Hi Ben,

The "us" and "our" and "we" in Genesis 1:26 could also be referring to the plurality of the "host of heaven" (i.e. angels) that were God's servants (Hebrews 1:14) and co-rulers (1 Kings 22:19; Hebrews 2:5).

It's interesting to note that, when Paul gave his inspired commentary on the "image and glory of God", he related it to "the angels" (1 Corinthians 11:10) and the physical attributes that distinguished the male and female appearance (1 Corinthians 11:6-8; 1 Corinthians 11:13-15).

This suggests to me that the "image and glory of God" (Genesis 1:26) was related to the fact that the "angels" who appeared as "God" throughout scripture (e.g. Genesis 18-19) had the same physical "male" form as "Adam."    Since God Himself was always "invisible" (John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16), He manifested Himself as angelic messengers.  The "male" human physical form is a copy of the "image and glory" in which the angels appeared on God's behalf.

Thus, it seems that the Hebrews understood that Adam was "created in the image and glory of God" in the sense that his physical appearance resembled the male physical form in which the angelic host appeared.

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

The "woman" fell into the "temptation" first, not the man (Gen 3:1, 6, 1 Tim 2:14).  That marked "women" out as the easier target.  After that "holy women" (e.g. Sarah; 1 Pet 3:5-7) sought not to "tempt" or be "tempted" and it "became" them to wear their "hair" long as a "symbol" of their godly "authority" (1 Cor 11:6-8, 10).

Their display showed both "men" and "angels" they were NOT interested in seeking a man's attention by accentuating their upper body, rather they "covered" it.  They were content to "love" and "submit" to their "own husbands" even as they in turn "loved" them (Eph 5:25).  That was the woman's "glory" (1 Cor 11:13-15), and it had to do with "modesty", "propriety" and "moderation" (1 Tim 2:9), attributes of the "spirit".

In his innocence Adam was the visible "image" of the "invisible God" (Gen 1:26, Ps 8:5).  God's "will" made "flesh".  All who "saw" and experienced his "love" would "see" and experience God (as, Jn 14:19).  It had NOTHING to do with his teeth, legs and nose-hair (his "male physical form"), but EVERYTHING to do with "righteousness".  [ See, "The Image of God". ]

The ONLY reason "angels" appeared in the "form" of "men" was because that's the only thing that made sense if God wanted His PEOPLE to take their words seriously.  Appearing as hippos and gazelles may have seemed a little strange..lol.

 
Take care, Taffy.
[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Hi Rivers, her "long hair" was indeed her "glory", which was the physical "SYMBOL of her authority" (1 Cor 11:10).  You see her curly locks clear enough (just like you do the "tablets of stone") but NOT the "symbol" or "authority".  This kind of approach is what makes you "err" in many things, e.g. the "Law of God".

Taffy,

Paul plainly stated that a woman's "glory" is her "long hair" (1 Corinthians 11:15).   It had nothing to do with "attributes of the spirit."  In fact, if you read the text of 1 Timothy 2:9, you'll see that a woman's "braided hair" was also associated with her propriety and obedience to the Law of Moses (Numbers 5:18).

A woman was required by the Law of Moses to wear her hair braided on top of her head (as a covering, 1 Corinthians 11:6; 1 Corinthians 11:15).  The Greek word for "uncovered" that Paul used (1 Corinthians 11:5) is the one used for "loosing her hair" in the LXX where a woman accused of adultery was brought before the priest in shame (Numbers 5:18).

The scriptures you quote about "the image of God" say absolutely nothing about "righteousness."   The Hebrew word for "image" is used about 80 times in the OT and always refers to "physical form."  It never refers to "righteousness" or "will" or "love."   There's isn't even a single occurence of the word "image" in Hebrew that is used as a figure of speech or metaphor (like you are attempting to explain it).

Paul described the Hebrew use of the term in Romans 1:23 where he contrasts the "glory of God" with "images" of "mortal birds, animals, and insects".  The people were worshipping actual "idols" and "statues" of earthly creatures (not their "righteousness" or "will" or "love").

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Rivers, I repeat, her physical "long hair" was indeed her "glory", which was the physical "SYMBOL of her authority" (1 Cor 11:10), just as Adam and Jesus were the physical "image" of God (Gen 1:26, Col 1:15).  The visible "image" of the "invisible", "righteous" God.  Your point about Rom 1:23 is not relevant to this.

