Did Jesus return around 70 AD?

[Davidpt]

I didn't claim that he thinks that. Read what I say more carefully. I said what I did because he is interpreting Luke 13:33-34 as if Jesus said a prophet can't die outside of the physical city of Jerusalem. He is insisting that Jesus was saying that no prophet can die outside of the physical city of Jerusalem, but when Jesus refers to Jerusalem in that passage, He's not talking about the physical city, but rather the people of Jerusalem. That' what I'm trying to get him to understand.


I'm not saying he thinks that. I'm showing him the context of the passage. I'm trying to get him to actually think about what Jesus was saying there.


LOL. Show me where I accused him of believing that the physical city killed the prophets? I didn't. I was simply showing that Jesus couldn't have been talking about the physical city since it wasn't the physical city that killed the prophets. Yet, he interprets Luke 13:33 as if Jesus said a prophet can't be killed outside of the physical city of Jerusalem. I'm simply trying to get him to see the context of what Jesus was saying.

After reading your reply, I can admit that I misunderstood what you were meaning by that. Sorry. My bad then. I then retract everything I argued including the straw man I built in regard to you misrepresenting someone's view, in this particular case. I'm human which means I'm capable of making mistakes. I then have a choice.

I can either own up to them when it is pointed out that I made a mistake, or I can be prideful and act like I'm above making mistakes, that it is a mistake on your part to think I made a mistake, not on my part. But only meaning when it has been clearly pointed out.

But don't take that to mean in other cases I'm just too prideful to admit I made a mistake and won't own up to it. In some cases where you accuse me of wrong doing, such as I am misrepresenting Amil, is not what I'm doing, not even remotely. You just don't grasp how I reason/argue through things at times. I know how my mind operates, you certainty don't.

 

[Truth7t7]

Yep, I sure did. So? How does that apply to what we're talking about now? It doesn't. You are not even understanding what is being discussed here. Either Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem or He wasn't. It can't be both, but you're trying to make it both. Scripture explicitly indicates that He was not crucified within the city of Jerusalem (John 19:20, Hebrews 13:12). Do you believe that or not?

The Lord's sentence of death took place in Jerusalem, Jesus was beaten in Jerusalem, his death March began in Jerusalem, the Lord's precious blood filled the streets of Jerusalem

Matthew 23:24KJV
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

(Jerusalem)

Revelation 11:8KJV
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

 

[Davidpt]

The Lord's sentence of death took place in Jerusalem, Jesus was beaten in Jerusalem, his death March began in Jerusalem, the Lord's precious blood filled the streets of Jerusalem

Matthew 23:24KJV
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Those are some good points. None of that started outside of Jerusalem where they hung Him on the cross. All of it began inside the city walls---which technically means He was killed in Jerusalem.

 

[Truth7t7]

Those are some good points. None of that started outside of Jerusalem where they hung Him on the cross. All of it began inside the city walls---which technically means He was killed in Jerusalem.

100% Correct, the Lord's crucifixion began when Pilate washed his hands, they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel

The Lord's sentence of death took place in Jerusalem, Jesus was beaten in Jerusalem, his death March began in Jerusalem, the Lord's precious blood filled the streets of Jerusalem

Matthew 23:24KJV
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

(Jerusalem)

Revelation 11:8KJV
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

 

[ewq1938]

Well, it says that Jerusalem is guilty of all. If Jerusalem didnt kill them, Jerusalem could not be guilty. It would be unjust to say that Jerusalem is guilty of all if Jerusalem did not kill them. I dont believe Jesus would say unjust things.

Were the Pharisees gods?

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Apparently the bible supports that human men are gods. Do you believe that?

 

[ewq1938]

Those are some good points. None of that started outside of Jerusalem where they hung Him on the cross. All of it began inside the city walls---which technically means He was killed in Jerusalem.

The city of Jerusalem was not limited to it's walls. The outer area was still Jerusalem.

