Two needed eschatological reforms

[Josh II]

You have to check the original language of Aramaic for the entire New Testament writings.

I do not believe the entire New Testament was written in Aramaic. I will agree with you Matthew was probably written in Aramaic (and I know that makes you and I outliers in most forums), but not all or most of the New Testament. I reject the "Q" theory. Jesus likely spoke in Aramaic, but two decades later what he said was recorded in Greek. Neither do I dispute the likelihood there were Aramaic copies of the gospels and epistles in the earliest of days, but they were copies, not originals.

More importantly, when you make claims like this you must evidence them. No one is interested in reading your own writings on the matter - especially if they are lengthy. This op is about the supposed necessity of two specific reforms in eschatology so only evidence of relevant Aramaic is needed.

You have to check....

No one here has to do anything you say.

Don't feel bad. 99.99% of English readers of that passage have gotten it wrong for centuries too.

Meaningless, baseless, over-generalization.

What is required is an accurate understanding of God's symbolism used across the entirety of Scripture - Old and New Testaments.

I completely agree. Unblessedly, I do not read any explanation or any evidence for that statement. Presumably, symbolism "across the entirety of scripture" would include "Judaic symbolism in the Rev" (since that book references the OT more than 340 times) and entail the newer revelation rendering the older, and not the other way around (as this op appears to think it should work). Give @EarlyActs, @TMSO, and I one op-relevant symbol with a firmly scripture-based explanation of the meaning of the symbol.

Just one.

 

[EarlyActs]

Prove it.

We know Peter was familiar with Paul's teachings because the two of them had come into conflict, and we know Peter had read at least some of Paul's letters by the time Peter wrote his second epistle because he says, "...as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction," and we know Peter agreed with Paul.

And I have just done what you should be doing: posting evidence (and not making evidenceless claims).

Prove it.

I do. That is why I am disagreeing with you.

Prove it.

And keep the posts about the posts, please. YOU are damaging meaning the way so many Bible handlers do. YOU are the one not reading the scriptures in "normal language" as stipulated in the op. You are the one posting the end of the world is described in 2 Peter 3 when nowhere in that chapter nor the entirety of the Bible is the end of the world ever predicted. YOU are the one telling everyone here two eschatological reforms are needed while acknowledging a huge segment of Christendom already holds to those views. YOU are the one saying "We have to have something that is able to get them from the incineration of earth to [the NHNE]," and using the transfiguration to justify that position..... even though Moses and Elijah appeared without the earth being incinerated! YOU are on record stating Peter should be read in a Judaic context even though a lot of Jewish theology was (and remains) incorrect) and Jesus and the apostles often corrected that theology by replacing it with a newer revelation coming from God. YOU are on record stating there is "geological and cosmological detail" where none is stated and no evidence by YOU is provided.

And now you are on record attacking me when all that is asked of you is to evidence and then prove your claims.

That is not what he said. Go back and re-read 2 Peter 3. Pay attention to the details of what he wrote and think about them in light of whole scripture.

The word cataclysm is nowhere to be found in 2 Peter 3 and believing what Peter is describing is a cataclysm may well be what is obscuring your reading and understanding of the text. The judgment and destruction Peter and the first century Christians were anticipating is not a myth. It came and went in real time in real history. As Peter stated, they were living in the last times.

Prove it.

Prove it.

LOL! You just said what I posted in different words!!! You just proved what I posted correct! You just agreed with me!

"Stoicheia" is not Hebrew. It's Greek. By using Hebrews 5:11 it is proven the "elements" are not physical, but verbal. Hebrews 5:11's "elements" are utterances, not physical atoms. Peter was saying worldly ways - elements of earthly rule - were going to be destroyed, not the actual earth.

I do not know, either since the scriptures are fairly plain and easily understood once read in their entirety. You should probably stop mucking it up.

At least post some evidence.

You said stoicheia was not in the letter to Hebrews. When used in 5:11 it is not the Judaic kind of Gal 4 and Col 2. It was basic Christian behavior.

You are too confusing to follow.

Cataclysm is in 2P3:6 so if you deny that, I’m done talking .

 

[Josh II]

Except you don't.

Assumption, habit, and ad hominem. Got it.

 

[Josh II]

Which is why the apostles constantly went back to the Old Testament to explain the new.

That is not what they did. They explained the Old Testament and that is what we call the New Testament.

How many times was the Old Testament quoted to explain something they were saying?

A lot. And the reason they did so is because Judaism got it wrong.

Christianity is not Judaism

Yep. 100% correct. Stop using Judaism to explain Christianity.

