End-time Visions of Christ

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

PAC-fit

Active member
Sep 20, 2018
344
112
43
#1
What do you tell someone who claims to have seen the Lord? Please weigh in on your experience, for there are three Apostles who have penned the unliklihood of Jesus appearing before our contemporary brothers:

'', , have not seen'' (1Peter 1:8, 1John 4:20).

''And last of all, He appeared also to me, as to one of untimely birth'' (1Cor 15:8) ''and last'' Grk def: ἔσχατον last, final
Interesting thing about that is, he received that vision while yet an evil man.

So, how confident should those be who say, they have seen the Lord? Back in 1975 I believe I saw him but came to understand, I could care less. For it remains confusing and no way to confirm it. After all, you are stuck with needing proof of seeing God.

''Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.'' (John 14:9)
 
Nov 14, 2024
1,307
885
113
#2
''And last of all, He appeared also to me, as to one of untimely birth'' (1Cor 15:8) ''and last'' Grk def: ἔσχατον last, final
Interesting thing about that is, he received that vision while yet an evil man.
A couple of things about this.

First, the Lord did appear to Paul at least one more time, and that was after Paul was saved.

Act 23:10
And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.
Act 23:11
And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.

Second, when Paul said "last of all" in 1 Corinthians 15:8, the context seems to indicate that he was merely the "last of all" those whom he mentioned to have seen Christ at that time. If you believe that the book of Revelation was written after Paul died, and I do believe the same myself, then John saw Christ after Paul was already dead. If this is indeed the case, then when Paul saw Christ, it was not the "last" time that anybody saw him.
 

PAC-fit

Active member
Sep 20, 2018
344
112
43
#3
If you believe that the book of Revelation was written after Paul died, and I do believe the same myself, then John saw Christ after Paul was already dead. If this is indeed the case, then when Paul saw Christ, it was not the "last" time that anybody saw him.
Good point I had not considered. And I'll even throw in the likelihood of John's,
'', , have not seen'' (1John 4:20).
But that still lacks the slightest confirmation from Peter saying the same thing. You do realize saying the Spirit who spoke through all three at the time has called the OP refs. off because of John's Revelation?
 
Nov 14, 2024
1,307
885
113
#4
But that still lacks the slightest confirmation from Peter saying the same thing. You do realize saying the Spirit who spoke through all three at the time has called the OP refs. off because of John's Revelation?
No, I do not realize any such thing because you are not presenting your alleged proof texts (1 Pet. 1:8, 1 John 4:20) in their proper contexts. I will take a moment to do that now.

1Pe 1:1
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
1Pe 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
1Pe 1:4
To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
1Pe 1:5
Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
1Pe 1:6
Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
1Pe 1:7
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
1Pe 1:8
Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
1Pe 1:9
Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

When Peter said "whom having not seen, ye love," who were the "ye" that he was addressing? In context, the "ye" were "the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." In other words, Peter was addressing a specific group of people, and in no way was he even suggesting that no one would ever see the Lord again.

1Jo 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Here, in context, John was talking about how nobody had seen God the Father up until that point in time, or he was reiterating what he had said here.

1Jo 4:12
No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

In context, John was saying how no man had seen God the Father up until that point in time, and he did not utter a single word about how no man had seen Jesus Christ. Previously, Jesus Christ had said the same exact thing, and John is the one who recorded it in his gospel.

Jhn 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Furthermore, this same John did apparently see God the Father after he penned his first epistle. When "a door was opened in heaven" (Rev. 4:1), and when John was told to "Come up hither" (Rev. 4:1), this is part of what John saw while in heaven.

Rev 4:2
And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.
Rev 4:3
And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

Who did John see sitting upon this throne in heaven? We gain further insight into this by simply continuing to read.

Rev 5:1
And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
Rev 5:2
And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
Rev 5:3
And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
Rev 5:4
And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
Rev 5:5
And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rev 5:6
And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Rev 5:7
And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

Here, John saw the risen Christ take a sealed book out of God the Father's hand in order to loose the seals thereof, or in order to open and read the book. In fact, this is what the book of Revelation is all about.

Rev 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2
Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

After his resurrection, ascension, and glorification, Jesus was given revelation (hence the name of the book) from God the Father which he did not have during his incarnation, and he received the same by opening the previously sealed book which he took out of God the Father's hand.

Btw, what we just read is internal evidence that the book of Revelation was written after the first epistle of John. In his first epistle, John said that "no man hath seen God at any time" (1 John 4:12), and John later saw God as we just witnessed from what he penned in the book of Revelation.

Anyhow, my point is this:

Neither of your two alleged proof texts (1 Pet. 1:8, 1 John 4:20) say what you alleged that they say in your OP, and, hopefully, you now recognize the same.
 

PAC-fit

Active member
Sep 20, 2018
344
112
43
#5
Peter was addressing a specific group of people, ,"
, , tell me it's not true, that you 'don't' believe this was penned by the Spirit, being a piercing discerner of motives? Here is a classic example of the problem of un-limited hermeneutics which throws the ''living'' precept aside.
 

PAC-fit

Active member
Sep 20, 2018
344
112
43
#6
Care must be realized

''[T]o give credit to a thing upon the evidence of sense, is properly no believing, otherwise than as sense confirms what we have before received by a Divine revelation. This is a sure rule, that by how much our faith stands in less need of an external evidence of sense, the stronger it is.'' - Poole
 
Nov 14, 2024
1,307
885
113
#7
, , tell me it's not true, that you 'don't' believe this was penned by the Spirit, being a piercing discerner of motives? Here is a classic example of the problem of un-limited hermeneutics which throws the ''living'' precept aside.
Of course, I believe that it was penned under Divine inspiration. That is not the issue. The issue is what it actually says, and I already pointed that out to you. The hermeneutical problem is at your end, and not mine. If Peter said what you alleged he said, then he was a liar who was penning scripture via the inspiration of a lying spirit. In other words, John saw the risen Christ after Peter penned those words, so if Peter was saying that nobody would ever see the risen Christ again, then he lied.

