First century Parousia demands a first century rapture

[TheForgiven]

Folks, I'd like to recommend a great article I found on this very hot and touchy subject. http://www.preteristviewpoint.com/id64.html

I know many are fearful of claiming that a resurrection took place in the past, as noted by the mistakes of some Jews who taught that the resurrection was past from Paul's perspective. But the coming had not yet occurred, so as Paul indicated, it was not yet there and the times were not yet set-up.

I propose to you that Jesus kept His promise, that He did in fact gather His elect from the four winds after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. Where many people make the mistake is they assume that "A" resurrection is a resurrection for all. But as Paul clearly states, "at the last trump, the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we who are still alive at his coming..." Paul did not say that those who were lost for all eternity would be raised, but that those who had died IN CHRIST prior to His coming would rise first, then the rest [who are in Christ] would be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air.

Why can't we just take Christ at His word? Sure you and I were not there, but does that make it a lie to believe He kept His promise? Here then is a test of our faith. We Preterist are correct in the Parousia of Christ in 70AD. But I'm noticing that many Preterist are afraid of answering the resurrection. Do not fear what Futurist fear. Do not believe that because your eye didn't witness the resurrection that it must not have happened. And most importantly, don't feel that because someone may not have been standing there to say, "Look at this! Who are these we're seeing in the skies?" that it wasn't true. Though we do have a man who wrote about this great event, and even he admits that it was a strange and fantastic event to witness, and his name is Josephus.

But if you don't believe that Josephus was telling the truth, then at least trust and believe in the words of the Lord, and don't doubt Him. If He promised to return for His elect (The Jewish Christians and the Apostles), then believe that He kept His promise. He's Jesus and He does what He says. I get frustrated with Futurist that say, "Scripture and verse please! Show me where in scripture that the resurrection took place in the first century!" That's foolish to say the least because the ones who wrote the Bible filled with God's word were taken to be with the Lord when He returned. They treat the Bible as if it's not only an book of Holiness and of Jesus Christ, but as if it's the only official source for history. As stated, they are foolish for acting in this way, and most importantly, they show their lack of faith and belief in God's word, to the point that they have to reset all historical events because it didn't produce a resurrection and judgment in their very eyes. How does this affect them? They live and operate by sight and not by faith! To them, seeing is believing, just as Thomas demanded to thrust his fingers in the wounds of Jesus before he would believe that Jesus had risen. But Thomas was loved by Jesus, just as Jesus loves the Futurist, Historicists, and yes Preterists. Jesus loves all, and he offers correction to those of us who are in error.

As for us, our time will come. And I promise you that right now, up in the heavens, they are abiding in eternity with the Lord....cross my heart. :) Worry not, because our day will come....I promise. ;)

Joe

[TheForgiven]

I thought I'd post a Gnostic writing translated into English.

WARNING!!!! This is a GNOSTIC writing regarding the idea of the Resurrection. Not the similarities many of us have dealt with. This writer Nag Hammadi, writes to someone of his congregation about their truth of the resurrection. I've highlighted the arguments I used to use as a Full Preterist.

Reader be warned!

Some there are, my son Rheginos, who want to learn many things. They have this goal when they are occupied with questions whose answer is lacking. If they succeed with these, they usually think very highly of themselves. But I do not think that they have stood within the Word of Truth. They seek rather their own rest, which we have received through our Savior, our Lord Christ. We received it when we came to know the truth and rested ourselves upon it. But since you ask us pleasantly what is proper concerning the resurrection, I am writing you that it is necessary. To be sure, many are lacking faith in it, but there are a few who find it. So then, let us discuss the matter.

How did the Lord proclaim things while he existed in flesh and after he had revealed himself as Son of God? He lived in this place where you remain, speaking about the Law of Nature - but I call it 'Death'. Now the Son of God, Rheginos, was Son of Man. He embraced them both, possessing the humanity and the divinity, so that on the one hand he might vanquish death through his being Son of God, and that on the other through the Son of Man the restoration to the Pleroma might occur; because he was originally from above, a seed of Truth, before this structure had come into being. In this many dominions and divinities came into existence.

I know that I am presenting the solution in difficult terms, but there is nothing difficult in the Word of Truth. But since the Solution appeared so as not to leave anything hidden, but to reveal all things openly concerning existence - the destruction of evil on the one hand, the revelation of the elect on the other. This is the emanation of Truth and Spirit, Grace is of the Truth.

