The second coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead

[3 Resurrections]

He is eight. I have had him since he was 4 months. Life expectancy is 11-14 years. If you want to see them in action youtube has some fantastic videos of them at work. They are very athletic. Even by 5 or 6 months he was able to jump to the top of my six foot fence. (He was after a squirrel who had the audacity to run across the top of it.) He has never shown any desire to leave his property, thank heavens. Does no even door bolt.

Oh wow, I did look into some of the videos. These guys are incredibly gymnastic. One of them clearing a 6'-6" board fence with just a bit of help from his toenails. What tickles me is all the tail wagging while they are doing their bite training for an assailant. They are just having a ball chewing on the pretend predator. And the increase in life-expectancy is a real plus compared to the average 8 or so years for a German shepherd.

This doesn't have to be off-topic. I guess we could dig into the question of what people think will happen to their beloved pets if they themselves personally disappear in a rapture. (Not that this is my position of what the rapture actually entails, but I do remember reading one website which went so far as to market a list of pet-loving atheists who will willingly travel to pick up your abandoned pet in the event of your being "raptured". )

 

[TMSO]

Greetings "Dave_Regenerated",

Yes, I agree more or less, but I do not like the use of the word "rapture". I also consider the clouds in the sky could be figurative language. Yes I agree that Jesus will reign from Jerusalem in the Temple Throne with a significant remnant of natural Israel converted and the nations subjected and learning the ways of God for the 1000 years Isaiah 2:1-4, Micah 4:1-8, Daniel 2:35,44 ad Zechariah 14. Keep searching and learning as the present problems in the Middle East could be precursors to the events leading up to Armageddon and the establishment of the Kingdom of God Revelation 16:15.

Kind regards
Trevor

Don't consider the clouds to be figurative. Remember, when Jesus ascended He was received by the clouds. The two men said that Jesus would return in the same way He left, so... in the clouds.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Don't consider the clouds to be figurative. Remember, when Jesus ascended He was received by the clouds. The two men said that Jesus would return in the same way He left, so... in the clouds.

Yep, He did do just that.

 

[TMSO]

Yep, He did do just that.

Says the one who supports a stealth second coming that already happened.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings TMSO,

Don't consider the clouds to be figurative. Remember, when Jesus ascended He was received by the clouds. The two men said that Jesus would return in the same way He left, so... in the clouds.

Yes, fair enough, Jesus will return in literal clouds before he descends to the earth.

Are the following clouds literal? What sort of clouds made their way to heaven?
Daniel 7:13 (KJV): I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
What is a "cloud" of witnesses:
Hebrews 12:1 (KJV): Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TMSO]

Greetings TMSO,

Yes, fair enough, Jesus will return in literal clouds before he descends to the earth.

Are the following clouds literal? What sort of clouds made their way to heaven?
Daniel 7:13 (KJV): I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
What is a "cloud" of witnesses:
Hebrews 12:1 (KJV): Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

Kind regards
Trevor

The first one, possibly. The second one, of witnesses is a descriptor of the cloud, so no. The first one, if one wants to stretch it, could be angels, since clouds, as seen in the second example, and I'm sure there are other biblical examples, speaks to crowds of people/multitudes.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Says the one who supports a stealth second coming that already happened.

Says Christ Jesus who said He would return before some of those He spoke to in that generation had died.

 

[TMSO]

Says Christ Jesus who said He would return before some of those He spoke to in that generation had died.

That isn't what He said. He said some would not die before they have seen the coming of the Kingdom (His coming). You keep changing His words. Seeing a vision of it happening is the same thing. If not, then please explain why Jesus said SOME of the disciples would not die until, but all we have is ONE. Everyone else was dead before 70 AD> However, we have a record of both John and Paul having seen in visions the kingdom. Paul didn't say much on it, but John was told to write it down. Why, if everyone he was writing to was going to see it personally?

