(Jesuit) Preterism versus John 14
- Thread starter Phoneman-777
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I have seldom seen a man so blatantly add to scripture to get to a point. Nothing is "OBVIOUS" except what the Lord SAID. You have not only set yourself among those who must add to scripture, but patently have shown that WITHOUT your additions, my argument stands. Added to this you have ASSUMED an arrival at the Father's House when Jesus ALREADY WAS the Father's House (John Chapter 2)
You have set yourself a problem with this verse already. First, the Son of GOD is not "limited by the bounds of space and time", but the Son of MAN is. "This DAY I have begotten you"!!! (Ps.2:7, Act.13:33, Heb.1:5). Secondly, in this verse 13, according to the grammar, the Son of MAN FIRST ASCENDED and THEN DESCENDED. John 3:13 says; "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." That is, the One who IS (present tense) in heaven, FIRST ascended (past tense) that He SECOND, might come down (past tense). When this explained, then only can we deal with Him being, at that same time, in heaven (present tense). No doubt verse 11 will help with this because our Lord was testifying of what He had seen in heaven, but that it was OUR witness. Where was the second or more persons to make it OUR?
Explain all this, without adding to, or subtracting from, scripture, and then we can address the mystery of verse 13 - and then maybe why Ephesians 1:3 and 2:6 says that you are IN heaven but you are not.
You have set yourself a problem with this verse already. First, the Son of GOD is not "limited by the bounds of space and time", but the Son of MAN is. "This DAY I have begotten you"!!! (Ps.2:7, Act.13:33, Heb.1:5). Secondly, in this verse 13, according to the grammar, the Son of MAN FIRST ASCENDED and THEN DESCENDED. John 3:13 says; "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." That is, the One who IS (present tense) in heaven, FIRST ascended (past tense) that He SECOND, might come down (past tense). When this explained, then only can we deal with Him being, at that same time, in heaven (present tense). No doubt verse 11 will help with this because our Lord was testifying of what He had seen in heaven, but that it was OUR witness. Where was the second or more persons to make it OUR?
Explain all this, without adding to, or subtracting from, scripture, and then we can address the mystery of verse 13 - and then maybe why Ephesians 1:3 and 2:6 says that you are IN heaven but you are not.
IMO this is a great mystery, not to be taken lightly - He tells Nicodemus the Son of Man is in heaven. Praying in the garden He says He is no longer in the world. These are related.
When He says no one has ascended except He who descended, He is identifying Himself as The Angel of the LORD - see Judges 13:17-20
When He says no one has ascended except He who descended, He is identifying Himself as The Angel of the LORD - see Judges 13:17-20
Yes. It is mysterious. That is the correct approach I judge - with one's face turned upward for light because it is a difficult matter - as Nicodemus found. The difficulty with John 3:13 is that the order is not "descended and then ascended". That is how our perception works against us because other scripture says that. The grammar says that "no one has come down from heaven, EXCEPT He who ascended." That is, it is the ascended one who came down. The context though is not descending and ascending, but Who WITNESSED something that Nicodemus did not. I will wait to see what our esteemed brother says first. I am always open to learn.
-
1
- Show all
He descended first.
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
That verses is not in conflict with a descention followed by the ascention.
He had not yet ascended.(you read it wrong)
And no Jesus was not ascended to the fathers house since he was the fathers house.
Truth is not one dimensional.
Do you think Jesus was talking about a 80 pound piece of wood when he said "pick up your cross" ?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
That verses is not in conflict with a descention followed by the ascention.
He had not yet ascended.(you read it wrong)
And no Jesus was not ascended to the fathers house since he was the fathers house.
Truth is not one dimensional.
Do you think Jesus was talking about a 80 pound piece of wood when he said "pick up your cross" ?
QUOTE ""Explain all this, without adding to, or subtracting from, scripture, and then we can address the mystery of verse 13 - and then maybe why Ephesians 1:3 and 2:6 says that you are IN heaven but you are not""
it is allegory.
"I am crucified with christ"
Has nothing to do with me being martyred on a literal cross.
It is figurative.
it is allegory.
"I am crucified with christ"
Has nothing to do with me being martyred on a literal cross.
It is figurative.
-
1
- Show all
OK. So "IN heaven" does not mean "IN heaven". Now, if "IN heaven" is allegorical, metaphorical or a picture, what then is the allegory in "ascended" and "descended" and "Son of man"? After all, you can't give one word or phrase in an idea, or sentence, an allegorical meaning and take the others literally. The idea is either a picture or it is real. If "ascended", "descended", "heaven" and "Son of man" are not literal, what do they picture? But if they are literal, on what basis do you take one word, "IN", to be allegorical?
Did you know what Paul actually said was that he was "willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord"? The entire first part of 2 Corinthians 5 is Paul saying that he wanted to be rid of this Earthly body of woe, skip being "naked" and "unclothed" without a body (which a blind man can see is a reference to lying in the grave dead), and go be present with the Lord in his resurrection body...
