a non-eschatological Coming?

[Truth7t7]

Yes, we agree that Antichrist, the "Little Horn" of Dan 7, precedes the 2nd Coming. In fact, the 2nd Coming of Christ takes place to be an end to Antichrist. We agree on that much.

We do *not* agree that it is "objectively obvious" that the AoD is the Antichrist. Nothing in the Olivet Discourse in any way suggests that the AoD is the Antichrist, the "Little Horn" of Dan 7.

On the contrary, Jesus said the AOD takes places in his own generation, which makes it seem impossible to me that he be the Antichrist. At the very least, it is questionable. And the lack of any statement in the Discourse that he is the Antichrist makes it questionable, and the opposite of "objectively obvious" to all.

In stating that Antichrist is destroyed at Christ's Coming therefore has nothing to do with our disagreement, nor anything to do with my concern about your saying things as fact and "objectively true." You should therefore just state "it is your opinion that..." Unless you have more information, that's all it seems you have--your opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but that's all it is.

Yes it's "Objectively Obvious" that Daniel 9:27 & Matthew 24:15 represents the same event

Yes its "Objectively Obvious" that the "HE" causes this Abomination and Desolation

Yes it's "Objectively Obvious" that this "HE" will be present on earth to witness the "Future" second coming and "Consummation" The End

Yes it's "Objectively Obvious" that many disregard this scriptural truth, in predetermined bias to maintain one's teachings and beliefs

This "Future" figure will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Matthew 24:15KJV
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

 

[bbyrd009]

No. How can a spirit die on the cross? Christ's spirit was incarnated into a physical body, died on the cross and resurrected physically as well.

i dont think that justifies denying Scripture at another point though, wadr; and, you have answered your own q—by being incarnated?

 

[ScottA]

I do not see any conflict between these various passages--why should I try to reconcile that which does not require reconciliation? I do not see any conflict. What conflict do you see?

I really dislike when the "conflict" that someone else sees is not being verbalized though it is put forward as "obvious" to them! It leaves me to *guess* what their conflict is?

Sorry if I mistook your position. The common conflict that I was referring to--and thought you were too, was whether or not there would be a physical/flesh and blood return of Christ in this world. The answer is, No, as clearly stated by Jesus in John 14:19. Just pointing that out has people calling the very idea, heretical--as if Jesus Himself was a heretic for even including it in the gospels.

The problem is those who do not receive John 14:19 as being true, are preaching a whole different gospel than that of Jesus Christ.

Are you suggesting that Jesus' "not being seen anymore" conflicts with the notion that Jesus "comes" in 70 AD? If so, this is a misrepresentation of the position that I put forward.

I did *not* suggest that Jesus' *2nd Coming* takes place in 70 AD, nor that he physically and literally appears in the destruction of the temple event. Rather, I'm suggesting that he "comes" in the same way that God "comes" to judge Israel in OT events of judgment, such as the Babylonian judgment.

This is an entirely different type of "coming," which does not involve Jesus' physical appearance. Rather, he comes in the form of the historical judgment, which suggests that he is orchestrating the event as God.

This non-eschatological "coming" of Jesus portrays him as in opposition to a strictly eschatological coming of his physical person. Even the presence of his physical person, bringing messianic healing as such, is portrayed as non-eschatological in Luke 17!

Luke 17.22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it.

Here we see that "days of the Son of Man" can be both non-eschatological and representative of Jesus' human presence. But then we see later that a "day of the Son of Man" can also be non-eschatological and void of his human presence:

Luke 17.30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything."

And so, the "Day of the Lord" can represent either Jesus' human presence or only his divine presence in the judgment. It can be either eschatological or non-eschatological.

That was, I think, what Jesus meant to say, that Jews should not just be looking for some eschatological phenomena that brings instant deliverance, but rather, recognize the signs of the times, that the Jewish nation was disobedient and in danger of imminent judgment. In this case, the Days of the Son of Man, as Jesus' physical presence to do miracles, would be missed. But the Day of the Son of Man as divine judgment would instead be revealed.

No, I wasn't referring to 70 AD.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes it's "Objectively Obvious" that Daniel 9:27 & Matthew 24:15 represents the same event

Putting things in bold doesn't make any point you wish to make true! It just makes it more difficult to respond for me. You are now saying something slightly different again, which I would not disagree with. Dan 9.27 is indeed the AoD mentioned in Matt 24.15. I've not disagreed with this, nor have I even said it.

Again, my argument is that the *Antichrist* of Dan 7 is *not mentioned* in the Olivet Discourse--only the AoD of Dan 9.27 is. I do not believe the AoD of 9.27 is the Antichrist. I think only about 2 Church Fathers believed this, and that most of the Church Fathers believed it was the Roman Army, or something akin to that, historically fulfilled.

The future Antichrist is referred to *only in Dan 7.* He is there described as the Little Horn. Some wish to make Dan 8 and Dan 9 and Dan 11 about Antichrist, as well, because they are Futurists who wish to know more about the Antichrist and more about the future.

