The catching away

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by easter

Bro.Blume I pulled up some of the names you had listed.Are you aware that these folks ,half don't agree that the apostle John was the same John of Patmos.In other words they don't agree on who the inspired writer of the Revelation of Jesus Christ was.Half don't think the beloved disciple JOHN was the one who received the Apocalypse from the Lord.

But the point is they all believed AD70 came after Revelation was written,. That was my point.

John the disciple wrote Revelation near the end of Domitian's reign around 95 AD.

We need proof though as you know. And the greatest proof to me is what Revelation, itself, says. And there were only 7 churches in Asia minor before AD70 not after, and as I noted Laodicaea was destroyed by an earthquake so no church could even be there in AD96 for John to write to them. And Rev 11 mentions the exact 3.5 year time when Jerusalem would be destroyed. This is called INTERNAL EVIDENCE. It is going by what the bible says itself. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE is when we read writings outside the bible for opinions. Internal is always better than external. We can always count on what the bible says itself.

We have historians who agree with you and ones that agree with me. Too many variations in history. So we have to look more to what the Revelation itself says, I think. After all, it is God's word.

Some believe Revelation was wrote in 68 AD.These folks cite the fact that the persecution was limited to the Roman empire.However John of Patmos speaks of the churches suffering persecution throughout Asia minor.Asia minor was not part of the Roman empire during Nero's reign.But Titus came about acquiring it after the First Jewish-Roman war defeated and claimed Asia minor as part of the Empire of Rome.

According to Eusebus it was Domitian who started the persecution and the exile of Christians to Patmos.Domitian reign as Emperor of Rome 81 AD-96 AD

Domitian was more evil then Nero.He persecuted and killed many,many Christians.

So many different opinions.

I think Nero was far worse. Not because I want to, though. I was futurist like you, and started seeing these things and hearing about Nero. Etc. And I was realizing my prophetic world was being upset.

For centuries EVERYONE spoke of Nero and his evil. The first name anyone comes up with when it comes to Rome persecuting Christians is Nero. Nero was a mad man. A maniac. Domitian was never so personally wicked as Nero. Even some movies I have from the 50's about the bible talk about "the great antichrist Nero." He tied christians on stakes and lit them on fire for his night lights in his parties. I could cite many things he did that would sicken a person's stomach.

But like I said, internal evidence is far greater to rely upon. History is too full of holes. and imperfect. the bible is perfect.

[easter]

Bro.Blume if your right then the time on earth that Jesus spoke of as being a time like never before and a time like that will never be again as bad as the tribulation on earth but if you believe in the catching away(the rapture) then what do you suppose will happen on the earth for the ones left?I suppose you believe that the great white throne judgement will happen at the same time or do you take the Jewish wedding parable as a picture of the Rapture?Jesus used a Jewish wedding as an example of the Rapture,let me show why,In a Jewish wedding it is custom for the bridegroom to show up at a time that no one expects and gets his bride.They go off to the Bridal chamber for seven days.Now since Jesus used a Jewish wedding as a picture for the Rapture then we read Revelation and we understand the Seven year tribulation as the seven day Bridal chamber then this could only mean the ones on earth are going to have a time period before the final judgement.So I'm wondering about this seven year period for the ones who are not a part of the bride?Revelation plainly tells us as Jesus tells us in the word that there will be a time on earth as never before or never will be again.
The ones who believe such as this time as being in 70 Ad can not see a future time on this earth as being a time when Satan indwells a Man of Sin,they do not understand that there is still a time coming that such a time has never been or will never be again like the good Lord has told ,no warned us.
So Bro.Blume I can not make you see something that you've already seen and now deny.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by easter

Bro.Blume if your right then the time on earth that Jesus spoke of as being a time like never before and a time like that will never be again as bad as the tribulation on earth but if you believe in the catching away(the rapture) then what do you suppose will happen on the earth for the ones left?I suppose you believe that the great white throne judgement will happen at the same time or do you take the Jewish wedding parable as a picture of the Rapture?

Here's how I see this. First of all, I take the idea of great tribulation as punishment for spiritual crime. The punishment always must fit the crime. For there to be great tribulation worse than any before or after, what crime could be the worst crime to illicit that punishment? IN all honesty, I cannot see anything worse than the crime of God's own Bride, Israel (See Ezekiel 16), rejecting Jesus and adulterating with Rome (We have no king but Caesar!), and killing the Lord on a cross. And that, to me, makes the worst tribulation to be the siege against Jerusalem. I read history where mothers fried and ate their own babies. In fact this was foretold in Deuteronomy, when God prophesied that Israel would violate the Law and he would send a nation down to them and these things like this would happen!

