The second coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead

[Wordsmith]

I can answer all of these from historical record of first-century times (lots of literal events, and some symbolic), but it would detract from the OP.

No, doing so would not distract from the OP. If you have all of this proof it would support the OP.

Let's see the beef !

 

[CrowCross]

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.

I was presenting commentary views....none of them spoke as if Jesus returned "literally" in AD 70.

Reading scripture
Reading history
Reading from learned theologians......none of it presents Jesus as coming back literally in AD 70.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Reading from learned theologians......none of it presents Jesus as coming back literally in AD 70.

Funny, it was the "learned theologians" of Christ's day which had things twisted from what God intended. "Great men are not always wise".

Reading scripture
Reading history

This is what I have done exhaustively for the last twelve years. I wish I had started earlier than that, but at this point, that can't be helped. And it all leads to a bodily return of Christ on Pentecost day in AD 70 with a resurrection event staged on that day at dusk from the Mount of Olives location.

 

[3 Resurrections]

No, doing so would not distract from the OP. If you have all of this proof it would support the OP.

Let's see the beef !

I can show you the "beef" in a different post. This post is about "ham".

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

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.

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?

I fail to see how the phrase "the second coming" not being in the Bible has any bearing on anything I originally wrote in the OP. Can you clarify that point please? Why does the actual phrase not being in the Bible have applicability to anything I said?

 

[Josheb]

I fail to see how the phrase "the second coming" not being in the Bible has any bearing on anything I originally wrote in the OP. Can you clarify that point please?
Why does the actual phrase not being in the Bible have applicability to anything I said?

Failure to see is not a problem on my end of the conversation and yes I can clarify what I posted. It matters because doctrines have been formed throughout Christian history that add to scripture and aren't wholly consistent with whole scripture. The modern futurist view of The Second Coming is one of them. In addition, a good way to recognize someone holding scripturally exegetical doctrine, thinking rationally about doctrine, and able to have a cogent conversation about doctrine is to verify whether or not they can and will agree to the very most basic facts of scripture.

For example, I KNOW I can never have a cogent conversation with someone who argues scripture does state there is The Second Coming stated in scripture but who also refuses to evidence their claim. Conversely, I know I might be able to have a cogent conversation with someone who openly and immediately directly states, "The phrase isn't found anywhere in scripture" and doesn't hide behind, "but it's in there" unless they are also honest and forthcoming with how the position is reached.... "The exact phrase is not in scripture, but it is a position arrived at through a specific inferential reading of various statements that are found in scripture."

I've spent decades (literally) asking Dispensationalists and Zionists where scripture explicitly states another temple of stone will be built and less than five have ever thought to be immediately direct, honest and forthcoming. I've done the same with Trinitarians and hundreds of them have been immediately direct, honest, and forthcoming. Itis telling.


The actual phrase is applicable because and discussion of "the second coming" ought to start with honest and forthcoming acknowledgment of the facts of scripture, beginning with the fact the concept "The Second Coming" is a post-scripture invention. That does not mean it does not have veracity, but it is the place to start. It is applicable to what was posted because different end times views hold different views of the second coming and the opening posts is decidedly specific. Most of Christendom has not historically held the second coming of Christ occurs "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." So when the op then asks, "If that is not a correct interpretation or it isn't true then what is it?" the answer most Christians will give is, "No, that's not what Christianity has historically held to be true, orthodox, or mainstream. That particular view is on held by one particular end time view that was literally invented late in Christian history in the 19th century."

