Question on 2nd coming

[Nathan]

I was just thinking along these lines just today even.  It is tiny particles of dust that water forms upon and attaches to that creates a cloud.  We are formed out of the dust of the earth and we are 99% water.  When you mass people together in great numbers they look like a sea from a distance.  Natural reveals spiritual truth. 

It has been God's desire from the beginning not to just dwell "with" us, but to dwell "in" us.  I also believe that Jesus is accompanied by those who testify of him whereever he goes.  But these natural eyes are hindered from literally seeing that spiritual reality. 

This thread is on the second coming and someone early on had commented about not seeing "second coming" in Scripture.  And you won't.  The doctrine of this second coming has been the result of the natural minds of religious men reasoning within themselves that there is going to be a literal second coming of Jesus and our translations seem to project that same message.  But if you understand the reasoning "why" Jesus came in the flesh in the first place, you wouldn't then be questioning whether or not he's returning in the some flesh he was originally in.

for me, he came down from above to redeem that which was in a fallen state back to it's original alignment with the Father . .not so that he could then return down here . . .but so that we could pass through this veil of flesh and dwell with him  in the "upper room" place of intimacy.  Why would we want to insist he's returning in the flesh?  The flesh is the least important part of who we are.  The flesh is not where the eternal realm of life exists.  We continue to claim this flesh is temporary, Paul even stated that  . . .actually, I'm not sure if it was Paul who said it, but Scripture states that life on this earth is but a vapor.

If this is nothing more than a vapor in time, why would we then expect the eternal one to once again confine himself to one, individual body of flesh all over again?  It's like having Moses strike the rock a second time.  It's not the order.  The rock was struck once, living water flowed out.  Jesus came in the flesh once, living water flowed out of him.  To have him come in the flesh again would be lowering him from the higher realm a second time.

At least that's how I'm seeing it.

[Lefein]

I still want to know why the "second coming" can't be a literal one.

It isn't carnal at all to want to actually see Jesus (the image of our Father!) face to face in person, in all of his glory and majesty; not just through some meta-spiritual assembly of believers, which already have failed miserably to be Christ like.  Behold the harlot system that is today's church...

Its like..."I see God in the flowers, the trees...the mountains!..."

No...I want to see God, not abstract manifestations of him through his creations.

[Beloved Servant]

The Greeks asked the same question.
Sir, we would like to see Jesus.
Jesus answered...

[Quaesitor]

From my humble understanding, nobody said we wouldn't meet Him sometime, but that his appearing isn't a physical one but a revealing of His glorified body.

About the term "2nd coming", from my understanding again, it isn't scriptural.

[thinktank]

I don't see him returning in the flesh, for that temple has been put to death, crucified but now he has risen in his glorified body and when he returns every eye shall see him as he is, in his glorified body, not in his flesh.

Revelation 1:7   

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen

[Lefein]

From my humble understanding, nobody said we wouldn't meet Him sometime, but that his appearing isn't a physical one but a revealing of His glorified body.

Define "Glorified Body".

[jabcat]

I still want to know why the "second coming" can't be a literal one.

I believe He will appear literally.  Both in His saints and in His glorified, resurrected body - just as the disciples saw Him, talked and walked with Him, and watched Him go away.  Not His prior-to-the resurrection "old flesh", but the glorified/immortal body which hundreds saw prior to the ascension.

I believe there are a few teachers, on the opposite side of orthodoxy, that though they may be accurate regarding the body of sons, become too exclusive in their view and miss Jesus' appearing at the resurrection - the events the Apostle Paul was so excited about and so looked forward to.  And then the more those teachings are repeated, it's just accepted and spread as the truth.  That's my opinion - I have much more to learn and grow - about many things.    

I believe the scriptures teach both - the appearing of the sons and the Son of Man.  That's what I understand - I also understand there are various other views.  

Blessings.

[jabcat]

P.S.  I personally don't call it the second coming.  I would see it more as His "glorious appearing" - when we shall behold Him as He is - in the same manner in which He went away.  Just as the angels said.  I believe in it being spiritual, but not "over-spiritualized".   :2c:

Once again, I understand many things are interpreted differently and I can only state what I personally read and understand.   :bigGrin:

[Lefein]

I'll get to the bare bones, honest, nitty gritty, as Shawn often likes to point out. :winkgrin:

...I could care absolutely less, and next to nothing really...about seeing Jesus "as presented through" Jim-bob, Basil, Mary, Daisy, Little John, James, Issac, George and McPhinnigan...or any other individual who was ever born on this earth who is a part of "The Body of Christ".

I want to see Jesus Himself, as Himself.  

And certainly not as some abstract "invisibeing" where "spiritual body" is a code word for "He's in your heart!  Be thankful for it! >: |".

If that makes sense...

[jabcat]

I get it.  We shall behold Him.

However, you named me twice (Jim, James)  :laughing7:.   You just gave me permission to be really, really mean to you.    :happy3:

Just kidding.

[thinktank]

I still want to know why the "second coming" can't be a literal one.

I believe He will appear literally.  Both in His saints and in His glorified, resurrected body - just as the disciples saw Him, talked and walked with Him, and watched Him go away.  Not His prior-to-the resurrection "old flesh", but the glorified/immortal body which hundreds saw prior to the ascension.

