Why is there so much confusion about Jesus' return?

[anon12438761]

Those 4 points are an excellent way of stating it.

[steve7150]

1. The Old Testament talks about Christ’s First Coming.
2. The four Gospels talk about Christ’s First Coming.
3. Acts and the Epistles talk about Christ’s Second Coming.
4. The book of Revelation talks about Christ’s First Coming.

In sum, I think the only texts referring to Christ’s Second Coming are in Acts and in the New Testament epistles.

Depends on your eschatology. I think Revelation discloses it in chap 19 - 20.

[steve7150]

Although God sometimes (but rarely) intervenes to stop evil, to do so ALL the time would be the destruction of free will.

I know, Steve, that your objection to this is: "Why would God allow evil people to exercise the power of choice, and dominate or kill other people, therefore depriving the victims of their choices?

Thank you, Steve, for bringing that up. It appears to be a valid point! I have thought some more about this, and now realize that I didn’t give you a satisfactory answer when you brought it up. I still cannot give you a good answer, but I’m thinking.

OK Paidion thanks for being humble enough to admit you have to rethink it.

[Catherine]

Hi Catherine
I have been following this thread with great interest because I share many of your thoughts and concerns. You put them more clearly than I could and I am grateful for that.
There seems to be two matters to deal with. One is the apparent violence/cruelty (or whatever) of the OT depiction of God and how that may affect our confidence in the Bible as a whole. The other is about the second coming. With regard to the former, I am just as puzzled and weighed-down as it seems you are.

Hi Pilgrim, thank you for your thoughts on this topic. My crisis has for the most part passed thank goodness. This thought popped into my mind in the last few days: God suffered the same evil in the person of His Son Jesus, as humans do- thinking particularly of those who have been murdered in a brutal painful way (like the Canaanites). So then, God doesn’t allow any of us to go through something He doesn’t also go through. I still don’t understand these things, but for now I’m trusting God that He knows what He is doing in subjecting the creation to all this frustration. Jesus is our hope that the pain will have been worth it.

With regard to the Second coming, whist I agree first glance at texts may lead one to believe in a promised 1st century return, I don’t think those texts necessarily imply such a thing and I certainly disbelieve that Christ’s second coming has yet happened. I believe we are probably not far from a physical, literal second coming.

But, as for the quote above, I only see ONE time when Jesus said people living would SEE Him in His Glory (ie as Coming King), this promise was (possibly) fulfilled in the verses immediately following when some SAW Him transfigured on the Mount. (Note he only promised a ‘seeing’ not an actuality.)
The other texts talk about ‘this generation shall not pass’ but what did Jesus mean by ‘this generation’? Did the ‘this’ refer to his listeners, did it refer to the generation he was already talking about in his account? Or did it mean ‘this gene-pool’ (as Paidion has suggested). Ive read and re-read those passages and I believe that the second possibility is AT LEAST as likely as the first. In which case there is no problem.
And one final rider, I also happen to believe that the ‘imminence’ of Jesus return is true for 1st century Christians as it is for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and us too because we will all encounter the reality of Jesus’ second coming at the moment of our death.
That is not to deny a second coming which will be visible world-wide to those living and which (according to some absolutely amazing prophecies in scripture) is probably within the next twenty years.

Just my thoughts on the second coming

I’m really confused about the ‘second coming’ Pilgrim, but whether Jesus is literally coming back or not, our hope is that one day we will be with Him forever. That is what I am going to cling to.

(yes, that’s a good point about the transfiguration. )

[Catherine]

I believe that to be the very first proclamation of the Second Coming in Scripture. Here is how I break it down:

1. The Old Testament talks about Christ’s First Coming.
2. The four Gospels talk about Christ’s First Coming.
3. Acts and the Epistles talk about Christ’s Second Coming.
4. The book of Revelation talks about Christ’s First Coming.

In sum, I think the only texts referring to Christ’s Second Coming are in Acts and in the New Testament epistles.

Interesting Geoffrey. I’ve never seen anyone explain it like that. Thank you.

