Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Originally Posted by Hitch
Im 'suggesting' they were fulfilled within the time frames given, is such instances where that occurred. Im 'suggesting' that when John says 'A' is about to happen ,he was right '

Okay, let's play this out and apply your hermeneutic to some other passages. They were obviously written as all of Scripture during a specific time in history with a contemporary audience/readership of the author.
That a big blanket . Some prophecies were written with a great deal of time in mind some were not. Jesus opened His ministry with the declaration 'the time is fulfilled', confirming that at he least some prophecies have specific time frames . The passages you chose all carry an implication of nearness *
Quote
Sooooo, taking the passages below, would you not have to hold that Christ has already returned?

Rev 3:11 I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown.
Rev 22:7 And behold, I come quickly. Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book.
I dont believe its possible to 'keep the prophecy of this book' while dismissing the plain and obvious meaning of the opening three verses.
Quote
Rev 22:12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is.
Rev 22:20 He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus.
Nope.
Not one of those passages says anything about returning in contrast to Acts 1;11 . Neither do any require His bodily presence. However each one carries and repeats the expectation that this 'coming' is expected soon as it pertains to the original audience.
'Returning' implies a bodily presence a return to things as they were previously. Christ left the earth in the same body that came from the tomb, 'coming' on the other hand may or may not be a return. Christ can certainly 'come' in the sense of orchestrating the destruction of Egypt or Jerusalem. Im sure we agree the First Advent was not the fist time Christ had 'come ' to earth , but that it was different in nature than previous comings. Is there any reason to believe He would not continue be active in history , without coming in a visible way? I dont think there is, just as I dont think any invisible coming negates His eventual bodily return.

*
62And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?

63But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.

64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

For anyone who believes and coming in the clouds of heaven in this passage refers to the second Advent, the bodily visible return, Id like to know how you literalize that portion but deliteralize this part ye see the Son. How is this accomplished without splitting that sentence in half? No I dont think its proper here to generalize the you (ye), its no accident that Christ is directly set as opposite the High Priest.
I reckon its far more likely Jesus is speaking about the judgment coming in a few decades , not an event at least 2,000 years future, and that the High Priest or at least some of his contemporaries will witness the destruction. Doesnt Jesus quote 'this generation shall not pass' apply here?

Last edited by Hitch; Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:46 PM.