The Coming of The Son of Man: When?-Moved from ETC

[billy-brown 2]

You're adding words and meaning that aren't there. What part of "but now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death [past tense] and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel", 2 Timothy 1:10 (NASB) isn't perfectly clear? He "abolished death" (past tense) through the gospel! That means we who receive it have had death abolished in our bodies, too! If you were to die right this instant, would you go to the Father and get a new body, or would you lay in the grave until some unknown point in the future waiting for a new body???

If you affirm the latter, that is an entirely different gospel than the one Christ brought and the apostles taught.



That word has a number of meanings which include:

English Words used in KJV:
destroy 5
do away 3
abolish 3
cumber 1
loose 1
cease 1
fall 1
deliver 1
miscellaneous translations 11
[Total Count: 27]

from <G2596> (kata) and <G691> (argeo); to be (render) entirely idle (useless), literal or figurative :- abolish, cease, cumber, deliver, destroy, do away, become (make) of no (none, without) effect, fail, loose, bring (come) to nought, put away (down), vanish away, make void.

They all mean the same thing: death has already been destroyed and done away with by and through the gospel!

And yes, Christ was completely and utterly clear in the words He spoke to His disciples:

`And immediately after the tribulation of those days...then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory; and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof. Matthew 24:29-31 (YLT)

The tribulation that befell Jerusalem was the sign that the Son of Man was in heaven. Immediately after that tribulation - it's internal strife, famine, and plague - Christ came in judgment upon it with the full force of the legions of Rome, just as the Father had come upon it in judgment with the armies of Babylon. Jerusalem was destroyed and with it the Law of Moses that was embodied in the Temple.

See it now? The promise of His coming was not made to us living 2,000 years after the fact: "then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast [Zechariah 12:10], and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory."

This was the same promise Christ made to Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin in Matthew 26:64! It was the same promise Christ made to the disciples in Matthew 16:27-28 and Matthew 10:23!

It was the same promise every one of the apostles who wrote of it in the NT pointed to!

Now, either Christ did not know what He was talking about or He did and people living today need to rethink what they believe about it!!! I have. It's not that hard once you let Christ's words speak for themselves.

Stormcrow,

The "coming of the Son of Man" features several things which I feel that you are missing. After all, the point of the redemption story is to do away with the following (in bold below):

Rev. 21
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them,
4and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”
5And He who sits on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” And He said, “Write, for these words are faithful and true.”

And Paul was looking forward to the following:

Phil. 3
20For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;
21who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Yep.

This means that all of the mortal bodies of the faithful must be transformed so as to be immortal as Jesus' body is now immortal. This is what Paul taught. Thus, the new heavens and new earth will consist of immortal people of faith on God--people of righteousness.

In other words, Paul was looking forward to the same thing that Peter was looking forward to:

II Pet. 3
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

Yep.

In other words, Peter was looking forward to the absence of death, since the new heavens and new earth does not have death. After all, death will have been tossed in the second death by this point--and after it has been abolished by the resurrection of the dead into bodily immortality:

I Cor. 15
50Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

51Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
53For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

54But

when

this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality,

then

will come about the saying that is written, “DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.

55“O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING?”
56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;
57but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Rev. 20
13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
15And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Does this make sense?

[John146]

Well, I do see your point; Matt. 24:30 is a big part of his answer to the question about the sign of His coming. But the end of the age has to still be future from now (per Luke 20 and other scriptures).

And Christ is coming at the end of the age, right? So, why would Matt 24:30-31 not be about that? What about the other references to His coming in the rest of Matt 24 and in Matt 25? Do you think He spoke of more than one coming of the Son of man? I don't. Therefore, in my view the timing of Matt 24:29-31 has to be the same as the timing of His coming mentioned in the rest of Matt 24-25. So, I see no basis for thinking Matt 24:29-31 is speaking of a different event than Matt 24:37-39, for example.

And also, there is an additional aspect of the questions of Matt. 24:3; remember, the disciples asked about the destruction of the temple buildings of that time as well, yes?

