The NATURE of the resurrection, second coming, Heavens & Earth passing, etc.

[1Mamifestation70a.d]

Hi all. Thunder the term Thousand years is only found one place in the Bible, and there is no mention of Christ returning a second time to rule on earth for a thousand years. It does say however that the saints in the first century who were beheaded for their witnees to Jesus would reign with Christ. (Revelation 20:4) There is no mention of the return of Christ or a reign on earth for a thousand years.

 

[Willis Deal]

The scriptures I've stated prove the implication. ie Jesus did not permit Martha to touch him because he hadn't yet ascended. Regardless of what word you want to substitute for 'touch' the verse remains the same 'I have NOT YET ascended to the father. The alternative that you presented doesn't make sense in the context of the passage. In Jesus own words the only activity he mentions is ascension. Mary's only business to attend to was announcing Jesus' ascension, which if it was 40 days later wouldn't require any immediate action. The verse is very clear. It is also clear from the bible that Jesus fulfilled the law. There is and was no point in which he can transgress. If he acts as priest he must perform the priestly duties as outlined in the law. If the law requires the priest to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the altar then it is Jesus' duty under the law to do so.

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Willis Deal
The scriptures I've stated prove the implication. ie Jesus did not permit Martha to touch him because he hadn't yet ascended. Regardless of what word you want to substitute for 'touch' the verse remains the same 'I have NOT YET ascended to the father. The alternative that you presented doesn't make sense in the context of the passage. In Jesus own words the only activity he mentions is ascension. Mary's only business to attend to was announcing Jesus' ascension, which if it was 40 days later wouldn't require any immediate action. The verse is very clear. It is also clear from the bible that Jesus fulfilled the law. There is and was no point in which he can transgress. If he acts as priest he must perform the priestly duties as outlined in the law. If the law requires the priest to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the altar then it is Jesus' duty under the law to do so.

OK Willis, I'd like to focus for the moment on an issue you bring up that I find quite interesting:
Jesus as the High priest, the fulfillment of which the Jewish High priests pointed to.

I agree 100% with that assertion, so lets take it to it's logical conclusion.
The High priest went into the Holy of Holies to sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the altar. If the sacrifice was accepted, the priest returned from the Holy of Holies, signifying to the people that their sin was atoned (or put off) for another year. Only when the Priest returned could the people be certain that the sacrifice had been accepted. If the sacrifice was not accepted, the Priest dropped dead on the spot, and never came back out. This got so bad that they started hanging bells on the priests robe and tyed a rope around his ankles. When the bells stopped ringing, they knew the sacrifice was not accepted and the priest had died, then they could pull the rope to get his dead body out.

This entry into, and subsequent return from, the Holy of holies by the Jewish High priest, is an exact type of the ascention of Jesus into the holiest of all, and the "2nd coming".

Hebrews 9:23-28 (KJV)
"23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." (note: this is the closest passage in scripture we have to the popular term "2nd coming")

Willis, This pasage,as I understand it, pinpoints at least 3 problems with your view:

1) If , during the time between Jesus exhorting not to be touched and His appearing to the Apostles allowing touching, Jesus was in fact in heaven offering His blood on the altar, then His appearing to the Apostles was in fact the "2nd coming" described as yet future in Hebrews 9.

2) If Jesus has not returned the "2nd time" from Offering his blood on the altar, then we have no idea if His sacrifice was accepted or not based on the "exact type" of the Jewish highpreisthood that Jesus fulfilled. For as you said :"If he acts as priest he must perform the priestly duties. including returning a "second time" to signify acceptance of the offering and subsequent salvation.
If Jesus is yet to return, hadn't we better start pulling on the rope?!

3) according to Hebrews 9, Jesus ascended into heaven at the "end of the world".
What "world" do you believe had already reached it's end over 1900 years ago?

I'll return for yet another counter point on the original issue. Thanks for engaging me, I am enjoying the workout!

YBIC,
P70

 

[parousia70]

I'd like to bring up a topic I have brought up in another thread before that has not yet been adaquatly addressed IMHO.

Isaiah 51:16 (KJV)
"And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people."

This particular "planting and laying of heavens and earth" ocourred after God had brought Israel out of Egypt into the wilderness.

Since we know the Physical heavens and earth were created by God long before He parted the sea and delivered the Hebrews, What "Heavens and Earth" did God create at this time described in Isaiah 51?