 

[SeekTruth]

What if Jesus returned around 70 AD, took all his followers, and brought them to a better world? And the people who were left in this world are the unworthy, and we are the descendants of the unworthy?

 

[SeekTruth]

The city of Jerusalem was not limited to it's walls. The outer area was still Jerusalem.

Thank you for confirming that Jesus was crucified IN Jerusalem.

 

[grafted branch]

Yep, I sure did. So? How does that apply to what we're talking about now? It doesn't. You are not even understanding what is being discussed here. Either Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem or He wasn't. It can't be both, but you're trying to make it both. Scripture explicitly indicates that He was not crucified within the city of Jerusalem (John 19:20, Hebrews 13:12). Do you believe that or not?

I believe he was hung on the cross outside the wall of Jerusalem in 30AD. I believe Golgotha was inside the third wall of Jerusalem when Revelation 11 was written. Take it for what it’s worth.

I was just pointing out your inconsistencies in how you interpret the scriptures. I see you as a person trying to hold onto your view to the point that you disallow others from using the same interpretation methods you use yourself.

And BTW you’re not the only one, there is another person on this forum that does the very same thing when he over-spiritualizes the Bible.

 

[Davidpt]

I was just pointing out your inconsistencies in how you interpret the scriptures. I see you as a person trying to hold onto your view to the point that you disallow others from using the same interpretation methods you use yourself.

This

 

[Davidpt]

What if Jesus returned around 70 AD, took all his followers, and brought them to a better world? And the people who were left in this world are the unworthy, and we are the descendants of the unworthy?

Why do you keep proposing this nonsense? No one is buying it. Not even other Preterists.

 

[Davidpt]

The city of Jerusalem was not limited to it's walls. The outer area was still Jerusalem.

Google AI:

Whether that poster is "right" depends entirely on whether they are talking about geography or ancient civic/religious boundaries.
Historically and legally in the 1st century, the poster is incorrect regarding the execution itself: the area outside the walls was explicitly not considered part of the functional, holy city of Jerusalem. However, geographically, it was the immediate "suburb" or surrounding region of Jerusalem.
The breakdown of why the biblical and historical context contradicts the poster's argument during the time of Jesus includes:

1. The Legal and Religious Boundary Was the Wall

In first-century Jewish law (Halakha) and Roman administration, the city walls defined the legal and ritual boundaries of Jerusalem.
• Ritual Purity: Everything inside the walls was consecrated as holy space. Rules regarding the consumption of sacrifices, Passover lambs, and ritual purity applied strictly within the city walls.
• Defilement: Dead bodies, cemeteries, and executions were considered spiritually defiling. Because of this, Jewish law strictly mandated that executions and burials take place "outside the camp" or city walls to keep Jerusalem pure.
• Roman Jurisdictional Customs: The Romans also performed executions (like crucifixion) along main roads right outside the city gates. This was done so entering crowds could see the bodies as a deterrent, but they did not cross into the city proper out of respect for local religious boundaries or simply because it was public space.

2. The Language of the New Testament

The Bible itself completely distinguishes the area where Jesus died from the city of Jerusalem.
• John 19:20 states that the place where Jesus was crucified was "near the city," not in it.
• Hebrews 13:12 stresses that Jesus suffered "outside the city gate."
If the outer area was legally considered "Jerusalem proper," the theological point made in Hebrews—that Jesus was cast out and rejected by the city—would completely lose its meaning.

