Why hasn't Christ returned yet?

[DingDing]

Prophecies regarding the return of Christ remain unfulfilled; indeed, some of them are downright confusing. It's nearly 2000 years later and obviously we've developed a lot of technology which makes it seem like man, not God, is in control. We've discovered that the world is a lot bigger than we thought in the 1st century, so any sort of universal coming (the sort prophesied in Scripture) must be of absolutely immense magnitude (like something on par with Noah's Flood). Thoughts?

Yes, the 2nd coming will be a BIG-TIME event, but scripture indicates that some other things must happen first. The most prominent is the revealing of the Antichrist and his subsequent persecution of the saints.

 

[stephen583]

Yes, the 2nd coming will be a BIG-TIME event, but scripture indicates that some other things must happen first. The most prominent is the revealing of the Antichrist and his subsequent persecution of the saints.

The antichrist will be revealed before the Tribulation Period begins. Bible prophecy explicitly states this in no uncertain terms, (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Right now the antichrist is masquerading as a "Peacemaker and a Christian", gaining economic advantage, political control of nations and creating military alliances with Muslim countries, like Syria (Assyria), Iran (Persia) and Turkey (Togarmah). All of which are mentioned in the Bible as enemies of Israel during the End Times.

Inevitably, the charade will come to an END, and he will be exposed for the psychopath and warmonger he actually is. His name is Vladimir Putin, our (ally ?) in the War on Terror, who has created a virtual ""cult of personality" and dictatorship in Russia, where he is working to resurrect Stalinism and restore the Soviet Union to its former glory.

Putin is also the first Russian president in history to visit the Palestinian West Bank (Judea), where the invasion of Israel begins, (Matthew 24:16, Luke 21:21). We are indeed living in the last days immediately before the Great Tribulation Period unfolds.

Welcome To The Apocalypse

 

[dqhall]

The antichrist will be revealed before the Tribulation Period begins. Bible prophecy explicitly states this in no uncertain terms, (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Right now the antichrist is masquerading as a "Peacemaker and a Christian", gaining economic advantage, political control of nations and creating military alliances with Muslim countries, like Syria (Assyria), Iran (Persia) and Turkey (Togarmah). All of which are mentioned in the Bible as enemies of Israel during the End Times.

Inevitably, the charade will come to an END, and he will be exposed for the psychopath and warmonger he actually is. His name is Vladimir Putin, our (ally ?) in the War on Terror, who has created a virtual ""cult of personality" and is working to resurrect Stalinism and restore the Soviet Union to its former glory. Putin is also the first Russian president in history to visit the Palestinian West Bank (Judea), where the invasion of Israel begins, (Matthew 24:16, Luke 21:21). We are indeed living in the last days immediately before the Great Tribulation Period unfolds.

Welcome To The Apocalypse

I am not supposed to wait around for the end of the world. I am supposed to be living life one day at a time. More than 2,000 years passed since Christ ascended. Some thought Nero was the antichrist as he was part of the plot to kill anyone who confessed Christ. There have been many such people since. None of this brings about the resurrection. Heaven is when God overcomes all difficulty to reveal new creation. That is when Christ's return will be apparent.

 

[DingDing]

The antichrist will be revealed before the Tribulation Period begins. Bible prophecy explicitly states this in no uncertain terms, (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Right now the antichrist is masquerading ... His name is Vladimir Putin...

Welcome To The Apocalypse

I am not sure we can know who the antichrist is at the moment. We may not know for sure until he reveals himself.

 

[stephen583]

Historically there have been many antichrist proto-types. Throughout history, it's obvious Satan has been working feverishly to derail Bible prophecy and bring about the Apocalypse before its' "appointed time". Nero, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Franco, Adolf Hitler, Stalin and Mao tse Tung, just to name a few historic dictators.

However, it's an error to fall into the trap of believing the Lord has "delayed his coming", (Matthew 24:48, Luke 12:45, 2 Peter 3:1-13).

Critical to understanding there is no delay in God's promise, is the realization God doesn't reckon time the way we do. This idea is so crucial, the Apostle Peter states it as being the "single" most important thing to be aware of among all his other teachings, "Do not let this one thing escape your notice, a thousand years is as one day with the Lord" (2 Peter 3:8).

So from God's perspective, Jesus was only crucified and raised from the dead, a little over two days ago. If you can, try to wrap your head around that !.. I know it's hard to imagine. I had some difficulty grasping the concept myself when I first read 2 Peter 3:8.

I hope this helps readers understand why God is not lax in his promises where time is concerned. Nay sayers are always quick to point out God has seemingly been "off the clock" for two thousand years. They say the Apostles were wrong when they said, "The time is at hand", or the Second Coming is imminent. That's only according to how they reckon time. They're wrong.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am not sure we can know who the antichrist is at the moment. We may not know for sure until he reveals himself.

If one takes what Scripture says on the matter, there have been many antichrists. The term "antichrist" in Scripture doesn't refer to an ultimate "end times" bad guy--it refers to heretics, and specifically in the context of the Johannine letters it refers to Docetic and Cerinthian heretics--those who denied that Jesus was human, and denied that Jesus is the Christ.

The term has been conflated with the Beast of St. John's Apocalypse and the "man of sin" referred to by St. Paul.

I have often found it incredibly fascinating how some people are able to take some of the most vague statements in all of Scripture and then draw from them a thorough picture and timeline of the end of days. Considering just how vague some of the statements are and how much disagreement has existed--for as long as Christians have been talking about it--I'm not sure how anyone can conclude with such certainty that there evil will be some ultimate "end times" bad guy, let alone predict who he is. And yet, for hundreds upon hundreds of years not only have Christians claimed the time of the antichrist is close at hand but have time and again been confident in their nominee.

At this point a list of who hasn't been accused of being the antichrist will be shorter than the list of who has been accused of being the antichrist.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DingDing]

I am not sure we can know who the antichrist is at the moment. We may not know for sure until he reveals himself.

If one takes what Scripture says on the matter, there have been many antichrists. The term "antichrist" in Scripture doesn't refer to an ultimate "end times" bad guy--it refers to heretics, ...

Yes, there have been many "Antichrists", but there is one future Antichrist who is the ultimate fulfillment of the type. He is yet to be revealed. He is the one who reveals himself at the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel, which was quoted by Jesus Himself.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, there have been many "Antichrists", but there is one future Antichrist who is the ultimate fulfillment of the type. He is yet to be revealed. He is the one who reveals himself at the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel, which was quoted by Jesus Himself.

Except that Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem at that point in the Olivet Discourse, while Daniel was referring to the desolation of the Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Compare the relevant passages in the book of Daniel with the first chapter of 1 Maccabees.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DingDing]

Except that Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem at that point in the Olivet Discourse, while Daniel was referring to the desolation of the Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Compare the relevant passages in the book of Daniel with the first chapter of 1 Maccabees.

Antiochus was not the final antichrist. The final antichrist comes Just before Jesus' 2nd coming, so Antiochus is not him.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Antiochus was not the final antichrist. The final antichrist comes Just before Jesus' 2nd coming, so Antiochus is not him.

I didn't say Antiochus was the final antichrist, I said that Daniel is talking about Antiochus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Luke17:37]

Except that Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem at that point in the Olivet Discourse, while Daniel was referring to the desolation of the Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Compare the relevant passages in the book of Daniel with the first chapter of 1 Maccabees.

-CryptoLutheran

How do you know for sure? Jesus was referring to someone future and He also referred to the abomination that causes desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel. Antiochus IV Epiphanes lived before Jesus gave the warning in Matthew 24.

I think His main point is about signs before His second coming.