Take care, Taffy.

[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

How about skipping back to the other thread and answer my outstanding questions there?

Cheers, Taffy.

[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Gentlemen:

If I might: I think mankind has a tendency to read definitions complimentary to his own mindset. I see nothing special about angels except their habit of informing or delivering messages to another being -- even if it involves talking to a mule. Nowhere in the Greek definition, can one find 'angel' to mean anything other than mere messenger. If we adhere to the biblical definition, all the prophets and apostles, yes and other expositors of the word (New Testament authors), meet the biblical definition of angel. Riverofeden, Taffy, and yours truly, if we do not invent language: we are angels in the very essence of biblical meaning.

Not a mere spirit, angels were flesh and blood -- with the same passions, appetites, and unholy body functions as other human beings.  The only thing to set an angel apart from others gathered around the campfire was their ability to deliver messages.

I am wondering where this thread is headed? What does a woman's long hair have to do with a discussion of angels or messengers? lol No, I do not see the 'us, our, and we' as a spiritual host but as people producing a progeny called Adam -- where the first covenant was enacted. (That's not in the Bible either!) But this conclusion is the only sensible solution to our debate here ongoing -- if we adhere to the draconian limitations of language as it emanated through the voice of Moses -- he being an angel, of course, in a message delivery capacity.

Best Regards,

Ben

Hi Rivers, Jesus said, "And the Father Himself, who sent Me (PHYSICAL Jesus; Heb 2:14), has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.." (Jn 5:37).  

If Jesus/man/woman/angels 'represented' God physically then every one of those we read of looked in the mirror, saw their wife/husband, an angel or Jesus, they WOULD have seen God's "form" because they, you claim, were but His physical "image".  Your error makes Jesus a liar.

In Christ and His "gospel", NOT the "tongue of God is being revealed.." (although this may indeed be the case for you..lol), "but the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God is being revealed from faith to faith.." (Rom 1:17).  

And as the "faithful" followed the LORD's "example" and "beheld His glory" they were being "transformed into the SAME IMAGE (NOT from hipbone to earlobe as some kind of physical Star Wars clones of Him so that no-one recognised them anymore!), but "from glory to glory.." (2 Cor 3:18).  "For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of RIGHTEOUSNESS exceeds much more in glory.." (2 Cor 3:9).

Let Paul have the last word on your folly when he contrasted the "old man" (Adam) with the "new man" (Jesus);

"put on the new man (NOT "new" eyeballs and finger-nails!) which was created according to God (just like Gen 1:26) in true  RIGHTEOUSNESS and HOLINESS.." (Eph 4:24).  

By doing so they would bear God's "image" even as Adam had (Gen 1:26, Ps 8:5).

 
Cheers, Taffy.
[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Hi Taffy,

Your point about John 5:37 doesn't work.   Paul plainly stated that Jesus "existed in the form of God" (Philippians 2:5) and that Jesus was "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15).  Perhaps you are unware that the word used for "form" in John 5:37 is not the same one that is used of "(Adam) the image of God" (1 Corinthians 11:7) or "(Jesus) the image of God" in Colossians 1:15.

When we interpret scripture, it's important to draw conclusions that take into account all of the evidence.   The apostles affirmed that "no man has seen God at any time" (John 1:18; 1 Timothy 6:16).   On the other hand, they also understood that Jesus "existed in the form of God" (Philippians 2:5) and that Jesus was "the radiance of God's glory and the exact image of His essence" (Hebrews 1:3).

The idea of an "image" in biblical Hebrew is that it presents the physical form of something else.  The "image" is not the actual entity that it represents.   Thus, Adam and Jesus were both the "image" of God (in physical form) and yet God Himself remained "invisible" (1 Timothy 6:16).   One could certainly see the "image" of God (male human form) of Adam or Jesus without the "invisible" God actually apprearing.

Your interpretation of John 5:37 also makes no sense because Jesus also said that the Jews "(had) never heard God's voice" in the same verse, and yet there are numerous times in the Bible where the Israelites "heard" God speaking audibly.   Therefore, it's more reasonable to conclude that the "hearing" and "seeing" in John 5:37 were a figurative way of saying that the unbelieving Jews were not "understanding" what God was like (because they didn't pay attention to the words or actions of Jesus).

