# We need a new discussion



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 10, 2014)

Hmmm, something I was recently pondering.... When I was reading John, so often John tells us Jesus's response to what the crowd was saying???? What the crowd was saying, as if they had a spokesman??? I wonder why this has never even crossed my mind. I have to decide if the HS was putting words into John's mind or was he putting words on Jesus's lips? For example, would Jesus actually say, "Who can prove me quilty of sin". And based on John's record of what Jesus said, could he be that offensive and not get stoned? And to Kosher Jews, what response would you expect from someone saying you have to eat my body and drink my blood? I don't know, I'm thinking out loud here.... but I am having second thoughts about the book of John. Slippery slope, I know


----------



## Israel (Dec 10, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hmmm, something I was recently pondering.... When I was reading John, so often John tells us Jesus's response to what the crowd was saying???? What the crowd was saying, as if they had a spokesman??? I wonder why this has never even crossed my mind. I have to decide if the HS was putting words into John's mind or was he putting words on Jesus's lips? For example, would Jesus actually say, "Who can prove me quilty of sin". And based on John's record of what Jesus said, could he be that offensive and not get stoned? And to Kosher Jews, what response would you expect from someone saying you have to eat my body and drink my blood? I don't know, I'm thinking out loud here.... but I am having second thoughts about the book of John. Slippery slope, I know


Bless God!
No slope seen here, just the realization of outrageously BOLD Jesus was in the truth (as he IS the truth), and how, by the Holy Spirit, we may be brought to see..."this One we follow is a lot...a whole lot different" than we may think as we are placed "hearing him" in this boldness.

Yes! How outrageous "eat my body" sounds! We have 2,000 years of explanations, treatises, tomes, ruminations, opinions...(and apostolic revelations, not to be thought little of)...but yes...the uncovering of the old waste places...

And they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
Is 58:12

Those places that, because of dullness of hearing and dimness of sight have become a "used to" thing...and an "of course" thing...but to hear them fresh!, and new! provokes us, reminds us, enlightens us, reveals to us...how very different He is, and because He is...we are.

Before the "culture" of christianity took hold there were men, going boldly before those who knew what was done to this alleged "blasphemer" and upstart threat to both Jerusalem and Rome...so great a threat as to merit the most ignominious death...and to these our brothers procalimed..."follow him to LIFE!"...Those who figuratively stepped forward knew very well what their confession meant...they had also become traitors to a system and power that was not reluctant to throw them into its gears...but forward they came! To serve a King, and not a Caesar...(and make no mistake Rome was the world, and the world was of Rome.) No plea to a "wonderful plan for your life"! (though indeed, it is true)...but follow this man that to all but God appears as a rebel and offscouring. He says outrageous things...and also does them... for he is Risen!
Yes! How the Jew must wrestle with his understanding when the light comes..."eat flesh? drink blood?" or..."Messiah...nailed to the tree?!!!
 God, how can this be? But it is in the wrestling, in the refusal to let go of a light seen that cannot be denied...that more light...comes.
Bless you brother! Bless you for being willing to go...and to consider, and to remind us...presently...of the reality of Jesus as Lord, unafraid to tell men the things they need to hear, but, at that time, either may not want to hear...or find more than confounding...a total reversal of all their understandings. 

Yes, a worthy discussion, indeed.


----------



## Day trip (Dec 10, 2014)

John's Gospel was the last written, somewhere around 100-120 AD I believe.  It's language is very different from Matthew, Mark and Luke, it's very poetic. I think you have to be careful about what is literal and what is metaphorical.  
I mean, where is the benefit in eating flesh and drinking blood?  Now to eat, we take something in.  Into our bodies, into our souls.  It nourishes us, it becomes a part of us, it changes the very essence of who we are and we are no longer the same.  We have to "eat his flesh and drinking his blood" so that we are in him and he is in us.  It changes your mind, your spirit, you must give up your wants, your desires, your entire life to him because you are now a part of him.  Now that's hard!  That is why people left him, not because it was a gross pagan ritual but because they did not want to give up control of their lives.  Think about it, give me some flesh  to eat and blood to drink any day and let me get on with my life.  That's easy.  But to give your whole life to God?  Now this saying is too hard!


----------



## Day trip (Dec 10, 2014)




----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 10, 2014)

John 12:
37 But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them.” 41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.

Isaiah 6


----------



## Israel (Dec 11, 2014)

Day trip said:


> John's Gospel was the last written, somewhere around 100-120 AD I believe.  It's language is very different from Matthew, Mark and Luke, it's very poetic. I think you have to be careful about what is literal and what is metaphorical.
> I mean, where is the benefit in eating flesh and drinking blood?  Now to eat, we take something in.  Into our bodies, into our souls.  It nourishes us, it becomes a part of us, it changes the very essence of who we are and we are no longer the same.  We have to "eat his flesh and drinking his blood" so that we are in him and he is in us.  It changes your mind, your spirit, you must give up your wants, your desires, your entire life to him because you are now a part of him.  Now that's hard!  That is why people left him, not because it was a gross pagan ritual but because they did not want to give up control of their lives.  Think about it, give me some flesh  to eat and blood to drink any day and let me get on with my life.  That's easy.  But to give your whole life to God?  Now this saying is too hard!


Amen!
That he is our whole life, in everything!
O, to lay hold, to see!
When storms come and waves break over us...and men say..."we may still have hope, a boat may come..."  our souls cry "NO!!!!" My hope is not for boat or dry land, my hope is not for all the things the world may trust in rescue, but nothing less than the coming of our Lord!, his appearing, his voice, his light and comfort alone!"
Ah, to turn, and be healed, to rest...in the presence of Jesus in all things, at all times...till time is no more, and sufferings in time, take their place beneath his feet.
Things big in sight, wanting to be seen... threatening, pushing themselves forward, wanting to obscure the One waiting, always waiting just...there...for us to Behold!"
And then, it happens, He happens, a voice calls, a sound is heard, a redirection in repentance through the maelstrom that has spun us round...and being turned rightly now, ear and heart attuned to only one...our souls rejoice...we understand "Behold, I come quickly"...and we behold.


----------



## formula1 (Dec 11, 2014)

*Re:*

When I read this, I thought of two scriptures:

John 20
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Romans 1
22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Hmm!  Stumbling block, or folly, or Christ the Power and Wisdom of God.  I'll take Christ and live in Him!


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 11, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm thinking out loud here.... but I am having second thoughts about the book of John. Slippery slope, I know



With all due respect, from reading your posts over the last year or so it seems to me that you have second guessed, disregarded and discarded so much of the Bible that you now have your own personal, taylor made religion.  I only hope you STILL have your own personal savior in Jesus Christ when your quest is complete, for it is a slippery slope indeed.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 11, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hmmm, something I was recently pondering.... When I was reading John, so often John tells us Jesus's response to what the crowd was saying???? What the crowd was saying, as if they had a spokesman??? I wonder why this has never even crossed my mind. I have to decide if the HS was putting words into John's mind or was he putting words on Jesus's lips? For example, would Jesus actually say, "Who can prove me quilty of sin". And based on John's record of what Jesus said, could he be that offensive and not get stoned? And to Kosher Jews, what response would you expect from someone saying you have to eat my body and drink my blood? I don't know, I'm thinking out loud here.... but I am having second thoughts about the book of John. Slippery slope, I know



I'm thinking out loud also that if the religious authority were aware of John the Baptist's disciples, what they claimed, did and said, and the motivations of other groups like his, what Jesus with his disciples said was not an out of this world sacrilegious shock to their sensibilities. Maybe.

