David Chilton (1987)
"What “clear warnings” had God given them? Apart from the apostolic preaching, which was all they really needed (cf. Luke 16:27-31), God had sent miraculous signs and wonders to testify of the coming judgment; Jesus had warned that, preceding the Fall of Jerusalem, “there will be terrors and great signs from heaven” (Luke 21:11). This was especially true during the festival seasons of the year 66. Josephus continues in his report: “While the people were assembling for the Feast of Unleavened Bread, on the eighth of the month of Nisan, at the ninth hour of the night [3:00 A. M.] so bright a light shone round the altar and Temple that it looked like broad daylight; and this lasted for half an hour. The inexperienced regarded it as a good omen, but it was immediately interpreted by the sacred scribes in conformity with subsequent events.”

    Those who were unable to attend the regular Feast of Passover were required to celebrate it a month later (Numbers 9:9-13). Josephus reports a third great wonder that happened at the end of this Second Passover in 66: “A supernatural apparition was seen, too amazing to be believed. What I am now to relate would, I imagine, be dismissed as imaginary, had this not been vouched for by eyewitnesses, then followed by subsequent disasters that deserved to be thus signalized. For before sunset chariots were seen in the air over the whole country, and armed battalions speeding through the clouds and encircling the cities.” (Jerusalem Under Siege)
 

The Second Coming of Jesus Was Not in A.D.70

By Eric Fugett

"Josephus believed it was an act of God that Gallus did not end the war"
 

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam Filtered and Posted Shortly..

 

---

Date:

18 Mar 2004

Time:

22:49:16

Comments

The time-frame which places Jesus' second coming coincident with the time of the Roman-Jewish War's commencement may carry additional historical weight.   Strikingly, it seems to correspond with the infamous "Chariots in the Clouds" event immediately prior to the beginning of the war.  This other-worldly show of force was recorded by two contemporary historians:

Josephus (A.D. 75) - Jewish Historian  “A supernatural apparition was seen, too amazing to be believed. What I am now to relate would, I imagine, be dismissed as imaginary, had this not been vouched for by eyewitnesses, then followed by subsequent disasters that deserved to be thus signalized. For before sunset chariots were seen in the air over the whole country, and armed battalions speeding through the clouds and encircling the cities.”  (Translation in David Chilton's Jerusalem Under Siege)

Tacitus (A.D. 115) - Roman historian : "13. Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world." (Histories, Book 5, v. 13).

If we are able to substantially connect "Christ's Second Coming" with this period and the cloud coming of angelic chariots over all the cities of Judea, then we should expect "fulfillment significance" surrounding the remarkable vision.    This Providential event took place, according to Josephus, a few days following Pesach Sheini, the "Second Passover."  (Jewish Wars 6-5-3).

Background: This festival falls exactly one month after the Passover (14th of Nisan, Numbers 9:3), and is NOT, despite current Jewish theology, the "second chance" to accomplish the Pascha; it is not simply a "safety net."  The earliest account of the institution of the Passover displays the request for this holiday (9:9), in consideration of those ritually impure during the initial Passover.   In granting the "second passover," God defines narrow perimeters for its usage.   The initial occurrence of this second passover, which is instantly important using the "law of first mention," allows only two reasons for missing the first passover:

1) Those ritually impure, defiled "by the body of a dead man"
2) Those "too far away from the Temple on the fourteenth of Nisan."

In Numbers 9:13, God threatens those who abuse Pesach Sheini with anathema - they would be "cut off from among the people".  This is due to how important it was for the people to observe the Passover at "the appointed season" (9:2,3,7).  Regarding the request for the backup holiday, "Jewish writers assert that these (inquiring) men were the persons who had carried out the dead bodies of Nadab and Abihu [Leviticus 10:4,5]." (JF&B, Numbers 9)

The cloud coming event in the spring of A.D.66 was sandwiched between other major signs, first during the festival prior (Passover the month before), and that following (Pentecost). 

