Mark 13:10

[JustTheFacts]

I posted this on another site and thought it was worth sharing.

What is the one and only way that the disciples who were from that generation, could spread the words of Jesus throughout the world (Mark 13:10)? They had to document their eyewitness testimony. If you throw out canned theology wanting everyone to believe that the Olivet Discourse is all about the end times, you can see how everything written in it applies to the lives of the disciples and their generation.

Now, getting to the Gospels as eyewitness testimonies--with what the false teachers assembled it's hard to believe that they are. They don't want you to have eyewitness testimony and their theology is to steer you away from the corruption they grew in the Church. We know that Luke isn't eyewitness testimony, so what is written in Luke cannot be used as evidence of Jesus. If you review the documentation and history for Matthew as being the author of the Gospel of Matthew, you will find no evidence to support it. However, if you examine John and Matthew together you will find that John considered Nicodemus as one of the twelve disciples of Jesus and that Nicodemus, as a religious leader had to be the author of Matthew--there is no other alternative.

There is absolutely no reason for a disciple named Matthew to copy from Mark's author. There is an obvious reason for Nicodemus to copy from Mark's author. Nicodemus was challenged to prove that Jesus was the Messiah and that proof included eyewitness documentation for the healing and miracles performed by Jesus--many of which he didn't witness. The fact that he used Mark's author to support his eyewitness testimony indicates that Nicodemus knew Mark's author as a validated and verified eyewitness of Jesus.

As an expert fraud investigator and analyst, the only valid evidence I've been able to locate to support Jesus and the Christian faith are what's presented in the Bible. Religious leaders won't tell you about the corruption found in the Bible because they want to 'help' you believe. But the Bible was assembled by men with a motive and it is full of edits. Fortunately though, their corruption can be identified because we know their motive--take over the Church through Peter and Paul so that they, as leaders authorized by Jesus, can speak inspired words that are the word of God. I've been going over my earlier work and found that Jesus is who he claimed to be and God predicted the corruption of Jesus' church in advance--Daniel and Revelation is prime evidence. With testimony from John, Nicodemus, and Mark's author as eyewitnesses, the story of Jesus is proven through evidence.

 

[BruceLeiter]

I posted this on another site and thought it was worth sharing.

What is the one and only way that the disciples who were from that generation, could spread the words of Jesus throughout the world (Mark 13:10)? They had to document their eyewitness testimony. If you throw out canned theology wanting everyone to believe that the Olivet Discourse is all about the end times, you can see how everything written in it applies to the lives of the disciples and their generation.

Now, getting to the Gospels as eyewitness testimonies--with what the false teachers assembled it's hard to believe that they are. They don't want you to have eyewitness testimony and their theology is to steer you away from the corruption they grew in the Church. We know that Luke isn't eyewitness testimony, so what is written in Luke cannot be used as evidence of Jesus. If you review the documentation and history for Matthew as being the author of the Gospel of Matthew, you will find no evidence to support it. However, if you examine John and Matthew together you will find that John considered Nicodemus as one of the twelve disciples of Jesus and that Nicodemus, as a religious leader had to be the author of Matthew--there is no other alternative.

There is absolutely no reason for a disciple named Matthew to copy from Mark's author. There is an obvious reason for Nicodemus to copy from Mark's author. Nicodemus was challenged to prove that Jesus was the Messiah and that proof included eyewitness documentation for the healing and miracles performed by Jesus--many of which he didn't witness. The fact that he used Mark's author to support his eyewitness testimony indicates that Nicodemus knew Mark's author as a validated and verified eyewitness of Jesus.

As an expert fraud investigator and analyst, the only valid evidence I've been able to locate to support Jesus and the Christian faith are what's presented in the Bible. Religious leaders won't tell you about the corruption found in the Bible because they want to 'help' you believe. But the Bible was assembled by men with a motive and it is full of edits. Fortunately though, their corruption can be identified because we know their motive--take over the Church through Peter and Paul so that they, as leaders authorized by Jesus, can speak inspired words that are the word of God. I've been going over my earlier work and found that Jesus is who he claimed to be and God predicted the corruption of Jesus' church in advance--Daniel and Revelation is prime evidence. With testimony from John, Nicodemus, and Mark's author as eyewitnesses, the story of Jesus is proven through evidence.

Where in the world did you get these unbiblical assumptions about the Bible? First, the Bible doesn't ever say that Nicodemus was more than a silent follower of Jesus until he helped Joseph bury Jesus. He wasn't part of the lists of the twelve disciples Jesus chose and certainly did not write any of the Bible's books.

