I doubt if I would have been very coherent or factually consistent when I related what I actually experienced that early morning. I do know that I would be so excited by what I saw that I would have blurted it all out, possibly not remembering all I saw or even missing out some of what I did see. That’s perfectly understandable. If anything, it makes the truth of the resurrection even more likely. If the gospel writers had wanted to come up with a concocted bullet-proof story then they would likely have put out one that was edited to be totally coherent.
The only thing that matters is the fact that the tomb was empty and that JESUS IS RISEN. Hallelujah!
Why? Where does this idea come from… that the fullness of God’s rule/reign is constrained to the utopic nature of creational perfectionism? Just because God is all in all (1Cor 15:28) does not make man, in general, errorless any more than Christ being all in all (Eph 1:23) makes believers, in particular, errorless.
No question… that is indeed the UTOPIAN view so prevalent and assumed within the walls of evangelicalism. ‘Death’ however which has always been a natural part on creation is the ultimate consummation, on the personal level, for each of us to where evil and sin cease having influence, or as you prefer, flourish… as noted Rom 6:7; 1Pet 4:1.
This clip from TW sums up what those darned evangelicals and other deplorables are saying. I agree with every thought in it, and I think scripture is soundly the basis of the hope involved.
Where does he go wrong, if at all?
From his paper on “Farewell to the Rapture”:
The Ascension of Jesus and the Second Coming are nevertheless vital Christian doctrines and I don’t deny that I believe some future event will result in the personal presence of Jesus within God’s new creation. This is taught throughout the New Testament outside the Gospels. But this event won’t in any way resemble the Left Behind account. Understanding what will happen requires a far more sophisticated cosmology than the one in which “heaven” is somewhere up there in our universe, rather than in a different dimension, a different space-time, altogether.
The New Testament, building on ancient biblical prophecy, envisages that the creator God will remake heaven and earth entirely, affirming the goodness of the old Creation but overcoming its mortality and corruptibility (e.g., Romans 8:18-27; Revelation 21:1; Isaiah 65:17, 66:22). When that happens, Jesus will appear within the resulting new world (e.g., Colossians 3:4; 1 John 3:2).
From an Easter talk:
Let’s think about these two things for a moment. The resurrection of Jesus, the great fact at the heart of the Easter faith, means that we now know, suddenly and in a blinding flash, what our ultimate future will be. Our ultimate future isn’t just that we bumble along trying to live the present life a little bit better until one day we decay and die, and end up either in the grave or in a disembodied heaven or perhaps both. Our ultimate future is that we will be raised to new life in God’s new world, not only to inhabit God’s new creation, a world full of beauty and life and justice and freedom, but actually to run it on God’s behalf. That’s a solid New Testament truth which the church usually keeps quiet about, but it’s time to get it out of the cupboard, blow the dust off it, and see what it means for today. Running God’s world won’t mean, of course, arrogantly imposing our own will on it; it will mean being God’s stewards, and ruling with his gentle, wise love. To be Easter people, we are called to anticipate, here and now, that future vocation, to look after God’s world on his behalf, and to gather up the praises of creation and present them before the creator. Stewardship and worship, the practice of being kings and priests, are the habits of heart and life that Easter people must acquire.
end of clip
Any good partial prêterist (futurist) would say nothing less. As a pantelist however I would venture to say those texts above speak to a newcovenant world NOT a re-made material world, aka Utopia. A careful reading of those texts from Isaiah shows clearly the continuing presence of DEATHand satan — so much for the re-made world theory — I don’t think!
So how do you deal with this evidence of continuing DEATH in this supposed re-made world… do you rub it away — we know Wright’s view, what’s your take Dave?
TW not good enough?
Where did the idea come from - your view - that after the world is re-made that there will be death?
Actually, more I think about it, the ‘great divide’ between your position and the lemmings is always going to come to this:
You’ve read TW, so you know that he has more than Isaiah in mind. Nossir, I am not going to find you a bunch of quotes. But I will say, answering you is no easy task, and those that want to know how TW’s thinking is arrived at just need to do the work to read him.
