The Rapture

[PlainWord]

lol,I think that if you refer back to post #7112,page 356 you will note that you in fact by your own admission have the burden of proof...

We already discussed that topic and I already proved it is meaningless. This argument would absolutely be destroyed in a court of law. Even if we assume facts not in evidence there would still be 6-8 years for the church at Smyrna to be established and mentioned by John before 70 AD. Establishing a church at Smyrna would have been a high priority as it's population was among the most in all of Asia Minor. To suggest it took more than 30 years to do this while smaller cities got churches defies logic.

There are really two choices.

1) Revelation was written after 70 AD meaning everything given to John is future to us as there has been nothing since 70 AD to match up. This notion destroys the many references to the nearness of the prophesy.

2) Revelation was written prior to 70 AD meaning everything given to John dealt with Israel and Rome and all things were concluded in the first century. This actually aligns to the many passages where Christ is said to "come quickly" and the "time is near."

I'm going with option 2. You can have option 1.

 

[Bogadile]

What a mess this whole site is...so many different beliefs yet one God.
Can someone (or each belief) bring their belief up to date please. OUR future...THIS generation.

How does it effect us BELIEVERS in our Lord today in other words, and what is our future ???

For instance... I THINK Preterits say all is past so Jesus rules now, no great tribulation before us no rapture and no peace.
So live and die as we all going to heaven. (to hell with the earth, God's creation)!!!!

Then I THINK pretrib say we are raptured, then the great trib on earth, then we touch down on earth again. So...can we fly now?
Do we have everlasting life now? As that comes with being able to de-materialize to spirit form, and at will materialize as man ?

So... dispensation, midtrib, post trib or WHATEVER ...PLEASE show your GOOD NEWS for us believers in our Lord Jesus.

Please summarize your truth each of you... applicable for TODAY and TOMORROW.

We seek TRUTH...don't we ?

OR...do we seek a belief to tickle the ear ?

I know what you mean. There is this one guy here called "Allenbee" from South Africa, he thinks he is right too! Why is he not able to see that I am right, and he is wrong? Strange.

 

[KJV1611]

And you always leave out or forget these verses:

2 Peter 3:3-18 (NASB)
[SUP]3 [/SUP] Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
[SUP]4 [/SUP] and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."
[SUP]5 [/SUP] For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
[SUP]6 [/SUP] through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
[SUP]7 [/SUP] But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
[SUP]8 [/SUP] But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
[SUP]9 [/SUP] The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
[SUP]10 [/SUP] But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
[SUP]11 [/SUP] Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
[SUP]12 [/SUP] looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
[SUP]13 [/SUP] But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
[SUP]14 [/SUP] Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless,
[SUP]15 [/SUP] and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
[SUP]16 [/SUP] as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
[SUP]17 [/SUP] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,
[SUP]18 [/SUP] but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.



By GOD's clock, it is only near the end of DAY TWO since HIS ASCENSION. Since GOD is the ONE who inspired all Scripture, WHAT DOES SHORTLY MEAN TO GOD?

Considering that the rider of the first horse is Jesus going forth to conquer sin and death on the cross, I would say that SHORTLY refers to regular days and not 1000 year days.

 

[valiant]

We already discussed that topic and I already proved it is meaningless. This argument would absolutely be destroyed in a court of law. Even if we assume facts not in evidence there would still be 6-8 years for the church at Smyrna to be established and mentioned by John before 70 AD. Establishing a church at Smyrna would have been a high priority as it's population was among the most in all of Asia Minor. To suggest it took more than 30 years to do this while smaller cities got churches defies logic.

There are really two choices.

1) Revelation was written after 70 AD meaning everything given to John is future to us as there has been nothing since 70 AD to match up. This notion destroys the many references to the nearness of the prophesy.

2) Revelation was written prior to 70 AD meaning everything given to John dealt with Israel and Rome and all things were concluded in the first century. This actually aligns to the many passages where Christ is said to "come quickly" and the "time is near."

