Paul taught that Revelation 20:4 was a current reality

[grafted branch]

The word "parousia" is not used in that verse. So, that verse is irrelevant in a discussion about the parousia of Christ. You cannot find even one verse that actually refers to the parousia of Christ that has anything to do with 70 AD or anything else in the first century.

So Christ coming as a thief is not His parousia? If not then how are you defining “coming as a thief”?

2 Peter 3:10 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.

2 Peter 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming (parousia) of the day of the Lord.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So Christ coming as a thief is not His parousia?

Not in Revelation 3:3. What Jesus was talking about there related specifically to people in the first century church in Sardis. So, He was speaking figuratively to them about punishing them if they did not repent. He was not referring to the global event of His parousia there.

If not then how are you defining “coming as a thief”?

2 Peter 3:10 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.

2 Peter 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming (parousia) of the day of the Lord.

This has a different context from Revelation 3:3. How can you not see that? This is not talking about Him figuratively coming to an unrepentant person in the first century church in Sardis and punishing them, this is talking about His parousia when He will come to destroy all of the wicked on the entire earth. Completely different contexts.

 

[grafted branch]

Not in Revelation 3:3. What Jesus was talking about there related specifically to people in the first century church in Sardis. So, He was speaking figuratively to them about punishing them if they did not repent. He was not referring to the global event of His parousia there.


This has a different context from Revelation 3:3. How can you not see that? This is not talking about Him figuratively coming to an unrepentant person in the first century church in Sardis and punishing them, this is talking about His parousia when He will come to destroy all of the wicked on the entire earth. Completely different contexts.

Here are the verses using the term coming as a thief.

Revelation 3:3
2 Peter 3:10
Revelation 16:15
1 Thessalonians 5:2,4

Is Revelation 3:3 the only place where Christ coming as a thief is not His parousia?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Here are the verses using the term coming as a thief.

Revelation 3:3
2 Peter 3:10
Revelation 16:15
1 Thessalonians 5:2,4

Is Revelation 3:3 the only place where Christ coming as a thief is not His parousia?

Apparently. How can you conclude that those other verses have the same context as Revelation 3:3 when that verse is only in relation to the first century church in Sardis? If you can somehow show that the context of all those verses is the same, which would mean Jesus was referring to a global event in Revelation 3:3 rather than just giving a warning specifically to those who were part of that particular church, then I would reconsider my view of Revelation 3:3.

The context of the other verses is clearly in relation to His parousia as a global event. That's just not what I see described in Revelation 3:3.

 

[grafted branch]

Apparently. How can you conclude that those other verses have the same context as Revelation 3:3 when that verse is only in relation to the first century church in Sardis? If you can somehow show that the context of all those verses is the same, which would mean Jesus was referring to a global event in Revelation 3:3 rather than just giving a warning specifically to those who were part of that particular church, then I would reconsider my view of Revelation 3:3.

The context of the other verses is clearly in relation to His parousia as a global event. That's just not what I see described in Revelation 3:3.

I conclude that because there was a parousia in the first century. I know you said in post #227 that denying a parousia happening in 70AD causes no problems whatsoever, but here we are with a problem.

You have to boldly claim that the “coming as a thief” in Revelation 3:3 is the only place in scripture where that statement is meant figuratively, while the all other accounts are directly related to His parousia.

It takes two or three witnesses to confirm or establish a point.

2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

This particular problem of non- corroboration will go away if you just admit a parousia happened in the first century.

 

[grafted branch]

If you can somehow show that the context of all those verses is the same, which would mean Jesus was referring to a global event in Revelation 3:3 rather than just giving a warning specifically to those who were part of that particular church, then I would reconsider my view of Revelation 3:3.

How about this, Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Here the church in Philadelphia is kept from something that comes upon all the world. Whatever you think that event was, those in the church at Philadelphia didn’t experience it because they kept the word.

