You are hereWhen Will Jesus Return?

When Will Jesus Return?

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 21 June 2009

For many Christians, Easter is the most important religious holiday of the year -- a time to celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and look forward to the Second Coming. According to a 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, fully 79% of Christians in the U.S. say they believe that Christ will return to Earth someday. There is less agreement among Christians, however, over the timing and circumstances of his return. Only 17% of American Christians do not believe in the Second Coming. By contrast,a larger number of American Christians, 20%, believe the Second Coming will occur in their lifetime.

You can see the full report (PDF) here.

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

Of course, most churchgoers and the Pew Forum people have probably never even heard of the correlation between 70 AD and the Olivet Discourse, so the poll questions are framed to exclude a Preterist eschatology.

The last one, about peoples and nations affecting it is interesting. That's why guys like Haggee and others prompt their followers to send money, political support, or military weapons to the Israeli State. I just saw a few of those prophecy buffs on DayStar TV, talking about how evil the two-state solution supposedly was to God's Plan, and how Palestinians should be further denied access to their homelands and especially be prevented from a sliver of Jerusalem.

Of course, not all Israeli Jews are fascists. But the fascist sector of the Israeli State gets a lot of support from Dispensational churchgoers on the North American continent (the Pew Forum blue bars).

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

Reformer's picture

Count me in with the 17% group who do not believe in the so-called "return" or "second coming" -- whether in A.D. 70, between then and now, or yet-future.

It's as the renowned theologian George Eldon Ladd well stated back in his 1969 book, "The Blessed Hope."

"The words 'return' and 'second coming' are not properly speaking Biblical words in that the two words do not represent any equivalent Greek words." And for a good reason. They are not appropriate.

What should replace the non-scriptural "return" and "second-coming" terminology and mindset (A.D. 70 or otherwise) are the "many comings" which have a long and strong biblical basis.

Barry's picture

On the contrary, there was clearly a spesific "end" in mind that they were to "hold fast until".
This is absolutely consistent in scripture and does relate directly to the then anticipated "coming" that is clearly attached to this "end".

Otherwise you would have to show contextually somewhere [that being outside of or beyond the above stated "consumation"] that there was another "holding fast", subsequently with another "reward", another "crown of life", another making everything new on top of the already having made everything new through such a consumation which related directly to that "end".

And since the stated above "consumation" related directly with the ending of the old covenant cosmos you would need another "law and the prophets" to prophetically draw from to secure any subsequent "fulfilling" to take place. Since Paul preach only those things which the law and the prophets had spoken of.
Getting the law and the prophets to speak of things which are not fulfilled in its own consumation is to have the old covenant simultaneously consummated and continuing. Thus fulfilled but not completely since the law was itself prophecy. Hence when fulfilled, consummated.
The law does prophecy a perpetual efficacy as a result of fulfillment but it does not prophecy a perpetual fulfillment. [IE, since everything is made new, new continues] Thus the "comings" whatever they are as prophesied in the old testament cannot speak of "events" allegedly forthcoming beyond the expected and anticipated "end" which is clearly given in the New Testament scriptures. Which "end" was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that then had "standing".

[Note: Such did show a historical marker of a fundamental shift in the aspect of "relationship". Thus negating any further need for "comings" to take place.]

Barry

we are all in this together

Reformer's picture

On the contrary, as well. YES this was the age-ending and consummatory coming. But NO it was not a "return" or "second coming." And the promises of his many comings (plural -- and different types for different purposes) extend beyond the end and as part of his unending kingdom.

IMO -- this is a major "blind spot" for many preterists.

Barry's picture

Then you should be able to contextually point out a "coming" or "comings" that follow after the "end" in question.

Blessings Barry

we are all in this together

Reformer's picture

Okay, if you insist -- and in keeping with the high probability that we have no NT Scripture written after the end in circa A.D. 70 --

One type of coming happened to George Katres when he was 12 years old. It was reported in The Indianapolis Star, Nov. 5, 2008, C-1. And, I've interviewed him for a future book I'm writing on all of Jesus' many past (I've documented 37 in OT and NT), present-day and future comings in his unending kingdom.

Contextually, it follows in the long pattern of John 14:18-19.

Barry's picture

Hey John,
Quote:
(I've documented 37 in OT and NT), present-day and future comings in his unending kingdom.

Contextually, it follows in the long pattern of John 14:18-19.
End quote.

Jhn 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
Jhn 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Jhn 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.

The time of preparation was between the ascension and the second appearance.
The "I will come again" is the second appearance.

