Second Coming

[Amie]

Hello Nancy,

I saw where you suggested that Amie start a new thread entitled “Second Coming.” I searched for it, but didn’t find it. I would be happy to post comments on it. I think you are right. This would be an interesting topic because of the various interpretations of Revelation. I’ve found that people have conflicting views on all three questions you asked of me. Much of their views are based on popular “end times’ interpretations, like the “Left Behind” series.

The three questions you asked me are:
Why do I think Jesus is coming back?
When do I think he is coming back?
What would he be coming back for?

My answers to the three questions are:
WHY DO I THINK JESUS IS COMING BACK? Scripture said so. “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 1:11). And Jesus said so: ”But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of the power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mt 26-64).

WHEN DO I THINK HE IS COMING BACK? I think he will come at the end of this present world. “Immediately after the tribulation of those days . . . and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Mt 24:29-30). “But in those days, after the tribulation, . . . And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory” (Mk 13:24-26).

WHAT WOULD HE BE COMING BACK FOR? I think he will be coming for the final judgment. All my writings elaborate why I think so. “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, . . . then he will say to the [sheep] ‘Come O blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,’ . . . then he will say to [the goats] ‘Depart from me you cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’” (Mt 25:31-41)

There’s an eschatological dimension to people’s concept of what happens when Jesus returns. I, for one, believe Jesus will return at the end of history, as we know it—the end of the world, and inaugurated eternity for all of us. Some, like Tim LaHaye (Left Behind) think Jesus will return, defeat the unrighteous and rule with his saints for 1000 years before the world ends. Others think God will first warn, then chastise the unrighteous, purify the world, and then grant the world an era of peace before the end of the world. Regardless of these conflicting opinions, I don’t think there should be any doubt that Jesus will return.

Hope Amie does make a thread for “Second Coming.” I think it will solicit some interesting comments.

Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams

I think that the subject has already solicited some interesting comments judging from above :). I look forward to further conversation.

Amie

[Maurice A. Williams]

Hello Amie,

Thanks for making “Second Coming” a new thread. Paige mentioned that there is already a thread that touches on the same topic in “The Coffee House” “General Chat” “Preterist vs. fulfillment.” The first post is by backtothefuture. I think that thread got bogged down in hair splitting over the definition of all the various schools of preterism.

I’m going to wait and see what comes onto this thread. Hopefully, we will discuss what we, ourselves, think without trying to categorize ourselves into some school that has a name that means different things to different people. Nancy asked me three basic questions. I think I answered them straightforward, quoting Scripture to back up my thinking.

I earlier made a post on “The Last Disciple” that was moved to “Grace Perspectives” “Biblical Impressions” “The Last Disciple Series.” In that thread, I made some statements about the book, and about the “Left Behind” series that help clarify how I think.

Hope we have a good thread here. Thanks for starting it.

Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams

[Amie]

I think that thread got bogged down in hair splitting over the definition of all the various schools of preterism.

True. Interesting too how you see them as schools of preterism, and I see preterism as a school of the fulfilled view, lol.


opefully, we will discuss what we, ourselves, think without trying to categorize ourselves into some school that has a name that means different things to different people.

THAT I think would be GREAT! :) You're absolutely right. Labels make me tired sometimes, haha.


WHY DO I THINK JESUS IS COMING BACK? Scripture said so. “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 1:11). And Jesus said so: ”But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of the power, and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mt 26-64).

I hope that you don't take this as my trying to convince you of my view. My intent is only to share how I see these Scriptures being applied, and not to attack how you see them.

I feel that Matthew 26:64 was fulfilled here:

Acts 2
32 This Jesus, God raised up, of which we all are witnesses.
33 Then being exalted to the right of God, and receiving the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

I think that was the beginning of His coming. I think "clouds" are symbolic language as they were in the OT - especially as they referred to Israel itself.

I think that the point the two men in white clothing in Acts 1:11 were trying to make was that there was nothing more to see. As I understand, Jesus entered Heaven "out of their site":

Acts 1
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

I think that the "tribulation" was the "birthing pangs" (sometimes translated "sorrows") mentioned in Matthew 24, and the laboring mentioned in Revelation 12. I feel that it was the rebirth, or resurrection, of Israel. I see it as a past event, as well as the sorting of the sheep and goats.

Thank you so much for your honesty and openness. We may disagree, but I truly hope that will not get in the way of our fellowship. We are family in Christ after all. :)

Amie

[Maurice A. Williams]

Hello Amie,

I think this is going to be an interesting thread because I can see how differently people view things. I think Mt. 26:64 implies that just as the apostles and friends of Jesus saw Jesus taken into heaven (in plain view of all the onlookers), Jesus will return in the same way (in plain view). I think Jesus meant the same thing when he said“ (you will) see me coming on the clouds of heaven.” I think this “coming” refers to his physical coming in his resurrected body.

I think Jesus has been (how can I say it?) spiritually present all during the Church age through those who are baptized and are living righteous lives. These people are “members of his body” as St. Paul puts it. They form his church. He dwells within them, and, if they really live righteously, he does some of his work through them. They bring his presence to those who do not know Jesus. But when God brings this earthly phase of our existence to conclusion, Jesus will return with his resurrected body and reign over the everlasting existence promised to all of us.

If his physical return coincides with the end of the world, then he will judge every human being and every spiritual being God created and will separate them into two camps: the “sheep,” (the righteous who enter the eternal heavenly kingdom), and the “goats,” (who, because they continually refuse to obey) will enter eternal damnation.

I think of the tribulation similar to you but with this difference: As the people comprising Israel gave birth to the church (birthing pangs), the unbelieving members of that group of people tried to destroy the church. I think the tribulation is what God allowed to happen to the unbelievers so they could not destroy the church. The unbelievers got into two major wars with Rome. In A.D. 66-70, Rome destroyed The Temple and most of the city of Jerusalem. In the second war of A.D. 131-5, Rome destroyed the entire Judean nation. Those not killed were deported to other countries and foreign people moved in so that these people would no longer be a majority in their nation. So thorough was this that, even as late as the early 1800’s, there was only about 10,500 Jews in all of Palestine.

