'A Closer Look at the Logic of a Physical Second Coming.'
Following is a simple comparison between the two competing endtime views. (Endtimes is the area of biblical thought that usually considers four things: the end of the world, the second coming, the resurrection, and the judgment.)
Failure of Prophecy in this generation.
The current way of thinking (paradigm) goes back 2,000 years. It holds that Jesus’ second coming is literal and physical, and always future to the reader. This has meant that every generation of Christian people for 2,000 years has believed that Jesus’ coming was ‘at hand, soon, quickly, shortly’ to them. The first problem is, that although every generation for 2,000 years has been disappointed, yet the next generation claims the same thing.
Futurism has no time facts.
The second problem is that the future view lacks time evidence. There is no single time fact in the bible to suggest the idea that Jesus’ second coming is 2,000 years in His future.
Futurism is contrary to Fact.
The third problem, (and a serious one) is that believers in a future coming must deny clear passages that Jesus would return in His own generation. (eg. Mtt 23:36, 24:34, 26:64, Mk 9:1, Lk 21:32)
Futurism cannot Unite the Field of End-times - Consider a Past Option
A fourth problem is that after 2,000 years of close study, Christianity is splintered into 20,000 different sects all divided over the interpretation of the bible. This means that after 2000 years of intense study, the ‘yet future to us’ paradigm has not only failed to offer one explanation to unite the field, but in 2000 years it has not even offered an agreed on methodology by which to approach the problem. While the field of endtimes remains thus divided, it is still open to a competing theory that can offer one explanation and a methodology that is acceptable and reasonable. This short comparison will consider the reasoning of two views, the Yet Future to us’ view which (obviously) looks to our future to explain the first century documents, and it’s opposite, the Preterist (before, or past) view, which looks back to the first century to explain the first century documents.
The Analogy of a Train of Thought.
The idea of a ‘train of thought’ is suggestive of an analogy. An explanatory ‘train-track’ of thought is a consistent, interconnected series of thought that moves from premise to conclusion -station to terminus- like a railroad. For an idea to be biblical it must begin from biblical facts, and follow fact-by-biblical-fact to its conclusion. In other words a biblical explanation should be accountable to bible facts consistent with its own statements.
Comparing Past and Future Views.
The next two pages compares two competing views of endtimes, a Preterist (past) view and a Yet Future to us (in 2010) view. The conclusion recommends a first century explanation to explain first century facts. Following each is a summary of the reasons that recommend a Preterist view, and tell strongly against a Yet Future view.
PART I.
FIRST CENTURY 'TRAIN OF THOUGHT' COMPARED.
Q.1 Is a first century explanation consistent with biblical observation?
Q.2 Is there adirect observable relation in facts between premise and conclusion?
START TRAIN: BIBLE WRITTEN BEFORE 100 A.D.
Claims.
| |_ ALL BLOOD ON THIS GENERATION IN C.1ST MTT 23:36
| |_
| |_ ALL FULFILLED IN THIS GENERATION IN C.1ST LK 21:32
_|_____|_
_|_____|_
_| |_ SOME OF YOU STANDING HERE IN C.1ST MK 9:1
_| |_
_| |_
_| |_ C.1STJERUSALEM TEMPLE COMING /AGE END AD 70 MTT 24:2
_| |_
_| |_
_| |_ C1ST HIGH PRIEST CAIAPHAS TO SEE SON OF MAN COMING CLOUDS
THOSE WHO PIERCED HIM WOULD SEE HIM
_| |_ MTT 26:64, REV 1:7
_| |_
_| |_ THEY WERE IN THE LAST DAYS IN C.1ST HEB 1:1
_| |_
_| |_
_| |_ EVENTS SHORTLY TO COME TO PASS IN C.1ST REV 1:1
_| |_
_| |_
_| |_ END OF ALL THINGS AT HAND IN C.1ST 1 PET 4:7
_|____|__
CONCLUSION: THEREFORE JESUS’ COMING IN THAT C.1st GENERATION IN JERUSALEM.
