How might Satan Mimic the Second Coming in the Clouds of Heaven?

[Hammster]

You have not given anything specific at all.

I can’t answer his question unless I know what he’s talking about.

 

[SongOnTheWind]

Logically, i cannot see how it is possible for Satan to be roaming around for 1000 years with no one to tempt, and Jesus and the saints who have been translated into sinless beings to be on the same planet!

Clearly the solution to this dilemma is that the 1000 year millenium is not on earth but in heaven.

Then at the final destruction, the new Jerusalem comes down from heaven, the wicked are raised to be shown their deeds and judgement pronounced with the final deception by Satan that they can attack and win, then destruction event takes place. After this a new heaven and a new earth are made.

I think satan is bound somehow at this time. Or I can allow for the possibility for Christ's coming and the great white throne judgement to happen very closely together

 

[DavidPT]

Clearly the solution to this dilemma is that the 1000 year millenium is not on earth but in heaven.

When I first saw this, I was thinking, this is classic SDA. Then I looked at your username, and sure enough I was right. There are numerous things I tend to agree with SDAs about, so, I'm not biased toward SDA in general, it's that I just don't see your solution being the answer. Why would dead ppl who already died lost and already died deceived, rise from the dead in order to be deceived yet again so that they can die lost yet again? After all, if the following isn't meaning that they died because of this, what is it meaning then? and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And why is there a resurrection of the dead after this event, which would have to include the ones that got devoured? Only dead ppl need to be resurrected from the dead, thus proving that the fire that devoured them, literally killed them..

 

[parousia70]

Acts 1:11
Which 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.

The scriptures say He's coming AGAIN in the same way. Skew them all you want, they speak for themselves.

I. When does come again, He will come to judge:

Since He didn't Judge anyone at His ascension, It would appear even you believe His return won't exactly be "in like manner" after all, huh? Skew it all you want....

 

[parousia70]

Ok, and what about Satan being bound, and the end of sin? When does that come about?

A-millennialists believe and teach that Satan is already bound, and is no longer deceiving the nations.

Prior to the Advent of Christ, there was only one nation that had access to covenant with the Living God... all other nations were prevented, deceived by Satan - Since the first century, it has been impossible for Satan to deceive an entire nation, to prevent any one person, from any nation, from entering into a saving, covenantal relationship with the Living God.

Satan plainly no longer has the power to deceive an entire nation, and that became a reality in the first century apostolic generation, because of the work of Christ and the Cross, and not before.

I'm Pretty sure even you believe this, so I'm not sure why you object to this belief when it can be demonstrated that you hold it as well?

Maybe it's Ok for you to believe Christ has defeated Satan for you, but not OK for the rest of us to believe he has been defeated for us?

And Since the Unrepentant will NEVER share in Christ's victory over Sin and Satan, I'm unclear what MORE victory over Satan and Sin that you require Christ accomplish for you before you will believe and profess His victory, and Satan's defeat?

How does that work in your head exactly?

I sure would like to hear them defend their position. It would be interesting to see what they come up with if the position really is solid enough for them to believe it.

It would be interesting to see what you come up with to conclude Jesus was able to accomplish this feat without Binding Satan FIRST:

Matthew 12:28-29
If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you...how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.
(Jesus here absolutely claims to have bound Satan and plundered his house while He walked the earth, which is undeniably PRIOR to His Parousia)

Satan was cast out, judged, spoiled and bound by Jesus Christ:

John 12:31
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

1 John 3:8
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Hebrews 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;
that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.

Colossians 2:15
And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

2 Timothy 1:10
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel

John 16:8,11
And when [the Holy Spirit] is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:...of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged

1 Peter 3:22
Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Acts 26:17-18
To the nations I now send you to open their eyes to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them who are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Jesus Christ, not satan, is God and King over this world (over all of heaven and earth):

Matthew 28:18
And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

Ephesians 1:19-23
He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

1 Peter 3:22
Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Revelation 1:5-6
Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood--and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever.