Jhn 14:18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
Jhn 14:19 "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.
Jhn 14:20 AT THAT DAY YOU WILL KNOW that I [am] in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

At the day is the second appearance.
Same wording here:

Jhn 17:21 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.
Jhn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
Jhn 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

This perfection was attained in the second appearance.

Parallel to here:
Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

You are reading something into John 14:17-19 that is not there.
The fullness of the "aboding" 14:2, 14:23 took place in the second appearance. Compare:

Jhn 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
Jhn 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions {ABODES}: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Jhn 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.

Jhn 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our ABODE with him.
Jhn 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
Jhn 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being [yet] present with you.
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This is why "another comforter" was given to bring to remembrance these things of what he had promised. That he would not leave them as orphans but "come to" them. The "come to" in context IS the second appearance.

You are reading something into the verse that is not there.
Blessings Barry

we are all in this together

Reformer's picture

Dear Barry,

To the contrary re: John 14:18-19. Jesus did COME and they did SEE HIM -- MANY times, subsequently.

Barry's picture

Hey John,
Yes they did see Him but the context of "come to you" as that IS the second appearance.

The time between the death and the resurrection is a precursor for the time that Jesus would be "away" from the ascension to the second appearance. And so then the fact that they saw Jesus again at the resurrection is a precursor for the second appearance. BUT, the time that He went to the Father and Henceforth sent "another comforter" is the focal point. That being the other comforter would bring to remembrance all that Jesus had said (including this time here, Luke 24:27) functioning also as advocate in anticipation of the time that Jesus would "come to" them in the second appearance and thus, not leave them as orphans. The context of "come to" in John 14:17 IS the second appearance. The fact that He did appear to them at some other point is not the context of that "come" but functions rather as a precursor of that "come".

Jhn 14:11 Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
Jhn 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; BECAUSE I GO UNTO MY FATHER.
{Hence he is away}
Jhn 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name,
{being still away}
that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
Jhn 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it].
Jhn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
{and thus overcome that world and hold fast firm until the end}
Jhn 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,
{this was done after the ascension}
that he may abide with you for ever;
{to the age}
Jhn 14:17 [Even] the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
{indwelling took place only after Pentecost, John 7:39}

Jhn 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless
{as orphans}: I will come to you.

{Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.}

Jhn 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more;
{Rev 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still:}
but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
Jhn 14:20 AT THAT DAY ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

At the day is the second appearance.
You are reading something into the verse that is not there.
Barry

we are all in this together

Reformer's picture

I'm sorry, sir, but I must totally disagree with you interpretation here.

Barry's picture

NP Bro!
Nice chatting with ya.
Barry

we are all in this together

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

"The Coming of the Son of Man" that Christ referred to as having a fulfillment within that generation cannot be rightly converted into many "comings".

I argued with Gary DeMar on this point a bit, because he takes a similar position as Noe seems to. DeMar divides Mat. 24 to justify his position, if I remember correctly, and also may have tried to project OT passages onto the singular event Christ talked about in the NT.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Ed's picture

Actually Chris, the last time I read anything by DeMar on Mt 24, he attributed the Sheep and Goats judgment to AD70. He doesn't split the chapter. In fact, he challenged Gentry on that one, which of course Gentry ignored (as far as I could tell).

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Reformer's picture

DeMar and Noe's position re: Matthew 24 are not similar.

chrisliv's picture

Well, John,

They are to me.

Although, Gary has articulated his position more than you have.

But, on the surface, you both suggest a "many comings" position, and seem to deny that the Parousia, i.e., "The Coming of the Son of Man" of Mat. 24, was a singular event that had a soon-coming fulfillment at 70 AD, or at least by Masada.

So, maybe you're still a Futurist at heart.

Or, if you really believe in your "many" comings idea, there should be several historical examples that you can cite for us over the past 2000 years, as Barry asked.

I mean, if "many", to you, really means "many".

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Reformer's picture

DeMar posits Jesus' coming "on the clouds" in Matt. 24 as his ascension into Heaven. I see it as his earthly coming in judgment in destruction of Jerusalem. Both of us have written and been published extensively on this.

But I think Gary and I would agree alot re: many of the "many comings," but perhaps not all.

chrisliv's picture

Hey,

Thanks, John.

That makes your position much more Preteristic than Gary's, I think.

And it's nice that we have authors available to interact with here at PP, so that reading numerous volumes to glean particular points is not needed.

