Rapture?

[mkgal1]

If you're a preterist may I assume that you believe the Second Coming is a past event? Maybe it's just me but I have difficulty comprehending your view.

I'm assuming that, as a Christian, you are also a partial preterist (as I am). "Preterist" simply means that some prophecies have already come to fruition. If you believe in Jesus as the Messiah...then, on that alone, YOU are also a preterist.

No....I do NOT believe the second coming is a past event.

I'm not sure of your view either....but I am interested in understanding your view more.

If not the earth, why does it say every eye will see Him? And if not the earth, then why do all the tribes of the earth, mourn because of Him? Your interpretation brings up more questions than answers.

Jesus said something similar:

Matthew 26 says---------->Then the high priest said to him, ‘I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.’ 64 Jesus said to him, ‘You have said so. But I tell you,

From now on you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of Power
and coming on the clouds of heaven.’​

Were there any dead saints resurrected in 70 A.D.?

Why should there have been? What passage are you referring to?

 

[Tutorman]

If you're a preterist may I assume that you believe the Second Coming is a past event?

Not all of us Preterist are Full Preterist, most are Partial Preterist like myself which I became after I realized all the rapture silliness was a total lie and so was dispensationalism. I maybe the most extreme partial Preterist because I believe the only thing left is Christ coming again.

 

[Oldmantook]

I'm assuming that, as a Christian, you are also a partial preterist (as I am). "Preterist" simply means that some prophecies have already come to fruition. If you believe in Jesus as the Messiah...then, on that alone, YOU are also a preterist.

While I believe some prophecies have come to pass, I am not a partial preterist as I believe in a literal millennial reign of Christ on the earth is yet to be fulfilled.

No....I do NOT believe the second coming is a past event.

We agree on this.

Jesus said something similar:

Matthew 26 says---------->Then the high priest said to him, ‘I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.’ 64 Jesus said to him, ‘You have said so. But I tell you,

From now on you will see the Son of Man
seated at the right hand of Power
and coming on the clouds of heaven.’

If I understand you correctly, it seems that the difference in our interpretation is that you interpret the Matt 26 passage and Rev 1:7 as being the same thing whereas I view them as two different things. I agree that the Matt 26 passage in his speech to Caiaphas was a past event where Jesus predicted his sonship and judgment which came to pass in 70 AD. However, I view Rev 1:7 as Jesus' reference to his future 2nd Coming.

Why should there have been? What passage are you referring to?

Please disregard my reply as I incorrectly assumed you are a full preterist.

I'm not sure of your view either....but I am interested in understanding your view more.

I like you, do not believe in the pre-trib rapture. However, I'm not a partial preterist as I believe in the post-trib view and am premillennial in belief.

 

[mkgal1]

I am not a partial preterist as I believe in a literal millennial reign of Christ on the earth is yet to be fulfilled.

Strictly going by definition alone.....a preterist is anyone that believes that *some* prophesies have already been fulfilled. I don't see why a person can't be both a partial preterist (which would technically be ALL Christians - as we ALL believe Christ has come, was crucified, was buried, and rose again....and is seated at the right-hand of the Father....right?) AND a millennialist. The distinction you're making is between being a millennialist and an amillennialist (of which I am).

From Wiki: The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which Webster's 1913 dictionary lists as a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond".

If I understand you correctly, it seems that the difference in our interpretation is that you interpret the Matt 26 passage and Rev 1:7 as being the same thing whereas I view them as two different things. I agree that the Matt 26 passage in his speech to Caiaphas was a past event where Jesus predicted his sonship and judgment which came to pass in 70 AD. However, I view Rev 1:7 as Jesus' reference to his future 2nd Coming.

Yes.....you're correct. That's the difference between our views.

I like you, do not believe in the pre-trib rapture. However, I'm not a partial preterist as I believe in the post-trib view and am premillennial in belief.

So.....this confuses me without you believing in the rapture. When you say, "I believe in the post-trib view"...what happens AFTER the tribulation (Jesus comes again)? And what happens (or happened) before the thousand years (in your belief) because when most people use the label "premillennial" don't they mean that they believe Christians are "raptured" before the millennial period?