If you read Jewish history (I took some time the other day) of the times around 70AD, you will find a rabbi who changed his beliefs, because prior, he did not believe in the literal future restoration of the temple, because he didn't believe in the literal destruction of the temple, as prophesied in the Old Testament. Then, the temple was literally destroyed, as prophecy states, so he changed his belief on a future literal restoration of the temple as prophesied. Also something quick on kings of the earth. In Acts 4, they talk about your prized prophecy, and define the players. The high priests are NOT mentioned, though Herod and Pilate are. As well as the Gentiles and the people (the Jews.) I have a feeling that I know why you don't mention those verses, as it goes against your own interpretation by actually naming kings.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Seeing a vision of it happening is the same thing.

The disciples didn't even see a vision of Christ's coming on the Mount. This was not a vision, but a real physical happening. Moses and Elijah were speaking with Christ regarding His death which He would accomplish at Jerusalem.

When Christ's promised that some of those He was speaking to would not die before He came in His kingdom with the angels to reward every man according to his works, He was not addressing just the twelve disciples but all the people in front of Him (Mark 3:34 and Mark 9:1 - "And when He had called the people unto Him WITH His disciples also, He said unto them...And He said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

Also something quick on kings of the earth. In Acts 4, they talk about your prized prophecy, and define the players. The high priests are NOT mentioned, though Herod and Pilate are. As well as the Gentiles and the people (the Jews.) I have a feeling that I know why you don't mention those verses, as it goes against your own interpretation by actually naming kings.

But I do mention those verses. It does not go against my points. I have quoted from this passage before as proof. And it does refer to the high priests in that Acts 4 context. It was the high priests who were doing the threatening of the disciples. Acts 4:5-6 - the rulers, elders, scribes, Annas and Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all the kindred of the high priest were gathered together at Jerusalem. These chief priests and elders threatened the disciples and commanded them not to speak or teach about Jesus. (Acts 4:15-23).

Pontius Pilate was not a king. And Herod was only a single monarch. It was PLURAL "kings of the earth" who would take counsel together with the rulers against the Lord and His anointed. Herod did not conspire together with another regular monarch against the Lord and His Anointed Christ Jesus. It was the high priest "kings of the earth", Annas and Caiaphas, who conspired together with the rulers of the Sanhedrin to put Christ to death.

 

[TMSO]

The disciples didn't even see a vision of Christ's coming on the Mount. This was not a vision, but a real physical happening. Moses and Elijah were speaking with Christ regarding His death which He would accomplish at Jerusalem.

When Christ's promised that some of those He was speaking to would not die before He came in His kingdom with the angels to reward every man according to his works, He was not addressing just the twelve disciples but all the people in front of Him (Mark 3:34 and Mark 9:1 - "And when He had called the people unto Him WITH His disciples also, He said unto them...And He said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."

That would be John. Perhaps Paul was there as well?

But I do mention those verses. It does not go against my points. I have quoted from this passage before as proof. And it does refer to the high priests in that Acts 4 context.

" 24 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O [p]Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,

‘Why did the [q]Gentiles rage,
And the peoples devise futile things?
26 ‘The kings of the earth [r]took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His [s]Christ.’

27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy [t]servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the [u]Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. "
It does NOT refer to the high priests. Not in the verses preceding this, or after. They are clear, under the inspiration of God, that this is how God fulfilled the prophecy.

It was the high priests who were doing the threatening of the disciples.

Which has nothing to do with the prophecy, oddly enough. This is where your belief is so strong, you have to change what scripture says to support it. Again, I submit, there is absolutely ZERO support in scripture for the kings of the earth to be the high priests. The one prophecy you say shows it, the church itself stands against you.

Acts 4:5-6 - the rulers, elders, scribes, Annas and Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, and all the kindred of the high priest were gathered together at Jerusalem. These chief priests and elders threatened the disciples and commanded them not to speak or teach about Jesus. (Acts 4:15-23).

Again, if you read the prophecy, this has nothing to do with the prophecy. If it does, where are Herod and Pilate in this?

Pontius Pilate was not a king.

He was a ruler. It says kings of the earth and rulers. In other words, I had forgotten about this part of Acts, but when I wrote about the actual prophecy, without reading this, I also mentioned Herod and Pilate, and Jews. So apparently the prophecy actually does literally speak for itself. You are reaching outside of the prophecy to interpret the prophecy. The church didn't , so why should you? And the disciples had just returned from being beaten by them, and they STILL didn't say it was the high priests. Why? They knew it wasn't.

