The Second Coming was in 312AD

[Der Alte]

My Bible says Behold, he comes with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Your scenario fails. The church leaders were not elected they were appointed. Your scenario fails.

Scripture does not say that a representative will come, but the "son of man" will come. Your scenario fails. Scripture says the elect will be gathered from one end of heaven to the other. The church on earth is never called heaven. Your scenario fails.

Mat 24:30-31
(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.
(31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.​

​

​

The original Greek says every eye will see it meaning the Sign of the Son of Man and Jesus coming into power.

Wrong again. The Pronoun-Accusative Singular Masculine occurs three times in Rev 1:7, it refers to him who every eye shall see, him who was pierced and him for whom all kindreds of the earth shall wail, the same person. Constantine was not pierced! "Him" not "it!" As I said your scenario fails.

Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Rev 1:7 ιδου 2400 V-2AAM-2S ερχεται 2064 V-PNI-3S μετα 3326 PREP των 3588 T-GPF νεφελων 3507 N-GPF και 2532 CONJ οψεται 3700 V-FDI-3S αυτον 846 P-ASM πας 3956 A-NSM οφθαλμος 3788 N-NSM και 2532 CONJ οιτινες 3748 R-NPM αυτον 846 P-ASM εξεκεντησαν 1574 V-AAI-3P και 2532 CONJ κοψονται 2875 V-FDI-3P επ 1909 PREP αυτον 846 P-ASM πασαι 3956 A-NPF αι 3588 T-NPF φυλαι 5443 N-NPF της 3588 T-GSF γης 1093 N-GSF ναι 3483 PRT αμην281 HEB ​

 

[interpreter]

Wrong again. The Pronoun-Accusative Singular Masculine occurs three times in Rev 1:7, it refers to him who every eye shall see, him who was pierced and him for whom all kindreds of the earth shall wail, the same person. Constantine was not pierced! "Him" not "it!" As I said your scenario fails.

Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Rev 1:7 ιδου 2400 V-2AAM-2S ερχεται 2064 V-PNI-3S μετα 3326 PREP των 3588 T-GPF νεφελων 3507 N-GPF και 2532 CONJ οψεται 3700 V-FDI-3S αυτον 846 P-ASM πας 3956 A-NSM οφθαλμος 3788 N-NSM και 2532 CONJ οιτινες 3748 R-NPM αυτον 846 P-ASM εξεκεντησαν 1574 V-AAI-3P και 2532 CONJ κοψονται 2875 V-FDI-3P επ 1909 PREP αυτον 846 P-ASM πασαι 3956 A-NPF αι 3588 T-NPF φυλαι 5443 N-NPF της 3588 T-GSF γης 1093 N-GSF ναι 3483 PRT αμην281 HEB ​

The word for him can also be translated as it.

 

[Der Alte]

The word for him can also be translated as it.

Wrong again! To be translated "it" the pronoun would have to be neuter not masculine. Your argument fails again. When was that "it' supposedly pierced? When did all the kindreds of the earth wail because of "it?" Rev 1:7 quotes the O.T. Zechariah 12:10. That prophesy says nothing about an "it."

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn​

 

[interpreter]

Wrong again. The Pronoun-Accusative Singular Masculine occurs three times in Rev 1:7, it refers to him who every eye shall see, him who was pierced and him for whom all kindreds of the earth shall wail, the same person. Constantine was not pierced! "Him" not "it!" As I said your scenario fails.

Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Rev 1:7 ιδου 2400 V-2AAM-2S ερχεται 2064 V-PNI-3S μετα 3326 PREP των 3588 T-GPF νεφελων 3507 N-GPF και 2532 CONJ οψεται 3700 V-FDI-3S αυτον 846 P-ASM πας 3956 A-NSM οφθαλμος 3788 N-NSM και 2532 CONJ οιτινες 3748 R-NPM αυτον 846 P-ASM εξεκεντησαν 1574 V-AAI-3P και 2532 CONJ κοψονται 2875 V-FDI-3P επ 1909 PREP αυτον 846 P-ASM πασαι 3956 A-NPF αι 3588 T-NPF φυλαι 5443 N-NPF της 3588 T-GSF γης 1093 N-GSF ναι 3483 PRT αμην281 HEB ​

Then I guess John was stating his personal opinion rather than the words of Jesus. I'll take the words of Jesus (in Mat. 24:30) over the words of anyone else any day.

 

[Der Alte]

Wrong again. The Pronoun-Accusative Singular Masculine occurs three times in Rev 1:7, it refers to him who every eye shall see, him who was pierced and him for whom all kindreds of the earth shall wail, the same person. Constantine was not pierced! "Him" not "it!" As I said your scenario fails.

Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Rev 1:7 ιδου 2400 V-2AAM-2S ερχεται 2064 V-PNI-3S μετα 3326 PREP των 3588 T-GPF νεφελων 3507 N-GPF και 2532 CONJ οψεται 3700 V-FDI-3S αυτον 846 P-ASM πας 3956 A-NSM οφθαλμος 3788 N-NSM και 2532 CONJ οιτινες 3748 R-NPM αυτον 846 P-ASM εξεκεντησαν 1574 V-AAI-3P και 2532 CONJ κοψονται 2875 V-FDI-3P επ 1909 PREP αυτον 846 P-ASM πασαι 3956 A-NPF αι 3588 T-NPF φυλαι 5443 N-NPF της 3588 T-GSF γης 1093 N-GSF ναι 3483 PRT αμην281 HEB ​

Then I guess John was stating his personal opinion rather than the words of Jesus. I'll take the words of Jesus (in Mat. 24:30) over the words of anyone else any day.

You make me laugh. You were showing that you didn't know what you were talking about, claiming that the masculine pronoun "he" could be translated "it." When proven wrong you act like nothing happened and start a new argument. When scripture contradicts your false assumptions/presuppositions then scripture is wrong. The two accounts are complementary not contradictory. Matthew also says that "they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." You also ignore the fact that Rev 1:7 was quoting OT prophecy, Zec 12:10. That is two verses vs. your misinterpretation.

Mat 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.

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn​

 

[interpreter]

You make me laugh. You were showing that you didn't know what you were talking about, claiming that the masculine pronoun "he" could be translated "it." When proven wrong you act like nothing happened and start a new argument. When scripture contradicts your false assumptions/presuppositions then scripture is wrong. The two accounts are complementary not contradictory. Matthew also says that "they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." You also ignore the fact that Rev 1:7 was quoting OT prophecy, Zec 12:10. That is two verses vs. your misinterpretation.

Mat 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.

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn​

I'm just saying Matthew 24:30 was fulfilled in 312 AD. Mat. 24:31 was fulfilled in 325 AD.

 

[Der Alte]

You make me laugh. You were showing that you didn't know what you were talking about, claiming that the masculine pronoun "he" could be translated "it." When proven wrong you act like nothing happened and start a new argument. When scripture contradicts your false assumptions/presuppositions then scripture is wrong. The two accounts are complementary not contradictory. Matthew also says that "they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." You also ignore the fact that Rev 1:7 was quoting OT prophecy, Zec 12:10. That is two verses vs. your misinterpretation.

Mat 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.

Zec 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn​

​

​

I'm just saying Matthew 24:30 was fulfilled in 312 AD. Mat. 24:31 was fulfilled in 325 AD.

Matt 24:30 did not happen in 312 AD, Constantine was never called "the son of man." Matt 24:31 did not happen in 312 AD, the angels did not "gather his elect from . . . one end of heaven to the other."

 

[David Sylvian]

The second coming of Jesus was in 312 AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow. That day is called the turning point in history because ever since that day, Christian nations have been the dominant force on earth.
Sorry, there was no rapture. Instead, Constantine sent his messengers with a trumpet, and gathered the elect of all the Church together, to Nicea.

Could have been, or could have been yet another "prophecy" of what was to come.

It is not just prophets and prophecy that act out God and Jesus, but it is in more ordinary people, as well.

Have there been people living for a thousand and more years through all of that? Maybe, it was like dreaming for them: in a dream, you are unaware of any past dreams, and unaware of the waking world.

People talk about false memories and their lives... but it could be there have been at the very least those who have been living from one life to the next oblivious to who they were or what they did before.

Or maybe there were those who have secretly been among us all along changing from one place to the next. And this day and age with her video cameras and ids and photographs puts a new challenge on everything.


Or maybe not.

 

[interpreter]

Matt 24:30 did not happen in 312 AD, Constantine was never called "the son of man." Matt 24:31 did not happen in 312 AD, the angels did not "gather his elect from . . . one end of heaven to the other."

The sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds in 312 AD, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine, called the first horseman.
And in 325 AD, he sent his messengers with a trumpet, and gathered the elect of all the Church together, to Nicea.

 

[Der Alte]

The sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds in 312 AD, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine, called the first horseman.
And in 325 AD, he sent his messengers with a trumpet, and gathered the elect of all the Church together, to Nicea.

Nonsense! Repeating false assertions over and over does not make them true. Constantine was never called "the son of man." Where is there any record that anybody called anybody with trumpets? And Constantine's messengers, if there were any, did not "gather together his elect from ... one end of heaven to the other!" Your proof text for Constantine says that the elect from all the church were gathered together. There were certainly more than 300+/- elect in the church in 312. There were 3000 elect added to the church in Acts 2:41.

