Interesting Vid

[darinhouston]

You may get a different response from someone else, but I believe that there certainly was a rapture of the 1st century Christians. Not only do we have Scripture that points to a definite rapture but we have the exact reasoning that futurists use against it being a 1st century event in that there is no historical record of it. This is exactly how it is reasonable that it did happen.

Was John raptured ?

[Allyn]

You may get a different response from someone else, but I believe that there certainly was a rapture of the 1st century Christians. Not only do we have Scripture that points to a definite rapture but we have the exact reasoning that futurists use against it being a 1st century event in that there is no historical record of it. This is exactly how it is reasonable that it did happen.

Was John raptured ?

Hi Darin,

Which John? John the Baptist was killed and so he was recieved into glory when Jesus came and brought him up through the resurrection. John the Beloved may have still been living at 70 AD but I don't think we know for sure. If he was still alive then yes he was one like Martha who did not sleep but was changed.

[christopher]

Hi Allyn,

You may get a different response from someone else, but I believe that there certainly was a rapture of the 1st century Christians.

I don't get what you're saying here. Do you think there was a literal rapture of all Christians in the 1st century? If so, why do we have a church today? Did God put everybody back?

[Allyn]

Hi Allyn,

You may get a different response from someone else, but I believe that there certainly was a rapture of the 1st century Christians.

I don't get what you're saying here. Do you think there was a literal rapture of all Christians in the 1st century? If so, why do we have a church today? Did God put everybody back?

Yes I do believe that there was. Why do we have a church today? Because the Gospel will never stop going forth.

Isaiah 9:7
Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.

[TK]

allyn-

you are being a little too cryptic for me to follow you. if there was a mass disappearance of people (a rapture) in the early church, did anyone notice they were missing? i know there wasnt a lot of news media then, but is there any historical record of this? who were the 1st christians after the rapture? did they acknowledge that perhaps many of their former acquaintances had disappeared suddenly? how did they learn about jesus and his words if all the christians were gone?

TK

[Allyn]

allyn-

you are being a little too cryptic for me to follow you. if there was a mass disappearance of people (a rapture) in the early church, did anyone notice they were missing? i know there wasnt a lot of news media then, but is there any historical record of this? who were the 1st christians after the rapture? did they acknowledge that perhaps many of their former acquaintances had disappeared suddenly? how did they learn about jesus and his words if all the christians were gone?

TK

Hi TK,
I'm not trying to be cryptic so I'm sorry if I cannot do as well as the Bible tells us. Let's look at a couple of points concerning this and let Scripture interpret Scripture.

What did Christ promise?

"appear...to those who eagerly await" (Heb. 9:28)
"...SEE the Son of Man coming..."(Matthew 24:29-31)
"..."gather together His elect..."(Matthew 24:29-31)
"...come again and "receive you to Myself..."(John 14:3)

What did the first century Christians expect?

"..."caught up together with them..."(1 Thess. 4:17)
"...our "gathering together to Him" (2 Thess. 2:1)
...we will be "changed (1 Cor. 15:51ff)
"..."marveled at among all who have believed." (2 Thess. 1:10)

This is what the 1st century believers were taught and what they believed and ,TK, that is a great question - did anyone notice they were gone.

So, why was there such silence? It's obvious from what few writings we do have from the period (AD 70-150) that the whole post-AD 70 Church was unaware of Christ's return in AD 70. And we have no writings of any apostles or those close disciples after AD 70. For some reason we do not know anything for certain about when they died, where they died, how they died, or where they were buried. They vanish without a trace. All the traveling companions of Paul (Silas, Luke, Timothy, Titus, Gaius, Aristarchus, etc.) are silent. Its simply not likely that they all died in the persecution. Surely several of them would have survived the "tribulation" and lived beyond AD 70. They saw these events, and would not have been ashamed of it, but rather shouting it from the rooftops.

What we do have are a few writings from the men who were overseerers of the same churches Jesus Christ gave the revelation to John concerning. These same 7 churches were the ones (from my understanding) who departed from the faith, according to the Apostle Paul. We would not expect these people, who had departed - not according to their understand but by proclamation of Christ and Paul - to have been witness of the rapture. They did not participate in it because of their lack of true faith and so they were sleepers in effect and did not see what happened at that event.

Of course, I am speculating concerning your question so what I have to do is believe that Jesus did not lie to the 1st century believers and that they did not have misplaced belief that Jesus was going to do it just as soon as He indicated He would.

[christopher]

So Allyn, do you not believe the historical accounts of John being alive in the reign of Domitian? Ireneus records John (or his vision on Patmos depending upon your interpretation) was seen during the reign of Domitian (sometime between 81 and 96 AD).

