The second coming of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead

[3 Resurrections]

Heb 9:26 - (see post #196), the "end (last) of the ages" came in the first century in the church age, which continues to the end of time.

1 Co 10:11 - "the ends of the ages" is the church age, the last of all the ages of time (earth).

For one thing, scripture never says anything about an "end of time". Only a "time of the end", which is entirely different than the clock ceasing to tick.

If Peter said "the end of all things is at hand" in his own days in 1 Peter 4:7, this was not an "end" which was prolonged for almost 2,000 years and counting. That end came to a culmination point back in the first century in Peter's generation - not in our future.

And you are not considering that the "ENDS (PLURAL) of the AGES (PLURAL)" cannot possibly be a single church age. There really is a difference between plural ages and a single age.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Just read it as written and understand there are two forms of salvation found throughout scripture: salvation from temporal events (like the flood) and salvation from sin and death.

Are you contending that a bodily resurrection for the saints has nothing to do with the terms of our salvation? We are a complete package of soul, spirit and body. God's plan of redemption covers all of these aspects of our being which were affected by sin. The saints while in this life occupy bodies that will die, but they wait with eager expectation to be "delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God". This is to be "saved by hope", as in Romans 8:24.

We today are also "waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23). We are waiting with patient hope for the fulfillment of this in a bodily resurrection process. It shouldn't bother you that the word "delivered" here is used for "salvation". The context makes it clear that the final state of being "glorified" (Romans 8:30) in a bodily resurrection for the saints is under discussion.

It was the same for the saints waiting in eager expectation in Hebrews 9:27-28 for the appearing of Christ back in the first century. These had already been in possession of eternal life through the new birth, but were waiting eagerly for the completion of that salvation process at Christ's appearing when they would be bodily resurrected and "glorified" at His appearing.

I'm not sure why you are battling so hard to make this Hebrews 9:27-28 text avoid the subject of the bodily resurrection, but I presume it is because you would then have to address the fact that a bodily resurrection event took place at Christ's return back in the first century. A fact which Partial Preterists deny, as well as Full Preterists and Futurists alike.

 

[Josheb]

For one thing, scripture never says anything about an "end of time".

Great observation.

The KJV really screwed things up for Christian thought, doctrine and practice fore many centuries because of its rendering of Matthew 13:49.

Matthew 13:49-50 KJV
So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The Greek term is "aionos," or age; not world. How can there be a new earth of the world no longer exists? How can the new city come down from God out of heaven if there is no world, no earth, upon which it can descend? We'd all chase our own tails trying to make sense of there once being a time when there was time but now there is no more. There was a time when there was a time .

 

[Josheb]

Are you contending that a bodily resurrection for the saints has nothing to do with the terms of our salvation?

No.

I am contending the only verse in the entire Bible that mentions a second coming of Christ explicitly states that coming is associated with a salvation apart from sin.

Jesus will come and there will be a resurrection of both the living and the dead and it will be as our sister @Eleanor elsewhere articulated, but that won't be the second time Jesus came. We cannot even say it is the last time he comes if Revelation 21 is after the last day's judgment.

We are a complete package of soul, spirit and body.

You're off-topic. No one is talking about our "package" but you.

God's plan of redemption...

You're off-topic. This op is not about redemption. No one is talking about redemption but you.

We today are also "waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." (Romans 8:23).

Yes, and that is a point of view with which I agree, but it is completely different than what is presented in the op.

We are waiting with patient hope for the fulfillment of this in a bodily resurrection process.

You're off-topic. This op is not about waiting and patient hope and the waiting in Hebrews 9:28 is NOT about the resurrection because the resurrection -as you have argued ad nauseam - is about sin and the Hebrews 9:28 verse explicitly states that salvation has nothing to do with sin.

• Resurrection = an act wholly dependent upon the prior existence of sin and salvation thereof.
• Hebrews 9:28 = salvation having nothing to do with sin.

You may repeat your position more if you like but my reply will be the same: Hebrews 9:28 is a salvation apart from sin and resurrection is always and everywhere inherently and inextricably about the resurrection of the dead in sin. Jesus alone was the only person to ever be raised from the dead sinlessly. All others have sinned and death has come to them.

