2 Peter 3:10 The Big Whoosh

[Truth7t7]

There will be no universal destruction when Jesus Returns. That idea is wrong and unscriptural.

Your Claims Are "False And Unscriptural"

Jesus Christ Returns In Fire And Final Judgement, "Dissolving This Existing Earth By Fire", Immediately After The Tribulation

This Existing Heaven And Earth Will Be (Replaced) By The New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem, A New Creation, At The Return Of Jesus Christ

(Behold, I Make All Things New)

2 Peter 3:10-13KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 21:1-5KJV
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

Matthew 24:29-30KJV
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

1 Corinthians 3:13KJV
13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Luke 17:29-30KJV
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9KJV
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Malachi 3:2KJV
2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

Psalm 46:6KJV
6 The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.

Psalm 50:3KJV
3 Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.

Psalm 97:5KJV
5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.

Isaiah 66:15KJV
15 For, behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.

Zechariah 14:12KJV
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the Lord will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Nahum 1:5-6KJV
5 The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt, and the earth is burned at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.
6 Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him.

Revelation 20:9KJV
9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

 

[Truth7t7]

You always misuse that verse when anyone that knows the story will know it is not a global killing.

Post #101 above shows your claims are "False", the heavens and earth are "Dissolved" by fire at the Lord Jesus Christ's return (Gone)!

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I explained in my video that Peter's presentation is purposefully condensed and abridged. Chapter three opens with the following statement,

​

This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.​

​

Here Peter alerts the reader that one must rely on previous teaching in order to comprehend his point below. One needs to remember the words spoken beforehand in order to understand the point he wants to make. The doctrine of the millennial kingdom is understood from other passages of scripture.

It is a mistake to take Peter's abbreviated message at face value because one will come to the wrong conclusion.

This is ridiculous. This is a lame excuse you have come up with to just disregard what Peter said in 2 Peter 3. He was not saying that he was only giving a condensed and abridged version of what will happen. He was saying for them to keep in mind what the prophets had written about while reading his explanation of what they had written about. There is no reason whatsoever to not take Peter's words in 2 Peter 3 at face value. It's no wonder that you would not want to do that since you know full well that your doctrine completely contradicts what he taught in 2 Peter 3.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Have you never heard about the consummation of a marriage? In this case, the word "consummate" means "actualize." It refers to a promise realized.

What you're saying here is accurate, but you were not using the word correctly in your other post. Let me remind you of what you had said.

This is not a problem for my view. If a couple is looking forward to a new baby, then once the baby is consummated, a nine month wait is understood. The coming of the Lord is like the consummation of the Day of the Lord. It is understood that the The New Heavens and New Earth comes a thousand years later.

You talked about the baby being consummated in terms of the baby being conceived followed by a 9 month time period. No, that baby's consummation would be when it is born after the nine months.

Then you said the coming of the Lord is like the consummation of the Day of the Lord. Again, the consummation is the end of something, not the beginning. But, you keep saying that His coming is the consummation of the Day of the Lord even though you actually think that's just the beginning of the Day of the Lord. In your view the consummation of the Day of the Lord doesn't come until a thousand years later. So, you are very confused.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I already answered this in a previous post. Peter intends to be take literally. Yes, but his presentation relies heavily on a shared body of knowledge as he himself says. If one takes it straightforwardly, one will draw erroneous conclusions from this chapter. He does not intend to give the reader an exhaustive presentation on the Day of the Lord.

Yes, there are other things that will happen on the day of the Lord, as Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 4:14-5:11. Such as the catching up of all Christians to meet the Lord in the air. But, the information Peter does give about it should be taken literally. So, when he writes that global fiery destruction will accompany the arrival of the day of the Lord, which will arrive like a thief in the night (meaning suddenly and unexpectedly), then we should believe that. But, you don't. You have the fiery destruction happening much later after the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night, which contradicts what Peter said.

You also don't accept what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:13. He indicated there that we look forward to the new heavens and new earth as the fulfillment of the promise of His second coming. But, you don't have the new heavens and new earth being ushered in at His second coming, you have it ushered in a thousand years (plus Satan's little season, I assume?) later. In that case, the new heavens and new earth would not be part of the fulfillment of the promise of His second coming.

 

[Truth7t7]

In your view the consummation of the Day of the Lord doesn't come until a thousand years later. So, you are very confused.

