Revelation was written in the reign of Nero

[robycop3]

No. You can't prove anything from your history book. I know you didn't read that in college either, and you lack academics . Also, you don't understand prophecy in Scripture because you have no gift for it.

Some are given the gift of prophecy interpretation but you weren't!

  But YOU can't even figure out what is prophesied when.

You can't even take the effort to explain your position on how if Rev. was written in AD95--reconcile the internal evidence in Rev. on how the Jews were a threat to Rome in AD95.

   One easy proof is that Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 AD, but Jesus said it was prospering in earthly riches, & it's known that Laodicea wasn't restored to prosperity til the 80s AD. You may Google for more results if you wish.

[lea]

  One easy proof is that Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in 60 AD, but Jesus said it was prospering in earthly riches, & it's known that Laodicea wasn't restored to prosperity til the 80s AD. You may Google for more results if you wish.

Revelation was written before AD60 earthquake anyway. It didn't take Laodicea many years anyway to rebuild.

[robycop3]

Revelation was written before AD60 earthquake anyway. It didn't take Laodicea many years anyway to rebuild.

No, it wasn't, & no, it didn't.

[lea]

No, it wasn't, & no, it didn't.

Why don't you type out a paragraph or 2 proving it.  Cite the link per the rules.

[robycop3]

Why don't you type out a paragraph or 2 proving it.  Cite the link per the rules.

Already have, a while back, in another thread.

[DaveW]

You wish!
Show me evidence from Matthew 24 that Jesus didn't return as He predicted during the Roman/Jewish war in AD70.

Who claims that Matt 24 has the whole story?

What about Zech 14?

4 In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. 5 You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! ....  8 And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem, half of them toward the eastern sea and the other half toward the western sea; it will be in summer as well as in winter.

The Mount of Olives is still intact.  I was there a year and a half ago. There is no river flowing out of that future valley toward the Mediterranean - YET.

And there is this pesky statement on our Lord's return:

Revelation 1:7
Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen.

There is no record anywhere of people seeing Him in 70 ad in Africa, Europe, East Asia, the Americas, etc. 

[3 Resurrections]

Hi DaveW,

You are mistaking those "living waters" of Zechariah for an actual flowing river hydrating the landscape, when it is supposed to be like the prediction Christ gave of the "rivers of living water" flowing out of the belly of those who are given the Spirit of God (John 7:38).  At that time, Christ was actually referring back to the Zechariah prophecy, since He said  His illustration was "as the scripture hath said".

As for the "EVERY eye shall see him"?  This was NOT a universal, simultaneous viewing of Christ's bodily return by every inhabitant on the globe, since Christ's human form returning to the Mount of Olives was only going to be visible to those in that immediate  vicinity.  The scripture in Rev. 1:7 LIMITS that viewing to "EVEN (or "specifically") those which pierced Him".  Which limits this direct viewing of Christ's return to that first-century Jewish audience of tribes and the Romans who both participated in crucifying the Savior.

[DaveW]

You are mistaking those "living waters" of Zechariah for an actual flowing river hydrating the landscape,

The Peshat (plain literal) meaning is the primary interpretation of ANY Hebrew (OT) scripture.  So while it may ALSO mean a spiritual river, (Sod meaning) the literal meaning is true. 

There is NOTHING in the OT that should be taken as spiritual only and thus ignore the plain literal meaning.

As for the "EVERY eye shall see him"?  This was NOT a universal, simultaneous viewing of Christ's bodily return by every inhabitant on the globe,

Says who? 

The scripture in Rev. 1:7 LIMITS that viewing to "EVEN (or "specifically") those which pierced Him".

Really?  It means "including." That would be the pre-believing Jews alive when He returns and EVERYONE sees Him including them. To not understand that is to overlook the very real identification the Jewish community has with past national events.  Every year at Passover every Jew is to identify as having come out of Egypt him/herself.  Not just their ancestors.  Every Shavuot/Passover they are to count themselves as standing at the foot of Mt Sinai to hear God speak the 10 commandments.

So "those who pierced Him" means those who have followed Talmudic Judaism with its blatantly anti-Jesus teachings.

Matthew 27:25
And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!"

[lea]

DaveW,
The living waters in Zechariah represents the same "living water" Jesus offered the Samaritan woman. It's the same living waters we read in Revelation 22 in the NEW JERUSALEM.

It has nothing to do with literal physical water flowing.  It's about the offer to the Jews (in Zechariah) to receive the Holy Spirit.

And every eye seeing Him meant the tribes of the land (again Israel) who had him pierced at the crucifixion would "acknowledge" His deity sitting at the right hand of the Father, and they would definitely mourn their actions! Jesus told the same to the High priest in person. (the revelation of Jesus Christ)

Recall what Peter wrote in Acts 3 (even Acts 2 also)

12 And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: "Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. 14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. 16 And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus[c] has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.

17 "And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. 22 Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.' 24 And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. 25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' 26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness."

Zechariah 14 speaks of what would happen to "earthly" Israel in the great tribulation- and shows the NEW JERUSALEM - which is through belief in the Messiah (Christ).

So, the prophet goes from the earthly to the spiritual realm of Jerusalem.  Note how he said that Jerusalem would be raised up? This is spiritual and metaphorical language.

It's God's  mountain - Mt. Zion - in the new covenant spiritual city.

[robycop3]

DaveW,
The living waters in Zechariah represents the same "living water" Jesus offered the Samaritan woman. It's the same living waters we read in Revelation 22 in the NEW JERUSALEM.

