What are the "Last Days?"

[Not Worthy]

The religion that ended up covering the world followed after a very supersessionist, antisemitic form of Christianity that came about during the late first and early second centuries. Gentiles with little knowledge of Jewish religion started thinking they knew how to read the Jewish scriptures better than the Jews did... including the Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah. When supersessionist antisemitism has been ingrained in Christian theology from end of the first century all the way until today, it doesn't suddenly disappear because people claim it's not as big of a problem anymore. Three of the six Christians active on this forum (well, two, now that the pro-genocide guy got called out) are examples that antisemitism is still a problem in Christianity. No one's inventing antisemitism under every rock or under every tree... antisemitism is already present enough in saying God tried to destroy their religion, or that Gentiles know the Jewish scriptures better than Jews, etc.

Judaism is no more antisemtic than the teaching of Jesus and His apostles, just because the two reject one another's interpretations of scripture. Jesus most certainly did reject the Pharisees'  interpretations of scripture, especially the Law, and they rejected His. The Rabbis and the apostles likewise rejected one another's interpretations of scripture.

I have to grant you one thing though: Only if Jewish people are looking for the anti-Semtic devil under ever Christian rock and behind every Christian bush, would that be understandable. If anyone else who is not Jewish is doing it - whether the person be a "Christian Zionist" or any other - one feels the need to get them some counselling.

BUT if someone goes on and on and on and on in nearly every post about anti-Semitism (i.e Jew hatred or dislike of Jews just because they are Jews), it would make one worry about him too.

[Not Worthy]

Three of the six Christians active on this forum (well, two, now that the pro-genocide guy got called out) are examples that antisemitism is still a problem in Christianity. No one's inventing antisemitism under every rock or under every tree... antisemitism is already present enough in saying God tried to destroy their religion, or that Gentiles know the Jewish scriptures better than Jews, etc.

Are you one of them, perhaps? Because pretending that you are not, and then going on and on and on in every post about anti-Semitism and making sure you call anti-Semtism out even when it's not there (for example claiming that it's "anti-Semitic" for someone to say that Jesus' apostles did not follow Judaism), is a sure sign  that something may be amiss. Anyone who ever wanted to infiltrate any group anywhere would pretend to be intolerant of the things the group is intolerant of.

Your obsession with anti-Semitism and calling people anti-Semitic is indeed very strange.

[agnostic]

Are you one of them, perhaps? Because pretending that you are not, and then going on and on and on in every post about anti-Semitism and making sure you call anti-Semtism out when it's not there (for example claiming that it's "anti-Semitic" for someone to say that Jesus' apostles did not follow Judaism), is a sure sign  that something may be amiss. Anyone who ever wanted to infiltrate any group anywhere would pretend to be intolerant of the things the group is intolerant of.

Your obsession with anti-Semitism and calling people anti-Semitic is indeed very strange.

First the guy who sometimes agrees with Fenris is himself Fenris.

Now the guy who insists "cleanse the Jews from the holy land" is antisemitic is himself antisemitic.

[Not Worthy]

Christians, remember the warnings and exhortations of the apostles of our Lord:

1 Peter 5:8 "Be sensible and vigilant, because your adversary the Devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking someone he may devour."

Ephesians 6:11-17
  11 "Put on the whole armor of God so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
  12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the world's rulers, of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
  13 Therefore take to yourselves the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
  14 Therefore stand, having your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness
  15 and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.
  16 Above all, take the shield of faith, with which you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
  17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God."

One of the tricks of Satan against the saints, is to falsely accuse them, and wherever possible, he will do so day in and day out.  It's only possible when he has someone to do his bidding, of course.

But we must remain aware. And we must not attack one another, falsely accusing one another based solely on the "evidence" of those who would want to bring charges against any of God's elect who may dare disagree with anything they say.

[agnostic]

When unable to respond to the substance of something another person says, make up lies and conspiracy theories about them, and claim they serve Satan...

[Not Worthy]

When unable to respond to the substance of something another person says, make up lies and conspiracy theories about them, and claim they serve Satan...

I'm glad you realize how evil it is to go around accusing whoever you please, of anti-Semitism.

[agnostic]

I'm glad you realize how evil it is to go around accusing whoever you please, of anti-Semitism.

