The Coming of Christ

[Didymus]

First, let's get rid of the falacy of the "second coming of Christ." That term is found nowhere in scripture, at least not in reputable translations.

It is not that I don't believe in the coming of Christ, I do. It's a matter of timing. I believe the coming of Christ had already occurred.

The Bible is an historical book. It was not written to or about anyone living today. It was written specifically to the people of that time and for their understanding and edification. So, how would they have understood it. They probably thought that the coming of Christ was imminent in their lifetime. And they were right.

II Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence." Peter was dealing with those who who have been upsetting early Christendom by questioning the Lord's promise to return. People fully expected His return in their lifetime.

Now, why would the people of that time expect the return or coming of Christ in their lifetime? Because it was part of the Apostolic message. James 5:7&8 states, "Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord IS AT HAND." The imminent return of Christ was taught by the apostles. My first question for you is this, "Did the apostles lie?"

Now, let's look at some of the words of Jesus. Matthew 16:27&28 states, "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly I say to you, there are some standing here who SHALL NOT TASTE death till they see the Son of Man COMING in His Kingdom." This indicates that the coming of Christ in His kingdom would be in the lifetime of SOME of the disciples.

Matthew 24:29-31, Jesus said, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give it's light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Here's what we have so far; 1) The apostles taught the immenent return of Christ in their lifetime. 2) Jesus indicated that His coming would be in the lifetime of some of His disciples.

But, now we come to Matthew 24. Jesus had just been in the temple in Jerusalem condemning the scribes and the Pharisees, for all their wickedness down through the years. And at the end of this diatribe, Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." - 23:36. Now, when Jesus said, "this generation," do you suppose he was referring to some far off distant generation? He just got finished condemning them for all their wickedness, and then He says, their punishment wouldn't occur till some far off generation. Yeah right. 23:37 established that they were in fact in Jerusalem. And that is where Matthew 24 begins.

Matthew 24 starts with Jesus and the disciples leaving the temple. Jesus showed them the temple, and told them it would be destroyed. They asked this question, "when will these things be ? And what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?" Jesus then told them of unprecedented great tribulation that would befall Jerusalem. Not, America. And, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS, the sun would be darkened, etc. Then you will see the sign of the Son of Man... then they will see the Son of Man COMING IN HIS KINGDOM, not thousands of years later, but immediately after the great tribulation that would befall Jerusalem. Well, that great tribulation did occur just as Jesus foretold, culminating in the desecration and destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

There you have it, the case for the coming of Christ in 70 AD. However, there is much more in Scripture that confirms what is written here. This little article simply is the beginning. However, I do believe this is enough to establish the fact that the coming of Christ did indeed take place in 70AD.

All Scripture quotations from the NKJV

[Richard Amiel McGough]

First, let's get rid of the falacy of the "second coming of Christ." That term is found nowhere in scripture, at least not in reputable translations.

I just had to stop here and say "Well said!" - I've been stressing this point for years. Futurists have brainwashed themselves to believe that the "Second Coming of Christ" is taught somewhere in the Bible. There is, of course, a single reference to the phrase "appear a second time" but the meaning is highly disputable and under no circumstance could it be used as the basis of a doctrine as far reaching and fundamental as the "Second Coming."

It is not that I don't believe in the coming of Christ, I do. It's a matter of timing. I believe the coming of Christ had already occurred.

The Bible is an historical book. It was not written to or about anyone living today. It was written specifically to the people of that time and for their understanding and edification. So, how would they have understood it. They probably thought that the coming of Christ was imminent in their lifetime. And they were right.

II Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence." Peter was dealing with those who who have been upsetting early Christendom by questioning the Lord's promise to return. People fully expected His return in their lifetime.

Now, why would the people of that time expect the return or coming of Christ in their lifetime? Because it was part of the Apostolic message. James 5:7&8 states, "Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and latter rain. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord IS AT HAND." The imminent return of Christ was taught by the apostles. My first question for you is this, "Did the apostles lie?"

Now, let's look at some of the words of Jesus. Matthew 16:27&28 states, "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly I say to you, there are some standing here who SHALL NOT TASTE death till they see the Son of Man COMING in His Kingdom." This indicates that the coming of Christ in His kingdom would be in the lifetime of SOME of the disciples.

