Jesus said the time is at hand

[Funguy33]

In approx AD 32-33, Jesus said beware of the false prophets who come claiming the time is near.

Now if at that moment a stranger would have came up to them and said

Hi Jesus and disciples, the time of the end is near.

Jesus would have said to Peter, John, and the rest of His disciples,

'That guy is the flase prophet I am warning you about, do not follow after him"

contemplate why Jesus said this in AD 32-33


7 "Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"

8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away."



Now how can Jesus say that false prophets will come after AD 33 and lead people astray telling them the time of the end is near, if the time being near can mean 2000 years away as per the imposing of this scripture...." a thousand years is a day etc"...

If a thousand years was a day then there could be no such thing as a false prophet telling people the time was near, because near can mean thouusands of years.

Now bounce forward 20 years from AD 33.

Paul is writing to the thessalonians who recieved a letter from an imposter claiming to be one of the apostles of Jesus.


2 Thessalonians 2:2
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.


Paul is saying that the day of the Lord is not quite yet at hand as they should expect, so don't be fooled by those who claim it is, and don't believe that letter was written from one of us apostles.

The very false prophets who would come claiming the 'time of the end was near', who Jesus warned His disciples about, had in fact come just as Jesus said they would.

But around approx AD 65, just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the cataclysmic ending of the old covenant world and theocracy of the law of Moses which included the daily sacrifice and the Levitical Preisthood,

then

under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the disciples prophecied correctly about the time of the end.

1 Peter 4:7
The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray.

Revelation 1:3
Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

Revelation 22:10
Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near.

How can Peter and John (and there are other disciples words as well that I haven't quoted)

How can the disciples claim the time was near in AD 65, when it wasn't near in AD 33?

How can false prophets claim the time is near and be called false teachers if they are correct and a day is like a thousand years and they claim that the time is near?


How can you switch this verse to imply thousands of years in the future?


Matthew 16:28
"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."


How can you switch these verses to imply another generation other than Jesus contemporary generation

Matthew 24:34
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Luke 11:29
As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.

Matthew 12:41
The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here.

Jesus used the word 'SOON' to demonstrate that what He was saying would take place right away

He did not use 'soon' to play games of keeping people in suspense, and play word games with them.

He warned His disciples to get out of Jerusalem when they saw the signs.

He said that unless the days of vengeance and wrath of God were cut short not one of them would survive.

The destruction of Jersualem and the war bewteen Rome and Jerusalem began in AD 66.

Nero Caesar launched the attack and surrounded Jerusalem, and all the people inside the walls of Jerusalem(disciples included) were trapped and facing a sure death and annihilation.

But according to Jesus prophecy the days were 'cut short'

The days of the war came to a sudden end because Nero Caesar up and commits suicide.

Coincidence???

I highly doubt it

But with a cease fire of the war, now in effect due to the appointing a new Caesar to the throne, the illusion of those who lived in Jerusalem was a mentality of 'peace and safety'.

However history shows that the christians were given a 'word from God' by the disciple to get out of Jerusalem, so the christian church in Jerusalem fled to the 'wilderness' town of Pella, and there they were kept safe from what was about to happen next.

What happened next was Rome appointed a new Caesar (Galba) and he reigned for a short while (June 8, 68- Jan 15, 69)

Then another Caesar was appointed Ottho and his reign was even shorter, in fact the following caesar's didn't seem to last very long in power, you can do a search on wiki for your own interest in this line.

The point I am making is Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in His contemporary generation, and it happenned, but it wasn't merely the destruction of the temple He said would happen in His contemporary generation, it was

'ALL THESE THINGS' He prophecied in Matthew 24 that would happen in His contemporary generation.

[raggthyme76]

 

[n2thelight]

Christ said,as long as there are wars and rumors of wars,the end is not yet.......How many wars have there been since that time?

But when they shall say peace and safety..............Christ will not return until there is peace,albeit a false peace...........

That peace will not happen until satan comes pretending to be Christ!!!!!!!!!

[n2thelight]

Christ said when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies to flee,and again He said when you here peace and safety,then sudden destruction,now my question is how can there be war and peace at the same time?

[n2thelight]

Christ also said,all the wicked would be removed,why are they still here?

[raggthyme76]

N2thelight,

you said:
Christ also said,all the wicked would be removed,why are they still here?

You mentioned this in another thread, about the figs.. I asked before if you would give me the scriptures for this statement. Would you please?

and

Christ said,as long as there are wars and rumors of wars,the end is not yet.......

