Someone once said, While you might guess the right answer or be right for the wrong reasons, you're not right until you know why. It made a lot of sense to me the first time I read it and over the years it has come to be one of my favorite sayings. There is a vast difference between accepting what some demigod says and discovering the correct answers for yourself. And while there have been, still are, and probably always will be, those who become wealthy and famous for their sensational theories about what the Bible says about this or that, the truth is offered here for free.

This brief expose, and forerunner to a much more comprehensive one, is the result of only a fraction of my years of work to peel off centuries of ingrained bias in biblical interpretation in order to satisfy myself of the real truth. My purpose, primarily, is to set the record straight on the topic of "The Second Coming" of Jesus, and clear up the confusion about it that exists almost worldwide. It is my goal that the statements of the writers of the Bible will be presented in such a way that there will be no reasonable way of mistaking what they meant by the things that they said and that the truth will be obvious and crystal clear to any sincere reader. Since the facts concerning this subject are of paramount importance to the purpose of the New Testament and Christianity the truth concerning it needs to be settled for all time. The claims of those who propagate their groundless speculative theories and sophistry in the guise of scholarship need to be exposed in order that the masses who do not have the time to study the Bible in great depth might be better able to avoid being defrauded. In addition to consulting all the recognized authorities on biblical languages and comparing and contrasting the views of other renowned Bible scholars, I have made certain that all passeges referred to are used in their correct contexts and that concepts and word meanings are the ones used by the writers of the Bible. You will see for yourself that evidence is presented in such a manner that it should be obvious to sincere students of the Bible, from the novice to the veteran scholar, that my conclusions are the correct ones and therefore, beyond legitimate dispute. Contrary to sophist philosophy, the truth can be known.

As you read the commentary you will notice that I use the word "supposedly" quite often. This is done because I don't want to be seen as having taken anything for granted and because I want to begin as if nothing has been proved until it has been.

Now, for those of you who may not quite understand what the Bible is and what it is about I offer this brief explanation but without references, which are easily available in other works, in order to restrict the length of this material. The writers of the Bible present it to be the will of the God who created everything other than himself. If this is true it means that He is the only true God and that all others are false. The biblical God, according to the wirters, is always in complete control of all things because he has predestined everything in the most pains taking detail and that is how he, supposedly, could allow "prophets" to know, often far in advance, about specific people and events. At the same time that all things are, supposedly, predestined (even when God changes his mind), God, in order to be just, is mysteriously able to allow humans the ability to choose whether to obey him or to not obey him. This is something that the writers of the Bible could not explain, though there were some feeble attempts. How could God have predestined all things and still be just in rewarding and punishing humans? Irrational though it was, that is precisely what they maintained. The answer, of course, is that he could not. The ideas of predestination and free will are fundamentally and diametrically opposed and connot be reconciled. Not able to deal with this fact, the writers of the Bible simply made the irrational choice to believe in and teach their purely subjective and contradictory perceptions of God. [By the way, God is always referred to in the masculine gender but not, supposedly, because the writers simply assumed God to be a male entity, but because that is the way God, supposedly, referred himeself to them. If this is true, God should not be referred to in the female gender.] The God of the Bible supposedly had a purpose for what He had created, and that purpose was that His creation was to serve His purposes, and His alone. He, supposedly, is pure in his motives, is all wise and knowing, not the cause of confusion, has made himself known both through His material universe and by performing concrete and verifiable "miracles," and he is always worthy of trust.

The Christian version of the Bible is divided into two parts which are referred to as The Old Testament and the New Testament respectively. The "Old" is composed of the writings of Jewish prophets (A prophet is a person who God supposedly uses as a spokesperson to present and explain his will and through whom detailed revelations of the future might be made known.). It explains the supposed origin of all things, including death, and chronicles the supposed origin and history of the Jewish religion. The first humans were, supposedly, created as adults, immortal, and directly from the soil, but when they, supposedly, decided to do as they pleased, rather than obey the instructions of God, God instantly denied them their immortality and they eventually died. Since that supposed time, regaining immortality and avoiding the pain and suffering that is such an integral part of human experience has been the primary hope of mankind. You might take note at this point that the death of human infants presents an insurmountable problem in trying to explain God as being just. How can a just God allow anyone to suffer, let alone die, on the basis of wrong done by the first humans, or any other person for that matter? The answer will be shown to you in time, just keep reading.

The New Testament is composed of the writings of several men who were believers in a man known as Jesus and, supposedly, followers of his teachings. I say "supposedly" because Jesus left no writings of his own, at least no writings that can be proved were written by him. All we have is the word of these men that Jesus said and did such and such. These men claimed to be prophets and said that God had told them what to speak and write. Some of them claimed that what they said was backed up with miracles that proved that they could be trusted to be saying exactly what God wanted communicated. This man, Jesus, that they wrote about, claimed to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophecies concerning a Messiah (or, "king who would save his people") that, according to his interpretation of certain Old Testament prophecies, was to come. Jesus, also called "Christ," (another way of referring to "the Messiah") claimed to be "the Son of God" (This title needs some explanation but I'll save that for another discussion.) and preached a message explaining how people could be saved from everlasting death, the ultimate result of disbelief and disobedience to the will of God (Such disbelief and disobedience is called "sin."). Acceptance of his teachings would, supposedly, result in "everlasting life" and, simultaneously, admission to his kingdom at its debut in the not too distant future, but rejection of his teachings would result in "eternal punishment" of the worst kind, also at the coming of his kingdom.

Jesus' mission, according to the words of those who wrote about him, was actually twofold. His primary purpose was to save sinners but in doing so he also established God's justice in punishing sinners by demonstrating that people had no excuse for sin. He did this, supposedly, by never committing even one sin, thereby earning the right, by the grace of God, to pay God's price for sin done by others. [A sinner could not pay the price of his/her own sin and have eternal life at the same time.] He, then, as a righteous, or sinless, person offered his life as a sacrifice, or payment, for the sins committed by all of mankind. This is why the writers of the New Testament explained that salvation was available only by the grace, or generous nature, of God, and that this salvation could be had if a sinner would put his/her complete faith in Jesus and his instructions by exhibiting their faith through their "works," works not motovated by an attempt to make God obligated to them but rather by their trust in the faithfulness of God to keep his promises. In other words, whether a person became "saved" or not was based on whether they accepted or rejected Jesus and his teachings. Salvation was not automatic just because payment had, supposedly, been made. A sinner had to repent of his/her rebellious attitude and behavior toward God and accept, the payment that was offered on his/her behalf and, at the same time, committ themselves to obeying the teachings of Jesus as taught by himself and the Apostles. In other words, salvation was available but only on God's terms. This is what was called "salvation by faith." Following a cruel death Jesus was then, supposedly, bodily resurrected from his grave and taken into "heaven" to wait for the time of his return to establish his kingdom and to carry out God's judgment on the unrighteous and to reward the faithful. According to the writers of the New Testament, it was an event for which the world would not have long to wait.

The New Testament relates supposed accounts of Jesus' ministry and teachings and consists of a number of letters written by his Apostles (people sent to proclaim a message) to congregations (and to some individuals) of believers that had been established around the region. These writings, most of which were written by the Apostle Paul (A former Jew and one that considered himself to have been a recognized expert on the Jewish scriptures.) explain the plan and method of salvation including details of how Christians were to think and behave. They also revealed the time of Jesus' supposed return as judge and savior, or king. Here, at the end of the twentieth century, Christians, in general, are still waiting for Jesus to return.