For example, the same Greek word for "form" that is used in John 5:37 is also used figuratively in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 as "appearance (form) of evil."   This shows that the word could be used of how one "perceives" someone's intentions or works (rather than referring to seeing the physical form).

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Hi Rivers, in my opinion you miss the point entirely.  But we're both entitled to our views.  Let the reader review our posts and decide for himself.  I've promised Ben that I'll say no more about it in his thread.

Take care, Taffy.

[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Hi Ben,

With all due respect, your comments about "angels" is an oversimplification of the biblical evidence.

You are correct in saying that the Hebrew and Greek words translated "angel" are usually the same as the common word for any kind of person acting as a "messenger."   However, there are numerous uses of the word "angel" (messenger) in scripture that certainly don't suggest that an ordinary human being is delivering the message.

Please consider a few examples:

1.  The "angel" who spoke to Abraham "from heaven" (Genesis 22:15; Galatians 1:8)

2.  The "angels of God" that are distinguished from human beings (Luke 12:8)

3.  The  affairs of "angels" that are beyond human "life" on earth (1 Corinthians 6:3)

4.  Being "like the angels" who live in heaven and don't marry (Matthew 22:30)

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Also what about Gabriel (Dan. 8:16; 9:20-21; Luke 1:19, 26)?

Donald:

I hope to have more time in the next two or three days to fully address Riverofeden, Taffy, and your query about the 'angel,' Gabriel; notwithstanding, Gabriel was a spirit and could appear only in dreams, visions, or thoughts. Other than that, I willl have to be quiet for a little while -- until I can catch up on a few chores and errands.  This promises to be a great study, and I can hardly wait to begin serious debate.

Perhaps you, Donald, with Riverofeden and Taffy (and others if they care to contribute) can iron out a few wrinkles until I can join the discussion. To complicate a hoped-for, unbiased study, everyone seems hopelessly steeped in diverse but traditional teachings; at the same time, I am neither endorsing nor condemning the National pastime of interpretative leaps -- distanced debate appears to draw more from interpretation excess than exegetical exertion; in our prejudices, we should strive for more open-minded exegesis. Nonetheless, all of us together should be able to thresh this out to an acceptable harvest. We might, each of us, be able to contribute something. And so: Would you believe the angel Gabriel appeared to Mohammed, in a cave, where Mohammed daydreamed and hallucinated a lot?  lol  We have the word of nineteenth century writers that such was indeed the case (though Mohammed lived in the early seventeenth century, 200 years previous)! In the sense of justification, Talmud, Bible, and Qu'ran are but legal-historicisms, unchallengeable in the authenticity allowed by dent of antiquity but unprovable in the utter silence of ongoing extrasensory communication from touted 'angels' (spirital messengers). They must have expired After all, did not ancient writers construe part of each content to Gabriel, an entity given existentialist reach only in imagination, visions, and dreams?

(I don't know what happened to the above type: it appears to have enlarged and is a complete mystery to me. lol )

Perhaps we should first confirm or deny First Century application in the Twenty-First Century -- but restricted to witnessed testimony. Perhaps Don can start a thread when this present topic has run its course.

Look forward to reading some of your thoughts.

Best Regards,

Ben

Taffy:

Can't see any reason for you not to comment on my thread (if it is mine)! lol

Ben

Hi Donald,

Yes, I also think "Gabriel" was understood to be an heavenly "messenger" (angel) and not merely an ordinary human being.   There are many other examples that I didn't cite.  Perhaps Ben or Taffy can demonstrate how they would support the conclusion that the heavenly angels were merely human beings.

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Hi Rivers, I don't want to get caught up in a discussion about "angels" at present.  But like you I'm curious as to Ben's views.  (They appear to differ from mine.)  I'll wait for him to flesh them out.

Take care, Taffy.

[ Preterism (with Taffy) ]

Hi Ben,

As a "full preterist" I don't consider the post-apostolic information in the Talmud or Q'uran to be relevant to any discussion of the older biblical canon (which contains inspired testimony).