It has nothing to do with literal physical water flowing.  It's about the offer to the Jews (in Zechariah) to receive the Holy Spirit.

And every eye seeing Him meant the tribes of the land (again Israel) who had him pierced at the crucifixion would "acknowledge" His deity sitting at the right hand of the Father, and they would definitely mourn their actions! Jesus told the same to the High priest in person. (the revelation of Jesus Christ)

Recall what Peter wrote in Acts 3 (even Acts 2 also)

12 And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: "Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. 14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. 16 And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus[c] has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.

17 "And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. 22 Moses said, 'The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.' 24 And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. 25 You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' 26 God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness."

Zechariah 14 speaks of what would happen to "earthly" Israel in the great tribulation- and shows the NEW JERUSALEM - which is through belief in the Messiah (Christ).

So, the prophet goes from the earthly to the spiritual realm of Jerusalem.  Note how he said that Jerusalem would be raised up? This is spiritual and metaphorical language.

It's God's  mountain - Mt. Zion - in the new covenant spiritual city.

  Jesus said EVERY EYE, PERIOD ! He did not say "every Israeli eye". And the ones who actually pierced Him were ROMANS, even though they did so at the Jews urging & threats to complain to Caesar that Pilate was allowing a rebel to go unpunished.

[lea]

  Jesus said EVERY EYE, PERIOD ! He did not say "every Israeli eye". And the ones who actually pierced Him were ROMANS, even though they did so at the Jews urging & threats to complain to Caesar that Pilate was allowing a rebel to go unpunished.

You're looking for the physical when John says he's was "in the Spirit" Prophetic language is used. There is both a spiritual and literal fulfillment. Every eye meant all those near the area of Christ's return, not all over the world.

And FYI, Tacitus recorded in the Roman annuls the same phenomena Josephus did over the skies of Jerusalem.

I know how you hate proof, but you are of a very few that doesn't acknowledge that history.

You're very much behind a lot of Christians and others!

[robycop3]

You're looking for the physical when John says he's was "in the Spirit" Prophetic language is used. There is both a spiritual and literal fulfillment. Every eye meant all those near the area of Christ's return, not all over the world.

  Yes, John was "in the spirit' when he saw the visions, but their fulfillment will be LITERAL. And "every eye" means JUST THAT. If CNN can show the whole world an event by satellite TV, how much more can GOD do ?

And FYI, Tacitus recorded in the Roman annuls the same phenomena Josephus did over the skies of Jerusalem.

  He likely copied from Josephus. He didn't see any of that stuff himself. And there were several hundred thousand people in the area. Funny that no one but Josephus claimed to have seen & heard chariots in the sky. He made it up, same as YOU make stuff up.

I know how you hate proof, but you are of a very few that doesn't acknowledge that history.

You're very much behind a lot of Christians and others!

  The only thing proven is that some ancients besides Aesop made up stories, same as YOU do now.

[DaveW]

You're looking for the physical when John says he's was "in the Spirit" Prophetic language is used. There is both a spiritual and literal fulfillment. Every eye meant all those near the area of Christ's return, not all over the world.

Unless you can give me chapter and verse saying the people in China and South America are NOT included in "every eye," Then I will take the literal understanding.  That is ABSOLUTELY possible today with television and the internet.

IMO you are twisting the plain meaning since it does not fit with what was possible in the first century.

Do not change the plain meaning of scripture to fit doctrine; rather change your doctrine to fit the plain meaning of scripture.

[Rella]

Unless you can give me chapter and verse saying the people in China and South America are NOT included in "every eye," Then I will take the literal understanding.  That is ABSOLUTELY possible today with television and the internet.

IMO you are twisting the plain meaning since it does not fit with what was possible in the first century.

Do not change the plain meaning of scripture to fit doctrine; rather change your doctrine to fit the plain meaning of scripture.

She cannot. She is NOT under the guidance of God the father but of another far below him who IS the father of lies.

[3 Resurrections]

To DaveW, Rella, and robycop3,

I have already covered this chapter and verse proof in Rev. 1:7 LIMITING this "every eye" to the first-century Jews and the Romans who collaborated to murder Christ in my post called "and EVERY EYE shall see him" - how scripture defines "every eye".

You all are presuming that the Greek conjunctive "kai" in this verse can ONLY be used to mean "in addition to".  It's other definition can be used in an explanatory sense to mean "namely", or "that is", or "specifically" those who pierced Him.  Go check your Greek  grammar resource.

It actually makes no sense to use "Kai" in this verse to mean "in addition to".   If supposedly everybody in the entire world was going to simultaneously view Christ's bodily return to the Mount of Olives, then "those who pierced Him" would ALREADY BE AMONG THAT NUMBER of everyone in the world.  Why would it even be necessary to ADD them as a separate category?  It would be totally redundant to make a distinction between everybody in the world and also those who pierced Him.

Think people, think.

[Rella]

To DaveW, Rella, and robycop3,

I have already covered this chapter and verse proof in Rev. 1:7 LIMITING this "every eye" to the first-century Jews and the Romans who collaborated to murder Christ in my post called "and EVERY EYE shall see him" - how scripture defines "every eye".

You all are presuming that the Greek conjunctive "kai" in this verse can ONLY be used to mean "in addition to".  It's other definition can be used in an explanatory sense to mean "namely", or "that is", or "specifically" those who pierced Him.  Go check your Greek  grammar resource.

