Fig tree 101

[warfrog]

If you don't get it, and want to insist on a hyper-literal reading...



Or the Transfiguration? Or the Ascension? Or the Resurrection? Lots of theories.

But the evidence is on the side of the verse speaking of the parousia.

No. The parousia as you claim is evidence in itself of its falseness.
Scripture tells us as Christ rose so also shall we be raised, that didnt happen way back when, therefore Christ didnt descend just as He ascended to heaven as God told the men who watched Him ascend.

It is hyper-literal as Christ resurrection was hyper-literal, and He promised as Christ recieved so shall His.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28 is another hyper-literal scripture regarding hyper-literal resurrection, the Holy Spirit cannot be the parousia of His second coming if the Holy Spirit is the gaurentee of God to the recieving of the inheritance of the purchased redemption.

2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5
(God) Who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee. . . . Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.
Ephesians 1:13, 14; 4:30
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. . . . And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.



"If you don't get it, and want to insist on a hyper-literal reading..."

What does that do to help anything saying that? nothing, it does nothing.
If you want to support your spiritual understanding and care to serve your brethren in doing so how would saying what you said acheive any servatude, it doesnt, i displayed a confusion in what you had meant and you basically blew me off, im no better at understanding your understanding to what i posted then when i posted that in the first place, so again i ask, what does that do in saying such a thing?

If i was hyper-literalism in all things, how then could I according to my last post refer to a spiritual understanding to Matthew 16:28? Or how could I say the sword in the mouth of the Lord, whom the Lord uses to slay the rest gathered to war againts Him after the beast and false prophet are cast into the lake of fire is "spoken Word" "voice" "language"?
Shouldnt I beleive a hyper-literal sword spews forth from His mouth and cuts the men down?

 

[Zinc]

No. The parousia as you claim is evidence in itself of its falseness.
Scripture tells us as Christ rose so also shall we be raised, that didnt happen way back when, therefore Christ didnt descend just as He ascended to heaven as God told the men who watched Him ascend.

Sure. It never happened then.

If i was hyper-literalism in all things, how then could I according to my last post refer to a spiritual understanding to Matthew 16:28?

What?

 

[Zinc]

i displayed a confusion in what you had meant and you basically blew me off

You rejected what I said:

"all these things" means exactly that, all these things, not some of these things or this thing, its "all these things" I think that clears it up.

At which point, why continue on the issue? I doubt I can make the point any clearer. If you don't agree, then you don't agree.

 

[warfrog]

You rejected what I said:



At which point, why continue on the issue? I doubt I can make the point any clearer. If you don't agree, then you don't agree.

Is this not the first thing i said?

"i have no idea what you mean."

Does that imply i rejected you somehow? If i reject you i wouldnt discuss anything with you nor take part in anything with you, i dont reject you.

When you read what i type, do you go through scriptures and pray and review what the other person has written to check out what they are saying?

I do, all discussion about the Word is profitable to me, even if I dont agree with your understanding.

 

[warfrog]

Sure. It never happened then.



What?

What never happened? men watching Christ ascend and being told He would return just as they saw Him go up?

Or the parousia?

Well lets clarify this more, that never hurts 8) what is your understanding of parousia? what does it mean?

Matthew 16:28 was about the reception of the Holy Spirit, now if i was hyper-literal in everything, how would i possible know that Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit? Those scriptures from a hyper-literal standpoint would indicate He was speaking of a literal kingdom.
In other words, as i also showed the next example about the sword of His mouth, i dont veiw all things hyper-literal as you called it, style, I beleive scripture interprets scripture and God gives knowledge and understanding through the Holy Spirit regarding it. That the Word is made of both the spiitual and the literal.
I was simply trying to indicate to you that I do not know things as all literal.

If you however do not desire to continue, then so be it, grace to you, peace from God and the Lord Jesus Christ, thank you for your time and the discussion. 8)

 

[Zinc]

Is this not the first thing i said?

"i have no idea what you mean."

Does that imply i rejected you somehow?

