Part of me thinks, Jesus will NEVER return

[Paidion]

I am a Christian, Trinitarian, but I seriously doubt if Jesus will ever literally visibly return to Earth,
are the prophecies of the second coming to be taken literally or Not, I just can't picture it in my MIND

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.

Jesus appeared to His disciples after his resurrection, spoke some important things to them, and then ascended into heaven. His disciples watched Him go:

And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” Acts 1:10,11

They saw Him go up in His resurrrected body. In the same body and in the same manner shall He return!

[redhotmagma]

They saw him ascending, the messenger says we will see him return in the same way he left, he will return by ascending (in us). We now know no man after the flesh. The mystery is Christ in us the hope of glory (Christ was revealed IN Paul), which is now the down payment, but when He returns we shall all with unveiled faces be transformed from glory to glory, the feast of tabernacles, the fullness of deity will dwell bodily in us, we are the body, the temple.

Will we still see a physical glorified Jesus too? I don't know. Could I be wrong? Heck no

Thats how I see it

[AllanS]

Didn't Jesus say, "Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age"?

[edburley]

Check out how God "returned" or "came to" Israel throughout scripture. Was it literal? Did God literally "come on the clouds of heaven"? Or was that a poetic figure of speech utilized by the Hebrew prophets?

And regarding the Acts 1 verse that so many cite, don't we get our understanding of this verse from others? Seriously, who can tell me why the the "two men" asked the disciples why they were looking into heaven? Doesn't that seem a bit odd to you all? I mean, if Jesus is ascending on a cloud, and then the two men tell the disciples that he will come back the same way he left - why wouldn't they look into heaven? Isn't that where Jesus would be coming from?

The reason I am asking is because everyone assumes that since they SAW him ascend, they will SEE him descend. Isn't that the assumption? But if that were so, why would the two men ask why they were gazing into heaven?

But if the emphasis is on his ascending ON CLOUDS...and out of their sight (i.e., non-visibly), then couldn't the two men be saying "why are you guys looking for him to appear in the same form...he will come on the clouds of heaven, invisibly...you won't be able to see him physically, you will only SEE him spiritually...and all the tribes of the Land shall mourn..."

I'm kind of adding to the two men's words to illustrate my perception of Jesus' coming. It says when he comes, the tribes of the "earth" (i.e., ge in Greek, etetz in Hebrew) which is more properly translated "Land" and usually in scripture this would signify the Land of Promise. The use of the word "tribes" would also indicate Israel's 12 tribes, especially with the connection to the Land here.

Jesus ascends on the clouds. He will descend on the clouds. What does that mean prophetically? Look it up in your bibles - don't take my word for it. It is Judgment language - and in this case it would be the judgment on Jerusalem, the holy city - who had become a Whore. In fact, she was the Mother of ALL Whores. The wrath of God was about to be poured out to the uttermost - they were about to experience the Great Tribulation, the one that would happen "in that generation." None had ever been like it, nor will ever be again. It wasn't just about the death of a million Israelites, but it was the destruction of the Temple, the priesthood, the artifacts (including the Ark of the Covenant, the Lampstand, the Table of Showbread), the sacrificial system...their house was being made desolate, as Jesus prophesied in Mt. 23-25. The Sheep and Goats were about to be divided - the Mount of Olives divided.

Jesus was the High Priest entering the heavenly Holy of Holies, and according to Hebrews he would sprinkle his blood in the holy place, covering the mercy seat...and then he SAT DOWN on the Mercy Seat. He bought mercy. He owned it. But Israel would not know that God accepted his sacrifice unless he, like every high priest, came out of the holy place alive and well. But he would remain at God's right hand "until the restoration of all things." Hebrews tells us that he would come and WOULD NOT TARRY...i.e., he would not delay. Yet we have many who say that he has delayed - for nearly 2,000 years. Oh, I know, call me a scoffer...a day like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day...but this is hyperbole on the part of Peter. He wasn't giving us a mathematical formula - he was saying that even in HIS DAY there were those saying "where is the promise of his coming? He delays...he was obviously a liar and a fake." But Peter told them that God's timetable was not like man's. God said "a generation," which was 40 years (from AD30 to AD70). By the time it was all over, Israel would have been in captivity for 70 years (from Jesus' birth until Jerusalem's destruction).

Jesus was coming in judgment to that generation - upon whose head was all the blood of the prophets. Their sacrificial system was an abomination that would cause desolation. Their mark of circumcision had become like Moses' serpent on a pole - a curse. It was the mark of the beast...the usurper to David's throne, whose number was six hundred and sixty six (the weight of gold given to the Beast, Solomon, in tribute each year). Although he had experienced "a mortal head wound" (his son's divided the kingdom, clear proof that he was not the true heir to David's throne), the false prophet (Israel's leadership) kept him alive in the hearts of the people. But Jesus was the true heir...and he, one like the Son of Man, ascended on the clouds of heaven to claim his throne (Dan 7:21). He would return within that generation to claim it, and to vindicate himself as the true King, the true High Priest, whose sacrifice was accepted. His "appearing" (parousia) would prove to all that his sacrifice was acceptable to God the Father. He had "destroyed death," the "work of the evil one." He "put an end to sin" for "there is no sin where there is no law" and he had put an end to the Law of Moses. It was fulfilled through the law of the spirit of life...the law of love, mercy, grace.

He came "on the clouds of heaven" as the disciples saw him go. "Every eye (saw) him" and "all the tribes of the Land...mourn(ed)." The firstfruits were raised from the dead through baptism ("raised in newness of life") but "the rest of the dead" who were "dead in their trespasses and sins," "did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" in AD70. They were "beloved for the sake of the patriarchs" and were "resurrected FROM condemnation." The DEAD Body of Moses was raised to be the Body of Christ. No longer would they hurt or destroy on God's holy mountain...for the Prince of Peace had reconciled the world to his Father. God had turned ALL over to disobedience so that he might have mercy on ALL.

[pilgrim]

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.

Jesus appeared to His disciples after his resurrection, spoke some important things to them, and then ascended into heaven. His disciples watched Him go:

And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” Acts 1:10,11

They saw Him go up in His resurrrected body. In the same body and in the same manner shall He return!

To me, that is the plain reading of the text. I agree with you Paidion. Jesus was given a glorified body. He still has a glorified body. We too will be given a glorified body.

[Cindy Skillman]

And as they were looking intently into heaven at His going, lo ! two men stand beside them in white attire, who say also, "Men! Galileans! Why do you stand, looking into heaven? This Jesus Who is being taken up from you into heaven shall come thus, in the manner in which you gaze at Him going into heaven." (Act 1:10-11 CLV)

I'm not saying that Jesus does NOT come through His body manifesting Him in the world. Absolutely that will happen more and more; from glory to glory He is changing us. But . . . I believe this statement literally also, as I see no reason to suppose it is metaphorical only. This is Acts -- so far as I can see, not apocalyptic.