It actually makes no sense to use "Kai" in this verse to mean "in addition to".   If supposedly everybody in the entire world was going to simultaneously view Christ's bodily return to the Mount of Olives, then "those who pierced Him" would ALREADY BE AMONG THAT NUMBER of everyone in the world.  Why would it even be necessary to ADD them as a separate category?  It would be totally redundant to make a distinction between everybody in the world and also those who pierced Him.

Think people, think.

No, you think.

No matter the meaning of the word... which for me needs to remain until later to study it further... there is zero evidence that is was describing something that was immediately happening if Rev was written in 60 AD and certainly not in (^

A vision, that John was shown would always mean future... for you never have a vision of the past. (That would be a memory or a dream)

It s stated in King Jimmy's Bible

7 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.

The question, which you cannot prove is this means He cometh with clouds will be in 10 years of 60AD or if it means at the end
when you and I and our decendants will be no more as we are.

"All kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him." Excluding the books of Daniel... and Revelation... please give the verses throughout the bible that tells us this actually has happened... because you have no other reference then the bible.

[3 Resurrections]

Hey again Rella,

I know you literally don't mean "No matter the meaning of the word", as if the words of John have no importance.  But if you did just gloss over the ordinary definition and usage of words, even in the original languages, then you would be acting no better than an atheist who has no use for God's words at all.  I know you remember Paul using an argument of a single "SEED" versus plural "seeds" to make a foundational doctrine statement.  Even something as "minor" as this difference in the language can confirm or corrupt our doctrinal beliefs. 

If you are posing the question above concerning EITHER an AD 70 return OR Christ coming bodily in our future, He planned to do BOTH.  I have labored for several years on this website to present scripture's proof of this, and of course, people are already cemented into their own traditional belief systems, which I can totally understand.  It is rare that an individual dares to venture out of their comfort zone and face the criticism that descends upon them for going against the flow. 

I learned early on at 15 years old (from our whole family being banned from the Bob Jones campus for privately expressing our doctrinal beliefs on soteriology to the Academy principal) that there is a price to pay for daring to differ from the religious status quo.  I don't mind paying this price, and I expect it.

I believe there is actually a post already on the Preterist forum of 101 time indicators that limit the events of those verses to a time taking place in the very near future to when they were written, so I hope I don't need to repeat them all per your request.

Paul spoke in Acts 17:31 on Mars Hill of a judgment and a resurrection "ABOUT TO BE", and also in II Timothy 4:1 that God was "ABOUT TO JUDGE the living and the dead at his APPEARING and his kingdom."  Paul also told Governor Felix in Acts 24:15 that the Pharisees who hated him actually AGREED WITH HIM that there was "ABOUT TO BE A RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, both the just and the unjust."  Just what scriptures do you think the Pharisees - and Paul - were basing that soon-to-happen resurrection expectation upon?  They were avid students of the OT scriptures, so they had pinned down the near-to-come resurrection date on SOMETHING they had read.  Can we say "Daniel's 70-week prophecy anyone?  Especially the occasion of the resurrection for Daniel at the end of that 1,335th day of Daniel 12:11-13.  Although you, Rella, for some reason are trying to eliminate both Daniel and Revelation as proof of this first-century resurrection that was "ABOUT TO BE" in those days.

And Peter wrote in I Peter 4:7 (just before his martyrdom in AD 67) that "THE END OF ALL THINGS IS *AT HAND*".  From the use of this "at hand" term in Ezekiel 12:21-28, we know  that God's own definition of "AT HAND" prophecy means that it will NOT BE "PROLONGED" INTO "TIMES THAT ARE FAR OFF", but that it will be fulfilled "in YOUR DAYS" to those who are originally given that prophecy.  Unless you are willing to contradict God's own words defining His own language choice.

Rella, you might want to revise your statement that a "vision" is only of future things, not of any past events.  You yourself have given an example in one of your comments of a vision of a PAST EVENT in the case of the Rev. 12 Woman and the CHILD (Jesus) who was caught up to God's throne at His Acts 1 ascension; definitely a vision of a PAST EVENT.  The "valley of dry bones" prophecy was also a vision of Israel's past destruction as a nation under the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem; definitely a past event as of Ezekiel's vision.

I really can't comprehend the reason for such vehement objections to God staging THREE resurrection events spanning all of human history.  The same ending goal posts are what I believe we are both aiming towards; i.e., every saint's incorruptible body finally present and accounted for in a final resurrection that brings them face to face with their Creator, and a planet finally and completely purged of the presence of every kind of evil.  The difference is that I see God having planned to do this in stages over time, and you are picturing it done all at once - which isn't in sync with the temporal time indicators permeating the scriptures.

[DaveW]

I know you remember Paul using an argument of a single "SEED" versus plural "seeds" to make a foundational doctrine statement.  Even something as "minor" as this difference in the language can confirm or corrupt our doctrinal beliefs. 

Ooo - Tread VERY CAREFULLY there.  Unless you are VERY FAMILIAR with Hebrew logic, and specifically first century Rabbinic logic, you will seriously misunderstand what he is saying.

[lea]

Unless you can give me chapter and verse saying the people in China and South America are NOT included in "every eye," Then I will take the literal understanding.  That is ABSOLUTELY possible today with television and the internet.

IMO you are twisting the plain meaning since it does not fit with what was possible in the first century.

Do not change the plain meaning of scripture to fit doctrine; rather change your doctrine to fit the plain meaning of scripture.

There is no plain, literal meaning of Scripture in that vs. It's spiritual and one needs spiritual eyes to know it.

It's hard to see what Jesus told the high priest in front of him was to happen to the tribes way in the future someday.

