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.

 

[3 Resurrections]

All unbelievers in the world are spiritual citizens of Babylon

That is your theory, but Scripture contracts this.

Mystery Babylon was completely destroyed long ago back in AD 70. John's revelation was given "to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass" in John's own days. And that included the destruction of Mystery Babylon by the ten horns of the Scarlet Beast who were going to "make her desolate, and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire" (Rev. 17:16). All of that was done to Mystery Babylon before the Scarlet Beast itself with its ten horns was "about to...go into destruction" (Rev. 17:8) in John's own first-century days. If the destruction of Mystery Babylon was going to be done by the 10 horns on the Scarlet Beast, who was also "about to...go into destruction" soon after John wrote Revelation, then none of these characters were in existence anymore after the AD 70 events had transpired. Scarlet Beast heads, horns, and harlot riding that Scarlet Beast have become ancient history.

What we have now is the New Jerusalem reality with its gates open continually, with an evangelistic invitation to enter the city gates. Outside those open gates are a variety of sinners, as listed in Revelation 22:15, "...For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." No mention at all of these persons practicing wickedness still being connected with Mystery Babylon, the great city who was to be "found no more at all".

If you don't think you are currently living in the New Jerusalem reality, I pity you. You are part of it as a believer, whether you realize it or not.

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 second physical coming of Christ Jesus most definitely HAS occurred, just as Christ predicted He would do while some of those to whom He spoke directly during His earthly ministry were still alive to see it happen before they died (Matt. 16:27-28). You yourself were not living back then to be an eyewitness of anything, so your denial that this happened doesn't hold water when compared to Christ's testimony that He was returning in that same generation. I trust Christ's words on this.

You and I will experience Christ's THIRD bodily coming return in our future - not the second coming. Paul listed three separate bodily resurrection events in 1 Cor. 15:20-24. Two have already happened, in AD 33 and AD 70. That leaves one more to go at the final future judgment and resurrection event. And no, I don't expect you will believe Paul's words either.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That is your theory, but Scripture contracts this.

No, it doesn't. I'm not going to waste any more time with you on this. I know it's not worth it. You are deceived by your false preterist doctrine.

Mystery Babylon was completely destroyed long ago back in AD 70. John's revelation was given "to show unto His servants things which must shortly come to pass" in John's own days.

The book wasn't written before 70 AD. Oops. That blows your theory completely out of the water. Also, you need to read Revelation 1:19. The book contains things that happened before, during and after John wrote the book. And how can a thousand years, literal or not, shortly come to pass? There's so many things you ignore in the book to keep your theory afloat.

And that included the destruction of Mystery Babylon by the ten horns of the Scarlet Beast who were going to "make her desolate, and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire" (Rev. 17:16). All of that was done to Mystery Babylon before the Scarlet Beast itself with its ten horns was "about to...go into destruction" (Rev. 17:8) in John's own first-century days. If the destruction of Mystery Babylon was going to be done by the 10 horns on the Scarlet Beast, who was also "about to...go into destruction" soon after John wrote Revelation, then none of these characters were in existence anymore after the AD 70 events had transpired. Scarlet Beast heads, horns, and harlot riding that Scarlet Beast have become ancient history.

What we have now is the New Jerusalem reality with its gates open continually, with an evangelistic invitation to enter the city gates. Outside those open gates are a variety of sinners, as listed in Revelation 22:15, "...For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." No mention at all of these persons practicing wickedness still being connected with Mystery Babylon, the great city who was to be "found no more at all".

If you don't think you are currently living in the New Jerusalem reality, I pity you. You are part of it as a believer, whether you realize it or not.

I am part of the new heavenly Jerusalem now (Hebrews 12:22), but Revelation 21 talks about a time when there will be no more death, crying, sorrow or pain after the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth. That certainly has not yet happened.

The second physical coming of Christ Jesus most definitely HAS occurred,

LOL. No, it most definitely has NOT. You are deceived.

just as Christ predicted He would do while some of those to whom He spoke directly during His earthly ministry were still alive to see it happen before they died (Matt. 16:27-28).

Matthew 16:28 refers to His transfiguration which is described immediately after that. Please pray for wisdom so that you can actually understand what scripture teaches (James 1:5-7).

 

[3 Resurrections]

The book wasn't written before 70 AD. Oops. That blows your theory completely out of the water. Also, you need to read Revelation 1:19. The book contains things that happened before, during and after John wrote the book. And how can a thousand years, literal or not, shortly come to pass?

The internal evidence contained in Revelation itself dates the book's composition to a narrow window of time between AD 59 and AD 60 - no later than the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake disaster that God indicated was "about to" fall on Laodicea in John's immediate future.

I most certainly do regard Revelation 1:19 as showing things that happened before, during, and just after John wrote the book in AD 59/60. The literal thousand years had "expired" and was "finished" even before John was writing Revelation, as proved by Revelation 12:12. This verse tells us that Satan's "short time" / "little season" of being released AFTER the millennium's ending was a brief time period that had already begun before John set quill to parchment. The early church from Christ's "first resurrection" in AD 33 and onward was subjected to a released Satan's enraged activity on earth after the end of Rev. 20's millennium. This was one of the major reasons for the Holy Spirit being poured out on the day of Pentecost - as a means for the saints to combat Satan's renewed deception of the nations for that "little season" of time he had left to operate in the world.

I am part of the new heavenly Jerusalem now (Hebrews 12:22), but Revelation 21 talks about a time when there will be no more death, crying, sorrow or pain after the ushering in of the new heavens and new earth. That certainly has not yet happened.

That ending of "sorrows" for the NHNE was the ending of "the beginning of sorrows" which Christ predicted in Matt. 24:8 for the disciples of His own first-century generation. That "beginning of sorrows" would involve Christ's disciples being beaten in the synagogues, persecuted from city to city by the Jewish leadership who hated them, with some of them being put to death by the rulers of the Jewish Sanhedrin council. This was already happening in the book of Acts. It's ancient history.

The NHNE is not the state of an after-life existence for the saints in heaven with God. Isaiah's NHNE includes the planting and harvesting of crops, the building of homes, the presence of sinners, the death of both righteous and wicked taking place, the birth of offspring, and prayers still ascending to God. Check the entire context of Isaiah 65. We believers presently live under these NHNE conditions, and have done so ever since the close of AD 70.

LOL. No, it most definitely has NOT. You are deceived.

So, apparently you don't believe Christ's words themselves in Matthew 16:27-28. Christ assured His first-century audience standing in front of Him at that moment that some of them would not have physically died before they saw Him return with His angels, to give rewards to all according to their works. That is ancient history. And I am not deceived about this. There are multiple testimonies throughout the NT that this second bodily return of Christ would occur very soon for that first-century generation to witness with their own eyes.

Matthew 16:28 refers to His transfiguration which is described immediately after that. Please pray for wisdom so that you can actually understand what scripture teaches (James 1:5-7).

Yours is the typical obfuscation that people use to avoid the obvious message of Matt. 16:27-28. No angels returned with Christ on that Mount of Transfiguration (since He had never even left the planet yet at that point), and no rewards were given to all according to their works at the Mount of Transfiguration. You have to ignore these accompanying events found in Matt. 16:27-28 in order to believe that Christ's second coming "return" happened on the Mount of Transfiguration.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The internal evidence contained in Revelation itself dates the book's composition to a narrow window of time between AD 59 and AD 60 - no later than the AD 60 Laodicean earthquake disaster that God indicated was "about to" fall on Laodicea in John's immediate future.

I most certainly do regard Revelation 1:19 as showing things that happened before, during, and just after John wrote the book in AD 59/60. The literal thousand years had "expired" and was "finished" even before John was writing Revelation, as proved by Revelation 12:12. This verse tells us that Satan's "short time" / "little season" of being released AFTER the millennium's ending was a brief time period that had already begun before John set quill to parchment. The early church from Christ's "first resurrection" in AD 33 and onward was subjected to a released Satan's enraged activity on earth after the end of Rev. 20's millennium. This was one of the major reasons for the Holy Spirit being poured out on the day of Pentecost - as a means for the saints to combat Satan's renewed deception of the nations for that "little season" of time he had left to operate in the world.


That ending of "sorrows" for the NHNE was the ending of "the beginning of sorrows" which Christ predicted in Matt. 24:8 for the disciples of His own first-century generation. That "beginning of sorrows" would involve Christ's disciples being beaten in the synagogues, persecuted from city to city by the Jewish leadership who hated them, with some of them being put to death by the rulers of the Jewish Sanhedrin council. This was already happening in the book of Acts. It's ancient history.

The NHNE is not the state of an after-life existence for the saints in heaven with God. Isaiah's NHNE includes the planting and harvesting of crops, the building of homes, the presence of sinners, the death of both righteous and wicked taking place, the birth of offspring, and prayers still ascending to God. Check the entire context of Isaiah 65. We believers presently live under these NHNE conditions, and have done so ever since the close of AD 70.

Total nonsense. There are not two new heavens and new earths. John explicitly said that the new heavens and new earth will replace the first heavens and first earth that still exist now. That has obviously not yet happened. Isaiah described the new heavens and new earth in a way that people back then who had no understanding of eternity could understand. The NHNE will not have sinners on it. Ridiculous. Peter said it will be a place where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13). Only righteousness. If wickedness will also dwell there then it makes Peter's statement in 2 Peter 3:13 completely pointless and meaningless.

Isaiah 65:19 says the following about conditions in the new heavens and new earth that are similar to what is written in part of Revelation 21:4.

Isaiah 65:19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more.

What do you think, that there will be no more weeping and crying at that point, just as John said in Rev 21:4, but there will be death at that point? Do you think no one will mourn anyone's death at that point? A mother and father won't mourn the dead of their children? Give me a break. No, John made it clear that there will be no more death when the new heavens and new earth are ushered in and that has obviously not yet happened.

So, apparently you don't believe Christ's words themselves in Matthew 16:27-28.

Spare you stupid, insulting comments like this. I believe all of Christ's words. I just understand them differently than you do (thankfully).

Christ assured His first-century audience standing in front of Him at that moment that some of them would not have physically died before they saw Him return with His angels, to give rewards to all according to their works. That is ancient history. And I am not deceived about this. There are multiple testimonies throughout the NT that this second bodily return of Christ would occur very soon for that first-century generation to witness with their own eyes.


Yours is the typical obfuscation that people use to avoid the obvious message of Matt. 16:27-28. No angels returned with Christ on that Mount of Transfiguration (since He had never even left the planet yet at that point), and no rewards were given to all according to their works at the Mount of Transfiguration. You have to ignore these accompanying events found in Matt. 16:27-28 in order to believe that Christ's second coming "return" happened on the Mount of Transfiguration.

You are very naive. What Jesus was talking about in Matthew 16:28 is giving some of them standing there a glimpse, a foreshadowing of the event that He mentioned in the previous verse. That's why the transfiguration is described immediately following that. But, you lack the discernment to understand that.

 

[3 Resurrections]

There are not two new heavens and new earths. John explicitly said that the new heavens and new earth will replace the first heavens and first earth that still exist now.

I never said there were two Isaiah 65 NHNE prophecies. Try not to superimpose your own perception of what the NHNE conditions would be like, contrary to the way in which Isaiah 65 described it. Isaiah was describing the altered realities that would be in place while the world and humanity's normal activities on it were still going on. Neither Isaiah, Peter, or John were referring to the NHNE having a new set of constellations in the heavens, nor the destruction of the globe. Using Peter's comparison of the NHNE to the world changed by Noah's flood, the earth that then was in existence prior to that flood was changed in the process - not completely obliterated out of existence. It would be the same for the NHNE realities that those first-century individuals were expecting in their own time frame. Hebrews 1:11 tells us that the conditions in both the heavens and the earth would be "changed" like a garment - but not annihilated out of existence.

Hebrews 12:27 gave the first-century believers the assurance that God had "NOW" promised their own first-century generation to shake not only the earth, but the heavens also, so that what could be shaken (as of things that were made) would be removed. God removed all the remnants of the "weak and beggarly elements" of that Old Covenant, such as the physical Old Jerusalem temple and its Levitical priesthood, by the close of AD 70, and burned up all those "works". He also shook the "powers of heaven" and removed the hosts of the Satanic realm from existence in AD 70. The world that was then about to come would NOT be in subjection to angels as it had once been before the end of that age (Heb. 2:5). No more harassment by the Satanic realm, whom God was going to destroy utterly by that time.

Isaiah 65:19 I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more.

What do you think, that there will be no more weeping and crying at that point, just as John said in Rev 21:4, but there will be death at that point?

The LAW was called "the ministry of death" in 2 Cor. 3:7 and the "ministry of condemnation". God of necessity made a change in the law with the introduction of Himself as the Great High Priest of the New Covenant after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 7:12). This New Covenant (established with Christ's resurrection) and the New Jerusalem survived the shaking process that Hebrews 12:27 said was "NOW" going to take place for that first-century generation. Anyone who was ever under the New Covenant had eternal life already, even before they physically died, with the assured pledge by the indwelling Spirit that their bodies would also be granted immortality in the bodily resurrection. There is no more death in the New Jerusalem reality, because Christ testified that "He that heareth my word and believeth on Him that sent me HATH everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but IS passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).

What Jesus was talking about in Matthew 16:28 is giving some of them standing there a glimpse, a foreshadowing of the event that He mentioned in the previous verse. That's why the transfiguration is described immediately following that. But, you lack the discernment to understand that.

There was no "foreshadowing" of Christ's return on the Mount of Transfiguration. Moses and Elijah were both speaking with Christ about His DEATH or His "departure" that was soon to take place - not His return. (Luke 9:31). You can't twist His "departure" to equal His "return" in this context.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The NHNE will not have sinners on it. Ridiculous. Peter said it will be a place where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13). Only righteousness.

That is NOT what both John and Isaiah said about the NHNE. Isaiah 65 definitely mentions the presence of sinners in the NHNE. (Isaiah 65:20). John also mentions the presence of sinners just outside the open gates of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 22:15. The leaves of the tree of life inside this New Jerusalem are for "the healing of the nations" (Rev. 22:2), which tells us that sinners are still present in this NHNE reality, but with the opportunity to be healed of their sin. We believers are in this New Jerusalem reality. Sinners have an open-gate invitation to enter the New Jerusalem gates in salvation, and to be healed in the process.

Scripture does NOT say that it is ONLY righteousness dwelling on the globe for the NHNE reality. It is the New Jerusalem city itself which has no spot or blemish, because it is completely covered by the righteousness imputed to us by Christ Jesus. Christ rules today, even in the midst of His enemies. We are His ambassadors to the nations in this NHNE, and we carry the indwelling Holy Spirit anywhere we go, even among Christ's enemies.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I never said there were two Isaiah 65 NHNE prophecies.

I didn't say that. I'm saying that you apparently think there are two NHNEs. You cause Isaiah 65:17-25 to contradict what is written in Revelation 21:1-4, but scripture never contradicts itself. Isaiah described the NHNE in a way that people back then could understand. They had no concept of eternity back then. He wasn't saying that there will be sinners in the NHNE. That's not possible. It will be a place where only righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13) and where there will be no more death, crying, sorrow or pain (Revelation 21:1-4).

There was no "foreshadowing" of Christ's return on the Mount of Transfiguration. Moses and Elijah were both speaking with Christ about His DEATH or His "departure" that was soon to take place - not His return. (Luke 9:31). You can't twist His "departure" to equal His "return" in this context.

Yes, there was a foreshadowing of Christ's return there. He appeared to them in glory just as He will when He returns. I'm not twisting anything. You just lack the discernment to understand what He was talking about in Matthew 16:28 because you are duped by false preterist teaching.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Yes, there was a foreshadowing of Christ's return there. He appeared to them in glory just as He will when He returns.

Matthew 16:27-28 was NOT speaking of the Mount of Transfiguration. Christ very solemnly made the prediction that, "Verily, I say unto you, There be SOME standing here which shall not taste of death til they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

To adopt your own view, you are in effect saying that the vast MAJORITY of Christ's audience listening to Him at that moment would be physically DEAD before those few days passed. You are implying that only a very few of that crowd of people - "SOME standing here" would survive that week. Are you really willing to tell me that the MAJORITY of Christ's audience at that moment had DIED before the Mount of Transfiguration event in the next chapter? That makes no sense whatever.

He wasn't saying that there will be sinners in the NHNE. That's not possible

There is nobody classified as a sinner INSIDE the New Jerusalem. Once we are "In Christ", God looks at us as being vicariously holy, because we are covered by Christ's righteousness imputed to us. There is no spot or wrinkle in "the Bride, the Lamb's wife".

Outside the open gates of the New Jerusalem is another matter, however. Sinners most definitely do exist outside those open gates of the New Jerusalem city, as John tells us. They need "healing" by the tree of life that is inside the New Jerusalem city. If there is "ONLY" righteousness in the NHNE, (as you are proposing), then what need would there still be for this "healing of the nations" in Rev. 22:2 to be an ongoing offer?

 

[claninja]

My framework establishes the context.

That’s not how context works. you’ve literally just described eisegesis lol.

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?

Without first examining the author, dating, audience relevance, surrounding internal context, lexical definitions, literary genre, etc…how do you know you are not just applying similarities

For example, if my framework is pretersist, and I go, look Jerusalem was charged with blood of prophets in Matthew 23, therefore the harlot must be 70ad Jerusalem (revelation 18). And I do that without considering the context: dating (95ad), audience relevance (7 churches in Asia), author (which John?), surrounding context (after it’s destroyed the beast is destroyed), is that appropriate?

How do we know you are not just pointing out similarities between revelation 20 and the gospels/epistles ?

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.

I never said it’s not important to consider other scripture. BUT considering other scripture should not replace evaluating the passage in its own context first.

And I agree frameworks are important, but they are not the most important. Elevating framework above proper contextual exegesis results in eisegesis.

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?

Seems odd history didn’t record a “world wide hour of trial” around 95ad. That should be a pretty obvious event. When a prophet makes a claim and it doesn’t come true, we should be skeptical.

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.

Non sequitur. Being skeptical of revelation does not equal not trusting Jesus. Plenty of believers throughout Christian history were skeptical of Revelation, such as Cyril, Eusebius, Erasmus, and early Martin Luther.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Matthew 16:27-28 was NOT speaking of the Mount of Transfiguration.

Matthew 16:28 is, which is why the verses which follow describe the transfiguration.

Christ very solemnly made the prediction that, "Verily, I say unto you, There be SOME standing here which shall not taste of death til they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

It was Peter, James and John. The ones standing there were the disciples. They were some of the disciples.

To adopt your own view, you are in effect saying that the vast MAJORITY of Christ's audience listening to Him at that moment would be physically DEAD before those few days passed.

No, I'm not. If you can't represent my view accurately, then this discussion is pointless. The ones He was talking to at that time were the disciples. He was not talking to entire crowed at that time. Just read all 3 accounts, including in Mark 8-9 and Luke 9, of the interaction and you should see that.

You are implying that only a very few of that crowd of people - "SOME standing here" would survive that week.

No, I'm not. Jesus was talking to the disciples. I'm sure that they would have assumed that they may not live to see Him come again with His angels, but He was assuring them that some of them (Peter, James and John) would get a glimpse and foreshadowing of His coming by seeing Him in glory.

Are you really willing to tell me that the MAJORITY of Christ's audience at that moment had DIED before the Mount of Transfiguration event in the next chapter? That makes no sense whatever.

No, I'm not willing to tell you that because that's not what I'm saying. How about making an effort to find out what I actually believe instead of making all these assumptions?

There is nobody classified as a sinner INSIDE the New Jerusalem. Once we are "In Christ", God looks at us as being vicariously holy, because we are covered by Christ's righteousness imputed to us. There is no spot or wrinkle in "the Bride, the Lamb's wife".

Outside the open gates of the New Jerusalem is another matter, however. Sinners most definitely do exist outside those open gates of the New Jerusalem city, as John tells us. They need "healing" by the tree of life that is inside the New Jerusalem city. If there is "ONLY" righteousness in the NHNE, (as you are proposing), then what need would there still be for this "healing of the nations" in Rev. 22:2 to be an ongoing offer?

It's for eternal, continuous spiritual nourishment. It's not talking about the healing of sins or of physical healing.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

That’s not how context works. you’ve literally just described eisegesis lol.

Nonsense. All of scripture has to be taken into account to establish context. You have no clue of how to properly interpret scripture. None.

Without first examining the author, dating, audience relevance, surrounding internal context, lexical definitions, literary genre, etc…how do you know you are not just applying similarities

We should do that AND consider the rest of scripture as well to ensure we are not causing contradictions in scripture. What is hard to understand about this?

For example, if my framework is pretersist, and I go, look Jerusalem was charged with blood of prophets in Matthew 23, therefore the harlot must be 70ad Jerusalem (revelation 18). And I do that without considering the context: dating (95ad), audience relevance (7 churches in Asia), author (which John?), surrounding context (after it’s destroyed the beast is destroyed), is that appropriate?

Of course not.

How do we know you are not just pointing out similarities between revelation 20 and the gospels/epistles ?

We have to look at everything and not make assumptions just based on a few similarities. But, you say that is eisegesis. What a joke. You are actually criticizing me for saying we have to be very diligent by looking at all of scripture and you try to say, no, we just need to look at the context of verses or passages in isolation from the rest of scripture. What nonsense.

I never said it’s not important to consider other scripture.

You never indicate that you think it is important. You act as if the context can always be determined within any given verse or passage without the consideration of other scripture, but that is not always the case.

BUT considering other scripture should not replace evaluating the passage in its own context first.

I have never said that it should.

And I agree frameworks are important, but they are not the most important.

Yes, they are, if we're talking about frameworks in the sense of taking all of scripture into account to ensure there are no contradictions. You can't just interpret any given passage without taking the rest of scripture into account.

Elevating framework above proper contextual exegesis results in eisegesis.

Nonsense. You obviously don't believe in the concept of interpreting scripture with scripture, but that is very important. Sometimes you can't fully establish proper contextual exegesis of a given passage without bringing other scripture into consideration.

Seems odd history didn’t record a “world wide hour of trial” around 95ad.

It's a vague reference. How would you even know if that was the case or not? We don't know what that even means for certain because no details regarding it were given. I tend to relate it to Satan's little season, but there's no real way of proving that.

That should be a pretty obvious event.

Says you. That's your assumption. You like to talk about exegesis, but here you are basing an opinion on an assumption with no exegesis at all.

When a prophet makes a claim and it doesn’t come true, we should be skeptical.

LOL! You can't be serious! It was Jesus Himself who made the claim! Are you saying you're skeptical of Jesus? My goodness, I cannot believe you are for real. Maybe I should just assume that you're not.

Non sequitur. Being skeptical of revelation does not equal not trusting Jesus. Plenty of believers throughout Christian history were skeptical of Revelation, such as Cyril, Eusebius, Erasmus, and early Martin Luther.

They had no reason to be. There's nothing written in the book that contradicts anything else in scripture. There are no prophecies in it that failed to be fulfilled as you try to claim. I can't deal with you anymore. You are very annoying. I don't want to discuss these things anymore with someone who doesn't even believe that the book of Revelation and the book of 2nd Peter are canon. It's a total waste of time. Your beliefs are based on a different Bible than the one I use.

 

[3 Resurrections]

It was Peter, James and John. The ones standing there were the disciples. They were some of the disciples.

Christ's audience standing in front of Him in Matthew 16:27-28 included more than just the disciples. Read the parallel account of this entire speech in Mark 8:34 through Mark 9:1. "And when he had called THE PEOPLE unto him with his disciples ALSO, he said unto them..." Christ continued speaking to THE PEOPLE along with His disciples when He said in Mark 9:1, "Verily I say unto you, that there be some of them that stand here which shall not taste of death till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." This is the same speech of Matthew 16:27-28, where Matthew records the added detail of Christ coming in the glory of His Father with His angels to give rewards to all according to their works when He came in His kingdom. Only some of that whole crowd of people with His disciples also would still be alive to see His return. Most would have died by then. Again, this death of the majority of the crowd of people standing in front of Jesus at that moment was NOT referring to the Mount of Transfiguration some six days later.

The ones He was talking to at that time were the disciples. He was not talking to entire crowed at that time. Just read all 3 accounts, including in Mark 8-9 and Luke 9, of the interaction and you should see that.

See the above text of Mark 8:34 through Mark 9:1. It was a crowd of people standing in front of Christ PLUS the disciples also.

It's for eternal, continuous spiritual nourishment. It's not talking about the healing of sins or of physical healing.

The New Jerusalem's tree of life in Revelation 22:2 with its leaves intended for "the healing of the nations" is most definitely speaking of the healing of sins. Isaiah spoke of the New Jerusalem in Is. 33:24, saying, "the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: for the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity." Healing of the nations by the leaves of the tree of life is most definitely connected with one being forgiven of their iniquities. This means there are still sinners in need of healing in the NHNE.

 

[KUWN]

Which parts of the NT, after a simple honest reading, seem to point to Christ returning in the first century?

One's understanding of Revelation (or any biblical book for that matter) is the result of one's Interpretive Method. For example, I believe in the literal, historical method of interpreting Revelation. So, when 3.10 is interpreted using the literal, historical, grammatical method. I am obligated to accept that as fact.

Most people use the Symbolic Interpreted method for Revelation. This is partly why Christians differ on the meaning of a text. Some interpreters of Scripture use the Spiritual interpretation, so their conclusions as to what a passage means is sometimes radically different.