Not exactly, He said, "And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for [such things] must needs be; but the end [shall] not [be] yet."

There were wars and rumors of wars prior to the utter desolation of 70... but once the armies were surrounding the city those who trusted in Christ fled and were saved from the horrific things that befell the inhabitants of the land over those 3 and a half years. Jesus said also that the gospel would be published among all nations before the end. It was said that the whole world had heard, way back in the first century.


Concerning your question about peace and safety.. I believe the answer is in the details of what occurred between 66 and 70 ad. This explanation might help:

The significance of the events leading up to and including AD 70 on Jewish history are scarcely known by the majority of Christians today. This is most unfortunate as these events are some of the most significant happenings that help us to understand the Bible.

During the time of Jesus of Nazareth, Judea was ruled by Roman procurators, most of whom knew little or nothing about the Jewish religion and therefore resulted in demonstrations and rebellions by the Jewish people. During this time period there were three primary Jewish factions within the city of Jerusalem. One was led by John of Gischala. This man had been a general in the Jewish army. He hated Josephus and had predicted that Josephus would betray the Jews to the Romans. He had become the leader of the Zealots.

A second faction was led by Simon Bar Gioras. This man headed up the remnants of the army of Josephus. They numbered several thousand, but had degenerated into a band of looters.

The third group was under the leadership of Eleazer, son of Simon. Eleazer began as an ally of John's but broke away from him and directed his group in a more religious direction. His goal was to establish and maintain Judaism. It was one of these rebellions that brought about the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, but the way in which this came about is an interesting story. On three occasions Jerusalem was surrounded prior to its ultimate destruction in AD 70.

FIRST TIME: In AD 66, Roman armies commanded by Cestius Gallus came to put down a Jewish rebellion. After surrounding Jerusalem, they began their siege, but for no apparent reason Cestius withdrew his troops and left in retreat. Josephus writes the following about the retreat of Cestius:

"...recalled his soldiers from the place [Jerusalem], and by desparing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world."
Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 19, Paragraph 7, Line 540.

The Jews pursued the Romans slaughtering many and capturing their abandoned war machinery. This facet of the retreat by Cestius is also a topic written on by Josephus:

With regard to slaughtering the men of Cestius during the retreat, Josephus writes, "while they [the Jews] had themselves lost a few only, but had slain of the Romans five thousand and three hundred footmen, and three hundred and eighty horsemen."
Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 19, Paragraph 9, Line 555.

Speaking of the retreat by Cestius, Josephus states, "That therefore he [Cestius] might fly [retreat] the faster, he gave orders to cast away what might hinder his army's march....left behind them their engines for sieges, and for throwing of stones, and a great part of the instruments of war."
Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, Book 2, Chapter 19, Paragraph 8, Lines 546, 553.

This humiliating withdrawal by the Romans gave the Jews a false sense of being unconquerable. In addition, it helped to create an atmosphere of having "...Peace and safety..." (1 Thess.5:3), before the destruction of the day of the Lord that was soon to come upon them suddenly (See the rest of 1 Thess.5:3).
(Taken from the internet)

It makes sense that the Lord would have said the destruction would come when they felt like they were unconquerable.. it was surely a false security. I read (I believe from Josephus) that the Jews believed God would give them victory over the Roman armies, but they were in complete denial of Jesus' prophecies against them!



Does this help?

[n2thelight]

Hello raggthyme

The good and bad figs I talked about earlier are in Jeramiah 24,however the wicked not being among us anymore is in the below...........

Psalm 104:35 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.

Proverbs 10:25 As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more: but the righteous is an everlasting foundation.

Proverbs 2:22 But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it.

Psalm 37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

Matthew 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

Those are but a few,so as it is written,the wicked will not be among us,so my question remains,why are they still here??


Now since you used some of the writtings of the ECF's try the below........


Nearly all early historians say that Revelation was written during the Roman emperor Domitian's reign, which was in the 80's and 90's AD.Irenaeus spoke of the "Apocalypse" (Revelation) as being near the end of the reign of Domitian (Contra Haeres, v. 20).Eusebius, when speaking of Domitian's persecution, said that John was banished to Patmos during this time (Ecc. Hist. Lib. 3, cap. 18), and, remember that John states that he received his revelations while he was on Patmos (Revelation 1:9).