Even if one looks at it in the natural, what kind of power would it convey to the Sanhedrin if Jesus was predicting thousands of years in the future? Would they take him seriously? Or care?

[Rella]

Hey again Rella,

I know you literally don't mean "No matter the meaning of the word", as if the words of John have no importance.

No,of course I did not mean that... but what one person understands as a meaning to be different from anothers
that will offer contextual differences is often quite difficult to explain to another who reads things one way differently then you do. And, in truth... we have only the translators of a given language to give a meaning to a word ...and many translators will often disagree, just as many on here do.  So then it has to boil to context of and idea... Example...and I hate to keep referencing King Jimmy's bible,but it is the easiest to use as all are familiar.

"ον και πιασας εθετο εις φυλακην παραδους τεσσαρσιν τετραδιοις στρατιωτων φυλασσειν αυτον βουλομενος μετα το πασχα αναγαγειν αυτον τω λαω"

Acts 12:4. KJV  King James Version: "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Acts 12:4  English Standard VersionEnglish Standard Version: "And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people."


The Greek word, "πασχα (pascha)", is correctly translated as "Passover" 28 times in the New Testament in the KJV.

But Jimmy's men opted for Easter in this one verse for this "πασχα (pascha)", for what reason?

So when I say I dont care...it is simply that different meanings, that are truly unprovable you have to conclude based on yourself and not what another says. They could be wrong.


But if you did just gloss over the ordinary definition and usage of words, even in the original languages, then you would be acting no better than an atheist who has no use for God's words at all.  I know you remember Paul using an argument of a single "SEED" versus plural "seeds" to make a foundational doctrine statement.  Even something as "minor" as this difference in the language can confirm or corrupt our doctrinal beliefs.
But if you did just gloss over the ordinary definition and usage of words, even in the original languages, then you would be acting no better than an atheist who has no use for God's words at all.  I know you remember Paul using an argument of a single "SEED" versus plural "seeds" to make a foundational doctrine statement.  Even something as "minor" as this difference in the language can confirm or corrupt our doctrinal beliefs. 

If you are posing the question above concerning EITHER an AD 70 return OR Christ coming bodily in our future, He planned to do BOTH.

Your counter part on here will disagree with you.

  I have labored for several years on this website to present scripture's proof of this, and of course, people are already cemented into their own traditional belief systems, which I can totally understand.  It is rare that an individual dares to venture out of their comfort zone and face the criticism that descends upon them for going against the flow. 

This is because you are not presenting it with clarity.  And it truly makes no sense as to why God would do that.
Can you explain why?

Now at the risk of bringing the throng of those on here on top of my head.... If I were to tell you I have every reason and clear understanding in my mind, from my studies that Adam was not the first man God made and I believe  that scripture bears this out.

Do I have historical proof? No. No more then you do. But I do believe this.

I learned early on at 15 years old (from our whole family being banned from the Bob Jones campus for privately expressing our doctrinal beliefs on soteriology to the Academy principal) that there is a price to pay for daring to differ from the religious status quo.  I don't mind paying this price, and I expect it.

I believe there is actually a post already on the Preterist forum of 101 time indicators that limit the events of those verses to a time taking place in the very near future to when they were written, so I hope I don't need to repeat them all per your request.

No, it matters little what is said because in the very near future,as I keep saying could be Centuries from when they are
writing whatever they are writing... because Centuries is a grain of sand in the time space of  everlasting eternity past and future. To someone living in that day, being told that,would be incomprehensible to think otherwise.

Paul spoke in Acts 17:31 on Mars Hill of a judgment and a resurrection "ABOUT TO BE", and also in II Timothy 4:1 that God was "ABOUT TO JUDGE the living and the dead at his APPEARING and his kingdom."  Paul also told Governor Felix in Acts 24:15 that the Pharisees who hated him actually AGREED WITH HIM that there was "ABOUT TO BE A RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, both the just and the unjust."  Just what scriptures do you think the Pharisees - and Paul - were basing that soon-to-happen resurrection expectation upon?  They were avid students of the OT scriptures, so they had pinned down the near-to-come resurrection date on SOMETHING they had read.  Can we say "Daniel's 70-week prophecy anyone?  Especially the occasion of the resurrection for Daniel at the end of that 1,335th day of Daniel 12:11-13.  Although you, Rella, for some reason are trying to eliminate both Daniel and Revelation as proof of this first-century resurrection that was "ABOUT TO BE" in those days.

Daniel, written 3rd century BC and Revelation 1st century AD are what... close to 4,000 years apart. Cannot be compared by dates. 

And Peter wrote in I Peter 4:7 (just before his martyrdom in AD 67) that "THE END OF ALL THINGS IS *AT HAND*".  From the use of this "at hand" term in Ezekiel 12:21-28, we know  that God's own definition of "AT HAND" prophecy means that it will NOT BE "PROLONGED" INTO "TIMES THAT ARE FAR OFF", but that it will be fulfilled "in YOUR DAYS" to those who are originally given that prophecy.  Unless you are willing to contradict God's own words defining His own language choice.

Rella, you might want to revise your statement that a "vision" is only of future things, not of any past events.  You yourself have given an example in one of your comments of a vision of a PAST EVENT in the case of the Rev. 12 Woman and the CHILD (Jesus) who was caught up to God's throne at His Acts 1 ascension; definitely a vision of a PAST EVENT.  The "valley of dry bones" prophecy was also a vision of Israel's past destruction as a nation under the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem; definitely a past event as of Ezekiel's vision.

