Christ's 2nd Coming was in the 1st Century -- 7 Proofs

[davo]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Here's a theory:
Because heaven is not really in the air, perhaps Jesus' ascension was what W. Milligan referred to as an "acted parable," partially to accomodate Jesus' contemporaries' antiquated idea of where heaven was geographically. If so, the angels are merely keeping this symbolism chosen by Jesus in their prediction. What do you think of that?

Ok great "teacher" -I'm not saying I buy it, however seeing as you brought it up, it is interesting. So, what if "you" apply the same principle to "clouds" [seeing as it's an issue for you] that you suggest for angels -what does that do for you? Does it then become a matter of timing -the big WHEN.

davo

 

[Didaskomenos]

Jenlu,

You're right - we see the same difficulty. Like I said, I understand the cloud motif everywhere else but here for reasons I've already mentioned (e.g., it being a historical account).

Davo,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by keeping the same principle. If you mean to accept the clouds in the ascension as symbolic of glory (yet still existing physically for the disciples' benefit), that's exactly what my point was.

If you mean to accept the clouds as a literal "downpayment" on Christ's symbolic return in which the symbolism will not be physically manifested as clouds and his coming out of the sky visibly; in short, if you mean that in Christ's parousia, the angels' promise of Christ coming in the clouds was an apocalyptic symbolism for his glorious jugment on the Jewish system in c. 70, I can swallow that as well - but believing it completely would make me full preterist, and I'm not there quite yet.

Just don't ask me to believe that Luke was being symbolic when he described the event, that the disciples didn't really see a cloud and Jesus go up into heaven, but instead Luke recounted the ascension in apocalyptic language. Is that what you believe?

 

[Thunderchild]

don't believe you're alone in your wariness of the verses in question...and I (at least I think) completely understand the "cloud" motif...It is used in the Bible all over the place...this one seems to be a bit different...yes the cloud is mentioned, but it doesn't really seem the same as when it is used in other places...and the way I read it...they actually saw Him going up for at least some part of His ascension and then at a certain point a cloud shielded Him from their sight...

That is pretty much the way anyone who uses their own eyes to do the reading interprets it Jenlu.

There was a certain passage about people who claimed this preterist type concept. It is just a new twist on the - the resurrection is past - nonsense that went about in the times when the epistles were being written - referred to in here somewhere....ah yes, here tis

2Ti 2:17-18

And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 

[Thunderchild]

Lemme see now if I got the concept right .... The record in Acts says ... they were watching Jesus ascend ... he disappeared from sight into the clouds ... THEY CONTINUED TO LOOK, AFTER HE HAD GONE ... the angel asked "Why are you still watching? ... the angel said "He will return in precisely the same manner that you have seen him ascend." ... And people are being asked to believe (despite this exposition) that the earlier references are somehow allegorical?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

You keep making some very good points Thunderchild with some very good scripture to back it up. Might have to save some of your info here for my own research.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Originally posted by Thunderchild
Lemme see now if I got the concept right .... The record in Acts says ... they were watching Jesus ascend ... he disappeared from sight into the clouds ... THEY CONTINUED TO LOOK, AFTER HE HAD GONE ... the angel asked "Why are you still watching? ... the angel said "He will return in precisely [? which Greek manuscript are you getting that qualifier from?] the same manner that you have seen him ascend." ... And people are being asked to believe (despite this exposition) that the earlier references are somehow allegorical?

Try looking at what I said. The event of the ascension was as Luke described. Jesus ascended as he did because this was meant as a metaphorical event, typifying for the disciples the glory in which he would return. If he was to return in "precisely" the same manner as you think it means, the angels wouldn't question why they were looking up still. In other words, why didn't the angel say, "You have good reason to look up in the sky, because if you look up at the clouds long enough, you'll see him return." Instead, he seemed to say something to the effect of, "Don't worry, he'll return in glory and power like you just witnessed, but you're not going to see it by looking up into the clouds."

 

[NumberOneSon]

If he was to return in "precisely" the same manner as you think it means, the angels wouldn't question why they were looking up still. In other words, why didn't the angel say, "You have good reason to look up in the sky, because if you look up at the clouds long enough, you'll see him return."

Hmmm, good point, Didas. Never thought of it in that way before.

In Christ,

Acts6:5

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos

If he was to return in "precisely" the same manner as you think it means, the angels wouldn't question why they were looking up still. In other words, why didn't the angel say, "You have good reason to look up in the sky, because if you look up at the clouds long enough, you'll see him return." Instead, he seemed to say something to the effect of, "Don't worry, he'll return in glory and power like you just witnessed, but you're not going to see it by looking up into the clouds."