Also in the parlance of these groups because some advocated for rural rights and the rights of ordinary people ( the least) vs the demands made on them from the capital's religious authority ( the greatest) in Jerusalem ( much like the south's distrust of  national politics via the capital)  the idea that bread and wine ( rural products) as a fitting sacrifice stands in the light and in contrast of what the religious authority in Jerusalem ( citified folk) expected as sacrifice from the people.

I'm thinking they (Gallileans) had cereals, grains, fish, wine, some cattle--goats and sheep_ which latter ( cattle) was difficult to bring on pilgrimage from Galilee in the north down through Samaria and into Judah and Jerusalem.   So what it meant for ordinary folk, Galilleans et al... was that they needed money ( and roman currency at that!) for sacrefice so they could exchange it with the sellers outside the temple for local products and beasts.

So perhaps in this light, " you shall eat my blood and my flesh" was saying to people " Now sacrifice will be what all have daily, and not the cumbersome, grand and yearly sacrifices we now have."

Maybe....

Jesus, God's word made flesh, was sustained physically by the food he created for man and it accounts for his blood and his flesh that was sacrificed for us. It is God's gift to us which we gave to His son, which Son was God's gift again to us, which bread and wine we now offer in celebration to each other, in remembrance, but also as Jesus living, present, in our communities.

Also when in the past, the temple was not available to the hebrews because their cities were raised and the people were taken away by conquers the breaking of bread was deemed a correct sacrifice by the people.  Also the original priest of Melchizedek was all about breaking bread. So when I think of Jesus' words on bread and wine, I think of these as his bloodline and his body in the Spirit.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 11, 2014)

Day trip said:


> John's Gospel was the last written, somewhere around 100-120 AD I believe.



Many educated theologians make that claim. They have to , so other parts of their belief is not debunked so easily. I think this late date also feeds doubt in people such as 1gr8builder. Atheist on the other hand love to mention that the Gospels were penned many years after the death of Christ.

 I would like to point out one simple little part of John's Gospel that proves it was penned pre-ad70, knowing history helps here, for Jerusalem and the temple was utterly destroyed at that time.

 John 5:2 states, Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool,

If this were penned post ad70 it would have been stated in past tense, as there was no sheep market at that time of desolation.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 11, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hmmm, something I was recently pondering.... When I was reading John, so often John tells us Jesus's response to what the crowd was saying???? What the crowd was saying, as if they had a spokesman??? I wonder why this has never even crossed my mind. I have to decide if the HS was putting words into John's mind or was he putting words on Jesus's lips? For example, would Jesus actually say, "Who can prove me quilty of sin". And based on John's record of what Jesus said, could he be that offensive and not get stoned? And to Kosher Jews, what response would you expect from someone saying you have to eat my body and drink my blood? I don't know, I'm thinking out loud here.... but I am having second thoughts about the book of John. Slippery slope, I know



Also regards crowds and Jesus. I have noticed in Luke a turkish-greek that he portrays the crowds as foils to Jesus. For examples the stories of Zacharias and Blind Bart... the crowds were WRONG about these two. In one case they told Bart to shut-up, yet Bart was asked by Jesus to say his peace and by this his sight was restored and he thereafter follow Jesus. We are told that Zack, the tax collecter of questionable reputation, was not a favorite of the crowd. Yet Jesus asked him for a place to stay!

It seems that the evangelist have a lesson in that when it comes to Jesus and his ministry what the crowd thinks, (and most crowds have their mouth pieces to frame up messages), is NOT what the author of the Sermon on the Mount thinks!


----------



## Day trip (Dec 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Many educated theologians make that claim. They have to , so other parts of their belief is not debunked so easily. I think this late date also feeds doubt in people such as 1gr8builder. Atheist on the other hand love to mention that the Gospels were penned many years after the death of Christ.
> 
> I would like to point out one simple little part of John's Gospel that proves it was penned pre-ad70, knowing history helps here, for Jerusalem and the temple was utterly destroyed at that time.
> 
> ...




I checked my source, "Evolution of the Word" by Marcus Borg.  Says the current form we have of John is likely from around the year 90.  With evidence of it being written in 2 parts, completed at this time.  Unless it is being written down from oral record without using the past tense, then John 5:2 does suggest an earlier publication date.  

It is important.  Each gospel is a portrait of Christ and they have subtle and not so subtle differences.  Who drew from whom?  None of the gospels are meant to be biographies but instead tell the story from different points of view.  

What beliefs are debunked by a later publishing date?


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 11, 2014)

Day trip said:


> What beliefs are debunked by a later publishing date?



 Oh, just little things, like what the subject manner of the entire book of Revelation is truly about, but my forum friends would appreciate me leaving it at that. I would be more than happy to answer further in pm's if you wish.

 Also consider the age of John, assuming he was just a little younger than Christ, putting the date in the 100's + would make him an awfully old man to be writting such an account, and to say he wasn't the author discredits it.


 I believe all the recorded scripture was pre70ad. To say it was past that and not one time a mention of the Jews losing the temple and the destruction of Jerusalem is so unlikely, I would venture to say impossible.


----------



## centerpin fan (Dec 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Also consider the age of John, assuming he was just a little younger than Christ, putting the date in the 100's + would make him an awfully old man to be writting such an account ...



Irenaeus has John alive during the reign of Trajan (AD 98-117.)


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Irenaeus has John alive during the reign of Trajan (AD 98-117.)



I know, but:


"The Late Date Theory
Those who hold to the "late date," have Revelation written during the time of Domitian Caesar (AD 95-96). This date is determined by the following statement by Irenaeus (AD 130 to AD 202), as quoted by Eusebius, the church historian, in AD 325: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."
There are things about this statement that need to be noted. First, Irenaeus did not witness this. He referred to Polycarp (who supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part — "it is not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in AD 95-96, during the last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it" Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to us through three people separated by three centuries. Simply put, this is hear-say.
This statement, even with all of this uncertainty, is the only evidence used to support the "late date" theory. It has been accepted by generations of people without really questioning it or examining it in light of the book itself. The late date has been passed on to us in the same way it was passed on to Eusebius, "…it [was] handed down by tradition…" Tradition is not the way to interpret Scripture."

With all that...John did live past 70ad for Christ told Peter he would after He told Peter of his own demise in John 21:18-23


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Dec 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> With all due respect, from reading your posts over the last year or so it seems to me that you have second guessed, disregarded and discarded so much of the Bible that you now have your own personal, taylor made religion.  I only hope you STILL have your own personal savior in Jesus Christ when your quest is complete, for it is a slippery slope indeed.


Respectfully taken. I hold fast to the core context that Jesus regained what Adam lost and intercedes on my behalf today. That is the shortest version I can come up with.


----------



## centerpin fan (Dec 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I know, but:
> 
> 
> "The Late Date Theory
> ...



I find this unconvincing and way too complicated.  

First, the highlighted portion above downplays the relationships of Irenaeus and Polycarp with the Apostle John.  Polycarp was a disciple of John, and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.  Therefore, Irenaeus was in a very good position to know about John.  

Second, it flies in the face of very plain, unambiguous statements like this one by Hippolytus:

"John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found."


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> I find this unconvincing and way too complicated.
> 
> First, the highlighted portion above downplays the relationships of Irenaeus and Polycarp with the Apostle John.  Polycarp was a disciple of John, and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.  Therefore, Irenaeus was in a very good position to know about John.
> 
> ...