 

[JohnR7]

>>What "Heavens and Earth" did God create at this time described in Isaiah 51?

This is a referance to the Bride, the gentile church during the age of grace.

>>I have put my words in thy mouth

This means the Bride will speak for God.

>>plant the heavens

This is a referance to the Kingdom of Heaven on the inside of us.

>>lay the foundations of the earth

This is a referance to Jesus, the chief cornerstone, and the foundation of the disciples.

Of course this prophecy also applyed to the Hebrew children at the time it was written. Most all the prophecy regarding Isreal, also apply now to the church. So we understand it from our perspective in regards to how it applys to us.

Here is some more thoughts on this subject:

The Bride will speak just as Jesus did, when He walked the earth. That is why we need to be so carful what we say, because God watches over it to cause it to come to pass. Those who do not speak for God we learn in Rev. 3:16 "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will "spue thee out" of my mouth."

The early church planted the seeds during the early rain. They took root and grew. Now we are in the latter rain and heading toward the harvest. The fruit that is produced from the seed are the fruits of the Spirit. Love, Joy, Peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfullness, gentleness, and self control.

 

[rollinTHUNDER]

Originally posted by 1Mamifestation70a.d
Hi all. Thunder the term Thousand years is only found one place in the Bible, and there is no mention of Christ returning a second time to rule on earth for a thousand years. It does say however that the saints in the first century who were beheaded for their witnees to Jesus would reign with Christ. (Revelation 20:4) There is no mention of the return of Christ or a reign on earth for a thousand years.

I can count 6 times in Rev. 20: alone

Rev. 20: 4 - "I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. (END OF SENTENCE) And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. (END OF SENTENCE) They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. (END OF SENTENCE) They came to life and reigned with Christ a (thousand years). (END OF SENTENCE)

Now Manifestation 70,
The verse I just posted above contains four (4) separate statements. That's right four sentences in one verse. You tell me where does it say "that the saints that were beheaded in the first century for their witness to Jesus would be the ONLY ONES TO REIGN WITH CHRIST?? Oh and it does say it will be a thousand year reign, does it not??

 

[Willis Deal]

by hokies, you've almost got it!!

Point 1) Don't get hung up on the term '2nd coming' as though every time Jesus ascends into heaven and returns to earth is a coming that should be numbered. Did Jesus not appear to Paul after the dramatic ascension into heaven? If we were numbering comings would not his appearance to Paul on the road to damascus be the 2nd coming, or by my reckoning the third or fourth coming? If we don't number the appearance to Paul (and the bible doesn't) then there is no reason to count his other appearances as a seperate 'coming'. Problem one solved.

Point 2) Assume for a moment that Jesus DID ascend into the heavenly holy of holies to sprinkle the sacrifical blood on the heavenly altar shortly after speaking to Martha. As you point out, as high priest he must reappear to announce the sacrifice for sin was accepted. So what happens after his conversation with Martha? Joh 20:21 Then Jesus said to them again, Peace to you. As My Father has sent Me, even so I send you. Joh 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit.
Joh 20:23 Of whomever sins you remit, they are remitted to them. Of whomever sins you retain, they are retained. (MKJV)

The sacrifice for sin was accepted!! Problem 2 solved.

Point 3) I don't see where point 3 has anything to do with my post or causes any sort of problem with what I've stated. I do have a strong's concordance if you need me to look up the definition of word 'aion' which here is translated 'world' but then again you already know the definition, don't you?

 

[parousia70]

Willis Said:
Point 2) Assume for a moment that Jesus DID ascend into the heavenly holy of holies to sprinkle the sacrifical blood on the heavenly altar shortly after speaking to Martha. As you point out, as high priest he must reappear to announce the sacrifice for sin was accepted. So what happens after his conversation with Martha? Joh 20:21 Then Jesus said to them again, Peace to you. As My Father has sent Me, even so I send you. Joh 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit.
Joh 20:23 Of whomever sins you remit, they are remitted to them. Of whomever sins you retain, they are retained. (MKJV)

The sacrifice for sin was accepted!! Problem 2 solved.


P70 replies

How then do you explain that the writer of Hebrews, writing decades after the Holy spirit was given, describes the fulfillment of this as yet future?

What you've put forth is all speculation. Can you show me the chapter and verse that states that Christ ascended then came back then ascended again to come back again! As far as I know, There is only one ascension mentioned in Scripture (Acts 2.29-36; Eph. 4.8-10; etc.)

