Re: Jesus return and Where is the Promise of His Coming
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Alan C <steelville@c...> wrote:
> Hi Dan,follows. The
> I'd like to clarify a ubiquitous modern myth:
> >Dan: Well, Jesus has been coming back for nearly 2000 years now.
> >Heaven must be a long way away.
> This is actually one of the "signs" of his soon return, as
> assertion that he is coming back any minute is actually itselfonly a
> recent phenomenon, a recent doctrine of certain sects that seemsto have
> found its way into Christian popular belief via Darby and Scofieldof
> the 19th and 20th century. Therefore the "scoffing" is a recentreaction
> to that, along with the abandonment of the "Christian West" of itsDan: Everything is a sign of the return of Christ! Most certainly
> "Christianity", such as it was in times past.
every thousand years there is a millennial movement and every
century in between it seems. They believe Christ's return is
imminent and they see the signs in everything. It is true is this a
recent thing, but it is also nothing new. It has all been done
before. A belief in the end of the world being close at hand is not
even unique to Christianity. Take a look at this web page:
> Believing Christian Bible scholars historically denounced any ideathat
> Jesus could be coming back at any time. I have a book written byone
> Bullinger about the use of numbers in the Bible, copyright 1930s,in
> which he emphatically declares that most Biblical scholars agreethat
> Jesus cannot come back yet because (among other things) becauseIsrael
> was not yet established as an independent state.Dan: Ye
> 2 Peter 3: ^3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in thelast
> days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, ^4 And saying,Where is
> the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, allthings
> continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. ^5 Forthis
> they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God theheavens were
> of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in thewater: ^6
> Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water,the same
> perished: ^7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by
> word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day ofjudgment
> and perdition of ungodly men.such as
> There have been other prophecies that were a long time coming,
> the Daniel 9 passage that pinpoints the year that "Messiah shallbe cut
> off, but not for himself". From the going forth of the order ofthe king
> of Persia to rebuild the wall in Jerusalem until that time.History
> gives us a year for both, plus or minus one.Daniel
> There were warnings from Paul against believing the "any minute"
> doctrine too. In fact, the very passages in Daniel 9 and other
> chapters also delineate a sort of count-down scenario.
> As to the signs, there are plenty consolidating for sure.
>Dan: Everything is a sign of the return of Christ!So you say. Baloney.
>Most certainly every thousand years there is a millennial movementSo what? The issue is to what the Bible says. . The above statement is
actually revisionist history anyway.
I just showed to you that the main body of actual believing Bible
scholars pre-WWII were of the mind that he wasn't coming yet because the
signs were not in place yet, of which the main issue was the state of
Are you out to establish a tyrranical regime and murder all your
potential rivals for power, just because Stalin was an atheist too? What
does that have to do with a reasoned discussion of the subject? There
have been astrologers from before Babylonian times too. By that logic,
you're saying that astronomy is bogus.
>and every century in between it seems. They believe Christ's return isAn interesting list for historians, but irrelevant to this century, and
>imminent and they see the signs in everything. It is true is this a
>recent thing, but it is also nothing new. It has all been done
>before. A belief in the end of the world being close at hand is not
>even unique to Christianity. Take a look at this web page:
a clever attempt to change the subject.
Isaac Newton for example, is referred to indirectly in that list. But
they didn't mention, maybe they don't know and don't care, that he said
was that it would NOT happen until man invented mode of transportation
that went faster than 70 mph. Ironic.
That historical list of fringe groups also does not address Biblical
specifics, and Biblical specifics are what count. More convincing than
this denial-by-association would be in rebutting specifics for these
recent times, instead of uttering moralistic denouncements of those who
make the claim.
>>Believing Christian Bible scholars historically denounced any idea that Jesus could be coming back at any time. I have a book written by one Bullinger about the use of numbers in the Bible, copyright 1930s, in which he emphatically declares that most Biblical scholars agree that Jesus cannot come back yet because (among other things) because Israel was not yet established as an independent state.Of course there's a whole lot more than that.