Of course.

And so, are there any scriptures in Matt. 24:4-34 which answers that aspect of the questions of Matt. 24:3?

Of course. I believe Matt 24:15-22 answers the question about when the destruction of the temple buildings would occur.

Well, I have to admit that there is great thinking in that post from the other thread; however, the temple that the disciples "were looking at" (as mentioned in parallel versions of the story) has to be considered in all this also.

Of course. He answered two questions so we have to determine which question He was addressing in any given verse or passage and that isn't easy since the local tribulation event of 70 AD had some things in common with the global tribulation event that will occur in the future.

After all, we know now that the "temple buildings" were destroyed.

That's correct and that occurred in 70 AD. So, He had to have been alluding to what ended up occurring in 70 AD to some extent, but we both know He also alluded to things that would occur beyond 70 AD.

And Jesus did not know when it would happen per se; all He said is that it would happen; i.e., the generation of that time would not pass away until it happened. Indeed, without the "historians" and so on, we would not know about it today, I suppose. Remember, the "tribulation of those days" was followed by the destruction of Jerusalem--which included the temple of that time.

And so, how do you account for all of that?

What I think you and many others miss is that Jesus spoke both of local tribulation that would occur in and around Jerusalem AND global tribulation that would occur around the world. You seem to think He only spoke of the local tribulation that would occur.

Well, what would that something be that would occur "immediately after the tribulation of those days" and so on? Remember, the "tribulation of those days" consists of what happened below:

I disagree. I believe the tribulation He was speaking of there was not the tribulation that would occur in Jerusalem but the global tribulation that would occur as a result of this:

Matt 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.25 Behold, I have told you before.26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

In this passage Jesus is describing things that would occur after the 70 AD events would already have been fulfilled. Maybe you can more easily see my point from this passage:

Mark 13:21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

Notice that it's referred to in Mark 13:24 as "that tribulation". I see "that tribulation" as being a different tribulation then the one described in Mark 13:14-20. I believe it's referring to the times of testing that would occur as a result of the rise of false Christs and false prophets and not to the physical destruction that would come down upon Jerusalem.

And is this not parallel with this passage from Luke 21?

Yes, Luke 21:20-24 is parallel with Matt 24:15-21, but is the following not parallel with Matt 24:29-31?

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Notice that it mentions there being "upon the earth distress of nations" and "Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth". How do those things have anything to do with what happened in 70 AD?

And the point that I am making is this: the "tribulation of those days" involved "Jerusalem being surrounded by armies" and so on. Has this not has happened already? Thus, immediately after the tribulation of those days, the "sign" of the Son of Man must have occurred . . .

I know the point you are making and I know it's easy to assume that "the tribulation of those days" in Matt 24:29 has to refer to the days of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies in 70 AD, but I disagree. I see two different tribulations with two different scopes mentioned in the Olivet Discourse.

Well, Jesus is indeed King/Priest; that does not need confirmation, actually.

So, would you then agree that what happened in 70 AD had nothing to do with confirming that Jesus is King/Priest then as you previously claimed?

However, Jesus is answering the questions of the disciples (as asked in Matt. 24:3) with the passages of Matt. 24 as well as Matt. 25, so . . .

Right, so why is the mention of His coming that we see after Matt 24:30-31 and in Matt 25 not the same coming as He mentioned in Matt 24:30-31?

[billy-brown 2]

And Christ is coming at the end of the age, right?

Yep.

So, why would Matt 24:30-31 not be about that?

Well, this is the issue of this thread; this is what Hitman is asking. So, let's see; it seems that the phrases from Jesus (in bold underlined uppercase letters below) are related to each other:

Matt. 26
63But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.”
64Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN.”

In other words, Jesus is saying that His "COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN" is a coming UP to HEAVEN to sit and Rule at the Right hand of the Father. And I am relating that to Matt. 24:30, because that phrase "COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF OF THE SKY" is there in that scripture:

Matt. 24
30“And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

And of course, Jesus already had taken David's throne as King at that point. Thus; it seems that the phrase "coming of the Son of Man" means the Second Coming only with you. Which is OK; however, this is where we differ.