ADVANTAGES OF THE FIRST CENTURY VIEW:
. HAS FIRST MEANING TO PEOPLE SPOKEN AND WRITTEN TO
. OBSERVABLE
. SIMPLE PREMISE
. SUGGESTED BY BIBLE FACTS
. ANSWERS BIBLE FACTS
. SAVES THE APPEARANCE OF THE BIBLE FACTS
. NEEDS NO SPECIAL RULES
. NEEDS NO DIVISIONS BETWEEN VERSES.
PART II
TWENTY FIRST CENTURY 'TRAIN OF THOUGHT' COMPARED.
Q.1 Is a yet future to +2010 explanation consistent with biblical observation?
Q.2 Is there a direct observable relation in facts between premise and +2010 conclusion?
START TRAIN: BIBLE WRITTEN BEFORE 100 A.D.
_|_____|_ Claims.
_|_ |_ -#1> JESUS WILL RETURN LITERAL, PHYSICAL, VISIBLY
Break- NO FACTS
LITERAL, PHYSICAL, VISIBLY NOT FOUND IN THE BIBLE.
_|_____|_
CAN'T EXPLAIN IT LITERALLY IN C.1ST ? -#2> INFER ITS FUTURE TO US IN C.21ST
#3> INSERT 2000 YR GAP BETWEEN VERSES
_| |_
Break? -NO GAP FACTS
‘BUT COMING IN 'THIS' JESUS GENERATION’ #4> ASSUME OUR GENERATION IN +2000
#5> MAYBE TWO COMINGS?
_| |_
Break- NO 'COMINGS' FACTS IN BIBLE.
(ONLY EZEK 43:11)
‘SOME OF YOU STANDING HERE WILL -#6> DENY MARK 9:1
NOT SEE DEATH TILL KINGDOM COMES’
(MK 9:1)
_| |_
_ |_
Break-
SOON, NEAR, QUICKLY, SHORTLY #7> EXPAND 'QUICKLY' BY 2000
#8> MAYBE HE WAS DELAYED? HYPOTHESIS
|_
FALSE.
HE WILL COME AND NOT DELAY.
(HEB 10:37)
_| _
Break-
END OF ALL THINGS AT HAND
(1 PET 4:7) -#9> MAYBE TWO ENDS?
|_
_|___
Break-
COMING TO DESTROY JERUSALEM TEMPLE #10* BUT NO TEMPLE IN 2010?
(MTT 24:1-3)
*For the above ten claims there exists no single, express piece of bible evidence.
iIMPOSSIBLE CONCLUSION: "THEREFORE ITS 100% CERTAIN JESUS’ COMING IS FUTURE TO 2010."
WEAKNESSES OF ‘YET FUTURE TO US’ VIEW:
. SUGGESTED BY NO SINGLE BIBLICAL TIME FACT , BUT 100% CERTAIN.
. DENIES FIRST MEANING TO PEOPLE SPOKEN AND WRITTEN TO , BUT 100% CERTAIN
. FAILS TO SAVE THE APPEARANCES OF THE FACTS , BUT 100% CERTAIN
. IS HELD UP BY SPECIAL RULES , BUT 100% CERTAIN
. BEGINS BY ASSUMING TERMS ‘LITERAL AND PHYSICAL ARE BIBLICAL’ BUT 100% CERTAIN
CONCLUSION.
The idea of a ‘train of thought’ is suggestive an explanatory ‘train-track’ of thought, a consistent, interconnected series of thought that moves from premise to conclusion like a railroad - station to terminus. For any idea to be 'biblical' it must begin from biblical facts, and follow fact-by-biblical-fact to its conclusion. In other words a biblical explanation should be accountable to bible facts consistent with its own statements.
After comparing the two competing views of endtimes, the conclusion recommends a first century explanation to explain first century facts. The comparison tells strongly against a Yet Future view. No doubt this seems unfamiliar and strange to many. In this regards Sherlock Holmes once gave some good advice to his friend Dr. Watson. "Whenever you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, is likely to be the truth. "
-ooOOoo-