The high priest doesn't go into the holy of holies, then come out, then go back in. He goes in, cleanses himself, the elements inside the holy of holies, then the people. Then he returns to the people and lays hands on the scape goat and the scape goat is led into the wilderness, signifying the removal of the sins of the nation (Lev. 16). In the 'type' (Lev. 16), there is no mention of the high priest coming and going to the holy of holies several times.

Why do we need a future coming if the "type" has already been fulfilled in your view??, or is this another "multiple fulfillment" issue. That would certainly be the most convenient way to explain it.
Let me know
YBIC, P70

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Willis Deal
by hokies, you've almost got it!!
Point 3) I don't see where point 3 has anything to do with my post or causes any sort of problem with what I've stated. I do have a strong's concordance if you need me to look up the definition of word 'aion' which here is translated 'world' but then again you already know the definition, don't you?

Ok, What "age" (aeon) do you believe ended with Christs Sacrifice?

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by JohnR7
>>What "Heavens and Earth" did God create at this time described in Isaiah 51?

This is a referance to the Bride, the gentile church during the age of grace.

>>I have put my words in thy mouth

This means the Bride will speak for God.

>>plant the heavens

This is a referance to the Kingdom of Heaven on the inside of us.

>>lay the foundations of the earth

This is a referance to Jesus, the chief cornerstone, and the foundation of the disciples.

Of course this prophecy also applyed to the Hebrew children at the time it was written. Most all the prophecy regarding Isreal, also apply now to the church. So we understand it from our perspective in regards to how it applys to us.

Excellent observation JR7!! Comes pretty close to how I understand the term in that passage.
I'm glad someone else sees that "heavens and earth" are not always bound to mean "Planet and Cosmos".

Here's another:
Isaiah 1:1-2 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah. 2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: "I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against Me;

Who is God speaking to here? the physical creation? or is he speaking to Israel? Is he telling the dirt and clouds to listen to him, or people?

YBIC,
P70

 

[parousia70]

THUNDER, to my question: "Are you saying we are to stop serving the gospel after Jesus returns", you reply:

Originally posted by rollinTHUNDER


I never put it in those words, or in any words.

Ahhh but you did. By using the fact that Paul was still a servant to the Gospel as proof that the Great comission had not been fulfilled, then you are saying that once it is fulfilled, we are to stop serving .

Stop serving the "everlasting gospel"?
how do you figure?

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Willis Deal


Point 2) Assume for a moment that Jesus DID ascend into the heavenly holy of holies to sprinkle the sacrifical blood on the heavenly altar shortly after speaking to Martha. As you point out, as high priest he must reappear to announce the sacrifice for sin was accepted. So what happens after his conversation with Martha? Joh 20:21 Then Jesus said to them again, Peace to you. As My Father has sent Me, even so I send you. Joh 20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit.
Joh 20:23 Of whomever sins you remit, they are remitted to them. Of whomever sins you retain, they are retained. (MKJV)

The sacrifice for sin was accepted!! Problem 2 solved.

Willis, some interesting difficulties with that view have been brought to my attention, and I'd like to bring them to yours:

Hebrews 9:23-28 was written in the 60sAD and it so clearly states
that the day-of-atonement priestly work was AT THAT TIME being done by
our High Priest in the Heavenly Holy of Holies. The High Priest had not
yet returned back out of the heavenly Holy of Holies to bring salvation
to the people:


So the writer of Hebrews, writing in AD65 or so, sees Jesus AT THAT TIME
performing the day-of-atonement work in the TRUE Temple to put away sin
and then return back out of the true Holy of Holies to bring salvation.
This is why the apostles preached that all the following aspects of
salvation were not fully accomplished yet, but were to be expected and
hoped for in the future:

* Salvation - (Romans 13:11, 1 Peter 1:5, Heb 9:28, Heb 10:36-39, Rom.
8:24-25, Rev 12:10, Rom 5:10-11, Acts 15:11, Matt 10:22, 1 Thess 5:8)

* Eternal Life - (1 Tim 6:19, Titus 1:2, Titus 3:7, Luke 18:30, Jude
1:21, 1 John 2:25, Col 3:3-4)

* Redemption - (Luke 21:28, 1 Tim 2:6, Eph 4:30 and 1:14, Titus 2:13-14)

