentecost we don't read about the Apostles holding a belief in a carnal Kingdom.

And that brings up yet another division in the popular interpretion of the creed. The reference to "His Kingdom" is interpretated quite differently under the milliennial and amillennial systems, yet adherents of both claim to believe in the creed.





They didn't have a clue about God's real plans, and I don't think the early fathers did either. Many of them appear to have been completely ignorant of the most basic elements of the symbolic language of the Bible. Their errors then propogated throughout Church history.

I don't know how accurate this statement really is. It seems like many of the biblical insights we Christians have now were actually antecipated by the Fathers and we are often ignorant of that. For example, it seems that shawn thought of the link between the five porches of John 5 and the Pentateuch (http://www.biblewheel.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=783) by himself but Augustine had the same insight much much earlier. It doesn't seem that the Fathers were "completely" ignorant of "the most basic elements" of Bible Typology. It seems the other way around. So, quite a few of them may have been wrong about "the iminent return of Christ" but that doesn't seem to be because they were ignorant of OT symbolism.

Victor
Thanks for the correction, my friend. I spoke a bit rashly there, though it was not entirely out of line. The kind of Biblical Typology I had in mind concerned the interepretation of God/Christ coming on clouds, and other elements from the Olivet Discourse that were interpreted in a grossly materilalistic and literal fashion.

Many blessings to you! I very much appreciate your insights.

Richard

[Rose]

I was just watching a program on the Discovery channel called "the complete story of Jesus", and it brought to mind how many of our perceptions are formed by false images that we have received without much thought.

The narrator mentioned how the painting of the Last Supper by Da Vinci depicted the setting of that happening wrong on every point, yet that is the image that many people hold as being what the Last Supper was actually like.

This is just one of the many examples of false impressions we carry through life that colors our perceptions of the truth. I wonder how many people actually think that Jesus looks like the standard portrait of Him with blond hair and blue eyes that hangs in many churches?

God Bless,

Rose

[Victor]

I do not deny that Christ "shall come again in glory." We have never discussed that in any of our many posts in this forum. The only thing I deny is that there are any Biblical passages that clearly and unambiguously teach the popular interpretation of that portion of the Creed.
That's why I said that you "seem to reject". Although you do not straightforwardly deny that Christ shall come again in glory, you seem to say that the fact that many prophecies in the OD/Daniel and Revelation having been fulfilled in 70 AD makes the matter of a future "Second Coming" a second-rate issue. In other words, you cannot fully adhere to this part of the creed as it has commonly been understood by Christians everywhere.


And this leads to another issue that must be considered. The creeds have various interpetations just as does the Bible. The most obvious example is the portion that refers to the "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church." Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and Protestants all accept this portion, but they interpret it quite differently. And another HUGE difference is the portion that states "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." The RCC interprets that VERY differently than Protestants (and myself).

Correct. And that is exactly not the case of the escathological portion. When the creed says that "shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead", almost 100% Christian denominations and individual Christians believe it in the sense of "the End of History", culminated by the event of Christ's coming. Even most preterists believe it that way.


There are many who teach a "Second Coming" in the indefinite future. But I wonder how many of them that are preterist, such as Hank Hannegraaph and R. C. Sproul, base that doctrine on what they see as the clear an unambigous teaching of Scripture as opposed to felt need to appear "orthodox" by uncritically upholding the popular interpretations of the creeds?

Maybe because (at least some of them) believe in things like "second fulfillment".


Thanks for the correction, my friend. I spoke a bit rashly there, though it was not entirely out of line. The kind of Biblical Typology I had in mind concerned the interepretation of God/Christ coming on clouds, and other elements from the Olivet Discourse that were interpreted in a grossly materilalistic and literal fashion.

Many blessings to you! I very much appreciate your insights.

Richard

It would be good if you could post a couple of quotes of Fathers who read elements of the Olivet Discourse in a grossly fleshly fashion.

Thank you my brother.
Victor

[Rose]

Maybe this would be a good opportunity to revisit the Creeds, especially in light of the many insights we have received, particularly in interpreting, and understanding Revelation.

It is always a good thing to question those things we are taught, many errors are past down simply because no one questioned the old ways. How grateful we should all be for men like Martin Luther who questioned what he was taught.

The idea of "second fulfillment" for me was a kind of "gap filler". After starting with a "clean slate" in the study of Revelation I came to a point where I thought the idea of a "second fulfillment" would resolve some problems, but as my study progressed I reached a point where I now see the Bible as a finished, fulfilled work, which includes Christ coming in Power and Glory.