Nazi Germany did atrocious things to the Jews. But they were people doing things to OTHER people. Yet in Jerusalem's siege, mothers eating their own babies is worse than that. People doing things to their own people, themselves.

Also GREAT tribulation means SIGNIFICANT. What is more significant to God? His own Bride, Jerusalem, crucifying Him and calling out to another adulterous lover called Caesar, or Nazi Germany slaying Jews?

If MY WIFE did something against me personally in adultery, that would be more significant to ME than anybody else's wife doing ten times worse to their husband.

After the rapture, there will be no one on earth. Like you said, I believe the rapture takes us at the same time the resurrection of damnation takes sinners to the white throne. So no one is left behind.

The Jewish feast is not the rapture I believe. Matt 22 speaks of the wedding where those bidden would not come, and their city was burned and then folks were called amongst the halt and lame. This was written after Matt 21 spoke of Israel's rejection of Jesus when he came in as her King. From Matt 21 through Matt 24, Jesus spoke about nothing other than how Israel lost the Kingdom and another nation gets it (the church), or how those following Him better keep following Him or likewise be judged. And the wedding feast in Matt 22 is the same thing.

Matt 22 says the wedding is called but those bidden refuse (Israel). So He burns up their city and then calls for the halt and lame to come instead (Gentiles for Church). Revelation 18 shows the Harlot city Jerusalem burned and 19 shows the wedding! Same order of events.

And so the wedding feast is not the rapture. It is the bread and wine of the feast of the truth of Jesus (body and blood of the cross - bread and wine) and how we are united to Him. The feast has been going on ever since! The vultures also feasted on the dead carcases and history shows there were hundreds of thousands slain and laying dead for the buzzards to feast upon. So, two feasts occur. The feast of the saints in the wedding with Christ while the buzzards feasted in apostate Israel.

Jesus used a Jewish wedding as an example of the Rapture,let me show why,In a Jewish wedding it is custom for the bridegroom to show up at a time that no one expects and gets his bride.They go off to the Bridal chamber for seven days.Now since Jesus used a Jewish wedding as a picture for the Rapture

Where did Jesus say anything about a rapture when he spoke of the wedding feast? Please give specific scripture for this. If you go to Matthew 25, there is no mention of a rapture there at all. Matt 25 mentions the sheep and goats and how the people who visited him in prison and fed him and clothed him, when they did it to the least of those his brethren. And if this is resurrection when all souls are judged, and it involves North American Indians who lived centuries before Jesus, etc., I thought the great white throne after your millennium is when these folks are raised, not the rapture. Also, how could people who lived before Jesus be told they fed Jesus and clothed Him and visited Him in prison when they did it to the least of those his brethren? But if we look at this as speaking of the time period before AD70, the early church, his brethren, were imprisoned and persecuted heavily by Israel.

I heard your view many times, too, but the verses they use do not mention a rapture anywhere. And I saw more and more how that everything futurism differs in is assumption after assumption with no plain bible statements stating it.

then we read Revelation and we understand the Seven year tribulation as the seven day Bridal chamber

Revelation says nothing about a 7 year tribulation. THE ONLY SOURCE for the idea of a seven year tribulation is assuming Dan 9:27's 70th week of Daniel is a seven year tribulation. But as I have shown, and as you admitted, there is no Bible to say there is a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks.

Why not agree with the idea there is no gap, and in turn agree with the idea that JESUS fulfills the 70th week with the cross and make the cross the focus of the entire 70 weeks? I really do not understand why people reject the notion of the cross being the focal point, as it should be the focal point in everything anyway, in Dan 9:27 once they are presented with that idea.

then this could only mean the ones on earth are going to have a time period before the final judgement.So I'm wondering about this seven year period for the ones who are not a part of the bride?Revelation plainly tells us as Jesus tells us in the word that there will be a time on earth as never before or never will be again.

Yes, but the punishment must fit the crime. So if you think the trib of the future is worse than the trib of the first century against Jerusalem, what crime will occur that is worse than the crime of the cross?

The ones who believe such as this time as being in 70 Ad can not see a future time on this earth as being a time when Satan indwells a Man of Sin,they do not understand that there is still a time coming that such a time has never been or will never be again like the good Lord has told ,no warned us.
So Bro.Blume I can not make you see something that you've already seen and now deny.