[edburley]

I too believe in the fact that we will receive "a glorified body" although that phrase is not found in scripture.

A couple of things - Jesus didn't rise in his glorified body. If he had, no one would have thought he was the gardener, and the two men on Emmaus wouldn't have been just so-so about him until afterward. His walking through walls occurred both before and after his resurrection, so it didn't require any different body after the resurrection. HOWEVER, in Revelation, when John sees Jesus, he looks a little different. THAT'S when he was in a "glorified state," if you ask me - iow, after the ascension.

Re: my view of the body. The cells in our body die and are replaced once every two years if you don't count the bones. With the bones it's every seven years. The dead cells leave us via fingernails, hair, toenails, flaky skin...These dead cells fall to the ground and return to dust. I believe, at death, our dead cells are left behind (that's the corpse we either bury or cremate). Our bodies are basically "a giant toenail." These dead cells are replaced with new cells, ones that are fit for the heavenly realm and they no longer will die.

I take this view because I am not a dualist who sees us as consisting of body and soul. I believe that our spirit and body make up our soul, and we don't leave this life without either. The change happens at death, not at some imaginary future resurrection. The resurrection that Jesus spoke of was what Ezekiel prophesied, the return of Israel to God (cf. chapter 37).

[pilgrim]

I too believe in the fact that we will receive "a glorified body" although that phrase is not found in scripture.

A couple of things - Jesus didn't rise in his glorified body. If he had, no one would have thought he was the gardener, and the two men on Emmaus wouldn't have been just so-so about him until afterward. His walking through walls occurred both before and after his resurrection, so it didn't require any different body after the resurrection. HOWEVER, in Revelation, when John sees Jesus, he looks a little different. THAT'S when he was in a "glorified state," if you ask me - iow, after the ascension.

Re: my view of the body. The cells in our body die and are replaced once every two years if you don't count the bones. With the bones it's every seven years. The dead cells leave us via fingernails, hair, toenails, flaky skin...These dead cells fall to the ground and return to dust. I believe, at death, our dead cells are left behind (that's the corpse we either bury or cremate). Our bodies are basically "a giant toenail." These dead cells are replaced with new cells, ones that are fit for the heavenly realm and they no longer will die.

I take this view because I am not a dualist who sees us as consisting of body and soul. I believe that our spirit and body make up our soul, and we don't leave this life without either. The change happens at death, not at some imaginary future resurrection. The resurrection that Jesus spoke of was what Ezekiel prophesied, the return of Israel to God (cf. chapter 37).

That's a fascinating perspective Ed.
I'm not sure how many bodies there are in your theology? For me, the simplest and most plain reading of scripture is that the Second Adam was given a new, incorruptible body on the morning of His resurrection. I see know reason why God should not close eyes and open eyes as to His identity nor any stipulation that this incorruptible baody has to be manifest in one particular form for the whole of eternity. If you can cite scriptures to support this belief, I'm very interested. Amongst other things, Jesus was the first-born. He has demonstrated how we also will shed this corruptable body and put on incorruption. He will return in precisely the same way He left.

[fmichaeldw]

The atheist author and poet Amis Kingsley suggested in his poem, A New Approach, that Christ should come backNew Approach Needed

Should you revisit us
Stay a little longer,
And get to know the place.
Experience hunger,
Madness, disease and war.
You heard about them, true,
The last time you came here;
It’s different having them.
And what about a go
At love, and marriage, children?
All good, but bringing some
Risk of remorse and pain
And fear of an odd sort;
A sort one should, again,
Feel, not just hear about,
To be qualified as
A human-race expert.
On local life, we trust
The resident witness,
Not the royal tourist.

People have suffered worse
And more durable wrongs
Than you did on the cross
(I know –you won’t get me
Up on one of those things),
Without some prospect of
Ascending good as new
On the third day, without
“I die, but man shall live”
As a nice cheering thought.

So, next time, come off it,
And get some service in,
Jack, long before you start
Laying down the law:
If you still want to then.
Tell your dad that from me.

by Kingsley Amis in Collected Poems 1944-1979 Penguin books1979

I came across this poem in 1988. For years I had been obsessed with the question as to just where Christ might appear in the world on His second coming. On reading this poem I found myself that night putting pen to paper words pouring out in similar style to Kingsley Amis in reply to his poem. I will post it later as it would not make much sense without reading KA's poem first!

Michael in Barcelona

[edburley]

I too believe in the fact that we will receive "a glorified body" although that phrase is not found in scripture.

A couple of things - Jesus didn't rise in his glorified body. If he had, no one would have thought he was the gardener, and the two men on Emmaus wouldn't have been just so-so about him until afterward. His walking through walls occurred both before and after his resurrection, so it didn't require any different body after the resurrection. HOWEVER, in Revelation, when John sees Jesus, he looks a little different. THAT'S when he was in a "glorified state," if you ask me - iow, after the ascension.

Re: my view of the body. The cells in our body die and are replaced once every two years if you don't count the bones. With the bones it's every seven years. The dead cells leave us via fingernails, hair, toenails, flaky skin...These dead cells fall to the ground and return to dust. I believe, at death, our dead cells are left behind (that's the corpse we either bury or cremate). Our bodies are basically "a giant toenail." These dead cells are replaced with new cells, ones that are fit for the heavenly realm and they no longer will die.

I take this view because I am not a dualist who sees us as consisting of body and soul. I believe that our spirit and body make up our soul, and we don't leave this life without either. The change happens at death, not at some imaginary future resurrection. The resurrection that Jesus spoke of was what Ezekiel prophesied, the return of Israel to God (cf. chapter 37).

That's a fascinating perspective Ed.
I'm not sure how many bodies there are in your theology? For me, the simplest and most plain reading of scripture is that the Second Adam was given a new, incorruptible body on the morning of His resurrection. I see know reason why God should not close eyes and open eyes as to His identity nor any stipulation that this incorruptible baody has to be manifest in one particular form for the whole of eternity. If you can cite scriptures to support this belief, I'm very interested. Amongst other things, Jesus was the first-born. He has demonstrated how we also will shed this corruptable body and put on incorruption. He will return in precisely the same way He left.

There was only ONE body...it was corruptible, mortal, carnal (fleshly, SARX). It was the body of Moses (Israel). The body of Moses was crucified (Jesus was "in the flesh," "under the law," and the "law was nailed to the cross") and the body of Jesus was resurrected. Jesus physical body was raised on "Easter" morning. His body/bride ("and the two shall become one") was raised after AD70. The imagery and scriptural background for this was found in Ezekiel 37 - the "dry bones." Ezekiel (the son of Man...sound familiar?) speaks to the dry bones and they LIVE. Jesus, the son of Man, spoke to the dry bones of Israel ("and they shall hear my voice and they shall come forth from their graves...") and "ALL Israel was saved."