I think I remember Gary mentioning one particular sentence in Mat. 24 that he divided into one half in which he agreed had a 70 AD fulfillment, yet the other half of the verse he projected into Another, more futuristic, Coming beyond "that generation", which may still be lingering out there unfulfilled or slightly similar to how Dispensationalists are waiting for a Another "Coming" of the Son of Man.

Maybe Gary's position has changed, or maybe I have misunderstood it, but I don't think it will have been by much.

Isn't eschatology fun!

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Reformer's picture

Gary's postion on Matthew 24 is ALSO a past-fulfillment position. But he's still looking for a future "return," "second coming," the "final coming" at the end of time OVER AND ABOVE THIS. After which there will be no more comings. And what does Scripture have to say about any of these three expressions? NOTHING! Time we wised up, don't you think?

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

Gary is not a Preterist, as he seems to want to have it both ways.

Of course, Gary is a friend to the Preterists and the Preterist position.

But please don't include me in your "we" category.

I already know that the singular "Coming of the Son of Man" spoken of by Christ Himself demands a 1st Century fulfillment, in which the events of 70 AD fit nicely.

It was your initial post, which you have now clarified, that seemed fuzzy on that point.

So, you now seem to be saying that you agree with me that the NT makes no mention of "many comings", except for the solitary one referring to, or known as "The Coming of the Son of Man".

Peace,
Christian

Reformer's picture

No, I do not mean that at all, nor do I subscribe to it. Where would you have ever gotten that false notion ???

chrisliv's picture

Well,

I obviously got that false notion from your initial post, big guy!

Were you being facetious, somehow?

Or did I misunderstand, somehow?

Had you been drinking at the time of your initial post?

Of course, there's no need to answer. I'm kidding a little.

I hold a full-Preterist position.

Do you?

Peace,
Christian

mazuur's picture

Barry,

what you are missing from John's position is he defines any act in history by God as a "coming". Well, of course God continues to operate (or interact) in the world. No one would disagree with that.

The problem is God acted many times in history without the Bible calling it a "coming". Hence, Hebrews could state he will return a "second" time unto salvation. Did Jesus not continue to act between his ascension and his return in AD 70? Of course he did. He said he had to concur all his enemies, with the last one being "the death". Well, the Bible doesn't call these workings on the earth as "comings". Does it?

-Rich

-Rich

Barry's picture

Thanks Rich.
I was thinking that such was his position.
Figured I'd narrow it down further by John's responses as long as the discussion is "two way".

Barry

we are all in this together

Reformer's picture

Rich,

Where did you come up with this definition and then attribute it to me? It's a misrepresentation.

mazuur's picture

John,

I was going on our past interaction over this exact topic. If I got it wrong then sorry.

-Rich

-Rich

davo's picture

Barry: On the contrary, there was clearly a spesific "end" in mind that they were to "hold fast until".
This is absolutely consistent in scripture and does relate directly to the then anticipated "coming" that is clearly attached to this "end".

Otherwise you would have to show contextually somewhere [that being outside of or beyond the above stated "consumation"] that there was another "holding fast", subsequently with another "reward", another "crown of life", another making everything new on top of the already having made everything new through such a consumation which related directly to that "end".

Bang on the money Barry – no matter how many Divine "appearings" or "manifestations" there have been, whether recorded in the Scriptures or not, the ULTIMATE appearing or manifestation that counts for anything with regards to God's relationship with humanity was His AD30-70 Cross-Parousia event in Christ, where "the death" was defeated and Israel redeemed and thus humanity reconciled. Or as the writer of Hebrews said"

Heb 10:26-28 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

davo

Virgil's picture

John, I think we are straining over semantics here now. Whether it is an epiphany, a coming of the presence of God, a return, etc - they are all describing similar situations.

I think as far as the poll goes, the Pew people were asking about a literal coming of Jesus to earth, as traditionally understood by most people so far. The context of the poll is wrong to say the least.

Reformer's picture

Dear Virgil,

No, I would not agree re: "semantics." Words mean things and wording is important, especially here.

Virgil's picture

John, words mean things also when you are looking for a specific meaning in them. In the context of the overarching view of the Biblical narrative and God's final victory over Death, oppression and inequality, these issues debated by scholars in academic circles tend to become less important for people who are struggling with hunger, persecution and injustice on a daily basis. :)

Reformer's picture

Dear Virgil,

All of which brings us to the false and prominent expectation of Jesus' future "return" and "second coming" and his correcting of all this and the subsequent and popular mindset of "why bother?"

Which we must discredit scripturally and practically. Right?