Matthew 24:29-31, Jesus said, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give it's light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

Here's what we have so far; 1) The apostles taught the immenent return of Christ in their lifetime. 2) Jesus indicated that His coming would be in the lifetime of some of His disciples.

But, now we come to Matthew 24. Jesus had just been in the temple in Jerusalem condemning the scribes and the Pharisees, for all their wickedness down through the years. And at the end of this diatribe, Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." - 23:36. Now, when Jesus said, "this generation," do you suppose he was referring to some far off distant generation? He just got finished condemning them for all their wickedness, and then He says, their punishment wouldn't occur till some far off generation. Yeah right. 23:37 established that they were in fact in Jerusalem. And that is where Matthew 24 begins.

Matthew 24 starts with Jesus and the disciples leaving the temple. Jesus showed them the temple, and told them it would be destroyed. They asked this question, "when will these things be ? And what will be the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?" Jesus then told them of unprecedented great tribulation that would befall Jerusalem. Not, America. And, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION OF THOSE DAYS, the sun would be darkened, etc. Then you will see the sign of the Son of Man... then they will see the Son of Man COMING IN HIS KINGDOM, not thousands of years later, but immediately after the great tribulation that would befall Jerusalem. Well, that great tribulation did occur just as Jesus foretold, culminating in the desecration and destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

There you have it, the case for the coming of Christ in 70 AD. However, there is much more in Scripture that confirms what is written here. This little article simply is the beginning. However, I do believe this is enough to establish the fact that the coming of Christ did indeed take place in 70AD.

All Scripture quotations from the NKJV

Extremely well presented!

[Charles Wade]

Thank you Didymus for MY first time ever explanation or reasoning of a preterits view of these scriptures. I suggest we only take one comment at a time and argue{legal terminology only} this one comment first.I agree people fully expected or they probably thought that the coming of Christ was imminent in their lifetime, but what does expectations prove? Just like many people expect we only have a couple of days left?
That's not were are arguing. We are arguing what Peter said & meant and it is literal & simply put..............so lets go.......
Since you used the NKJV, I will also


[QUOTE=Didymus;31181]
The Bible is an historical book. It was not written to or about anyone living today. It was written specifically to the people of that time and for their understanding and edification. So, how would they have understood it. They probably thought that the coming of Christ was imminent in their lifetime. And they were right.

II Peter 3:9 states, "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence." Peter was dealing with those who who have been upsetting early Christendom by questioning the Lord's promise to return. People fully expected His return in their lifetime.
All Scripture quotations from the NKJV[QUOTE]


Even tho more helpful,there is no need to start with the prior 7 verses, so my friend lets take your quote and put them in context. Lets back up one verse prior to this one. Firstly, your are not heeding Peter's advice , as he does not want you to be ignorant of this one thing.

KJV© 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day
NKJV© 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
How do you count slackness Didymus? Also, does Peter ask a question here ?.Did He ask:but is longsuffering toward us, no it is a statement

Now we have three key words here:slack & long suffering.

First He reminds those in letter of God's reality of time compared to a humans concept of time.

Then if you think he ask those "but is longsuffering toward us" ? Now why did Peter ask them if long suffering was toward us{them}?
Because God is not willing that any {noneshould perish, and that ALL should come to repentance.

Now my friend this is a universalism scripture as you probably know.If it is in God's will that through His long suffering that all come to repentance then it will occur, Can you deny that? My friend he is trying to tell them to be patient that a day is like a thousand years,God keeps his promises and it is in His will that all repent so they will not perish. So is God's will & long suffering towards them? Sure it was, as to all people, just as the statement says.LONG suffering!

Now still in context my friend the following verses and tell me these things have occurred:

11 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief; when it comes the heavens will disappear with a horrific noise, and the celestial bodies will melt away in a blaze, and the earth and every deed done on it will be laid bare.

You are picking and choosing and way off/out of the context of these scriptures.