, but even if you read Paul, he said that Jesus is where the difference lies.

Yep. It is different, not the same.

Isn't prophecy an Old Testament Jewish concept? Are we throwing that out now?

No. It is a divine concept.

 

[Josh II]

The evidence is the topic of discussion of 2P3.

No, it is not. The topic is not evidence of anything.

The topic is two supposed reforms needed in eschatology to which you and I and much of Christendom (likely) already subscribe (and the op has acknowledged this. That acknowledgement calls into question the necessity of reform for all Christians. some Christians may need those "reforms," and I would argue it is the modern futurist (more specifically, the Dispensationalists) most in need of these reforms because they, not you or I, do not subscribe to what most of Christendom already holds to be true (eschatologically speaking).

Why was the skeptic question asked?

I don’t do posts that are a mile long. One question at a time.,

Comments about 99.99% of any population are a waste of time and reflect poorly on the one making the absurd, baseless, off-topic and fallacious claim.

 

[Josh II]

You said stoicheia was not in the letter to Hebrews.

No, I did not. I said it was not in chapter 6 (which is what you posted - see Post 23). I am well aware it occurs in chapter 5. You probably had a typo. I have no way of knowing whether that is a typo or you actually believe what was posted. Either way, you're playing fast and loose with the Greek term.

When used in 5:11

Yep.

it is not the Judaic kind of Gal 4 and Col 2.

You have yet to prove that.

 

[Josh II]

It was basic Christian behavior.

I do not see any evidence you correctly understand "Christian behavior" in the NT. You have gone on record (wrongly) stating Judaism explains the New Testament AND also stating Pauline use is not Judaic. Can you see the contradiction in those two statements. The readers of your posts come away thinking either "He does not know what he's talking about because his own words contradict one another," or "He's not thinking through his posts very well because there are too many typos, syntax errors, and lack of evidence." Either way, the onus is on you to prove this op - and every single additional claim you make in that endeavor.

What you probably mean to say (and feel free to correct me if I err speaking for you) is that The Old Testament informs the New Testament and the New Testament explains the Old. That has been the orthodox position of Christendom since the Bible was compiled more than a millennium ago and only the Dispies think otherwise. Now if that bold-faced statement is correct then it is incumbent on you to post in a manner that visibly demonstrates that is the case. One way for you to do that in this thread is to use New Testament explanations of Old Testament symbols, not the other way around. For example, God spoke to David promising a future throne with an heir sitting on it of endless reign. For the Jew that meant a literal physical throne, a chair made of wood and metal (like gold) and an earthly monarch (even though God hated the earthly monarchy and took it as an offense). It wasn't until the New Testament - more than a millennium later - that God saw fit to reveal His explanation of that throne.

Acts 2:29-31 ESV
Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

Acts 2:30-31 KJV
Therefore, being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

Acts 2:30-31 NAS
"And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY.

Notice the NAS uses ALL-CAPS to indicate OT references. In this case the reference is 2 Samuel 7 (and Psalms 89 and 132). The translation does not matter because they all say the exact same thing: God was speaking of the resurrection.

More importantly, Peter is telling his audience something VERY different than what had long been believed in Judaism. Peter states the oath, or promise, God made was about the resurrection, that His Son would not seek decay in the grave. In other words, the "normal" reading of the New Testament" proves the "normal" reading of the Old Testament text was incorrect.

 

[Josh II]

We are Christians.

• We are Christians.
• We are not Jews.
• Judaism often got what God said wrong.
• Jesus often corrected the errors in Judaism.
• The New Testament writers continued Jesus' practice.
• We, as Christians, should follow their example: Wherever the New Testament writers treated the Old Testament literally we should do likewise and wherever they treated the Old Testament figuratively we should, again, do likewise.

The reason most Christians have historically NOT looked for Jesus NOT to live here physically for a literal 1000 years is because they read scripture in a manner consistent with the New Testament writers and it wasn't until the invention of Dispensationalism that changed. While it is true Historical Premillennialists do look for a physical earthly reign, they are not pretribbers and they do not separate the rapture from the resurrection.

Now, I hope you will forgive the digression because it was intended only to provide an example how the OT informs the NT and the NT explains the OT. God is the only King He ever wants for His people and He does not need anything made by men to be King. The throne of which He spoke turned out not to be a physical chair. It was much bigger and greater than a chair. And for anyone who understands the word "gospel" is intrinsically related to a great victory or accomplishment and not just any good news, we understand this was ALL about the victory over the grave.

That is what makes us Christians. We believe Jesus actually defeated sin and death.

 

[Josh II]

.

You are too confusing to follow.