This is a similar situation that we had with the church in Sardis, if the event that comes upon all the world didn’t actually happen during the first century then the Philadelphians weren’t kept from that event because they kept the word. Philadelphians that didn’t keep the word would’ve also been kept from the event.

So here is a so called global event that did happen in the first century, which would agree with idea that His parousia comes upon all the world.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I conclude that because there was a parousia in the first century.

No, there was not. You have done nothing to prove that.

I know you said in post #227 that denying a parousia happening in 70AD causes no problems whatsoever, but here we are with a problem.

You are the one with the problem, not me.

You have to boldly claim that the “coming as a thief” in Revelation 3:3 is the only place in scripture where that statement is meant figuratively, while the all other accounts are directly related to His parousia.

Yeah, so? That's what the context indicates. The context of Revelation 3:3 is not in relation to a parousia (no mention of it anywhere in Revelation 3) and not in relation to a global event like the other references to coming as a thief, so it can't be talking about a parousia. The onus is on you to prove that. The fact that it talks about Jesus coming like a thief, but in a different context from the other passages, is not enough to prove that. The other passages are specifically related to the parousia, but Revelation 3:3 is not as there is no mention of a parousia there like there is in the other passages.

It takes two or three witnesses to confirm or establish a point.

2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

This particular problem of non- corroboration will go away if you just admit a parousia happened in the first century.

I will not admit something that isn't true. You have done NOTHING to prove that whatsoever. All you have done is proven that you are stubborn and not willing to acknowledge that Revelation 3:3 has a completely different context than a passage like 1 Thess 5:2-3 or 2 Peter 3:10-12. Both of those passages relate specifically to the parousia because the parousia is specifically mentioned in relation to those events (1 Thess 4:15, 1 Thess 5:23, 2 Peter 3:12). However, we do not see the parousia referenced in relation to Revelation 3:3.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

How about this, Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

Here the church in Philadelphia is kept from something that comes upon all the world. Whatever you think that event was, those in the church at Philadelphia didn’t experience it because they kept the word.

This is a similar situation that we had with the church in Sardis, if the event that comes upon all the world didn’t actually happen during the first century then the Philadelphians weren’t kept from that event because they kept the word. Philadelphians that didn’t keep the word would’ve also been kept from the event.

So here is a so called global event that did happen in the first century, which would agree with idea that His parousia comes upon all the world.

It's clear that you will go to any length to avoid the clear context of Revelation 3:3. Where do you find any mention of a global event in the message given to the church in Sardis? Nowhere. Everything Jesus said to them applies to them specifically. Let's stick to the topic here, which is the church in Sardis and not the church in Philadelphia.

Revelation 3:1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. 2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. 3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. 4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.

Can you acknowledge that He was speaking specifically to the people of the church in Sardis here and not to anyone else? That is very clear. So, He was telling the people of the church in Sardis specifically that they were dying spiritually. He was telling them specifically that they needed to repent. And He was telling them specifically that if they didn't watch (if they didn't repent) then He would come on them as a thief. That could apply to any invididuals who didn't repent or it could apply to the whole church in Sardis if Jesus was speaking generally. If the context is the latter, then it would mean He would punish the church as a whole in some way even if none of them repented or maybe even if only a few individuals repented and the rest didn't. Regardless, what He said was directed towards and applies specifically to the people of the church in Sardis and not to anyone else.

That is the case in His message to the church in Philadelphia as well. It was a message that directly applied to the people in that church, so there is no reason to apply it to the church in Sardis as well. Otherwise, should we think the following also applies to the church in Sardis and not specifically to the church in Ephesus?

Revelation 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; 2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. 4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

This is a similar message as the one Jesus gave to the church in Sardis, but that doesn't mean it applies specifically to the church in Sardis. No, it applies specifically to the people in the church of Ephesus. Unlike the people of the church in Sardis, the people of this church in Ephesus were actually doing some good, productive things, but for them it was all about being busy and doing those things and they forgot about their personal relationship with Jesus. They were being like Lazarus's sister Mary instead of his sister Martha (John 11:19-20). So, like the people in the church in Sardis, they needed to repent or else Jesus would figuratively come and punish them. And, like Revelation 3:3, that has nothing to do with a parousia of Christ.

 

[grafted branch]

No, there was not. You have done nothing to prove that.

Well, I can’t “prove” something to someone who continually denies, especially when that denial contradicts their own method of interpreting scripture.

I have seen you make posts in past where you argue for corroborating a interpretation with other scriptures, but apparently that is no longer the case because the idea that “coming as a thief” is meant figuratively only in Revelation 3:3 doesn’t corroborate with any other scriptures.

You are the one with the problem, not me.

If you’d like I can quote some of your posts from the past where you argue for the scriptures corroborating with a person’s view. Has this changed or are you just saying that it’s not a problem for you to ignore your own rules of interpretation?

The context of Revelation 3:3 is not in relation to a parousia (no mention of it anywhere in Revelation 3) and not in relation to a global event like the other references to coming as a thief, so it can't be talking about a parousia.

But it is in relation to a global event. The church at Philadelphia would experience an event “which shall come upon all the world”. How would it be possible for that event not to happen at Sardis and yet happen upon all the world?

Regardless, what He said was directed towards and applies specifically to the people of the church in Sardis and not to anyone else.

That is the case in His message to the church in Philadelphia as well. It was a message that directly applied to the people in that church, so there is no reason to apply it to the church in Sardis as well.

The message to the church at Philadelphia was about a global event, right? So is it your position then that a global event, like the parousia of Christ, can happen upon all the world and yet not happen literally on all the world? Sardis is a little less than thirty miles from Philadelphia.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Well, I can’t “prove” something to someone who continually denies, especially when that denial contradicts their own method of interpreting scripture.

I am not doing that. My method of interpreting scripture is to use scripture to interpret scripture when possible and to relate two (or more) scriptures together if they have the same context. If you think a warning by Jesus given specifically to a first century church in Sardis has the same context as global wrath coming down upon the entire earth, then I don't know what to tell you. I just don't get that at all.

I have seen you make posts in past where you argue for corroborating a interpretation with other scriptures, but apparently that is no longer the case because the idea that “coming as a thief” is meant figuratively only in Revelation 3:3 doesn’t corroborate with any other scriptures.

I don't just automatically relate two scriptures together because they contains some of the same words. That's ridiculous. I've never said anyone should do that. If the context of the two verses or passages matches then it's safe to relate them together. Otherwise, it's not a good idea.

If you’d like I can quote some of your posts from the past where you argue for the scriptures corroborating with a person’s view. Has this changed or are you just saying that it’s not a problem for you to ignore your own rules of interpretation?

I still hold to that. As long as the two verses or passages have the same context. Which they don't in this case. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

If I rigidly stuck to the kind of approach that you mistakenly think I use, then I would conclude that Daniel 7:13-14 and Matthew 24:30 are speaking of the same event simply because they both mention the Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. Yet, they are not the same event. The Daniel 7:13-14 passage is about the ascension of Christ to heaven while Matthew 24:30 is about His second coming from heaven.

But it is in relation to a global event. The church at Philadelphia would experience an event “which shall come upon all the world”. How would it be possible for that event not to happen at Sardis and yet happen upon all the world?

No, it is not. You are making a lot of assumptions here instead of going by what the actual text says. Where did Jesus say anything to the people in Sardis that they needed to repent before He came like a thief to punish the world, including them, for not repenting? He didn't. He was talking to them specifically about what He would do to them specifically if they didn't repent of their spiritual deadness. And He was speaking conditionally there. If they (the people of the church in Sardis) did repent, then He would not come like a thief to them. But, the global event at which He will come like a thief, as described in passages like 1 Thess 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12, is guaranteed to happen because scripture says it will happen. So, it's two different contexts. You clearly have a lot of trouble with understanding scripture in context.

