PDA

View Full Version : The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (video series study)



moonglow
Jan 17th 2009, 05:44 PM
The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (2 of 25) Intro 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjOThGeEnyc&feature=channel)

The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (3 of 25) Intro 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTlrPtJIjc&feature=channel)

You can find the links to the rest of them by scrolling down and looking on the right hand side...see the thumbnails of the video's there...find part three and so on.

Oh I forgot to say I didn't list part one cause it was just a brief introduction thing. This view is from a Partial Preterist view point too.

God bless

moonglow
Jan 17th 2009, 06:19 PM
Added information on this speaker and this view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_preterism
Partial preterism is a form of Christian eschatology that holds much in common with but is distinct from Full preterism (or 'consistent' or 'hyper' preterism) in that it places the events of most of the Book of Revelation as occurring during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (and/or the Fall of Rome several centuries later) yet still affirms an orthodox future bodily return of Christ to earth at an unknown day and hour. Partial preterism sees Matthew 24, Matthew 25:31-46, the Book of Daniel and most of the Book of Revelation (besides its last 2 or 3 chapters) as speaking about events no later than the first century AD, and about a coming of Christ in judgement, not the (second, final and bodily) coming of Christ and Last judgement.

Because of the widespread acceptance of Dispensational Futurism amongst American evangelicals, Partial Preterism is often considered unorthodox by many. Partial Preterism is also criticised for claiming that the Book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem sometime during the reign of Roman emperor Nero in the 60s AD rather than in 95 AD which is the widely held belief among Dispensationalists. Kenneth Gentry, a prominent Partial Preterist, wrote his PhD thesis Before Jerusalem Fell (which has since been made into a book) on a defense of placing the writing of the Book of Revelation during Nero's reign.

God bless

Libre
Jan 17th 2009, 07:33 PM
I do believe that the scholarship regarding the early dating of Revelation, and all of the NT, is convincing. And necessary to the partial preterist view. There are others who are called the apostolic fathers who made statements indicating they believed they were in the last age. I will have to search for that. The name escapes me at the moment. But he was from Antioch and wrote several epistles on his way to Rome to be fed to the lions. Another letter is attributed to him but is considered to not be his, and appeared much later.

It is also possible that the Revelation given to John was not circulated until a bit later. The earliest copies, in other words, may have appeared later than the original visions.

I remembered: edited to say that the early church writer was Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Corinthians

shepherdsword
Jan 17th 2009, 11:39 PM
Since most of like to start at the beginning I am posting the link to 1;)

#1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q48AAINl1ck&feature=channel

You can get the DVD at http://forerunner.com

ScottJohnson
Jan 18th 2009, 02:44 AM
Even though I disagree with a lot of the post-millennial scheme, I do agree with Rev. Gentry on this topic. I guess it's one more indication of just how close post-millennialism and a-millennialism is.

My one question would be what, if any is the relation between the destruction of Jerusalem and seven gentile churches in Asia Minor?

moonglow
Jan 18th 2009, 04:22 AM
Even though I disagree with a lot of the post-millennial scheme, I do agree with Rev. Gentry on this topic. I guess it's one more indication of just how close post-millennialism and a-millennialism is.

My one question would be what, if any is the relation between the destruction of Jerusalem and seven gentile churches in Asia Minor?

I don't know...guess we all will have to study up on that.

I was surprised to see R. C. Sproul listed as a partial on that Wikipedia link I put on here.

I realize probably most people will not like or agree with this view, but at least expose yourself to another end times view. There is nothing wrong with studying other views.

Thanks for the other comments on here. I haven't gotten to watch all the video's yet...can only do a few at time due to time ...but I hope to get them all watched soon.

God bless

ScottJohnson
Jan 18th 2009, 06:00 AM
I don't know...guess we all will have to study up on that.

I was surprised to see R. C. Sproul listed as a partial on that Wikipedia link I put on here.

I realize probably most people will not like or agree with this view, but at least expose yourself to another end times view. There is nothing wrong with studying other views.

Thanks for the other comments on here. I haven't gotten to watch all the video's yet...can only do a few at time due to time ...but I hope to get them all watched soon.