The Savior swallowed up death - (of this) you are not reckoned as being ignorant - for he put aside the world which is perishing. He transformed himself into an imperishable Aeon and raised himself up, having swallowed the visible by the invisible, and he gave us the way of our immortality. Then, indeed, as the Apostle said, "We suffered with him, and we arose with him, and we went to heaven with him". Now if we are manifest in this world wearing him, we are that one`s beams, and we are embraced by him until our setting, that is to say, our death in this life. We are drawn to heaven by him, like beams by the sun, not being restrained by anything. This is the spiritual resurrection which swallows up the psychic in the same way as the fleshly.

But if there is one who does not believe, he does not have the (capacity to be) persuaded. For it is the domain of faith, my son, and not that which belongs to persuasion: the dead shall arise! There is one who believes among the philsophers who are in this world. At least he will arise. And let not the philosopher who is in this world have cause to believe that he is one who returns himself by himself - and (that) because of our faith! For we have known the Son of Man, and we have believed that he rose from among the dead. This is he of whom we say, "He became the destruction of death, as he is a great one in whom they believe." Great are those who believe.

The thought of those who are saved shall not perish. The mind of those who have known him shall not perish. Therefore, we are elected to salvation and redemption since we are predestined from the beginning not to fall into the foolishness of those who are without knowledge, but we shall enter into the wisdom of those who have known the Truth. Indeed, the Truth which is kept cannot be abandoned, nor has it been. "Strong is the system of the Pleroma; small is that which broke loose (and) became (the) world. But the All is what is encompassed. It has not come into being; it was existing." So, never doubt concerning the resurrection, my son Rheginos! For if you were not existing in flesh, you received flesh when you entered this world. Why will you not receive flesh when you ascend into the Aeon? That which is better than the flesh is that which is for (the) cause of life. That which came into being on your account, is it not yours? Does not that which is yours exist with you? Yet, while you are in this world, what is it that you lack? This is what you have been making every effort to learn.

The afterbirth of the body is old age, and you exist in corruption. You have absence as a gain. For you will not give up what is better if you depart. That which is worse has diminution, but there is grace for it.

Nothing, then, redeems us from this world. But the All which we are, we are saved. We have received salvation from end to end. Let us think in this way! Let us comprehend in this way!

But there are some (who) wish to understand, in the enquiry about those things they are looking into, whether he who is saved, if he leaves his body behind, will be saved immediately. Let no one doubt concerning this. [...]. indeed, the visible members which are dead shall not be saved, for (only) the living members which exist within them would arise.

What, then, is the resurrection? It is always the disclosure of those who have risen. For if you remember reading in the Gospel that Elijah appeared and Moses with him, do not think the resurrection is an illusion. It is no illusion, but it is truth! Indeed, it is more fitting to say the world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection which has come into being through our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ.

But what am I telling you now? Those who are living shall die. How do they live in an illusion? The rich have become poor, and the kings have been overthrown. Everything is prone to change. The world is an illusion! - lest, indeed, I rail at things to excess!

But the resurrection does not have this aforesaid character, for it is the truth which stands firm. It is the revelation of what is, and the transformation of things, and a transition into newness. For imperishability descends upon the perishable; the light flows down upon the darkness, swallowing it up; and the Pleroma fills up the deficiency. These are the symbols and the images of the resurrection. He it is who makes the good.


Therefore, do not think in part, O Rheginos, nor live in conformity with this flesh for the sake of unanimity, but flee from the divisions and the fetters, and already you have the resurrection. For if he who will die knows about himself that he will die - even if he spends many years in this life, he is brought to this - why not consider yourself as risen and (already) brought to this? If you have the resurrection but continue as if you are to die - and yet that one knows that he has died - why, then, do I ignore your lack of exercise? It is fitting for each one to practice in a number of ways, and he shall be released from this Element that he may not fall into error but shall himself receive again what at first was.

These things I have received from the generosity of my Lord, Jesus Christ. I have taught you and your brethren, my sons, considering them, while I have not omitted any of the things suitable for strengthening you. But if there is one thing written which is obscure in my exposition of the Word, I shall interpret it for you (pl.) when you (pl.) ask. But now, do not be jealous of anyone who is in your number when he is able to help.

