Rapture in 70 AD

[DrJamesAch]

The only thing I was arguing against in this particular thread is someone trying to pour an application in the Acts 1 passage that does not belong there. Specifically I was arguing against using the "this Jesus" phrase there as a proof of His coming back with the same nature that He rose up out of the dead.

That is why I quoted the verses in John 28, where Jesus Himself refers to Himself as existing (without a physical body, I assume we agree) "before Abraham".

We cannot pour meaning into Scripture that we want to be there. We must stick with what we are told.

So do you think that when the angels were telling the apostles in Acts 1 that "this same Jesus" would return in like manner, that they were referring to a preincarnate Christ of which the apostles had NEVER SEEN?? That is the only way that your view of John 8 would apply is that you are attempting to argue that the angels in Acts 1 are specifically referring to the preincarnate Christ, and not Christ post-resurrection. That would be impossible to swallow because the angels made their statement with the assertion that the apostles were familiar with whom they referred to as "this SAME Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven" . They were obviously not appealing to the nature of Christ that was unknown to them prior to His incarnation. They were appealing to what they knew of Christ, and what they knew of Christ was what they saw and heard during their time with Him before and after His crucifixion and resurrection.

After His resurrection, Thomas had not yet seen the risen Christ. In John 20:25, Thomas argued that He would not believe unless he saw the prints of the nails in His hands, and His pierced side which He had already shown to the apostles (John 20:20). Jesus did not rebuke Thomas with "what do you mean 'if you see my scars' I don't have any scars", He said "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." v29.

This same description of Jesus, scars and all, is the one in which the apostles would be familiar with when they were told that Christ would return in the same manner that they had seen him go into heaven, and it is this description of Christ that is given by John in Revelation 1:7. The visible piercing that is seen by all the world when He returns is the reminder of Whom they were responsible for crucifying, and why all kindreds of the earth wail because of Him.

Whether anyone believes that He has visible scars or not is debatable. What one can not argue against is Jesus Christ physically and literally returning in the same manner that He was seen leaving the earth ascending into heaven.

 

[asterisktom]

So do you think that when the angels were telling the apostles in Acts 1 that "this same Jesus" would return in like manner, that they were referring to a preincarnate Christ of which the apostles had NEVER SEEN?? That is the only way that your view of John 8 would apply is that you are attempting to argue that the angels in Acts 1 are specifically referring to the preincarnate Christ, and not Christ post-resurrection.

You are making a division where there is none.

The Christ of the Incarnation is the Christ of the Resurrection is the Christ of the Creation. There is only one Christ. It is all the "this Jesus" of Acts 1. The fact that He existed for about three decades also in human form does not take away from this fact.

And, yes, He would return to the glory that He had before the Incarnation. In John 17 He prayed that we might be one as He is One with Father. How is The Son one with the Father? Certainly not One wholly spiritual an the other limited by eternal physicality.

No. We shall be like Him. He is not required to be eternally like we are, physical. That was a necessity for our salvation. Just as it was a necessity that He was to have been born of woman, born under the Law, that He might redeem those under the Law.

That would be impossible to swallow because the angels made their statement with the assertion that the apostles were familiar with whom they referred to as "this SAME Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven" . They were obviously not appealing to the nature of Christ that was unknown to them prior to His incarnation.

How do you so assertively know what the angels knew and didn't know? Scripture says little about this, but it does say that they knew enough to want to look into it more. Your assertion here is off the mark.

They were appealing to what they knew of Christ, and what they knew of Christ was what they saw and heard during their time with Him before and after His crucifixion and resurrection.

And what Christ told them. After all, they heard Him say "Before Abraham was, I am". Your putting a limitation on the topic, not from Scripture, but because your eschatology requires it.

After His resurrection, Thomas had not yet seen the risen Christ. In John 20:25, Thomas argued that He would not believe unless he saw the prints of the nails in His hands, and His pierced side which He had already shown to the apostles (John 20:20). Jesus did not rebuke Thomas with "what do you mean 'if you see my scars' I don't have any scars", He said "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing." v29.

And now you are being silly. Who would argue that Christ had no scars? It seems that you have no idea what Preterists believe.

This is all I have time for now.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

After the Resurrection, Jesus showed Himself to His Disciples. He showed them His hands and His feet. He showed even more of the scars to Thomas... his side.

This same Jesus shall return.

Which same Jesus?

This same nail-scarred Jesus.

And every eye shall see Him, even them that pierced Him. And all nations shall wail because of Him.

Why will they wail? Because they will see the scars and will know that He is the One that was crucified. They, like Thomas will not believe it is Him unless they see the prints in His hands.