Since I believe the great tribulation has already occurred - then we DO agree there as well (but I'm guessing you mean the tribulation has NOT happened already).

I do have to say that I appreciate your respectful way of posting.

 

[bcbsr]

I think you've missed my point. Everyone who believes in the "rapture" believes that it occurs when Jesus silently steals away the church "as a thief" - prior to the tribulation.

You kind of contradict yourself. No, "EVERYONE" who believes in the "rapture" does not believe what you allege here. For example you yourself believe in the rapture but don't believe what you allege everyone believes. Nor do I believe what you allege everyone believes.

Jesus stated the exact opposite. In Rev 16:15-16 Jesus plainly states that he is coming as a thief (v.15) prior to the battle of Armageddon (v.16). The OP of this thread asked where is the rapture? According to Jesus, the rapture happens right before Armageddon. The rapture = the Second Coming. One event; not two separate events and is post-trib.

Yeh, post-Trib. But it depends on what people classify as the tribulation. But it's certainly not pre-trib.

Matt 24:29-31
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

 

[bcbsr]

when most people use the label "premillennial" don't they mean that they believe Christians are "raptured" before the millennial?
.

That's a common misconception by those not well versed in eschatology. "Premillennial" is not the same as "Pre-trib". Premillienial means before the 1000 year reign of Christ mentioned in Rev 20:6,7 It doesn't speak to the issue of the Rapture. "Pre-trib" refers to the timing of the rapture relative to the great tribulation.

 

[mkgal1]

That's a common misconception by those not well versed in eschatology. "Premillennial" is not the same as "Pre-trib". Premillienial means before the 1000 year reign of Christ mentioned in Rev 20:6,7 It doesn't speak to the issue of the Rapture. "Pre-trib" refers to the timing of the rapture relative to the great tribulation.

Well....I certainly qualify as one "not well versed in eschatology". What's happening before the millennial period then - if someone says, "I'm premillennial in belief" as Oldmantook did?

 

[bcbsr]

I believe Oldmantook has stated that he doesn't believe in the rapture at all (not that I'm speaking for him).

Why post then. You are trying to speak for him. But since you set yourself up as his spokesman perhaps you can explain how he does not believe in a rapture, according to you, and yet he said, and I quote, "Jesus stated the exact opposite. In Rev 16:15-16 Jesus plainly states that he is coming as a thief (v.15) prior to the battle of Armageddon (v.16). The OP of this thread asked where is the rapture? According to Jesus, the rapture happens right before Armageddon. The rapture = the Second Coming. One event; not two separate events and is post-trib."

Can you explain that? Maybe you should let him explain himself.

 

[mkgal1]

Why post then. You are trying to speak for him.

I deleted that as I realized I do NOT understand his stance.

Maybe you should let him explain himself.

I agree.

 

[Oldmantook]

You kind of contradict yourself. No, "EVERYONE" who believes in the "rapture" does not believe what you allege here. For example you yourself believe in the rapture but don't believe what you allege everyone believes. Nor do I believe what you allege everyone believes.

Contrary to your statement, I do not believe in the rapture. There is no such term in Scripture. What persons who believe in the rapture is actually the 2nd Coming - it is one and the same event. It occurs after the tribulation. No contradiction at all.

 

[bcbsr]

Contrary to your statement, I do not believe in the rapture. There is no such term in Scripture. What persons who believe in the rapture is actually the 2nd Coming - it is one and the same event. It occurs after the tribulation. No contradiction at all.

Yet you said, "According to Jesus, the rapture happens right before Armageddon."

As I see it there are a bunch of things that happen at the second coming. The rapture, the resurrection, Christ coming down from the clouds.

we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

So Christ comes in the clouds, the resurrection then occurs, and after that, the rapture.

 

[Oldmantook]

Strictly going by definition alone.....a preterist is anyone that believes that *some* prophesies have already been fulfilled. I don't see why a person can't be both a partial preterist (which would technically be ALL Christians - as we ALL believe Christ has come, was crucified, was buried, and rose again....and is seated at the right-hand of the Father....right?) AND a millennialist. The distinction you're making is between being a millennialist and an amillennialist (of which I am).