A. During the Passover, (#1) For the space of half an hour, It looked like broad daylight at 3:00 A.M.,  and (#2) The Inner Sanctuary's Gate of Brass Opened By Itself.  David Chilton noted that a "similar event, incidentally, happened in A.D. 30, when Christ was crucified and the Temple’s outer veil — 24 feet wide and over 80 feet high! — ripped from top to bottom (Matthew 27:50-54; Mark 15:37-39; Luke 23:44-47). The Talmud (Yoma 39b) records that in A.D. 30 the gates of the Temple opened by themselves, apparently due to the collapse of the overhead lintel, a stone weighing about 30 tons." (ibid)

B. During the festival of Pentecost, the most blatantly eschatology-related sign of all took place:

“At the feast called Pentecost, when the priests had entered the inner courts of the Temple by night to perform their usual ministrations, they declared that they were aware, first, of a violent commotion and din, then of a voice as of a host crying, 'We are departing hence!'"

This trinity of festival signs appears to add considerable historical weight as presage that the end had arrived.  From an outward historical perspective, these signs appeared to Josephus, and continued to appear after the war, as the final - irrevocable - pronouncement of Israel after the flesh's immediate national dissolution.  What directly followed these supernatural signs certainly lived up to such a suggestion.   After only a few months (during the fall festivals) began the Campaign of Cestius Gallus, commander of the legions in Syria, which debacle Josephus reckons as the commencement of the fatal period in biblical Israel's history.

Whether or not all this is so, it is clear that God has provided proof of the Second Coming of Christ (and therefore the Resurrection) in the events of the destruction of Jerusalem in a number of outward, distinctly Jewish ways.   If the time-frame uniting Jesus' second coming and the "angelic chariots in the cloud" event with the commencement of the Roman-Jewish war is correct, then partial and full preterists have much more than just a conceptual coming of Christ in A.D.70 --

Among the signs immediately preceding the commencement of the Roman-Jewish war, the Christian world has a literal, visible, documentable second coming of Christ "in the clouds of heaven." 

Thanks for the interesting article!  - Todd

Date:

19 Mar 2004

Time:

05:32:00

Comments

Thanks Todd. I also quote Josephus & Tacitus on the events that you mention in my book. I equate the silence in heaven for 1/2 hour in Revelation 8:1 to the 1/2 hour that the bright light was shining on the temple at night.

Date:

19 Mar 2004

Time:

08:06:10

Comments

Biblical- Provocative- Historical- Convincing...I like it! Also appreciated the author making a point of directing us to the command of Artaxerxes Longimantus as the fulfillment of "the command to go forth and rebuild Jerusalem." Not enough Preterists seem to see that and instead, point towards the initial dictation of Cyrus to repatriate the nations under his control back into their lands. An act that if taken to be a fulfillment of "the command to restore," places us outside of the calendared time of prophetic fulfillment here in Dan. 9. Good job summarizing the information, Mr. Fuget. Dr. Birks

Date:

19 Mar 2004

Time:

10:25:16

Comments

In regard to the comments concerning the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, has anyone studied the opinion of Martin Anstey is his 1913 work, "Romance of Bible Chronology"? He offers some very persuasive arguments for rejecting Ptolemy's list of Persian kings which modern chronological schemes employ. Philip Mauro was so enthralled with Anstey's work that he penned a summation of it entitled "The Wonders of Bible Chronology". Both men argue that the 70 weeks begin with Cyrus. I'd be interested in hearing what arguements some may posit for rejecting Anstey's reasoning. Thanks and God bless. Greg

Date:

19 Mar 2004

Time:

11:02:41

Comments

Great paper, the was I have come to understand it too. L. Puckett,Sr

Date:

19 Mar 2004

Time:

12:18:16

Comments

Could this also be why in Luke 17:26 Christ seems to refer to His coming in the plural DAYS and not the singular DAY? MRFULLPRETERIST -ROBERT STATZER

Date:

19 Mar 2004

Time:

15:36:03

Comments

II Thess. 2:8 indicates that Jesus would destroy the "man of sin" and "son of perdition" by the brightness of his coming and breath of his mouth. This refers to the destruction of Nero the persecution under the beast. Hence, it is clear Jesus came in the events culminating in A.D. 70, and not A.D. 70 itself. However, the 3/12 year (1,260 days) of Rev. 12:6 does not refer to the war with Rome, but the persecution that arose over Stephen. This was the persecution of the mother church in Palestine that broke out short after the man-child being caught up to the throne of God. It lasted 3/12 years, or A.D. 34-38 when St. Paul converted and the persecution collapsed. Kurt Simmons

Date:

19 Mar 2004

Time:

17:02:27

Comments

Eric, Congrats..you made it to Preterist Archives. I'll have to re-read your opus, as now that I have gone full-Pret, I have a fairly well rounded understanding of most of the FullPret beliefs, which, I am happy and relieved to say, fills in all the significant holes of Premil,Postmil and A-mil theories. Your particular theory of the 31/2 yr. 2ndComing (in Judgement) vs. AD70 alone, is one I haven't seen on any other web and I imagine it will stand right alongside the more popular 70 coming event until it's hashed out. Amazing, isn't it. We live in what I believe to be THE generation that upends conventional eschatological wisdom-not that ours has been the 1st to postulate Preterism, but perhaps God has used the 100 years of failed Premil date-settings to bring all of us- of whatever eschcatological persuasion- to the point where a major paradigm shift is actually not only pheasable, but fully in progress. Amazing also is the unoffical but much listened to Catholic response I have received in sounding out various Catholic website movers and shakers; the Church is aware of Preterism, like the 60's Charismatic movement, it is permeating beyond denominational borders, and I sense a definite wait & see attitude, which I consider pragmatic and wise. I feel that if FullPreterism is adopted worldwide amoung Christians, it will be Christ "gathering his chicks under His wing" as he lamented outside Jerusalem so long ago. In the end, Truth Will Win. It always does. Live long and Prosper, Brother Bob (rhraba@comcast.net)

Date:

19 Mar 2004

Time:

21:36:50

Comments

Unfortunately, "Full preterism" is not "full" enough.

Date:

20 Mar 2004

Time:

10:52:47

Comments

Kurt, I am glad you addressed the man of lawlessness in 2 Thess. 2:1-12. I believe the man of lawlessness, ("man of sin" and "son of perdition") was Eleazar, the leader of the Zealots. As I look over my book, I briefly mention this, but I did not expound upon it the way that I should have. I will do so now. According to 2 Thess. 2:4, this individual will set himself up in the temple. If you have read any of Josephus' writings, you will find that Eleazar set up his base of operations in the temple during the 3 1/2 year period of the war. There was a civil war going on within Jerusalem and there were three rival factions, thus the reason why Revelation 16:9 tells us that the city was split into three parts. The other two rebel faction leaders were Simon & John, both of whom, according to Josephus, were captured by Titus. However, Eleazar was killed by John's men around the time of the Passover in 70 CE. That would put his demize during the 3 1/2 year period that I have given for Jesus' 2nd Coming. I think I have already addressed the other items in your comment. Eric

Date:

21 Mar 2004

Time:

04:56:53

Comments

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Trinity_vs_Oneness_Debate http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dbbate4trth

Date:

25 Mar 2004

Time:

15:40:33

Comments

Eric, I appreciate your comments. However, to my mind it is very, very improbable that Eleazar is the "man of sin" of II Thess. 2:3ff. First, Eleazar was an insignificant criminal, a person of no world import. To characterize this robber-bandit turned opportunist-patriot as the world figure - the antiChrist - the Thessaloians in Asia were awaiting the arrival of upon the world scene before Christ's coming lifts this man far above his historical context. Second, this individual's appearance was a matter of no little anxiety to Christians in Asia, almost certainly because it would entail a time of great persecution. Why else would Paul need to admonish the Thessalonians not to be "soon shaken in mind." Eleazar had no interest in the church and did not persecute Christians. So, his momentary appearance in Palestine would have been of no concern to the church in Thessalonica. Neron, on the other hand fits this description perfectly. Third, if Eleazar is the "man of sin" and "son of perdition" - the Wicked whom the Lord would consume with the breath of his mouth and brightness of his coming - we should definitely expect him to figure PROMINENTLY in the book of Revelation, but instead we find Nero. Eleazar makes no appearance at all, or at best a very small, veiled reference in the allusion to the city being divided into three parts. (Rev. 16:19) Fourth, the temple in Jerusalem was associated with appostate worship of those that denied Christ. (See Isa. 66:3, 4) The very continuance of blood offerings there was an implicit denial of Christ and his atoning sacrifice. That is why God destroyed the city and temple in the first place! By the time Eleazar took up arms there, God was way past caring anything about the temple. His new temple was the church. To make Eleazar the man of sin because he dared desecrate the temple is to make God concerned about the ritual purity of an edifice he himself pledged to destroy! Fifth, those who feel Eleazar is being referred to invariably do so based upon an overly literal interpretation of "taking his seat in the temple." The language is figurative and poetic and does not refer to the Jerusalem temple. Almost identical language is used of the king of Tyrus by Ezekiel: "Thus saith the Lord God; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas..." (Ezek. 38:2) This is the source of Paul's language in II Thess. 2:3ff and must control our interpretation. "Sitting in the seat of God" is equal to "taking his seat in the temple of God" - both describe a depraved WORLD LEADER leader who was lifted up in the pride of his heart, exulting in his power. The rulers' relation to or involvement with the physical temple in Jerusalem is simply irrelevent. Moreover, when Paul says "so that" he taketh his seat... etc., this means that he so behaves as if he were a god so as to usurp the throne of God, it by no means implies he actually takes God's seat (this were impossible). This language fits perfectly the description of the beast in Rev. 13 which opens its mouth in blasphemy against God, etc. Here again, where we would expect to find reference to Eleazar (if he was the man of sin), instead we find Nero. These are just a couple of my thoughts on the subject. Probably it was unseemly for me to write at all. It certainly is not intended as a criticism of your work! We all have a lot to learn...most of all me. I learned a lot from your articles and encourage others to study them for themselves. Kurt P.S. Hope you sell tons of books!

Date:

25 Mar 2004

Time:

18:08:30

Comments

Thanks Kurt. I apologize if I came across defensively. You're right, I still have a lot to learn as well. The point you make on Nero is well taken. What you said make a great deal of sense. I will study that more. Thanks. Eric

Date:

29 Mar 2004

Time:

21:36:23

Comments

I have gone back & studied further. I still believe the man of lawlessness was Eleazar, the leader of the Zealots. 1) He was instrumental in starting the rebellion against Rome. 2) He set himself up in the temple & it is a more literal than figurative passage. He was there until he was killed at the time of the Passover in 70 CE. 3) He deceives those who are perishing. I thought as Preterists we believed that to be those in Jerusalem, which is where the temple was. 4) Those in verse 11, have to be the people who were trapped in Jerusalem when the war started. 5) One the translations calls him a "son" which is reference to him being a child of Israel or a son of Abraham. It's just my opinion, but that's what I believe at this point. But like you, I believe that Nero is the man 666 & the 6th emperor of Revelation chapter 17.

Date:

01 Apr 2004

Time:

10:33:02

Comments

kirkley@freemotion.net,If the christian left the city (ad 67) before its destruction (ad 70)meaning they are safe,Why would jesus return for them.

Date:

01 Apr 2004

Time:

11:20:38

Comments

Jesus gave them clues as to when he would return to let them know when to get out of Jerusalem. The Feast of Trumpets in 66 CE was on September 8. The Christians left Jerusalem between the fall of 66 & spring of 67 CE. Jesus sent the Roman army to execute judgment & to destroy Jerusalem, much like in the other OT references I gave in my article. With the destruction of Jerusalem, the church was now definitively the only kingdom of God on earth. Then, as you hopefully saw in my other article, came Judgment Day.