Do you still wish to use this first scripture as your sound reasoning as to convince me or anyone of what you have said here:" The Bible is an historical book. It was not written to or about anyone living today. It was written specifically to the people of that time and for their understanding and edification. So, how would they have understood it. They probably thought that the coming of Christ was imminent in their lifetime. And they were right.

See I think they understood this just as simply and literally as it was said in the context of Peter's simple delivery of words,. Shall we go to your next point ? Or do you still think this scripture you used is beneficial to your argument of Peter trying to tell them it was a short period of time as in there lifetime of the coming of Christ, or shall we leave this as Peter saying it is an indefinite period of time?

Indefinite, like when through God's long suffering he will see that all humans repent and and do not perish as Peter says it is in God's will.. Now I ask you. Did Peter lie?
Blessings and peace, Chas.

[Didymus]

Charles,

Expectations show that they were taught that the coming of Christ was imminent in their lifetime. Where else would they get that idea? Certainly not from the Jews, or from the Romans. So, it had to be the apostles, who were guided by the Holy Spirit, that taught the imminent return of Christ.

"But is longsuffering toward us," is not a question but a statement that God is longsuffering toward them.

Where is it written that God promised that all will come to repentance?
Man has a free will, and usually uses his will to go against God. And, Peter was not addressing his comments to the universe, but to the select few he wrote to.

It seems to me, after reading the rest of your post that you don't have an understanding of the two realms of existence. I have posted an article addressing that issue. That should answer at least some of your questions. Here's the link:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2227

[Charles Wade]

Charles,

Expectations show that they were taught that the coming of Christ was imminent in their lifetime. Where else would they get that idea? Certainly not from the Jews, or from the Romans. So, it had to be the apostles, who were guided by the Holy Spirit, that taught the imminent return of Christ.

"But is longsuffering toward us," is not a question but a statement that God is longsuffering toward them.

Where is it written that God promised that all will come to repentance?
Man has a free will, and usually uses his will to go against God. And, Peter was not addressing his comments to the universe, but to the select few he wrote to.

It seems to me, after reading the rest of your post that you don't have an understanding of the two realms of existence. I have posted an article addressing that issue. That should answer at least some of your questions. Here's the link:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2227

Well gentlemen I have realized the tremendous separation of thoughts that occur between Futurist & Preterits. I read your link Didymus and understand what you wrote. I also understand the futility of this argument. You have answered nothing, sent me to a link telling me that I have to accept another one of your views to get an answer.
I wish you the best, but this is a futile argument, so I kindly thank you for the well intention help.But to answer your question as to where God promised that all will come to repentance? Instead of me leaving you a link, just Google universalism. You read right through one in the verse you used.
In His Love, Chas.

[Brother Les]

Well gentlemen I have realized the tremendous separation of thoughts that occur between Futurist & Preterits. I read your link Didymus and understand what you wrote. I also understand the futility of this argument. You have answered nothing, sent me to a link telling me that I have to accept another one of your views to get an answer.
I wish you the best, but this is a futile argument, so I kindly thank you for the well intention help.But to answer your question as to where God promised that all will come to repentance? Instead of me leaving you a link, just Google universalism. You read right through one in the verse you used.
In His Love, Chas.

Charles, you asked in your post before this one.

Indefinite, like when through God's long suffering he will see that all humans repent and and do not perish as Peter says it is in God's will.. Now I ask you. Did Peter lie?Blessings and peace, Chas.

You do not believe that Peter lied and neither do we.... the statement is not a 'universalist' spin.... Peter in his letter said that he (Peter) agreed with everything that Paul (Apostle) said. Paul also made that statement that 'all Israel' will be saved (Romans 11:26) they are both using the narrrow term of who 'Israel' is. It is only a Remnent. There is an 'Israel' (Sons of God) within the whole House of Israel. Paul said that he preached 'nothing but the Hope of The Fathers..... That 'Hope' was Repdemption, Salvation, Resurrection. .... The 'Promises' (Blessings and curses) of the Old covenant were to Israel.. Not to the Peoples of the whole round ball that we call Planet Earth.