It’s a pleasure to exchange views with others because I may not view things correctly. A good, honest discussion can help me better understand what God revealed. So let’s be friends in Christ and say it as we see it.

Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams

[Amie]

Maurice,

I so appreciate your spirit!!

Imo, Jesus was seated at the right hand of God in Acts 2, and was seen "coming in the clouds" via the Holy Spirit entering into the first century church. This "coming" (or "parousia/presence") began when Jesus was risen and the Holy Ghost given.

I don't see any present-day church member as having the abilities that the first century church had. They are not able to raise the dead, heal the infirm, etc. This, to me, evidenced that they back then, contained within them the pledge (Which in their culture was the same as an engagement ring; plus engagement equated marriage).

IOW, they had the Holy Ghost and their abilities proved it. That was way beyond present-day abilities. They literally reigned with Christ because He literally spoke via the Holy Ghost through them. That is not a present-day reality imo.

I think that every human being was judged ("none good"), and go as far as to say that God forgave every human being. The only folks who were accountable were those who chose to remain bound by (hence accountable to) the law. Even then, such accountability was paid by them in their biological bodies, in the body of death (aka, the body of Moses), and in "that age".

I see "unbeliever" as applicable only to ancient unbelieving Israel. They denied that Jesus Messiah had come in the flesh. They demonstrated their unbelief through that rejection of Jesus as well as their warring against the fulfillment of the Old Covenant.

Though I'm sharing how I see it, I'm very interested in what you are saying, and have to say further.

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Maurice,
If Jesus has to come back for the final judgment, than what was the purpose of the cross? Why go through all of that if its really not all finished yet?
Just wonder about that a lot.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Blessings
Nancy:confused:

[Maurice A. Williams]

Hi Amie,

I’m interested in what you have to say also. I can learn something listening to other people. You used some initials that I don’t recognize, like “imo,” “iow,” and “aka.” I know “aka” as “also known as,” but that didn’t seem to fit your use of the initials.

There are “healers” in most denominations today. I hear some of the cures seem authentic. Also there are shrines where cures occur, like Lourdes and Fatima. Those cures are well documented.

One could say that all human beings were judged because all human beings are sinners and have been placed in this exile because of sin. But the point I stressed is that each one of us will have a one-on-one personal judgment when we die and a final judgment at the end of the world.

I used the words “believer” and “unbeliever” to depict those individual who either believe or do not believe Christ. I don’t see “unbeliever” as applying only to ancient unbelieving Israel. First of all, Israel disappeared as a nation and an ethnic community long before Christ came into the world. After King Solomon died, there was a civil war in Israel. Two hostile nations resulted: “Israel” occupying the land apportioned to ten tribes and “Judah” occupying the land apportioned to two tribes. Assyria destroyed Israel and then dispersed the people and moved in foreign people. Those dispersed people became the famous ten lost tribes of Israel. The remnant that remained pure blood was named after Jacob’s son Judah. This remnant (Judah) was the survivors who were present when Jesus was born. So, strictly speaking, the ancient Israelites could not have denied that Jesus came in the flesh. The contemporaries of Jesus could have done that, plus those of us who were born after Jesus.

Also “ancient unbelieving Israel” is a collective noun. I don’t think God deals with collective nouns that include whole groups of people, guilty or innocent. For our sins, God deals with all of us individually.

NANCY: Millions of people have come into existence after Jesus died on the cross. If there is no final judgment, then they must have been judged before God created them. This doesn’t make sense. God gave all of us free will, which we use all during our earthly lives. When we die, God then judges us according to how we used our free will. We are all sinners before our birth because of what Adam and Eve did, but whether we find eternal salvation or eternal damnation is based on what we did during our earthly lives. Through his cross, Jesus saved us from the effects of Adam and Eve’s sin and earned forgiveness for us for our own sins (if we are repentant and want forgiveness), but each of us are still responsible for our own conduct in this life and must answer to God (actually Jesus) for our conduct. Jesus earned forgiveness for all of us, but each one of us must accept it and live our lives showing that we have accepted it.

Hope to hear from you and others again. It’s interesting hearing other people’s viewpoints.

Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams

[Truthseeker]

Hi Maurice, its nice to have you here. I'm enjoying your participation and comments.

I think several from this group are at the conference, so it may be kinda quiet for a couple of days. I've been away myself; just got back. So I'd love to comment, if I may. :)

Regarding the 2nd Coming (Parousia in the Greek which literally means "presence"): while reading Mt 24 and other parallel verses, if Jesus was speaking about a future generation rather than the one he was living in, then certain words he used such as "THIS generation will by no means pass away until all things are fulfilled," and his promise of coming "quickly" must be "spiritualized". On the other hand, if Jesus' words in these instances are to be taken at face value, then his apocalyptic language of "coming with the clouds", etc, must be spiritualized.

Those who see Jesus' coming as future "spiritualize" "this generation" to mean a future generation thousands of years down the road--whereas those who believe Jesus' parousia was in the First Century "spiritualize" apocalyptic language.

The Olivet Prophecy was given after the disciples marveled at the Temple, and Jesus told them that not one stone would be left upon another. They then took him privately and asked: "When will these things be? What will be the sign of your coming (Parousia) and the end of the age?" No doubt then that the disciples understood that Jesus' coming and the end of the age were in relation to the destruction of the Temple. Jesus began to speak about wars and rumors of wars, of false christs, of pestilence and earthquakes, etc, then told them that when they saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies to flee--not to even take the time to get their things out of their homes. He stated that THIS generation wouldn't pass away until all things were fulfilled. Its not surprising then, that the Apostles themselves believed they were living in the "last days"--the Apostle John even stated they were living in the "last hour." He based that on the Lord's words about anti-christs. John said many anti-christs had come, just as the Lord said they would, and therefore he concluded and assured his readers, "Little children, it is the last hour."