Christianity is only one of several present day religions that claim to represent a God who has universal authority. Islam is another. Religions that claim such an authority and that promise either grand rewards or terrifying punishment, depending on how one responds to their rules, can be, and usually are dangerous and need to be examined with the greatest care and concern in order to determine whether their claims are true. [History is replete with examples of terrible crimes and persecutions committed in the name of some supposed God, including the biblical one.] Then, if they are found true, or if they are found false, that information needs to be made available so that everyone can make sound decisions about whether to accept or reject their claims. The stakes are simply too high to be less than certain.

Certainly this work could be expanded and refined (and it will be) but I believe that there is enough here and that it is presented clearly enough to cause those who are sincere about wanting to know the truth to want to do some careful and thoughtful study and research on their own. I also recognize that there can never be enough evidence to convince some people. For, no matter how clear the truth is, there will always be those who seem to have another fallacious argument that they think backs up their predilections. Many, just like the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day supposedly were, would not even be convinced if I could work miracles. Besides, anyone who is really interested in knowing the truth can check out the information in various references that are avaliable. That would be best anyway. So, whether this short presentation convinces you or whether it just causes you to start thinking more for yourself it will have done a very important service.

Perhaps I should prepare you a little and warn you that the style of the presentation may be somewhat offensive to those who consider themselves more educated or sophisticated. I'm sure that they would prefer an approach that seemed less confident so that they could continue to feel comfortable with their present doubt filled beliefs through which they intend to convince others of the "truth." Even a casual reading of the Bible will show that its writers were generally unconcerned with being diplomatic and that they put the burden of acceptance or rejection of what they had to say squarely on the shoulders of those to whom their messages were intended. They seem to have been more concerned with making their message clear than they were with upsetting someone. This is certainly the way they portray Jesus, and it is clearly the way the "prophets" portrayed themselves.Obviously, the supposed consequences of accepting or rejecting the messages of the writers was considered to be so great and so profound, as they saw it, that it was better to risk upsetting some than to carelessly risk being misunderstood by even a few. Besides, the evidence that they presented for their claims was supposedly beyond rational or honest dispute.

Current Christian doctrine concerning "the Second Coming of Christ" holds that he is to return at some unknown time in the future. Some think the time is near, others are clearly less committal. [Does it not seem strange that many of the same ones who say they expect the return of Jesus to be soon are some of the same ones who insist that terms like "near," "at hand," and "soon," when used in the Bible, can and should be translated to mean thousands of years? They usually define "soon," when they use it, to mean within ten years or so. Hal Lindsey has said 2007 should be the time, I think, and Mr. Copeland said, yesterday, Nov. 25, 1999, on TV, that nothing remained to keep Jesus from returning, even that very day. Mr. Robertson has said the same kind of thing.) Curiosity has caused many people to search for some hidden clue in the scriptures that would reveal that supposed future date but no matter how the scriptures have been twisted no sure clues have ever been found. Greed and glory seeking has caused others to make false claims to the effect that God had, by some means, revealed the date to them. A few of the more famous ones include Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism, William Miller, founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, Charles T. Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witness sect, Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Radio Church of God that publishes the magazine known as "The Plain Truth," and, there are others of more recent fame. These have been and will be proven to be false prophets by the passing of time. All these people were, and are, wrong but not because the Bible does not contain sure clues to the date of Jesus' supposed return because it does. They, and others, are wrong because of a strong bias that causes them to mistakenly assume that the return of Jesus is yet to take place. In so doing, they, as many others have done, have forced that bias into the illegitimate way they interpreted, and continue to interprete, the scriptures. The truth of the matter, which will be established beyond a shadow of doubt, is far different from what they and most Christians think and it will shock and surprise you at how easy it is to uncover it. Perhaps you will also be surprised at how scholarly bias has kept, and continues to keep, the truth, that has always been quite easy to see, hidden from the untrained trusting masses. As you will begin to discover, we all need to be more careful about who we trust, how we decide what is true and what is not, and whether or not it is of paramount importance to know what the truth is.

Before discussing what the Bible says about the return of Jesus, however, there are a few things that should first be pointed out. Certain concepts that help to accurately interprete the scriptures need to be made clear. One of those concepts is about what the writers of the Bible themselves said about the origin of what they spoke and wrote, and what that implied. This needs some clarifying because of widespread misconceptions about it that seriously affect whether or not the Bible can be understood as its authors intended. In the clearest terms possible the writers of the Bible said that what they wrote was not the product of human invention or opinion, and that, therefore, differences of opinion concerning its meaning could not be allowed. They made it abundantly clear that it wasn't that they'd had a strong sincere feeling that they were saying what God would want them to say if it could be known for certain what the will of God was. Their doctrines weren't, they claimed, subjective in nature. They had, they said, been told directly by God what to say. In Matthew 10:19-20, Jesus, in warning his disciples of the persecution they would encounter from their countrymen, said, "When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you at that time; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." In a letter, written to a young convert, the Apostle Paul said, "All scripture ("All," meaning Jewish and Christian scripture exclusively.) is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God (or, all who have committed themselves to trusting in God thus doing as God requires) may be proficient, equipped for every good work" (2Tim. 3:16-17). [To paraphrase, he simply says that because the scriptures are "inspired" by God that everyone who is committed to God may know the truth (How else could they "be proficient?") and able to do everything God requires.] Then, in Gal. 1:11-12, he says, "For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it (by a mere human), but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." It was, Paul claims, Jesus himself who told him.Jesus, according to the Apostle John, said to certain of his disciples, "Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me. I have said these things to you while I am still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you" (Jn. 14:23-26). Near the end of this discourse Jesus said, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come" (Jn 16:12-13). Speaking on the subject of "inspiration" the Apostle Peter had this to say, "His divine power has given us everything needed for life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Thus he has given us, through these things, his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature" (2Pet. 1:3-4). Then he said, "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves. Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned" (2Pet. 1:20-2:2). Paraphrasing, "No one," says Peter, "has the right to interpret the scriptures just any way they like because the words spoken by true prophets and by the Apostles supposedly came directly from God. If they had been of human origin then people might be justified in disputing over differing interpretations, but because they are from God there is only one correct way to understand them." The Apostle Paul tells the young preacher, Timothy, "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth" (2Tim. 2:15). Clearly, according to Paul, if two people explain a scripture differently at least one of them is wrong, and maybe both of them are. This, obviously, is of the utmost concern when one's eternal welfare is, supposedly, at stake.

In a letter to a congregation of the Church in the city of Corinth the Apostle Paul said, "Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. What I mean is that each of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul" (1Cor. 1:10-13)? The passage simply shows that Denominationalism, or "divisions," was not going to be tolerated by the Apostles. It is evident that these immature Christians had the mistaken notion that there were differing views concerning Christian doctrine among those who had baptized them and they were arguing and developing hard feelings among themselves over these supposed differences. Since the Apostles were supposed to be receiving their teachings directly from God how could there be any differences in their doctrines? In light of such statements as that above it would make no sense whatever for a mature Christian to say that some Christians are followers of Cephas (Peter), or of Paul, or of Jesus. So, if the doctrines being taught by the Apostles were identical how could there be any divisions (Denominationalism) among Christians unless those doctrines were being misunderstood? As a matter of fact, Paul spends most of his time writing 1Corinthians trying to correct various mistaken concepts being expressed by members of that congregation. It is certain, based on the foregoing, that if Paul were here today he would thoroughly condemn the existence of the diversity of churches that exist, all claiming to teach "the" truth.

