Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did Jesus say that when he comes, it would be the end of the world? I don't think he did.When Christ returns, the separating out of one from the other, both who are in this world occurs.
Where did Jesus say that he was coming at the end of the world?Agree. Passages like that show that the saved and the lost will all be gathered at the same time at the end of the age/world (Greek: aion) which is when Jesus returns (Matt 24:3) with the saved inheriting "the kingdom of their Father" since Jesus will be delivering the kingdom to the Father at that time (1 Cor 15:22-24) in the form of the eternal new heavens and new earth and the unsaved being cast into the fire at that time. It's the same thing Jesus taught in passages like Matthew 13:47-50 and Matthew 25:31-46. Jesus clearly taught Amillennialism and not Premillennialism.
I'm not taking a "spiritual meaning" to it. Good grief, man. Please grow up. It can, even as written, be seen as two or three questions. We agree that His second coming and the end of the age occur at the same time, right? So, with that being the case, I don't think it really matters if we see it as two or three questions.Well the construct shows they asked three questions not two. I will go with what is written and not with what some try to guess the "spiritual meaning".
And, what does He say happens to the unsaved at that point (Matt 25:41)? They are cast into "everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels".Yes when Jesus physically returns, they will be saved and unsaved. That is the judgment of Matt. 25: 31-46. They will not have mortal bodies- they are saved.
Who are these survivors? You said above that they saved at that point will not have mortal bodies. It says the unsaved will be cast into everlasting fire at that point. So, who are these mortal survivors that you're talking about? And, why are you interpreting Isaiah 65:17-25 in such a way that contradicts Revelation 21:1-5?According to Isaiah, these survivors will have children and the children will have till their 100th birthday to accept Christ or Jesus will kill them. He rules with a rod of iron.
I disagree. I think "the furnace of fire" Jesus said they will be cast into is the same as the lake of fire. But, do you then have the wheat having immortal bodies at that point the same way you understand the sheep/saved in Matthew 25:31-46? If so, where do the mortals come from that you think will populate the earth at that point?As for the tares, they will be cast into the place of torments until the great white throne judgment, when they will be cast into the lake of fire, after their bodies are resurrected and they are joined with their bodies once more..
You saw that I said "the world/age", right? And I did reference Matthew 24:3 in that post. The Greek word is aion. It's a word that describes time rather than a place. So, look at this...Where did Jesus say that he was coming at the end of the world?
This and also by inference from other scriptures, Like Peter says in 2 Peter 3, we know it is the end of the world and the beginning of a new world.Did Jesus say that when he comes, it would be the end of the world? I don't think he did.
The end of the age isn't necessarily the end of the world.You saw that I said "the world/age", right?
He comes at the end of the Age, not the end of the World.Do you think that Jesus will come at some other time than at the end of the world/age?God spoke to Ezekiel, addressing him directly with the words, "Son of man, this place is where My throne will be established, and it is here that the soles of My feet will rest. This is where I choose to dwell among the sons of Israel forever." The absence of a temple would render God's promise to Ezekiel unfulfilled. In his vision, Ezekiel further depicted a prince destined to reside within the temple. This prince, identified as the Messianic figure, is none other than Jesus Christ. He would inhabit the temple and reign over the world, fulfilling the Davidic Covenant and overseeing a restored Israel. The imagery portrayed conveys a profound promise of divine presence and governance, permeating the spiritual restoration of the people.
They were asking one question three different ways. Jesus told his disciples that the temple would be torn down and destroyed. This would have come as quite a shock. For many Jews, the Temple was the heart of their faith, the place where God's presence dwelt and where His covenant with Israel was reaffirmed through worship and sacrifice. To see it reduced to ruins would have been deeply unsettling.If so, do you think the disciples asked 3 entirely separate questions in the Olivet Discourse?
The Day of the Lord is not the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth.This and also by inference from other scriptures, Like Peter says in 2 Peter 3, we know it is the end of the world and the beginning of a new world.
You don't like what the apostle Peter wrote thenThe Day of the Lord is not the time of the New Heavens and the New Earth.
