Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Timing is everything!

Adam has commented, and I thank him for his responses. He's lost a little fleetness of foot since the last time we talked, but hopefully he can get it back.


-Funny that Paul rebuked Hymenaeus for his timing, not for what he taught.
I doubt he called his TIMING "gangrene".

-It is interesting that Paul never corrected Hymenaeus on his teaching of HOW the New Kingdom would come.
3-4 sentences in the NT deal w/ him. Let's look elsewhere. You can start w/ all the psgs I've already cited.

-Any Christian then could look around and see that nothing really changed, but they didn't call him out on THAT -- just the timing. Paul also knew that the New Kingdom would come spiritually, not physically.
That's an interesting thing to say. Let me ask you sthg.

1 Cor 15:50-52 says we will all be changed. In 70 AD, what happened to the Corinthian church? How were they changed?

-Christ Himself said it would not be visible.
Where?

-As to 2 Peter 3, I think we can agree that the 1000 years/1 day comes from Psalm 90, correct?
Oh, perhaps.
You know, if you're going to get snarky about the interp of what 1000 yrs means, how do you justify transmogrifying it into less than 40 years?

-They're not saying that "at hand" or "quickly" means thousands of years, at all.
An assertion that fails to take the context into acct. The context is people like you, the scoffers, who say "Where is the promise of His coming?"
You know, in 2000 yrs they haven't stopped saying that.

-They're just showing God's patience
You don't believe in God's patience b/c you find it unconscionable that God could wait more than a few decades to accomplish His grand plan.

-quickly means quickly.
You mean like in Ezek 12:21-28?
I see "the days are near" in there, as well as "but in your days, O rebellious house...I will perform it" and particularly 27-28:

26And the word of the LORD came to me: 27"Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, 'The vision that he sees is for many days from now, and he prophesies of times far off.' 28Therefore say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: None of my words will be delayed any longer, but the word that I speak will be performed, declares the Lord GOD."

And yet the New Covenant, to which this refers, came about 400 years later!
Your insistence on timing being more important than WHAT THE THING IS is bunk. God is way bigger than you think He is.

-just as the unbelieving Jews of the 1st Century were,
I believe that God's judgment fell on them in 70 AD. But that's not The Judgment, it's not The Resurrection, it's not The Parousia. How do I know? Tons of things the Bible tells us will happen then didn't.

-Romans 5:18 says that Christ's Return was for everyone, by the way. It doesn't save for believers alone.
True, but His return will be judgment, fearful wrath for unbelievers.

-Romans 5, and I see no place where the curse of Adam would be lifted.
I was referring to the dichotomy between Adam = Death/Condemnation and Christ = life/justification.
The Curse of Genesis 3 does have, after all, "and to dust you shall return." That's where death came in.

-I'm not sure where you read that mortal things won't decay
Exactly - it's your ludicrous position that made me bring it up. Things decay NOW. In the eternal Kingdom, they won't. Ergo, this is not the eternal Kingdom.

-It is obvious from the mess that the temples of organized religion are in that very few indeed do understand that the Kingdom is now, and the Ecclesia of God is within all to grasp. So many mortal lives wasted in judgment of others instead of loving others and serving others.
Your theology is an absolute catastrophe.

-the nations would still exist. And they do.
Why is that a problem for my position?

-Revelation was NOT about destroying this mortal earth
Is 65:17
Rev 21:1 (Turi already brought this up - I am losing confidence in your reading comprehension and retention abilities)
2 Pet 3:10
It's hard to have a new earth w/o blowing up the 1st.

-We are given new spiritual and holy bodies, but our mortal bodies don't change.
This assertion did not deal w/ the psgs I cited to the contrary. You need to interact w/ those.

-but the imperishable spiritual ones can, and do!
But *CHRIST'S* body was not merely spiritual - check 1 John for that one.
Wow - a Hymenaean, a Gnostic, AND a Docetist. You're racking up the points, my friend.

-lying has nothing to do with Revelation.
P1: It says liars will not enter in.
P2: I say Christ is raised PHYSICALLY as will we all, in the eternal Kingdom.
P3: You say we're already in the eternal Kingdom.

S: Therefore, I'm a liar and did not enter in.

Crude syllogism, but it demonstrates the incoherence of your position.

-Repent from what?
Your sin.

-I don't lie. I don't trick others in believing me. I use the very Book to show people God's Love for everyone, even the non-believer (but especially the believer). I give away all of my extra earnings to those who believe.
And your prideful arrogance.

-I don't believe in 'churches' as even in the Book we don't see denominations or churches
You are blind - >80% of references to 'ecclesia' in the NT are to local bodies of believers.

-For those who ignore it, they are not condemned.
See my previous post on Hell.

-If you believe people are condemned, where do they go after mortal death?
Hell.