I didn't "accuse whoever I please." I said antisemitism has been a pervasive issue throughout Christian history and is still found today, which are facts. And I gave examples of it rearing its head here on the forum, such as the guy who posted that God is going to "cleanse the Jews from the holy land" during the end times (which you defended, insisting it was ambiguous and needed to be clarified further, despite it being textbook antisemitic genocide language).

Meanwhile, across two or three threads, you've falsely accused the one Jewish guy here of being an evil, antisemitic, Satan-follower who has a second account where he pretends to be an agnostic. Like... you're unrepentantly making up these brazen lies, but insist it's others who need to follow the rules? I'm baffled by the transparent hypocrisy and gaslighting.

[Fenris]

Judaism is indeed a misinterpretation of the scriptures.

Actually, Judaism is far closer to the plain text of the bible than Christianity is, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Christianity hinges on the NT. With it, you have the religion. Without it, you don't. So at worst Judaism is a different interpretation of the scriptures.

[Not Worthy]

I'm glad you realize how evil it is to go around accusing whoever you please, of anti-Semitism.

I didn't "accuse whoever I please." I said antisemitism has been a pervasive issue throughout Christian history and is still found today, which are facts. And I gave examples of it rearing its head here on the forum, such as the guy who posted that God is going to "cleanse the Jews from the holy land" during the end times (which you defended, insisting it was ambiguous and needed to be clarified further, despite it being textbook antisemitic genocide language).

Meanwhile, across two or three threads, you've falsely accused the one Jewish guy here of being an evil, antisemitic, Satan-follower who has a second account where he pretends to be an agnostic. Like... you're unrepentantly making up these brazen lies, but insist it's others who need to follow the rules? I'm baffled by the transparent hypocrisy and gaslighting.

Are you perhaps a closet anti-Semite? If so, that would explain your obsession with Antisemitism, going on and on (and on) about it post after post, and going around looking for anti-Semites everywhere, and accusing people of Antisemitism, to the point where you even actually count how many people on the board are.Antisemitic.

The same goes for repeatedly talking about someone who was already banned from the board days ago and going on and on (and on) about what he said. It's really odd.

You really need to get your reasons for your obsession with this checked out. You may be trying to suppress your own Antisemitism.

You need to know an individual personally, and really well, before you can know for sure whether the person is Antisemitic. Using shaky criteria like someone saying that the apostles of Jesus did not follow the Law does not suffice.

Did you know that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy for living like a Gentile and then withdrawing from the table of Gentiles the moment the Jewish party arrived from Jerusalem? What did Paul mean exactly by saying Peter "lived like a Gentile"?

I don't really care about your answer to the question, because your obsession with Antisemitism post after post, to the point of counting how many members of the board are Antisemitic (in your "qualified" opinion), and then going around accusing whoever you please of something as evil as Jew-hatred or dislike of Jews (both are Antisemitism) is clouding your thinking.  For your own sake, you need to get your obsession and the reasons for your obsession checked out.

[Not Worthy]

I'm glad you realize how evil it is to go around accusing whoever you please, of anti-Semitism.

I didn't "accuse whoever I please." I said antisemitism has been a pervasive issue throughout Christian history and is still found today, which are facts. And I gave examples of it rearing its head here on the forum, such as the guy who posted that God is going to "cleanse the Jews from the holy land" during the end times (which you defended, insisting it was ambiguous and needed to be clarified further, despite it being textbook antisemitic genocide language).

Meanwhile, across two or three threads, you've falsely accused the one Jewish guy here of being an evil, antisemitic, Satan-follower who has a second account where he pretends to be an agnostic. Like... you're unrepentantly making up these brazen lies, but insist it's others who need to follow the rules? I'm baffled by the transparent hypocrisy and gaslighting.

Oh, so you're Jewish. I never realized that. My bad.

[Not Worthy]

Judaism is indeed a misinterpretation of the scriptures.

Actually, Judaism is far closer to the plain text of the bible than Christianity is, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Christianity hinges on the NT. With it, you have the religion. Without it, you don't. So at worst Judaism is a different interpretation of the scriptures.

Yes. I can live with the word different. The New Testament and Judaism are two different interpretations of the Law and its meaning. No problem with that statement in my book.

[RandyPNW]

I do think that some sort of folded time up like an accordian and saw the "Last Days" as happening pretty quickly, perhaps even during the ancient Roman Empire.

