How God’s Kingdom Will Come—Not What You Think!

[Trailblazer]

If you are in the habit of "assuming" things, then you go right ahead. I don't assume anything, I "know". This is the fundamental difference between orthodox Christians and gnostic Christians. This is what "gnostic" means, to "know". Jesus was gnostic and all the apostles too.
Gnosticism in general was the prevailing way of thought long before there was anything that resembled a "Christian church ".

The Roman Empire usurped the authority that Christ gave to His followers and turned it into a State Religion that they could use
to control the masses. Giving absolute religious "power" (authority) to a "Papacy" (hired thugs), it in turn enslaved the masses with their
dogma (cannon), threatening "eternal damnation" (hell fire) against anyone who would not submit to their dogma . If a person wanted
to be "saved" ( according to their "salvation" dogma ), the person had to pay . It was nothing but a legalized extortion racket.
THEN, AND TODAY STILL, 2000 years later.

You are preaching to the choir.
I am pretty much on the same page with you about early Christianity being the true Christianity, as opposed to the Church that was established later. I consider Orthodox Christianity false because it teaches false doctrines that weee never taught by Jesus.

What happened to Christianity I consider a travesty because it is not according to the teachings of Jesus, it is according to Paul.

This is an excerpt from the book entitled The Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ by Udo Schaefer. This section explains how Paul changed the Christianity of Jesus.

That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Paul, however, did not pass on the revealed doctrine reflected in the glass of the intellectual categories of his time, as is often asserted; he transformed the ‘Faith of Jesus’ into ‘Faith in Jesus.’ He it was who gave baptism a mysterious significance, ‘so as to connect his mission with the experience of initiates in Hellenic mystery cults’, (232) he turned the last supper into a sacramental union with the Lord of those celebrating it; (233) he was responsible for the sacramentalization of the Christian religion, and took the phrase ‘Son of God’--- in the Jewish religion merely a title for the Messiah --- to be an ontological reality. The idea of the Son of God, come down from heaven to earth, hitherto inconceivable to Jewish thought, (234) was taken from Paul from the ancient religious syncretism of Asia Minor, to fit in with the need at the time for a general savior. It is generally accepted by critical scholarship that the godparents were the triad from the cult of Isia (Isis, Osiris and Horus) and also Attis, Adonis and Hercules. Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ……..

This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy, the preservers of the original branded as ‘Ebionites.’ As Schoeps puts it, the heresy-hunters ‘accused the Ebionites of a lapse or relapse into Judaism, whereas they were really only the Conservatives who could not go along with the Pauline-cum-Hellenistic elaborations’. (238) Schonfield comes to the same conclusion: ‘This Christianity in its teaching about Jesus continued in the tradition it had directly inherited, and could justifiably regard Pauline and catholic Christianity as heretical. It was not, as its opponents alleged, Jewish Christianity which debased the person of Jesus, but the Church in general which was misled into deifying him.’ (239) ‘Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. This is even admitted by some Catholics: ‘Christianity today mostly means Paul.’ (245) And Wilhelm Nestle stated—as noted also by Sabet—‘Christianity is the religion founded by Paul who replaces the Gospel of Jesus by a gospel about Jesus.’ (246) So also Schonfield: ‘Paul produced an amalgamation of ideas which, however unintentionally, did give rise to a new religion.’ (247)……

Excerpts from: How Paul changed the course of Christianity
How Paul changed the course of Christianity​

And they were allowed to do this BECAUSE the God of the OT is a usurper as well, and is the one behind it all. Just as he is in all human worldly affairs.....especially when it comes to "religion". All 3 Abrahamic faiths ( Judaism , Christianity, Islam ) today are the SCOURGE OF THE EARTH. They have caused more pain , suffering and death than ANY amount of war

I believe that there is only one true God and it is the God referred to in the OT, the God that created the heavens and the earth, the same God revealed all the Abrahamic faiths. It is wholly unjust to blame God for what humans did with God's Revelations, because man has free will.

I do not believe that what was attributed to God in the OT is an accurate depiction of God's actions, thoughts and emotions. The OT is stories about God that contained metaphors, which were intended to convey spiritual truths, but the OT is also anthropomorphic, since it is the words of men who wrote about God as if God was a human being,

And please, do tell me the "purpose" for a world where every living thing MUST KILL another living thing, just to stay alive ? If you can " assume" as much .

AGAIN, you are preaching to the choir because I agree with you about this world, it is a storehouse of suffering, more for some than for others. The question is what we do about that, what can we do? We can reject God as atheists do, or we can try to figure out WHY God created a world with so much suffering. As humans with a rational mind and free will we can also try to alleviate some of that suffering.