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Rivers:

Re:

1.  The "angel" who spoke to Abraham "from heaven" (Genesis 22:15; Galatians 1:8)

2.  The "angels of God" that are distinguished from human beings (Luke 12:8)

3.  The  affairs of "angels" that are beyond human "life" on earth (1 Corinthians 6:3)

4.  Being "like the angels" who live in heaven and don't marry (Matthew 22:30)

No. 1) You are going to have to define and locate the Hebrew notion of

Heaven before we can hash this out.

Rivers:

I can't resist a response, even though I have a ton of work waiting for me.

Ben

Re:

1.  The "angel" who spoke to Abraham "from heaven" (Genesis 22:15; Galatians 1:8)

2.  The "angels of God" that are distinguished from human beings (Luke 12:8)

3.  The  affairs of "angels" that are beyond human "life" on earth (1 Corinthians 6:3)

4.  Being "like the angels" who live in heaven and don't marry (Matthew 22:30)

No. 1) Genesis -- You are going to have to define and locate the Hebrew notion

of Heaven before we can hash this out.  Galatians - Only one man has ever set

up residence in heaven -- Messiah; you know, in residence where the God hung

out. So any man from heaven would have to be him who ascented to heaven.

No. 2) Luke 12:8: Of whom and what is Jesus talking about and where do those

people act as angels and evidence their hypocricy? Also, Jesus is in his ministry:

wherein, none are to understand until kingdom establishment with the Holy Ghost.

Nol 3) I Cor. 6: You are reading something here I do not intercept. I see nothing

untoward here except the saints ruling and judging those messengers who gave

false hope pre-Parousia and during Parousia. This is the only place saints could

judge over the wayward people of Israel. By the way, these saints are judging by

those messages already delivered in their lifetime and in the present time of those

present at Parousia. The saints were not to be physically present.

No. 4) Matthew: Rivers, I value your friendship but allow me; in this conversation

with the Sadducees, Jesus is answering a trick question posed by this particular

Hebrew sect. Here, they talk about the numerous God-husband covenant-relation

with his Tribal-wife, the children of Israel, and how such intimate relations must 

end because of an end to the Ten Ages covenant agreement. Remember: this is

not to be understood but received only as an astoundment? There could not be

another marriage because Jesus referred to end of the covenant! They could not

enjoy another covenant as expected by those angels (messangers) often speaking

in the heavenly place(s).

I've got to get to work. Please exegete this and try to understand the parable Jesus 

uses to commit the Sadducees to silence. You see, the Sadducees are angels in (from)

heaven but only in the sense that Pharisees are angels from heaven. Those hypocrites!

A consideration: all messengers (angels) are not necessarily good messengers and

have obligation to come from neither a good nor bad place. These messengers were

God's people -- good or bad!

Like I said, I am one busy feller' today!

You guys have fun with my 'neck stuck out.'

Ben

Hi Rivers:

In your reference to the Hebrews letter (1:14) and 'host of heaven,' as the plurality present in Genesis 1, at the making of Adam and Taffy's remark 'ONLY reason angels appeared in the "form" of "men'": I would make a comment about the Hebrew letter as it treated the subject of angels. The 'host of heaven' is hardly representative of anyone other than seed line peoples or children of Israel.

In the Hebrew first chapter, almost casually, Paul mentioned 'angels' in the same breath with: "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" Who were these 'angels'? It was the apostolic selected charged with soteriological responsibility, of course! Can we escape this conclusion? If we can, then we are in disagreement of the language written. Let us debate the meaning of angels in Hebrews One. We can discuss other occurrences later. But we must come to an unequivocable position on this example first (since we have already entered it into discussion).

By the way, are you (River) and Taffy both full preterists? I must confess to being neither preterist (in the modern sense of partial Parousia) nor premillennialist -- millennial wise, I am postmillennial. Actually, I call myself a meta-deist -- that is, I believe as did the great philosopher, Kant: "No man has the intellect to deny another man's god." Again: I can invent a god as omnipotent and omniscient as any one else can, and so can you. Our problem is in proving the omnipotence and omniscience. lol

Regards,

Ben

                Comment by RiversOfEden3 hours ago           Delete Comment

Rivers:

Thanks for your response.