The next three passages are presented simply to show that, in the second and third quarters of the first century at least, while there was only one church there were many congregations of it established in the region of Asia Minor and Western Europe. "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified (made holy, or special to God) in Christ Jesus, called to be saints (from the word "sanctified," a way of referring to all Christians and not just to certain ones), together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (This is not a statement condoning Denominationalism or syncretism), both their Lord and ours: …" (1Cor. 1:2). "He (meaning Jesus) is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything" (1Cor. 1:18). "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all" Eph. 4:4-6. Notice; there was one church called the body and it was not composed of denominations any more than Jesus himself was divided in either body or mind. See Paul's words in 1Cor. 4:17.

At the end of Matthew's' account of Jesus' ministry he records Jesus as saying, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of (or, "by the authority of") the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" Matt. 28:18-20). These men were "commanded" to make disciples of people from all nations and to teach them to do everything Jesus had taught them (these men) to do. And they were to do this until "the end of the age." [As you will soon see "the end of the age" that Jesus was speaking of took place in AD 70. It will be shown conclusively that this is the date that is clearly established by the writers of the New Testament for the return of Jesus in the letters they wrote to various congregations of the Church, as well as to certain individuals, just prior to Jerusalem's fall and during the Roman siege of AD 66-70.] The destruction of Jerusalem was the event that was supposed to mark "the end of the age" (or "world," KJV). It was supposed to be "the day of the Lord," "the coming judgment," and the time Jesus would literally establish his kingdom.

Now the reason that people were expected to believe Jesus and his disciples was because of the miracles they supposedly performed. This is important because it shows that the God of the Bible did not expect humans to believe what could not be concretely proven and varified. The miracles were to be proof of the authenticity of the origin of what a prophet said and that it was not, as Nicodemus supposedly admitted (Jn. 2:23-3:2), just something they had made up on their own. Just as it supposedly had been in the past, God presented undeniable proof that the messages being preached by anyone claiming to be a prophet (a spokesperson for God) were authentic. If he, the prophet, did not present concrete proof of the source of his message people would have no rational reason to believe what he said was supposed to be the will of God and were therefore warned not to believe it. (See Deut. 18:13-22, for example. The detailed foretelling of events that could only have been revealed by some supernatural source would certainly qualify as a miracle.). In Heb. 3:8-10, the writer specifically says that the reason that God was angry with so many of the Israelites that had left Egypt with Moses was because even though they had, supposedly, seen his works (miracles) "for forty years" they still didn't believe, or have faith, in Him.

During Jesus’ tenure on earth he supposedly performed many miracles in order, not only to convince people to believe in him, but also to make it possible for God to justly punish unbelievers because true justice cannot be dispensed on the basis of "blind faith." One of those supposed miracles was the raising of a man named Lazarus (recorded in John 11) who had been dead for three days. This was done, said Jesus, in order that people would believe that God had sent him. It was clear that the resurrection of Lazarus was supposed to be an unmistakable sign that Jesus could raise the dead and that, by the power of God, immortality was available through him and his teachings. Later, in Jn. 20, John tells of Jesus’ appearances to his disciples after his resurrection. Here, there is a passage that is consistently taken out of context to prove a blatantly false pretext. The passage is Jn. 20:29, where Jesus says to Thomas, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe." It is commonly used in attempts to support the notion that faith is blind, that it is belief that does not need evidence. This is a mistake and makes use of a meaning for the word "faith" that was considered false and hypocritical by the writers of the New Testament but that has, more recently, become popular in western thought. According to this view people can have a valid faith without needing any proof at all. Actually the word credulity would be more accurate for this kind of so called faith. Recall that, according to John, Thomas was one of those with Jesus when Jesus supposedly raised Lazarus (Jn.11:12). That, along with other miracles Thomas must supposedly have witnessed, should have convinced him that Jesus was who he claimed to be but Thomas, evidently, had not been thoroughly convinced by Jesus' former miracles (See the case of Nicodemus in John 3. It is clear that Nicodemus, a Pharisee, though not brave enough to risk being ostracized by his associates, believed Jesus because of the supposed miracles he did in the presence of the public. Jn. 3:2, Ac. 2:22). In fact, the very reason that belief in non-Jewish gods was called foolishness was that their existence could not be concretely proven by their ability to accomplish miracles (1 Ki. 18; Jer. 10:1-16). According to John, only after Thomas had touched Jesus’ resurrected body did Thomas fully believe. What Jesus was telling Thomas was that others who had not seen him after his resurrection but who had witnessed the miracles that he had done had believed in him (See Jn. 11:45) and that those same miracles, which included the resurrection of Lazarus, should have convinced Thomas also. See Matt. 28:17, and Mk. 16:14, in reference to doubters among the disciples. God cannot be just in punishing anyone for not believing in Jesus unless they have, at the same time, been witness to a bona fide and verifiable miracle. No one should have his/her eternal destiny be determined on the basis of belief in hearsay no matter how reliable it is supposed to be. Faith that is of the Biblical kind requires proof that can be confirmed in every case. A rational concept of justice demands it.

In addition to the fact that faith, as the Jews saw it, required a concrete basis of proof, the current doctrine of salvation by "faith alone" taught by most denominations is thoroughly contradictory to the doctrine of salvation by faith that the Apostles, including Paul, presented. Like the Sadducees that Jesus shamed in Matt. 22 for not knowing the scriptures, proponents of the "salvation by faith alone" doctrine have historically tried to defend it the same way that all false doctrine is defended, by twisting the words of the Apostles to fit their predilections. The current "salvation by faith only" doctrine did not come into existence until the sixteenth century when it was popularized by Martin Luther who, under the legalistic and unscriptural Catholic system of religion, was struggling to show that sinners could not earn salvation. In his attempt, he developed a new doctrine that is just as unscriptural as those he was trying to expose. While the Apostles did teach that salvation was by faith in Jesus the concept of faith used by them included actions, or works, that made claims of belief valid. In other words, faith was not something that simply took place in a person's mind. Faith, to the writers of the Bible, was a process that only began in the mind and was not complete until actions corrosponding to what God had commanded had been accomplished. For example, if a person did not obey God they could not legitimately claim that they believed him no matter how forcefull or sincere sounding their claims might be. Anyone who claimed to have faith but who did not exibit "works" or actions to back up the claim was called a hypocrite. The one visible act that Jesus required for a person to be initially added to the body of saved people, or the church, was baptism, which is translated immersion as distinctly opposed to sprinkling or pouring. It was to be done in water to those people old enough to understand and recognize the meaning of the gospel and to believe it based on observable and verifiable evidence. This obviously excludes babies and is part of the reason that babies were not considered to be sinners. See Ja. 4:17, Mk. 16:15-18 and Act. 2:38-42, along with all the accounts of conversion in Acts. You should also read the following scriptures with a good background knowledge of first century Judaism and philosophy contemporary with the time: Gal. 1:1- 3:29, Col. 1:13-14, 1Pet. 3:18-22, Jam. 2:14-26, Rom. 3:19-6:23, Phil. 2:5-13, and Heb. 11. Being familiar with the various figures of speech used by the writers of the Bible is also important, not to mention being able to recognize context. Be especially alert to recognize such figures as the metonymy, synecdoche, ellipsis, and the hyperbole. For example, one of the favorite proof texts of the "faith only" folks is the case of "the thief on the cross" mentioned in Lk. 23. They conclude that because Jesus did not require the thief to be baptized that he was saved by faith apart from any corresponding or validating act or work. They are wrong on both accounts. First, Jesus forgave the thief before his command for believing sinners to be baptized in order to receive forgiveness went into effect (Heb. 9:16-17). Second, the man obviously acted according to his belief in Jesus by admitting his guilt and by his indirect request for forgiveness, and Jesus, obviously, accepted those actions (or "works") as indicating valid faith. Obviously, the man was not trying to "earn" forgiveness. Remember, during Jesus' ministry he said he had been given authority to forgive sin and he obviously was allowed to do so on the basis of any demonstration of faith that he chose (Mk. 2:1-12). His disciples, on the other hand, were commanded to require baptism (immersion) in water as the expression of faith that, when done in conjunction with a confession of belief and repentance toward sin, admitted a sinner into the kingdom of God, or church, pursuant to its actual debut upon his return. It wasn't until those requirements had been fulfilled that a person was said to be "saved." The statement, by John the immersionist in Lk. 3:16-17, concerning a baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire worked in the following manner. On the day of Pentecost, following the supposed resurrection of Jesus, God, supposedly, sent, or "poured out," the Holy Spirit in such a quantity that it was available to everyone who accepted Jesus' terms for forgiveness. This overwhelming outpouring of the Spirit was figuratively described as a baptism and, according to the Bible, happened only once. Those who continued to reject "the faith" were "baptized with fire" when Rome put down the Jewish rebellion that climaxed with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