As for The Accuser, Who shall bring a charge against God's elect?

Romans 8:31-34
What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

1 John 5:18
he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Satan is defeated to Christ and his Church. In fact, this was the very purpose of Christ's ministry (see 1 John 3:8; Hebrews 2:14-15; John 12:31; Col 2:15; Matthew 16:18-19; Matthew 28:18-19, etc), yet many today, including you, seem to deny that Christ was successful.

It certainly is true that those outside the Kingdom of God are bound in chains of sin and darkness and are the "sons of satan" (as was Cain and as were the rulers of Israel Jesus spoke against in John 8:44) -- but look at how bound and powerless satan is to all the Sons of God (Acts 26:17-18; Matthew 12:28-29; Luke 10:19; Mark 16:17, etc). Jesus said the time for the satan to have been cast out was back in HIS time (John 12:31).

So we must not UNDO the work of Christ in this matter by a retroactive faith that places us back in time as if we are a people living PRIOR to Christ's victory over Satan. What a travesty it is, IMHO, to see how the eschatological doctrine of futurism is always robbing Christ of his power and completed work. It is not even uncommon to hear Christians say nearly blasphemous statements that satan is the god of this world, as if that means Christ is not Lord over him and indeed over all things (Matthew 28:18-19; 1 Peter 3:22; Eph 1:20-21; Rev 1:5; )

Finally, Satan is most certainly NOT accusing any of the brothers any more. His ministry as the O.T. accuser of the saints came to an end when Christ stripped him of all authority and granted righteousness by faith to all the saints. Revelation 12:10-11 tells how the blood of the Lamb has granted this victory, and is tied to Paul's teaching in Romans:

Rom 8:30-31,33
Whom he foreordained, them he also called. Whom he called, them he also justified. Whom he justified, them he also glorified. What then will we say about these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?... Who could bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, yes rather, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

This passage shows how Satan's O.T. role as accuser of the brethren (see Job 1 and 2; Rev 12:10-11) is now over. He simply can make no accusation, for the Judge has fully pardoned all his people and based upon the blood of His Sacrificial Lamb, Jesus.

Amazing Love and Victory!

Its a modern travesty that so many Christians believe Christ has yet to defeat Satan and that Satan has power to OVER Christ to prevent Human Beings from coming to Salvation today.

 

[DavidPT]

Since He didn't Judge anyone at His ascension, It would appear you believe His return won't exactly be "in like manner" after all, huh?

It seems to me then, in like manner has to mean how He left, that how He returns is in like manner. So, how did He leave? Initially He is bodily on the earth, then He is being bodily translated to heaven, and that this involves clouds of heaven(not literal clouds though, Daniel 7:13 alone proves literal clouds are not meant since there would be no earth clouds in heaven---one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven--meaning the ascension), and that He then bodily arrives in heaven.


In like manner would involve Him being literally bodily present somewhere else now instead, this time heaven, the first time, earth. And just like His ascension involved clouds of heaven escorting Him, so to speak, so will His descension involve the same. And just like how He bodily set foot in heaven once He arrived, the same will be true once He returns. He will bodily set foot on the place He is returning to, meaning the earth in this case. If none of that is in like manner, what then is? Is one going to dispute that He was initially bodily on earth, then was translated bodily into heaven, and that when He arrived in heaven, He bodily set foot in it, and that this involved the clouds of heaven?

Anyone paying close attention to the following texts should notice that one coming involves arriving with something He didn't already possess when He arrives, and that one coming involves Him already possessing these very same things before He even arrives, thus one coming involves returning to where He initially came from to begin with, meaning heaven, and the other coming involving returning to where He was previously dwelling after He initially left heaven to dwell there for awhile, meaning earth.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

What I have underlined, when He is seen coming with the clouds of heaven, He did not already possess these things, but came into possession of them after He arrived. What I have underlined clearly involves being given power and glory.


