Peter on the Last Days - Part Two

[Ezra]

Since no one knows the precise time when the Marriage of the Lamb occurs, there is no need to presume that it is precisely seven years before the Second Coming of Christ WITH His saints.  However, it is most definitely AFTER the Resurrection/Rapture and BEFORE the Second Coming. All the saints must be gathered IN HEAVEN before the Marriage of the Lamb.  

Which means that this very significant event TOTALLY DEMOLISHES any scenario where the Resurrection/Rapture and the Second Coming are all together.  Objecting to "simultaneous" is immaterial, since the post-tribulation proposal is that we must regard the Second Coming as inclusive of the Rapture.  But since Peter has nothing to say about any of this, it should not even be brought up here.  Peter was addressing the Jews and the impact of the Second Coming on Israel, NOT the Church.

[Last Daze]

 

 

Since no one knows the precise time when the Marriage of the Lamb occurs, there is no need to presume that it is precisely seven years before the Second Coming of Christ WITH His saints.  However, it is most definitely AFTER the Resurrection/Rapture and BEFORE the Second Coming.

Agreed.  The marriage supper happens after the resurrection/rapture and before the second coming.

All the saints must be gathered IN HEAVEN before the Marriage of the Lamb.

Does it actually take place in heaven?  Are you leaning heavily on an assumption?  Regardless, location is irrelevant.  All the saints are immortal, a fact that is highly relevant.  They are confined neither by time nor space.

 

Which means that this very significant event TOTALLY DEMOLISHES any scenario where the Resurrection/Rapture and the Second Coming are all together.

How???  I keep waiting for the how to show up but it never does.  You only keep asserting that like it's true but offer no substantiation; no reason as to why you claim it to be true.  That qualifies it to go into the "baseless rhetoric" bucket.  Oh, and using ALL CAPS does not make something true.

 

Objecting to "simultaneous" is immaterial, since the post-tribulation proposal is that we must regard the Second Coming as inclusive of the Rapture.

I objected to it because it is a false notion that you contrived in an attempt to add validity to your objection.  You used it as the crux of your argument.  Remember this statement you made?

 

Ezra said in an earlier post: That is not even being disputed.  What is being disputed is whether or not it is even possible for the Rapture, the Resurrection, and the Second Coming to be SIMULTANEOUS.

You even used ALL CAPS.  And now its immaterial???  How credible can your argument be when it keeps changing?

 

But since Peter has nothing to say about any of this, it should not even be brought up here.  Peter was addressing the Jews and the impact of the Second Coming on Israel, NOT the Church.

Yes, it absolutely should be brought up here because its part of the second coming.  Those who are Christ's put on immortality at His coming.  He's only coming back once, like He only ascended once.  Remember the ascension?  It's going to happen just like that.  Only once.  The angels said so.

[Omegaman 3.0]

Very well done Omegaman!!!   By the sound of bopeep's last post, her eyes are starting to open, she just don't want to admit it yet.

LOL, well, to quote her: "Time will tell"

[WilliamL]

... Follow the flow of logic here, and address this please (or not and we can just move on).

Jesus must remain in Heaven until the time for the restoration, whatever that is. Just a fact, nothing vague on that point. ...

Now, I once saw an attemp made, to say that Jesus does remain in Heaven, as long as He is in the air and His feet have not yet touched the ground. That to me, was the most embarrassing attemp to defend a position, that I think I have ever seen from a Christian. It also seems to be destroyed when God says "Remain at my right hand until" . . . another "until", pesky things, aren't they?

Seems we have a problem here. Quoting from a post of mine on the Pre-wrath string:

  On 9/17/2015, 1:38:44, Last Daze said:

You can't be serious.  How many times did Christ ascend?  This is bordering on the absurd. 

There have been at least three ascents from earth to heaven that we know of: right after his resurrection (John 20:17-18), then again after 40 days (Acts 1:9), and then again after he “stood by” Paul the prisoner (Acts 23:11).

 

  Quote

Exactly how many times does Christ come back? … There is zero support for more than one return of Christ.[/unquote]

He has already come back at least four times: the same day of his resurrection ascent; then when he appeared from heaven and blinded Paul (Acts 9:3ff.); then when he came to Paul the prisoner; and once more when John saw him (Rev. 1:9ff.). In the last instance, it is unclear whether he showed himself from heaven or upon earth.

Considering these precedents, there is no legitimate reason for you to say that the Lord cannot come once “in the air” (1 Thes. 4:17) when he raptures his Church, and then come a later time when he descends to earth to fight the Beast and the kings of the earth.

Ezekiel 20:33-38 already establishes that before the Rev. 19 descent, he will shepherd his people Israel face-to-face "with fury/wrath" in the wilderness. The period of God's Wrath is fulfilled with the Rev. 19 defeat of the Beast and the kings of the earth, so the events of Ezek. 20 and Deut. 49:23-24 must come before this.