The message to the church at Philadelphia was about a global event, right? So is it your position then that a global event, like the parousia of Christ, can happen upon all the world and yet not happen literally on all the world?

No, because scripture doesn't teach that. There is no parousia mentioned in the message to the church of Philadelphia. You are trying to place a parousia where scripture itself does not. Your approach to interpreting scripture makes no sense to me.

Sardis is a little less than thirty miles from Philadelphia.

That is meaningless in the context of what we're talking about. The message to the church in Sardis was specifically for the people in the church in Sardis and the message for the church in Philadelphia was specifically for the people in the church in Philadelphia. It seems that you don't want to acknowledge that.

 

[grafted branch]

No, because scripture doesn't teach that. There is no parousia mentioned in the message to the church of Philadelphia. You are trying to place a parousia where scripture itself does not. Your approach to interpreting scripture makes no sense to me.

Ok, so the event “which shall come upon all the world” in Revelation 3:10, did that event happen globally or did it only happen in Philadelphia?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Ok, so the event “which shall come upon all the world” in Revelation 3:10, did that event happen globally or did it only happen in Philadelphia?

Globally, obviously. Why do you ask? Because I said "the message for the church in Philadelphia was specifically for the people in the church in Philadelphia"?

What I meant by that was not that the hour of trial coming upon the whole world would only come upon Philadelphia. Hello! Obviously, I wouldn't try to say something ridiculous like that. No, what I meant was that when He said "Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world", He was speaking specifically of the people of the church in Philadelphia as keeping His command to endure patiently and because of them doing that He would keep the people in the church in Philadelphia "from the hour of trial". That wasn't His message to the church in Sardis, that was His message specifically to the church in Philadelphia is my point. Trying to apply this also to the church in Sardis and what He said about coming to them as a thief if they didn't repent is a case of taking it out of context.

Also, I made the point that Him coming as a thief to the church in Sardis was conditional upon whether or not they repented. If they repented, He would not come to them as a thief. This is a different context to His parousia when He comes as a thief because that event is certain to happen. Please address this.

 

[grafted branch]

Globally, obviously. Why do you ask? Because I said "the message for the church in Philadelphia was specifically for the people in the church in Philadelphia"?

What I meant by that was not that the hour of trial coming upon the whole world would only come upon Philadelphia. Hello! Obviously, I wouldn't try to say something ridiculous like that. No, what I meant was that when He said "Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world", He was speaking specifically of the people of the church in Philadelphia as keeping His command to endure patiently and because of them doing that He would keep the people in the church in Philadelphia "from the hour of trial". That wasn't His message to the church in Sardis, that was His message specifically to the church in Philadelphia is my point. Trying to apply this also to the church in Sardis and what He said about coming to them as a thief if they didn't repent is a case of taking it out of context.

Also, I made the point that Him coming as a thief to the church in Sardis was conditional upon whether or not they repented. If they repented, He would not come to them as a thief. This is a different context to His parousia when He comes as a thief because that event is certain to happen. Please address this.

Alright, then if the event that the church at Philadelphia was told about was a global event, then why are you saying it had nothing to do with the church at Sardis? All seven churches would have the “hour of trial” event happen to them along with all the world.

Now we know that Christ came as a thief by the account given to the church at Sardis, and we know a global event also happened according to the account given to the church at Philadelphia. These facts corroborate with the parousia of Jesus coming as a thief and being a global event.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Alright, then if the event that the church at Philadelphia was told about was a global event, then why are you saying it had nothing to do with the church at Sardis? All seven churches would have the “hour of trial” event happen to them along with all the world.

Are you actually reading what I'm saying? I don't get that impression. I'm not saying that the church in Sardis wouldn't be affected by that hour of trial. Of course they would be since it would affect the entire world. Which proves what exactly? It doesn't prove that Him conditionally coming as a thief specifically to the church in Sardis if they didn't repent has anything to do with "the hour of trial", so what is your point here exactly?