The account of Naaman the leper in 2Kings 5:1-14, is a good example of a description of a valid faith as the writers of the Bible used the word. The account, incidentally, illustrates the part that New Testament baptism (Referred to in other places as "the washing of water" which allows God to treat sinners as holy, or the being "born of the water" as part of what is required to enter the kingdom of God. See Eph. 5:25-27, and Jn. 3:1-5) plays in obtaining the forgiveness of sins . It obviously wasn't the water that supposedly cured Naaman's condition. Surely there can be no doubt that the man had taken many baths before this incident. Naaman was supposedly cured because of his faith at the time it was exhibited in his obedience (action, or work) in reference to God's requirements that to him, at first, sounded ridiculous. According to the Hebrew concept, God did not consider a person's faith valid until it had been exhibited by an appropriately corresponding action. This account of Naaman is precisely parallel to the way Peter uses the account of Noah in 1Pet. 3:18-22. According to Jesus and the Apostles, a sinner did not earn forgiveness by being baptized any more than Naaman earned the cure for leprosy by washing in the river nor any more than Noah earned salvation by building the ark. Yet, forgiveness was not attained until a person's faith had been completed, or carried out, by the act of being baptized just like Naaman was not cured until washing in the Jordan River had completed his faith. Neither did Noah's faith save him until he had built the Ark and complied with the rest of what God had supposedly told him to do in order to be saved. What this means is that when the word "faith" was used by the writers of the Bible in reference to a faith that was considered valid it was usually in the form of a figure of speech known as a synecdoche. There was none of this "Just believe in your heart" stuff. The Apostle James had specifically pointed out that that particular concept of faith was invalid, hypocritical, and therefore worthless (Ja. 2:14-26). Pay attention to the fact that James says that even "devils believe," the clear implication being that belief,or faith, alone is not sufficient.

The passage that really seems, at first, to support the current popular "faith only" doctrine is the one where Paul says, "For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law" (Rom. 3:28). This is the one that causes those who hold to that teaching to twist other scriptures for support and to ignore everything Paul said about the part that baptism plays in the Biblical concept of faith, or to twist it to mean something that it clearly does not. To the writers of the New Testament "work" did not automatically imply an attempt to earn. In the passage mentioned, Paul is addressing the same ignorant and hypocritical notion held by Jewish leaders that Jesus had confronted. First, they seemed to believe that they could be totally insincere in their meticulously legal observance of the requirements of The Law of Moses, harboring all kinds of immoral desires in their hearts, and still be on good terms with God. [Many Christians obviously believe that very same thing today.] Second, they failed to realize that the instant a person sinned against the Law it didn't matter whether they perfectly kept The Law from then on or not, they were still condemned (Ja. 2:10). That's where The Law was weak, it required perfect obedience in actions and motives, though Jewish leaders emphasized the actions. Motives are not easy to identify. Only God is supposed to be able, with certainty, to judge whether a person is acting with righteous motives. Third, they failed to take into consideration the fact that The Law of Moses didn't come into existence until after the time of Abraham, the man they considered to have been the Father of the Jews and who was highly esteemed by them as the father of the faithful. He was, therefore, not an observer of the The Law, in a legal sense, and should have been condemned by the Jewish leaders of Jesus' day, rather than honored, according to their own faulty way of thinking. In no way was Paul saying, as the "faith only" proponents claim, that all a person has to do is make the mental decision to make Jesus Lord of their life and the instant that they do they're saved. The writers of the New Testament make no such assertions. There is not one single example of such a thing having taken place anywhere in the New Testament. Paul and James both use the same example of Abraham in explaining how a person is justified by faith. Carefully examine it and compare it with what Paul and James say about it and see for yourself that what I have stated is precisely correct. Abraham was not justified the instant that he decided to obey God. It was only after he had obeyed and was in the process of killing Isaac that God considered him to be justified. Remember, an angel supposedly had to stop Abraham from plunging the knife into his son. Also, observe Luke's account of Paul's conversion in Acts 9, and again in chapter 22. In chapter 22 baptism is described as the washing away of a believer's sins. Obviously, as Peter had said in 2 Peter, baptism did not wash away sin as if it were like dirt on one's body, being baptized as God supposedly commanded, for the reason that God commanded, was the response of a person who truely wanted to be forgiven and on good terms with God. In other words, it allowed one to have a clear, or good conscience with respect to one's confessed desire to be obedient. Look at what Paul himself says about baptism in Romans, the sixth chapter. He describes it as the act of burying a person who has died but who is then resurrected to begin a new life without sin. The new life comes after baptism, at which point a person is initially forgiven by God (Acts 2:38). In Galations 3:25-28, Paul says that baptism puts one into the faith, that it is to clothe, or cover, one's self with Jesus, the righteousness of Jesus that is. According to Paul, the same one who said that justification came through faith apart from the works of the law, baptism is what supposedly made a believer a child of God through faith! It is, says Paul, in baptism that God allows the payment Jesus made for sin to be applied to a believer's account. Now, with a straight face, say that Paul said that baptism was not essential for a sinner to get forgiveness. If you can do that after reading this, you're beyond help. Paul, perhaps more than any other New Testament writer, emphasised the absolute necessity of baptism in the salvation of believing sinners.

Is any of this important? The answer is yes and no. Yes, if you want to know what the Bible really says about faith, baptism, miracles, and other doctrines. But the answer is no if the Bible is not actually the will of God for all mankind.

The writers of the Bible claimed that what they wrote was not invented by them or any other human. They clearly indicate that they did not consider faith to be blind acceptance of unprovable assertions, and that it was more than a mental ascent or committment. They said that baptism was absolutely necessary for a believer to get forgiveness. They also made it clear that interpretations of what they said that differed from what they intended to be understood was strictly forbidden. They made it clear that "the" truth could be identified by the supposed "miracles" done by them. That there are several clear implications in all this is only too obvious. One is that the writers would not have admitted to being mistaken about anything they said, including what they said about the Second Coming of Jesus. Another is that they would not have allowed an attitude of "Believe what you want as long as you're sincere" or "Everybody is right in their own way," to go uncorrected. One more, though there are others, is that it is clear that the majority of the most crucial doctrines of Christianity, including the doctrine of the Second Coming, have been distorted or replaced with mistaken opinions through poor and biased scholarship so that what is currently being taught in Churches around the world is simply the false presupositions of men, blind guides, being taught as the truth.

