Is the second coming of Christ near?

[ViaCrucis]

OK, I'll just give you a simple approach to distinguish the first coming from the second coming - the seven feasts ordained by God in Lev. 23 - Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Weeks, Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and Tabernacle. I know what you're thinking, those are never taught in any church because those are considered obsolete Jewish holidays, but if you read carefully, those are not feasts of the Jews, but feasts of the Lord, the Lord himself is gonna operate according to his own schedule, whether you and your denomination like it or not.

[/QUOTE]

The reason why my--and every other established and mainstream denomination or theological tradition--doesn't teach this is because Scripture doesn't teach this and it's never been the teaching of the historic Church anywhere.

The first coming of Christ fulfilled the three spring feasts - Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, through his crucifixion, burial and resurrection; then the 50th day from the First Fruit was the Pentecost, that's when the (gentile) church was born as they received the Holy Spirit; what's left are the three autumn feasts - Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and Tabernacle, symbolizing the gathering, judgement and celebration at the SECOND coming. Now when it comes to the Day of the Lord, read the CONTEXT carefully, and determine which feast does it match. The answer is pretty obvious to me, but I'm not gonna lecture on you, you can make your own conclusion.

I don't treat mere human opinion as Christian dogma.

Further, there's no such thing as "the gentile Church". That is unbiblical. There's the Church, the Christian Church, which is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles who have been made one, together, in Jesus Christ. That's what Scripture says, that's what Christians have always believed.

If we are no longer going to be relying on Scripture or historic Christian teaching, and if we are simply going to make things up then there's really no point for further discussion here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fireinfolding]

OK, if it's just this "one thing", then why did you quote Jn. 4:25 where "all things" are to be foretold? I've told you that Jesus proclaimed the Day of vengeance as the day of his return in Matt. 24-31 and Lk. 21:25-27:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

If you ask, where is the "day of vengeance"? Where exactly did he proclaim that? The answer is in the next passage - Matt. 24:36 and 24:50. The wording is a little different, but that day was declared none the less, and it's certainly different from the "days of vengeance" in Lk. 21:22, you've got it all mixed up.

But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.
The master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him and at an hour that he is not aware of.

Because as Isaiah writes

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek;
he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

Isaiah 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

Jesus knew that was what he had to fulfil and so quotes Isaiah, this portion

Luke 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

Luke 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.
And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

And it rightly says, HE BEGAN TO SAY

Luke 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

He was to "proclaim" both the acceptable year AND the vengeance of our God, and just stopped at the proclaiming the acceptable year because time has a arrived to do so and thats where he BEGAN to say.

But you write (In post #44)

The "proclamation of them" was way back in the OT prophecies, Jesus didn't come to make new ones, but to fulfill old ones.

That makes no sense reread what you wrote. The OT prophecy (for example, Isaiah 61:1-2) prophesied that Jesus WAS TO proclaim
and THUS (in this VERY doing) Jesus FULFILS THEM/ The prophets (Mat 5:17)

He also said in Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. even as they knew as shown in John 4:25
when he is come, he will tell us all things.

Following after Luke 4:20 where Jesus fulfills the first part of Isaiah 61:2 in respects to the proclamation of "the acceptable year" where he closes the book and states so much. Later in the same gospel (in Luke 21:22) in respects to what was left to be fulfilled in the second proclamation concerning any such vengeance is shown in Luke 21:22 which Jesus (as far as I can see it) has now fulfiled it. Jesus speaks directly to the days of vengeance in Luke 21:22

The reason why its not important at this point is what the "All things" written may be fulfilled, or anything foretold them after those things in this back and forth is because it will just muddy the waters since we are talking about one prophecy, Isaiah 61 which Jesus himself quotes (in part) showing himself as the one who fulfils this..Isaiah prophesying that Jesus would proclaims things (whereas you stated the "proclamation of them" was way back in the OT") thats obviously not true they prophesied "of those proclamations" of the Messiah which Luke 4:21 shows only in part. But Isaiah continues (and Jesus is to fulfil them) and in the same book (of Luke) later Jesus picks up the second part of Isaiah and fulfils it concerning the proclamation of the day vengeance. Where he fulfils the prophets and I believe Jesus fulfiled those two proclamations in Isaiah.

