Second Coming in the Sky?

[liamconnor]

Certain biblical authors talk of Christ returning from the sky: Acts and Paul.

Paul tells Christians that they will be caught up to meet him.


There is an obvious imaginative problem here: even if a figure should appear in the sky, that portion of sky will be visible from only so many miles. The number of people who could fly up to surround such a flying figure can only be so many; twenty, thirty?

At any rate, even during Paul's time people in Ephesus could not possibly see clouds in Thessalonia.


Did Paul believe that Jesus would literally return on clouds and therefore in one particular place in space? Or was Paul less interested in such literal details as he was in theological and apocalyptic precedents? Namely, Daniel's apocalypse, where

"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. (Dan 7:13 NAS)

Daniel clearly uses symbolism throughout much of the book.

Do the early Christians use symbolism also when writing of Jesus' return?

[JehovahsWitness]

They will all understand, though they don't literally see him with their eyes

"visible to anyone on the ground" is absurd in its context of something appearing out of the blue.

I see you have well taken note of what onewithim said and made a valid point; she implied that the scripture is NOT to be understood literally ie that Jesus does NOT become (literally) visible to anyone onf the ground" you responded that such an idea is indeed absurd.

I would agree, the scripture is not to be understood that Jesus becomes visible to people on the ground, but that it is communicating another idea entirely, that of understanding an imminent event.


JW

[marco]

I am a 21st century reader

Indeed you are, JW. And I can accept that you accept that a group of folk can sit around a table with Christ, the Lord from centuries back, in the manner of Arthur the King. My employment of the phrase "21st century reader" carried the assumption that the reader was reading non-fiction. I forgot the ubiquity of Harry Potter.

I'm sure there are those that would happily mock and riducule the millions of Christians that believe co-rulership is possible;

Perish the thought! My sainted mother would be among them holding the sceptre so mockery or even a half smile is out. Of course co-ownership of a house is possible, but co-owning it with Jesus is a tad problematic - for me anyway. Go well.

[tam]

Peace to you!

Certain biblical authors talk of Christ returning from the sky: Acts and Paul.

Luke (acts) and Paul are not the only ones who speak of this. Christ speaks about this FIRST:


At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.


and:

For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

At any rate, even during Paul's time people in Ephesus could not possibly see clouds in Thessalonia.

Unless of course these were clouds over both Ephesus and Thessalonia.


**

I am reminded that Christ will also be bringing with Him those who have died (in Him). If you can picture that, then why would it be so hard to picture those who are alive on the earth being caught up to meet Him in the sky?



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[onewithhim]

Jesus' co-rulers will not be visible to anyone from the ground. When they are called to meet him in the air, they will be invisible, in spirit bodies, as Paul explained in I Corinthians 15: 40,42-53. There is no problem for Jesus to welcome any person from any part of the world.

"Co-rulers" is absurd to a 21st century reader.
"visible to anyone on the ground" is absurd in its context of something appearing out of the blue.
"meet him in the air" is just absurd. A piece of unmitigated nonsense.
"spirit bodies, as Paul explained," - is another absurdity which Paul didn't explain. He talked about different glories of different stars. Paul, remember, is a simple man, not a scientist.

The descent of Christ like his ascension will be a nice poem. Nothing more. We constantly move from literal to figurative when it pleases us.

You have a stilted view of learned men in Paul's day. He was not such a "simple man." He was educated at the feet of Gemaliel, one of the most intellectual men of his time, and he, Paul, called himself a Pharisee, one of the group of the most educated men in Palestine. He was deep, and sometimes not easy to understand, as Peter commented. But mostly Paul's teaching is quite easy to understand, and one of those things is the difference between physical bodies and spirit bodies, as I referred to in my previous post.

Your absurdities are your own, and you may keep them. Many of us see the deep beauty of the Scriptures, and the truths that they contain to deep-thinking individuals.

[marco]

You have a stilted view of learned men in Paul's day. He was not such a "simple man." He was educated at the feet of Gemaliel, one of the most intellectual men of his time, and he, Paul, called himself a Pharisee, one of the group of the most educated men in Palestine.