Hippolytus stated that John was exiled to Patmos under Domitian, where he saw the Apocalypse (Works, p. 90).Jerome said, in his "Book of Illustrious Men", that during the 14th year of Domitian's reign he raised the next persecution after Nero, and that John was banished to Patmos at this time, where he wrote the Revelation.Jerome also said that the prophet John saw the Revelation on Patmos where he was banished by Domitian (Works, vol. vi. p. 446).

Sulpicius Severus also stated that John was banished to Patmos by Domitian, where he had visions and wrote the Revelation (Works, vol. iv. Chap. 120).These are specific statements from a variety of respected, early church historians that all attest that these things happened under Domitian, not under Nero.

Once again, Domitian reigned in the 80's and 90's AD.It is highly unlikely that modern, preterist theologians would know what happened and when it happened in the first century, better than these historians who lived and wrote so much closer to the time of John.Would Jerome, Eusebius, Irenaeus, Severus and Hippolytus all be wrong, while some preterist preachers, who came along many centuries later, somehow had better knowledge of what happened nearly 2000 years ago?I'm sure that most honest and unbiased people would agree that the early church historians who lived much closer to the time of John, and who had no bias to favor a specific writing date in order to support a theological agenda, are much more likely to be accurate and credible than a group of preterist theologians 1900 years later who must date John's writing at a specific time in order for their preterist doctrine to survive.

It is also significant that, according to Smith's Bible Dictionary, there is no credible specific mention of a "pre-70-AD" writing date for Revelation during the first three centuries.In other words, once again, no one living close to the time of John suggests that Revelation was written that early.The earliest historians agree on the 90 to 100 AD date.

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

During his conquests, Alexander the Great marched on Jerusalem to take it.  However, the high priest left the city, met Alexander while he was still some ways off, and negotiated a peace with him, in which Jerusalem agreed to give tribute and allow Greek influence, in exchange for not being crushed by the Greek armies.  Alexander allowed the peace accord, and spared the city as a holy site.


This event created a precedent.  In all of the myriads of sieges of Jerusalem that followed during the wars between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, the high priest of Jerusalem played a pivotal role, in negotiating peace with one side or the other.


When the Romans marched on Jerusalem, the very real expectation of the day was that the high priest would negotiate a peace treaty with the Romans, and the city would be spared.  It had happened half a dozen times already over the course of the prior 350 years.  Thus, there was a war between Rome and the northern provinces of Judea, but everyone was still saying that there would be peace.  Both things really did happen at the same time, even if it is counterintuitive.


But then the zealots assassinated their own high priest in order to prevent peace, and the rest is history.


Jarrod

[n2thelight]

Ezekiel 30:3 For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.

Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

Obadiah 1:15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.

Zephaniah 1:7 Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.

Joel 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

What does near and at hand mean in the above,if it means what you all(preterist)say,then Christ should have came back during that time..........

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

Christ said when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies to flee,and again He said when you here peace and safety,then sudden destruction,now my question is how can there be war and peace at the same time?

when the Antichrist signs the 7 yr treaty(dan9:27) they will say peace and safety
when the treaty is broke (midtrib) comes the surrounding of Jerusalem.

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

a thousand years is a day etc"...

KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

this doesn't mean a day to god = 1000 years to us

God has no time and he is only saying:

Our time and his are not the same

to God "at hand" means one thing while to us it means another.

[KNOWLEDGE BOMB]

Funguy said
Paul is writing to the thessalonians who recieved a letter from an imposter claiming to be one of the apostles of Jesus.


2 Thessalonians 2:2
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.


KNOWLEDGE BOMB replies:

there is no mention of a letter coming -  you need to read it carefully

it says:

2:2 that you (BE NOT) SOON shaken in mind or troubled, neither by spirit
nor by word or letter.

Paul is telling them that if a spirit or word or letter shows up Not to let it bother you...

No where does it say a letter showed up scaring them! Just a warning from Paul

[Aahil]

to God "at hand" means one thing while to us it means another.

You're calling God a liar.  It's a lie when you say something to us but with a different meaning that what the words mean to us.

Jesus carefully defined what he meant by "at hand" by using the analogy of a tree putting forth new shoots and new leaves when Summer is "at hand".  Jesus carefully define what he meant by "at hand" with the analogy being "at the door".  Jesus used a Greek term, eggys, which unambiguously means "at hand."

When the Bible says a thousand years is as a day to God, scripture is NOT redefining "at hand" or any other word.  Peter is not addressing the length of a day or the length of "at hand."  READ IT WITH UNDERSTANDING, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MAKE IT FIT YOUR FALSE DOCTRINE!