God bless
R.C. Sproul is a five point Calvinist, I think he's five pointer anyway. Partial preterism is considered to be reformed theologies so it's not all that unusual to see Calvinists siding with the partials. I'm guessing that Ken Gentry is a Calvinist as well considering I saw a book or media in his store defending predestination. It's kind of interesting that the Catholic Church tends to lean towards partial preterism as well, in light of the fact that preterism is considered to be reformed doctrine.

shepherdsword
Jan 18th 2009, 06:07 AM
R.C. Sproul is a five point Calvinist, I think he's five pointer anyway. Partial preterism is considered to be reformed theologies so it's not all that unusual to see Calvinists siding with the partials. I'm guessing that Ken Gentry is a Calvinist as well considering I saw a book or media in his store defending predestination. It's kind of interesting that the Catholic Church tends to lean towards partial preterism as well, in light of the fact that preterism is considered to be reformed doctrine.

I am listening to them now(there aren't many visual study aids in the videos)
I am on #7 and so far his case is weak and full of holes. He hasn't mentioned anything yet that I can't deal with directly from memory. Perhaps he'll make me go do some extra study yet though. I'm only on #7 of 25

ScottJohnson
Jan 18th 2009, 06:41 AM
I am listening to them now(there aren't many visual study aids in the videos)
I am on #7 and so far his case is weak and full of holes. He hasn't mentioned anything yet that I can't deal with directly from memory. Perhaps he'll make me go do some extra study yet though. I'm only on #7 of 25
What holes do you refer to? I thought that his exegesis was pretty solid myself.

shepherdsword
Jan 18th 2009, 11:53 AM
What holes do you refer to? I thought that his exegesis was pretty solid myself.


These are just the ones I have so far:

1) His "proof' that the book was written prior to 70 ad because rev 11 refers to a measuring of the temple. It was simply referring to a FUTURE temple
2) His interpretation that the "beast who's deadly wound was healked" referred to Vespasian's getting the empire back on the right track. That is just plain spurious. The "whole word" HARDLY wondered at that.
3) His interpretation that Jerusalem is the "harlot riding the beast" !
I heard his "defense" of this interpretation it is a convoluted piece of illogic as I have ever heard.
4)Jesus is going to judge those that specifically pierced him so this can't refer to a future fullfillment. The only problem is that he interprets that to mean that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. I wonder how many of those specific people were alive at that time?
5)He claims that the woman clothed with scarlet and purple is Jerusalem and then pulls a verse out of exodus to prove it that states that ephod is purple,scarlet and BLUE. To make up for this inconsistency he pulls a rabbit out of hat and quotes Josephus when he mentioned a tapersty in Babylon that had purple ,scarlet and blue in it. SHEESH
6)He mentions that Jerusalem is called spiritually "Sodom and Eygpt" and uses that to excuse his reference to her as "Babylon"
7)His interpretation that "666" refers to Nero. He uses the classic Gematric method that the Kabblahist do to assign numeric values to words for a mystical incantation.
8)he ignores the prophetic law of double reference when speaking of the seven churches ignores totally their similarity with different states of the church today

I am still on 11 of 25 so maybe I should wait until the end before weighing in anymore.

moonglow
Jan 18th 2009, 03:39 PM
I think we have to remember when scripture speaks of the world, it may not be in the contents of the whole world...but the inhabited world...or the nations under Rome...which Jerusalem was under their rule when these scriptures were written.

The New Testament Greek Lexicon (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3625)
world
Strong's Number: 3625 oiÎkoumeÑnh
Original Word Word Origin
oiÎkoumeÑnh feminine participle present passive of (3611) (as noun, by implication of (1093))
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Oikoumene oy-kou-men'-ay
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Feminine 5:157,674
Definition


1. the inhabited earth
1. the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
2. the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
3. the whole inhabited earth, the world
4. the inhabitants of the earth, men
2. the universe, the world

God bless

ScottJohnson
Jan 18th 2009, 04:02 PM
These are just the ones I have so far:

1) His "proof' that the book was written prior to 70 ad because rev 11 refers to a measuring of the temple. It was simply referring to a FUTURE temple
2) His interpretation that the "beast who's deadly wound was healked" referred to Vespasian's getting the empire back on the right track. That is just plain spurious. The "whole word" HARDLY wondered at that.
3) His interpretation that Jerusalem is the "harlot riding the beast" !
I heard his "defense" of this interpretation it is a convoluted piece of illogic as I have ever heard.
4)Jesus is going to judge those that specifically pierced him so this can't refer to a future fullfillment. The only problem is that he interprets that to mean that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. I wonder how many of those specific people were alive at that time?
5)He claims that the woman clothed with scarlet and purple is Jerusalem and then pulls a verse out of exodus to prove it that states that ephod is purple,scarlet and BLUE. To make up for this inconsistency he pulls a rabbit out of hat and quotes Josephus when he mentioned a tapersty in Babylon that had purple ,scarlet and blue in it. SHEESH
6)He mentions that Jerusalem is called spiritually "Sodom and Eygpt" and uses that to excuse his reference to her as "Babylon"
7)His interpretation that "666" refers to Nero. He uses the classic Gematric method that the Kabblahist do to assign numeric values to words for a mystical incantation.
8)he ignores the prophetic law of double reference when speaking of the seven churches ignores totally their similarity with different states of the church today

