In passages describing the resurrection and the return of Christ, angels are sometimes described as gathering people. For example, Gospel of Matthew 24:31 says that the Son of Man will send His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect from the four winds. Meanwhile, First Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:16–17 describes the dead in Christ rising first, followed by the living believers being caught up. My question is: **Are angels described in scripture as gathering the dead in Christ from their graves, the living believers from the earth, or both?**

All of us know that Jesus had ascended to God the father after he had resurrected, we know that he will come again at the end of time to judge the people and found the kingdom of God on earth. The question is, will he descend as an adult man as he ascended to God the father, or will he be reborn again as an infant in a new incarnation?. Note: there are many who claimed to be incarnations or reincarnations of Jesus, some of them belong to new Christian denominations, look: [Wikipedia List of people claimed to be Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus) Esoteric Christianity like Liberal Catholic Church adopts reincarnation and oneness of god who is both transcendent and immanent and accept Tritheism as three persons in that one God,i.e: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are manifestations of that one transcendental immanent God. Look: [The Liberal Catholic Church](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.thelccusa.org/about/doctrine.html&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjAVegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3tmC-K73qW9T0pMn8NF4yE&cshid=1577636090716) and [Liberal Catholic Church (Wikipedia)](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholic_Church&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjATegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1jVuej_N56fVnUqmJKBsJ5&cshid=1577637685926) I would like answers to be biblically based, it's preferred to be by scholars of Christianity, especially of orthodox Christianity.

In light of ongoing global events—such as wars (e.g., the conflict involving Russia), geopolitical instability, and widespread moral and social upheaval—many Christians interpret these as signs that the “end times” are approaching. My questions are twofold: Imminence of Christ’s return: Within mainstream Christian theology, do these kinds of events meaningfully support the belief that Christ’s return is near? How have passages such as Matthew 24; Luke 21; 1 Thessalonians 5:1–6; and Revelation 6–16 traditionally been understood in relation to historical events versus recurring patterns throughout history? Christ’s presence before the Parousia: Is there any biblical basis for the idea that Christ is presently “walking the earth” prior to His return, possibly until all believe in Him as the Christ? How do texts like Matthew 28:20 (“I am with you always”), John 14–16 (the coming of the Holy Spirit), Acts 1:9–11, and Revelation 1:12–18 inform orthodox interpretations of Christ’s presence now versus His future, visible return? I am seeking answers grounded in Scripture and recognized Christian interpretive traditions (e.g., patristic, Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant), rather than speculative or purely contemporary prophetic claims.

In Protestant eschatology, it is commonly taught that when Christ returns, believers who are alive at that time will have their mortal bodies transformed into glorified, heavenly bodies (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:51–53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17). My question is: What happens to those who are alive but not saved when Christ returns?

## Background: It has been a Christian belief that Jesus would return to Earth since the earliest days of the religion. The 1st century Pauline epistle to the Thessalonians says: > For the Lord himself **will descend from heaven** with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God *- 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17* The 4th century Nicene Creed contains the second coming as a creed of belief: > **He will come again in glory** to judge the living and the dead, > and his kingdom will have no end. Christians have also taught that this second coming will be when several as of yet unfulfilled messianic prophecies will be fulfilled by Jesus. Justin Martyr makes this point in the 2nd century *Dialogue with Trypho*: > And it was prophesied by Jacob the patriarch that there would be **two advents** of Christ, and that in the first He would suffer, and that after He came there would be neither prophet nor king in your nation (I proceeded), and that the nations who believed in the suffering Christ would look for His future appearance ... (*- Ch. 52 Dialog with Trypho*, emphasis added) > But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there **will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare** ... (*- Ch. 80 Dialog with Trypho*, emphasis added) ## Unfulfilled prophecies: *Dialogue* cites one of these. These unfulfilled messianic prophecies generally (since not all Christians agree that these will occur in the future, but breezing through Christian literature indicates most believe one or more of these will occur post second-coming) include: - Building the Third Temple, restoration of temple services (Ezekiel 37:26–28, Ezekiel 46) - Ingathering of the Jews to Israel (Isaiah 43:5–6) - World peace and end of war (Isaiah 2:4) - Universal knowledge of the God of Israel, cessation of religious teaching (Zechariah 14:9, Jeremiah 31:34) ## Second coming? What are the indicators in the unfulfilled prophecies that they will occur in a 'second coming'? How do second coming believers (specifically those who believe some messianic prophecies will be fulfilled in the second coming) differentiate the second coming from a failure to fulfill these prophecies?

