You have a valid point....but, when such a great difference is noted one should take notice.
I would say there is no salvation in the Jesus presented above.
It's good imagery, and the themes do match each other. But remember, we have Jacob / Israel who is a type of Christ the Shepherd. Jacob / Israel married TWO wives, and had TWO marriage ceremonies and TWO marriage suppers after working a total of 14 years for both sisters, Rachel and Leah. I believe these TWO women served as a type of both Jew and Gentiles - the favored, originally-chosen one who died in childbirth, and the one not favored who was blessed with many more offspring than the wife Jacob originally favored.
Why would anyone "tie" them together?
No, they are not.
The text of scripture proves otherwise.
ROTFLMBO!!!
Pentecost, the Damascus road, every individual conversion, Hebrews 9:28, and 70 AD prove otherwise. There is one more "final" coming during which the weeds and the wheat will be gathered, for it is apportioned to man to die once and then face judgment. There is a difference between the last days and the last day.
Defining terms differently than scripture evidences and then inventing a label for it is irrational and unnecessary.
Defining terms differently than scripture evidences and then inventing a label for it is irrational and unnecessary.
.And, sadly, the author of this op is not participating much.
Where does the bible speak of the first marriage supper? Surely one of the inspired authors of the bible would have written of that very important event.
The "salvation" intended by this verse in Hebrews 9:27 at Christ's appearance is a bodily resurrection of the saints into their glorified, incorruptible forms. This was the particular aspect of "salvation" which was "nearer to us than when we first believed" that Paul wrote about.
There is a mention of PLURAL marriage suppers in Luke 12:35-38. This is the Interlinear version. "Let be your loins girded about and lamps burning; and ye like to men waiting for their lord, whenever he shall return from the wedding FEASTS (plural) that having come and having knocked, immediately they may open to him. Blessed bondmen those whom coming the Lord shall find watching. Verily I say to you that he will gird himself and will make recline them, and coming up will serve them. And if he come in the second watch, AND in the third watch he come, and find them thus, blessed are bondmen those." If Christ the Lord returned those two times and found the bondmen waiting expectantly, they would be blessed on both of those occasions.
And as has been mentioned to you many times, one cannot have their own perceptions of what may or may not have happened in history be the basis for determining one's eschatology. The language itself of scripture (especially the time-relevant language) determines how we are to understand biblical prophecy - not the other way around. We and our own level of knowledge about historical events are not in the driver's seat; the language of scripture is supposed to be in control.
Are you seriously going to find every mention of marriage...and somehow try to equate that with a return of Jesus in 70AD?
You keep on saying "the second coming" as a phrase is not in the Bible and flooding the text with tons of writing. That's a very bad approach to dialogue. Instead of doing all that, you can just cut down your words and proceed step by step. This isn't ad hominem, this is a fact. It's about your posts, not about you as a person. So, with saying that, your insistence that we admit the phrase "the second coming" is not LITERALLY in the Bible, I am baffled by your ignorance of the fact of Jesus coming a second time in the Bible. If it does not say Jesus is coming back then you would have a valid argument to make but since it does say that, and the fact he came a 1st time too, it is really difficult to understand why and how you have a problem with the language used.Defining terms differently than scripture evidences and then inventing a label for it is irrational and unnecessary.
We (Christians) limit and perhaps even bind our thinking, exegesis, doctrine(s) and practice when we assume labels not wholly supported in scripture or when we use labels without a correct understanding of the label(s). It happens every single day in nearly every thread in every soteriology board in every Christian forum. The problem of ambiguity is very common in the eschatological discussion of "The Second Coming," and the problem can be seen by how much disruption my original question caused. The immediate, direct, and uniform answer should always be, "That specific phrase is nowhere found in scripture. It is a term formed from inference and not something explicitly stated in God's word."
I - and everyone else - can and should have some degree of instant confidence in anyone thusly honest and forthcoming and it is profoundly lacking in this thread. OBSERVABLY SO. It should not take multiple posts to establish the facts of scripture when the answer is so easily and readily obtained.