And what about those like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, etc, that were contemporaries of first century Christians, and even disciples of the apostles in that time? Tradition has it that Ignatius succeeded Peter in Antioch and Polycarp being an aquaintenance (if not a disciple) of John. But we know of their deaths long after 70AD. Ignatius was somewhere around 110 and Polycarp was somewhere around 150 or so.

Why didn't they get raptured?

Besides that, how would the gospel go out if there's nobody to preach it?

Rom 10:14-15
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
NKJV

[Allyn]

So Allyn, do you not believe the historical accounts of John being alive in the reign of Domitian? Ireneus records John (or his vision on Patmos depending upon your interpretation) was seen during the reign of Domitian (sometime between 81 and 96 AD).

Nero was also known as Domitan, as I understand it. Irenaeus did not say John was seen but that the revelation was seen. Irenaeus als said Jesus was 50 when He was crucified. The Revelation of Christ stands its own ground when comparing Scripture to Scripture and fits nicely in with the time frame of AD 70.

And what about those like Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, etc, that were contemporaries of first century Christians, and even disciples of the apostles in that time? Tradition has it that Ignatius succeeded Peter in Antioch and Polycarp being an aquaintenance (if not a disciple) of John. But we know of their deaths long after 70AD. Ignatius was somewhere around 110 and Polycarp was somewhere around 150 or so.

Since I don't have all the answers I can only speculate that it was first century believers who were left behind because of the lack of saving belief. The John Polycarp had known could not have been the Apostle John. John was a common name. I would entertain any evidence that this was the Apostle John. The claim came from Polycarp's Chiliastic pupil, Irenaeus, late in the 2nd century, whose statements have sometimes been found mistaken.

Why didn't they get raptured?

Simply becaue they were not of the truth in Christ at the time of His 2nd coming. Here is an interesting fact; Melito was a bishop of Sardis (one of the 7 churches written to in Revelation) and in his writings he too could not accept the AD 70 event. Is this evidence that Christ did not return then? Maybe, maybe not, but here is what Jesus had to say to Sardis:

“I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. 2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God. 3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.

Besides that, how would the gospel go out if there's nobody to preach it?

Christopher, we have the whole Word of God. It found its completion before the Parousia. The perfect had come. Therefore the Word of God is still powerful and able to turn the hearts of people. The Holy Spirit has not been removed from this ongoing work. People can get saved even while associating with those in a state of apostasy.

Rom 10:14-15
14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?
NKJV

Paul did not make a mistake. Those Jews however are now all dead and gone. Paul was referring to those in his day. Those were the ones he was willing to give up his very salvation for.

Thanks for the questions. I will be glad to address any that come my way.

Hope your weekend is going well.

[christopher]

Hi Allyn,

Thanks for clarifying your position. Honestly, I did not know this was a full-preterist doctrine. This is the first I've ever heard of this assertion.

Nero was also known as Domitan, as I understand it.

I'd never heard that before. What source is that from?

Irenaeus did not say John was seen but that the revelation was seen.

I think I remember reading it could actually be either way. We don't have Irenaeus' writings in the original language, only a latinized version of it if I'm not mistaken.

Since I don't have all the answers I can only speculate that it was first century believers who were left behind because of the lack of saving belief.

If they had a lack of faith, how can they be called "believers"?

The John Polycarp had known could not have been the Apostle John.

Why not? I think most scholars believe he was. I don't have the reference handy, but I think Eusebius records John dying at a ripe old age long after 70 AD.

Christopher, we have the whole Word of God. It found its completion before the Parousia. The perfect had come. Therefore the Word of God is still powerful and able to turn the hearts of people. The Holy Spirit has not been removed from this ongoing work. People can get saved even while associating with those in a state of apostasy.

I'm not sure what this is saying here. Did the gospel go out by itself somehow? Did the apostates who were left behind preach it? Or are you saying people came across the writings left behind by Christians and believed?

So just to summarize what I think you're saying here:

1. All believing Christians living at the time were raptured (permanently) in 70AD.
2. 1st Century Christians (or alleged Christians) like Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, etc. were not raptured in 70 AD because of their lack of faith.
3. The church exists today because the whole Word of God had been written by then and therefore the gospel could still go out to all the world without the need of evangelists (Eph 4).

Am I understanding you correctly?

One last question I forgot to bring up. Eusebius records all the Christians in Jerusalem fleeing to Pella during the Jewish/Roman war. In your understanding, were they raptured from there? Or was Eusebius wrong?

[Allyn]

Hi Allyn,

Thanks for clarifying your position. Honestly, I did not know this was a full-preterist doctrine. This is the first I've ever heard of this assertion.

Nero was also known as Domitan, as I understand it.

http://www.endtimesmadness.com/DatingRev.html

Irenaeus did not say John was seen but that the revelation was seen.

I think I remember reading it could actually be either way. We don't have Irenaeus' writings in the original language, only a latinized version of it if I'm not mistaken.

Irenaeus' Solitary Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Date Theory)
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ('he' [John?] or 'it' [Revelation?]) was seen...towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)

http://www.endtimesmadness.com/DatingRev.html

Since I don't have all the answers I can only speculate that it was first century believers who were left behind because of the lack of saving belief.

If they had a lack of faith, how can they be called "believers"?

There is saving faith and there is belief without putting on Christ - would you agree with that?

The John Polycarp had known could not have been the Apostle John.

Why not? I think most scholars believe he was. I don't have the reference handy, but I think Eusebius records John dying at a ripe old age long after 70 AD.

Polycarp, born in AD 69, could not have been a student of John the Beloved because John would have split the scene, AD 70, long before Polycarp was old enough to even be out of diapers. I know this is debatable ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycarp ) but since I believe that the internal evidence that Rve. was given before the destruction of Jerusalem and since no one agrees that Polycarp was absolutely taught by Jon and since we have other external evidence that Rev. came before the destruction, then I will side with that evidence.

Christopher, we have the whole Word of God. It found its completion before the Parousia. The perfect had come. Therefore the Word of God is still powerful and able to turn the hearts of people. The Holy Spirit has not been removed from this ongoing work. People can get saved even while associating with those in a state of apostasy.

I'm not sure what this is saying here. Did the gospel go out by itself somehow? Did the apostates who were left behind preach it? Or are you saying people came across the writings left behind by Christians and believed?

I'm saying that 1. the Word of God is fully able to bring a person to Christ on its own and has in many cases; 2. those who were left behind and ignorant of the truth that transpired around them were most likely used by the HS to spread the Word even in its corrupted state. This also has its case histories.

So just to summarize what I think you're saying here:

1. All believing Christians living at the time were raptured (permanently) in 70AD.

Right

2. 1st Century Christians (or alleged Christians) like Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, etc. were not raptured in 70 AD because of their lack of faith.

Since we do not know their personal state at the time of the Parousia (I believe was around AD66) then we must conclude they were not.

3. The church exists today because the whole Word of God had been written by then and therefore the gospel could still go out to all the world without the need of evangelists (Eph 4).

Stranger things have happened like the whole Bible being held back from common man but yet saints still have been cut from the Stone. The whole Roman Catholic Church saga has story after story of men and women in Christ who came to a saving knowledge of Christ in spite of the RCC.

Am I understanding you correctly?

You stated it correctly but I am not sure you understand it, Christopher. Brother, it is the inspired Word of God that teaches the first century return of Christ. When we listen to those who wrote after the event like the names you have given then we need to realize that they are telling a different story based upon their understanding and not God's Word.

One last question I forgot to bring up. Eusebius records all the Christians in Jerusalem fleeing to Pella during the Jewish/Roman war. In your understanding, were they raptured from there? Or was Eusebius wrong?

Yes, some could have been raptured from there and from the many places those early Christians fled to, such as persia. I could humor you a little and speak on this a little more in depth but speculation is all we have concerning the details of who was raptured and who was not. We simply must rely heavily on Scripture for our position to be legit. So let me show you what the 1st century Christians were taught concerning the Parousia, the resurrection and the Judgement.

1. Some of them would definitely live to see and experince those three events - Mat. 16:28; 24:34; John 21:22; 1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:15-17; 5:23; 2 Tim. 1:18; Jude 21; Rev. 2:25. They didn't all die in the persecution.

2. They were "eagerly waiting" and longing for His return - 1 Cor. 16:22; Phil. 3:20; Heb. 9:28; Jude 1:21; 1 Thess. 1:10; Romans 8:18-25; 2 Cor. 5:2; Mat. 9:15; Luke 12:35-40; 1 Cor. 1:7; 4:5; 2 Tim 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:13; Rev 6:10. Was that longing fulfilled?

3. They were promised rescue, relief and reward - Luke 21:36; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; 2 Pet. 2:9; 3:13-14; 1 Thess. 1:10; 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet 1:4-9, 13; 5:4; Rev 11:18; 2 Jn. 1:8; Heb 10:35; Luke 21:34-36 Rom. 8:17-25; Rev. 3:10

And I have verses and passages that also say:

4. They would actually know about it, and "see" Him "revealed," meet with Him at His coming, and marvel at Him and glorify Him and have great joy in His presence at His return.

5. Also text on those left behind, the foolish unbelievers would either fail to recognize the time of visitation or be killed before they could say anything about what they saw and experienced - Rev. 3:3; Matt. 24:43 (and parallels); 25:10-13; Luke 21:34-36; 1 Thess. 5:2-4; 2Pet. 3:10; Rev. 16:15; Matt. 13:19.