* Righteousness by Faith - (Gal 5:5; Gal 2:17*)

* Becoming Christ's Body and partakers with him - (Heb 3:6,14)

* Becoming The New Covenant Temple of God - (Heb 3:6)

* The Adoption of the sons of God - (Romans 8:23-25, Rom 8:19,)

* The blotting out of sins - (Acts 3:19 along with Heb 8:13 that shows
the O.T. system still in place)

* The inheritance in Heaven - (1 Pet 1:3-4; John 14:1-3)

* The End of the Old Testament Age and Law of Moses - (Heb 10:9 taken
along with Heb 8:13; 2 Cor 3:6-12; 1 Cor 15:56; Matt 5:17-19)

All these verses explicitly show the many incomplete aspects of our
salvation until Christ gets back out of the Holy of Holies in heaven
where he is performing the day-of-atonement work on our behalf (in the
futurist scheme). No one is in Heaven's mansions yet if Christ has not
yet returned (John 14:1-3).

YBIC,
P70

 

[1Mamifestation70a.d]

Willis Deal

Now Manifestation 70,
The verse I just posted above contains four (4) separate statements. That's right four sentences in one verse. You tell me where does it say "that the saints that were beheaded in the first century for their witness to Jesus would be the ONLY ONES TO REIGN WITH CHRIST?? Oh and it does say it will be a thousand year reign, does it not??


Nise try Willis Deal

However since we know the Bible was really witten to the people in the first century they were the ones who were "the saints that were beheaded for Christ. As I pointed out to you there is no mention of 2nd coming or any thousand year reign, on earth.

 

[1Mamifestation70a.d]

Parousia70

This entry into, and subsequent return from, the Holy of holies by the Jewish High priest, is an exact type of the ascention of Jesus into the holiest of all, and the "2nd coming".

Excellent Jod in this Parousia70 The Old Testament prophets, never had the concept of a second coming, and since it was God's prophets via the Jewish prophets, who forst taught the notion of a Messiah
it seems quite reasonable to respect their opinion more then anyone else's.

A good book of the Bible that both Jews and Christians accept as highly messianic is the book of Isaiah. All one need to do is read straight through the book noticing the "time indicators" (i.e. "then," "when and "in the day") and the messianic events that are attached to them. It should become apparent very quickly that Isaiah did not know of any "escond coming" separated by thousands of years form the first coming.

The only thing in the NT which even comes close to teaching a "second advent" is Heb. 9:28, were it says Christ will "appear a second time." As you have so excellent pointed out this was using the symbolism of the High Priest at YomKippur when he took the blood into the holy place and then reappeared back outside the Temple to announce that atonement had been accomplished. The early church understood this to be simply a reappearance out of holy of holies. And He would not tarry (Heb. 10:37)

 

[Willis Deal]

p70,

I believe my views have fewer difficulties than yours. We don't see the earthly priest going in and out of the holy of holies on earth, but then again, neither do we see him sitting at the right hand of the father. Obviously Jesus' duties extend beyond being the sacrifice for sin, beyond the duties of high priest.

By your reckoning the High Priest (Jesus) was in the holy of holies (heavenly) from the day of ascension (or thereabouts) until, at least, after hebrews was written about thirty years later. Thirty years? Maybe THEY should have been pulling on the rope And your version requires Jesus to appear in 70AD but we don't have a single person reporting this tremendous event. You can point to prophecy, and speculate when it occured, and convert the words of the prophecies into symbolic language that has a spiritual fulfillment and propose that as an actual fulfillment. BUT you don't have a Peter, or Paul, or John or ANYONE who says 'I SAW Jesus returning on the clouds and fulfilling what was written, I saw him place his hands on the scapegoat and it was lead into the wilderness. I saw the dead raised to never die again'.

This discussion seems to have gotten way off track. It began with a simple verse that 'implied' Jesus ascended into heaven shortly after his resurrection. I have defended that position with scripture and showed how, when, and why. I come back and see 20+ verses listed on how salvation wasn't completed. Even if I had time to analize all those verses and explain them point for point that would just provide an opportunity for someone else to post the entire bible and ask for that to be explained as well. At some point it becomes fruitless to continue to explain increasingly complex verses and concepts.