So, Omegaman, it seems you are reading into Peter's statement much more than is really there, an eschatology that has already been proved wrong by Scripture.

[Last Daze]

... Follow the flow of logic here, and address this please (or not and we can just move on).

Jesus must remain in Heaven until the time for the restoration, whatever that is. Just a fact, nothing vague on that point. ...

Now, I once saw an attemp made, to say that Jesus does remain in Heaven, as long as He is in the air and His feet have not yet touched the ground. That to me, was the most embarrassing attemp to defend a position, that I think I have ever seen from a Christian. It also seems to be destroyed when God says "Remain at my right hand until" . . . another "until", pesky things, aren't they?

Seems we have a problem here. Quoting from a post of mine on the Pre-wrath string:

You can't be serious.  How many times did Christ ascend?  This is bordering on the absurd. 

There have been at least three ascents from earth to heaven that we know of: right after his resurrection (John 20:17-18), then again after 40 days (Acts 1:9), and then again after he “stood by” Paul the prisoner (Acts 23:11).

 

Exactly how many times does Christ come back? … There is zero support for more than one return of Christ.[/unquote]

He has already come back at least four times: the same day of his resurrection ascent; then when he appeared from heaven and blinded Paul (Acts 9:3ff.); then when he came to Paul the prisoner; and once more when John saw him (Rev. 1:9ff.). In the last instance, it is unclear whether he showed himself from heaven or upon earth.

Considering these precedents, there is no legitimate reason for you to say that the Lord cannot come once “in the air” (1 Thes. 4:17) when he raptures his Church, and then come a later time when he descends to earth to fight the Beast and the kings of the earth.

Ezekiel 20:33-38 already establishes that before the Rev. 19 descent, he will shepherd his people Israel face-to-face "with fury/wrath" in the wilderness. The period of God's Wrath is fulfilled with the Rev. 19 defeat of the Beast and the kings of the earth, so the events of Ezek. 20 and Deut. 49:23-24 must come before this.

So, Omegaman, it seems you are reading into Peter's statement much more than is really there, an eschatology that has already been proved wrong by Scripture.

There is only one ascension of Christ up into heaven and He has not returned since.  The ascension is recorded in Acts 1.  Lets look at these other scriptures that supposedly show other ascensions and returns of Christ.

Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”  John 20:17

The NIV expresses it best here (don't beat me up).  Jesus is telling Mary not to hold on to Him or cling to Him because He is going to ascend.  In other words, don't get used to having Me around because I'm going back to the Father, and go tell the guys that I'm only here for a bit.  The verse does not say that He ascended.  Why would He tell Mary not to "touch Him"?  He let Thomas touch Him.  If He ascended that day and came back that day, what changed?  What was the purpose of that?  He was already immortal.  It just doesn't make sense.  There is nothing to support John 20:17 as being an ascension.  Christ came from the Father and returned to the Father.  There are no scriptures that say Christ came from the Father and went back to the Father then came back from the Father and back again to the Father.  At least I can't find one.  Can you?

Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God.  John 13:3

I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father  John 16:28

No double-dipping there.  Concerning Acts 23:11, Acts 9:3, and Revelation 1:9, those were appearances.  Nothing in those verses indicates a return or an ascension.  Christ came forth from the Father and returned to the Father once where He sits until the restoration when He will return, once.

Note the singular and the definite article:

As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”  Matthew 24:3

For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be.  Matthew 24:27

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.  Matthew 24:37

And they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.  Matthew 24:39

But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming  1 Corinthians 15:23

For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming?  1 Thessalonians 2:19

so that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.  1 Thessalonians 3:13

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.  1 Thessalonians 4:15

And there are more.  Never, ever are the phrases "the comings of Christ" or "a coming of Christ" used ever which is what you would expect to see if Christ or the apostles taught multiple returns of Christ.  They didn't, and neither should you.

[Omegaman 3.0]

Last Daze on the post above ( http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/192262-peter-on-the-last-days-part-two/?do=findComment&comment=2270958 ),

It is so convoluted with quotes of quotes etc, that I cannot understand what you are saying or asking, sorry.  Perhaps pull out just the relative things, and try again.

[ghtan]

He has already come back at least four times: the same day of his resurrection ascent; then when he appeared from heaven and blinded Paul (Acts 9:3ff.); then when he came to Paul the prisoner; and once more when John saw him (Rev. 1:9ff.). In the last instance, it is unclear whether he showed himself from heaven or upon earth.

Concerning Acts 23:11, Acts 9:3, and Revelation 1:9, those were appearances.  Nothing in those verses indicates a return or an ascension. 