And Herod was only a single monarch. It was PLURAL "kings of the earth" who would take counsel together with the rulers against the Lord and His anointed. Herod did not conspire together with another regular monarch against the Lord and His Anointed Christ Jesus. It was the high priest "kings of the earth", Annas and Caiaphas, who conspired together with the rulers of the Sanhedrin to put Christ to death.

That is some faulty argumentation there. Herod is being used as a stand in for kings of the earth, and Pilate for the rulers. That is exactly how the church is understanding it here. Since you have yet to prove in any way, shape, or form, that high priests are the kings of the earth, going as far as to tell Jesus He spoke differently than He did, all of this is conjecture and assumption, next to people who actually interpreted the prophecy under inspiration of God.

 

[3 Resurrections]

‘Why did the [q]Gentiles rage,
And the peoples devise futile things?
26 ‘The kings of the earth [r]took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His [s]Christ.’

You didn't finish the context of Psalms 2. These "kings of the earth" and the "rulers" would take counsel together against the Lord and His anointed with a particular purpose in mind. Namely, they wished to "break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us".

Did God have any "bands" or "cords" that bound the Gentile nations to Himself that Pilate wished to break asunder? No. These "bands" and "cords" were a covenant relationship which God had with His own people Israel, as in Hosea 11:1-7. "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt...I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them. I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them." In spite of this kindness, God's people were "bent to backsliding from me".

These were the "cords" and the "bands" which the Israelite high priest "kings of the earth" wished to cast off of themselves. These "chief priests" and the elders were also the ones doing the "threatenings" of the disciples in Acts 4 - not Pilate or Herod. Herod only wanted to see Christ perform a miracle for his observation (Luke 23:8) and mocked Christ with his soldiers when Christ did not respond. And Pilate "sought to release Him" (John 19:12). "Behold their threatenings" was spoken about the high priest "kings of the earth" and the rulers of the Sanhedrin - not the heathen or the people.

The Psalms 2 "heathen" raging were the Gentile elements which surrendered Christ to a crucifixion death - Pilate the governor, and his band of soldiers who were mocking Christ. You could throw Herod in here also, since he was of Idumean descent through his father, and wasn't truly considered a native-born Jew - serving as client king only by maintaining Rome's favor.
The "people imagining a vain thing" were the people of Israel in the crowd shouting for Christ's crucifixion and demanding Barabbas' release.
The "rulers" taking counsel together with the "kings of the earth" were the Sanhedrin chief priests and elders, and the high priests Annas and Caiaphas who had plotted to have Christ killed, and whom Stephen called "the betrayers and murderers" of Christ (Acts 7:52).

 

[ChristB4us]

Jesus' second coming is supposed to occur at a rapture of dead people coming out of graves along with alive people who both fly into the sky to meet Jesus on a cloud, which then turns into a commencement of 1000 years of Jesus being a king in the temple in Jerusalem.

If that is not a correct interpretation or it isn't true then what is it?

There is a period of the Marriage Supper in Heaven per Revelation 19:1-10 and so that rapture event which occurs before the great tribulation, does not have Him coming back right away since He will be coming back at the end of the great tribulation when the Heaven opens again for when He comes back with the raptured saints to do battle with the world's armies marching unto Jerusalem in Revelation 19:11-21.

Look at this promise before He left by ascension to the Father;

John 14:1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Where is Jesus now? In Heaven preparing a place for us.

What is He going to do first when He comes back? To bring us to where He is now; dwelling in Heaven.

Like a Bridegroom for the abiding bride of Christ.

This is why from that pre great tribulation rapture event, there are inhabitants, the firstruits of the resurrection, in that City of God for when that City of God comes down from Heaven at the end of the great tribulation.

 

[TMSO]

You didn't finish the context of Psalms 2. These "kings of the earth" and the "rulers" would take counsel together against the Lord and His anointed with a particular purpose in mind. Namely, they wished to "break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us".

It does nothing to help, considering that, again, God gives us the fulfillment in Acts. It is inspired, God breathed, God's mouth to Luke's pen.

