Part of me thinks, Jesus will NEVER return



“If there is no hell then why did Christ have to die?”, have you heard that one before? That sounds to me kind of like what you’re saying about everything else unraveling. Yes it changes some preconceived notions but theres no need for your entire faith to fall apart because He comes back in His ecclesia.

I have a couple questions about how you see a few things.

What does the revelation of the mystery mean to you? Christ in you the hope of glory, the two shall become one.

If all creation is waiting eagerly for the revealing of the Sons of God, what does that look like to you?

Also I’d like to reiterate, that in my view Christ returning in his body is not just the church getting better and better. When it happens, it won’t be unnociteable. In fact when Christ came and rose people still were able to deny it and possibly some who did witness it fell away. I believe when the fullness comes on the first fruits company the signs and wonders will literally change the entire order of all creation.



I love that passage – I can get enthusiastic about it. But it really says, “Christ amongst you, the hope of glory,” which makes it even better. Glory, if you look for it (I think maybe I found it in Thayer, but it may have been elsewhere) means at its foundation, to tell the true story about someone – good or bad – but of course, when it is the story of Jesus, it will be good. So when people look at US, they should be seeing the truth, the true story, of Jesus. That’s our glory – Him.

And “the whole creation eagerly waits with anticipation for the Sons of God to be revealed” is similar. It’s cool you should pick on two chapters I’ve spent a lot of time with. But in Romans 8, again we are awaiting a birth – a crisis event. This is a changing of the guard that happens at a discrete period of time. It isn’t diffuse; it doesn’t happen over a period of years in which we are changed from one degree of glory to another (as should be happening now), but is a sudden occurrence.

So . . . please explain to me what the resurrection of the dead looks like in your eschatology? And if it doesn’t occur at a physical second coming of Jesus, when does it happen? And if Jesus doesn’t return as a discrete person, but rather as a diffuse presence in His ekklesia, how is it that everyone will know He’s “back” any more than that He’s here now in His ekklesia? Do we just suddenly all become perfect and mature and doing the things we always were supposed to be doing? Does this mortality put on immortality? When? What does that look like? Will there then be mortals and immortals walking the earth? Will everyone know the difference? Will mortals find this irritating? It all seems very complicated to me. I want to understand your eschatology because I really can’t see how it works from here, and I’m sure it makes more sense than I’m seeing.

Love you, Bro,


I have to believe that Jesus Christ will return. It would fill me with despair to think that the world will never be perfect, that Christ will never reconcile the entire universe to himself as promised by the Apostle Paul. With the most ancient of Christians, I unequivocably exclaim, “I believe in Jesus Christ, the son of God, … who] will come again to judge the living and the dead. …] I believe in …] the Resurection of the Dead, …] and life eonian.” (The Apostles’ Creed)

Of course, I do not look down upon those who do not hold these convictions. I just feel that I must hold out hope that someday the world will be a perfect place, and that all who have ever lived will have been reconciled to God and enjoy this new Earth.


Yes I agree with this statement. But notice the creation awaits the son(s). It will not be a diffuse thing. It will be in a moment in a twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, meaning it will take place at the time of the fall feasts. The feast of tabernacles gives a picture of what it is. The fullness of the Spirit living in Us transforming us into living temples, the israelites were to get living tree branches with fruit living on them and live in them. All the fullness was pleased to dwell(tabernacle) in Him. All the fullness will tabernacle in Us, as His many membered body. Thats why I say it won’t be discreet, people will notice this isn’t some wishy washy little thing where people slowly get better. It is the first fruits company, the overcomers, the barley harvest being transformed into the likeness of His glorious body. How will mortals feel?? How would they feel if a single Jesus comes back?

Although the CLV translates Christ in you as among you, I’d have to disagree, although I’m not a greek scholar. Every other translation has in you, and that doesn’t even make sense when you look at the other portions of the Mystery. It is a specific teaching, that Peter said was hard to understand. It was given only to Paul when he was taken up into the third heaven. Why was it hard to understand? They would have expected Christ to come back in a single form, thats how they knew him.

Gal 4:6
Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
19 My children – I am again undergoing birth pains until Christ is formed in you!

Gal 3
16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.
29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Luke 8
11“Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God. 12“Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved… 15“But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.

  16“Now no one after lighting a lamp covers it over with a container, or puts it under a bed; but he puts it on a lampstand, so that those who come in may see the light. 17“For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light.

In Luke 8 we have the Word of God as a seed that goes into people. And we also have the light which is also in people.
John 12:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain(seed) of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.