Now you seem to be indicating, that between these books and chapters Mat 24:1-31 Mark 13:1-37 Luke 21:5-28 we cannot use Luke 21 for the point?

Doesn't make much sense to me

Theres not much more to say except to rehash the same points over and over again.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

That makes no sense reread what you wrote. The OT prophecy (for example, Isaiah 61:1-2) prophesied that Jesus WAS TO proclaim
and THUS (in this VERY doing) Jesus FULFILS THEM/ The prophets (Mat 5:17)

Yes, Jesus did proclaim it in the synagogue, prophesy fulfilled, the end. What ails you?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The reason why its not important at this point is what the "All things" written may be fulfilled, or anything foretold them after those things in this back and forth is because it will just muddy the waters since we are talking about one prophecy,

Then put those “all things” aside for a moment and don’t muddy the water. I just followed your lead. I stated that those “all things” were proclaimed by the prophets in the OT, Jesus didn’t make up new ones, he fulfilled the old ones written in the OT, simple as that. Why does that make no sense?

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Further, there's no such thing as "the gentile Church". That is unbiblical. There's the Church, the Christian Church, which is comprised of both Jews and Gentiles who have been made one, together, in Jesus Christ. That's what Scripture says, that's what Christians have always believed.

I call that gentile church because there were believers all those nations that received the Holy Spirit, there was a list of those nations in that chapter; from there on, God is no longer exclusively accessible to the Jews through the levitical priest, but to all, both Jews and Gentiles, that never happened before.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The reason why my--and every other established and mainstream denomination or theological tradition--doesn't teach this is because Scripture doesn't teach this and it's never been the teaching of the historic Church anywhere.

Does your “teaching of the historic church” connect the dots between the OT and the NT? Forgive me if this offends you, but my highest authority is the Bible, not those “mainstream” teachings. One mainstream teaching is amillennialism, that we’re already living in the millennial kingdom, Jesus is already exalted as king of kings in heaven, there’s no literal second coming. Is that a part of your teaching as well?

 

[Fireinfolding]

Yes, Jesus did proclaim it in the synagogue, prophesy fulfilled, the end. What ails you?

The first half of it there, yes.

What ails me? Not that.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Then put those “all things” aside for a moment and don’t muddy the water. I just followed your lead. I stated that those “all things” were proclaimed by the prophets in the OT, Jesus didn’t make up new ones, he fulfilled the old ones written in the OT, simple as that. Why does that make no sense?

I posted both ends of what he said to keep you from going anywhere else with it so that you could focus better on the "one thing", but you can't, "got it". When you fall back on what was foretold in the OT you redefined who was supposed to proclaim what (which obviously wasn't them, but Christ when he come). I just regard Jesus fulfilling them, it was you who didn't agree with my post which sprang off your intial post, showing where I felt Christ fulfilled that second part, it was you who did not agree. I dont know your eschataology and I don't much care to know it, I only cared more specifically about giving credit to Jesus Christ for that one thing. You disagee, your disagreement is noted.

So we will part disagreeing because this conversation is going nowhere.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The first half of it there, yes.

What ails me? Not that.

Then Jesus proclaimed the other half to his disciples in the passages I quoted, not Luke 21:22, because that doesn't fit the rest of Is. 61.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

I posted both ends of what he said to keep you from going anywhere else with it so that you could focus better on the "one thing", but you can't, "got it". When you fall back on what was foretold in the OT you redefined who was supposed to proclaim what (which obviously wasn't them, but Christ when he come). I just regard Jesus fulfilling them, it was you who didn't agree with my post which sprang off your intial post, showing where I felt Christ fulfilled that second part, it was you who did not agree. I dont know your eschataology and I don't much care to know it, I only cared more specifically about giving credit to Jesus Christ for that one thing. You disagee, your disagreement is noted.

So we will part disagreeing because this conversation is going nowhere.

I explained my eschatology in post #27, which you said you kind of understood, so what's the problem? The only thing I disagree is your notion that the "days of vengeance" is the same as "the day of vengeance" in Is. 61:2.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Does your “teaching of the historic church” connect the dots between the OT and the NT?

Yes, that's how traditional biblical hermeneutics works.

Forgive me if this offends you, but my highest authority is the Bible, not those “mainstream” teachings.

That's not the case if you are making something up instead of relying on what the Bible says.