Second, Luke, the physician, says that he investigated the facts and then wrote Luke and Acts from the information he got from the eyewitnesses.

Third, I'm afraid that you have relied on false information from poor sources or your own reason to come up with your ideas. I suggest that you rely on the Bible alone as the source of your information, not other sources.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Where in the world did you get these unbiblical assumptions about the Bible? First, the Bible doesn't ever say that Nicodemus was more than a silent follower of Jesus until he helped Joseph bury Jesus. He wasn't part of the lists of the twelve disciples Jesus chose and certainly did not write any of the Bible's books.

Second, Luke, the physician, says that he investigated the facts and then wrote Luke and Acts from the information he got from the eyewitnesses.

Third, I'm afraid that you have relied on false information from poor sources or your own reason to come up with your ideas. I suggest that you rely on the Bible alone as the source of your information, not other sources.

Interesting summary, but my summary is all Biblical while you are choosing to follow theology. You have chosen to believe the list in Mark but you ignore John’s summary of twelve disciples. Why did John present Nicodemus in Chapter 3? Why did Jesus provide the most powerful verse in all of scripture to Nicodemus? Nicodemus was challenged to investigate Jesus as the Messiah, and was the most written about person other than Peter and John, yet you claim he was not a disciple of Jesus. There is no proof that Luke wrote anything and you know nothing about Luke except for a few verses written by someone who wasn’t a disciple. You are following theology—the words and opinions of people. I ignore theology and read/study the word of God. You might not like my results but you can’t prove them wrong.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Laughing is what people do when they are in over their heads. I was hoping to have some exchanges with people who actually study the Bible. I’m shaking my head in disappointment.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Interesting summary, but my summary is all Biblical while you are choosing to follow theology. You have chosen to believe the list in Mark but you ignore John’s summary of twelve disciples. Why did John present Nicodemus in Chapter 3? Why did Jesus provide the most powerful verse in all of scripture to Nicodemus? Nicodemus was challenged to investigate Jesus as the Messiah, and was the most written about person other than Peter and John, yet you claim he was not a disciple of Jesus. There is no proof that Luke wrote anything and you know nothing about Luke except for a few verses written by someone who wasn’t a disciple. You are following theology—the words and opinions of people. I ignore theology and read/study the word of God. You might not like my results but you can’t prove them wrong.

Here is some information for your Bible study about Luke from the Bible:
Col_4:14 Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas.
2Ti_4:11 Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry.
Phm_1:24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.
Luk 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,
Luk 1:2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Act 1:1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,
Act 1:2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
And about the apostles:
(In his book, Luke includes himself in Paul's travels by using the pronoun "we.")
Mat 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Mat 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
Mat 10:4 Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
And the only references to Nicodemus:
Jhn_3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
Jhn_3:4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”
Jhn_3:9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?”
Jhn_7:50 [After people were sent to arrest Jesus but came back instead], Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them [the Pharisees], said to them,
Joh 7:51 “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?”
Joh 7:52 They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.”
Jhn_19:39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Here is some information for your Bible study about Luke from the Bible:
Col_4:14 Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas.
2Ti_4:11 Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry.
Phm_1:24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.
Luk 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us,
Luk 1:2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
Luk 1:3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Act 1:1 In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach,
Act 1:2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.
And about the apostles:
(In his book, Luke includes himself in Paul's travels by using the pronoun "we.")
Mat 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Mat 10:3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;
Mat 10:4 Simon the Zealot, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
And the only references to Nicodemus:
Jhn_3:1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
Jhn_3:4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”
Jhn_3:9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?”
Jhn_7:50 [After people were sent to arrest Jesus but came back instead], Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them [the Pharisees], said to them,
Joh 7:51 “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?”
Joh 7:52 They replied, “Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.”
Jhn_19:39 Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds in weight.

That’s all fine and dandy, but there is no evidence in there that Luke wrote anything. Yes Luke was a companion of Paul. That is verified in his letters. What do you know about Luke? Hes called a physician who is useful to Paul. Now go through the sections on Nicodemus and determine what you know about him. Jesus taught him and spoke the most quoted verse in the NT to him. Nicodemus stuck up for Jesus indicating he knew him well and was challenged to by hie fellow Pharisees to investigate Jesus. Nicodemus also riske his life and career when he took Jesus body and entombed it. You are not doing your homework. There is no comparison between Luke’s background info and Nicodemus’s. More is known about Nicodemus than all Disciples except for Peter and John. Yes there are twelve listed in four separate places, but we don’t know anything about most and the lists don’t always match.