Yes, the prints will be there. No doubt. This same Jesus will return just as the Galileeans saw Him go.

 

[percho]

I have a Question I believe to be relative to the last few post.

Scripture

For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. Hebrews 2:5

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing [that is] not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. Hebrews 2:6-8

Now the world to come, whatever that means, will not be subject to angels. The man spoken of in verses 6-8 I assume is speaking of the created Adam and all after him to date and even this present world has never been totally subject to that man.

But we see Jesus Verse 9

Question. Is this speaking of Jesus as a man, the Son of God? The man quoted from Psalms in verses 6-8 this world hasn't been totally subject to yet as resurrected man as Jesus was resurrected, the world to come will be totally subject to, being conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the firstborn among many brethren?

 

[thomas15]

Hadn't seen any for a while until you showed back up.

Shall I venture a guess that someone “showed back up” as it were to discuss English grammar and word meaning, Biblical exegesis and historical fact vs. fiction with learned kyredneck?

 

[asterisktom]

I have a Question I believe to be relative to the last few post.

Scripture

For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. Hebrews 2:5

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing [that is] not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. Hebrews 2:6-8

I believe this is all referring to Christ who, for a little while (for a short time) was made lower than the angels. This passage is a continuation of Paul's (the writer of Hebrews IMO) contrasting of the Son with the angels. (Psa. 8:4-6; 1 Cor. 15:27-28; Eph. 1:22)

Now the world to come, whatever that means, will not be subject to angels. The man spoken of in verses 6-8 I assume is speaking of the created Adam and all after him to date and even this present world has never been totally subject to that man.

But we see Jesus Verse 9

Question. Is this speaking of Jesus as a man, the Son of God? The man quoted from Psalms in verses 6-8 this world hasn't been totally subject to yet as resurrected man as Jesus was resurrected, the world to come will be totally subject to, being conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the firstborn among many brethren?

I believe the age to come is what we are in now. (This would require a separate thread to explain that.) The old dispensation, which was in the process of passing away at the writing of this letter (Heb. 8:13; 2 Cor. 3:11; 1 John 2:17-18), was associated with the ministry of angels. The Law was handed down through them (Heb. 2:2; Acts 7:53), but in the new dispensation God spoke through (in) the Son (Heb. 1:1-3).

There are several reasons why I no longer believe that "man" in 6-8 is merely mankind. But the easiest one to point to is that phrase "a little lower than the angels" (βραχύ τι παρ᾿ ἀγγέλους).

What is often overlooked is that the phrase occurs twice, verse 7 and 9 - the same exact phrase (βραχύ τι παρ᾿ ἀγγέλους) - yet it is understood differently - mistakenly imo. No one would say (I hope!) that Christ was, positionally or essentially, just "a little, small amount lower than the angels". He was either (positionally) far below angels - in order to rescue us - or He was (in essence) far above.

No, it makes more sense to understand verse 9 to refer to duration of time, not position. And because the phrase is the same, I would take verse 7 the same way. This is why I believe this refers all to Christ.

 

[asterisktom]

After the Resurrection, Jesus showed Himself to His Disciples. He showed them His hands and His feet. He showed even more of the scars to Thomas... his side.

This same Jesus shall return.

Which same Jesus?

This same nail-scarred Jesus.

This same Jesus who disappeared into a cloud. He was to come in the same manner - not form. Manner is an adverb.

You know what is really interesting? Two things, actually. In the passages that refer to Christ's return "clouds" figure prominently. Have you ever noticed that?


And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. - Matt. 24:30

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. - Matt. 26:64

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. - Mark 13:26

And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. - Mark 14:62

And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. - Luke 21:27

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. - 1 Thess. 4:17

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. - Rev. 1:7

And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: - Rev. 10:1

And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped. - Rev. 14:14-16

The second thing I noticed is the great contrast between the prominence of clouds in Scripture and the near total absence of clouds in the theology of much of modern eschatology. In your response, for instance, you make no mention of them.

I suspect that many of you (unconsciously, perhaps) wish that God wouldn't have mentioned clouds so much, seeing that you have no idea how to account for them.

Yet they fit very well, from a Preterist perspective, in the hidden aspect of the Parousia.

And every eye shall see Him, even them that pierced Him. And all nations shall wail because of Him.

