The second coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead

[3 Resurrections]

The bible isn't that complicated...

Sure, the believers who were closer to those first-century events, with a little wisdom thrown in, had no problem recognizing the significance of what they were told by the Apostles. It is us who are some 2,000 years down the road who need to do a little digging through the history books or archaeology to understand what the first-century believers were already well aware of in their generation.

What really makes it complicated is when one holds their cell phone in one hand and tries to make a connection between the scriptures in one hand and their cell phone newsfeed in the other. In that case, it's anybody's guess.

 

[CrowCross]

Sure, the believers who were closer to those first-century events, with a little wisdom thrown in, had no problem recognizing the significance of what they were told by the Apostles. It is us who are some 2,000 years down the road who need to do a little digging through the history books or archaeology to understand what the first-century believers were already well aware of in their generation.

What really makes it complicated is when one holds their cell phone in one hand and tries to make a connection between the scriptures in one hand and their cell phone newsfeed in the other. In that case, it's anybody's guess.

The Apostles would have asked...when did what John spoke of in the book of Revelation happen to the world?
Their answer would have been...It didn't, so what John wrote of was future.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The Apostles would have asked...when did what John spoke of in the book of Revelation happen to the world?
Their answer would have been...It didn't, so what John wrote of was future.

Some of what John wrote to the believers was future to them: namely, "the things which are about to be hereafter" in John's near future. Some events were past history: namely, "Write the things which thou hast seen". Some events were presently occurring in John's time: namely, "the things which are". (Revelation 1:19).

The second coming of Jesus and the next resurrection of the dead was one of those things which was "about to be hereafter" - in John's near future.

 

[CrowCross]

Some of what John wrote to the believers was future to them: namely, "the things which are about to be hereafter" in John's near future. Some events were past history: namely, "Write the things which thou hast seen". Some events were presently occurring in John's time: namely, "the things which are". (Revelation 1:19).

The second coming of Jesus and the next resurrection of the dead was one of those things which was "about to be hereafter" - in John's near future.

For the Nth time... I have presented you with several quotes directly from Revelation pertaining to major big time events that haven't happened....and you simply blow them off.
So, either explain when they occurred back in the first century around 70AD
Show how each the events were purely symbolic and explain the meaning of the symbolism
Say, I don't know
Admit the events are still future
Or, go away.

From a previous reply...

Where was John standing when hail and fire mixed with blood were hurled down upon the earth......and A third of the earth was burned up, along with a third of the trees and all the green grass......where has history show this to have happened back in John's day? Where???

Where was John standing when something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned to blood, ...and a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.......where has history show this to have happened back in John's day? Where???

Do you need another?

Where was John standing when a great star burning like a torch fell from heaven and landed on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water. The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter like wormwood oil, and many people died from the bitter waters......where has history show this to have happened back in John's day? Where???

Shall I go on????? Where was John standing when....

 

[3 Resurrections]

For the Nth time... I have presented you with several quotes directly from Revelation pertaining to major big time events that haven't happened....and you simply blow them off.
So, either explain when they occurred back in the first century around 70AD
Show how each the events were purely symbolic and explain the meaning of the symbolism
Say, I don't know
Admit the events are still future
Or, go away.

There are two reasons why I haven't responded in detail describing the historical fulfillment of each of those events you have listed.

#1, They are not the subject of the OP, which I am trying to cooperate with as the forum's guidelines for posting

#2, Basing one's eschatology on a personal perception of what has or hasn't happened in history is making one's own perceptions the benchmark by which all scripture is interpreted. This is an eisegetical approach to reading scripture. The language of scripture itself (especially the time-relevant terms) dictates what we are to consider as fulfilled or not fulfilled.

Christ said that some of those He was speaking to would not have died before He returned in the glory of His Father with His angels, rewarding every man according to his works (Matthew 16:27-28). That meant a first-century return of Jesus with a bodily resurrection of the dead at that time.

 

[CrowCross]

There are two reasons why I haven't responded in detail describing the historical fulfillment of each of those events you have listed.

#1, They are not the subject of the OP, which I am trying to cooperate with as the forum's guidelines for posting

#2, Basing one's eschatology on a personal perception of what has or hasn't happened in history is making one's own perceptions the benchmark by which all scripture is interpreted. This is an eisegetical approach to reading scripture. The language of scripture itself (especially the time-relevant terms) dictates what we are to consider as fulfilled or not fulfilled.

