A Physical Return of Christ in the future

[Revmitchell]

How important is it to you that one hold to a physical return of Christ in the future? And what do you base that on?

 

[Winman]

Very important. What do I base it on? When Jesus rose from the dead, he rose in a real physical body. He allowed the disciples to touch him, he ate in front of them. When he ascended to heaven, angels said he would return in the very same manner as he went.

It is also important because we will be raised in new, uncorruptable, but very physical bodies. If Jesus did not rise in a real body, then neither will we.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

First off, I think church discipline should only be carried out if it can be done in a fair and impartial manner. With that said, if you're not going to use it for this, then what are you going to use it for? So, yes, church discipline should be carried out in this case. It's important because denying the Second Coming can be an effective denial of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[asterisktom]

So, yes, church discipline should be carried out in this case. It's important because denying the Second Coming can be an effective denial of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

This floored me. What do you think the gospel is?

 

[FR7 Baptist]

This floored me. What do you think the gospel is?

It is the good news of the Lord. Part of that good news includes the Second Coming of the Lord. Also, since you deny the Second Coming, I also assume you deny the resurrection of the dead. That's also heresy because the resurrection is part of glorification. Denying the resurrection is also a denial of the gospel. It really isn't anything personal, It's just that I'm floored that a putative Christian could hold such anti-biblical doctrinal views.

 

[Jedi Knight]

They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."

 

[asterisktom]

It is the good news of the Lord. Part of that good news includes the Second Coming of the Lord.

Says who? You? Why don't we go to Scripture and see what it defines the Gospel to be.

Since I am considered a "putative Christian" I think that further discussion with you is not worth it. I am not interested in mere argument, which is where this is headed.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

Says who? You? Why don't we go to Scripture and see what it defines the Gospel to be.

Since I am considered a "putative Christian" I think that further discussion with you is not worth it. I am not interested in mere argument, which is where this is headed.

What exactly do you believe about the Second Coming and resurrection? You've already said that you think it's all in the past. Is that an accurate description of your views?

EDIT: I have gone to the Scriptures about this. They are very clear on the fact that Jesus will return, there will be a resurrection and Christ will judge all men according to principles of righteousness.

 

[HankD]

How important is it to you that one hold to a physical return of Christ in the future? And what do you base that on?

It is an essential doctrine based upon Scripture.

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.

In Acts 1:11 He was taken up at the Mount of Olives...

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.
6 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:
7 But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.
8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Obviously not yet fulfilled.

HankD​

 

[asterisktom]

What exactly do you believe about the Second Coming and resurrection? You've already said that you think it's all in the past. Is that an accurate description of your views?

EDIT: I have gone to the Scriptures about this. They are very clear on the fact that Jesus will return, there will be a resurrection and Christ will judge all men according to principles of righteousness.

Whoa. Too fast. You still didn't answer what scripture says the gospel is. Look it up. Study it out. This takes time but the results are long-lasting. You swept your eschatology views under the gospel umbrella without any scriptural warrant.

Yes, the Bible teaches Christ's second coming. It also teaches His first coming. That is not the issue.

 

[J.D.]

Although I remain unconvinced of the full preterist view, I think full pretereists have strong arguments, deserve to be heard, and should be counted among the orthodox.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here is a passage from the Quran:

(QS. 17:79) and pray In the small watches of the morning: (it would be) an additional prayer (or spiritual profit) for thee: soon will Thy Lord raise Thee

 

[Grasshopper]

Also, since you deny the Second Coming

,

Did he?

I also assume you deny the resurrection of the dead.

Never assume

That's also heresy because the resurrection is part of glorification.

Did he say otherwise?

Denying the resurrection is also a denial of the gospel.

Does Tom deny the resurection?

It really isn't anything personal, It's just that I'm floored that a putative Christian could hold such anti-biblical doctrinal views.

I'm sure Tom would love to have a biblically based discussion on this view. Perhaps you could tell us how we are to interpret prophecy beginning with the time statements.