Matthew 24:30 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.

What I have underlined, clearly He is already in possession of these things when He is seen coming in the clouds of heaven. Some might argue, according to the gospels though, He was already in possession of power before He ascended to heaven according to Acts 1. While that might be true, He was not already sitting on the right hand of power though. That's what happened during what is recorded in Daniel 7:13-14. Verse 14 clearly says there was also given Him glory after He arrived coming with the clouds of heaven and was presented before the Father. While Matthew 24:30 has Him coming with the clouds of heaven already possessing great glory. How can this great glory not have anything to do with Daniel 7:13-14, but instead has something to do with the events involving 70 AD and is being utilized during that event? Granted, 70 AD would be meaning after Daniel 7:13-14, but still, come on now, why would He need to be seen coming in great glory involving any of that, especially when it would not even involve actually literally being seen coming in great glory, but that a coming in the end of this age would involve in literally being seen coming in great glory?

 

[parousia70]

It seems to me then, in like manner has to mean how He left, that how He returns is in like manner. So, how did He leave? Initially He is bodily on the earth, then He is being bodily translated to heaven, and that this involves clouds of heaven(not literal clouds though, Daniel 7:13 alone proves literal clouds are not meant since there would be no earth clouds in heaven---one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven--meaning the ascension), and that He then bodily arrives in heaven.

Only the Apostles Saw Him go, yet His return is said to be seen by every eye... which is totally different and impossible to take place without some sort of non physical- spiritual component.

I live in Oregon, USA, and No matter how tight I squint out my office window, My physical eyes would not be able to physically SEE a Physical Human Jesus descend over Israel and set foot on the Mount of Olives.

Even your view REQUIRES a GLOBALLY Spiritual component, which is TOTALLY different from what the apostles physically witnessed, LOCALLY, at the ascension. Totally.

The text is clear, He was to return in like manner as the aspotles saw him go "into Heaven"
How did Jesus enter heaven?

"Out of their Sight", Hidden from their eyes by a cloud. Acts 1:9

Plus, Jesus Christ most certainly appeared in like manner as He left on at least two occasions as testified by the apostolic witness.
It happened to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9) and to Stephen at His stoning.(Acts 7:54-56)
You are of course free to reject the apostolic testimony of these post ascension, "in like manner" appearances..
I'm inclined to believe the apostolic witness.

 

[Timtofly]

Is it possible, textually, that end of the age is referring to the end of the old covenant?

Only if you are a "partial" dispensationalist (like a "partial" preterist)?


The Cross was the last day of an age. The temple was part of that age. That the temple was not destroyed at the time the veil was rent from top to bottom, just means the temple destruction was not relevant one iota. Herods temple came and Herod's temple went like most of human endeavors.

The OD was not just about stones being overturned. It was about the Second Coming and the end of the age that was to come, after the Cross. The age of the fulness of the Gentiles. Which is still ongoing.

 

[Hammster]

Only if you are a "partial" dispensationalist (like a "partial" preterist)?

It’s actually possible regardless of your presuppositions.

 

[parousia70]

The Cross was the last day of an age.....

The OD was not just about stones being overturned. It was about the Second Coming and the end of the age that was to come, after the Cross.

So much gymnastics are needed to support this claim it's truly head spinning.

In the Galatian letter, Paul, speaking of Christ writes, "Who gave himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" (Galatians 1:4).

Of primary importance is the fact that Christ died for "our" [the Jews] sins. Secondly, he died to deliver the saints from the "present age." Third, the apostle describes the present age as "evil."

First, if the "present age" Paul is referencing in the Galatians letter above is the Christian age, as you allege, then it is the age ushered in by Christ's death and resurrection. The present age would find its beginning on Pentecost and belong to the gospel dispensation. If the present age is the Christian age, then Christ died to deliver the saints from the age which he came to establish.

Further, this means that the age which Christ came to establish (the Christian age) was no more effective than the Jewish age in which men previously lived.