Some of my family members live in another state. Sometimes they come to visit, and when they leave I know it will be a long time before I see them again. As they leave, I wave good-bye and watch them drive out of the driveway and down the road until I can no longer see their car. One could easily say, "Why are you looking down the road? Don't worry, you will see them again one day, and they will come back down this very road to you. The road they used to leave you is the very same road they will use to come back here. They will return to you the same way they left you."

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Exactly Aunti Belle. The angel basicly was telling them to get on back to work since it's going to be a while!

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by Project 86

Exactly Aunti Belle. The angel basicly was telling them to get on back to work since it's going to be a while!

Thank you Project! A little common sense goes a long way when trying to interpret scripture. And sometimes we fail to see the forest for looking at the trees with a magnifying glass.

 

[jenlu]

Hey Auntie...quick question

If men in white robes were to tell you, like YOU say I might add, "YOU will see them again one day, and THEY will come back down this very road to YOU" etc. etc. etc........

........Wouldn't you expect it in your lifetime...you know Auntie, I kinda like this common sense thing...


Project...that sure is a long while according to you...

 

[Auntie]

Originally posted by jenlu

Hey Auntie...quick question

If men in white robes were to tell you, like YOU say I might add, "YOU will see them again one day, and THEY will come back down this very road to YOU" etc. etc. etc........

........Wouldn't you expect it in your lifetime...you know Auntie, I kinda like this common sense thing...

Jenlu,

You completely missed the point of my post. The scripture says Jesus will return the same way he left. His return will be physical and in the clouds, the same way he left.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um

The scripture says Jesus will return the same way he left. His return will be physical and in the clouds, the same way he left.

Aunti, where does the Bible tell you to pick only those two aspects of the "way he left" for your definition of "the same way", but reject all other aspects of the "way he left"?

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

"Project...that sure is a long while according to you..."

Well I guess it would be, to us alteast. To God I'm sure it isn't. Actually I never really had a solid belief on the 2nd coming issue until all these threads starting popping up talking about it and getting me to read more about it. I would have to say the true "2nd coming" has yet to happen and all the evidence in the bible points to it. I find it sometimes humorous on all the names they have for people such as do you believe all the things have been fullfilled, half, none. That and there are plenty others also. I really don't have a label picked out for me yet I'll get back to you guys on that I guess. I honestly don't think this topic really will effect anyones salvation but I think we all do need to be ready just like God tells us to be. I also believe this topic can be taken to way to many extremes on both sides.

 

[tericl2]

2 Thessalonians 2
1 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers,
2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by some prophecy, report or letter supposed to have come from us, saying that the day of the Lord has already come.
3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

When did this happen?

5 Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things?
6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

Is the Holy Spirit gone?

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed , whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.

Seems we would know about this!

 

[GW]

ON ACTS 1:9-11:
Consistent within the book of Acts itself, Luke was refering to Christ's appearing to them as in Acts 7:55-59 and Acts 9:3-6 and Acts 10:11-16/11:7-11. These appearances of Christ came to them from Heaven (7:55; 9:3; 10:11; 11:9,11:5) exactly as he had went into Heaven (Acts 1:11).



ON THE MEANING OF "CLOUDS":
Coming and going "with clouds" is a consistent biblical theme for the comings and goings of divine beings and saints (see: Dan 7:13; Rev 11:12; Isa 19:1-2; 2 Sam 22:10-14; Ps 104:3). "Clouds" often signifies judgment and doom (Ez 30:3; Nah 1:3-5). We have an undeniable example in Revelation 14:14-20 where Christ is depicted in a "cloud-coming," and it is clearly in the realm of the heavenlies -- Christ is depicted there as Yahweh, the mighty ruler and judge over Heaven and Earth (Matt 28:18). While Christ comes in the heavenlies in that Rev 14 passage, it causes calamities upon the earth -- see Rev 14:20. This is how the jews understood Yahweh to come in O.T. times, and the apostle John is depicting Christ as equal to Yahweh and doing exactly as Yahweh had always done in His judgments upon nations. Rev 14:14-20 shows us what a "cloud-coming" means and its precise spiritual, powerful, nature.

 

[davo]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
If you mean to accept the clouds as a literal "downpayment" on Christ's symbolic return in which the symbolism will not be physically manifested as clouds and his coming out of the sky visibly; in short, if you mean that in Christ's parousia, the angels' promise of Christ coming in the clouds was an apocalyptic symbolism for his glorious jugment on the Jewish system in c. 70, I can swallow that as well - but believing it completely would make me full preterist, and I'm not there quite yet.