- clipped out the questions only to abreviate
>I commend you for looking up these passages. The book of Acts calls
> Dan: We only have your word for this change. Romans 8:21 states that
> the creation is corrupt ( as per God curse in the garden of Eden.)
> However, no where in the Bible does it say anything about this
> fundamental relationship you talk about.
> Here are a list of passages that use this greek word "phthora" that
> you are so fond of. As far as I can see in the NT it speaks of moral
> decay. What does this passage have to do with atoms increasing in
> size? or any of this other business that you claim is in the Bible?
> But, have yet to produce any evidence for such claims.
those who examined the scriptures to see if what Paul said was so - it
calls them noble or high ranking.
Words have different meanings depending on the context. The words of
the Bible must always be understood in their historical context. This
is not always easy because sometimes our knowledge of the historical
meaning is limited, such as some words in the book of Job. It is also
not easy because our culture is so different from theirs. For
example, no one in Bible times ever thought that time was linear, but
we speak of it dozens of times a day as though it were a linear
dimension. You can look up every occurrence of the word phthora as
used by the Greek philosophers at:
>Here the word ktisis is used four times in four verses. In this
> Rom 8:21
> that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay
> and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
context, it means the original formation, creation, and it is so
translated in all the modern translations. The subject is physics.
School children in that era knew that physics was based on
assumptions: called first principles. Even the greatest Greek
astronomer, Ptolemy, admits that physics is entirely guesswork, since
matter itself is unstable and its nature is unclear. (He thought that
mathematics was unshakeable knowledge, not because it had unchanging
parameters, but because when matter changes, mathematics changes WITH
IT - Almagest Book 1, first and second paragraph). Children in that
era actively studied first principles, because different philosophers
had proposed different ones.
The word phthora was used extensively by Plato and Aristotle on the
subject of physics, often along with the word genesis. Genesis -
phthora is often translated coming to be and passing away, for changes
in matter itself. Phthora was used for substantial change often for
the worse. For example, it Aristotle used it when a city government
changed its constitution. The earth-history of all peoples
everywhere was that a pristine world had corrupted. The corruption of
the cosmos was not something distant, since even the earth and the
length of life had corrupted. The first person who suggested that
matter does not corrupt was the pagan Aristotle. The Bible denies
Aristotle's way of thinking in this verse and in several other verses.
For example, the Bible says gold is presently self corrupting (Greek I
> 1 Corinthians 15:42here a physical body perishes but puts on a new body that is
> So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is
> sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;
imperishable at the resurrection.
> 1 Corinthians 15:50 (New International Version)We will have imperishable bodies - literal physical bodies that eat
> I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the
> kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
and drink, but never have pain, suffer, sleep or die. Again - those
who inherit the kingdom will not enter it with perishable bodies - but
as John says, in I John 2 - our bodies will be like His.
> Galatians 6:8Here the context is rewards and punishments. Some will reap eternal
> The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[a]
> will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from
> the Spirit will reap eternal life.
life - others will reap eternal destruction. That is not annihilation
- since the lake of fire is a place of perpetual torment. Why?
Because they rejected the pardon freely given by the creator-savior Jesus.
> Colossians 2:22Eating physical foods causes those things to corrupt and pass through
> These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on
> human commands and teachings.
> 2Peter 1:4Here the corruption is moral but the rewards are incorruptible.
> Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises,
> so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and
> escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
>The first phthora - immoral conduct destroys life, but the second
> 2Peter 2:12
> But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are
> like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and
> destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.
phthora has to do with their eventual destruction in judgment - of
which this whole chapter is about. That those false teachers are
destined to horrible judgment.
>Here the depravity is moral - moral depravity enslaves the one that
> 2Peter 2:19
> They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of
> depravityfor a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.
practices these things.
