When Christ returns, we shall all be changed, including heaven and earth, actually all things are changed out for something better.

[rebuilder 454]

When Jesus descended into paradise into the lower parts of the Earth

That is what he told the theif on the cross.
Then the bible documents it.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Do you believe in a one-thousand year reign of Christ on the earth? Perhaps it will only last 1 day!

rebuilder, you do not understand the context of 2 Peter 3. Peter is addressing those of HIS own day. THEY are the "beloved." THEY were taught, and justifiably so, that the LORD was returning to THEM in THEIR lifetime. Jesus said it; the inspired writers taught it. The scoffers of Peter's day knew what those believers were looking for and why. They were mocking THEM and not US. Peter is addressing the understandable impatience of those Christians in the midst of the ridicule that came in THAT day. They were being persecuted and killed for their faith. God had promised them relief, rescue, and vindication.

Peter reminded THEM that God is faithful. What He promises, He will do. God is not affected by time. That is why the verses says "with the Lord." It is not with US that a thousand years can be a day or a day can be a thousand years! Notice also that it does not say "a thousand years IS a day" or "a day IS a thousand years." It says "as."

Jesus and the NT writers taught clearly that He was returning to them in their generation. THAT is God's timing. They were impatient because of the scoffers and the tribulation, but Peter reminded them that they could trust in the promises of God. Those promises involved His soon return to THEM!

Let's talk about your statement "and here we are 2000 years later" (not, 'uh 2 days later"). John was told to NOT seal up the vision because the time was NEAR. Remember that Daniel was told TO seal up the vision because it was for a time that was far off. The "far off" was mere hundreds of years. If Daniel was told TO seal up his vision because it was for just hundreds of years later, why would John be told to NOT seal up the vision when it was NEAR? NEAR cannot be considered thousands of years when hundreds of years are considered FAR OFF.
The events of the Revelation were NEAR. That is the clear time frame given to us by GOD. John's vision involved those events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A. D. 70. It is the job of the Bible interpreter to find the fulifllments within THAT time frame.

It says CLEARLY.
"With the lord, a thousand years is as a day day is as a thousand years."

I do realize that what's a huge obstacle with your doctrine, but that's what it clearly says.
And so no matter how much you try to cast it down, reframe it or omitt it.
It ain't going away

 

[rebuilder 454]

Do you believe in a one-thousand year reign of Christ on the earth? Perhaps it will only last 1 day!

rebuilder, you do not understand the context of 2 Peter 3. Peter is addressing those of HIS own day. THEY are the "beloved." THEY were taught, and justifiably so, that the LORD was returning to THEM in THEIR lifetime. Jesus said it; the inspired writers taught it. The scoffers of Peter's day knew what those believers were looking for and why. They were mocking THEM and not US. Peter is addressing the understandable impatience of those Christians in the midst of the ridicule that came in THAT day. They were being persecuted and killed for their faith. God had promised them relief, rescue, and vindication.

Peter reminded THEM that God is faithful. What He promises, He will do. God is not affected by time. That is why the verses says "with the Lord." It is not with US that a thousand years can be a day or a day can be a thousand years! Notice also that it does not say "a thousand years IS a day" or "a day IS a thousand years." It says "as."

Jesus and the NT writers taught clearly that He was returning to them in their generation. THAT is God's timing. They were impatient because of the scoffers and the tribulation, but Peter reminded them that they could trust in the promises of God. Those promises involved His soon return to THEM!

Let's talk about your statement "and here we are 2000 years later" (not, 'uh 2 days later"). John was told to NOT seal up the vision because the time was NEAR. Remember that Daniel was told TO seal up the vision because it was for a time that was far off. The "far off" was mere hundreds of years. If Daniel was told TO seal up his vision because it was for just hundreds of years later, why would John be told to NOT seal up the vision when it was NEAR? NEAR cannot be considered thousands of years when hundreds of years are considered FAR OFF.
The events of the Revelation were NEAR. That is the clear time frame given to us by GOD. John's vision involved those events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in A. D. 70. It is the job of the Bible interpreter to find the fulifllments within THAT time frame.

Well, I hate to inform you. The second coming has not happened yet.
So keep trying

 

[rwb]

Matthew 27 says it this way, and it happens at His death.
I have wondered about this, and I can't say, but they were resurrected at that time from the dead.
Afterwards nothing further is said, they may have walked back to their graves and died , or they might have lived a while and died again, they may have ascended with Christ into heaven in Acts 1 bodily, but I do think they did ascend with Him in the cloud spiritually to await the final resurrection of all the dead, as obviously they were considered worthy of being resurrected by God. This was a sign that Jesus was who He said He was, the Lord of Life.

Think about it like this, what happened to the people Christ raised from the dead during His ministry on earth?
I assume they came to life in their original bodies, but of course died again to await the final resurrection of all the dead.

I does not read as if these people who were raised received their glorified bodies does it!
Such a body can not die again.