Furthermore, depending on how a person or a doctrine defines a "coming," scripture can and should be read to show Jesus come many times in many ways for many reasons or purposes. That has been the historical position of the Church, especially in the early days of the Church and among Protestant theology. Jesus came in the form of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. He comes and dwells within each convert at the time of their conversion. I he came to Saul on the Damascus road, struck him blind, knocked him off his donkey, and spoke to him personally. We also know Jesus was said to be coming a second time for a salvation apart from sin and most of futurist eschatology has him coming to deal with sin and save some from it. Their second coming directly conflicts and fails to reconcile with Hebrew 9:28 (the only time in scripture we actually find the word "second" explicitly attached to his coming). He came in judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and, although the canon of scripture has been closed we can reasonably argue he has come in other ways throughout history. Therefore, a better term to use - and what most Christians mean when using the phrase "Second Coming," is "Final Coming." Even among Premillennialists there is a huge distinction between Historicists (the oldest pov) and Dispensationalists (the infant of the povs) because the former teach the rapture and the millennium coming co-occur and the latter say they are separated (by either seven or three-and-a-half) years. In Dispensationalism, Jesus comes a second time but only in the air to rapture away Christians, and then he returns - coming all the way to earth physically, to live here and reign for one thousand literal years - but he fails and rebellion overtakes his reign, so he has to come back to kill all the rebels a second time before concluding everything with a final judgment. The Dispensational view is, comparatively, rather messy. The Amils, the Postmils, and many Idealists, look for a single final coming when God concludes the current age, gathers everyone together, saved and unsaved, and mete's out the recompence for sin or life in Christ. These are vastly different views of a doctrine whose label is never actually explicitly stated anywhere in the Bible.



That is why it is applicable to anything you said. Care to discuss it? If so, then I look forward to an unequivocal, direct, immediate acknowledgment the phrase is nowhere found in scripture .

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

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

I fail to see how the phrase "the second coming" not being in the Bible has any bearing on anything I originally wrote in the OP. Can you clarify that point please? Why does the actual phrase not being in the Bible have applicability to anything I said?

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

 

[Wordsmith]

I can show you the "beef" in a different post. This post is about "ham".

Please explain how your claim that Jesus returned in 70AD and the resurrection happened then does not fit the OP?

 

[3 Resurrections]

Please explain how your claim that Jesus returned in 70AD and the resurrection happened then does not fit the OP?

The passage that CrowCross was pressing me for an explanation was the Revelation chapter 8 context of the first 4 trumpet judgments. This is another subject than Christ Jesus bodily returning in AD 70 and the resurrection He performed for the saints who had died up to that point, (which is connected to the actual subject of this post).

 

[Josheb]

Please explain how your claim that Jesus returned in 70AD and the resurrection happened then does not fit the OP?

???

Why would his view need to fit the OP if the OP is incorrect?

 

[Eleanor]

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 no 1000 years being king in the temple of Jerusalem.
The resurrection, rapture, second coming and judgment all in the last day is the end of it all.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There is no 1000 years being king in the temple of Jerusalem.

Got that right, there certainly isn't.

The resurrection, rapture, second coming and judgment all in the last day is the end of it all.

Got that right too. Which is why Peter wrote in 1 Peter 4:7, "But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." Peter was urging the saints at that time to prepare for all those things coming to pass in their days.

 

[CrowCross]

Funny, it was the "learned theologians" of Christ's day which had things twisted from what God intended. "Great men are not always wise".

What makes you so wise???

All you have is made up conjecture...that doesn't even fit the context.

Would you like to go over the events that didn't happen yet again?

This is what I have done exhaustively for the last twelve years. I wish I had started earlier than that, but at this point, that can't be helped. And it all leads to a bodily return of Christ on Pentecost day in AD 70 with a resurrection event staged on that day at dusk from the Mount of Olives location.

The Holy Spirit was mentioned on the day of pentecost.....not Jesus the second of the trinity.

 

[CrowCross]

There is no 1000 years being king in the temple of Jerusalem.
The resurrection, rapture, second coming and judgment all in the last day is the end of it all.

Have you ever noticed how the rapture fits into the jewish marriage narrative ? I have.

 

[jeremiah1five]

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?

Jesus returns the same way He ascended: One Time.

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? 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.
Acts 1:11.

Jesus did not ascend, stay in the air 3 1/2 years, and then go to His Father.

He ascended in one motion straight to His Father, and "in like manner" will return, in one straight movement.

There is no rapture. The Gentile Church will go through the Time of Jacob's Trouble along with Israel. Together.

I also tend to believe the Gentile Church will be set against Israel. Jealousy.


Behold, the day of the LORD cometh,
And thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle;
And the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and ethe women ravished;
And half of the city shall go forth into captivity,
And the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations,
As when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives,
Which is before Jerusalem on the east,
And the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west,
And there shall be a very great valley;
And half of the mountain shall remove toward the north,
And half of it toward the south.
Zech. 14:1–4.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The Holy Spirit was mentioned on the day of pentecost.....not Jesus the second of the trinity.