Jesus said His coming would be within a generation.  As a rule of thumb, that's 40 years.  (He didn't say the time was at hand until Revelation was written.)  Some people, before the generation was up, were wanting to know what's taking so long.  They had a clear expectation that it would happen in their lifetimes.  Paul explains that God is patient, and not bound to urgency the way we are.

With the thousand years is as a day comment, Peter is explaining that to God isn't rushing.  God had given us notice that His coming/judgement would be within a generation, and God was taking that whole generation because God is patient.  He wanted all believers under the Old Covenant to hear and accept the Gospel or die off before the destruction of the Temple.  He wanted all believers to have full warning about the coming destruction, so that they could avoid it.

Put aside your false Futurism, and if you hold it, that demonic doctrine of Dispensationalism.

[Lively Stone]

Preterism is the false doctrine, based on the poor grasp of many things, including what a generation means to Jesus when He used the word. "At hand" doesn't mean what today's mind thinks it means.

He wants all people who follow Him to be watchful, and that means hundreds of generations down the line.

We are to watch Israel. She is the fig tree. Jesus is coming.

[Aahil]

Preterism is the false doctrine, based on the poor grasp of many things, including what a generation means to Jesus when He used the word. "At hand" doesn't mean what today's mind thinks it means.

You attend a church pastored by a 30-ish musician with no theological education.  Such a pastor doesn't teach anyone how to grasp anything, but only how to react emotionally. 

Jesus defined "at hand, demolishing any chance for your argument to get anywhere.  What does "at hand" really mean?

We are to watch Israel. She is the fig tree. Jesus is coming.

The Church is Israel, Ephesians 2.  If your pastor knew the Bible, he'd know that.  Jesus is king of Israel and he said his kingdom isn't of this world.  If anything, the country of Israel is anti-Israel (an impostor pretending to be the real Israel), and its people are anti-Christs (they deny that Jesus is the Christ, the definition of Antichrist). 

Even if your pastor knows it, he dare not say it to his church.  His sheep have no biblical knowledge to even begin to be able to accept it.  All they have is their emotion which would lead them to ironically judge the pastor as "anti-semitic".

[Lively Stone]

Preterism is the false doctrine, based on the poor grasp of many things, including what a generation means to Jesus when He used the word. "At hand" doesn't mean what today's mind thinks it means.

You attend a church pastored by a 30-ish musician with no theological education.

No I don't! you haven't a clue what church I attend or who my leaders are, so let's keep the personal nonsense out of this, eh?

Such a pastor doesn't teach anyone how to grasp anything, but only how to react emotionally. 

Such a pastor, gifted by God, no matter how old, is a gift to God's people!

1 Timothy 4:12
Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

The Church is Israel, Ephesians 2.  If your pastor knew the Bible, he'd know that.  Jesus is king of Israel and he said his kingdom isn't of this world.  If anything, the country of Israel is anti-Israel (an impostor pretending to be the real Israel), and its people are anti-Christs (they deny that Jesus is the Christ, the definition of Antichrist). 

My pastor knows the word better than you. He knows that God's plan for Israel is unfolding as we speak.

Even if your pastor knows it, he dare not say it to his church.  His sheep have no biblical knowledge to even begin to be able to accept it.  All they have is their emotion which would lead them to ironically judge the pastor as "anti-semitic".

You need to pipe down, because you do not know what you are saying. You do come off as rather trollish...

[Aahil]

In the Gospels, Jesus said the time is within a generation.


After the Gospels, the writers say the time is near.


When we come to Revelation, the seven churches are told the time is "at hand." 


1. in a generation
2. near
3. here

[raggthyme76]

Apparently, when John told those saints in the first century that they were blessed to hear and to keep the things written therein (since the time was "at hand" and "must shortly come to pass") what he really meant was that they were blessed to hear and keep them since the things they were reading would be fulfilled some two thousand years in their future. 

[n2thelight]

Apparently, when John told those saints in the first century that they were blessed to hear and to keep the things written therein (since the time was "at hand" and "must shortly come to pass") what he really meant was that they were blessed to hear and keep them since the things they were reading would be fulfilled some two thousand years in their future. 

And the below happened when???

Revelation 20:9 "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

[n2thelight]

The Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD cannot be the providential Second Coming; nor can it be the result of the providential Second Coming. For the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory is declared by Scripture to take place after—immediately after—"the tribulation of those days," which, in the spiritual alchemy of Preterism, is the very destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. To thus teach that the destruction of Jerusalem takes place after the destruction of Jerusalem is utter nonsense!