Date:

01 Apr 2004

Time:

16:07:51

Comments

Another question is: If the chistians were going to be raptured from their tribulation, why were they told to "flee to the mountains"?

Date:

01 Apr 2004

Time:

19:44:30

Comments

The Christians were told to get out of Jerusalem because of the upcoming judgment which even Matthew 3:7 makes clear is coming. After Jerusalem was destroyed, this left the Church as God's people, the New Jerusalem, the gathered elect. I hope that makes sense. Eric

Date:

01 May 2004

Time:

22:00:09

Comments

Some people get the horse behind the cart and some get the horse in the cart. What i would like to have explained to me is if the coming of christ has already happened and if the resurection has already happened what is going to become of us who are believers. It would seem that if the resurection has already taken place we would have to have been resurected before we were born. Lets face it if the resurection has taken place once and for all in the first century how can we be resurected. But don;t tell me that regeneration is the same thing as resurection . Regeneration is an act of God acording to his good will in election and is the cause of our believing which brings salvation. After this life is over we are promised to have a new body which will never perish and i believe that is refering to our resurection. How can that be if the resurection has already taken place? Hugh Clark

Date:

04 May 2004

Time:

09:08:28

Comments

Hugh, I appreciate your comments & I hope I can explain what I wrote about here clearly. Israel was looking for a physical kingdom to be set up which is why they missed Jesus & the church. The 2nd Coming was a judgment against Israel for rejecting Jesus. The Christians understood the time frame that Jesus gave them in Matthew 24 & they got out of Jerusalem. As for "The Resurrection of the Dead" it happened at the end of the Old Covenant or in 70 AD. If you read my article entitled, The Resurrection of The Dead, then you see that at the end of it, I agree with you in that this phrase is not talking about regeneration. When people die today, I believe that we do not go to Paradise or Tartarus but to heaven or hell. Please reread my article and see what you think after that.

Date:

15 Aug 2004

Time:

01:09:50

Comments

Luke states that John the Baptist, son of Zecharias, recieved the Word of God and came into the area of the Jordan and began to proclaim a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. This, which must preclude the baptism of Jesus, didn't occur until the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. [Luke 3:1-3] Augustus died on the fourteenth day before the Kalends of September, during the consulships of Pompeius and Appuleius Sextus (14 CE). [The Deified Augustus 100, Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars]. Suetonius also mentions a slight delay between the death of Augustus and the reading of his will to a select and private audience; this delay being: "Tiberius did not make public the news of Augustus' death until young Agrippa had met his end." [Tiberius 22, Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars]. These two documents place the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry somewhere between September 29 CE and October 30 CE. John had already gained a reputation and a following of disciples, so it is reasonable to assume a brief time lapse before Jesus came for baptism. In short, Jesus wasn't baptized until 30 CE, so I am of the opinion that the theory of a 26 - 27 CE start date for Jesus' ministry is erroneous. The exgesis of Luke 3:23 and John 2:13-20 must, as a matter of normal and dispensational interpretation, take into account established facts in other portions of the inspired Word of God. It showed good reasoning, but is ultimately incorrect. If the temple was 46 years in the building, and it started in 20 BCE, then it was finished in 26 CE, and had been finished for 3-4 years when they made the statement. Luke's statement, also, that Jesus was about thirty is more accurate a statement than, "Jesus began (commenced) to be or just turned 30 years of age when he began his ministry." Jesus was born in the days of Herod the Great, and indeed, had to be taken to Egypt by Joseph because Herod sought his life. [Matthew 2:1-15]. Herod the Great died 37 years after being declared king by the Senate between January and June of 40 BCE at the tail end of the 184th Olypiad. [Josephus, Antiquities 14.14.5 (389) and 17.8.1 (191)]. Jesus could not have been born any later than 3 BCE, and John the Baptist didn't begin his ministry until 29 - 30 CE, so Jesus didn't begin his ministry until approximately 32 - 33 years of age, which is "about" thirty. I would also comment that if Jesus was crucified in April of 30 CE, his ministry didn't last very long. I'm not sure where the 30 CE information came from, but speaking in favor of the inspired Word of God over extra-biblical writings, I am of the opinion that wherever that information came from, it is erroneous, unless we are ready to consider a 3 - 4 month ministry of Jesus. The rest of the article had some good information, but I would humbly recommend that you reconsider some of your observations for accuracy and credibility.