In any case TW has me convinced that his stance is scriptural and sensible.But it cannot be made and reasoned out in 100 words or less.
“That is indeed the UTOPIAN view so assumed within the walls of evangelicalism…”
Davo, you appear to deny that any texts encouraged believing an ultimate consummation of God’s reign will be better than a creation where sin and evil flourish. Dave anticipates my own response, and I agree Wright rejects your interpretation here.
It’s hard for me to see Peter’s day when “the elements will melt in the heat” so that we can “look forward to a new heaven and earth where righteousness dwells,” and Romans 8’s creation “liberated from its bondage to decay” and receiving the awaited “redemption of our bodies” with Revelation’s “no more crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away,” as yearning for just a continuation of the creation dominated by sin and death that the redeemed writers presently groaned under.
I think I’m unclear about what kind of future you see the apostles anticipating beyond this world and death.
I never intimated TW was “not good enough” — that’s 100% your spin. I’m a huge fan of TW but I’m no fawning acolyte either… I also like to think for myself.
Well Dave, you along with TW are the ones advocating for a re-made world, NOT me. Why not do the leg-work and actually read the related contexts… you’ll SEE DEATH is ever-present in this supposed re-made creation; examples…
Isa 65:20“No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; For the child shall die one hundred years old, but the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
Children DYING! Sinners ACCURSED! Hmmm… death AND sinners still present and active in your re-made world? Really Dave!?
Isa 66:24“And they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, and their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”
Likewise Dave, in your re-made world you have… “the corpses of the men” whose “worm does not die” — yet MORE DEATH to be gazed and abhorred at in your material re-creation. Really!?
AGAIN Dave, I never ask for any TW quotes, I simply asked… what’s your take? — or am I asking too much?
Bob, you appear to deny the texts I’ve given, to push your only wheelbarrow of “sin and evil flourish” — as I’ve ALREADY stated, but which you choose to ignore… the cultural/societal evolution of man will see the eventual minimisation of such — this is what Christ instigated and made possible — man is a long time in grasping grace, but it’s always there.
Well technically… IF Wright knew of my view he likely would — more properly however, I reject his.
Well yeah of course it is… especially if you’re protecting a cherished dogma and so don’t want to countenance an alternative view that likely upsets your applecart.
Peter’s new creation language speaks of the new covenant… this is all about covenantal realities, i.e., covenant renewal. Peter is on the same page as Paul’s… “if any man be in Christ he is a new creation” — it is all about covenant RENEWAL — that is, becoming the NEW (Israel of God) CREATION and thus the means whereby God would ultimately bless His world.
There is biblical and secular evidence indicating that ‘heavens and earth’ are descriptive metaphors for Israel… or more specifically, Jerusalem and Temple/Tabernacle”. Josephus had this to say about the Temple being Heaven and Israel the Earth…
Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews
Book 3. 6:4However, this proportion of the measures of the tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system of the world; for that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a heaven peculiar to God. But the space of the twenty cubits, is, as it were, sea and land, on which men live, and so this part is peculiar to the priests only.
Book 3. 7:7When Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests, as a place accessible and common, he denoted the land and the sea, these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men.
In the disciples’ day that which was on the verge of being… “destroyed with intense heat” was their old covenant world centred around and epitomised by Jerusalem and her Temple and all functions related to that. Again the Greek texts of Paul bear this out in the descriptions used of “the elements” <στοιχεῖα> stoicheia, meaning — **the rudiments, laws or basic principle of Judaism — Paul shows this here…
Gal 4:3, 9Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. … But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage?
The false or “other gospel” of the Judaisers sought adherence to THE LAW aka the weak and beggarly elements <στοιχεῖα> stoicheia. Again from Paul we have…
Col 2:8, 20Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. … Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—
The ‘world’ in view in these texts was the old covenant world of Judaism… some were being tempted and drawn back to perdition (Heb 10:39), back to the basic principles of fate and folly of LAW-righteousness (Gal 2:18).