[Aahil]

The Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD cannot be the providential Second Coming; nor can it be the result of the providential Second Coming. For the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory is declared by Scripture to take place after—immediately after—"the tribulation of those days," which, in the spiritual alchemy of Preterism, is the very destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. To thus teach that the destruction of Jerusalem takes place after the destruction of Jerusalem is utter nonsense!

Off the top of my head, I have couple possible explanations for what you bring up.  I'll go with the one I think is more likely.  Jesus' coming could denote the completion of judgement.  The context is here highly symbolic, and so speaks of spiritual things, rather than the actual Roman assault.  The heaven's themselves turn away from Jerusalem and Jesus comes and removes Jerusalem's lampstand (Revelation suggests that there are some sort of lampstands representing cities or churches that Jesus can come and remove, in judgement).  Jerusalem looses its standing as God's holy city (replaced by the Jerusalem above).

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD cannot be the providential Second Coming; nor can it be the result of the providential Second Coming. For the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory is declared by Scripture to take place after—immediately after—"the tribulation of those days," which, in the spiritual alchemy of Preterism, is the very destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. To thus teach that the destruction of Jerusalem takes place after the destruction of Jerusalem is utter nonsense!

Ah... but Jerusalem was destroyed twice.  Once in 70AD and once in 135AD.  In between it lay inhabited for 60 years.  That would make for a pretty good tribulation, don't you think?


Jarrod

[Lively Stone]

The Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD cannot be the providential Second Coming; nor can it be the result of the providential Second Coming. For the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory is declared by Scripture to take place after—immediately after—"the tribulation of those days," which, in the spiritual alchemy of Preterism, is the very destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. To thus teach that the destruction of Jerusalem takes place after the destruction of Jerusalem is utter nonsense!

[n2thelight]

The Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD cannot be the providential Second Coming; nor can it be the result of the providential Second Coming. For the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory is declared by Scripture to take place after—immediately after—"the tribulation of those days," which, in the spiritual alchemy of Preterism, is the very destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. To thus teach that the destruction of Jerusalem takes place after the destruction of Jerusalem is utter nonsense!

Ah... but Jerusalem was destroyed twice.  Once in 70AD and once in 135AD.  In between it lay inhabited for 60 years.  That would make for a pretty good tribulation, don't you think?


Jarrod

Why would that be any kind of tribulation,much less the one Christ talked about in Matthew 24?

So how,may I ask do you all(preterist)get around the fact that,the armies that surround Jerusalem in the end,will be destroyed by God Himself,as per the below verse?

Revelation 20:9 "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

This beloved city is Jerusalem where Jesus Christ and His temple will be at the close of the Millennium age. It is here where the glory of God is, and God's fire from heaven will come down to devour Satan and all his followers.

[n2thelight]

The Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD cannot be the providential Second Coming; nor can it be the result of the providential Second Coming. For the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory is declared by Scripture to take place after—immediately after—"the tribulation of those days," which, in the spiritual alchemy of Preterism, is the very destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. To thus teach that the destruction of Jerusalem takes place after the destruction of Jerusalem is utter nonsense!

Off the top of my head, I have couple possible explanations for what you bring up.  I'll go with the one I think is more likely.  Jesus' coming could denote the completion of judgement.  The context is here highly symbolic, and so speaks of spiritual things, rather than the actual Roman assault.  The heaven's themselves turn away from Jerusalem and Jesus comes and removes Jerusalem's lampstand (Revelation suggests that there are some sort of lampstands representing cities or churches that Jesus can come and remove, in judgement).  Jerusalem looses its standing as God's holy city (replaced by the Jerusalem above).

In 70 AD, which was the fulfillment of Luke 21:24, Israel was led away captive into all nations. In retrospect, according to Matthew 24:29-31, a gathering of the elect is prophesied. Logically speaking, a 'scattering' and a 'gathering' cannot take place at the same time.

[Aahil]

In 70 AD, which was the fulfillment of Luke 21:24, Israel was led away captive into all nations. In retrospect, according to Matthew 24:29-31, a gathering of the elect is prophesied. Logically speaking, a 'scattering' and a 'gathering' cannot take place at the same time.

What does the word "captive" mean?  Captives were used to help build the Pyramids.  Captives were brought to America from Africa for labor.   Our prisons hold thousands of captives.   Jews haven't been captive anywhere for most of the last 2000 years.  The 90,000 captives taken in 70AD were released soon after.  After 70AD, the tribe of Judah faded into and merged with the gentile populations.  There no longer are any members of Judah to be restored.