(go to the next post . . .)

[billy-brown 2]

(this is the continuation of the last post . . .)

What about the other references to His coming in the rest of Matt 24 and in Matt 25? Do you think He spoke of more than one coming of the Son of man? I don't.

Well, His "coming the second time" is made possible by the fact that He Has ascended to the RIGHT HAND OF THE POWER; He is therefore in prime position to abolish death for the saints at the end of the age. And so, Jesus "came of the clouds of Heaven" to sit at the right hand of the Father, and that put Him in position to come again in the future from now at the end of this current age.

Therefore, in my view the timing of Matt 24:29-31 has to be the same as the timing of His coming mentioned in the rest of Matt 24-25. So, I see no basis for thinking Matt 24:29-31 is speaking of a different event than Matt 24:37-39, for example.

Yep. But this is because of your view of the phrase "this generation" in Matt. 24:34.

Of course. I believe Matt 24:15-22 answers the question about when the destruction of the temple buildings would occur.

Yep.

Of course. He answered two questions so we have to determine which question He was addressing in any given verse or passage and that isn't easy since the local tribulation event of 70 AD had some things in common with the global tribulation event that will occur in the future.

Yeah, that's the thing: there is indeed a localized event of tribulation, and then there is also the globalized tribulation--it is not easy to deduce this from these passages. And I think I know a possible reason why: it has to do with how many of us are seeing this passage from Daniel 7:13; that passage features an ascension of Christ, and that ascension is called a "coming UP . . . with the clouds of heaven":

Dan. 7
13“I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.

Now, this " . . . coming UP . . . " has to have happened already, or Jesus is not NOW the Immortal King/Priest in fulfillment of Psalm 110. And without this coming, how will Jesus return (COME) the second time to abolish death for the saints? remember, He has abolished death already, because He alone is immortal in this age that we live in.

That's correct and that occurred in 70 AD. So, He had to have been alluding to what ended up occurring in 70 AD to some extent, but we both know He also alluded to things that would occur beyond 70 AD.

What I think you and many others miss is that Jesus spoke both of local tribulation that would occur in and around Jerusalem AND global tribulation that would occur around the world. You seem to think He only spoke of the local tribulation that would occur.

No, no, I don't feel that I am discounting the global and local aspect of tribulation and so on. (Indeed, tribulation has been going on a loooong time already . . .)

I disagree. I believe the tribulation He was speaking of there was not the tribulation that would occur in Jerusalem but the global tribulation that would occur as a result of this:

Matt 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.25 Behold, I have told you before.26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

In this passage Jesus is describing things that would occur after the 70 AD events would already have been fulfilled. Maybe you can more easily see my point from this passage:

Mark 13:21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

Notice that it's referred to in Mark 13:24 as "that tribulation". I see "that tribulation" as being a different tribulation then the one described in Mark 13:14-20. I believe it's referring to the times of testing that would occur as a result of the rise of false Christs and false prophets and not to the physical destruction that would come down upon Jerusalem.

Let's see . . . is not Christ talking to His disciples in Matt. 24:23-28? If so, how can those days (Mark 13:24) be different days that the ones in Matt. 24:23-28?

Yes, Luke 21:20-24 is parallel with Matt 24:15-21, but is the following not parallel with Matt 24:29-31?

Luke 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

Notice that it mentions there being "upon the earth distress of nations" and "Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth". How do those things have anything to do with what happened in 70 AD?

I feel that your passage there is parallel with Luke 21:20-24 and Matt. 24:15-21. But that key phrase in Luke 21:27--"the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory"--is a phrase that speaks to the Kingdom rule of Christ.

(go to the next post . . .)

[billy-brown 2]

(this is the continuation of the last post . . .)