It was a two-stage resurrection, according to the Revelator John, "And the rest of the dead did not come to life until the 1,000 years were over." The "firstfruits" were resurrected at their baptism ("and they were raised in newness of life") but the "rest of the dead" (Israel, dead in her trespasses and sins") did not come to life until they experienced "the second death" (i.e., the destruction of Jerusalem) - for a seed had to fall to the "Land" (ground, earth, ge, eretz) and die, that was Israel's destruction - and then they were "raised incorruptible, immortal, spiritually." They were "the body of Christ," the "Last Adam," aka, the Last Man (Adam means man).

You claim that it is the "plain reading of scripture" that tells you that Jesus got an incorruptible body on the day of his resurrection. Where? You give me the verse. MY plain reading of scripture doesn't involve God having to hide anything from anyone, which isn't mentioned. Re: the sojourners to Emmaus. Their eyes were opened after taking breaking bread with Jesus but their reaction was not "holy cow, did you see how his whole body glowed and blinded us!" Nope, it was "didn't we feel our hearts burn inside us when he spoke to us..." There is just no "plain reading of scripture" that describes what you want it to. As I pointed out, in the Revelation, it would appear that Jesus had a glorified body (or some such) based on "the plain reading of scripture" when John was describing the vision of Jesus.

Re: my belief about how we get our "heavenly" or "celestial" bodies is pure conjecture and I've stated that...

[pilgrim]

Hi Ed

There was only ONE body...it was corruptible, mortal, carnal (fleshly, SARX). It was the body of Moses (Israel). The body of Moses was crucified (Jesus was "in the flesh," "under the law," and the "law was nailed to the cross") and the body of Jesus was resurrected. Jesus physical body was raised on "Easter" morning.

So you're saying that Jesus' resurrected body is/was corruptible? I just want to be clear on that.

His body/bride ("and the two shall become one") was raised after AD70. The imagery and scriptural background for this was found in Ezekiel 37 - the "dry bones." Ezekiel (the son of Man...sound familiar?) speaks to the dry bones and they LIVE. Jesus, the son of Man, spoke to the dry bones of Israel ("and they shall hear my voice and they shall come forth from their graves...") and "ALL Israel was saved."

All this seems to go along with your preterist interpretation of scripture but it is eisegesis (whether right or wrong) and (to my knowledge) there is no scripture which says "All Israel was saved" Paul wrote Romans before 70AD but that is no reason to assume he was referring to 70AD or that he was not talking about Israel (the plain reading of the text).

You claim that it is the "plain reading of scripture" that tells you that Jesus got an incorruptible body on the day of his resurrection. Where? You give me the verse.

I actual said "the Second Adam" and I think it is relevant that you have omitted this point. Jesus was the firstfruit, the firstborn and he demonstrated (as the second Adam) what humankind's future would entail - the acquisition of an incorruptible body upon resurrection.
1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 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.
Incorruption is bestowed upon rising from the dead ie resurrection.

MY plain reading of scripture doesn't involve God having to hide anything from anyone, which isn't mentioned.

That's no more true than my own interpretation. There are countless things we believe which require interpretation. Anyone who cannot acknowledge this sets himself up for a big fall. We rely on the Spirit to enliven the text and to guide us.

then Re: the sojourners to Emmaus. Their eyes were opened after taking breaking bread with Jesus but their reaction was not "holy cow, did you see how his whole body glowed and blinded us!"

You seem to interpret 'glorified' as 'glowing' (perhaps you can give a text for that belief as you seem to suggest all your beliefs are founded on texts?

Nope, it was "didn't we feel our hearts burn inside us when he spoke to us..." There is just no "plain reading of scripture" that describes what you want it to.

To what are you referring? What do I want? You seem to think I want Jesus to glow?

As I pointed out, in the Revelation, it would appear that Jesus had a glorified body (or some such) based on "the plain reading of scripture" when John was describing the vision of Jesus.

"It would appear"?? Do you not have a text to say when Jesus was glorified?
How about these:
Joh 12:23 And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.

Joh 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Re: my belief about how we get our "heavenly" or "celestial" bodies is pure conjecture and I've stated that...

Well, we can agree on that.

Obviously, you interpret scriptures along a preterist view point and I do not.

To go back to the OP, I have no doubt (and I could ask any of my friends who lecture in English on this one), that the plain reading of how the angels declared Jesus would return is as several have already stated in this thread.
To interpret the text in a different manner requires quite a contortion but is understandable if one is already fixed to a preterist 'Kingdom-now' belief system.
I cannot see that further dialogue will be fruitful as we are in danger of repetition and I am confident that neither of us will be swayed by the other's point of view so I will bow out and bid you good-day my fellow traveler and brother in Christ.
God bless you.

[edburley]

Pilgrim,
Frankly, the part we agree on (I'm sure you're referring to my "conjecture" comment) is actually the obtaining of a glorified body. YOU believe it to be at "the resurrection" (which I see as past) while I see it as at death. I don't believe that part is conjecture - only the replacement of cells theory, which most people, if pressed, agree with...but alas, we'll have to leave it at that. It's what I call the "Giant Toenail Theory," iow, our corpses are a giant toenail.

You are also correct in your assertion that the difference between us stems from our understanding of a few keywords - "body" (which you see as individuals, and I see as the corporate body of Israel), "corruptible" - and its counterpart "incorruptible" (which you see as meaning that the physical is somehow evil, while I see it as "death" and that through the law of Moses), and along those same lines, the words "mortality" and "immortality." In my view, mortality speaks of "spiritual death," i.e., "the body of death" which was the body of corporate Israel dead in her trespasses and sins and in need of "eternal life" which is abundant life - a qualitative rather than quantitative view.

btw, I did not ignore your reference to Jesus as "the Second Adam," but I fail to see that as scriptural...scripture calls him "the Last Adam," not the second one. Prophetically, there were many Adams - Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob et al. Jesus was the last Adam, the finisher of the Faith. He did not eat from the tree of knowledge, and thus redeemed his bride, Eve (Israel) - unlike all of his predecessors. The shame experienced by the first Adam and Eve was dealt with once and for all, and humanity could return to the Garden and eat from the tree of life.

I stand by my use of Ezekiel 37 as a scriptural example of "the dead coming to life." And that "dead man," those "dry bones" was Israel in captivity. Israel in Jesus' day was in captivity as well - captive to sin and death, to the Law. This was likened to being in captivity in Egypt and Babylon...and judgment was to come on Israel, the Harlot within the apostles' lifetimes.

I am posting this response not as a rebuttal to you but so that others might read it and find something to chew on. I don't expect a rebuttal from you...I expect seekers to find nuggets...perhaps they'll find it in your post, we'll never know until later...after our corpses become giant toenails. LOL. I've been told that's gross...that's why I use it.

[fmichaeldw]

Going back to Phaidon's opening of the thread:

"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."

and to my earlier post quoting in full Kingsley Amis poem appealing to Christ for a New Approach " should you revisit us, /stay a little longer/and get to know the place". Amis then lists a number of suggestions during Christ's return and ending:

"If you still want to then.
Tell your dad that from me."