It shouldn't bother you...

You're off-topic. I am not the subject of the thread and it should never bee assumed I am "bothered." It is, in fact, completely inappropriate to assume anything about any poster so in the future please try to refrain from such comments. Re--word them or just don't post them.

It was the same for the saints waiting in eager expectation in Hebrews 9:27-28 for the appearing of Christ back in the first century.

No, it is not.

Why is it not the same? Because every single word you posted has to do with sin and the Hebrews 9:28 text explicitly states his coming a second time is for a salvation apart from sin.

• Resurrection = an act wholly dependent upon the prior existence of sin and salvation thereof.
• Hebrews 9:28 = salvation having nothing to do with sin.

No sin precludes the verse from referencing the resurrection. First century Christians awaited many things.

I'm not sure why you are battling so hard to make this Hebrews 9:27-28 text avoid the subject of the bodily resurrection...

Then you should re-read my posts and re-read them as many times as it takes for you to be sure. I should not have to repeat myself or be expected to reply to ad nauseam arguments. I'm not disputing first century Christians awaiting the resurrection. I am disputing the premise Hebrews 9:28 is about that one, specific event alone to the exclusion of anything else, and the reason I dispute that is because the resurrection of the dead is inherently and inextricably tied to sin and salvation from sin but the Hebrews 9:28 text explicitly precludes that condition.


Re-read it as many times as it takes because your surety is not my responsibility. You're off-topic and wandering far afield of the op.

 

[3 Resurrections]

. You're off-topic and wandering far afield of the op.

No, Josheb, this is not off topic. I am concentrating on the "second time" Christ made His appearance in Hebrews 9:28. This was what the OP was referring to as the "second coming". I've got no problem with using that expression, because it was the second time that Christ would come - hence, a "second coming". And it occurred back in AD 70 for that generation (as Christ promised in Matt. 16:27-28) with a bodily resurrection for those saints who had been waiting in the grave to be bodily resurrected at Christ's coming return.

Also, those living saints who had already been bodily resurrected (such as the Matthew 27:52-53 saints, Lazaras, Dorcas, etc.) were likewise waiting with eager expectation for Christ's appearing, when they would join the rest in being taken to heaven at Christ's return. These were sinless, faultless saints who were already in a changed, glorified body, but waiting for their transportation to heaven along with the rest who were resurrected at that time - in fulfillment of 1 Thess. 4's "rapture" at Christ's return.

The entire "apart from sin" aspect at Christ's return meant that this time His appearance would not be requiring that He make a sacrifice for sins, because He had already made an end of sins earlier by the sacrifice of Himself, granting us vicarious holiness.

 

[Eleanor]

Incorrect. I did not make such an assumption, and you are digressing further and not answering the question asked. Have you got scripture for the claims made?
Great.
Two more questions:
How then did you arrive at that premise? (the premise of something called a "church age")

I. Age (aion) = a period marked by spiritual or moral characteristics.

II. The fact of ages in Scripture; e.g.,
1) Adam to Moses - characteristic: no given (written) law ; i.e., no guilt of transgression (Ro 5:12-14, 18),
2) Moses to Christ - characteristic: given (written) law; i.e., righteousness by law keeping,
3) Christ to the end of time - characteristic: righteousness by grace.

The particular ages suggested above can likewise be given names; e.g.
1) age of no given law, or pre-law age,
2) age of given law, or Mosaic covenant age,
3) age of grace, or church age, etc.

Therefore: as "Trinity"and 'sovereignty" are based on the import of Scripture, so "church age" is based on the import of Scripture.

What do you make of basing your beliefs about the second coming on an extra-biblical doctrine that causes you to become defensive when asked to evidence it?

1) Straw man - "church age" is no more an extra-Biblical doctrine than are "Trinity" and "sovereignty."

2) Assumes what is to be proven; i.e., church age is an extra-Biblical doctrine.

3) Mischaracterization of my disagreement.

Prove it.
He did.
No, some people read Paul to locate the two at the same time, but many do not and that is why this op was written. You and I may agree, but the op does not.