I am confused by the above. Wasn't John on earth in Rev 1:9? And doesn't v 17 say Jesus placed his right hand on John? Shouldn't the latter mean Jesus was actually there with John? I think that is the natural way to read it, and it shows Jesus has come back down to earth since his ascension, at least on that occasion to visit John. Logically, Jesus as God is sovereign. Who are we to tell him how often he can come back down to earth? His Second Coming will be visible to all, but it does not stop him from making less conspicuous visits earlier.

 

 

 

[Last Daze]

He has already come back at least four times: the same day of his resurrection ascent; then when he appeared from heaven and blinded Paul (Acts 9:3ff.); then when he came to Paul the prisoner; and once more when John saw him (Rev. 1:9ff.). In the last instance, it is unclear whether he showed himself from heaven or upon earth.

Concerning Acts 23:11, Acts 9:3, and Revelation 1:9, those were appearances.  Nothing in those verses indicates a return or an ascension. 

I am confused by the above. Wasn't John on earth in Rev 1:9? And doesn't v 17 say Jesus placed his right hand on John? Shouldn't the latter mean Jesus was actually there with John? I think that is the natural way to read it, and it shows Jesus has come back down to earth since his ascension, at least on that occasion to visit John. Logically, Jesus as God is sovereign. Who are we to tell him how often he can come back down to earth? His Second Coming will be visible to all, but it does not stop him from making less conspicuous visits earlier.

 

 

 

Why the confusion?  As mortals we are confined to being at one point at any given time.  Are you thinking that God is likewise confined?

The question for this thread, I guess, is "Can Jesus appear on earth without leaving heaven?" 

[Last Daze]

Last Daze on the post above ( http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/192262-peter-on-the-last-days-part-two/?do=findComment&comment=2270958 ),

It is so convoluted with quotes of quotes etc, that I cannot understand what you are saying or asking, sorry.  Perhaps pull out just the relative things, and try again.

To sum it up, John 20:17 is not an ascension.  It does not imply that Jesus went up to the Father and came back to earth that same day as WilliamL suggests, it just speaks of His ascension which we read of in Acts 1.  The verse never says he ascended, it only speaks of it.  I also pointed out that there are two verses that explicitly state that Christ came from God and is going back to God.  If Christ ascended to the Father and returned to earth that same day (John 20:17) then why isn't that mentioned?  It's only "out and back", not "out and back and out and back".  John 20:17 does not say that Christ ascended, neither are there any accounts of it happening that day anywhere.

His other exceptions used to support numerous returns and ascensions of Christ were actually appearances, and as I replied to ghtan the question is whether or not Jesus can appear on earth without leaving heaven.  If He were mortal, I'd say no, but He's not.  Not only is he immortal, He's God.

The exchange originated from WilliamL's insistence that Christ returns more than once.  He brought the information over from another thread thinking it was relevant to this one.  I pointed out that Christ's coming only happens once by pointing out that there are about a dozen or so references to "the coming" or "His coming".  Never is the word "coming" used in the plural to indicate more than one, and never is the word "coming" preceded by the indefinite article "a" to indicate more than one.  Jesus and the apostles only ever speak of Christ coming back once.

[Omegaman 3.0]

Last Daze on the post above ( http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/192262-peter-on-the-last-days-part-two/?do=findComment&comment=2270958 ),

It is so convoluted with quotes of quotes etc, that I cannot understand what you are saying or asking, sorry.  Perhaps pull out just the relative things, and try again.

To sum it up, John 20:17 is not an ascension.  It does not imply that Jesus went up to the Father and came back to earth that same day as WilliamL suggests, it just speaks of His ascension which we read of in Acts 1.  The verse never says he ascended, it only speaks of it.  I also pointed out that there are two verses that explicitly state that Christ came from God and is going back to God.  If Christ ascended to the Father and returned to earth that same day (John 20:17) then why isn't that mentioned?  It's only "out and back", not "out and back and out and back".  John 20:17 does not say that Christ ascended, neither are there any accounts of it happening that day anywhere.

His other exceptions used to support numerous returns and ascensions of Christ were actually appearances, and as I replied to ghtan the question is whether or not Jesus can appear on earth without leaving heaven.  If He were mortal, I'd say no, but He's not.  Not only is he immortal, He's God.

The exchange originated from WilliamL's insistence that Christ returns more than once.  He brought the information over from another thread thinking it was relevant to this one.  I pointed out that Christ's coming only happens once by pointing out that there are about a dozen or so references to "the coming" or "His coming".  Never is the word "coming" used in the plural to indicate more than one, and never is the word "coming" preceded by the indefinite article "a" to indicate more than one.  Jesus and the apostles only ever speak of Christ coming back once.

Thanks, that is clear!