We can hate God or we can love God for the world He created, but we cannot do anything about it since we are stuck here until we die. As such, it makes more logical sense to try to understand than to get emotional. I do not think that brushing it off and saying "God is Love" is the answer; I believe that is rather naive because God is more than Love.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think you are very wrong.

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to everyone according to his deeds.
Matt. 16:27

And about the kingdom. Jesus is the king, for example for me. People who keep Jesus as their king, form a kingdom. But it is not similar kingdom to those that exists on earth, because:

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I wouldn't be delivered to the Jews. But now my kingdom is not from here."
John 18:36

I agree that the Kingdom of Jesus was not of this world, not a Kingdom that would ever come to exist on earth.

So, what do you make of this verse? If you believe that the Son of man is Jesus, how will Jesus come in the glory of his Father with his angels?

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to everyone according to his deeds.
Matt. 16:27

 

[Trailblazer]

I suggest you don't know enough about the Bible.
I also suggest the reason you never see the scriptures, is because you ignore them, and the posts containing them.
I suggest that after ignoring them, you then proceed to quote only the verses that you want to.Thus deciding which scriptures are valid to your beliefs, and which are not.

I do not ignore or cherry pick scriptures.
I know enough about the Bible to know that Jesus never promised to return, not once.
Christians cannot make that be true without making Jesus into a liar.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

There is NOTHING for Jesus to come back and do, because His work was finished when he died on the cross.
Jesus never said He was bringing a Kingdom to earth, not once. That is a doctrine of the Church that millions of people bought off on.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

 

[Trailblazer]

Would you like to take the time to understand the TRUTH of these scriptures you have presented, one by one...
or would you rather me leave you to your delusion ?

Only if we know what has happened since those scriptures were written can we really understand what they were intended to mean. Anything else is akin to shooting in the dark, and that is precisely why Christians do not agree on what the same scriptures mean even though they are reading from the same Bible.

 

[halbhh]

Those who know anything of the Bible...

Probably as soon as you write a wording like that -- "Those who know anything of the Bible..." and then you write a word like "never" also in the same sentence -- then you should stop yourself... heh heh....

Right, friend? (if no, think more about it -- it's sorta daring the whole human race, usually not a good idea)

Those who know anything of the Bible know that Jesus never promised to return, not once in the New Testament.

Ok, it may already be in the thread, but here is one straight from Christ's own words:

Matthew 24:27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

(while that and some more are in memory, one can also simply use google, and get something like this: 15 Bible Verses about the Second coming --
"So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him." Matthew 24:44)

But!...yes, on another level (without even reading more in the post or looking at whatever video), the Kingdom is here, now, and being realized here and now also, as we hear from Christ also.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ok, it may already be in the thread, but here is one straight from Christ's own words:

Matthew 24:27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

What ever gave you the idea that Jesus was referring to Himself?
Jesus was not the only Son of Man.

But!...yes, on another level (without even reading more in the post or looking at whatever video), the Kingdom is here, now, and being realized here and now also, as we hear from Christ also.

I fully agree. The Kingdom is here on more than one level. We just have to look for it.

Where Can We Find the Kingdom of God?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

You are preaching to the choir.
I am pretty much on the same page with you about early Christianity being the true Christianity, as opposed to the Church that was established later. I consider Orthodox Christianity false because it teaches false doctrines that weee never taught by Jesus.

What happened to Christianity I consider a travesty because it is not according to the teachings of Jesus, it is according to Paul.

This is an excerpt from the book entitled The Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ by Udo Schaefer. This section explains how Paul changed the Christianity of Jesus.

That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Paul, however, did not pass on the revealed doctrine reflected in the glass of the intellectual categories of his time, as is often asserted; he transformed the ‘Faith of Jesus’ into ‘Faith in Jesus.’ He it was who gave baptism a mysterious significance, ‘so as to connect his mission with the experience of initiates in Hellenic mystery cults’, (232) he turned the last supper into a sacramental union with the Lord of those celebrating it; (233) he was responsible for the sacramentalization of the Christian religion, and took the phrase ‘Son of God’--- in the Jewish religion merely a title for the Messiah --- to be an ontological reality. The idea of the Son of God, come down from heaven to earth, hitherto inconceivable to Jewish thought, (234) was taken from Paul from the ancient religious syncretism of Asia Minor, to fit in with the need at the time for a general savior. It is generally accepted by critical scholarship that the godparents were the triad from the cult of Isia (Isis, Osiris and Horus) and also Attis, Adonis and Hercules. Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ……..