3. A Common Confusion: The Changing Walls

The poster might be confused by the fact that the walls of Jerusalem changed over time.
• During the life of Jesus, Golgotha was outside the city's "Second Wall (Google Search)."
• Just a few years after Jesus' crucifixion (around 41–44 AD), King Herod Agrippa I built a "Third Wall" to protect the rapidly growing northern suburbs. This new wall actually enclosed Golgotha inside the city boundaries.
If the poster is looking at a modern map of Jerusalem's Old City, the area where the crucifixion took place (today marked by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) is inside the current walls. But at the exact time Jesus died, those specific walls did not exist yet, and the site was explicitly outside the city. [1] (/goto?url=CAESawHrOzAVybY6UBfv-bjNYpyg4UcadbsdiysMrj9DVfML4OUEDb3OESe8G4iSoZRNFtFUQN3PaSkmL8BB3XIESddI8R8RL7_hpjzmaj-meOK-vZ9wJxyq0Nn9O66NnG8RPhm5i1zSeqEtOPbf), [2] (/goto?url=CAESYgHrOzAVhKN2iv1xT1ZsxeBJPm0UT15d1FiUuGuyrmbzPPUjYVFAYw6Sw-zUA0ZQYbiZJSka_GNAqxZwriR1ggeSY-jXseRD5KU0X6xE50eXWegzOlzsz230Fdd4kOCKD1UC)

Summary

Geographically, Golgotha was in the immediate region of Jerusalem. But civilly, legally, and religiously, the walls were the absolute limit of the city. To first-century Jews and Romans, being outside the wall meant you were officially outside of Jerusalem.

 

[claninja]

Okay, so what is your point in bringing up verses like Luke 9:31 and Luke 13:33 then?


Yes. Obviously, the people killed the prophets, not the city itself.


Sure. Obviously, they were considered to be responsible for His death (1 Thessalonians 2:15). What is your point? Revelation 11:8 refers to the location where Jesus was crucified, not the people who crucified Him, so you can't use Luke 13:33-34 to prove that Babylon refers to the people of Jerusalem. It says "where also our Lord was crucified", not "who also crucified our Lord". Also, the great city is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. That doesn't describe first century Jerusalem. Babylon is the spiritual opposite of the new heavenly Jerusalem and has a far bigger scope than just Jerusalem. Jerusalem never reigned over the kings of the earth and has never been the hold of EVERY foul spirit. Babylon, also described as a woman/harlot, is said to sit on many waters, which symbolically represent "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues". That doesn't described Jerusalem, either. Babylon is the spiritual city of which all unbelievers are citizens while all believers are spiritually citizens of the new heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22).

My point with Luke 13:33, is that Jesus says he must press on because it is not possible for a prophet to perish “outside Jerusalem” (exō Ierousalēm). That is a locational phrase, but Luke does not apply it at the level of the city walls. The very next verse addresses the city as an agent: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets.” Jerusalem here stands for its rulers, its institutions, and the people responsible for such deaths. Luke also says the crucifixion happened “in Jerusalem” (Luke 24:18; Acts 10:39) while placing it at “the Skull” (Luke 23:33), so he evidently did not treat Golgotha’s position beyond the walls as a contradiction.

John 19:20 says Jesus was crucified “near the city,” and Hebrews 13:12 says he suffered “outside the gate.” These describe his position relative to the walls. They do not say he died outside Jerusalem in the sense Luke 13:33 uses the word.

BOTH statements can be true at once: Jesus died physically outside the walls and yet died in Jerusalem, in the sense of being condemned and killed by Jerusalem.

If you agree both can be true, which you agreed earlier, your nitpicking about the “city walls” in regards to revelation 11:8,
is inconsistent.

 

[claninja]

Google AI:

Whether that poster is "right" depends entirely on whether they are talking about geography or ancient civic/religious boundaries.
Historically and legally in the 1st century, the poster is incorrect regarding the execution itself: the area outside the walls was explicitly not considered part of the functional, holy city of Jerusalem. However, geographically, it was the immediate "suburb" or surrounding region of Jerusalem.
The breakdown of why the biblical and historical context contradicts the poster's argument during the time of Jesus includes:

1. The Legal and Religious Boundary Was the Wall

In first-century Jewish law (Halakha) and Roman administration, the city walls defined the legal and ritual boundaries of Jerusalem.
• Ritual Purity: Everything inside the walls was consecrated as holy space. Rules regarding the consumption of sacrifices, Passover lambs, and ritual purity applied strictly within the city walls.
• Defilement: Dead bodies, cemeteries, and executions were considered spiritually defiling. Because of this, Jewish law strictly mandated that executions and burials take place "outside the camp" or city walls to keep Jerusalem pure.
• Roman Jurisdictional Customs: The Romans also performed executions (like crucifixion) along main roads right outside the city gates. This was done so entering crowds could see the bodies as a deterrent, but they did not cross into the city proper out of respect for local religious boundaries or simply because it was public space.