 

[DingDing]

I didn't say Antiochus was the final antichrist, I said that Daniel is talking about Antiochus.

-CryptoLutheran

Daniel is looking beyond Antiochus; Antiochus is only an early type of him who is to come.

 

[ViaCrucis]

How do you know for sure? Jesus was referring to someone future and He also referred to the abomination that causes desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel. Antiochus IV Epiphanes lived before Jesus gave the warning in Matthew 24.

I think His main point is about signs before His second coming.

But if you notice to when Jesus most definitely is talking about His return, He compares it to being like the time of Noah, with people marrying and getting married--life going on as usual. He says two will be in a field, one is taken and the other left. This seems to say when Christ comes it will not be preceded by signs. Jesus describes His coming as a thief in the night, He says no one knows the day or the hour except the Father, He draws imagery from the flood where the flood came, without warning, and washed away the wicked, and says, to keep watch because "you do not know on what day your Lord is coming".All of which seems to point to the fact that Christ will come, not at a time when we can guess, or after certain signs, but at a time we don't know and can't know.

Earlier in the Discourse Jesus mentions a lot of signs, a lot of signs which point to the destruction of the Temple which the Evangelist seems to really want the reader to get because he adds, "let the reader understand" in verse 15.

My approach to the Olivet Discourse, particularly in the 24th chapter of Matthew, is basically as follows:

After the disciples ask a really complicated question, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"; "when will this be?" refers most directly to Jesus' statement preceding about the stones of the Temple not left standing. So, let's be clear that the most immediate context is Jesus' statement and prediction that the Temple would be destroyed; they add to this, "and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

From their perspective the destruction of the Temple couldn't be understood in any other way than as a cataclysmic end of the world scenario so we can accept that they would associate the Temple's destruction with these things--the question set before us is does Jesus' answer, and our understanding of Jesus' answer, lead us to believe as they probably did.

I don't think so. Instead, Jesus seems to tackle things like so:

He begins by warning them not to be led astray by false messianic claimants or claims that He had returned already, if someone says, "He's over here!" don't believe it; etc. Jesus then moves on to talk about wars, rumors of wars, and natural disasters--He then says, "but this is not the end" it's only birthpangs. My reading of this is that wars, rumors of wars, natural disasters aren't signs of the end, but just the opposite, Jesus mentions these precisely because He doesn't His followers going out chasing the latest headlines about calamity out in the world--bad things happen, they have happened since the beginning of history and will continue right up until the end. Bad things happening in the world does not mean the end is nigh.

He does point to these things:

They, the disciples, would be handed over to be tortured and put to death, and would be despised. Many will fall away and betray one another. Many false prophets would arise to lead many astray, and lawlessness would increase, love will grow cold. The Gospel, in spite of all this, will still be preached throughout the world. Such things happened pretty early on, we can read about some of this in the Acts of the Apostles itself, and tradition remembers the deaths of Peter and Paul under Nero. But, in reality, such things have been happening right from the start until now. And, in spite of all such things the Gospel is still being preached.

Then He moves on to describe "when will these things be", that is, the destruction of the Temple. Because, remember, this entire Discourse is Jesus' response to His disciples' question, a question they asked in response to Jesus' statement about the Temple being destroyed. He gives the following:

"When you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; the one on the housetop must not go down to take what is in the house; the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat."

The events of the first Jewish-Roman War were horrific, both the Zealot forces and the Roman military response were quite bad. Josephus tells us that that so much blood was spilled in the Temple (before the Romans even arrived) that it was overflowing with the blood of over 8,000 slain (War of the Jews, Book IV, 5:1). Eusebius tells us in his History that the Church in Jerusalem had received a vision, and so escaped by fleeing to Pella in Perea (Church History, Book III, 5:3).

After these things Jesus uses a recognizable apocalyptic phrase about the sun being darkened and the moon turning to blood (the prophet Joel also uses this language). The question we might want to ask is whether this apocalyptic language should be taken literally, we have for example Peter in the 2nd chapter of Acts speaking of the events unfolding on Pentecost as fulfillment of Joel's prophecy where he mentions the sun darkened and the moon turning to blood--but there's no reason to believe the sun literally darkened or the moon literally became blood red on Pentecost. The thing about apocalyptic language is that it is frequently loud, but not necessarily literal.

Now Jesus addresses His "coming on the clouds", the language here almost unmistakably resembles the great Son of Man vision in Daniel, where the Son of Man is taken upon a cloud before the Ancient of Days and is given power and dominion. The careful reader will note that in Daniel's vision the Son of Man is being taken up, not going down. For this reason many, myself included, believe that this should be understood as a reference to the Ascension, not the Parousia; many will see Christ come into His kingdom because He came into His kingdom when He ascended and was seated at the right hand of God the Father to reign and rule and to make all things subject to Himself until His coming when He hands all things over to the Father, all being made subject to the Father, and God is "all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). While still others do see this as referring to the Parousia itself.

What follows, then, is Christ's coming and the end of the age, it is here that He says no one knows the day or the hour, that the Lord comes when we cannot expect, that it will be as in the days of Noah before the flood came, eating and drinking, getting married, etc (meaning, everything will be life as normal). Christ's coming will not be preceded by anything which tells us He is coming, there won't be any signs, it will be sudden, without warning, when the Lord comes in judgement it will be as though two are in a field and one is taken; even as the Deluge wiped out the wicked so shall it be when the Lord comes to judge the quick and the dead at His Parousia. Finally Jesus then goes into the parables of watchfulness, that His followers shouldn't become lazy, but should be about the Master's business, they should be like the diligent and wise virgins not the foolish ones, etc.

For what it's worth, these aren't uniquely my views, what I'm describing are pretty common thoughts throughout the Christian world, across denominational boundaries and ten to line up with a lot of mainstream Christian scholarship on the subject. I feel like I need to add this disclaimer because, as someone who grew up a Dispensationalist and wasn't exposed to views outside of that general eschatological paradigm until around my 20's it could be like it was for me--if this looks drastically different than how you have tended to view the Olivet Discourse and almost shocking, I understand. I do. I'll even understand if you think I'm off my rocker or bonkers.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

But if you notice to when Jesus most definitely is talking about His return, He compares it to being like the time of Noah, with people marrying and getting married--life going on as usual. He says two will be in a field, one is taken and the other left. This seems to say when Christ comes it will not be preceded by signs. Jesus describes His coming as a thief in the night, He says no one knows the day or the hour except the Father, He draws imagery from the flood where the flood came, without warning, and washed away the wicked, and says, to keep watch because "you do not know on what day your Lord is coming".All of which seems to point to the fact that Christ will come, not at a time when we can guess, or after certain signs, but at a time we don't know and can't know..............

For what it's worth, these aren't uniquely my views, what I'm describing are pretty common thoughts throughout the Christian world, across denominational boundaries and ten to line up with a lot of mainstream Christian scholarship on the subject.

I feel like I need to add this disclaimer because, as someone who grew up a Dispensationalist and wasn't exposed to views outside of that general eschatological paradigm until around my 20's it could be like it was for me--if this looks drastically different than how you have tended to view the Olivet Discourse and almost shocking, I understand. I do. I'll even understand if you think I'm off my rocker or bonkers.

-CryptoLutheran

Glad to see you saw the error of the ways of that doctrine.
We can also thank the RCC and EOC for not subscribing to that doctrine....IMHO

I actually call Dispensationalism the "spider web" doctrine.