Paul writes, "Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not. For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law" (Galatians 3:21).

So, life could not be achieved in the Jewish age, hence the need to deliver the Jews from it (Romans 7:6).

However, since it is argued by you that life is likewise not achieved in the Christian age, then Paul should likewise have written the following: Is the gospel then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a gospel given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the gospel.

According to you, they were in the gospel age. According to Paul, they were yet through the Spirit eagerly awaiting the hope of righteousness (Galatians 5:5). Therefore, there was no advantage of the gospel (Christian age) over the law with respect to achieving the hope of life/righteousness.

Secondly, it means that Christ died to deliver the church from an age which did not then exist at the time of his death. As a matter of fact, not even the church existed. Christ had to die to bring the church into existence. Then he had to create an age in which to place the church so he could immediately begin to deliver them out of it! He allegedly takes them out of the Jewish age at his death, only to place them in an age from which they yet must be delivered. No doubt this was a great tribulation for the church. All that slinging around and movement from age to age made them quite dizzy to say the least!

A further complication to this matter is the fact that Christ taught through inspiration that their deliverance from the "present age" was "at hand" and "coming in a little while" (James 5:7-9; Hebrews 10:37). This must be the case since deliverance from the age is accomplished at the return of Christ. However since the traditionalist futuristic viewpoint alleges that these time statements are "elastic" and "relative," then Christ was merely "pulling their leg" with those "I come quickly" rubberband time statements. Generations have come and gone and are still going and going like the Duracell battery and yet there is no deliverance from the "present evil age."

A more ridiculous picture of scripture trifling and chicanery could not be made of the redemptive-historic, glorious work of Christ. Consider this scenario. A bodyshop repairman offers to replace your broken windshield. The only problem is that the windshield is not broken. Advising the repairman of this fact, he then responds by smashing the windshield with a hammer and saying, "It is now"!

This corresponds somewhat with the plight of the new covenant saints. Christ died, per the traditionalists, and ended the law (Jewish age) at the cross. Therefore, on their terms, no one was in it. According to Galatians, Christ also died to deliver them from the present evil age, an age which he had to create, place the saints into, then like the repairman above, offer to deliver them out of it. Would it not have been easier for the repairman never to have broken the windshield? Would it also not have been easier for Christ never to have made an evil age age from which the saints immediately needed deliverance?

A third problem in making the "present age" of scripture to be the Christian age, is the absurdity it makes of the defection of Demas. "For Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present age, and has departed for Thessalonica-Crescens for Galatia, Titus for Dalmatia," (2 Timothy 4:10).

What was so evil about the "present age" (if in fact it is the Christian age) that loving it can be termed as apostasy? Is Christ the minister of Sin? God Forbid! If Demas forsook Paul for the present age (alleged Christian age) then in what age did that leave Paul? Not the Jewish age if it passed away at the cross. Not the "age to come," since it is argued to be yet future.

I would be keen to see your gymnastic explanation of this.

Can we attribute the present age to which Demas apostatized as the age which Christ came to establish? Does not this passage show clearly that the gospel which Paul held firmly till his death (2 Timothy 4:6-8) did not belong to the "present age" of scripture?
How can you have the Gospel NOT BELONGING to eh Gospel Age?
And What a bind we all are in today if loving the Gospel, and therefore the Gospel age, is apostasy.

Fourth, if the "present age" is the gospel dispensation, then the apostles did not speak the wisdom that belonged to the gospel age. "However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing" (1 Corinthians 2:6). Not only could they not speak the wisdom of this age, but God apparently gave the authority to the gospel age to some other than the apostles.