 It's the internal evidence of both the Gospel of John and Revelation that makes a late date impossible IMO. Both books refer to a present temple in Jerusalem...This could have only been pre70ad.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 11, 2014)

Here's the whole page explaining the evidences of an earlier writing.
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html


----------



## centerpin fan (Dec 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> It's the internal evidence of both the Gospel of John and Revelation that makes a late date impossible IMO. Both books refer to a present temple in Jerusalem...This could have only been pre70ad.



But this:

"John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found."

... states in very plain and unambiguous language that it must be _after_ AD 70.  I think you have to jump through a lot of hoops to discount the comments of Irenaeus and Hippolytus.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> But this:
> 
> "John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found."
> 
> ... states in very plain and unambiguous language that it must be _after_ AD 70.  I think you have to jump through a lot of hoops to discount the comments of Irenaeus and Hippolytus.



Hobbs and I have been over this and the fact that John's disciples specifically taught a view contrary to the Preterist view.
  He's not going to change his mind despite the evidence.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> But this:
> 
> "John, again, in Asia, was banished by Domitian the king to the isle of Patmos, in which also he wrote his Gospel and saw the apocalyptic vision; and in Trajan’s time he fell asleep at Ephesus, where his remains were sought for, but could not be found."
> 
> ... states in very plain and unambiguous language that it must be _after_ AD 70.  I think you have to jump through a lot of hoops to discount the comments of Irenaeus and Hippolytus.



Ive considered all the evidence and made my decision, and it will remain that way until more evidence is brought to my attention:

_If a person doesn't believe the first three verses of Revelation (i.e., the near expectation of the events), neither will he believe the rest of the book. For if a person is unwilling to accept the time constraints of the text, the rest of the document can mean anything that the reader desires. 


If the Apostle John was banished to Patmos under the reign of Nero, as the internal evidence indicates, he wrote the book of Revelation about AD 68 or 69, which was after the death of that emperor; but the gospels and epistles some years later. One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period — the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 — is never once mentioned as a passed fact. 

The inscription to the book of Revelation, in the Syrian version, first published by Deuteronomy Dieu, in 1627, and, afterwards in the London Polyglot, is the following, "The Revelation which God made to John the evangelist, in the Island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero Caesar." 

This places it before the year of our Lord 69AD. 
_


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I know, but:
> 
> 
> With all that...John did live past 70ad for Christ told Peter he would after He told Peter of his own demise in John 21:18-23



I know but:

You seem to have missed one little two letter word (three in Greek) "If".  Besides the whole of verse 23 which indicates that the contemporaries also missed it; and they understood Jesus return contrary to your understanding.

23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Hobbs and I have been over this and the fact that John's disciples specifically taught a view contrary to the Preterist view.
> He's not going to change his mind despite the evidence.



I wouldnt be so sure of yourself that they taught contrary to preterism, but you're right, when it comes to the word of Jesus or His Apostles I will take their word over any church leader post 100ad.

"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Matthew 24:3 “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Matthew 24:34Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 

1John 1:28 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

 I will never argue against the word of God!


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 11, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> I know but:
> 
> You seem to have missed one little two letter word (three in Greek) "If".  Besides the whole of verse 23 which indicates that the contemporaries also missed it; and they understood Jesus return contrary to your understanding.
> 
> 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”




 So....If I want to believe it means he came back 70 ad what is it to you?   

 What do you presume this to mean...that I do or that I may?


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> So....If I want to believe it means he came back 70 ad what is it to you?
> 
> What do you presume this to mean...that I do or that I may?



I take you at your word:



hobbs27 said:


> Ive considered all the evidence and made my decision, and it will remain that way until more evidence is brought to my attention:



And you have shown over time that others opinions of the evidence that you consider to be conclusive has no effect on your view.

What it is to me is the effect those arguments might have on those who may not yet have developed the discernment that Scripture and Spirit gives.


----------



## Israel (Dec 11, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Respectfully taken. I hold fast to the core context that Jesus regained what Adam lost and intercedes on my behalf today. That is the shortest version I can come up with.


Part of your issue seems to be, if there really be any issue at all, (I don't want to presume), that Jesus said such outlandish things as either some may seem fabricated as in your observation of his not being stoned in a response, and his "speaking to" certain situations in response, as though he was addressing something it would appear a spokesman "for the crowd" must have been assumed.

As to the first...Jesus speaks with authority. He is neither mealy mouthed nor deceptive, but plain. A man under such authority as from which he proceeded, is well able to "stop the mouths of lions"...even when it would appear a crowd would most logically answer with stones.
If you have't experienced it, perhaps you will.
Now, Jesus also knew his "time"...and what would be required of him when it had come. At this "time" and to this time, he spoke..."hereafter I will have not much to say to you..." 
In all of this, the matter of discernment is of utmost importance...and again, that matter of discernment is always paramount...for it is no "trick" for Jesus to see how his words are being received. He knows the matters of which he speaks are spiritual, and easily responds to the spirits he sees at work in those to whom he speaks. He knows when doubts rise in the hearts, he knows when his words provoke anger, unbelief, and resistance. He is no nimrod, just stumbling about, speaking like a ventriloquist's tool into which the Father throws his words. He sees what such words do. It's no great matter for him, alive in the spirit, to see other spirits at work in others. In truth, he is always speaking spirit, to spirit, addressing those things of confusion, unbelief and striving.
The simple folk heard him gladly, as they still do...but the smart folks, well, they have their own trials to help them discover just "how smart they are."

But...you are right in your appreciation of how such words must have rung in the ears of a devout Jew, even those who "believed" him. Eat his flesh, drink his blood? This is too hard a saying! No wonder to Jesus many departed...he's never reluctant to show the narrow way...appears ever narrower...before we find our feet placed in a large place! But Jesus...why this seeming "weeding out"...we may ask. Why do you continue to say "harder things"...even to your own? And what unashamed and unafraid boldness when he turned and asked our glory troop..."will you leave also?" (And here I hear no plea, no dejection...but a simple "cross" examination to witnesses)
Thankfully, they answered well...and well indeed!
"We have believed...and come to know..." (And here I hear, to those who may at all care what I hear..."Jesus, you've ruined us for anything less than you...really Lord...where else can we go???? What else is there to know...but YOU???)

Because Jesus knows.


Even His "own" disciples had a great deal of difficulty submitting to his confession of his approaching treatment. "Far be it from you Lord..."
Jesus knew well what spirit was speaking there, "pity yourself", the same spirit that had abetted man in his rebellion from the outset, a spirit Jesus knew, had rebuked often, and I also am convinced, had already lost a battle in his determination to proceed to remain obedient in all things. 

Yes, I believe Jesus himself , even knowing that "for this very hour he had come"...had a time while a man, to put that spirit of self pity in its place, and having already heard all its arguments, and rejected them, had no problem dealing with it again when it raised its head even through a chosen one of his. Yes, the devil is furiously at work to divert, cajole, and often with the most seemingly pleasing arguments, against the man who is called to demonstrate, in and through his own flesh, the glory of God.
That Jesus knew the hearts, and knows, and is not only a basis of our faith, but an experience we may find we walk in. Are even called to.
"Now we know thou hast a demon (some said) no one goes about to kill you" (they said). (After he told them he knew of the murder in their hearts) 

But, the thoughts and intents of men whose own thoughts and intents may not yet be clear even to themselves, in themselves, are plain before our Lord. 
But all their intents...soon enough...became quite clear.
There's an old quip I came across several years ago, it's as suitable a description of what takes place as any I have found, in, or out of scripture.