I know the point you are making and I know it's easy to assume that "the tribulation of those days" in Matt 24:29 has to refer to the days of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies in 70 AD, but I disagree. I see two different tribulations with two different scopes mentioned in the Olivet Discourse.

Well, this gets back again to the localized and globalized elements of "tribulation" that we have been discussing; we should be able to agree that there is a specific tribulation of those days as well as an allusion to tribulation that is the common lot of the saints. Indeed, until Christ returns at the end of this age, there will be "much tribulation" as we move toward an entrance into the consummation of the Kingdom of God.

So, would you then agree that what happened in 70 AD had nothing to do with confirming that Jesus is King/Priest then as you previously claimed?

Well, I can't really agree with that, because, the Kingly/Priestly aspect of Christ is about putting enemies under His feet--which would include those as represented in this parable below:

Luke 19
11While they were listening to these things, Jesus went on to tell a parable, because He was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately.
12So He said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive a kingdom for himself, and then return.
13“And he called ten of his slaves, and gave them ten minas and said to them, ‘Do business with this until I come back.’
14“But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’

27“But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.”

(go the the next post . . .)

[billy-brown 2]

(this is the continuation of the last post . . .)

Right, so why is the mention of His coming that we see after Matt 24:30-31 and in Matt 25 not the same coming as He mentioned in Matt 24:30-31?

This is a great question, and my answer seems to be appropriate to this Controversial forum.

One of the great keys is in understanding the difference between Jesus' phrase "coming of the Son of Man" or similar in Matt. 24:37-51 (in bold below) and the phrase "they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY" of Matt. 24:30 (in underlined bold below):

"coming of the Son of Man"

Matt. 24
37 “For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.
38 “For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,
39 and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.
40 “Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.
41 “Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left.
42 “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming.
43 “But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.
44 “For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
45 “Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time?
46 “Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes.
47 “Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
48 “But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time,’
49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards;
50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know,
51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

"they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY"

Matt. 24
30 “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory.

Now to my mind, Matt. 24:30 is a "Kingdom Rule of Christ Jesus" passage, and Jesus is making reference to Dan. 7:14 and Zech. 12:10 in this verse. Indeed, it is the truth of Matt. 24:30 that made the localized judgment destruction of Jerusalem and Herod's Temple possible.

And since Jesus compares the "days of Noah" to the "coming of the Son of man" in Matt. 24:37-51, we have evident reason to suggest that the judgment of the "days of Noah" can be compared indeed to the judgment of the Second Coming, because the flood of Noah was a worldwide judgment--just like the judgment of the Second Coming will be.

Now, this is quite controversial, yes?

[Stormcrow]

It is the body that will be changed and made incorruptible and immortal.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. I Corinthians 15 says that, too, by the way.

And the promise of a physical resurrection was not made to us!

Here is the first promise of a bodily resurrection:

“At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:1-2 (ESV)

Who were Daniel's people again??? If you're a Gentile and did not live to see His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem, the promise of a bodily resurrection was not made to you!

Why??? BECAUSE TO BELIEVE IN HIM MEANS YOU NEVER DIE!

Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day. [Daniel 12:1-2]" Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” John 11:23-26 (ESV)

So tell me, those of you looking for a bodily resurrection, how long will you lie asleep in the ground waiting for that new "physical resurrection body" that was never promised to you? Me? I'll be in heaven in the body God has prepared for me to "put on" the moment my soul leaves the old one! That is the point Paul is making in I Corinthians 15!

The "firstfruits" rose when Christ did (Matthew 27:52-53). The rest rose at the judgment of Jerusalem per Daniel 12:1-2! You can all sleep in the ground if you want, but that's not the gospel Christ brought or the apostles taught. Christ has already abolished death through the gospel. There is nothing more that can be added to what He has already done!

[John146]

And of course, Jesus already had taken David's throne as King at that point. Thus; it seems that the phrase "coming of the Son of Man" means the Second Coming only with you. Which is OK; however, this is where we differ.