I came across this poem in 1988. For years I had been obsessed with the question as to just where Christ might appear in the world on His second coming. On reading this poem I found myself that night putting pen to paper words pouring out in similar style to Kingsley Amis in reply to his poem. I will post it later as it would not make much sense without reading KA's poem first!

Here goes with the reply - I am not sure in copy here if it will be pasted in the same format!

A REPLY TO KINGSLEY AMIS’ “NEW APPROACH NEEDED” (Collected Poems 1944-79)

I. THE REPLY

I like your invitation
To come again some time.
You and I should meet
Your place or mine,
Greet all, talk of Dad.
No time for that now
That’s why I am writing.
Thought you’d like to know
I’ve been around a bit.
So many times
He only knows.
I’ve lost count.
Never made the headlines –
Not yet! Up to Dad again;
Does not like fuss and hassle.
Amis! It’s always the same: pain, pain.
Pain? You talk about a Cross.
Well, that is going back.
There’s been worse since that.
Beats me man’s time spent
In making people suffer.
Seems nothing the likes of you and me
Can do to stop it.
And Dad? Drives him mad.
Sends me down
Again and again to sort things out.

BUT , AMIS, WHAT CAN I DO? ANY IDEAS?

I could do with a change myself.
Look, Amis, don’t get me wrong.
Others have suffered and worse.
But wait! I’ll tell you a thing or two,
What I’ve been through.
I feel you ought to know.
Like I said I like your letter,
You ought to know my situation.
One thing though intrigues me:
Your concern with a re-appearance
A New Approach. How right you are!
I’ve often tried, and how!
But back to what I’ve suffered.


Two thousand years of hunger
Two thousand years abused
Two thousand years of illness
Two thousand mis-unders-tood
I’ve seen some good times too;
More of that later.

II. THE CHILDREN.

Much more than love and laughter
It’s the rage and weeping I remember
Unhappy homes, crowded cells, the homeless – and,
Children, the children, Amis,
Lonely,,unloved,
,fly-ridden, war-stricken
tired, starved, thirsty
enslaved, diseased, abused,

Children, Amis, Children,
When we talk, you and I, let’s
Sort this one out first.

III THE INVITATION

Where next?

Ideas? A Fresh Approach!
Come with me next time;
We’ll try together a new idea or two
But only where he needs us most.
Never lost hope yet, but you’ll soon see
And suffer what happens most places.
Not nice, not short, unless we’re shot
But that’s unusual. No, a prison cell
Is the norm and no way out.
It’s not always ideas.The cause,
Sometimes, is how you’re born!
Suggestion!
Change your colour, place of birth –
He might exceptionally agree to that.
Not easy, prejudice will flare out.
I’ve tried to stop it more than once –
Not quite succeeded, yet.



IV WHAT ELSE?

Religions?.......but Wait!

Wait, Amis, I’d like to finish this, but,
Very sorry, will have to wait next time.
They’re after me again


What a way to go, always worse.
Not much time left this time round.
But HE will get this to you.
Dad liked your letter too, and,
I’ll be back soon………

MW

(Note for K.A. from MW. There is no signature to the above document, transcribed verbally. It has been quoted in full from longhand notes taken at the time. All in great haste! I cannot reveal how this came into my possesion. Something to do with “Dad”?
A few badly distorted last words are not included. However from what little could be understood, it is worth recording that a “fiftieth” or “sixtieth” anniversary or more likely birthday might have very recently been celebrated; then, a place for a ”meeting with you, Amis,” was repeated two or three times, but the name was garbled and then the lines of communication broke down completely. We will just have to keep our eyes and ears open in the hope of receiving a new message.)

Michael W at Barcelona 22.08.1988.

(Regrettably the message was never sent to Kingsley Amis who died at the age of 73 in 1995 so perhaps “a meeting with you Amis” was never to be in this world and the message should now be sent to his son, Martín Amis). 10.2003.

So far not yet sent to Martin Amis -------do any of you good people on the Forum know him, if so leave you to pass it on!!

Happy Easter to everyone!

Michael in Barcelona (thank you Revtweedy, Andrew, for encouraging me to make this Post!!)

[Melchizedek]

Going back to Phaidon's opening of the thread:

"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."

I don't think it is disbelieved, just believed differently. What if we, the ekklesia, are his resurrected body in which he returns? Are we not referred to as the Body of Christ? Did we not share in his death and resurrection? Did not Jesus himself say that we would do greater works than he?

What if we are the "returning Jesus in visible form?"

I certainly don't count that as disbelief, but as a non-"literal" interpretation of that very belief.

[redhotmagma]

I don't think it is disbelieved, just believed differently. What if we, the ekklesia, are his resurrected body in which he returns? Are we not referred to as the Body of Christ? Did we not share in his death and resurrection? Did not Jesus himself say that we would do greater works than he?

What if we are the "returning Jesus in visible form?"

I certainly don't count that as disbelief, but as a non-"literal" interpretation of that very belief.

Yep
Sacrifice and burnt offering you did not desire but a body you have prepared for me.
Christ is the head of the body, the ecclesia
The two shall become one, this is a great mystery concerning christ and the ecclesia
As Christ is so are you in the world
Christ in you is the hope of glory, which is the mystery hidden from ages past

[fmichaeldw]

Melchiziedek and Redhotmagna,

Interesting, and would be interested to have your comment on the poems A Fresh Approach and the Reply to Kingsley Amis?

Thanks!

Michael

[Cindy Skillman]

I think that in all prophecy (that I can think of, and that is already fulfilled -- at least in part) there is a literal and a figurative interpretation and fulfillment. For example, the restoration of Israel has both a literal and a figurative interpretation. Probably several of each, if I were smart enough to see them. BTW, I'm neither a prophecy nor a history expert, so if I make mistakes (as I probably will) please point them out and also forgive me.

The restoration of a culturally/ethnically intact nation to its original home place is unique in the history of the world. It isn't fashionable today to approve of Israel, and certainly it is a secular country which, like all the rest of us, does what it needs to do to survive, and sometimes unsavory things. But its restoration is nothing short of miraculous, and that it was predicted in scripture is even more amazing. For hundreds of years, bible scholars spiritualized this prophecy because they could (understandably) see no way it could ever be literally fulfilled. And even today many Christians point to Israel and say that the restoration of the physical nation means nothing. But honestly, to the rest of the world, it does look a lot as though the prophecies concerning Israel are being fulfilled physically in this world's system.

And pragmatically, the spiritual fulfillment via the church, of the prophecies concerning Israel, doesn't impress anybody, even the church. Yes, the spiritual fulfillment is the most significant, but the physical fulfillment is more impressive. Anyone can come up with a story for spiritual fulfillment. For most of the world this sort of thing equals no fulfillment at all. But the physical fulfillment brings attention and credibility to the spiritual fulfillment.