I am still on 11 of 25 so maybe I should wait until the end before weighing in anymore.
He gave Biblical references to support his exegesis where possible. He offered historical records to support events that took place outside the realm of biblical chronology. This should be considered appropriate considering that futurists interpret Biblical prophecy with the morning newspaper.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your primary objections are that Gentry's interpretations contradict your own. This is fine but you could at least offer some solutions.

In chapter one of the Book of Revelation, John tells us;

A. The time is near. Rev 1:3

B. When he comes in the clouds, the ones that pierced Him will see him. They need to be alive to see Him.

Jesus is coming in the clouds in judgment just as Jehovah rode a cloud into Egypt in Isaiah 19:1. The bulk of Revelation isn't about Christ's physical second coming at the end of history but his coming in judgment in 70 AD.


he ignores the prophetic law of double reference when speaking of the seven churches ignores totally their similarity with different states of the church today
I've never heard of the "prophetic law of double reference" and there is no need to mention any similarity between the seven churches and the church today. Any similarity is irrellevent to the John's writing.

moonglow
Jan 18th 2009, 04:16 PM
R.C. Sproul is a five point Calvinist, I think he's five pointer anyway. Partial preterism is considered to be reformed theologies so it's not all that unusual to see Calvinists siding with the partials. I'm guessing that Ken Gentry is a Calvinist as well considering I saw a book or media in his store defending predestination. It's kind of interesting that the Catholic Church tends to lean towards partial preterism as well, in light of the fact that preterism is considered to be reformed doctrine.

Thanks for explaining...but I don't understand what the connection would be between being a Calvinist and having this view? :hmm: I am certainly not a Calvinist..and I know others that hold this PP view that aren't Calvinist either.

God bless

moonglow
Jan 18th 2009, 04:55 PM
In this video he explains more about Nero being the beast and how the numbers add up to his name: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIWJhEgVbbk&feature=related

God bless

ScottJohnson
Jan 18th 2009, 07:24 PM
Thanks for explaining...but I don't understand what the connection would be between being a Calvinist and having this view? :hmm: I am certainly not a Calvinist..and I know others that hold this PP view that aren't Calvinist either.

God bless

Same here MG, I'm certainly not a Calvinist either.

I do know that whether John Calvin put a lot of emphasis on it or not, he did hold a partial preterist view. I'm thinking that it has something to do with the fact that Augustine held this view and his writings were such an influence on Calvin.

It also seems to me that a lot of Methodist, Wesleyan and Church of Christ denominations tend to lean towards a-millennialism or post-millennialism. To the best of my knowledge none of these are Calvinistic.

I go to a "Methodist" church and even though they won't commit to any eschatological stance, much of their teaching leads me to believe that they are coming from a post-mill position. When asked though, I just get a "not necessarily" and a change of subject. ;)

IamBill
Jan 18th 2009, 09:19 PM
Ok, watched most of them last night, and the rest this morn(which was basically rehash of points anyway).

First - I certainly understand why many hold fast to this.


wow, an hour and a half has gone by since that line and this :B
on with my lunacy.

Months back on these topics(heads ,horns etc.) ..in fact I'll skip all that too.

After praying for understanding of "why we have all the confusion", a very odd thing flashed in my mind ..best just to say what it was.
*A Bible. Opened -It was the book of Rev. ...no particular page.

*An Image formed - in, or out of - the words. but i didn't see what it was, because as soon as it formed, the image split into Three(for sure) layers one above the other ..like "transparencies", able to see one right through the others when stacked. Three ! I tried to glimpse more of each, they were Very similar ..but it was gone...and three words were left in my head.
*Physical
*Spiritual
*False

Weird huh ? ..especially the 'false'.