I noticed you didn’t list the twelve that John mentioned for comparison

 

[BruceLeiter]

That’s all fine and dandy, but there is no evidence in there that Luke wrote anything. Yes Luke was a companion of Paul. That is verified in his letters. What do you know about Luke? Hes called a physician who is useful to Paul. Now go through the sections on Nicodemus and determine what you know about him. Jesus taught him and spoke the most quoted verse in the NT to him. Nicodemus stuck up for Jesus indicating he knew him well and was challenged to by hie fellow Pharisees to investigate Jesus. Nicodemus also riske his life and career when he took Jesus body and entombed it. You are not doing your homework. There is no comparison between Luke’s background info and Nicodemus’s. More is known about Nicodemus than all Disciples except for Peter and John. Yes there are twelve listed in four separate places, but we don’t know anything about most and the lists don’t always match.

I noticed you didn’t list the twelve that John mentioned for comparison

Respectfully, I noticed that you didn't give any evidence that Nicodemus actually wrote anything about Jesus. Please don't assume ideas that aren't stated in the Scripture. The tradition of the early church says that Luke wrote both the gospel and Acts.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Respectfully, I noticed that you didn't give any evidence that Nicodemus actually wrote anything about Jesus. Please don't assume ideas that aren't stated in the Scripture. The tradition of the early church says that Luke wrote both the gospel and Acts.

Funny, you are asking for evidence from scripture to prove that Nicodemus wrote Matthew, yet there is zero evidence in the gospels that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote Gospels but you believe that story.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Funny, you are asking for evidence from scripture to prove that Nicodemus wrote Matthew, yet there is zero evidence in the gospels that Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote Gospels but you believe that story.

The early church said that they were, but regardless who wrote them, they are inspired Scriptures from the eyewitnesses or people who got that information from the eyewitnesses.

 

[JustTheFacts]

The early church said that they were, but regardless who wrote them, they are inspired Scriptures from the eyewitnesses or people who got that information from the eyewitnesses.

What you have claimed is not in accordance with the word of God. Inspired words are not the word of God and never were. I challenge you to prove that they are. Jesus confirmed that eyewitnesses were required to believe in him. Second hand information is not testimony and can’t be used to verify Jesus.

 

[BruceLeiter]

What you have claimed is not in accordance with the word of God. Inspired words are not the word of God and never were. I challenge you to prove that they are. Jesus confirmed that eyewitnesses were required to believe in him. Second hand information is not testimony and can’t be used to verify Jesus.

Regardless of what you say, Matthew and John were Jesus' direct eyewitnesses; Mark and Luke, ("the beloved physician"--Paul), got their information from the direct eyewitnesses, and Luke also wrote Acts with the information he had collected. I don't know where you got your Nicodemus information, but it is wrong. It appears that he was a mostly-silent member of the Sanhedrin during Jesus' ministry, came to question Jesus at night so he wouldn't be seen, and came out of his "closet" when Jesus died.

 

[JustTheFacts]

Regardless of what you say, Matthew and John were Jesus' direct eyewitnesses; Mark and Luke, ("the beloved physician"--Paul), got their information from the direct eyewitnesses, and Luke also wrote Acts with the information he had collected. I don't know where you got your Nicodemus information, but it is wrong. It appears that he was a mostly-silent member of the Sanhedrin during Jesus' ministry, came to question Jesus at night so he wouldn't be seen, and came out of his "closet" when Jesus died.

You’ve made common claims that I’ve researched and founded no evidence to support. Regarding Nicodemus, you forgot to mention how he was challenged by his fellow religious leaders to do exactly what is presented in the Gospel of Matthew. You also didn’t address the fact that Nicodemus is presented by John in Chapter three of his book-right up front, and immediately after John stated the requirement for eyewitness testimony of Jesus‘ resurrection. If you want to take a deep dive into the word God consider the following contradiction. Just before writing about Nicodemus, John wrote that none of the disciples believed in Jesus as the Messiah until after the resurrection. Rationalize that fact with Jesus’ reaction of giving Peter the keys to the kingdom for stating Jesus was the Messiah. It don’t jive. Now search and find another reaction of Jesus for Peter making the same comment.

 

[BruceLeiter]

You’ve made common claims that I’ve researched and founded no evidence to support. Regarding Nicodemus, you forgot to mention how he was challenged by his fellow religious leaders to do exactly what is presented in the Gospel of Matthew. You also didn’t address the fact that Nicodemus is presented by John in Chapter three of his book-right up front, and immediately after John stated the requirement for eyewitness testimony of Jesus‘ resurrection. If you want to take a deep dive into the word God consider the following contradiction. Just before writing about Nicodemus, John wrote that none of the disciples believed in Jesus as the Messiah until after the resurrection. Rationalize that fact with Jesus’ reaction of giving Peter the keys to the kingdom for stating Jesus was the Messiah. It don’t jive. Now search and find another reaction of Jesus for Peter making the same comment.

Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to all the disciples with Peter as their spokesman, not boss, in anticipation of their servant-leadership in the church along with Paul later. They expected that Jesus would be the political king of Judea, kick the Romans out of their land, and make them his Cabinet members as his advisors, so to speak. That's the way all the Jews thought at that time. The idea of Jesus' spiritual kingdom went right by them, but Jesus knew that his resurrection would begin their awakening. The Gospel of Mark emphasizes their unbelief too.

 

[BruceLeiter]

You’ve made common claims that I’ve researched and founded no evidence to support. Regarding Nicodemus, you forgot to mention how he was challenged by his fellow religious leaders to do exactly what is presented in the Gospel of Matthew. You also didn’t address the fact that Nicodemus is presented by John in Chapter three of his book-right up front, and immediately after John stated the requirement for eyewitness testimony of Jesus‘ resurrection. If you want to take a deep dive into the word God consider the following contradiction. Just before writing about Nicodemus, John wrote that none of the disciples believed in Jesus as the Messiah until after the resurrection. Rationalize that fact with Jesus’ reaction of giving Peter the keys to the kingdom for stating Jesus was the Messiah. It don’t jive. Now search and find another reaction of Jesus for Peter making the same comment.

Your "research" makes a giant leap of logic with no foundation to make Nicodemus more prominent than he actually is in the gospels. Please stay within the bounds of the Bible with your "research." John Calvin said rightly, "Go as far as the Bible goes; then stop."

 

[JustTheFacts]

Your "research" makes a giant leap of logic with no foundation to make Nicodemus more prominent than he actually is in the gospels. Please stay within the bounds of the Bible with your "research." John Calvin said rightly, "Go as far as the Bible goes; then stop.

Actually if you would review the evidence you would find it to be a leap of faith to believe Matthew wrote that a gospel. Of course I’m all eyes and ears if you have some secret knowledge that I haven’t seen and it could change my mind.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Actually if you would review the evidence you would find it to be a leap of faith to believe Matthew wrote that a gospel. Of course I’m all eyes and ears if you have some secret knowledge that I haven’t seen and it could change my mind.

You neatly deflect from my post back on me. Please answer my post for me. I'm curious, that's all. I don't have any secret knowledge. The early church accepted Matthew's authorship; so, I do. That's all.

 

[JustTheFacts]

You neatly deflect from my post back on me. Please answer my post for me. I'm curious, that's all. I don't have any secret knowledge. The early church accepted Matthew's authorship; so, I do. That's all.

I do appreciate your feedback and analysis Bruce. I work pretty much full time for the Lord and am interested in expert analysis of what I've found. I apologize if I didn't respond to a post, so please refer me to what I neglected.

Acceptance of a matter means nothing to me. Everyone can be wrong, everyone can be right, or it can be a mix. Having everyone agree on Matthew as the author of the Gospel of Matthew could mean that the false teachers were very effective in their fraud and coverup. This is what I've found. The fraud I've detected and the coverup has been extremely effective and thorough, but like all fraud--pieces don't add up and details revealing the fraud were not considered. I challenge you to prove to me that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

 

[BruceLeiter]

I do appreciate your feedback and analysis Bruce. I work pretty much full time for the Lord and am interested in expert analysis of what I've found. I apologize if I didn't respond to a post, so please refer me to what I neglected.

Acceptance of a matter means nothing to me. Everyone can be wrong, everyone can be right, or it can be a mix. Having everyone agree on Matthew as the author of the Gospel of Matthew could mean that the false teachers were very effective in their fraud and coverup. This is what I've found. The fraud I've detected and the coverup has been extremely effective and thorough, but like all fraud--pieces don't add up and details revealing the fraud were not considered. I challenge you to prove to me that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew.

I agree with the early church that it was written to Jewish Christians by Matthew. That's why I think it was. Besides, no one questioned its authenticity when the Bible was put together, when a number of other books were, like Hebrews, which was questioned because it didn't have a name attached to it. Matthew's book agrees with the other books of the Bible, and that is a factor. I believe that the Holy Spirit guided the people who chose which books to include. On top of that, I have read the whole Bible many, many times in my 82 years, 66 of them as a Christian, and that book and all the books ring true as God-breathed books.