Jesus came to set the captives free -- from sickness, blindness, deafness, lameness, demons, even death. Yes, His healing of the broken hearted, His forgiveness of sins, His bringing in of the Kingdom of God is FAR more important than any temporal healing He brought, but I don't think I need to tell you how much credibility He WOULDN'T have had if He hadn't physically healed, restored, set free, and raised the physically dead. If He Himself had not physically walked out of the tomb and showed Himself to His disciples with many indisputable proofs, the story would have ended at the cross.

We've been looking forward to Jesus parting the eastern sky and showing Himself to the world for, yes, 2000 years. And YES! His manifestation of Himself in His body, the ekklesia, is HUGE. We've largely ignored this aspect, at least in recent decades. Maybe this isn't the case over the entire church world, but it has been the case in my limited experience both in the Bible Belt and in Middle America. It is TIME for the body of believers to show herself as the body of Christ to the world. It was Jesus' high priestly prayer that we believers would be one that the world might believe that the Father had sent Him. (John 17) And that prayer must and will come to fulfillment.

That said, I absolutely believe in the bodily return of our Lord Jesus, just as the disciples saw Him go from them into the clouds. We might say, "Well, God just doesn't do things like that." Really? He walked on the water; He fed the 5,000 +; He healed the man born blind and raised Jairus' daughter and healed the nobleman's son. He turned water into wine at the wedding and He restored the cripple at the pool of Bethesda -- yes, He did. He raised Lazarus from the grave after he'd been in there mouldering for four days. And He Himself walked out of the tomb into the Garden wearing a glorified, risen body. He ascended bodily into the heavens and He will return bodily from the heavens, at which time every eye will see Him and all the people of the earth will mourn because of Him, as one mourns for an only son.

Yes, there is a magnificent spiritual fulfillment to Jesus' return (which we will not accomplish except in the power of the Holy Spirit as the Father transforms us (as a single community) into the image of His Son), but there is also the physical fulfillment when He does indeed split the eastern sky and claim His own. (I feel I should have a trumpet fanfare here or something ) I am looking forward to both.

Blessings in Him,
Cindy

[Melchizedek]

I hear what you're saying, Cindy. While I don't rule out the interpretation you've presented as plausible; I do think it's possible, perhaps even likely that the approach that I and redhot have outlined here could fulfill the scriptural prophecies in both of the important senses (literal and figurative) you've mentioned. We do not yet know what we will be, and all of creation is groaning in anticipation of the revealing of the sons of God, so I'm thinking it's going to be pretty spectacular either way. We do know that we will be just like him when we see him as he truly is, but whether that is with physical eyes or spiritual ones is perhaps unknown at this point.

I also have my misgivings as to the state of the current "restored national Israel" being the restoration of which the prophecies speak, but that's somewhat a side issue.

Blessings,

Tim

[fmichaeldw]

Jesus came to set the captives free -- from sickness, blindness, deafness, lameness, demons, even death.

Cindy

Yes, hence the Reply (imaginary) to Kingsley Amis who in his poem appeals to Christ for A New Approach Needed on His return, both poems quoted in full earlier in this thread.

Extract from the Reply relative to the quote above from your Post:

I like your invitation
To come again some time.
I’ve been around a bit.
...............
So many times
He only knows.
I’ve lost count.
.................
Much more than love and laughter
It’s the rage and weeping I remember
Unhappy homes, crowded cells, the homeless – and,
Children, the children, Amis,
Lonely,,unloved,
,fly-ridden, war-stricken
tired, starved, thirsty
enslaved, diseased, abused,

Children, Amis, Children,
When we talk, you and I, let’s
Sort this one out first.

Cindy I loved your post and yes I could almost hear a fanfare of trumpets and the Hallejuh chorus at the end!!!

Joyful Easter to all
Michael in Barcelona

[redhotmagma]

cindy,

I don't fully rule out the possibility that Jesus comes back separate from His ecclesia, that He is the head of the body means the captain of a host or something to that effect, and we are changed into His likeness. I can see that and we become sort of like a hive mind alien/borg type entity. Having distinction but also being one, with Christ as the head. Sorry for the nerd out

But, I definitely don't lean toward that. A few reasons:

1)After Christs ascension, He was revealed IN Paul. Paul being the 13th apostle speaks to me of the new order, of melchizedek, there were 13 tribes really, the levites being the called out tribe/separated from the rest of the pack, Paul was an apostle separated from the rest.

2)All of the OT prophecies, the OT rituals, all of the natural were based around the tabernacle/temple. These things are all types of the spiritual with Us being the temple, Christians being Israel, etc. When the temple was destroyed in 70 ad, 40 years after Christ ascended (40 speaks of trial/judgement) I believe that was the end of the "literal". For most of the prophesies to be literally fulfilled requires a temple built in Jerusalem, which God does not dwell in temples made with human hands, we are the temple of the HS.

3)The nation of Israel is not Israel IMO. A jew is one who is circumcised of the heart. The state of Israel are not followers of Christ by any means, let alone most don't even follow Torah. They are violent, some would call them terrorists. I think that their return as a state is to fool dispensationalists into backing the war machine of Babylon. I don't think their return is of God. Again I could be wrong. But I would not label them as Israel, but as Edom or Ishmael. Ishmael is a wild donkey and is at war with everyone. Hebrews speaks of the Jerusalem below being likened to Hagar, her progeny is Ishmael. Also Edom because the religious Jews are under the OC which was given in Edom's territory, and haven't' progressed into Israel spiritually. Also ethnically there is evidence that Edom was absorbed into Israel in the 1st century bc. Also ashkenaz was a son of Japheth, and the majority of the jews are ashkenazi.

I could be wrong, I have been wrong once or twice before

[Cindy Skillman]

Very astute, Michael -- in-as-much as you've done it to one of the least of these . . . well done, and also well written. (And I don't lie about that sort of thing (well-written) -- I just try to find something else good to say.)

And Tim and RHM, You two definitely have a needed message to the body. We are Christ to this world (scarily). Lucky for us He is the one who will produce this unlikely likeness in us. And so I say, "Maranantha" to both forms of His return.

Blessings, Cindy

[edburley]

cindy,

I don't fully rule out the possibility that Jesus comes back separate from His ecclesia, that He is the head of the body means the captain of a host or something to that effect, and we are changed into His likeness. I can see that and we become sort of like a hive mind alien/borg type entity. Having distinction but also being one, with Christ as the head. Sorry for the nerd out

But, I definitely don't lean toward that. A few reasons:

1)After Christs ascension, He was revealed IN Paul. Paul being the 13th apostle speaks to me of the new order, of melchizedek, there were 13 tribes really, the levites being the called out tribe/separated from the rest of the pack, Paul was an apostle separated from the rest.