I'm going with option 2. You can have option 1.

There is a third option and that is that the signs were covering the time after John spoke, beginning then and leading up to the second coming. The signs deliberately allowed the application to a continual history and showed the growth of antagonism to God, as we now know, through the centuries.

 

[iamsoandso]

Revelation was not written after 90 AD. You have one root source to support this view and that source is far from certain. It is based solely on a passage written by St. Irenaeus (died c. 200 AD) in his book Against Heresies 5:30:3. Irenaeus discussing the "Beast" passages in Revelation wrote: "If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian. Note that Irenaeus does not say John wrote Revelation at the end of the reign of Domitian, he merely states "it (Revelation) was seen" which could have meant that John's work didn't gain widespread distribution (seen by the church) until Domitian. All other sources for this late dating go back to this quote and thus are not independent, additional sources.

The evidence for an earlier writing of Revelation is overwhelming and far more compelling than a later date. You can read up on this at the below site, if interested.

https://classicalchristianity.com/2011/05/21/the-book-of-revelation-and-prophecy/

This is your post #7107 to HeartofDavid where you state that this all comes from "ONE SOURCE" and quote A.H. 5.30.3 as the "one source" and I do remember that once me and you spoke of Irenaeus and you said that you didn't trust Irenaeus at all and saw Josephus more credible(I myself would take the word of a Christian over a non Christian every day).

So if there is only one source or not is not quite accurate there is (chapter 11) of this letter CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp) by Polycarp who says himself "Churches who alone then knew the Lord" and also "but we(of Smyrna) had not yet known him so Acts 19:10 is well covered by Polycarp himself in his mentioning that there were Churches (who alone then knew..) then he states that "they had not yet known him".

These men David Padfield, Gene Taylor, Wayne Greeson, Jeff Asher are not any type answer to when the Revelation was given but are men living in our modern world and their opinions are nothing more than opinions. If opinions were any type proof we could have copied and pasted a post from any screen name as evidence. On the other hand both Polycarp and Irenaeus were actually bishops of Churches in the 2nd century one of whom(Polycarp) who was appointed over Smyrna by the apostle John and their testimony far out weighs any man's opinion some 1900 years later. lol. Any way I think that if there is a preconceived position as to when it was written then there would be a need to discredit the testimony of those who actually lived in that day and were actually leaders of the early Church.

As for me though the letters of Polycarp and Irenaeus and the others of those 2nd century are no more or less than the writings of Josephus in that they are historical documents that might shed light on certain things in question today but some are written by Christians and some by non-Christians. In Revelation 2:8 the Church of Smyrna is addressed and does exist at the time it was written so it is odd that the bishop of that very Church does not know when it became a Church in modern theology.

 

[PlainWord]

There is a third option and that is that the signs were covering the time after John spoke, beginning then and leading up to the second coming. The signs deliberately allowed the application to a continual history and showed the growth of antagonism to God, as we now know, through the centuries.

This idea fails on the basis of audience integrity. John wrote to 7 specific churches who were enduring persecutions. These churches are long since faded away. All the many specific promises and warnings to these churches have no meaning if the fulfillment of same were to be centuries later. Why write to the churches at all if nothing was relevant to them?

Again, there are multiple references in Revelation itself of the very nearness of this prophesy. The entire book screams of imminent and relevant fulfillment and nothing suggests massive delays.

 

[tanakh]

Certainly God would have let us know plainly if there was to be a gap between 69th week and 70th week. Especially if it is a gap of over 2000 years.

This gap is imposed on Scripture. There is not one Scriptural reference to a 2000 + year gap. It is part of the classic dispensationalist system. A main tenet of which being that the Jews rejected Christ as Messiah so the Church was created and
God has been concentrating on the Church for the past 2000 years. This is known as the Church Age. At some unspecified time the Church will be raptured and then God will return his attention back to Israel. The system creates separate destinies for Israel and the Church. Israel is to be head of an Earthly Millennial kingdom ruled by Christ who sits in a real Temple on a real throne while the Church (Bride) lives in the heavenly kingdom.