These “basic principles” or “elements of the world” aka THE LAW were to “melt with fervent heat” when Jerusalem and Temple and ALL vestiges of the old covenant world went up in smoke in the conflagrations of AD70 — thus answering to the disciples’… “what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the world/age?” Mt 24:3
Thus the ‘heavens and earth’ that FINALLY “passed away” was the old covenant world (Heb 8:13). What had been burgeoning and remained was the new covenant world — none other than the new creation…come down out of Heaven i.e., from the presence of God. Thus… “If any man be in Christ he is a new creation” — this is the consistent application of biblical language.
For starters Bob the text does NOT say “bodies”, plural, as you have it — the text of the Greek is singular BODY — as in ‘body of evidence’ or ‘body of Christ’ i.e., the corporate body of Israel, redeemed; the one containing the many. Christ liberated Israel from its bondage to decay, aka THE LAW. Thus “the creation” in Rom 8 was old covenant Israel awaiting and groaning under the weight of futility (the law) for covenant RENEWAL; Paul was NOT speaking about a future time-space universe.
The “no more crying or pain” again was relative to the futility of the old covenant creation and its adherence to law-righteousness which none could attain. Israel had been subjected to this by God, i.e., the tutor (law) — but it was limited (futilityRom 8:20) in so many ways because “the law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12, 24-25).
Davo, I appreciate you reiterating the preterist paradigm for interpreting texts on the apostles’ hopes, and your creative consistency in applying it. When I said the apostles looked for “a greater victory over evil” than we enjoy in this age, you pronounced, “That’s indeed the UTOPIAN” interpretation,
Thus your explanation now of relevant texts confirms my impression that there are no words the apostles could employ for a better hope beyond this visible world that you would not argue is only a metaphor for the final end of Jerusalem and Israel’s temple, etc.
On 2 Pet 3:12f’s “waiting for a new earth where righteousness dwells,” you conclude that what Peter means will be ended is simply “the old covenant world… of LAW righteousness.” But my impression is that the apostles saw believers as already released from the old covenant and law righteousness by Jesus’ death and resurrection, and indeed that those in Christ are already a “new creation” in that sense. Thus, I don’t see how this would be the ultimate hope that they would be “waiting” for.
Peter also twice repeats that readers are to work to “hasten” that coming day of the Lord and speed its’ coming. It makes more sense to me to see evangelism as what would facilitate God’s patience in bringing that day of judgment and glory, rather than that readers were somehow to expedite the grandeur of AD 70.
Rom 8 similarly says, in the face of this world’s "bondage to decay, we “groan” while “we wait for the redemption of OUR body.” You assert that this hope of “the redemption (and 1Cor 15’s resurrection?) of our body” means “Christ will liberate Israel from its bondage… to THE LAW.”
Again, I find Paul assumes believers at Rome were already liberated from being under bondage to the law. He makes clear they already have the first fruit of the Spirit, but only have a “hope” of the end of living in a decaying creation. So why would the heart of their “groaning” and waiting for a new body be about ending bondage to the Law, or experiencing AD70?
In Rev 21, the vision for those facing martyrdom is a coming “new earth” with “no more death, tears, or pain,” which you similarly take as simply escaping “the futility of the old covenant’s law righteousness.” Where does John assert that that believers still needed to be delivered from that futility? Faithful witnesses yearning for the end of this world’s death, pain and tears fits well, but my sense is that the apostles’ think Jesus has already triumphed over what you think their anxiety was.
I remain fuzzy about what kind of world you or Qaz look forward to after your demise in this world. But perhaps unlike Qaz, I can see why most students don’t see that your interpretation of the apostolic hope makes sense of such texts’ descriptions.
Well with all due respect Bob, you haven’t really made any convincing case that… “the apostles looked for "a greater victory over evil"” that equate with your own utopian ideals.
I clearly expect life beyond this life with God will be totally out of this world and much beyond it, BUT what texts actually describe such are not clear. That said… the coming end of the old covenant age was more than mere metaphor, i.e., it actually happened.
You do realise you are defeating your own argument here? Logically holding your view… WHY assert there needs to be a future ‘END’ yet to be consummated WHEN as you say “…the apostles saw believers as already released from the old covenant and law righteousness by Jesus’ death and resurrection,…”? IF it’s illogical for them to expect a coming end to consummate the reality of the already THEN WHY wouldn’t the same be illogically true of your position?