The 'church of Christ', teaches that 'Old Covenant' Israel was removed and that 'The Church' BECAME New Covenant Israel. This is a 'type' of Replacement Theology that does not WORK. 'Israel' (OC) was never 'replaced'... She Died and was Re-born. She (OC Israel) was Divorced (Northern House of Israel) and Killed (Southern House of Judah) and they were reborn and re-Married to GOD (Jesus Christ) as The Body... as The Church.
2Peter 3 is about the destruction of The Elements.... What Elements was Peter talking about? He was talking about the Mosaic Covenant WORLD.... The Temple was to be destroyed, Jerusalem was to be destroyed, Judea was to be destroyed.... But on the top of the Ashes of this old Mosic 'World' the New Covenant World was 'Married' to Jesus Christ/YHWH.

Paul talks about the 'Types' and Anti-types', the Shadow and The Real. You have to understand the Old Testament to understand the New Testament. Be a Berean.... be a First Century Hebrew and then you eyes may be open and then you may understand that God is not slack as some may think is slackness and He will wait to Destroy The Old Covenant World as soon as All of His Elect, who have been Betrothed as the Bride have come into the Body of The Church. (And after The Marriage each Christian comes into The Body, each in His own order)

[Charles Wade]

The 'church of Christ', teaches that

Paul talks about the 'Types' and Anti-types', the Shadow and The Real. You have to understand the Old Testament to understand the New Testament. Be a Berean....

Thank you BL... I have forgot what the CoC had taught me & unlearned the rest. That was 50 years ago.
I would like to mention something from a Kangaroo Jack post....Very few Christians understand that the resurrection is past when Jesus was resurrected and which automatically released souls like King Davis & Lazarus {from the Laz & rich man parable or not} from Sheol and He did preached to imprisoned Spirits like the rich man and the rich man had his chance to cross the abyss then, even tho he was not In Abe's bosom.

Paul tries desperately to teach this in Romans six, but it hard if not impossible to to figure this out in the flesh and like didymus says you need the spirit to show you this, I as I also would say.

The funny thing is you can disagree with a person's doctrine & then he thinks you are spiritually blind because he has bought into it, only after the flesh has understood a doctrine after a struggle. So they therefore conceive it was delivered of the spirit, when they finally understand such a complex doctrine as preteterism .He he I never look into this doctrine and what I have learned of the doctrine, all I have learned here on this forum and I cant even spell it.

This doctrine of not understanding the resurrection will stop any futurist dead in their tracks and therefore to convert them this doctrine of preteritism has to be understood as Kangaroo Jack understands it.

There are several things that are great hurdles in this doctrine to me.I know you have heard these before & have probably tried to answer these and I would be very surprised if you could give me any logic or reasoning other than blind faith.....like the rapture cats have.

1. Somebody had to see Jesus return in the clouds before 70AD... This seems to me can not be jimi jammy away or said happened spirituality {do you agree to this B Les}. All others even the angels {matt 24} gathering the elect away has to be spiritually taken also because of lack of witnesses.
Why do you suppose God put in scripture the need for two witnesses ?

2, You have all your marbles on a set date. When John wrote the book of revelation.It all falls here if you are wrong about the time he addressed the audience which many preterists stresssssssssssssssss, it was only written to them...and have a mind like them.....You all stretch it very far that it was immanent in there time.... and many preterists say you have to be enlighten to understand this & I disagree except for the doctrine of the resurrection.

The spiritual discernment is in accepting or denying either doctrine.

And you are not going to prove nor can I prove that Jesus return has not happened, but you have no witnesses...Jesus had over 500 to his resurrection...Looks like to me that the Bible books that were recorded later, should give you @ least two witnesses which is necessary according to scripture.You then also have to believe against evidence contrary that these books all had to written before 70 AD or surely they would have recorded what a preterists takes as blind faith.
1 John John late 80's
early 90's
2 John John late 80's
early 90's
3 John John late 80's
early 90's
Jude Jude, half brother of Jesus 60's or 70's
Revelation John late 80's
early 90's

So there lies our faith & we will know what is true after death. So you be a berean also just like I consider myself one. That worn out scripture that people use does separate the light from the dark, ONLY if a person has acquired love & proves His love by unselfish acts of giving service to others, then will he receive the Holy Spirit as stated in {acts and one other place} by obeying His commandment of Love.
I do not believe in the rapture but I know in my spirit Jesus has not come.