That is not to say Christ won't appear in some way or at some point in the future, but I am convinced it won't be a "second fulfillment" of an already fulfilled prophecy.

God Bless,

Rose

[Victor]

Maybe Brother Joe could also help us with quotes of the Fathers that showed an hyperliteralism in the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse if he knows of any.

[basilfo]

The idea of "second fulfillment" for me was a kind of "gap filler". After starting with a "clean slate" in the study of Revelation I came to a point where I thought the idea of a "second fulfillment" would resolve some problems, but as my study progressed I reached a point where I now see the Bible as a finished, fulfilled work, which includes Christ coming in Power and Glory.

That is not to say Christ won't appear in some way or at some point in the future, but I am convinced it won't be a "second fulfillment" of an already fulfilled prophecy.



Hi Rose,
When you say "second fulfillment" are you speaking of what Milton Terry in his book Biblical Hermeneutics calls "double sense of prophesy"? I don't want to post the entire chapter on the subject

(you can find it here:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1883_terry_biblical-hermeneutics.html),

but here is the outline:

CHAPTER 18

No Double Sense in Prophecy

*Theory of double sense unsettles all sound interpretation
*Typology and double sense not to be confounded
*Suggestive fullness of prophetic Scrip*ture no proof of double sense
*No misleading designations of time in prophecy
*Misuse of the phrase “a thousand years as one day,”
*Bengel's fallacious treatment of Matt. 24
*Practical applications of prophecy may be many
*False prophetic interpretation some*times due to mistaken notions of the Bible itself
According to Terry, there cannot be double sense of any given prophesy. We have illustrations of actual events given to us in Scripture as in type/anti-type (e.g. TYPE: Moses delivering his people from bondage/ ANTI_TYPE: Jesus delivering us from sin). But there can only be one interpretation of each prophesy. For example, we cannot take Jesus' prophesy in the Olivet discourse to have a double application pointing to both the destruction of the temple in AD70 and a second event thousands of years later - the "end of the world".

Do you all agree with Terry's principle of hermeneutics here?

Peace to you all,
Dave

[gregoryfl]

No Double Sense in Prophecy

*Theory of double sense unsettles all sound interpretation
*Typology and double sense not to be confounded
*Suggestive fullness of prophetic Scrip*ture no proof of double sense
*No misleading designations of time in prophecy
*Misuse of the phrase “a thousand years as one day,”
*Bengel's fallacious treatment of Matt. 24
*Practical applications of prophecy may be many
*False prophetic interpretation some*times due to mistaken notions of the Bible itself [/COLOR]
According to Terry, there cannot be double sense of any given prophesy. We have illustrations of actual events given to us in Scripture as in type/anti-type (e.g. TYPE: Moses delivering his people from bondage/ ANTI_TYPE: Jesus delivering us from sin). But there can only be one interpretation of each prophesy. For example, we cannot take Jesus' prophesy in the Olivet discourse to have a double application pointing to both the destruction of the temple in AD70 and a second event thousands of years later - the "end of the world".

Do you all agree with Terry's principle of hermeneutics here?

Peace to you all,
Dave

Hey Basilfo,

Let me play devil's advocate, in case no one else brings it up. I remember when I studied prophecy from a double fulfillment perspective, one scripture was often used to prove the point. It is this statement by Jesus in the Olivet discourse:

Mat 24:15 “When, therefore, you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),


Here is what is said about it: Initially this was fulfilled around the year 167 when Antiochus Ephiphanes sacrificed a pig in the temple. It is said that when Matthew wrote this gospel he inserted the parenthetical phrase (let the reader understand) because he knew that people might only think of that fulfillment which took place back then, and miss the larger fulfillment to come upon them shortly. In other words, they see two fulfillments for this prophecy, the one in 167 BCE, and the other one in 70 CE, or some would say an even greater fulfillment yet in the future with a rebuilt temple.

For myself, the evidence I see pointing to all things in scripture being fulfilled is the statement by Daniel that one of the purposes of the 70 weeks was to "seal up vision and prophecy."