Date:

16 Aug 2004

Time:

18:42:09

Comments

I appreciate your desire for truth so hopefully we can work together to make sense of all of this. <P> You found where Tiberius waited before declaring Augustus dead in "Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Tiberius 22," however, did you notice that in 'Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars, Tiberius XX-XXI,' that Tiberius began to govern jointly with Augustus. <P>If the first year of Tiberius' reign is 12 CE (AD), then the 15th year is 26 CE (AD). Thus your both of our statements about the temple, "If the temple was 46 years in the building, and it started in 20 BCE, then it was finished in 26 CE," are correct. The rest of what I have written above should logically flow to bring us to a 30 CE crucifixion.

Date:

18 Aug 2004

Time:

11:43:56

Comments

Hey, that's fantastic. Glad you caught that. I would ask, though ... would Luke have thought of it that way? And would he have expected his readers to think of it that way? <P> If they ruled jointly, then so be it, but can " ... a law was passed, on the motion of the consuls, making him jointly responsible with Augustus for the administration of the provinces and appointing them both to the censorship ... " be reasonable construed as the beginning of his reign? Augustus shared many consulships and other dignities, but no one but Augustus was ever declared a ruling or reigning emperor during his lifetime (once he had obtained the position). <P> "But he was detained by bad weather and by the increasing severity of his illness and he died not long afterwards at the villa of Lucullus, in the seventy-eighth year of his life and the twenty-third of his reign, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of April, in the consulship of Gnaeus Acerronius Proculus and Gaius Pontius Nigrinus." [Suetonius, Tiberius 73] <P> Gnaeus Acerronius Proculus and Gaius Pontius Nigrinus were consul in 37 CE. Subtract the 23 years of his recorded reign according to Suetonius and we have 14 CE, which was the year of Augustus' death. <P> Counting forward from Augustus' death in October, 14 CE to the death of Tiberius in May, 37 CE, October of 37 CE would have marked the beginning of his 24th year of reign. So in the 23rd year of his reign, in May, he died short of reaching the 24th anniversary. <P> By this standard, we are back to a 29-30 CE date for the 15th year of his reign. <P> While Suetonius may recount a shared responsibility, Tiberius was not Emperor until after the death of Augustus. Shared responsibility is not necessarily shared power, and Suetonius recognizes this by attributing the beginning of Tiberius' reign as 14 CE ... and he's the one that mentioned the shared responsibility. <P> "After him came Annius Rufus, under whom died Caesar, the second emperor of the Romans, the duration of whose reign was fifty-seven years, besides six months and two days (of which time Antonius ruled together with him fourteen years; but the duration of his life was seventy-seven years); upon whose death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia’s son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor..." [Josephus, Antiquities 18.2.32-33] <P> Josephus also recognizes that Tiberius didn't come to power until the death of Augustus, and this is especially important because he is a Jew, and deducing the start of Tiberius' reign must be viewed from the perspective of a Jew in order to properly calculate the information given by Luke. <P> Josephus continues in Antiquities 18.2.33-35 by telling us that Tiberius sent Valerius Gratus to be Procurator of Judea, and that Gratus tarried there 11 years and was suceeded by Pontius Pilate, who we know came to Judea in 25 CE. 25 CE minus 11 years of Gratus' term, we are once again at 14 CE. <P> "For Livia had surrounded the house and its approaches with a strict watch, and favourable bulletins were published from time to tme, till, provision having been made for the demands of the crisis, one and the same report told men that Augustus was dead and that Tiberius Nero was master of the State. The first crime of the new reign was the murder of Postumus Agrippa." [Tacitus, Annals of Rome 1.5-6] <P> Tactius, too, agrees that the beginning of Tiberius' reign commenced at the death of Augustus, and that the first crime of "the new reign" was the murder of Agrippa. <P> With all these common understandings as to the start of Tiberius' reign, the question becomes: Why should we, or any Jew of the time reading Luke's work, consider the start of Tiberius' reign as being anything other than Late October/Early September 14 CE? <P> If we can't think of any reasonable reason for people to naturally assume his reign began earlier than 14 CE, then we can't assume it. Shared responsibility is not a "reign." It is shared responsibility during the reign of Augustus. <P> Back to you ... A.M. Frazier