Christ said that some of those He was speaking to would not have died before He returned in the glory of His Father with His angels, rewarding every man according to his works (Matthew 16:27-28). That meant a first-century return of Jesus with a bodily resurrection of the dead at that time.

But I tell you truthfully, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”.....then the bible in all accounts steps right into the transfiguration.

 

[3 Resurrections]

But I tell you truthfully, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.”.....then the bible in all accounts steps right into the transfiguration.

Can you tell me what resurrection event took place at the Mount of Transfiguration, as was to happen with Christ's second coming?
Can you tell me how Christ "came" with His angels on that Mount of Transfiguration, if He had never left the world yet at that point?
Can you tell me how rewards were handed out to everyone according to his works on that Mount of Transfiguration?

All these things were to take place at Christ's return, as He stated in Matthew 16:27-28. Christ strictly told those three disciples not to reveal to anyone what they saw on the Mount of Transfiguration until the Son of Man rose from the dead. Three disciples viewing that Mount of Transfiguration vision is not equal to "every eye" of those who pierced Him seeing Christ's return to the Mount of Olives.

 

[CrowCross]

Can you tell me what resurrection event took place at the Mount of Transfiguration, as was to happen with Christ's second coming?

There was no resurrection required at the Mt. of Transfiguration.

Can you tell me how Christ "came" with His angels on that Mount of Transfiguration, if He had never left the world yet at that point?

Christ is speaking of a different event in verse 28 of Matt 16.....In fact in Mark a whole new chapter is started chapter 9 with those words...You can check it out if yu don't believe me.

Can you tell me how rewards were handed out to everyone according to his works on that Mount of Transfiguration?

Once again...that verse isn't about the transfiguration....but, the following verse is.

All these things were to take place at Christ's return, as He stated in Matthew 16:27-28. Christ strictly told those three disciples not to reveal to anyone what they saw on the Mount of Transfiguration until the Son of Man rose from the dead. Three disciples viewing that Mount of Transfiguration vision is not equal to "every eye" of those who pierced Him seeing Christ's return to the Mount of Olives.

Now you're grasping.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There was no resurrection required at the Mt. of Transfiguration.

Paul predicted an imminent judgment of the living and the dead at Christ's appearance and His kingdom in 2 Timothy 4:1. Of course this had nothing to do with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration. Christ did not return then, since He had never left yet.

Christ is speaking of a different event in verse 28 of Matt 16.....In fact in Mark a whole new chapter is started chapter 9 with those words...You can check it out if yu don't believe me.

Are you really going to claim that the chapter divisions are inspired? It is not a different event in Matthew 16:28 from Matthew 16:27. Neither is it a different event from Mark 8:38 to Mark 9:1. The kingdom of God did not "come" with power on the Mount of Transfiguration. That was a discussion between Christ, Moses and Elijah who were talking about His approaching death that He would accomplish at Jerusalem.

It is your position that is doing the "grasping" to avoid the plain meaning of Christ's statement. He also told the disciples that in their evangelistic endeavors under persecution, that they would not have finished going over the cities of Israel until the Son of Man had come (Matthew 10:23). That was a first-century return of Christ that He spoke of before that generation had passed away.

 

[turbomaniac]

Like Saint Paul said you can speak one or 2 times the truth but than let your brother live to his lie.

 

[CrowCross]

Are you really going to claim that the chapter divisions are inspired?

Are you really going to claim that the pause there was inspired by you to translate it as one "sermon"?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Are you really going to claim that the pause there was inspired by you to translate it as one "sermon"?

CrowCross, that is one complete conversation Christ was having with His disciples, from Matthew 16:21-28, which included a prediction of His second coming return . Then that conversation with His disciples ended, and Matthew wrote the account of the Mount of Transfiguration - a different occasion altogether about a week later which didn't fulfill the conditions of the second coming return at all.

In Mark 8:31 through Mark 9:1, the same conversation which included a prediction of Christ's return is duplicated. Then that conversation ended, and Mark wrote the account of the Mount of Transfiguration - a different occasion altogether about a week later.

In Luke 9:18-27, the same conversation which included a prediction of Christ's second coming return was also recorded. Then that conversation ended, and Luke wrote the account of the Mount of Transfiguration - a different occasion altogether about a week later.

It is a desperate attempt to avoid the obvious about a first-century bodily return of Christ by trying to claim that the Mount of Transfiguration fulfilled all those things which would take place at Christ second coming return (accompanying angels, giving rewards to all according to their works, and a bodily resurrection for those who had "lost their life" for Christ's sake).