[davo]

(yes, that’s a good point about the transfiguration. )

Actually Catherine, you might want to reconsider, or at least have a “rethink” on that…

Christ’s transfiguration and Christ’s parousia were two totally separate occurrences and cannot be conflated with any consistency, logically or otherwise…

Mk 8:38-9:1 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”

On what account were any of Jesus’ IMMEDIATE audience i.e., “his disciples” AND “the people” (8:34) in any danger of impending “death” prior to the transfiguration incident? – Jesus was addressing more than just the disciples; the persecution of believers was yet future; there were NO “rewards” doled out “each according to his works” (Mt 16:27) at the transfiguration.

Mk 9:2 Now after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John, and led them up on a high mountain apart by themselves; and He was transfigured before them.

Unlike the forth coming parousia of which some of “this generation” would indeed “see” (Mt 26:64) the transfiguration was a completely separate and private affair… the parousia on the other hand was in the full “glory of His Father with the holy angels” – NONE of that occurred on the mountain for all to see. (Note, the transfiguration was a ‘seeing’ not an actuality, as per Mt 17:9.)

[Paidion]

1. The Old Testament talks about Christ’s First Coming.
2. The four Gospels talk about Christ’s First Coming.
3. Acts and the Epistles talk about Christ’s Second Coming.
4. The book of Revelation talks about Christ’s First Coming.

I think that both the first coming and the second coming is referred to in every one of these four areas of Scripture.

[Cloud9]

I always feel like I do a bad job of being ‘‘prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have…’’

My husband is an atheist. Every now and then he’ll ask me about where Jesus is. He’ll point out that He’s been gone for two thousand years and left us to it. I always feel uncomfortable at this. I explain, that yes, it’s been a long time, but Jesus is waiting until it’s time for Him to step into Earth’s affairs, most likely when we’re about to blow up the planet, and He’ll then establish HIs rule, and we’ll do things His way. He’ll sort everything out once and for all. He’s letting the dominoes fall as they will, and a good job too, that He is taking so long, otherwise we wouldn’t have been born.

That makes sense to me but my husband shakes his head and thinks I’m making excuses. I can’t help worrying though, that Jesus is taking such a long time. When I read the Bible, the chronologies in Daniel clearly indicate a 1st century fulfilment of God’s plan for establishing His rule by removing man’s rule. The words of Jesus about the generation alive as he spoke, seeing the fulfilment of His words and His ‘second’ coming, as well as the ‘imminence’ verses of the apostles in the epistles, all point to the culmination of things in the first century. Jesus went away in 30 -33 AD for a long time of nearly 40 years, and ‘came back’ in 70 AD to execute judgment on Israel. Why did He not set up His kingdom then?

Something is very wrong. Apostasy had already crept in prior to 70 AD, and so the following centuries saw less of Jesus’ rule e.g. Christianity becoming paganised/married to the state; crusades, etc. We no longer see the signs and miracles like what marked the first church. I’ve never been to a church where they operate in the gifts of the Holy Spirit like what we read in the NT. I hear ‘tongues’ that I must admit I am sceptical about.

Why has Jesus left us to it for 2000 years? I suppose a lot of the time it does feel like Jesus isn’t really ‘around’. He said He wouldn’t leave us as orphans but it does feel like that for me a lot of the time.

If you are an all powerful God why would you be in a rush? What if He wants a lot of children? Then it is to His advantage to wait a while and to God a thousand years equals one day.

A lot of groups are expecting Jesus’ return right now. Also we just in the last hundred years got the type of mass transit that lets people go to and fro like the bible says will happen in the Last Days.

The recent return of the state of Israel is another sign. The New Testament says that the fig tree will bear leaves but no fruit and that is Israel today. Showing leaves but still not turning to Jesus Christ.

I don’t remember Jesus saying he wouldn’t leave us as orphans. Maybe he did say that but either way in the Old Testament widows and orphans fell under the direct protection of God.

[Cloud9]

All this disappointment, dissolution and despair is but the natural consequence of a fully botched and bereft eschatology so much of futurist Christendom has been saddled with… it’s a fully down-in-the-mouth “the glass is half empty” eschatology.