[hammer123]

In approx AD 32-33, Jesus said beware of the false prophets who come claiming the time is near.

Now if at that moment a stranger would have came up to them and said

Hi Jesus and disciples, the time of the end is near.

Jesus would have said to Peter, John, and the rest of His disciples,

'That guy is the flase prophet I am warning you about, do not follow after him"

contemplate why Jesus said this in AD 32-33


7 "Teacher," they asked, "when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?"

8 He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away."



Now how can Jesus say that false prophets will come after AD 33 and lead people astray telling them the time of the end is near, if the time being near can mean 2000 years away as per the imposing of this scripture...." a thousand years is a day etc"...

If a thousand years was a day then there could be no such thing as a false prophet telling people the time was near, because near can mean thouusands of years.

Now bounce forward 20 years from AD 33.

Paul is writing to the thessalonians who recieved a letter from an imposter claiming to be one of the apostles of Jesus.


2 Thessalonians 2:2
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.


Paul is saying that the day of the Lord is not quite yet at hand as they should expect, so don't be fooled by those who claim it is, and don't believe that letter was written from one of us apostles.

The very false prophets who would come claiming the 'time of the end was near', who Jesus warned His disciples about, had in fact come just as Jesus said they would.

But around approx AD 65, just prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the cataclysmic ending of the old covenant world and theocracy of the law of Moses which included the daily sacrifice and the Levitical Preisthood,

then

under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the disciples prophecied correctly about the time of the end.

1 Peter 4:7
The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so that you may pray.

Revelation 1:3
Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

Revelation 22:10
Then he told me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near.

How can Peter and John (and there are other disciples words as well that I haven't quoted)

How can the disciples claim the time was near in AD 65, when it wasn't near in AD 33?

How can false prophets claim the time is near and be called false teachers if they are correct and a day is like a thousand years and they claim that the time is near?


How can you switch this verse to imply thousands of years in the future?


Matthew 16:28
"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."


How can you switch these verses to imply another generation other than Jesus contemporary generation

Matthew 24:34
Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Luke 11:29
As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.

Matthew 12:41
The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here.

Jesus used the word 'SOON' to demonstrate that what He was saying would take place right away

He did not use 'soon' to play games of keeping people in suspense, and play word games with them.

He warned His disciples to get out of Jerusalem when they saw the signs.

He said that unless the days of vengeance and wrath of God were cut short not one of them would survive.

The destruction of Jersualem and the war bewteen Rome and Jerusalem began in AD 66.

Nero Caesar launched the attack and surrounded Jerusalem, and all the people inside the walls of Jerusalem(disciples included) were trapped and facing a sure death and annihilation.

But according to Jesus prophecy the days were 'cut short'

The days of the war came to a sudden end because Nero Caesar up and commits suicide.

Coincidence???

I highly doubt it

But with a cease fire of the war, now in effect due to the appointing a new Caesar to the throne, the illusion of those who lived in Jerusalem was a mentality of 'peace and safety'.

However history shows that the christians were given a 'word from God' by the disciple to get out of Jerusalem, so the christian church in Jerusalem fled to the 'wilderness' town of Pella, and there they were kept safe from what was about to happen next.

What happened next was Rome appointed a new Caesar (Galba) and he reigned for a short while (June 8, 68- Jan 15, 69)

Then another Caesar was appointed Ottho and his reign was even shorter, in fact the following caesar's didn't seem to last very long in power, you can do a search on wiki for your own interest in this line.

The point I am making is Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in His contemporary generation, and it happenned, but it wasn't merely the destruction of the temple He said would happen in His contemporary generation, it was

'ALL THESE THINGS' He prophecied in Matthew 24 that would happen in His contemporary generation.

The generation is the generation that see's those signs occur, not the generation he was speaking to.

Let me get this right, you are saying that all the events of revelation happened around 65-70A.D.?  That is just impossible.

Revelation things of things so horrible and says that kind of destruction will never again take place.  There have been ample events in history worse than the destruction of Jerusalem. 

Now, now you are going to say that those verse in revelation were only talking about Jerusalem.  That is just not true, those verse are talking about the whole world.

Revelations was written in 95 A..D....   Alright, lets play that Jesus did come back, well who did he come back and see?  How long was he here?  What did he do?  Why is there no record of that anywhere?