Some use language to make the truth plain. Others use it to hide it.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 11, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> I take you at your word:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Others have no biblical evidence to the contrary...or if they do they have never brought it forth, and since the futurist view ; especially the dispensationalist view cannot be supported by scipture. I also am concerned with the false teaching " however popular" that those not yet developed discernment that spirit gives is influenced by futurist.

 Not to mention people like the OP that can understand scripture and see's a flaw..but instead of placing the flaw on mans interpretation, he flaws the scripture...which I think is a big mistake.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Others have no biblical evidence to the contrary...or if they do they have never brought it forth, and since the futurist view ; especially the dispensationalist view cannot be supported by scipture. I also am concerned with the false teaching " however popular" that those not yet developed discernment that spirit gives is influenced by futurist.
> 
> Not to mention people like the OP that can understand scripture and see's a flaw..but instead of placing the flaw on mans interpretation, he flaws the scripture...which I think is a big mistake.



I highlighted our points of agreement.  Surely the remainder need not be assumed.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 11, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> I know but:
> 
> You seem to have missed one little two letter word (three in Greek) "If".  Besides the whole of verse 23 which indicates that the contemporaries also missed it; and they understood Jesus return contrary to your understanding.
> 
> 23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”



What are you believing about John that verse 23 is showing?
Why didn't they mention the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD which if happened before John's writing would still be fresh on everyone's mind. Dec 7th of 1941 is still fresh on most of the minds of people my age. (59 by the way)

How do you explain these?

"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Matthew 24:3 “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

Matthew 24:34Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

1John 1:28 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I wouldnt be so sure of yourself that they taught contrary to preterism, but you're right, when it comes to the word of Jesus or His Apostles I will take their word over any church leader post 100ad.
> 
> "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
> 
> ...



Yet we continue to take the word of men who gathered in council years way past 100AD. The Trinity belief is a good example.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 11, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> With all due respect, from reading your posts over the last year or so it seems to me that you have second guessed, disregarded and discarded so much of the Bible that you now have your own personal, taylor made religion.  I only hope you STILL have your own personal savior in Jesus Christ when your quest is complete, for it is a slippery slope indeed.



Would that even be possible?

One questions the true meaning of Scripture to the point of varying from the beliefs of other men and now his salvation is in question?
But the conversation veers towards when John was written or when Jesus returned or if John was written literally and no one's salvation is jeopardized.

With all due respect, I'm somewhat confused by your point.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 11, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> What are you believing about John that verse 23 is showing?


That Scripture does not say what was alleged.


The rest I don't believe I have previously addressed and do not choose to, as it has been proven to be .


> Why didn't they mention the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD which if happened before John's writing would still be fresh on everyone's mind. Dec 7th of 1941 is still fresh on most of the minds of people my age. (59 by the way)
> 
> How do you explain these?
> 
> ...


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 11, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> The rest I don't believe I have previously addressed and do not choose to, as it has been proven to be .



I dont fault you or anyone else for not responding to those. If you have no interest in eschatology and quiet comfortable believing what you're taught---which is where I am on predestination and free will--- I really have no interest in it, but I see others really get fired up about it.

 All I ask from you or anyone else, is that you don't talk down preterism if you arent willing to combat it, or support your own view with scripture.

 I would love nothing more than to find someone that could support their futurist position with scripture and explain all these verses I bring up. Instead folks wind up telling me that despite what Christ said, and made clear....He was wrong? 

C.S Lewis actually said this:

“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

 Its much easier for me to believe the scriptures are true and find the mystery that makes them true, than to write them off as errant as C.S. Lewis did.


----------



## centerpin fan (Dec 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Ive considered all the evidence and made my decision, and it will remain that way until more evidence is brought to my attention:
> 
> _If a person doesn't believe the first three verses of Revelation (i.e., the near expectation of the events), neither will he believe the rest of the book. For if a person is unwilling to accept the time constraints of the text, the rest of the document can mean anything that the reader desires.
> 
> ...



Why does this carry more weight than two church fathers writing within a hundred and fifty years of the actual events?


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I dont fault you or anyone else for not responding to those.



But you appear to, although I don't understand why.



> If you have no interest in eschatology



It’s true that the Spirit has not pushed me in that direction.



> and quiet comfortable believing what you're taught



You are certainly alone in that opinion.



> ---which is where I am on predestination and free will--- I really have no interest in it, but I see others really get fired up about it.
> 
> All I ask from you or anyone else, is that you don't talk down preterism




You’ll have to point out where I did that.  You and I had a short conversation about the subject a couple of years ago, but I think I have been mute on it since then. 



> if you arent willing to combat it, or support your own view with scripture.



See last statement.



> I would love nothing more than to find someone that could support their futurist position with scripture and explain all these verses I bring up. Instead folks wind up telling me that despite what Christ said, and made clear....He was wrong?




Perhaps unsolicited, but if you truly would like to better understand what several people on this forum have been saying to you about preterism, you might ask the Lord to show you a more Spiritual, and less literal, view of Scripture.  That’s just where I think I see divergence in those, and other, conversations.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I dont fault you or anyone else for not responding to those. If you have no interest in eschatology and quiet comfortable believing what you're taught---which is where I am on predestination and free will--- I really have no interest in it, but I see others really get fired up about it.
> 
> All I ask from you or anyone else, is that you don't talk down preterism if you arent willing to combat it, or support your own view with scripture.
> 
> ...



This is my view based on scripture. 


1 Corinthians 15:24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

Now this was written by Paul. And for me this is what the apostles believed. And for me this states  what and when the second coming is. It is an explanation of the circumstances and what the second coming will accomplish.

After 70 ad Jesus comes again similar to when God was with the Hebrews, only this time not in a tent or a temple in Jerusalem but  in the Church ( which is us as we are its temples) and there he is the light to his disciples, his elect, his people and all peoples. He is our guiding cloud by day and our guiding light by night.


This is not the second coming as I understand it and certainly not what 1 Corinthians 15:24 indicates. In this case, the case for the church, post 70 ad, Jesus comes in his glory as head of the church, head of his followers. Through his church and the gift of the Holy Spirit, the kingdom which is in effect now, will eventually get us to his second coming, as explained by Paul.

Just because Jesus is with us ( our generation) in his glory in the church now does not mean it is his second coming just as God guiding the Hebrews in his glory in the desert was not an end time coming. It was rather an end to some forms of oppression, and God with us, and hope in new beginnings that would lead to Jesus, his church, and  an " all in all" situation at his Second Coming.

And that's what scripture says to me... and  whole bunches of other folk...

Maybe, kinda....:


----------



## Israel (Dec 12, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I dont fault you or anyone else for not responding to those. If you have no interest in eschatology and quiet comfortable believing what you're taught---which is where I am on predestination and free will--- I really have no interest in it, but I see others really get fired up about it.
> 
> All I ask from you or anyone else, is that you don't talk down preterism if you arent willing to combat it, or support your own view with scripture.
> 
> ...



I think, before you accuse brother C.S. of some sort of semi heresy...discover the context of that quote. It's all revealed in the:
"we shall be told"...he was taking the position of a believer being argued against by that reasoning of anti-Christ.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 12, 2014)

Israel said:


> I think, before you accuse brother C.S. of some sort of semi heresy...discover the context of that quote. It's all revealed in the:
> "we shall be told"...he was taking the position of a believer being argued against by that reasoning of anti-Christ.