"What about the testimony of witnesses who were considered reliable"? you may ask. "Can't we put our eternal welfare into what they say?" I will ask you, what about supposedly sane and reliable people who claim to have been abducted by space aliens? Should we take what they say as fact with no proof what-so-ever? You must remember that the judgment that the Bible speaks of was not going to be taking place in a criminal court presided over by a fallible human. God himself was to be the judge and He is supposed to know everything that is in the hearts and minds of everyone. My point is that while we may believe what we like about supposed abductions by space creatures, we cannot be required to believe them, or the supposed witnesses about what God has supposedly said, in the absence of verifiable and incontrovertible evidence. True justice simply will not allow it. Likewise, on the same basis, no one can be justly condemned for disbelieving. Unless real miracles, such as those supposedly performed by Jesus, can be performed today, including resurrecting people who have died and been buried, there can be no just requirement to accept Christian doctrines or the doctrines of any other religion for that matter. The writers of the Bible knew this and that is the reason given by them for the supposed miracles. See the following passages: Heb. 2:1-4; 2Cor. 2:12; Ac. 2:1-37. It was, for example, the supposed miracles observed by the Jews in Acts 2, that supposedly let them "know with certainty," (vs. 36) that what the Apostles said was true.

Be careful to note that clear statements in the passages above by the Apostle Peter also make it absolutely certain that the Apostles would have condemned the Book of Mormon and the Koran as lies since Jesus "has given" (passed tense) "us" (first century Christians) "everything" (not just some things) "needed for life and godliness" because the Apostles had, supposedly, been given "all the truth." Assuming that what Peter said was true there was nothing left for Joseph Smith, Jr. or Mohammed to reveal that could have added anything of value to what had already be revealed in the first century! In fact, both of these religions, as well as others, contain many crucial doctrines that flatly contradict those of the Bible. We won't take time to further discuss the fact that Joseph Smith, Jr., a self-proclaimed prophet and founder of the Mormon Church, and many other people, claimed that God revealed to them the time (and all of them gave different times) when Jesus was going to return and all have been proven false. This fact should, at the very least, make potential followers of these people ask what else might such prophets have been mistaken about. The same goes for all the current prognosticators and self-proclaimed prophets too. Time is going to get you.

 Now for the Second Coming and what the writers of the Bible actually had to say concerning it’s time. When Jesus, speaking of the date of the Judgment (something on which all scholars agree) said,"...about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father," he was not saying that no one but God would be able to tell when it was going to take place. This is certain because he has just been telling his disciples how to identify the time. He was saying that no one but God knew, at that moment, when it would take place. Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are mostly devoted to a discription of how the disciples could tell when the return of Jesus was about to happen. Why would he do such a thing if no one would ever be able to tell? A careful reading of the context will show that Jesus modified his statement about the date of his coming by saying, in very clear terms, that his return would take place within the time span of that early first century generation. It is also a matter of fact that, according to the writers of the New Testament, every one of the things that Jesus said would indicate that his return was near took place by the summer of AD 70!

Like the doctrines of faith and salvation that we have just covered, the doctrine of the Second Coming has been, and is being, grossly misinterpreted. There are several variations of it and many differences within each variation. Each of these views is defended with a vast number of specious interpretations of scripture. From this fact alone, it should be obvious to anyone that many theologians and supposed "experts," in general, do not understand this very crucial doctrine. For the sake of their egos they cannot admit to what the writers of the New Testament plainly say or they will lose all credibility. As a result, they are forced to twist the meaning of even the most plain passages in attempts to make them seem to fit their predilections. I do not plan to try to refute each individual misinterpretation, that would not be practical or even possible. I will simply lay out the correct understanding and let the reader compare it with opposing views. That way, anyone who is able to be objective will eventually be able to see which view is right even though it may take quite a while. I can't think of a more fair way of doing it than that.

Let's begin with Matthew 16, though we could begin much earlier. Jesus has just spoken to some Jewish leaders referring to them as typifying an evil and adulterous generation. In verse 21, Jesus begins to tell his disciples about his coming death and supposed resurrection. Then, in verses 24 through 28 he announces that he intends to come back to earth and reward all mankind according to their deeds and that it is going to happen within the lifetime of those standing there with him as he is speaking! " "For the Son of Man (Jesus) is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay everyone for what has been done. Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." That this passage is referring to The Judgment and not to what supposedly happened at Pentecost, or the "transfiguration" scene in chapter 17, is too obvious to discuss any of the silly arguments that many would have you accept. Notice also that he does not say, "there will be some standing there" which might have allowed for an interpretation compatible with the current notion of a future return, though that idea would still be negated by the rest of the New Testament on the topic.

In Matthew 21, beginning with verse 23 and continuing through chapter 23, verse 39 (Please, be sure to read all the references I have given throughout this presentation.), Matthew records an exchange between Jesus and the leaders of the Jewish religious authorities that takes place in the temple in Jerusalem only a few days before his crucifixion. In the course of the discussions that day, Jesus tells the people that God is going to judge them for their willful disobedience to Him and that it is going to take place in their lifetime (23:36-39). Then, according to Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, Jesus and his disciple's head out of the city to the Mount of Olives on the east. On the way the disciples make some remarks about the beauty of the temple buildings and Jesus says that sometime in the future the temple will be destroyed. After they get to the Mount of Olives the disciples, who have obviously been thinking about what Jesus may have meant by his comments concerning his return and the destruction of the temple, ask him when all this is going to happen. Quite clearly they connected the destruction of the temple with Jesus’ predictions of his return in judgment (but within their lifetime) and that this judgment would bring that present age to a close (The KJV mistakenly uses the word "world" when the correct interpretation is "age."). It was a logical conclusion for them to reach because of the historical background of the Jewish nation. The temple had been destroyed several times before and Jerusalem had been made desolate and each time it had brought the end of an age and the beginning of another, at least for the Jews. Each time it was described as the work of God as a punishment on Israel for sins as a result of their devotion to false gods (See Ezekiel 6-7, supposedly written around 596-97 BC concerning the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. Notice the similarity of language used by Ezekiel to that used by Matthew in chapter 24). Jesus’ answer makes it clear that, although they did not know that Jesus meant that he was going to be returning from heaven, the disciples were precisely correct in what they had assumed to be his meaning in regard to the destruction of the temple. In no way does he indicate that they are the least bit mistaken. The only thing that would really be different about the next fall of Jerusalem was that Jesus himself would come to personally judge the unfaithful, at least that is what was supposed to happen (Ac. 1:11).

Jesus begins his answer by warning them not to be mislead by those who would come claiming to be him, the Messiah (Matt. 24:4-5). Then he said, vs 2-6, that "wars and rumors of wars" and the occurrences of natural disasters were not to be taken to mean that "the end" (obviously the end of the age when the temple would be destroyed) was immediately at hand (Matt. 24:6 and Lk. 21:9). "The end," Jesus said, would begin when certain nations (Israel and Rome obviously, since that is going to be his conclusion.) went to war. At that time there would "be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and plagues; and dreadful portents and great signs from heaven" (Lk. 21:11, cf. Matt. 24:7-8). The Jews were strong believers in things they thought were omens that varified their suspicions. They would, supposedly, be the signs that a new age was being born with a great deal of pain and suffering, or "tribulation." "All this is but the beginnings of birthpangs."

