Poll: HISTORY - Did the Apostles ever make it out...?

[ScottA]

None of which makes void what I also have quoted of the scriptures. The point is not that it is one or the other, but rather that each must be rightly divided, and yet reconciled one to the other. In which case, there was no surprise to the Word become flesh--nor could there be, for it is His story and revelation; except that the times were according to the Father and His drawing the chosen to Himself.

I have no idea what you mean by that...rightly dividing is seeing how it fits ...reconciling seems like you are you are the one making excuses for what doesn't fit.
I make that statement because I still have no idea what you believe...I kind of think maybe you are trying to mesh the gospel period with the epistles (the church of the bride with the church of the body) I am deducing that based on what you call the lie or part of the lie with things you don't agree with ....but you never disclose why.

One thing at a time.

"Rightly dividing" is what Paul indicated is a must regarding understanding "the word of truth":

2 Timothy 2:15
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
​

This he said in regard to guiding Timothy in how to continue the build which Paul was charged with by Jesus in taking the gospel to the gentiles. The point being, that much of the gospels was for Israel, while their task was not. Therefore, they (as do we) have the need of "rightly dividing the word of truth" as to not misapply what was written for the sake of the one as confusion to the other, and vice versa.

I mentioned it because you were mixing both gospel narratives to address what Jesus foretold regarding when He would return in the second coming. Which were things that He said "must shortly take place" regarding that generation, rather than those events being a part of the coming church age or the distant future. The early church fathers did not heed this guidance from Paul, and the discourse that followed is now the foretold apostacy that he also warned about.

But that time of apostacy is coming to pass, and since it was also foretold that the Holy Spirit would "lead us unto all truth", that is what is coming next, and now is.

"Rightly dividing the word of truth" also means rightly reconciling it, rather than pitting one verse against another to win a scriptural battle which ought not to be fought. My point in calling you out on it, was that if the scriptures are indeed rightly divided, then we would have nothing to argue about what is written. Which is otherwise that sword rather than peace that Christ first left to us until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled, saying:

Matthew 10:34
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.​

 

[ScottA]

the anti-Christ is literally "disanointed" and they have been around since the times of Christ ....they are unbelievers "disanointed" ...and unbelievers don't fall away ....you can't fall away from something you do not belong to.

Again, we need not argue if these things are properly reconciled. Peter actually referred rather to the disanointed causing the falling away:

2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction.​

 

[ScottA]

There are orientalism’s and figure of speech (214 types used in the Bible) and parable’s which I guess could be a variation of that would equate to allegory(ish). But that is not what I am speaking about. In layman’s terms the allegory method was this:

The hierarchy would determine what the meaning of scripture was…. and using their interpretation teach through allegory to the common (ignorant) person. Whereas with parables, if Jesus gave us the interpretation …we can understand it. With orientalism’s and idioms those can be understood only in light of the times and customs of when they were used.
The Allegorical method was used primarily to keep people in subjection… To us that might sound stupid with everything we have available and informational access we have ….it is almost hard to even conceive ….But those in the middle ages this is what they were taught…. and you can’t go beyond what you know.

Additionally …. the allegorical method of interpretation is that it seeks to find an allegorical interpretation for every passage of Scripture. Interpreters who allegorize are creative, with no control based in the text itself. …I believe God frowns on that 2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Here is an example of Algological teaching:

Adam is a type of Christ because Adam was put to sleep, his side was opened—he was wounded and his blood was shed—and from that wound his bride was taken. In the same way, Christ died, had His side pierced, and from that ordeal His Bride, the church, is produced. Just as Adam said that Eve was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh (2:23 Genesis ), so the church is the body, flesh, and bone of Christ (5:30 Ephesians) My note: “of his flesh, and of his bones” in 5:30 Eph were added (not by me) …not in any critical Greek text.

I recommend you stop calling what you are referring to as "allegorical" teaching, as (again) that is also the method presented throughout much of the scriptures from the beginning.