You mentioned that after Jesus' ascension, the angels told the disciples that Jesus would return "in the same manner." The whole world didn't see Jesus ascend, only his disciples did. They watched him rise up "until a cloud took him out of their vision." Since he was to return "with the clouds" or "on the clouds", this indicates his return invisible to human eyes, yet his followers would "see" it. Jesus also told the High Priest, "you persons will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Certainly the apostles weren't wrong in expecting the Lord's return in their own generation? Certainly Jesus' word that the generation wouldn't pass before all things were fulfilled is trustworthy?

Blessings to you--rhonda

[Tam]

Rhonda, Beautifully said. Whatever Jesus came to do, He did. Whatever He came to fulfill, He fulfilled. And now He's here with us forever more. No longer looking to dish out justice...for He showed us how capable He is at taking the justice for others upon Himself at the cross. He now looks to extend mercy...and there's plenty to extend. In fact, what I take from His words is "the more mercy to extend, the better!" Truly good news! Tami

[Paige]

Yes Tami, I've learned that whatever I would like to receive from God (mercy and grace), I need to be willing to also extend to others.

Great thoughts Rhonda! Thanks for adding so much to the discussion. It is very important to understand that apocalyptic language, taken literally, leads to much confusion. It was never meant to be understood in that way.

Maurice, to "see" the Son of man coming in His kingdom does not mean that they would literally see Jesus physically coming from Heaven. The word is used more like what we find in Matt. 5:8, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Seeing God would not be literally seeing someone with the physical eye, for God cannot be seen in that way. Col. 1:15, " who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." 1 Tim. 1:17, "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." Heb. 11:27, "By faith, he (Moses) left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible."

"Coming in the clouds" is seen in the same manner as the "sun being darkened, the moon not giving her light, and the stars falling from heaven." Also the same as God "shaking heaven and earth."

Paige

[Paige]

Maurice,

I forgot to add...iow = in other words; imo = in my opinion; aka = also known as.

If I may answer for Amie (as she is away at a conference right now). She said the "body of death" was also known as the "body of Moses." In the covenantal context I agree with her usage. Paul says in Rom.7:25, "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death." The context of Rom. 7 is OC law. 2 Cor. 3:7, "But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of his countenance, which glory was passing away."

The OC is referred to as a ministry of death and also a ministry of condemnation (3:9). The NC is referred to there as the ministry of the Spirit and the ministry of righteousness. To be in the NC during the time that the 2 covenants were "living in the same house" (Gal. 4:21-31) was to be a part of the "body of Christ". At the same time, if one chose to remain under the law, that one would be part of the "body of Moses" (what many of us have come to understand the term correctly refers to in Jude 9). Look also at 1 Cor. 10:2, "all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,". If one is baptized into Moses, it naturally follows that covenantally that one is part of the "body of Moses" as assuredly as one who is baptized into Christ is part of the "body of Christ."

Hope this helped to clarify.

Blessings,
Paige

[Maurice A. Williams]

Hi Paige,

I agree that God’s divine nature is invisible because God is a pure spirit. Jesus, however, was God become human. Jesus, even though he always retained his divinity, became a flesh and blood human being that can be seen with our human eyes. After his crucifixion, Jesus rose from the dead with a resurrected body. His resurrected body is physical. It really is a flesh and blood body that his Apostles could see and touch. Jesus even ate food with them. Jesus never lost that resurrected body. Wherever heaven is, Jesus is there body and blood, soul and divinity. Jesus will retain his resurrected and glorified body for all eternity.

The Apostles and some others saw Jesus, in his resurrected body, rise to heaven. I think the passage I quoted means that Jesus will return in the same way (with his resurrected body that can be seen). Of course Jesus has been present all along spiritually. He works through those who are baptized and lead faithful lives. They form his church. Through his church, Jesus ministers to all until the end of the world. Then he will return with his resurrected body.

People who have left this life before us no longer have physical bodies. They exist as spiritual souls. They cannot see as we see because they have no eyes. They cannot even “see” the resurrected body of Jesus. But Scripture predicts two resurrections, the first one when we rise from sin and become spiritually alive through our spiritual reunion with God. There is a second resurrection also when God reconstructs bodies for each of us. Then we will have physical (resurrected) bodies with eyes that can see physical things. We will then be able to see Jesus in his resurrected body, and, yes, we will also be able to perceive, spiritually, his divine nature and also understand the divine nature of God.

Isn’t this supported by The Apostle’s Creed? That’s how I see it.

Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams

[Paige]

Maurice,

I'm not all that familiar with the Apostle's creed. The view I take has come from how I see scripture teaching. As for resurrection, I don't see it the way you are presenting. Paul talks very much about it in Rom. 6. I'll post from vs.3-8:

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,"

The keys words in the text, IMO, are the words "likeness". Paul is guaranteeing those believers a resurrection in the likeness of Christ's. BUT, notice how that likeness is defined also by their likeness to His death and burial. It wasn't a physical death and burial experience they had entered, nor was it a physical resurrection that they experienced at His Parousia.

I have not found anywhere in scripture where we our physical body must be changed into something other than what it already is in order to experience the full Presence of God in relationship with Him. His kingdom truly has come, and He is here with us right now. There is no barrier between us and God, as represented by to OC Priesthood and Temple system; not even our physical bodies present a barrier between the communion we experience everyday with our infinite, merciful, loving God.

That is Good News, my friend!

Paige

[Paige]

Maurice,

You said:

Jesus never lost that resurrected body. Wherever heaven is, Jesus is there body and blood, soul and divinity. Jesus will retain his resurrected and glorified body for all eternity.


