Has the rapture already happened...?

[ORwarriOR]

I've been looking into the book of revelation a bit more, and dates for it. I tried bringing this up today when I was talking with my pastor one on one, and he tried to tell me it was dated around 90AD; when there is a tirade of internal evidence in the book which all points to it being dated 60-67AD
http://www.biblecenter.de/bibel/studien/e-std310.php

Was revelation really a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, the ending of the age of the Jews? Are we now living in the new world? Was the second coming possibly the great tribulation of 70AD?


Daniel 12:
9 He replied, "Go your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many will be purified, made spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the wicked will understand, but those who are wise will understand.

This would make sense considering the time was at hand when John had his vision, and Daniel was told that the words would be sealed up until the time of end. If it's already happened why are we all still sitting around waiting for the second coming instead of just living like Christ and doing our best to improve the beautiful world are God gave us...

This is another stumbling block I hit with my pastor today; he tried to tell me that doing everythign we can to improve the world is humanism. But I don't see so in the least. Our consequences for sin negatively impact ourselves and those around us. The only way we can improve the world to perfection is putting all of Christ's teachings into action, and then would the credit not go to our divine instructor who gave us the tools we need to live in peace? I could understand if it was some sort of scheme to bypass laws of sin; but it's not. Christ instructed us on how to live, how to find our inner kingdoms and how to fight off darkness. So instead of just sitting around waiting for the rapture to happen, why don't we try to build the new Jerusalem without walls like it was intended.

Zechariah 2:
4 and said to him: "Run, tell that young man, 'Jerusalem will be a city without walls because of the great number of men and livestock in it. 5 And I myself will be a wall of fire around it,' declares the LORD, 'and I will be its glory within.'

Christ told us not to worry about tomorrow, so is hoping for the rapture not the same thing?

Matthew 6:34
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

We should be living every day individually and doing everything we can to perfect our walk with Christ, and preserve God's most beautiful creation; this planet.

 

[jasoncran]

uh, no. as if you read the books of thessolians that adresses that, and what happens when the lord calls the saints to heaven.

 

[Vic C.]

Time and time again, I have tripped over this set of historical facts:

The city and church of Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in the 60s, AD.

Neither was rebuilt until, at the earliest, 120, AD.

 

[ORwarriOR]

Time and time again, I have tripped over this set of historical facts:

The city and church of Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake in the 60s, AD.

Neither was rebuilt until, at the earliest, 120, AD.

I just don't understand how that can be blatantly ignored by some. Like my pastor was very adamant that it was written in the 90s. He just threw it at me like "nope you're wrong scholars agree it was in the 90s" but there's just certain facts that you can't ignore.

Like how it was nero that exiled John to patmos, and nero died in 68 thus he would have had to have been released.

Iunno even if an apocalypse is coming; all signs point to a lot of revelation being started at least, during 70AD after the destruction of Jerusalem. I don't know much about it, but it's enough for me to say "you know what I'm not sure" and enough for me to stop waiting on an apocalypse and second coming, and doing the best I can to create the new Jerusalem without walls as described in Zecheriah 12. I live for the today, not for the future.

 

[jasoncran]

uh, no, in part that was fulfilled, prophecy often comes in parts. the abonamtion of desolation spoken of by the lord hasnt happened yet. hard to when theres no temple.
nor has the anti-christ shown up, or the false prophet or the beast.

 

[ORwarriOR]

uh, no, in part that was fulfilled, prophecy often comes in parts. the abonamtion of desolation spoken of by the lord hasnt happened yet. hard to when theres no temple.
nor has the anti-christ shown up, or the false prophet or the beast.

Many believe the beast to be the roman empire. And the abomination of desolation being when the romans entered the temple. Irenaeus said that John also knew the name of the anti-Christ however did not want to reveal it; could it be possible that they had already identified him, and yet just chose not to disclose it for the sake of not making a big scene?

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

Like maybe they just kept quiet instead of risking glorifying him. I'm not sure. I don't fully understand myself; however there's a lot of things that I just can't ignore.

And as far as it goes, yah it would be hard when there is no temple; I don't think the temple of Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Especially in the same manner that it was 2000 years ago. Our bodies are now temples of God, housings of the holy spirit. Having a temple would just be redundant. And symbolically speaking if our bodies are now temples, and since Christianity is so widespread again it would line up with the Zech verse stating that Jerusalem would be a city without walls due to the great multitudes of people living in it. I believe we are temples of the holy spirit, and we are living in the new Jerusalem.

