This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Jesus and the Apostles spoke of His return. And they did not teach "multiple returns". Just the one.
I understand that it can be difficult to let go of a doctrine, but I do not agree with trying to find more "comings", just to try to hang on to a doctrine.
As for Partial Preterism, I don't see how there is any such thing. The word "preterism" comes from the Latin word "praeter", which means "past", or "in the past". So how can any view which says that things are yet future, be "preterist"?
Partial Preterism is an oxymoron. A self-contradiction. And that isn't me speaking, trying to attack it. It's the dictionary definition saying so.
My stating this is no different than if someone tried to say they are "Wiccan Christian". You either are a Christian, or you are not. You cannot state that you believe in practicing Wicca as well and claim to be a Christian. A "Wiccan Christian" would be an oxymoron; a self-contradiction, would it not?
And before you tell me that I'm using a ridiculous example and so it doesn't compare (if you were going to do that), you need to understand that there *are* people out there who claim to be both. Although they will usually use the term, "Christian Witch", or what I said, but in reverse; "Christian Wiccan".
The point is, that just as "Christian Wiccan" is an oxymoron because they are opposite views, so is "Partial Preterism", because someone's view being "praeter", means that they view things as being in the past, not the future.
IMO, there is no such thing and rather, it should be called, "Mild Futurism", since it views events as yet to come. And it isn't just the minor events, but the most important ones!
This so called, "Partial Preterism" simply does not want to let go of the idea that somehow, some way, the Bible is still really all about us today and so they search for a 3rd coming that neither Jesus, nor the Apostles ever taught. And to me, this view is no different than the Futurist view, in that it's built on vanity and ego. I mean after all, take away the "It's all about me, today!" part of it and they seem to find the Bible useless. Why else would they be arguing so hard that it has to happen here, to them?
As for me, the Bible prophecies being fulfilled, makes the Bible immensely MORE valuable! After all, someone can ask me a question and I can tell them how, where and when God kept that promise!
Hope this helped.
So where does Jesus mention return in this passage? The fact is you claimed He did so show it LOLThe question is; "How did they see Him go?". You highlighted the wrong part of v9.
They "saw" Him go as follows;
"Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up and a cloud received Him OUT OF THEIR SIGHT."
A cloud received Him.
The cloud received Him OUT OF THEIR SIGHT.
And now it would behoove us to now look at how Jesus said He would return;
"...and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
That is idiotic and contrary to the text and context, they did see Him physically rise up until He was out of sight.
Of course screwy nonsesnse aside
You're not telling the truth. in fact ,as above you are directly contrary to the ext and the context.
Is this why you cant find Jesus saying He'll return as you claimed He did ?We can't just go halfway and ignore the second half of the very same verse (Acts 1:9), amen?
And we must interpret Scripture (Matt 24:30b) by Scripture (Acts 1:9), especially when it is dealing with the same specific subject, right?
We can 'see' that you take wild liberty with the text in order to support your doctrine that is without foundation .And we should understand that the Koine Greek word behind "see" can be translated as either visual seeing, or as understanding something. Like when you say to someone, "Do you SEE what I'm saying?". SEE what I mean?
So based on all of these facts combined,
That you will stoop to any means no matter how foul and vilolent to the Scripture to spread your infection
And in contrast to your silly notions seeing Him physically ries into the air up to the clouds out of sight is what the Acts passage is all about
by your own admision you're not making a true comparison of Scripture because ,as show above you have flatly denied the inconvienient facts of Acts 1;11.
Yet the passage in Acts begins and ends with His physical presence, a completely different situation that the passages you quoted , although your pretended they are speaking of similar events tsk tsk
Think about it,, but throw some salt on it first.And in this case, Jesus specifically said that the judgment would be against the Jews.
Think about it.
The question is; "How did they see Him go?". You highlighted the wrong part of v9.
They "saw" Him go as follows;
"Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up and a cloud received Him OUT OF THEIR SIGHT."
A cloud received Him.
The cloud received Him OUT OF THEIR SIGHT.
And now it would behoove us to now look at how Jesus said He would return;
"...and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
So He comes in the clouds. And He would return in the same way that He left. That leaves us with questions.
Did they "physically see" Him in the clouds when He left? The answer is "No". Not according to the verse you quoted.
So if He's going to return *just like* He left, then would they "physically see" Him returning? If we believe the verse that you quoted, then the answer is "No" to this question as well.
We can't just go halfway and ignore the second half of the very same verse (Acts 1:9), amen?
And we must interpret Scripture (Matt 24:30b) by Scripture (Acts 1:9), especially when it is dealing with the same specific subject, right?
And we should understand that the Koine Greek word behind "see" can be translated as either visual seeing, or as understanding something. Like when you say to someone, "Do you SEE what I'm saying?". SEE what I mean?
So based on all of these facts combined, the only conclusion I can draw by the Scriptures here, is that they would "understand" that He had returned, just like when they understood that God was judging Egypt, using the Assyrians in the fulfilled prophecy found in Isaiah 19:1, in which it specifically says that God "rode a cloud", yet no one "physically saw" Him riding a cloud into Egypt. Yet it says that's what He did;
"The burden against Egypt. Behold, the Lord RIDES ON A SWIFT CLOUD and will come into Egypt." - Isaiah 19:1
The bottom line here, again, interpreting Scripture by Scripture, is that when Scripture uses the term "coming/riding (in) the clouds", it is not speaking of God/Jesus up there, on a cloud, with a lasso tied to it, shouting "Woo Hoo!". <lol>
Rather, it is speaking of His presence in judgment. And in this case, Jesus specifically said that the judgment would be against the Jews.
Furthermore, if we read the entire OT, we can see all throughout it (especially the Psalms), that there are constant references to the Lord "coming down". David said this many times, in many Psalms. That the Lord had come down into the battle and stated it no differently than we see in the NT.
We must remember that the NT is not some "all new thing, with all new ways of saying something". Rather, it is the fulfillment of the OT and it deals with the same people (Israel/Judea) and Jesus would have spoken in the same way that God always spoke to His people. No offense to anyone, but today, too many people read the NT by itself nd they read it as if it should be read like it was written by, for and about 21st century Gentiles and that is exactly the opposite of how it should be read!
Something to think about, anyway.