There's more. The quotes actually come from; "The worlds last night" & I having a hard time finding where the context is not what is said by Lewis. I've done several searches on this and no where does it suggest he was pretending to make a statement for someone else.

from “The World’s Last Night,” Excerpt 4 of 7
“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.” 
    It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt. Unless the reporter were perfectly honest he would never have recorded the confession of ignorance at all; he could have had no motive for doing so except a desire to tell the whole truth. And unless later copyists were equally honest they would never have preserved the (apparently) mistaken prediction about “this generation” after the passage of time had shown the (apparent) mistake. This passage (Mark 13:30-32) and the cry “Why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) together make up the strongest proof that the New Testament is historically reliable. The evangelists have the first great characteristic of honest witnesses: they mention facts which are, at first sight, damaging to their main contention.


----------



## Israel (Dec 12, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> There's more. The quotes actually come from; "The worlds last night" & I having a hard time finding where the context is not what is said by Lewis. I've done several searches on this and no where does it suggest he was pretending to make a statement for someone else.
> 
> from “The World’s Last Night,” Excerpt 4 of 7
> “Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”
> It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt. Unless the reporter were perfectly honest he would never have recorded the confession of ignorance at all; he could have had no motive for doing so except a desire to tell the whole truth. And unless later copyists were equally honest they would never have preserved the (apparently) mistaken prediction about “this generation” after the passage of time had shown the (apparent) mistake. This passage (Mark 13:30-32) and the cry “Why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) together make up the strongest proof that the New Testament is historically reliable. The evangelists have the first great characteristic of honest witnesses: they mention facts which are, at first sight, damaging to their main contention.



yes.
It is precisely in the recording of seeming contradiction that Lewis is basing his trust in the verity of scripture.
Basically he is saying "were this all fabrication (as some would say), then it would have all been cleverly arranged to be consistent to the lie." 
Instead, we have testimony, again, that seems contradictory...leaving the disciple to "search out" that place of no contradiction; that place where what "seems" must give way for all that is true.

That Lewis's contentions may be flawed in the assumption could be argued, I suppose. But I do not believe he is trying to make the point that scripture itself is at fault by being less than true.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 12, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> This is my view based on scripture.
> 
> 
> 1 Corinthians 15:24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
> ...




I love 1Corinthians 15, it fits in so well with 1Thessalonians 4. 
 I suppose you believe in two ends, two last days then?
 I see only one last day or one end and it is the end of the old covenant. I believe Christ kingdom is to reign forever and ever, world without end, Amen!


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 12, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> What are you believing about John that verse 23 is showing?
> Why didn't they mention the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD which if happened before John's writing would still be fresh on everyone's mind. Dec 7th of 1941 is still fresh on most of the minds of people my age. (59 by the way)
> 
> How do you explain these?
> ...


----------



## formula1 (Dec 12, 2014)

*Re:*



hobbs27 said:


> I wouldnt be so sure of yourself that they taught contrary to preterism, but you're right, when it comes to the word of Jesus or His Apostles I will take their word over any church leader post 100ad.
> 
> "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
> 
> ...



Some believe Matthew 16:28 you mention refers to Peter, James and John's witness of the transfiguration, which is mentioned right after this passage here and in Mark 9 and also in Luke. I suppose that could be true.  

However, I am of the persuasion that since according to Christ the kingdom of God is 'In your midst' (Luke 17:21) , and Jesus promised the Holy Spirit and Power in Acts 1, that the Kingdom coming with power is a direct reference to the Holy Spirit falling on the disciples at Pentecost.  From that day on they walked in the power of the Kingdom of God through the Spirit.  And so do we who believe!

Matthew 24:34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 

'This' in the verse above refers to the generation that sees all the signs of the end of the age listed previous to this verse.  I don't think many of these things have occurred in full but in part, possibly!

Having said that,  I don't believe there is any issue from my point of view if you choose to believe differently, as long as you set in your heart on Jesus Christ as Lord of your life.  If this is solid, when He comes again or when you pass, you will belong to Him!  In other words, our view of end times doesn't affect our salvation!

Peace my brother!  I welcome your thoughts and challenges and they are fruitful in teaching us to study and rightly divide the word of Truth!


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 12, 2014)

gordon 2 said:


> Artfuldodger said:
> 
> 
> > What are you believing about John that verse 23 is showing?
> ...


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 12, 2014)

formula1 said:


> Some believe Matthew 16:28 you mention refers to Peter, James and John's witness of the transfiguration, which is mentioned right after this passage here and in Mark 9 and also in Luke. I suppose that could be true.
> 
> However, I am of the persuasion that since according to Christ the kingdom of God is 'In your midst' (Luke 17:21) , and Jesus promised the Holy Spirit and Power in Acts 1, that the Kingdom coming with power is a direct reference to the Holy Spirit falling on the disciples at Pentecost.  From that day on they walked in the power of the Kingdom of God through the Spirit.  And so do we who believe!
> 
> ...



Thank you!


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 12, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> gordon 2 said:
> 
> 
> > While I disagree with this, I certainly respect and appreciate the reply. I once held that very belief.
> ...


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 12, 2014)

Amen, and Christ's peace to us all as we struggle to make the right decisions on the true meaning of the Gospel.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 12, 2014)

formula1 said:


> Some believe Matthew 16:28 you mention refers to Peter, James and John's witness of the transfiguration, which is mentioned right after this passage here and in Mark 9 and also in Luke.



I have heard this response and considered it. The problem for me is that it was only six days from the statement, which makes the " shall not taste death" seem very out of place. Were many expected to die before the next six days? 
 It fits better with the 70 ad date being some 35+ years away . IMO.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 12, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I also am concerned with the false teaching "



How do you feel about false learnng?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 12, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Others have no biblical evidence to the contrary..



 Flat out false.  Your stating this is akin to Atheist stating there is no evidence for God.  It's stating your personal opinion as an undisputed fact, when in fact it's a fallacy.

The truth is there is evidence for both positions.  If there wasn't there would be no debate.  That's simple common sense.

You can say that you reject the interpretation of scriptures futurist use.   You can say the evidence isn't enough, in your opinion, to warrant serious consideration.  Either may be truthful and correct and that's fine, but you can't say "there is no evidence to the contrary and be truthful in making that statement.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> How do you feel about false learnng?



It's rampant. The good thing about it, is we have scripture to show us what is false, and scripture tells me that the kingdom will gain in knowledge over time, so I don't fear the false teachings/ learning in our traditions but look forward to the fullness of the kingdom and us in greater knowledge.


----------



## formula1 (Dec 12, 2014)

*Re:*



hobbs27 said:


> I have heard this response and considered it. The problem for me is that it was only six days from the statement, which makes the " shall not taste death" seem very out of place. Were many expected to die before the next six days?
> It fits better with the 70 ad date being some 35+ years away . IMO.



Well now you know what I believe the scripture you mentioned refers to!  

Personally, I wish we would forget about eschatology, end times, and a few other things, and preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  Salvation comes by no other under heaven! And let's be about making disciples and loving others into the Kingdom we espouse! That's what matters to me!  God Bless!


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 12, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Flat out false.  Your stating this is akin to Atheist stating there is no evidence for God.  It's stating your personal opinion as an undisputed fact, when in fact it's a fallacy.
> 
> The truth is there is evidence for both positions.  If there wasn't there would be no debate.  That's simple common sense.
> 
> You can say that you reject the interpretation of scriptures futurist use.   You can say the evidence isn't enough, in your opinion, to warrant serious consideration.  Either may be truthful and correct and that's fine, but you can't say "there is no evidence to the contrary and be truthful in making that statement.



I somehow missed this earlier. Sorry.