This set of beliefs negates Christs universal sacrifice for sin and reestablishes the sacrificial Temple system he did away with. It places the Old Covenant and ethnic origin back as the Jewish means of salvation negating Pauls statement that we are all one in Christ. It also demotes Christs status as king and ruler the universe to sitting on a throne in Israel. and makes most of the Bible completely irrelevant to Gentiles. Actually in some ways the beliefs are very similar to those of the JWs. They also believe in two destinies. An elite group of 144000 in heaven and a great crowd that spend eternity on earth the only difference is that Israel doesn't get a look in and Christ keeps the dignity of ruling from heaven

 

[PlainWord]

This is your post #7107 to HeartofDavid where you state that this all comes from "ONE SOURCE" and quote A.H. 5.30.3 as the "one source" and I do remember that once me and you spoke of Irenaeus and you said that you didn't trust Irenaeus at all and saw Josephus more credible(I myself would take the word of a Christian over a non Christian every day).

So if there is only one source or not is not quite accurate there is (chapter 11) of this letter CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp) by Polycarp who says himself "Churches who alone then knew the Lord" and also "but we(of Smyrna) had not yet known him so Acts 19:10 is well covered by Polycarp himself in his mentioning that there were Churches (who alone then knew..) then he states that "they had not yet known him".

These men David Padfield, Gene Taylor, Wayne Greeson, Jeff Asher are not any type answer to when the Revelation was given but are men living in our modern world and their opinions are nothing more than opinions. If opinions were any type proof we could have copied and pasted a post from any screen name as evidence. On the other hand both Polycarp and Irenaeus were actually bishops of Churches in the 2nd century one of whom(Polycarp) who was appointed over Smyrna by the apostle John and their testimony far out weighs any man's opinion some 1900 years later. lol. Any way I think that if there is a preconceived position as to when it was written then there would be a need to discredit the testimony of those who actually lived in that day and were actually leaders of the early Church.

As for me though the letters of Polycarp and Irenaeus and the others of those 2nd century are no more or less than the writings of Josephus in that they are historical documents that might shed light on certain things in question today but some are written by Christians and some by non-Christians. In Revelation 2:8 the Church of Smyrna is addressed and does exist at the time it was written so it is odd that the bishop of that very Church does not know when it became a Church in modern theology.

Your arguments go around and around in circles without adding anything new or persuasive. Your two main arguments I have now debunked three times. It is pointless to continue to repeat them.

I never cited Josephus as a source of the timing for Revelation. I use him as the only eye-witness source in Jerusalem to have written about the events around 70 AD Jerusalem as there are no other writings that I am aware of that don't have their genesis with Josephus. Therefore Josephus vs. Irenaeus or Polycarp is not at issue here. Polycarp was 1 year old when Jerusalem fell and he was born in Turkey so he is not a source that could be used to impeach Josephus.

Just admit it, you're out of gas. You have no credible evidence to support a post 70 AD writing of Revelation. You have second hand hearsay testimony of a person not even born for 30-60 years after the time in question and you have a vague and inconclusive statement from another man who makes some tangential remarks that even if taken exactly the way you wish leaves 6-8 years for Smyrna to come into existence and still fit the 70 AD time frame.

This is all I'm going to say on the subject because its a dead end.

 

[KJV1611]

This idea fails on the basis of audience integrity. John wrote to 7 specific churches who were enduring persecutions. These churches are long since faded away. All the many specific promises and warnings to these churches have no meaning if the fulfillment of same were to be centuries later. Why write to the churches at all if nothing was relevant to them?

Again, there are multiple references in Revelation itself of the very nearness of this prophesy. The entire book screams of imminent and relevant fulfillment and nothing suggests massive delays.