Do you have the scriptures on hand that support what you are saying here? I haven't found that in the scripture. In fact, the way I read 1 Cor. 15:28 is that when the ministry of the Son was finished, ( I believe His ministry was to finish redemption completely), the Son becomes subject to the Father, that God may be all in all. You see, nowhere in scripture is found the term "eternal Son". We do find the term "begotton Son." When God took on flesh, the Son was then begotten. God took on flesh to procure and secure the redemption of humanity. What I find even more interesting, is that when Jesus promised to send His disciples the Holy Spirit, He told them, "I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you." (John 14:18) Jesus was that Holy Spirit.

I guess if what you are saying is also from the Apostle's Creed, then I'm not lining up there either...

Paige

[jlv]

Maurice,

The old Apostles Creed never said anything about a physical resurrection. That was added by certain denominations in more recent times.

The oldest written form of the Apostles Creed is a baptismal interogatory. "Do you believe ...?"

The current form is no older than the Nicene Creed. The oldest form of the Nicene Creed appears to be the one in Basil's Liturgy and John Chrysostom's Liturgy. Immediately after the Creed is recited. Both Liturgies have statements thanking God for Christ's now past "second and glorious coming." In addition, in the same section, Chrysostom's Liturgy gives thanks for our previously having been resurrected and for the now fulfilled kingdom.

So the ancient Creeds were spoken of as already fulfilled from the time they were first written.

JL

[Truthseeker]

Hi All,

I don't see in NT scripture, not even in Jesus' words, anything about the physical being resurrected for immortality.

Jesus himself said, "The flesh profits nothing. It is the spirit that gives life."

Paul said, "We are to know Christ according to the flesh no longer." He also said we're to know no man "according to the flesh."

After Jesus' resurrection, he visited with the disciples. He was able to materialize and/or vanish whenever he chose. Mary mistook him for the gardener, until he spoke her name. If he had been in his same fleshly body, he would have been so disfigured from the beatings and scourging, he would have looked like a character from "Night of the Living Dead," easily recognizable.

The disciples on the road didn't recognize him until he spoke. On the beach, they didn't recognize him until he spoke. Angels in biblical history "appeared" as men to Abraham and others. Jesus obviously could do the same thing (materialize in a human body). This was, of course, during the 40 days between his resurrection and then his ascension.

Paul, on the road to Damascus, met the glorified, Spirit Christ.

Stephen, while he was being stoned, saw both the Father and the Son at His right hand--obviously a vision.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Love and Blessings to All--rhonda

[Amie]

Acts 1
9 And saying these things, as they looked on, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him from their sight.

The cloud received him "from their sight", or in the KJV "out of their sight". So Jesus definately entered heaven, out of their sight, right?


10 And as they were intently looking into the heaven, He having gone, even behold, two men in white clothing stood by them,
11 who also said, Men, Galileans, why do you stand looking up to the heaven? This Jesus, the One being taken from you into the heaven, will come in the way you saw Him going into the heaven.

I hear that in Greek, Jesus would come "tropos" (above translated "in the way") which means "like manner", or "similar manner". Also I hear that like" is not synonymous with same. Jesus would come in "like" (similar) manner, not in the "same exact" manner.

It reminds me of 1 Peter 3:20-21 where the antitype saves 'like' the water that saved Noah and gang.

So I think that the passage Maurice quoted meant that Jesus would return in "like" manner that they saw Jesus going into heaven (out of their sight).

Either way, the men in white were not encouraging the Apostles to hang out and wait, or keep looking toward the sky. They ask "Why do you stand looking up into the heaven?" Why would they ask that? They were questioning "why". The thesaurus reads:



Why (interj)
Text: how surprising, doubtful, or unbelievable < why , what a strange thing to say!> -- see NO

Why (noun)
Text: something (as a belief) that serves as the basis for another thing <asked the whys behind the surprising decision> -- see REASON 2

Certainly the thesaurus isn't talking specifically about the Greek "tis", but if you consider the meaning of "tis" it is questioning. It begs the answer to "who", "why" (on what basis do you/shall I believe), "what reason", etc.
It isn't a leading question, it is a question without an answer. The men in white asked them why in the world they were standing there looking up into the heavens. If Jesus were returning visibly, why ask why? They would then have had good reason to be standing there watching because they were "about to" see him return (In that generation Mt 23:36, 24:34, Mr 13:30, etc).

I don't know about any of the creeds either. I don't know in Scripture where it reads that the two resurrections are not consecutive, indivisible parts of a single happening, and I don't know in Scripture where it reads that there is a literal reconstruction of literal bodies.

We've all mentioned things that we aren't seeing in Scripture. Perhaps your sharing where you do will clarify some things?

Amie

[Truthseeker]

Its good to have you back, dear Sis. :) Missed ya. I heard how great the conference was. I'm hoping to make it next year--as are others on another group. :) There's a saying by the Jewish people, I understand, that goes: "Next year in Jerusalem" (for Passover.) We now have a saying, "Next year in Branson." That would be such a joy--not only to meet the ones I've been fellowshiping with for so long there--but to also be able to meet many of you from here. Blessings to you, Sis--rhonda

[Amie]

Its good to have you back, dear Sis. :) Missed ya. I heard how great the conference was. I'm hoping to make it next year--as are others on another group. :) There's a saying by the Jewish people, I understand, that goes: "Next year in Jerusalem" (for Passover.) We now have a saying, "Next year in Branson." That would be such a joy--not only to meet the ones I've been fellowshiping with for so long there--but to also be able to meet many of you from here. Blessings to you, Sis--rhonda

It would be wonderful to meet you!! I'm not sure that they're doing it in Branson again. Kevin (Beck) is taking suggestions over in the "Transmillennial 2006" thread under "Annoucements" if you have any.

I've enjoyed reading your posts! Don't stop talking on account of me :)!

Amie

[Truthseeker]

maybe I can suggest lovely, tropical, sunny St. Pete, Fl?

