Says who??? One of your misguided professors. That is a lot of hogwash. Anyway the words: "after this I will return and" are James' words, not Amos's.
especially since the first coming had not even been mentioned yet in the verse.
And why does it need to be mentioned at all??? More hogwash. Is that what you learned in Bible College --- call them up and ask for your money back. It doesn't have to be in the verse. It is understood by the meaning of the word "return". You can't "return" to a place unless you have already been there before.
I have no idea how you came up with some second coming of Christ to the earth from this passage. You are REALLLLLLYYY reaching, here. I am still waiting for an explanation of why the church missed this for 1800 years.
The church that had and read and believed their Bibles did not miss it. They've known it all along. But those who think that the sun rises and sets on the mantles of those who teach the Bible but really don't believe it can be easily misled into misunderstanding the plain and simple and straight-forward meaning of words and passages therein.
YOU sadi:
Says who???
Well, I sorta thought it was because the tetragrammaton YHVH was the name of the speaker in Acts 12 in the Hebrew. However, now I see that Acts 15 shifts from Jesus to whoever the speaker was in Amos without a slip, and I (with the rest of the church) missed it. I really am in awe of the exegetical job done here, though.
Anyway the words: "after this I will return and" are James' words, not Amos's.
That is interesting, since James attributes them to Amos. I can see I sure missed a lot in MY exegesis classes.
And why does it (the first coming of Christ) need to be mentioned at all???
Well, I thought that is what you said it was teaching. The first coming brought about the inclusion of the Gentiles and the second coming showed them they didn't need circumcision because the tabernacle of David would be restored and the Jews would rule over the Gentiles. Although I still don't see the relevance at all of this, I was just saying that since this says that 1800 years of teaching is WRONG, I would sorta expect to see some textual justification for it.
More hogwash. Is that what you learned in Bible College
Nah, I got all muh larnin from the Brother Billy Bob's Travlin Revival Evangelistical Show. I applied to Bible school but they wouldn't let me in. Said I had to have an IQ way up there in the double digits to get in.
I can really see from this conversation that I would have to be REALLY smart to exegete like some folks do, though. I really can't even follow the train of thought. I wonder if there were any cretins as stupid as I am in that Jerusalem council? I bet they were REALLY stumped! Must have been the sheer moral authority of James that made em sit down and say "well, whatever he said MUST just be right! after all he IS the Lord's brother!"
--- call them up and ask for your money back.
I did. Brother Bill Bob said they paid a parking fine with it, an it only left them with 23 cents left, and the postage is more than that.
The church that had and read and believed their Bibles did not miss it.
You are probably right. It is just a shame that Calvin and Luthre and those guys didn't read and believe their Bibles, so that no trace of that belief now remains.