Rev. 20:4, No Mention of Physical Earthly Reign

[parousia70]

If you believe the temple was destroyed in 70 AD, you are a partial-preterist.

Amen.

And If you believe the Temple's destruction fulfills Matthew 21:33-45, you are a very strong Partial preterist, who understands that event is rightfully understood as "the Coming of the Lord", For Jesus Christ Himself taught that it would be.

 

[BABerean2]

I know God's people will inherit the earth to enjoy, but Scripture states that heaven is God's throne and earth is His footstool. Unless God changes His mind, His throne will remain in heaven and we will live with Him there in one of the many rooms of His home.

The first ten words of the statement above, do not agree with the last phrase of the statement above.

.

 

[ewq1938]

Paul is speaking to fellow Christians. They are not concerned about the dead who are not in Christ. Paul does not state to these Christians that the dead not in Christ do not arise at the same time as the dead in Christ.

Yes he does. If all the dead rise at the same time then the dead in Christ are not the first to rise are they? Rev 20 also proves the dead in Christ rise first because they do a thousand years before the rest of the dead rise. That makes both passages in perfect harmony.

However, Jesus states that all the evil dead and all the good dead will arise when they hear His voice. All the dead bodies hear His voice at the same time and so they all arise at the same time.

John 5:28-29
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. niv​

Yet Christ does not say both groups rise at the same time. He simply says they will rise that's why the other passages are important to understand because they inform us there is a group that rises first and much later the other group shall.

​

The first bodily resurrection was 2000 years ago. Jesus is the firstfruits of all the dead. Some saints came out of their graves also. Matthew 27:51-53

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27:51-53&version=NKJV

That simply proves Jesus was not the first one to resurrected from the dead. That also ignores the context of Rev 20 which talks about two entirely different groups of people. If you don't stick to context then it's impossible to understand any part of scripture.

The second and final bodily resurrection will not be until Jesus returns to earth to gather everyone together for the final judgment at the great white throne.

Wrong. There are two mass bodily resurrections left. One when he returns, then the rest a thousand years later and how long that period is is not important.

​

There are only two bodily resurrections and one of them has already happened.

Nope.

 

[ewq1938]

One thing at a time....
Did this one particular "event of the Olivet discourse" happen in 66-70 AD or not?

No. What happened in Ad 70 was not what Christ was talking about because the second coming is associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in the discourse and that didn't happen so AD 70 at best was a foreshadow of what is yet to come.

Earlier you claimed you do not believe it happened.
I'm asking you to clarify.
Are you capable of that?

That's a bit of crude way to speak isn't it?

Would you like it if I answered, "I am. Are you capable of understanding my answer?"

If you hadn't included,. "Are you capable of that?" Then the post would have been better.

 

[ewq1938]

I've proven my claim well enough already. You won't accept it and deny I did tried so I won't waste my time repeating myself just to have you make the same baseless claims I haven't offered valid evidence that the AC is active in the book of Rev. Once you realize the same person who is the leader and in charge during the tribulation is known by multiple names, then you will understand this better.

I realize this is your contention.
I also realize you have shown exactly ZERO biblical instruction that teaches that the beast is "also known as" ANY other biblical figure, proving that you have invented this doctrine out of thin air and that it is a doctrine that scripture, unadulterated knows NOTHING about.

You object loudly when you believe others invent doctrines that scripture knows nothing about, but apparently when you do the same thing, it's just fine and dandy, perfectly appropriate and acceptable. There is a word for that.



No, my analogy is perfect.
The Beast of Revelation is is NEVER called antichrist, John the Baptist, Judas, Mary, Joseph, John, Paul, George or Ringo, etc...

I'll even take it one step furthur.
Not only is your "Beast is antichrtist" claim completely devoid of Scriptural proof, You also have ZERO Biblical instruction that teaches that Paul's Man of Sin/Son of Perdition is the same individual as The Beast Of Revelation.
NONE whatsoever, yet again, you have a man made doctrine you are clinging to that says they are the same.
Why you cling to such man made notions in the absence of ANY scriptural instruction to do so remains a mystery.

 

[parousia70]

No. What happened in Ad 70 was not what Christ was talking about because the second coming is associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in the discourse and that didn't happen so

You and I are grabbing opposite ends of the same stick.