Yes! this is what I mean. [for clarity, I might drop your word symbolic -yet the gist of what you are saying is correct]

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Just don't ask me to believe that Luke was being symbolic when he described the event, that the disciples didn't really see a cloud and Jesus go up into heaven, but instead Luke recounted the ascension in apocalyptic language. Is that what you believe?

Sorry if I gave you that false impression -that is definitely NOT where I'm coming from

Originally posted by Didaskomenos
Try looking at what I said. The event of the ascension was as Luke described. Jesus ascended as he did because this was meant as a metaphorical event, typifying for the disciples the glory in which he would return. If he was to return in "precisely" the same manner as you think it means, the angels wouldn't question why they were looking up still. In other words, why didn't the angel say, "You have good reason to look up in the sky, because if you look up at the clouds long enough, you'll see him return." Instead, he seemed to say something to the effect of, "Don't worry, he'll return in glory and power like you just witnessed, but you're not going to see it by looking up into the clouds."

Well "Didasko" you've "taught" me something -I couldn't have said it any better. The event was actual, factual and very real -yet spoke more deeply [metaphorically] of greater things to come.

davo

 

[GW]

Originally posted by tericl2
2 Thessalonians 2
that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.
4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

When did this happen?


6 And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.
7 For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds HIM BACK WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO...

Paul's passage in 2 Thess 2 shows that the event was already underway. The son of perdition was already alive. He was at that time being restrained from his takeover of the Temple. This shows without question that it was a first century event. It is important to note that this was fullfilled entirely within a decade of Paul's writing to the Thessalonians.

The jewish Zealot-leader Manahem and his followers murdered the High Priest, robbed the Roman garrison, and siezed the Temple to start the armed Revolt in AD 66 from the Temple headquarters in Jerusalem. The victory over the Temple priests and rulers appeared to many to be God's blessing and purpose for the Revolt against Rome. The Zealots had been trying to gain control of the whole Nation and the Temple from about the time of Christ's birth. Menahem was a third generation terrorist rebel and was the son (or grandson) of Judas the Galilean rebel mentioned in the book of Acts.

Menahem is a CENTRAL figure to the Revolt and is considered one of the most powerful Jewish Messiahs of the 1st century for having successfully raided the Masada armory, securing an armed jewish force to fight the Revolt against Rome from the headquarters of the Holy Temple! Entirely apocalyptic.

The Nation had become a hotbed of Revolt-styled apocalypticism, and Josephus blames the Zealots as THE incendiary group among the Israelites that ignited the tinderbox and ruined the whole nation.

King Manahem of Israel literally fulfilled the sign of 2 Thess 2:4-7 and ordered the commands that locked the Nation into its final course of ruin and Revolt.

The Roman Armies came at that time to surround Jerusalem, and in response to all this and the Christians heeded the signs and fled Jerusalem according to Luke 21:20-22 and 2 Thess 2:4.


GW

 

[davo]

GW, thanks for that biblical and historic brief -if folk are looking for a literal fulfillment of 2Thess 2, why go past the history that's been, and recorded. [common sense]

davo

 

[Manifestation1*AD70]

Originally posted by GW


Paul's passage in 2 Thess 2 shows that the event was already underway. The son of perdition was already alive. He was at that time being restrained from his takeover of the Temple. This shows without question that it was a first century event. It is important to note that this was fullfilled entirely within a decade of Paul's writing to the Thessalonians.

The jewish Zealot-leader Manahem and his followers murdered the High Priest, robbed the Roman garrison, and siezed the Temple to start the armed Revolt in AD 66 from the Temple headquarters in Jerusalem. The victory over the Temple priests and rulers appeared to many to be God's blessing and purpose for the Revolt against Rome. The Zealots had been trying to gain control of the whole Nation and the Temple from about the time of Christ's birth. Menahem was a third generation terrorist rebel and was the son (or grandson) of Judas the Galilean rebel mentioned in the book of Acts.

Menahem is a CENTRAL figure to the Revolt and is considered one of the most powerful Jewish Messiahs of the 1st century for having successfully raided the Masada armory, securing an armed jewish force to fight the Revolt against Rome from the headquarters of the Holy Temple! Entirely apocalyptic.

The Nation had become a hotbed of Revolt-styled apocalypticism, and Josephus blames the Zealots as THE incendiary group among the Israelites that ignited the tinderbox and ruined the whole nation.

King Manahem of Israel literally fulfilled the sign of 2 Thess 2:4-7 and ordered the commands that locked the Nation into its final course of ruin and Revolt.

The Roman Armies came at that time to surround Jerusalem, and in response to all this and the Christians heeded the signs and fled Jerusalem according to Luke 21:20-22 and 2 Thess 2:4.


GW

Well put GW