2. The Language of the New Testament

The Bible itself completely distinguishes the area where Jesus died from the city of Jerusalem.
• John 19:20 states that the place where Jesus was crucified was "near the city," not in it.
• Hebrews 13:12 stresses that Jesus suffered "outside the city gate."
If the outer area was legally considered "Jerusalem proper," the theological point made in Hebrews—that Jesus was cast out and rejected by the city—would completely lose its meaning.

3. A Common Confusion: The Changing Walls

The poster might be confused by the fact that the walls of Jerusalem changed over time.
• During the life of Jesus, Golgotha was outside the city's "Second Wall (Google Search)."
• Just a few years after Jesus' crucifixion (around 41–44 AD), King Herod Agrippa I built a "Third Wall" to protect the rapidly growing northern suburbs. This new wall actually enclosed Golgotha inside the city boundaries.
If the poster is looking at a modern map of Jerusalem's Old City, the area where the crucifixion took place (today marked by the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) is inside the current walls. But at the exact time Jesus died, those specific walls did not exist yet, and the site was explicitly outside the city. [1] (/goto?url=CAESawHrOzAVybY6UBfv-bjNYpyg4UcadbsdiysMrj9DVfML4OUEDb3OESe8G4iSoZRNFtFUQN3PaSkmL8BB3XIESddI8R8RL7_hpjzmaj-meOK-vZ9wJxyq0Nn9O66NnG8RPhm5i1zSeqEtOPbf), [2] (/goto?url=CAESYgHrOzAVhKN2iv1xT1ZsxeBJPm0UT15d1FiUuGuyrmbzPPUjYVFAYw6Sw-zUA0ZQYbiZJSka_GNAqxZwriR1ggeSY-jXseRD5KU0X6xE50eXWegzOlzsz230Fdd4kOCKD1UC)

Summary

Geographically, Golgotha was in the immediate region of Jerusalem. But civilly, legally, and religiously, the walls were the absolute limit of the city. To first-century Jews and Romans, being outside the wall meant you were officially outside of Jerusalem.

Why can’t Revelation 11:8 be understood in the same manner as Luke 13:33? In other words, Luke 13:33 says a prophet cannot perish outside Jerusalem. That is a locational phrase, yet Jesus died outside the walls (John 19:20; Heb 13:12), and Luke himself calls the crucifixion something that happened ‘in Jerusalem’ (Luke 24:18; Acts 10:39). So ‘outside the walls’ does not take a death out of Jerusalem. Luke 13:34 then shows the city also carries a representational sense: ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets.’ Luke holds the locational and the representational together without strain.

Revelation 11:8 can work the same way. ‘The city where their Lord was crucified’ is locational, and ‘spiritually called Sodom and Egypt’ is representational, a pattern the prophets already apply to Jerusalem (Isa 1:10; Ezek 16). If the walls don’t disqualify Jerusalem in Luke 13:33, they can’t disqualify it in Revelation.

 

[Davidpt]

Why can’t Revelation 11:8 be understood in the same manner as Luke 13:33? In other words, Luke 13:33 says a prophet cannot perish outside Jerusalem. That is a locational phrase, yet Jesus died outside the walls (John 19:20; Heb 13:12), and Luke himself calls the crucifixion something that happened ‘in Jerusalem’ (Luke 24:18; Acts 10:39). So ‘outside the walls’ does not take a death out of Jerusalem. Luke 13:34 then shows the city also carries a representational sense: ‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets.’ Luke holds the locational and the representational together without strain.