Did God have any "bands" or "cords" that bound the Gentile nations to Himself that Pilate wished to break asunder? No. These "bands" and "cords" were a covenant relationship which God had with His own people Israel, as in Hosea 11:1-7.

No. It wasn't that either. That is you reading your belief into the passage. Again, if you read Acts, it is clear in God's interpretation through the church, that this is not it.

"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt...I taught Ephraim also to go, taking them by their arms; but they knew not that I healed them. I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love: and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat unto them." In spite of this kindness, God's people were "bent to backsliding from me".

Ah. Bands of love. Doesn't God have that for all mankind? Even here it doesn't say covenant. Only you are saying it.

These were the "cords" and the "bands" which the Israelite high priest "kings of the earth" wished to cast off of themselves.

You spin quite the yarn.

These "chief priests" and the elders were also the ones doing the "threatenings" of the disciples in Acts 4 - not Pilate or Herod. Herod only wanted to see Christ perform a miracle for his observation (Luke 23:8) and mocked Christ with his soldiers when Christ did not respond. And Pilate "sought to release Him" (John 19:12). "Behold their threatenings" was spoken about the high priest "kings of the earth" and the rulers of the Sanhedrin - not the heathen or the people.

Again, Psalms 2 has nothing to do with the threatenings of the disciples in Acts 4. In fact, that whole section has nothing to do with Psalm 2. The disciples aren't mentioned once.

The Psalms 2 "heathen" raging were the Gentile elements which surrendered Christ to a crucifixion death - Pilate the governor, and his band of soldiers who were mocking Christ. You could throw Herod in here also, since he was of Idumean descent through his father, and wasn't truly considered a native-born Jew - serving as client king only by maintaining Rome's favor.

Um, no. Yes it was the gentiles, however, Pilate was mentioned for rulers, so... no.

The "people imagining a vain thing" were the people of Israel in the crowd shouting for Christ's crucifixion and demanding Barabbas' release.
The "rulers" taking counsel together with the "kings of the earth" were the Sanhedrin chief priests and elders, and the high priests Annas and Caiaphas who had plotted to have Christ killed, and whom Stephen called "the betrayers and murderers" of Christ (Acts 7:52).

Are you taking God's spot to tell us what he has already told us? To impart some hidden knowledge? I think you need to step way back, and reconsider the rational/logical end of your beliefs.

 

[EarlyActs]

Jesus' second coming is supposed to occur at a rapture of dead people coming out of graves along with alive people who both fly into the sky to meet Jesus on a cloud, which then turns into a commencement of 1000 years of Jesus being a king in the temple in Jerusalem.

If that is not a correct interpretation or it isn't true then what is it?

Only that the king in the temple in Jerusalem is far from supportable. In Rev 20, the next thing that happens is the NHNE.

We would also need to know if the "Jerusalem" was above or not, Gal 4 or Heb 12, 13.

The 1000 years is far from settled. It is not mentioned in NT letters in normal language (non-symbolic) about the end. Nothing.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is a period of the Marriage Supper in Heaven per Revelation 19:1-10 and so that rapture event which occurs before the great tribulation, does not have Him coming back right away since He will be coming back at the end of the great tribulation when the Heaven opens again for when He comes back with the raptured saints to do battle with the world's armies marching unto Jerusalem in Revelation 19:11-21.

Look at this promise before He left by ascension to the Father;

John 14:1Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. 2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Where is Jesus now? In Heaven preparing a place for us.

What is He going to do first when He comes back? To bring us to where He is now; dwelling in Heaven.

Like a Bridegroom for the abiding bride of Christ.

This is why from that pre great tribulation rapture event, there are inhabitants, the firstruits of the resurrection, in that City of God for when that City of God comes down from Heaven at the end of the great tribulation.

Based on this Jn 14, there is no 'kingdom on earth 1000 years' which is what all NT letters (non-symbolic passages) say. Instead we are in the bliss of the NHNE.

The marriage of the Lamb might already have happened if Eph 5 is referring to a current wife...

 

[TMSO]

Only that the king in the temple in Jerusalem is far from supportable. In Rev 20, the next thing that happens is the NHNE.

We would also need to know if the "Jerusalem" was above or not, Gal 4 or Heb 12, 13.

