Some Objections to AD70 Rapture Answered

[Reformed1689]

I had not heard it for many years. But when it was presented to me, with biblical backing, I finally saw the point. But Wow is right. It is a radical change of view.

There is no biblical backing for it.

 

[John of Japan]

Orthodox perterists would disagree. Anyway the literal understanding of the texts regarding Christ's second appearing rules out the perterist views all together.

Even so, I am still willing to discuss the orthodox perterist view for their benefit. Not that it will change the perterist mind. But they cannot change their view without understanding the view they do not hold. Same with any of us.

I was not aware that orthodox preterists argued much for the early date of Rev., but it is absolutely essential for full preterists.

 

[37818]

I was not aware that orthodox preterists argued much for the early date of Rev., but it is absolutely essential for full preterists.

Revelation 11:1-2, "And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." Which temple, the temple destroyed in 70AD or the one not yet built?

 

[John of Japan]

Revelation 11:1-2, "And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months." Which temple, the temple destroyed in 70AD or the one not yet built?

The one not yet built, in my view.

 

[Two Wings]

The one not yet built for me.

I think this is pretty clear, particularly in light of Ez 42 .... where he is taken, similar to John, to this place/time to see the 3rd Temple with the 300 (500?) reed wall which separates the Holy from the profane thing (the dome of the rock)

This passage doesn't indicate when John lived, though.

I also agree with you that John wrote Revelation in the last decade of the first century.

 

[John of Japan]

Tell you what, folks, I'm going back to the OP. Mea culpa--I think I helped derail the thread.

1. How come no one witnessed all these Christians being raptured? I think the best answer is that it happened truly as Jesus forewarned, like a thief in the night. The same time that that the priests were ministering in the Temple and heard the voice saying “Let us depart from here”.

In an earlier post I had gone into more detail on this, including the quote from Josephus on this event. IMO, I think the “depart from here” was a reference to those just then leaving Hades, followed a split second (or less!) by those on Earth.

The fact that this was at night and that many Christians were being hauled away, never to be seen again, just like Paul had been doing three decades earlier, help to make this more under the radar.

A very simple answer: when a thief has been in your house, you know something is missing. As I said earlier (and Tom did not answer), relatives and friends--millions of them--would know something stupendous had happened. A rapture is impossible to cover up.

2. Why did no one write about this supposed removal of all Christians from the Earth? And why did those contemporary Christians like Clement and the writer of the Didache not mention it? I would reply first of all that there was not a lot of writing going on then. Or the writings were not found. Many of the writings supposedly from the subsequent two or three decades are better dated prior to AD70.

The Didache and Clements letter to the Romans come to mind here. Both of them refer to Temple rites still ongoing. Both are often erroneously dated after AD70. For that matter Johns Revelation is also erroneously dated. He thus, consequently, made no mention of the destruction of the Temple, but rather described it and the rites as still existing.

This is a "potato, potahto" argument. It is based solely on the dating question. He says Didache was dated before AD 70, but it is usually dated around 100. Regardless, the Didache does not appear to talk about the temple anyway. It talks about sacrifice, but that does not necessarily mean "temple." Check it out: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

I say Revelation is dated AD 96. Tom cannot disprove that.

3. What about the persecutions still happening after AD70 at Pella and elsewhere? I would say that if there are no longer Christians on the Earth what happens then it is not persecution but payback. The ones still left behind are those who remained unconvinced by the Gospel. However outwardly righteous they may have been they were strangers to the righteousness of God.

The detailed account of Josephus of what happened to the Jews in Pella, Masada, Antioch, and other cities throughout the Empire show God’ s retribution on those who obstinately refused His midnight call for repentance.

So what? Again I say, there is no theological reason for an AD 70 rapture. And theology is not simply quoting Scripture. I have reason from premil dispensationalism for a future rapture, but there is no established theology that calls for a 70 rapture.

4. If the Christians were all raptured from the Earth how did Christianity start again? Although the Christians were gone, their writings were not. And if God, as Jesus said, could make “sons of Abraham” from stones surely He could – and I believe He did – grow new saints out of the writings left behind by the raptured older saints.

Again, this begs the question. Why in the world would God rapture the saints in AD 70, only to have Christianity continue to grow?

 

[Two Wings]

So here's a question ...

Will we see Ezekiel and John observing/measuring the 3rd Temple? (not a pre-trib/post-trib rapture reference)

 

[asterisktom]

There is no biblical backing for it.

On the contrary, there is no biblical backing for the later date.

 

[Iconoclast]

I was not aware that orthodox preterists argued much for the early date of Rev., but it is absolutely essential for full preterists.

Ken Gentry makes a case for the early date,but does not go overboard suggesting a 70ad rapture.
The language of coming in the clouds was speaking of the judgment upon Jerusalem,as Jesus said would happen..it was a sign of His reign from the heavenly throne.
Tom.....are you sure you have not gone too far?

 

[Two Wings]

On the contrary, there is no biblical backing for the later date.

chap/verse with a date reference? No

But given The Master prophesied the destruction of the 2nd (Herod's) Temple ... 70 AD ... and John mentions this ... I'd say John couldn't have passed before 70AD ... and assuming his last act wasn't Rev 22:21 "...Amen" and he breathed his last .... well. It certainly invalidates a pre 70AD passing.

 

[asterisktom]

Ken Gentry makes a case for the early date,but does not go overboard suggesting a 70ad rapture.
The language of coming in the clouds was speaking of the judgment upon Jerusalem,as Jesus said would happen..it was a sign of His reign from the heavenly throne.
Tom.....are you sure you have not gone too far?

No. Please show me from Scripture how I have gone too far. And in what way: by positing a 1st century date or a 1st century rapture? According to the comforting promises of Christ and His inspired writers the saints were led to expect more than a mere sign.