 

[1Mamifestation70a.d]

Willis

BUT you don't have a Peter, or Paul, or John or ANYONE who says 'I SAW Jesus returning on the clouds and fulfilling what was written,

Willis do you really believe anyone has to really literaly physicaly see Jesus return on a literal cloud before John's revelation can be fulfilled?

In other words. Are you one of those people who believe the Bible mean literaly what it says?

 

[parousia70]

Originally posted by Willis Deal
p70,

By your reckoning the High Priest (Jesus) was in the holy of holies (heavenly) from the day of ascension (or thereabouts) until, at least, after hebrews was written about thirty years later. Thirty years? Maybe THEY should have been pulling on the rope

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "By my reckoning"

What about that Hebrews passage leads you to believe that at the time it was written, Christ was NOT peforming the atonement duties of the High priest? It's clear as a bell to me that He was.

Originally posted by Willis Deal
And your version requires Jesus to appear in 70AD but we don't have a single person reporting this tremendous event.

well, Josephus "War of the Jews" reads eerily like Revelation, as well as the curses in deuteronomy. from the eating of offspring to 100 pound hailstones, to the sound of the rushing tummult,to the chariots of warriors in the sky, to the light that encompassed temple at night it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore.

What do you suppose that supernatural "light" that engulfed the Temple was?
That "Light", of course was Christ in His heavenly glory, made manifest in the Judgement of the city and sanctuary, avenging the blood of the prophets and saints on the generation that Christ Himslef held personally responsible.
All events were recorded and witnessed in the physical realm as physical events, so you need to look no further for a "physical fulfillment" if you must have one.

Originally posted by Willis Deal
You can point to prophecy, and speculate when it occured, and convert the words of the prophecies into symbolic language that has a spiritual fulfillment and propose that as an actual fulfillment. BUT you don't have a Peter, or Paul, or John or ANYONE who says 'I SAW Jesus returning on the clouds and fulfilling what was written, I saw him place his hands on the scapegoat and it was lead into the wilderness. I saw the dead raised to never die again'.

But we do have Peter, Paul and John ALL claiming it was "near, at hand, without delay, soon, shortly, at the door" and Jerusalems destruction fits those claims like a glove, as well as this one:
Heb 9:8
The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:

Only after the temple fell, could the way to the holiest of all be opened.

Originally posted by Willis Deal
This discussion seems to have gotten way off track. It began with a simple verse that 'implied' Jesus ascended into heaven shortly after his resurrection. I have defended that position with scripture and showed how, when, and why. I come back and see 20+ verses listed on how salvation wasn't completed. Even if I had time to analize all those verses and explain them point for point that would just provide an opportunity for someone else to post the entire bible and ask for that to be explained as well. At some point it becomes fruitless to continue to explain increasingly complex verses and concepts.

Well, I started this thread, to examine the "nature" of these things, so lets continue on that vein:
Every eye was supposed to "see" Christ return yes?
Take a look at this verse:
Isa 52:10a
"The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations;"

As a literalist, do you understand this passage to mean that Gods actual arm was seen by the physical eyes of every nation? or is the "nature" of this "seeing" actually different than such a hyper literal rendering would make it?

I just can't find scriptural reason to interprate "every eye shall see" any differently than "seen by the eyes of all nations"
Can you?

 

[Willis Deal]

1Mamifestation70a.d

Yes, I am one of those who believes the bible means what it says. I believe that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, that Jesus died for my sins, that he rose on the third day and that nothing in this universe could have held his body in that grave, and when the bible tells me that Jesus will be seen descending in the same manner that he ascended then YES I believe it! To make absolutely sure you don't misunderstand me... YES!! In order for the prophecies of Jesus' coming to be fulfilled then Jesus has to visably appear on a visible cloud to a very large number of people.

p70

I'll state again for the record that I recognize that the bible is full of symbols and literary devices and therefore don't need to have God's forearm protruding from an eyeball to understand this verse. Rather than take another long and crooked side path in which we will probably ultimately disagree I'm going to let you go first and explain what this verse means to you.

 

[1Mamifestation70a.d]

Willis

To make absolutely sure you don't misunderstand me... YES!! In order for the prophecies of Jesus' coming to be fulfilled then Jesus has to visably appear on a visible cloud to a very large number of people.

Ok Willis I understand. My next question to you then would be. Did "you see Jesus" come the very "first time"?

 

[Willis Deal]

Ok, I'll bite. No I didn't see jesus when he was manifested in the flesh.