I am a newbee partial preterist. Discuss.

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Everyone is entitled to their view on Christianity. But not in this forum. This forum is a about eschatology, study of the end times from the Christian perspective, based on the bible being true. You should not be participating in this forum if you don't believe the bible is true.

Try and get the thread closed then if you cannot stand it. Who says that the forum is about fundamentalism?

 

[mkgal1]

• 71 Apostle Mark introduces Christianity to Egypt.

• 80 Gospel of Luke written by the Apostle Luke; Titus dedicates Colosseum, site of the martyrdom of many early Christians.

• ca. 80-90 Didache written.

• 85 Acts of the Apostles written by Apostle Luke.

• 90 Council of Jamnia (Javneh) marks final separation and distinction between the Jewish and Christian communities, including rejection of the Septuagint widely then in use among the Hellenized Jewish diaspora.

• 95 Apostle John writes Book of Revelation.

• ca. 90-96 Persecution of Christians under Emperor Domitian (2nd).

• 96 Gospel of John written by Apostle John.

What about this history that's been preserved by the church? Were Mark, Luke, and all the early Christians that were present at the Council of Jamnia not "true Christians"? And where did the Christians come from that were persecuted in ca. 90-96?

 

[A_Thinker]

OK, so explain to me please the passage when Jesus says that some of those people standing there with him will not taste of death until the coming of the kingdom?

Would not you say that the "Kingdom of God" came with the ressurrection at the latest ?

Was that not the initiation of God's spiritual kingdom ... which was made possible by the sacrificial death and raising of His Son ? Did not the Church begin at that point ?

Did not the group gathered in the upper room see evidence of the coming of God's kingdom upon earth (i.e. the coming of the Holy Spirit) ?

Couldn't that also refer to John, who saw the glorified Christ in his apocalyptic vision ?

And Jesus also said that time was so short that the disciples would hardly have the time to preach through Israel before the advent of the kingdom.

Where is this in scripture ?

Isn't there a passage which says that the gospel must be preached in ALL the world ... and then the end will come ?

Matthew 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.

 

[The Times]

The point that Jesus is making when he says that there are some standing here who will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is that there are some to whom he is speaking who will not die before the prophecy of Daniel 7 is fulfilled, in other words, before Jesus receives the kingdom from his Father.

Jesus received the Kingdom upon his ascension. There are many scriptural proofs, highlighting that Jesus will continue to reign through his Cross, until he destroys all power, dominion and authority. When he comes back, he would have fulfilled this and also defeated the last enemy death, Satan and hell. At this point he becomes subject to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:23-28).

In addition, we see the declaration.....

13“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)

"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. (Daniel 2:44)

Again.....it comes down to where Jesus sat when he ascended up on high......

"'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."' (Matthew 22:44)

Again........

But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. (Acts 7:55)

So it was fulfilled, that those who stood listening to Jesus, were alive to witness the ushering in of the Son into his Kingdom in Heaven, where he went to prepare a place for his bride. (John 14:2-3)

Even the High Priest was told that he too will not taste death, until he witnesses the event, where the Son will ascend to sit on th right hand of the Father and to reign from his Heavenly Kingdom, in his Father's house,

64“You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Matthew 26:64)

when Jesus speaks of the “coming of the Son of Man,” he is purposefully alluding to Daniel 7:13–14

For sure, but you are missing the evidence that's point to him being given the Kingdom at his ascension.

 

[BABerean2]

I have thought of late that the Ebionites or Nazarines were the true Christians - the church run by James in the early years. The unpopular idea here, is that Paul was opposed to the Ebionites and James and went his own way. Paul's doctrines were easier to accept for the Greeks as there was no Jewish Law or circumcision - just a few basic rules.
The video that I posted claims there that the Judaisers were left behind at the rapture - I don't agree with that. I think that there might have been a compromise agreed between James, Peter and Paul, at first, but that Paul went to far, so James writes his letter to refute Paul's teachings.
Paul won the day, perhaps because the Ebionites were raptured in 66 AD.
Anyway, I found the video and the writers were Flavius Josephus, 75 AD, Cornelius Tacitus 112 AD, Casia Dio 66 AD and Suetonius 66 AD - all writing from a pagan perspective on the rapture of the church.
Looks like we missed the rapture after all.

Since you seem quite confused, it would be well worth your time to take a look at the following which contains much of the core doctrine of our faith.


The Old Covenant/ New Covenant and the Sabbath

.

 

[A_Thinker]

But that is the only solution for me - that they vanished, like with the rapture.
It's a long time ago. The empire would not have noticed if several thousand Christians vanished. Jesus also said in John's Gospel that he would return for the Apostles, after preparing a place in heaven for them. How long do the Apostles have to wait for Jesus to return - 2000 years?

None of the writers of the NT documents were participants in the empire.