No, that's incorrect. I've already said that I believe Dan 7:13-14 refers to His ascension so I do not claim that the phrase "coming of the Son of man" can only refer to His second coming. I just don't believe Matt 24:30-31 is referring to His ascension, but rather to His return.

Again, He was asked what the sign would be of His coming and the end of the age. I see His coming as occurring at the end of the age and I believe any time He references His coming in Matt 24-25 He is answering that question from verse 3. So, I don't see any basis for thinking that His coming that He mentions in verses like Matt 24:39 or Matt 25:13 is any different than His coming that He mentions in verse 30.

[John146]

Well, His "coming the second time" is made possible by the fact that He Has ascended to the RIGHT HAND OF THE POWER; He is therefore in prime position to abolish death for the saints at the end of the age. And so, Jesus "came of the clouds of Heaven" to sit at the right hand of the Father, and that put Him in position [B]to come again in the future from now at the end of this current age.

This didn't answer my question, though. I'm asking if you believe He refers to a different coming in Matt 24:30 than He references in the rest of Matt 24 and in Matt 25?

Yep. But this is because of your view of the phrase "this generation" in Matt. 24:34.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep. It seems we agree on most of Matt 24, but just not verses 29-34 or so.

Yeah, that's the thing: there is indeed a localized event of tribulation, and then there is also the globalized tribulation--it is not easy to deduce this from these passages. And I think I know a possible reason why: it has to do with how many of us are seeing this passage from Daniel 7:13; that passage features an ascension of Christ, and that ascension is called a "coming UP . . . with the clouds of heaven":

That is correct. I never said otherwise. Let me say again that I believe His ascension was a coming of the Son of man as well and the direction was obviously UP to heaven. But, of course, He is going to be coming back DOWN from heaven and that is what I believe every reference to His coming in the Olivet Discourse is referring to: His coming back DOWN from heaven.

Now, this " . . . coming UP . . . " has to have happened already, or Jesus is not NOW the Immortal King/Priest in fulfillment of Psalm 110. And without this coming, how will Jesus return (COME) the second time to abolish death for the saints? remember, He has abolished death already, because He alone is immortal in this age that we live in.

I never said that His coming down could have happened without Him first having gone up to heaven so there's no need for you to point this out to me.

Let's see . . . is not Christ talking to His disciples in Matt. 24:23-28?

Sure, but He's also talking to them in Matt 24:37-51. Does that mean those verses would have to be fulfilled in their lifetimes?

If so, how can those days (Mark 13:24) be different days that the ones in Matt. 24:23-28?

I didn't say they were. I believe Mark 13:21-24 is parallel to Matt 24:23-28. What I'm saying is that the days of Mark 13:21-24 (and Matt 24:23-28) are different than the days of Mark 13:14-20 (and Matt 24:15-22).

I feel that your passage there is parallel with Luke 21:20-24 and Matt. 24:15-21. But that key phrase in Luke 21:27--"the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory"--is a phrase that speaks to the Kingdom rule of Christ.

Can you explain how Luke 21:25-27 can be parallel to Luke 21:20-24 and Matt 24:15-21? When it speaks of the "distress of nations" how does that relate to Luke 21:20-24 which only speaks of the distress of one nation (Israel)?

[John146]

(this is the continuation of the last post . . .)



This is a great question, and my answer seems to be appropriate to this Controversial forum.

One of the great keys is in understanding the difference between Jesus' phrase "coming of the Son of Man" or similar in Matt. 24:37-51 (in bold below) and the phrase "they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY" of Matt. 24:30 (in underlined bold below):

Now to my mind, Matt. 24:30 is a "Kingdom Rule of Christ Jesus" passage, and Jesus is making reference to Dan. 7:14 and Zech. 12:10 in this verse. Indeed, it is the truth of Matt. 24:30 that made the localized judgment destruction of Jerusalem and Herod's Temple possible.

And since Jesus compares the "days of Noah" to the "coming of the Son of man" in Matt. 24:37-51, we have evident reason to suggest that the judgment of the "days of Noah" can be compared indeed to the judgment of the Second Coming, because the flood of Noah was a worldwide judgment--just like the judgment of the Second Coming will be.