Peter was unfamiliar with the intricate concepts of atoms or nuclear bonds. To him, the word "elements" had a different meaning, one rooted in the fundamental components of a system, particularly the Jewish religious system. In Judaism, the Oral Tradition, commonly referred to as the Talmud, serves as a comprehensive record of legal precedents rooted in the teachings and interpretations of various rabbis throughout the generations. This vast body of work encapsulates discussions, debates, and rulings that shape Jewish law and practice. However, Jesus expressed criticism towards the scribes and Pharisees, highlighting their tendency to prioritize their established traditions over the fundamental laws given by Moses. He believed that this elevation of oral traditions overshadowed the true intent of the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, there is a prophetic imagery that speaks of God dispatching His armies of fire to purify Israel, a divine intervention meant to rid the land of the "elements" associated with the rabbinical system—suggesting a profound cleansing that goes beyond mere physicality to address spiritual corruption.You don't like what the apostle Peter wrote then
IF the heavens pass away, they are gone. Elements melt with fervent heat, you know the nuclear bonds in atoms, when they break. release tremendous energy as tremendous levels of explosive heat in a fiery destruction and a great amount of noise.
The Holy Spirit who inspired him was not unfamiliar with those concepts. How do you know what Peter was familiar with? You don't. Anyone being inspired by the Holy Spirit can potentially become familiar with anything that God is familiar with, which, obviously, is everything.Peter was unfamiliar with the intricate concepts of atoms or nuclear bonds.
Peter was not speaking English; he was speaking Greek. Peter didn't write the word "elements"; he wrote the word στοιχεῖα. We want to know what Peter meant by the Greek word, not our English representation of it. Modern Translators have a modern bias and sometimes forget to filter out that bias.The Holy Spirit who inspired him was not unfamiliar with those concepts. How do you know what Peter was familiar with? You don't. Anyone being inspired by the Holy Spirit can potentially become familiar with anything that God is familiar with, which, obviously, is everything.
You did a tremendous job here of completely ignoring my point and not addressing it at all. Well done, if that was your goal.Peter was not speaking English; he was speaking Greek. Peter didn't write the word "elements"; he wrote the word στοιχεῖα. We want to know what Peter meant by the Greek word, not our English representation of it. Modern Translators have a modern bias and sometimes forget to filter out that bias.
The Greeks had their own theories about physics. In their view, the classical elements were fire, water, earth, and air. These were thought to be the fundamental building blocks of nature. The concept was first proposed by Empedocles, a Greek philosopher from the 5th century BCE, who believed that these elements combined in different ways to form everything in the universe. Later, Aristotle expanded on this idea by adding a fifth element called aether (or quintessence), which he associated with the heavens and celestial bodies. Given this interpretation, some postulate that Peter was referring to the celestial bodies and that they would be destroyed.
If we conclude that Peter is talking about the destruction of everything in heaven and on earth, then we cause him to say something contrary to everything else the Bible says about the Day of the Lord. And since Peter would not contradict scripture, our conclusion is incorrect.
In biblical prophecy, darkness is often symbolic rather than strictly physical. It can represent judgment, distress, spiritual blindness, or the withdrawal of divine favor rather than the literal absence of light from the sun or moon.
For example, in Isaiah 13:10, it says, "The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light; the rising sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light." While this could refer to a cosmic event, it is often interpreted metaphorically, signifying upheaval, destruction, or divine intervention affecting nations and rulers.
Similarly, in Matthew 24:29, Jesus says, "Immediately after the distress of those days, ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’" Again, while this could imply physical darkness, it also carries symbolic meaning, signaling a significant transformation before the arrival of the Son of Man.
The Day of the Lord is often associated with divine rule on earth, particularly in prophetic literature. Zechariah 14:9 states, "On that day the LORD will become King over all the earth-the LORD alone, and His name alone." This suggests a future time when God's sovereignty will be fully recognized and established over all nations.