Now we know that Christ came as a thief by the account given to the church at Sardis, and we know a global event also happened according to the account given to the church at Philadelphia. These facts corroborate with the parousia of Jesus coming as a thief and being a global event.

Ugh. You are twisting scripture to fit your doctrine. There is no parousia mentioned in Revelation 3 at all. And there is no global coming of Christ mentioned there, either. Can you acknowledge this?

Also, as I have pointed out to you twice already, the coming of Jesus as a thief in Revelation 3:3 was conditional. If the church in Sardis did not repent, He would come upon them as a thief. If they did repent, He would not come upon them as a thief. That was something prophesied only in relation to the church in Sardis and not anyone else.

In contrast to the conditional coming of Jesus as a thief in Revelation 3:3, His coming as a thief referenced in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 is NOT conditional. Can you acknowledge this?

 

[grafted branch]

I'm not saying that the church in Sardis wouldn't be affected by that hour of trial. Of course they would be since it would affect the entire world. Which proves what exactly?

The hour of trial is His coming. If they watched He wouldn’t come on them as a thief but if they didn’t watch He would come as a thief.

In contrast to the conditional coming of Jesus as a thief in Revelation 3:3, His coming as a thief referenced in passages like 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 and 2 Peter 3:10-12 is NOT conditional. Can you acknowledge this?

No, I can’t acknowledge that because of the next verse in Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

The Thessalonians are given the same conditions that those in Sardis were given. The coming itself wasn’t conditional, it was whether or not that coming would be as a thief.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The hour of trial is His coming. If they watched He wouldn’t come on them as a thief but if they didn’t watch He would come as a thief.

And where is your proof for this? You should know better by now to make a claim like this to me without backing it up.

No, I can’t acknowledge that because of the next verse in Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians 5:4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

The Thessalonians are given the same conditions that those in Sardis were given. The coming itself wasn’t conditional, it was whether or not that coming would be as a thief.

I completely disagree. That's not what Jesus indicated there. He indicated that He would only come on them as a thief if they did not repent. He absolutely did not say He would still come to them, but not as a thief otherwise. You are making that up. It's very clear to me that interpreting scripture in context is not a strong suit for you. Your attempts to change the context are sad to see.

 

[grafted branch]

And where is your proof for this? You should know better by now to make a claim like this to me without backing it up.

In 2 Peter 2:9 Peter uses the same word “trial” or “temptation” <3986> in regard to the previous verses. Noah and the flood in vs 5, Sodom and Gamorrha vs 6, and Lot being delivered in vs 7.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

I know you’re very loose on how verses corroborate so you can easily just dismiss what I’ve said but if the global hour of trial wasn’t the 70AD coming then what was it? What global event happened to the Americans, Australia, Africa, and current Asia in the first century?

Since you strictly prohibit any idea that the other churches could participate in the statement meant specifically for the church at Philadelphia, we can know by your method of interpretation that even if any of the other churches did “keep the word of my patience” they would still have to experience the “hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world”.

What was that hour of trial?

That's not what Jesus indicated there. He indicated that He would only come on them as a thief if they did not repent.

I thought we already covered this point, if the determining factor of whether Jesus came or not was whether the church at Sardis watched or not, then the 2 Thessalonians 2:3 falling away and man of sin being revealed had to have already taken place.

Do you think 2 Thessalonians 2:3 was fulfilled in the first century? If not then how could failing to watch cause a coming like a thief?

 

[PinSeeker]

No, I don’t think it is relevant for us today.

Okay, well, we disagree on that. :)

The reason I don’t think it’s relevant is because none of us know whether or not we are going to have a heart attack or get killed in an accident. There currently isn’t a different preparation for the coming of Jesus vs dying, either way we need to be saved.

Well, sure, we all are in need of salvation, for sure. But the point of Revelation is that at all times, no matter how bad things seem, God is in control, and Jesus wins... :) ...and ultimately, our victory is already secured in Christ Jesus. In this way, everyone who reads/hears/keeps John's prophecy ~ from the time of its writing even until Christ returns, is blessed. If you disagree with that, well, then... okay. :)

I do believe Jesus will come at some future point...

