Second Coming

[_The Nehor]

Some have tried to interpret the Pentecostal outpouring of Spirit as the Second Coming but if you interpret it that way then you have to accept that Peter and Paul at least had no idea what was going on.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello All,

I had an idea about something after reading a thread on MAD and I'm trying it out on a few different communities. It doesn't matter if you personally believe the Bible to answer this...but theologically speaking...


If we look at the Revelation as a "near" prophecy and only a near prophecy, not the "shadow" of some future event...

And if we look at the words of Christ about his return...let's say Matthew 24...

And place it all in the same time frame...

Can't we not rightly say that the Second Coming took place after Christ was resurrected?


Jersey Girl

I am not sure why you would think this. It certainly does not fit with any interpretation of second coming scripture in Christianity that I am aware of. Plus Revelation was not written till at least 60 years after Jesus' death.

How do you know that it wasn't written until at least 60 years after Jesus' death?

How did you determine this?

And what date do you place on the Revelation?

[_Jersey Girl]

You are taking the excerpt of Matthew 24 out of context. You are ignoring the obvious prediction of the Temple destruction made by Christ himself in the beginning of the chapter. You are likewise ignoring the correlation to Revelation in which the author himself gives clear indications that the Revelation is a "near" prophecy and that the historical record shows that a great tribulation did occur.

First of all Jersey, I don't think I believe this stuff anyway.

Regardless, the words "end of the world" mean just that. Taken literally, it just hasn't happened yet. Neither has the gospel been preached throughout the world. Not a big deal. When it happens, it happens. It will have nothing to do with me, and quite frankly, I hope I'm not around if/when it does happen.

Who wants to witness a kind and loving ("forgive them for they know not what they do..") savior drenched in the blood of His enemies? I just don't have that kind of heart or stomach to desire to see that fulfilled. He can have it.

Anyway, why wait? Why be so nuclear about the whole thing? Wouldn't it be nice if he showed up on a regular basis rather than come during the chaos and throw all the chess peices all over the floor?

I think I stated in the OP (or maybe not) that one need not be a Bible believer to engage in thought on this topic. It's not a witnessing thread, it's (if you will) a study of a piece of literature.

Now...if you're still interested in the thread...

Define "world" as in "end of the world"

And tell me why you extracted a portion of scripture that begins with Jesus standing outside of the Temple, telling the disciples that the area would be destroyed....

then decide that the rest of the scene has to do with some future event?

[_Jersey Girl]

Here's another wrench to throw into the works...

Why would John use a Gematria code if the Revelation was ONLY written for some future generation?

[_Jersey Girl]

Please clarify. It seems the Revelation you are referring to is Matthew 24 and not Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation.

Sorry, I didn't see this one, Jason.

Matthew 24 begins with a prophecy regarding the destruction of the 2nd Temple

Revelation (what I'm attempting to forward) is a warning to the same generation of believers as Jesus spoke to in Matthew 24.

This idea is not new, Jason. It's preterism. There is also futurism and partial preterism as approaches to the Revelation.

What I'm essentially saying, is forget what you've been taught.
Open the Bible, read it for what it says, place it in the time frame in which is was written...

and how do you see it?

[_Zoidberg]

Very interesting prospect, Jersey Girl! That's one interpretation I'd never considered.

Of course, I'd have to see scriptural verification of what Zoidberg describes before I can draw a firm conclusion either way.

Hi Shades!

Acts 1:10-11:

10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11Which 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.

That was after the resurrection and ascension. One could certainly refer to the resurrection as the second coming. But it's clear that the apostles were to expect another coming of Jesus from Heaven.

So it all boils down to what event one would consider the Second Coming. Some preterists hold the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as a "return in glory". Others think it was referring to Jesus' atonement, death and resurrection.

Those are all legitimate viewpoints, of course. But if you understand the Second Coming as Jesus descending from Heaven, it isn't fulfilled in either the destruction of Jerusalem or the resurrection.

[_Inconceivable]

I think I stated in the OP (or maybe not) that one need not be a Bible believer to engage in thought on this topic. It's not a witnessing thread, it's (if you will) a study of a piece of literature.

Now...if you're still interested in the thread...

Define "world" as in "end of the world"

And tell me why you extracted a portion of scripture that begins with Jesus standing outside of the Temple, telling the disciples that the area would be destroyed....

then decide that the rest of the scene has to do with some future event?

Well, I am a literalist first. The term World is what it is - in our modern world, it refers to the entire planet.

Regardless, I suppose to engage in this topic without an understanding of the original Greek (and I am unfamiliar with it), I'm just as way off as the next English only reader.

[_moksha]

Jersey, it is important to note that the world did not end with a bang or a whimper. Wasn't there to be considerable change with the Second Coming?

[_The Nehor]

Here's another wrench to throw into the works...

Why would John use a Gematria code if the Revelation was ONLY written for some future generation?

I think it was written for his generation primarily. The Church was collapsing and the only message of hope John could give was that one day all will be well. That it has value to us as well is just luck.

[_JAK]

Hello All,

I had an idea about something after reading a thread on MAD and I'm trying it out on a few different communities. It doesn't matter if you personally believe the Bible to answer this...but theologically speaking...


If we look at the Revelation as a "near" prophecy and only a near prophecy, not the "shadow" of some future event...

And if we look at the words of Christ about his return...let's say Matthew 24...

And place it all in the same time frame...

Can't we not rightly say that the Second Coming took place after Christ was resurrected?


Jersey Girl

I am not sure why you would think this. It certainly does not fit with any interpretation of second coming scripture in Christianity that I am aware of. Plus Revelation was not written till at least 60 years after Jesus' death.

How do you know that it wasn't written until at least 60 years after Jesus' death?

How did you determine this?

And what date do you place on the Revelation?

Date for Revelations

“The internal evidence of the book [Revelations] regarding the Roman Empire and the external testimony of the Church Fathers both point to a date of authorship around 95 A.D., 25 years after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.”

Book of Revelations

The date here is about the same.

Dating Revelations

One could argue all these are biased sources. However, they are different sources and generally agree approximately.

JAK