No, all tribes of the land (the tribes of Israel) will mourn. (πᾶσαι αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς. )

 

[percho]

I believe this is all referring to Christ who, for a little while (for a short time) was made lower than the angels. This passage is a continuation of Paul's (the writer of Hebrews IMO) contrasting of the Son with the angels. (Psa. 8:4-6; 1 Cor. 15:27-28; Eph. 1:22)


I believe the age to come is what we are in now. (This would require a separate thread to explain that.) The old dispensation, which was in the process of passing away at the writing of this letter (Heb. 8:13; 2 Cor. 3:11; 1 John 2:17-18), was associated with the ministry of angels. The Law was handed down through them (Heb. 2:2; Acts 7:53), but in the new dispensation God spoke through (in) the Son (Heb. 1:1-3).

There are several reasons why I no longer believe that "man" in 6-8 is merely mankind. But the easiest one to point to is that phrase "a little lower than the angels" (βραχύ τι παρ᾿ ἀγγέλους).

What is often overlooked is that the phrase occurs twice, verse 7 and 9 - the same exact phrase (βραχύ τι παρ᾿ ἀγγέλους) - yet it is understood differently - mistakenly imo. No one would say (I hope!) that Christ was, positionally or essentially, just "a little, small amount lower than the angels". He was either (positionally) far below angels - in order to rescue us - or He was (in essence) far above.

No, it makes more sense to understand verse 9 to refer to duration of time, not position. And because the phrase is the same, I would take verse 7 the same way. This is why I believe this refers all to Christ.

Well I disagree. I believe it is speaking of man ie Adam. I do not think the first Adam fell from anything but was as he was created, being before he was created, the lamb without spot of blemish was going to shed his blood thus requiring him to be as the first Adam, also as the one called, Abraham. The Christ had to be of the seed of Abraham and also be the Son of God. I believe the woman was taken from the man for this very purpose. I believe the ultimate creation of man in the image of God did not come in the creation of the first Adam but through the Son of God born of the virgin woman taken from Adam. The man child Son of God who died and was raised to life again. It is his image that man can be born again and for which the world to come not subject to angels but subject to man in the image of the Son of God the bodily image of the invisible God.

Would you agree that the world to come, and I understand it is a different word for world, corresponds to Luke 20:35,36 and that the Jesus we see of Hebrews, who was made a little lower than the angels, has already experienced verse 36 and become our captain of the very same? The inheritor of whom we be joint heirs with. We, men?

I guess I am saying I believe the Jesus of Hebrews 2 is being spoken of as a Man the Son of God in whose image we can be born again rather than an anthropomorphic God the Son personage who we cannot be like.

 

[DrJamesAch]

* I will get to your statement about the clouds in a little bit. There are some things you are leaving out about groups already in heaven during the tribulation of which no clouds are present.

I for one do not rely on the same interpretations of verse that most pre-tribbers use. I am certainly pre-trib, but I do not believe that Matthew 24-25 is a reference to the rapture at all (second coming yes rapture, no way), and I think that pre-tribbers miss the order of resurrections in 1 Thess 4:13-17, 1 Thess 5-2 Thess ch 2.

Your statement that Rev 1:7 only applies to the land of Israel is incorrect. Israel was not the only one who "pierced" Christ. In fact, it was a ROMAN soldier who actually did the piercing. I have an entire article I've written on this passage alone where the Preterists attempt to show that "nations" refers to limited land masses.

And the paraousa is not the only future reference. There is also the epiphania.

But I will get back to this later as it about 1 am here, and I need to rest :sleep:

 

[asterisktom]

...

But I will get back to this later as it about 1 am here, and I need to rest :sleep:

Rest is good. I think I will too. We had screaming kids here most of the day. I am all "thought out".

I will wait for your next post and then answer both that and this.

 

[asterisktom]

Well I disagree. I believe it is speaking of man ie Adam.
...

Just to clear it up for me, Percho, then you believe that that phrase that is used twice is to be understood two different ways?

 

[agedman]

* I will get to your statement about the clouds in a little bit. There are some things you are leaving out about groups already in heaven during the tribulation of which no clouds are present.

I for one do not rely on the same interpretations of verse that most pre-tribbers use. I am certainly pre-trib, but I do not believe that Matthew 24-25 is a reference to the rapture at all (second coming yes rapture, no way), and I think that pre-tribbers miss the order of resurrections in 1 Thess 4:13-17, 1 Thess 5-2 Thess ch 2.

Your statement that Rev 1:7 only applies to the land of Israel is incorrect. Israel was not the only one who "pierced" Christ. In fact, it was a ROMAN soldier who actually did the piercing. I have an entire article I've written on this passage alone where the Preterists attempt to show that "nations" refers to limited land masses.

And the paraousa is not the only future reference. There is also the epiphania.

But I will get back to this later as it about 1 am here, and I need to rest :sleep:

Agreed, James.