Now, this is quite controversial, yes?

It's not necessarily controversial, especially knowing that you do believe in a future second coming of Christ. Where it becomes controversial is when people try to say that the entire Olivet Discourse is already fulfilled and when they deny His future second coming. I have a serious issue with that and I'm pretty sure you do as well. Our differences in understanding of the Olivet Discourse are relatively minor so I don't see our particular differences in understanding as being very controversial.

Anyway, I just see Him as only referring to His coming down from heaven and not to His ascension at all in the Olivet Discourse. It seems to me that what He describes in Matt 24:29-31 has to occur "after the tribulation of those days" and His ascension obviously did not occur "after the tribulation of those days" even if that was referring to the tribulation that occurred in 70 AD.

[John146]

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. I Corinthians 15 says that, too, by the way.

What is your point? Where does it say our changed bodies would have flesh and blood?

And the promise of a physical resurrection was not made to us!

Sure it is. Jesus made it clear that all who are in the graves will be resurrected (John 5:28-29) so regardless of who you think the promise was made to, the fact is that all of the dead will be resurrected.

Here is the first promise of a bodily resurrection:

“At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:1-2 (ESV)

Who were Daniel's people again??? If you're a Gentile and did not live to see His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem, the promise of a bodily resurrection was not made to you!

Give me a break. There are a number of things that were not made clear in the OT but were revealed and made clear in the NT. You should know that. One of those things is that Jew and Gentile believers would be joined together as one body which is called the body of Christ or the church. Another one of those things is that not only will Jews be bodily resurrected, but Gentiles as well. Jesus said all of the dead will be resurrected so you need to believe that.

John 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Why??? BECAUSE TO BELIEVE IN HIM MEANS YOU NEVER DIE!

Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day. [Daniel 12:1-2]" Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” John 11:23-26 (ESV)

This doesn't say to believe in Him means you never die physically. Believers obviously die physically. Notice He said "though he die, yet shall he live". That means even though we will physically die, we will be physically resurrected and then live forever with our immortal bodies from that point on.

So tell me, those of you looking for a bodily resurrection, how long will you lie asleep in the ground waiting for that new "physical resurrection body" that was never promised to you? Me?

That is a lie. It is promised to us and all who believe in Him! Jesus said so!

John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

This includes us because we believe in Christ. You are drawing conclusions from a verse here and a verse there without seeing what scripture as a whole teaches.

I'll be in heaven in the body God has prepared for me to "put on" the moment my soul leaves the old one! That is the point Paul is making in I Corinthians 15!

That is not at all the point that He makes in 1 Cor 15. He said we will all be changed at the same time! And that will be "at the last trump" which will occur at His second coming.

1 Cor 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

You have believers being changed at many different times but Paul made it clear that we will all be changed at the same time. You are contradicting Paul's teaching.

[quiet dove]

Sorry, without quoting my user name in the response, I sometimes don't realize you have posted to me...sorry about that.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. I Corinthians 15 says that, too, by the way.

And the promise of a physical resurrection was not made to us!

Here is the first promise of a bodily resurrection:

“At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:1-2 (ESV)

Who were Daniel's people again??? If you're a Gentile and did not live to see His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem, the promise of a bodily resurrection was not made to you!

Why??? BECAUSE TO BELIEVE IN HIM MEANS YOU NEVER DIE!

Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day. [Daniel 12:1-2]" Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” John 11:23-26 (ESV)

So tell me, those of you looking for a bodily resurrection, how long will you lie asleep in the ground waiting for that new "physical resurrection body" that was never promised to you? Me? I'll be in heaven in the body God has prepared for me to "put on" the moment my soul leaves the old one! That is the point Paul is making in I Corinthians 15!

The "firstfruits" rose when Christ did (Matthew 27:52-53). The rest rose at the judgment of Jerusalem per Daniel 12:1-2! You can all sleep in the ground if you want, but that's not the gospel Christ brought or the apostles taught. Christ has already abolished death through the gospel. There is nothing more that can be added to what He has already done!