This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy, the preservers of the original branded as ‘Ebionites.’ As Schoeps puts it, the heresy-hunters ‘accused the Ebionites of a lapse or relapse into Judaism, whereas they were really only the Conservatives who could not go along with the Pauline-cum-Hellenistic elaborations’. (238) Schonfield comes to the same conclusion: ‘This Christianity in its teaching about Jesus continued in the tradition it had directly inherited, and could justifiably regard Pauline and catholic Christianity as heretical. It was not, as its opponents alleged, Jewish Christianity which debased the person of Jesus, but the Church in general which was misled into deifying him.’ (239) ‘Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. This is even admitted by some Catholics: ‘Christianity today mostly means Paul.’ (245) And Wilhelm Nestle stated—as noted also by Sabet—‘Christianity is the religion founded by Paul who replaces the Gospel of Jesus by a gospel about Jesus.’ (246) So also Schonfield: ‘Paul produced an amalgamation of ideas which, however unintentionally, did give rise to a new religion.’ (247)……

Excerpts from: How Paul changed the course of Christianity
How Paul changed the course of Christianity​

I believe that there is only one true God and it is the God referred to in the OT, the God that created the heavens and the earth, the same God revealed all the Abrahamic faiths. It is wholly unjust to blame God for what humans did with God's Revelations, because man has free will.

I do not believe that what was attributed to God in the OT is an accurate depiction of God's actions, thoughts and emotions. The OT is stories about God that contained metaphors, which were intended to convey spiritual truths, but the OT is also anthropomorphic, since it is the words of men who wrote about God as if God was a human being,

AGAIN, you are preaching to the choir because I agree with you about this world, it is a storehouse of suffering, more for some than for others. The question is what we do about that, what can we do? We can reject God as atheists do, or we can try to figure out WHY God created a world with so much suffering. As humans with a rational mind and free will we can also try to alleviate some of that suffering.

We can hate God or we can love God for the world He created, but we cannot do anything about it since we are stuck here until we die. As such, it makes more logical sense to try to understand than to get emotional. I do not think that brushing it off and saying "God is Love" is the answer; I believe that is rather naive because God is more than Love.

The original "Christianity" was gnostic. Jesus the Nazarene ( branch of the Essenes ) was gnostic.
ALL the apostles were gnostic. There was NO SUCH THING AS CHRISTIANITY in the first century era.
And Paul was the "pillar" of the movement after the crucifixion. NOT Peter.
After His death, Jesus taught the apostles for close to two years, until the Roman church took over and they got wind
of the "heretics" and systematically murdered them all.

And some of those teachings you will find today in the Nag Hammadi library
These were found buried over 50 years ago about the same time as the dead sea scrolls.
And these are the true teachings of the true Christ that He gave to them...
not the "anti-Christ" ( in place of, or instead of Christ ) "theology" you know.

And why John could say "Little children, it is the last time, and you have heard that antichrist will come. Even NOW there are many antichrist. That's HOW we know it is the last time" ( John 2:18 )

 

[halbhh]

What ever gave you the idea that Jesus was referring to Himself?
Jesus was not the only Son of Man.

That's right -- all of us are.

But, it's unavoidable to see if you read through (a full reading through) a Gospel or all 4. (78 times He calls Himself this)

Let's look at a passage:

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven...."
Matthew 16 NIV

Here's a good enough explanation:
Though the Bible does not define its exact meaning, the title "Son of Man" probably refers to the fact that Jesus was perfect humanity. He, as God, came down and lived among us as the perfect human being. By doing this, He fulfilled the Law of Moses and did what no other human being was able to do. By using this title, He is identifying with the people He had come to save.
Why Did Jesus Call Himself the Son of Man?

This isn't really the main thing you were getting at in your post though, it's just a side topic.

The more important thing you were trying to get at is that the Kingdom is here, now it seems.

But...you should not expect that will mean Christ won't come back in person. He said that He would.

And why I believe that -- because I've tested things He said in the gospel accounts over and over in all sorts of ways, because I'm sorta like Thomas, wanting proof, and what I found is things He said in the gospel accounts work amazingly better than I imagine, just over and over, all of them! From that, I've gradually learned to totally trust that all He says in the gospel accounts will happen.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where did you read anything that said Jesus would return to the earth? I don't recall writing it. Did you read it in one of my posts? If so, could you point it out please.
The air where the saints meet the Lord, is not the earth, is it.
Where does Paul contradict Jesus, please?
Jesus said he would come. Paul said he would come. That's what we read in the Bible. That's what the scriptures say.
What you want them to mean, is a different story.

