BestEvidence

[Hitch]

What passages make up the best evidence that Christ will return bodily?

[John Reece]

What passages make up the best evidence that Christ will return bodily?

Good question.

[seanD]

Not really interested in debate, but I have two questions, because I'm really confused.

Are you suggesting that Rev 21 is not literal? Isn't this hyper-preterism?

And are you saying that Christ never bodily resurrected?

[John Reece]

Not really interested in debate, but I have two questions, because I'm really confused.

Are you suggesting that Rev 21 is not literal? Isn't this hyper-preterism?

And are you saying that Christ never bodily resurrected?

In the OP I see only a simple question ― not any suggestion or saying ― to which I would be interested to see a text-based factual answer.

[seanD]

In the OP I see only a simple question ― not any suggestion or saying ― to which I would be interested to see a text-based factual answer.

Rarely is there ever a "simple question" posed in the eschatological section. There's no point in playing dumb like you typically do and pretend you don't know that. Sometimes there are newbs who have legit questions, but considering the history of this person, an ulterior reason behind the OP is almost certain. I'm just trying to get a gauge where he's coming from. It sounds like he's arguing from the position of hyperpreterism, and from what I understand, that's not allowed here. Rev 21, which I pointed out, suggests that Christ returns to rule in a new Jerusalem over the nations of the earth and is just one passage of evidence that answered his OP.

[Hitch]

Not really interested in debate, but I have two questions, because I'm really confused.

Are you suggesting that Rev 21 is not literal? Isn't this hyper-preterism?

R 21 is at least a literal as R 19 ,but less than John 6;39

And are you saying that Christ never bodily resurrected?

Since you cant understand the OP you are not qualified to respond.

[Hitch]

Well,, maybe someone will hear something good at services tomorrow.

[Hitch]

Or not....

[eschaton]

Act 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Act 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Some say this means He was blessing them as He was taken up, and will return in like manner, while some say He was bodily taken up and will return in like manner.

[Hitch]

6Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; 7And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

'Them that trouble you' can apply to the opposition today, but Paul is speaking of the jews of his time and Id weigh this one toward the first century. Verse 8 is likely a reference to M22;7, and Im certain those who suffered the temporal judgment also suffer 'everlasting destruction' . So the entire passage doesnt require an endtime focus.

1
0And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come

.
Is the 'wrath to come' speaking of eternal judgment or the Destruction ? I dont know, but Paul leaves no doubt wrt the bodily resurrection of Christ and His enthronement

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord

.
Paul reaffirms our Lord's bodily resurrection and heavenly situation and v16 plain enough. Jesus is physically coming back, otherwise why does Paul make such a point His being bodily in heaven? I dont see any time frame here that holds this event to the first century, unlike some of the often cited texts from the Gospels. This is open ended as far as the when is concerned.

Personally , with all that was about to happen the decades of turmoil and the horrendous judgment coming in a relatively short time, I doubt Jesus used much of his limited time on earth to speak about an event thousands of years future. Rather I believe He focused on teaching the disciples thngs about himself and the Scriptures that would be directly useful in the earliest stages of the growing kingdom. Obviously all we see in the Gospel accounts and the entire NT that show 'sooness' and urgency did not apply to the Second Advent .

[eschaton]

Personally , with all that was about to happen the decades of turmoil and the horrendous judgment coming in a relatively short time, I doubt Jesus used much of his limited time on earth to speak about an event thousands of years future. Rather I believe He focused on teaching the disciples thngs about himself and the Scriptures that would be directly useful in the earliest stages of the growing kingdom. Obviously all we see in the Gospel accounts and the entire NT that show 'sooness' and urgency did not apply to the Second Advent .

Why couldn't it apply to both? That seems to be the understanding from Justin Martyr to Augustine anyway.

[Hitch]

Why couldn't it apply to both? That seems to be the understanding from Justin Martyr to Augustine anyway.

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


The Lord was specific when He taught the parable of the Land Owner's Son. In all of history only that specific generation of that specific nation could ,and did, witness the life words and activities of Christ in the flesh and still reject Him to the point of arranging His murder. This crime cannot be repeated. So I cant see the reasoning behind the notion that some future generation of men will suffer a similar,even worse some say, temporal judgment, especially when that is supposed to occur just before the end of time. I believe the parallel some see in this judgment and the consummate end of time doest not reflect reality. To say it could not apply to both I reckon is too strong, but obviously I dont give that idea much weight.

[eschaton]

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.


The Lord was specific when He taught the parable of the Land Owner's Son. In all of history only that specific generation of that specific nation could ,and did, witness the life words and activities of Christ in the flesh and still reject Him to the point of arranging His murder. This crime cannot be repeated. So I cant see the reasoning behind the notion that some future generation of men will suffer a similar,even worse some say, temporal judgment, especially when that is supposed to occur just before the end of time. I believe the parallel some see in this judgment and the consummate end of time doest not reflect reality. To say it could not apply to both I reckon is too strong, but obviously I dont give that idea much weight.

So why is your opinion better than those who lived during the first few centuries of Christianity, or of those who live today who seek understanding through the spirit of what is taught rather than a reliance upon the letter?

[Hitch]

Why not?

[eschaton]

Why not?

I would say because the teaching of the apostles was still in the church.