Does not Jesus, at least figuratively, ... return for us at the moments of our deaths ?

 

[mkgal1]

As to your question about the Kingdom of God: I'd posted this earlier.....

Knowledge of this history now gives new and even more meaning to what we call the Pentecost event (Acts 2:1-13). On that day, the fire from heaven descended, not on a building, but on people! And all peoples—not just Jews—were baptized and received the Spirit (Acts 2:38-41). Paul understood this and spent much of his life drawing out the immense consequences. In that moment, Christianity began to see itself as a universal rather than a tribal or regional religion, which is why they very soon called themselves “catholic” (universal) as early as the year 108 AD. Paul loved to say, “You are the Temple!” (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:21-22), and of course this morphs into his entire doctrine of corporate humanity as the very Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-30).~https://cac.org/the-evolution-of-the-temple-2017-05-14/

.....and I think it illustrates the contrast between the Old Covenant/the understanding the Jews had about the presence of God....and the destruction of the Temple (and their ability to rely on it for piety).

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Would not you say that the "Kingdom of God" came with the ressurrection at the latest ?

Was that not the initiation of God's spiritual kingdom ... which was made possible by the sacrificial death and raising of His Son ? Did not the Church begin at that point ?

Did not the group gathered in the upper room see evidence of the coming of God's kingdom upon earth (i.e. the coming of the Holy Spirit) ?

Couldn't that also refer to John, who saw the glorified Christ in his apocalyptic vision ?



Where is this in scripture ?

Isn't there a passage which says that the gospel must be preached in ALL the world ... and then the end will come ?

Matthew 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.

The church began because of Pentecost - but when did that happen? - early on. That might be the arrival of the kingdom, but there is still the possibility that those gathered in the upper room were raptured in 66-70 AD.
I dont think it was a spiritual kingdom, as that does not square with what Jesus was talking about. The gospel is preached in all the world and that takes a long time, and Jesus knew that, as he also mentioned that the time of the Gentiles would last a long time.
Two separate things - the return of Christ and the end of the age - the final end - what that means, as end will come, I am not sure - I go back to the parable of the wheat and the tares - the tares are gathered out first, then the wheat is gathered into his barn - perhaps that means that the saints at the end of days are taken into the kingdom, which is somewhere else, other than the earth - perhaps a new earth in another realm.
What that is not, is the opposite of pre-trib rapture doctrine - the wheat gathered up first - then what happens to the tares?
The end seems to be final - the end of the world.

 

[dreadnought]

But, if you also consider the opening chapter, which is a letter to the seven Churches in Asia Minor, that there was an urgent message, accompanied by the call...."the time is near". The urgent message needed to be delivered to each of the Head Bishops/Messengers of those Churches, which required a reinvigoration of the preaching of the gospel yet again as stated in Revelation 10:11. This message comes some three decades after the fall of Jerusalem, when the Great Commission was disrupted. John was instructed by Jesus to restart the vigorous task to preach yet again to the many peoples of the world (Revelation 10:11). The time is near, is to say, it is high time that the preaching commence immediately without fail. John accompanies his message, that the beast and the false prophet who were burnt up in 70AD, will no longer impede them. This is the near field message.

However the far field message, concerning mystery Babylon that is the beast that was, is not (70AD) and yet will become again in the future, was a mystery beast to John, because it was not for his time, but a future time, where the world would be trampled under the feet of that end of days generation before Christ's brilliant coming.

"The time is near." Indeed, we will each witness the fulfillment of prophecies, I suspect. But remember that symbolism might be involved.

 

[mkgal1]

Jesus received the Kingdom upon his ascension.

I can accept that (I see no reason not to)

 

[mkgal1]

there is still the possibility that those gathered in the upper room were raptured in 66-70 AD.

I don't believe so. According to the church, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and Peter...but he was killed in 67 AD) were in the upper room.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am not sure about that, as I believe that he already returned. The close of the end of the age might be some sort of transformation into the Kingdom. When Jesus talks about the tares being removed from the Kingdom, that must be the earth - as what would tares be doing in heaven? - they wouldn't be there to be removed, that is why I think that the earth is transformed into the Kingdom.
But unlike pre-millennial's, I do not accept a 1000 year rule of Christ with the return to earth of the saints from heaven - I think that the author of Revelation was in error about a literal 1000 year Kingdom.
But at the resurrection, the saints in heaven receive resurrection bodies, which is different from the spiritual body in heaven.

I make use of primarily the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus. I do not believe that the writer of Paul, whoever that was, is reliable - I know that would upset a lot of people, but that is what I conclude on that.
The resurrection occurs at the beginning of the Messianic Age - when people get resurrection bodies to live forever, on a transformed earth.