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/category/eschatology/dispensationalism/

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/escha...the-rise-of-dispensationalism-by-mark-sarver/
Dispensationalism: Part I – Millennial Views Prior to the Rise of Dispensationalism
*snip*

...............It is scarcely possible that those who labor in the gospel will be able to escape the necessity of ministering to those who have been influenced by modern dispensationalism. We live in an era flooded with dispensational preaching, books, schools, and even study Bibles.
The teaching of dispensationalism has successfully crossed the boundaries of most major Protestant denominations. Turn on the radio and you will hear a steady diet of this teaching being broadcast from most evangelical stations.

Dispensationalism has a pervasive influence not only extensively, but also intensively. It is usually the case that those who embrace its teachings as a system are affected in almost every area of their theological thinking.
So pervasive is its effect on those who have become its pupils, that even those who have come to see the error of its basic presuppositions testify that dispensational cobwebs have remained in their thinking for a long time after the initial sweeping took place.
My own experience bears witness to the truth of what I say..............................



.

 

[Bible2+]

stephen583 said in post 122:

The antichrist will be revealed before the Tribulation Period begins. Bible prophecy explicitly states this in no uncertain terms, (2 Thessalonians 2:3).

Regarding 2 Thessalonians 2:3, it refers to when an individual man will be revealed (i.e. without any remaining doubt) as being the Antichrist by his sitting (at least one time) in a future, 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaiming himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36,31, Matthew 24:15). This is one of the things which have to happen sometime before the future day of Jesus' 2nd coming and the gathering together (rapture) of the church (2 Thessalonians 2:1-8), immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6). For at the 2nd coming, the Antichrist will be destroyed (2 Thessalonians 2:8b, Revelation 19:20).

stephen583 said in post 122:

Right now the antichrist is masquerading as a "Peacemaker and a Christian" . . .

Note that nothing requires that the Antichrist will ever pretend to be a Christian. Instead, the Antichrist could have grown up as a Druze Arab, in Lebanon, in the modern city of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:4). So he could at first present himself to the world as being of the (quasi-Islamic) Druze religion, which is waiting for the 2nd coming of a God-man named Hakim. The Antichrist's last name could be Hakim, and he could at first present himself to the Druze people as the fulfillment of the 2nd coming of this God-man. In this way, he could get the Druze to support him without question during an initial rise to power among the Arabs. The Druze Arabs could be the numerically "small people" of Daniel 11:23. The Antichrist could make them his completely-devoted bodyguard, and buy them many key positions of power within a future United Arab States (which the Antichrist could become the leader of in the 1st stage of his world takeover), and employ the Druze as loyal spies and assassins at every level of his United Arab government and military.

The Druze religion is very secretive. What it teaches to its higher-level initiates isn't even taught to its lower-level initiates. What it could teach to its higher-level initiates could basically be Gnosticism mixed in with the Hakim God-man idea. The Antichrist himself, while outwardly a Druze, could inwardly be a Gnostic Luciferian. He could be a highest-level initiate of a worldwide secret society which ultimately teaches Gnostic Luciferianism, but keeps this a secret even from its own members who haven't been initiated into its highest level.

stephen583 said in post 122:

Right now the antichrist is masquerading as a "Peacemaker and a Christian", gaining economic advantage, political control of nations and creating military alliances with Muslim countries, like Syria (Assyria), Iran (Persia) and Turkey (Togarmah). All of which are mentioned in the Bible as enemies of Israel during the End Times.

Inevitably, the charade will come to an END, and he will be exposed for the psychopath and warmonger he actually is. His name is Vladimir Putin . . .

Note that Vladimir Putin can't be the Antichrist, because the gematrial "number of the name" of the person who is the Antichrist is 666 (Revelation 13:17c-18, Revelation 15:2), while the gematrial number of the name "Vladimir Putin" is 1,212:

V=400, L=30, A=1, D=4, I=9, M=40, I=9, R=90, P=70, U=300, T=200, I=9, N=50. Total = 1,212.

That is, the 666 in Revelation 13:17c-18 refers to the number six hundred and sixty-six, the "number of the name" of the individual man who is the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast"). The number of a name (Revelation 13:17c-18, Revelation 15:2) is determined by employing the ancient method of gematria, by which numerical values are assigned to the letters of any alphabet as follows: The first nine letters are 1 through 9, the next nine letters are 10 through 90 (counting by tens), and the rest of the letters are 100, 200, 300, etc., to the end of the alphabet. In Revelation 13:18, the "counting", the adding up, of the gematrial number of the Antichrist's name should be done in the same way that the gematrial numerical values of the 3 Greek letters (Chi, Xi, and Stigma) at the end of Revelation 13:18 (in the original Greek Textus Receptus) are added up to arrive at the number six hundred and sixty-six.

The numerical values of the letters of the ancient Greek alphabet (including the 3 obsolete letters of Stigma, Qoppa, and Sampi) were as follows: Alpha = 1, Beta = 2, Gamma = 3, Delta = 4, Epsilon = 5, Stigma = 6, Zeta = 7, Eta = 8, Theta = 9, Iota = 10, Kappa = 20, Lambda = 30, Mu = 40, Nu = 50, Xi = 60, Omikron = 70, Pi = 80, Qoppa = 90, Rho = 100, Sigma = 200, Tau = 300, Upsilon = 400, Phi = 500, Chi = 600, Psi = 700, Omega = 800, Sampi = 900.

Just as the numerical values of Chi, Xi, and Stigma at the end of Revelation 13:18 (in the Textus Receptus) add up to 666, so the numerical values of the letters in the Antichrist's name will add up to 666 (Revelation 13:17c-18). John used the Greek alphabet because it was the most common one used by believers when the book of Revelation was written. Today, the English alphabet is the most common one used by believers, insofar as English is the current lingua franca of the world. So the Antichrist's name will most likely add up to 666 in the English alphabet. The purpose of Revelation 13:17c-18 is to facilitate for believers, not to make difficult for them, the identification of a certain man as possibly being the Antichrist. If the letters in his name had to be transliterated into the Greek alphabet, this would vitiate this purpose, for almost all believers today wouldn't know how to properly perform this transliteration, and so different believers would come up with different transliterations, and so would come up with different gematrial numbers for the name of the man in question.

If believers think that someone is the Antichrist, they need to check and make sure that his name adds up to 666 in gematria (Revelation 13:17c-18). If it doesn't, then he isn't the Antichrist. If it does, then he could be, and they need to be especially wary of him and not be taken in by any deceptive charisma, intelligence, or amazing deeds which he might display. But even if someone's name adds up to 666, this doesn't mean that he is definitely the Antichrist. For just by chance there could be more than one person in the world whose name adds up to 666. The Antichrist also has to come from a country the territory of which used to be part of one of the 4 Diadochian Greek kingdoms which succeeded Alexander the Great (Daniel 8:8-9,21-25). These kingdoms stretched from Greece over to Iran, and down into Egypt. So the Antichrist could come from the Middle East. He could be an Arab who will come from Lebanon, from the modern city of Tyre (Ezekiel 28:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:4), and have a name like (for example) "Nabil Abdullah Falakal al-Hakim", which adds up to 666.

But if a man from the Middle East has a name which adds up to 666, even this doesn't assure that he is the Antichrist. For he also has to sit (at least one time) in a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Daniel 11:31,36, Matthew 24:15, Revelation 11:1-2). Once he does that, there won't be any more room for doubt over whether or not he is the Antichrist; his identity will have been definitely revealed (2 Thessalonians 2:3b-4).