Once we agree there is not such phrase we must then ask, "What is meant by that phrase, 'The Second Coming?'" especially in discussion of ops like this one because this op has defined the second coming of Jesus in a very specific way, and one that is very different than the majority view held historically in Christian thought and doctrine. The perspective asserted and inquired about in the op is a Dispensationalist Premillennial view and not Historicist Premillennial, Amillennial, Postmillennial, or Idealist. Four of the five main eschatologies disagree with the view asked about in this op! Not only is the view asked about in this op the minority view and the statistical and normative outlier, it is also the newest view.
So anyone holding that particular point of view is going to find consensus only among their own kind and is not going to find consensus among the majority of Christians, especially not the majority of posters in a forum heavily populated by Reformed believers.
I like to set the table before a share a meal with someone
The closest scripture anyone can find combining "second" and "coming" is Hebrews 9:28 and that verse explicitly states that coming is a coming apart from sin. This means we either define our view of The Second Coming to conform to that qualifier or we openly acknowledge from the beginning there are at least two (maybe more) comings and one of them has nothing to do with sin because.....
- the overlaps between soteriology and eschatology always involve sin in some way.
- judgment always involves sin.
- any rapture defined by the premise of God separating redeemed believers from still-sin-enslaved non-believers involves sin.
Therefore, none of those conditions can be a component of the Hebrews 9:28 coming and we must all, therefore, be discussing some other coming. It cannot be had both ways. No one can say, "Jesus is coming for a salvation apart from sin by separating Christians from sinners," and be thought rational, logical, and scriptural. Likewise, no one can say, "Jesus is coming for a salvation apart from sin to gather everyone to stand before the throne for their sentencing," and be thought rational. logical, or scriptural. Likewise, no can say, "Jesus comes first to separate the Christians from the non-Christians, then he comes again to physically live on the planet, and then leaves to go gather his army to defeat all his enemies at the end of his failed reign, and then he comes to gather everyone for the final judgment," and thought to be rational, logical, and scriptural. It is insanity to think that way and say such things!
Lastly, anyone holding the position inquired about in this op attempting to discuss "The Second Coming" with anyone else holding a different view of the exact same phrase is likely to be talking past one another. It will be like a Trinitarian, a JW, and an LDS discussing Jesus. They'll all be using the exact same words, "Jesus, "Christ," Savior," "divine," but using them with vastly different meanings under the guise and appearance of shared meaning. The specific point of view described in this op is not one held by most Christians.
And, sadly, the author of this op is not participating much.
There is no salvation mentioned in verse 27. It's verse 28 that contains the comment about salvation.
Even though I completely disagree with Crow eschatologically and share much in common with you I agree with Crow's assessment. You make stuff up. Associations between various passages are invented and rarely proven exegetically.
When you get elected sheriff of the forum then you can tell others how to post.
All who do so achieve consensus - not just with each other but with God's word.
No, because "the end times scenarios" are not the specified subject of this op. All here know I am always reluctant to digress and on occasions where that occurs my involvement is short-lived, for I will endeavor to explain how real or perceived digressions are op-relevant and no longer enjoin when they get far afield of an op and willful refusal to rejoin an op is demonstrated.
Already done.
No, it is not correct.
As you are well aware, (and have stated here as well), there are many senses in which "salvation" can be understood. I am not "spiritualizing" the salvation in Hebrews 9:27-28. The salvation in this text is in reference to glorification in the final step of the saints' salvation inheritance (as in Romans 8:30-31 - predestination, calling, justification, and finally glorification to an incorruptible and immortal change of our resurrected bodies.) This process of glorification of our physical bodies enables us to be "presented faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy" , as in Jude 24. It is one of the reasons why we were given the Holy Spirit as "the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession..." (Ephesians 1:14). I believe this was the final sense of salvation for the saints which Hebrews 9:28 was intending.
It does in Matthew, where Jesus presents it at the end of the age (Mt 24:3), when all the nations will be gathered before him (Mt 25:31-32).
See Lk 10:16.
That "end of the ages" already came and went, back in the first century. As in Hebrews 9:26. "But NOW once in the end of the ages hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Christ was crucified back then, "in the end of the ages".
The apostles Jesus preaching the gospel of Christ. Having it in respect to words coming from the Father.
I never claimed they were identical! In fact I have stated that no two coming of the Lord passages are identical. I said they harmonize which is far different than being identical. If you disagree show which two are .