Many are looking into this which I have written to you. To these I say: Peace (be) among them and grace. I greet you and those who love you (pl.) in brotherly Love.

[Greenbrier]

So the preterist view is that the 1st resurrection has already happened (in 70 AD). If so, then how did the church continue on? Was it the existence of the letters and manuscripts that eventually formed our bibles? This concept is staggering to me.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So the preterist view is that the 1st resurrection has already happened (in 70 AD). If so, then how did the church continue on? Was it the existence of the letters and manuscripts that eventually formed our bibles? This concept is staggering to me.
I wouldn't say that "the preterist view is ..." I call myself a preterist because I see essentially all prophecies of Daniel, Revelation, and the OD fulfilled in the first cerntury. But the only reason the resurrection comes in is because the verses that speak of the resurrection speak of it as happening along with everthing else that really did happen in the first century.

So what I'm getting at is the "driving force" behind the preterist view. A plain and literal reading of the prophecies declare a first century fulfillment. History confirms the first century fulfillment of Christ's coming, atoning for sin, His resurrection, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the Temple destruction, and the Jewish Diaspora. We have an overwhelming body of evidence that the entire integrated prophetic complex was fulfilled in the first century. (Recognizing that there is an "already/not yet" feature to the kingdom prophecies, of course.) The only challenge to this view that I am currently aware of involves the meaning of the resurrection passages. But since there has been a MASSIVE nearly universal misunderstanding of the totally obvious symbolic meaning of the New Jerusalem as the Church, I am strongly inclined to think the problem is generated by an erroneous interpretation, as opposed to a contradiction in the first century fulfillemnt of the prophetic Scriptures which has been confirmed to one part in ten trillion in my estimation.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

So the preterist view is that the 1st resurrection has already happened (in 70 AD). If so, then how did the church continue on? Was it the existence of the letters and manuscripts that eventually formed our bibles? This concept is staggering to me.

I agree with Richard, that the Preterist position holds that the events spoken of in Matthew 24 (as well as Luke and Mark's account) were all fulfilled in the first century. The nature of the resurrection seems to be the problem most people are having.

I for one believe that the first resurrection occured in the first century. John, in Revelation speaks of two resurrections:


Revelation 20:
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for the thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

Most Preterist fully agree that "The 1000 years" represents the time of the Church; the Kingdom Christ set up during the days of the Caesars. The first resurrection consisted primarily of the early Church Martyrs, as indicated by "those who were beheaded".. I believe these represented those who were raised near the end of Jeruslaem's destruction, as described by the events of Josephus. As John is shown, everyone else who lives during the 1000 years, and die, are not raised until the completion of the 1000 years; that's the last and final resurrection.

So to answer your question, my perspective is that the first resurrection of the Church happened in the late 60's AD. Josephus and Cornelius both describe events which happened in Jerusalem, possibly giving proof that St. Paul and the other Apostles, along with the Church, were raised. The final resurrection, when the 1000 years is completed, is still to come, though many Christians since the 3rd century believed that John wasn't referring to a physical resurrection, but the resurrection introduced through Baptism. Water Baptism does signify a persons death in Christ, and resurrection in Christ. And scripturally, this would match considering Peter refers to believers in Jesus as Priests of God. And John is shown that those who take part in the first resurrection are, "Blessed and holy" and "they shall be priets of God and shall reign with Him for the 1000 years...." St. Constantine was the first to develope this belief, and I've found no other similar beliefs apart from what we read in the NT scriptures.

The discussion on the resurrection is still open for a very good debate.

Joe

[Greenbrier]

Acts 23:7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.

It seems the question of the resurrection is dividing the assembly still! I've grown up on the futurist view but I've always questioned it in my own mind. The evidences I've been reading here are very compelling to support the first century fulfillment of many of the prophecies. I'm just having a hard time understanding what may have been fulfilled what what may not have.

The futurist view of a coming anti-christ for example has always seemed to me a bit too contrived to me. It seems many have an attitude "this guy or that guy can't be the anticrist because I'm still here" (meaning that the raputure hasn't happend yet and that's going to happen before AC is revealed), or, "that verse can't possibly apply to current events because that doesn't happen until after the rapture."

Nevertheless, I see things happening in the world today that appear to be happening as if they are fulfillments of prophecy.

Since the Bible is a Wheel within a wheel (within a wheel) so to speak, isn't it plausable that there are multiple fulfillments of the same bit of scripture?