Jesus never said He was going to come in the air. All of that is from Paul. Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds, that bodies would rise from graves and meet Jesus in the air? That is physically impossible. The alternative to interpreting these verses literally is to interpret them figuratively and try to understand what Paul might have meant.

Where does it say that the spirit of Jesus was taken up to heaven, out of their sight?
Telling me what you think a scripture means, without showing me what the scriptures say, is not important, is it?

Where does it say that the body of Jesus was taken up to heaven, out of their sight?

Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 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.

You believe this verse is referring to the same body of Jesus because of what you were taught by the Church. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus say he will return in the air or to the earth in the same body.

What was the disciples seeing as Jesus spoke to them?
(Acts 1:3, 4) 3 After he had suffered, he showed himself alive to them by many convincing proofs. He was seen by them throughout 40 days, and he was speaking about the Kingdom of God. 4 While he was meeting with them, he ordered them: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but keep waiting for what the Father has promised, about which you heard from me;

Was it a spirit? Can you describe it please? What were they seeing?

(Acts 1:6) So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, . . .
(Acts 1:9) After he had said these things, while they were looking on, he was lifted up and a cloud caught him up from their sight.

I do not know what they saw and neither do you. I do not believe it was a body because bodies cannot defy gravity and be lifted up on a cloud.

I'm not sure what you mean by the spirit of Jesus. Can you please explain, and do so, from the Bible please, since it is the Bible we are talking about here.

The spirit of Jesus is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Christ Spirit, that which is not a material entity.

We do? No please.
You think so.
However, I am not following your argument. I'm lost. What does the disciple's death have to do with the coming?
Can you please explain what you are trying to say.

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

This verse says that those who were standing there in the presence of Jesus would not die until He returns. How can this verse refer to the second coming of Jesus? We know that Jesus did not return before the disciples died.

You believe that the title ‘Son of man’ is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented
That's what you believe. Now what did Jesus and his followers believe? Surely you are interested in that? Are you?

What about what they said?
That's in the Bible. Can we talk about what's in the Bible?
Perhaps I should ask... do you also decide what to accept from the Bible, and what to discard?
Do you accept these scriptures?

(Matthew 12:40) For just as Joʹnah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.
(Matthew 16:13-17) 13 When he had come into the region of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” 14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them: “You, though, who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did.

Like I said before, I believe that Jesus was the Son of man, but I do not believe that Jesus was the only Son of man. Son of man is a descriptive title that can apply to more than one person.

I do not believe that Joʹnah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, and I do not believe that Jesus was in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. Jesus spoke in parables and these verses were not intended to be interpreted literally.

The return of the Christ spirit, as promised in the Bible? Where would I find that, exactly... which scripture?

I believe you would find it in any verses that refer to the Son of man coming in the clouds because I believe that the return of the Christ Spirit was Baha’u’llah who was the return of the Son of man who came in the clouds, clouds denoting that which was contrary to the ways and desires of men, thus clouding their judgment, their ability to see.

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 24:30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 13:26And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Christians are not looking for Christ's physical body to come floating down on a physical cloud from heaven.
According to Wikipedia...
Views about the nature of Jesus's Second Coming vary among Christian denominations and among individual Christians.
However, nowhere does the article say that any of these denominations have the idea of Jesus' return in a physical body.

In Rosicrucian esoteric Christian teaching... The Second Coming or Advent of the Christ is not in a physical body...
Are you making those claims based on actual fact, or did you assume this. The facts do not support such a claim... Unless I missed them, and you can show me otherwise.

Okay, so Christians have different beliefs about the second coming of Christ but what they all have in common is that the same man Jesus will come to earth or at least hover around earth. What they all have in common is that it will be Jesus, not another man. Only the Baha’is believe that the return of Christ will be manifest in another man, Baha’u’llah. According to the website you posted:

Baha'i Faith

Bahá'u'lláh announced that the return of Christ, understood as a reappearance of the Word and Spirit of God, was manifest in His person. Baha'u'llah wrote to Pope Pius IX,

He Who is the Lord of Lords is come overshadowed with clouds...He, verily, hath again come down from Heaven even as He came down from it the first time. Beware that thou dispute not with Him even as the Pharisees disputed with Him without a clear token or proof.[51]

He goes on to refer to himself as the Ancient of Days and the Pen of Glory.[52] Baha'u'llah also said in this connection:

This is the Father foretold by Isaiah, and the Comforter concerning Whom the Spirit had covenanted with you. Open your eyes, O concourse of bishops, that ye may behold your Lord seated upon the Throne of might and glory.[53]

Baha'u'llah also wrote,

Say: We, in truth, have given Ourself as a ransom for your own lives. Alas, when We came once again, We beheld you fleeing from Us, whereat the eye of My loving-kindness wept sore over My people."[52]