No, not a vision of the past, but used in his vision by example of things known.

Remember... they assigned different meaning to the woman. Mary, Israel etc.... And different meaning to Jesus.

I posted about it and not going to rehash it at the moment but I will if you want me to.

If it specifically was talking about The woman ( Mary)and Jesus then other applications would not have been made.

And besides... I am the only one who see why she could be Mary and not Israel... even your counterpart jumped all over me for that... so it is my interpretation of his vision of the future.

I really can't comprehend the reason for such vehement objections to God staging THREE resurrection events spanning all of human history.  The same ending goal posts are what I believe we are both aiming towards; i.e., every saint's incorruptible body finally present and accounted for in a final resurrection that brings them face to face with their Creator, and a planet finally and completely purged of the presence of every kind of evil.  The difference is that I see God having planned to do this in stages over time, and you are picturing it done all at once - which isn't in sync with the temporal time indicators permeating the scriptures.

[/size]

[3 Resurrections]

Hi Rella,

I'm sorry if clarity in my posts seems to be a problem for you to understand them.  Even though I do try to phrase things as clearly as possible, I know that the length of my comments are quite wearisome to many.  It's a weakness of mine, but perhaps a necessity because so much of what I submit is breaking new ground for many, and needs a thorough scriptural explanation to build a proper foundation for what I'm saying.

Lea and I may agree on many Full Preterist points, but we are divided concerning the 3 bodily resurrections and an already-fulfilled rapture of only the resurrected saints, and a past, literal 1,000-year millennium period that I stand firmly upon.

You posed one question as to why God would divide up His returns into an AD 70 appearing and another one in our future. 

Look at it this way; an AD 70 marriage feast and another future marriage feast for us are reflective of Jacob's two wives - Rachel and Leah - who were both credited with "building the whole house of Israel" (Ruth 4:11), but whose marriage ceremonies took place at different times. 

Jacob the keeper of sheep has often been used as a type of the Great Shepherd Christ.  Rachel was the originally beloved wife Jacob chose (just as the tribes of Israel were originally chosen as favored recipients of God's law).  Leah was not the one favored originally, (just as the Gentiles were at first alienated from the revelation of the promises, and were without hope in the world). 

In spite of this sibling rivalry for Jacob's affection, Leah went on to produce twice as many children for Jacob as Rachel did (just as the children of faith produced by the Gentile- focused ministry outnumbered the remnant of faithful Israel's converts to the New Covenant many times over).

Rachel died near Jerusalem giving birth to one last son (just as ethnic Israel died as a "holy people" and were shattered in AD 70's Jerusalem, but not before producing a remnant of converts to the gospel during the early church).  But fruitful Leah remained alive to care for all of Jacob's children, and was eventually united in burial beside Jacob.

Ok, maybe that's an inexact comparison, but you get the idea.

In one of your other points, you are stressing that Daniel and John writing prophetic visions that were millennia removed from each other cannot possibly be discussing the same events.  Would you say the same thing for God's protoevangelium promise given to Eve at the Fall?  By your logic, Eve could not have been told about the same Redeemer coming that Moses and David and Daniel etc. foretold, since there were so many thousands of years between all the prophecies about that Redeemer coming. 

And your point was also that time is immaterial in the grand scheme of eternal things.  In that case, why would a lengthy time gap between the prophecies of Daniel and John make any difference then? 

I have yet to see anyone opposing Preterism address the very specific Ezekiel 12:21-28 text about God's own definition of the "AT HAND" phrase, as compared to all of Revelation's "at hand" prophecies.  This seems particularly damning to your theory that time is irrelevant to God, when He makes very specific time limits on an "at hand" prophecy.

Besides, if "soon", "shortly", "quickly", "about to", "at the door", "at hand", "near", "no more delay", and "now" have no relation or relevance to the brevity of time, just what words should God have used to really, really, REALLY indicate that an event was on the very near horizon?  Scripture exhausts itself in a multitude of expressions limiting the season of time in various imminent prophecies.   If these words don't have any relation to the passage of time at all, for heaven's sake just what other combination of words or phrases are left which would actually indicate such imminence? 

You yourself, Rella,  have expressed often that you wish God's return was indeed "soon" for you.  If "soon" can just as well mean a couple thousand years and counting, your expressed wish for Christ's "soon" return has no meaning whatever.   

[robycop3]

  What DOES have relevance is the FACT that those events have NOT yet happened.

[lea]

  What DOES have relevance is the FACT that those events have NOT yet happened.

Reported for trolling.

You never can counter with Scriptural proof. 

[robycop3]

Reported for trolling.

You never can counter with Scriptural proof.

  I have done so many times, but you won't believe them as written, often trying to reduce Scripture to "figurative/symbolic' status because the LITERAL neanings don't match your pret jive.

[lea]

  I have done so many times, but you won't believe them as written, often trying to reduce Scripture to "figurative/symbolic' status because the LITERAL neanings don't match your pret jive.

Trying understanding the spiritual nature of His Kingdom.

[Rella]

Hi Rella,

I'm sorry if clarity in my posts seems to be a problem for you to understand them.  Even though I do try to phrase things as clearly as possible, I know that the length of my comments are quite wearisome to many.  It's a weakness of mine, but perhaps a necessity because so much of what I submit is breaking new ground for many, and needs a thorough scriptural explanation to build a proper foundation for what I'm saying.

Lea and I may agree on many Full Preterist points, but we are divided concerning the 3 bodily resurrections and an already-fulfilled rapture of only the resurrected saints, and a past, literal 1,000-year millennium period that I stand firmly upon.