But I believe we need to be content with what the Bible says, and learn about Antichrist only where he is explicitly mentioned. Nothing in the NT indicates that the AoD is the Antichrist. Nothing in the NT indicates that Dan 8, 9, or 11 refer to the Antichrist, except that Paul states the Antichrist sets himself up in the temple of God, which may simply be a declaration of his Deity, a claiming of ownership of God's place in heaven.

Antichrist is associated, in Dan 7, with a 3.5 year reign. And that's also how the book of Revelation depicts him, as reigning for 3.5 years, 42 months, or 1260 days. So I try to stay only with what is written.

The AoD is explicitly associated with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Dan 9. That is objectively recognizable. That means the AoD was likely the Roman Army who destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. And that's how the vast majority of the Church Fathers saw it too

 

[Randy Kluth]

Sorry if I mistook your position. The common conflict that I was referring to--and thought you were too, was whether or not there would be a physical/flesh and blood return of Christ in this world. The answer is, No, as clearly stated by Jesus in John 14:19. Just pointing that out has people calling the very idea, heretical--as if Jesus Himself was a heretic for even including it in the gospels.

The problem is those who do not receive John 14:19 as being true, are preaching a whole different gospel than that of Jesus Christ.
No, I wasn't referring to 70 AD.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[ScottA]

Do you believe in the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, being the Triune Godhead?

I would not necessarily use those terms...but Yes, close enough.

Do you believe Jesus Christ was fully God manifest in the flesh upon this earth?

Yes, of course.

 

[ScottA]

Yes, the future literal second coming of Jesus Christ seen below, is a foundational pillar in Christian Orthodoxy

"Many" within the Christian faith would consider denial of this as heretical

Revelation 1:7KJV
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Matthew 24:30KJV
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus Christ will visibly be seen by human eyes upon this earth at his future return

You deny the glorious second coming of Jesus Christ in the heavens seen below, it's that simple

The future glorious second coming of Jesus Christ in the heavens, is a foundational pillar withing the Christian faith and orthodoxy

"Many" within the Christian faith would consider denial of this as heretical

Revelation 1:7KJV
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Matthew 24:30KJV
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Here in the above two posts, you contradict yourself, saying "Yes" to the problem, but then go on about how you agree with the teachings of men and support the error of the church not to receive the whole truth of what Jesus said in John 14:19--that "the world" would see Him "no more."

But...you are repeating yourself--and so am I:

I keep quoting what you have refused to believe from Jesus, and you keep stating your unbelief, while projecting your heretical position on me. Stop...or I will report you.

 

[ScottA]

No. How can a spirit die on the cross? Christ's spirit was incarnated into a physical body, died on the cross and resurrected physically as well.

You certainly have the coming of Jesus and His dying on the cross as being physical, correct--even His resurrection.

But "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God", so many error in imagining that Jesus also ascended to be with the Father...in the flesh. Most see what the angel of the Lord said about His returning in "like manner" as confirming what is not possible nor biblical. But what "like manner"--like who? He did not say Jesus would return in a "physical manner." And we should know better than to speak against the whole of scripture, but rather understand that what the angel of the Lord said means just the opposite, thereby reconciling all scripture--meaning, the "like manner", is not the likeness of men, but of the Father. That was what actually occurred. Thus, He is not lowered again to be like men, but returns in the full glory of the Father--whom is spirit, "that where I am, there you may be also."

 

[Ronald Nolette]

well, bc we can’t read ancient Greek?

Alls it takes is very few tools and you could learn how to understand it instead of retranslatring it!

”In the beginning was the Bible, and the Bible was with God, and the Bible was God”
but hopefully you see on some level that it is the translating that i am suggesting one examine! However, you might spend a bit of time looking for any of the following, “read the Word, teach the Word, study the Word,” etc, anything other than (hear) the Word iow, or i mean bam keep “reading” the Word if you like, but i suggest that this (very common) pov keeps Pneuma obscured

well allegorical reinterpreters have multiple meanings from the Pneuma over one passage! Which one is from the Spirit and which one from the flesh? God created language for us to communicate. He knows how to use language. If I should not take God at the Word He inspired, why should I take an allegorists word for what the Bible is REALLY saying other than what is written.

I may not understand everything the bible teaches, but I can accept it as truth.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Nope. Christ said one generation would see all the things he described which includes the second coming and gathering of the saints. None of that happened in 70AD which means none of Luke's Olivet Discourse has yet happened.

12 But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake.

13 And it shall turn to you for a testimony.

14 Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye shall answer:

15 For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.

16 And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake.

18 But there shall not an hair of your head perish.

19 In your patience possess ye your souls.

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.

24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

So you are avowing that none of this has taken place.

 

[ewq1938]

So you are avowing that none of this has taken place.

Those are future events the last generation will witness.

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

He said ALL not SOME.