Pentecost was an annual event in Israel - not just in the book of Acts. I specifically said Pentecost day in AD 70 for Christ's return. I arrive at this date like anyone else can do by counting down the prophesied 1,335 days in Daniel 12:11-13 from those two critical events taking place together in the same season back in AD 66. Exactly 1,335 days later, Daniel was able to participate in a resurrection event at Christ's return by the time God had "shattered the power of the holy people".

 

[Wordsmith]

???

Why would his view need to fit the OP if the OP is incorrect?

Dave - Regenerated said in the OP: "If that is not a correct interpretation or it isn't true then what is it?"

Dave asked a question which 3 Resurrections attempts to answer with a claim and no historical proof.

Any response to the OP's question should be accompanied by some kind of evidence which would only be appropriate to answer the OP's question and not detract from the OP

It seems at least 3 times in this thread 3 resurrections said he had proof but could not share it on this thread. I see no harm nor foul in offering proof to answer the OP's question, that is if there is any said proof.

 

[CrowCross]

Jesus did not ascend, stay in the air 3 1/2 years, and then go to His Father.

He ascended in one motion straight to His Father, and "in like manner" will return, in one straight movement.

There is no rapture. The Gentile Church will go through the Time of Jacob's Trouble along with Israel. Together.

YIKES!!!! Major flaws in that.

For starters we didn't see Jesus ascend anything like His "in like matter" return describes.

There was no white horse. You can read the rest starting at verse 11.
It should be pretty obvious the rapture described in 1 Thes 4:16ish isn't the Rev 19 account.

 

[CrowCross]

Pentecost was an annual event in Israel - not just in the book of Acts. I specifically said Pentecost day in AD 70 for Christ's return. I arrive at this date like anyone else can do by counting down the prophesied 1,335 days in Daniel 12:11-13 from those two critical events taking place together in the same season back in AD 66. Exactly 1,335 days later, Daniel was able to participate in a resurrection event at Christ's return by the time God had "shattered the power of the holy people".

You'll need to present a bit more.....show some sort of time line.

Which temple?

What I find on the verse is this...and this in point 5

 

[3 Resurrections]

What I find on the verse is this...and this in point 5

Too many mistakes to count in those links. Very messed up. Calling Jesus the Messiah the same as the Antichrist is a gross misunderstanding of the Daniel text. Mixing up where in history the number 1260 applies...throwing an invented 7 year tribulation into the mix...a millennium staged after Christ returns when it expired long ago according to John...this is all garbled nonsense - the same as I grew up with for many years until I read the scriptures myself concerning these things and found the flaws

It seems at least 3 times in this thread 3 resurrections said he had proof but could not share it on this thread. I see no harm nor foul in offering proof to answer the OP's question, that is if there is any said proof.

There is no problem with my discussing the timing for the second coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead on this post. But there is a problem with bringing up a discussion of Revelation 8 and those first 4 trumpet judgments, which are not related to the subject of this post. That Revelation 8 subject is what I said I had historical references for, but could not share on this post.

 

[Josheb]

Dave - Regenerated said in the OP: "If that is not a correct interpretation or it isn't true then what is it?" Dave asked a question which 3 Resurrections attempts to answer with a claim and no historical proof. Any response to the OP's question should be accompanied by some kind of evidence which would only be appropriate to answer the OP's question and not detract from the OP.

And what was my answer to the OP's inquiry?

It seems at least 3 times in this thread 3 resurrections said he had proof but could not share it on this thread.

Keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. Baseless claims are just that - baseless - and should be treated accordingly. Yes?

I see no harm nor foul in offering proof to answer the OP's question, that is if there is any said proof.

Neither do I see any such problem, but neither do I think the OP's statements about the rapture and ensuing events is correct. The interpretation posted in the op is just one of a handful of views and it is a view that is the newest and most debated in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. It is also a view built on a plethora of exegetical errors that can be objectively demonstrated and verified by anyone with an openness and willingness to examine the evidence. While I, as a partial-preterist, share some of the preterist views posted in this thread, I do not share all of the and I find some of them, well, in a word, wack; highly speculative and lacking exegetical sufficiency.

But I am not willing to hijack the thread and turn it into a debate on things not stated in the OP or participate in the practice thereof.