The gematrial numerical values of the letters of the English alphabet are: A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5, F=6, G=7, H=8, I=9, J=10, K=20, L=30, M=40, N=50, O=60, P=70, Q=80, R=90, S=100, T=200, U=300, V=400, W=500, X=600, Y=700, Z=800. The way that the gematrial number of a name is "counted" (Revelation 13:17c-18), is added up, is simply by adding up the gematrial numerical values of all the letters in that name. So, for example, the number of the name "John Mark Smith" is 636, because: J=10, O=60, H=8, N=50, M=40, A=1, R=90, K=20, S=100, M=40, I=9, T=200, H=8. Total = 636. The Antichrist's name will add up to 666 (Revelation 13:17c-18).

*******

stephen583 said in post 125:

Historically there have been many antichrist proto-types.

That's right.

Also, any person is an antichrist who denies that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ (1 John 2:22), or who denies that Jesus is the human/divine Son of God (1 John 2:22b), or who denies that Christ is in the flesh (2 John 1:7). The spirit of antichrist which will animate the future Antichrist has been working since the 1st century AD (1 John 4:3; 2 Thessalonians 2:7a), animating many antichrists since that time (2 John 1:7).

The man commonly called the Antichrist will be the fulfillment of the individual "man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3) who will sit (at least one time) in a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaim himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). He will fulfill the individual "man" aspect of the "beast" who will come (Revelation 13:18) and bring the world into the conscious and open worship of Lucifer (the dragon, Satan) and himself (Revelation 13:4,8, Revelation 12:9). He will rule the earth for 3.5 literal years (Revelation 13:5-10, Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7), and will have a miracle-working False Prophet (Revelation 19:20, Revelation 16:13), who by amazing, Satanic miracles (2 Thessalonians 2:9b), such as calling fire down from heaven (Revelation 13:13), will deceive the world into worshipping a speaking (possibly an android) image of the Antichrist (Revelation 13:15), and receiving a mark of the Antichrist's name or gematrial name-number (666) on their right hand or forehead (Revelation 13:16-18). The Antichrist and his False Prophet will ultimately be cast into the lake of fire at Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:20), while at that time Satan will be bound in the bottomless pit for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:1-3).

stephen583 said in post 125:

However, it's an error to fall into the trap of believing the Lord has "delayed his coming", (Matthew 24:48, Luke 12:45, 2 Peter 3:1-13).

That's right.

Also, in Matthew 24:48-51, the evil servant did evil and was surprised by the Lord's return, because when the Lord didn't return sometime before or during the tribulation, the servant thought that the Lord was indefinitely "delaying" his return (Matthew 24:48). But in fact, the Lord's return won't be delayed at all, but will occur "immediately after the tribulation" (Matthew 24:29-31). Also, even when believers know this truth, they still need to live each day knowing that any of them could die at any time (Luke 12:20, James 4:14).

 

[Bible2+]

ViaCrucis said in post 133:

"When you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; the one on the housetop must not go down to take what is in the house; the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat."

The events of the first Jewish-Roman War were horrific . . .

Regarding "Judaea" (Matthew 24:16), note that this doesn't have to mean 1st century AD Judaea. For there are many churches in Judaea (southern Israel) still today. They contain mostly Gentile believers, not just Jewish believers. The church began and has always been in Judaea: "Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea" (Acts 9:31); "the churches of Judaea" (Galatians 1:22); "the churches... in Judaea" (1 Thessalonians 2:14). Matthew 24:16 refers to those in the church, whether Gentiles or Jews, who will be living in Judaea at the future point in time when the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) is set up in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15, Daniel 11:31).

The Antichrist's persecution of the church could begin in Jerusalem and Judaea right after the abomination of desolation is set up, and the Antichrist himself sits in the temple (at least one time) and proclaims himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 11:36). So to avoid this persecution (cf. Matthew 10:23a), those in the church living in Judaea should flee immediately after they see the abomination of desolation set up (Matthew 24:15-16), which event could occur at the midpoint of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, and which event could mark the start of the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year worldwide reign (Revelation 13:4-18). Eventually, the Antichrist's persecution of the church (not in hiding) will reach every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13), so that the basic principle of Matthew 24:16, of fleeing (the Antichrist's persecution), would apply to believers around the world.

Just as the woman in Revelation 12:6 represents many different people in the church around the world, so the protected wilderness place she flees to represents many different, protected wilderness places around the world. When those in the church living in Judaea see the abomination of desolation set up (Matthew 24:15), they should flee into places in the wilderness east of Judaea, the mountains (Matthew 24:16) of Jordan. And those in the church who will be living in places in the world other than Judaea should flee into other wilderness places, mountainous places (Ezekiel 7:16), in the regions of the world where they live.

And they should have prepared beforehand hideouts in these wilderness/mountain places, hideouts already fully stocked with all the emergency supplies of canned food, bottled water, warm clothing and bedding, etc., that they and their families and fellow Christians will need to survive (1 Timothy 5:8, Matthew 24:45-46, cf. Genesis 41:48,36, Genesis 45:7) until Jesus returns, possibly on the 1,335th day after the abomination of desolation is set up (Daniel 12:11-12, Revelation 16:15). For they shouldn't carry any supplies with them when they flee (Matthew 24:17-18). They should flee as unhindered and quickly as possible, knowing that when the abomination of desolation is set up, that could signal the beginning of the Antichrist's future, literal 3.5-year Luciferian (Satanic) worldwide reign of terror (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9), when he will be given power to make war against all Biblical Christians that he can get his hands on, and to physically overcome them and kill them (by beheading) in every nation (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-13).

ViaCrucis said in post 133:

After these things Jesus uses a recognizable apocalyptic phrase about the sun being darkened and the moon turning to blood (the prophet Joel also uses this language).

Note that in Matthew 24, Jesus doesn't refer to the moon turning to blood. And Matthew 24:29 is referring to what will happen at his never-fulfilled 2nd coming:

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And 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.

ViaCrucis said in post 133:

The question we might want to ask is whether this apocalyptic language should be taken literally . . .

Matthew 24:29 can refer literally to clouds blocking the light from the sun and moon. And it can refer to what we still today call "falling stars", i.e. meteors, but ones which will also be meteorites, i.e. ones which will pass through the clouds and be seen before they land on the earth. So "heaven" in Matthew 24:29-31 can simply refer to the 1st heaven, the sky/atmosphere. Also, "the powers of the heavens" which will be shaken can refer to the literal, fallen-angelic "powers" who currently rule the unsaved world from high above the earth (Ephesians 6:12, Ephesians 2:2).

ViaCrucis said in post 133:

. . . we have for example Peter in the 2nd chapter of Acts speaking of the events unfolding on Pentecost as fulfillment of Joel's prophecy where he mentions the sun darkened and the moon turning to blood--but there's no reason to believe the sun literally darkened or the moon literally became blood red on Pentecost.

That's right, insofar as just as when Matthew says "this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias" (Matthew 3:3-4), he means that John the Baptist is the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3, so when Peter says "this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16-18) he means that what happened at the Pentecost in Acts 2 began the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32. For just as Joel 2:28-32 prophesied the receiving of the Holy Spirit in the "last days" (Acts 2:16-17), so the disciples had just received the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost in Acts 2 (Acts 2:4). And this happened in the "last days", for they began at Jesus' 1st coming (Hebrews 1:2).

But Acts 2:17 continues to be fulfilled today whenever a Christian receives Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-46, Acts 8:15-17, Acts 19:5-6). And Joel 2:30-31 won't be fulfilled until the future tribulation (e.g. Revelation 6:12, Revelation 8:7, Revelation 17:16, Revelation 16:19). And Joel 2:32 won't be ultimately fulfilled until Jesus' 2nd coming (Zechariah 14:2-21, Zechariah 12:10-14), which won't occur until immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:2-21).