So.. I have been chewing on this since then.
And, I'll wait here now while you all call those guys with the goofy jacket
:B

Partaker of Christ
Jan 18th 2009, 10:40 PM
These are just the ones I have so far:

1) His "proof' that the book was written prior to 70 ad because rev 11 refers to a measuring of the temple. It was simply referring to a FUTURE temple

Hi Shepherdsword!

Sorry to snip your other points, but I wnted to pick up on this one:

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

I agree with you.
Why would John be asked, to measure a temple of God that already existed?
These measurements would have already been known (especially by the Lord) and (afaik) the outer court has always been given for the Gentiles.

Partaker of Christ
Jan 18th 2009, 11:04 PM
In this video he explains more about Nero being the beast and how the numbers add up to his name: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIWJhEgVbbk&feature=related

God bless

Rev 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

If the beast is Nero, then he was not, at the time of John writing. He must have been (a) one of the five that had fallen, and (b) one that had to come again from the five.
Since he died in AD68 then another had to come for a short while. That would mean Nero was Otho to fit AD70 as a fulfilment. This would be impossible, since the beast has to reign 42 months, which at best takes us to AD73

shepherdsword
Jan 18th 2009, 11:10 PM
He gave Biblical references to support his exegesis where possible.


The problem is that it wasn't possible in many places. And in the places he did use scripture he was clearly in error in the way he interpreted them


He offered historical records to support events that took place outside the realm of biblical chronology. This should be considered appropriate considering that futurists interpret Biblical prophecy with the morning newspaper.The historical events that he has presented so far in NO WAY fulfill the prophecies he says it does.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that your primary objections are that Gentry's interpretations contradict your own. This is fine but you could at least offer some solutions. My primary objection is that it violates acceptable exegesis. His teaching, at least what I have seen so far, is pure ISOgesis


In chapter one of the Book of Revelation, John tells us;

A. The time is near. Rev 1:3

B. When he comes in the clouds, the ones that pierced Him will see him. They need to be alive to see Him.

Jesus is coming in the clouds in judgment just as Jehovah rode a cloud into Egypt in Isaiah 19:1. The bulk of Revelation isn't about Christ's physical second coming at the end of history but his coming in judgment in 70 AD.

This is so silly it borders on the absurd. Who saw Jesus when he returned? Paul blows this lie out of the water in here:

2 Thess 2:1-10
we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

What lying signs and wonders did "Nero" perform to deceive the world?



I've never heard of the "prophetic law of double reference" and there is no need to mention any similarity between the seven churches and the church today. Any similarity is irrellevent to the John's writing.. Read this:
http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page57.html

I also challenge you to do two things.
1)Offer a point point rebuttal to my answers I gave when you questioned my difficulty with Gentry's exegesis.
2) Prove your claims that the letters to the seven churches are "irrelevant"
for today

And on personal note and as a friend, I just want to ask how you got involved in this teaching? I also want to mention that my mind isn't made up on eschatology. Please don't assume that I am unteachable just because I offer a biblical challenge. I have bones to pick with ALL of the current models of eschatology.

Libre
Jan 18th 2009, 11:36 PM
I don't see these studies as a matter for point on point rebuttals. I see them as a way to learn and grow. To settle in our minds what we believe, to change our minds if need be, and to be blessed by the word.

It is not good to present one view as the only view. As is done a lot these days, especially on TV and in books. The Futurist/Dispenstaionalist view is everywhere. But it is a new comer and far from being without problems. In fact, it is not only intellectually dishonest not to present other views, but it is spiritually elitist to insist there is only one view that is valid.

Think on it.

IamBill
Jan 19th 2009, 01:21 AM
:hmm:

I wonder, If this were INDEED true, wouldn't that mean that John was alive and witnessed this fulfillment in person ?
And then did or did not write about it ? (anyone aware of ??)

moonglow
Jan 19th 2009, 01:29 AM
Ok, watched most of them last night, and the rest this morn(which was basically rehash of points anyway).

First - I certainly understand why many hold fast to this.


wow, an hour and a half has gone by since that line and this :B
on with my lunacy.

Months back on these topics(heads ,horns etc.) ..in fact I'll skip all that too.

After praying for understanding of "why we have all the confusion", a very odd thing flashed in my mind ..best just to say what it was.
*A Bible. Opened -It was the book of Rev. ...no particular page.

*An Image formed - in, or out of - the words. but i didn't see what it was, because as soon as it formed, the image split into Three(for sure) layers one above the other ..like "transparencies", able to see one right through the others when stacked. Three ! I tried to glimpse more of each, they were Very similar ..but it was gone...and three words were left in my head.
*Physical
*Spiritual
*False

Weird huh ? ..especially the 'false'.

