Continuing the Endless Discussion between GDR and traditional Protestantism

Well OK. But it is judgement from the POV that when nations do stupid things like Israel did in 66 AD things don't go well. Jesus was warning them against that. I don't recognize it because it isn't there.If it were about end times and an action by God then why would Jesus say that they should escape Judea and head into the hills to hide. Is He saying that God wouldn't find them there? Why would it matter that it was winter, or that women were pregnant. Why would you be handed over and flogged. I could go on. These things would really matter if they were under siege by the Romans, but hardly if is about Jesus' return. It is anything but mundane. It isn't about being confirmed as the messiah it is about being enthroned as part of the godhead and given dominion over all nations.If we take it as an actual cloud then it is meaningless, but when we understand it as Mark intended, that Jesus' resurrected body left to be in the presence of God it has incredible meaning. Yes, Jesus did have an eschatological message but thi isn't it. It was about what the Romans represented and Jesus is saying that a militant violent rebellion was wrong and if you fight evil with evil then evil is bound to win. Just read the parable of the good Samaritan or Matthew 25, or when we are told by Matthew that it is those that "do" the will of the Father and not just those who recognize Him as Lord.

One other thing that I forgot to mention. We agree that is highly likely that Luke and Acts share a common author. There is one account of the so-called ascension at the end of Luke and another at the beginning of Acts which ties them together.
This is from Luke 24 Then this is from Acts 1 In the Gospel He tells it simply, and in Acts he employs hyperbole. He is saying the same in both in that He left them to be in the presence of God.

But He says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the rebellion against Rome, Zip, Nada, Nothing. He warns that judgment is coming, that's all. He says the temple is going to be destroyed. He says they need to get out of the city. There is NOTHING in anything He says about the reason the Romans are coming. You are reading that into it. It's not there.

Sorry, there's some confusion here. I'm not saying this part of the discourse is about the end times, it's just about the Roman destruction of 70AD and my only point about that is that I don't see anything in Jesus' message about the reason for the attack, just a warning about the attack itself and that they need to leave the city to be safe. That's all, nothing about the rebellion that is the cause of the attack that you are saying is Jesus' main message, how such rebellion is a bad idea, nothing at all along those lines. They would no doubt be aware that the Romans are coming to quell the rebellion anyway but Jesus is saying absolutely nothing about that.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'll respond to what you actually said.Edited by GDR, : Misread Faith's message

I'm utterly lost, GDR, how about you giving a quote or something so I'll have some idea what you are referring to.

You are suggesting that since Luke doesn't mention the cloud in both references that there wasn't a cloud? We know Jesus was received into heaven but that doesn't mean there wasn't an actual cloud that they saw with their two eyes and that when jesus returns there will also be a visible cloud. This is a meaningless distinction you are making.

The Romans have a good thing going. They are taxing them to death and they are in complete control. It is clear when Jesus says to go the extra mile, turn the other cheek and love your enemy they would know that even though this is not just about the Romans but it would certainly apply to them.The Romans are not going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Jesus's listeners would know that he was talking about the Roman response to rebellion. That message is all the way through the Gospels.

But again what is meaningless is this silly distinction you insist on making. Nobody doubts that Jesus went into heaven, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a literal visible cloud that He disappeared into.

It actually does make a difference if getting it right actually matters. If it was just about there being an actual cloud that He left in without then stretching that into how He would return then who cares.However, you have drawn out of that a whole end times scenario that just isn't there.Also what is important is that He left into the presence of God. The only reason why you hang on to it being an actual cloud is that you need it to be to support your way of understanding the Scriptures, and as so often happens it leads to a complete misunderstanding of what the point is that the writer is trying to make.

But it means more than that. It isn't just that He went into God's heavenly dimension but the writer is saying that the metaphorical cloud is also tied to the metaphorical cloud in Daniel 7. It is about Jesus, the Son of Man being presented to God, the Ancient of Days.If you worry about it being an actual cloud then the whole point of what is intended to be understood. is going to be missed

So what do you think the disciples actually saw when Jesus ascended to the Father? Did they look up at all? Was He standing there talking to them and just suddenly went "poof" and disappeared? You deny that "up" means "up" and you deny that they saw a real cloud, though that is what the words of the passage clearly say they saw. So what on earth do you think they saw?If He just suddenly disappeared why wouldn't that be said? He DID just disappear suddenly after talking to the men He met on the Road to Emmaus. Just suddenly went poof and disappeared. Same thing when Philip was suddenly transported to talk to the Ethiopian eunuch. So if that happened it would have been described. But instead the scripture says they saw Jesus rise UP and disappear into a CLOUD. You say that's metaphorical. Well we know He went into heaven, another dimension, but that doesn't make "up" or the cloud metaphorical. What on EARTH are you talking about?OK all you mean is that heaven isn't necessarily up but somehow you make the real "up" and the real "cloud" intp something they aren't just to make that simple point. I don't have much more hair to tear out so I think I'll just chew on my fingers or something.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sorry that you have been suspended Faith and I pray that you will be able to avoid the virus.I'll answer your post though.I have no idea what they saw. He isn't writing about what they literally saw. He is simply saying that after the roughly 40 day period after the resurrection that Jesus went to be with the Father. He wrote in such way that it resonated with Daniel 7.In other cases as after the His time with the 2 on the road to Emmaus, it is said that He did just disappear.Hopefully your hair grows back quickly.