Show me where the evidence is in the bible that Christ was going to tarry His coming beyond the generation of the first century.

 Thanks.


----------



## M80 (Dec 12, 2014)

formula1 said:


> Well now you know what I believe the scripture you mentioned refers to!
> 
> Personally, I wish we would forget about eschatology, end times, and a few other things, and preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  Salvation comes by no other under heaven! And let's be about making disciples and loving others into the Kingdom we espouse! That's what matters to me!  God Bless!



Amen, that sounds good to me. Show them how to be saved and the rest will come. Seek you first the kingdom of God, but I am guilty of asking questions about the way some believe. I still dwell in this fleshly body.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 12, 2014)

formula1 said:


> Well now you know what I believe the scripture you mentioned refers to!
> 
> Personally, I wish we would forget about eschatology, end times, and a few other things, and preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  Salvation comes by no other under heaven! And let's be about making disciples and loving others into the Kingdom we espouse! That's what matters to me!  God Bless!



Im just in awe that He made us all different, and appointed us all different tasks. He's much more complicated than we all think, but has made it easy to be saved.

27 Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.


----------



## Israel (Dec 13, 2014)

If one is interested at all in what CS Lewis had to say in "The World's Last Night", you can find it here:

https://archive.org/stream/worldslastnighta012859mbp#page/n13/mode/2up

I highly recommend it to anyone who believes they make a good argument for God.
(Yes, Gordon, now...that was wry)


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 13, 2014)

mwilliams80 said:


> Amen, that sounds good to me. Show them how to be saved and the rest will come. Seek you first the kingdom of God, but I am guilty of asking questions about the way some believe. I still dwell in this fleshly body.



 I personally don't think you should be guilty. The very reason why I study and ask questions on the spiritual forum is to understand " what and why people believe the things they do on the political forum". I find that people's politics are a reflection of their spirituality.

Also to seek the kingdom of God actually changed my life-- in the finding.  So to seek the kingdom of God first is wise if it does to others what it did for me. However, having found it and in it tangibly now, the great commission begs us to check on sinners and saints, ourselves included, maybe? I don't feel guilt for doing this, for getting a feel for what's out there.

Peace bros... You are a very wise man as are most on here even if they don't know it.  Seek the kingdom first.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 13, 2014)

Israel said:


> If one is interested at all in what CS Lewis had to say in "The World's Last Night", you can find it here:
> 
> https://archive.org/stream/worldslastnighta012859mbp#page/n13/mode/2up
> 
> ...



Yes... it is.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 13, 2014)

CS Lewis...Great man by the way...very smart man. So smart he realized he had no answer to matthew 24:34 and called that verse embarrassing.

 Well my point is, yes, if you believe in a future return, that verse would be very embarrassing, among many others. To me, that verse is in perfect hamony with the entire text of the bible.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 13, 2014)

Israel said:


> If one is interested at all in what CS Lewis had to say in "The World's Last Night", you can find it here:
> 
> https://archive.org/stream/worldslastnighta012859mbp#page/n13/mode/2up
> 
> ...



“A generation which has accepted the curvature of space need not boggle at the impossibility of imagining the consciousness of incarnate God.  In that consciousness the temporal and the timeless were united.  I think we can acquiesce in mystery at that point, provided we do not aggravate it by our tendency to picture the timeless life of God as, simply, another sort of time.  We are committing that blunder whenever we ask how Christ could be at the same moment ignorant and omniscient, or how he could be the God who neither slumbers nor sleeps while he slept.  The italicized words conceal an attempt to establish a temporal relation between his timeless life as God and the days, months, and years of his life as Man.  And of course there is no such relation.  The incarnation is not an episode in the life of God: the Lamb is slain … and therefore presumably born, grown to maturity, and risen … from all eternity.” (The World’s Last Night)

When we purpose to reason of eternal things, and introduce any temporal element, do we not insure a compromised conclusion?

When we purpose to reason of spiritual things, and introduce any material element, do we not insure a compromised conclusion?

God has provided an interface between the eternal and the temporal; between the spiritual and the material.


----------



## Israel (Dec 13, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> “A generation which has accepted the curvature of space need not boggle at the impossibility of imagining the consciousness of incarnate God.  In that consciousness the temporal and the timeless were united.  I think we can acquiesce in mystery at that point, provided we do not aggravate it by our tendency to picture the timeless life of God as, simply, another sort of time.  We are committing that blunder whenever we ask how Christ could be at the same moment ignorant and omniscient, or how he could be the God who neither slumbers nor sleeps while he slept.  The italicized words conceal an attempt to establish a temporal relation between his timeless life as God and the days, months, and years of his life as Man.  And of course there is no such relation.  The incarnation is not an episode in the life of God: the Lamb is slain … and therefore presumably born, grown to maturity, and risen … from all eternity.” (The World’s Last Night)
> 
> When we purpose to reason of eternal things, and introduce any temporal element, do we not insure a compromised conclusion?
> 
> ...


I am not sure where you are headed with this, but I am very interested. So interested as to not want to presume anything...if you care to keep expounding, I am listening. 
I can see possible doors but I don't want to attempt walking through something only of my imagination.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 13, 2014)

Israel said:


> I am not sure where you are headed with this, but I am very interested. So interested as to not want to presume anything...if you care to keep expounding, I am listening.
> I can see possible doors but I don't want to attempt walking through something only of my imagination.


I will presume... 

Full Preterism makes the same mistake as Dispensationalism.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 13, 2014)

Israel said:


> I am not sure where you are headed with this, but I am very interested. So interested as to not want to presume anything...if you care to keep expounding, I am listening.
> I can see possible doors but I don't want to attempt walking through something only of my imagination.



No earth shakin’ thinkin’ going on here.

Lewis makes the point that, in attempting to “imagine” the dual nature of Christ, we will almost invariably make the error of conflating (perhaps homogenizing) the two natures, which are in fact distinct.  Once we recognize that eternity is not “another sort of time” which can be considered in the same terms as time, we can accept that the dual nature is of necessity a mystery to temporal beings.

I was attempting, in my post, to point out that we tend to make the same error in attempting to apply our temporal thinking to all things eternal.  The rational techniques of cause and effect, which we learn by observing creation, give us insight into material things, but those same techniques are significantly limited, or perhaps even worthless, when considering spiritual things; a new heart, a renewed mind, being required for such considerations.

However, God in His mercy, has provided the Holy Spirit, a glass through which the eternal is spiritually visible, although dimly, as Paul point out.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 13, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I will presume...
> 
> Full Preterism makes the same mistake as Dispensationalism.



I guess that is just a short step from my post, isn't it.


----------



## Israel (Dec 14, 2014)

OK...I think I see. 
I do want to make this thing plain, as simple as it is, also. I was hoping that it might also be clear. 
I am no apologist for the apologist CS Lewis. 
Nor had I ever read the work I linked in toto. In fact, I am pretty sure I hadn't ever read any of it till it was brought up and caused me to look for it. It wouldn't surprise me to discover over the years I may have read a quote or two...but yes, I am, and generally, do get provoked when someone with whom I am familiar in some respect, and I hold in esteem may be, at least to me, misunderstood, or misrepresented. On here we get to answer for ourselves. 
A fair hearing, so to speak. 
If we are not committed to that in some measure amongst ourselves who name Christ, perhaps we might be. And the few books I have read of Lewis...Mere...Divorce, Screwtape, Surprised, A Grief... in which he shows no shame of the Lord, his testimony, or his sufferings, simply caused me to question the _seeming_ assertion he might be casting doubt on his trust of scripture.
But, just as I would like that to be plain, I am not in his "rah rah" section, either. Esteeming a brother, and exalting a brother, is sometimes a difficult line to walk...till the Exalted one makes things more clear. To our benefit.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 14, 2014)

I am not “well read”, but have a tendency to chase down that which is referenced in what has fallen in front of me.  In my limited exposure to Lewis, I have found that He does not approach subjects with which he does not have a high level of confidence, and concentrates on areas where he feels he can provide clarity.  Like you, I have always found that he “shows no shame of the Lord”.