-If you believe salvation is for today, who is saved?
Those who are justified by God's grace through faith alone.

-Jesus said only the few would see the Kingdom in His timeframe, so how is it that 2.1 billion Christians would be "a few" (?)
You forgot the context - He's contrasting "the many" w/ "the few". Few will find life in comparison w/ the many who go to destruction.

-Stop going to your congregations
Heb 10:23-25
There's another thing to repent of - exhorting others to disobey God.

-He prepared such a glorious and perfect Kingdom for us, here and now
The sad thing is that you're settling for this earth, and you will settle - this is as close to Heaven as you're ever going to get, unless you repent.

Peace.

4 comments:

A.B. Dada said...

Another great post and one I appreciate. I hope that those reading can use our discussion to hold onto their beliefs stronger after they read the Book and look for direction without just our views!

1 Cor 15:50-52 is an interesting passage that I've discussed often with Preterists and Futurists alike. I'm not certain that the passage talks about our physical bodies changing. Colossians 2:12 talks of those who were raised with Christ into new life -- but they had not changed, had they? What changed? Their spiritual lives, for sure. Go to verse 15 and you see that the Book talks of "spiritual rulers and authorities" not physical kings. Interesting that they speak of Spiritual rulers who truly did not rule the Spiritual realm. Again, no new bodies in this new life.

Even Christ Himself did not come Resurrected into a mortal body. The word used by Peter when he "saw" him was actually "He appeared to me" and the word for appearance is Biblically used previously to refer to a spiritual appearance, not a physical one. I don't have time to dig into that word now, but I promise to follow up on it. Christ's Resurrection appeared to many of His followers as a spiritual appearance, not a physical body. Even Peter explained that your body must die before it becomes a new body -- the seed dies before the plant comes to grow.


-Christ Himself said it would not be visible.Where? Luke 17:20: One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, "When will the Kingdom of God come?" Jesus replied, "The Kingdom of God can't be detected by visible signs and also Luke 17:22: Then he said to his disciples, "The time is coming when you will long to see the day when the Son of Man returns, but you won't see it.


You know, if you're going to get snarky about the interp of what 1000 yrs means, how do you justify transmogrifying it into less than 40 years?

But the 1000 years means nothing here, Peter was just explaining God's patience, not actually saying that 1 day = 1000 years. He said "as" such as "like." 1 day is LIKE 1000 years to God, as He is timeless! As for 40 years, that is one generation (Biblically relevant). Christ said He would Return in that very generation (40 years). 40 years covers it perfectly -- 30 AD to 70AD.


You know, in 2000 yrs they haven't stopped saying that. Makes sense, since Christ returned so long ago and most ignored it because it reduced their power to scare others into paying them to speak to them about scary, scary things.


They're just showing God's patienceYou don't believe in God's patience b/c you find it unconscionable that God could wait more than a few decades to accomplish His grand plan. Over and over Jesus said "at hand" and "quickly" and "soon." He said it to mortals who understood what He was saying. They also stopped writing more about it since they were aware of the Day of Judgment when they were warned to flee to the mountains before the war destroyed the Temple and the Jews there.


And yet the New Covenant, to which this refers, came about 400 years later!

Umm, no. Ezekiel 12's warning was not about the New Covenant and Jesus, it was about God's judgment against those Jews which happened immediately after Ezekiel prophecized it. The Chaldean army came, they destroyed King Zedekiah and the Jews as they tried to escape (instead of listening to the warning of Ezekiel), and they were enslaved in Babylon. Exactly as God said -- quickly, imminently, and at hand. Not 400 years later, not 2000 years later, but immediately.


But that's not The Judgment, it's not The Resurrection, it's not The Parousia. How do I know? Tons of things the Bible tells us will happen then didn't.

Actually, I've written Revelation line by line, and it connects 100% with everything that happened at the Temple War of 70AD. I hope to type up my hand notes to my website in the coming weeks -- there's a lot to reference historically and Biblically. What specifically would you say has not happened?


In the eternal Kingdom, they won't. Ergo, this is not the eternal Kingdom.

But Christ wasn't talking about Heaven, He was talking about the Kingdom on the earth, which even existed when the Pharisees talked to Him. He told them it existed in their very day but they didn't see it. There's a difference between the Kingdom we can sense (through loving others and serving them) and the Kingdom of Heaven/eternity (which we have almost NO Biblical support to describe).


(Turi already brought this up - I am losing confidence in your reading comprehension and retention abilities)
2 Pet 3:10
It's hard to have a new earth w/o blowing up the 1st.