I'm taking the liberty of pasting your entire response into this medium so as not to bypass any or your thoughts and conceptions. I know I am taking up extra room by this maneuver, but I better attend the points of discussion by this method. My response will be in bold type.

                Comment by RiversOfEden3 hours ago           Delete Comment

Hi Ben,

Thanks for responding again.  I don't think I understand enough about your views to figure out what you are getting at.

Do you think that all "angels" in scripture were human beings?

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Hi Rivers:

    Will try to state my case a little more clearly. I have been out of town; so, I am a little late

with my response.

    Let us use Daniel and John as an example: two prophets, messengers, or Angels with very

similar styles though treating the Ages concept somewhat differently.  John clearly had a vision

and told his message in a physical presentation and in writing. Daniel also physically recorded

angels in his writings and as objects appearing in dreams or visions. These angels, Michael

and Gabriel, formed a remembrance  in Daniel's subconscious as we would recall dream upon

awakening (Michael rather a role player withing the message delivered to Daniel as he lay

asleep in his Babylon bed -- and dreaming of himself several miles to his southeast on a

river (Olai [Chopes {sic}] in Elam) overlooking Babylonia to the west.The message bearer did not

appear to Daniel except as a figment of his mental capacity. He did not understand and required

another visit from Gabriel (and still yet did not fullyunderstand).

    Of course, we cannot reason the entire biblical intent in the confines of a small blog; to be sure,

understanding requires a much deeper probe of symbols and numbers; for, if you remember,

Daniel is told by the messenger to go his way because the message was not to be understood

until Parousia. This should present a problem to those who think Parousia is still future. Be that

as it may, any messenger can qualify as angel in daylight or dark, in wakefulness or in dream,

on our feet or in bed.

    Actually, John nor Daniel had physical contact with their messengers but reported their visions and

thus became angels in their own important message delivery. I did make reference to Mohammed and his stated encounter with Gabriel in a mountain cave near Mecca. Such inclusion was not to extoll Islam (not

by any means) but to correspond the two accounts as pure fantasy. Exegetes cannot linguistically accommodate an ideation of supernatural correspondence without violating the limits of language

definition.

    We can think anything we want (like Daniel and John); but when we write it down, its description

will be limited to the language defining our intent.

    To answer your question: the only contact we can have with 'angels' is in a physical  or humanist

form; any nonphysical 'angel' can be experienced only second-hand. At the least, yours truly finds

no reason to expect any supersensory revelation or message in either physical or visionary form. All

such expedience is past. 

Regards,

Ben 

Ben,

There were some historical records about the armies of angels in the sky as Jesus and the apostles say so. We can't deny that. I've added a few more information in http://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/forum/topics/historical-records-w...

Hi Donald:

Re: your recent comment and reference

Eusibius, Jonathan, and other futurist writers, speculated a lot. Eusibius himself looked for Parousia, even some 300 years after the fact. What kind of credence can we give this fellow, and others, who speculate a short trip for Temple Deity occupants from the Inner Sanctum to Mount of Olives: Why Mount of Olives? Especially, when such speculation indicates a move from Heaven, to Mount of Olives, and then to another Heaven nowhere mentioned in the legal-historicisms handed down from those days. And where did you say Jesus was crucified?

Any mention of 'angels,' in scripture or the New Testament, carries an indication of messengers, whether it be clouds of dust, smoke, vapor, Messiah, disciples, Apostles, light as 'from' an unsheathed sword, an epistle, or any other indication of words, intent, signs, portends, visions, dreams. or other mental impressions, are but an inclusive use of the word 'angels.' How can we prove me wrong? By what incidence of 'proof' can we determine angel definition to be other than the allowable definition? And if the Hebrew God ascended to Heaven, I want to know where it is. Of course, there is no such place, because the Heaven sanctuary was destroyed in A.D. 70. Heaven definition has never been fully defined by tradition but in synecdochic desideratum -- and with just about that same degree of vagueness. Therefore, who can state the case over Bible vagueness?

Someone prove to me a supersensory occurrence of angel, other than a physical sign and I'll eat my hat -- just allow me a little salt and pepper. lol

Best Regards,

Ben

Ben Winter

Author of: THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified

Donald and any other that might be curious:

The below URL carries a rather weighty article on the place of

Jesus' crucifixion.  http://www.gci.org/jesus/golgotha Apparently,

we will never know for absolute certainty where the event took

place. Too, I disagree with Archaology's compilation of A.D. 33

as the time of crucifixion. We know only that Jesus 'began to be

30 years of age' and can only speculate on or add to these matters.