You posed one question as to why God would divide up His returns into an AD 70 appearing and another one in our future. 

Look at it this way; an AD 70 marriage feast and another future marriage feast for us are reflective of Jacob's two wives - Rachel and Leah - who were both credited with "building the whole house of Israel" (Ruth 4:11), but whose marriage ceremonies took place at different times. 

Jacob the keeper of sheep has often been used as a type of the Great Shepherd Christ.  Rachel was the originally beloved wife Jacob chose (just as the tribes of Israel were originally chosen as favored recipients of God's law).  Leah was not the one favored originally, (just as the Gentiles were at first alienated from the revelation of the promises, and were without hope in the world). 

In spite of this sibling rivalry for Jacob's affection, Leah went on to produce twice as many children for Jacob as Rachel did (just as the children of faith produced by the Gentile- focused ministry outnumbered the remnant of faithful Israel's converts to the New Covenant many times over).

Rachel died near Jerusalem giving birth to one last son (just as ethnic Israel died as a "holy people" and were shattered in AD 70's Jerusalem, but not before producing a remnant of converts to the gospel during the early church).  But fruitful Leah remained alive to care for all of Jacob's children, and was eventually united in burial beside Jacob.

Ok, maybe that's an inexact comparison, but you get the idea.

In one of your other points, you are stressing that Daniel and John writing prophetic visions that were millennia removed from each other cannot possibly be discussing the same events.  Would you say the same thing for God's protoevangelium promise given to Eve at the Fall?  By your logic, Eve could not have been told about the same Redeemer coming that Moses and David and Daniel etc. foretold, since there were so many thousands of years between all the prophecies about that Redeemer coming. 

And your point was also that time is immaterial in the grand scheme of eternal things.  In that case, why would a lengthy time gap between the prophecies of Daniel and John make any difference then? 

I have yet to see anyone opposing Preterism address the very specific Ezekiel 12:21-28 text about God's own definition of the "AT HAND" phrase, as compared to all of Revelation's "at hand" prophecies.  This seems particularly damning to your theory that time is irrelevant to God, when He makes very specific time limits on an "at hand" prophecy.

Besides, if "soon", "shortly", "quickly", "about to", "at the door", "at hand", "near", "no more delay", and "now" have no relation or relevance to the brevity of time, just what words should God have used to really, really, REALLY indicate that an event was on the very near horizon?  Scripture exhausts itself in a multitude of expressions limiting the season of time in various imminent prophecies.   If these words don't have any relation to the passage of time at all, for heaven's sake just what other combination of words or phrases are left which would actually indicate such imminence? 

You yourself, Rella,  have expressed often that you wish God's return was indeed "soon" for you.  If "soon" can just as well mean a couple thousand years and counting, your expressed wish for Christ's "soon" return has no meaning whatever.

I will give you that for the moment you have out argued me.... But only because I have so many fires in the iron this week that I literally am not thinking straight and so stressed with every aspect ofmy existence while I read your words I am struck by the need to express myself better .
IE:
Explainig the difference between gelato, that you present and ice crem that I do, or iItalian Ice on your watch and sorbet on mine.

Close but not the same.

I just cannot do it tonight...but I will.

But I do want to address you last paragraph here.

You yourself, Rella,  have expressed often that you wish God's return was indeed "soon" for you.  If "soon" can just as well mean a couple thousand years and counting, your expressed wish for Christ's "soon" return has no meaning whatever.

I want it soon because I am so ready to be out of this life and the unfortunate truth of the matter is I am healthy enough to not think I will be gone anytime soon.

I have lived my entire life with the understanding that either my physical death comes first or Jesus' return and getting us basically out of here. I frankly do not care which one happens first. I am just so ready to be gone and if it were not a mortal sin might consider doing something.

Being around old, dying people all my life and caring for them and seeing how they almost all suffer before their final breath is not something I look forward to. But is something I will have to endure.... Unless Jesus gets us out of here.

The very thought that some erroneously believe He came 40 years after his death and we are left to struggle through this miserable life with no promised hope that waiting for Him offers me is just adding to the list of lifes disappointments.

But I will get into the soon words with you as soon as I can.

[3 Resurrections]

Hi again Rella,

I hope you don't think that my long posts are an attempt to beat you over the head with debate points.  Frankly, I find myself irresistibly drawn to those like yourself who have such angst about the future.  I can relate.  For many years (maybe 20 plus) I was sunk in such despair over domestic difficulties created in large part by that cult-like church that RB and I both attended that I prayed for one of three things to happen:  #1, for me to die and be out of my misery, #2, for my spouse to die and release me from my misery, and #3 for them to cheat on me and grant me a biblical release from misery, (none of which happened). 

No matter the cause, despair and fear are truly terrible enemies within that poison everything, and my heart bleeds for those who are imprisoned by these.  Strangely enough, it was the study of eschatology that helped to heal my soul and finally give me a "peace that passeth understanding".  If God could plan world events - even tragic ones - to transpire exactly to the very year of when He predicted them, then He was not unaware or unfeeling of my pain, and even had a divine purpose and a plan that would utilize to the max what I had thought were "years that the locust hath eaten".

You say, Rella, that you have been given a healthy constitution that by all indications will extend your life so that you will probably live to endure even more stressful struggles.  Ditto for me.  Rarely sick myself, so I am turning into the caregiver in my family as others decline.  Rather than dreading this now, I am finally able to embrace it as God's gift to me - to be the helper and the fixer, etc. as long as I'm able.