From Wiki: The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which Webster's 1913 dictionary lists as a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but partial preterism denies that there is a literal millennial reign and holds to a figurative millennial period which began in 70 AD. It has been more than a thousand years since 70 AD so partial preterists by necessity have to interpret the 1,000 years as figurative and not a literal number. Secondly, Rev 20:4 states that those who were beheaded because they did not worship the beast or take his mark will come to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years. Was there a time in history when people were beheaded for not receiving some kind of mark on their forehead or wrist? I'm not aware of any. Therefore I hold that Rev 20:4 must refer to a future time but partial preterism holds that this is all figurative language which I don't subscribe to.

So.....this confuses me without you believing in the rapture. When you say, "I believe in the post-trib view"...what happens AFTER the tribulation (Jesus comes again)? And what happens (or happened) before the thousand years (in your belief) because when most people use the label "premillennial" don't they mean that they believe Christians are "raptured" before the millennial period?

Since I believe the great tribulation has already occurred - then we DO agree there as well (but I'm guessing you mean the tribulation has NOT happened already).

I do have to say that I appreciate your respectful way of posting.

I too appreciate your cordial discussion. Iron sharpens iron as we give and take. I learn new things and have even changed my views on several things over the years as I am open to change if something/someone convinces me otherwise. The term premillennial simply means that Jesus will return before the millennial period. Pre meaning "before" the 1,000 years - hence premillennial. Before the 1,000 years is the age in which we are now living. Many think that we are living in the "last days" prior to the tribuation after which Jesus said he would return. I don't share your belief that the tribulation has already occurred because when I read Revelation, the world-wide scope and cataclysm of destruction that it describes has not not yet taken place. In the course of history, cataclysm and destruction have taken place but it has been limited in scope, place and time - not to the degree depicted in John's revelation. Thus partial preterists have to interpret much of Revelation to be in the past or figurative. In my opinion, while Revelation does have some figurative language, I read it literally for the most part and referencing future events as I don't see such destruction having occurred on a world-wide basis in the past.

Yes.....you're correct. That's the difference between our views.

I think the only thing I would add is that it seems to me that pretribbers are not prepared for suffering and persecution that lies ahead as they believe that they are to be "raptured" out of such troubles before the tribulation begins. A similar view holds for amillennialism. Amillennialism acknowledges suffering in the present age as the tribulation described in Revelation has already taken place and continues to take place in this realized age. Both of these views in my opinion downplays the need to be prepared to suffer for Christ's sake and even martyrdom if necessary. If this be true and great tribulation and persecution still lies ahead, then the saints will be unprepared and many may fall away from the faith because what they had believed did not line up with what may potentially occur.

 

[Oldmantook]

Yet you said, "According to Jesus, the rapture happens right before Armageddon."

Indeed i wrote that - only to highlight the point that pretribbers believe that they will be "raptured" when Jesus comes as a thief - before the tribulation. I directly quoted Jesus' own words in Rev 16:15-16 where Jesus states he comes as a thief before the battle of Armageddon which takes place after the great tribulation. Just because I employ the word "rapture" in no way indicates that I subscribe to that belief. Only to point out the difference between what Jesus actually said as to the timing of his coming as a thief in contrast with what pretribbers believe.

 

[mkgal1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but partial preterism denies that there is a literal millennial reign and holds to a figurative millennial period which began in 70 AD.

Preterism has to do with prophecies and their fulfillment. A person can be a millennialist (believing in a literal thousand-year reign) and a preterist. They each have to do with different aspects of eschatology.

Secondly, Rev 20:4 states that those who were beheaded because they did not worship the beast or take his mark will come to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years. Was there a time in history when people were beheaded for not receiving some kind of mark on their forehead or wrist? I'm not aware of any. Therefore I hold that Rev 20:4 must refer to a future time but partial preterism holds that this is all figurative language which I don't subscribe to.

As I posted earlier....preterism is a general term....it's not automatically linked to specific prophecies. Not all partial preterists agree on what has been fulfilled and what's left for the future. You've said that you agree that Matthew 24 is about the destruction of the Temple....correct? I'm presuming you also agree that the Messiah coming that's prophesied in the OT has also been fulfilled....right? Then.....as much as you seem to not want to consider yourself as....you also fit into the category of "preterist".