And you are resorting to a completely fallacious and very lame practice called ad hominem. I am not confusing. My most may be difficult to understand but it is not confusing or impossible. Most of Christendom had understood it for two millennia.

Cataclysm is in 2P3:6 so if you deny that, I’m done talking .

Prove it. The question is not whether or not I deny it. The question is whether or not you can prove your claims. When you try to put the onus on me to accept what you post without evidence or proof the problems are ALL on your side of the conversation. I have told you many times the ops you post are yours and no one else's.

• Yours to assert.
• Yours to clarify.
• Yours to evidence.
• Yours to defend.
• Yours to amend and the discussions warrant.
• Yours to prove.
• And if the discussions prove the necessity, the op is yours to recant.

No one else can do these things for you. It is not your responsibility to attack others when they disagree, and it is not your responsibility to run away when the conversations become challenging or difficult. Assuming you have the ability to learn from others and understand you are not perfect and may have made a mistake or may need more information..... that means you may benefit from these discussions and correct those mistakes because of others' input. Most of us operate on those metrics. I, for one come to learn, not teach. That's why I don't post many ops. When I do, every point in that bullet list is mine to practice and no one else's.





We're three pages into the the thread. Read your own posts and ask yourself, "Am I proving the thesis of this opening post? Am I adequately making the case for 'two needed eschatological reforms,' or am I wasting my time and everyone else's with digression?" Notice no one has accepted the op in its entirety as written. No one. Your job is to persuade them all. Answer their op-relevant questions. Evidence your case. Make it so impeccable that it withstands inquiry and critique from all others, no matter their pov. Notice also that you and I have some agreement: we agree these two "reforms" are already shared by much of Christendom, we have some semblance of agreement pertaining to the use of the OT in the NT (but I am awaiting your clarification on the matter), and we agree Christianity is not Judaism and Christianity should not be inappropriately Judaized.

Cataclysm is in 2P3:6 so if you deny that, I’m done talking .

You do what you want but do not blame me for your actions (or inaction). That's lame. The word "cataclysm" does not occur in 2 Peter 3 and the stoicheia is about the earthly rule, not the physical earth. The New Jerusalem comes to earth. Reason ought to tell you that cannot happen if there's no earth. When the Bible speaks of the NHNE it does not mean the heavens have all been destroyed. Why then do you read stoicheia to mean physical elements when you know its use elsewhere is not physical?


Don't shoot the messenger.

Two reforms are need among some, not all, but as it turns out some reform in your eschatology is also warranted and you're walking away from the one guy who, so far, may have the most agreement with this op .

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

I do not believe the entire New Testament was written in Aramaic. I will agree with you Matthew was probably written in Aramaic (and I know that makes you and I outliers in most forums), but not all or most of the New Testament. I reject the "Q" theory. Jesus likely spoke in Aramaic, but two decades later what he said was recorded in Greek. Neither do I dispute the likelihood there were Aramaic copies of the gospels and epistles in the earliest of days, but they were copies, not originals.

More importantly, when you make claims like this you must evidence them. No one is interested in reading your own writings on the matter - especially if they are lengthy. This op is about the supposed necessity of two specific reforms in eschatology so only evidence of relevant Aramaic is needed.

No one here has to do anything you say.

Meaningless, baseless, over-generalization.

I completely agree. Unblessedly, I do not read any explanation or any evidence for that statement. Presumably, symbolism "across the entirety of scripture" would include "Judaic symbolism in the Rev" (since that book references the OT more than 340 times) and entail the newer revelation rendering the older, and not the other way around (as this op appears to think it should work). Give @EarlyActs, @TMSO, and I one op-relevant symbol with a firmly scripture-based explanation of the meaning of the symbol.

Just one.

Unless you (or anyone) is willing to remove their egos and actually do some research, then your opinions are baseless. Read. Check things out. Then come back and have an informed discussion. Otherwise, I'm really not interested that you don't agree. Truth doesn't depend on whether you think it's true or not.

I have pointed all the evidence anyone needs to check things out. It's up to you to spend the time to investigate.

 

[Josh II]

Unless you (or anyone) is willing to remove their egos.....

You first.

and actually do some research, then your opinions are baseless. Read. Check things out. Then come back and have an informed discussion.

I have and it should never have been assumed otherwise. Never assume anything about other posters and on the occasion that rule is broken assume the best about them. Assume they know more than you and in comparison to their knowledge you, not others, are the ignorant one in need of learning.

Otherwise, I'm really not interested that you don't agree.

I'll bet you do not behave in a manner consistent with that statement.

Truth doesn't depend on whether you think it's true or not.