I believe there are a few teachers, on the opposite side of orthodoxy, that though they may be accurate regarding the body of sons, become too exclusive in their view and miss Jesus' appearing at the resurrection - the events the Apostle Paul was so excited about and so looked forward to.  And then the more those teachings are repeated, it's just accepted and spread as the truth.  That's my opinion - I have much more to learn and grow - about many things.    

I believe the scriptures teach both - the appearing of the sons and the Son of Man.  That's what I understand - I also understand there are various other views.  

Blessings.

:bigGrin: I'm looking forward to it :thumbsup:

[Beloved Servant]

2 Corinthians 5:

16 So that we, from now on, are acquainted with no one according to flesh. Yet even if we have known Christ according to flesh, nevertheless now we know Him so no longer.

"He taketh away the first that He may establish the second."



Ah, how do WE see Him? As He WAS, or as He IS? Is our understanding of Him as the lowly Son of man, great and wonderful as He was in that former state, or do we see Him as He IS in His exalted position at the right hand of the majesty on high?

Do we see Him as the crucified One? It is wonderful to see Him in that way. Do we see Him as the One who endured the cross, despised the shame, conquered death and rose triumphant from the grave?

Or do we see Him as the ascended One, the glorified One; the One who transcended the law of sin, rose above the confining, limiting physical laws of nature and ascended into the Spirit realm of God, the Head of all principalities and powers, far above them all; crowned with glory and honor; Lord and King of the universe; FILLING ALL THINGS WITH HIS QUICKENING LIFE.

Do we see Him as a physical Man, or do we see Him as Saul of Tarsus saw Him on the Damascus road, as the Light of God brighter than the noonday sun.

Do we see Him with gentle blue eyes, seamless robe, and feet shod with the sandles of yesteryear; or do we see Him as John the Revelator saw Him on Patmos with eyes as a flame of fire, His feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters!  — Eby

[Quaesitor]

From my humble understanding, nobody said we wouldn't meet Him sometime, but that his appearing isn't a physical one but a revealing of His glorified body.

Define "Glorified Body".

His Church of which He is the Head.

[Beloved Servant]

The alabaster vessel has been broken.
He takes away the first, so that he might establish the second.

[Beloved Servant]

Cain - Able;
Cain's sacrifice - Able's sacrifice;
Ishmael - Isaac;
Esau - Jacob;
Letter - Spirit;
First Covenant - New Covenant;
Water baptism - Spirit baptism;
First Adam - Second Adam;
First earth - New earth;
Old man - New creation;
Jesus in flesh - Jesus in Spirit.

[thinktank]

chicken - egg

Pizza - stomach

beer - drunk

water - wine


Which ones the odd one out?  :laughing7:

[jabcat]

No need for personal insults.  Please rephrase anything personally negative to keep me from deleting.  I like posting in this thread, but if I need to I'll pull out and moderate.  We can talk about issues, facts, understandings without making personal judgments.  Thanks.

Edit;  this post was either not seen or was ignored, so edits made.  Blessings to all, let's move onward and upward.   :bigGrin:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I don't personally think we'll literally see a flesh and blood Jesus, but to be perfectly honest, it doesn't faze me one way or the other. If we do, fine; if we don't, fine. He's so real to me now, having a flesh and blood body to look at, is not a necessity in my life.

As I shared somewhere on here, I have seen Him face to face in another, like their flesh was a thin veil I could see Him thru. If it gets any better than that, I think I'd die from the shock of it  :bigGrin: Blessings.....

[Beloved Servant]

Jab, that was not intended as an insult, just an observation of what I perceive as an irreverent manner in treating Scriptures.
The Bible should be taken as seriously as conceivably possible.
The one making jokes about the Word is the odd man out.

[jabcat]

Great post Card.  You know, although I've said I believe we will see Him (not flesh and blood, but His glorified body - even though I admit, I certainly don't know what that looks like - maybe what you described you saw) - still, He's got it all under control, figured out, and it'll be perfect!

[jabcat]

Thanks Dave, and thanks for the good spirit.

IMO, your post just now explains your position without it (at least) appearing so directly personal.

Now, if I truly misunderstood, please forgive me.  Sometimes decisions have to made, and I certainly don't think I always make the absolute right one.  Not whining  :violin:, but sometimes it's not easy to make the right call.   :skittles:

And bottom line, even when moderating, I can't really criticize personally either, because sometimes I put my foot in my own mouth; and wound with words.  Ah, the tongue - that little member that wrecks big ships.  :mblush:

[Beloved Servant]

And Card,
I've looked into His eyes too.

[thinktank]

Jab, that was not intended as an insult, just an observation of what I perceive as an irreverent manner in treating Scriptures.
The Bible should be taken as seriously as conceivably possible.
The one making jokes about the Word is the odd man out.

I wasn't making jokes about the word, it is an observation of life. Tell me what's wrong with the statement

chicken - egg
water - wine
Pizza - stomach
beer - drunk
Where is the insult to the word? Didn't God turn water into wine, didn't God create the chicken? Doesn't food end up in the stomach, doesn't drink make one merry?. Nowhere is insult to be seen so your observation is incorrect.

have you heard about the statement, which came first the chicken or the egg?

If one cannot have joy then one misses a source of strength, for God said the joy of the lord is my strength.

[Beloved Servant]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/levity


lev·i·ty:
lightness of mind, character, or behavior; lack of appropriate seriousness or earnestness

[thinktank]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/levity


lev·i·ty:
lightness of mind, character, or behavior; lack of appropriate seriousness or earnestness

You should quote that at a funeral perhaps, if one is behaving to light hearted.