 

[CrowCross]

In Mark 8:31 through Mark 9:1, the same conversation which included a prediction of Christ's return is duplicated. Then that conversation ended, and Mark wrote the account of the Mount of Transfiguration - a different occasion altogether about a week later.

Yup, and about a week later Peter, John and James standing there did not taste death...as on the Mt. they saw the kingdom of God.

With all due respect..if the kingdom of God reflects the destruction of the temple and the aftermath....the kingdom of God pretty much sucks.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Yup, and about a week later Peter, John and James standing there did not taste death...as on the Mt. they saw the kingdom of God.

With all due respect..if the kingdom of God reflects the destruction of the temple and the aftermath....the kingdom of God pretty much sucks.

That isn't the point Christ made. You are totally disregarding the conditions which would accompany Christ's second coming return which were listed in Matthew 16:27, namely, a bodily resurrection that would occur for those who up until then had lost their life for Christ's sake, with rewards given out according to everyone's works, and with the angels accompanying Christ's return on that occasion. None of this happene on the Mount of Transfiguration.

The kingdom of heaven was not established on the Mount of Transfiguration. The kingdom of heaven with Christ enthroned was on His resurrection day ascension to heaven, and it does not "pretty much suck". With the establishment of Christ as our Great High Priest on His resurrection-day ascension, He was given the crown of that high priesthood, and "abolished death" for us, "bringing in everlasting righteousness" as a vicarious covering for our sins. On that day, Satan was cast out of heaven with his angels, and forever lost his ability to be the "accuser the brethren" because of Christ's sacrifice offered in heaven on our behalf.

The destruction of the temple by AD 70 was simply God "taking out the trash" of those dead, "weak and beggarly elements" of a physical temple system, in order to leave the unshaken kingdom of God and the New Covenant / New Jerusalem in the NHNE standing without a rival.

 

[Josheb]

I don't have the patience to go through all that and respond point by point. It would be pointless anyway because I don't think Biblical eschatology makes much sense in any literal way.

That is completely understandable given the apprehension associated with answering very basic yes or no questions about some of the plainest facts and statements in scripture.

I don't think Biblical eschatology makes much sense in any literal way.

Which implies scripture must be read non-literally and must be read non-literally if the Bible is to make eschatological sense.

• The second coming must not be read literally.
• The rapture must not be read literally.
• Dead people coming out of the ground must not be read literally.
• Dead people flying into the sky to meet Jesus on a cloud must not be read literally.
• The rapture turning into a commencement of 1000 years of Jesus being a king in the temple in Jerusalem must not be read literally.

For the most part, I agree.

Can you at least agree the phrase "The Second Coming" is nowhere found in the Bible?

 

[CrowCross]

That isn't the point Christ made. You are totally disregarding the conditions which would accompany Christ's second coming return which were listed in Matthew 16:27, namely, a bodily resurrection that would occur for those who up until then had lost their life for Christ's sake, with rewards given out according to everyone's works, and with the angels accompanying Christ's return on that occasion. None of this happene on the Mount of Transfiguration.

The kingdom of heaven was not established on the Mount of Transfiguration. The kingdom of heaven with Christ enthroned was on His resurrection day ascension to heaven, and it does not "pretty much suck". With the establishment of Christ as our Great High Priest on His resurrection-day ascension, He was given the crown of that high priesthood, and "abolished death" for us, "bringing in everlasting righteousness" as a vicarious covering for our sins. On that day, Satan was cast out of heaven with his angels, and forever lost his ability to be the "accuser the brethren" because of Christ's sacrifice offered in heaven on our behalf.

The destruction of the temple by AD 70 was simply God "taking out the trash" of those dead, "weak and beggarly elements" of a physical temple system, in order to leave the unshaken kingdom of God and the New Covenant / New Jerusalem in the NHNE standing without a rival.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Elliots commentary:
The immediate sequence of the vision of the Son of Man transfigured from the low estate in which He then lived and moved, into the “excellent glory” which met the gaze of the three disciples

Benson commentary:
Accordingly the disciples saw their Master coming in his kingdom, when they were witnesses of his transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension,

Barnes:
This cannot refer to the end of the world, and there is no need of referring it to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matthew Poole:
Some understand it of that sight of Christ’s glory which Peter, and James, and John had at Christ’s transfiguration, of which we shall read in the next chapter;