Gemaliel famously reprieved the apostles saying that if they were wrong, their teaching would fail; if right, they had God as an ally. Odd, then, that Paul who "studied at Gemaliel's feet" did not learn tolerance but cruelly persecuted Christians. Was Paul a thick student then till hit on the head on his way to Damascus?

Your absurdities are your own, and you may keep them.

Well that is kind of you to attribute possession to me, but the statements are not mine, and remain absurd in today's terms.

[onewithhim]

You have a stilted view of learned men in Paul's day. He was not such a "simple man." He was educated at the feet of Gemaliel, one of the most intellectual men of his time, and he, Paul, called himself a Pharisee, one of the group of the most educated men in Palestine.

Gemaliel famously reprieved the apostles saying that if they were wrong, their teaching would fail; if right, they had God as an ally. Odd, then, that Paul who "studied at Gemaliel's feet" did not learn tolerance but cruelly persecuted Christians. Was Paul a thick student then till hit on the head on his way to Damascus?

Your absurdities are your own, and you may keep them.

Well that is kind of you to attribute possession to me, but the statements are not mine, and remain absurd in today's terms.

That is all you have to say in reply to my post? You don't see that Paul was not so "simple"? That was my point, not that he should've been tolerant of the Christians (though of course that is something he regretted not doing).

[JehovahsWitness]

Indeed you are, JW. And I can accept that you accept that a group of folk can sit around a table with Christ, the Lord from centuries back, in the manner of Arthur the King.

Thank you, yes, you see I come from the persepective of believing Jesus is actually alive and capable of rulership and yes, that he can indeed share his authority with others while being himself the Prime Member of that authoritive body. I know it is considered absolutely absurd to think of a group of individuals with a collective authorative power... indeed that ancient book uses the word strange archaic word "government" a laughable word to apply to persons in authority, but there you have it; I believe in God and these strange bizzare notions of government, rulership, royalty and kingship.

Still since in the 21st century there are no kings, kingdoms (for example the "United Kingdom" or the "Kingdom of Denmark"), rulers, governments or authorative bodies made of more than one individual, I concede absolutely that such notions are totally foreign to modern day readers.

Go well yourself,

JW

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 4 by marco]

Yes, Paul probably thought Christ would crash upon the scene celestially. We are in danger of exploding Paul into some anachronistic Einstein when he was a singer of songs about a Saviour.

We are given details of Christ's anti-gravitational feat of ascending to nowhere. There is no indication that the narrators thought they were composing a sonnet.

For people of the time Hell is down, heaven is up. End of story.

Anachronistic?

Aristotle could conceive of the supernatural, as could Plato, as well Philo.

It is a bit naive to a priori ascribe naivety to the ancients. We have very good evidence that the Jews did not think God was composed of matter; yet they talk of his having a right hand and sitting on a chair.

[liamconnor]

This thread has invited some who hold the opinion that the ancients (or at least the biblical authors) had literal anthropomorphic (and geomorphic) ideas about God, heaven, hell.

This is untrue on a couple levels:

In the first place, we cannot judge by mere phrasing. The creeds were created by sophisticated Greeks who knew that hades was not really "below" but they still talked as if Jesus "descended into Hades".

Even today, weather men talk of the sun "rising".

I myself pray with a sense that my prayers are going "up".

In the second place, we have biblical evidence that even the most ancient of authors were aware that God was not spatially bound (i.e. literally lived "up there somewhere"):

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain Thee, how much less this house which I have built! (1Ki 8:27 NAS)

Apart from philosophical language (which itself is metaphorical but in a different way) I don't see how Solomon (or the writer speaking for Solomon) could have made it clearer that his conception of God was not 'local'.

[marco]

That is all you have to say in reply to my post? You don't see that Paul was not so "simple"?

Paul had a way with words, certainly, though he never quite got round to a full explanation of his Damascus experience.... which is odd. If he was taught humanity by a brilliant teacher, why did he continue to persecute Christians until he fell from his horse and attributed the fall to divine intervention?