Will Jesus "Second coming" present as a woman this time?

This completely contradicts Scripture.

Christ ascended to Heaven in His glorious resurrected human body of FLESH AND BONES. He was careful not to included blood in this statement: And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:38,39)

Now we can wonder all we want as to how Christ's bodily systems would work after His resurrection. But we are given no details. On the other hand we are clearly told that Christ SHED HIS BLOOD for our redemption. So we need to be content with what God reveals and what He chooses t o hide. The Bible says that THE MAN CHRIST JESUS now sits in Heaven at the right hand of the Father. Abd when the saints are resurrected and raptured they too will resemble Christ in Heaven.

If your father kindly and lovingly says, "Beloved, I will return from my errands soon - truly.", please: how then will your father return?

What a strange idea! That Jesus would go from being male to female!

Before I was a Christian, I was a very strong feminist. But more first generation, in that I believed in equal rights for women, equal pay for equal work, that sort of thing.

I never bought into equity or woke culture, because it didn't exist, thank goodness! I kept my 1st Gen feminist beliefs, but acknowledged that Jesus was masculine, and he will certainly return in the same glorified body, as he ascended to heaven in. I also believe a woman can be a pastor, based in my studies of the Bible, including studies in the original languages. Although many disagree with me!

But lately, I've gone back to being a feminist again, in the sense of standing up for women against the woke, corrupt culture, especially transgenderism, and how it intersects with Christianity & basic Bible principles. I've been in a lot of furious debates against trans men, usurping women's spaces, and rights.

This includes men in women's sports, beauty pageants, & women's private spaces. Any man who thinks he can enter women's contests, esp with full male genitalia, I will stand against. Young women, who have trained their whole life in a specific sport, for example, should not be losing to bigger, stronger men in women's clothing. Worse, is contact sports, where women are literally killed for fighting a man in certain sports. Or permanently hurt.

Men can wear makeup & dresses if they want, but it will never make them a woman. A few months back, I saw a clip from a Miss World beauty contest. The winner was a trans man. A man dressed up like a woman. But, like most men dressed up as a woman, he was incredibly ugly. Men don't have the same facial features as women. Their body types, even with hormone treatments, are different than women, including their Adam's apple, that dead Giveaway.

As for men in women's private spaces, just NO! NEVER! It damages privacy when a woman is forced in a change room, to see an undressed male. It is damaging to young girls, too! As for men in women's prisons, the tide is turning about stopping these men from going into women's prisons, where they attack & rape real women. I just read in one US prison. 10 men are going to be put in men's prisons where they belong!

So why this speech about transgendered men!? Because your question implies a man, Jesus, can become a trans person, a woman.

I think that Blain also mentioned this, too! Men & women are not the same. Even their thought patterns are different. For Jesus to turn into a woman, can't happen! There are no transgenders in the Kingdom of God & to imply Jesus will be a woman, really is blasphemous! God does have feminine qualities, but it means God embraces all aspects of both genders. But Jesus? He is a man, complete with nails in his hands & feet, and side!

Would you take away Jesus disfigurement he suffered on the cross, which is proof of his death & resurrection. My suggestion is you need to know and I stand the Bible better. Read it from Genesis to Revelation yearly. If you read 3 chapters of the OT, and one of the NT, daily, you will get through the Bible in a year. I've done that for 43 years. Besides Bible study, memorizing passages, and always praying.

I'm not saying whether you are a Christian or not. But if you do believe in Jesus as Lord & Saviour, then read his love letter to us. Don't rationalize that we can know God besides just words in a book! The Bible reveals Jesus. Without a solid foundation in the Word of God, you will be led astray!

All the verses I chose in post no. 111 are for context which is important, in this instance for the chronology of events;

Eve knowingly sinned first. See these 2 verses below.

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Then Eve believed the lie of the serpent and ate the forbidden fruit;

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Then she, Eve seduced Adam;
Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

The Eve admitted her sin;
Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

At the end, both did sin. Eve first, then Adam and were punished. I speculate here but what if Eve did not seduce Adam in eating the fruit???

Those who have put sociopolitical identity politics before the word of God have made it their idle. I hope that they will return to the scriptures and leave the socio political identity politics behind them.

Yep it says he is the King not the queen,,lol.

It is a title, it is not reference to sexual nature, would you agree?

Yes but what is the intention?

There's just too many Scriptures where it depicts him returning for his bride and none where a woman returns for her bride to agree. I'll just stay with the way Scripture depicts the event.

I agree on this.

I am not so much interested in this aspect of the discussion as you know I have preterist leanings and agree Christ Jesus would come back as He was.

Having said this, I do think it is important to not bind God into male, Father is a title which speaks about His connection with us as His children, not a statement about His sex.

There are people on this board who think angels are sexual when scripture states the exact opposite.
It is not "woke" to understand that God is not a male, He is Spirit.

Gender signifies roles and hierarchy. In God's hierarchy, man is always the leader (with ranks within that gender as well - the Trinity shows this with God the Father above the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit) and the female under the man's care and leadership.

Both are of equal value, but Satan likes to make the woman feel inferior and try to disrupt God's order.

So if Jesus comes back as a woman, He's no longer the leader. As much as SJWs love the idea of women having power over men, it just won't happen.

I've mentioned before, that even the Antichrist will be a man to show his position in the hierarchy and that he will refuse to allow women to have power over men ("the one desired by women" - Daniel 11:37).

-=<❤>=-

It's not like women are the only ones who have to submit to leadership - even the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit submit to God the Father harmoniously well. So do all the angels who stayed with God, like powerful Archangel Michael who did the Lord's bidding without question. All of these who must submit did their job so well, that their submission didn't look subservient or wimpy. They are all powerful and accomplished in their lower ranks from God the Father. And so it can be for us women as well. Just don't listen to Satan!

❧

You certainly do. You also contradict yourself and Scripture.

Eve sinned first yes, but not knowingly; she was beguiled (deceived) just as Scripture states.
Adam was held responsible, and it was due to his sin that sin and death entered the world.

a picture of Him and His loving redemption of us

This is feminism in a nutshell.

Not trying to be snarky or anything, but when you strip away all of the superficial fluff that humanity has created, this is what it boils down to.

I am sorry that you have to reject scripture that is crystal clear on the matter, to try to win always. please ignore me in the future.

Oh I forgot to add in reply to:""Eve sinned first yes, but not knowingly"";

Eve knowingly sinned ;

Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

She clearly knew sorry.

Respectfully, i disagree, the scripture is clear she did know, she ignored that GOD had forbidden to eat from the tree but did it anyways. DO NOT eat means DO NOT. Must I again for the third time quote scripture to you?

It seems to me if one is deceived about the result of an action then they are less culpable than the person who was not deceived.

As well, one cannot be deceived if they are aware they have been deceived, therefore she did not know the consequences of her actions, therefore she did not do it knowingly.