Just a reminder, you deny the bad guy seen below "He" making desolation will be present on earth until the "Consummation" The End

You falsely teach the events of Daniel 9:27 below are fulfilled, making way for your reformed preterist eschatology in fulfillment "Wrong"

Its Sorta like throwing rocks in a glass house, with both parties disregarding scripture to maintain their belief, "Fact"

Jesus Is The Lord

One thing I know Is a fact, the events seen below are future, and not fulfilled as you teach and believe

Matthew 24:15 (Daniel's AOD) and Matthew 24:21 (The Great Tribulation) these are future events unfulfilled

In Love, Jesus Is The Lord

Daniel's AOD is future, and the bad guy causing the Abomination and Desolation "He" will be present on earth to the "Consummation" Ultimate End

"Future" Events Unfulfilled

This "Future" figure will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

(The Future Consummation)

2 Peter 3:10KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel's AOD (Even Until The Consummation) "Future"!

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[ewq1938]

Post #101 above shows your claims are "False", the heavens and earth are "Dissolved" by fire at the Lord Jesus Christ's return (Gone)!

Jesus Is The Lord

Not a single scripture posted shows that. Rev 19-21 shows that theory to be false anyways.

 

[GEN2REV]

The people who have put this video together, and their associates with the same level of disregard for the Bible, have shown themselves repeatedly to have no respect whatsoever for sound doctrine. They are not only an insult, but an injury, to the cause of all those who care deeply for other Christians and strive to teach God's Word with an emphasis on Truth and accuracy.

This CadyandZoe source has proven to be completely indifferent to the needs of young Christians and continues to produce videos that blatantly ignore the weight of Scripture in regard to the topics they choose to teach.

This is a perfect example of the caliber of people that are literally eroding Christianity on a grand scale today.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I don't know anything about the trinity doctrine.

I'm content with what the Bible teaches.

Jesus, ALONE, is God Almighty.

Okay, I appreciate what you say about being content with what the Bible teaches. I am also content with what the Bible teaches. And it is only fair that I answer my own question. But before I do, I confess what the Bible actually teaches, that God alone is one. And It also teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. It doesn't teach, however, how that is possible. After all is said and done, most Christians are happy to leave it there. How the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can all be God, and yet remain One, most Christians would say, is a mystery. We just don't know how that is possible and the Bible doesn't go into detail about that. And I am fine to leave it there.

Early in the third and fourth centuries, some Christian theologians, well versed in Greek culture and Greek thought, attempted to formulate an answer the question "in what manner can three distinct persons exist as one being." In order to understand what these men were attempting to say, we need to understand what these men were attempting to do. The preoccupation of philosophy (and thus theology) at that time was the study of science. In short, early Christian theologians were searching for a scientific explanation for the nature of God, given the first principles of scientific thought. In other words, they wanted to know "the what" of God. What was he?

In their view, God is a primary substance (ousia) and the essential nature underlying a thing is (hupostasis). Therefore, God is one (ousia) in three (hypostasis) Father, son, and Holy Spirit. As I said, these are scientific concepts seeking to understand the quiddity of God: what he is in himself. These theologians also developed the notion of the "hypostatic union", That Jesus is both man and God in the same person. Jesus has two, rather than one hypostasis: (1) his human nature, and (2) his divine nature. That is the Trinity Doctrine in a nutshell, a brief summary of a much larger discussion.

The Bible isn't so much concerned with the "what" of God, however, as it is concerned with the "who" of God. The Bible spends little time on the question, "what is God" and much more time on answering the question, "who is God?" Nonetheless, the single most important concept revealed in both the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament scriptures is the fact that God is transcendent over all things he created. There is no God but God. By nature, God is above and outside of creation and therefore cannot be defined in scientific terms and categories. He exists outside of reality. Thus, the second commandment forbids the creation of an idol in the shape of a creature or any other thing, since nothing in this reality can represent him.

The Bible doesn't teach the proposed scientific explanation for the nature of Jesus, i.e. the hypostatic union. The concept of a dual nature is foreign to the Bible, a doctrine which would be strange to Jesus and the apostles. With regard to the "what" of Jesus, the Bible clearly teaches that he is man. We have no Biblical evidence to support the notion of "dual nature", which is absurd on the face of it. With regard to the "who" of God, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is the image of God, meaning, if one should experience Jesus in person, then one would be experiencing the Father. It doesn't follow, then, that Jesus must have a transcendent nature along side his human nature. The oneness of God the Father and God the Son doesn't rest in a shared (ousia), it rests in a shared identity.