But on the location, a point of reference might involve the place of

imprisonment  and street taken toward the crucifixion site as a determinant

on direction taken to the place of execution. Personally, I do not find it

important enough to spend the time necessary for such investigation. I do

not think it Mount of Olives, it being a rather steep and arduous climb up

from Kidron in those early times.

Regards,

Ben

Hi Ben,

With regard to "heaven" or "heaven(s)" ... wouldn't we just accept the common usage in the Hebrew language?   The word simply referred to the "sky."  This is how God Himself defined it (Genesis 1:8).   From that geocentric perspective of ancient Hebrew, the "skies" (heavens) included "the sun, moon, and stars" (Genesis 1:14) and where the "winged creatures" flew (Genesis 1:21).

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Hi Rivers:

With regard to heaven or heavens, I cannot dispute your correct though limited application of 'sky'; apparenty you prefer the evanescent visualization in your definition; however, we cannot limit the definition to such pointedly traditional desideratum and 'as as ascendant medium to an indefinable destination for the residue of particular religious personalities. Here, my sense of biblical intent balks at attempts to impress draconican traditionalisms. The word 'heaven,' in the last thousand years of Temple worshi,p (which was also required of Christian advocates, in a last generation projection) was referant to the Inner Sanctum; no matter how much we resist that clear distinction, the definition sticks. Another, more general definition for 'heaven' was up -- from anywhere you looked toward the Temple and its Inner Sanctum, it was 'up.'   This inclusive definition covers any and all definitions -- even futurist ascension desideratum. For that matter, 'sky' lay directly on top the Temple mound. And as to your Genesis references, I have no problem with the up-ness inherent in those expressions. But please keep in mind the specific language used to describe deity residence and where Jesus was to sit on his throne, during his rule. This site was directly atop the mercy seat, between the cherubs installed at each end the Arc of the Covenant. The Inner Sanctum is the Heaven where God lived, the Hebrew God, where Jesus sit alongside on his throne. From anywhere in Jerusalem, the holy site was up, into heaven, to the Temple. We have this evidence: Why contest it? And to what purpose? Christiandom can have its cake and eat it too! No harm done!  However, Do they follow the first century example. If they look for Parousia, Are they not obligated to the New Testament example. Do they observe feast days, Temple rituals, and keep the Sabbath? Is there a unilateral effort. The modernist conception of righteous, unilateral agreement, is a joke. How many can identify their own millennial commitment?

But to the point: Heaven was up; that much we must agree on.

Thanks for participating and Best Regards.

Ben

Hi Ben,

Yes, I would agree with most of what you're saying about "heaven."  I'm just trying to keep the definition of the terms in the simple form they are found in scripture.   The fact that the Hebrew language used the word "heaven" so speak of the sky (and everything they looked upward and saw there) suggests that they didn't have a complicated vocabulary for describing and understanding the things "above" the earth.

I also like what you're saying about how "heaven" is related to the innermost parts of the temple but I also think that would be somewhat too narrow of a definition since there are many uses of the term in scripture which can't be linked directly to the temple (at least not the earthly one).

Yes, we agree that "heaven was up"!

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Rivers:

First, let me apologize for the lack of correct punctuation in the last comment's last few sentences. My editing was certainly lacking. Anyway, I think we are pretty well in agreement on the 'Heaven' definition. Truly, many biblical 'heavens' are intendedly directed to sky things. However, many are directed to the seat of benevolence depended in the daily lives of a covenanted society. Such 'new heaven and earth,' (II Pet. 3:13) predicted in a present tense letter, indicates an event still future to Peter's time in about A.D. 65. Notwithstanding, such occurence was most imminent and was to stand for only three and one-half years. It is fun to write it down as fact when intercepted and then build on these syllogistic backed conclusions. This i'new heaven' was not particularized as part of our discussion but seems an integral part of the definition process. Anyway, enjoyed the interchange.

Ben

Hi Ben,

Where do you see the "new heaven and earth" (2 Peter 3:13) limited to only 3 1/2 years?

