The Second Coming of Christ

[afp1996]

Okay. Playtime is over.

Matthew 23:29-39 lays the foundation for Matthew 24. For your doctrine to work:

Originally Posted by afp1996
My conclusion: We both agree that 70 AD was the Judgment of God. This puts you in the position to explain why Jesus connects this 70 AD Judgment with His Coming. Mat 23:29-39, Mat 10:15-23

Originally Posted by afp1996
You have Matthew 24:29-31 speaking of a Coming 2000 years after Matthew 24:37-38. This is a clear gap in the chapter. You must: 1) Prove the Gap exists, 2) Show what verses are the 70 AD Judgment and what verses are the Coming of the Lord, and 3) Show us systematically how you have come to this conclusion.

You have yet to prove there is a gap in Matthew 24.

Mat 24:37-38
(37) But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(38) For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

If this is a rapture then you have a problem. This scripture states that the Coming of the Lord was like the days of Noah. During the judgment in Noah's day it was the wicked that were removed from the earth not the righteous. So it was at the Coming of the Lord. The wicked were removed not the righteous.

Mat 24:29-31
(29) Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
(30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
(31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

This is the reason that I quoted this in the beginning:

Originally Posted by afp1996
To determine when the Coming was/will be, let's define what a Coming is, biblically. Pay careful attention to text, context, and intent of the author.

Isa 13:1, 4, 10-11, 19-20
(1) The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

(4) The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle.

(10) For the stars of heaven... constellations...shall not give their light: the sun shall be ...darkened ... the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
(11) And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

(19) And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
(20) It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.

This is a prophecy against Babylon. Context shows the Coming of the Lord in judgment on Babylon. Intent of the author, to foretell the overthrow of Babylon. This is a biblical Coming of the Lord. Babylon did experience the presence of our Lord.

This scripture is clearly speaking of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, yet it uses the same exact type of language that is used in my original quote. You have already agreed that my original quote was a Judgment of God. I have shown above that this is a direct reference to the Coming of Jesus and that Jesus used the same language. To refute the plain language of these passages you will have to prove that the same language means completely different things between the two. You have no biblical reason to substantiate this. Please show how your doctrine can be correct with such plain language usage. If sun, moon, and stars stop shinning when the Babylonian Empire was destroyed, then they could also do the same when Jerusalem was. You will have to show how my original quote has not happened yet for your view of Matthew 24 to be credible.

Please show us your GAP.

Originally Posted by Jason
Third,the scripture distinguishes the first coming of Christ from the second:
Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Acts 1:9-11

You cannot prove a physical Coming of Jesus with Acts 1:9-11. It states the “same Jesus” would return “in like manner” as the “same Jesus” “went”. The manner that Jesus left their sight was not in a physical body. The manner which he was taken from their sight was by the Cloud that took him out of their sight.

Hebrews is talking about the High Priestly duty of Jesus. You are missing the whole point of that scripture when you place Acts 1:9-11 with it and try to prove a physical body by that. That is not good enough.

I disagree with your conclusions, but since you affirm that Jesus did come back in 70AD, please tell us when Zechariah 12:10 and Zechariah 13:6 happened. Revelation 19 deals with the armies that made war against Jesus and his armies. How did this hapen in 70AD? The Romans came to destroy the Jews, no mention of fighting against Jesus or even his saints, since the Christians had fled. I would also like other scriptures explained that you ignorned, but I'll wait for your explanation of these before moving on to the others.

Zec. 12:10. Look at these verses: Acts Rev. 11:13 are two examples as is Rev 1:7, Acts 2:23, 40. Clear references to the 70 AD Coming. A Coming you have yet to prove did not take place as Jesus said it would.

Zec. 13, Peter stated this passage by Joel 2 were fulfilled in his generation please read Acts 2. Peter even goes so far as to say that he was living in the Last Days. What Peter taught on the Day of Pentecost is exactly what AFP teaches. Your futurism has changed the clear message. Prove that you, not Peter are living in the Last Days.


Jesus came to save the remnant of Israel in 70 AD. That remnant was in the Church. They were saved and left, and the wicked were removed. Your doctrine is on one side of Matthew 24 and the Word of God is on the other.