ViaCrucis said in post 133:

. . . we have for example Peter in the 2nd chapter of Acts speaking of the events unfolding on Pentecost as fulfillment of Joel's prophecy where he mentions the sun darkened and the moon turning to blood . . .

Joel 2:31a refers to the 6th seal (Revelation 6:12-14), which could be fulfilled in our future by a huge volcanic eruption (possibly of the Yellowstone Caldera) which will occur during only the 1st stage of the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24. This eruption could begin with a large earthquake (Revelation 6:12), signaling the sudden rising of magma within the volcano. When it erupts, it could shoot so much ash and smoke into the sky that the sun will appear darkened and the moon blood-red (Revelation 6:12b), like happens during large forest fires. The volcano could also shoot blobs of red-hot magma into the sky, which as they fall back down could appear like falling stars (Revelation 6:13). And it could shoot so much super-heated ash and smoke so high and so quickly into the sky that they could form a gigantic mushroom cloud which will make the sky (the 1st heaven) look like a scroll being rolled up (Revelation 6:14). Earthquakes connected with the eruption could be so large that they set off a chain reaction of other earthquakes in nearby faults and volcanoes, which could set off even more earthquakes further away, and so on, so that earthquakes will end up affecting every mountain and island, moving each of their positions at least a little bit (Revelation 6:14b).

ViaCrucis said in post 133:

Now Jesus addresses His "coming on the clouds" . . .

Matthew 24:30 refers to Jesus' still-unfulfilled 2nd coming, when he himself will appear in the clouds: "they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (Matthew 24:30). And this won't occur until immediately after the still-unfulfilled tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:29-31; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6). Matthew 24:30 will occur at the same time as the still-unfulfilled Matthew 24:29 and Matthew 24:31.

ViaCrucis said in post 133:

Now Jesus addresses His "coming on the clouds", the language here almost unmistakably resembles the great Son of Man vision in Daniel, where the Son of Man is taken upon a cloud before the Ancient of Days and is given power and dominion.

Note that Daniel 7 doesn't necessarily refer to the Ancient of days and the Son of man (who is Jesus: e.g. Matthew 16:13) as being different people. For the description of the Ancient of days in Daniel 7:9 matches the description of the Son of man in Revelation 1:13-14. And the judgment of people occurring in front of the throne of the Ancient of days in Daniel 7:9-10 matches the judgments of people occurring in front of the throne of the Son of man in 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Revelation 20:11-15 (cf. John 5:22).

Also, when Daniel 7:13 says that the Son of man came "to" the Ancient of days, the original Chaldean word (ad: H5705) translated as "to" corresponds to a Hebrew word (ad: H5704) which can be translated as "when" (Psalms 71:18, Jonah 4:2). So Daniel 7:13b can refer to "when" the Ancient of days will come, which will be when the Son of man comes with the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:13), which will be at his (still unfulfilled) 2nd coming to the earth (Matthew 24:30), which will be when the Ancient of days will come to the earth immediately after the tribulation to set up the millennial aspect of his kingdom on the earth with the physically-resurrected church (Daniel 7:21-22, Matthew 24:29-31, Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). So when Daniel 7:13b says "they brought him near before him", that can refer to angels bringing the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of the beast) before the returned Son of man/Ancient of days to be judged and given to the burning flame (Daniel 7:11b, Revelation 19:20).

The Son of man can be the Ancient of days because the Son of man is "from everlasting" (Micah 5:2c, John 8:58, John 17:5).

 

[Bible2+]

LittleLambofJesus said in post 134:

I actually call Dispensationalism the "spider web" doctrine.

Note that futurism per se should be distinguished from dispensationalism.

For futurism per se is correct, because the tribulation and subsequent 2nd-coming prophecies of Revelation chapters 6 to 19 and Matthew 24 have never been fulfilled, just as the prophecies of the subsequent millennium (e.g. Revelation 20:4-6 and Zechariah 14) have never been fulfilled.

But dispensationalism is mistaken, because it sets up a mutual exclusiveness between the church and Israel, while the Bible shows that just as the Gentile Ruth (a genetic forbear of Israel's Messiah: Matthew 1:5-16, Luke 3:23-32) could say to the Israelite Naomi: "thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God" (Ruth 1:16), so Gentiles in the church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29).

That is, all genetic Jews in the church remain members of whichever tribe of Israel they were born into (Romans 11:1, Acts 4:36). And all genetic Gentiles in the church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29), and so have been grafted into its various tribes (cf. Ezekiel 47:21-23). So the entire church is the 12 tribes of Israel (Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). This is necessary, for all those in the church are saved only by the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), which is made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 4:22b). John 10:16 refers to the "other sheep" of believers who are Gentiles being brought into "this fold" of Israel, which is the "one fold" of the church (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:4-6, Revelation 21:9,12). A genetic Gentile believer can pray and ask which tribe of Israel he has been grafted into, and he will receive an answer from God, if he asks in faith (cf. Matthew 21:22), without any wavering (cf. James 1:6-7).

Also, all those in the church, no matter whether they are genetic Jews (Acts 22:3) or genetic Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews, if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).

-

Also, dispensationalism is mistaken because it teaches a pre-tribulation rapture, while the Bible shows that Jesus won't come and gather together (rapture) the church until immediately after the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24 (Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:24-27; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-8). That is why the marriage of the church doesn't happen until Revelation 19:7, in connection with Jesus' 2nd coming and the physical resurrection of the church at that time (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6; 1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-53; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16). Matthew 24:30-31 refers to the same 2nd coming of Jesus and gathering together (rapture) of the church as 2 Thessalonians 2:1, which refers to the same 2nd coming of Jesus and catching up together (rapture) of the church as 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17.

Jesus won't return and gather together (rapture) the church until sometime after there is a falling away (an apostasy) in the church, and the Antichrist sits (at least one time) in a 3rd Jewish temple in Jerusalem and proclaims himself God (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4, Daniel 11:31,36, Revelation 11:1-2, Revelation 13:4-8), and the abomination of desolation (possibly a standing, android image of the Antichrist) is set up in the holy place (the inner sanctum) of the 3rd temple (Matthew 24:15-31, Daniel 11:31). For when Jesus returns to gather together (and marry) the church, he will destroy the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:1,8, Revelation 19:7,20). Before Jesus returns, the church will have to go through the future, literal 3.5 years of the Antichrist's worldwide reign (Revelation 13:5-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4-6, Matthew 24:9-31).

At Jesus' 2nd coming (1 Thessalonians 4:15; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Matthew 24:30), the church will be physically resurrected and caught up together/gathered together (raptured) (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; 2 Thessalonians 2:1, Matthew 24:31), not to remove the church from the earth (Proverbs 10:30, John 17:15,20), but to take the church only as high as the clouds of the sky to hold a meeting in the air with the returned Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4:17).

At that meeting, Jesus will judge everyone in the church (Psalms 50:3-5, cf. Mark 13:27) by their works (2 Corinthians 5:10, Romans 2:6-8, Luke 12:45-48, Matthew 25:19-30). And then Jesus will marry in the clouds the obedient part of the church (Revelation 19:7-8, Matthew 25:1-12), those in the church (of all times) who "overcame" to the end (Revelation 3:5, Revelation 2:26). They will then mount white horses and come back down from the sky (the 1st heaven) with Jesus (Revelation 19:14) as he defeats the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") and the world's armies (Revelation 19:15-21). Jesus will then make the marriage supper of Revelation 19:9 for the physically-resurrected and married obedient part of the church in the earthly Jerusalem (Isaiah 25:6-9; 1 Corinthians 15:54). Jesus and the obedient part of the church will then physically reign on the earth for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29).