I agree, flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom of God...but as was posted, our new bodies will not be of flesh and blood as we know bodies now. And that is difficult to grasp because all we know of bodies is flesh and blood. But since scripture gives us some good clues, we can go with that information, and the faith that we know God is able.

We know that we "will be like Him"(1 John 3:2-3).....and we know that whatever this new body is, Jesus ascended to heaven in one(Acts 1:9). We certainly won't be "gods", but we will "bear" His image( 1 Cor 15:49). Just as we are created in God's image but not God's, we will "be like Him(Christ)" when it comes to our new glorified bodies.

We need to consider that the phrase "flesh and blood" is more than simply a body, but is many times inclusive of our sin nature which certainly will not be inheriting the kingdom of God. I know you agree. These corrupted, cursed by sin bodies are not suitable for the kingdom of God, however we must consider that without the curse of sin, these flesh and blood bodies without our sin nature within them were indeed able to be in the presence of God and live forever, we can know this from Genesis. Adam walked with God, and when sin entered Adam was forbidden access to the Tree of Life so that he would not live "forever". So it is the sin nature, and thus the cursed mortal flesh and blood that cannot enter the kingdom of God.

But God has promised us more than a new un-cursed by sin, flesh and blood body to house our reborn sinless nature. God has promised a whole new and a glorified body...one that we can say will be like Christ body. And there is enough information in scripture to let us know that this new body will be much more than even what Adam had before the fall.

Of course I believe John 11 that you quoted above...but believing that those in Christ will never die has nothing to do with proving that Christ Second Advent has occurred, or that we, at present, have the new bodies that we are promised. Or that we require our new bodies to remain alive and conscious. (as opposed to the soul sleep you seem to think must happen if a man does not have either a old or a new body, one or the other being required for consciousness)

The quoted text of Daniel, while speaking to Israel and not Gentiles...don't leave out the passages that do prophecy that the Gentiles will indeed be included when it comes to the Redeemer promised to Israel.(Isa 49:6; Eph 3:5-6) Jesus Himself declared He came to Israel, but He also has come to offer salvation to the Gentile. The quoting of Daniel above does not make the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem fulfillment of the Second Advent or the resurrection of all men, nor does it make said prophecy fulfilled either. Imho, it is a misapplication of the passage to say it is history. The resurrection of Matt 27 was not fulfillment of the prophecy, but it was a witness of that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah.

Again, awaiting the new body does not mean that the soul/spirit lies dormant, or asleep in the ground. The spirit of a man does not sleep or die without a body. The life of the spirit is not in the body, but the body is only a dwelling place, a tent, for the spirit/soul. Without that tent the spirit/soul simply exist without it. Those spirits/souls of the dead in Christ are not sleeping or somehow dormant...they are alive and with the Lord awaiting the moment they will receive their promised new bodies.

You are demanding that their must either be a new resurrected body, or soul sleep, and then using that argument to say that the resurrection and Second Advent of Christ are then history...and that is simply not supported in scripture.

Knowing that in Christ Jesus we will never die does not mean that our new bodies are given upon being born again, or when this mortal body ceases to live. But we do know that the part of men created by God to continue after there is no body does indeed continue on and lives. Those men who are in Christ then live with Him in heaven, those who have rejected Christ also live on but, unfortunately, not in the presence of the Lord.

You seem to believe that without some sort of body, be it flesh as we know it, or the new promised bodies, that a man's spirit does not have consciousness, and that is not the case. A body is only a dwelling place for the spirit/soul, it is not the consciousness or required means of existence of the soul/spirit.

A man does not require a body, be it the old one or the new one, to exist and be conscious
2Co 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

[Stormcrow]

That is a lie.

I don't appreciate that kind of language. If you disagree, just say so. No reason to get nasty!

It is promised to us and all who believe in Him! Jesus said so!
John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him

So you've seen Jesus? How about taking this verse in context?