We both agree that Jesus associates the destruction of Jerusalem with the Coming of the Lord. (The Stick)

You have grabbed the side of the stick that says, well I didn't observe the coming of the lord in the AD70 destruction, so Jesus must not have been speaking of THAT surrounding/Desolation but a FUTURE one, regardless of the Fact Jesus told his disciples and the Sadducees and Pharisees that these events would befall THEM in their Generation....

And I have grabbed the side that says, As Jesus was talking directly to his apostles warning THEM that when THEY saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies that THEY should flee, AD66-70 therefore must have been that very surrounding/Desolation that Christ was speaking of, and the "coming of the lord of the Vineyard to destroy those wicked men" (Cf Matt 21:40-41,45) must have taken place at that time, or Jesus is a False Prophet.

You are comfortable with your side and not with mine, and I am comfortable with my side and not with yours.

I have no particular interest in getting you to believe me, it really matters not to me what you believe about it.

I'm confident Our readers can decide for themselves who's side has the best scriptural evidence to support it.

Are you capable of understanding my answer?

Absolutely. You have made you position perfectly clear.
I am curious, can you cite any scholars who hold the same view of Luke 21:20 as you, or are you an island unto yourself here?

 

[parousia70]

I've proven my claim well enough already.

You have stated your claim, yes. Proven it with scripture? No, absolutely not. Our readers can see that quite clearly.

You won't accept it and deny I did tried so I won't waste my time repeating myself just to have you make the same baseless claims I haven't offered valid evidence that the AC is active in the book of Rev.

But you haven't.
The Bible contains VERY SPECIFIC information about the identity of antichrist and you haven't cited even ONE of those passages in your myriad of failed attempts to prove who antichrist is. Them's just the facts ewq, and they are available for all to see in the body of work that are your posts on the subject.

Once you realize the same person who is the leader and in charge during the tribulation is known by multiple names, then you will understand this better.

Too Bad.
If only you could actually demonstrate where scripture teaches that this one person is known by the multiple names you claim, there would be no argument..

 

[BABerean2]

Amen.

And If you believe the Temple's destruction fulfills Matthew 21:33-45, you are a very strong Partial preterist, who understands that event is rightfully understood as "the Coming of the Lord", For Jesus Christ Himself taught that it would be.

What is the division between partial and full ???

My humble opinion is that the following text is future, although you probably would not say the same thing, based on your response above...



Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

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

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


Mar 13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

Mar 13:25And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

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

Mar 13:27And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.




(Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.)

The verse above would not be included, but I included it to show how it seems to indicate a gap of time between Luke 21:24 and the next verse. If we apply simple logic, the last Gentile comes to faith on the day of Christ's Second Coming.

Luk 21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

Luk 21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

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

Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.

.

 

[ewq1938]

What is the division between partial and full ???

My humble opinion is that the following text is future, although you probably would not say the same thing, based on your response above...

You can't separate the return of Christ from the rest of the events of the discourse because of this:

All who promote this theory always avoid the fact that the generation to see all those events would also see the actual second coming.

Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Mat 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
Mat 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
Mat 24:8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Mat 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
Mat 24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Mat 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Mat 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Mat 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
Mat 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
Mat 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Mat 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mat 24:25 Behold, I have told you before.
Mat 24:26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Mat 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


"all these things" includes verses 29-31 which shows the second coming and the rapture of the saints and other scriptures tell us this is also the time when the dead in Christ are resurrected.

None of those things happened in the lives of the disciples proving he was NOT talking about their generation not passing before "all these things" happened.

 

[iamlamad]

One thing at a time....
Did this one particular "event of the Olivet discourse" happen in 66-70 AD or not?
"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."
A simple "Yes it happened" or "No it did not happen" is all that is required.

Earlier you claimed you do not believe it happened.
I'm asking you to clarify.

YES - sort of.

 

[iamlamad]

You and I are grabbing opposite ends of the same stick.

We both agree that Jesus associates the destruction of Jerusalem with the Coming of the Lord. (The Stick)

You have grabbed the side of the stick that says, well I didn't observe the coming of the lord in the AD70 destruction, so Jesus must not have been speaking of THAT surrounding/Desolation but a FUTURE one, regardless of the Fact Jesus told his disciples and the Sadducees and Pharisees that these events would befall THEM in their Generation....

And I have grabbed the side that says, As Jesus was talking directly to his apostles warning THEM that when THEY saw Jerusalem surrounded by armies that THEY should flee, AD66-70 therefore must have been that very surrounding/Desolation that Christ was speaking of, and the "coming of the lord of the Vineyard to destroy those wicked men" (Cf Matt 21:40-41,45) must have taken place at that time, or Jesus is a False Prophet.