Jeff

[Trumpet]

If I might stick my 2 cents worth in,

The Passover was instituted with Moses, when the Jews left Egypt. Animal sacrifice to cover their sins was a shadow of what would come It was fulfilled IN FRONT OF ALL TO SEE AND WITH HISTORICAL CONFIRMATION, when Jesus died on the cross ON THE DAY of Passover and His blood was for the forgiveness of everyone's sins. Here we are saved.

Penticost was instituted at Mt Sinai, when the law was given to the Hebrews. God came down as a fire on the mountain to speak to the Jews, but they were afraid, and told Moses to go up, and then tell them what God said. In Exodus 20:20 (can you see clearly?), "And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not." It was fulfilled 50 days after the Resurrection ON THE FEAST DAY, IN FRONT OF ALL TO SEE, AND WITH HISTORICAL CONFIRMATION, when God came as fire on their heads, (renewing the mind), and spoke to the people through the Holy Spirit. This is the Spirit that sanctifies us, as we cooperate with Him. This is the second stage of the life of a believer, but as did the Jews at the mountain, it is possible to not accept this process.

Tabernacles was instituted by Moses as rememberance of the Jews living in booths when they came out of Egypt on their journey to the Promised Land. It corresponds with believers dwelling in a "fleshly booth" until the
resurrection, and our entrance into OUR Promised Land. The fulfillment of this Feast has not yet happened.

In the first two feasts, God made sure that the evidence was there, so that we would be assured of the fact of it's happening. During the destruction of Jerusalem, there were signs in the heavens, etc., but no hard evidence of a resurrection. The Temple was destroyed on Tisha B'av, at the end of August.
This time does not correspond to the Feast Day, nor has there only been speculation as to whether there was a resurrection.

As God made sure that we had hard evidence and witness to the fulfillment of the first two Feasts, He will make sure we know of the time of the fulfillment of the third.

Probably 99% of prophecy was fulfilled by AD 70, but the First and Second Resurrections have not yet taken place.

When I realized that the pre-trib thought was flawed, I gave it up, and I realized how my hope was too much on looking forward to an event; the rapture. But after accepting the preterist view, I've noticed that there is a useless feeling that accompanies it. I see now that the truth lies in the middle somewhere. The pre-tribbers try to read todays events as something that the bible is describing as prophecy; that's too far to the right. The preterists are trying to have everything done with 2000 years ago. That's too far to the left. The answer lies in between. Prophecy has been fulfilled, but the Feasts and the whole agenda of God returning this earth to a sinless planet has not yet been finished. It's like the figure 8 that Richard discovered. It starts with Abraham, and goes for 22 centuries to Jesus in one loop, then, it is going another direction for 22 centuries around to the starting point.

We've got a lot to look forward to; we just need to step up to another level to see it.

Don

[MuadDib987]

Acts 23:7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.

It seems the question of the resurrection is dividing the assembly still! I've grown up on the futurist view but I've always questioned it in my own mind. The evidences I've been reading here are very compelling to support the first century fulfillment of many of the prophecies. I'm just having a hard time understanding what may have been fulfilled what what may not have.

The futurist view of a coming anti-christ for example has always seemed to me a bit too contrived to me. It seems many have an attitude "this guy or that guy can't be the anticrist because I'm still here" (meaning that the raputure hasn't happend yet and that's going to happen before AC is revealed), or, "that verse can't possibly apply to current events because that doesn't happen until after the rapture."

Nevertheless, I see things happening in the world today that appear to be happening as if they are fulfillments of prophecy.

Since the Bible is a Wheel within a wheel (within a wheel) so to speak, isn't it plausable that there are multiple fulfillments of the same bit of scripture?

Jeff

For the record, Jeff, this is right where I am, as well. I had no exposure to Preterism until all the discussions here, but am coming to see its validity. The question of multiple fulfillments, though, has occurred to me - I think I asked that same sort of question on another thread somewhere.

Don - your proposal of a Somewhere in the Middle approach is kinda what I've been praying about as I sift through it all.

Mostly Lurking,
Kevin

[TheForgiven]

Acts 23:7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.

It seems the question of the resurrection is dividing the assembly still! I've grown up on the futurist view but I've always questioned it in my own mind. The evidences I've been reading here are very compelling to support the first century fulfillment of many of the prophecies. I'm just having a hard time understanding what may have been fulfilled what what may not have.