Exactly! And only the body of Christ was resurrected immortal to never die again. The Old Covenant saints coming out of the graves could not have been physical like the immortal body of Christ. They would not receive immortality & incorruptibility physically until the seventh/last trumpet sounds when the change from mortal to immortal and corruptible to incorruptible happens. That's why Paul says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, and neither does corruption inherit incorruption (1Co 15:50-51). They, like all saints must wait to be resurrected bodily together as one complete body of Christ fit for everlasting life with Christ on the new earth. (Heb 11:40)

 

[Scott Downey]

Exactly! And only the body of Christ was resurrected immortal to never die again. The Old Covenant saints coming out of the graves could not have been physical like the immortal body of Christ. They would not receive immortality & incorruptibility physically until the seventh/last trumpet sounds when the change from mortal to immortal and corruptible to incorruptible happens. That's why Paul says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, and neither does corruption inherit incorruption (1Co 15:50-51). They, like all saints must wait to be resurrected bodily together as one complete body of Christ fit for everlasting life with Christ on the new earth. (Heb 11:40)

Yes, certainly, as the resurrected body of Christ received glorification and He ascended to the Father in that body.
We shall all (believers only) someday have the same kind of Body Christ has now.

 

[rwb]

Yes, certainly, as the resurrected body of Christ received glorification and He ascended to the Father in that body.
We shall all (believers only) someday have the same kind of Body Christ has now.

Yes, for now, only the spirit within faithful man, through the Spirit of Christ in us posses eternal life. Even though our flesh is destined to die, when we are indwelt with the Spirit of Christ our spirit is justified/made righteous in Christ before God forever.

 

[HappyOma]

The question is what exactly does the vision show was shortly/near in the days of John? I know as a Preterist you will not agree, but it could not have been the coming of Christ as described from the Mount of Olives!

The question is what exactly does the vision show was shortly/near in the days of John? I know as a Preterist you will not agree, but it could not have been the coming of Christ as described from the Mount of Olives!

Yes, rwb, THAT is the question! And it is the question students of the Word must endeavor to answer. The timing was set--we must find the fulfillment within it.

Why can it not be the coming of Christ? Jesus placed those things in the generation of those disciples right there with Him. It is our job to find the fulfillments. The prevailling problem for futurists is their failure to understand and acknowledge apocalyptic, prophetic, judgment language. The OT prophets often depicted the judgment comings of God through figurative language that spoke of upheavals in the heavens and on the earth. We find judgments against Babylon (Isa. 13), against Egypt (Ezek. 32), againt Edom (Isa. 34), against Israel, (Amos 5, 8). Were the sun, moon, and stars literally darkened during those times? Did God's literal sword descend from heaven? Were the skies literally "rolled up as a scroll"? Students of the NT must be students of the Old. Those disciples right there with Jesus, being Jews and familiar with the OT writings, would have had no trouble understanding His symbolic, prophetic language.

Jesus clearly was speaking to those disciples right there with Him on the Mount of Olives. He used the personal pronoun YE around twenty times. "All these things" were to happen to them in their generation. How many who disparage preterists for not being "literal" are guilty of their own accusations? Ye means Ye. And how many futurists bother to cross-reference Scripture (Anology of Faith) to ascertain the meaning and intent of "this generation." Jesus used that expresson nineteen times! If one bothers to look up the contexts in which they are found, he will discover that Jesus always used it to mean His contemporaries. The futurist must prove why, in respect for Jesus' other usages, why Jesus suddenly gives "this generation" a different meaning (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). A basic principle of hermeneutics reflects Occam's Razor (the simplest explanation is usually the right one). I contend that "this generation" is obvious in its meaning. I assert that anyone, not familiar with the Bible and eschatology, would look at that expression and know immediately what it means--those very people of that time. A child could understand this.

Why, then, is there so much push back and so much need to redefine it? It is because people come to it with their preconceived ideas and find that taking it in its obvious understanding violates their paradigm. They view the nature of Christ's return as bodily and visible. That has not happened, therefore, "this generation" must mean something else. They take the figurative descriptions of His return with rigid literalism. That has not happened, therefore, "this generation" must mean something else. But is the problem with the expression or is it, rather, with the expectations imposed upon it? IF "this generation" means exactly what it says, then Jesus was not to come back bodily and visibly. IF "this generation" means exactly what it says, then descriptive language must be understood to be sy;mbolic or figurative. Sadly, most futurists will not even look at a different explanation.

I contend that "this generation" means exactly what it means--just as Jesus always meant it. Having accepted the obvious. one must then set about to figure out how "all these things" fit into that time frame.

 

[HappyOma]

Well, I hate to inform you. The second coming has not happened yet.
So keep trying

Your repeatedly saying so does not make it so. You are in opposition to the very words of your Lord and Savior who said that His Second Coming would happen in the generation of those very disciples right there with Him. Do you really want to be in oppostion to Jesus Himself? You deny and defy His words and the words of His inspired writers. That is not a good place be, rebuilder.