----------



## Israel (Dec 14, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> I am not “well read”, but have a tendency to chase down that which is referenced in what has fallen in front of me.  In my limited exposure to Lewis, I have found that He does not approach subjects with which he does not have a high level of confidence, and concentrates on areas where he feels he can provide clarity.  Like you, I have always found that he “shows no shame of the Lord”.



To get back to what you said, and Gem had no misgivings about.
Yes. The timeless coming into time.
We seem to be men in tension, and perhaps that is where the Lord's death experienced...and given...for us, to us...may be seen as such a great gift. (though we may only see in part)
That tearing apart we experience in utter demonstration of our complete inability to translate...so vexing...so seemingly frustrating (and here seem is the only operative) of a thing seen and known of timeless nature, experienced while "in time", and of which we may feel pressed to make known, in this same time.
Yet...in the finding of what Paul may have been referring to when saying "who is equal to such a task?"..we discover, in part, it is the tearing itself, and less the "thing" we may think we _try_ to present...that makes the very "thing" known. And then it appears...what we thought we "knew" of this thing is made more clear to even, and especially us, disabused of the "thinking we know".
It is not so much in the "knowing" the gospel, perhaps, that we are commissioned (so to speak) to "go and preach and make disciples"...but it is precisely in that instruction to "go and preach" that the gift of learning for ourselves (and perhaps to the benefit of others)...what the gospel truly is.
In the "boots on the ground" analogy of which brother Gordon so mentioned, it has taken me nothing less than that. I "went" armed with what I thought was God's love and truth...more eager to "go" than to "know", and tricked by my own devices, discovered the one who most needed God's love and mercy was not the previously imagined benighted souls whom "I" would enlighten...but me...precisely.
What a plan! How else to bring what thinks it knows...to learning "in time", through grace, patience, and all mercy, that it knows nothing at all? And there, perhaps, begin to ask for the very thing it presumed to have "for itself"...will have it...but only in the measure to which it is sought for all others. Because, not of its own piety will it receive, but because the truth of the one who has said through "his own" flesh...love one another as I have loved you.
I was, and am being "forced" to learn that without apology nor regret...nor shame in saying the larger portion of mercy I have always demanded "for myself" has always been at the grace of another who "must" have me learn, I am loved no less than you.
Why he would choose a thing of such craven interest in its own position, of such disposition to climb upon its brother's backs to be seen and known, is beyond me.
But, here we are, brothers.
You may receive me, but I must, if I am to be saved at all, receive you.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 14, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> No earth shakin’ thinkin’ going on here.
> 
> Lewis makes the point that, in attempting to “imagine” the dual nature of Christ, we will almost invariably make the error of conflating (perhaps homogenizing) the two natures, which are in fact distinct.  Once we recognize that eternity is not “another sort of time” which can be considered in the same terms as time, we can accept that the dual nature is of necessity a mystery to temporal beings.
> 
> ...




That is said just as plain as is possible I think... thanks.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 14, 2014)

Israel said:


> We seem to be men in tension, and perhaps that is where the Lord's death experienced...and given...for us, to us...may be seen as such a great gift. (though we may only see in part)
> That tearing apart we experience in utter demonstration of our complete inability to translate...so vexing...so seemingly frustrating (and here seem is the only operative) of a thing seen and known of timeless nature, experienced while "in time", and of which we may feel pressed to make known, in this same time.
> Yet...in the finding of what Paul may have been referring to when saying "who is equal to such a task?"..we discover, in part, it is the tearing itself, and less the "thing" we may think we _try_ to present...that makes the very "thing" known. And then it appears...what we thought we "knew" of this thing is made more clear to even, and especially us, disabused of the "thinking we know".


Yes.

I was having a conversation with a man... a couple years ago. I had as much confidence in this man's salvation as I think a man can have of another. When our discussion turned to eschatology, I presented an explanation that I was convinced  was right. As he started to respond, something took place that I had not expected. I became to myself as a thief, a spiritual thief. I saw that I was robbing him of a consummation.

The goodness of God led me to repentance... in this matter.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 14, 2014)

I've wondered what the discussions must have been like between the Pharisee concerning the work of Christ.

 I'm sure knowing the scripture and the prophecy , they must have known for sure that it all pointed to Jesus as the Messiah, how could they deny the prophecy, it was so clear?

 I think I now know. They must have found comfort in denying what was plainly in sight, and comforted one another in their ignorance.


----------



## Israel (Dec 14, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes.
> 
> I was having a conversation with a man... a couple years ago. I had as much confidence in this man's salvation as I think a man can have of another. When our discussion turned to eschatology, I presented an explanation that I was convinced  was right. As he started to respond, something took place that I had not expected. I became to myself as a thief, a spiritual thief. I saw that I was robbing him of a consummation.
> 
> The goodness of God led me to repentance... in this matter.


How wonderful, no?
That this: Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

We find ourselves "going away", made in likeness, and experience according to the word of him who has told us we are in his likeness, and now in his experience.
Do we send? 
Nought but what we have received, in whatever measure we have. 
Agreement.
We are dead, and hidden.
We are learning the expediency of this.
Stay where you are greatly desired and known, and flee the place you are not needed, that in the place where only One is needed and yet unknown, he may come to be desired.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 14, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I've wondered what the discussions must have been like between the Pharisee concerning the work of Christ.
> 
> I'm sure knowing the scripture and the prophecy , they must have known for sure that it all pointed to Jesus as the Messiah, how could they deny the prophecy, it was so clear?
> 
> I think I now know. They must have found comfort in denying what was plainly in sight, and comforted one another in their ignorance.



Or they did not understand what they knew, as we have been told is the case. 

“Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. 12 If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?"


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 14, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I've wondered what the discussions must have been like between the Pharisee concerning the work of Christ.
> 
> I'm sure knowing the scripture and the prophecy , they must have known for sure that it all pointed to Jesus as the Messiah, how could they deny the prophecy, it was so clear?
> 
> I think I now know. They must have found comfort in denying what was plainly in sight, and comforted one another in their ignorance.




Good morning to you! 

 I don't buy it.


 They did not know what was plainly in sight, because the messiah was Isreal, a people with a king and not a man. Isreal was the son of God, the chosen, born of God and -- not a desciple of John-- a gallilean mystic, a malcontent, a tumb his nose to the temple cult.

They comforted themselves in good conscience. They were people of integrity and earnest. They were people of scripture,  but their conscience was wrong.  

I'm having coffee and gum drop cake this morning. Neighbor brought cake in last night as an offering because we lent her a table for a family gathering. Yum! Gum drop cake and coffee really, really go together.... wish I could share it with you. Really.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 14, 2014)

This is inteesting in which Jesus spoke to the Jews,

 John 5:39“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41“I do not receive glory from men; 42but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43“I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44“How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? 45“Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47“But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”


----------



## Israel (Dec 14, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> This is inteesting in which Jesus spoke to the Jews,
> 
> John 5:39“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life. 41“I do not receive glory from men; 42but I know you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves. 43“I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another comes in his own name, you will receive him. 44“How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God? 45“Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47“But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”


Yeah.
1gr8bldr....In reference to your OP...talk about stirring the hornet's nest!
Hanging hope on Moses like a noose. Finding out one has more in common with Korah than the one claimed.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 14, 2014)

formula1 said:


> Well now you know what I believe the scripture you mentioned refers to!
> 
> Personally, I wish we would forget about eschatology, end times, and a few other things, and preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified.  Salvation comes by no other under heaven! And let's be about making disciples and loving others into the Kingdom we espouse! That's what matters to me!  God Bless!