Which is exactly what I have argued. People make a variety of claims every day in forums throughout cyberspace but few provide any evidence to prove their claims and what evidence they do post is often just eisegesis, an abuse of scripture and reason they either cannot see or will not see (or both).

YOU brought up the matter of Aramaic and did not bother to justify the demand EVERYONE bow to that demand because you say we must...... and then refused to provide even a scintilla of evidence when asked. Truth does not depend on whether you think it's true or not.

Unless you (or anyone) is willing to remove their egos.............

You first.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

You first.

I have and it should never have been assumed otherwise. Never assume anything about other posters and on the occasion that rule is broken assume the best about them. Assume they know more than you and in comparison to their knowledge you, not others, are the ignorant one in need of learning.

I'll bet you do not behave in a manner consistent with that statement.

Which is exactly what I have argued. People make a variety of claims every day in forums throughout cyberspace but few provide any evidence to prove their claims and what evidence they do post is often just eisegesis, an abuse of scripture and reason they either cannot see or will not see (or both).

YOU brought up the matter of Aramaic and did not bother to justify the demand EVERYONE bow to that demand because you say we must...... and then refused to provide even a scintilla of evidence when asked. Truth does not depend on whether you think it's true or not.

You first.

Yes, you first. Read. Then discussion can happen.

 

[TMSO]

It’s good to have you quote the Acts26 lines that limit Christian teaching to what Christ suffered and that he was being preached. That means not trying to figure out a future kingdom of Israel , just like Acts 1.

So that is why one of the church fathers said the millennium kingdom was the orthodox belief in his day?

 

[TMSO]

Assumption, habit, and ad hominem. Got it.

Argumentation at its finest. Throw out accusations of ad hominem. I'll have to remember that one.

 

[TMSO]

That is not what they did. They explained the Old Testament and that is what we call the New Testament.

God needs explanation? It was the Old Testament that explained the new. How do we know Jesus is the Messiah? The Old Testament told us, without explanation.

A lot. And the reason they did so is because Judaism got it wrong.

Since God was the author and creator of Judaism, well, there's that.

Yep. 100% correct. Stop using Judaism to explain Christianity.

Then why did the apostles use Judaism to explain Christianity. Paul shows that Jesus is the culmination of Judaism.

Yep. It is different, not the same.

Jesus is not different. The only difference between Judaism and Christianity is that Jesus is the culmination of Judaism. Why do you think the author of Hebrews spends all his time proving it?

No. It is a divine concept.

And...well, got nothing. Apparently there is no prophecy in the Old Testament.

 

[EarlyActs]

So that is why one of the church fathers said the millennium kingdom was the orthodox belief in his day?

how did he define it? That is the pertinent question.

 

[TMSO]

how did he define it? That is the pertinent question.

Justin Martyr “I and every other completely orthodox Christian feel certain that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, followed by a thousand years in the rebuilt, embellished, and enlarged city of Jerusalem, as was announced by the Prophets Ezechiel, Isaias and the others” (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 7 and 8) -- Seems pretty clear what he believed, and what he said ever other completely orthodox Christian believed.

Irenaeus "For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works."(6) This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years;(7) and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year." (Against Heresies, book V, chapter 28, number 3)

This is the belief that prevailed before Augustine, in that Jesus would return 6000 years after the creation was finished. This was the prevailing beliefs of the day. He also believed in the Antichrist, and basically understood that Revelation is rather literal. This speaks of Jesus coming prior to the millennial kingdom, which is prior to the 7000th year that ends this chapter of God's creation. That ends this age.

Irenaeus "But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit. For if it had been declared by Him, he (Antichrist) might perhaps continue for a long period. But now as "he was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and goes into perdition,"(1) as one who has no existence; so neither has his name been declared, for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed. But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."" (Against Heresies, book V, chapter 30, number 4)

Again, premillennialism was the main view of the church from the 1st century all the way to Augstine. Even Augustine believed this to start. He also believed in dispensations (as used in the Bible), five in the Old Testament, and two in the New. The New Testament dispensations that he held to were the church age, and the millennial kingdom.This was before his falling out with the premillennialists (chiliasts I believe is the term. I may have remembered that name incorrectly, hence I said premillennialist first.)

 

[TMSO]

We are Christians.

• We are Christians.
• We are not Jews.
• Judaism often got what God said wrong.
• Jesus often corrected the errors in Judaism.

He was not correcting errors in Judaism. God did not screw up. The religious leaders corrupted themselves to the point that Jesus said, listen to them, but beware of their hypocrisy. They taught truth, but did not live by it. They created their own rules.