Not offended, because as a Lutheran I subscribe to the historic and confessional Lutheran principle of Sola Scriptura. Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the highest authority for the Church, the Rule that rules over all things in the Church of Jesus Christ.

One mainstream teaching is amillennialism,

Correct.

that we’re already living in the millennial kingdom, Jesus is already exalted as king of kings in heaven,

We are, and He is.

there’s no literal second coming.

You're likely confusing Amillennialism with Hyper-Preterism.

Amillennialism is simply an interpretation of what the Millennium is, specifically it is a rejection of Chiliasm, and instead emphasizes the many places where Scripture plainly teaches that Christ--indeed--is exalted and seated at the right hand of the Father until He comes again.

Christ's return in glory as judge on the Last Day is literally in the Nicene Creed, confessed by every mainstream, orthodox church.

Is that a part of your teaching as well?

Of course not.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I call that gentile church because there were believers all those nations that received the Holy Spirit, there was a list of those nations in that chapter; from there on, God is no longer exclusively accessible to the Jews through the levitical priest, but to all, both Jews and Gentiles, that never happened before.

The people in Acts chapter 2 were Jewish pilgrims. Shavu'ot, the Feast of Weeks, translated as Pentecost in Greek, was one of the three great pilgrim feasts in the Torah, hence why there were Jewish pilgrims from all over in Jerusalem at that time.

The first Gentile converts to Christianity don't show up until Peter preached at Cornelius' house, and they received baptism. That's in Acts 10.

The veil in the Temple was rent in two at Christ's crucifixion. Christ made Satisfaction as Great High Priest by the offering of His body on the cross once and for all, Hebrews 10:12

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

The people in Acts chapter 2 were Jewish pilgrims. Shavu'ot, the Feast of Weeks, translated as Pentecost in Greek, was one of the three great pilgrim feasts in the Torah, hence why there were Jewish pilgrims from all over in Jerusalem at that time.

The first Gentile converts to Christianity don't show up until Peter preached at Cornelius' house, and they received baptism. That's in Acts 10.

The veil in the Temple was rent in two at Christ's crucifixion. Christ made Satisfaction as Great High Priest by the offering of His body on the cross once and for all, Hebrews 10:12

-CryptoLutheran

Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?”

Pilgrims or not, they came from gentile nations speaking gentile languages, when they received the Holy Spirit, and later got baptized (Acts. 2:41), that's when the church was born. It wasn't the Ethipian eunuch, or Cornelius, or Paul who received the Holy Spirit, it was those 3,000. If you truly mean that there is "no Jew or Greek", then this wouldn't have been an issue that irritated you. I called them "gentiles" simply because they came from these nations, whether they were Jews or Greek.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

That's not the case if you are making something up instead of relying on what the Bible says.

Not offended, because as a Lutheran I subscribe to the historic and confessional Lutheran principle of Sola Scriptura. Scripture, and Scripture alone, is the highest authority for the Church, the Rule that rules over all things in the Church of Jesus Christ.

I didn't make up those feasts in Lev. 23, I was simply educating you of the significane of them. I believe in Sola Scriptura as much as you do, but I also believe that the Torah, the first five books, are the foundation of the whole bible, like the foundation of a house.

We are, and He is.

No we aren't.

You're likely confusing Amillennialism with Hyper-Preterism.

Amillennialism is simply an interpretation of what the Millennium is, specifically it is a rejection of Chiliasm, and instead emphasizes the many places where Scripture plainly teaches that Christ--indeed--is exalted and seated at the right hand of the Father until He comes again.

Amillennialism and the FUTURE second coming are mutually exclusive, because the millennial kingdom can only be established by Christ when he returns to earth. He's the stone that smashed the Babylonian statue and filled the whole earth in King Nabuchadnezzar's dream. If you believe this kingdom has already been established, despite all the evils in this world, then there's no need for Christ to return from heaven to earth.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I didn't make up those feasts in Lev. 23,

I know you didn't. Nor did I claim you did.

I was simply educating you of the significane of them.

That's the point at which you introduced opinion, without biblical support, as doctrine.

I believe in Sola Scriptura as much as you do, but I also believe that the Torah, the first five books, are the foundation of the whole bible, like the foundation of a house.

Why would you hold this position, when Scripture presents Christ as having that role?

No we aren't.