People should actually study what preterist believe before building strawmen.

 

[asterisktom]

,

Did he?




Never assume



Did he say otherwise?



Does Tom deny the resurection?



I'm sure Tom would love to have a biblically based discussion on this view. Perhaps you could tell us how we are to interpret prophecy beginning with the time statements.

People should actually study what preterist believe before building strawmen.

Thank you, Grasshopper (and JD). Just for the record, I do not deny the resurrection, nor do I deny the second coming. Both are taught in the Bible. The real question is the nature and timing of these two. But that is not something I would - or even can - discuss with Paul3144, seeing that he hasn't given a straight answer of what the gospel is. I have too many things going on and don't want to waste time getting into arguments with someone who is sloppy in their thinking on this most important topic.

But I believe that an excellent starting point in any discussion on preterism would have to be all of those verses that assume fulfillment within the lifetime of the ones addressed. Just one example is Christ's prophetic warning to Caiaphas:

"Jesus said to him, You have said: nevertheless I say to you, Hereafter shall you see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matt. 26:64 AKJV (Cross references here are Psalm 110: 1; Matt. 24:30, Rev. 1:7)

If Christ had meant that He really wouldn't come into His kingdom for about 2000 years still that would make His personal warning to Caiaphas a foolish lie or (as CS Lewis assumed) a mere mistake. Also, a 2000 year hiatus between promise of coming and fulfillment totally destroys the meaning of "soon" and "quickly" in many verses in the New Testament.

I used to be against Preterism, writing dismissive articles on it pretty much like some here have written, but there came a time when those "soon" verses just turned on a light. And from there other pre-conceived notions just fell away. I now see that Preterism - for the first time - enables me to account for all of those previously "unfittable" puzzle pieces.

 

[Winman]

The problem with Preterism is that it cannot distinguish between prophesies that foretold the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. with those that foretold Israel would be regathered and saved at the end of time.

Zech 8:7 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country;

Zech 8:13 And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong.

Throughout Zechariah God promises to save Israel in the latter days, not destroy it. These events have not happened yet.

Zech 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Zech 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Preterists fail to see that God has promised to regather Israel out of all nations, and that in the last days all the nations of the earth will come against Israel. And God has promised to come and fight against those nations and save Israel, not destroy it.

So, this is the problem, Preterism believes all prophesy was fulfilled in 70 A.D.. This is error. Israel will be gathered again, and God will save Israel.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is the good news of the Lord. Part of that good news includes the Second Coming of the Lord. Also, since you deny the Second Coming, I also assume you deny the resurrection of the dead. That's also heresy because the resurrection is part of glorification. Denying the resurrection is also a denial of the gospel. It really isn't anything personal, It's just that I'm floored that a putative Christian could hold such anti-biblical doctrinal views.

Even preterist David Green agrees if the second coming of Christ is in the future then preterism is a damnable heresy:

But in using that argument I am not saying that preterism "can be considered a non-damnable error." (Indeed, if consistent futurism is true then preterism is damnable. --II Tim. 2:16-18)

 

[asterisktom]

The problem with Preterism is that it cannot distinguish between prophesies that foretold the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. with those that foretold Israel would be regathered and saved at the end of time.

Zech 8:7 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country;

Zech 8:13 And it shall come to pass, that as ye were a curse among the heathen, O house of Judah, and house of Israel; so will I save you, and ye shall be a blessing: fear not, but let your hands be strong.

Throughout Zechariah God promises to save Israel in the latter days, not destroy it. These events have not happened yet.

Zech 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Zech 14:11 And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.
12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Preterists fail to see that God has promised to regather Israel out of all nations, and that in the last days all the nations of the earth will come against Israel. And God has promised to come and fight against those nations and save Israel, not destroy it.

So, this is the problem, Preterism believes all prophesy was fulfilled in 70 A.D.. This is error. Israel will be gathered again, and God will save Israel.

You did well to point us to Zechariah, but I believe you made the wrong use of it. Take a look at the book as a whole, especially keying in on the "In that Day" passages. There are nineteen of them.