Then Jesus tells them that the signs by which they could know that "the end" of which he was speaking, and about which the disciples had asked, was drawing nearer (See Lk. 21:12 ff.) would include severe persecution (Matt. 24:9-10) and the loss of faith by many due to "the increase of lawlessness," or rebelliousness toward Rome. [Romans 13, as well as many other passages, indicates that to violently rebel against the government is to rebel against God because it is God who establishes the governments of the world for purposes of his own.] It would also be recognizable by the appearance of false prophets (verses 11-12), particularly those who would cause believers to doubt in Jesus by charges which they attempted to prove with the use of false signs and lying wonders (2Thes. 2:1-10). The point of their arguments were that Jesus had not returned as he, supposedly, said he would (2Pet. 3:3-4). This is, in itself, proof that the commonly accepted, and widely known, notion among first century Christians was that Jesus was going to be returning in their lifetime. From the book of Acts to the end of the New Testament you can read about the persecutions endured by those first century Christians (Especially in the book of Acts). They were simply a continuation of the persecution Jesus had been subjected to (Jn. 15:20). Paul, Peter, John and the writer of Hebrews all spent a good deal of time warning the Church about false teachers and pleading with Christians not to believe what those teachers said. Given the purpose and use of "miracles" supposedly done by the Apostles it seems strange that what the false teachers said would have been of any special concern unless at least some were presenting "false signs and lying wonders" in order to be convincing. That many Christians left "the faith," or Church, as a result of disbelief is clear.

Then Jesus tells them that "the end," ("the end of the age," obviously) referring to the fall of Jerusalem, not to the end of the world, or "history" as some claim, will come after "the good news (the gospel) of the kingdom" has been "proclaimed throughout all the world" (Matt. 24:14 and Col. 1:21-23). "The good news," was about the supposed facts of Jesus death and resurrection on behalf of all mankind who had turned away from God who, supposedly, had provided the only way for humans to regain His favor and immortality. Jesus' supposed resurrection was to have been the ultimate proof that his claims were legitimate, that he would return as he had promised and that when he did he would punish the wicked, raise the dead and reward the faithful. Then the resurrected righteous, along with the righteous ones who were alive at his return, would be given immortal bodies and Jesus would live with them and be their king forever. This was referred to as the gospel. The remainder of the New Testament is about how Christians were to live so as to avoid losing the hope of such a reward and to caution them against listening to anyone who said anything contrary to what the Apostles had taught.

Next (Matt. 24:15-21), Jesus refers to a statement from the prophet Daniel, a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel, concerning a "desolating sacrilege standing in the Holy place," or temple and applies it to the coming destruction of Jerusalem. "When you see this," said Jesus, "run to the hills and hide (assuming you have the opportunity), do not hesitate, because a very great calamity is going to befall the people of this land. It will be the worst to have ever happened and nothing as terrible will ever happen again." Then Jesus says that his return would be sudden and "immediately after the suffering (or tribulation) of those days," the time of the sounding of "the last trumpet" (1 Cor. 15:52; Rev. 10:5-7; 11:15-18) indicating that God’s purpose was finished and that the dead would be raised. "When you see all these things," says Jesus, obviously referring to what he had said in verses 15-29, "you know that he, Jesus (the Messiah) is near, at the very gates." Then he repeats what he had said earlier, that "this generation (represented by those standing there with him as he spoke) will not pass away until all these things have taken place," including the resurrection and final judgment. An eyewitness by the name of Josephus unknowingly explains the reference to "the desolating sacrilege standing in the holy place" in his book, "The Wars of the Jews," first published about AD 78. He says that when the Romans had captured the temple some of the soldiers set up their standard (which bore the image of an eagle) in the temple area and offered sacrifices to it while proclaiming Titus, the commanding Roman General, to be emperor. The eagle is among a category of birds said to be an abomination, or detestable thing to God and was an official emblem of the Roman legions, (Lev. 11:13-19, and Wars of the Jews, especially book 6, ch.1-6). The Jews had lost the war and huge numbers of them were taken captive and sent as slaves throughout the empire to work on various projects. Jerusalem was desolate and certainly a period of severe "tribulation" had taken place! The age, with respect to the Jews, had come to an end and another had begun.

All of these things were supposed to take place during the "last days" of that present age and lead up to the "Day of Judgment," the battle of "Armageddon." Luke specifically says that the destruction (or desolation) of Jerusalem and the temple is when the tribulation, or suffering, described in these passages would take place and that it would be imminent when they saw "Jerusalem surrounded by armies" (Lk. 21:20-24). ["Until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled," is just a way of saying, Until they have served God’s purpose in punishing the Jews.] Notice that Jesus supposedly said that this judgment on the Jews and the salvation of the righteous would be the "fulfillment of all that is written." In other words, the entire Bible was supposedly written to tell about this single event and things connected with it. After this event there would be no more purpose for it!

In Col. 1:23 (written around A.D.64-66), Paul declared that the gospel had been proclaimed to the entire world by that time and Jesus had said that then the end would come afterward. The book of Acts, along with the rest of the New Testament documents, contains numerous comments on the persecution of the Church and the fact that many Christians became disillusioned and denied their faith. The book of Hebrews was written in response to the problem and, as has already been said, all the other New Testament letters deal, in part, with the subject.

The antichrist, a title not used by Jesus, but that applies by definition to the false prophets (or teachers) he spoke of in Matthew 24:5 ff, were present and having a serious effect on church membership by the sixth decade. See 2 Pet. and 2 Thes. as well as other New Testament documents which testify to this fact. As far as "the antichrist" is concerned, John says that anyone who says that Jesus is not the Christ is "the antichrist" (1Jn.2:22). This applied to any doctrine that would, in any way, nullify the Apostles' doctrine of salvation that they were supposed to have received directly from God. Such is exactly what was being implied by the question being posed by some, "Where is the promise of his coming?" (See 2Pet. 3:3-4) The implication being, of course, "Since he hasn't returned in this generation as you say he said he would (Matt. 16:27-28 and 24:34, for example) he must not be the Messiah you think he is. Is this bad? Not if the antichrists were right, and the writers of the New Testament have, themselves, inadvertently admitted that they were by teaching that Jesus would return at the destruction of Jerusalem, ending that age. While Jerusalem was indeed destroyed ushering in a new age for the Jews, it is also absolutely certain that Jesus did not return. What this fact says about us, how easily we are fooled, and that how often we misinterpret even the most important things that we hear and read would fill many a thick volume.

Some Christian scholars admit that the passage in Matthew 24:29-31, where Jesus says that, "Immediately after the suffering of those days…" he is going to return to judge the unfaithful and to raise the dead, is one of the most difficult passages in the Bible to understand (in trying to make it fit their bias). In his comments on Luke 21:5-36, which parallels Matthew 24 and Mark 13, Ray Summers, a respected Baptist scholar, has the following to say:

"This is one of the most difficult passages in the synoptic Gospels. It is easier to interpret one of the accounts than the three of them together." "Jesus divided their question into two parts. First, he spoke of the coming destruction, enlarging it to include, not just the Temple, but the entire city of Jerusalem. Second, he spoke of the end of the age with the coming of the Son of Man in judgment." Summers, Ray. (1975). Ray Summers Commentary on Luke. Waco, Texas: Word Books, pp. 252-54.

His statement that Jesus "divided their question into two parts" reveals Mr. Summers' bias toward a future return by Jesus. The division that Mr. Summers and others think that they see in the answere Jesus gives his disciples is a contrived one that is used in an illegitimate attempt to support the doctrine of futurism. Jesus was, as any honest reader can see, answering a single question that had been asked in various ways. "When would the temple be destroyed?" (That they believed that Jesus was going to be the destroyer is the implication. Only a short time before, they had heard Jesus say the he was coming back with his angels to repay evil doers.) "What signs would accompany his return?" And, "What signs would precede the end of the age" marked by that destruction? All these questions looked forward to the same event and had been asked in reference to Jesus' single statement about the destruction of the temple. Mr. Summers will now continue to force the notion of a return of Jesus in the far distant future into the context of the scripture. As you read the Bible you should take careful note of the fact that there are no explicit or implicit statements to support such a view. In fact, everything written on the topic in the New Testament by those who were there, if taken in context, is in clear and direct opposition to it!

