The End of the Age and the Coming of Christ

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

In a previous thread that was initiated by Aesa we read this:

But he returned. I mean, end of story.

I cannot even reconcile Christ just appearing.

He made it clear in the scripture that we will not meet Him until the coming of the end.

This makes God a liar to say it any other way. :|

A vision is generally very different to God being here in the flesh.

The reason why I have chosen to respond by posting a new thread is due to the fact that it is distinct of its own discussion.

First off, I am presuming that Aesa is not a member of the Church by the language and her chosen style of voice. The questioning of the nature of the first vision account and her particular belief on how she interprets the biblical passages concerning the end of the age and Christ's second advent.

Now, having devoted some time to the study of Eschatology, I honestly have to disagree with her assertion and interpretation.

My disagreement is on two premises, one of historical accounts and one of proper understanding of the New Testament passages referring to Christ's coming.

From a historical perspective, one has to look to the nature of how the City of Jerusalem and the Temple thereof were destroyed.

Both, Josephus and Tacitus record the event with very descriptive accounts as to the nature of what happened.

It is when we look at the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of Titus and the Roman Army, we discover that history records the Roman - Jews war from 66 A.D to 73 CE.

In both accounts, Josephus and Tacitus record the voice of God (Tacitus having recorded the voice of the Gods) crying out from the temple as it is being destroyed.

When we look to the passage of the Olivet discourses, we find that Christ had pronounced woes upon the Sadducces and Pharisees. The language is directly related to the generation of First Century Jews. In fact, the whole understanding of the term "Last days" in the new testament refer to the nature of the belief that that generation would see the coming of Christ.

Now, before one presumes that I am saying that Christ's second coming occurred in 70 AD at the destruction of Jerusalem, this is not what I am saying (even though this position is called Full Preterism - Realized Eschatology), what I am saying is that Christ differentiate his coming in "Wrath" and his "Second Advent".

Christ's wrath did occur as fulfillment of the Olivet discourse. Why this is because when you carefully study the style of language in Matthew 24, Christ's response to his disciples question "when will these things happen, what will be the sign of thy coming" Christ refers to the woes he pronounced upon the Sadduccees and the Pharisees.

This "second coming" of God's wrath was the final time God would scatter his chosen people. The "end of the age" references the end of the Jewish Age and Epoch. Thus, when Christ said "this generation shall not pass away" he was referring to the generation of those present during his mortal ministry.

In light of all this, the end of the Jewish age was not the second advent of Christ. What this means, then, is that the historical perspective of how the First Century Jewish society is very symbolic and shows us how the Second Advent of Christ will truly come upon the world in whole.

Thus, the distinction between the second coming and the end of the age are two different things.

And, to answer Aesa's charge that Christ could not have come again is illogical and a fallacious claim.

Because, who is to say that Christ could not come and appear to men? Even God himself coming to appear to men?

The question Aesa needs to answer is this: Is God the same, yesterday, today and forever? And, if God so chooses could he appear unto men today just as he appeared unto men in the Old Testament?

The answer is yes, because if God is the same yesterday today and forever then if he chooses he can come and visit men. This does not mean that if he does appear to a single person that is interpreted to mean he came again.

Timothy

[Hemidakota]

Concur with your statement.

How would fill if using a pattern of numbers seen in the scripture comparing a time frame for His return, if there were 24-called prophet for the latter-day church prior to His return?

[Traveler]

.......

The question Aesa needs to answer is this: Is God the same, yesterday, today and forever? And, if God so chooses could he appear unto men today just as he appeared unto men in the Old Testament?

The answer is yes, because if God is the same yesterday today and forever then if he chooses he can come and visit men. This does not mean that if he does appear to a single person that is interpreted to mean he came again.

Timothy

The concept of G-d being the same yesterday, today and forever is in my mind too literal and quoted out of context (outside the context of covenants).

It is obvious from the birth, childhood, adulthood, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that there are visual and measurable changes in G-d as given us example in Jesus Christ. What does not change is the covenant or the proctor of the covenant.

The Traveler

[Over43]

In 3 Nephi we see (or read of) a change in the Immortal Savior. In the New Testament he commands the people to be perfect "even as your Father in Heaven is perfect."

In the Nephite account, at the Temple of Bountiful, that command is now changed to "be yee perfect even as I Am perfect." The change of role, and resurrection now takes place.

I agrre with Traveler when he writes, "What does not change is the covenant or the proctor of the covenant."

Have a good afternoon.

Jon