I also submit to you that, yes, Jesus explained the classic parables, but also referred to our need to "understand all parables" and that it has been the way of God since the beginning as foretold by the prophets (Mark 4:10-13).

Which, if we are to have faith in God's very own method of revealing His truth to all generations--we should not succumb to fears of "anything goes", but rather test every spirit, with the confidence that His word will not return void even having been intentionally confused by Him to every language at Babel. This is His way. Which I would also submit, is fulfilled, (and was to be reconciled) “Precept upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little,” That they might [even] go and fall backward, and be broken And snared and caught." Isaiah 28:13

 

[ScottA]

I think that many Christians jump to conclusions when they hear "the Son of Man comes." Since eschatology is a big topic, it is usually thought that the coming of the Son of Man relates back to Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes down from heaven at the end of the age to establish God's Kingdom on earth.

But perhaps Jesus knows that he is the "Son of Man," and is going from city to city, from town to town, bringing his Gospel of the Kingdom. He was saying he won't be able to complete this testimony to Israel, that judgment is coming to them, that the Kingdom is to be passed on to Gentiles.

So he was commissioning his apostles to finish his testimony in Israel for him, since he was soon to die. But afterwards, his apostles would not only finish preaching in all parts of Israel but they would also obey Jesus' command to "go into all nations."

I don't know how you did it...but starting with Jesus saying very matter-a-factly that before they themselves would have time to go through all the cities of Israel, He would come [again] to them--you then ended up right back at the idea the unbelievers taught that rather than that, "My master is delaying his coming."

I should think that this is the rationale of all since that time who wake up every morning and don't see His glow, fulfilling that "short time" of Satan (Revelation 12:12).

 

[Randy Kluth]

I don't know how you did it...but starting with Jesus saying very matter-a-factly that before they themselves would have time to go through all the cities of Israel, He would come [again] to them--you then ended up right back at the idea the unbelievers taught that rather than that, "My master is delaying his coming."

I should think that this is the rationale of all since that time who wake up every morning and don't see His glow, fulfilling that "short time" of Satan (Revelation 12:12).

Okay, I don't really understand that. However, let me clue you in on how I come to my conclusion. 1st, I've read commentaries *for years* on this passage, indicating that it didn't refer to the 2nd Coming at all, but rather, to Jesus' physical itinerary during his 1st Coming.

In other words, you won't be able to do preparatory work in each town before I get there--there just won't be enough time. I'm going to pass through very quickly, and you'll have to carry on this work after I'm gone.

2ndly, it wouldn't make sense to view this as the 2nd Coming for the very reasons you've well described. It would mean that the apostles utterly fail to reach all of the towns of Israel--an easily attainable goal, indicating that to reach the world they would have to have 1st abandoned their initial mandate to reach all Israel.

So Jesus was talking about his earthly ministry, while he was still there. He was the main messenger, and the apostles were purely workers to prepare for him. He would go through towns after his apostles had done preparatory work, and he would then reveal himself to those people.

But there wasn't time to do this everywhere, since there was opposition building against him, and he would have to go be with the Father. So he would visit towns whether they had been prepared for or not, and it would be necessary for his apostles to continue this job even after Jesus was gone.

 

[ScottA]

Okay, I don't really understand that. However, let me clue you in on how I come to my conclusion. 1st, I've read commentaries *for years* on this passage, indicating that it didn't refer to the 2nd Coming at all, but rather, to Jesus' physical itinerary during his 1st Coming.

In other words, you won't be able to do preparatory work in each town before I get there--there just won't be enough time. I'm going to pass through very quickly, and you'll have to carry on this work after I'm gone.

2ndly, it wouldn't make sense to view this as the 2nd Coming for the very reasons you've well described. It would mean that the apostles utterly fail to reach all of the towns of Israel--an easily attainable goal, indicating that to reach the world they would have to have 1st abandoned their initial mandate to reach all Israel.

