Taken
Well-Known Member
What is the word for "coming" in the Bible?
Return.
Point?
3rd coming?
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is the word for "coming" in the Bible?
That's not true.Pretribs teach 2 parousias.
erchomai.What is the word for "coming" in the Bible?
And where Paul describes the harpadzo, "then we who are alive and remain will be caught up in clouds to meet the Lord in the air", this may mean that we disappear into clouds, or that we will be clouds of Christians caught up into the sky.It is quite amazing to discover that Enoch -- the 7th from Adam -- prophesied about the Second Coming! And the Bible calls these saints and angels "clouds" (Rev 1:7) since they give the appearance of shining clouds as they descend with Christ from Heaven. So the question you must ask yourself is this: "How could all the saints descend from Heaven with Christ if they had not already been in Heaven for the Marriage of the Lamb before He came down to earth?"
Another one of those mischaracterizations, with a certain insulting and accusatory tone. Bravo!Ahhhh. Just cobble Scripture together to mean what you want. That is convenient!
That's not true.
Doesn't sticking to the facts make for a better debate?
"2 parousias" is a your mischaracterization of their view. It's completely inaccurate.
This is one of my chief complaints about having debates with people. It seems not too many are either willing or capable of fairly and acurately restating the views they argue against.
Misrepresentation, derision, I can only guess that these are presented because the speaker lacks proper arguments. Or maybe just doesn't understand the view against which they argue. Either way, not fun, not productive.
Parousia is like, advent, an arrival, your presence is now here. And the pre-trib rapture view does not present Jesus as becoming present on the earth.
Much love!
That's not true.
Doesn't sticking to the facts make for a better debate?
"2 parousias" is your mischaracterization of their view. It's completely inaccurate.
This is one of my chief complaints about having debates with people. It seems not too many are either willing or capable of fairly and acurately restating the views they argue against.
Misrepresentation, derision, I can only guess that these are presented because the speaker lacks proper arguments. Or maybe just doesn't understand the view against which they argue. Either way, not fun, not productive.
Parousia is like, advent, an arrival, your presence is now here. And the pre-trib rapture view does not present Jesus as becoming present on the earth.
There is something called "active listening", or "reflective listening". This is a technique by which you can make sure you understand what another person is attempting to communicate. It makes for better communications.
Much love!
This reading outlines in totally unambiguous language how the second coming of the Lord will be completely all-consummating in its nature. This final event expressly ushers in the end, and is the stage that Christ finally presents “up the kingdom to God” and “shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.” It is the concluding end for all mankind on this scene of time, now eternity and the general judgement.
I don't understand this part here . . . who is presenting that view? I've never seen this passage applied to the end of the 1,000 years.If this is supposed to be a collection of millennial inhabitants 1,000 years after the second coming, why would they be mocking
Actually, and this is more towards the contrast between erchomai and parousia, Christ's parousia will continue. Jesus doesn't leave the earth, He rules it for 1,000 years. That IS His parousia. His advent. He's here now. He's come to be with us, and being with us is what He is doing.Such a notion is completely absurd because Christ’s coming (or parousia) would then be long past.
Simply stated, are you saying that Jesus comes, and following His coming, final judgment happens, and the "eternal state" begins?
Much love!
Ok, thank you for clarifying.Because the Scriptures i presented show the end of the world occurs at the parousia of the Lord. This forbids Pretrib and Premil.
Simply stated, are you saying that Jesus comes, and following His coming, final judgment happens, and the "eternal state" begins?
Much love!
youre gonna set us right tho huhAhhhh. Just cobble Scripture together to mean what you want. That is convenient!
@Paul Malcomson
I read these things very differently from you. So when I read that there is a jugdment of nations when Jesus returns, and the judgment of the dead after the 1000 years, that the judgment of the nations happens at a location on earth, and the judgment of the dead happens when the earth has fled, nowhere found, I understand these exactly as stated, leading me to conclude 2 different event.
To me, it seems I'd have to ignore a number of distinctives of each in order to view them the same. Many are comfortable in coming to interpretation where the dead include the living, or that 1,000 years isn't 1,000 years, but I am not. And I find a cohesive picture emerges when I hold fast to the specific sayings of the prophecies and other Scriptures.
None of these things exist in a vacuum. Eschatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, Israelology, are all bound up together. If you hold an erroneous view of one, it's going to create problems with the others.
And again, it seems, here is another person who interprets less literally, and who does not hold to pre-trib, so my observation plays out again.
Much love!
If it is unanticipated that rules out Revelation 20:7-11. It also rules out Revelation 19. Neither are those times and events the parousia Jesus was talking about. It is Amil that re-write Scripture to fit their theology. It would also make 2 more parousia for Amil. They would be hypocritics to deny that. They also need to add human opinion that combines two different events and call them parallel, which is forcing a drastic change to both text, when they both are very much expected events, and also separate events.Christ describes this day as an unanticipated day for many – one that will find many unprepared. For those who are playing at religion they will be caught on. They will face the same punishment as the “hypocrite” when He comes: “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” The wicked are an all-inclusive group; they include every Christ-rejecter – from the religious professors to the outright profane hypocrites. They will all be caught in the destruction when they are left behind and the “heaven and earth ... pass away.”
Notice two terms given which are not equivalent. The question becomes whether kai in this case is copulative or explicative. Something like, "His appearing, even His presence", these can be explicative as they are the same sorts of things. Where I am, and what I have or do are not the same sorts of things. So for myself, I read, "his appearing and his kingdom" as the copulative use of kai. Two terms that are not equivalent.at his appearing and his kingdom