To be sure… any redemptive power relative to the old covenant was smashed AT the Cross, but THE LAW still carried sway and curried favour with many. Have you not read my quotes elsewhere witnessing to the influence THE LAW still had in that burgeoning NT era? Clearly MANY believers were being hamstrung in their faith by Judaist believers who were zealous for the Law — even Paul himself kowtows a number of times to Law observance; which is a little ironic given his chastising of Peter. Consider the following evidence of this…
Acts 15:1, 5And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” … But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
Acts 16:3Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.
Acts 18:18So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow.
Acts 21:23-24, 26Therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. … Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having been purified with them, entered the temple to announce the expiration of the days of purification, at which time an offering should be made for each one of them.
The Cross denuded THE LAW of any redeeming virtue (Eph 2:15; Col 2:14) BUT it STILL carried cultural sway and while the first covenant remained in place AS IT DID WHILE THE TEMPLE STOOD such remained an impediment which needed dealing with. Note…
Heb 9:8-9…the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience—
The “present time” above equates to Paul’s “this present evil age” and his “this world” and John’s “passing darkness” — they ALL speak of the OLD COVENANT mode of existence which Paul and Co. knew was such a blight and in need of its coming decimation. As John says… “the true light is already shining” — a reference to the burgeoning NEW COVENANT reality, aka, Peter’s age wherein righteousness dwells — the new creation.
Now you can fob this off as “creative” but it’s jolly sight more consistent and biblical than anything you’ve put forward… IMO.
Well then, by your measure they FAILED and miserably so!
It’s interesting you use “grandeur” as a pejorative, and yet the coming ‘Day of the Lord’ was a day of terror, especially for those who had rejected Israel’s ‘evangel’ aka ‘good news’ aka ‘gospel’ of grace — those who turned from it perished mercilessly though having been warned — which is why it could be said…
Heb 10:30-31For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Some here of course have already excised these verses from the biblical text… so maybe it’s not an issue.
It was Israel who groaned awaiting their promised resurrection and even more-so the NT firstfruit saints in expectation of such…
Acts 26:6-8And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers. To this promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. For this hope’s sake, King Agrippa, I am accused by the Jews. Why should it be thought incredible by you that God raises the dead?
And I might add… the word above ‘RAISES’ is in the present tense showing the NATURE of the resurrection, i.e., Israelites and Gentiles were BEING RAISED in that age to newness of life — new covenant life. Again… resurrection was promised to Israel and such was understood in terms of covenant renewal, NOT people popping up out of the ground.
My answer to the same error is as above. You surely have to miss a lot of NT writing NOT to see the problem certain Judaist believers were causing; consider the likes of…
Gal 3:1-3O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?
There are a litany of texts in kind. For Paul “the works of the law” were one and the same as “the flesh” — the flesh (law) needed crucifying — Jesus conquered THE LAW and yet as his firstfruit followers they were called in kind to follow their Master ON BEHALF OF their brethren, Israel of the flesh… and that quite literally and metaphorically.
Well John writes this right before the end and as such the Judaists having fully turned from the faith are now actually persecuting the believers, BUT deliverance is coming from those of the synagogue of Satan — those claiming to be true Jews but weren’t.
The bible doesn’t speak of any demise of our time-space universe… the exact opposite actually. I have no idea how life will be or how it will look once we each step through biological death, but I expect it to be brilliant… far beyond our present knowing.
Any genuine STUDENT hopefully will have their mind open enough to consider other potential positions.
Well, the dispute at hand was whether the apostles see a future where there is a greater triumph over evil, death, and pain, than in the present age. While I doubt the Bible’s focus is on going to a place called “heaven” (perceiving more a vision of a new earth), I always took the notion of heaven as being a place with a significant defeat of evil and suffering. Do you assume as a preterist that the contrary is true?
Bob, I see a great triumph today. Humanity is striving to make a better world, a better place for us to live, a better reality of God’s vision. Davo said that culture is evolving. And it is… we are getting better, smarter, healthier, and I agree it is not without growing pains, but God is working with humanity and working mightily. Our doctors are making great strides, our Governments are working tirelessly at bringing global peace… God is indeed alive and working.