I understand that Preterism was a post-Reformation Papal invention. The Reformation clearly made the Church of Rome a prime contender for the Spirit of Anti-Christ. Rome felt it had to respond in some way and the Jesuit Luis del Alcazar invented Preterism. After all, if anti-Christ and all else was dealt with by 70CE then the Church of Rome was in the clear.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_del_Alc%C3%A1zar

For me, I must say, Preterism is the most pessimistic of all the views. I look at the world, I listen to the news and think that if this world is under the rule and reign of Jesus already then we surely are in deep trouble.
It also (in my view) portrays a God who reneges on his promises to Israel which, to me, is very pessimistic.

The preterists are right. The futurists are wrong.

John said these things are soon to happen in Revelation.

If they weren’t soon to happen then why would God give it 2000 years early?

The famous passage in Daniel 8:9 about the little horn replacing the big horn is about the Fall of the Roman Empire and the Papacy rising in its place.

[Cloud9]

IMHO there is no question that God’s hand is involved in destructive acts particularly in the OT. But can you see a distinction between destruction and torture? Destruction is fast and sometimes so fast that there may be little pain involved. The fact is that in life there is constantly destruction to make room for rebirth and growth. In a destructive forest fire the forest eventually regenerates over time into something even better. That’s a recurring pattern in life, it’s the nature of existence in this age. Remember we are in an age that Paul called “this present evil age” and it will pass away. All these things that trouble you will pass away and there will be a time when there is no more weeping and no more tears.

The question is , what do you choose to focus on?

So the ‘quick’ slaughter of whole families is not that bad because it was quick? Taking a sword and killing whole families is surely evil, whatever way you look at it. I’m focusing on the fact that God’s ways are meant to be higher than our ways, so why would He order such a thing? And if, as I am, you are forced to come to the conclusion that you cannot accept that God would order such a thing, then you end up having to discard the whole of the Bible, as it is all full of violence. Yes, there is talk of restoration AFTER all the bad people and things are removed. Sodom and her daughters are promised restoration, but how do we know this involves the ones killed off earlier? It could be talking of the land.

I’ve really tried to focus on the positive verses and put those dodgy ones to the back of my mind, but as I’ve been reading the OT for the last few months as part of my daily Bible reading, I’ve had to face these verses. I can’t ignore them any more. I’ve asked God to sort this out. I don’t know how to get past this.

Read Deuteronomy 20. God advised Israel to offer peace terms before ever making war.

Remember Rahab indicates the Canaanitic people knew about the Red Sea and that God was with Israel.

God owns everything by right of creation.

But these nations who were on Abraham’s land…(Abraham was given the land at the Well of Be’ersheba)…were demonic and steeped in evil and refused God’s overture of peace just like a lot of unbelievers do today.

If you are having trouble with the Old Testament then read the books at God’s Kingdom Ministries.net…

[Cloud9]

Hi, Catherine

I wouldn’t even consider trying to dissuade you from believing in the plenary inspiration of scripture UNLESS that belief was undermining your trust and faith in God. Which is more important? It’s honestly dead easy to tell which portions of scripture are right (at least in the way we understand them) and which are wrong (in the way we understand them). You yourself do this, and that’s why you’re having trouble reconciling what you’re reading in the old testament as well as some of the things Jesus has said, with a loving God. YOU know what’s loving and what isn’t. Otherwise, why are you judging God? And I think you’re RIGHT to judge these reputed actions of God, because if they were literal actions, then you know they were wrong. But they’re NOT literal. The Exodus imo was not literal; the YHWH wars were not literal; the plenary inspiration of Moses’ law was not literal. Are these books inspired? Do they contain magnificent truths? Absolutely they are and do. We however cannot see those truths because of our concern with God literally commanding literal genocide against literal small children and doddering elders, the rape and enslavement of virgins after the killing of their families, the unabashed slaughter of men, women, children, and even the little lambs. This is an untenable position to be in. My God didn’t do that. He just did not. Archaeology doesn’t support it and even a great many Jewish scholars don’t believe it. Here’s what one leader has to say about the Exodus:

Knowing the Exodus is not a literal historical accounting does not ultimately change our connection to each other or to God. Faith should not rest on splitting seas. At the Passover Seder we declare: “In each generation, each individual should see himself as if he (or she) went forth from Egypt.” The message does not depend upon whether 3 or 3 million individuals left.
Read more at beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism … IgRc45z.99

Here’s another link describing both sides of this controversy: hierographics.org/JewsGrappleWit … Story.html

Regarding Jesus’ support of Mosaic law; He actually didn’t affirm Moses unconditionally. He told the Priests (in the controversy over “for any cause” or “for sexual immorality” divorce), “Moses wrote you that law (about writing your wife a certificate of divorce) because of the hardness of your hearts, but in the beginning it was not so.”

He also told them on another occasion, “Moses gave you the law and yet none of you keep it.” Notice, MOSES gave you these laws. He DID come to fulfill the law of Moses which, as far as it went, was a good law; at least for the barbaric culture into which it was given. It improved the lot of slaves and women, and secured rights for girls who’d been raped, etc. To us today (after about 1500 years of Jewish cultural development and another 2000 years of Christian cultural development) these laws are horrifying. To the people of Moses day they were probably horrifying too, but for the complete opposite reasons. Back to the point though. Jesus DID fulfill the law. He dealt with it by nailing to the tree the writing of the decree that was against us.

The fact that He spoke of Sodom and Gomorrah as a literal event doesn’t mean it was (or was not) a literal event. We do this sort of thing all the time; using a literary story as the basis of a discussion, we’ll naturally speak of the characters as though they were real, and the story as though it literally happened. I don’t know what Jesus thought of the downfall of S&G; whether or not He saw it as literal. He didn’t have all knowledge as a human being, and had special knowledge only concerning those things the Father told Him via the Spirit. Ultimately, it’s the meaning of any biblical account that matters far more than whether it literally happened in history. In some cases, believing that things literally happened in history turns out to be toxic – such as, to sensitive and loving people like you, who know that (whatever the text says God did), the YHWH wars literally interpreted are genocide.

So, that’s my take on it. I simply cannot make excuses for God having literally done the things described in the Pentateuch. Since history and archeology don’t support it, I think it makes sense to take these accounts as sacred myth (a very high and very true form of literature – far more so than history, imo). To me it makes a lot more sense for God to say, destroy all the sin within you, even the innocent little things that seem harmless now. Destroy the old things that you’ve held onto all your life. Destroy it ALL. Take the land (your life) and make it the temple of God. Cast out all the filthy things, the strangers that don’t belong, the sinful practices. Be holy and separate unto Me.

People will balk at this. We’ve employed our methods of interpretation for, oh, a couple hundred years, or maybe since the Reformation and the “Age of Reason,” and we feel they’re holy writ. People have not always interpreted the bible this way. To us if feels like they have, but we are so short-lived and we often haven’t the time to scratch back through history and study past attitudes. I do believe that all scripture is profitable for discipleship and doctrine and reproof, etc. I just do NOT believe that it all literally, historically happened. I have, I believe, very good reasons to in fact believe that Jesus and His miracles and His resurrection did happen, but that’s another whole big (actually, a lot bigger) article.

Love, Cindy

If you want to read something interesting read “The Bible Says Divorce and Remarriage Is Not Adultery”…

I think Catholicism did so much damage to people it is scary.

Jesus Christ never rescinded the Old Testament Laws and that includes God’s law on divorce.

The law is perfect and spiritual the bible says.

Divorce was allowable under certain circumstances…A lot of people’s hearts are hard even today.

God isn’t going to leave someone tied to an abusive spouse but the Catholic Church will.

Infant baptism?

A baby isn’t even accountable for his own sins until around the Bar Mitvah age of 13.

Running around in black cassocks?

Black is the color of death and mourning.

I will wear rainbow colors…I am celebrating Christ’s resurrection and ascendancy…

Here’s the article on divorce…Silly Catholics…the more I study Catholicism the more I shake my head at how it got so much wrong and stayed that way intentionally.

Here is the article:
gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teac … -adultery/