Followers of the Bahá'í Faith believe that the fulfillment of the prophecies of the second coming of Jesus, as well as the prophecies of the Maitreya and many other religious prophecies, were begun by the Báb in 1844 and then by Bahá'u'lláh.[54] They commonly compare the fulfillment of Christian prophecies to Jesus' fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, where in both cases people were expecting the literal fulfillment of apocalyptic statements. Bahá'ís claim that the return of Christ with a new name parallels the return of Elijah in John the Baptist as stated by Jesus in the Gospels.[55][56]

Second Coming - Wikipedia​

 

[Ancient Soul]

That's somewhat correct, and that's why the first Christians were gnostic , all the apostles and disciples , and Jesus Himself were all gnostic.
We don't accept any kind of moral law, because we are not "lawless". As such, there is no such thing as "sin".....unless it is to be
understood as "ignorance" ( which is what causes suffering ).

So there is no "fear mongering salvation mythology" to adhere to. Christ (Jesus) did not come to "save" anybody . And certainly did not die
for anybody. The idea of any "vicarious atonement" is nonsense . This was the doing of the Roman Church, once it's political power won out over the "heretics" (gnostics). And then it proceeded to exterminate any man , woman , or child, who would not submit to it's "authority".

And you are mistaken about the God of the NT. The Father is merciful, and Love unconditionally. As the Son showed us with His life.

Ah yes, believing what you want to believe I see. But you are overlooking this:

Matthew 5:17

The Fulfillment of the Law

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

No, I don't "overlook" anything......I look INTO it .
There is no fault in the "law", and it was given for our good. Just as Paul described in Romans 3:19-20.
He tells us that the law is for the "lawless", those people who have not come to know the true God and Father.
Every person does not have the "Spirit of God", but the spirit of this world ( the spirit of the god that created it ).
As such, they have "no law" written in their "hearts" ( in their minds, in their spirits )….this is what it means to be "LAWLESS" .
Void of the Spirit of God, they have no "fruits" of the Spirit. "Fruits" are what you "produce"...the effects ( good or bad )
that the choices you make everyday have on others. And "self control" is just one of those "fruits of the Spirit".

Jesus DID "fulfill" the law...….He "filled it up",
HE...The Christ.....the Spirit of the Living God, when HE is "IN" a person, when He "FILLS" that person....
that person CANNOT "SIN" . Just as Paul went on to describe in his letter to Timothy in Romans.

" Whoever is born of God does not commit sin, because His seed (God's seed is the Christ (Jesus) ) remains IN him (the person),
and he (the person) CANNOT SIN, because he is born of God ( the TRUE GOD …..the FATHER )
( 1 John 3:9 )

Nice word dance of avoidance, but it's just made up excuses so you don't have to face the fact that the Christian "god" is just as evil in the NT as he was in the OT.

As that is what is really meant by:

Matthew 5:17

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

That means jesus is going to uphold the OT "god's" wrathful way of upholding his laws.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I gained greater apperception for "on the clouds of heaven" meaning invisible. when one day I was driving down the road and the car a head of me disappeared in to a fog bank. I knew the car was still there even though it had disappeared from my sight . I did not need to see the car to know it was really there .

Dang. Just gave Jesus whiplash.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Jesus never said He was going to come in the air. All of that is from Paul. Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds, that bodies would rise from graves and meet Jesus in the air? That is physically impossible. The alternative to interpreting these verses literally is to interpret them figuratively and try to understand what Paul might have meant.

Where does it say that the body of Jesus was taken up to heaven, out of their sight?

Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 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.

You believe this verse is referring to the same body of Jesus because of what you were taught by the Church. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus say he will return in the air or to the earth in the same body.

I do not know what they saw and neither do you. I do not believe it was a body because bodies cannot defy gravity and be lifted up on a cloud.

The spirit of Jesus is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Christ Spirit, that which is not a material entity.

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

This verse says that those who were standing there in the presence of Jesus would not die until He returns. How can this verse refer to the second coming of Jesus? We know that Jesus did not return before the disciples died.

Like I said before, I believe that Jesus was the Son of man, but I do not believe that Jesus was the only Son of man. Son of man is a descriptive title that can apply to more than one person.

I do not believe that Joʹnah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, and I do not believe that Jesus was in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. Jesus spoke in parables and these verses were not intended to be interpreted literally.

I believe you would find it in any verses that refer to the Son of man coming in the clouds because I believe that the return of the Christ Spirit was Baha’u’llah who was the return of the Son of man who came in the clouds, clouds denoting that which was contrary to the ways and desires of men, thus clouding their judgment, their ability to see.