If you look at the world outside of your pre conceived view that you were taught about scripture, there are many good things to see in Gods creation today.
Davo, thanks for extensive responses to my exegesis! I agree texts on life beyond this world “are not very clear” and like your affirmation that such future hope must be “brilliant.”
Yet, you repeat that my texts offer no “case that the apostles looked for a greater victory over evil,” and I remain confused about your dismissal of them.
The burden of my rebuttal is seen in repeatedly using “already” in bold and italics to argue that the apostles didn’t see the end of “LAW-righteousness” as a future hope or the one they need to wait for in AD70. You seem to agree the cross had already rescued us from this, and then ask why I’d say the new earth is future. But it’s the apostles who say that! And thus it is your definition of that hope that needs to explain why they couldn’t break free of law-righteousness sooner. My own interpretation supports a hope that remains future!
Sure, I know well that Judaizers still promoted law-righteousness, but I don’t see the apostles seeing AD70 as the way to overcome that great challenge, rather the already established Gospel as its’ vanquisher. Indeed, my experience is that seeing AD70 as what ends that problem would be fallacious. I still encounter defenders of law-righteousness regularly! So seeing the end of that in AD70 as the future new earth remains fanciful to me. Equally, I’m still not seeing how you see what the apostle were called to “hasten” as being AD70. How would they do that?
On Romans, you repeat that those who “groan” under this world’s “bondage to decay” are “Israel.” Whereas I find Romans as plainly addressing the experience of believers at Rome (both Jew and Gentile), and no evidence that what Paul’s telling them to look forward to is AD70. Rather, a genuine transformation of existence, more like at least what MM points to, or even what you call “brilliant.”
You also repeat that Revelation’s “new earth” with “no more death, tears and pain” refers to escaping Judaizing. I see it as more plainly written to believers (again including Gentiles) who faced literal death and pain at the hands of the empire. Indeed, as you already know, I agree with most scholars that it is written after AD70.
NO Bob, I don’t dismiss the apostle’s expectation… I’m challenging what you say those expectations were. From my position I’ve given a reasonable refutation, which so far you haven’t really touched, e.g., Peter’s use and understanding of <στοιχεῖα> stoicheia being right in line with Paul’s extensive use of the same… from you, silence.
Everywhere you write “AD70” read it as “Christ’s Parousia” — they had no awareness of dates but an expectation of Christ returning as he promised — this was THEIR promised expectation. Yet again you simply misunderstood the issue with Judaic reversion… judgement was coming on the old covenant world and those who clung to it faced the very real prospect of death. The pressure from the Judaisers was significant enough for Paul to rail against vociferously in his epistles because he understood, like Jesus, that the end that was coming.
Well of course they did, and I agree… it was future TO THEM! They held to the promise. Where I disagree with YOU is your assumption that THEY expected a re-made world.
Quite simply… some dead men won’t lie down easily. People of ‘The Way’ were a threat to their ancient society and economy and the religious fundamentalists of the day fought back HARD… read about the persecution Acts Bob.
This is nothing but a shallow non sequitur… it was the Parousia, to which the gospel in part testifies, that would end all opposition, of which the doctrine of the Judaisers was but a part.
So you DON’T believe Christ’s Parousia sees an end to everything opposing the fullness of redemption… well I do. You see I’m sure you actually DO believe Christ’s Parousia brings in the fullness of redemption… You just don’t believe Christ’s Parousia has occurred; I get that, been there done that.
The real problem however with your fallacious futurism is it leaves you with a logically INCOMPLETE REDEMPTION, i.e., you’re STILL waiting for Jesus to wrap things up BECAUSE YOU ASSUME a future re-made creation, INSTEAD of seeing the whole scenario as being about the end of an old age being superseded by a new age. The gospel era AD30-70 was a 40yr transitional period emulating the OT exodus out of bondage — oh that you would connect the dots.
Jesus DID NOT come to start a new religion, NO… he came to end an old, of which law-righteousness was its key component.
