Hmmm, Scripture is clear that He will be on earth to execute the final Judgment. His return will be shortly prior.
Right. That kind of thinking is... not good. <smile>
Right, but the final Judgment will not be... somewhere else, either. <smile> How else would He then bring heaven down to us, so to speak, and usher in His Kingdom in its fullness? So, yes... right.
Right.
Ummmm... is this rhetorical? Or a question meant for someone else...? Because I think we understand each other and pretty much see eye to eye regarding at least this one thing... <smile>
Grace and peace to you.
Even though you too are an Amil, where other Amils typically insist Jesus never sets foot on earth until after the GWTJ, you appear to be an Amil who is capable of reasoning coherently, unlike some other Amils whose interpretations do not always seem to follow a consistent line of reasoning. For example, some Amils argue that the entire planet will be engulfed in flames when Jesus returns. Therefore, they conclude that Jesus could not literally set foot on the earth at that time, even if He desired to, because the earth would already be in a destroyed and uninhabitable condition. According to that view, no living creatures would remain, because all life---including the entire animal kingdom---would have been burned up.
To be fair, although I was responding to you, it appears that not everything I was arguing necessarily applies to your specific view. Perhaps none of it does. I can accept that, because even among Amils there can be significant differences in how certain passages are interpreted. One Amil may understand a passage one way, while another Amil may interpret the same passage differently.
With that in mind, the following questions may not necessarily be for you to answer, but rather for those other Amils I have in mind to answer. And we all know who some of those people are, correct?
Consider Acts 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.
Nowhere in this verse do the angels say that Jesus will return in like manner only after the Great White Throne Judgment. The verse simply states that the same Jesus who was taken up into heaven will come again in the same manner in which He was seen departing.
In light of Acts 1:11, what passages in the NT are intended to fulfill that prophecy?
What about Matthew 25:31?---When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.
Why would this passage not be referring to the same return described in Acts 1:11? Where does Acts 1:11 say that Jesus returns to? The moon? Mars? Pluto? No---it assumes He returns to the earth, the place from which He departed.
Likewise, where does Matthew 25:31 say that Jesus returns to? The moon? Mars? Pluto? Again, why would the assumption not be that He returns to the earth?
Wherever He returns, that is where He then sits upon the throne of His glory. Furthermore, the concept of returning implies that someone is coming back to a place where they were previously present, departed from, and then later came back to.
However, if Matthew 25:31 is interpreted as referring to a different location---such as a Great White Throne Judgment occurring somewhere other than earth---then how does Jesus return to that location if He never left that location in the first place?
In Acts 1:11, Jesus did not depart from some unknown location where a Great White Throne Judgment was taking place. He departed from the earth.
Therefore, if Matthew 25:31 is not the fulfillment of Acts 1:11, then what N T passage is, but is not meaning Matthew 25:31?
The explanation cannot simply be that Jesus comes to one location in that location's atmosphere, does not remain there long, never touches down, then travels somewhere else to conduct the Great White Throne Judgment, and afterward returns to the place where He originally arrived but did not stay because He went elsewhere. If that is considered sound exegesis, then I honestly do not know what standard of interpretation is being applied.
So, in my view, these particular Amils are doing the very thing they often criticize other views---such as Pretrib for doing----having Jesus return, then leave, and then return again.
To be clear, I am not defending the Pretrib position. I do not hold that view. However, that is beside the point because the issue here is consistency in interpretation.
How is it not essentially the same type of sequence if Jesus returns in Matthew 25:31 to the earth’s atmosphere, but does not actually descend to the earth? According to this interpretation, He appears in glory with His angels, executes judgment upon the lost below, and then departs to conduct the Great White Throne Judgment somewhere else. After that, He returns again to the earth---although, at that point, it would supposedly be the new earth.
The question is---how is that not also a 'return, departure, and return again' scenario---the very type of sequence that these same Amils criticize in Pretrib interpretations?
The objection is not whether one agrees with Pretrib or not. The issue is whether the interpretive framework being criticized is being applied consistently. If a view requires Christ to arrive, leave, and later arrive again, then the same concern should be considered regardless of which eschatological system is proposing that sequence.
What these Amils in question need to provide is the Scripture or Scriptures that show Jesus returning to the earth after the GWTJ, after He had already returned earlier before the time of the GWTJ per Matthew 25:31. Where this scenario equals a return(Matthew 25:31), a departure(in order to go somewhere else other than the earth to put in session the GWTJ), and a return again to a presumably new earth(yet it's still the same earth at the same location, though). Exactly what they criticize Pretrib of doing.