I _am not_ a Christian. In fact I go in on my own family who are ordained preachers and Christians who _believe_ in Christian stories that make absolutely no sense to me. It occurred to me that if Jesus were to actually do the "second coming" story thing, *all* preachers and churches would immediately go out of business. There wouldn't be any need for third-party _interpretations_ of this or that story, which is what Christianity is all about anyway, because the alleged guy Jesus never wrote anything himself, anyway. Jesus could start a podcast, and *all* preachers, including the pope guy, all bishops, and all run of the mill preachers, and even this Web site, would be completely out of business - you could hear the stories right from the horses mouth, so to speak? Or, would those same preachers, and folks on these boards, and the pope, still throw around their own _interpretations_ of Jesus's podcast, and even try to get rid of the guy Jesus himself, if only to keep their hustle going?

Matthew 24:29‑30 says: >*“Immediately after the tribulation of those days… then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”* Pre‑tribulationists believe Jesus will rapture the church before the Great Tribulation. I’d like to understand how pre‑tribulation interpreters reconcile this verse with their view of Christ’s return because it seems Jesus returns after the Great Tribulation and not before.

I've heard Christians claim that at the Second Coming Christ will return with a physical human body, what is the Bible basis for this belief? It is clear that he has a physical flesh body once: > And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us > > John 1:14 I'm interested in an answer from any mainstream Christian belief that believes Christ will have a physical body at the Second Coming.

Do preterists interpret the generation referenced in Mathew 24:34 as a future generation or the generation Jesus was addressing during this sermon, this is because most preterists justify eschatological events as history using this verse as primary basis. >"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.(Mathew 24:34)"

In multiple New Testament passages the Disciples and even Jesus appear to think He would return within one generation or so: 1. Jesus says, 'What I say to you, I say to all: Watch, for you know not the hour ...' or 'Some here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.' (Mt 16, Lk 9) 2. Paul encourages people to remain in their current states of life (e.g. celibate) in anticipation of Jesus' return. 3. The Christians waited to produce a written record of Jesus' teachings when need for it became apparent. (Such need was not immediately apparent because they thought Jesus would return soon.) I can only guess that Jesus' return and the hour of our death are equivalent, hence Jesus tells everyone to keep watch, but I don't see that this interpretation is supported by the text. Rather, the text literally suggests that the end of the world would come at any time, but then Jesus has delayed it by 2,000 years, which seems unjust to all those generations, and to us as well, leaving us in a kind of painful suspense. So what's the deal? Why did Jesus cause and allow the early Christians to be mistaken about the timeframe of His return? I did read a book arguing that Jesus was actually using symbolic language to refer to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, but this theory merely replaces those questions with why Jesus would make His written testimony unreasonably difficult to understand.

Some Christians hold that the Second Coming of Jesus is yet to come, and some hold it has already happened (certain kinds of preterism). Would holding that Jesus in the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24:30, "They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.") was prophesying an event that has already happened (say, associated with the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Second Temple) be considered heretical by the Catholic Church?

Within the pre-tribulational view of the rapture, the doctrine of imminence suggests that Christ’s return (specifically the rapture portion of His return) could occur at any moment, meaning that nothing else must take place, prophetically speaking, prior to the rapture. This doctrine is often supported by passages throughout the New Testament, where the apostles exhort the early church to live with the expectation that they are on the cusp of Christ’s return. Many modern proponents hold to this view, and one that is often pointed to is John MacArthur. MacArthur explicitly argues for imminence in his article *[“Is Christ’s Return Imminent?”](https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A368/is-christs-return-imminent)* , citing passages that he believes demonstrate the early church lived with this belief of an imminent return. He begins by quoting **James 5:7-9**, as evidence of such a notion: > “Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receives the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.” Given the likely early date of James’ epistle, MacArthur argues that imminence was a belief from the earliest years after Christ’s ascension. He then quotes **1 Peter 4:7**, suggesting that Peter likewise shared this belief: > “But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” This poses a problem, however, whether the Doctrine of Imminence, as MacArthur suggests, was true during Peter's own lifetime. ### The Foretelling of Peter’s Death In **John 21:18-19**, we find a prophecy from Jesus regarding Peter’s death: > “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.” Here, Jesus foretells that Peter would grow old and ultimately die a martyr’s death. As verse 19 explicitly states, this prophecy was a declaration of Peter’s future manner of death, which church tradition later identified as crucifixion. ### Question Regarding the Doctrine of Imminence With all of this being said, could the traditional Doctrine of Imminence—suggesting that Christ’s return has been possible at any moment since His ascension— have been true during the early portions of church history, especially during Peter's lifetime? This view, as held by John MacArthur and others, seems difficult to reconcile with the clear indication in the Gospel of John that Jesus prophesied Peter would grow old and die as a martyr. If Christ had returned during Peter’s lifetime before his death, it would have rendered Jesus’ prophecy false. I suspect that some variants of the doctrine suggest it began at the completion of the book of Revelation, but from my understanding, the more traditional view holds that Christ’s return could occur at any moment since His ascension, which is where this post is focused. I anticipate responses that might suggest that perhaps Peter (or others) did not fully grasp or remember this prophecy. It could also be argued that John, writing his Gospel much later in life and likely after Peter’s martyrdom, was the only one who *knew* and, consequently, recorded this detail. However, even if this were the case, it would only mean the early church *thought* Christ’s return was imminent—it would not make imminence a factual reality for the early church as many suggest. Scripture quotes are KJV, thank you in advance for any input. God bless.

I have been reading up on various eschatological views and I have noticed an argument that I have not been able to find a detail about. It seems to be a common assertion by the Catholic and Orthodox that the Rapture, as portrayed by the Left Behind series, is non biblical because it calls for three "comings" of Jesus. [catholic.org](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-rapture) puts it eloquently enough, > The problem with all of the positions (except the historic, post-tribulational view, which was accepted by all Christians, including non-premillennialists) is that they split the Second Coming into different events. In the case of the pre-trib view, Christ is thought to have three comings—one when he was born in Bethlehem, one when he returns for the rapture at the tribulation’s beginning, and one at tribulation’s end, when he establishes the millennium. This three-comings view is foreign to Scripture. Does the bible specifically limit the number of times that Jesus comes to earth? Why would it be a problem for Jesus to come again before the "Second Coming"? Where does this "only two comings" requirement come from?

Most Christians use the Gregorian Calendar which puts us in 2024. According to the Hebrew calendar its 5784. Most of us ( the church) believe the Messianic Prophesies/ the second coming being soon (around 2,000 years). Although the Jews don’t believe in Jesus as the Messiah I understand we are actually in the year 5784. How should we view the second coming in terms of years? I know that for God one day can be a thousand years for men. Does that then mean we are wrong to say 2,000 years? *An overview of all Christian positions is needed for this question* The Jews believe that the Messiah will come 6,000 years after creation which is how they started their calendar years to begin with so their years seem far more accurate regardless of if Jesus isn’t their Messiah.

