When will Jesus return? Joseph Farah details evidence pointing to Christ coming back to Earth

"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness. From then on and forevermore ..."

As we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ this week and prepare for 2005 next week, I can't help but think about how close we must be to the Second Coming – when the Lord will return for His church and personally rule over the Earth for 1,000 years.

Oh, I know, some of you don't believe in such things. You think it's just a bunch of silly superstition. Even some Christians don't believe in the Second Coming. Many prefer I stick to writing about news events of the physical world rather than arcane spiritual matters.

But, as a journalist, I can't ignore hard evidence – no matter where it may lead me. And the more I study the prophetic scriptures of the Holy Bible and look at the condition of our world today, the more convinced I become that we are nearing that time. In fact, I think we are very close.

For just as Jesus' virgin birth in Bethlehem was foretold by the Hebrew prophets hundreds of years earlier, so, too, was His return to Earth predicted. The only question is when.

The most dramatic evidence for His imminent return our generation has witnessed was the rebirth of the nation of Israel more than 50 years ago. The Jews, God's chosen people, were, as prophesied, scattered over the whole earth for nearly two millennia beginning shortly after Jesus' death on the cross. Yet, in my opinion, the scriptures leave no doubt that the Jewish state would exist once again before He returned.

Interestingly, Orthodox Jews have long taught that the world would last for 6,000 years before the Messiah would come and usher in a 1,000-year period of restful human history. Since God created the world in six days, according to Genesis 1:31, and rested on the seventh day, according to Genesis 2:1, they reasoned the world's history would climax the same way. They cite Psalms 90:4, which says: "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by."

Likewise, Christians have looked to II Peter 3:8: "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

The early church understood this "six-day theory" of world history. It was widely accepted teaching for the first three centuries of the church. From the time of Adam, we've got genealogical records to show that 4,000 years passed until the time of Christ. From Jesus' time until the present age represents another 2,000 years for a total of 6,000 years or six days.

There's also a three-day theory: Jesus rose on the third day. Would the beginning of the third millennium – or thousand-year period – not be the likely time for His return to Earth? There is even strong scriptural evidence for such a theory provided in Hosea 6:2: "After two days will he revive us: in the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight." Note that this prophecy is not about the Resurrection of Jesus – it's either about the resurrection of Israel after 2,000 years of dispersal or the physical return of the Lord.

In 1772, Edward Gibbons published "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," in which he cites early documents suggesting the Christian disciples of the first century were taught that Jesus would return after 2,000 years. We'll soon find out if they were right.

For many reasons, I believe Jesus is returning soon. But I'm especially drawn to II Timothy 3:1-5, which describes the state of the world in the "last days." Tell me if this doesn't sound like our world:

Christmas represents a time of great hope for Christians. Of course, we're grateful that Jesus came about 2,000 years ago and died for our sins. Now we should be hopeful and expectant of His imminent return.

As a Christian, I say- we're not even close. I wish it were today, but we're not even near. It's supposed to get ALOT worse than this before He comes. Even these trying times are nothing compared to what He described the "Days Before The Coming" would be like.

And the fact that I've heard preachers state for over 20 years that "The End is VERY near! It could happen at ANY moment!" doesn't help too much.

Hey richmwill, I'm just curious as to what you mean when you say "...ALOT worse..." Do you mean visibly?

I'm not making a judgment either way, but more or less speaking to the general tone of this thread. Too many people have errantly come to the conclusion that worse is like what the movies on the topic make it out to be. This "Left Behind" movie mentality is all hype and based/rooted so little in the truth of scripture that it should be embarassing.

Nevertheless, dependent upon what your definition of "ALOT worse" is, I'm curious as to how you justify the following to that:

Matt. 24:36-41;

36"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

37"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.

38"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,

39and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be.

40"Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.

41"(BA)Two women will be grinding at the (BB)mill; one will be taken and one will be left.

Those last two verses are the basis for the rapture leaving a 7-year "tribulation" in part, a large part of it. But in context, that's not what it says at all. Was there any more time for anyone after Noah entered the Ark, or was it too late?

Too many have given credence to notions that after his return anything at all happens on this earth. Nothing does as it is utterly destroyed per 2 Peter 3. Can't very well have a "reign" on earth if the earth does not exist. There will be a new earth, per Rev. 21/22. But only God's bride will be there! The others have already been judged "according to the things which were in the books." Rev. 20 and dealt with, by God, accordingly.

The "New earth" is for God's people.

The tribulation of which the Bible speaks is currently ongoing. It is a moral tribulation. Anyone reading regularly on FR should easily be able to see the depths and breadth to which this tribulation expands daily!

In fact, over on townhall.com Dennis Prager wrote two pieces about exactly the conflict that is going on and it is highly pertinent to this topic. Here are the links:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20050104.shtml

Regardless, when we read about the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, do we read of "all hell breaking loose" there? No. In fact, economically, the city was fine. It was just so morally corrupt and bankrupt and bereft of any Godly values that God opted to destroy it. It wasn't b/c they couldn't live together in a civilized manner otherwise.

God cares about morality, His morality!

Things can get "ALOT worse" in earthly and secular terms, but that's not a Biblical requirement for the return of Christ, which is why it is/will be largely transparent to those not believing, something which is very Biblical. What is a requirement, based on Scripture, for the return of Christ, is such immoral times that God, just as he did in the time of Noah, was "sorry that [He] made man" (Gen. 6) and that it grieves him so that he takes this drastic action of removing those that are His and destroys the rest.