2)All of the OT prophecies, the OT rituals, all of the natural were based around the tabernacle/temple. These things are all types of the spiritual with Us being the temple, Christians being Israel, etc. When the temple was destroyed in 70 ad, 40 years after Christ ascended (40 speaks of trial/judgement) I believe that was the end of the "literal". For most of the prophesies to be literally fulfilled requires a temple built in Jerusalem, which God does not dwell in temples made with human hands, we are the temple of the HS.

3)The nation of Israel is not Israel IMO. A jew is one who is circumcised of the heart. The state of Israel are not followers of Christ by any means, let alone most don't even follow Torah. They are violent, some would call them terrorists. I think that their return as a state is to fool dispensationalists into backing the war machine of Babylon. I don't think their return is of God. Again I could be wrong. But I would not label them as Israel, but as Edom or Ishmael. Ishmael is a wild donkey and is at war with everyone. Hebrews speaks of the Jerusalem below being likened to Hagar, her progeny is Ishmael. Also Edom because the religious Jews are under the OC which was given in Edom's territory, and haven't' progressed into Israel spiritually. Also ethnically there is evidence that Edom was absorbed into Israel in the 1st century bc. Also ashkenaz was a son of Japheth, and the majority of the jews are ashkenazi.

I could be wrong, I have been wrong once or twice before

excellent points redhot. Keeping in mind that the bible says "first the natural (physical) and then the spiritual;" whereas the dispensational, or even the double fulfillment view sees it as "first the natural, then the spiritual, then the natural again."

Unlike most full preterists, I do believe that there is an ongoing, or progressive fulfillment (guess that might make me a partial, or a Pret-Idealist). Just as religion was the enemy in Christ's day (he called them "vipers," i.e., sons of the devil/serpent), we have enemies of the spiritual today. The fundamentalist view is very physically oriented; disdaining the "spiritualizing" of scripture. But scripture itself spiritualizes scripture; e.g., Paul writing in 1 Cor 10 that "Christ was the rock from whom they all drank, and he was the bread of heaven which they all ate...." The story of the Exodus where the Rock is struck twice was a prophecy (spiritualizing) of the Judaizers who would hold onto the Law/Torah rather than embrace Christ. Hebrews tells us that those who have tasted the heavenly gift (water and bread from heaven, i.e., Christ) and "turned back" (fall from grace to law) could not be restored because they had "crucified their Lord a second time," i.e., struck the Rock a second time, like Moses did - rather than "speak" to it...

We could go on and on about spiritualizing, allegoric interpretations, metaphor, etc., etc. Nobody believes that in Revelation's end time scenario there'll be a woman whose butt is so big it covers 7 hills...yet, we continue the debate...

btw, this post is no reflection on Cindy's post...I believe that she is a serious seeker of truth. She is studying to show herself approved and being a Berean - testing everything that's written by any of us. I respect her for that. My points here concern the general misunderstanding that many folks have about what constitutes literal vs. figurative...after all, things can be literally spiritualized...the example above of the Rock in Exodus is one such example. Jesus is not literally a Rock, but he literally provided spiritual water for those who thirst for righteousness...

[fmichaeldw]

Thank you Cindy. Extract from further thoughts in 2010 some 20 odd years after writing the reply to Amis:

As songs of praise are sung, prayers said, Christ is there, invisible, He is there at the altar facing those that worship, He is there at the back arms wide open embracing all, and He is everywhere sharing in the joys and in the suffering, with the sick, with those that heal, with those that love, and those that are unloved, with the poor, the despised and abused, the hungry, He is with the world to forgive as He would wish the world to forgive , to love as He would have the world to love. His hand is upon the shoulder of every man and woman, in the heart of every child, and we are all the children of His Father who is in Heaven. Be still, pray awhile, listen....

I have to say that the Reply to Amis and the above are the result of personal reflections, and have no Biblical origin. I am a very late regular reader of the Bible which I only truly discovered at the young age of 75, last year, thanks to a biography of Dietrich Bonhoefer. At one stage there is a moving passage, quoted from one of his books (or letters?), where he discovers the Bible, quite late in his short life. And at the same time I joined Revdrew's weekly Bible studies and shortly after joined the Forum where it did not take me long to discover that I have lot to catch up on!! It is proving a truly joyful and exciting re-birth!

Thanks again Cindy. God bless all.

Michael in Barcelona

[pilgrim]

Cindy, I believe absolutely everything you have said and I only wish I could say things as clearly and eloquently as you.
I have no doubt that the present nation of Israel is the physical fulfillment of the biblical prophecy.
I have grave concerns over the "Kingdom Now" philosophy. I believe that Christ's Kingdom will only truly be accomplished when He returns to set up His Kingdom. Theocratic states have been tried and have produced untold suffering and evil.
In addition I also believe that Replacement Theology is a dangerous error.

God bless us all as we strive to be guided by the Holy Spirit and seek only the Father's will.

[Melchizedek]

I understand your reticence, pilgrim, and it may very well be that we see some form of physical (visible) return of the head as well as the body. I'm not certain that the more "spiritualised" view we have presented here amounts to replacement theology, however.
I am not against 'literal' fulfillment, I just don't necessarily think that it will take the form we have traditionally thought it will.

Cheers, all.

[Paidion]

I don't think it is disbelieved, just believed differently. What if we, the ekklesia, are his resurrected body in which he returns? Are we not referred to as the Body of Christ? Did we not share in his death and resurrection? Did not Jesus himself say that we would do greater works than he?

I know that the body of Christ whom we are, is called "Christ" in the New Testament. But I fear that it is a serious error to equate this with the Christ who says He will personally return. Let me explain why I see this error as a serious one.

In describing Christ's return, Paul differentiated between "we who are alive and remain" and the Christ who will return:

For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. I Thess 4:15-18 ESV)

I must admit Melchizedek's suggestion in the initial quote above frightened me a bit. What if a large body of believers claimed to be the returned Christ, or part of the returned Christ? What if they then insisted on heading a kingdom to which they referred as belonging to the "Kingdom Age", to be set up as in the predicted millennium of Revelation? I am concerned that the Antichrist might be able to use this, or that this might be the Antichrist himself.

Then I thought of the warning of Jesus:

For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great miracles and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if tell you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out. If they say, ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lighting emerges out of the east and shines right to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 24:24-27)

If "the church" announces itself as the returned Christ, it will be questioned by many people. But Christ states that his coming will be as obvious as the light ("lighting" not "lightning") of the sun which emerges from the east and shines all day right into the west. When the sun shines everyone knows it. But while individuals and groups who claim to be Christ having returned may produce a few "miracles" to support their claim, it will not be obvious that any of them are actually Christ.

John said that even in his day there were "many antichrists". This word means "instead of Christ" — a substitute, an impostor. So if we do not accept the personal return of Christ, then I fear we will open to accepting a personal antichrist, or possibly a corporate antichrist.

[Melchizedek]

Sounds like a good description of the body rejoining the head! The body is not complete without the head, nor the head without the body.
Again; I'm not saying it won't happen, it just may look different than we expect. However it happens, it will be obvious to everyone.