>How could anyone discover pi, since it is invisible and only exists in
> Dan: Pi was discovered not invented. By the ancient greeks probably
> based on experiments. You can do this at home Victor, try using a
> string to estimate the circumference of some cylinders. You will see
> that the perimeter of a circle (and any other symmetric objects)
> must be a constant multiple of its diameter. Some time later
> attempts were made to estimate the value of the constant using the
> geometry of inscribed polygons. Much later, when symbolism became
> more popular in mathematics, "pi" (the first letter in the
> greek word for perimeter) started to gain acceptance for
> representing this constant.
> Perhaps the earliest estimate for PI was 3. Archimedes typically
> gets credit for using geometry to improve the estimate to 22/7.
> Records show that an even better estimate of 355/113 = 3.1415929
> was known to ancient chinese mathematicians.
> The origins of 360 degree units around a circle are probably even
> older. In Babylonia the number base of 60 was useful for
> representing fractions because 60 is divisible by 1 through 6. For
> example, 1/12 is able to be written as 0.5 since 5/60 equals 1/12.
> The Baylonians of course needed this information for their astrology
> (it was popular back then - oh wait it still is!)
human minds. Again, this is a symbol that has no REAL EXISTENCE.
Imagine that we lived in a society that did not use rigid rulers but
flexible strings for measuring. We could develop a completely
different mathematic based on the circumference of circles, rather
that the radii. We could develop formulas for the area, volume, etc
of spheres or conics referenced to the circumference without ever
inventing pi and it would still work.
>Although waves do travel faster in the Benioff zones, "gravity" does
> Dan: No Victor I have never noticed this. I have noticed that you
> ignore siesmographic evidence for subduction because it does not fit
> into your little scheme.
not fit the subduction model. But these are theoretical things that
neither side can substantiate because we cannot actually see what is
down there. The simple visible evidence, the layered undisturbed
sediments in the trenches, does not even need assumptions about the
underlying structure. It is plain to see in the core samples that
subduction has not occurred. Why do textbooks still teach it?
Because the entire Western system of reasoning is dependent on the
assumption that matter does not change. If the earth gets bigger, our
whole symbolical way of thinking fails completely. TO allow such
evidence would invalidate the whole structure of thinking with
We rely on the pagan Aristotle's assumption that matter does not
change to do the following things:.
1. To define the Western versions of time, mass, energy, charge,
precise lengths, temperature etc. These definitions rely on the
assumption of changeless matter for their existence.
2. We use this metaphysical assumption to "measure" things that
cannot be measured unambiguously - like atoms.
2. We used this assumption to invent all the laws of physics. None
of them would be valid in the real universe if Aristotle's metaphysics
3. We use it to define the units of measurement circularly. We
imagine in our minds that time is unchanging, and use our artificial
symbols to define things like the standard for the second and the
meter. The entire structure of experimental measurement is circular,
all of it dependent on the first principle of the last days.
4. We tweaked this artificial system of symbols to "work" in the
If the untested metaphysical assumption that matter is unchanging is
false, we could not understand earth history at all with science. Our
computerized ephemeri would not match certain classes of measurement
that the ancient astronomers made of the solar system - which they do
not match. Our versions of earth history would be radically different
from both the Bible and the pagans who described the age of our
ancestors, such as the deformed brows of those who lived for
geological ages. (Job 14) Our versions of cosmology would be
ridiculous, which they obviously are since they are invisible. The
scientific universe is so insistent that its mathematical symbols are
real, that the only thing that supports it is mathematical symbols.
Of course their universe is 99% undetectable because all this
invisible stuff does not exist. We invented it with symbols and this
whole structure of thinking with symbols is false. Why is it false?
Because the Bible even predicted that this metaphysical idea, this
first principle, would be the first principle of the mockers of the
last days. Because the simple evidence, not dependent on metaphysics
or artificial symbols, the visible evidence, fits the Bible alone.
God has done what He said. He has used the wisdom of the wise OF THIS
AGE to take them.