Let's use Scripture and not opinion. Have you exegeted Hebrews 10:37 yet--in its context?

 

[HappyOma]

It says CLEARLY.
"With the lord, a thousand years is as a day day is as a thousand years."

I do realize that what's a huge obstacle with your doctrine, but that's what it clearly says.
And so no matter how much you try to cast it down, reframe it or omitt it.
It ain't going away

Why do you refuse to look at verse in their CONTEXT, rebuilder? And why do you not acknowledge "with the Lord" and "as"? They are significant to the meaning.

What is the CONTEXT of 2 Peter 3? Do you even bother to try?

 

[Deleted member 26788]

That is what he told the theif on the cross.
Then the bible documents it.

39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

sorry I don't see your words​

 

[rebuilder 454]

Your repeating saying so does not make it so. You are in opposite to the very words of your Lord and Savior who said that His Second Coming would happen in the generation of those very disciples right there with Him. Do you really want to be in oppostion to Jesus Himself? You deny and defy His words and the words of His inspired writers. That is not a good place be, rebuilder.

Let's use Scripture and not opinion. Have you exegeted Hebrews 10:37 yet--in its context?

You defy and deny Rev 19.
You saying the white horses are history.
Armageddon is history?????
All your accusations against me are a diversion against content.

Let's use scripture against your opinion.

Going against the bible is not a good place to be H.O.
You really want to be against Jesus?
Stop being against your Lord and savior.


My bible says an undeserved curse can not find rest.
That means it goes out .
And your intentions are against a brother so they do not stick.
So it ends up in your own lap.
All your false accusations end up on your very lap
See how easy it is to weoponize the bible against a believer. ????
I just turned your mess towards you.

Just plain juvenile and silly.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Why do you refuse to look at verse in their CONTEXT, rebuilder? And why do you not acknowledge "with the Lord" and "as"? They are significant to the meaning.

What is the CONTEXT of 2 Peter 3? Do you even bother to try?

Show ME THE PROPER CONTEXT.
SHOW ME.

 

[Scott Downey]

Yes, for now, only the spirit within faithful man, through the Spirit of Christ in us posses eternal life. Even though our flesh is destined to die, when we are indwelt with the Spirit of Christ our spirit is justified/made righteous in Christ before God forever.

Yes, we get a new body, God makes all thing new
We will recognize each other in heaven.
The old things will pass away.

Revelation 21:5
Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”

 

[HappyOma]

Show ME THE PROPER CONTEXT.
SHOW ME.

YOU show ME the CONTEXT, rebuilder. You are the one who used the verse. If you cannot, I will be happy to do so. It is easy.

Answer these questions: To WHOM is Peter writing? WHEN is Peter writing? WHY is Peter writer?

 

[rebuilder 454]

YOU show ME the CONTEXT, rebuilder. You are the one who used the verse. If you cannot, I will be happy to do so. It is easy.

Answer these questions: To WHOM is Peter writing? WHEN is Peter writing? WHY is Peter writer?

Lol
I already said what it clearly says.
You claim some hidden meaning.
I call you on it and you can't unpack it


Got it.
It truly damages your deal and you have nowhere to go.

 

[HappyOma]

You defy and deny Rev 19.
You saying the white horses are history.
Armageddon is history?????
All your accusations against me are a diversion against content.

Let's use scripture against your opinion.

Going against the bible is not a good place to be H.O.
You really want to be against Jesus?
Stop being against your Lord and savior.


My bible says an undeserved curse can not find rest.
That means it goes out .
And your intentions are against a brother so they do not stick.
So it ends up in your own lap.
All your false accusations end up on your very lap
See how easy it is to weoponize the bible against a believer. ????
I just turned your mess towards you.

Just plain juvenile and silly.

Let's use Scripture. YOU deny and defy the clear timing. Why was John told that He was to be shown "those things which must SHORTLY take place" (Rev 1:1, 22:6). Why was John told that the time was NEAR (Rev. 1:3; 22:10). Why was John told to NOT seal up the vision? (Rev. 22:10).

"You saying the white horses are history.
Armageddon is history?????"

YES! Why? Because the TIMING says so. What is "juvenile and silly" is to not acknowledge truths that are right in front of you because you do not like wha they indicate.

 

[Deleted member 26788]

Yes, we get a new body, God makes all thing new

you may like to think it includes yourself

 

[Scott Downey]

you may like to think it includes yourself

Of course, why would any believer be excluded? God is going to do what He says.

 

[Deleted member 26788]

Of course, why would any believer be excluded? God is going to do what He says.

are you declaring yourself to be of the elect?

 

[HappyOma]

Lol
I already said what it clearly says.
You claim some hidden meaning.
I call you on it and you can't unpack it


Got it.
It truly damages your deal and you have nowhere to go.

So, I am to assume that you don't know the context of 2 Peter 3?