Remember Job's statement of faith?  "Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him."  Except that sometimes what God asks of us seems a lot more difficult than being "slain" and out of this life, as you know.

As children of faith, we already have "Christ in us, the hope of glory" to sustain us.  This "hope of glory" is not the ability to check out of this world without dying, since scripture tells us that ALL are appointed to die the ONE TIME.  That hope we are given is God's assured promise that the death of our physical body is not the end of it; it is destined to be changed and glorified in the resurrection, just as Christ's was. 

No hurry on getting a reply back to me.  I'm here for the long haul with you guys, and I know how rare free time can be to post.
(Did not know that your other screen name is seekingHiswisdom.  Thanks for letting me know.)

[robycop3]

  Same for me. I'm pretty healthy at age 72 despite degenerative arthritis in my lumbar spine & both knees. (It's not worsening & I can still work & play.) Yes, either one of 2 things is in my future as well-either I'll die, or Jesus will "translate" me.

  But plainly, preterism is false. The prophesied eschatological events have simply not yet happened. Nor is God through with literal Israel. The miraculous establishment of the modern Jewish sovereign nation should be proof of that to anyone who has the sense God gave a grape.

  The old temple was destroyed before the AOD occurred in it. Thus, it must be done in a new temple. Nor has the 'beast/antichrist' yet been made manifest. When he comes, he will rule almost the WHOLE WORLD, not just the "Promised Land" area. The AOD will be that which was prophesied several times. This man will sit in the new temple, set up his statue in it, and PROCLAIM HIMSELF TO BE GOD while in it.

  There's no denying that the Jews have all the materials ready to rapidly build a new temple in J. They have the "blueprint" of the old temples to guide them, plus modern construction equipment. They have consecrated an altar to be set up in it, & have made all the instruments to be used in it. They're breeding animals to be used in temple rites. Scholars from Hebrew University are trying to determine where the exact site of the old temples is. And when God's time arrives, they'll build it in a matter of days.

  I don't know if the antichrist will be rising to power before or after this temple will be built, but the events will be close together.

  The temple of Rev. 11 will be a final earthly temple that shall exist during the millenium. I don't know if it'll be the one the Jews shall soon build, or another one to follow, which will be a TRUE temple of God. (God could easily cleanse the one the Jews will build.)

  Now, we DO know what's happened so far. Jerusalem & the temple of Jesus' time were destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, just as prophesied. We know a number of Christians fled to Pella between the Roman sieges, but that was NOT the final flight of Christians from J, as Jesus warned to not stop at one's home to obtain anything, but th IMMEDIATELY flee. There were some 9 months between Vespasian's & Titus' sieges of J, so those who fled had ample time to flee. A modern army can move very rapidly compared to the old Romans, so there won't be much time to flee in the future.

  The great trib will be WORLDWIDE, as Rev. 3:10 says. remember, God made all peoples & nations, not just the Israelis, and there's no area of the world not affected by sin, so all will be hit. this has never happened before. We see some of the events of this trib in the judgments of the seals, trumpets, & bowls of wrath. But Jesus will end it before it can destroy all life on earth, & He will return immediately afterwards, amid a great cosmological display which will greatly diminish all natural light upon the earth, accompanied by a great meteor shower.

  I believe it's quite-obvious that all these events are future. The main proof is the fact that the world has continued without change since Jesus was here, except for man's technological advances. In modern times, knowledge & travel have greatly increased, and are rapidly still increasing, as prophesied.

  EVERY PERSON should realize that he/she is gonna die, or be raptured, and should hope for the latter & live accordingly. And, when one dies, his/her PERSONAL "translation" occurs instantly, either to paradise or "torments", depending upon one's relationship with JESUS.

[lea]

But I do know when the antichrist will appear.....NEVER again!

The whole world will not be affected. That was fulfilled prophecy.
You just desperately hang onto BAD NEWS for the future.

That's why no one will listen to you. Your self-absorbed.

[Rella]

But I do know when the antichrist will appear.....NEVER again!

The whole world will not be affected. That was fulfilled prophecy.
You just desperately hang onto BAD NEWS for the future.

That's why no one will listen to you. Your self-absorbed.

Are you truly so blinded that you do not see how bad it is and getting worse by the day.

I am finding a lot of the decadence amusing... such as when a friend,riding with her husband driving in their truck stopped at a stoplight. Man in a car pulled up on the passenger side and my friend looked down.

What did she see.He had pulled it out and was doing exactly what you being married would understand.

Broad daylight... around 1 in the afternoon I think.

So you do not think this is bad?..cause she might have had one of her daughters in the back seat that would have witnessed it.

Yes, I said I find this amusing... to hear. Not to witness. And especially not when this
idiot looked up at her and smiled.

I am forced to live in times like these.

Tell me when something like this happened to your mother or grandmother...
That is what I thought. It didn't

I just cannot wait until you come reporting that some looters broke into a business that a friend of yours owns, stole everything there,and then maybe even set it on fire.

Wont that be fun to relate...

We are all waiting with bated breath. Make sure to give us the details.

Or maybe a 75 year old man you know has this happen to him.

2 Buffalo cops charged with assault after video shows officers shoving 75-year-old man to the ground.......

Attorney Kelly V. Zarcone issued a statement from Martin Gugino, the man who was pushed to the ground, saying Gugino is "a longtime peaceful protester, human rights advocate, and overall fan of the US Constitution."

causing
All 57 of the members of the Buffalo Police Department's Emergency Response Team resigned from the unit Friday after the two officers were suspended.