Ron

[Rose]

Hi Rose,
When you say "second fulfillment" are you speaking of what Milton Terry in his book Biblical Hermeneutics calls "double sense of prophesy"? I don't want to post the entire chapter on the subject

(you can find it here:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1883_terry_biblical-hermeneutics.html),

but here is the outline:

CHAPTER 18

No Double Sense in Prophecy

*Theory of double sense unsettles all sound interpretation
*Typology and double sense not to be confounded
*Suggestive fullness of prophetic Scrip*ture no proof of double sense
*No misleading designations of time in prophecy
*Misuse of the phrase 'a thousand years as one day,'
*Bengel's fallacious treatment of Matt. 24
*Practical applications of prophecy may be many
*False prophetic interpretation some*times due to mistaken notions of the Bible itself
According to Terry, there cannot be double sense of any given prophesy. We have illustrations of actual events given to us in Scripture as in type/anti-type (e.g. TYPE: Moses delivering his people from bondage/ ANTI_TYPE: Jesus delivering us from sin). But there can only be one interpretation of each prophesy. For example, we cannot take Jesus' prophesy in the Olivet discourse to have a double application pointing to both the destruction of the temple in AD70 and a second event thousands of years later - the "end of the world".

Do you all agree with Terry's principle of hermeneutics here?

Peace to you all,
Dave

Hi Dave,

I'm not familiar with the term "Double sense in prophecy" by Milton Terry, but it sounds like what I mean by "second fulfillment".

I'll have to look into it more, but from your brief synopsis of Terry's position on double fulfillments it seems like a solid hermeneutic.

God Bless,

Rose

[Rose]

Hey Basilfo,

Let me play devil's advocate, in case no one else brings it up. I remember when I studied prophecy from a double fulfillment perspective, one scripture was often used to prove the point. It is this statement by Jesus in the Olivet discourse:

Mat 24:15 'When, therefore, you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),


Here is what is said about it: Initially this was fulfilled around the year 167 when Antiochus Ephiphanes sacrificed a pig in the temple. It is said that when Matthew wrote this gospel he inserted the parenthetical phrase (let the reader understand) because he knew that people might only think of that fulfillment which took place back then, and miss the larger fulfillment to come upon them shortly. In other words, they see two fulfillments for this prophecy, the one in 167 BCE, and the other one in 70 CE, or some would say an even greater fulfillment yet in the future with a rebuilt temple.

For myself, the evidence I see pointing to all things in scripture being fulfilled is the statement by Daniel that one of the purposes of the 70 weeks was to "seal up vision and prophecy."

Ron

I also agree that the seven declarations in Daniel 9:24.......

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city...
to finish the transgression,
to make an end of sins,
to make reconciliation for iniquity,
to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal up the vision
to seal up prophecy,
to anoint the most Holy.....are complete when Christ ushers in the Kingdom, which culminated at the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.

As far as Matt. 24:15 having a double fulfillment, I don't think Jesus considered it having a double fulfillment, even though many may have thought it did. I think it was always intended to have its fulfillment before the final destruction of the Temple. To have it otherwise one must pluck out one part of Daniels whole prophetic complex which climaxes with the Temples destruction, and give it a "double fulfillment".

God Bless,

Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

That's why I said that you "seem to reject". Although you do not straightforwardly deny that Christ shall come again in glory, you seem to say that the fact that many prophecies in the OD/Daniel and Revelation having been fulfilled in 70 AD makes the matter of a future "Second Coming" a second-rate issue. In other words, you cannot fully adhere to this part of the creed as it has commonly been understood by Christians everywhere.

Merry Christmas Victor!

I do not deny (either straightforwardly or impliclitly) that Christ shall come again in glory. Our discussions have focused on the meaning of the prophecies, especially those in Daniel and the OD. It seems like you are saying that the creeds restrict the possible interpretations of those specific prophecies. This creates a problem because the eschatological portion of the creeds are only a sentence or two and they are completely silent about which specific biblical passages, if any, they are based upon. How then can they inform us about the proper interpration of Daniel and the OD?

There also is a problem with what has been "commonly understood by Christians everywhere." It is common knowledge that most Christians can not even list the Ten Commandments. It would be folly to restrict our understanding of eschatology to fit with popular ignorance. The sheep believe what they have been taught, so the number who believe a specific doctrine tells us nothing of its validity. We need to find out why the teachers taught what they taught, and if it is the belief required by a careful and exhaustive study of Holy Scripture. The only issue we should be concerned with is "What does the Scripture teach?".