The futurist view of a coming anti-christ for example has always seemed to me a bit too contrived to me. It seems many have an attitude "this guy or that guy can't be the anticrist because I'm still here" (meaning that the raputure hasn't happend yet and that's going to happen before AC is revealed), or, "that verse can't possibly apply to current events because that doesn't happen until after the rapture."

Nevertheless, I see things happening in the world today that appear to be happening as if they are fulfillments of prophecy.

Since the Bible is a Wheel within a wheel (within a wheel) so to speak, isn't it plausable that there are multiple fulfillments of the same bit of scripture?

Jeff

You are not far from seeing things Jeff. I'm glad that you offered your thoughts on this issue. I was raised a Futurist. :pop2: Yeppers, I was one who constantly watched the news, stared at the sky, read the daily paper, to see if Russia was going to attack us at any moment. When even the slightest hint of possible nuclear war came about, I felt that the end of the world as at-hand. I then realized I was part of a sensational camp many years later after a simple discussion (no preaching) I had with a minister who told me to try wearing a pair of first century glasses. :lol: I put those glasses on, and MAN! Everything that was hazy and fuzzy started to come together.

So I'm recommending the same thing to you, my friend Jeff. Put on a pair of first century glasses and see. You might smile just as I did, and most importantly, some of the hocus pocus date setting will prove to be foolish to you. :Date_Setting:

Now I'm assuming that you're concerned about missing something, or what's fulfilled and what's NOT fulfilled.

There are two camps of Preterism: full and Partial

Full Preterist believe that everything happened in 70AD. This includes the resurrection, the AC, the striking down of the nations, the 1000 years, and the New Heaven and New Earth. Based on their view, the 1000 years was actually a figure from the Throne of David to Christ. But there is also an alternative view, that the 1000 years was actually a day, using the "Day = a 1000 / 1000 = a day". And there are some who believe that the 1000 years represented the time frame the gospels went forth from the nations until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD [i.e. 30AD to 70AD]. Full Preterist believe in the resurrection of the "soul" and these are provided new heavenly spiritual bodies. Some Full Preterist believe in a soul-only resurrection, while some believe in the spirit-only resurrection. [note: The Gnostics believed in a spirit-only resurrection]

Partial Preterist believe that most of the events were fulfilled in 70AD, and that the 1000 years begins at that point. So everything prior to the 1000 years was fulfilled in 70AD, and the rest is still making history. Now the PP view is very diverse, but one fact remains; these believe in the resurrection of our actual bodies. Some interpret the first resurrection as initial salvation through Baptism into death, in which we are raised to the newness of life. Still other PP's believe that the first resurrection happened in the first century, and that a final resurrection will happen at the completion of the 1000 years.

Historicists believe that Revelation from chapters 1 through the end is the entire span of history. They view the Roman Catholic Church as the Anti Christ. They do not interpret the "temple" mentioned in Revelation as the literal temple, but a figure applied to the Church, much like Ezekiel. They also believe that an evil Pope will be a future AC, and cause a tribulational period for seven years......:blah: They also believe there will be a first resurrection, a 1000 year earthly reign of Christ, and a final battle between satan and the reigning kingdom, and then the resurrection.

Futurist believe that nothing in Matthew 24 was fulfilled, and that Christ was referring to a future temple, with a future AC, and a future Tribulation, and a regathering of the Jewish animal system...: blah: They view everything from Rev chapter 3 unto the end has not yet been fulfilled. But as with the other diverse belief's, Futurism is probably the most diverse, with multiplie beliefs of the mark-of-the-beast, the AC, the restored temple, and the 1000 year reign. Between the Historicist and the Futurist, both have a long history of failed predictions and misinterpretations of the scriptures. What makes the Futurist unique in their own studies is they view a great deal of the scriptures are to be taken literal, with very little figures applied. The only figures they interpret are those where the Bible clearly states they are figures, much like the parables of Jesus. Unless the scripture says they are figures, they interpret them as literal.

Me? I swapped from the Futurist position, to the Full Preterist position, and now Partial Preterist. Real short, my reasons is because of the resurrection. I believe the first resurrection happened in the late 60's AD. Josephus may have described the resurrection of the early Church. But not everyone agrees with me on this, and that is their choice. At the same time, there are many that do agree with me. I believe the 1000 years represents the Church age, and at the appointed time, the world will be transformed after the Kingdom of God has completed its mission; the striking down of all the nations. Then comes the final Great White Throne Judgment and the lake of fire. So the New Heavens and the New Earth, along with the New Jerusalem, are both here now, and yet will come.....just like Jesus, who is, who was, and who is to come.

