Just to clarify: I believe in the End Times, which are the times when this earth and the divinely-created experience of mortal life will come to an end. And I believe that these are those End Times.
But I do Not believe in the Second Coming of Jesus. Why not, when it's 'in the Bible'?
First, because the Second Coming is not in the Fourth Gospel - which is the first hand account of Jesus by his beloved disciple written (Chapters 1-20) shortly after the ascension. Niether is it in Mark. It is only in Luke and Matthew, written some time later, based on second-hand information, and each (especially Matthew) with a definite agenda concerning the Jewish Messiah and what he would accomplish (especially politically).
The Second Coming is a stark assertion that Jesus failed to accomplish his mission during his lifetime and before his ascension - and this I reject utterly!
I assert, on the contrary, that Jesus accomplished everything he set out to do; and provided everything each person needs (principally the guidance and comfort of the Holy Ghost) to achieve salvation after death and achieve theosis during mortal life.
And - mainly - this belief I find confirmed by the Holy Ghost.
Note added: This post is intended to explain my use of terms in this blog; and why. It is not intended to persuade others to believe as I do. That's your business. Which means yours; in these times - whatever-you-call-em - your core convictions ought not passively to be absorbed from institutions; not even churches. Institutions should not be trusted.
Put not your trust in institutions: I shall file that away as a Charltonism.
What about sources outside of the Bible? D&C 45, for example.
@Mike - Please give a link or quote when you cite scripture
I suppose the short answer is that I don't derive my Mormon theology from D&C; but build it up from the fundamental metaphysical principles.
Bruce, references about the Second Coming (in whatever form) can be found throughout the whole New Testament, even in John https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A25-29&version=KJV
If Matthew, Mark and Luke are done away with as 'not as true as John's',the letters of Paul done away with as 'twisting Jesus' true message', the letters of the other apostles ignored and Revelation (by, yes, the John of the John gospel) not mentioned, you end up picking and choosing what seems true and reliable to you. Now, surely not all books are as relevant as others as the Old Testament is for the Jews primarily (though we need to understand early Genesis) as are the synoptic gospels. John is more for everyone though all gospels deal more with Jesus' earthly life and deeds which indeed are completely fulfilled. The curtain in the temple was rent from top to bottom so the gates to heaven are open now. Paul's letters are dealing with how to live the Christian life. We still have Adam's nature in us but reborn people also have Christ's nature. Hence Christians can sin from Adam's but they won't if they live from their Christ nature. Romans. You will not find how to live the Christian life in the gospels. Well, barely. It is all in Paul's letters which I can perceive to be completely in line with all the gospels, Acts and all other books. You pick and choose what you are able to believe or can understand or so it seems (no pun intended), even by the chapters and verses within books. You are free to do so but you won't get the full power without Christ's words through Paul. Watchman Nee's 'The Normal Christian Life' is an excellent exposition of Romans as to the two natures battling inside us as mentioned in 1 Korinthians 15 (around verses 40-45). So, John is pivotal, agreed, but not all there is to it. Another source is Miles Stanford's 'The Green Letters', explaining about position (in Christ in heaven) and condition (on earth living our lives in the flesh). We all deal from what we understand and mine is basic still but sharing here anyway.
I thought the second coming wasn't to *do* anything really, but just to signify the end-of-time - sort of like at the end of the Narnia series.
@P. Yes, that was what I used to believe, but for reasons I give in Lazarus writes, I came to recognise that I needed to examine my assumptions. This is the kind of thing we need to do, each for himself, in a world where we cannot take religion passively or secondhand.
Post a Comment