Were the Apostles wrong?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Justin

This thread stems from http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...t=25131&page=4

In the recent Pentecostal Herald, there's an article regarding the end of days, or end time (link: http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...2&d=1248308695). In the article, the writer states that the apostles thought that Jesus was returning during their life time.

In the Gospels, Jesus breathed on the Apostles to open their understanding of things. Seeing that they were also hand chosen by Jesus to convey His message, and because those verses regarding the Lords return are God inspired, they cannot be wrong due to the very nature of God. If those verses are wrong, then God was wrong when he inspired the writers to scribe those words.

What are your thought on this?

Did the apostles have everything correct except Jesus return?

I for one do not believe the Apostles were infallible or perfect. The inspired scripture records facts as they happened, but it does not mean every recorded emotion was God inspired.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

If He already came, what are we doing? What's the game plan?

He came in judgment against Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Lord came many times and in various ways through out the scriptures. We have been so taught there is only one type coming of the Lord. He came on the day of Pentecost. (see) He came to our service Sunday,(see) He comes often.
Therefore, for the Apostles and early church to teach and expect His coming during their lifetime, it did in fact happen, and they were/are correct.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by helen_febus

_______________
"The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course
of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its
place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome."
Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

The Trinity baptism and text of Mathew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church
that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of
Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.

God Bless All

Every Eastern Rite theologian would take issue with the statement quoted above. They insist that the doctrine of the Trinty took root in the Greek speaking East long before it was adopted in the West.

In either case, you are correct in pointing out that the teaching itself was the result of a development over a period of centuries.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Bowas

He came in judgment against Jerusalem in 70 AD. The Lord came many times and in various ways through out the scriptures. We have been so taught there is only one type coming of the Lord. He came on the day of Pentecost. (see) He came to our service Sunday,(see) He comes often.
Therefore, for the Apostles and early church to teach and expect His coming during their lifetime, it did in fact happen, and they were/are correct.

The point of controversy however seems to be whether or not Acts 1:11 has been fulfilled. Has Jesus ever "returned" in a manner consistent with the angel's description in Acts 1:11?

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The point of controversy however seems to be whether or not Acts 1:11 has been fulfilled. Has Jesus ever "returned" in a manner consistent with the angel's description in Acts 1:11?

That coming, I do believe, is future.
It seems to me, so many (me too) get some scriptures jumble as to which ones are referring to His physical coming or His coming in judgment, or even other types of comings.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by Bowas

That coming, I do believe, is future.
It seems to me, so many (me too) get some scriptures jumble as to which ones are referring to His physical coming or His coming in judgment, or even other types of comings.

I always thought you was full pret. So, you're partial?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The point of controversy however seems to be whether or not Acts 1:11 has been fulfilled. Has Jesus ever "returned" in a manner consistent with the angel's description in Acts 1:11?

I do not find a problem with that verse being already fulfilled. What part do you see as being in question?

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

I do not find a problem with that verse being already fulfilled. What part do you see as being in question?

The problem is this: Jesus left visibly in body form. If He is too return in like manner as He left... people want to see a body.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

I do not find a problem with that verse being already fulfilled. What part do you see as being in question?

"... this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

When was the resurrected Jesus Christ seen physically coming back to the earth on/in a cloud?

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by Bryan

I always thought you was full pret. So, you're partial?

Not full preterist, I am more partial to partial.