Then their problem is with the NT apostolic teaching of Matthew, John and Paul, who present
1) only one resurrection, rapture, second coming and final judgment of sheep and goats, and
2) occurring together in the same time frame:

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (Jn 6:39),
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Th 4:16),
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Mt 24:39-41),
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Mt 25:31-33),

What does that have to do with the "church age"? None of that proves the church age is the last age or that the ends of the ages is the last age.

Grammatically it does, and is definitive.

Luke 18:29-30
And He said to them, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life."

Ephesians 2:4-7
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

There is/was at least one more age to come, and if the church age existed in the NT era or a lengthier post-Calvary/post-NT era then the church age is not the last age. Paul, the exact same guy who stated the ends of the ages had come also explicitly stated there were plural ages to come.

The church is and is not the last age.
The church is the last age of time.
The church is not the last age, for the age of eternity follows.

The three strikes are all on you, petty

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

attempts at shifting the burden, and the thread is left with you posting to me twice now but still not providing any scripture for the premise of a church age. You have commendably acknowledged the phrase is nowhere to be found but you still have not justified its validity, especially not for this op.
Just answer the questions asked.
Before you try one more time to provide scripture for the claims made in Post 106, consider this:
the "assembly" (Hebrew: qahal) is Old Testament equivalent to the New Testament "church" (Greek: ecclesia).

Agreed, the church (ekklesia) is composed of both OT saints (Ac 7:38) and NT saints,
it being the one olive tree of the one people of God,
from which the branches of unbelieving Israel have been cut off, and believing Gentiles have been grafted in, and
to which it is Israel's destiny to be grafted back. . .IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:16-23).

Not only are these two groups both a group of people called out of the world in service to God,

It's not about "being called out of the world in service to God,"
it's about being redeemed, from the condemnation of eternal death and to eternal life,
for the purpose of being sons of God and, as Christ's brothers, being joint heirs in Christ's own inheritance.

but when the Jews translated Tanakh into Greek they used the word ecclesia to replace qahal. That is the term the NT writers used. The NT writers were all converted Jews and it was a term the Jews had been using for centuries.

 

[Josheb]

No, Josheb, this is not off topic.

.






















.

 

[Josheb]

I. Age (aion) = a period marked by spiritual or moral characteristics.

II. The fact of ages in Scripture; e.g.,
1) Adam to Moses - characteristic: no given (written) law ; i.e., no guilt of transgression (Ro 5:12-14, 18),
2) Moses to Christ - characteristic: given (written) law; i.e., righteousness by law keeping,
3) Christ to the end of time - characteristic: righteousness by grace.

The particular ages suggested above can likewise be given names; e.g.
1) age of no given law, or pre-law age,
2) age of given law, or Mosaic covenant age,
3) age of grace, or church age, etc.

Therefore: as "Trinity"and 'sovereignty" are based on the import of Scripture, so "church age" is based on the import of Scripture.

1) Straw man - "church age" is no more an extra-Biblical doctrine than are "Trinity" and "sovereignty."

2) Assumes what is to be proven; i.e., church age is an extra-Biblical doctrine.

3) Mischaracterization of my disagreement.

Then their problem is with the NT apostolic teaching of Matthew, John and Paul, who present
1) only one resurrection, rapture, second coming and final judgment of sheep and goats, and
2) occurring together in the same time frame:

Jesus locates the resurrection in the last day (Jn 6:39),
Paul locates the resurrection with the rapture (1 Th 4:16),
Jesus locates the rapture with the second coming (Mt 24:39-41),
Jesus locates the second coming with the judgment of the sheep and goats at the end of time (Mt 25:31-33),

Grammatically it does, and is definitive.


The church is and is not the last age.
The church is the last age of time.
The church is not the last age, for the age of eternity follows.

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

Agreed, the church (ekklesia) is composed of both OT saints (Ac 7:38) and NT saints,
it being the one olive tree of the one people of God,
from which the branches of unbelieving Israel have been cut off, and believing Gentiles have been grafted in, and
to which it is Israel's destiny to be grafted back. . .IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:16-23).

It's not about "being called out of the world in service to God,"
it's about being redeemed, from the condemnation of eternal death and to eternal life,
for the purpose of being sons of God and, as Christ's brothers, being joint heirs in Christ's own inheritance.