Good; me too... :)

...but if you deny a parousia happened in 70AD then it causes quite a few problems in scripture.

Hmmm, I don't think so. :) I think I know at least a couple of things you're referring to here... At least for now, just in reference to what happened in AD70, the events of that time were very significant, for sure. :) But... Well, it might be an interesting conversation to have; as I say, I'm sure Matthew 24:34 ("this generation will not pass away") would be a big part of that... :) ...and it would be far from the first time that has been discussed on this board, I'm sure. To that, I'll just say this, that several interpretations (here in no certain order) have been offered for this difficult passage:

1. Some think "this generation" refers to the disciples who were alive when Jesus was speaking, and "all these things" refers to the beginning but not the completion of the sufferings described in Matthew 24:4-26.
2. Others see a prediction with multiple fulfillments, so that Jesus's disciples will be both "this generation" that sees the destruction of the temple in AD70 and also those at the end of the age who see the events surrounding the "abomination of desolation" (Matthew 24:15).
3. Others understand "this generation" ~ since "the generation of..." in the Old Testament can mean people who have a certain quality ~ to refer either (a) to "this generation of believers" (Matthew 12:45) throughout the entire present age, or (b) to "this evil generation" (Luke 11:29) that will remain until Christ returns to consummate His Kingdom.
4. Still others understand "generation" to mean "race" and say it refers to the Jewish people, who will not pass away until Jesus returns.
5. And still others understand it to mean the generation that sees "all these things" (Matthew 24:11), namely the generation alive when the final period of great tribulation begins. According to this view, the illustration of the fig tree (v.32) shows that when the final events begin, Christ will come soon. Just as "all these things" in v.33 refers to events leading up to but not including Christ's return, so in v.34 "all these things" refers to the same events described in vv.4-25.

I would just say that all of these explanations can be defended ~ and valid in that sense ~ but they are not all correct. :) As I said, I'm not sure where you stand, so, although I think I have a pretty good idea, I would be hesitant to assign any one of these to you. Again, feel free to clarify... or not, if you so choose. I will say this, though, that I think one of the keys to understanding Jesus correctly here is Matthew 24:8, where He says, "All these are but the beginning of the birth pains." And we can connect that to what Paul ~ who was not present when Jesus said what He said in Matthew 24 ~ says some time later, namely:

"...the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience." (Romans 8:18-25; emphasis added)​

And we also need to keep in mind Galatians 2:9 where an agreement was made that James, Peter, and John would go to the circumcision and Paul and Barnabas were to go to the heathen. That agreement was never rescinded, right?

Hm. I'm not going to make any assumptions, here, but it seems to me you're making something different out of this than what it is. Again, maybe an interesting conversation... Feel free to clarify if you are so inclined.

I think it was written to a first century, Jewish audience.

Immediately, yes, I agree, but only in a certain limited sense, Any disagreement between us on this seems to begin with this "Jewish audience" you're talking about. Remember who Paul said true Jews really are? :)

I definitely wouldn’t recommend being smug about the coming of Jesus...

Certainly, I agree...

but then again we shouldn’t be smug about our physical death either.

Right. Or our spiritual death. Or our spiritual resurrection. Or our physical resurrection. Agree.

A true believer is always ready for their own death or the coming of Jesus, there is no different preparation for the two.

Agree.

However there would’ve been a difference for a first century Jew who was visiting Jerusalem on Passover in 70AD.

So, yes, I agree on this, but... :) I'm kind of ~ well, not "kind of"... I am... ~ referring to what I said above, here; as Paul says;

• "...no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." (Romans 2:28-29)
• "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1)
• "...not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring... (Romans 9:6-8)
• "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:22-24)
• "...a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:25-26),

So, again, I sort of agree with what you're saying ~ in a certain context ~ and I, well, sort of... :) ...disagree. :) Remember what the writer of Hebrews says at the very beginning of his work:

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world." (Hebrews 1:1-2; emphasis added)​

Sorry; no smugness intended...