We also must remember that some fundamental doctrines took centuries to articulate, most notably the Doctrine of the Trinity. There were many early Christians who were confused about this, and held comflicting views. It required an Ecumenical Council to settle the issue, and the discussion was explicitly based on many Scritpures so we can evaluate the reasons in light of the Bible. Do you know of any Ecumenical Council that made a definitive statement about eschatology? Did they list the Scritpures and the proper interpretations that demanded their conclusions as in the case of the Trinity? If not, then the whole question remains open for debate.



Correct. And that is exactly not the case of the escathological portion. When the creed says that "shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead", almost 100% Christian denominations and individual Christians believe it in the sense of "the End of History", culminated by the event of Christ's coming. Even most preterists believe it that way.

And they very well may be correct! But are their beliefs based on any specific Scriptures, or mere tradition? That is the question.


It would be good if you could post a couple of quotes of Fathers who read elements of the Olivet Discourse in a grossly fleshly fashion.

Thank you my brother.
Victor
I'll look into that and get back to you.

It's great to be chatting, my friend,

Richard

[Victor]

Merry Christmas Victor!

I hope you and everyone on the board have enjoyed this special day when we celebrated the Incarnation of God. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! :bounce: :smiley_applause:



That's why I said that you "seem to reject". Although you do not straightforwardly deny that Christ shall come again in glory, you seem to say that the fact that many prophecies in the OD/Daniel and Revelation having been fulfilled in 70 AD makes the matter of a future "Second Coming" a second-rate issue. In other words, you cannot fully adhere to this part of the creed as it has commonly been understood by Christians everywhere.

I do not deny (either straightforwardly or impliclitly) that Christ shall come again in glory.

Correct, you have been clear about that various times. But note that this is not my point at all. I said that what you seem to say in an indirect way is that a future "Second Coming" is a secondary issue. There may be, there may be not. And so I see a tension between the creed (which chose among so many Christian doctrines the one about a future coming to be mentioned) and what we have discussed in the forum (the fact that the fulfillment of prophecies being so clear and obvious in the first century makes the whole issue of a future coming a not-so-clear issue, and, therefore, secondary).


Our discussions have focused on the meaning of the prophecies, especially those in Daniel and the OD. It seems like you are saying that the creeds restrict the possible interpretations of those specific prophecies.

This is a misunderstanding. I meant to say that the creed shows a belief in a future coming of Christ in glory and only that. The fact that the creed mentions the "Second Coming" doesn't imply that the interpretation of the OD/Revelation prophecies is restricted to the future. The fact that there is a possible "future second coming" in nothing negates the validity of the fulfillment of prophecies in the first century.


This creates a problem because the eschatological portion of the creeds are only a sentence or two and they are completely silent about which specific biblical passages, if any, they are based upon. How then can they inform us about the proper interpration of Daniel and the OD?

In nothing for sure. I only mentioned the creed because we adhere to it at the same time as a portion of it is not completely clear to us: if there necessarily will be a future coming of the Lord as traditionally understood.


There also is a problem with what has been "commonly understood by Christians everywhere." It is common knowledge that most Christians can not even list the Ten Commandments. It would be folly to restrict our understanding of eschatology to fit with popular ignorance. The sheep believe what they have been taught, so the number who believe a specific doctrine tells us nothing of its validity.

I completely agree. But note that what I am mentioning is just one point that should be taken into consideration in our studies. And that point says that, if for one side truth is not determined by the number of people who adhere to it, the fact that the people that God has nurtured, blessed, guided and who fulfills all Bible prophecies - the Church - have almost universally held that Christ will come again in glory should have at least some weight, not as an argument in itself (because the creeds don't present arguments, only statements), but as a hint for us to follow. If the Church has been wrong about the traditional understanding, it seems to suggest that God didn't guide them in this particular field despite His guidance in so many other doctrines. It may be a possibility, though a disturbing one.

Please remember that when we speak of what is "commonly understood by Christians everywhere", we are not speaking only of the common people who can't even list the Ten Commandments. When we speak of the universal Church we are speaking also of all teachers and leaders that are part of it. And about 100% of them profess the same belief, thoughout all denominations in all branches of Christianity. They can say a lot more than the Ten Commandments. Some of them have an entire life of study and devotion to Scripture. And, except for very few full-preterists in the 20/21th Centuries, they all believe in the Second Coming of Christ.


We need to find out why the teachers taught what they taught, and if it is the belief required by a careful and exhaustive study of Holy Scripture. The only issue we should be concerned with is "What does the Scripture teach?".

I agree with you. I would just say that "what Scripture teaches" should be our main concern instead of our only concern in this investigation.