Study wisely, pay attention to figures, read the Old Testament prophets carefully, and do some history work...you'll need it. Nearly seven years I've been studying this issue, and I'm still studying.....:ranger:

God be with you friend.

Joe

[MHz]

Study wisely, pay attention to figures, read the Old Testament prophets carefully, and do some history work...you'll need it. Nearly seven years I've been studying this issue, and I'm still studying.....:ranger:


Figures like 60AD + 1000 = 2008+ ?
Why would God be so precise in fulfilling all the other dates He has given, the 70 weeks, the 430 years Israel was in Egypt, etc. and suddenly be off by about 950 years so far? That would seem to be something that would drive people away. At least when Jesus said 'until the fullness of the Gentiles' it was leaving the date as being unknown, so does 'Nobody knows the day except the Father', date unknown. So if the 1000 doesn't really mean anything then any reference to 1/2 hour, within an hour, one hour, one day is also completely meaningless



Futurist believe that nothing in Matthew 24 was fulfilled, and that Christ was referring to a future temple, with a future AC, and a future Tribulation, and a regathering of the Jewish animal system...: blah: They view everything from Rev chapter 3 unto the end has not yet been fulfilled. But as with the other diverse belief's, Futurism is probably the most diverse, with multiplie beliefs of the mark-of-the-beast, the AC, the restored temple, and the 1000 year reign. Between the Historicist and the Futurist, both have a long history of failed predictions and misinterpretations of the scriptures. What makes the Futurist unique in their own studies is they view a great deal of the scriptures are to be taken literal, with very little figures applied. The only figures they interpret are those where the Bible clearly states they are figures, much like the parables of Jesus. Unless the scripture says they are figures, they interpret them as literal.
Joe, correct me if I am wrong here, but don't you also follow certain current events and apply them to Scripture. The best example I can recall would be about Iran or Islam in general.
Most futurists I have encountered do to that very same thing, first it was Russia, now it is Iran (and Islam in general), after they fail to provide the expected 'actions', it will be onto whoever western Christians say the evil one is. The government may promote it but "Christians swallow it hook, line, and sinker". And it is swallowed because both entities say the very same words.



I believe the 1000 years represents the Church age, and at the appointed time, the world will be transformed after the Kingdom of God has completed its mission; the striking down of all the nations.
Is that your job or God's job, striking down nations?

Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Figures like 60AD + 1000 = 2008+ ?
Why would God be so precise in fulfilling all the other dates He has given, the 70 weeks, the 430 years Israel was in Egypt, etc. and suddenly be off by about 950 years so far? That would seem to be something that would drive people away. At least when Jesus said 'until the fullness of the Gentiles' it was leaving the date as being unknown, so does 'Nobody knows the day except the Father', date unknown. So if the 1000 doesn't really mean anything then any reference to 1/2 hour, within an hour, one hour, one day is also completely meaningless

Hey there Wayne,

I don't think that's a fair criticism because it assumes that the thousand years was meant as a precise figure, but there are three big problems with that. First, the number one thousand is a typical "big round number" used elsewhere in the Bible to mean "a large unspecified number" so there is no reason to assume here in this one case that is must be a precise number. And second, God gave no confiming passage anywhere in Scripture, so God knows that He did not give us the proof according to His own standard of two of three witnesses. Third, the thousand years is nothing like the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks or Jeremiah's 70 years because God didn't give it a definite starting period.

Richard

[MHz]

I don't think that's a fair criticism because it assumes that the thousand years was meant as a precise figure, but there are two big problems with that. First, the number one thousand is a typical "big round number" used elsewhere in the Bible to mean "a large unspecified number" so there is no reason to assume here in this one case that is must be a precise number. And second, God gave no confiming passage anywhere in Scripture, so God knows that He did not give us the proof according to His own standard of two of three witnesses. Third, the thousand years is nothing like the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks or Jeremiah's 70 years because God didn't give it a definite starting period.