So Jesus was talking about his earthly ministry, while he was still there. He was the main messenger, and the apostles were purely workers to prepare for him. He would go through towns after his apostles had done preparatory work, and he would then reveal himself to those people.

But there wasn't time to do this everywhere, since there was opposition building against him, and he would have to go be with the Father. So he would visit towns whether they had been prepared for or not, and it would be necessary for his apostles to continue this job even after Jesus was gone.

That is completely understandable and typical of most Christians. Which is a sad testimony regarding the state of the church, to say the least. Because what you have described is that you have believed the teachings of men, many of whom were the manifestation of warnings regarding "false teachers" and "strong delusion" leading to "great apostacy", instead of just believing Jesus. But that is the nice way of saying it--let me also say it bluntly that all may understand and turn from it:

If you believe what the commentaries all agree upon about when Jesus is to come--you have believed men and here say, rather than believed Jesus Himself, who clearly said differently, and did so personally to those regarding their own generation, identifying the time by saying "you":

• John 14:19
  “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.
• Matthew 24:34
  Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
• Matthew 24:44
  Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not [expect].
• Mark 14:62
  Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
• Revelation 3:11
  Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.
• Revelation 1:1
  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John

These are the things that Jesus Himself said to those of that time regarding their own generation, but many have not believed [Him].

 

[Randy Kluth]

That is completely understandable and typical of most Christians. Which is a sad testimony regarding the state of the church, to say the least. Because what you have described is that you have believed the teachings of men, many of whom were the manifestation of warnings regarding "false teachers" and "strong delusion" leading to "great apostacy", instead of just believing Jesus. But that is the nice way of saying it--let me also say it bluntly that all may understand and turn from it:

If you believe what the commentaries all agree upon about when Jesus is to come--you have believed men and here say, rather than believed Jesus Himself, who clearly said differently, and did so personally to those regarding their own generation, identifying the time by saying "you":

• John 14:19
  “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.
• Matthew 24:34
  Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
• Matthew 24:44
  Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not [expect].
• Mark 14:62
  Jesus said, “I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
• Revelation 3:11
  Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.
• Revelation 1:1
  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John

These are the things that Jesus Himself said to those of that time regarding their own generation, but many have not believed [Him].

Jesus said he has limited time, as the "Son of Man," in order to get his message out before judgment comes. Nothing about this requires that we interpret this in an eschatological way.

There are other ways to interpret this. For example, Jesus also saw "his Coming" in temporal judgments, as well.

For example, he could've been saying that his apostles were sent to warn Israel that their national judgment was imminent, and there wouldn't be enough time to warn every little town before that judgment came, which took place in 70 AD.

Biblically, God is portrayed as "coming" in historical judgments, as opposed to Christ's eschatological return. This can easily be seen in the 7 churches in the book of Revelation where they were warned Jesus is "coming" to bring judgment to them if they don't repent. And those judgments were historical, not eschatological judgments.

So I don't just use commentaries, though I find them very helpful. A good dose of study and common sense goes a long ways to help, as well. What determines your interpretation? I got it: you!

 

[ScottA]

Jesus said he has limited time, as the "Son of Man," in order to get his message out before judgment comes. Nothing about this requires that we interpret this in an eschatological way.

There are other ways to interpret this. For example, Jesus also saw "his Coming" in temporal judgments, as well.

For example, he could've been saying that his apostles were sent to warn Israel that their national judgment was imminent, and there wouldn't be enough time to warn every little town before that judgment came, which took place in 70 AD.

Biblically, God is portrayed as "coming" in historical judgments, as opposed to Christ's eschatological return. This can easily be seen in the 7 churches in the book of Revelation where they were warned Jesus is "coming" to bring judgment to them if they don't repent. And those judgments were historical, not eschatological judgments.

So I don't just use commentaries, though I find them very helpful. A good dose of study and common sense goes a long ways to help, as well. What determines your interpretation? I got it: you!