This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day. John 6:39 (HCSB)

Who were the ones "given to Him" specifically??? Try John 17!

"I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. "Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours..."While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. John 17:6-9,12 (NASB)

The ones "given to Him" in John 6:40 are the same ones "given to Him" in John 17 and this is a clear reference to His disciples: Jews all!

So again, to whom is the promise of a physical, bodily resurrection made??? To those who saw and believed in Him - those alive at the time of His first coming - and His disciples! These were the ones "given to Him!"

You accuse me of "drawing conclusions from a verse here and a verse there without seeing what scripture as a whole teaches" and yet what have you just demonstrated - and continue to demonstrate - by refusing to see these verses in context? And every single one of you who wants to argue with me on this point (who are you trying to convince?) continues to point to a single passage with what has - at best - an ambiguous meaning and refuse to see it in light of every other verse in the New Testament that speaks to His second coming before that generation had passed!

What part of "immediately after" the tribulation of those days is not perfectly clear???

[Stormcrow]

our new bodies will not be of flesh and blood as we know bodies now

Then why would they come out of the grave? Paul addressed where our new bodies are in II Corinthians 5:

For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 2 Corinthians 5:1-2 (NASB)

Your new body awaits you in heaven and you get it the moment you leave this "earthly tent." You do not wait for it in the grave!

What goes into the grave is corruptible and rots but the body you inherit the moment you die is incorruptible and eternal!

As I noted before, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind here. Believe whatever you will about this. Time will tell who got it right.

[John146]

I don't appreciate that kind of language. If you disagree, just say so. No reason to get nasty!

Your tone when trying to tell us that we aren't promised a new resurrection body was nasty so I figured you didn't mind someone being blunt since you're that way yourself. If you don't like people being blunt with you then don't be so blunt about things yourself.

So you've seen Jesus? How about taking this verse in context? This is the will of Him who sent Me: that I should lose none of those He has given Me but should raise them up on the last day. John 6:39 (HCSB)

Who were the ones "given to Him" specifically??? Try John 17!

"I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. "Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. "I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours..."While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled. John 17:6-9,12 (NASB)

The ones "given to Him" in John 6:40 are the same ones "given to Him" in John 17 and this is a clear reference to His disciples: Jews all!

That passage does not say that the disciples were the only ones given to Him. You need to keep reading from there.

John 17:20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

This shows that what He was praying to the Father about did not only apply to His disciples but to "them also which shall believe on me through their word" which would include us.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Are you going to try to say these verses only applies to the disciples as well? They clearly apply to all who come to Him and are saved and not just to the disciples.

So again, to whom is the promise of a physical, bodily resurrection made???

All of us. Just read what Jesus said in John 5:28-29. Who among the dead is excepted from "all who are in the graves"?

To those who saw and believed in Him - those alive at the time of His first coming - and His disciples! These were the ones "given to Him!"

You accuse me of "drawing conclusions from a verse here and a verse there without seeing what scripture as a whole teaches"

That is exactly what you're doing. You're clearly not taking passages like John 5:28-29, 1 Cor 15:20-23 or 1 Cor 15:50-54 into account here.

and yet what have you just demonstrated - and continue to demonstrate - by refusing to see these verses in context?

Look at how you talk. Accusing me of "refusing to see these verses in context"? That's ridiculous. I'm not doing that at all.

And every single one of you who wants to argue with me on this point (who are you trying to convince?) continues to point to a single passage with what has - at best - an ambiguous meaning and refuse to see it in light of every other verse in the New Testament that speaks to His second coming before that generation had passed!

What part of "immediately after" the tribulation of those days is not perfectly clear???

Nothing. Would you agree that it implies that His coming would occur at the end of the age and therefore Matt 24:29-31 would have to occur at the end of the age? Jesus spoke of what would occur at the end of the age in Matt 13:24-30 (explained in verses 36-43) and Matt 13:47-50 as well. I see no way that what He described in those passages could have already been fulfilled.