Who are these "rulers" of "this age"? Paul clearly identifies them as those who in ignorance crucified the Lord of glory. Compare this with Peter's words in Acts. "Yet now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers" (Acts 3:17). See also v.14. Peter calls those who crucified the Lord of glory his Jewish brethren and their rulers. These are the Jews. The rulers were none other than the chief priests, elders, and sanhedrin council. Did Christ die to deliver the Jews from the law, only to create a new age subjecting it to the law-zealous rulers of the old age? Perhaps now we can understand why Judaism was such a problem in the church. God cut off the Jewish age at the cross only to make the Jewish rulers who crucified Christ the rulers of the gospel age!

Is the absurdity of your view becoming clear?

Now how can any man believe that these Jewish rulers who crucified Christ were rulers of the Christian age? They were yet ruling the age at the time of Paul's writing for he says they were coming to nothing. I suppose they would come to nothing when their age no longer existed. They would no longer have any realm in which to rule. If the Jewish age ended at the cross, why are they yet ruling the age?

Apparently there was quite a conflict, for Paul and the church wrestled with these rulers. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12).

"This age" is characterized as both "evil" and "darkness." That does not sound like the age Christ came to establish. Such is the self-contradictory and unwarranted consequences of making the "present age" of scripture the Christian age.

 

[DavidPT]

Only the Apostles Saw Him go, yet His return is said to be seen by every eye... which is totally different and impossible to take place without some sort of non physical- spiritual component.

I live in Oregon, USA, and No matter how tight I squint out my office window, My physical eyes would not be able to physically SEE a Physical Human Jesus descend over Israel and set foot on the Mount of Olives.

Even your view REQUIRES a GLOBALLY Spiritual component, which is TOTALLY different from what the apostles physically witnessed, LOCALLY, at the ascension. Totally.

The text is clear, He was to return in like manner as the aspotles saw him go "into Heaven"
How did Jesus enter heaven?

"Out of their Sight", Hidden from their eyes by a cloud. Acts 1:9

Plus, Jesus Christ most certainly appeared in like manner as He left on at least two occasions as testified by the apostolic witness.
It happened to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-9) and to Stephen at His stoning.(Acts 7:54-56)
You are of course free to reject the apostolic testimony of these post ascension, "in like manner" appearances..
I'm inclined to believe the apostolic witness.

Acts 1 only involved the seeing of the initial ascension from the perspective of earth. From the perspective of earth, that was not a coming, that was a leaving. In Daniel 7:13-14 though, the perspective is no longer earth, it is heaven. It is in heaven that He is seen coming in the clouds of heaven. Until one grasps that there is a difference between a leaving and a coming, and that the former is meaning from the perspective of where one is leaving from, and that the latter is meaning from the perspective of where one is coming to, in the meantime that one is going to be arriving at more incorrect conclusions than correct conclusions involving a lot of this.



It seems simple to me. To deny that Matthew 24:30 involves a bodily coming is to deny that Daniel 7:13 involved a bodily coming. And what about Jesus coming in the clouds of heaven in Daniel 7:13? Should one instead take that to mean Jesus was coming to heaven unseen, in judgment against heaven, since that's what clouds oftentimes mean in the OT when they are connected with judgment? No one who is grasping that that coming involved a return to heaven would be applying that passage in that manner. But there are some that wrongly think the coming in Daniel 7:13 involves the 2nd coming rather than the ascension. Maybe they might apply coming in the clouds of heaven to something involving judgment back on earth, but no one grasping that the ascension is meant in Daniel 7:13 would be.


I have proposed it in another post, probably another thread, but I get the impression that angels are meant by clouds of heaven in both Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30. That doesn't make me automatically correct just because I get that impression. It's just simply an educated guess, because what else could clouds of heaven be meaning if not angels, if in heaven He is seen coming with them as He is arriving? In Daniel 7:13 the clouds of heaven couldn't be meaning literal clouds, and they couldn't have a thing to do with judgment, but they could have something to do with being escorted back to heaven in the company of angels, though.

 

[Timtofly]

What makes you think we should be looking for anything? The last I checked, the command to make disciples of all the nations is still in effect.