John 9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
Matt 5:14 You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill cannot be hidden.

2 Pet 1:19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.


To me, the translation “in you” vs. “among you” makes little difference. “In you” has a bit more of an individualistic connotation, whereas “among you” has more of a corporate connotation (a singular body is made up of many parts, each contributing to the whole corporate structure), though there is some interchangeability in meaning. “In you” could still be a corporate “You”.


Love you my Sister


It’s not a problem…it’s just that NOWHERE else in scripture does God come on literal clouds - and yet the prophets prophesied numerous times that he would. Either the prophets were all false OR “coming on the clouds” is not a literal event, but rather a figurative expression used by Hebrews to poetically describe the coming of their god in judgment. God came in judgment on Jerusalem in AD70 - thus, he came on the clouds.



My husband said that word would be confusing. :blush:

I should have explained I’m using it in more of a technical sense. I used to be a nurse, and we would say, for example, that a particular tumor is a discrete mass – meaning it has boundaries and is easily discerned from the surrounding tissue. In this case, what it means to me, using it here, is in the sense of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit being each a discrete person, while yet being one. I’m mainly using “discrete” in an effort to avoid using “individual,” which I think would be inaccurate. We are one, and in that sense, while we remain discrete persons, we will not be separate individuals. In using it of the event of the second coming, I mean the same thing; that it is an actual event that is circumscribed in time. You could say, for example, that it happened yesterday at more or less 4:00 pm. (I realize that sounds a little bit imprecise, but I think you know what I mean by it.) :wink: I wanted to make that clarification, because I can imagine that my whole post would sound a bit confusing without it.

I think you’re misunderstanding (quite understandably) what I take from this. “Among you” means to me that He is revealed in His people – in His corporate body. You could see it as His literally standing there (as a discrete person :wink: ) among us, too, but that wasn’t what I meant by it in quoting it that way. Yes, I do believe He will be among us in that sense also, but yeah – that wasn’t what I meant to say there. Many people see this as Christ in each individual believer, and I don’t think that’s really what Paul is teaching. He is in US. Alas, we have abandoned the second person plural pronoun in English, and it makes for some important translation imprecisions here and there. Such as “Ye (y’all, yous) are the temple of the Holy Ghost,” being used of individual persons. Yes, we are individually filled with the HS, but that’s not what Paul was saying there.

I can see how you look on those passages in the way that you do, and I also look on them that way. I just believe they are also literal. :wink:

So . . . what about the resurrection of the dead? What say you? Will we see and associate with brothers and sisters who have gone before us? Will they literally, physically rise from their graves? Will we rise in our changed physical bodies, if we die before He returns?

Blessings, Cindy


Yes I believe in a literal resurrection. The discreet event is the birth of the man child company, the first fruits, the overcomers. That is Christ being formed in us that Paul spoke about in Galatians. The first resurrection, the wave sheaf offering. That is the return of Christ. Those who have died and fall into that company will be raised with those who are alive.


Thanks, RHM. :slight_smile: I appreciate your clarifying that for me.



I understand that full preterists believe the second coming of Christ to have occurred in A.D. 70. I think the fact that no early Christian writer who wrote after A.D. 70, referred to the second coming of Christ as an event in the past or one that occurred during his lifetime, is significant as evidence against the view that He came in A.D 70.

Surely if Christ had returned in A.D.70 , then at least one Christian writer who had lived through that period would have mentioned it. The argument from silence, though not a formal proof, notwithstanding, is a strong indicator. Can you imagine all writers who lived through a major event such as the holocaust having made no mention of it? And what event could be more significant than the second coming of Christ?

Here are some of the early writers to whom I refer, who never wrote a word to the effect that Christ had returned:

  1. Clement of Rome (A.D. 30-100), fellow labourer with Paul (Philippians 4:3), and whose letter to the Corinthians has been dated A.D. 97.

  2. Letter to Diognetus dated A.D. 130

  3. Polycarp (A.D. 65-155), letter to the Philippians, probably written in the early second century.

  4. Ignatius (A.D.30-107) Fifteen letters are ascribed to him.

  5. Letter of Barnabas, written about A.D. 100.

Indeed Barnabas wrote of the coming of Christ as an event future to himself. See chapter 15.