All I am saying is that the Bible isn't a science textbook, focused on the "what" of God's existence, though it has a few things to say about that. The primary focus of the Bible is on the "who" of God, and especially the qualities of his divine nature. The Bible remains focused on the essential qualities that both the Father and the Son hold in common, which are qualities such as goodness, righteousness, truth, love, justice, mercy, faithfulness, compassion, integrity, and constancy. (committed to his word and his covenants.) The divine nature of Jesus is found in the quality of his character and a life lived in obedience to the Father.

Finally, one can believe the truth about God the Father and God the Son from the Bible without affirming the scientific explanation offered by Christian theologians of the third and fourth centuries. According to Apostles like Paul and John, it is very important for believers to accept the premise that the man Jesus is the Christ. The antichrist, as John says, is the one who denies that Jesus, having come in the flesh, is the Christ. In other words, the antichrist doesn't deny the deity of Jesus; the antichrist denies the humanity of Christ.

 

[CadyandZoe]

@CadyandZoe

Shall we discuss more 2 Peter 3:10 now?

Or more trinity?

I am happy to discuss the text at hand.

 

[CadyandZoe]

No problem interacting with your ideas, you deny the deity of Jesus Christ as being God manifest in the flesh, you believe (The Day Of The Lord) is 1,000 years long and not a day?

Your beliefs and teachings are way out in left field, way out there it's that simple, just mentioning a few of your unorthodox ideas

Jesus Is The Lord

I believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. I reject the scientific explanation, which proposes that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all share a common "ousia". Three persons in one being is a non-sensical and meaningless concept. Jesus is God, not by a shared "ousia" but by a common identity. The Bible does not focus on the "what" of Jesus. It assumes it. Jesus is a man; he was born to a woman; he grew up and gained wisdom; he died on a cross; he needed to be resurrected. He was a man tempted like us, but without sin. He suffered pain and anguish. He had his own will and desires, and at times he favored the will of God over his own will. (Abba, Father)

Christians are not obligated to believe the scientific forumation that arose during the third and fourth centuries. We are obligated to believe what Jesus and the apostles taught us with regard to God's will and his salvation.

Are my beliefs unorthodox? Yes. But what is orthodoxy but a dogma under military control?

 

[Truth7t7]

Early in the third and fourth centuries, some Christian theologians, well versed in Greek culture and Greek thought, attempted to formulate an answer the question "in what manner can three distinct persons exist as one being." In order to understand what these men were attempting to say, we need to understand what these men were attempting to do. The preoccupation of philosophy (and thus theology) at that time was the study of science. In short, early Christian theologians were searching for a scientific explanation for the nature of God, given the first principles of scientific thought. In other words, they wanted to know "the what" of God. What was he?

In their view, God is a primary substance (ousia) and the essential nature underlying a thing is (hupostasis). Therefore, God is one (ousia) in three (hypostasis) Father, son, and Holy Spirit. As I said, these are scientific concepts seeking to understand the quiddity of God: what he is in himself. These theologians also developed the notion of the "hypostatic union", That Jesus is both man and God in the same person. Jesus has two, rather than one hypostasis: (1) his human nature, and (2) his divine nature. That is the Trinity Doctrine in a nutshell, a brief summary of a much larger discussion.

You espouse the heretical teachings of the Alexandrian Philosophical Scools of Origen and Arius nothing new, the foundations of the modern day Jehovahs Witnesses

 

[CadyandZoe]

This is ridiculous. This is a lame excuse you have come up with to just disregard what Peter said in 2 Peter 3. He was not saying that he was only giving a condensed and abridged version of what will happen. He was saying for them to keep in mind what the prophets had written about while reading his explanation of what they had written about. There is no reason whatsoever to not take Peter's words in 2 Peter 3 at face value. It's no wonder that you would not want to do that since you know full well that your doctrine completely contradicts what he taught in 2 Peter 3.

Why resist the obvious? In your view, Peter's teaching stands alone, needing no other background information. In your own words, "There is no reason whatsoever to not take Peter's words in 2 Peter 3 at face value." So which is it? Remember what the prophets wrote or take my words at face value?

 

[Truth7t7]

I believe that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. I reject the scientific explanation, which proposes that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all share a common "ousia". Three persons in one being is a non-sensical and meaningless concept. Jesus is God, not by a shared "ousia" but by a common identity. The Bible does not focus on the "what" of Jesus. It assumes it. Jesus is a man; he was born to a woman; he grew up and gained wisdom; he died on a cross; he needed to be resurrected. He was a man tempted like us, but without sin. He suffered pain and anguish. He had his own will and desires, and at times he favored the will of God over his own will. (Abba, Father)

Christians are not obligated to believe the scientific forumation that arose during the third and fourth centuries. We are obligated to believe what Jesus and the apostles taught us with regard to God's will and his salvation.

Are my beliefs unorthodox? Yes. But what is orthodoxy but a dogma under military control?

Your beliefs have changed in the past week, you being rejected by the forum in you unorthodox teachings in denying the deity of Jesus Christ has reaped fruits, glad to see your turn around

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[CadyandZoe]

What you're saying here is accurate, but you were not using the word correctly in your other post. Let me remind you of what you had said.

You talked about the baby being consummated in terms of the baby being conceived followed by a 9 month time period. No, that baby's consummation would be when it is born after the nine months.

Then you said the coming of the Lord is like the consummation of the Day of the Lord. Again, the consummation is the end of something, not the beginning. But, you keep saying that His coming is the consummation of the Day of the Lord even though you actually think that's just the beginning of the Day of the Lord. In your view the consummation of the Day of the Lord doesn't come until a thousand years later. So, you are very confused.

Is your argument that my words don't mean what I intended them to mean? hmm. That might explain a few things.

 

[Truth7t7]

Why resist the obvious? In your view, Peter's teaching stands alone, needing no other background information. In your own words, "There is no reason whatsoever to not take Peter's words in 2 Peter 3 at face value." So which is it? Remember what the prophets wrote or take my words at face value?

2 Peter 3:10-13 is fire time (The End) have you now changed your claims concerning this also?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes, there are other things that will happen on the day of the Lord, as Paul wrote about in 1 Thess 4:14-5:11. Such as the catching up of all Christians to meet the Lord in the air. But, the information Peter does give about it should be taken literally. So, when he writes that global fiery destruction will accompany the arrival of the day of the Lord, which will arrive like a thief in the night (meaning suddenly and unexpectedly), then we should believe that. But, you don't. You have the fiery destruction happening much later after the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night, which contradicts what Peter said.

It isn't a question of whether Peter is speaking literally or figuratively. The question is whether Peter's message is predicated on a set of facts, which he and his readers share in common. In your view, the facts Peter presented to his readers stand on their own. In my view, the facts Peter presents are a small subset of a much larger body of knowledge found within the teaching of the apostles and prophets. There is nothing in the text itself that necessarily promotes my view over yours, or your view over mine. All we can honestly say is that the issue can't be decided from this passage alone. Peter wants his readers to remember the teachings of the apostles and prophets as they read his final remarks in this epistle.

You also don't accept what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:13. He indicated there that we look forward to the new heavens and new earth as the fulfillment of the promise of His second coming. But, you don't have the new heavens and new earth being ushered in at His second coming, you have it ushered in a thousand years (plus Satan's little season, I assume?) later. In that case, the new heavens and new earth would not be part of the fulfillment of the promise of His second coming.

Does Peter actually teach that the New Heavens and New Earth appear "at his coming" (or very near his coming. I understand that the big whoosh takes at least a few milliseconds. :) ) I don't think we can necessarily conclude, from Peter's letter that the NHNE is coincident with the return of the Lord.

I take note of Peter's sentence structure here.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
​

Here the relative pronoun seems to indicate an activity that will happen at some time during that day. Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that if Peter wanted to make the day of the Lord equal to the big whoosh, he would have employed vocabulary to indicate this, such as "the day of the Lord, which is the big whoosh."

 

[CadyandZoe]

You espouse the heretical teachings of the Alexandrian Philosophical Scools of Origen and Arius nothing new, the foundations of the modern day Jehovahs Witnesses

Rumpelstiltskin?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Your beliefs have changed in the past week, you being rejected by the forum in you unorthodox teachings in denying the deity of Jesus Christ has reaped fruits, glad to see your turn around

Jesus Is The Lord

I didn't turn around. I was purposely being misconstrued. With those who have eyes to see, the charge of heresy is a block one raises so as to avoid the truth.

 

[CadyandZoe]

2 Peter 3:10-13 is fire time (The End) have you now changed your claims concerning this also?

No, I am not changing my views.