Psalm 110. Zion. The scepter spreads forth from Zion. (Jerusalem.) Someone here actually changed the verse to "from heaven" since "from Zion" does not meet their belief. They then spread that to the rest of the passage, again, due to their belief. For my understanding, the kingdom is from Jerusalem as stated in Psalm 110, and it exists solely to fulfill the oaths God made with David, and other prophecies about the Messiah. Jesus returns to Earth (second coming) to save Israel from destruction (proving God's faithfulness to fulfill His promises) and restores the kingdom to Israel for a time. (a thousand years is what we are given in the passage.) In this, God fulfills, again, His oaths to king David. This is NOT "the kingdom" as in the eternal kingdom that sits above creation. This is the Messianic Kingdom, promised through David. The promise is fulfilled once all Jesus' enemies are defeated, to include sin and death. And that ends the prophecies of Daniel.

The problem with saying that Psalm 110 speaks of heaven, and not Jerusalem, is that it says Jesus reigns in the midst of His enemies? So if that is in heaven, who are these enemies? God? The angels? I mean, that is what He would be in the midst of in heaven. Are they His enemies? His reign is in Jerusalem, surrounded by His enemies (as shown in Revelation 19 and 20. ) The other interesting thing I found is that there is a Jewish tradition that places Salem, the kingdom of Melchizedek, in Jerusalem. So Jesus in Jerusalem would place Him BOTH in the seach of King David, and in the line of Melchizedek. David was only a king. Melchizedek was both High Priest and king. Jesus is both High Priest and King. In the Jewish system established by God, no king could be priest, and no priest could be king. When King Uzziah tried, God struck him with a disease in his feet. Jesus is different, being both of the line of David, and of the line of Melchizedek. (Don't ask me where that goes, becuase I don't know, and my head hurts. It's a lot to digest, when researching history, and putting it all together.)

The 1000 years is far from settled. It is not mentioned in NT letters in normal language (non-symbolic) about the end. Nothing.

Revelation simply says 1000 years. "4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of [b]their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." Now you can, due to your belief, say it is symbolic, however I don't see any reason to believe it is symbolic as the verse is given here. Can it be? Perhaps.

 

[EarlyActs]

Psalm 110. Zion. The scepter spreads forth from Zion. (Jerusalem.) Someone here actually changed the verse to "from heaven" since "from Zion" does not meet their belief. They then spread that to the rest of the passage, again, due to their belief. For my understanding, the kingdom is from Jerusalem as stated in Psalm 110, and it exists solely to fulfill the oaths God made with David, and other prophecies about the Messiah. Jesus returns to Earth (second coming) to save Israel from destruction (proving God's faithfulness to fulfill His promises) and restores the kingdom to Israel for a time. (a thousand years is what we are given in the passage.) In this, God fulfills, again, His oaths to king David. This is NOT "the kingdom" as in the eternal kingdom that sits above creation. This is the Messianic Kingdom, promised through David. The promise is fulfilled once all Jesus' enemies are defeated, to include sin and death. And that ends the prophecies of Daniel.

The problem with saying that Psalm 110 speaks of heaven, and not Jerusalem, is that it says Jesus reigns in the midst of His enemies? So if that is in heaven, who are these enemies? God? The angels? I mean, that is what He would be in the midst of in heaven. Are they His enemies? His reign is in Jerusalem, surrounded by His enemies (as shown in Revelation 19 and 20. ) The other interesting thing I found is that there is a Jewish tradition that places Salem, the kingdom of Melchizedek, in Jerusalem. So Jesus in Jerusalem would place Him BOTH in the seach of King David, and in the line of Melchizedek. David was only a king. Melchizedek was both High Priest and king. Jesus is both High Priest and King. In the Jewish system established by God, no king could be priest, and no priest could be king. When King Uzziah tried, God struck him with a disease in his feet. Jesus is different, being both of the line of David, and of the line of Melchizedek. (Don't ask me where that goes, becuase I don't know, and my head hurts. It's a lot to digest, when researching history, and putting it all together.)

Revelation simply says 1000 years. "4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of [b]their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their foreheads and on their hands; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." Now you can, due to your belief, say it is symbolic, however I don't see any reason to believe it is symbolic as the verse is given here. Can it be? Perhaps.

