Posted by Drake on March 21, 1999 at 11:53:55 {MWI..8PVPLcMY}:
In Reply to: *THE MANNER OF HIS COMING... posted by mntzion on March 21, 1999 at 00:07:31:
Thanks for this reference and your question.
You are very alert. I'd would just say that there are many twists and turns and specifics in all of this and we have to look at them. But that in general, you're absolutely correct. As far as the gathering of the anointed ones when he comes, it will be "invisible" to the outside world. It will be done by the "angels" and thus it will be a marking by the heart condition of those gathered. So it will not be seen with any obvious detail by those who are not aware of what is going on, because as you said precisely, it is something between them and God and based upon their heart condition. Not necessarily there religion, etc.
As far as when the Messiah is "revealed", he will have no problem during the 1,000 years since he will be reigning as king at that time along with the 144,000. So he will be present on the earth during that time. It's only during the initial phases of his return that there is a lot of scretiveness, etc.
YOUR QUESTION:
>>Oh, BTW could you please share the references where "the anti-christ" will claim that Jesus will not
return in the flesh? There are only five references to the anti-christ all
in the synoptic gospels, none in
any other references.
I find this quite interesting. I didn't know the synoptic gospels mentioned the anti-Christ. The two references I had in mind were not in the synoptic gospels.
In fact, not a single reference to the "anti-Christ" is in any of the "synoptic gospels" which are Matthew, Mark and Luke. John is not considered one of the synoptic gospels. But all the references to "anti-christ" in the Comprehensive Concordance are FIVE, as you have said, but all in 1 John or 2 John, which are not synoptic gospels.
Specifically, 1 John 4:2,3 says:
Every inspired expression that confesses JesusChrist ashaving comein the FLESH originates with God, but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore this is the ANTI-CHRIST'S [inspired expression] which you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world."
and 2 John 7:
"For many deceivers have gone forth into the world, persons not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the ANTI-CHRIST."
So these were the two specific verses I had in mind. Of note, the second one at 2 John 7 leaves it open for the first or second coming since it is not a past-tense statement as in the previous verse. So we have to deal with at least the possibility that in this context, the Messiah apparently could be returning in the flesh again, since this seems to contradict any strong doctrinal understanding that he definitely would return in spirit at the second coming. If he is to return in the FLESH, however, this is perfectly within context and we can presume to identify the modern-day anti-christ or some faction of the anti-christ as those saying the Messiah would not come in the flesh. Of course, that points to Jehovah's Witnesses who teach that he would not come in the flesh as being the "anti-christ" until further explanation. And I'm sure they have plenty to explain their way out of this scripture. But that needs to be done.
>>The Beast of Revelations is never identified as anti-christ or any direct connection thereto. Please explain!
I'm not sure how we got connected with the Beasts of Revelation with a specific "anti-Christ" reference, other than generally understanding that the apostasy within Christendom and even among JWs qualifies them
as being part of the general "Anti-Christ" but on a different criteria, not specifically because they have adopted a belief that the Messiah would not be coming in the flesh.
So, specifically, I'm not drawing a direct inference to
anything in Revelation regarding the specific anti-Christ that would relate specifically to whether or not the Messiah would come in the flesh. I can understand how much of this is complex and confusing, but my reference was not to
Revelation.
Hope that helps! Thanks for your comment. This is interesting and we need to explore this. Now, if ever, right?
Drake, Jr.