Since that is what "now," "soon," "near," "at hand," "presently," "upon us," "has come," "no more delay," and "this generation" cumulatively indicate. This idea of a folded accordion -- the analogy I always heard was mountain peaks and valleys, or "gap" theories -- is an after the fact justification for the first century expectations not coming to fruition. The need to explain away the delay of the end times is seen throughout the early centuries until amillennialism became the common view.

On the contrary, I don't lump all those terms together, so I can't possibly be making the argument you're suggesting. Some things did happen relatively imminently, such as the 70 AD catastrophe. Some things were simply "near," such as eternal judgments, which had become immanent with the appearance of Jesus. The relative nearness of the Kingdom is indicated by the fact eternal atonement has already been made available, and by the fact those who reject its testimony place themselves in danger of immediate eternal judgment.

As for how long the NT period would last before Christ's return, Jesus made it clear that we are not to try to calculate times and seasons. Rather, we have to know the imperative that we warn people about Christ being the measure of their eternal judgment.

In his Olivet Discourse, Jesus didn't say that the judgment coming upon Jerusalem would be the end of the age. Rather, he said it would be the beginning of tribulations for the Jewish People. Instead of assuming an imminent end to the age, Jesus predicted the gospel message would be taken into all nations, until it it time for Israel to be restored.

Some, however, interpreted the 4th Kingdom of Dan 2 and 7 as indicative of an empire that is broken up into 10 kingdoms

Not in the apostles' generation, which is what I was referring to. The people after them came up with this view for the same reason as your accordion: to excuse the original expectations not coming to fruition by delaying the time of fulfillment. "We misunderstood all along! Not ten kings, but kingdoms! Much longer time than we thought before!"

No, Jesus told his apostles in his own generation not to be concerned with times and seasons, which includes the duration of time left in the present age, the "last days." They could not have been teaching, therefore, that the end was coming in their own generation.

Antichrist's coalition had to take place 1st -- see 2 Thes 2.

This only talks about one man, not ten whole kingdoms. This is part of the original generation I was talking about.

No, the one man in 2 Thes 2 is a reference to Dan 7, which refers to the "Little Horn" among 10 kings.

Some in the Early Church apparently believed in the Millennial Day theory, and also could not have expected an imminent appearance of Christ's Kingdom.

Another view that was invented after the apostles' generation's expectations didn't come to fruition.

You're assuming what you wish to prove, that all the apostles expected Jesus to come back in their lifetimes. But Jesus had already indicated many of them would become martyrs, and certainly they understood that Jerusalem would fall, and after it, a great exile of the Jews would begin.

Jesus himself seemed to speak against an imminent appearance of his Kingdom--certainly not in his own time!

Not in his time, but in the lifetime of his apostles. "You won't reach all the cities of Israel before the son of man comes." "Some standing here will not taste death before the son of man comes" "Immediately after the tribulation of those days ... They will see the son of man coming in the clouds ... This generation will not pass away before all these things take place." A dozen new interpretations were invented after these expectations didn't come to fruition, to make them no longer about a first century time frame. (Like the mental gymnastics that go into claiming he was talking about his transfiguration.)

The Transfiguration is one theory. Another is that Jesus "came" in the sense of bringing a prophesied judgment in 70 AD--not his eschatological coming, but an historical coming in judgment against the Jewish People.

Jesus' coming in the clouds is to be distinguished from your other examples. It is clearly an apocalyptic coming at the end of the age. It is a reference back to Dan 7, where the Son of Man comes to establish God's Kingdom on earth.

Though it's popular, in some parts

It's pretty much universally accepted in academic circles. Even among devoted Christians. It's only about identifying what was being said, and not making up new rules of interpretation or wild accusations. "Soon" means "soon," not "well you see there's this cabal of Satan-worshipping university intellectuals who are bent on making accordions look bad..."

Soon means what it means *in context.* That's the rule in any interpretation. Biblically, "soon" can refer to the next thing after an important event. In this case, Jesus' atonement for sin makes eternal judgment the next big thing. It is "soon" for us all!

[Fenris]

Soon means what it means *in context.*

You're just filling in the blanks and making it up as you go. If something historical happened, then that's the "soon". If nothing historical happened, it means a spiritual or metaphorical "soon" that we can't see or detect.

The other thing is that almost all of the NT was written after the year 70 so those "predictions" were actually past historical events even in those times.

[agnostic]

On the contrary, I don't lump all those terms together, so I can't possibly be making the argument you're suggesting.