We also must remember that some fundamental doctrines took centuries to articulate, most notably the Doctrine of the Trinity. There were many early Christians who were confused about this, and held comflicting views. It required an Ecumenical Council to settle the issue, and the discussion was explicitly based on many Scritpures so we can evaluate the reasons in light of the Bible. Do you know of any Ecumenical Council that made a definitive statement about eschatology? Did they list the Scritpures and the proper interpretations that demanded their conclusions as in the case of the Trinity? If not, then the whole question remains open for debate.

Correct. It is an unsettled issue, unlike the Trinity and others.


And they very well may be correct! But are their beliefs based on any specific Scriptures, or mere tradition? That is the question.

I share the same sentiment. Scripture is the core; tradition is not wrong per se but it should be secondary. It is valid when it illuminates what is taught in the Word of God, the Scriptures.

[Rose]

Please remember that when we speak of what is "commonly understood by Christians everywhere", we are not speaking only of the common people who can't even list the Ten Commandments. When we speak of the universal Church we are speaking also of all teachers and leaders that are part of it. And about 100% of them profess the same belief, thoughout all denominations in all branches of Christianity. They can say a lot more than the Ten Commandments. Some of them have an entire life of study and devotion to Scripture. And, except for very few full-preterists in the 20/21th Centuries, they all believe in the Second Coming of Christ.

We must also consider that most of the teachers and leaders follow certain lines of teaching that they too have been taught, many in Seminaries that hold to specific lines of thought like futurism.

I would venture to say that the vast majority of Pasters and Teachers today teach a form of futuristic interpretation of Revelation, because that is what they have been taught.


I agree with you. I would just say that "what Scripture teaches" should be our main concern instead of our only concern in this investigation.


I share the same sentiment. Scripture is the core; tradition is not wrong per se but it should be secondary. It is valid when it illuminates what is taught in the Word of God, the Scriptures.



If we are to believe that Revelation is a prophecy of a future coming of Christ then we have no choice but to go outside of Scripture to try and interpret its symbolism.....which really puts one in "a pickle" so to speak because there are so many unknown factors that we are left guessing at.

Do we really think that God would give us a book of prophecy, that is nothing less that the Capstone of His Word, and have us play a guessing game to try and interpret it.....I don't think so.

You are right Victor, we must be discerning in our quest for truth and look to tradition when it illuminates Scripture.

God Bless,

Rose

[gregoryfl]

To say that a matter is settled because an ecumenical council reaches a decision, and that, not even unanimously, is a misrepresentation. Only in the mind of God are things forever settled. There were, to be sure, issues that were fought over, argued over, and even deemed worthy of torture and death over, yet those issues were the decisions of those who's minds deemed such as worth doing such things for.

Today we still have most of the same thinking that existed even back then, with various groups all claiming their brand of truth is right, based on the same scriptures, and while scripture makes it clear that we are indeed responsible for that, at the same time, God is working something in and through it all which results in him receiving glory. These are not things that make sense to our human mind, but then again, that is how it should be. There is a very spiritual hidden reason why this book is the most twisted book in existence today. This is proof of the wisdom of God, as foolish at is may seem to others.

Ron

[Bob May]

To say that a matter is settled because an ecumenical council reaches a decision, and that, not even unanimously, is a misrepresentation. Only in the mind of God are things forever settled. There were, to be sure, issues that were fought over, argued over, and even deemed worthy of torture and death over, yet those issues were the decisions of those who's minds deemed such as worth doing such things for.

Today we still have most of the same thinking that existed even back then, with various groups all claiming their brand of truth is right, based on the same scriptures, and while scripture makes it clear that we are indeed responsible for that, at the same time, God is working something in and through it all which results in him receiving glory.

Ron

That "same thinking" today in the Western world would, I believe, still result in torture and death if not for the laws against such actions.




These are not things that make sense to our human mind, but then again, that is how it should be.

Ron

I agree completely with that statement.




There is a very spiritual hidden reason why this book is the most twisted book in existence today. This is proof of the wisdom of God, as foolish at is may seem to others.

Ron

You hit the nail on the head, Ron. We obstinately continue to use reason and the carnal mind to try and figure out the things of the Spirit.
This, even after being told that we have the mind of Christ.
Not only in the book of Revelation, either, but especially in it.

I think it is God's "method", by using parable, analogy and deep symbology to force us to break away from our carnal mind's habitual "taking over the helm."
And even moreso, to realize we can't do it ourselves, just as we could not be born again of ourselves.