LittleLambofJesus said in post 134:

Dispensationalism: Part I – Millennial Views Prior to the Rise of Dispensationalism

Note that premillennialism was the teaching of the early church (see Papias) subsequent to John the apostle's writing-down of the book of Revelation, based on the clear prophecy of Revelation 19:7 to 20:6, which shows that the millennium will occur after Jesus' 2nd coming. Amillennialism was an error that didn't crop up until later. The scriptural truth of premillennialism was recovered in relatively modern times when a significant part of the church became interested again in eschatology, and believers could search the scriptures for themselves and see that premillennialism is true, as opposed to during the centuries when the amillennial RCC hierarchy kept the scriptures from believers and simply told them what to believe.

Also, note that there are at least 8 scriptural reasons to read the 1,000 years of Revelation 20:2-6 as not beginning until after Jesus' (never fulfilled) 2nd coming in Revelation 19:7-21.

First, this is in accord with how the rest of Revelation chapters 6 to 22 are in chronological order, insofar as the future tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 will begin with the events of the 2nd through 6th seals, occurring in the order shown in Revelation 6:3-14. After the events of the 6th seal, Revelation 7 will occur. Then the 7th seal will be unsealed, and out of it will come the tribulation's 7 trumpets (Revelation 8:1-6). Then the events of the first 6 trumpets in Revelation 8:7 to Revelation 9:21 will occur in the order shown there. Then Revelation 10 will occur. Then the literal 3.5 years of the Antichrist's worldwide reign will occur, which time period is shown from 4 different angles in Revelation chapters 11 to 14 (Revelation 11:2b-3, Revelation 12:6,14, Revelation 13:5,7, Revelation 14:9-13).

Then the 7th trumpet will sound, announcing the legal end of the Antichrist's reign (Revelation 11:15). Out of the 7th trumpet's heavenly-temple opening will come the 7 plagues of the 7 vials (Revelation 11:19, Revelation 15:5 to 16:1), the tribulation's final stage. Then the events of the 7 vials will occur in the order shown in Revelation 16. Jesus will return right after the 7th vial (Revelation 16:17,19, Revelation 19:2-21), and he will rapture and marry the church at that time (Revelation 19:7). Then he will defeat the world's armies (Revelation 19:11 to 20:3) and reign on the earth with the physically resurrected church for 1,000 years (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29; 1 Corinthians 15:51-53). Then the events of Revelation 20:7 to Revelation 22:5 will occur in the order shown there.

-

Second, the 1,000 years in Revelation 20:2-6 are when Satan will be literally bound with a chain, and cast into and locked within the literal bottomless pit, while currently he is walking about freely on the earth seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8). So the 1,000 years can't have started yet. But their beginning after Jesus' 2nd coming makes perfect sense (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6).

Third, during the 1,000 years, Satan won't be able to deceive the world (Revelation 20:3), while currently he is able to deceive the world (2 Corinthians 4:4; 2 Corinthians 11:3,14-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10, Revelation 12:9, Revelation 13:14, Revelation 19:20, Revelation 20:10). So the 1,000 years can't have started yet.

Fourth, the defeat of Satan in Revelation 20:1-3 is in chronological accord with the immediately preceding defeat of the Antichrist (the individual man aspect of Revelation's "beast"), and the False Prophet, and the world's armies, at Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:19-21). Indeed, there is no chapter break between Revelation 19 and Revelation 20 in the original Greek manuscripts, so that Revelation 19:19 to 20:3 can be taken together as a unit, showing how every power of evil will be defeated at Jesus' 2nd coming.

Fifth, reading Revelation 20:4-6 as Jesus and the bodily resurrected church reigning first on the present (not the new) earth after his 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6) matches Jesus reigning first on the present (not the new) earth after his 2nd coming in Zechariah 14:3-21. For Zechariah 14:8-21 can't be referring to the new earth, because it refers to a temple building in Jerusalem (Zechariah 14:20-21), whereas there will be no temple building in New Jerusalem on the new earth (Revelation 21:22). Also, Zechariah 14:8-21 can't be referring to the new earth because it refers to surviving, unsaved people from the present earth being forced to come up to worship the returned Jesus in Jerusalem during the millennium (Zechariah 14:16-19), whereas by the time of the new earth, all the unsaved people from the present earth will have already been cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15 to 21:8).

Sixth, reading the 1st resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 as the physical resurrection of the church at Jesus' 2nd coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:6) matches other verses which show that the physical resurrection of the church will occur at the 2nd coming (1 Corinthians 15:21-23,51-54; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16).

Seventh, reading the 1st resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 as the physical resurrection of the church at Jesus' 2nd coming is in line with Revelation 20:5, which must refer in its entirety only to physical resurrection. For not every dead person is going to be figuratively resurrected in the sense of becoming saved (Revelation 20:15). And Revelation 20:5 means that the rest of the dead (i.e. all the non-church dead of all times) will be resurrected in the same manner that the church will be resurrected in Revelation 20:4-6, but the rest of the dead won't be resurrected until sometime after the 1,000 years.

Eighth, reading the 1st resurrection in Revelation 20:4-6 as the physical resurrection of the church at Jesus' 2nd coming is in line with Revelation 20:4, which shows that the people in the 1st resurrection will include those in the church who will have been beheaded by the Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast") for not worshipping him or his image, or receiving his mark on their hand or forehead. This refers back to the details of Revelation 13:4-18, which have never been fulfilled. So the 1st resurrection can't have happened yet. But its occurring at Jesus' 2nd coming, when he will defeat the Antichrist, makes perfect sense (Revelation 19:20 to 20:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9).

 

[Luke17:37]

But if you notice to when Jesus most definitely is talking about His return, He compares it to being like the time of Noah, with people marrying and getting married--life going on as usual. He says two will be in a field, one is taken and the other left. This seems to say when Christ comes it will not be preceded by signs. Jesus describes His coming as a thief in the night, He says no one knows the day or the hour except the Father, He draws imagery from the flood where the flood came, without warning, and washed away the wicked, and says, to keep watch because "you do not know on what day your Lord is coming".All of which seems to point to the fact that Christ will come, not at a time when we can guess, or after certain signs, but at a time we don't know and can't know.

When look at the context of "it will be like the flood", the main point is clearly about those wicked who are taken or destroyed. The reason I know this is because Jesus uses the word to describe the people killed in worldwide flood, and then He repeats the word twice to apply to the end. One will be taken, the other left. One will be taken, the other the other left. Some wicked people will die when Jesus comes. His comparison to Noah's flood is also in Luke 17, and the "taken/left" statements. The main difference is Jesus uses the word destroyed instead of taken to describe those caught in the flood. When the disciples asked, "Where [are the taken taken]?" Jesus answered, "Where the carcass is, there the eagles/vultures will gather." I said, "Huh?" This verse was a mystery to me the first several times I read it, but after I prayed diligently for understanding, God opened my eyes. I used to the think the one taken and the other left was referring to a pre-tribulation rapture. I thought the Christians were the taken. But, "Why would Christians' bodies remain, since they are supposed to be changed (1 Corinthians 15:51)? And why would vultures eat them? That sounds dishonorable!" (It is... a person's corpse being consumed by animals after death is a curse God reserved for exceptionally wicked people like Jezebel). When I compared Matthew and Luke, I realized taken = destroyed. The carcasses and vultures verse is also in Matthew 24:28, where Jesus is contrasting fake returns (Matthew 24:23-26) with the signs of His true return (Matthew 24:27-28). In Revelation 19:17-18, it says the vultures will be called upon to eat the flesh of kings, captains, mighty men, etc., and they will feast themselves on the bodies of the people who are slain by Jesus (Revelation 19:21). So, when Jesus returns, wicked people will die and vultures will eat their bodies. Also, as lateral lightning is seen by everyone, so will Jesus' return (also mentioned in Luke 17:24 as well as Matthew 24:27). A right understanding of Luke 17:37 compelled me to question pre-tribulation rapture and search the Bible to see if I could find it. I became thoroughly convinced it's not there, and that the Bible actually teaches post-tribulation resurrection-gathering. That's why I call myself Luke17:37.