I know you don't read those statements cumulatively. That's what I'm saying the problem is. You're compartmentalizing everything within a single book so that none of it means anything, while freely throwing together pieces of different books to force them to mean something entirely contrary to what the context requires.

Some things did happen relatively imminently, such as the 70 AD catastrophe. Some things were simply "near,"

"Eternal" means "eternal" except when it's about the Law because you said so. "Soon" means "soon" except when it's about the end times because you said so.

As for how long the NT period would last before Christ's return, Jesus made it clear that we are not to try to calculate times and seasons.

No, Jesus told his apostles in his own generation not to be concerned with times and seasons, which includes the duration of time left in the present age, the "last days." They could not have been teaching, therefore, that the end was coming in their own generation.

He literally says "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place" right after talking his return and the signs that will precede it. This is the exact opposite of what you're claiming. He didn't pin down a day on the calendar for them, but he explicitly says it would "all" be fulfilled in the lifetime of "this generation."

In his Olivet Discourse, Jesus didn't say that the judgment coming upon Jerusalem would be the end of the age. Rather, he said it would be the beginning of tribulations for the Jewish People.

And the very next things he said were "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" they would see the son of man appearing, and that "all these things" would be fulfilled before "this generation" had passed away. There is no ambiguity. Which generation? His and the apostles' generation, the one alive during "those days". Which days? The days they should pray were "cut short", the days of Jerusalem's defeat by the Romans.

No, the one man in 2 Thes 2 is a reference to Dan 7, which refers to the "Little Horn" among 10 kings.

2 Thessalonians 2 doesn't mention or reference Daniel, a little horn, or ten kings.

You're assuming what you wish to prove,

To assume is to accept something as true without evidence. I didn't come to this conclusion by assuming it. Years of study led me to this position. I changed my mind on the basis of evidence: the text, the words used, and the existence of other Jewish end times movements from the time who talked the exact same way.

that all the apostles expected Jesus to come back in their lifetimes.

They directly say as much.

But Jesus had already indicated many of them would become martyrs,

Jesus outright says them being martyrs was a sign of the end times. "As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. ... Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."

and after it, a great exile of the Jews would begin.

Jesus says the very opposite. Jerusalem will fall, the heavens will be shaken, the son of man will come on the clouds, then he will send out his angels to gather the elect "from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven." He's referencing Deuteronomy 30:3-4 (his wording is closer to the LXX), which is about the restoration of God's elect, Israel, from their scattering. "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."

The Transfiguration is one theory. Another is that Jesus "came" in the sense of bringing a prophesied judgment in 70 AD--not his eschatological coming, but an historical coming in judgment against the Jewish People.

An invisible, impossible-to-prove-or-disprove "coming" is extremely convenient when the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It's literally just a Christian saying "That event was his coming because it is because I told you so."

Soon means what it means *in context.* That's the rule in any interpretation. Biblically, "soon" can refer to the next thing after an important event. In this case, Jesus' atonement for sin makes eternal judgment the next big thing. It is "soon" for us all!

So "soon" means "soon" except for all those times it means "absolutely not soon, actually several thousand years later." You make language mean nothing when you make it mean whatever you want, including the opposite of how everyone uses it.

It strains credulity when the only way to make a claim work is to throw away every dictionary and lexicon and pretend words mean their exact opposite, but conveniently only in the exact occasions you need them to. It's self-serving nihilism. It's exactly the same thing as "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

[RandyPNW]

On the contrary, I don't lump all those terms together, so I can't possibly be making the argument you're suggesting.

I know you don't read those statements cumulatively. That's what I'm saying the problem is. You're compartmentalizing everything within a single book so that none of it means anything, while freely throwing together pieces of different books to force them to mean something entirely contrary to what the context requires.

That's a terribly misconceived notion. To just throw together all sorts of similar words to represent a single theology is on its face absurd, and should never be expected. Anticipation of the fall of Jerusalem in a single generation, and anticipation of the Kingdom of God are two very different things. And similar words describing how we are to anticipate them should not be confused. One had a more immediate expectation, and the other had a more general expectation.

Some things did happen relatively imminently, such as the 70 AD catastrophe. Some things were simply "near,"

"Eternal" means "eternal" except when it's about the Law because you said so. "Soon" means "soon" except when it's about the end times because you said so.

You're attempting to slip in a different conversation. I deal with that in another thread.

No, Jesus told his apostles in his own generation not to be concerned with times and seasons, which includes the duration of time left in the present age, the "last days." They could not have been teaching, therefore, that the end was coming in their own generation.