Yes, that is the first thing you said. But you continued on with:

"all these things" means exactly that, all these things, not some of these things or this thing, its "all these things" I think that clears it up.

You said: "I think that clears it up".

It's clear enough to me that you rejected the idea.

 

[Zinc]

Matthew 16:28 was about the reception of the Holy Spirit, now if i was hyper-literal in everything, how would i possible know that Jesus spoke of the Holy Spirit? Those scriptures from a hyper-literal standpoint would indicate He was speaking of a literal kingdom.

I can say you are hyper-literal in your interpretation of one particular text, without saying you are hyper-literal in general.

 

[warfrog]

Yes, that is the first thing you said. But you continued on with:



You said: "I think that clears it up".

It's clear enough to me that you rejected the idea.

Does it not say "all these things"?
Why would we cut out verse 29-31 and figure He spoke only of 3-28 when He says "when you see all these things" following it?

Does that not clear it up? Why would we cut and paste so to speak?
I am asking you, those are not rhetorical qeustions.

 

[warfrog]

I can say you are hyper-literal in your interpretation of one particular text, without saying you are hyper-literal in general.

Indeed, I can also clear it up before you assume otherwise to keep any possible confusion about that beforehand from happening, as i was doing.

 

[reba]

Play nice

 

[Zinc]

Does it not say "all these things"?
Why would we cut out verse 29-31 and figure He spoke only of 3-28 when He says "when you see all these things" following it?

If we read the parable of the fig tree as giving a sign of the nearness of the parousia, then logically, you would need to exclude that event from the list.

I guess you could say, "the parousia happens, and that is a sign that the kingdom of God is near", but I just don't think the text is saying that.

I think the "kingdom of God" is supposed to come the same time as the parousia.

I think the parable of the fig tree is in answer to:

"and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

 

[warfrog]

If we read the parable of the fig tree as giving a sign of the nearness of the parousia, then logically, you would need to exclude that event from the list.

I guess you could say, "the parousia happens, and that is a sign that the kingdom of God is near", but I just don't think the text is saying that.

I think the "kingdom of God" is supposed to come the same time as the parousia.

I think the parable of the fig tree is in answer to:

"and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Still doesnt make sence, why would He say "all these things" if He didnt mean "all these things" in which the parousia was mentioned in "all these things."

Thats our difference in understanding.

I would think the answer in verse 29-31 would be a pretty good answer sign of thy coming and the parable of the fig tree a pretty good answer to end of the age.

 

[Lehigh3]

Still doesnt make sence, why would He say "all these things" if He didnt mean "all these things" in which the parousia was mentioned in "all these things."

Thats our difference in understanding.

I would think the answer in verse 29-31 would be a pretty good answer sign of thy coming and the parable of the fig tree a pretty good answer to end of the age.

And the end of what age might that be?

 

[warfrog]

And the end of what age might that be?

The same end of age mentioned here:

Ephesians 1:21
"far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come."

Consider also that this is written after pentecost and the reception of the Holy Spirit through the promise of the Helper through the Word.
So currently they are still in that age, yet it must end because another age is yet to come.
We are still in that age, we are still that generation, when "all these things" occur that age, the generations end will be at the door.
Then the new age will begin when summer arrives and Rev 21:4 "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." will occur, the new age.

If you read Ephesians 1:21, continue reading o rather read from the start of 1 to the end of it and you will see the mention of "And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all."

Now where did we see those bolded words again?
1 Corintians 15:20-28 about physical resurrection and the order of authority:

"But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all

Christ literally rose, He is the firstfruits.
We are born dead spiritually through Adam, yet the Word just said "in Adam all die" then says "in Christ all shall be made alive" I know we agree this cant be spiritual in understanding, not everyone spiritually is made alive, people are going to the lake of fire, we know this..So this is literally talking physical death.
Then we are told the order, Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. Then comes the end when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father.
Thats 3 physical resurrections, Christ, the saints and the end of the resurrections, the last in order.