Since this is also my home, I know for sure I can make it! :biglaugha: --rhonda

[Maurice A. Williams]

Some of you have questioned the origin of The Apostle’s Creed and “where is it in Scripture?” The Apostle’s Creed is very ancient, but I agree that the entire text that has passed down to us is not in Scripture. But does that mean that Scripture does not support all the statements in it? The Apostle’s Creed has been passed down as the first listing of the basic beliefs the early Christians accepted. It has been attributed to the apostles. Does Scripture, particularly the New Testament, support all the claims in the Apostle’s Creed? Let’s examine them.

I BELIEVE IN GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH,
“In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1)

AND IN JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, . . “(John 1:14).

WHO WAS CONCEIVED OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,
“And the angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” (Luke 1:35).

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY,
“And Mary said to the angel, ‘How shall this be, since I have no husband?’” (Luke 1:34).

SUFFERED UNDER PONTIUS PILATE,
“Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him.” (John 19:1).

WAS CRUCIFIED,
“(Pilate said) Take him yourselves and crucify him. . .” (John 19:6).

DIED,
“. . .but when they came to the cross and saw that he was already dead. . . “ (John 19:33).

AND WAS BURIED.
“So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, and as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.” (John 19:42).

HE DESCENDED INTO HELL.
When Mary Magdalene met Christ right after he rose, he told her “Do not hold me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father. . . .” So when he died, he did not immediately ascend to the father. He must have gone someplace (or merely remain in the tomb). Early Church teaching, and the Church I attend, teach that he went to the place where righteous souls were waiting for Jesus to open heaven after it had been closed because of the sin of Adam and Eve. The tradition is that he took all those souls to heaven. Is there Scriptural support for this? Isaiah 61:1, speaking of the Savior, has the Savior saying: “he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound. . . “ Jesus says it again himself: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me. . . . he hath sent me to heal the broken hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives. . .” (Luke 4:18).

THE THIRD DAY, HE ROSE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD.
“He is risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him.” (Mark 15:6)

HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN
“Then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, . . “ (Mark 16:19).

AND SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY,
“ . . and sat down at the right hand of God.” (Mark 16:19).

WHENCE HE SHALL COME TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD.
“and he commanded us to preach to the people, and testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead.” (Acts 10:42)

I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT,
“And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them’ “Receive the Holy Spirit . . .” (John 20:22). “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, . .” (Luke 1:35). “And when Paul had laid hands upon them, The Holy Spirit came on them; . . .” Acts 19:6).

THE HOLY, CATHOLIC CHURCH,
In the early centuries, there was only the Catholic Church. The word “catholic,” however, merely means universal. This early Christian Church was everywhere, and people professed faith it this church because there was no other contender for having been started by Christ and his apostles.

THE COMMUNION OF THE SAINTS,
“If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him; . .” (2 Timothy 2:11-12). “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good . . .” (1 Cor. 12:7). “. . . and raised us up with him, and made us sit in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, . . “ (Ephesians 2:6). “. . . we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.” (Ephesians 4:16).

THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS,
“And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them’ “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:22-23).

THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY,
“. . . for the hour is coming when all who are in tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28-29). “Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor: 12). “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.” (1 Cor. 15:52).

AND LIFE EVERLASTING,
“So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable. What is raised is imperishable. (1 Cor. 15:42). “. . . that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory,” (2 Timothy 2:10).

AMEN.

I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from.

Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams

[Amie]

Maurice,

I wasn't questioning the Creed, I shared my ignorance of them. I was wondering how the ideas that the two resurrections were not consecutive, indivisible parts of a single happening, and that there is a literal reconstruction of literal bodies were formed. I'm sure the question "but where is it in Scripture" is over-used and mistreated. I just meant that I wanted to understand how you drew those conclusions specifically.

This didn't address my questions (please forgive me for lack of clarity before):


THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY,
“. . . for the hour is coming when all who are in tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:28-29). “Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” (1 Cor: 12). “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.” (1 Cor. 15:52).

I do not deny the resurrection, I deny the claim that it is a past event.

Amie

[Maurice A. Williams]

Hi Amie,

Well, this is kind of a double question because each of us will experience two resurrections. The first is a spiritual one when the soul rises from sin when we are baptized and Jesus forgives our sins. The second resurrection is the resurrection of our body at the end of the world. If you need Biblical quotes to support what I say, I’ll provide the references. I know they are in Scripture. I just have to locate them.

Jesus is the first to experience a bodily resurrection. He is the first, but we will all follow him, some to the resurrection of life; others to the resurrection of judgment, just as your quote said. That quote is very clear: the dead will rise from their tombs and face judgment. The quote also says “the dead will be raised imperishable.” We’ll have physical bodies again, but they won’t be defective as our present bodies are. They will be glorified bodies, indestructible, having the same kind of abilities as Jesus had when he rose with his resurrected body.

Consider the implications if there are no physical bodies in eternity, and that Christ’s body is not really physical but only an apparition (someone said that. I don’t know if it was you). What would be the purpose of the immense physical universe that God created if all there is in eternity are spiritual angels and spiritual souls, nothing physical, having weight, occupying space, etc.? There is no need for a physical universe. Revelation says there will be a new heavens and a new earth. That’s all-inclusive: a spiritual heaven and a physical earth (or, better stated, a physical universe).

We were created as physical beings joined with a spiritual soul: body and soul. After our exile in this valley of tears, when this present life ends with the disintegration of our earthly bodies but the continual existence of our souls, when everything is done, God will reunite us with bodies—not the same identical corruptible bodies we had in this life, but with incorruptible bodies. In God’s heavenly kingdom we will all have glorified bodies for all eternity. In addition, as St. Paul says, the baptised will be members (parts) of Christ’s body. I can provide Scriptural references for that also.

So rejoice, be glad! The good Lord has promised us much more than you think.

Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams

[Amie]

Maurice,

The only reason that I am interested in Scriptural references, is to examine how we could come to such very different conclusions, from the very same book. It's not a new concept - different viewpoints/same book - I am just curious. For example, you said:


The first is a spiritual one when the soul rises from sin when we are baptized and Jesus forgives our sins.