Thank you for the effort but I do not appreciate the time wasted.

I did not ask for an exposition of "age" or the ages of the Bible, especially not expositions based on more and more doctrinally eisegetic additions to scripture. I did not ask for an exposition of the church. What I asked for is scripture proving the claims made in Post 106 and you've posted thrice now and still not answered the questions asked. Because thre attempts have been made and all three failed to answer the questions asked I will now conclude you do not know any scriptures proving your claims and the claims are, therefore, scripturally baseless, possibly solely extra-biblical positions held because of extra-biblical doctrine - neither of which I have much interest since the op can be addressed with scripture alone.

 

[Josheb]

Therefore: as "Trinity"and 'sovereignty" are based on the import of Scripture, so "church age" is based on the import of Scripture.

1) Straw man - "church age" is no more an extra-Biblical doctrine than are "Trinity" and "sovereignty."

2) Assumes what is to be proven; i.e., church age is an extra-Biblical doctrine.

3) Mischaracterization of my disagreement.

Hogwash.

From almost the beginning of God's word being put to scroll people have invented views while claiming those views are supported by scripture. To make comparisons between extra-biblical doctrines that ARE clearly supported by soundly exegeted scripture and unsoundly eisegeted scripture is the difference between truth and falsehood. To compare inferences built from sound exegesis with inferences built from eisegesis is to compare truth with falsehood. To compare extra-biblical positions concluded from the logical inferences of sound exegesis with irrational inventions concluded from fantastical imagination is enormously and substantively different to the point calling it the difference between truth and falsehood is unjust because delusion is much more egregious than merely incorrect fact or bias.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not the same as the doctrine of the yellow-tailed, purple polka-dotted Zlagovian quantum zigler because there's an actual scriptural, logical, exegetical basis for obtaining and rationally concluding the doctrine of the Trinity but not for the zigler.

You were asked, and you were given the opportunity to make the exegetical case and wasted three posts not doing so. The opportunity to prove the doctrine of the "church age" was comparably attained in a manner similar to the doctrines of the Trinity or Total Depravity and that it wasn't comparable to the doctrine of the Zlagovian zigler and three posts were wasted NOT doing so.

And I would venture to say you are not alone in the inability to make that case.

Just because phrases have common use does not mean they are valid. Just because phrases are in common use does not mean they have shared meaning, either because Dave's view, your view, and my view of any "church age" are likely to be different. You have got to be able to explain, evidence, and prove your own claims if you want readers to take the posts as veracious. Until you prove the "church age" is comparable to the Trinity you are in fact arguing a false equivalence. You've got to prove - not assume - it's a not a zigler.

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

Tu quoque is just another fallacy to add to the growing list of fallacies deployed when it would have been much easier and more fruitful to just answer the questions asked.


To everyone: I know no one likes it when I post this way. I do not care. If and when I read a reasonable and rational content, I'll affirm it having the exact same confidence with which I criticize and/or refute that which is not reasonable and rational. On this occasion I took a third option: ASK. I asked. I asked twice. I asked thrice. With patience, kindness, hope, and trust (1 Cor. 13:4-7) I asked again and again, and the end is no answers and tu quoque.

And worse.....

 

[Josheb]

Agreed, the church (ekklesia) is composed of both OT saints (Ac 7:38) and NT saints,
it being the one olive tree of the one people of God,
from which the branches of unbelieving Israel have been cut off, and believing Gentiles have been grafted in, and
to which it is Israel's destiny to be grafted back. . .IF they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:16-23).

It's not about "being called out of the world in service to God,"
it's about being redeemed, from the condemnation of eternal death and to eternal life,
for the purpose of being sons of God and, as Christ's brothers, being joint heirs in Christ's own inheritance.

.....we can add a self-contradictory posts!

If the Church is composed of both OT and NT saints then the "church age" transcends both Old and New Testaments! The church age did NOT begin at Calvary, or Pentecost, or whatever New Testament event a church-age-adherent might imaginatively speculate because scripture itself never labels any age with that moniker (it doesn't label the ages).