...but Paul knew that man does not go immediately to heaven at death, for in that same chapter he himself said "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" which is at the last day, not at a person's death, and he also said that Jesus would give him a crown of righteousness "at His appearing", not when he died.
Everyone who believes the doctrine of the immortal soul and consciousness in death ignores the elephant in the room...the part about "naked" and "unclothed" which Paul clearly says is the intermediate state between Earthly dwelling and Heavenly residence.
...but Paul knew that man does not go immediately to heaven at death, for in that same chapter he himself said "we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" which is at the last day, not at a person's death, and he also said that Jesus would give him a crown of righteousness "at His appearing", not when he died.
Everyone who believes the doctrine of the immortal soul and consciousness in death ignores the elephant in the room...the part about "naked" and "unclothed" which Paul clearly says is the intermediate state between Earthly dwelling and Heavenly residence.
-
1
- Show all
Are we to believe all the OT righteous dead reside in Abraham's literal bosom? How could they all fit? How big can Abraham's bosom be? A man's bosom is able at best to accommodate one adult, or several children, depending on age. Yet, we're to believe millions of dead saints are there? Impossible. It's symbolism, brother.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
When will Christians comprehend that Hebrew Chiastic Structure involves rhyming, not words, but ideas?
Saints do not go to heaven at death, they go to sleep in the grave and await the resurrection. Please believe the wisest man in the world who ever lived when he said, "The living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything."
"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again,
even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him."
Paul rhymes "died" with "sleep" and "rose again" with "bring with Him" (meaning "bring forth from the tomb as Jesus was brought forth").Saints do not go to heaven at death, they go to sleep in the grave and await the resurrection. Please believe the wisest man in the world who ever lived when he said, "The living know that they shall die but the dead know not anything."
-
1
- Show all
You're confusing "exposition" with "adding to Scripture", which is a careless, irresponsible accusation. It is plainly obvious that when Jesus says "where I am" He's not referring to where He is at that moment, but where the mansions, banquets, and those who "reason together" with God instead of latching on to two words while casting the rest of the Bible to the wind. Your argument stands? Do you not see how unreasonable it is to interpret the passage as "Jesus goes to build mansions and prepare banquets there, then comes back to tell how awesome it would have been if He'd taken us there to enjoy it all"?
Your entire argument is totally subjective. Since when does "ascended" and "descended" have anything to do with His declarative statement "the Son of Man, which is in heaven"? Since you decided to replace sound exegesis with subjectivity, right? The text that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus that night on Earth is clear: "...even the Son of Man, which is in heaven." Are you going to argue that Jesus was "in heaven" while with Nicodemus like you are arguing "where I am, ye may be with Me" means "on Earth"? "Consistency, thou art a jewel". Inconsistency in interpretation is as bad as an actual case of adding to Scripture.
Jesus is NOT limited to time and space as John 14:18 testfies: "I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you" This refers not to the Second Coming because He's talking about the state of affairs of the church right after He ascends.
Look, on second thought...if you want to believe that Preterism lines up with Scripture because the saints are staying here despite the mansions and banquets prepared for us there, you go right on ahead. I'll let the court of public opinion review this one.
Your entire argument is totally subjective. Since when does "ascended" and "descended" have anything to do with His declarative statement "the Son of Man, which is in heaven"? Since you decided to replace sound exegesis with subjectivity, right? The text that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus that night on Earth is clear: "...even the Son of Man, which is in heaven." Are you going to argue that Jesus was "in heaven" while with Nicodemus like you are arguing "where I am, ye may be with Me" means "on Earth"? "Consistency, thou art a jewel". Inconsistency in interpretation is as bad as an actual case of adding to Scripture.
Jesus is NOT limited to time and space as John 14:18 testfies: "I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you" This refers not to the Second Coming because He's talking about the state of affairs of the church right after He ascends.
Look, on second thought...if you want to believe that Preterism lines up with Scripture because the saints are staying here despite the mansions and banquets prepared for us there, you go right on ahead. I'll let the court of public opinion review this one.
First, I our Lord Jesus said, "where I am" the Lord of truth meant "where I am". It does not fit your concept so your only, and very transparent, escape is to say that it doesn't mean what it says. I think you'll agree that this was the Serpents ploy with Eve.
Secondly, John 14, if taken literally, and without adding to the Word of God, does not need INTERPRETING. It is a plain statement of the process whereby our Lord Jesus predcits to His disciples how He will go away from them to prepare the many "abodes" (lit. Gk.) that make up the Father's House, and return to put them into a condition that He is already in - an abode of God. This you try to overturn by additons and private interpretation - all uncalled for, and unwarranted.
Third, you are still unable to counter one of my statements without adding to scripture.