Grace and peace to you!

 

[PinSeeker]

Keep in mind that I hate your Calvinist doctrine...

Oh, I'm well aware of that, and that's okay with me, for sure, but really, that's only because you don't rightly understand Calvinism, but a mere ~ false ~ caricature of it, as evidenced by your repeated false allegations regarding it. This is what all Arminians do; it's what Jacobus Arminius himself did in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. That's what I've tried to tell you, is that really, Spiritual Isrealite, you're arguing against something very different than what John Calvin explicitly believed and wrote.

Again, the only reason there is such a thing as what's known as "the five points of Calvinism," or "TULIP," is that there were five objections Arminius raised with regard to John Calvin's much more thorough and extensive Biblical commentaries. Namely, Arminius held to... Well, you can take a look at this:

Calvinism and Arminianism

You'll notice ~ but no doubt reject, at least for now ~ the rejection of each of Arminius's five points and the reaffirmation of Calvin's respective responses by the Synod of Dort in 1619.

...but I love you as a person.

Hmmmm... :) Okay, well, same to you, but I would encourage you to... be at least a bit more graceful... :) ...going forward. But this... well, I won't call it absolute gracelessness, but shortage of grace seems to be continuing, at least for now, in your exchange with Grafted Branch. Dude. Stop it. Disagreeing is okay. Presumably, we all love the Lord, right?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[grafted branch]

I would just say that all of these explanations can be defended ~ and valid in that sense ~ but they are not all correct. :) As I said, I'm not sure where you stand, so, although I think I have a pretty good idea, I would be hesitant to assign any one of these to you. Again, feel free to clarify... or not, if you so choose. I will say this, though, that I think one of the keys to understanding Jesus correctly here is Matthew 24:8, where He says, "All these are but the beginning of the birth pains." And we can connect that to what Paul ~ who was not present when Jesus said what He said in Matthew 24 ~ says some time later, namely:

Yea, I agree there a multiple ways of looking at “this generation” and if we were to assign a probability as to which one is correct, each one would be higher than zero but none would be 100%, at least from our vantage point.

I think I know what is meant by “this generation”, which is that it’s referring to the people who were living at that time in history, but obviously there are other ways of interpreting that phrase and for the most part we arrive at how we interpret “this generation” based on our overall eschatological view.

I think a better place to start looking at a 70AD coming is found in Revelation 2 and 3. The church at Sardis is told if they didn’t watch then Jesus would come on them as a thief. Was it possible or not for Jesus to come in the first century?

If we say no it wasn’t possible for Jesus to come in the first century then we obviously have a problem with the scriptures being true for those to whom it was addressed.

If we say yes it was possible for Jesus to come on the Sardis church in the first century then the 2 Thessalonians 2:3 revealing of the man of sin, which has to happen first before His coming, had to have already happened before Revelation was written.

So, yes, I agree on this, but... :) I'm kind of ~ well, not "kind of"... I am... ~ referring to what I said above, here; as Paul says;

• "...no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God." (Romans 2:28-29)
• "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1)
• "...not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but 'Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.' This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring... (Romans 9:6-8)
• "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory ~ even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:22-24)
• "...a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:25-26),

So, again, I sort of agree with what you're saying ~ in a certain context ~ and I, well, sort of... :) ...disagree. :) Remember what the writer of Hebrews says at the very beginning of his work:

"Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world." (Hebrews 1:1-2; emphasis added)
Sorry; no smugness intended...

Ok, I probably should’ve been more clear. I agree there is no difference between Jew and Gentile but there remained a distinction between the two when the scriptures were being written. You can’t have Israel being blind in part until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in if there is absolutely no difference between the two.

I should’ve said John’s intended audience for the book of Revelation was the people who are being referred to as “the circumcision” in Galatians 2:9.