Lol Bob… how can you keep a straight face in claiming… “…and no evidence that what Paul’s telling them to look forward to is AD70” when Christ’s Parousia (of which you know I maintain AD70 was) is what YOU appeal to for the transformation of, as you say… “OUT BODIES” — you are consistently inconsistent.
I’ve not claimed either or but BOTH… who do you think was propping up Jerusalem?… Rome! Jerusalem was the Harlot riding the Beast.
Another wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated throwaway line. Have you never considered it rather odd how the epicentre of Israel’s life, i.e., the Temple doesn’t rate a mention in John’s revelation IN TERMS OF BEING DESTROYED — you’d think such a powerful sign of God’s removal of all things old covenant would have rated a mention in this closing book of the NT had it occurred ALREADY; but no, silence! The internal evidence (Rev 11:1-2) suggests the Temple was STILL STANDING when the Revelation was penned… readied to be handed over to the Gentiles for 42mths = 3½yrs — guess how long the siege of Jerusalem lasted!? aka… Lk 21:24; Dan 12:7.
“AD70” read, as “Christ’s Parousia” — was THEIR promised expectation.
[/quote]
"This is nothing but a shallow non sequitur… it was the Parousia…
Well… I’m sure you actually DO believe Christ’s Parousia brings in the fullness of redemption… You just don’t believe Christ’s Parousia has occurred."
Davo, That’s correct, and if you like, you can state that all like me with a traditional exegesis of the end (or the consensus of scholars on dating) can’t have a “straight face.” But you amply confirm what we both see is our pivotal difference on whether AD70 is that end and Parousia.
You repeat that believers “could not break free of law-righteousness” before AD70, “which would end all opposition” to breaking free. But again, I see no confirmation that "law-righteousness doesn’t remain a threat to the true Gospel. Indeed, the opposite appears manifest to me.
In short, you perceive and ascribe far more power to AD70 than I do. I don’t see that IT brought “a new earth where righteousness dwells,” and one where there is “no more death, tears, or pain,” or the end of the creation’s decay.
Yes, I see that you can interpret this setback for Judaism as what that language means. But again, I don’t see what language the apostles could have used wherein you would admit it sounds like a more brilliant end than AD70 has actually brought to the creation. Thus I still read the Parousia and such language to point toward a greater victory over evil and suffering than we have yet seen.
P.S. You and LLC are the two who insist on strong interpretations that I seem to react to as unconvincing to me. At the least the consolation with you is that we seem to share the same rejection of her exegesis. And a consolation for LLC is that despite my stubborn dissent with her, I don’t share all the views of her other articulate dissenter. It seems that on exegetical debates, bright minds will forever debate (at least until the Parousia)
P.S. P.S. You state that “AD70 was THEIR promised expectation” for a Parousia. How strong is the evidence that most readers closest to the NT and that date saw that event as what they expected as the fullness of Jesus’ Parousia, and thus did not look for a future event. I thought they continued to anticipate it.
I’ve been to the redwoods on the California coast, camping for 4 days. Was not able to access internet or news of any sort. I highly recommend it as a balm for the soul.
Glad to see nothing has changed here!!
One of the difficulties in responding to you Bob is your constant ‘putting-words-in-my-mouth’ that I DIDN’T say… and you seem to do this with an agenda to avoiding challenges you realise you can’t reasonably logically or exegetically yourself respond to. Example above. You make the false claim using quotation marks attributing YOUR claim that believers… "could not break free of law-righteousness" TO ME when I said NO such thing; they are 100% your words that I answered to HERE. YOU THEN immediately follow that with an actual quote of mine — thus conflating the two giving an impression I’ve said the whole — this is wrong for you to do; you shouldn’t need to create such straw-men, and this is not the first time.
Quite simply from my perspective there comes for each of us… a greater victory over evil and suffering when we step through death into the other side of eternity with God, period. The ‘gospel of peace’ however, is about bringing THAT reality to the here and now, i.e., Jesus’ “Thy kingdom come on earth” — NOT the… “oh God I can’t wait to escape this hellhole*” mentality I hear of sooo many “triumphant” evangelicals!