The cross is everything in the Word. And it is the focal point of the great trib since the great trib fell under the canopy of the time of the cross. Futurism removes the cross from being the focus compared to my view.

All you noted here is not spelled out for us in the Bible, Easter. It not only departs from putting the cross at the focal point, but there is no 7 years trib mentioned anywhere in the bible - it is just assumed... there is no wedding feast associated with the rapture in clear plain explanation in the bible... it is just assumed. There is no BIBLE saying anything about the groom taking the bride for seven days, just nice traditions... No gap in the 70 weeks, just assumed... Etc. etc. And my view puts the cross in the center of the whole thin, with the generation of the people who perpetrated the cross being the generation spoken of in Matthew 24.

So I am sorry, but I will not believe things that the bible does not spell out plainly for me, which is why I stopped believing in futurism. Too many assumptions, and I cannot base my soul's beliefs on assumptions that have no clear and explicit bible statements.

I could no longer rely on such thoughts that folks preached pretty good, but never had solid bible for. And partial preterism has more solid bible than any view I have ever seen yet. And if I see a different view that has more solid bible for it than partial preterism, I will drop partial preterism and believe it.

I also realized that futurism is so full of thoughts that Jesus and the apostles never said anything about. Like all the prophecies from the Old testament that futurists claim are for a millennium after the church is raptured. Where did Jesus and the apostles say anything about that idea? They didn't! In fact, the epistles take chapters that are attributed to a millennium and actually taught about the church! Amos 9 mentions the tabernacle of David restored. James said in Acts 15 that this was the gentiles coming into the church! Futurists take that and twist it and say it is the millennium! What???!!!!

So, easter, while you say, "I can not make you see something that you've already seen and now deny," I also say I cannot show you what the Lord and apostles said that explain Revelation if you do not want to believe they actually interpreted Revelation for us. Jesus said all the prophets' blood and all blood shed on earth was required of Jerusalem. Ezekiel 16 said Jerusalem was the harlot. And Revelation 18 says all the blood shed on earth and prophets' blood was in the harlot. And how can I show you that there is no gap even while you admit you have no bible for it, if you still want to believe in a gap?

Blessings!

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by easter

Bro.Blume all the information you listed is all man's theories about the time frame for the revelation of Jesus and as like my proof ,your proof is not rock solid.
So I must continue searching because if your right then God will show me but so far I have not found evidence surporting that Nero was the man of sin and that the book of Revelation has been mostly fullfilled.
Did you read that nero died in 68 AD?How does this line up with 70 AD
Titus reigned in 70 AD

Easter and Mike this is getting confusing and off the point I think at least. Here is all I want to say go to the beginning, you cant understand things as well when the discustion starts in the middle. The time of the rapture that you both beleive in is better understood when you either do or don't beleive in the 7 year tribulation. Easter have you read Larry Smiths the 70th week of Daniel? I included the web page for you here to helpl you find it. http://www.rightlydividingtheword.com/studies. I only ask you to read this because Larry Smith has done a excelant job of explaining this already. The point is if you beleive that there are still one week left of Daniels prophecy then either you will never understand or never agree to what Mike is explaining. There is much more to this than just whether the rapture happens at a certain time or not this has to do with the kingdom of God and all it intails to the world today.

[Godsdrummer]

Oh when you get to the web site click on the big button that says studies

[easter]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Here's how I see this. First of all, I take the idea of great tribulation as punishment for spiritual crime. The punishment always must fit the crime. For there to be great tribulation worse than any before or after, what crime could be the worst crime to illicit that punishment? IN all honesty, I cannot see anything worse than the crime of God's own Bride, Israel (See Ezekiel 16), rejecting Jesus and adulterating with Rome (We have no king but Caesar!), and killing the Lord on a cross. And that, to me, makes the worst tribulation to be the siege against Jerusalem. I read history where mothers fried and ate their own babies. In fact this was foretold in Deuteronomy, when God prophesied that Israel would violate the Law and he would send a nation down to them and these things like this would happen!

Nazi Germany did atrocious things to the Jews. But they were people doing things to OTHER people. Yet in Jerusalem's siege, mothers eating their own babies is worse than that. People doing things to their own people, themselves.

Also GREAT tribulation means SIGNIFICANT. What is more significant to God? His own Bride, Jerusalem, crucifying Him and calling out to another adulterous lover called Caesar, or Nazi Germany slaying Jews?

If MY WIFE did something against me personally in adultery, that would be more significant to ME than anybody else's wife doing ten times worse to their husband.