I'm not sure that we're so far apart in the way we see things as per how the first resurrection works out. We differ in the time frame that we apply it, and things related to that. I think that the first resurrection applies specifically to the church existing pre-AD 70.


The second resurrection is the resurrection of our body at the end of the world. If you need Biblical quotes to support what I say, I’ll provide the references.

Why do you see it as the resurrection of "our" body? Did you mean "bodies", or "body"?

I am interested in why you see the "end of the world" as a future event, certainly.


..just as your quote said. That quote is very clear: the dead will rise from their tombs and face judgment.

I was quoting you. I would very much like to know the chapter/verse which reads that the dead would rise from their tombs.


Consider the implications if there are no physical bodies in eternity, and that Christ’s body is not really physical but only an apparition (someone said that. I don’t know if it was you).

I'm not sure that I said Christ is "only an apparition".

I think that there are many uses of the word "body" in Scripture. "Flesh-body" for example, is in reference to those under the law or "Mosaic body". "Glorious body" is in reference to the "body of Christ". As for the literal form that he is in right now, I don't know that it's definable.


We were created as physical beings joined with a spiritual soul: body and soul.

I do not equate spirit and soul. There are corporate bodies, and there are literal biological bodies. "Soul" is who we are, regardless of what body it is clinging to, it's us. Soul=our identity. The "spirit" is that which flows forth from a soul.

There is so much to talk about that I don't even know where to begin. So as to be more effective in our communication, why don't we start small? Perhaps you will choose a subject for us to talk about? Some that I've brought up or otherwise feel are applicable are: "the end of the world", "what is body", "who requires/required baptism", "who were/are dead" (from where to the dead rise)... unless there is a specific topic that you would like to zero in on, would you mind choosing one of those?

It is my belief that through Jesus Christ, death has been conquered. After death we live on, not as "apparitions", but continuing to experience life in another plane of existance. The world is for bringing forth more life, it is for our children and grand children. Life has been given to us not only after death, but here and now.

I do rejoice my dear brother, for God has fulfilled his promises and has given us much more than I think :). Oh the joy of discovery!

Amie

[Maurice A. Williams]

Hi Amie,

Thanks for keeping the discussion going. John 5:28-29 quotes Jesus as saying: “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.” We all have to give English a fair chance to be meaningful and realize that “those who are in tombs” are people who have already died and have been buried. They will hear Jesus’ voice and come forth (come out of their tombs) to the resurrection. Since theirs souls never ceased to exist, it has to be their bodies that are resurrected, some to the resurrection of life, some to the resurrection of judgment. That would mean that they are resurrected and judged.

That’s why I see it as the resurrection of the body. What do I mean by “body?” Webster defines “body” as the PHYSICAL whole of an animal or plant, whether living or dead. The only difference between “body” and “bodies” is that “bodies” is the plural form of “body.”

Why do I see the “end of the world” as a future event? It hasn’t happened yet. You and I are still in the same world our ancestors were in. Someday this world of sin and suffering will come to an end. Scripture says so. Then will come the New Jerusalem spoken of in Revelation 21:2-4 “And then I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold the dwelling of God is with men. He shall dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them, he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.'” I don’t think you and I are living in that world. It hasn’t arrived yet.

I’ve already given you the definition of “body” as I have been using the word. Here are Webster’s definitions of “soul” and “spirit.” Soul: “That in man by which he reveals himself as alive, as an individual, as a thinking, willing, and knowing being; man’s SPIRITUAL and knowing nature.” Spirit: “Ghost.” “Ghost” is defined as “The soul, hence the spirit of a man as distinguished from his body.”

Amie, I think we can zero in on the above topics for now. I looked through the earlier posts. I picked up from Truthseeker and Paige that the resurrected Jesus did not have a physical body. He was invisible. What the apostles saw was some “vision” of that invisible body. Jiv said that the old Apostle’s creed never mentioned “resurrection of the body.” That’s why I showed Scriptural support for every idea in the creed. Scholars may not have found copies of the Apostle’s Creed dating to an earlier period that the Nicene Creed. However, the Nicene Creed is obviously a clarification, an amplification of some of the claims in the Apostle’s creed, especially the claims that Jesus is both God and Human, so the Apostle’s creed must have been formulated before the Nicene Creed.

Hope we can continue this discussion. It’s challenging to try to clarify what one thinks to people who see things differently. May God bless all of us on this website and lead all of us to understand what God thinks.

Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams

[Amie]

We all have to give English a fair chance to be meaningful and realize that “those who are in tombs” are people who have already died and have been buried.

Why make this assumption though? Not every human being lies or lied within a tomb/sepulchre. It was Ancient Hebrew practice to carve a place for the dead in a hillside.

Such a resurrection, it seems, would be limited to that generation (Mt 23:36, Mt 24:34, etc).

Ezekiel 37:11-12 defines who was in the graves, and who would be resurrected:


Then He said to me, Son of man, these bones are all the house of Israel. Behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is perished; we are cut off to ourselves. So prophesy and say to them, So says the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, O My people, and I will bring you to the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am Jehovah when I have opened your graves and have brought you up out of your graves, O My people. And I shall put My Spirit within you, and you shall live; and I will put you on your own land. And you shall know that I, Jehovah, have spoken and have done it, says Jehovah.

I don't mean to assert that the resurrection that Israel looked forward to wouldn't affect everyone ever existing. I am asserting that "all those in who are in the tombs" is in reference to Israel nationally.

Webster's also defines body as "a group of persons or things". Truly "body" can be defined more than the two ways that we've shared with one another.

In Romans 12, Paul describes the "body" of Christ, not as a single biological human, but as many. As an Israelite, he will have always seen himself as a member of a "body". He goes into it again in 1 Corinthians 6 and contrasts the "body" of Christ with he who is joined to the "body" of a Harlot. Such a harlot is mentioned many times in Scripture, and she is also "a group of persons".