 

[JustTheFacts]

I agree with the early church that it was written to Jewish Christians by Matthew. That's why I think it was. Besides, no one questioned its authenticity when the Bible was put together, when a number of other books were, like Hebrews, which was questioned because it didn't have a name attached to it. Matthew's book agrees with the other books of the Bible, and that is a factor. I believe that the Holy Spirit guided the people who chose which books to include. On top of that, I have read the whole Bible many, many times in my 82 years, 66 of them as a Christian, and that book and all the books ring true as God-breathed books.

The men who claimed the Gospel authors were Matthew, Mark, and Luke lived many years after they were written and had no chain of custody of information to prove that claim. How do I know I'm right? Follow the trail and pull the string and you fill find there is no evidence validating those authors. Then reject theology that tells you Daniel and Revelation prophecy describe the last week of existence I call ART (antichrist, rapture, and tribulation). The great tribulation ended when the Catholic Church lost control of the word of God and those two prophetic books lay out all the details of the fraud perpetrated on the followers of Jesus. The ram/goat, beasts of Daniel and Revelation, seventy sevens, and the woman all tell the same story about Jesus starting the Church and false teachers taking it over. The detail God provided are astounding in that they are very specific and have been proven true.

In summary, you believe men wrote Gospels who never met Jesus. I find through the evidence in the Gospels that they were written by eyewitnesses. You need faith, I see that God overcomes all, is with us, and provided his exact words for us to follow.

Blessing to you Bruce

 

[BruceLeiter]

The men who claimed the Gospel authors were Matthew, Mark, and Luke lived many years after they were written and had no chain of custody of information to prove that claim. How do I know I'm right? Follow the trail and pull the string and you fill find there is no evidence validating those authors. Then reject theology that tells you Daniel and Revelation prophecy describe the last week of existence I call ART (antichrist, rapture, and tribulation). The great tribulation ended when the Catholic Church lost control of the word of God and those two prophetic books lay out all the details of the fraud perpetrated on the followers of Jesus. The ram/goat, beasts of Daniel and Revelation, seventy sevens, and the woman all tell the same story about Jesus starting the Church and false teachers taking it over. The detail God provided are astounding in that they are very specific and have been proven true.

In summary, you believe men wrote Gospels who never met Jesus. I find through the evidence in the Gospels that they were written by eyewitnesses. You need faith, I see that God overcomes all, is with us, and provided his exact words for us to follow.

Blessing to you Bruce

"Chain of custody"? Now, you sound like a policeman seeking evidence. Just remember that in those days, it was a listening culture, not a visual one. As a result, many people carried on the heard tradition about the gospels like Matthew writing the gospel. The "proof," then, is that the early church, which had heard this tradition about Matthew believed it unlike other books like Hebrews and Revelation. I disagree with your method of investigation because of the different culture that was in existence at that time. You're trying to impose a modern method on an ancient one, which results in inaccurate findings

The men who claimed the Gospel authors were Matthew, Mark, and Luke lived many years after they were written and had no chain of custody of information to prove that claim. How do I know I'm right? Follow the trail and pull the string and you fill find there is no evidence validating those authors. Then reject theology that tells you Daniel and Revelation prophecy describe the last week of existence I call ART (antichrist, rapture, and tribulation). The great tribulation ended when the Catholic Church lost control of the word of God and those two prophetic books lay out all the details of the fraud perpetrated on the followers of Jesus. The ram/goat, beasts of Daniel and Revelation, seventy sevens, and the woman all tell the same story about Jesus starting the Church and false teachers taking it over. The detail God provided are astounding in that they are very specific and have been proven true.

In summary, you believe men wrote Gospels who never met Jesus. I find through the evidence in the Gospels that they were written by eyewitnesses. You need faith, I see that God overcomes all, is with us, and provided his exact words for us to follow.

Blessing to you Bruce

May God bless you too in 2025! Yes, I disagree with you analysis of Daniel and Revelation, especially the latter, which I won't go into in detail. In summary, I believe that Revelation presents a number of visions to John, not just one about the tribulation. They repeat the time between Jesus' first and second comings, gradually revealing more about his second coming, which involves a symbolic 1,000 years, showing us the time between the two comings. Then, the final judgment takes place (Revelation 20) and the replacement of this old universe with the new one (Revelation 21:1 and the new Jerusalem (after believers' rising in the air after our resurrection to meet Jesus--1 Thessalonians 4:13-18) coming down to the new earth, where we will live with God forever. It's all one event instead of separated ones. However, we'll all find out.