The branch of eschatology that has to do with the belief of a literal thousand-year reign is - Millenial contrasted to Amillennial. A person can be a partial preterist and a millenialist (like you are). I can't really see how a person can claim to NOT be a preterist if they're believing that Christ has fulfilled the prophecies related to the Messiah.

 

[Oldmantook]

Preterism has to do with prophecies and their fulfillment. A person can be a millennialist (believing in a literal thousand-year reign) and a preterist. They each have to do with different aspects of eschatology.

A person cannot subscribe to a literal millennium and partial preterism at the same time for the following reason. If the millennium began in 70 AD, we are now living more than a 1,000 years after that occurrence, thus a partial preterist by necessity has to view that number as symbolic and not a literal 1,000 year period. Thus a person cannot be both a (literal) millennialist and a preterist. In order to reconcile this, preterists are forced to interpret the millennium as symbolic and figurative. That is a view that I don't subscribe to.

As I posted earlier....preterism is a general term....it's not automatically linked to specific prophecies. Not all partial preterists agree on what has been fulfilled and what's left for the future. You've said that you agree that Matthew 24 is about the destruction of the Temple....correct? I'm presuming you also agree that the Messiah coming that's prophesied in the OT has also been fulfilled....right? Then.....as much as you seem to not want to consider yourself as....you also fit into the category of "preterist".

The branch of eschatology that has to do with the belief of a literal thousand-year reign is - Millenial contrasted to Amillennial. A person can be a partial preterist and a millenialist (like you are). I can't really see how a person can claim to NOT be a preterist if they're believing that Christ has fulfilled the prophecies related to the Messiah.

Indeed, not all partial preterists agree on what has or has not occurred which is the fatal flaw in partial preterism as it results in a "pick and choose" hemeneutic which is terribly inconsistent. You believe that Christ "has fulfilled the prophecies related to the Messiah" yet you previously wrote that his Second
Coming is yet to be fulfilled in the future. Did Christ fulfill some prophecies as Messiah? Yes. Did he fulfill all prophecies as Messiah? No. Jesus came as the sacrificial lamb but he is coming again as conquering King. That is the reason that I am by no means a preterist - full or partial.

 

[mkgal1]

A person cannot subscribe to a literal millennium and partial preterism at the same time for the following reason. If the millennium began in 70 AD, we are now living more than a 1,000 years after that occurrence, thus a partial preterist by necessity has to view that number as symbolic and not a literal 1,000 year period.

You're conflating two different theologies.

Not all preterists believe that the millennium began in 70 AD (you are one of them).

IOW....preterism has to do with prophecies (only).

The belief of (or denial of) a literal thousand-year reign is a whole other aspect.

Just as you've demonstrated that people can have all sorts of views about His second coming (whether it's before the Battle of Armegeddon or after...whether His church will leave the earth or not...etc) people can also have different views of both the millennium reign and each prophecy that's written about in the Bible. Most people don't fit neatly into boxes.

 

[ClementofA]

A person cannot subscribe to a literal millennium and partial preterism at the same time for the following reason. If the millennium began in 70 AD, we are now living more than a 1,000 years after that occurrence, thus a partial preterist by necessity has to view that number as symbolic and not a literal 1,000 year period. Thus a person cannot be both a (literal) millennialist and a preterist. In order to reconcile this, preterists are forced to interpret the millennium as symbolic and figurative. That is a view that I don't subscribe to.

Do you believe the number 1000 in the Bible is always literally exactly 1000? Is the number 1000 never used figuratively?

 

[mkgal1]

@Oldmantook here is one example of biblical prophecy. If a person believes that this has been fulfilled....then just by that belief....they would qualify as a "partial preterist" (one who believes that some biblical prophecies are already in the past)

From Bible study tools:

In 538 B.C. Daniel wrote the following bold prediction:

>Daniel 9:25 - "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks of years and sixty-two weeks of years"

In this prophecy, Daniel is claiming that there will be 69 weeks of years between the issuing of a decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the appearance of the Messiah. Now keep in mind that this bold prediction came 538 years before Christ was born.