Now I assume - correct me if I am wrong - that you see some of these "In that Day" passages as fulfilled in Christ's time. But then you would have two sets of "In that Day" periods of fulfillment - in the 1st century and then - after a prophetical dead-zone of about 2000 years of nothing happening - all of a sudden the "day" is continued! Does that even make sense?

It is much better to follow the trail of cross-references, first, linking these nineteen verses together as one unit - one "day", then searching elsewhere in Scripture to see if we cannot find further enlightening correlation. And we do. One of the reasons I am doing my ongoing series of articles on Isaiah (though I quit posting them here) was that they have been immensely helpful in showing that Zechariah's prophecy are indeed referring to the gracious growth of the Kingdom of God, the Heavenly Jerusalem. What really helped me to become a Preterist was all of those Old Testament references of Christ, Paul, etc. John's use of Zech. (John 19:36-37) is a good case in point. He even has the detail of water and blood coming out of Christ's side. The blood points us to one of the "In that Day" verses,

"In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness." Zech. 13:1

The water points us to Christ as the Living Water. This is prefigured in the water from underneath the Temple in Ezekiel, a flow that gets wider and wider. This is the spreading of the Kingdom of Zion, the Church.

All of these things fit together smoothly in the Preterist system.
There is no disjointed day.
There is no weird asterisk next to our Lord's solemn promises of His soon return.

 

[Revmitchell]

It is inaccurate to refer to one single persons view as preterism. The term is far to vague. Assumptions can be made in error about the position those who hold to such views. It is important that we have a full understanding of their claims by knowing first which sect of preterism one holds to. And of course it is helpful and more honest that one be up front about this as well.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This floored me. What do you think the gospel is?

Before the gospels were writen the message was "HE IS RISEN!"

 

[Winman]

Now I assume - correct me if I am wrong - that you see some of these "In that Day" passages as fulfilled in Christ's time. But then you would have two sets of "In that Day" periods of fulfillment - in the 1st century and then - after a prophetical dead-zone of about 2000 years of nothing happening - all of a sudden the "day" is continued! Does that even make sense?

Yes, it makes sense to me. I can see a difference between prophesies that say Jerusalem will be destroyed and those that say the Lord will defend Jerusalem. I have not one bit of difficulty seeing that these are two different events. Why do you?

Zechariah from the beginning was speaking of a future time when God will save Israel, not destroy it.

Zech 2:8 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
9 For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me.
10 Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the LORD.
11 And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.
12 And the LORD shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again.

Is God saying he will destroy Israel here? No. He is saying that whoever touches Israel touches him, and that he will shake his hand upon those nations.

Zech 9:15 The LORD of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones; and they shall drink, and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altar.
16 And the LORD their God shall save them in that day as the flock of his people: for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land.

Here God says he will defend Israel and save them. I have no difficulty understanding this, do you?

Zech 10:6 And I will strengthen the house of Judah, and I will save the house of Joseph, and I will bring them again to place them; for I have mercy upon them: and they shall be as though I had not cast them off: for I am the LORD their God, and will hear them.

God says he will strengthen Judah and save Joseph, he says he will have mercy on them. I have no difficulty understanding this.

Zech 12:2 Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem.
3 And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

Here it speaks about the seige of Jerusalem and says all those who lay seige against it will be cut to pieces. Again, I have no difficulty understanding this.

Was Rome cut to pieces in 70 A.D.?

So, obviously all these prophesies are not concerning 70 A.D..

Zech 14:12 And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Did the Roman's flesh, eyes, and tongues consume away while they stood on their feet in 70 A.D.? I don't think so.

To me, this sounds like the effects of a nuclear explosion, men were known to vaporize while they stood on their feet in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Now, the Lord doesn't need nuclear weapons, but if man can split the atom, God can do it too. And perhaps this is how he will destroy all those nations that come against Israel in the last days.

Nope, I do not have any difficulty distinguishing between these events and 70 A.D..