Your attitude towards the view that I have.
Allow me to reiterate my concern. Your initial post (post #1) concluded with the following statement:
"Overall I believe
by faith Jesus had came and taken his bride, - its just
a subjective take compared to what most denominations preach today."
The two phrases highlighted above are red flags for me, which seem to indicate the post-modern exegesis. I was hoping, through conversation, you might flesh out your understanding of these two phrases, so I might better understand your worldview. You seem to have adopted a perspective on truth that is contrary to the Biblical understanding and that concerns me.
But perhaps my concern is misplaced. Perhaps I misunderstand you. I am open to being corrected, and so please help me understand your intended meaning. I feel your frustration at my confusion, since, in your mind, you were perfectly clear. Even so, please consider that I am willing to listen, and I am not willing to assume to understand what you said. Please consider that I have taken the time to ask you to flesh out what you mean to say.
If you did not pay attention the first time, why would you pay attention a second time?
It's not about paying attention, it's about understanding your intended meaning and whether or not you share a post-modern worldview with the current culture. As Christians living in a secular world, we may use some of the terminology but give it a Christian meaning or interpretation. Therefore, I was trying to find out your perspective on truth.
It just seems to me to be a personal issue. (Do I have to point those out for you?)
It seems that you believe that my "issue" is not related to the topic we are discussing. However, I want to clarify that my personal agenda is to promote a beneficial Biblical hermeneutic, which is based on a commitment to objective truth. Therefore, I am concerned about your conclusion that "faith" in the post-modern sense and subjectivity are beneficial for successful Biblical exegesis. I believe that this approach is antithetical to knowledge, especially Biblical knowledge, and can be detrimental. I urge you to reconsider and adopt a more useful and effective method.
I already stated it, why do it again?
I am asking you to state what you mean by "subjective" using different words. In a previous post, I defined the term "subjective" the way I understand it, I applied my understanding of the term to what I thought you said. Then I asked you, "Is my interpretation correct?" Why didn't you help me or clarify what you meant?
Do you believe in objective truth? I assume you do, so then why describe your understanding as a "subjective take"? If your take is based on objective truth, then how is your take "subjective?"
Again, do you have a reason for your conclusion? If you do, then what is it?
I do not know everything they believe. Jesus did come back, and the wrath of God was poured out on the material nation of Israel, in AD70. That was a lost of all their material things, and Jesus also promised for those things to happen.
I comprehend your message, but the expression "come back" could be misleading. We must continuously remind ourselves to differentiate between the Father and the Son based on what the scriptures reveal about them and their individual responsibilities.
The promised return of Jesus Christ is a promise that God will return to the earth and live among human beings. That is on the one hand, but on the other hand, the scriptures differentiate between the Father and the Son in that the Son will return to earth. We understand this from passages like the following:
Luke 17:22-25
And He said to the disciples, “The days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, ‘Look there,’ or, ‘Look here!’ Do not leave, and do not run after them. For just like the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day. But first He must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
In this passage, Jesus refers to himself as "the son of man". This is a technical term that means he is a descendant of David and is the rightful king of Israel who will rule on David's throne forever. The phrase "son of man" originally came from Psalm 8 and was later used in Daniel 7:13 where the son of man is given dominion, honor, and a kingdom.
Jesus tells his disciples that they will long for those days when Jesus will rule on earth, but they will not see it because the son of man must suffer and be rejected by "this generation." And the New Testament records Jesus was crucified on a cross outside the city of Jerusalem (outside the camp). Later, the Father raised the Son from the dead and the Son ascended to sit at the right hand of the Father.
I want to clarify my point; distinguishing between God the Father and God the Son is important. According to the prophet Daniel, God the Father grants God the Son an everlasting dominion that will never pass away. When Jesus Christ returns to earth, he will not only be the king of Israel but also the king over all the Earth. The New Testament word for his "coming" is "
parousia", a technical term referring to the arrival of a king.
The Bible also speaks about a time when God the Father will come in judgment of Israel. Jesus predicted this in Matthew 23. In that context he tells the Scribes and Pharisees that he will leave their house desolate, and they will not see Jesus again until they say, "Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord." It was God the Father, not God the Son who "came" in Judgment against Jerusalem and Israel. In a sense, the desolation was a "coming" of the Lord, but it wasn't a "parousia" of the Lord. Rather, it was a "parousia" of the Roman General Titus, whom God the Father brought against Jerusalem in order to cause the desolation.
Okay, with Jesus Christ having come back, just as he promised - coming by and throught the clouds, I believe faithful people in that day saw him coming and they were taken and transferred onwards to the Kingdom of the Heavenly Jerusalem, with everything being finished up with judgement of that prior age with hell being poured and everything like that.
But do you have any proof or rational basis on which to accept this as true?
It's something I believe by faith, something I never seen, but I believe that it happened, and have hope that Jesus did not fail those people in that day in age, as so many people continue to believe that he did fail, and has yet to come back.
This is what I feared. You are expressing the post-modern exegesis in that you think that "faith" is believing something apart from truth or facts. This is NOT what the Bible means by "faith."
Now whether or not you agree with any of this, is not really up to me. You can continue to tell me I am relying on my feelings, and blah blah blah, whatever. Having faithin God being able to do something, as promised, and Jesus doing something as promised, doesn't have anything do with feelings.
You should be praised for your belief in God and his ability to fulfill his promises. However, it is important to consider whether God fulfilled his promise in the way you claim he did.
It is as you said.
"Either he did come back, or he hasn't" something you must work out between yourself if you want, or if you haven't or whatever it is you gotta do your own studies.
But it appears that your view is not based on study. It's based on "faith" whatever that means to you. And that is what I want to know. What do you mean "by faith?" And why are your beliefs subjective rather than objective?
Its more of a personal issue you seem to have.