Now let's investigate a little history, OK? In 464 BC, Artaxerxes, a Persian king, ascended to the throne. His twentieth year as king would be 464 BC. Nehemiah, the Jewish cupbearer to King Artaxerxes, was deeply concerned with the reports about the ruined condition of Jerusalem which came about as the result of their being defeated (Nehemiah 1:1-4) and as a result, he petitioned the king:

>Nehemiah 2:5,6 - "Send me to Judah, to the city of my fathers' tombs, that I may rebuild it. So it pleased the king to send me".

Scripture then provides us with the exact date of this decree to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem. According to the scriptures the decree is issued "in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king" (Nehemiah 2:1). The Jewish calendar month was Nisan, and since no day is given, it is reasonable to assume that the date would be understood as the first, the Jewish New Year's Day. And, in the Julian calendar we presently use, the corresponding date would be March 5, 444 B.C. This was the day on which the decree was issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.

Now let's remember this date, March 5, 444BC and take a look at the appearance of the Messiah. You may recall that the Gospels tell us that Jesus, on numerous occasions, had forbidden his followers to make him known as "the Messiah". He would frequently do miracles and tell the disciples not to tell anyone who had done the miracles because his "hour has not yet come" (John 2:4, 7:6). However, on March 30, 33 A.D., when he entered Jerusalem on a donkey, he rebuked the Pharisees' protest and encouraged the whole multitude of his disciples as they shouted, "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord". And Jesus said, "If these become silent, the stones will cry out" (Luke 19:38-40). This was the day on which Jesus was publicly declared the Messiah.

Now let's compare the date of the decree (March 5, 444 BC) with the date of Jesus' declaration (March 30, 33 AD). Now before we begin, we need to clarify the fact that the Jewish prophetic year was composed of twelve 30 day months. In other words, the ancient evidence indicates that the Jewish prophetic year had 360 days, not 365 days. Since Daniel states 69 weeks of seven years each, and each year has 360 days, the equation is as follows: 69 x 7 x 360 = 173,880 days. In nothing more than a simple mathematical demonstration, the number of days in the period from March 5, 444 B.C. (the twentieth year of Artaxerxes) to March 30, 33 A.D. (the day Jesus entered Jerusalem on the donkey) can be determined at this point.

The time span from 444 B.C. to 33 A.D. is 476 years (remember that 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is only one year). And if we multiply 476 years x 365.2421879 days per year (corrected for leap years), we get the result of 173,855 days. Now let's add back the difference between March 5 and March 30 (25 days). What is our total? You guessed it, 173,880 days, exactly as Daniel predicted it. ~ https://www.biblestudytools.com/bib...-filled-with-fulfilled-prophecy-11652232.html​

 

[Oldmantook]

Not all preterists believe that the millennium began in 70 AD (you are one of them).

No. I don't believe the millennium began in 70 AD. Don't know you got to that conclusion based on what I wrote.

IOW....preterism has to do with prophecies (only).

Not really. Prophecies yes, but when did they occur or not yet occur? Figurative or literal? You have a reductionist view that does not address the larger issues in my opinion.

The belief of (or denial of) a literal thousand-year reign is a whole other aspect.

No, it is integral to systematic theology. Eschatology encompasses whether event(s) are past or future; literal or symbolic. To separately categorize the 1,000 years as "being a whole other aspect" is to deny its relevance.

Just as you've demonstrated that people can have all sorts of views about His second coming (whether it's before the Battle of Armegeddon or after...whether His church will leave the earth or not...etc) people can also have different views of both the millennium reign and each prophecy that's written about in the Bible. Most people don't fit neatly into boxes.

Indeed; but I still have trouble understanding your beliefs as you appear to write one thing but then write something else to the contrary. Anyway, thanks for the discussion but since it seems we're not making much headway, I'll bow out at this point.

 

[Oldmantook]

Do you believe the number 1000 in the Bible is always literally exactly 1000? Is the number 1000 never used figuratively?

Of course not. Sometimes it is figurative and sometimes literal; largely determined by context.