Those who are watching might not know the exact day, but they will not be surprised. 1 Thessalonians 5:1-11 contrasts the people to whom His appearing is like a thief, and those watching. Hebrews 10:24-25 indicates we are going to see signs that the Day of His coming is near (if we are watching). People usually say that means we must be saved to see it, and yes, that's true, but the illustration of the two servants at the end of Matthew 24 and the two parables at the beginning of Matthew 25 suggest that we need to keep close watch over our Christian life and doctrine or we could fall away like all the deceived people Jesus mentions in Matthew 24. Everyone in these examples thought they were a servant of Jesus, but some of their actions revealed that their hearts weren't really His in the end. So, it's not true that there are no signs and Christians can't see it coming. Jesus gave us plenty of signs (Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation, for example).

Earlier in the Discourse Jesus mentions a lot of signs, a lot of signs which point to the destruction of the Temple which the Evangelist seems to really want the reader to get because he adds, "let the reader understand" in verse 15.

My approach to the Olivet Discourse, particularly in the 24th chapter of Matthew, is basically as follows:

After the disciples ask a really complicated question, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"; "when will this be?" refers most directly to Jesus' statement preceding about the stones of the Temple not left standing. So, let's be clear that the most immediate context is Jesus' statement and prediction that the Temple would be destroyed; they add to this, "and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

From their perspective the destruction of the Temple couldn't be understood in any other way than as a cataclysmic end of the world scenario so we can accept that they would associate the Temple's destruction with these things--the question set before us is does Jesus' answer, and our understanding of Jesus' answer, lead us to believe as they probably did.

This warning in Matthew 24:15 helped the Jewish believers in Jerusalem flee in before it was destroyed in 70 AD, but I would argue that Jesus' focus in Matthew 24:4-the end (and Matthew 25) is about the signs of His return. They might have been confused, but we don't need to be. The Tribulation Jesus describes is the worst thing ever which precedes His coming, and He says (I'm paraphrasing) the generation who sees all these things will also see the fulfillment (His return, Matthew 24:29-31). He wasn't talking about the first century, obviously, or we wouldn't be here. All the things Jesus described (Matthew 24:4-13 look like the first six seals in Revelation 6) haven't happened yet.

I don't think so. Instead, Jesus seems to tackle things like so:

He begins by warning them not to be led astray by false messianic claimants or claims that He had returned already, if someone says, "He's over here!" don't believe it; etc.
Jesus then moves on to talk about wars, rumors of wars, and natural disasters--He then says, "but this is not the end" it's only birthpangs. My reading of this is that wars, rumors of wars, natural disasters aren't signs of the end, but just the opposite, Jesus mentions these precisely because He doesn't His followers going out chasing the latest headlines about calamity out in the world--bad things happen, they have happened since the beginning of history and will continue right up until the end. Bad things happening in the world does not mean the end is nigh.

The false returns are in verses Matthew 24:23-26, but the birth pains are described earlier--Matthew 24:4-10. I agree that bad things happening doesn't mean the end is upon us. Probably every generation has seen a war or rumor of war, maybe even a false Christ of some sort, an earthquake, even severe persecution (in some part of the world it's probably been continuous).

He does point to these things:

They, the disciples, would be handed over to be tortured and put to death, and would be despised. Many will fall away and betray one another. Many false prophets would arise to lead many astray, and lawlessness would increase, love will grow cold. The Gospel, in spite of all this, will still be preached throughout the world. Such things happened pretty early on, we can read about some of this in the Acts of the Apostles itself, and tradition remembers the deaths of Peter and Paul under Nero. But, in reality, such things have been happening right from the start until now. And, in spite of all such things the Gospel is still being preached.

Then He moves on to describe "when will these things be", that is, the destruction of the Temple. Because, remember, this entire Discourse is Jesus' response to His disciples' question, a question they asked in response to Jesus' statement about the Temple being destroyed. He gives the following:

"When you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; the one on the housetop must not go down to take what is in the house; the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat."

The events of the first Jewish-Roman War were horrific, both the Zealot forces and the Roman military response were quite bad. Josephus tells us that that so much blood was spilled in the Temple (before the Romans even arrived) that it was overflowing with the blood of over 8,000 slain (War of the Jews, Book IV, 5:1). Eusebius tells us in his History that the Church in Jerusalem had received a vision, and so escaped by fleeing to Pella in Perea (Church History, Book III, 5:3).

After these things Jesus uses a recognizable apocalyptic phrase about the sun being darkened and the moon turning to blood (the prophet Joel also uses this language). The question we might want to ask is whether this apocalyptic language should be taken literally, we have for example Peter in the 2nd chapter of Acts speaking of the events unfolding on Pentecost as fulfillment of Joel's prophecy where he mentions the sun darkened and the moon turning to blood--but there's no reason to believe the sun literally darkened or the moon literally became blood red on Pentecost. The thing about apocalyptic language is that it is frequently loud, but not necessarily literal.

Now Jesus addresses His "coming on the clouds", the language here almost unmistakably resembles the great Son of Man vision in Daniel, where the Son of Man is taken upon a cloud before the Ancient of Days and is given power and dominion. The careful reader will note that in Daniel's vision the Son of Man is being taken up, not going down. For this reason many, myself included, believe that this should be understood as a reference to the Ascension, not the Parousia; many will see Christ come into His kingdom because He came into His kingdom when He ascended and was seated at the right hand of God the Father to reign and rule and to make all things subject to Himself until His coming when He hands all things over to the Father, all being made subject to the Father, and God is "all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). While still others do see this as referring to the Parousia itself.

What follows, then, is Christ's coming and the end of the age, it is here that He says no one knows the day or the hour, that the Lord comes when we cannot expect, that it will be as in the days of Noah before the flood came, eating and drinking, getting married, etc (meaning, everything will be life as normal). Christ's coming will not be preceded by anything which tells us He is coming, there won't be any signs, it will be sudden, without warning, when the Lord comes in judgement it will be as though two are in a field and one is taken; even as the Deluge wiped out the wicked so shall it be when the Lord comes to judge the quick and the dead at His Parousia. Finally Jesus then goes into the parables of watchfulness, that His followers shouldn't become lazy, but should be about the Master's business, they should be like the diligent and wise virgins not the foolish ones, etc.

For what it's worth, these aren't uniquely my views, what I'm describing are pretty common thoughts throughout the Christian world, across denominational boundaries and ten to line up with a lot of mainstream Christian scholarship on the subject. I feel like I need to add this disclaimer because, as someone who grew up a Dispensationalist and wasn't exposed to views outside of that general eschatological paradigm until around my 20's it could be like it was for me--if this looks drastically different than how you have tended to view the Olivet Discourse and almost shocking, I understand. I do. I'll even understand if you think I'm off my rocker or bonkers.

-CryptoLutheran

I think my response is long enough so I don't want to go into extensive detail here, but I do believe the signs in the heavenly places are literal. I think they occur during the fourth trumpet/bowl and continue. In Luke 21:25-26 it talks about men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth. I also believe Jesus is talking about His return, not His ascension. The whole thing is pointless if it's about His ascension. The passage you refer to (?) is not the only one that talks about Jesus in the clouds. Many refer to His descent, like Psalm 18.