Richard
Hi Richard,
I let it pass the first time it was posted.
Sure He did, it starts after those listed in the previous verses are alive.
If 1000 covers 'big numbers' then why not use 1000 in this next verse?
2Ki:19:35:
And it came to pass that night,
that the angel of the LORD went out,
and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand:
and when they arose early in the morning,
behold,
they were all dead corpses.

Or in this one, why not make an even 400?
Ex:12:40: Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

Ex:38:26: A bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men.

How about these numbers from Nu:1

forty and six thousand and five hundred
fifty and nine thousand and three hundred
forty and five thousand six hundred and fifty
threescore and fourteen thousand and six hundred

I could go on but the above should show that if God gives fairly accurate numbers for these things why is 1000 a number that basically has no meaning.

The offset of 1000 years as being like a day (to God) is that Judgment Day could last a 1000 years (our time)

What God didn't do for the 70 weeks is give the time from when it was made desolate until the consummation.

The first woe in Revelation is said to last 5 months, since you can't find 5 months mentioned in Daniel that means Daniel and Revelation are not talking about the same thing, using your argument. The argument for them being about similar things is that the events that happen have too many similarities for then not to be about the same events covered in both books.

The war with Satan is not over at the start of the 1000, assuming a 'little season' is less than 1 year it will be over by 1001.

Wayne

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey ho Wayne,


Hi Richard,
I let it pass the first time it was posted.
Sure He did, it starts after those listed in the previous verses are alive.


How do you know that we are supposed to interpret the separate visions of Revelation sequentially in time? Indeed, if that is how we are supposed to intepret it, then why did the "time of the dead, that they should be judged" come in Chapter 11 long before chapter 20?
Revelation 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
And besides that, my point stands because the "1000 years" is just mentioned as part of a vision, it is not in a proclamation by God about future events like Daniel's 70 weeks and Jeremiah's 70 years. You don't even know for sure if God intended you to interpret Revelation as still future, correct? I mean you assume it, you deduce it through logic and comparison of verses, but you don't actually know it, right? So your position on the "thousand years" depends on a lot of interpretational decisions you made elsewhere, many of which are strongly contested.


If 1000 covers 'big numbers' then why not use 1000 in this next verse?
2Ki:19:35:
And it came to pass that night,
that the angel of the LORD went out,
and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand:
and when they arose early in the morning,
behold,
they were all dead corpses.

Because God wanted to be specific in that case. Asking why God did or did not do something in a specific case will never settle this issue one way or the other. We need to work with what we DO know, not with what we DON'T know.


Or in this one, why not make an even 400?
Ex:12:40: Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

Because God wanted to be very specific in that case too.


Ex:38:26: A bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men.

How about these numbers from Nu:1

forty and six thousand and five hundred
fifty and nine thousand and three hundred
forty and five thousand six hundred and fifty
threescore and fourteen thousand and six hundred

I could go on but the above should show that if God gives fairly accurate numbers for these things why is 1000 a number that basically has no meaning.
The fact that God gave very specific big numbers does not prove that He never used the number one thousand as a symbol for a large unspecified number. Your examples are not actually relevant to this question, are they? Are you denying that God uses the number 1000 as a symbol of a large unspecified number?


The offset of 1000 years as being like a day (to God) is that Judgment Day could last a 1000 years (our time)

It also means that the Millennium could last 24 hours (our time).


What God didn't do for the 70 weeks is give the time from when it was made desolate until the consummation.

I agree ... if I understand you correctly. It seems like the middle of the 70th week was fulfilled in the crucifixion of Christ, and then the desolation followed in 70 AD.


The first woe in Revelation is said to last 5 months, since you can't find 5 months mentioned in Daniel that means Daniel and Revelation are not talking about the same thing, using your argument.
The argument for them being about similar things is that the events that happen have too many similarities for then not to be about the same events covered in both books.

My argument? I dont' think so. I try to avoid simplistic arguments like that. I read the whole Bible and compare Scripture with Scripture as best I can.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

I have a question for you MHz. If we're supposed to take the words of the Bible to be literal, then please answer the following questions.

1. The Beast which rises out of the sea; is this literal? Should we expect a literal Clash of the Titans type beast to rise from the sea, with seven heads, 10 horns, and 10 crowns on it's head?

2. Should we expect a literal Beast to rise from the earth?

3. Are the Locusts with tails like a scorpian literal as well?

Joe

[MHz]

I have a question for you MHz. If we're supposed to take the words of the Bible to be literal, then please answer the following questions.