Amen, amen.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 14, 2014)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hmmm, something I was recently pondering.... When I was reading John, so often John tells us Jesus's response to what the crowd was saying???? What the crowd was saying, as if they had a spokesman??? I wonder why this has never even crossed my mind. I have to decide if the HS was putting words into John's mind or was he putting words on Jesus's lips? For example, would Jesus actually say, "Who can prove me quilty of sin". And based on John's record of what Jesus said, could he be that offensive and not get stoned? And to Kosher Jews, what response would you expect from someone saying you have to eat my body and drink my blood? I don't know, I'm thinking out loud here.... but I am having second thoughts about the book of John. Slippery slope, I know



Think about it, Jesus was very good at speaking above our minds and understandings.

He said we must love Him much more than our parents.
He said the rich guy must sell everything he owned in order to go to heaven..........

I've been confounded over and over by most of the things Jesus has said....... including "forgive them for they no not what they do?".


----------



## M80 (Dec 14, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> Amen, amen.



Hello Bro. Ronnie. Good to see ya


----------



## Israel (Dec 15, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> Think about it, Jesus was very good at speaking above our minds and understandings.
> 
> He said we must love Him much more than our parents.
> He said the rich guy must sell everything he owned in order to go to heaven..........
> ...


That's why second thoughts, of themselves, are not "out of bounds"...nor thirds, fourths, fifths, etc.
How many assumptions a man may have...


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 15, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I will presume...
> 
> Full Preterism makes the same mistake as Dispensationalism.



Preterist come from many different backgrounds, but we're all bereans. A few years back there was a big inrush of Church of Christ, lately reformist have been moving on in, it's really growing and exciting to participate in many of the different online study groups of people just wanting to know more about our Lord.
 You may enjoy this sermon titled Calvin for Christmas by preterist pastor Michael Miano.

http://www.buzzsprout.com/11630/227296-calvin-for-christmas-bible-series-part-1

http://www.buzzsprout.com/11630/228899-calvin-for-christmas-bible-series-part-2


----------



## formula1 (Dec 16, 2014)

*Re:*



Ronnie T said:


> Amen, amen.



Another Hello to brother Ronnie!!!


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 16, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Preterist come from many different backgrounds, but we're all bereans. A few years back there was a big inrush of Church of Christ, lately reformist have been moving on in, it's really growing and exciting to participate in many of the different online study groups of people just wanting to know more about our Lord.
> You may enjoy this sermon titled Calvin for Christmas by preterist pastor Michael Miano.
> 
> http://www.buzzsprout.com/11630/227296-calvin-for-christmas-bible-series-part-1
> ...


I listened to both. Thanks for the links.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 16, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I listened to both. Thanks for the links.



 Those two sermons cover more on Calvin and his beliefs than anything I've taken the time to listen to. You're much more taught on the subject, so in your opinion is Michael giving Calvin a fair shake here?

 I thought it was interesting how he described Tulip not being Calvinism. It gets thrown in so many times I just assumed John Calvin himself come up with tulip.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 16, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Preterist come from many different backgrounds, but we're all bereans. A few years back there was a big inrush of Church of Christ, lately reformist have been moving on in, it's really growing and exciting to participate in many of the different online study groups of people just wanting to know more about our Lord.
> You may enjoy this sermon titled Calvin for Christmas by preterist pastor Michael Miano.
> 
> http://www.buzzsprout.com/11630/227296-calvin-for-christmas-bible-series-part-1
> ...



I have no idea what you've said or described in this comment.  Me thinks me need to study mankind's theories of religious beliefs a little bit...... Not.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 16, 2014)

mwilliams80 said:


> Hello Bro. Ronnie. Good to see ya





formula1 said:


> Another Hello to brother Ronnie!!!



It's good to be out of the woods for a few weeks.
And I miss your fellowship.
.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 16, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Those two sermons cover more on Calvin and his beliefs than anything I've taken the time to listen to. You're much more taught on the subject, so in your opinion is Michael giving Calvin a fair shake here?


I don't know. I have never read any of Calvin's works. As often as I am called a Calvinist, I need to add them to my bucket list.


hobbs27 said:


> I thought it was interesting how he described Tulip not being Calvinism. It gets thrown in so many times I just assumed John Calvin himself come up with tulip.


As with a lot of other things I would imagine. 

I enjoyed a good bit of what he had to say. He is easy to listen to. His trying to compare election to his feeding of five people was a total fail. He seemed to realize it at one point.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 16, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> I have no idea what you've said or described in this comment.  Me thinks me need to study mankind's theories of religious beliefs a little bit...... Not.


Ronnie has no idea, but he will interject anyway.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 16, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Ronnie has no idea, but he will interject anyway.



If you think that was as example of me interjecting, you haven't seen much of my previous interjecting. 

And don't we all continue to interject on so much that we actually have no idea about.  It's the old adage of:  "me against everyone else."  "I know, therefore you do not."


----------



## formula1 (Dec 16, 2014)

*Re:*



Ronnie T said:


> If you think that was as example of me interjecting, you haven't seen much of my previous interjecting.
> 
> And don't we all continue to interject on so much that we actually have no idea about.  It's the old adage of:  "me against everyone else."  "I know, therefore you do not."



And since we are interjecting:

If God doesn't want us to know, we will not know, no matter what we think we know!

One thing I do know is He has given us victory in Jesus Christ!


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 16, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I don't know. I have never read any of Calvin's works. As often as I am called a Calvinist, I need to add them to my bucket list.
> 
> As with a lot of other things I would imagine.
> 
> I enjoyed a good bit of what he had to say. He is easy to listen to. His trying to compare election to his feeding of five people was a total fail. He seemed to realize it at one point.



Well. I just assumed you were Calvinist from the past debates. 
 I admit ignorance on these things though, let me just interject this one thing.

 While growing up we had a tv on antenna, and it's normal setting was on to pickup 3 vhf channels. We could switch it to uhf by going outside and physically turning the antenna. Someone from inside would watch and scream out when you could see a picture. We always had a lot of static in the picture but could care less as long as we could see and hear enough of what it was we were interested in.

 I'm kind of used to overlooking static.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 16, 2014)

formula1 said:


> Another Hello to brother Ronnie!!!



Yea, what you said.


 And I was thinking, haven't heard or seen bro.  Rev.Jessie Jackson  appear in some time?  What's with that? Is he well? It's not like him with all that's been going on???


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 16, 2014)

formula1 said:


> And since we are interjecting:
> 
> If God doesn't want us to know, we will not know, no matter what we think we know!
> 
> One thing I do know is He has given us victory in Jesus Christ!



Yes sir.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 16, 2014)

Ronnie T said:


> And don't we all continue to interject on so much that we actually have no idea about.


Of course not.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 16, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I'm kind of used to overlooking static.


The best stuff always appeared to be in the static.


----------



## Israel (Dec 17, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> The best stuff always appeared to be in the static.


Amen.
That which causes you to listen hard...or seemingly so.


----------