 

[asterisktom]

chap/verse with a date reference? No

But given The Master prophesied the destruction of the 2nd (Herod's) Temple ... 70 AD ... and John mentions this ... I'd say John couldn't have passed before 70AD ... and assuming his last act wasn't Rev 22:21 "...Amen" and he breathed his last .... well. It certainly invalidates a pre 70AD passing.

I see the exact opposite. John mentions the prophesy, of course, but not the event. According to you Revelation (possibly also his other writings) were post-event. Why, then, no mention of it?

 

[Two Wings]

I see the exact opposite. John mentions the prophesy, of course, but not the event. According to you Revelation (possibly also his other writings) were post-event. Why, then, no mention of it?

IDK.

But the lack of reference isn't something on which I'd hang my hat as to "therefore meaning" it had to be some other specified time. My Ryrie Study Bible from '77 says there were "fragments" found of this book around 135 AD ... but that the Gospel was circulated circa 90AD ...

Can't prove it by me ... but the point which drug me into this discussion of the 1 Thess 4:16-17 rapture happening 70 AD ???

meh. Acts (Peter) describes no Believer was killed in Jerusalem in 70 AD ... because they understood the words of Jesus as He left the Temple for the last time in 30 AD "... no stone here will be left unturned" which according to hebrew scholars, has a numerical association summing 40. 30 & 40 sum 70. So that's how they knew in advance to vacate Jerusalem.

I'm gonna guess Peter would have been raptured ... but no ... he'll be like my dad real soon ... raised first for us who remain to follow meeting Jesus in the air.

 

[tyndale1946]

IDK.

But the lack of reference isn't something on which I'd hang my hat as to "therefore meaning" it had to be some other specified time. My Ryrie Study Bible from '77 says there were "fragments" found of this book around 135 AD ... but that the Gospel was circulated circa 90AD ...

Can't prove it by me ... but the point which drug me into this discussion of the 1 Thess 4:16-17 rapture happening 70 AD ???

meh. Acts (Peter) describes no Believer was killed in Jerusalem in 70 AD ... because they understood the words of Jesus as He left the Temple for the last time in 30 AD "... no stone here will be left unturned" which according to hebrew scholars, has a numerical association summing 40. 30 & 40 sum 70. So that's how they knew in advance to vacate Jerusalem.

I'm gonna guess Peter would have been raptured ... but no ... he'll be like my dad real soon ... raised first for us who remain to follow meeting Jesus in the air.

Harpazo

Acts 8:39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

2 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

12:3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth

12:4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 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.

Revelation 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

First of all I don't believe in a rapture as some do... And if I were some of you on here I would find out where this doctrine came from... And I can tell you its not Baptist!... The above uses Harpazo and if you want to get to the Greek of the matter talk to JOJ... Was Philip raptured?... What about Paul?... The last two is not about a rapture (or being caught up) but resurrection... I'm waiting for a resurrection!... Was Jesus Christ resurrected or raptured?... I been on here too long and no one has since then convinced me there is going to be rapture and all that entails... Brother Glen

 

[Two Wings]

And I can tell you its not Baptist!.

huh?

I was raised Southern Baptist ... and have been taught this very thing. What is 1 Thess 4:16-17???

What is Matthew 24:31 (I think) ... where the angels are sent to the corners to gather the elect ... the harvest of the wheat from Jesus' famous wheat/tares parable?

Phillip was "translated" when he went to see the Ethiopian Enuch on his chariot ... and back. That's different. IDK about Paul.

 

[Reformed1689]

On the contrary, there is no biblical backing for the later date.

There's no biblical backing for either. But there is historical backing for a later date.

 

[asterisktom]

There's no biblical backing for either. But there is historical backing for a later date.

Please see post 55 in this thread for the historical backing for the earlier date. And of course there would be no Biblical backing for the later date if inspired Scripture had ceased, which I believe to be the case. I had already mentioned internal indicators for the earlier date.

 

[kyredneck]

I was raised Southern Baptist ...

Me too.

and have been taught this very thing. What is 1 Thess 4:16-17???

Wasn't taught so much the sensationalist dramatic version many seem to hold to these days.

What is Matthew 24:31 (I think)

31 And he shall send forth his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Mt 24

The 'gospel trumpet' calling His sheep into the fold over the centuries.

where the angels are sent to the corners to gather the elect

Angels = messengers

the harvest of the wheat from Jesus' famous wheat/tares parable?

The tares were never called or 'evangelized'. They were gathered to be burned.

Phillip was "translated" when he went to see the Ethiopian Enuch on his chariot ... and back. That's different. IDK about Paul.

The point @tyndale1946 was trying to make is that all those 'incidents' were not seen by any others, you know, like:

20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Lu 17

 

[asterisktom]

T
I say Revelation is dated AD 96. Tom cannot disprove that.

I went over this in post 55.

 

[tyndale1946]

huh?

I was raised Southern Baptist ... and have been taught this very thing. What is 1 Thess 4:16-17???

What is Matthew 24:31 (I think) ... where the angels are sent to the corners to gather the elect ... the harvest of the wheat from Jesus' famous wheat/tares parable?

Phillip was "translated" when he went to see the Ethiopian Enuch on his chariot ... and back. That's different. IDK about Paul.

First of all welcome to the Baptist Board... I too was raised in a Baptist Church that never taught a rapture!... Resurrection , I never heard a sermon without it... So I come on this board almost two decades ago and I hear rapture... So I ask myself why do other churches teach the rapture and mine doesn't?... So I went searching for the answer, and found it... Now the question a have been asking since I've been here is why do Baptist believe in a doctrine started by two Jesuit Priests... Manuel Lacunza and Francisco Ribera?... Don't take my word for it... Look it up for yourself, just like I did... Brother Glen