I can't really respond to all the writings of Paul, as I do not believe that anyone writing in the NT times was reliable as a prophet, except for Jesus - they might just be wrong about it - I believe that prophesy ended with Micah.
If Peter was correct about the earth being consumed by fire - when does that happen? Where do people go who are on the earth at that time? Duzant it say in the OT that the earth endures forever?

The Lion and the Lamb in Isaiah, (as it was) is metaphor, but is also describing a literal condition of transformation of the animal kingdom, in the age to come - no predation, no venomous serpents etc.
I think that the first Christians were gathered up into heaven, much like Elijah.

Jesus talking about the kingdom being introduced before the passing of that generation, was describing the dawn of the kingdom, as the new covenant, as well as his return to collect the saints back in 70 AD.
The question about how is the rapture different if it was in 70 AD - the wheat was gathered up, but Jesus was not describing that specific event - he was talking about the end of the age some 2000 years in the future. That is when the disciples asked him specifically about the end of the age.
Jesus also talked about the tribulation of 70 AD, and prophesied accurately about the Romans surrounding Jerusalem, and warned people to flee to safety. Then immediately after the tribulation, would be the return of Jesus and the 'rapture' of the saints - 70 AD.
The end of the age is more apocalyptic - the 'day of the Lord' prophesied in the OT or Tanakh. This is after the antichrist does his worship of a peculiar god of forces, has no regard for the desire of women, and seeks to alter times and laws, and wears out the saints - which is what they/he is doing now.
The angels are sent out by Jesus, and they take out the tares which are upon the earth. Then the wheat is gathered into his barn - which is those Christians remaining on the earth at that time, and the saints already in heaven - united in the kingdom.
Posting a lot of stuff from Paul and the other letters of the NT wont work for me - Jesus first, and the prophets of old like Isaiah, Micah.
Revelation also - not reliable and not prophetic and not written by John.
Duz Jesus need to return to earth in a physical body? Perhaps. Jesus said that he would drink wine again in the Kingdom, so perhaps so. Whatever sort of immortal body there is, wine will no longer be harmful, or people prone to alcoholism. Like Jesus said - they are like the angels and can no longer die. And like Isaiah said - God will swallow up death.
There are two or more writers of Isaiah. The first Isaiah describes an eternal kingdom. The latter Isaiah pretends to be Isaiah, by using Isaiah's sort of language, but has another belief - in a millennial kingdom of about 1000 years, where people do die. The latter Isaiah is a false prophet - an impostor pretending to be Isaiah.

I appreciate your candor but there is a different reflection on this. Consider this, the church is losing Apostles so they do everything in their power to preserve their witness in the space of ten years, 60 AD to 70 AD. The final installment was the book of Revelations, a message from Christ himself about how all this ends. The prophets of the Old Testament made a lot of predictions but always the coming of the kingdom was the bottom line.

Isaiah was there in the eighth century, you don't trust Hebrew scholarship that's your decision. The way I see it, the prophets always described this glorious kingdom that Christ himself claimed to be the embodiment of. I can and do debate the issue, but once in a while that is just beside the point. Christ made promises, not the least of which was the resurrection. At a bare minimum, this must be considered.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Tom 1]

There were no Christians remaining to record the event

Can you explain what you mean by that?

 

[The Times]

"The time is near." Indeed, we will each witness the fulfillment of prophecies, I suspect. But remember that symbolism might be involved.

The urgency towards the time is near for the 1st Century Church was to rivigourate the preaching of the gospel yet again, after it went cold, because of the context of situation (post 70AD).

The time is near for us, is the declaration of mystery Babylon is fallen. It would seem, that global trade collapse must accompany a destructive natures force that prevents the merchants from doing trade, where their ships remain at dock. Think about what catastrophe would follow, when trade by sea is halted for some reason or another.

 

[A71]

If the word 'love', written on toilet paper, is central to your faith, but the words of Paul have been discarded, then you really have told us that your beliefs are not Christian. Probably you have mistaken eschatology for scatology

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

Can you explain what you mean by that?

They were raptured.

 

[Hiscosmicgoldfish3]

If the word 'love', written on toilet paper, is central to your faith, but the words of Paul have been discarded, then you really have told us that your beliefs are not Christian. Probably you have mistaken eschatology for scatology

It was the vicar who did that, not me.

 

[A71]

Yes, but you listen to your vicar but don't listen to Paul

 

[The Times]

@dreadnought
Will the event that stops trade by sea be a fire from war, a fire from volcanoes spewing all around the world, a fire from a cascading earthquakes, a fire from space. Who knows, but since it is done away with in one hour or a short time, I am inclined to believe that sudden destruction comes that causes a cessation of trade. This I call the trade embargo that God places on the city mentioned as reigning over all the kingdoms of the world. I believe the mother of the world in terms of commerce is America and it is the one that has made other countries rich, especially the merchants who do trade with her.

 

[Tom 1]

They were raptured.

And no-one noticed?