After the rapture, there will be no one on earth. Like you said, I believe the rapture takes us at the same time the resurrection of damnation takes sinners to the white throne. So no one is left behind.

The Jewish feast is not the rapture I believe. Matt 22 speaks of the wedding where those bidden would not come, and their city was burned and then folks were called amongst the halt and lame. This was written after Matt 21 spoke of Israel's rejection of Jesus when he came in as her King. From Matt 21 through Matt 24, Jesus spoke about nothing other than how Israel lost the Kingdom and another nation gets it (the church), or how those following Him better keep following Him or likewise be judged. And the wedding feast in Matt 22 is the same thing.

Matt 22 says the wedding is called but those bidden refuse (Israel). So He burns up their city and then calls for the halt and lame to come instead (Gentiles for Church). Revelation 18 shows the Harlot city Jerusalem burned and 19 shows the wedding! Same order of events.

And so the wedding feast is not the rapture. It is the bread and wine of the feast of the truth of Jesus (body and blood of the cross - bread and wine) and how we are united to Him. The feast has been going on ever since! The vultures also feasted on the dead carcases and history shows there were hundreds of thousands slain and laying dead for the buzzards to feast upon. So, two feasts occur. The feast of the saints in the wedding with Christ while the buzzards feasted in apostate Israel.




Where did Jesus say anything about a rapture when he spoke of the wedding feast? Please give specific scripture for this. If you go to Matthew 25, there is no mention of a rapture there at all. Matt 25 mentions the sheep and goats and how the people who visited him in prison and fed him and clothed him, when they did it to the least of those his brethren. And if this is resurrection when all souls are judged, and it involves North American Indians who lived centuries before Jesus, etc., I thought the great white throne after your millennium is when these folks are raised, not the rapture. Also, how could people who lived before Jesus be told they fed Jesus and clothed Him and visited Him in prison when they did it to the least of those his brethren? But if we look at this as speaking of the time period before AD70, the early church, his brethren, were imprisoned and persecuted heavily by Israel.

I heard your view many times, too, but the verses they use do not mention a rapture anywhere. And I saw more and more how that everything futurism differs in is assumption after assumption with no plain bible statements stating it.



Revelation says nothing about a 7 year tribulation. THE ONLY SOURCE for the idea of a seven year tribulation is assuming Dan 9:27's 70th week of Daniel is a seven year tribulation. But as I have shown, and as you admitted, there is no Bible to say there is a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks.

Why not agree with the idea there is no gap, and in turn agree with the idea that JESUS fulfills the 70th week with the cross and make the cross the focus of the entire 70 weeks? I really do not understand why people reject the notion of the cross being the focal point, as it should be the focal point in everything anyway, in Dan 9:27 once they are presented with that idea.



Yes, but the punishment must fit the crime. So if you think the trib of the future is worse than the trib of the first century against Jerusalem, what crime will occur that is worse than the crime of the cross?



The cross is everything in the Word. And it is the focal point of the great trib since the great trib fell under the canopy of the time of the cross. Futurism removes the cross from being the focus compared to my view.

All you noted here is not spelled out for us in the Bible, Easter. It not only departs from putting the cross at the focal point, but there is no 7 years trib mentioned anywhere in the bible - it is just assumed... there is no wedding feast associated with the rapture in clear plain explanation in the bible... it is just assumed. There is no BIBLE saying anything about the groom taking the bride for seven days, just nice traditions... No gap in the 70 weeks, just assumed... Etc. etc. And my view puts the cross in the center of the whole thin, with the generation of the people who perpetrated the cross being the generation spoken of in Matthew 24.

So I am sorry, but I will not believe things that the bible does not spell out plainly for me, which is why I stopped believing in futurism. Too many assumptions, and I cannot base my soul's beliefs on assumptions that have no clear and explicit bible statements.

I could no longer rely on such thoughts that folks preached pretty good, but never had solid bible for. And partial preterism has more solid bible than any view I have ever seen yet. And if I see a different view that has more solid bible for it than partial preterism, I will drop partial preterism and believe it.

I also realized that futurism is so full of thoughts that Jesus and the apostles never said anything about. Like all the prophecies from the Old testament that futurists claim are for a millennium after the church is raptured. Where did Jesus and the apostles say anything about that idea? They didn't! In fact, the epistles take chapters that are attributed to a millennium and actually taught about the church! Amos 9 mentions the tabernacle of David restored. James said in Acts 15 that this was the gentiles coming into the church! Futurists take that and twist it and say it is the millennium! What???!!!!