 

[ewq1938]

i dont think that justifies denying Scripture at another point though

Then stop denying scripture. Jesus said he was not a spirit. When you say he is a spirit, you contradict the Lord!

Luk_24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
Luk_24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

 

[bbyrd009]

Alls it takes is very few tools and you could lear

”lexicon”

well allegorical reinterpreters have multiple meanings from the Pneuma over one passage! Which one is from the Spirit and which one from the flesh? God created language for us to communicate. He knows how to use language. If I should not take God at the Word He inspired, why should I take an allegorists word for what the Bible is REALLY saying other than what is written

well you must decide for yourself of course, but i would say maybe because you cannot Quote “read the Word” or “study the Word” or even “the Bible is the Word?”

 

[bbyrd009]

Then stop denying scripture. Jesus said he was not a spirit. When you say he is a spirit, you contradict the Lord!

Luk_24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
Luk_24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

ok, so then what is the diff in Christ and Jesus, maybe, since this started with the Scriptural “Christ is Spirit” but you have referenced a passage about Jesus, why i do not know.

Best of luck to you though ok, and have a nice day

 

[ewq1938]

ok, so then what is the diff in Christ and Jesus, maybe, since this started with the Scriptural “Christ is Spirit” but you have referenced a passage about Jesus, why i do not know.

You don't know Christ and Jesus is the same person. He is not a spirit!

 

[Truth7t7]

Sorry if I mistook your position. The common conflict that I was referring to--and thought you were too, was whether or not there would be a physical/flesh and blood return of Christ in this world. The answer is, No, as clearly stated by Jesus in John 14:19. Just pointing that out has people calling the very idea, heretical--as if Jesus Himself was a heretic for even including it in the gospels.

The problem is those who do not receive John 14:19 as being true, are preaching a whole different gospel than that of Jesus Christ.
No, I wasn't referring to 70 AD.

Scripture below clearly teaches that Jesus Christ will visibly be seen by human eyes upon this earth at his future return

You deny the glorious second coming of Jesus Christ in the heavens seen below, and that human eyes will witness this event, it's that simple

The future glorious second coming of Jesus Christ in the heavens, is a foundational pillar within the Christian faith and orthodoxy

"Many" within the Christian faith would consider denial of this as heretical

Revelation 1:7KJV
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Matthew 24:30KJV
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

 

[ScottA]

Scripture below clearly teaches that Jesus Christ will visibly be seen by human eyes upon this earth at his future return

You deny the glorious second coming of Jesus Christ in the heavens seen below, and that human eyes will witness this event, it's that simple

The future glorious second coming of Jesus Christ in the heavens, is a foundational pillar within the Christian faith and orthodoxy

"Many" within the Christian faith would consider denial of this as heretical

Revelation 1:7KJV
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Matthew 24:30KJV
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Here you go again. So many public refusals to receive the whole word of Truth (John 14:19). Such a display against Christ!

 

[Randy Kluth]

Here you go again. So many public refusals to receive the whole word of Truth (John 14:19). Such a display against Christ!

John 14.19 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.

You have quoted the above passage a number of times, and I wasn't really sure why. I haven't been following your arguments with others. Are you saying that when Jesus comes again at his 2nd Coming he will come as God, and not as a Man? I'm not sure that's heretical, because many Christians have believed that Jesus returns to Deity, and leaves his humanity behind.

I don't happen to believe that--I'm just not sure that such a statement is a heretical belief. Personally, I think John 14.19 is talking about Jesus' death, that most Jews would see Jesus die and no longer see him alive. But Jesus' disciples and others would see Jesus resurrected.

Is this not how you see it? If not, how do you see it?

 

[Truth7t7]

John 14.19 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.

You have quoted the above passage a number of times, and I wasn't really sure why. I haven't been following your arguments with others. Are you saying that when Jesus comes again at his 2nd Coming he will come as God, and not as a Man? I'm not sure that's heretical, because many Christians have believed that Jesus returns to Deity, and leaves his humanity behind.

I don't happen to believe that--I'm just not sure that such a statement is a heretical belief. Personally, I think John 14.19 is talking about Jesus' death, that most Jews would see Jesus die and no longer see him alive. But Jesus' disciples and others would see Jesus resurrected.

Is this not how you see it? If not, how do you see it?

The poster has denied that "human eyes on this earth" will literally see Jesus Christ in the heavens, he has used John 14:19 to support this claim

As scripture clearly teaches below, this claim is false, as human eyes upon earth will literally see and witness the glorious event of the Lords return

John 14:17-19 speaks of the Holy Spirt coming, and has absolutely nothing to do with Revelation 1:7 or Matthew 24:30 in the visible and glorious return of the Lord in the heavens

Quote: ScottA Post #58
"I referred to the verse (John 14:19) because it clearly states that Christ does not make a visible return to this world."

Revelation 1:7KJV
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Matthew 24:30KJV
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

 

[Marty fox]

Hi Randy did I see post#78?