Virgil's picture

I agree - but once we start drowning in the details of it all, we are minimizing the narrative. The story is about the death of death and the victory of Christ through the reconciliation of all things. Anymore, that's good enough for me. I still bother with the details once in a while but I do not lose sleep at night over them.

Reformer's picture

Dear Virgil,

That's nice. But in the meantime we are losing the culture and our kids in droves -- 70% to 90% of our youth raised in Christin homes deny the faith by the time the exit college (various studies/surveys).

Virgil's picture

I would say one reason for that is due to the fact that we spend our time teaching them exhaustive theology rather than how to live; I am being careful not to create some false dichotomy here, but we see the results of young earth creationism, futurism and pursuit of certainty at any cost: loss of faith for many.

There is a better way. :)

Reformer's picture

Virgil,

My proposed solution (?) is to restore the kingdom-of-God worldview to the church and the world -- upon which I'm currently teaching and writing -- and something of which I find greatly missing in preterist writings and discussions.

Any further thoughts?

For Christ & kingdom,

John

chrisliv's picture

John,

Let me ask you. I know Gary DeMar is. Gentry, too, I think.

Are you a Reconstructionist/Dominion Theology proponent?

Do you believe restoring the Kingdom of God to the World includes obtaining and using State Power to force compliance with your agenda, like the State currently and historically tries to compels compliance with its agenda?

Thanks, in advance.

Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone

Reformer's picture

NO.

Ed's picture

Chris,
Let me clarify one thing - as a former Reconstructionist myself (and I could "speak as a fool" [cf. Paul's pharisaism] if you'd like). The original views on Reconstruction (advocated by RJ Rushdoony) did not advocate "obtaining and using State Power to force compliance" of biblical law. Rushdoony's premise was that the family was the biblical backbone in which personal regeneration and moral compliance were perpetuated.

Next in Rushdoony's theory was Church government, which polity-wise was Presbyterian, in which the sacraments were offered as a "means of grace," and moral authority was exercised.

Lastly was civil authority, which was not obtained through force but through the regeneration of individuals and families within society - to reach a point where the majority of a society's citizens would be Christian and would enact a fair and biblical legal system, based on Israel's case laws and the Ten Commandments.

Never did Rushdoony advocate "taking over the government." Neither did most of his followers; including, Sandlin, DeMar, Gentry, North, et al.

In recent years however you are correct that some folks have taken it upon themselves to enter the electoral process in order to elect Christians dedicated to implementing a biblical system of sanctions within the civil government. The whole Constitution Party embraces such a notion, and is why I gave up that idea for a more libertarian position - which frankly is the system embraced by Sandlin, North, and DeMar just to name a few.

Many folks who followed the whole Moral Majority thingy back in the 1980s grabbed onto some Dominionist rhetoric and have basically given Reconstruction a bad name. Although I disagree with some conclusions that the Rev. Rushdoony came to, I think it is an unfair characterization of his theological position to claim that he wanted to "obtain...State power."

Your friend,

ed

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

chrisliv's picture

Well,

To me, "to reach a point where the majority of a society's citizens would be Christian and would enact a fair and biblical legal system, based on Israel's case laws and the Ten Commandments" is pretty much the same as lusting for power over others and trying to obtain State Power to do so.

I'm sure there is some slight variance in methodology being proposed by the few leading Reconstructionists and Dominion Theology proponents.

And you're right that you don't have to go to the Reconstructionists to see that modus operandi in play. Guys like Pat Robertson, the Moral Majority, and other groups are clamoring to wrest State Power to exercise lordship over others.

I think the Reconstructionists are at least up-front about their Statist and coercive goals.

I know you have some kind of a family tie to the late Mr. Rushdoony, and I'm not characterizing his particular form of Reconstructionism, because I've read very little from his works.

But I am characterizing and generalizing the impression I get of the current, theoretical form of Reconstructionism and Dominion Theology proposed by now living authors, which smacks of Puritanical Bondage and Police Statism.

Peace to you,
Christian

Ed's picture

Chris,
I don't disagree with your assessment of "Puritanical bondage." That was something that I, over time, came to realize was the problem. Reconstructionism wanted us back under the law - bad form!

I would still argue with you that the purist Reconstructionist is a libertarian, and more tending toward a very small government, mostly consisting of judges who would arbitrate "the Law," rather than legislators and presidents (kings) who would make laws.

That being said, you are correct that coercion must necessarily play a role at some point - as in the case of idolatry or homosexuality, to name just a couple of examples. Incorrigibility is another example that is brought up continually.