 

[jasoncran]

actually it has, and the roman empire has never controlled the entire world. if they did, then what does the world kosmos mean to you?

if this is the kingdom age where is satan? hint he aint bound.
he got influence and power of kingdoms.

 

[ORwarriOR]

I'm just not sure. I'm not sure if I buy "full preterism" and if the second coming is still going to happen and the devil still hasn't been cast into the lake of fire or the resurrection, the facts still remain that most of revelation was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD;

Matthew 24(NIV):
34I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Maybe we are now in the Millennial reign, who knows. I don't. But again that brings me back to the point that, why live for the future, when we should be living for the today. Satan is a spirit being, he was bound at the Cross, just because he's bound though since he's a spirit being can we fairly assume that he was locked up with all influence disappearing? I've been reading some interesting theories on this; and we can guess that maybe satan was terminally weakened by the Cross. We can assume that the power of Christ is what holds him at bay. Yes he may still have some slight influence, but on believers do we not have the power to Cast him out and not have him hold sway over us due to the power of Christ? Would that not be a means of "binding" him so to speak?

 

[jasoncran]

then explain the waning influence of the chruch and the running of many to sin and also the fulfilling taking place of this verse, becuase sin shall abound the love of many shall wax cold

btw we christian kill the sinners in the millenial reign. we rule with christ and will judge the earth, this is in place.

satan blocked Paul from preaching in certian areas, that was after the cross. and satan had a seat in the city of bergama. read revalation 3 and 4 to see.

 

[ORwarriOR]

I just don't know. And I'm not afraid to say it. If you would like I would appreciate if you could post bits of scripture and try to explain it to me and I'll try to keep an open mind. But it just seems like so much of it was referring to events of that time. And if we take 70AD into consideration a lot of it make sense to me.

 

[watchman F]

uh, no. as if you read the books of thessolians that adresses that, and what happens when the lord calls the saints to heaven.

The Lord doesn't call us to Heaven we meet Him in the air as He is returning to Earth to set up His Earthly kingdom.

 

[watchman F]

I just don't know. And I'm not afraid to say it. If you would like I would appreciate if you could post bits of scripture and try to explain it to me and I'll try to keep an open mind. But it just seems like so much of it was referring to events of that time. And if we take 70AD into consideration a lot of it make sense to me.

Here is a few simple facts that you should agree with.

#1 Jesus has not returned yet.
#2 He has not set up His millennial Kingdom yet.
#3 Jesus in His own words said He would return ''immediately after the great trib''

If Jesus has yet to return and his returns immediately follows the great trib, then the Tribulation hasn't ended yet.

Further more as far as the ''rapture''. The rapture occurs on the day of Christ return which once again has not occurred yet.

 

[veteran]

Per the Jewish historian Josephus (100 A.D.), the Romans never made it inside the temple to desolate it. It burned down beforehand. So the Roman army did not commit the abomination of desolation events the prophecy requires per our Lord Jesus in Matt.24 and Mark 13, and especially in Daniel 11.

The final battle in Revelation coincides with Christ's coming to rule over all nations, that rule including His de facto presence on earth, which is shown in the last half of Zechariah 14, and also in Ezekiel 40 forward. That coincides with the Rev.20 prophecy of His "thousand years" reign with His elect. Rev.5 shows that reign is on the earth. Rev.20 shows it's on earth also with the "camp of the saints". No one has ever seen that happen yet.

The seven Churches of Asia (Minor) of Rev.2 & 3 is about 7 historical Churches, but ALSO represent seven symbolic types of Churches with their heavenly candlesticks (see last verse of Rev.1). When Christ warned some of those seven Churches because of problems they had, and told them to repent or He'd move their candlestick out of its place, that was possible condemnation of that Church, with the threat of moving their candlestick to somewhere else, i.e., to another area on earth with another Church. Those Messages are in effect for all Churches, all the way to the end, simply because He said the seven candlesticks (in Heaven) are the seven Churches.

Apostle John was captive at the Isle of Patmos under the reign of Domitian, not Nero. Domitian's reign was around 96 A.D. The date a prophecy was given to be written by God does not have to mean that's also when the prophesy was to happen. There's still much written in the OT prophets that has not been fulfilled today, yet those OT prophets died centuries ago. Don't be naive.