I'll comment seperately on the subjects of soul and spirit, and the end of the world so-as to keep things straight in my head.


May God bless all of us on this website and lead all of us to understand what God thinks.

Amen bro.

Amie

[Amie]

Here are Webster’s definitions of “soul” and “spirit.”
Soul: “That in man by which he reveals himself as alive, as an individual, as a thinking, willing, and knowing being; man’s SPIRITUAL and knowing nature.” Spirit: “Ghost.” “Ghost” is defined as “The soul, hence the spirit of a man as distinguished from his body.”

Certainly that which you attest is true. Webster's definitions however, are not old Hebrew. They didn't even think like us. The "nephesh" (soul) as they saw it, was "that which breathes", "person", "self", etc. Strong's concordance will confirm that.

As well, "rauch" (spirit) is the breath itself. It is that which flows forth from the nephesh.

There is no "ghost" in Hebrew, though "giving up the ghost" ("gava") just meant to literally die. It was translated according to the bias of the translators, and more closely means "perish", "die" - but of course, that's probably a bit of my own bias speaking, lol.

Amie

[Amie]

Why do I see the “end of the world” as a future event? It hasn’t happened yet. You and I are still in the same world our ancestors were in. Someday this world of sin and suffering will come to an end. Scripture says so. Then will come the New Jerusalem spoken of in Revelation 21:2-4 “And then I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband; and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold the dwelling of God is with men. He shall dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them, he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.'” I don’t think you and I are living in that world. It hasn’t arrived yet.

I disagree. I think that we do live in a world where sin has been abolished, and God is present with our every movement. Healing takes a bit of time and I think God has handed out the leaves to that purpose (Rev 22:2).

Am I correct in assuming then, that you don't see "world" in this context, as literally a new planet?

Amie

[Amie]

ps - Jesus's return being spiritual (or invisible) does not mean that he lives now (or anyone else for that matter) as an apparition.

[Maurice A. Williams]

Hi Amie,

Interesting comments! Thanks for keeping the discussion going. When I made the statement that “those who are in tombs,” I did not mean to imply that everyone who has died has been placed in tombs. I meant only the obvious. If someone is in a tomb, that person must be dead. Why else would that person be in a tomb? You might say it was a live person working in a tomb, but that would be out of context. The obvious meaning is that those who are in tombs (and dead) will hear his voice and come forth to the resurrection.

Even though Webster gives a secondary definition of “body” as a “group of persons or things,” the primary definition is our physical body. This is the way English is used. Most words have secondary or tertiary meanings, but the primary meaning is to be preferred unless it is obvious that the word is used in a symbolic sense.

The same is true of “spirit” and “ghost.” I remember when “ghost” went out of favor in precise English. I think it was because common usage began to apply “ghost” to departed souls that haunt us and to Casper, the friendly ghost, whereas, “spirit” did not undergo a common usage change.

Remember that experts translated the Bible into English. Give them credit for choosing the correct words. We are not reading Hebrew or Greek anymore, with the secondary meanings applied to words in those languages. We are reading a straightforward English translation prepared by experts in all three languages. If you want to get a deeper insight into what Scripture is really saying, read different English translation. The translators choose different English words. Those different words will give you a deeper insight into what was written by seeing the original wording translated correctly into English using different phrases. Saying the same thing differently, but correctly, in English will deepen your understanding of what was said. That’s because the use of synonyms give you a new slant of what was translated. If you think translators are biased, that’s all the more reason to read different translations. You have about twenty modern English translations to choose from, translations sponsored by different religious groups. You will easily spot any bias one group of translators have put into their translation. Better still, read some of the inter-lingual Greek-English and Hebrew-English translations. Scholars write these books, and, I think, no scholar claims any of them are anything else but an unbiased attempt to arrive at a correct translation.

Do you really think we live in a world where sin has been abolished? Look around you. Sin is everywhere. There are murders, robberies, wars, all kinds of sins committed every day. Do you think God’s heavenly kingdom is going to be like that? In God’s heavenly kingdom, there will be no sin. Nobody will disobey God in the slightest way. There will be no need for police, armies, lawyers, judges: everyone will live in the greatest harmony and peace because everyone will do only the Father’s will, and, in this case, Father knows best.

Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams

[Amie]

Maurice,

A "translation" represents a communication from another language. As I said before, there is no Hebrew word for "ghost", yet there it is in the OT. The KJV has unicorns in existance. Without the concordance no one would know that the word "unicorn" was actually referring to a wild ox (with two horns) that lived long ago. The translator was focusing on the strength of the ox, and trying to convey that in the word that he chose ("unicorn").

Then there is the issue that English then, is not English now either. Language is always changing and evolving.


We are not reading Hebrew or Greek anymore..
I know many that do. As well, this new technology makes even more knowledge available to us. The original languages are now at our fingertips and folks are taking advantage of that.

I do agree with reading many different translations as well. It offers insight as per what was in the minds of the translators, which offers insight into the meaning of the original languages.

I don't believe in some sort of translator conspiracy. I think that they were making genuine efforts at conveying what they understood as well. I do not believe that any person is without bias. We are all individuals surrounded by culture. You do know what they say about opinions, right? (hahaha!)


Even though Webster gives a secondary definition of “body” as a “group of persons or things,” the primary definition is our physical body. This is the way English is used. Most words have secondary or tertiary meanings, but the primary meaning is to be preferred unless it is obvious that the word is used in a symbolic sense.

Contextually, as I provided, Israel was awaiting a corporate, national resurrection. Contextually, the "body" awaiting resurrection in the bible is therefore the "secondary" definition of "body".


Do you really think we live in a world where sin has been abolished? Look around you. Sin is everywhere.

Sin is transgression of the law:

Romans 4
15 For the Law works out wrath; for where no law is, neither is transgression.

