Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I appreciate the chance to sharpen my iron, and I appreciate the calm tone too. It's nice to have a brotherly discussion with a mature brother in the
With that said, I was looking for something a little less vague than that. There are two 2nd comings in the Bible. One where every eye on
Earth will see Him, another one where only His own will see Him. One where he comes for His bride, another where He comes with His bride.
2 Second Comings. I find that contradictory by definition (not that I'm the ultimate judge of these things, but you know...). If Christ comes a second
time twice, then does he really come a second time the third time around? If you catch my drift.
If it makes you feel any better, I actually have the same issue with my mentor/friend/brother I mention. His views are very close to my own, and he
criticizes Premillennial Dispensationalists for their multiple Second Comings. But then he turns around and has Christ coming four times -- once at
his death/resurrection, again at the destruction of Jerusalem, a third time at the fall of Rome, and the fourth time in the future at the Second
Coming everyone's expecting. That makes his view no better than yours, in my opinion. Just to show you I'm no respecter of persons. If I think
someone's views are non-Scriptural, my relationship with them won't affect. Scripture always comes first.
That being said, Christ comes twice. Only twice. The destruction of Jerusalem was actually a result of the Jews' rejection of Christ at his first
coming, so that and his first coming are one and the same. And, in my understanding, the fall of Rome marks the Second Coming.
Though, in accordance with 1 Thessalonians 4, we do have a sort of individual mini-Second Coming whenever each of us dies, as we each get "caught up"
to be with the Lord in the air.
This is my understanding:
Christ came the first time (ca.
4 BC - AD 70) - he fulfilled the Law, died for sin, was raised victorious over death, ascended into glory, and
made a new covenant to replace the old (physically manifested as the destruction of Jerusalem to be replaced with the spiritual new Jerusalem).
Then, Christ came the second time (ca.
AD 313) - the beast/Roman Empire was defeated, bringing redemption to those waiting, and the dead in
Christ were resurrected to reign with him for a symbolic period of "1000 years" (representing just a reeeaaallly long time, which, so far, has lasted
Now, as those who are in Christ "die," they no longer sleep in the ground - rather, they are caught up immediately to be with Christ in the air. This
will continue until the final destruction of Satan and the final judgement of the remaining dead.
You have 2 piles of contradictory verses if you only have 1 second coming. The harpazo event isn't a "coming" to Earth. And you know full
well "harpazo" implies a snatching away out of danger or harms way. Example, a father who pulls his daughter from running out in the street by her
hair and yanking her to safety.
Harpazo more than implies it...harpazo means
a seizing/catching away by force. Not necessarily out of harm's way, though, just a general "being
The harpazo wasn't a coming to Earth, no, but neither is the rest of the Second Coming. Though the effects of it were certainly made manifest on Earth
in the defeat of the Roman Empire, the end of oppression, redemption from persecution, relief from fear, and fulfillment of all that had been promised
(that glorious hope you mentioned - also referred to as the mystery of God).
edit on 20-4-2012 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)