The Comings of Christ

[talkswithbeagles]

We seem to have some emminent theologians on this forum, so maybe one of you can answer a question that has been bothering me lately.

According to the Bible, Jesus was born on the Earth, crucified, dead and buried. Okay, that was the First Coming. On the third day, He arose from the dead, hung around for a few days, and then ascended into Heaven. It seems to me, that should be called the "Second Coming". When Jesus shows up again for the Apocalypse, that should be called the "Third Coming".

Why then does everybody call the Third Coming the "Second Coming"? What about the other Second Coming that has already come and gone?

[cameron]

hmmmm got me with that one, could you explain what the meaning of is, is?

[Far Rider]

I am still working on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[talkswithbeagles]

This might sound like a picky question, but I think that it has a certain amount of significance. When the OT prophets predicted the coming of the Messiah, it was generally believed that they meant a military leader who would restore Israel to its former glory. This is why the Romans got nervous when people started calling Jesus "The King of The Jews". Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world.", but that didn't seem to reassure anybody.

Before Jesus was crucified, he predicted his own death and ressurection. He also talked about the Apocalypse and said that it was coming very soon, within the lifetimes of some of his apostles. Although Jesus didn't say it in so many words, one could get the impression that the Apocalypse should have happened when Jesus rose from the dead on Easter morning. Obviously, this was not the plan, so after Jesus ascended into Heaven, people figured that He was coming back some day to fullfill the prophesy. This ultimate return of Jesus to the Earth is commonly called the "Second Coming". What then is one to make of the Ressurection and Ascention? Was it just an interlude between the First Coming and the Second Coming?

In some versions of the Apostles Creed it is said that Jesus "descended into Hell" between the Crucifixion and the Ressurection. This would indicate that He was nowhere on Earth during the three days when He was dead. Other versions skip this part and have him ascending into Heaven immediately following the ressurection. This would indicate that Jesus never left the tomb for the three days, so He would have been on Earth for the whole time.

After the Ressurection, Jesus visited a number of people on Earth before ascending into Heaven. Any way you look at it, this should logically be called the "Second Coming" and the Apocalypse should be called the "Third Coming". This is obviously not the case, and I was wondering if anybody knew why.

[cameron]

He also talked about the Apocalypse and said that it was coming very soon, within the lifetimes of some of his apostles.

Could you point to exactly what he said, so that I might judge for myself and then will share my thoughts.

[cameron]

cameron said:

He also talked about the Apocalypse and said that it was coming very soon, within the lifetimes of some of his apostles.

Could you point to exactly what he said, so that I might judge for myself and then will share my thoughts.

OK thought about the number thing for ya. Christ's first coming is when he is born, then his second was when he decided not to stick around, how's that?

[talkswithbeagles]

Cameron:

Matthew, Chapter 24, pretty well sums it up. Verse 34 specifically mentions the timing. There is another reference to the timing in Mathew, Chapter 16, verses 27&28.

This has been a stumbling block for me since my adolescence. According to the Bible, the Second Coming should have happened a long time ago. It recently occured to me that maybe it did. The problem with this is that it didn't turn out the way it was supposed to. The book of Revelation is a surrealistic nighmare that can mean almost anything you want it to mean. Jesus, on the other hand, was pretty specific about what was going to happen and when. This opens up a whole can of worms. Either Jesus was mistaken, or He was not quoted correctly in the Bible. Either way, it doesn't look good for our side.

[101ABN]

I'll refer you to Far Rider's post.

Assigning a number to Christ's comings is rather like counting those frolicsome angels.

[talkswithbeagles]

I disagree. The Second Coming of Christ is one of the main cornerstones of the Christian faith. Christians have been predicting that it was going to happen any day now for 2000 years. Jesus himself made a big deal about it. The apostle Paul obviously believed that it was going to happen in his life time, as did most of the early Christians of his day.