In Rev.11, our Lord showed that when God's two witnesses are killed in Jerusalem, and their bodies left unburied in the street, all nations will see their dead bodies. That is pointing to a type of technology that has only come about in the 20-21st centuries, called satellite technology.

Rev.11:1-2 is pointing to another temple being built in Jerusalem for the last days just prior to Christ's coming.

Acts 1 declares Christ will return to this earth "in like manner" as He ascended to Heaven from this earth. Acts 1 shows He ascended from the Mount of Olives. Zechariah 14 shows His return to this earth upon the Mount of Olives. His second coming is a literal bodily coming, not a spiritual or philosophical coming.

Full Preterism that is against these things written in Scripture is part of the socialist-Church (humanist) movement. It is an attempt to try and change the parameters of prophecy our Lord gave so as to support the globalist movement to a one world government, the very type of world system our Lord was warning us about in Rev.13:1-2 forward that is to be over all nations on earth, but with a false king over it instead of Christ Himself.

 

[Vic C.]

Per the Jewish historian Josephus (100 A.D.), the Romans never made it inside the temple to desolate it. It burned down beforehand. So the Roman army did not commit the abomination of desolation events the prophecy requires per our Lord Jesus in Matt.24 and Mark 13, and especially in Daniel 11.

Hi Vet. I actually agree with this! It wasn't the Romans who were responsible for this abomination of desolation, but they were responsible for the burning of the Temple. Josephus wrote so himself:

War of the Jews, Book 6, chapter 4.5 -

... but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it.

Up to then, the fire burned as far as the inner courts and most likely would have not spread above and over the Temple house walls without intervention.

Josephus, in that very same section, tells us who originally decreed the fiery destruction of the Temple:

So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages...

Now who was Gabriel referring to in Daniel 9:27? :D

 

[Sinthesis]

Per the Jewish historian Josephus (100 A.D.), the Romans never made it inside the temple to desolate it. It burned down beforehand. So the Roman army did not commit the abomination of desolation events the prophecy requires per our Lord Jesus in Matt.24 and Mark 13, and especially in Daniel 11.

Hi Vet. I actually agree with this! It wasn't the Romans who were responsible for this abomination of desolation, but they were responsible for the burning of the Temple. Josephus wrote so himself:

War of the Jews, Book 6, chapter 4.5 -

... but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it.

Up to then, the fire burned as far as the inner courts and most likely would have not spread above and over the Temple house walls without intervention.

Josephus, in that very same section, tells us who originally decreed the fiery destruction of the Temple:

[quote:2jk7o9gs]So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages...

Now who was Gabriel referring to in Daniel 9:27? :D[/quote:2jk7o9gs]

• Luk 3:16 - John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

:D

 

[veteran]

Per the Jewish historian Josephus (100 A.D.), the Romans never made it inside the temple to desolate it. It burned down beforehand. So the Roman army did not commit the abomination of desolation events the prophecy requires per our Lord Jesus in Matt.24 and Mark 13, and especially in Daniel 11.

Hi Vet. I actually agree with this! It wasn't the Romans who were responsible for this abomination of desolation, but they were responsible for the burning of the Temple. Josephus wrote so himself:

War of the Jews, Book 6, chapter 4.5 -

... but these Romans put the Jews to flight, and proceeded as far as the holy house itself. At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it. As the flames went upward, the Jews made a great clamor, such as so mighty an affliction required, and ran together to prevent it; and now they spared not their lives any longer, nor suffered any thing to restrain their force, since that holy house was perishing, for whose sake it was that they kept such a guard about it.

Up to then, the fire burned as far as the inner courts and most likely would have not spread above and over the Temple house walls without intervention.

Josephus, in that very same section, tells us who originally decreed the fiery destruction of the Temple:

[quote:1vjh4wp7]So Titus retired into the tower of Antonia, and resolved to storm the temple the next day, early in the morning, with his whole army, and to encamp round about the holy house. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages...

Now who was Gabriel referring to in Daniel 9:27? :D[/quote:1vjh4wp7]

The same one to come in the last days that our Lord Jesus was referring to in Matt.24 and Mark 13.

 

[Sinthesis]

• Act 2:16 - But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
  Act 2:17 - And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

• Hbr 1:1 ¶ God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
  Hbr 1:2 - Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;