You are comfortable with your side and not with mine, and I am comfortable with my side and not with yours.

I have no particular interest in getting you to believe me, it really matters not to me what you believe about it.

I'm confident Our readers can decide for themselves who's side has the best scriptural evidence to support it.



Absolutely. You have made you position perfectly clear.
I am curious, can you cite any scholars who hold the same view of Luke 21:20 as you, or are you an island unto yourself here?

You have taken one small part of the Olivet discourse that seemed to fit what happened in AD 70 or so, when in reality it was written for a time still in our future. If we put Matthew and Mark and Luke together on this, Jesus did not come and there was no "battle of Armageddon" waiting for Him, and God did not call millions of birds to His feast. If we compare with Revelation, it is absolute - no questions asked: NONE Of the trumpets have happened and NONE of the vials have happened and they CERTAINLY did not happen between the day of Pentecost and 70 AD - and Jesus has CERTAINLY not been on the planet since 70 AD. It is absolutely absurd to even think otherwise.

What REALLY happened was that God chose words to describe the event still future to us that FIT the events of 70 AD to warn the believers to flee. His plan worked perfectly. But the real fulfillment of much of the Olivet discourse is still for the future.

 

[iamlamad]

You have stated your claim, yes. Proven it with scripture? No, absolutely not. Our readers can see that quite clearly.



But you haven't.
The Bible contains VERY SPECIFIC information about the identity of antichrist and you haven't cited even ONE of those passages in your myriad of failed attempts to prove who antichrist is. Them's just the facts ewq, and they are available for all to see in the body of work that are your posts on the subject.



Too Bad.
If only you could actually demonstrate where scripture teaches that this one person is known by the multiple names you claim, there would be no argument..

Instead of berating everyone else, why don't you TEACH US what it is you think we don't know? Maybe we can learn something.

 

[BABerean2]

You can't separate the return of Christ from the rest of the events of the discourse because of this:

All who promote this theory always avoid the fact that the generation to see all those events would also see the actual second coming.

Are you ignoring the first question?


Mat 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

Mat 24:2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? ...

What things? Christ had just talked about the temple being destroyed.

Or are you saying that the Second Coming occurred in 70 AD and nobody saw Him?
.

 

[ewq1938]

Are you ignoring the first question?

Yes, because it was not part of the olivet discourse.

What things? Christ had just talked about the temple being destroyed.

Or are you saying that the Second Coming occurred in 70 AD and nobody saw Him?

There was no coming of any kind by Christ in AD 70. The temple being destroyed was not part of the end time events Christ would later talk about at the Mt of Olives.

 

[parousia70]

YES - sort of.

Spoken like a true partial preterist.

 

[BABerean2]

The temple being destroyed was not part of the end time events Christ would later talk about at the Mt of Olives.

Really...

Then how do you explain this verse?


Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Almost all scholars, including John Darby, have agreed that this verse is about 70 AD.
.

 

[parousia70]

There was no coming of any kind by Christ in AD 70.

According to Jesus in Matthew 21:33-45, there was.

 

[ebedmelech]

I know God's people will inherit the earth to enjoy, but Scripture states that heaven is God's throne and earth is His footstool. Unless God changes His mind, His throne will remain in heaven and we will live with Him there in one of the many rooms of His home.

Does not New Jerusalem come DOWN to earth from heaven as said in Revelation 21:1-2?

Another point...the earth is made NEW by the declaration of Jesus...as in Revelation 21:5.

In Romans 8:18-25 Paul teaches that earth will be redeemed! Therefore we *should* know when Jesus says "in my Father'said house are many mansions" that is not to be taken literal. Many may take that literal...but it's not.

Realize God and Christ are dwelling among all after earth is redeemed...Revelation 21:22-27

 

[iamlamad]

Spoken like a true partial preterist.

Exactly! I do believe the first 5 seals are past. I believe the chapters 1-5 took place in the past.

 

[iamlamad]

Really...

Then how do you explain this verse?


Luk 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Almost all scholars, including John Darby, have agreed that this verse is about 70 AD.
.

IF John Darby ever agreed to such a notion, he was as wrong as you claim he was on other things.

Did you know there is absolutely NO PROOF that Jesus came in AD 70. NO PROOF that any of the trumpets of vials have taken place. NO PROOF that what happened then had anything to do with Daniel's 70th week. And, by the way, NO PROOF that John wrote Revelation before AD 70.