There really is nothing that points to time periods 2000 years down the road. People read about heavenly Jerusalem coming down and new heavens and earth and assume those things haven't happened yet hence they are future.

 

[J7]

When Jesus sets up the (stone) Kingdom, he will remove all things that offend.

Try telling a Catholic child of the last 800 years who was sodomized by an old man in a cassock that he was or is living in Heaven On Earth. Get real you guys.

 

[PlainWord]

There really is nothing that points to time periods 2000 years down the road. People read about heavenly Jerusalem coming down and new heavens and earth and assume those things haven't happened yet hence they are future.

Exactly. A spiritual explanation from a man who admittedly was "in the spirit" using spiritual terms found elsewhere to describe the same spiritual events seems reasonable to me. Besides, how can a new heaven come down from a heaven that was reportedly destroyed?

 

[tourist]

There really is nothing that points to time periods 2000 years down the road. People read about heavenly Jerusalem coming down and new heavens and earth and assume those things haven't happened yet hence they are future.

I don't recall reading or watching on TV the New Jerusalem coming down from the sky and settling down on earth. You would think there would be mention of such in event in historical accounts. This city is 1500 miles length, height and width so it would be quite noticeable. This is a future event as stated in the book of Revelation.

 

[Locutus]

Just admit it, you're out of gas.

He's outta gas, but not wind, which only blows in one direction.

 

[KJV1611]

I don't recall reading or watching on TV the New Jerusalem coming down from the sky and settling down on earth. You would think there would be mention of such in event in historical accounts. This city is 1500 miles length, height and width so it would be quite noticeable. This is a future event as stated in the book of Revelation.

I don't recall seeing the moon to turning to blood recorded in history either but it did at Pentecost.

 

[Muzungu256]

I don't recall seeing the moon to turning to blood recorded in history either but it did at Pentecost.

maybe people in the past werent such science nerds like we are today......... who cares about writing every little thing down........... people take video of everything on their phones today............... they just wanted to sekkle u see...........

 

[KJV1611]

maybe people in the past werent such science nerds like we are today......... who cares about writing every little thing down........... people take video of everything on their phones today............... they just wanted to sekkle u see...........

The point is the book of Revelation is written in symbolic language and we shouldn't be looking for a literal city to descend out of heaven.

 

[Muzungu256]

but it tells us how big it is accurately so it dont sound like symbolism............. regardless.

i think itd be weird to go back to animal sacrifices in the millenial kingdom as well, kind of like undo the once and for all sacrifice of Christ, anyone got an answer to this if u believe there will be sacrifices??????????

 

[Locutus]

i think itd be weird to go back to animal sacrifices in the millenial kingdom as well, kind of like undo the once and for all sacrifice of Christ, anyone got an answer to this if u believe there will be sacrifices??????????

It's a complete repudiation of the sacrifice of Christ - this "theory" is tantamount to blasphemy and a rejection of the temple "built without hands".

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Misunderstanding and literalising Ezekiel's prophecy is one big mistake, but then they literalise all sorts of scriptures that have a spiritual fulfillment.

John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

Not one of these futurist will accept the literal body and blood statement, so they pick and choose to prop up a dead corpse of a "theology".

 

[PlainWord]

I don't recall reading or watching on TV the New Jerusalem coming down from the sky and settling down on earth. You would think there would be mention of such in event in historical accounts. This city is 1500 miles length, height and width so it would be quite noticeable. This is a future event as stated in the book of Revelation.

Did they have TV in 70 AD? Can you see a spiritual "city?" Remember what Paul said about the new Jerusalem?

Gal 4:

[SUP]26 [/SUP]but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

[PlainWord]

I don't recall seeing the moon to turning to blood recorded in history either but it did at Pentecost.

Did you know that a massive fire, like the wild fires we get out in CA, make the moon appear to be blood red? I seem to recall a decent sized fire when the Temple was lit up too.