  In the next paragraph Mr. Summers states that Jesus cautioned his disciples emphatically that the two events were not the same. His proof-text that he uses to try to support his pretext is Mark 13:24-27, where Jesus says,

‘"But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 Then they will see 'the Son of Man coming in clouds' with great power and glory. 27 Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven (KJV). His point is that Jesus was to come in the days following the tribulation – after the destruction of Jerusalem. Matt. 24:29 has the expression ‘immediately after the tribulation of those days.’ For obvious reasons "The word ‘immediately’ intensifies the problem." Summers, pp. 252 54.

For Mr. Summers to say that "The word 'immediately' intensifies the problem" is putting it mildly to say the least. There would be no problem if he would just let the writer speak for himself. He then says that the reason for the intensification is that the coming of the Son of Man did not take place immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem and has caused some interpreters to extend all of the prediction to the end of the world. Note the assumption being made by "some interpreters." They simply assume that since Jesus did not return in AD 70, it must be that he is yet to return and that this assumption must determine how the passage is interpreted no matter what the text actually says in very plain language. Notice also the use of the phrase, "the end of the world" in reference to Jesus' response to the disciples' questions about "the end of the age." He's trying to make a distinction that isn't there. Mr. Summers, like so many others, can’t reconcile Jesus’ teaching of his early return (Lk. 21:25-36) with the fact that it did not take place immediately following the destruction of Jerusalem as Matthew supposedly quoted Jesus as saying it would so he assumes that it is yet future. Then he admits that in the book of Acts the "…return is reaffirmed in the very first chapter (1:6-11)" and is "consistent with a first century advent."

Mr. Summers goes on to say, "Jesus indicated at that last appearance that the disciples were not to know the times and seasons which the Father had fixed by his own authority; that they were to anticipate the receiving of the power of the Holy Spirit; and that, having received that power, they were to be his witnesses to the end of the earth (v 7-8). While they watched, he ascended; and then the divine messengers renewed the promise of his return (v. 10-11). They waited for the power; it came at Pentecost; they began their witness. That witness included the coming of Christ whom heaven had received ‘until the time for establishing all that God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from old’ (Acts 3:21). He would come to bring an end to history."

"To the end of the earth" (or, more correctly, until the end of the age, is the idea here). Notice that Mr. Summers has substituted the phrase "end to history" in place of "end of the age" It's the same mistake that reveals the prejudice toward futurism made by many people.

In 2Pet. 3:3-13, Peter is speaking of the "scoffers," or antichrists, that Jesus said would appear in the "last days" before the judgment and says:

"First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For, ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’ They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the Day of Judgment and destruction of the godless. But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of persons ought you to be in leading lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire? But, in accordance with his promise, we wait for new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home." [The norm rather than the exception] Be sure to read 1Jn.2:18 at this point too. John sees the end so near now that to him the term "last days" is no longer appropriate. It's "the last hour."

When you have carefully examined how Peter and John use the term "thousand years" it will become clear that it is a figure of speech for an unknown amount of time, which is what Jesus had said in Matt. 24:36 when speaking of the coming destruction of Jerusalem. Remember, Peter had already stated emphatically in his first letter that "the end of all things is near," but like Jesus, he didn't know the exact day (1Pet. 4:7). Jesus, on the other hand, speaking of an event (the destruction of Jerusalem) that would prove to be about forty years in the future implied that "the end" was coming but would not be taking place for some time yet. Just exactly how long it would be till the actual end he could not say, only God knew, but it would be within the generation of Peter, John, and the others there with him as he spoke.

As a side note, while Peter describes the earth as being literally burned up it turns out that either he was speaking figuratively or he was just being dramatic. The destruction of Jerusalem, the event of which he was speaking, though a terrible and fiery ordeal, was not quite so all encompassing. The "new heavens" and "new earth" obviously refer to the idea that the planet earth would supposedly no longer be inhabited by the ungodly but only the righteous. This would fit with the fact that he uses the case of Noah and his family as a comparison. The difference will be that instead of destruction by water the disobedient inhabitants of the earth will be destroyed with fire this time. Note the qualifying reference to the "destruction of the godless" in verse 7. Notice too Peter’s reference to three ages, one past, one present, and one future. The present one was about to end. In fact, the end was upon them at that moment (1Pet. 4:7-19). The crushing of the Jewish revolt, which was considered finished at Jerusalem’s destruction by fire, took the Romans about three and a half years. It was during this time that Peter wrote. Notice that in comparing the judgment to the flood that Peter inadvertently establishes that the flood, if it in fact actually took place, was of a local nature in the same way that the Judgment turned out to be local in nature!

Again, Paul said that the job of witnessing to the whole world had taken place before AD 70, and Jesus had said, in reference to his return, that then the end would come (See Matt. 24:14). This is solid proof that their understanding of "the whole world" was not what ours, in the twentieth century, is. The connection of Jesus’ return with the destruction of Jerusalem is inescapable except to those who refuse to accept the obvious and insist on an interpretation that fits a personal bias that is contrary to the context.

Some, not being familiar with the history of the time, might think to ask how Jesus could have predicted the future so accurately if he was not the prophet he was supposed to have been. The answer is quite simple. It didn’t take a real prophet to predict the things that Jesus predicted. Of course, you should keep in mind the fact that Jesus failed to predict his return, or rather that he would not return. This disqualifies him as a true prophet since a true prophet has to be correct in every detail of what he/she predicts in every case, no exceptions. The facts are that since Jesus was persecuted while he lived it would have been obvious that his disciples would be persecuted also (see Jn. 15:20-21). Such persecution as that directed toward Christians was bound to cause some to abandon the faith (Peter denied Jesus just before Jesus was crucified. Lk. 22:55 ff.). Then too, the persecutors were obviously going to say anything they could to ridicule Christians by implying that Jesus was evidently not who he had supposedly claimed to be, especially since the Apostles' generation was coming to its end and Jesus had not returned as he had supposedly said he would.

What about the reference to the statement by Daniel regarding the "abomination of desolation?" How could he have known about that so far in advance? First, this kind of thing had happened several times in the past even after Daniel was supposedly written. Second, what the Romans did was pretty much a standard method of operation for conquering armies in those days as it had been for many centuries. By the time the Gospels were being written the Roman army had already begun putting down the Jewish rebellion in Palestine, city by city. It was standard practice to plant their flag, or standard, at the central place of government, which in Israel was the local place of worship, as a symbol of victory, that the enemy was vanquished. All things being considered, it is possible that since the account was written during the time of the Jewish rebellion that Matthew simply put a few words into Jesus' mouth to sound more legitimate and convincing.

 What about Jesus’ prophecy regarding the preaching of the gospel to the whole world, what was meant by that? Some say that that is yet to take place. The answer is simple, the "whole world" was a reference to the whole world as Jesus and his disciples thought of it at the time, which was very limited. They didn’t know about the whole world in the same way that we, in the twentieth century, know about it. Their concept of the whole world was limited to a rather small area of the actual world, or earth as was established by the extent of the judgment. That is why Paul obviously thought himself to be speaking factually when he said that the gospel had been preached to "every creature under heaven" by the middle of the sixth decade (Col. 1:23).