I can appreciate the danger, but I also appreciate that Jesus' warning can cut both ways.

[fmichaeldw]

I have grave concerns over the "Kingdom Now" philosophy. I believe that Christ's Kingdom will only truly be accomplished when He returns to set up His Kingdom. Theocratic states have been tried and have produced untold suffering and evil.
In addition I also believe that Replacement Theology is a dangerous error.

God bless us all as we strive to be guided by the Holy Spirit and seek only the Father's will.

First thank you dear Pilgrim.

Almost a year now since I joined the Forum, both a humbling and exciting experience! The depth of scholarly exchange, and cheerful, friendly debate, an amazing and baffling encounter for me.

But I must now try to feel my way with so much that is totally new to me.

So for a starter, the terms quoted above from your post! I looked them all up in Wikipedia! Ok "a little knowledge.....", but the definitions were clear enough for me to at once share your concerns, and see your point about the dangers.

Michael in Barcelona

[rvallimont]

Interesting discussion. I appreciate the effort being undertaken to understand scripture.

It is indeed a lovely figure of speech to equate the risen body of Christ with the church. But, while I understand that the risen of body of Christ is incorruptible, I must confess I don't see the church as incorruptible. Paul is very concerned with the Corinthian church where incest is being tolerated [I Cor 5:1ff]. In Revelation [Rev ch 2 & 3] Christ holds "this" against the churches including those who commit adultery with Jezebel, those who follow Bala'am, those who go the way of Nicolaitans and those who have lost their first love, to mention a few. Historically, the whole point of the reformation was about the corruptibility of the church. This doesn't sound of incorruptible to me.

By the same token, I'm not sure how the world sees Israel in this day and age. Its technological superiority of the Arabs and Iran certainly make it a powerful nation. But a sign of the hand of God building a messianic state? Like the church being the incorruptible body of Christ, that's a little tougher take in.

But, then again, perhaps I'm missing something.

RVallimont

[redhotmagma]

Interesting discussion. I appreciate the effort being undertaken to understand scripture.

It is indeed a lovely figure of speech to equate the risen body of Christ with the church. But, while I understand that the risen of body of Christ is incorruptible, I must confess I don't see the church as incorruptible. Paul is very concerned with the Corinthian church where incest is being tolerated [I Cor 5:1ff]. In Revelation [Rev ch 2 & 3] Christ holds "this" against the churches including those who commit adultery with Jezebel, those who follow Bala'am, those who go the way of Nicolaitans and those who have lost their first love, to mention a few. Historically, the whole point of the reformation was about the corruptibility of the church. This doesn't sound of incorruptible to me.

By the same token, I'm not sure how the world sees Israel in this day and age. Its technological superiority of the Arabs and Iran certainly make it a powerful nation. But a sign of the hand of God building a messianic state? Like the church being the incorruptible body of Christ, that's a little tougher take in.

But, then again, perhaps I'm missing something.

RVallimont

I don't see the "church" as His body, or His bride (whether those are separate or the same is another question). The "church" as we see it today for the most part is the whore, just see Eze 16 and the description of His bride whoring out. That is not to say that all christians or churches are part of the whore. One teaching of the whore is ECT IMO.

When I say we are His body, right now we have the Spirit in part, the down payment. We are all still dragging around adam, and probably all part whore. I am not pure thats for sure.

But when the fullness comes it will be undeniable. The works that will be done will make the apostles look like a two bit magic act. Then we will look, act and be Christ on this earth, and there will be no more carnality in us (hopefully I'll be part of that company ). That is the unveiling of the Sons of God. That is incorruption. I don't believe anyone has experienced it yet.

[Melchizedek]

Interesting discussion. I appreciate the effort being undertaken to understand scripture.

It is indeed a lovely figure of speech to equate the risen body of Christ with the church. But, while I understand that the risen of body of Christ is incorruptible, I must confess I don't see the church as incorruptible. Paul is very concerned with the Corinthian church where incest is being tolerated [I Cor 5:1ff]. In Revelation [Rev ch 2 & 3] Christ holds "this" against the churches including those who commit adultery with Jezebel, those who follow Bala'am, those who go the way of Nicolaitans and those who have lost their first love, to mention a few. Historically, the whole point of the reformation was about the corruptibility of the church. This doesn't sound of incorruptible to me.

By the same token, I'm not sure how the world sees Israel in this day and age. Its technological superiority of the Arabs and Iran certainly make it a powerful nation. But a sign of the hand of God building a messianic state? Like the church being the incorruptible body of Christ, that's a little tougher take in.

But, then again, perhaps I'm missing something.

RVallimont

I don't see the "church" as His body, or His bride (whether those are separate or the same is another question). The "church" as we see it today for the most part is the whore, just see Eze 16 and the description of His bride whoring out. That is not to say that all christians or churches are part of the whore. One teaching of the whore is ECT IMO.

When I say we are His body, right now we have the Spirit in part, the down payment. We are all still dragging around adam, and probably all part whore. I am not pure thats for sure.

But when the fullness comes it will be undeniable. The works that will be done will make the apostles look like a two bit magic act. Then we will look, act and be Christ on this earth, and there will be no more carnality in us (hopefully I'll be part of that company ). That is the unveiling of the Sons of God. That is incorruption. I don't believe anyone has experienced it yet.

And I second that.

[Cindy Skillman]

When you see the church as an organized religion, as a business, as an enterprise created and controlled by men, then yes, I would agree with you 100%. We have a big problem with communication in this world, though, and as such, sometimes it's imperative to define terms with great precision.

Most people, when they say "church," mean by it (or at least think they mean) people who follow Jesus. While it's true that people also often mean "church building" or "church hierarchy" or "church denomination" or "church meeting" or "church as religion", if you ask them, they know enough to say that they mean the people who make up the church.

But I think that what you mean by the word "church" is the false religion that (alas) much of Christendom is; the great whore. (Hopefully I'm interpreting you correctly.) I just don't want people to misunderstand, especially some of our brothers (and maybe sisters) here who are in professional ministry or are attached to their particular body of believers. For most people I've met, "church" means all those things and more, and if you attack anything by using that word, you're attacking not only Christendom, but Christianity (meaning the life of actually following Jesus together).

I'm not sure how to solve this problem. Isn't there something in Isaiah about pure speech being restored? We certainly need it. I see so many times when people are in agreement, but they don't know it because they are literally speaking different languages, using the same words. At least if I'm speaking English and you're speaking Farsi, we know not to expect to understand one another that way. But when you both THINK you're speaking English, but the words mean one thing to this one and another thing to that one, it becomes a BIG problem. I've been in that situation myself, knowing that if only I could communicate effectively, the argument could be settled amicably -- but I just CAN'T seem to present my thoughts in such a way that the other person can understand what I'm trying to express.