Of course, Peter did not lie, nor did he pen those words via the inspiration of a lying spirit. Instead, you have gone "quote mining" in order to attempt to prove an erroneous point, and, in doing so, you have pulled verses out of their actual contexts while attributing meanings to them that were never intended by the writers or by God himself. I would correct that problem at your end if I were you.
 

PAC-fit

Active member
Sep 20, 2018
344
112
43
#8
', , that nobody would ever see the risen Christ again
Here, your context is slipping. Surely, I'm hoping you know I don't doubt His many ways of speaking or visiting His own and am of the mindset of continual ''the Lord stood with me and strengthened me'' (2Tm 4:17). But visions have historically turned into some of the most disastrously bad outcomes. Between the worst of those and seemingly harmless, there most certainly is potential for error. As the Lord said of which garnered the predominant blessing, ''Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed'', again the living word of God to the world He loved.
 
Nov 14, 2024
1,307
885
113
#9
Here, your context is slipping.
My context is not slipping at all in your partial quote of what I said. Here is my full quote.
If Peter said what you alleged he said, then he was a liar who was penning scripture via the inspiration of a lying spirit. In other words, John saw the risen Christ after Peter penned those words, so if Peter was saying that nobody would ever see the risen Christ again, then he lied.
No alleged slippage there at all. Just solid biblical truth.
Surely, I'm hoping you know I don't doubt His many ways of speaking or visiting His own and am of the mindset of continual ''the Lord stood with me and strengthened me'' (2Tm 4:17). But visions have historically turned into some of the most disastrously bad outcomes. Between the worst of those and seemingly harmless, there most certainly is potential for error.
I never said that there was not a potential for error. When it comes to visions, I believe that Peter gave the best instruction of all.

2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Pe 1:17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
2Pe 1:18
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
2Pe 1:19
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
2Pe 1:20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

While on the Mount of Transfiguration with James and John, Peter not only saw Christ transfigured before his very eyes, but he also saw Moses and Elijah as they appeared in glory while testifying of the death that Jesus would accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9:30-31). Furthermore, Peter heard the voice of God the Father out of heaven which testified that Jesus was his beloved Son. Despite what Peter saw with his own eyes and heard with his own ears, he said that we have "a more sure word of prophecy" whereunto we would do well to take heed. In other words, Peter understood that what the Old Testament prophets had written was written under the Divine inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and any extra-biblical "vision" or "word" needs to be tried according to the same. This is our safeguard from error, and it does not demand that no extra-biblical "vision" or "word" can ever truly be from the Lord. Instead, such "visions" or "words" need to be tested or proven in the light of the already revealed word of God. If the two align, then fine. If they do not, then the "vision" or "word" is to be discarded as not having truly originated with God.
As the Lord said of which garnered the predominant blessing, ''Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed'', again the living word of God to the world He loved.
So, those who have seen and believed, like Peter, Paul, and John, for example, are lesser blessed? You need to stop quote mining.
 

PAC-fit

Active member
Sep 20, 2018
344
112
43
#10
My context is not slipping at all in your partial quote of what I said. Here is my full quote.
What you missed again is the assertion that I am somehow saying no one would see Christ again BEFORE either here or when we meet Him in the clouds. I think I already clarified that with ''the Lord stood with me'' ref.
If Peter said what you alleged he said, then he was a liar who was penning scripture via the inspiration of a lying spirit. In other words, John saw the risen Christ after Peter penned those words, so if Peter was saying that nobody would ever see the risen Christ again, then he lied.
Again, my same clarification faced with your own ref.,
'', , he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
If I didn't know better, you are trying to empower the evidence of a vision, it being carelessly influenced by it's insufficient testimony, again, potential for error. Thankful, you,
never said that there was not a potential for error. When it comes to visions, I believe that Peter gave the best instruction of all.
Providing the convert was not in the capacity of influence or power and heard no objection lacking close discipleship to act on a vision. No, think I'd advise pruning that one as advised, ''has not seen''.
 
Nov 14, 2024
1,307
885
113
#11
What you missed again is the assertion that I am somehow saying no one would see Christ again BEFORE either here or when we meet Him in the clouds. I think I already clarified that with ''the Lord stood with me'' ref.
Again, my same clarification faced with your own ref.,
If I didn't know better, you are trying to empower the evidence of a vision, it being carelessly influenced by it's insufficient testimony, again, potential for error. Thankful, you,
Providing the convert was not in the capacity of influence or power and heard no objection lacking close discipleship to act on a vision. No, think I'd advise pruning that one as advised, ''has not seen''.
I am not going to waste any more time with you. I have already clearly shown you that John's reference was to the Father, and not to Jesus, but you stubbornly refuse to admit the same. I have sufficiently exposed your error so that others here might not negatively be influenced by it, so my job is done.

Bye...
 

PAC-fit

Active member
Sep 20, 2018
344
112
43
#12
I have already clearly shown you that John's reference was to the Father, and not to Jesus, but you stubbornly refuse to admit the same. I have sufficiently exposed your error, , "
Loved the example of the 'Transfiguration', but ''Stubbornly''? You aren't faulting me, but the Holy Spirit for the inability as well as the sphere of the Apostle's honor within the word of God.

Anyone else willing to show me the dismissal of the three Apostles' HS inspired OP verbiage?