Fundamentalist Christians are fond of saying that every single word of the Bible is true, and that every Biblical prophesy either has been fullfilled or will be some day. This is one prophesy that has not been fullfilled. It was supposed to happen within the generation of people who were contemporaries with Jesus. Unless you count the Ressurection as the Second Coming, it just didn't happen. If you do count the Ressurection as the Second Coming, it certainly didn't end up like it was supposed to.

[Far Rider]

The Second Coming of Christ is one of the main cornerstones of the Christian faith.

No, it's not. Justification by faith is the main cornerstone of the Christian faith - Christ crucified - because without that it becomes just another works centered religion. And when heretics on places like THC try to make it a works centered religion then it isn't any better than any other, which is what they want you to believe in the first place.

So you proceed from a false assumption right off the bat. The just shall live by faith - Paul was right, and so was Martin Luther.

The only significance of Christ's return to earth at this point is the battle with His enemies - it adds nothing to our salvation.

Fundamentalist Christians are fond of saying that every single word of the Bible is true, and that every Biblical prophesy either has been fullfilled or will be some day. This is one prophesy that has not been fullfilled.

Do you know that there is a school of thought that says Revelation has in fact been fulfilled, with Nero having been the antichrist? Some say history may repeat itself (as it has been known to do). This is not the only school of thought on Revelation, but it is one of them.

And what is a "fundamentalist Christian"? Anymore I take that to mean anyone who actually believes Christianity and goes to church more than on Christmas and Easter.

As far as whether the Bible is "true" or not, Cameron and I have a tendency to approach it as a philosophical work. It's funny, if I were to say to you "loose lips sink ships" you would have no trouble seeing the truth in what I am saying - not being able to keep a secret can cause problems.

But if I were to apply the same standard people use for the Bible on that phrase, some would immediately say "lips, loose or otherwise, do not sink ships, torpedos sink ships - this is nonsense."

Jesus Himself said, "Seek, and you shall find". The truth is there for you to find if you really want to find it. This is the beauty of the Word - it is truth for open minds, for every one else a stumbling block. It even says this about itself.

[cameron]

Talks With Beagles, I think far rider did a good job of describing how I tend to approach bible studies. That you are hung up on the idea of what number should be assigned to his next coming, seems rather irrelevant to me. I see that it is something you find troubling, so much so it gives you doubt. I would suggest you rely on your faith until you are able to answer your own doubts for yourself, I do not think anyone but you can do that. For me I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. That he died on the cross for my sins and was resurrected. None of this is affected by what number is assigned to his next visit. I hope this helps

[talkswithbeagles]

People usually refer to a "fundamentalist" as one who believes in the fundamantal founding principles of a body of thought, rather than the modern reinterpretation of those principles. The term has been applied to fields other than religion, economics being one that immediately comes to mind. The fundamental founding principles of Christianity are found in the New Testament. Everything that came after that could be called "revisionist". The assimilation of pre-Christian Greek philosophies, like those of Plato, into the faith would seem to fall into this category. It is not my intent, however, to tell you all what to believe or what to call yourselves.

I came across this apparent inconsistency in the Bible at an early age. Instead of reading just the selected excerpts which were suggested by my church (Methodist), I set out to read the whole thing cover to cover. The Old Testament is a whole nother story, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. The New Testament, however, is generally considered to be the founding document of the Christian Religion.

Now, if I found an error or inconsistency in the Constitution of the United States, it wouldn't make me un-American; would it? If I called this error to the attention of my congressman, or my civics teacher in school and asked for an explanation, I would not expect to be branded a traitor to my country. I would also not expect them to evade the issue and pretend that it was unimportant. I would expect them to address the issue and explain to me why I was right or wrong about this matter. An error in the Constitution would not prove that the United States didn't exist. It would not prove that the rest of the Constitution was wrong. It would just prove that people can make mistakes.

Christians have been generally evading the issue of the Second Coming ever since it was apparent that it hadn't happened when it was supposed to. Many modern fundamentalists will tell you that, when Jesus said "this generation", He meant our generation today. I find this unlikely. Taken in the context of everything else He and other Biblical personages said about it, I'm reasonably certain that He meant his own generation.