Date:

20 Aug 2004

Time:

05:45:45

Comments

The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes that Tiberius began to co-reign with Augustus before his death. Here is what they say about Tiberius: The second Roman emperor (A. D. 14-37), b. 16 November, 42 B. C., d. 16 March, A. D. 37. He was the son of Tiberius Claudius Nero and Livia. By the marriage of his mother with Emperor Augustus he became the latter's stepson, and was adopted by Augustus in A. D. 4. In the year 10 he was appointed coregent with Augustus. Regardless of which year it actually was, 10, 11, or 12 CE (AD), Tiberius was co-reigning with Augustus, perhaps due to health reasons.

Date:

20 Aug 2004

Time:

09:39:56

Comments

I suggest you also read my article on the birth of Jesus to see why 26 CE makes sense for the year of Jesus' 30th birthday & why September 11, 5 BCE makes sense for his birth based on Josephus, the Talmud, Herod's eclipse, Hebrews 9-10:5 & these 70 weeks calculations from Daniel chapter 9.

Date:

27 Aug 2004

Time:

22:11:07

Comments

The timelines for the birth and death of our Saviour are facinating. I attended a conference that is held at A&M University in Texas each year around Christmas that uses astronomy based on the work of Johannes Keppler to calculate when the star of Bethlehem rested over Jerusalem before continuing ten miles south to Bethlehem in Jesus' second year. It also shows Virgo (the virgin) clothed with the sun, and with the moon at her feet at the time of the crucifiction, along with the blood moon. It seems to me that this must be a year when passover is on Wednesday in order to fulfil the prohesy of Jesus that the only sign He would give them was the sign of Jonah. Good Friday to Sunday does not satisfy "three days and nights" in the belly of a whale. It would seem to me that if there is a question regarding joint rulership and how that would be perceived by Luke, the question of what day of the week Passover was on in the years in question should be considered, in light of the 'sign of Jonah' prophesy. Is this a valid consideration in your opinion? Barry

Date:

28 Aug 2004

Time:

08:47:16

Comments

I just realized I connected the woman clothed with the sun, (and with the moon at her feet) with the crucifiction instead of the birth of Christ. My mistake. Barry

Date:

28 Aug 2004

Time:

20:03:16

Comments

Thanks Barry. Is there a site where I can get that information that you spoke of by Johannes Keppler?

Date:

14 Sep 2004

Time:

21:47:47

Comments

Barry have you read my article on the Crucifixion of Jesus.

Date:

28 Sep 2004

Time:

06:20:23

Comments

I have recently discovered that the gathering of the elect in Matthew 24 is a reference to The Feast of Tabernacles. I also see that Jesus is bracketing fall as the season for his return in Matthew 24 by saying that figs tell you summer is coming and not wanting them to have to leave Jerusalem in the winter.

Date:

28 Sep 2004

Time:

09:59:53

Comments

In the above comment I said that fall was the season for his return. I meant to say that it was the time that the signs were to occur which were a signal to the Christians to leave Jerusalem before his coming. Eric

Date:

21 Nov 2004

Time:

11:24:08

Comments

I think you have no knowlege of scripture!!