Furthermore, The OT saints were "redeemed from condemnation f eternal death and to eternal life." That is what makes them saints! The author of Hebrews tells us explicitly they are made complete in us.

Hebrews 11:39-40
And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

The had already gained God's approval. They had not then received what was promised but their hope was exactly the same as ours. They are made perfect in us (Christ and his body, the ecclesia) and apart from us they is no being made perfect. They are, therefore, also sons of God, Christ's siblings, and joint heirs with us in Christ's inheritance. The qahal and the ecclesia are identical. Their existence transcends both Old and New and informs whatever a "church age" might be, but it is best to stick to the language of scripture when unable to prove extra-biblical doctrines to those with differing views.


And I just did what I asked you to do: provide scriptural support form claims made.

 

[Eleanor]

For one thing, scripture never says anything about an "end of time". Only a "time of the end", which is entirely different than the clock ceasing to tick.

There was only eternity until God created time when he created matter/energy.

If Peter said "the end of all things is at hand" in his own days in 1 Peter 4:7, this was not an "end" which was prolonged for almost 2,000 years and counting. That end came to a culmination point back in the first century in Peter's generation - not in our future.

The NT writers expected Jesus' return and the end of all things to occur in their lifetime, seeing themselves living on earth ("we") when Jesus returned (Php 4:5, Heb 10:25, 37, Jas 5:8-9, 1 Pe 4:7, 1 Jn 2:18, Ro 13:11-12, 1 Co 7:26-27, 29, Th 4:15, 17).

And you are not considering that the "ENDS (PLURAL) of the AGES (PLURAL)" cannot possibly be a single church age. There really is a difference between plural ages and a single age.

There is more than one age during time, the church age being the last of them during time.

 

[Josheb]

II. The fact of ages in Scripture; e.g.,
1) Adam to Moses - characteristic: no given (written) law ; i.e., no guilt of transgression (Ro 5:12-14, 18),

Misread scripture.

Romans 5:12-14,18
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned — for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.... So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.


Romans 5 simply states sin wasn't held in account. It does NOT state there was no law was given and it does not state there was no guilt. The law of sin and death precedes and transcends the giving of the Mosaic Law. If you sin then you die. That goes all the way back to Adam and Eve in the garden..... and proceeds all the way through human history into the future until such a time as God decides to conclude human history, or at least the law of sin and death. And He has promised to do exactly that because the last enemy defeated is death. The text to which you appeal does not state what you say it says. Romans 5 most definitely not state the period of time between Adam and Moses is an "age"! Law existed, just not the Law. Guilt existed, just not as measure by the Law. No age labeled.

Which is the problem that started this digression to begin with: no scriptural support for something called a "church age," the claim the end of the age is the last age.






So.... having asked, and received multiple posts that never answer the questions asked but instead provide a lot of unrequested and unnecessary content I conclude either there is no scriptural basis for a church age and the ends of the ages being the last age, or if there is such evidence then you do not know it. I, therefore, encourage you to either not post stuff you cannot prove or set yourself to studying the matter so the next time someone asks you not only have a scriptural explanation but one that will persuade a Dispensationalist.

Why?

Because you and I agreeing with each other is not likely to persuade the op! It is the op that is eschatologically incorrect and in need of amendment. That post you made connecting the rapture with the resurrection in the end is what the op needs. That is the eschatological position all the other end-times views hold in common.

 

[Eleanor]

Thank you for the effort but I do not appreciate the time wasted.

I did not ask for an exposition of "age" or the ages of the Bible,

Which is why you are so uninformed regarding them.

especially not expositions based on more and more doctrinally eisegetic additions to scripture. I did not ask for an exposition of the church. What I asked for is scripture proving the claims made in Post 106 and you've posted thrice now and still not answered the questions asked. Because thre attempts have been made and all three failed to answer the questions asked I will now conclude you do not know any scriptures proving your claims and the claims are, therefore, scripturally baseless, possibly solely extra-biblical positions held because of extra-biblical doctrine - neither of which I have much interest since the op can be addressed with scripture alone.

Works for me.

 

[Josheb]

There is more than one age during time, the church age being the last of them during time.

Got scripture for that?