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com

Hi Rivers:
Scripture does not specify time frame for the New Heavens and Earth, and which was born on much suffering and trepidation; such time indistinction, as it exists, is corroborated in Daniel 7:25: where, Daniel speaks of one-half the alloted last week of years, in times, time and dividing of time, symbologically of course. We know Daniel was speaking of the end times and of Messiah's 'second coming'. In Matthew 24, Jesus speaks of his Parousia four times; one of the signs of such activity was Temple destruction; so, we know the coming was to be some time after the beginning of his kingdom rule but commensurate with Temple destruction. In II Peter 3, A.D. 65, we find the New Heaven and Earth to still be future. In I Timothy 6:14 ('until'), also in A.D. 65, time frame holds fast (Paul still looking for the 'coming'); however, three years later, in II Timothy 1:10, Paul states Parousia activity already underway (made manifest by his 'appearing'). And in II Timothy 2, Hymaneus and Philateus are chastised for misleading some, saying the resurrection is past already; as well they should be called to account, for the resurrection had two more years of terrible hardship before it would be ended. The New Testament was never intended as a soteriology instruction book. It was assembled (though incorrectly) some three hundred years after the fact. First and second Timothy were not written to you and I; they were written to Timothy. And Revelation should be collated about midway in the New Testament assembly. It must be thereby placed (in time frame) to have been of any use to anybody; though, it is doubtful if any outside the Apostles understood any of it, even if they were so privilaged. And, though we cannot speak positively of any date as hereby posited, we can know of certain historical dates and tie together particular forecasts, events, and historical evidence, we can surmise a few dates and agreements within New Testament writings: notwithstanding,the problems inherent in those difficult symbols and numbers so confusing to prophesy understanding. I do know, tradition has failed the general public with inconsistent prognostications, utter symbols falsification, and wild soteriology fabrications. I am confident this evaluation of three and one-half years, Parousia, time frame will prove feasible with its own witness. Guess you and I will have to set the record straight for all time. lol You were right in questioning the three and one-half years.
If this doesn't read to your satisfaction, then I'm willing to carry the discussion further.
Best Regards,
Ben

Rickeyfred:
Resurrection is a really tricky subject; however, the falsely promoted notion of spirits rising in the air for all to see is a difficult promotion. Are not spirits transparent? How you going to see them? And how can a spirit have soul to know what he is doing? What form must he take to evidence a soul? Briefly, all fulfillment must begin with prophesy! Something for you to mull over in the next day or two: Who was the first man raised from physical death, according to tradition? Did Jesus conquer death by being the first raised from physical death? If Lazarus was truly physically dead when Jesus raised him, then how can we assign the death spoken of in I Corinthians 15? And how could the 'dead past' bury their dead -- when Jesus was recruiting his disciples?
No, Jesus was not the first physical body raised from a physical deadness state! These are all intriging questions and resolutions -- and must be solved not by emotion but intellect, or careful analysis. Jesus was raised from the dead -- but not the physically dead. I will be gone all day tomorrow and have several chores awaiting me when I return home, but I will endeavor to answer your enquiry tomorrow night or early Saturday.
Thanks for your interest, I will probably relearn a few things as I attempt to answer your query. lol
Ben

Hi Ben,

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I think it's hard to sustain the idea that 2 Timothy 1:10 was referring to the fulfillment of 1 Timothy 6:14 (which you assume is a difference of 3 1/2 years).

The problem I see with this explanation is that Paul seems to still be anticipating "the appearing" when he mentions it elsewhere in the same letter (2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:8; 2 Timothy 4:18).  The "future" tenses of "will give a crown" in 2 Timothy 4:8 and "will preserve until the kingdom" in 2 Timothy 4:18 seem to suggest that Paul was anticipating something that was not present at the time of he wrote 2 Timothy.

My other concern with your interpretation is that "evil" was supposed to be abolished at "the appearing" of Christ (2 Thessalonians 2:8), but there is still much evil present at the time of this letter (2 Timothy 3:13) and Paul said it was still going to be there if he died (2 Timothy 3:1-7; 2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Can you reconcile this evidence with your explanation of the 3 1/2 years between the two letters to Timothy?

Rivers :)

riversofeden4@gmail.com