There goes the protection or are you one of those protesters?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/05/buffalo-new-york-police-officers-suspended-shoving-man-ground/3153626001/

You have your head stuck so deep into the sand of oblivion that you are not thinking rationally.

NO NO I am not saying we are all needing to live as Job (though I WAS there for a number of years)  or have had that experience....

BUT why should we have to exist with these people... when our hope has already happened and gone.

It will only get worse and worse. Any idiot can see that.

[lea]

Rella,
I don't agree with much of what you said.
I don't know what city your friend was in, but even if one doesn't have a gun , like in N.Y. in my younger years (bc for regular citizens guns were & are illegal) I carried a short bat under my driver's seat. In addition, a full can of wasp spray.

The 75 y.o. man that was knocked down by police, etc, I don't feel sorry for like the fake news Democommunists do, all the while trying to steal our medicare! Age has nothing to do with those becoming violent protesters. The man tried to get the cops gun but the fake news media doesn't show that part of the recording.
Age doesn't excuse that behavior. Kids can carry bombs and have been suicide bombers- so age
does not cancel the law against such protestors or terrorists.

You say it's all getting worse- but we have had the ability and authority to fight back ALWAYS!

There is no way black lives matter will hold water when it comes to dismantling the police!

Under Trump, black people are working much more than in Obama's tenure.

I know of blacks who voted for Trump because of those opportunities. And it will prayerfully happen again.

I'm walking to a local store (1 short block) - I'll watch my back- but I carry pepper spray in case today any protester decides to get even near me. I did some kick boxing and I know the shins of certain people can't take a certain kick.

God will heal this nation again.  I have faith that good folks will prevail and God will get even with those evil ones. Antifa too - in one way or another.

And then of course, there's my husband's gun  and rifle collection to protect the house.

I had to use the handgun once when the girls were baby and toddler.

The burglar never made it through the window though. I saw his shadow and yelled sort of like the police: "Freeze, Mother******!"

Thank you Lord, again!

[robycop3]

  Good for you, Lea, to not simply to have become a victim !

  However, had the dude attempted to come thru MY window, the Body Buddies woulda removed his body from the window frame & swept up most of his head from about a square yard of the floor.

A .45 ends the jive.

  Sinful ? Not in defense of mine & myself.

[Rella]

Rella,
I don't agree with much of what you said.
I don't know what city your friend was in, but even if one doesn't have a gun , like in N.Y. in my younger years (bc for regular citizens guns were & are illegal) I carried a short bat under my driver's seat. In addition, a full can of wasp spray.

The 75 y.o. man that was knocked down by police, etc, I don't feel sorry for like the fake news Democommunists do, all the while trying to steal our medicare! Age has nothing to do with those becoming violent protesters. The man tried to get the cops gun but the fake news media doesn't show that part of the recording.
Age doesn't excuse that behavior. Kids can carry bombs and have been suicide bombers- so age
does not cancel the law against such protestors or terrorists.

You say it's all getting worse- but we have had the ability and authority to fight back ALWAYS!

There is no way black lives matter will hold water when it comes to dismantling the police!

Under Trump, black people are working much more than in Obama's tenure.

I know of blacks who voted for Trump because of those opportunities. And it will prayerfully happen again.

I'm walking to a local store (1 short block) - I'll watch my back- but I carry pepper spray in case today any protester decides to get even near me. I did some kick boxing and I know the shins of certain people can't take a certain kick.

God will heal this nation again.  I have faith that good folks will prevail and God will get even with those evil ones. Antifa too - in one way or another.

And then of course, there's my husband's gun  and rifle collection to protect the house.

I had to use the handgun once when the girls were baby and toddler.

The burglar never made it through the window though. I saw his shadow and yelled sort of like the police: "Freeze, Mother******!"

Thank you Lord, again!

The man tried to get the cops gun but the fake news media doesn't show that part of the recording.

Why do you feel the need to not source your info? Must have gotten it from FB or Twitter. It is not true, BTW.

I do not care if you do not agree with me.

This country is in a bad way because this country has turned it's back on God and he has lifted his protective hand.

I do not have a gun. I have wasp spray at the doors.

Until this nation repents we will see it wax worse and worse.

Hope your girls are grown now. You need to teach them how to defend themselves
in those ladies rooms with the pervs using them. Cause they do.

If you feel secure... good for you.

You say

"but we have had the ability and authority to fight back ALWAYS!"

Are you aware that in the commonwealth of PA that if you shoot an intruder just injuring them inside your house you will be charged. That is true.

If you kill one, even in self defense you will be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

And I had a mace lifted from me by the police in Nevada decades ago.

We will not agree on this. It is getting worse and worse.

[lea]

The "nation" can't repent.  Good people have nothing to repent about. Jesus forgave all our sins.(Christians)

Morally speaking, with more people than 30 years ago say, more perverts and more evil crimes I
I noticed.

One major disagreement I have with you is that God would never take his hand off the good Christians in this country.

God didn't destroy Sodom and Gomorrah until the number of good people living there was practically 0.

[robycop3]

  God expects us to do what we can for ourselves. If an intruder tries to come thru my window, I won't be praying for him or her to go away. I'll be drawing a bead on the person's head. No need to shout a warning because that person knows it's wrong to break into another's home.
  If that person sees the peril & surrenders, will I prosecute ? Yes, to the fullest extent of the law. If the person asks for forgiveness, I shall forgive in the spirit of Jesus, but I'll still prosecute.