 

[Josheb]

Which is why you are so uninformed regarding them.

ROTFLMBO!

I'll ad hominem to the list.

Works for me.

Better preparation will work better.


I suspect my dissent was perceived overwrought but if so, it is on purpose because in a discussion board the expectation is people can and will discuss their views and, hopefully, do so in a persuasive manner whereby all may attain the objectives list in Ephesians 4.

No...

...back to our regularly scheduled fray . No, the op is not correct.

 

[Eleanor]

.....we can add a self-contradictory posts!

Got scripture for that?

ROTFLMBO!

I'll ad hominem to the list.

Hogwash.

From almost the beginning of God's word being put to scroll people have invented views while claiming those views are supported by scripture. To make comparisons between extra-biblical doctrines that ARE clearly supported by soundly exegeted scripture and unsoundly eisegeted scripture is the difference between truth and falsehood. To compare inferences built from sound exegesis with inferences built from eisegesis is to compare truth with falsehood. To compare extra-biblical positions concluded from the logical inferences of sound exegesis with irrational inventions concluded from fantastical imagination is enormously and substantively different to the point calling it the difference between truth and falsehood is unjust because delusion is much more egregious than merely incorrect fact or bias.

There goes" neither of which I have much interest."

STRIKE ONE!

The doctrine of the Trinity is not the same as the doctrine of the yellow-tailed, purple polka-dotted Zlagovian quantum zigler because there's an actual scriptural, logical, exegetical basis for obtaining and rationally concluding the doctrine of the Trinity but not for the zigler.

You were asked, and you were given the opportunity to make the exegetical case and wasted three posts not doing so. The opportunity to prove the doctrine of the "church age" was comparably attained in a manner similar to the doctrines of the Trinity or Total Depravity and that it wasn't comparable to the doctrine of the Zlagovian zigler and three posts were wasted NOT doing so.
And I would venture to say you are not alone in the inability to make that case.

Just because phrases have common use does not mean they are valid. Just because phrases are in common use does not mean they have shared meaning, either because Dave's view, your view, and my view of any "church age" are likely to be different. You have got to be able to explain, evidence, and prove your own claims if you want readers to take the posts as veracious.

Until you prove the "church age" is comparable to the Trinity you are in fact arguing a false equivalence.

Nice try.
You would do better if you could distinguish the nature of the equivalency presented.

STRIKE TWO!

You've got to prove - not assume - it's a not a zigler.
Tu quoque is just another fallacy to add to the growing list of fallacies deployed when it would have been much easier and more fruitful to just answer the questions asked.

Petty. . .

STRIKE THREE!

 

[Josheb]

There goes" neither of which I have much interest."

STRIKE ONE!

Nice try. You would do better if you could distinguish the nature of the equivalency presented.

STRIKE TWO!

Petty. . .

STRIKE THREE!

What's the topic of this thread?

 

[3 Resurrections]

The NT writers expected Jesus' return and the end of all things to occur in their lifetime, seeing themselves living on earth ("we") when Jesus returned (Php 4:5, Heb 10:25, 37, Jas 5:8-9, 1 Pe 4:7, 1 Jn 2:18, Ro 13:11-12, 1 Co 7:26-27, 29, Th 4:15, 17).

Why then do you not believe them? And that is certainly not an exhaustive list by any means of the expectancy of an imminent first-century return of Christ.

 

[Mr GLee]

Why then do you not believe them? And that is certainly not an exhaustive list by any means of the expectancy of an imminent first-century return of Christ.

Christ return ? He holds all things together with the power of his living word

Christ the Holy Spirit never left. He will leave like a thief in the night on the last day. The end of the ages (all time under the Sun )

We are still here under the sun. He is still working in dying mankind to both reveal his will and empower us to do it to his good pleasure . Why murmur as if he was not working in those yoked with the Holy Spirit of Christ . The Spirit of the Father

philipian 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings

 

[Josheb]

Why then do you not believe them? And that is certainly not an exhaustive list by any means of the expectancy of an imminent first-century return of Christ.

Amen!

Aside from ignoring the explicitly stated audience affiliations and temporal markers, a person has to completely ignore the implicit urgency with which much of those expectations are written.