1 John 3
4 ¶ Everyone practicing sin also practices lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness.

1 John 3:4 in the KJV: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

No one trangresses a law that we are no longer bound to. The Law is long gone, therefore so is "sin".

That does not mean that people do not do harmful things and that real consequences for actions (whether good or bad) do not exist today. That means only that we live in a world absent of "sin".


Amie

[Amie]

When I made the statement that “those who are in tombs,” I did not mean to imply that everyone who has died has been placed in tombs. I meant only the obvious. If someone is in a tomb, that person must be dead. Why else would that person be in a tomb? You might say it was a live person working in a tomb, but that would be out of context. The obvious meaning is that those who are in tombs (and dead) will hear his voice and come forth to the resurrection.

I don't think that meaning is so obvious. I think that is an assumption that people make based on how they see the world (bias). It is important to question things (or is that my own bias, lol!).

If you look into the Old Testament, and keep the New Testament in context, the story is that Israel is dead and Israel's prophets are murdered. They await a judgement that would free them from the bonds of Sheol (the "grave"/"tomb").

Imo, it is more important to understand how those living in the biblical days saw the world, than the way I see the world, in understanding the bible story.

Amie

[backtothefuture]

Amie,
I have always been taught that the old testament, was nothing more than a story leading up to Christ. But now, I am not so sure. I think I need to explore this more. My husband and I talk a lot about the old testament and the weird things that were done. He is listening to the bible on tape. And just came to the place where someone violated Dina? and the brothers had all the men from that mans family circumcised and then murdered. My husband is like, what kind of God are we dealing with. Same with I think it was Lots two daughters who got him drunk so they could conceive and carry on the linage. So I am really interested here, in what some of these old testament stories are really teaching us today or more important, what was it teaching Israel?
And I guess How all these stories play a part in when the second coming actually happened and for whom?
Blessings,
Nancy

[Amie]

Nancy,

Jacob will later have his name changed to "Israel". His sons were the ones who laid waste to that city and he said to them "You have troubled me, to make me stink among those living in the land, among the Canaanites, and among the Perizzites. And I being few in number, and they gathering against me, they will strike me, and I and my house shall be wasted." In the next chapter God says to Jacob "Rise up, go to Bethel and live there. And make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled before your brother Esau." then Jacob said to his house (the "house of Israel") "Put away the strange gods in your midst, and purify yourselves, and change your clothing."

It doesn't say whether or not God felt that they did wrong. Many things that we perceive as wrong, were things that worked toward the redemptive plan. Jacob though tells them to "purify themselves" because they had become unclean with strange gods. I'm not sure that his sons therefore, were acting on behalf of God. The "moral of the story" would be a great topic for a new thread. As you read actually, any comments that you have I would appreciate a great deal your sharing.

The stories in the least, teach a language. Once you've got that language down, it is easier to understand the language of the New Testament. For example, in the Old Testament we see that "heavenly bodies" (such as stars, moon, and sun) are symbols for people. See Genesis 37:9, 10 where stars represent Joseph's brothers or Isaiah 14 where the King of Babylon is called a falling star just for a couple.

Many of the prophecies came to be once already. The temple was destroyed first by Antioch Epiphanes. Fire rained down from heaven before (2 Kings 1:14), as the sun has turned black before (Joel 2:10), and all of these symbols are further explained in the Old Testament. They will become familiar to you so that when you hear Jesus say that the sun would become as black as sackcloth, you will know what he is really saying - what those words symbolize. The Old Testament is basically the key to a map.

That's all before ever mentioning all of the Law that is fulfilled in Jesus, and what the feasts point to, etc. Even the Psalms are rich with the words of Jesus, and eschatological ("end times") language.. And yes, you will know what they were expecting to happen, and who was expecting it :).

Anyhow, I look forward to learning and sharing with you as you read through the Old Testament.

Amie

[Maurice A. Williams]

Hi Amie,

Just a friendly correction. Antiochus Epiphanes didn’t destroy the Temple. The Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Solomon’s Temple around 597 B.C when the Babylonian captivity started. When Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon, he released the Judeans who then rebuilt the Temple around 520-515 B.C.

Antiochus Epiphanes (ruler of the Greek Seleucid Empire in Syria) conquered Judea in April 167 B.C. and defiled the Temple by sacrificing a pig to Zeus and converting some of the Temple chambers into rooms of sacred prostitution to Athena. His sacrificing of a pig in the Temple was considered the ultimate desecration, the Abomination of Desolation. The priest Mattathias Maccabeus led a revolt that finally drove the Greek influence out. The Temple was rededicated on October 16, 164 B.C.

The Temple had been defiled for 3 ½ years. This period of time became well known in apocalyptic literature. Three and one-half years is 42 months, or 1270 days. Those figures are mentioned in Revelation as well as “a time, two times, and a half time” (“time” standing for “years”).

Sincerely,

Maurice A. Williams
author of “Revelation and the Fall of Judea”
ISBN: 1-4010-6804-9

[backtothefuture]

Gosh, Amie,
I am just in awe some days on what I read here on this forum. I think I have had it back wards for a lot of years. I read a lot mostly in the New Testament. I have always been afraid of the old, because I just didn't understand it. But now, as I am learning, i am going to go back and start reading in the old again and see what will hit me right between the eyes!
My friends and I talk often about morality in the old testament. We wonder why God allowed some of that stuff and yet, maybe that wasn't a big deal to God, there was a bigger picture. That is what I would like to see one day.
I am off to get my new glasses:biggrinbounce: So now I can see on here better. I will get back to you later. I am taking my big Bible to bagel church today because it has the old testament in it and I am going to start reading there.
Maurice, I also wanted to say I have enjoyed reading your posts also. Mostly I have been lurking, with my eyes so bad, and my dad sick. But hopefully I can get back in the swing of things.
blessings,
Nancy

[Amie]

Thanks Maurice! What an embarrassing mistake!!:p

Amie