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 24:30And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 13:26And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

Okay, so Christians have different beliefs about the second coming of Christ but what they all have in common is that the same man Jesus will come to earth or at least hover around earth. What they all have in common is that it will be Jesus, not another man. Only the Baha’is believe that the return of Christ will be manifest in another man, Baha’u’llah. According to the website you posted:

Baha'i Faith

Bahá'u'lláh announced that the return of Christ, understood as a reappearance of the Word and Spirit of God, was manifest in His person. Baha'u'llah wrote to Pope Pius IX,

He Who is the Lord of Lords is come overshadowed with clouds...He, verily, hath again come down from Heaven even as He came down from it the first time. Beware that thou dispute not with Him even as the Pharisees disputed with Him without a clear token or proof.[51]

He goes on to refer to himself as the Ancient of Days and the Pen of Glory.[52] Baha'u'llah also said in this connection:

This is the Father foretold by Isaiah, and the Comforter concerning Whom the Spirit had covenanted with you. Open your eyes, O concourse of bishops, that ye may behold your Lord seated upon the Throne of might and glory.[53]

Baha'u'llah also wrote,

Say: We, in truth, have given Ourself as a ransom for your own lives. Alas, when We came once again, We beheld you fleeing from Us, whereat the eye of My loving-kindness wept sore over My people."[52]

Followers of the Bahá'í Faith believe that the fulfillment of the prophecies of the second coming of Jesus, as well as the prophecies of the Maitreya and many other religious prophecies, were begun by the Báb in 1844 and then by Bahá'u'lláh.[54] They commonly compare the fulfillment of Christian prophecies to Jesus' fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, where in both cases people were expecting the literal fulfillment of apocalyptic statements. Bahá'ís claim that the return of Christ with a new name parallels the return of Elijah in John the Baptist as stated by Jesus in the Gospels.[55][56]

Second Coming - Wikipedia​

Your platform falls flat when you post both jesus' and Bahá'u'lláh's bombastic gobbledygook and then claim it means whatever baseless point you are trying to make. But on their own, without any such miss-interpretations, the quotes are just bombastic gobbledygook that don't mean much of anything.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Nice word dance of avoidance, but it's just made up excuses so you don't have to face the fact that the Christian "god" is just as evil in the NT as he was in the OT.

As that is what is really meant by:

Matthew 5:17

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

That means jesus is going to uphold the OT "god's" wrathful way of upholding his laws.

No, sorry......I'm guessing you never heard of "karma" . ( now, don't get me started )

 

[Trailblazer]

Again. Who is the son of man in the Gospels?
If it is Christ, then what problem are you having with these scriptures?
Why do you say they do not refer to Christ?

The title Son of man ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah, and is frequently used in the Gospels as a title of Jesus. Presumably the title is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented.

I believe these scriptures refer to the return of the Son of man, who I believe was Baha’u’llah.

Joseph said, interpretation belongs to God. I go with that. So we differ in our views on that. The scriptures - God's word has the correct interpretation.
There can be more than one understanding to any spoken word.

That is what I have been trying to say -- There can be more than one understanding to any spoken word.

To me, understanding is derived from interpretation so interpretation is necessary to understanding.

On what basis do you decide that? How can you pick and choose which scriptures you want to say refers to your prophet? Either the son of man refers to Christ Jesus, or it does not. One's choosing what suits one is a gross misuse of scripture, and a betrayal of it's representation.

On what basis do you decide that Son of man refers ONLY to Jesus?

No, it is not an either/or. Son of man can refer to more than one man. Where in scripture does it say that it refers exclusively to Jesus?

The basis upon which I decided that is that Baha’u’llah claimed to be the return of the Son of man.

Since Jesus identified himself as the son of man, then one's presumptions that it refers to Bahaullah, or anyone else for that matter, is unscriptural, and completely flawed. It is also unimportant what one presumes, where God's word is concerned.

I do not consider it unscriptural because I consider what Baha’u’llah wrote to be scripture which is just as valid as the Bible. What is presumptuous is to assume that the Bible is the ONLY Word of God that has ever existed. This is what Christians do.

Jesus said, “Isaiah aptly prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshipping me, for they teach commands of men as doctrines.’ You let go of the commandment of God and cling to the tradition of men.” (Mark 7:6-8)

Even Jesus acknowledged that God's word can be twisted to mean whatever one wants it to mean. This is true in every case where the spoken or written word goes forth.
(2 Peter 3:16) However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. . .