• The New Testament writers continued Jesus' practice.
• We, as Christians, should follow their example: Wherever the New Testament writers treated the Old Testament literally we should do likewise and wherever they treated the Old Testament figuratively we should, again, do likewise.

Except they didn't treat the Old Testament figuratively, in the way people say that it is allegorical. All they do is show what the symbols are. The "My Lord" in the Psalm is shown to be the Messiah, and not David. The one who was pierced is literally shown by John to be Jesus. Out of Egypt I have called My Son. There is no secret, hidden meaning in the Old Testament that God has not revealed. Why do we know that the 70 weeks are 70 sets of 7 years? God explained it. How do we know the interpretation of Pharaoh's dreams, of Nebuchadnezzer's dreams, and of the writing on the wall in Babylon? God told us. How do we know who the Messiah is? God told us.

The reason most Christians have historically NOT looked for Jesus NOT to live here physically for a literal 1000 years is because they read scripture in a manner consistent with the New Testament writers and it wasn't until the invention of Dispensationalism that changed. While it is true Historical Premillennialists do look for a physical earthly reign, they are not pretribbers and they do not separate the rapture from the resurrection.

You may want to read your church Father's. The orthodox belief in the second century which lasted through Augustine, is that there would be a literal, physical kingdom in a rebuilt Jerusalem. (Enlarged, I believe is how Irenaeus put it. I may have the wrong church father.) In the 4th/5th century the belief of a separate rapture was present, and the one who wrote the pseudo ephraim believed it.

Now, I hope you will forgive the digression because it was intended only to provide an example how the OT informs the NT and the NT explains the OT. God is the only King He ever wants for His people and He does not need anything made by men to be King. The throne of which He spoke turned out not to be a physical chair. It was much bigger and greater than a chair. And for anyone who understands the word "gospel" is intrinsically related to a great victory or accomplishment and not just any good news, we understand this was ALL about the victory over the grave.

That is what makes us Christians. We believe Jesus actually defeated sin and death.

Which is why there is still sin and death. The final nail in the coffin is in Revelation 20, when Jesus casts both Satan, and death and hades into the lake of fire. The end of the age. That is the final defeat of sin and death seen in I Corinthians 15.

 

[Josheb]

Assumption, habit, and ad hominem. Got it.

Argumentation at its finest. Throw out accusations of ad hominem. I'll have to remember that one.

Those were terms you used. All I did was make note of them and affirm your argument as such. No accusation and no attack against you personally. If you do not like it when you read it then do not post it.

So, if a pronoun is not capitalized, then we should be able to assume, based on the ability of the translator, that it isn't one of the big four, right?

No, how about we not assume anything and we do not base our thoughts, posts or criticisms on assumptions.

Except you don't [got it].

Nice ad hominem.

Assumption, habit, and ad hominem. Got it.

Argumentation at its finest. Throw out accusations of ad hominem. I'll have to remember that one.

You are on record arguing for assumptions, for habits, and attacking others. I simply observed it, noted it, drew attention to it in hopes of change.

I'll have to remember that one.

Should not be difficult since you'll be remembering what you've already done.

The op and I disagree on some particulars but he's correct about the need to eliminate the clatter about the rapture and the millennium. Your view is the outlier here. If this were a Dispensationalist forum then you'd be right at home, but this isn't a Dispensationalist forum. You need to show up with something more than assumption, habit, and ad hominem of you wish to prove your end times views.

 

[Josheb]

The evidence is the topic of discussion of 2P3.

Th evidence I presented refutes the "evidence" you presented. 2P3 does not actually state what you say it says.

Why was the skeptic question asked?

You brought it up. You explain it.

I don’t do posts that are a mile long.

Then either ignore my posts or take them one portion at a time.

One question at a time.,

Well,

1. What do you mean by "final day of judgement"?
2. What do you mean when stating it "nearly happened in the first century"?
3. Where might we find scripture supporting a "nearly happened" interpretation specifically of the final day of judgment?
4. When saying, "The believers are picked up by Christ just before this," do you mean something more or something other than all are raised to face judgment on the last day? If so then please clarify.

Take your pick. Four posts, one question answered per post is fine with me.

The end of the world as described by 2 P 3 did not happen; there has been a delay; hence he explained a delay.

2P3 states otherwise. There is no end of the world stated in that chapter. The stoicheia is a reference to the world's order or rule, not its physical destruction. You yourself cited two cases where the word is used that way. You treat 2P3 differently than you do scripture normal usage of the term.

Why?

Because doing so fits your eschatology, not because your eschatology is bent to comply with scripture's use of the term.