Gills:
To be fair a different interpretation...
nor of the glorious transfiguration of Christ, the account of which immediately follows; when he was seen by Peter, James, and John, persons now present; for that, at most, was but an emblem and a pledge of his future glory: rather, of the appearance of his kingdom, in greater glory and power, upon his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension to heaven; when the Spirit was poured down in an extraordinary manner,

Pulpit:
More in your line of thinking...but not quite...
This advent is doubtless the destruction of Jerusalem, which, as it occurred only some forty years after this time, some of his auditors, apostles and the multitude, would live to behold. This great event was a type of the second advent,

Bengals:
And a previous proof of this matter was given in a week[773] from this time on the Mount of Transfiguration; and, at the same time, out of all the disciples those were chosen who should most especially see it. It is beyond question, that those three[774] who witnessed our Lord’s transfiguration were peculiarly favoured with reference to the subsequent manifestations of His glory.

Cambridge:
” but the meaning in each case is the same. Various solutions are given. The expression is referred to (1) the Transfiguration, (2) the Day of Pentecost, (3) the Fall of Jerusalem.

Expositors:
The words of Jesus about the future provide for two possible alternatives: for a near advent and for an indefinitely postponed advent. His promises naturally contemplate the former; much of His teaching about the kingdom easily fits into the latter.—

Meyers:
understands it as referring to the founding of the church, and particularly to what took place at Pentecost, and that notwithstanding the context and the words εἰσί τινες, etc., which, if this view were adopted, would be entirely out of place (Glass, Calovius). It is likewise to explain it away in a manner no less arbitrary, to understand the passage in the sense of a figurative coming in the destruction of Jerusalem...

The above commentary refereces can be found here.

 

[CrowCross]

Got Questions says....The Greek word translated "kingdom" can also be translated "royal splendor," meaning that the three disciples standing there would see Christ as He really is—the King of heaven—which occurred in the transfiguration.

So, lets check it out....from Strongs

1. royal power, kingship, dominion, rule: Luke 1:33; Luke 19:12, 15; Luke 22:29; John 18:36; Acts 1:6; Hebrews 1:8; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Revelation 17:12; of the royal power of Jesus as the triumphant Messiah, in the phrase ἔρχεσθαι ἐν τῇ βασαυτου, i. e. to come in his kingship, clothed with this power: Matthew 16:28; Luke 23:42 (εἰς τήνβασιλείαν L marginal reading Tr marginal reading WH text); of the royal power and dignity conferred on Christians in the Messiah's kingdom: Revelation 1:6 (according to Tr text WH marginal reading ἐποίησεν ἡμῖν or L ἡμῶν (yet R G T WH text Tr marginal reading ἡμᾶς) βασιλείαν (Rec. βασιλεῖς)); τοῦ Θεοῦ, the royal power and dignity belonging to God, Revelation 12:10.

Clothed in power....royal splendor.... is how Jesus appeared on the Mt of Transfiguration.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Clothed in power....royal splendor.... is how Jesus appeared on the Mt of Transfiguration.

NO. Jesus did not yet wear the crown of His Great high priesthood on the Mount of Transfiguration. He did not "enter into His kingdom" until His resurrection-day ascension when God anointed Him in heaven as our Great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. And it would take until AD 70 when He would then come to earth at His return while being the King of that kingdom. At that time, He came with His accompanying angels, raised all the righteous who had died up until then, and gave rewards to everyone according to their works.

What Christ did back then in AD 70 He will do again in another resurrection and judgment for us at the culmination of fallen mankind's history on this planet.

 

[Wordsmith]

The reign of Jesus Christ has no end. This is stated multiple times in scripture. There is no 1,000-year limitation on His reign. The limitation of a literal thousand years was only put upon SATAN and his deception of the nations.

That literal thousand years came to an end in AD 33 with the "First resurrection" of Christ and the Matthew 27:52-53 saints: all of them called the "First-fruits".

Show from scripture where a 1000 year limitation was place on satan!

Show from scripture where satan is non active in our day.

Show from scripture where Matthew 27:52-53 says anything about "first-fruits"!

1 Corinthians 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Revelation 1:5
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,


Show from scripture where the literal 1000 years started!

Show from Scripture where the literal 1000 years ended in 33 AD!

 

[Wordsmith]

And it would take until AD 70 when He would then come to earth at His return while being the King of that kingdom. At that time, He came with His accompanying angels, raised all the righteous who had died up until then, and gave rewards to everyone according to their works.

This did not happen in 70 AD!

Nothing in scripture or history backs up this false doctrine.