Thx for taking the time for explaining.Chas.

[Didymus]

Well gentlemen I have realized the tremendous separation of thoughts that occur between Futurist & Preterits. I read your link Didymus and understand what you wrote. I also understand the futility of this argument. You have answered nothing, sent me to a link telling me that I have to accept another one of your views to get an answer.
I wish you the best, but this is a futile argument, so I kindly thank you for the well intention help.But to answer your question as to where God promised that all will come to repentance? Instead of me leaving you a link, just Google universalism. You read right through one in the verse you used.
In His Love, Chas.

I do not expect those not in the spirit to understand what I wrote. Some in flesh might figure it out through intelligence, but then reject it.

The key is in I Corinthians 15.50 which states that "... flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God..." This means that the kingdom of God is 100%, completely and totally spiritual. There are no physical doors, no physical streets pave with gold, no physical rituals by which we can enter. If Christ came in this spiritual kingdom, those still in the flesh would not see it.

I don't believe it is a futile argument at all as it is based on truth.

I have already looked into universalism. I have no urge to do it again. It is plain, even in the flesh, that it is false. Not all men have come to repentance, because narrow is the way and few there be that find it.

[TheForgiven]

Here is something for my futurist friends to consider. Some hold that the Kingdom of God is yet to come. Some also state that there's a difference between the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of Heaven. But they are the very same thing, for God is of Heaven.

Now, if we are awaiting a kingdom to be received, then how do you explain this simple little passage?

Luke 18:

15 Then they also brought infants to Him that He might touch them; but when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to Him and said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.”

How can a child receive a kingdom that has not yet come? Yet here is Christ telling the Apostles not to forbid children from entering into the Kingdom of God. For He says,m "Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God."

When we were first saved, we entered the Kingdom of God as a child; a reborn child of God. And having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, we like newborn babies, were fed by the milk of God's word. Thus we who have been reborn, enter into the Kingdom of God.

Now as I've stated, some will try to separate this as though the kingdom of Christ, heaven, or God are three separate kingdoms. But that's just plain foolish. For Christ is of God, and God is of heaven; thus the same kingdom is ruled by the one true God, who sits in heaven upon His throne of judgment and grace. Thus we who abide on their earth are born into God's kingdom. And we who depart this earth, and found in Christ, are in God's kingdom of eternity, in the heavens.

The kingdom of God a future kingdom to await? Not according to scripture.

Now for those who want to say that the kingdom of God is our rebirth within the Church (and they would be correct), but that the Kingdom of Heaven is a future thing? Then they must also explain this passage:

Matthew 11:12
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.

As you can see, the Kingdom of Heaven existed even before Christ, in the establishment of the first Covenant. The New Covenant would be the fulfillment of all that had been written under the Old Covenant, thus eternally establishing the Kingdom of Heaven, which is of God and of Christ.

As I've just shown, they are all the same kingdom; there is no separation or distinction. Those who try to distinguish the phrases, "Kingdom of God/Heaven/Christ", are doing so to their own error and shame.

Oh, and to prove to my Futurists who try to distinguish the Kingdom of God to the Kingdom of Heaven, as though they were two separate things, let us consider Matthew's quote of children coming to Christ and compare this to Luke 18:

Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.

Wow! Same event but Luke uses the phrase "Kingdom of God", while Matthew uses the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven". As I have indicated, they are the very same thing.

Joe

[Charles Wade]

I do not expect those not in the spirit to understand what I wrote. Some in flesh might figure it out through intelligence, but then reject it.

The key is in I Corinthians 15.50 which states that "... flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God..." This means that the kingdom of God is 100%, completely and totally spiritual. There are no physical doors, no physical streets pave with gold, no physical rituals by which we can enter. If Christ came in this spiritual kingdom, those still in the flesh would not see it.

I don't believe it is a futile argument at all as it is based on truth.

I have already looked into universalism. I have no urge to do it again. It is plain, even in the flesh, that it is false. Not all men have come to repentance, because narrow is the way and few there be that find it.

I will pass on the dark spirits that guide you Didmus....I