Now you may ask, why did he say three?
Well keep reading after the order, "For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death"
Now you may be thinking well He did destroy death at the cross and all His enemies are put under Him, death wasnt destroyed at the cross it was submitted to Christ, He defeated it, He didnt destroy it, it still occurs, He is the way through it. All things are put uder Him, yet look what it says "For, "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him" and then "Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him" How can Chist have all things under Him now according to not only this, but 1 Esphesians also tells us "And He put all things under His feet" yet He must say "all things are put under Him" in which the last enemy is death.

Do you get what i am showing you? All things are put under Him, yet death is not destroyed and the Son is not subject to the Father and the kingdom is not delivered to the Father, the Son still has all things under Him.

Now to go back to 3 physical resurrections for the order, remember who the last enemy to be destroyed is? And that when that last enemy is destroyed the kingdom is delivered back to the Father? It is mentioned as "Then comes the end"?

Look at Revelation 20:11-15 and Revelation 21:1-4

"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."

"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."

The kingdom delivered, death destroyed and the last to be physically resurrected risen and judged, heaven and earth destroyed and made new, no more death, a new age, a new generation.

2 Peter 3:7 also gives us insight since I brought up heaven and earth and i know this is a long post if you've made it this far 8) then a little more of the Word never hurts, refrence it to Rev 20:11-15

"But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."

 

[Lehigh3]

The same end of age mentioned here:

Ephesians 1:21
"far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come."

Consider also that this is written after pentecost and the reception of the Holy Spirit through the promise of the Helper through the Word.
So currently they are still in that age, yet it must end because another age is yet to come.
We are still in that age, we are still that generation, when "all these things" occur that age, the generations end will be at the door.
Then the new age will begin when summer arrives and Rev 21:4 "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." will occur, the new age.

No. That's where you should study closely. The "age" that Paul & the others were in was the Jewish or Mosaic age.
"Upon whom the ends of the ages have come"(1Cor.10:11) Upon whom? Them, those living at the end of the Jewish age & the Law. What was the other age then? It was the "age to come." The gospel or Christian age. They do overlap.

BTW, the Christian age has no end. (Eph.3:21) His kingdom is forever. (heaven & earth)

Christ's kingdom was consummated in AD70.

If you have any questions about the Text & the age to come, I'll be glad to explain further tomorrow.

 

[warfrog]

No. That's where you should study closely. The "age" that Paul & the others were in was the Jewish or Mosaic age.
"Upon whom the ends of the ages have come"(1Cor.10:11) Upon whom? Them, those living at the end of the Jewish age & the Law. What was the other age then? It was the "age to come." The gospel or Christian age. They do overlap.

BTW, the Christian age has no end. (Eph.3:21) His kingdom is forever. (heaven & earth)

Christ's kingdom was consummated in AD70.

If you have any questions about the Text & the age to come, I'll be glad to explain further tomorrow.

The Mosiac age ended 3 days after Christ died. How can it then be said in Ephesians that they are still in the age and that one was yet to come?.

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body"

No if Christ was the temple and the temple wasnt the temple and Christ was te end of the mosiac through the resurrection, how then can you hold that it didnt occur until 70 A.D?
It occured at His resurrection, the law as we know it was made new. "Noone goes to the Father except through Me"

The age to come is when the former things have passed away, when no form of pain, sorrow, crying and death occur, ever again, it is the time when the former things have passed away.

 

[reba]

A nudge to remind ya this is not a preterism thread!

 

[warfrog]

A nudge to remind ya this is not a preterism thread!

Which ones that again reba? preterism? I suppose i could goggle it lol.

Ah ic, i forget what they all are sometimes theres so many different names ext for certian different things.

 

[reba]

Sub-Forums Last Post

Preterism


What is so funny? :angel

 

[Zinc]

Still doesnt make sence

Well not if you are hyper-literal about it. But maybe the author just expected the readers to take into account that the final event wouldn't logically be included.

and the parable of the fig tree a pretty good answer to end of the age.

When the parousia has happened, you don't need a sign for anything else.