Date:

21 Nov 2004

Time:

19:52:31

Comments

What makes you think that I have no knowledge of Scripture? Eric

Date:

17 Dec 2004

Time:

13:50:52

Comments

Being a Partial Preterist, I naturally agree with you in some regards, but there are others which need cleared up. IF the 2nd Coming was in AD70 then is the Judgment at the end of Rev 20 the 3rd Coming? I think not. Furthermore, I sort of doubt that YOU think that either. Since the chilios began either at the Cross or at the Ascension and satan was bound to prevent the nations from being deceived so that the Gospel could go forth in what the Jews refer to the Olam Ha Ba (age to come), it seems more likely that the destruction of Jerusalem was the First Act of Judgment on behalf of Moschiach. The chilios seems to be winding down. I am of the opinion that the chilios has ended, satan has been loosed and that certain events with have or are about to occur. 1. The man of sin who exalts himself above EVERY god or so-called object of worship has been revealed. This is NOT an individual, but rather mankind (magog) exalting itself to Godhood, believing the Lie (you shall be as YHVH, determining good and evil for yourself). Prince Gog is satan himself, leading magog (from the four corners of the earth) against the holy city (God's Church). 2. Israel will have the blinders removed and those predestined to receive Moschiach will do so, per Paul. 3. Every man will be against his brother. (We see that already.) 4. Christ will come, the resurrection of the Body will occur and the translation of the live saints will occur and the Judgment of the wicked will occur, ALL IN RAPID SUCCESSION. There will be NO ESCAPE, just like Paul said. (Nero was DEFINITELY 'Mr. 666 in gematria. The High Priest was the False Prophet because he is the one able to "make fire come down from heaven in the site of men" and it was at his urging that Israel deified the Emperor, having rejected Y'shua. Jerusalem of course sits on 7 hills, and her collaboration with Rome made her the Harlot. See Ezekiel 16 for clarification. A Roman general rides a white horse, and God used the Romans to judge faithless unbelieving Israel, take the kingdom from her and give it to the true SPIRITUAL ISRAEL. Paul calls us the Church, THE ISRAEL OF GOD. Likewise Peter attrubutes priestliness to us as believers and calls us the Temple. All in all, I believe that your article is fine, with the above stated exception. It's Orthodox, historically based and far better than the out and out manure the Church has BEEN getting fed from those making MILLIONS on newspaper eschatology.) E. W. Sumner

Date:

18 Dec 2004

Time:

04:51:59

Comments

1. The man of sin was Eleazar, one of three rebel faction leaders in Jerusalem during the siege by Rome. He set up his base of operations in the temple. 2. That happened as Jews became Christians throughtout the 1st Century. The books of Hebrews & Revelation may have been the last appeals. 3. Happened in the 1st Century as well. 4. Read my article on the Resurrection of the Dead. For more clarification you should read my book, A Personal Revelation. Hopefully, that will convince you to be a full preterist. Thanks. Eric

Date: 28 Dec 2005
Time: 10:20:06

Comments:

Sorry. I finally made it back to this page.(after more than a year) The astronomical work based on Johannes Keplar does have a web site. I believe it is either starofbethlehem .com, or, bethlemstar.com, but there are several similar sites. This particular one should refer to the information I referenced and be out of Bryan or College Station Texas, as the speaker was a local.
No, I have not yet read your book, or your article on the crucifixion of Jesus. I did notice just now in rereading your article, that you agree with a Wednesday cucifixion. I don't recall if the star of Bethlehem conference timing agreed with that,or even adressed it. I went on the spur of the moment as a guest and didn't take notes.
It would be interesting to see if the astronomical events backed up either your or Kurt's timeline.
Be Blessed,
Barry

Date: 01 Apr 2009
Time: 09:00:58

Your Comments:

You go, Eric! Your interpretation is not inconsistant with other full pret views that I've read. So far, there is no unified belief concerning the actual beginning and end of Jesus' 2nd coming. Yours is fully exegetical.
Bob