The concept of the Day of the Lord includes both judgment and restoration. It is described as a time when God intervenes in human history to judge the wicked, redeem His people, and establish His righteous rule. This is linked to the Messianic reign, where Christ rules over the earth in fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
So you reject the physical return of Jesus to earth.It is like this, no 1000 year separation away from the Father's side will take place between Christ and God.
The scriptures there point that out.
Well actually HIs return is shown earlier:Post 159, comeon now, have some logic here, the scripture explains what will happen when Christ returns, we get new heaven and new earth.
And the Godhead dwells with His people, there is no separation like you believe in.
Your argument assumed that Peter was speaking English. Since this is factually incorrect for obvious reasons, I chose to argue that Peter was speaking Greek to Greek speakers of his time. Understanding Peter in his original language, it is clear to see that he was not talking about the total destruction of the earth.You did a tremendous job here of completely ignoring my point and not addressing it at all. Well done, if that was your goal.
Actually, you are rather oddly stuck on this, what makes you think I believe that? I did not say that, you assumed it somehow.So you reject the physical return of Jesus to earth.
This is a good point. A question can be raised, then, what does it mean to be "new"? New in what sense? Does it refer to a brand new earth? Does it refer to an existing earth that has been restored?But we do read of this taking place, the Holy heavenly city, the new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven from God
Therefore Christ is dwelling with men on the NEW earth, but not this old evil earth. And God the Father too is there.
For Heaven and Earth there is here no separation. It unites together.
Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, [a]John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
5 Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said [b]to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
6 And He said to me, “It[c] is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. 7 He who overcomes [d]shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. 8 But the cowardly, [e]unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
No, it does not. Stop trying to speak for me.Your argument assumed that Peter was speaking English.
I argue the same. That has nothing to do with why we are disagreeing about this.Since this is factually incorrect for obvious reasons, I chose to argue that Peter was speaking Greek to Greek speakers of his time.
In the original language, the words he used that were translated as "dissolved" and "melt" can refer to the literal dissolving and literal melting of physical or material things. That's a fact. Those words can also mean other things (they had multiple definitions like almost all Greek words do), but you can't deny that they can refer to the literal dissolving and melting of things as well.Understanding Peter in his original language, it is clear to see that he was not talking about the total destruction of the earth.
Don't tell me what to say. Yes, it does. You argued that Peter was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit talking about the destruction of the elements as understood by modern scientists.No, it does not. Stop trying to speak for me.
No, you did not argue from the Greek text.I argue the same.
Yes, it does. You argued that Peter was not unfamiliar with atoms and nuclear bonds because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit.That has nothing to do with why we are disagreeing about this.
It seems you are having difficulty keeping your facts straight. The original language of the text is Greek, while the translation is in English. Greek words can have a wide range of meanings, which means that the interpretation and understanding of the passage will influence how it is read in English. The idea of the world's destruction is just one possible interpretation, but it is not the only one. There are other valid interpretations as well. The translation you have is based on one person's judgment regarding which interpretation they believe Peter intended. However, since Peter is talking about the Day of the Lord, and we know that Jesus returns to earth to rule over all the nations during that time, then the translation you have in your hand reflects an exegesis that Peter didn't intend.In the original language, the words he used that were translated as "dissolved" and "melt" can refer to the literal dissolving and literal melting of physical or material things.
As I mentioned earlier, I acknowledge that the Greek in the passage is challenging to understand and that there are multiple plausible interpretations of the passage.That's a fact. Those words can also mean other things (they had multiple definitions like almost all Greek words do), but you can't deny that they can refer to the literal dissolving and melting of things as well.
I disagree with your premise that Moses and Job were discussing advanced scientific concepts. For instance, Moses is not talking about how the world came to be except to say that God spoke it into existence. That is not a scientific statement, it's a theological statement. Neither is Job making scientific statements. He is speaking poetically about the natural world.Part of your argument is that Peter could not have known anything about the literal dissolving and melting of physical and material things, but I showed you that means nothing as I'm sure Moses and Job did not have a full understanding of advanced science, either, and, yet, they still were able to speak about advanced scientific things because of revelation from the Holy Spirit.