Was the 70th Week of Daniel Fulfilled during the First Century?

[Spiritual Jew]

In Revelation 4:2, it says he was immediately in the spirit. And the voice he heard said come up hither (here). Meaning John came from down below to the throne of God in heaven.

1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

That doesn't equate to him being bodily taken to heaven. The rapture is about meeting Christ "in the air", anyway, not in heaven. So, the idea that Revelation 4:1-2 represents the rapture or is a preview of the rapture is just a huge stretch.

Matthew 24:15-31 is a message to the Jews in the end times, in particular them living in Judea, who will end up going through the great tribulation, which will be ended with Jesus's return.

Differently, Matthew 24:32-52 is a message to Christians in the end times, because it refers to Jesus as being "your Lord" (which the Jews do not yet believe Jesus as their Lord) on how to avoid to having to go through the great tribulation - via His coming for Christians for the rapture.

I couldn't disagree more. There is only one future coming of the Son of Man referenced in Matthew 24. There is no basis whatsoever to see the coming of the Son of man referenced in Matthew 24:29-31 as being some different event than the coming of the Son of man in Matthew 24:32-52.

Jesus is only coming down from heaven once in the future. If He was coming from heaven more than once then why wouldn't Paul, Peter, John or any other New Testament writer have written about that? We don't see that described by John in Revelation, either.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I am not the one claiming sin. You said disturbing. Since the Millennium is after sin is eradicated, whose timing is off?

I'm just going to say this one last time. It is ridiculous to think that rebels who number "as the sand of the sea" going up against "the camp of the saints" with the intention of destroying them is not a sin. That you can't even discern that it would be a sin for someone to oppose Christ followers with the intention of killing them is unbelievable to me.

 

[Timtofly]

The word is changed, not resurrected. Other words applicable for the living could be translated, transformed.

The soul changes bodies from a tent to a permanent building. Resurrection is change that refers to time. If all are changed, being a split second of time, no need for a Resurrection. Is Paul claiming all are changed, or only those at the Second Coming?


We shall not all sleep, but all are changed. Change and resurrection is referring to the same act.

 

[Timtofly]

I'm just going to say this one last time. It is ridiculous to think that rebels who number "as the sand of the sea" going up against "the camp of the saints" with the intention of destroying them is not a sin. That you can't even discern that it would be a sin for someone to oppose Christ followers with the intention of killing them is unbelievable to me.

Well since you refuse to see where this alledged sin came from, Satan the deciever, you fail to see that sin is eradicated until Satan shows up. But if you think that Satan did not bring the sin, why would it take his appearing to make it evident?

Because under the law it is not sin until an act is carried to the end. It was not carried to an end, because fire consumed them before an act was accomplished.

You are hung up on intent. When there is no law, intent in the mind is sin. You sin by just thinking. Under the law, intent is not sin, unless acted upon.