I quoted Jesus, and you point the finger at me.

And this you do while your rationale is no different than those of 2,000 years of speculation, rather than the simple words from Jesus. You even refer to Revelations--with complete disregard for the fact of what John was told, chapter one, verse one:

Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place.
​

You [all] have been warned.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I quoted Jesus, and you point the finger at me.

Please, Scott--nobody is stupid here! We all know that what you claim Jesus said is just *your opinion.* But when it comes to my bringing an opinion, or the commentators bringing an opinioin, you call up the air raid sirens. ;)

And this you do while your rationale is no different than those of 2,000 years of speculation, rather than the simple words from Jesus. You even refer to Revelations--with complete disregard for the fact of what John was told, chapter one, verse one:

Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place.
​

You [all] have been warned.

Yea, we're all shaking in our boots! ;) Jesus said he was coming, possibly for judgment, before every town in Israel could be warned. And you think this was about 2000 years later? ;)

You have a complete disconnect between Rev 1.1 and what Jesus said about his apostles going through the towns of Israel to warn them. Sorry, you've done your best. But all I hear are threats--not rational commentary. Try again when you've calmed down.

 

[ScottA]

Please, Scott--nobody is stupid here! We all know that what you claim Jesus said is just *your opinion.* But when it comes to my bringing an opinion, or the commentators bringing an opinioin, you call up the air raid sirens. ;)



Yea, we're all shaking in our boots! ;) Jesus said he was coming, possibly for judgment, before every town in Israel could be warned. And you think this was about 2000 years later? ;)

You have a complete disconnect between Rev 1.1 and what Jesus said about his apostles going through the towns of Israel to warn them. Sorry, you've done your best. But all I hear are threats--not rational commentary. Try again when you've calmed down.

I did not threaten, or give commentary or opinion--I quoted Jesus who gave His own explanation regarding the timing. That was the point.

Which you scoff at--fine.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I did not threaten, or give commentary or opinion--I quoted Jesus who gave His own explanation regarding the timing. That was the point.

Which you scoff at--fine.

I do scoff because I know you're not stupid either. You know that when anybody says, "I'm just quoting Jesus," that what is really meant is: "this is what I *believe* Jesus is saying." Of course, what I believe Jesus is saying trumps what you believe Jesus is saying. Cmon Scott! Get real!

When you say, 'You've been warned," that is clearly a threat. Don't try denying it. The more you do, the more you look dishonest.

 

[ScottA]

I do scoff because I know you're not stupid either. You know that when anybody says, "I'm just quoting Jesus," that what is really meant is: "this is what I *believe* Jesus is saying." Of course, what I believe Jesus is saying trumps what you believe Jesus is saying. Cmon Scott! Get real!

When you say, 'You've been warned," that is clearly a threat. Don't try denying it. The more you do, the more you look dishonest.

A warning is a warning, not a threat...so I can see the problem you are having: I say one thing and you see it as something else.

As for what I posted, it is not what I "believe", but rather multiple different passages that all agree with the warning that Jesus gave regarding the evil servant and the fate of those who say "My master is delaying his coming."

I consider that a warning, and therefore what I posted as a warning also and a reminder.

But hey, take it or leave it. I'm not selling anything.

 

[Randy Kluth]

A warning is a warning, not a threat...so I can see the problem you are having: I say one thing and you see it as something else.

As for what I posted, it is not what I "believe", but rather multiple different passages that all agree with the warning that Jesus gave regarding the evil servant and the fate of those who say "My master is delaying his coming."

I consider that a warning, and therefore what I posted as a warning also and a reminder.

But hey, take it or leave it. I'm not selling anything.

I'll leave it because obviously you can't come to terms with either the issues or your attitude.

 

[ScottA]

I'll leave it because obviously you can't come to terms with either the issues or your attitude.

The issue is "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth", and that is not the result of my attitude, but Jesus's.

But sure leaving it is certainly a choice--for a short time anyway.