 

[interpreter]

Nonsense! Repeating false assertions over and over does not make them true. Constantine was never called "the son of man." Where is there any record that anybody called anybody with trumpets? And Constantine's messengers, if there were any, did not "gather together his elect from ... one end of heaven to the other!" Your proof text for Constantine says that the elect from all the church were gathered together. There were certainly more than 300+/- elect in the church in 312. There were 3000 elect added to the church in Acts 2:41.

Constantine saw the sign of the Son of Man, and received a visit from the Son of Man.
The elect in v.31 are the bishops who attended the first ecumenical council, in Nicea.

 

[Der Alte]

Constantine saw the sign of the Son of Man, and received a visit from the Son of Man.
The elect in v.31 are the bishops who attended the first ecumenical council, in Nicea.

Nothing like reinterpreting scripture, i.e. twisting, to make it line up with your false assumptions/presuppositions. Where does Constantine or any of his contemporary writers, e.g. Eusebius or Lactantius, mention a visit from the son of man? Those 300 +/- bishops were not gathered "from . . . one end of the heavens to the other," as required by Matt 24:31. Do you have any empirical evidence to back up any of this nonsense? The Biblical elect are everyone who was ever saved, not just a handful of appointed, not elected, bishops. Your arguments are not much different than those of Joseph Smith, Charles Russell, John Thomas, Ellen White, L. Ron Hubbard, Victor Paul Wierwille, Vernon Howell, Herbert Armstrong and a host of others.

 

[7spiritfilled]

Nothing like reinterpreting scripture, i.e. twisting, to make it line up with your false assumptions/presuppositions. Where does Constantine or any of his contemporary writers, e.g. Eusebius or Lactantius, mention a visit from the son of man? Those 300 +/- bishops were not gathered "from . . . one end of the heavens to the other," as required by Matt 24:31. Do you have any empirical evidence to back up any of this nonsense? The Biblical elect are everyone who was ever saved, not just a handful of appointed, not elected, bishops. Your arguments are not much different than those of Joseph Smith, Charles Russell, John Thomas, Ellen White, L. Ron Hubbard, Victor Paul Wierwille, Vernon Howell, Herbert Armstrong and a host of others.

This discussion is going on long enough. Why don't you just ignore this person. He is only here to antagonize. Other than that, is anyone having freezing up issues? I do not have any problem with anything else except this forum.

 

[Der Alte]

This discussion is going on long enough. Why don't you just ignore this person. He is only here to antagonize. Other than that, is anyone having freezing up issues? I do not have any problem with anything else except this forum.

I could not agree more but I can't sit idly by and let false teachings go without some rebuttal. Someone who does not know any better might be misled by these errors.

 

[7spiritfilled]

I could not agree more but I can't sit idly by and let false teachings go without some rebuttal. Someone who does not know any better might be misled by these errors.

Yes, I understand what you mean but to tell you the truth I have never heard this before in my life and I am 62 years. I doubt if anyone else did either. I even posted from 2 Thess 1:3 as since he seems to know so much, NOT, that I was just dying to know who the son of perdition was. Of course I received no answer. There are people that come on this forums who are trolls. They are here to cause disharmony and arguments. For all anyone posted made no difference, he keeps repeating his false beliefs. Ignore him and he will go away and bother someone else.

 

[interpreter]

Nothing like reinterpreting scripture, i.e. twisting, to make it line up with your false assumptions/presuppositions. Where does Constantine or any of his contemporary writers, e.g. Eusebius or Lactantius, mention a visit from the son of man? Those 300 +/- bishops were not gathered "from . . . one end of the heavens to the other," as required by Matt 24:31. Do you have any empirical evidence to back up any of this nonsense? The Biblical elect are everyone who was ever saved, not just a handful of appointed, not elected, bishops. Your arguments are not much different than those of Joseph Smith, Charles Russell, John Thomas, Ellen White, L. Ron Hubbard, Victor Paul Wierwille, Vernon Howell, Herbert Armstrong and a host of others.

In a dream that night about the sign that he saw in the clouds, Jesus appeared and said "By this, conquer"
Unlike all the others you mention, my interpretation of the Revelation is based on historical facts.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by 7spiritfilled

This discussion is going on long enough. Why don't you just ignore this person. He is only here to antagonize. Other than that, is anyone having freezing up issues? I do not have any problem with anything else except this forum.
​

I could not agree more but I can't sit idly by and let false teachings go without some rebuttal. Someone who does not know any better might be misled by these errors.

Yes, I understand what you mean but to tell you the truth I have never heard this before in my life and I am 62 years. I doubt if anyone else did either. I even posted from 2 Thess 1:3 as since he seems to know so much, NOT, that I was just dying to know who the son of perdition was. Of course I received no answer. There are people that come on this forums who are trolls. They are here to cause disharmony and arguments. For all anyone posted made no difference, he keeps repeating his false beliefs.
Ignore him and he will go away and bother someone else.

Wanna bet on that



.

 

[7spiritfilled]

Wanna bet on that



.

No.