Revelation 11:8 can work the same way. ‘The city where their Lord was crucified’ is locational, and ‘spiritually called Sodom and Egypt’ is representational, a pattern the prophets already apply to Jerusalem (Isa 1:10; Ezek 16). If the walls don’t disqualify Jerusalem in Luke 13:33, they can’t disqualify it in Revelation.

This same Google AI then responded to what you posted per this. BTW, I had already rated your post 'Like' bfore I submitted what you wrote, to to this same Google AI.

This same Google AI:

To give you the bigger picture, both perspectives are actually correct because my analysis and the Preterist were answering two entirely different questions. Here is how they harmoniously fit together:

The Two Halves of a Whole Truth

• The Historical/Ritual Perspective (Your Initial Point): You were looking at the literal, physical reality of the event. Jesus was physically cast out. In terms of Jewish ritual law, ancient geography, and Roman custom, the cross was not inside the borders of the city. This literal distinction is what the author of Hebrews relies on to make a point about Jesus being rejected and acting as a sacrifice.

• The Literary/Representational Perspective (The Preterist’s Point): They were looking at how people talk about major events. Even though the execution happened a few hundred yards outside the city gates, it was ordered by Jerusalem's leaders, carried out under Jerusalem's jurisdiction, and permanently tied to Jerusalem's identity.

In short: Jesus was physically crucified outside the city limits, but he was legally and reputationally crucified in Jerusalem.

Why This Matters in Bible Debates

The Preterist brought this up because it solves a puzzle for their specific view of end-times prophecy:

• The Puzzle: Revelation 11:8 speaks of a "great city" where the Lord was crucified.

• The Debate: Some interpreters try to argue, "Well, it can't mean Jerusalem, because Jesus wasn't crucified inside Jerusalem; he was outside the walls!" They use this line of thinking to suggest the "great city" might be Rome (the empire that killed him) or a symbolic global city.

• The Preterist's Solution: By pointing to Luke and Acts, the Preterist successfully proves that the biblical writers themselves didn't let a physical wall get in the way of saying Jesus died in Jerusalem.

The Bottom Line

The initial analysis wasn't "wrong"—it accurately described the physical and ritual mechanics of the crucifixion. The Preterist simply added a necessary layer of literary context, demonstrating that the Bible seamlessly holds both realities together. Jesus suffered outside the gate (Hebrews 13) so that the sin of the city inside the gate (Luke 13) could be dealt with.

 

[claninja]

This same Google AI then responded to what you posted per this. BTW, I had already rated your post 'Like' bfore I submitted what you wrote, to to this same Google AI.

This same Google AI:

To give you the bigger picture, both perspectives are actually correct because my analysis and the Preterist were answering two entirely different questions. Here is how they harmoniously fit together:

The Two Halves of a Whole Truth

• The Historical/Ritual Perspective (Your Initial Point): You were looking at the literal, physical reality of the event. Jesus was physically cast out. In terms of Jewish ritual law, ancient geography, and Roman custom, the cross was not inside the borders of the city. This literal distinction is what the author of Hebrews relies on to make a point about Jesus being rejected and acting as a sacrifice.

• The Literary/Representational Perspective (The Preterist’s Point): They were looking at how people talk about major events. Even though the execution happened a few hundred yards outside the city gates, it was ordered by Jerusalem's leaders, carried out under Jerusalem's jurisdiction, and permanently tied to Jerusalem's identity.

In short: Jesus was physically crucified outside the city limits, but he was legally and reputationally crucified in Jerusalem.

Why This Matters in Bible Debates

The Preterist brought this up because it solves a puzzle for their specific view of end-times prophecy:

• The Puzzle: Revelation 11:8 speaks of a "great city" where the Lord was crucified.