Fourth, if you think that my understanding of John 14 is what you say above, you have a massive problem with English. But why did I think you would do otherwise. You add words to change the meaning of scripture. Why would yu not do it with other men's writing? I wonder what you would say if I added words to your answer that were never there and never intended by you? You would be within your right to be incensed. I wonder how the Lord feels when His carefully chosen words are added to?
Claiming "sound exegesis" and then dismissing the "ascending" and "descending" to place our Lord IN heaven is a contradiction. Sound exegesis considers the WHOLE. And using "subjectivity" on my part to annul what I said is not an argument. You have yet to expound that verse in its entirety, despite the requests to do so. Let's leave it at that, and return to John 14. Let us discuss what the Lord said, and what happened shortly after - WITHOUT ADDING. If so, good. If you don't want to give an exegesis on John 14 WITHOUT ADDITIONS, lets move on.
I await in anticipation.
Secondly, John 14, if taken literally, and without adding to the Word of God, does not need INTERPRETING. It is a plain statement of the process whereby our Lord Jesus predcits to His disciples how He will go away from them to prepare the many "abodes" (lit. Gk.) that make up the Father's House, and return to put them into a condition that He is already in - an abode of God. This you try to overturn by additons and private interpretation - all uncalled for, and unwarranted.
Third, you are still unable to counter one of my statements without adding to scripture.
Fourth, if you think that my understanding of John 14 is what you say above, you have a massive problem with English. But why did I think you would do otherwise. You add words to change the meaning of scripture. Why would yu not do it with other men's writing? I wonder what you would say if I added words to your answer that were never there and never intended by you? You would be within your right to be incensed. I wonder how the Lord feels when His carefully chosen words are added to?
Claiming "sound exegesis" and then dismissing the "ascending" and "descending" to place our Lord IN heaven is a contradiction. Sound exegesis considers the WHOLE. And using "subjectivity" on my part to annul what I said is not an argument. You have yet to expound that verse in its entirety, despite the requests to do so. Let's leave it at that, and return to John 14. Let us discuss what the Lord said, and what happened shortly after - WITHOUT ADDING. If so, good. If you don't want to give an exegesis on John 14 WITHOUT ADDITIONS, lets move on.
I await in anticipation.
How exactly was the ark carried miles into the sky (by the water) before the flood (before the water showed up) ??? 
Wouldn't there have to be a flood first - consisting of a massive amount of water - to lift the ark to such a high altitude?
Wouldn't there have to be a flood first - consisting of a massive amount of water - to lift the ark to such a high altitude?
....for a postrib model he would be removed at the end.
Ark is a type of heaven.
Noah was in the second heaven DURING THE JUDGEMENT.
So how did he get there and when.
Lot is JESUS'S Other example.
Neither is a postrib removal model.
To top it off,the "one taken" is almost in the same sentence as "watch and be ready" and it is in a peacetime setting,and aligns with the 10 virgin parable which is a vivid picture of a pretrib rapture.
So not only pretrib dynamics there,but a postrib overlay would require perverting those verses.
The thing about boxes with names written on them, like "preterist", is it gives the objector the ability to place his opponent in a "bad" box without having to argue the point avoid arguing the point
The thing about boxes with names written on them, like "preterist", is it gives the objector the ability to place his opponent in a "bad" box without having to argue the point. My posting # 13 is yet untouched in counter-argument. My opponents in debate don't like it, but instead of solid argument drawn to its logical end, I am labeled. Preterism contends that ALL prophecies have been fulfilled. But that never came up in the discussion. You probably believe that our Lord Jesus fulfilled upward of 330 prophecies during His first advent. Are you a preterist? Am I because I showed ONE?
I built an argument in posting # 13. It might not be correct. Why can't you, and my other opponents, show it? All you can do is create a "bad" box, and then tell the others that I'm in that box. Your evidence is that I believe a prediction fulfilled THAT YOU DO TO! Or don't you believe ...
The thing about boxes with names written on them, like "preterist", is it gives the objector the ability to place his opponent in a "bad" box without having to argue the point. My posting # 13 is yet untouched in counter-argument. My opponents in debate don't like it, but instead of solid argument drawn to its logical end, I am labeled. Preterism contends that ALL prophecies have been fulfilled. But that never came up in the discussion. You probably believe that our Lord Jesus fulfilled upward of 330 prophecies during His first advent. Are you a preterist? Am I because I showed ONE?
I built an argument in posting # 13. It might not be correct. Why can't you, and my other opponents, show it? All you can do is create a "bad" box, and then tell the others that I'm in that box. Your evidence is that I believe a prediction fulfilled THAT YOU DO TO! Or don't you believe ...
- that our Lord went away and came back?
- that our Lord prepared abodes in His Father's House by His death and resurrection?
- that the disciples when they had received the Holy Spirit were where our Lord was all His life - the Father in Him?
- that you are the Temple of God and that the Church is the House of the living God because all of Christ's disciples have received the Holy Spirit?