Factually, they are always consequences to wrong actions, and we have been warned.
They are serious. (Revelation 22:18, 19)

If even Jesus acknowledged that God's word can be twisted to mean whatever one wants it to mean, why do you believe that YOU know what it means? How do you know what it means? Who gave you the authority to interpret the Bible?

Baha’is do not add to the Bible. We consider the Bible a revelation from the God through Moses and Jesus. Baha’u’llah received His own Revelation from God which was separate.

We have also been warned through Baha’u’llah the consequences of turning away from Him.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

The title Son of man ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah, and is frequently used in the Gospels as a title of Jesus. Presumably the title is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented.

I believe these scriptures refer to the return of the Son of man, who I believe was Baha’u’llah.

That is what I have been trying to say -- There can be more than one understanding to any spoken word.

To me, understanding is derived from interpretation so interpretation is necessary to understanding.

On what basis do you decide that Son of man refers ONLY to Jesus?

No, it is not an either/or. Son of man can refer to more than one man. Where in scripture does it say that it refers exclusively to Jesus?

The basis upon which I decided that is that Baha’u’llah claimed to be the return of the Son of man.

I do not consider it unscriptural because I consider what Baha’u’llah wrote to be scripture which is just as valid as the Bible. What is presumptuous is to assume that the Bible is the ONLY Word of God that has ever existed. This is what Christians do.

If even Jesus acknowledged that God's word can be twisted to mean whatever one wants it to mean, why do you believe that YOU know what it means? How do you know what it means? Who gave you the authority to interpret the Bible?

Baha’is do not add to the Bible. We consider the Bible a revelation from the God through Moses and Jesus. Baha’u’llah received His own Revelation from God which was separate.

We have also been warned through Baha’u’llah the consequences of turning away from Him.

The "Son of Man" of which Jesus referred to Himself appears 81 times in the Koine Greek of the four gospels :
30 times in Mathew, 14 times in Mark, 25 times in Luke, and 12 times in John.

"MAN" is a divine "race" of Being, and the reason for the human "race".
Probably the oldest symbol in humanity is the "star", (pentagram), and not just because of those we call as such above us,
but because of the 'form', and shape. It represents the "Perfect Human"....what we really are.
The 5 "points" are secretly revealed to be the attributes of "ForeThought", Foreknowledge, Indestructability, Eternal Life, and Truth.

Everybody wants to be a "star".....a "movie star", a "pop star", a "sports star" .
WE (Humanity) are special in many ways we can't even imagine...

and also why the envious and jealous powers that be denigrate it by turning it upside down and such...

 

[Trailblazer]

That's right -- all of us are.

I do not believe all of us are the Son of man because I believe that refers to the perfect man and certainly we are not all perfect.

But, it's unavoidable to see if you read through (a full reading through) a Gospel or all 4. (78 times He calls Himself this)

Let's look at a passage:

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven...."
Matthew 16 NIV

https://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/16.htmI do not know all the references to the Son of man in all four gospels but what you posted above is certainly not Jesus calling Himself to be the Son of man. Jesus is asking who others believe the Son of Man is.

Here's a good enough explanation:
Though the Bible does not define its exact meaning, the title "Son of Man" probably refers to the fact that Jesus was perfect humanity. He, as God, came down and lived among us as the perfect human being. By doing this, He fulfilled the Law of Moses and did what no other human being was able to do. By using this title, He is identifying with the people He had come to save.
Why Did Jesus Call Himself the Son of Man?

I agree with that explanation because I believe that Jesus was perfect humanity. However, that means Jesus could not have been God because God is not a human.

The more important thing you were trying to get at is that the Kingdom is here, now it seems.

But...you should not expect that will mean Christ won't come back in person. He said that He would.

Nowhere in the NT did Jesus say He was coming back to earth, nowhere.
It is just not there, and the reason it is not there is because Jesus never planned to return to earth.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

And why I believe that -- because I've tested things He said in the gospel accounts over and over in all sorts of ways, because I'm sorta like Thomas, wanting proof, and what I found is things He said in the gospel accounts work amazingly better than I imagine, just over and over, all of them! From that, I've gradually learned to totally trust that all He says in the gospel accounts will happen.

I also believe the gospel accounts are true, but these things have already happened, as promised.

 

[Trailblazer]

And these are the true teachings of the true Christ that He gave to them...
not the "anti-Christ" ( in place of, or instead of Christ ) "theology" you know.

And why John could say "Little children, it is the last time, and you have heard that antichrist will come. Even NOW there are many antichrist. That's HOW we know it is the last time" ( John 2:18 )

According to my beliefs, the theology of the Church changed the essential meaning of the gospels and deceived many people, so they were akin to false prophets.