Among the different eschatological schemes in Christian theology, I perceive that amillennialism and historical premillennialism do not differ in what they believe will happen before the second coming of Christ. (Or at least, they do not have to. I know that there exist some disagreements about futurist vs. preterist understandings of Matt. 24 or about the gathering of Israel in Rom. 11, but it does not seem to be the case that the interpretations of these passages separate premillennialist from amillennialist in general.) Postmillennialism and dispensational premillennialism on the other hand differ from one another and the aforementioned views in that they assert a different timeline of pre-Second Coming events, with postmillennialism looking forward to a millennium of the triumphant church and dispensationalism looking forward to a pre-tribulational rapture (and a very different understanding of that tribulation than would be found in other views). I am wondering what difference does the distinction between historical premillennialism and amillennialism make, practically speaking? Does it have any effect on how Christians will conduct themselves in the present age? I can see that, if we look forward to different events *prior* to Christ's return, this may affect the way we live our lives now, in order that we might be prepared to face those circumstances. However, I do not see how the difference between historical premillennialists and amillennialists who agree on those issues would lead to any different practice of the faith in the present time.

Asaph, living in the time of David, was one of the ten elders of Jerusalem and a prophet [1 Chronicles 15:19). He is attributed with several Psalms, including 50 and 74. He speaks of the Day of Judgment, the arrival of the Messiah (Mashiach), and the coming of the Messianic Age. >__Psalm 50:15__: Call to me on the day of distress and I will free you, and you will honor me. > >__Psalm 74:19-21__: Do not give the soul of your Turtledove to a nation [of idolaters]; do not forget the nation of the poor forever. Look to the Covenant, for the dark places of the earth are filled with dens of violence. Let not the downtrodden one turn back in disgrace; the poor and needy will praise your name. If Jesus represents the coming of the Messiah, does this not mean we are in the Messianic Age? However, there is also the Second Coming. Is this a second Messianic Age, a continuation of the first (with the Incarnation), or does Jesus's appearance "not count" as an ushering in of the Messianic Age? To my knowledge, there is little to no evidence from the Hebrew Bible (essentially the Old Testament) on what the Messianic Age would look like in human terms, but it seems clear those following Jesus in his ministries were "walking with God" as other prophets, such as Isaiah, suggeat as part of the Messianic Age.

This question is inspired by a question asked in 2013: 'Do all Christian traditions expect a second coming of Christ?' https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15590/do-all-christian-traditions-expect-a-second-coming-of-christ Although it is my understanding that mainstream Christian denominations uphold the Athanasian Creed which declares that "Jesus will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead" there are some Christian denominations who deny that Christ Jesus will return visibly, when he comes with the heavenly hosts to judge the living and the dead. Jehovah's Witnesses are one example of a denomination who deny that Christ Jesus will return visibly. Revelation 1:7 declares that "every eye will see him" when he comes with the clouds, but some denominations think this is a euphemism for "seeing" with spiritual eyes; of being spiritually enlightened, that the clouds will obscure any literal sight. What is the biblical basis for Christians to believe that when Christ Jesus returns he will be seen - he will be visible to all the people on earth?

Ok so, I haven’t seen anyone ask this question really… Since when we die we know we won’t have any knowledge, ecclesiaties 9:5 nor any consciousness we will be in a state of slumber right? It will be like when we were in our mother’s womb, we don’t (at least I don’t) remember anything from being in there. Will it feel like after death when Jesus returns, 5 seconds have passed since we died, or 40 years? Or 2,000 years… You get what I mean?

In Bible prophecy, a single day literally stands for one thousand years. In the book of Hosea chapter 6 verse 2 then it says that: > *After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him*. I was led to believe that this verse might be referring to the death and resurrection of the Christ but then there is the use of a plural word *us*. Since this verse is foretelling the resurrection of the saints because technically speaking it's the saints who get to live in God's presence at the end of the age, is it okay to conclude that the second coming and the resurrection of the dead will happen on day 3 which is 3000 AD?

Simple question: many Christians believe that the Parousia (aka the Second Coming of Christ) hasn't happened yet (as of 2021). Why? What is the biblical and historical basis? What are the strongest arguments, based on Scripture and history, for ruling out any possibility that the Second Coming of Christ has already happened?