And wasn't that Jesus' mindset? "The works I do, the Father doeth through me..."
Praying for wisdom and understanding and silently waiting for an answer may help.

Bob

[gregoryfl]

I think it is God's "method", by using parable, analogy and deep symbology to force us to break away from our carnal mind's habitual "taking over the helm."
And even moreso, to realize we can't do it ourselves, just as we could not be born again of ourselves.
BobHe knows of my love for study. I have had such a love virtually my whole life. Being "broken" of that is a very apt way to put it Bob. Not that I do not still value study, for I do. But I know that can only be taken so far. Very truly stated, it is not something that we can bring out of ourselves.

Ron

[Victor]

Happy New Year everyone! :yo:


We must also consider that most of the teachers and leaders follow certain lines of teaching that they too have been taught, many in Seminaries that hold to specific lines of thought like futurism.

I would venture to say that the vast majority of Pasters and Teachers today teach a form of futuristic interpretation of Revelation, because that is what they have been taught.

Indeed, even very gifted teachers often repeat what they have been taught without much investigation. This would account for why so many of them teach futuristic escathology.

But does it mean that each and every one of Christian teachers in 2,000 years have not deeply investigated this matter? Does it mean that all of them were wrong about a future fulfillment of prophecy just repeating what they have been taught? Is it not the case that maybe a few of them researched this matter and concluded for some good reasons that a future coming of Christ should be expected? You and me are certainly not the first to research this matter. They may have some good reasons to expect a "second coming".

So the fact that teachers often repeat what they have been taught does not necessarily explain why God's Church in two millenia have always expected Christ's coming.


If we are to believe that Revelation is a prophecy of a future coming of Christ then we have no choice but to go outside of Scripture to try and interpret its symbolism.....which really puts one in "a pickle" so to speak because there are so many unknown factors that we are left guessing at.

Do we really think that God would give us a book of prophecy, that is nothing less that the Capstone of His Word, and have us play a guessing game to try and interpret it.....I don't think so.


The preterist interpretation also necessitates that we go "outside of Scripture" to verify its fulfillment. There's no problem at all with that. The fact that the record of futurist interpretations is such a mess doesn't mean that there cannot be a climactic "coming of Christ" in the End of History that can be discerned and interpreted if it comes to pass. (John 14:29) Although there are many unknown factors, things can form a coherent whole that was previously unseen. Consider for example the alphabetic link between the Bible Wheel and the sequence of centuries. It covers events that took place after 70 AD. Of course then the Bible, though not explicitly, mentions events that happened after the consummation of the Old Age in the first century. And we are not "left guessing". The integration is overwhelming.

[gregoryfl]

Happy New Year everyone! :yo:



Indeed, even very gifted teachers often repeat what they have been taught without much investigation. This would account for why so many of them teach futuristic escathology.

But does it mean that each and every one of Christian teachers in 2,000 years have not deeply investigated this matter? Does it mean that all of them were wrong about a future fulfillment of prophecy just repeating what they have been taught? Is it not the case that maybe a few of them researched this matter and concluded for some good reasons that a future coming of Christ should be expected? You and me are certainly not the first to research this matter. They may have some good reasons to expect a "second coming".

So the fact that teachers often repeat what they have been taught does not necessarily explain why God's Church in two millenia have always expected Christ's coming.



The preterist interpretation also necessitates that we go "outside of Scripture" to verify its fulfillment. There's no problem at all with that. The fact that the record of futurist interpretations is such a mess doesn't mean that there cannot be a climactic "coming of Christ" in the End of History that can be discerned and interpreted if it comes to pass. (John 14:29) Although there are many unknown factors, things can form a coherent whole that was previously unseen. Consider for example the alphabetic link between the Bible Wheel and the sequence of centuries. It covers events that took place after 70 AD. Of course then the Bible, though not explicitly, mentions events that happened after the consummation of the Old Age in the first century. And we are not "left guessing". The integration is overwhelming.

Hey Victor,

Good thought provoking post there brother. From what I can see, it all comes down to how one reads the scripture. It is the same with regard to the the Jew, who reads the scripture and when he comes to the verses that Christians see speaking about Christ, they do not see it. While there are exceptions, quite a few of the prophecies concerning Christ cannot be understood by study and reading the context, things which most who study are taught to do. They have only been understood because of revelation from the Lord. I believe it is the same with regard to one's understanding of the last days, those things concerning the end. It all depends on what view you take of those things written.

Ron