Don't feel bad if you don't know the answer. I have proposed this question to a number of clergymen over the years, and they didn't know the answer either. It just surprises me that, with all the studying that has been done in the last 2000 years, somebody hasn't stumbled across it by now. How can something as big as this slip through the cracks?

[101ABN]

Can you provide a reference for the origin of the term "second coming?"

I don't recall hearing it anywhere other that as a colloquialism.

Curious.

[tits]

farrider said:

The Second Coming of Christ is one of the main cornerstones of the Christian faith.

Fundamentalist Christians are fond of saying that every single word of the Bible is true, and that every Biblical prophesy either has been fulfilled or will be some day. This is one prophesy that has not been fulfilled.

of the Hanegraaff/Sig Brouwer books now, " The Last Disciple". I must admit that it makes sense to me.

Concerning the question: " I take it by Jesus' comment in John 20 that the appearance during the 50 days between Crucifixion and Pentecost do not count as the second coming. " 22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

Add to this Paul's admonition to the Romans and it would appear that the 2nd coming is yet to happen.

Romans 14:8-10 "8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat."


Secondly, the assumption that the AntiChrist is yet to come seems to fly against the writings of 1 John 2:18-23
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.[d] 21I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. 23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. "


But 2 John 7 says it best: "7Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Sorry for the ramble, but I am more convinced that Hanegraaff is on to something. The biggest reason why I doubt in the Millennist/rapture is:
1) All of the Millennist writers (first appeared around 1900) have claimed to be able to read the signs in Daniel, Matthew, Luke, and John.
2) The all predict that the Temple must return to Jerusalem first.

However, Christ himself said that many signs must first appear but that they are only the beginning of the process. Further, that NO ONE except GOD the FATHER knows when the hour shall be.

Last year I did an exhaustive study of Judaism with a historical study of the Pentateuch and Talmud. After Ezekiel states that he saw the "17 When the cherubim stood still, they also stood still; and when the cherubim rose, they rose with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in them.

18 Then the glory of the LORD departed from over the threshold of the temple and stopped above the cherubim. 19 While I watched, the cherubim spread their wings and rose from the ground, and as they went, the wheels went with them. They stopped at the entrance to the east gate of the LORD's house, and the glory of the God of Israel was above them." Ez 10

There is no reference in the Talmud, OT, or NT to the glory of the LORD reappearing. Not in Herod’s temple, not in Revelation. The glory is always described as a cloud. The glory enveloped Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Christ (Peter, James, and John during the Transfiguration) in the essence of a cloud.

The problem with the millenialist concept of a third Temple in Jerusalem is that it allows for many Christians to support a Jewish Israel even in the face of a global Jihad. That many of those Christians will denounce the Jew at the drop of a hat because the Jews reluctantly will accept Jesus as a prophet let alone the Messiah. Contrary to what many many Liberals believe, the Jihadist and most Muslims distrust America because they see a threat to the Mosque on the Rock.

Finally, I am no longer concerned with a Millennist perspective of Revelation and Daniel because we are appointed to die only once and then the judgement. Add to that the concept that our lifespan is but a breath and I cannot help but conclude that I must be about the Lord's work now and not worry about the end of times.

"i]26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

[/i]" Romans 9

10 The length of our days is seventy years—
or eighty, if we have the strength;
yet their span is but trouble and sorrow,
for they quickly pass, and we fly away. Ps 90

[cameron]

Well said Tittus.

Talks with Beagles, I am still not clear on just exactly why you think the count is off, or why it trully matters. Chalk it up to human error, and move on. I've read Revelations a couple of times and to be honest can't make head nor tail of it. I don't know Talks with Beagles. First I am not convinced the count is off but even if it were why it would really matter. My knowledge of Scripture is not as proficient as what Tittus or far rider have demonstrated, and Tittus's words, our lifespan is but a breath and I cannot help but conclude that I must be about the Lord's work now and not worry about the end of times. sounds like very good advice, don't you think?