  1. Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165), though he hadn’t yet been born during the destruction of Jerusalem, also, in his “Dialogue with Trypho” spoke of the second coming as a future event, including even the Antichrist. Here is a quote from “Dialogue with Trypho":


I am a Christian, non-Trinitarian, and I have no doubt whatever that Jesus will return to Earth visibly, in His resuccected body — no less! If you don’t take it literally, how do you take it — figuratively? I don’t think that’s possible when it come to Christ’s return. If one doesn’t take it literally, then then one doesn’t take it at all. He disbelieves it.

Paidion , I may be wrong but have you not said you thought that the Holy Spirit was Christ when Jesus said something like “I must depart so that the Comforter may come” and if that is what you believe could Pentecost be the second coming?


Nope. Not according to what the two angels in white said to the apostles who were watching the ascension of Christ:

The spirit of Christ coming upon His people on that special day of Pentecost was not “in just the same way.” The apostles saw Him visibly as He ascended into heaven. When He returns in just the same way, He will also be visible.


And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9-11 NASB. Underlining mine.)

The spirit of Christ coming upon His people on that special day of Pentecost was not “in just the same way.” The apostles saw Him visibly as He ascended into heaven. When He returns in just the same way, He will also be visible.

But how do you know “just the same way” refers to his visibility? Couldn’t it refer to the speed or direction or some other aspect of his ascension besides visibility?


one Christian writer

raised …when He came.” Oops!!! :open_mouth:

That’s a fair question. As I understand it… Jesus ascended to the Father in “just the same way” i.e., hidden from sight in the clouds (Acts 1:9b), replicating exactly “in like manner” how the Father came (parousia) in judgement as recorded in the OT… in/on clouds of glory/power (Isa 19:1; Joel 2:2; Nah 1:3; Zeph 1:15) — this is classic apocalyptic language describing the execution of divine judgement. This all came to fruition on the OC world of AD70.

Jesus’ cloud coming of Acts 1:9-11 was in fulfillment of Dan 7:3-14 where “coming with the clouds of heaven” was to and not from ‘the Ancient of Days’ to receive a kingdom. The “in like manner” equates with the judgement clouds associated with the parousia, as per Mt 24:30; 26:64. Again this is keeping and in line with OT apocalyptic language, such as…

Note also… “the time of the Gentiles” (Lk 21:24; Dan 12:7b) — a time designated by God whereby in finality He used Rome to wipe the slate clean of the old covenant régime in AD70.

Christ’s Cross was the DESISIVE event and Christ’s Coming the CULMINATING event. These were God’s book-ends of the one-time redemptive event ON BEHALF OF all Israel (Rom 11:26-27). With Israel redeemed was the world thus reconciled. Israel was God’s firstfruits ON BEHALF OF the world…

Israel was Yahweh’s “firstfruits” — the world “His increase”.


Well, the life of Ignatius is dated as A.D. 30-107. At first blush, he would appear to be the earliest Christian writer. And yes, if Ignatius were the writer of Magnesians 9:2, and if he had affirmed that Jesus had returned prior to the writer’s day, then I need to say, “Oops. I made a mistake.” But to believe that this IS the case, is a stretch indeed.

It is the universal opinion of the critics that 8 of the 15 letters ascribed to Ignatius are spurious. Magnesians is not one of the 8. Those that ARE considered to be genuine exist in two versions. You have quoted from the shorter version of Magnesians. The longer one reads differently.

However, many, including myself, think that ALL of them are spurious. The writer of Magnesians indicates that the church had one overseer (or “bishop”) and several elders (“presbyters”). The overseer/elder distinction is not made in the NT, and there always a plurality of overseers. But the churches of a later period each had a single “bishop” and even later there was but a single bishop over a whole region (called a “bishopric”).

Even if Magnesians were the genuine writing of Ignatius, the words in 9:2 don’t speak of the second coming of Christ.

In all probability, “when he came” refers to his coming to earth from the time of his birth until his death. But then, you ask, did he raise the prophets from the dead during that period? That may be the case! Or perhaps shortly after his death.

Those saints who were raised may have included some of the prophets or “Old Testament” saints.


:laughing: Dang Don… once again you explain away the explicit — how did I know you’d pull that one! :laughing:
You certainly have a growing mound of material, a cavalcade of carnage of inconvenient truths / fake news on your biblical—extra-biblical cutting-room floor. What intrigues me more, however, is you reviving a 6yr old thread in this your quest against the perils of prêterism. :mrgreen:


Did you really just post… ‘FAKE NEWS?’ :laughing:


Yes, he did! Maybe he’s a man after Trump’s own heart. :wink:


:laughing: Lol… yep he’s (Trump) about as outrages in his logic as you Don. :wink: