Did Jesus return around 70 AD?

[Spiritual Israelite]

So to be clear: you have no grammatical or contextual evidence to prove revelation 20 is recapitulation. Instead you rely solely on your presumed external framework to claim it is a recapitulation.

I have contextual evidence. Revelation 20:1-6 refers to Jesus reigning with His followers being called priests. Jesus started reigning after His resurrection (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-23, Rev 1:5-6, etc.) and His followers were called priests since then (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:5-6). So, that establishes the timing of the thousand years, with it beginning upon Christ's resurrection.

Do you think is it acceptable for a premil to argue revelation 20 is a chronological continuation of chapter 19, and NOT recapitulation, solely because their external framework says so?

If they could use their external framework to back that up, then of course I would find that to be acceptable. We need to use clear scriptures to help understand more difficult scriptures like Revelation 20. I welcome any Premil to do that if they can, but I know they can't.

this is begging the question with an argument from silence.

In other words, you are assuming the premise (recapitulation) and then arguing the beast and false prophet “could have” been thrown into the LOF after the 1000 years but before Satan, despite there being zero mention of it in vs 1-9.

Whatever, man. My doctrine is not just based on the book of Revelation alone. How can you not understand that by now? I'm not going to be able to prove it from Revelation 19 and 20 alone and no one can.

On the contrary, I’m arguing that revelation 20:1-10 is a chronological continuation of revelation 19 BECAUSE of revelation 20:10.

That makes no sense. Revelation 20:10 occurs a thousand years (whether literal or figurative) after the thousand years begins. Revelation 20:1-6 references the beginning of the thousand years, so if it was a continuation you'd have the beginning of the thousand years occurring after what is described in Revelation 19 and then Revelation 20:10 happens a thousand years (plus Satan's little season) after that. Do you have the end of Revelation 19 occurring after the thousand years?

Contextually and thematically, there is no other scene in revelation 20:1-9 where the beast and false prophet are thrown into the LOF, therefore, revelation 20:10 most likely refers back to revelation 19:20 in a chronological sense, where the beast and false prophet are thrown into the LOF prior to the 1000 years.

I agree with that, but that occurs after the thousand years. Revelation 20:1-6 covers the entire thousand year time period and Revelation 20:10 occurs after the thousand years and Satan's little season are over. You don't seem to have any understanding of what the thousand years represents at all.

Right, if the clear, non symbolic language of imminence is taken at face value, it contradicts and falsifies your framework. So it seems to me, that your faith is really in your perceived framework.

Uh huh. Yeah, my view is based on my overall understanding of scripture based on all of scripture with what I consider to be clear, straightforward scriptures taking precedence over more difficult scriptures like those found in highly symbolic books like Revelation.

But to be clear, this is not a dig at your personally. We all , at some point; put faith in our personal framework over what scripture says in order to justify our renegotiation with the text.

Of course. So, why do you normally act as if that is a bad thing? It's not.

This doesn’t answer my question. What event , around 95ad, could have been the world wide hour of trial, about to come upon the whole earth, that the church of Philadelphia was to be kept from?

I don't know for sure and neither do you. Whatever. Since we don't know, there's no basis for saying it didn't happen or won't happen. If it relates to something that would happen before Christ's return then even He would not have known when that would happen, so He could have been speaking in terms of what He would do for them if it happened in their lifetimes. All we can do is speculate on this since there is no clear explanation of what He was referring to.

 

[claninja]

I have contextual evidence. Revelation 20:1-6 refers to Jesus reigning with His followers being called priests. Jesus started reigning after His resurrection (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:19-23, Rev 1:5-6, etc.) and His followers were called priests since then (1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:5-6). So, that establishes the timing of the thousand years, with it beginning upon Christ's resurrection.

This isn’t contextual. This is your framework.

If they could use their external framework to back that up, then of course I would find that to be acceptable. We need to use clear scriptures to help understand more difficult scriptures like Revelation 20. I welcome any Premil to do that if they can, but I know they can't.

Ive seen premils attempt to use passages external to revelation in order demonstrate the 1000 years as a literal interpretation and not spiritual/theological recapitulation. So I would argue premils also use external framework. You and I simply disagree with that external framework.

Point being, external frameworks aren’t convincing arguments

I'm not going to be able to prove it from Revelation 19 and 20 alone and no one can.

I agree that recapitulation (for chapter 20) cannot be proven from internal context/grammar.

That makes no sense. Revelation 20:10 occurs a thousand years (whether literal or figurative) after the thousand years begins. Revelation 20:1-6 references the beginning of the thousand years, so if it was a continuation you'd have the beginning of the thousand years occurring after what is described in Revelation 19 and then Revelation 20:10 happens a thousand years (plus Satan's little season) after that. Do you have the end of Revelation 19 occurring after the thousand years?

If there is no internal contextual or grammatical evidence that revelation 20 is a recapitulation, then the natural reading of the narrative (prior to applying a theological interpretation) is that yes, revelation 20:1-10 occurs after the events of revelation 19.

agree with that, but that occurs after the thousand years. Revelation 20:1-6 covers the entire thousand year time period and Revelation 20:10 occurs after the thousand years and Satan's little season are over. You don't seem to have any understanding of what the thousand years represents at all.

I’m not arguing for what it represents. Instead, I’m arguing: what is the chronological narrative as presented by the visions of chapter 19-20 PRIOR to theologically interpreting it.

Uh huh. Yeah, my view is based on my overall understanding of scripture based on all of scripture with what I consider to be clear, straightforward scriptures taking precedence over more difficult scriptures like those found in highly symbolic books like Revelation.

But you’re not consistent with that. You only use this method when convenient for your framework. When it contradicts your framework, it’s just “similarities”, not scripture to interpret scripture (like the great harlot). So why can’t the premil just argue what you call scripture interpreting scripture, is actually just “similarities”?

Of course. So, why do you normally act as if that is a bad thing? It's not.

It’s not really a good thing either. It’s putting our framework above scripture, then renegotiating scripture to fit that framework.

don't know for sure and neither do you. Whatever. Since we don't know, there's no basis for saying it didn't happen or won't happen. If it relates to something that would happen before Christ's return then even He would not have known when that would happen, so He could have been speaking in terms of what He would do for them if it happened in their lifetimes. All we can do is speculate on this since there is no clear explanation of what He was referring to.

exactly, I dont know, you don’t know, and neither does the entirety of Christendom. There was no world wide hour of trial to test the whole earth around 95ad. I only trusts prophets whose predictions come true.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

This isn’t contextual. This is your framework.

My framework establishes the context. Scripture doesn't contradict itself, so I use what other straightforward scripture says about the timing of Christ's reign and of believers being priests in order to establish the context of Revelation 20.

Ive seen premils attempt to use passages external to revelation in order demonstrate the 1000 years as a literal interpretation and not spiritual/theological recapitulation. So I would argue premils also use external framework. You and I simply disagree with that external framework.

Point being, external frameworks aren’t convincing arguments

Why not? If other scriptures teach that Jesus began reigning upon His resurrection and believers became priests at that time, then why is that not a convincing argument to show the timing of Revelation 20 when it talks about Jesus reigning and His followers being priests?

It’s not really a good thing either. It’s putting our framework above scripture, then renegotiating scripture to fit that framework.

You have nothing if you have no framework. You can't just interpret any given scripture in isolation from the rest of scripture. You have to ensure that your interpretation of any given verse or passage doesn't contradict any other verse or passage. Surely, you must understand this? Or maybe you don't. But, I'm tired of going round and round with you on this. I'll never agree with your approach to interpreting scripture because you don't seem to think it's important to take all of scripture into account when interpreting any given verse or passage.

exactly, I dont know, you don’t know, and neither does the entirety of Christendom. There was no world wide hour of trial to test the whole earth around 95ad.

As far as you know, but you admit that you don't know what that is even referring to. So, why draw conclusions about it one way or another?

I only trusts prophets whose predictions come true.

Wow. So, you don't trust Jesus then? He is the one who made that prophecy. What in the world? I'm done with this.

 

[3 Resurrections]

You are trying to say that Babylon represents the location where Jesus was crucified and John 19:20 and Hebrews 13:12 make it clear that He was not crucified within Jerusalem. Do you accept what those verses say or not?

Jerusalem was the city "WHERE our Lord was crucified". That is NOT the same as saying that he was crucified "within" Jerusalem. Scripture tells us that Christ's death was "AT Jerusalem". Again, this does not mean He was crucified "within" or "inside" Jerusalem. Jerusalem is first titled "the great city" in Revelation 11:8. Mystery Babylon is then called "that great city" later on in Revelation 17:18. Therefore, Mystery Babylon and Old Jerusalem were one and the same city in John's Revelation. It's the "rule of first mention" at play here, with John in Rev. 17:18 referring back to his first mention of "the great city" in Rev. 11:8.

You seem to be splitting hairs here to force a point, but it doesn't really compute. What other city do you think is identified as the location where Christ was crucified? There isn't any other city than Old Jerusalem that can claim this.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Jerusalem was the city "WHERE our Lord was crucified". That is NOT the same as saying that he was crucified "within" Jerusalem. Scripture tells us that Christ's death was "AT Jerusalem". Again, this does not mean He was crucified "within" or "inside" Jerusalem. Jerusalem is first titled "the great city" in Revelation 11:8. Mystery Babylon is then called "that great city" later on in Revelation 17:18. Therefore, Mystery Babylon and Old Jerusalem were one and the same city in John's Revelation. It's the "rule of first mention" at play here, with John in Rev. 17:18 referring back to his first mention of "the great city" in Rev. 11:8.

You seem to be splitting hairs here to force a point, but it doesn't really compute. What other city do you think is identified as the location where Christ was crucified? There isn't any other city than Old Jerusalem that can claim this.

Babylon is described as a woman/harlot and a city. It is neither of those in a literal, earthly sense. Just as New Jerusalem is not either of those in a literal, earthly sense even though it is called "the mother of us all" (Galatians 4:26) and is given the name of a city. Babylon is the spiritual opposite of the holy city, New Jerusalem. It has a global scope as it reigns over the kings of the earth, which Jerusalem never has. It is the hold of EVERY foul spirit, which is not true of Jerusalem. It sits on many waters representing people of all nations, languages and ethnicities (Rev 17:1,15), which does not describe Jerusalem. It has similarities with Jerusalem, but is not Jerusalem. It is the mother of harlots (Rev 17:5) of which Jerusalem is one of them. Where Jesus was crucified was outside of Jerusalem (John 19:20, Hebrews 13:12) but was in this evil world that Babylon represents with all of its false religions and philosophies including Judaism and many others. Babylon is an entity that is not just a first century entity (Jerusalem) as you believe, but is a global entity that is still around and not destroyed until Christ returns, which He has not yet done.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Babylon is an entity that is not just a first century entity (Jerusalem) as you believe, but is a global entity that is still around and not destroyed until Christ returns, which He has not yet done

Mystery Babylon was NOT titled a "global entity", as you are proposing. That would add to Revelation's symbolism which we are given. The interpreting angel told John that Mystery Babylon was a single "that great city" who was charged with the blood-guilt of killing the prophets and apostles and the saints slain on the earth (Rev. 18:24). This is exactly the charge Christ brought against Old Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37. Christ said that Old Jerusalem's religious leadership was going to "fill ye up the measure of your fathers" (Matt. 23:31-32) by killing the early church prophets, wise men, and scribes that He was going to send. These disciples would be scourged in the synagogues, imprisoned, and persecuted by Old Jerusalem's religious leadership - and the Apostles and disciples were treated this way, as the book of Acts records. (No believers today are being scourged in a synagogue, or will be either.)

•Mystery Babylon is described in Rev. 17:9 as a city that sat on seven hills (Old Jerusalem's Mount of Olives, Mount Scopus, Mount Zion, Mount of Evil Counsel, etc.)

•Where Mystery Babylon sits upon the waters in Rev. 17:1,15 represented the fact that the city Old Jerusalem was a central location for the trade routes which crisscrossed through this region. Those waters also represent the fact that pilgrims from multiple nationalities came to worship at Old Jerusalem's temple, as evidenced by the list of nationalities present on Pentecost day in Acts 2:7-ll.

•Mystery Babylon who was then "reigning over the kings of the earth" in John's own days was a description of Rome-governed Old Jerusalem who had the HIGH PRIEST "kings of the earth" under its control at the time. "We have no king but Caesar" was the Jewish religious leadership's admission of this. The term "kings of the earth" is not used in Scripture to describe regular monarchs over the globe's countries. "Kings of the earth" means high priests of the land of Israel in Scripture's terminology (such as Matt. 17:25, Psalms 2:2).

•Mystery Babylon was going to become a "prison (phulake) for every unclean spirit", and "a habitation of devils" (Rev. 18:2). This is exactly what Christ predicted for His own people's first-century "wicked generation" in its "last state" in Matt. 12:45-46. All those unclean spirits which He had cast out of Israel's citizens during Christ's earthly ministry would return in seven-fold numbers more wicked than before, making Israel's "last state" worse that its "first state" when Christ had been among them. The entire Satanic realm of evil creatures were imprisoned within Old Jerusalem until its AD 70 destruction.

Mystery Babylon / Old Jerusalem was judged and destroyed back in AD 70, with not one stone left upon another inside the walls of the city. That temple and the priesthood which operated in it were likewise thrown down, never to be found any more at all, just as the angel described in Rev. 18:21.

The unshaken New Jerusalem since AD 70 has been left in place as the current reality in which we dwell. Old Jerusalem was shaken and removed from existence back then, never to re-emerge with any spiritual significance in God's eyes. We are not waiting for this to happen. It is done.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Mystery Babylon was NOT titled a "global entity", as you are proposing. That would add to Revelation's symbolism which we are given. The interpreting angel told John that Mystery Babylon was a single "that great city" who was charged with the blood-guilt of killing the prophets and apostles and the saints slain on the earth (Rev. 18:24). This is exactly the charge Christ brought against Old Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37. Christ said that Old Jerusalem's religious leadership was going to "fill ye up the measure of your fathers" (Matt. 23:31-32) by killing the early church prophets, wise men, and scribes that He was going to send. These disciples would be scourged in the synagogues, imprisoned, and persecuted by Old Jerusalem's religious leadership - and the Apostles and disciples were treated this way, as the book of Acts records. (No believers today are being scourged in a synagogue, or will be either.)

•Mystery Babylon is described in Rev. 17:9 as a city that sat on seven hills (Old Jerusalem's Mount of Olives, Mount Scopus, Mount Zion, Mount of Evil Counsel, etc.)

•Where Mystery Babylon sits upon the waters in Rev. 17:1,15 represented the fact that the city Old Jerusalem was a central location for the trade routes which crisscrossed through this region. Those waters also represent the fact that pilgrims from multiple nationalities came to worship at Old Jerusalem's temple, as evidenced by the list of nationalities present on Pentecost day in Acts 2:7-ll.

•Mystery Babylon who was then "reigning over the kings of the earth" in John's own days was a description of Rome-governed Old Jerusalem who had the HIGH PRIEST "kings of the earth" under its control at the time. "We have no king but Caesar" was the Jewish religious leadership's admission of this. The term "kings of the earth" is not used in Scripture to describe regular monarchs over the globe's countries. "Kings of the earth" means high priests of the land of Israel in Scripture's terminology (such as Matt. 17:25, Psalms 2:2).

•Mystery Babylon was going to become a "prison (phulake) for every unclean spirit", and "a habitation of devils" (Rev. 18:2). This is exactly what Christ predicted for His own people's first-century "wicked generation" in its "last state" in Matt. 12:45-46. All those unclean spirits which He had cast out of Israel's citizens during Christ's earthly ministry would return in seven-fold numbers more wicked than before, making Israel's "last state" worse that its "first state" when Christ had been among them. The entire Satanic realm of evil creatures were imprisoned within Old Jerusalem until its AD 70 destruction.

Mystery Babylon / Old Jerusalem was judged and destroyed back in AD 70, with not one stone left upon another inside the walls of the city. That temple and the priesthood which operated in it were likewise thrown down, never to be found any more at all, just as the angel described in Rev. 18:21.

The unshaken New Jerusalem since AD 70 has been left in place as the current reality in which we dwell. Old Jerusalem was shaken and removed from existence back then, never to re-emerge with any spiritual significance in God's eyes. We are not waiting for this to happen. It is done.

Do you actually think you can ever convince me to believe your preterist nonsense? No chance. Revelation 19:11-21 depicts the future second coming of Jesus Christ and that has most certainly not yet happened. That is when it indicates that Babylon will fall, not in 70 AD. The great city has a much larger scope than just Jerusalem even if it shares some traits with Jerusalem. It also shares traits with ancient Babylon, Sodom and Egypt. That's why it's symbolically named Babylon and why Revelation 11:8 says it is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. That does not describe old Jerusalem, but rather something with a global scope. You can't convince me otherwise. Babylon is the mother of harlots. The new heavenly Jerusalem is "the mother of us all" (all believers- Galatians 4:26). All unbelievers in the world are spiritual citizens of Babylon while all believers are spiritual citizens of the new heavenly Jerusalem.