Look up in your Bible I Corinthians 3:18 - 20. He is not talking
about the wisdom of the ancient people, but of this AGE. We are
imitators of the pagan Greeks - that is our way of thinking - in this
AGE that was already 400 years past its beginnings when the New
Testament was written.
> Dan: Or maybe our ideas about the center of the Earth keep changingI am using the Bible as my standard of truth. It does not change.
> because we keep getting more and more new data. No, that wouldn't
> fit into your little scheme either.
Its words remain the same, although Christians have historically
interpreted, and reinterpreted it, to fit the current scientific
system. Yet the text has not changed. I take the simple meaning. I
do not fit it to our symbolical way of thinking.
> Dan: But the Bible does not say that. The NT only says that theIn Greek the word subject is used twice in Romans 8:20. It is a
> creation is corrupt.
military term, used to describe the orderly way soldiers are subject
to their general. The first use of the verb-subject shows that at
some point the universe was passively made subject when God commanded
everything in creation. The second subject-verb shows that the
universe actively continues to subject itself to the command of the
Creator. The whole creation subjects itself like a disciplined army
that remains under orders. What are the orders? To degenerate, to do
so in an orderly way. But it is not indefinite. Someday God will
liberate when He reveals his children who He adopts because of their
In the real visible distant universe, every atom shows that it has
degenerated. Its light is shifted. It does not move like local
stuff. It does not have the same extension or geometry as local
stuff. I don't even need metaphysical assumptions to verify what the
Bible says about astronomy. It is visibly evident. Yet Christians
has struggled with the "age of the universe." Yet those primordial
orbits visibly did not act like local orbits. This is visibly evident
in the spiral galaxies. If the orbits were not like our local ones,
how could our metaphysical ideas about time be valid?
>The Bible does use symbols in certain passages. In general the
> Dan: But the Bible is written in "artificial symbols."
symbols are known by the context to be symbols. The symbols, like
Jesus parables, are understood simply and enhance the knowledge of
those who believe. But the wise, who are not used to thinking simply,
will not understand it.
>I have been posting for over a year. My list directory shows 277
> Dan: You have never done so. I have read your old posts none of them
> contained any scriptural evidence for your claims.
posts, most on this list, in over a year. I tend not to repeat my old
exegesis. Sorry. To rewrite everything is a lot of work and would
make each post prohibitively long.
>> The point is that the Bible is the TRUTH. It is substantiated withThere is only one real truth, there are no private versions that are
>> simple evidence. What the Bible says about the stars are the ONLY
>> statements available today that actually fits what we see in the
> Dan: Your interpretation of the Bible is your version of the truth
> (little t.) Others have different interpretations.
true. I could be wrong on lots of things. My exegesis is based on
grammar - not science - so if science's metaphysical first principle
is false, at least I will not fall into the trap of thinking with
imaginary symbols and substantiating my universe with invisible
things. When I use the Bible as my standard for truth, both in the
physical universe and the spiritual, I find a different world view -
one that is substantiated simply without mathematics or scientific
Dan: Did I say that. Can you really use logic to show that logic is
invalid? Can data collected using the scientific method be used to
show the scientific method is invalid? I have my doubts.
Of course I can. Logic is a branch of philosophy that analyzes
inference. Can you think clearly without thinking like a philosopher.
Moses, David, Solomon, none of the Old Testament authors could think
like a philosopher - they were rational - without the system of
inference invented by Aristotle. If matter changes, even such a
rigorous way of thinking as formal logic and mathematics would fail in
the long term.
> Dan: Well, Jesus has been coming back for nearly 2000 years now.He is patient and long suffering because He is saving those who
> Heaven must be a long way away.
believe. Yet when the wickedness of man gets ripe, He will make the
whole Western system vanish from the earth in order to save the world
and to establish truth, righteousness and justice on this planet.
When He comes is not dependent on distance, but on when the wickedness
of man becomes rotten enough to warrant their destruction.