I don't think the eschatology "experts" of the past two hundred years have been very helpful at all. Actually, I believe they've (largely) had a terrible influence on the Church. Most teach Dispensationalism and Pre-Tribulation Rapture, both of which I am convinced are false doctrines. What these have done is lull people into a deep sleep. The environment today is what I think God must have been thinking about (perhaps among other things) when He prophecied in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 about people who reject sound doctrine and gather for themselves teachers who say what their itching ears want to hear. Yeah, we'd all love to go to heaven without experiencing death or the Tribulation, but God's Word neither describes nor allows this.

 

[pdudgeon]

But if you notice to when Jesus most definitely is talking about His return, He compares it to being like the time of Noah, with people marrying and getting married--life going on as usual. He says two will be in a field, one is taken and the other left. This seems to say when Christ comes it will not be preceded by signs. Jesus describes His coming as a thief in the night, He says no one knows the day or the hour except the Father, He draws imagery from the flood where the flood came, without warning, and washed away the wicked, and says, to keep watch because "you do not know on what day your Lord is coming".All of which seems to point to the fact that Christ will come, not at a time when we can guess, or after certain signs, but at a time we don't know and can't know.

Earlier in the Discourse Jesus mentions a lot of signs, a lot of signs which point to the destruction of the Temple which the Evangelist seems to really want the reader to get because he adds, "let the reader understand" in verse 15.

My approach to the Olivet Discourse, particularly in the 24th chapter of Matthew, is basically as follows:

After the disciples ask a really complicated question, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"; "when will this be?" refers most directly to Jesus' statement preceding about the stones of the Temple not left standing. So, let's be clear that the most immediate context is Jesus' statement and prediction that the Temple would be destroyed; they add to this, "and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

From their perspective the destruction of the Temple couldn't be understood in any other way than as a cataclysmic end of the world scenario so we can accept that they would associate the Temple's destruction with these things--the question set before us is does Jesus' answer, and our understanding of Jesus' answer, lead us to believe as they probably did.

I don't think so. Instead, Jesus seems to tackle things like so:

He begins by warning them not to be led astray by false messianic claimants or claims that He had returned already, if someone says, "He's over here!" don't believe it; etc. Jesus then moves on to talk about wars, rumors of wars, and natural disasters--He then says, "but this is not the end" it's only birthpangs. My reading of this is that wars, rumors of wars, natural disasters aren't signs of the end, but just the opposite, Jesus mentions these precisely because He doesn't His followers going out chasing the latest headlines about calamity out in the world--bad things happen, they have happened since the beginning of history and will continue right up until the end. Bad things happening in the world does not mean the end is nigh.

He does point to these things:

They, the disciples, would be handed over to be tortured and put to death, and would be despised. Many will fall away and betray one another. Many false prophets would arise to lead many astray, and lawlessness would increase, love will grow cold. The Gospel, in spite of all this, will still be preached throughout the world. Such things happened pretty early on, we can read about some of this in the Acts of the Apostles itself, and tradition remembers the deaths of Peter and Paul under Nero. But, in reality, such things have been happening right from the start until now. And, in spite of all such things the Gospel is still being preached.

Then He moves on to describe "when will these things be", that is, the destruction of the Temple. Because, remember, this entire Discourse is Jesus' response to His disciples' question, a question they asked in response to Jesus' statement about the Temple being destroyed. He gives the following:

"When you see the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place as was spoken of by the prophet Daniel (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; the one on the housetop must not go down to take what is in the house; the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat."

The events of the first Jewish-Roman War were horrific, both the Zealot forces and the Roman military response were quite bad. Josephus tells us that that so much blood was spilled in the Temple (before the Romans even arrived) that it was overflowing with the blood of over 8,000 slain (War of the Jews, Book IV, 5:1). Eusebius tells us in his History that the Church in Jerusalem had received a vision, and so escaped by fleeing to Pella in Perea (Church History, Book III, 5:3).

After these things Jesus uses a recognizable apocalyptic phrase about the sun being darkened and the moon turning to blood (the prophet Joel also uses this language). The question we might want to ask is whether this apocalyptic language should be taken literally, we have for example Peter in the 2nd chapter of Acts speaking of the events unfolding on Pentecost as fulfillment of Joel's prophecy where he mentions the sun darkened and the moon turning to blood--but there's no reason to believe the sun literally darkened or the moon literally became blood red on Pentecost. The thing about apocalyptic language is that it is frequently loud, but not necessarily literal.

Now Jesus addresses His "coming on the clouds", the language here almost unmistakably resembles the great Son of Man vision in Daniel, where the Son of Man is taken upon a cloud before the Ancient of Days and is given power and dominion. The careful reader will note that in Daniel's vision the Son of Man is being taken up, not going down. For this reason many, myself included, believe that this should be understood as a reference to the Ascension, not the Parousia; many will see Christ come into His kingdom because He came into His kingdom when He ascended and was seated at the right hand of God the Father to reign and rule and to make all things subject to Himself until His coming when He hands all things over to the Father, all being made subject to the Father, and God is "all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). While still others do see this as referring to the Parousia itself.

What follows, then, is Christ's coming and the end of the age, it is here that He says no one knows the day or the hour, that the Lord comes when we cannot expect, that it will be as in the days of Noah before the flood came, eating and drinking, getting married, etc (meaning, everything will be life as normal). Christ's coming will not be preceded by anything which tells us He is coming, there won't be any signs, it will be sudden, without warning, when the Lord comes in judgement it will be as though two are in a field and one is taken; even as the Deluge wiped out the wicked so shall it be when the Lord comes to judge the quick and the dead at His Parousia. Finally Jesus then goes into the parables of watchfulness, that His followers shouldn't become lazy, but should be about the Master's business, they should be like the diligent and wise virgins not the foolish ones, etc.

For what it's worth, these aren't uniquely my views, what I'm describing are pretty common thoughts throughout the Christian world, across denominational boundaries and ten to line up with a lot of mainstream Christian scholarship on the subject. I feel like I need to add this disclaimer because, as someone who grew up a Dispensationalist and wasn't exposed to views outside of that general eschatological paradigm until around my 20's it could be like it was for me--if this looks drastically different than how you have tended to view the Olivet Discourse and almost shocking, I understand. I do. I'll even understand if you think I'm off my rocker or bonkers.

-CryptoLutheran

a long post!

1. there were signs of the comming flood:
a. the ark itself would be necessary then when it had never been necessary previously.
b. the relative size of the ark to the amount of water needed to float it would indicate a massive amount of water, which was previously unknown.
c. the amount of time spent publically building the ark; it got people's attention.

so to deny that anything will change in our time, or to say that Christ won't be coming back
when we've been told that He will be comming back on the clouds-- just as His followers saw Him go--
is to ignore the obvious.
Indeed, the longer we have to wait for His return the more certain that return is,
and that it will take many by surprize who themselves have discounted such a return.
but they should not be surprized.

we have more earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, volcano eruptions, etc. that cause major natural diasters, and which disasters happen with increasing frequency over the entire face of our planet. Every land mass is being affected by these changes.
Some people lay the blame at the feet of global warming.
Others who know better can cite the reaon as nature itself rebelling against
the cumulative effects of sin that are rapidly reaching the breaking point.

In short, when our time of flood occurs, where will we run to?
the hills? they will be laid low.
the high mountains? they will tremble.
the seas? think tsunami.

it is heaven itself which will be our only refuge.
that's why those who know these things above are watching and waiting.

 

[Armoured]

Indeed, the longer we have to wait for His return the more certain that return is,