You are against everything the NT is saying on this and you are clearly doing 2 programs by so setting against it.

There is nothing about a distant future when the apostles quote these lines from 110–the ones about the consequence of the resurrection-enthronement. He said the Royal power of the kingdom would clothe them like priests in Acts 1:9. This is A KINGDOM OF PRIESTS. I have mentioned this many times and you blather on like it says nothing. Like 1P 2 means nothing.

Heb 11-13: nothing to see, balk balk balk.

You still refuse to understand or even comment on the imperative kingdom. Your simplistic categories are not in the text (Heaven vs Jerusalem).

 

[TMSO]

You are against everything the NT is saying on this and you are clearly doing 2 programs by so setting against it.

There is nothing about a distant future when the apostles quote these lines from 110–the ones about the consequence of the resurrection-enthronement. He said the Royal power of the kingdom would clothe them like priests in Acts 1:9. This is A KINGDOM OF PRIESTS. I have mentioned this many times and you blather on like it says nothing. Like 1P 2 means nothing.

Heb 11-13: nothing to see, balk balk balk.

You still refuse to understand or even comment on the imperative kingdom. Your simplistic categories are not in the text (Heaven vs Jerusalem).

No. No two programs. I have already shown that there is only one plan of redemption, through Christ. Zechariah 12 makes that clear.

Acts 1:9
"9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took Him up, out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, then behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them, 11 and they said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”"

What you don't understand is there is the Father's kingdom, and there is the Messianic Kingdom, which is the kingdom restored to Israel, with Jesus as the Messiah King. As the High Priest and King. Again, Salem, the capital city where Melchizedek reigned, is, by tradition, in Jerusalem. Hence Jesus is of the line of David, and Melchizedek in Jerusalem. This is not the eternal kingdom. This is the Messianic kingdom promised to Israel. The one which the disciples asked about before Jesus ascended. The one they asked about in Matthew 24 when they asked when Jesus would be unveiled as Messiah and be in full presence. When is He coming (not returning) as the Messiah King. When is He setting up His kingdom. In Acts, He basically says in the future, but that the Father's business was none of their business. Considering Jesus had already said that even He doesn't know the day, that makes sense.

 

[Mr GLee]

Second coming ? Oral tradition? Parable ?

One thing sems confusing .

When did he come the first time and left?

Why did he leave?

Does his Holy presence hold all things together?

How could he leave?

What is the gospel understanding of the parable?

 

[Mr GLee]

No. No two programs. I have already shown that there is only one plan of redemption, through Christ. Zechariah 12 makes that clear.

Acts 1:9
"9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took Him up, out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, then behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them, 11 and they said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”"

What you don't understand is there is the Father's kingdom, and there is the Messianic Kingdom, which is the kingdom restored to Israel, with Jesus as the Messiah King. As the High Priest and King. Again, Salem, the capital city where Melchizedek reigned, is, by tradition, in Jerusalem. Hence Jesus is of the line of David, and Melchizedek in Jerusalem. This is not the eternal kingdom. This is the Messianic kingdom promised to Israel. The one which the disciples asked about before Jesus ascended. The one they asked about in Matthew 24 when they asked when Jesus would be unveiled as Messiah and be in full presence. When is He coming (not returning) as the Messiah King. When is He setting up His kingdom. In Acts, He basically says in the future, but that the Father's business was none of their business. Considering Jesus had already said that even He doesn't know the day, that makes sense.

One kingdom of the Father the Mesiah the Holy Father He named His bride Christian in Acts, a name to represent the virgin bride of all the nations as kingdoms of the world

Not all of Isreal became born again Israel, some remained after Jacob the deceiver. . no power of Christ's living words working in him with him . Jacob had no let there be power showing the good power of Christ's faithfulness. Power does not come from dying mankind leading toward the final appointment death never to rise to new spirit life. They are strengthened by spirit of all truth. a. labor of love

Romans 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

In that way Satan the father of lies takes away the unseen spiritual understanding of faith (power to believe) and gives it to the temporal historical things seen (no faith) Out of sight out of mind. .fools