Well, what about the armies surrounding Jerusalem? How could Jesus have known about that? From the time of the birth of Jesus, and earlier, certain fanatical factions of "conservative" Judaism, such as the Zealots (or Sicari), were convinced that God could defeat their enemies and that if God were for them, who could be against them that would matter? In time, these Zealots, who had carried on an ongoing terrorist war against the Romans and their Jewish collaborators, were able to provoke Rome into an open war believing that God would prevail through them, the faithful of Israel as they thought of themselves. Jesus knew how the Zealots thought and what their purposes and goals were. He had been raised in an area of Palestine where there were many Zealots and some of his disciples were members of that sect of the Jews. That an open rebellion would come about was only a matter of time and Jesus was, it seems (his words are emphatic), convinced that it would take place within the lifetime of those standing there with him, he just didn’t know the exact day and hour. (See 2Thes. 2:1-10 and Jude.) The destruction of Jerusalem would be seen, as it had been in the past when the city had been overthrown by invaders, as a judgment on the Jews for unfaithfulness and would mark the end of that present age. A standard tactic of war in that day and age was to surround a city and weaken the inhabitants through starvation and attrition. So, it is easy to see that it was no trick for Jesus to "prophesy" these events. Almost anyone could have done as well. The one, and most important, thing he failed to get right was the prediction of his own personal return following the fall of Jerusalem, the great battle of the "last day," the battle referred to by John in Revelation as the battle of Armageddon. It was to be the battle at which Jerusalem would be made desolate and at which the age then present would come to an end. Remember that Jesus had already said in speaking of Jerusalem's destruction that it would be the worst disaster ever to come upon the Jews and nothing as terrible would ever happen again? How could that be true if there is yet to be a universal judgment sometime in the future? See Matt. 24:15-21 and Luke 21:27-31 of which Revelation is just a much more detailed description according to John. Regarding the rebellion Mr. Summers says the following:

 "There is no compelling reason for rejecting Jesus’ foresight in these events. Apart from the question of revelation, there is the plain fact of his sensitivity to the growing rebellion and the determination of the Jews for a revolution against Rome. One who knew the history of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Jews at the hands of Sargon, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnazzar, and Antiochus Epiphanes could certainly discern the inevitability of the crushing armies of Rome. Whether or not Jesus knew the time of Jerusalem’s end – he appeared to anticipate its coming in the lifetime of some of his hearers – he knew the certainty of that end, and the nature of that end. As matters were developing, to anticipate revolt and defeat in a matter of a very few years would have been most reasonable." Summers, pp. 255-56.

Pay close attention to the fact that Mr. Summers says that dating the return of Jesus at the time of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 is the "most reasonable" position based on what the scriptures say, but he still prefers the unreasonable and unscriptural position that his return is yet future. Amazing, simply amazing!

When Paul explains that miracles (having served their purpose) were to cease at the return of Jesus, which was to take place "immediately" following the destruction of Jerusalem (Compare Matt. 24:29 ff. With 1Cor. 12-15), are connected with the discussion it also becomes quite obvious that modern miracles are fake and that the Biblical miracles were either staged or invented, or both. The writers of the Bible spoke and wrote as if they were being objective when, in reality, they were being thoroughly subjective! That the Bible is a combination of fact and subjective fiction is now an established fact, established by the very words of those who wrote it. It is they who admitted, inadvertently, that they were, in effect, lying about the things that Christian "scholars" believe make the Bible uniquely the inspired objective revelation of the living, intelligent, just, loving, and merciful creator of the universe. It should also now be obvious that applications of supposed Old Testament prophesies by Jesus and the Apostles were simply their uninspired own. It is equally clear now that predictive prophecy is not a reliable possibility. Any prophecy that was acutally predictive and correct would be pure coincidence. All others had to have been written after the fact, no if's, and's, or but's about it.

It’s easy to see from the example of interpretation by Mr. Summers that Christian scholars can’t make the topic of Jesus’ return fit their predilections without making some unwarranted assumptions and violating the most basic rules of sound and reliable interpretation. They have decided to ignore the plain statements of scripture in deference to an assumed future return of Jesus. It never seems to occur to them to allow the most obvious understanding a chance.

Now let's take a look at what the supposed Holy Spirit means when it makes such statements as, "Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour." 1Jn. 2:18. From the context of this letter by the apostle John, it is easy to see that he is speaking about the sign Jesus said would indicate that his return to judge the wicked and resurrect the faithful was near. In Rev. 1:3-7 and 22:10-12, John clearly says that Jesus' return is near and that those first century Christians could expect him very soon. Now, in John 5:2-9 there is an account of a man that that had been sick for thirty-eight years and who was accustomed to lying at one of the city gates to beg from passers by. Here John, who was supposedly speaking the words given him by the Holy Spirit, plainly says that thirty-eight years was considered to be "a long time." Now, by what stretch of the imagination does a person think that he can get away with teaching that terms like "at hand," "it is the last hour," and "the time is near," can mean thousands of years when the Holy Spirit supposedly said as clearly as it could be said that even "thirty-eight years" was to be considered to be a "long time"?

What about what Peter says in 2Pet. 3:8-13? We will just let Peter tell us what he meant. Read 1Pet. 4:12-19. It is quite clear that Peter has the return of Jesus in mind in both of these passages. In his first letter he tells theseChristians that "... it is time for judgment to begin ...," and obviously means that he could "see" it coming soon. Now, when you examine the statement in 2Pet 3, and compare it to what Jesus was reported by Matthew, Mark, and Luke to have said, it is more than obvious that he was saying essentially what Jesus had already said, and that was that he did not know the exact "day and hour" of Jesus' return, but he would, supposedly, return within the lifetime of some of those first disciples. According to this, his reference to one day being eqivalent to a thousand years, and vice versa, was just his way of paraphrasing what Jesus had said almost forty years earlier in Matt. 24:34-36. "Truly I say to you, this generation (The one represented by those listening to him as he spoke.) will not pass away until all these things (Everything he had said up to this point, including the final judgment.) takes place." Verse 35 is just Jesus' way of saying "It's a sure thing." Then verse 36, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." (See Matt. 16:27-28 also. Clearly, contrary to the prejudiced interpretations of some, this passage is a reference to the final judgment.)To paraphrase, Jesus says that though he does not know the exact time that he will be coming back, it will definitely be within the lifetime of some of his first disciples. Peter just reiterates what Jesus had already said but using different terms. He didn't know the exact time either, but it would take place just as Jesus had said and they could be assured of that, or at least so he thought.

What does all this mean? Quite simply, it means that according to an inadvertent admission by the people who wrote the Bible, that Jesus was not who or what he said he was. By predicting his return at the destruction of Jerusalem, they admitted that his miracles and those of the apostles were fabrications. It means that Jesus was not bodily resurrected. It means that there is no life after death (See Paul's argument in 1Cor. 15.). It means that Jesus and the apostles lied. It means that Christianity is founded on the teachings of a fraud. It means that Jesus is not coming back, now or ever. It means that anyone who says that Jesus is Lord and is coming back someday is an idolator and a false teacher. It means that Christian leaders are making merchandise of those who ignorantly and naively follow them and their idolatrous teachings. Who is it that is making all these charges? Jesus, the apostles, and all those who wrote the Bible, that's who. Their very words have condemned them and those who have fallen for their lies. When Jesus did not return within the time frame that he himself established, it was an irrefutable admission that they had lied about Jesus and all that they said about him. That being so, it is quite likely that Jesus never actually said much of what they said that he said. After all, all that we have left are the words of a cadre of self admitted liars.

Someone once said, "While you might guess the right answer or be right for the wrong reasons, you cannot know that you are right until you are certain that you know why." Now you know what the truth is. Now you must decide what to do with it. Will you continue to deny it and live in an unreal world of prejudice and ignorance, or will you embrace it because you sincerely desire to know the truth no matter what sacred cows you must give up to do so?