Final Post for a long time - not a short time

[Mellontes]

Please look at my subject title again. If I said final post for a "short" time, how long do you think it would be before I posted again? Now, what if I had said this was my final post for a "long" time. Would you consider the time frames to be similar, slightly different, contrasting, or opposite in content?

For those who truly do not believe in a past Parousia even though there are hundreds of time statements indicating NEARNESS to that first century group of Christians, then it is quite likely that they would see NO DIFFERENCE between the "long" time and the "short" time...

Anyway, that was just my way of pushing the point to the max. We accept the exact same terminology used by the first century apostles as meaning NEARNESS when we speak things, but we will not allow the same meanings for the first century church. The reason why is quite simple. Futurists are not willing to entertain any thought that interferes with their present understanding of the NATURE of "time of the end" events.

They have been indoctrinated over and over and over so many times that the last days refers to the end of history, that world refers to the planet Earth, that the two "ages" indicate our present age and a yet future one, the death that Adam died wasn't separation from God, and on and on and on...

All this despite the fact of the hundreds of time statements speaking of the nearness of the Parousia.
All this despite the fact that the old covenant economy HAS PASSED AWAY.
All this despite the fact that if Jesus truly paid our penalty for sin and truly was our substitutionary atonement, and truly if the wages or penalty of sin is PHYSICAL death, apparently, for some reason or other, believers in Christ STILL HAVE TO PAY THE PENALTY FOR SIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At any rate, I am done for quite a while on this public forum. My posts can easily be found and speak about a myriad of topics. Seldom did anyone actually address the posts but instead just asked more and more questions trying to substantiate their own particular brand of futurism. I will end with a most recent statement:

I'm sorry, but for those who are either unwilling or unable to understand that "at hand," "quickly coming," "Will not delay," "very, very little while," "shortly must come to pass," "near," "nigh," etc. meant exactly what the phrase means and NOT 2,000 thousands into the future, then there is very little hope of explaining further (and more difficult) concepts. The simple things are the hundreds of time statements in reference to the parousia coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. If these will not be accepted within the time frame given (1st century generation), then how can one expect to "let go" of their false nature of their existing "time of the end" scenario. Sorry to be blunt, but this is exactly what stops further analysis. Futurists have their "NATURE" of end time events and no amount of Scripture is ever going to change that...Majority opinion does not necessarily represent truth! If that truly were the case, then Christianity, as a minority religion, would be false on that basis alone!!! If you can't see the clear time element, then there is no point trying to answer further questions.

Should you have a specific question about Scripture (and are willing to honestly state what you believe it means), please, by all means, feel free to contact me via the personal messaging system that this site offers. Maybe we can exchange email addresses. If no one writes, c'est la vie...

Blessings to all those who may have been challenged by the many things I have said over the last months. I truly hope I have expanded your thinking - and especially hope that I have taught you to think independently from the commentators to rely upon only the Scripture NO MATTER WHERE IT TAKES YOU...

It isn't your personal faith if it is just indoctrination and what you have been told all of your lives...Take care

[steve]

Please don't hurry back. This is not a forum for people who will demand others to agree with their views, and then leave in a huff when others remain unconvinced. I hope you can find some place that has no minimum maturity requirements.

[Mellontes]

Please don't hurry back. This is not a forum for people who will demand others to agree with their views, and then leave in a huff when others remain unconvinced. I hope you can find some place that has no minimum maturity requirements.

I think I will finally reply to this childishness...

For one, I won't hurry back. This is my second post in twice as many months.

Two, I never demanded that anyone agree with me.

Three, I never left in a huff. My reasons for leaving are explained quite well in my last post in this thread. Essentially (I guess Steve didn't read my response either), the reason for my leaving is that if one cannot accept the TIMING of the time-of-the-end events, then how can one possibly learn of the NATURE of these events? I have said time and time again, that most futurists attempt to explain away every single time statement regarding the nearness of the parousia event to that first century generation FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE of holding to their traditional beliefs regarding the NATURE of end-time events. I just gave up showing Scripture after Scripture regarding the audience relevance of His coming. There is really little point in trying to reach people if they ignore the Scriptures presented. If Steve thinks I can change the way a person thinks, he is greatly mistaken. And even if I could change the way a person thinks, the person who has made that change is in the same danger he was as a futurist. He has allowed me to convince him as he has been convinced before. It is a person's own study into Scripture and it is those Scriptures that must do the changing. Although most disagree, I am just an agent of God trying to show people how "at hand" meant at hand and how "must shortly come to pass" meant must shortly come to pass. It is not rocket science. The reason this "stuff" is not accepted is because tradition makes void the Word of God - pure and simple. Now, I know you won't like that, believing that truth is on your side, but why is it that you jump through the most amazing hoops explaining away of all the time texts regarding the parousia rather than to accept the first century fulfillment.

What you and every other futurist does is to ELIMINATE the audience from what Jesus said and from what every Apostle wrote to the first century churches regarding these time-of-the-end events.

"We who are alive and remain" is not written to those living in 563 AD, 799 AD, 1066 AD, 1492 AD, or even 2010 AD. It was written to whom the apostle said it was written to!

1 Thessalonians 1:1 - Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ...

Now, I realize that the argument that is already forming on your lips goes something like this: "What! Do you mean to say that nothing applies to us?" And of course with such a knee-jerk response as this, I would unequivocably say "No!" Of course Scripture has continuing ramifications in our lives. But what you and many others fail to realize (or will not allow themselves to realize) is that, and listen very carefully, HISTORICAL EVENTS THAT ARE PREDICTED UPON THE AUDIENCE IN QUESTION DO NOT REFER TO PEOPLE LIVING PAST THAT AUDIENCE!!! The parousia is an EVENT not an enduring Scriptural principle. To be sure, this EVENT has ramifications to us as Christians, but nonetheless, it is just an event, and an event that was to take place in the lives of that prophesied generation and of some disciples (not necessarily the 12 disciples) who would be alive.

We have totally mixed up application and original interpretation. Historical events stay in the past but Scriptural truths like "lying is bad" continue on to the present and forever more...

I have asked and asked and asked but nobody wants to chime in with a reasoned response as to what the Christians from those seven first century churches would think what John meant when he said the time is at hand or things which must shortly come to pass, or do not seal up the prophesy because the time is at hand, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY WERE FAMILIAR WITH DANIEL'S PROPHECY BEING SEALED BECAUSE IT WAS FOR MANY DAYS!

Now, without resorting to your lack of minimum maturity requirements, why don't you give a reasoned, mature, and kind explanation as to why you believe what John said to those seven churches in this SPECIFIC regard was not true. If I was one of those first century Christians (perhaps at the church at Smyrna) who gathered around to listen to John's letter being read in my assembly, I would think it applied to me. The question is, "Why don't you think it applied to them?" John said his letter was for those seven churches!

Revelation 1:4 - John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;

And while you think on those things, why don't you post that Scripture list which delineates the "coming" in 70 AD and the "final coming to end all of history." That is something else I asked on this forum . No one has ever responded to that qwuestion, and not just on THIS forum either. I guess the difficulty in this is simply because the partial preterists themselves can't come to an agreement as to which verses refere to which event. Here, let me help. They all refer to the same event. You just won't believe that because you must have an ending to history because that is what your paradigm believes. You honestly could care less that the "time of the end," as mentioned Daniel on six occasions, concerns it self with old covenant Judaism - a totally Jewish concept.