The discourse by Matthew is throughout the account is written to the Jewish people, and focused upon the happenings as applied to them and the Israeli nation.

If one does not keep that in focus, then perhaps it is easier to make a misapplication.

 

[percho]

Just to clear it up for me, Percho, then you believe that that phrase that is used twice is to be understood two different ways?

This phrase, "a little lower than the angels?"

No, the same in both verses.

The first Adam, a little lower than the angels, subject to the death of him who had the power of death, that is the devil. Now take under consideration that before this man was created it had been ordained the Christ as of a lamb without blemish and without spot would die, shed his blood.

The first Adam, who is the figure of him that was to come. Rom. 5:14 The Christ.

This one is he who did come through water and blood -- Jesus the Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and the blood; 1 John 5:7 YLT
And on his thinking of these things, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, `Joseph, son of David, thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife, for that which in her was begotten [is] of the Holy Spirit, Matt 1:20 YLT
and when the fulness of time did come, God sent forth His Son, come (γενόμενον) of a woman, come (γενόμενον) under law, Gal. 4:4

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, Hebrews 2:9 KJV

Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Luke 20:36 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. Romans 6:9

 

[timjarrb]

good day brethren

I was ready this post and had to respond as to why I left the preterist belief that has enfluenced part of my family . I would like to say there are many diff version of the belief but either way you look at it the preterist belief always leads to saying most literal scriptures are spiritual and can lead you to believe none of the Bible is relevant to anyone today. The believe can lead to you beating on a door wanting in but being to late
Matthew 25.

Since Christ came in the volume of the book written of him to do the will of the father preterism excludes any man today from being called of God to preach seeing it excludes prophecy . Deep thought in preterism can lead one to believe since Timothy was called of God with prophecy then no one is called today.

 

[timjarrb]

as concerning the temple in 70ad no doubt God caused this to happen as Christ prophesied but that doesn't mean this was the second coming of Jesus . Lets look at the examples in the old testament in how the Lord was present and visible and was sometimes referred to as a angel . This didn't mean the messiah had already come . When the temple was destroyed in 70ad and many seen Angels and chariots of fire this didn't mean that this was the second coming of Jesus . Just as Jesus had to be born into the world to be the Messiah he will have to make a appearance with his resurrected body in order for it to be considered his second coming

Acts 17:31

Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

 

[asterisktom]

Since Christ came in the volume of the book written of him to do the will of the father preterism excludes any man today from being called of God to preach seeing it excludes prophecy .

What? Christ is our example, but not our blueprint down to the last detail.

Becaue He fulfilled the personal prophecy relating to His Messianic mission does not do away with future callings from God. Not all callings are Messianic (understatement!). Messianic callings or prophecies should be our pattern.

Deep thought in preterism can lead one to believe since Timothy was called of God with prophecy then no one is called today.

I guess I must be a shallow thinker in Preterism, then, because I have no idea how you make that connection. My conclusion concerning you is that you need to to look more into just what prophesy is.

Neither do I think - your claim notwithstanding - that you were ever really so far engaged in Preterism so as to know what "deep thought" on the subject would be.

I don't mean this to be insulting, just that it doesn't sound convincing.

 

[timjarrb]

1 Timothy 4:14

Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

Your calling was written before you entered the world just like the calling of Jesus . Is all I was saying . To think all Prophesy has been fulfilled and to have no futuristic view of prophecy means no church no preachers no nothing concerning the scripture is relevant to us because Christ has returned already , judgement has happened , and there is no more a church age . That is true preterism .

 

[timjarrb]

There are full preterist beliefs and half preterist . There are some half preterist that believe that the calling away came at Pentecost until 70ad and the wrath came 70ad . I
have talked to some that believe nobody will go to hell because it was cast into the lake of fire with death therefore in Christ all were made alive . I was raised in the full Gospel movement and a lot of my family believe you are raptured now since after Christ has came back already the moment you were saved and were made to sit in heavenly places in Christ Jesus . Just put it this way I am futuristic on mybelief on the return of Christ and
I am proud to be a Baptist

 

[timjarrb]

I have primitive Baptist friends who believe that we have been living in the 1000
year reign since 70ad . Either way I have looked at preterism it always leads me to think I was left out . Because I know if it all has truly past then there is no hope .

Revelation 20:4-6

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

 

[timjarrb]

the second death consists of no redemption

Revelation 21:8

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

If you weren't there in 70ad and if you were not resurrected when the preterist say and reigned with Christ 1000 years (some preterist say 40 or we are still in the 1000 year reign ) then according to the scripture God will allow you to be cast into a lake of fire because the resurrection is passed for you. This is why I am not Preterist