As Jesus prophesied, the false prophets contrived to change the essential meaning of the Gospel so that it became quite different from that which the Bible recorded or Jesus taught. Matt. Vii 15-23 and see pp. 11, 12. …..

Well might Christ warn His followers that false prophets would arise and misinterpret His teachings so as to delude even the most earnest and intelligent of His believers: from early times Christians have disputed about Christian truth in councils, in sects, in wars.

To sum up, if Christians say “our acts may be wrong,” they say truly. If they say “however our Gospel is right” they are quite wrong. The false prophets have corrupted the Gospel as successfully as they have the deeds and lives of Christian people.

THE FALSE PROPHETS​

 

[Trailblazer]

The "Son of Man" of which Jesus referred to Himself appears 81 times in the Koine Greek of the four gospels :
30 times in Mathew, 14 times in Mark, 25 times in Luke, and 12 times in John.

"MAN" is a divine "race" of Being, and the reason for the human "race".
Probably the oldest symbol in humanity is the "star", (pentagram), and not just because of those we call as such above us,
but because of the 'form', and shape. It represents the "Perfect Human"....what we really are.
The 5 "points" are secretly revealed to be the attributes of "ForeThought", Foreknowledge, Indestructability, Eternal Life, and Truth.

Everybody wants to be a "star".....a "movie star", a "pop star", a "sports star" .
WE (Humanity) are special in many ways we can't even imagine...

and also why the envious and jealous powers that be denigrate it by turning it upside down and such...

I believe that humans have the potential to be perfect because we are made in the image and likeness of God.
Sadly though, humans do not always live up to their potential.

“How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him. Even as He hath said: “Man is My mystery, and I am his mystery.” Manifold are the verses that have been repeatedly revealed in all the Heavenly Books and the Holy Scriptures, expressive of this most subtle and lofty theme. Even as He hath revealed: “We will surely show them Our signs in the world and within themselves.” Again He saith: “And also in your own selves: will ye not, then, behold the signs of God?” And yet again He revealeth: “And be ye not like those who forget God, and whom He hath therefore caused to forget their own selves.” In this connection, He Who is the eternal King—may the souls of all that dwell within the mystic Tabernacle be a sacrifice unto Him—hath spoken: “He hath known God who hath known himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 177-178

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

According to my beliefs, the theology of the Church changed the essential meaning of the gospels and deceived many people, so they were akin to false prophets.

As Jesus prophesied, the false prophets contrived to change the essential meaning of the Gospel so that it became quite different from that which the Bible recorded or Jesus taught. Matt. Vii 15-23 and see pp. 11, 12. …..

Well might Christ warn His followers that false prophets would arise and misinterpret His teachings so as to delude even the most earnest and intelligent of His believers: from early times Christians have disputed about Christian truth in councils, in sects, in wars.

To sum up, if Christians say “our acts may be wrong,” they say truly. If they say “however our Gospel is right” they are quite wrong. The false prophets have corrupted the Gospel as successfully as they have the deeds and lives of Christian people.

THE FALSE PROPHETS​

lol.....The "gospel" wasn't changed per say, it NEVER WAS. The Roman power took complete control and snuffed out the TRUE gospel.
I'm sure you must know that the word "gospel" means a news announcement, a message that is sent out to anyone and everyone. It has the notion of a local "cryer" or someone standing on the street corner shouting out something that people need to hear.
You can think of it in modern terms as "NEWS FLASH "!!

And the "gospel" (good news) of Jesus...meaning FROM Jesus was the "Kingdom of God"...over, and over again.
This worlds false Christianity teaches a "gospel" ABOUT Jesus the Christ. And they do it by turning it into a false "salvation"
doctrine and some kind of fairy tale like...…"away in a manger" nonsense. Modern "Christianity" is nowhere near what True
Christianity is.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

I believe that humans have the potential to be perfect because we are made in the image and likeness of God.
Sadly though, humans do not always live up to their potential.

“How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him. Even as He hath said: “Man is My mystery, and I am his mystery.” Manifold are the verses that have been repeatedly revealed in all the Heavenly Books and the Holy Scriptures, expressive of this most subtle and lofty theme. Even as He hath revealed: “We will surely show them Our signs in the world and within themselves.” Again He saith: “And also in your own selves: will ye not, then, behold the signs of God?” And yet again He revealeth: “And be ye not like those who forget God, and whom He hath therefore caused to forget their own selves.” In this connection, He Who is the eternal King—may the souls of all that dwell within the mystic Tabernacle be a sacrifice unto Him—hath spoken: “He hath known God who hath known himself.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 177-178

No, we already are Perfect......we just need to "remember" ( get our ++++ together )