But from a "God's eye" view, anyone not seeing a tremendous tribulation now, is blind, spritually blind. And many won't see it. Libs don't clearly. Otherwise they wouldn't be libs. Liberalism is so rooted in anti-christian ideology that the two are like oil and water.

But we must also remember, the Bible was not meant to be understood w/o God's Holy Spirit giving it to people to understand it. Ergo, only those with "spiritual eyes" will understand it. Just as with the Ark, eh!

But again, you're stating the obvious. Jesus himself said there would be "wars and rumors of wars." Is that new? It was a general statement. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. It was made in the context, along with the "eating drinking ... marrying..." statments and many others.

Also, the same as the descriptions by Paul about what happens to the dead believers. They rise from the dead, just as Jesus did, or similarly anyway. Those texts in 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thes. 4 I believe they are, he never said that the dead will be removed and life continue. In context, it was merely stated to comfort those concerned about their loved ones which were saved. All he says is that they'll go too. Yet, many take that to mean all kinds of stuff other than the most simple meaning that it has in context. Why? B/c they utterly ignore the context.

There will always be hatred and wars on this earth. Always. Just as "the poor you will always have with you", same thing. When haven't there been wars and hatred?

The signs are meant to be understood by true believers. There is no reason why others would understand them. Heck, "surface christians" don't understand them.

It is our mission to raise our families with the goal that they will pass this truth on to their children.

So true, so that their names may be found in the book of life and not judged by the things in the "books." Rev. 20:12

Also, to shed some additional light on this so-called "post resurrection millenial period", per Rev. 20:4, believers "come to life" when they are "born again" much as people "come to life" when they are born. Now while exactly when one becomes "born again" actually occurs notwithstanding, it clearly is different for all believers throughout the course of history, obviously. This thus is yet one more of hundreds of data points clearly indicative that this "thousand years" is purely allegorical.

It all boils down to whether or not Christ is reigning. If so, then the "thousand years" has as much literal and specific meaning as it does in its comparison to a day with God.

But as I read the Bible, Christ is already sitting at the right hand of God and reigning prior to turning it all over to God following the "close of the age." Stephen and others cannot make it more clear that "the saints", that is the bride of Christ, reign with him on earth, now, until all things come to a close.

The Bible makes it pretty clear that Christ will have nothing to do with "living on this earth." Stephen makes this perfectly clear in Acts 7;

47"But it was Solomon who built a house for Him.

48"However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says:

49'HEAVEN IS MY THRONE,
AND EARTH IS THE FOOTSTOOL OF MY FEET;
WHAT KIND OF HOUSE WILL YOU BUILD FOR ME?' says the Lord,
'OR WHAT PLACE IS THERE FOR MY REPOSE?

50'WAS IT NOT MY HAND WHICH MADE ALL THESE THINGS?'

51"You men who are (BT)stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.

Yet, this theory of a "thousand year earthly reign" flies right in the face of all that. Sure, it can be spun and twisted to the point of the big picture not making any sense, but it is what it is. Christ began reigning after "death was conquered", which was conquered via his own resurrection. He himself said "It is finished." That means that everything that had to be done is done. That 1,000 year reign began with his having been seated at the right hand of God following the ascension. His saints reign with him now, from the moment that they are "born again" whenever that 'moment' is.

At the close of time, just as it says, he'll dispatch his angels to gather the elect from the four corners of the earth, resurrect them, the dead first, to everlasting life and redemption. They will pass from judgement ala John 3:24 and 5:18, while those "not saved" will be judged according to the "things in the books", Rev. 20, not by whether or not their name simply appears in the "Book of Life."

Revelation is nothing short of a very high level and big picture view of many things which have already occurred. It's a synopsis of God's overall plan if you will. The more one reads it and the more one applies it to the history of mankind, the Bible, and the significant events throughout history spiritually speaking, the more and more sense it makes. Taken any other way, it only leads to explanations having to be made for other explanations in an endless loop and circle of explanations which never fully come back around to complete the circle with whatever "doesn't make sense" being explained away by statements such as "we just don't know everything" or the like.

Anyway, not sure how I got to all that, but hey... :D

taforever: How Christians can think they have an idea when the end will come is opposed to Scripture since Jesus said no one knows when the end will come except the Father.

HELLO?

I get so weary of this hollow argument. JESUS ALSO SAID SEVERAL THINGS ABOUT WATCHING FOR CERTAIN SIGNS SO THAT WE WOULD *KNOW* WHEN THE TIME WAS APPROACHING, AT HAND. He chided and rebuked those who could tell th weather but not the SIGNS OF THE TIMES such as related to HIS SECOND COMING! EVIDENTLY *HE* EXPECTED US TO KNOW THE SEASON, ANYWAY!

Of course, folks can ignore Christ's firm warning and exhortation to WATCH, WAIT, BE AWARE, READY, KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT THE TIME BEING AT HAND etc. But I don't encourage it if you really want to demonstrate your love for HIM by following HIS commandments and exhortations.

I think it's a cop-out to use the Scripture about not knowing the DAY OR HOUR to avoid following Christ's exhortations about being aware and knowing the season of His 2nd Coming. Sheesh.

Maybe it's convenient and a good rationalization for laziness. But it's not being obedient out of Love to our Lord and what He exhorted in such matters.

Not sure why but that increasingly annoys me. Maybe it strikes me as willful blindness or some such.

Certainly doesn't strike me as Biblical.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.