Many of the modern day writers that you refer to, but don't mention by name, were more influenced by Mr. Robertson than Mr. Rushdoony. My point was that many of the former Moral Majority Hounds read some stuff by Rushdoony, got excited, and started the state take-over rhetoric. While the end result may look similar, I can confidently say that RJ Rushdoony would not have been pleased with much of what is going on in the world of Christian politics today.

Honestly, I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, I'm just trying to be fair in the assessment of things. Believe me, I have no ox in the Reconstructionist camp.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

mazuur's picture

John,

Ok, I have to ask. When Jesus was defeating his enemies between his accession and his return in AD70, were those consider "comings" in your system?

Better yet, could you please define what a "coming" is in your system? I think that might help us all understand what exactly you're trying to communicate. It seems nobody understands it except you.

-Rich

-Rich

Reformer's picture

Rich,

Fair enough.

My working definition for “a coming of Jesus” is this: it’s a personal and bodily intervention and/or manifestation of Jesus into the life of an individual, a group, or a nation on this earth. There are many different types of comings for different purposes, and they occur at different times and places. Some are visible appearances; some are invisible interventions. Some are physical (seen, heard, felt); some are spiritual (an internal illumination or revelation); and some are combinations. Theologian Henry A. Virkler calls them “a special manifestation of His presence.” Furthermore, there may be other types of comings with which I am not aware, if for no other reason than not everything Jesus did was recorded (see John 25:21).

The next task is to document all these many comings of Jesus throughout the OT and NT as well as the several promises of many more of these comings post-ascension and post-A.D. 70.

mazuur's picture

John,

Thanks. With that, I don't see how what I stated below isn't true.

"what you are missing from John's position is he defines any act in history by God as a "coming". Well, of course God continues to operate (or interact) in the world. No one would disagree with that."

To which you replied, "Where did you come up with this definition and then attribute it to me? It's a misrepresentation"

That sure seems to fit your definition to me.

By your definition, all of the acts Jesus performed between his ascension and "coming" in AD 70 were "comings". The Bible tells us during this time he was defeating his enemies (1 Cor. 15:22-26), with the last being "death", which he defeated in AD70.

I have asked this before I'm sure, but do not recall you ever answering.

How can the author of Hebrews state, "so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."? Hebrews 9:28

How can he label his "coming" in AD 70 Christ's second "coming" if all his "interventions and/or manifestations" that he performed during that 40 year period were "comings"???

Second means #2.

I think it is save to say that during that 40 year period Jesus performed an "intervention and/or manifestation of Jesus into the life of an individual, a group, or a nation on this earth" and were at least an "invisible" intervention, and was probably "spiritual (an internal illumination or revelation)". I think his interaction with Paul would at least fall under that description.

I am just not getting it John.

Thanks,
Rich

-Rich

Reformer's picture

Heb. 9:28 only highlights two special comings of many. It does not limit his comings to only two times.

The study of Jesus' many comings throughout the OT and NT and his many various comings promised in the NT are truly worthy of better study and appreciation than most preterist have done to date -- IMO.

mazuur's picture

John,

But I still can't understand how Jesus can have "come" many times between AD 30 to AD 70, and the Hebrew writer refer to the AD 70 coming as his second. The writer uses the word "second" does he not? And the context is about Jesus "coming" or "returning". So, how can you state the Bible never talks about a "second coming"?

Maybe someday you'll explain this to me. Every time we get on this topic I ask this of you, and you never explain.

-Rich

-Rich

Reformer's picture

Dear Rich,

Stay tuned. I've been working on a multi-chapter book laying all of this out in a systematic fashion (which we have not done here). But all that is way too much for this venue to absorb.

mazuur's picture

John,

I look forward to it. Thanks.

I wish I could attend your Friday morning study, but the hours just do not work for me.

-Rich

-Rich

Reformer's picture

I lead a better one on Thursday mornings 8:30 AM if that's of interest.

mazuur's picture

John,

The problem is the morning. I have to be down in Columbus by 8 am, which means I have to leave around 7 - 7:15 am. Plus, I am a non-morning person, so getting up really really early just doesn't work for me. Don't worry, Ben has tried many times to get me to come. :)

-Rich

-Rich

rfwitt's picture

Yes St. Paul said, "We who are alive at his coming, coming, coming, coming....and Jesus said they (his disciples) would be alive at his coming, coming , coming....
Richard....

Reformer's picture

And your point is ???

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43