That would be over in your version of 70AD. The coming in the OD was not the first coming as Messiah on the Cross. The OD is the Second Coming as Prince on the clouds. Jesus was on earth to be talking from the mount of Olives. If you claim the OD is only about the first coming, then why does Christ claim to return at the Second Coming?

 

[parousia70]

I have proposed it in another post, probably another thread, but I get the impression that angels are meant by clouds of heaven in both Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30. That doesn't make me automatically correct just because I get that impression. It's just simply an educated guess, because what else could clouds of heaven be meaning if not angels, if in heaven He is seen coming with them as He is arriving? In Daniel 7:13 the clouds of heaven couldn't be meaning literal clouds, and they couldn't have a thing to do with judgment, but they could have something to do with being escorted back to heaven in the company of angels, though.

The cloud-coming of Revelation 1:7 that "every eye would see" is shown in Revelation 14:14-20 to be an event that occurs in the heavenly realms. As the passage reveals, Christ's actions and commands in the heavenlies result in various tribulation-period disasters that transpire on earth. Simply put, Revelation 14:14-20 IS the cloud-coming that "every eye would see." This is significant, for St. John is not describing the coming of Christ as some visual spectacular with cumulus clouds in the skies overhead, but as the coming of Yahweh himself, making Christ equal with the Father. Jesus promised his apostles that he would return in their lifetimes "in the glory of the Father" (Matt 16:27-28; Lk. 9:26; Matt 24:33-34). Christ's return at AD 67-70 was precisely in the manner and tradition of Yahweh's Old-Testament-era comings that I have cited multiple times.

As stated in Matthew 21:40-45, the Lord of the Vineyard came to the apostate leaders of first-century Israel and was The Stone that crushed them to powder, removing the Kingdom of God from them and giving it to a new Nation. Jesus Christ, the Lord of heaven and earth, came in the glory of the Father and did so in the lifetimes of the apostles, exactly as he promised (Matt 16:27-28; 24:33-34).

 

[Hammster]

That would be over in your version of 70AD. The coming in the OD was not the first coming as Messiah on the Cross. The OD is the Second Coming as Prince on the clouds. Jesus was on earth to be talking from the mount of Olives. If you claim the OD is only about the first coming, then why does Christ claim to return at the Second Coming?

Where did I make that claim?

 

[Timtofly]

Until He comes again. So even at his second coming, we shouldn't be looking for anything? Coming in the clouds is simply a metaphor for judgement, and his other second coming is a metaphor for what?

Some seem to take the disciples questions literally in the physical, then apply symbolism. Some are discerned that when Jesus is talking about coming it was future then and still future. No NT writer confirmed fulfillment in the 1st century. Only Josephus declared prophecy fulfilled.

 

[Hammster]

Some seem to take the disciples questions literally in the physical, then apply symbolism. Some are discerned that when Jesus is talking about coming it was future then and still future. No NT writer confirmed fulfillment in the 1st century. Only Josephus declared prophecy fulfilled.

Lol. The canon was closed by 70 AD. Who would write about it? Plus, John, Peter, Paul and James all wrote to warn about the coming tribulations that the church would soon be going through.

 

[Aldebaran]

Lol. The canon was closed by 70 AD. Who would write about it? Plus, John, Peter, Paul and James all wrote to warn about the coming tribulations that the church would soon be going through.

Hammster:
You said that the New Jerusalem was the church. Since it was coming down out of Heaven, when do you believe the church was taken up to Heaven?

 

[Hammster]

Hammster:
You said that the New Jerusalem was the church. Since it was coming down out of Heaven, when do you believe the church was taken up to Heaven?

It hasn’t been. Christ will still come for His bride.

 

[Aldebaran]

It hasn’t been. Christ will still come for His bride.

But I mean at what point in Revelation does that occur?

 

[Hammster]

But I mean at what point in Revelation does that occur?

The bride is still being prepared (Ephesians 5:25-27). This aligns with Rev 21, but it’s not as linear as we would write it today.