So, easter, while you say, "I can not make you see something that you've already seen and now deny," I also say I cannot show you what the Lord and apostles said that explain Revelation if you do not want to believe they actually interpreted Revelation for us. Jesus said all the prophets' blood and all blood shed on earth was required of Jerusalem. Ezekiel 16 said Jerusalem was the harlot. And Revelation 18 says all the blood shed on earth and prophets' blood was in the harlot. And how can I show you that there is no gap even while you admit you have no bible for it, if you still want to believe in a gap?

Blessings!

Bro.Blume according to your post you believe the bride of Christ is Jerusalem.This would fit 70 Ad if Jerusalem was the Bride Of Christ but Jerusalem is not the bride.
Come on,do you not believe that God is all knowing?He knew that in order to bridge the gap between man and God required Jesus coming to earth and dying (BY THE BLOOD) by the way of the cross.Jesus knew this and prophesied this many times to his disciples.God knew Israel would reject Christ and God knew they would have Jesus crucified.Don't be naive into believing that God did not know that Israel would not play the Harlot.Besides all this Jerusalem is not the Bride Of Christ and in all your studies you should know this.
The Church is the Bride of Christ.
John 3:28-30
2 Cor 11:2
Rev 19:6-8
Eph 5:25-27
Eph 5:32
Luke 21:36
Matt.25:1-13

Now if one believes the bride of Christ is Jerusalem then 70 Ad fits.For those who know the Bride Of Christ is The Church then we know 70 Ad is not correct no matter how scripture is twisted.You go ahead and continue deceiving people with your false teachings but bro.Blume God is going to reprove you and I hope you return to the truth..So you use to believe Acts 15 was speaking about the Millennium? This is the Church Bro.Blume,Acts 15 is talking about the Church and the law of Moses requiring circumcision.Should the Gentile be required to be under the law!As you should know the Cross and the Church made it possible for all who come to Christ be accepted into the body of Christ without the requirement of the Jewish law.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Easter and Mike this is getting confusing and off the point I think at least. Here is all I want to say go to the beginning, you cant understand things as well when the discustion starts in the middle. The time of the rapture that you both beleive in is better understood when you either do or don't beleive in the 7 year tribulation. Easter have you read Larry Smiths the 70th week of Daniel? I included the web page for you here to helpl you find it. http://www.rightlydividingtheword.com/studies. I only ask you to read this because Larry Smith has done a excelant job of explaining this already. The point is if you beleive that there are still one week left of Daniels prophecy then either you will never understand or never agree to what Mike is explaining. There is much more to this than just whether the rapture happens at a certain time or not this has to do with the kingdom of God and all it intails to the world today.

That is true. Once a person realizes the 70th week is pivotal, everything focuses around it.

I think there is little else to say at this point. I think we presented our thoughts adequately. Everyone must be persuaded in their own minds.

God bless!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by easter

Bro.Blume according to your post you believe the bride of Christ is Jerusalem.This would fit 70 Ad if Jerusalem was the Bride Of Christ but Jerusalem is not the bride.

Easter, when I say something like Jerusalem was the bride, and Jesus caught her in adultery and judged her for it, and you assume I think Jerusalem IS STILL the bride, then please ask for clarification in case you missed something. You assumed I think Jerusalem is still the bride, when that is simply not what I said. You never gave me a chance to get to that aspect before you made this note.

I do not believe the bride is Jerusalem. I believe the church is the bride now. IT USED TO BE JERUSALEM. Read Ezekiel 16. But even then, she was actually a SHADOW of His true Bride, the church.

Ezekiel says God married old Jerusalem. But he found her in adultery one too many times in the first century when he came for her, and he cut her off once and for all. He now married the NEW Jerusalem, the Church.

I was only speaking from the perspective WHEN he cut her off as his bride when I said she was his wife.

Anyway, like Godsdrummer said, we have to get to the root of our differences, and that root primarily is whether there is a gap between the 69th and 7-0th weeks or not. And since you admitted you have no bible for a gap, I would think you would research that a bit more since all this depends on that gap.

So, if we talk about anything else, it might as well be the gap issue, otherwise we are not getting to the root of the issue. I already stated Jesus made statements that interpret Revelation for us. That alone, to me, should convince anyone.

Anyway, in the meantime I guess we agree to disagree.

[mfblume]

Here is a photo of the first page of Revelation form the Murdock Syriac Bible from the fifth century, noting NERO as he who banished John to Patmos.