• The Debate: Some interpreters try to argue, "Well, it can't mean Jerusalem, because Jesus wasn't crucified inside Jerusalem; he was outside the walls!" They use this line of thinking to suggest the "great city" might be Rome (the empire that killed him) or a symbolic global city.

• The Preterist's Solution: By pointing to Luke and Acts, the Preterist successfully proves that the biblical writers themselves didn't let a physical wall get in the way of saying Jesus died in Jerusalem.

The Bottom Line

The initial analysis wasn't "wrong"—it accurately described the physical and ritual mechanics of the crucifixion. The Preterist simply added a necessary layer of literary context, demonstrating that the Bible seamlessly holds both realities together. Jesus suffered outside the gate (Hebrews 13) so that the sin of the city inside the gate (Luke 13) could be dealt with.

So what’s your take?

 

[ewq1938]

Google AI:

Whether that poster is "right" depends entirely on whether they are talking about geography or ancient civic/religious boundaries.
Historically and legally in the 1st century, the poster is incorrect regarding the execution itself: the area outside the walls was explicitly not considered part of the functional, holy city of Jerusalem. However, geographically, it was the immediate "suburb" or surrounding region of Jerusalem.
The breakdown of why the biblical and historical context contradicts the poster's argument during the time of Jesus includes:

1. The Legal and Religious Boundary Was the Wall

In first-century Jewish law (Halakha) and Roman administration, the city walls defined the legal and ritual boundaries of Jerusalem.
• Ritual Purity: Everything inside the walls was consecrated as holy space. Rules regarding the consumption of sacrifices, Passover lambs, and ritual purity applied strictly within the city walls.
• Defilement: Dead bodies, cemeteries, and executions were considered spiritually defiling. Because of this, Jewish law strictly mandated that executions and burials take place "outside the camp" or city walls to keep Jerusalem pure.
• Roman Jurisdictional Customs: The Romans also performed executions (like crucifixion) along main roads right outside the city gates. This was done so entering crowds could see the bodies as a deterrent, but they did not cross into the city proper out of respect for local religious boundaries or simply because it was public space.

God doesn't care about man's legal definition for the city's boundaries.

2. The Language of the New Testament

The Bible itself completely distinguishes the area where Jesus died from the city of Jerusalem.
• John 19:20 states that the place where Jesus was crucified was "near the city," not in it.

In Jerusalem is still near Jerusalem. I think the writer intends to mean outside of the main part of the city, not that outside the walls was not still part of the city/informal part of the city.

• Hebrews 13:12 stresses that Jesus suffered "outside the city gate."
If the outer area was legally considered "Jerusalem proper," the theological point made in Hebrews—that Jesus was cast out and rejected by the city—would completely lose its meaning.

Funny that AI left out Rev 11 where it confirms Jesus died in Jerusalem.

3. A Common Confusion: The Changing Walls

The poster might be confused by the fact that the walls of Jerusalem changed over time.

I never brought anything like that up.

You wouldn't wall up part of the city that didn't have houses etc...the execution area etc. That's a waste of resources.

Summary

Geographically, Golgotha was in the immediate region of Jerusalem. But civilly, legally, and religiously, the walls were the absolute limit of the city. To first-century Jews and Romans, being outside the wall meant you were officially outside of Jerusalem.

Luckily they didn't write the bible and their opinions are meaningless.

Rev 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

This does not say Jesus was crucified in the streets of the city, but just in the city and since he was killed outside of the walls, the walls were not the strict boundry according to God.

My property has a large "backyard. I don't mow there. I have a fence to keep animals and people out but not around the entire back lot. It's still my property past the fence, I just don't fence the "wild" part...

 

[grafted branch]

My property has a large "backyard. I don't mow there. I have a fence to keep animals and people out but not around the entire back lot. It's still my property past the fence, I just don't fence the "wild" part...

Yea, that’s similar to what Numbers 35:4 says.

Numbers 35:4 (NKJV) The common-land of the cities which you will give the Levites shall extend from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits all around.