Amillennialism and the FUTURE second coming are mutually exclusive,

They aren't.

because the millennial kingdom can only be established by Christ when he returns to earth.

That's the doctrine of Chiliasm.

He's the stone that smashed the Babylonian statue and filled the whole earth in King Nabuchadnezzar's dream. If you believe this kingdom has already been established, despite all the evils in this world, then there's no need for Christ to return from heaven to earth.

This assumes that the whole point for Christ's return is to establish a millennial kingdom. But that's clearly not how Scripture presents Christ's return.

Here are just a few other things Scripture mentions:

Christ returns to judge the living and the dead (2 Timothy 4:1).
Christ returns that the dead should be raised (John 6:40, 1 Corinthians 15:23, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
Christ returns, and God makes all things new (1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Romans 8:18-23, Acts 3:21, 2 Peter 3:13) .

But that Christ has received power and kingdom everlasting already, we know, e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:24-26, Daniel 7:13-14, Acts 3:21, Matthew 28:18, Philippians 2:9.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Why would you hold this position, when Scripture presents Christ as having that role?

Because only can you learn about the REAL Christ from the Scripture, anything else, including the figurine on the crucifix, could be a false idol. Christ himself sternly warned that many false prophets will rise in his name.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Because only can you learn about the REAL Christ from the Scripture, anything else, including the figurine on the crucifix, could be a false idol. Christ himself sternly warned that many false prophets will rise in his name.

To quote Dr. Luther, "We believe the Scriptures for Christ's sake, we do not believe in Christ for the Scripture's sake."

And to quote Someone that matters, "You search the Scriptures because in them you believe you have eternal life, it is these which bear witness to Me." - John 5:39

The Bible is about Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sorn]

Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?”

Pilgrims or not, they came from gentile nations speaking gentile languages, when they received the Holy Spirit, and later got baptized (Acts. 2:41), that's when the church was born. It wasn't the Ethipian eunuch, or Cornelius, or Paul who received the Holy Spirit, it was those 3,000. If you truly mean that there is "no Jew or Greek", then this wouldn't have been an issue that irritated you. I called them "gentiles" simply because they came from these nations, whether they were Jews or Greek.

Those people speaking foreign languages were either Jews living in those lands or else natives of those lands that had converted to Judaism, ie proselytes. That is why they were there in Jerusalem on a Jewish festival. The were all practicing Judaism as their religion.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

That's the doctrine of Chiliasm.

Then we have to agree to disagree. This sinful and broken world is not the kingdom.

This assumes that the whole point for Christ's return is to establish a millennial kingdom. But that's clearly not how Scripture presents Christ's return.

Here are just a few other things Scripture mentions:

Christ returns to judge the living and the dead (2 Timothy 4:1).
Christ returns that the dead should be raised (John 6:40, 1 Corinthians 15:23, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17).
Christ returns, and God makes all things new (1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Romans 8:18-23, Acts 3:21, 2 Peter 3:13) .

But that Christ has received power and kingdom everlasting already, we know, e.g. 1 Corinthians 15:24-26, Daniel 7:13-14, Acts 3:21, Matthew 28:18, Philippians 2:9.

You're talking about Christ the head of the church in heaven, I'm telling you the Church as the body of Christ on earth. Yes, Christ has received power and kingdom in heaven, but we haven't. As long as we recite the Lord's prayer, "your kingdom come, your will be done," we haven't. I do not assume, I read the same bible you read, and this one at least tells me that we're still in the church age:

"And they cried with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” Rev. 6:10

That's the point at which you introduced opinion, without biblical support, as doctrine.

Is Jesus not our passover lamb? (1 Cor. 5:7) Is the church not born of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost? (Acts 2:1-4) Is his return not signaled by the trumpet blast? (Matt. 24:31, 1 Thess. 4:16) Be honest to God and to your denomination, brother, did I make these up, or are they written in the Scripture? All I did was pointing to the OT origins of these texts.

 

[Jonathan_Gale]

Those people speaking foreign languages were either Jews living in those lands or else natives of those lands that had converted to Judaism, ie proselytes. That is why they were there in Jerusalem on a Jewish festival. The were all practicing Judaism as their religion.

Christianity was widely recognized as a SECT of Judaism at that time, namely, "the Way". In this case I can also say that they were proselytes converted from Judaism to Christianity, it's all just a name game, it doesn't mean anything.