Anyway, I'm getting off on a tangent here. Just feeling concerned that some of our members will feel attacked when that isn't actually the case. I suspect that we can all agree that it is the ekklesia of God that is the body of Christ, and not some human hierarchical system. What's more, we may find the ekklesia surviving within a hierarchical system (personally I think that's VERY bad for the body, but that's another thread) and we may NOT happen to find the ekklesia in a group calling itself "simple" or "organic" or "house church" or "church of two (CO2)," or anything else. In the end, it's all down to the Spirit of Christ living within and amongst us as we become one with one another.

And yes, I do believe that Jesus will and is returning in His body, and that it will be spectacular. But to fulfill scripture, it does not seem possible to me that He will NOT return visibly and apocalyptically. The church has failed as badly as Israel has failed as badly as Adam and Eve have failed. We cannot truly say that everyday and in every way we are getting better and better. We aren't, and that's a plain fact. Oh yes, individually and as small bodies of believers, some of us are growing in grace -- but as a whole? We're no better than our forebears and probably not nearly as pure as at least some of them.

We need Jesus to come back just as the disciples saw Him go, and then yes, He will govern through His ekklesia (that is to say, NOT through Christendom). HE will be the visible King of kings. We will be His servants and serve Him by serving the nations. At least, that's the way I see it.

Love you all,
Cindy

[redhotmagma]

Well said Cyndy. You clarified my farsi very well.

I agree with what you said except the separate return of Jesus but we've already established that
You mentioned apocylyptic. You know that is the word unveiling same as in the unveiling of the sons of God?

[Cindy Skillman]

RHM,

You mentioned apocylyptic. You know that is the word unveiling same as in the unveiling of the sons of God?

I'm not sure what you're saying here? 'unveiling same'? It sounds interesting, but I guess I need you to clarify . . .

Do you mean that the word apocalyptic means "unveiling the sons of God"? I thought it meant relating to an apocalypse such as the Revelation, and I was using it in a rather imprecise way. I guess what I meant was that there will be an end to this age and a beginning of the next, marked by certain symptoms such as the dead in Christ rising bodily (otherwise I will seriously be bummed!) from their graves. And of course, that contended bodily return of Jesus. And if the dead do not rise, I guess I'm still in my sins. I really hope Paul was being literal here, because I've been looking forward to having coffee with him one of these days.

[redhotmagma]

Sorry Cyndy. Im typing on my phone. Apocalypse is the word unveiling. Most of us see that word and think end of world. Just like we see aionos and read eternal. The unveiling is the same thing in romans of the sons and in revelation of the pattern son. In the same way the transfiguration happens by the renewing of our minds, and we all with unveiled faces are transfigured into the image of Him reflecting the glory of Him.

I believe this all begins now as christ increases and we decrease but the fullness will be us shining like the noon day sun.

Clear as mud?

[Melchizedek]

If I remember correctly, all apocalyptic language is more or less figurative. We see similar language usage and patterns in Revelation as we do in some of the OT prophets. We can identify that some of the OT prophetic events occurred historically, though "stars" never literally fell from the sky, etc. I don't think I have a reason to expect that the language of Revelation is any more "literal". The bottom line I guess is that I don't doubt that Jesus will return, and that it will be obvious; I just don't necessarily think we'll see him floating down on a literal cloud like Mary Poppins.

[Paidion]

What's the problem with Jesus coming in literal clouds? Is it just that it's outside all human experience? Well, so is resurrection from the dead. Yet we believe He was raised from death, don't we?

[Cindy Skillman]

It seems pretty clear to me that He WILL come, both in the clouds of His people His ekklesia; and in the clouds of the literal heavens -- as in the blue sky we see above. If He is truly risen in His own physical body (though changed), then I think we must logically expect Him to truly come in His own physical body in His own physical heavens amongst either physical clouds, or the clouds of His people previously called to Him, or both.

I don't mean at all to be rude to or to discount the sincerity of our brothers and sisters who see exclusively a spiritual fulfillment of this prophecy. The spiritual is after all more real than the physical. But if the physical is destined to disappear, then it must disappear for all of us. (Which I don't see as being according to scripture.) Even then I think we may yet expect Jesus to return in some tangible fashion, as a discrete person, recognizable to all as Jesus, the son of David, the son of Jessie, the son of Adam, the Son of God.

If we don't believe this, then everything (for me) starts to unravel. If Jesus will not return physically, then the next question is whether He was in fact raised physically -- or was He rather raised only spiritually, in the hearts of His ekklesia? And if His return from the dead is not as a physical and discrete person, can we expect that our own return from the dead will be as physical and discrete persons? Perhaps we will live on in the ekklesia also, as He is said to do, and not as discrete and conscious persons. If so, our hope of seeing our deceased loved ones is vain, and neither will anyone else see us, except in the eyes of our loved ones. And if that is the case, and there is no resurrection of the dead, no separation of the ages from one another, is there truly any change at all? Or do we expect the world to "go on" getting "better and better" as the church expands and drives away the darkness, filling it with the light of God?

And in that case, do we honestly think there IS a God, or is it really only our collective consciousness as we grow and mature until we find one day that it was always only us, and we, having become mature and perfected as a body, are the presence of God. I'm sure there is not a little fault with my train of logic, and I welcome anyone who can persuasively instruct me otherwise. Probably I have misunderstood something crucial somewhere, but I do want to know what the something is, if that's the case. I would welcome correction.

The correction I desire is in my perceptions of others' thoughts on this, as I don't want to misunderstand and misrepresent anyone. As for my trust in Jesus, as Jesus, while I am always open to the instruction of the Holy Spirit, I don't see myself changing on that.

I do believe He raised physically from among the dead ones, destroyed Hades, destroyed death, and that He will physically return as a discrete person; also that we will be raised as discrete and recognizable persons, that this present evil age will come to a discrete end, and the next, Messianic age have a discrete beginning. I do believe that His kingdom is now, but also that it is not yet. I don't believe that the church or the ekklesia can bring in the Messianic age, even though we ARE the presence of the Messiah on this earth. We are awaiting a birth, and a birth is a crisis event. It is not a gradual change.

Love in Jesus,
Cindy

[redhotmagma]

Cindy,

"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.

[Cindy Skillman]

Hi, RHM

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

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,
Cindy

[byronarn]

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.

[redhotmagma]

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.

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.

[Melchizedek]

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".

[redhotmagma]

Love you, Bro,
Cindy

Love you my Sister

[edburley]

What's the problem with Jesus coming in literal clouds? Is it just that it's outside all human experience? Well, so is resurrection from the dead. Yet we believe He was raised from death, don't we?

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.

[Cindy Skillman]

Hi, RHM

Thats why I say it won't be discreet

My husband said that word would be confusing.

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.) I wanted to make that clarification, because I can imagine that my whole post would sound a bit confusing without it.

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.

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 ) 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.

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

[redhotmagma]

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?

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.

[Cindy Skillman]

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

Blessings,
Cindy