He literally says "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place" right after talking his return and the signs that will precede it. This is the exact opposite of what you're claiming. He didn't pin down a day on the calendar for them, but he explicitly says it would "all" be fulfilled in the lifetime of "this generation."

No, here in the Olivet Discourse Jesus was speaking of the 70 AD destruction of the temple, which would happen in one generation. Elsewhere, Jesus was saying that prognosticating about when various events would take place, including the restoration of Israel, was an exercise in futility--God controls those things.

In his Olivet Discourse, Jesus didn't say that the judgment coming upon Jerusalem would be the end of the age. Rather, he said it would be the beginning of tribulations for the Jewish People.

And the very next things he said were "Immediately after the tribulation of those days" they would see the son of man appearing, and that "all these things" would be fulfilled before "this generation" had passed away. There is no ambiguity. Which generation? His and the apostles' generation, the one alive during "those days". Which days? The days they should pray were "cut short", the days of Jerusalem's defeat by the Romans.

You are confusing prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, to take place in that generation, with the prophecy of the coming of the Son of Man. There were two questions, and two answers Jesus gave.

No, the one man in 2 Thes 2 is a reference to Dan 7, which refers to the "Little Horn" among 10 kings.

2 Thessalonians 2 doesn't mention or reference Daniel, a little horn, or ten kings.

It did mention that Paul had already addressed it earlier. No mention is really necessary, since there is only one reference to Antichrist in the Jewish Bible, Dan 7.

that all the apostles expected Jesus to come back in their lifetimes.

They directly say as much.

Not true.

But Jesus had already indicated many of them would become martyrs,

Jesus outright says them being martyrs was a sign of the end times. "As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. ... Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."

The endtimes began with the final punishment of God upon Israel, which began in Jesus' generation. The endtimes lasts as long as Israel remains in Diaspora or under siege in their homeland.

and after it, a great exile of the Jews would begin.

Jesus says the very opposite. Jerusalem will fall, the heavens will be shaken, the son of man will come on the clouds, then he will send out his angels to gather the elect "from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven." He's referencing Deuteronomy 30:3-4 (his wording is closer to the LXX), which is about the restoration of God's elect, Israel, from their scattering. "Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."

That's a corruption of what Jesus said. He did not say that immediately after Jerusalem's fall (70 AD) that the Son of Man will come. No, he said that after the "great tribulation" associated with the fall of Jerusalem the Son of Man will come.

In other words, there is a "great tribulation" associated with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which included the Jewish Diaspora of the present age. The Son of Man will only come when the Jewish Diaspora of the present age is ended--certainly *not* right after the 70 AD experience!

You may be taking some of this from Albert Schweitzer, who used these kinds of arguments? He was a questionable theologian and a questionable biblical interpreter. He certainly isn't on my list of "good Christians," except that he was a compassionate man.

The Transfiguration is one theory. Another is that Jesus "came" in the sense of bringing a prophesied judgment in 70 AD--not his eschatological coming, but an historical coming in judgment against the Jewish People.

An invisible, impossible-to-prove-or-disprove "coming" is extremely convenient when the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. It's literally just a Christian saying "That event was his coming because it is because I told you so."

No, I don't think you understand the nuances involved in Jesus speaking of his "coming." He uses it in both an eschatological sense and in the sense of more immediate judgments. You can see the latter in the letters to the 7 churches in the book of Revelation. You can also see it in Luke 17. Reference to his "coming" does not always refer to his eschatological coming. The fact you don't understand that disqualifies you from even framing the argument.

Soon means what it means *in context.* That's the rule in any interpretation. Biblically, "soon" can refer to the next thing after an important event. In this case, Jesus' atonement for sin makes eternal judgment the next big thing. It is "soon" for us all!

So "soon" means "soon" except for all those times it means "absolutely not soon, actually several thousand years later." You make language mean nothing when you make it mean whatever you want, including the opposite of how everyone uses it.

No, as I told you, different words describe different situations. Their similarity with one another should not cause us to confuse the different contexts in use.

It strains credulity when the only way to make a claim work is to throw away every dictionary and lexicon and pretend words mean their exact opposite, but conveniently only in the exact occasions you need them to. It's self-serving nihilism. It's exactly the same thing as "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

I don't think you even read the lexicons and dictionaries. You seem to make arguments without even understanding what the arguments are!