1. The Beast which rises out of the sea; is this literal? Should we expect a literal Clash of the Titans type beast to rise from the sea, with seven heads, 10 horns, and 10 crowns on it's head?

2. Should we expect a literal Beast to rise from the earth?

3. Are the Locusts with tails like a scorpian literal as well?

Joe
1.
It would be the Beast from the Pit, 10 horns are the 10 kingdoms (toes in Daniel) horn can also refer to a certain language. The 7 heads would seem to be sins, something like the below
Re:16:9: And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.
Re:9:20: And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:
Re:9:21: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.
2. There should be three altogether. The body comes out of the sea, since they have similarities to Daniel's beasts that are representative of the statue, it might be this sea,
Re:17:15: And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
3. They are as real as these, only smaller and weaker, but then they are meant to just cause pain, no deaths,
Re:9:14:
Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet,
Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
Re:9:15:
And the four angels were loosed,
which were prepared for an hour,
and a day,
and a month,
and a year,
for to slay the third part of men.
Re:9:16:
And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand:
and I heard the number of them.
Re:9:17:
And thus I saw the horses in the vision,
and them that sat on them,
having breastplates of fire,
and of jacinth,
and brimstone:
and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions;
and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
Re:9:18:
By these three was the third part of men killed,
by the fire,
and by the smoke,
and by the brimstone,
which issued out of their mouths.
Re:9:19:
For their power is in their mouth,
and in their tails:
for their tails were like unto serpents,
and had heads,
and with them they do hurt.

You would think they would be fairly easy to spot in Daniel's 4th kingdom.

If memory serves me correctly Satan's 3 most important encounters with man are in Re:12, two are past, only the last woman is future, that should be the ones sealed, both the 144,000 and believing Gentiles. The ones that commit some 'sins' during that time but repent would probably need a resurrection.

The false prophet is the 2nd beast
Re:13:11: And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

Once Daniel's verses are examined these ones are easier to explain.

Later Joe,

Wayne

[TheForgiven]

Hello again MHz. Your post above is certainly unique in that I've never heard anyone interpret the text in this way. It's interesting, though I do not agree. And you didn't quite answer my question.

Is the Beast in Revelation literal or not?

Is the Best from the earth literal or not?

Are you saying the horns represent sins? :confused2:

Good chatting with you MHz.

Joe

[MHz]

Hello again MHz. Your post above is certainly unique in that I've never heard anyone interpret the text in this way. It's interesting, though I do not agree. And you didn't quite answer my question.

Is the Beast in Revelation literal or not?

Is the Best from the earth literal or not?

Are you saying the horns represent sins? :confused2:

Good chatting with you MHz.

Joe

Not at this moment,
Re:17:11: And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

He was originally from Heaven, he is now in the earth in chains in the pit without water, waiting to be released.

No, the 7 heads are the blasphemies, things Satan likes to promote that are in opposition to God's Laws. Lying and murder are two things he has done against God, by the end of his time there will be a few more.

The 10 horns are these 10 men,
Re:17:12: And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Later Joe.

[TheForgiven]

Not at this moment,
Re:17:11: And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

He was originally from Heaven, he is now in the earth in chains in the pit without water, waiting to be released.

No, the 7 heads are the blasphemies, things Satan likes to promote that are in opposition to God's Laws. Lying and murder are two things he has done against God, by the end of his time there will be a few more.

The 10 horns are these 10 men,
Re:17:12: And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Later Joe.

You're close, but I get the feeling you believe these kings had not yet accomplish their hour. Scripture says that these had authority for one hour with the Beast to carry out their purpose. Are you saying that the hour is yet to come?

1 John 2:18
Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.

Now I'd love to hear your response to this MHZ. If John supposed that it was the "last hour" because of the "many AC" that had come into the world, is this hour still ticking? :playball:

And since John knew it was the last hour, isn't this the same "hour" that was part of the "Day" of the Lord? And wasn't this the same "Hour" that the angels released the four winds bound at the Great River Euphrates, which is were Prince Titus and his massive armies marched southward to attack Jerusalem? Just how many "last hours" were there in Biblical history.

The Last Hour has to be part of the Day of the Lord, which Daniel refers to a "The End" of Daniel's people and His City.

Isn't it great how all the scriptures fit together like a snug little glove?

Joe