I'm not sure how you haven't read what I said about this, what would be evident to Jews of the 1st Century and any Bible Scholar today. The phrase "old Heaven and Earth" meant one thing to the Jews -- their Temple. In Jewish writing going back before the time of Christ, the Temple was referred to countless times as "Heaven and Earth." Christ was speaking of destroying "the old Heaven and Earth," which was the Temple (which happened!) and bringing forth a NEW Heaven and Earth which existed in the NEW Temple -- the Body of Christ, the Ecclesia of believers. Can you see the Church today? No, because it exists within YOU. It is not a physical building like the Temple was, it is spiritual and seen through good deeds.


You say we're already in the eternal Kingdom.

We live in the Kingdom of God as Christ explained it (mysteriously), but I believe we await another Kingdom of the Spirit after we mortally die (which I have no idea what it could be since it is only hinted at and never explained). This mortal Kingdom on Earth will exist forever and ever -- the Earth will never perish (there's a Bible verse about that, actually). The Heavenly Kingdom we don't really know what to make of, but we do know it will be glorious beyond belief.


There's another thing to repent of - exhorting others to disobey God.

Organized religion is a mockery of what Christ taught -- that the Ecclesia exists as a unified Body, not as a bunch of competing denominations with creeds and doctrines. Tithes and offerings? When did Jesus tell people to sell everything and bring Him their proceeds? The modern "church" is a fallacy and it only keeps people employed and busy. Christ wanted us to go out into our daily lives, not to force people to come to us.

That being said, we both understand neither will agree with one another, but this discussion IS important because many Evangelicals/Futurists are having faith crises lately and need to have their faith revitalized. I'm not looking to convert them, I'm just hoping that they read the Book rather than just listen to a "Pastor" who may not have their best interest in mind.

I may have missed some stuff, but i will read both new posts tomorrow and add what I missed. Off to cleaning that car :)

Turi said...

Adam, perhaps you could explain to me which bits of the Scripture apply to modern Christians, in the sense of being dogmatically true and applicable to the present era, and what is your basis of distinction. That would be most helpful. You've already said, if I recall, that the Old Testament is irrelevant, and that the New was written to diametrically distinct group. Is there no revelation to the modern age, then?

Turi said...

a.b. dada: And when it says that ['hallowed be thy name...on earth as it is in heaven,' Matt. 6.12], it means that God's Love will be on Earth as it is in Heaven. It says nothing of meaning unanimously all mortals loving God, it means God loving all (unidirectionally).

--No it doesn't, either. That is a passive construction, and refers to God, unequivocally, as the object of reverence and love. Jesus praying that we would love God is not the same as him praying that God would love us, as will be clearly seen in the following experiment: substitute 'eat' for 'love', 'lasagna' for 'us', and 'I' for 'God'. (I suppose you've already got that last bit covered, haven't you?) I am sorry, but you do not have the right to twist about subject and object in order to jam verses into your hypothesis.

Again I say: ya gotta deal with what the Man actually said.

A.B. Dada said...

Turi: Adam, perhaps you could explain to me which bits of the Scripture apply to modern Christians, in the sense of being dogmatically true and applicable to the present era, and what is your basis of distinction. That would be most helpful.

Excellent question, and one that I myself have worked through to try to decipher what still matters, and what doesn't. The most common question I get from Futurists who are falling in faith (of Futurism, not Christ) is "If you're (me) right, what is life all about?"

I think the most important verses for a New Kingdom life would go all the way back to Genesis 1:28 (Sixth Day of Creation)...

28 Then God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground."
29 Then God said, "Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food.30 And I have given every green plant as food for all the wild animals, the birds in the sky, and the small animals that scurry along the ground—everything that has life." And that is what happened.


Even before Adam fell from God's Wishes, we can see that there existed something for us to do.

We see that God intended us to take care of His Earth -- and that we are to 'govern over it' meaning the animals, plants, seas and elements. We weren't meant to govern over each other, though.

It is interesting that God told Adam not to eat of the Tree of Good and Evil, but said nothing of the Tree of Life. And just as Adam and Eve were (possibly?) Immortal before the fall, we are now the same as them in that very way. We definitely still feel pain and shame and other leftovers from the Fall, but we definitely don't have to worry about Judgment. What is the point of stewarding over God's beautiful earth? In thanks to all that He has done for us for all time, because that is what He made us for.

I would say beyond Genesis, we should also try to understand the Word ("love") which has existed for all time. Jesus comprehended the Word and even was the Word, just as God is. Through all actions we perform on others, we should think of love first and foremost, regardless of what loving others will do to us. Love is not force, it is not coercion, it is not spreading fear, it is not judging, it is not jailing, it is not making war. Just because the Book talks of some of these things, none of them matter because they were part of God's Plan to reunite all men into the act of love -- the Word fulfilled. God may have used some negative actions because He knew where it would lead us -- to the Kingdom where all can serve and love.


Again I say: ya gotta deal with what the Man actually said.

I will consider this today, certainly, and get back to you.