So.. I have been chewing on this since then.
And, I'll wait here now while you all call those guys with the goofy jacket
:B

I think I understand what you are saying...in fact some time ago I did a post about this titled something like 'why does God allow all these different end time views?' I phrased it that way because God is in control of everything and if He wanted us all to have the same view..He would make sure we would. So my poor human conclusion (for the moment is this). It doesn't matter...

Doesn't matter what our end time views are because its not a salvation issue. Now that is what "I" as a mere fallible human being think God is thinking on this...I myself though object to this because to me, it does matter!

Now if you are still with me...I find some end time views damaging to the faith and spirit of people...especially ones that date set (which is why its not allowed on the board) far too many in the past have done this and when Jesus doesn't return...or the rapture doesn't happen...it crushes the faith. This is one objection of others I have to why I think it does matter...

But I also know God allows people to be deceived...we see that in more then just this area too regarding other teachings in the bible...

I am very thankful this board doesn't allow date setting...as far as the end times goes..that is probably the most damaging view that is out there...

Anyway so I guess we can both share a straight jacket...:lol:

Thanks for watching and at least taking a look at another end times view point! Its ok to disagree of course..its totally opposite of the pre-trib and even the post trib view and can be very hard for some to consider...and maybe they never heard of this view...so it can be difficult I know, for them.

God bless

moonglow
Jan 19th 2009, 01:42 AM
:hmm:

I wonder, If this were INDEED true, wouldn't that mean that John was alive and witnessed this fulfillment in person ?
And then did or did not write about it ? (anyone aware of ??)

You know that is a good question..I wish I knew the answer. In Hank Hanegraaff book the Last Disciple, which is a fictional book based on facts and historical evidence...he has John alive...(now whether that part is based on fact or fiction I don't know). John gets off the Island with his scrolls...he wrote the name of Nero in code..the 666 so the Roman's couldn't read it..if they read it and understand he would have been killed on the spot and the scrolls destroyed. This is why so much of Revelation is clouded in OT type of references because anyone having the scroll...naming Nero as the beast and what he would do..would be killed. Plus of course John saw much of this in a vision and visions tend to be symbolic anyway.

Hank with Sigmund Brouwer wrote two books where they are set in the first century and what the Christians were going through at that time. John writes in Revelation he is going through the tribulation with his brethren...so yes he was experiencing it.

Revelation 1:9
I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Nero had Paul beheaded and two other disciples killed. That is fact.

Here is the link to the website about these two books: http://www.decipherthecode.com/00home.html

If John wasn't alive then or his book hadn't been written yet, what good would it have done the first century Christians under going this terrible persecution? He had to get if off the Island and too the Christians for it to be worth anything to them.

God bless

moonglow
Jan 19th 2009, 01:48 AM
shepherdsword: I am not Scott but I want to post this for you regarding the coming on the clouds and how those that pierced Him would see Him. Its an article someone gave me once...it a little long but an excellent study and what he was saying in the video's too:

http://blog.absolutetruth.us

Let me start by saying the reason why the church has missed the meaning of so many verses is because of the lack up understanding the (language, culture, politics and historical setting in which the Bible was originally written. The first thing we MUST do is study to see what the language meant to them in there historical and culture setting.

How were they to understand the term (every eye will see him). The first thing we must do is see how that term was used in the Old Testament historical setting. How was that language used before?

Historical Background.

It seems to have escaped the notice that this language was used before. Surely the Bible student will want to be fully aware of how the verse is used before in contexts.

And I will pour out on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and prayers. And they (i.e., the inhabitants of Jerusalem) shall look on Me whom they have pierced, and shall mourn for Him. As one mourns for an only son, and will be bitter over Him like the bitterness over the firstborn. In that day (i.e., when they look on Him whom they had pierced) the mourning in Jerusalem will be great, like the mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo. And the land shall mourn, families by families alone; the family of the house of David alone, and their wives alone; the family of Nathan alone, and their wives alone; the family of the house of Levi alone, and their wives alone; the family of Shimei alone, and their wives alone; all the families who are left, family by family alone, and their wives alone. (Zechariah 12:10-14.)

Interestingly, John the author of Revelation used Zechariah 12:10-14. The main purpose of Revelation would be to reveal of Jesus to the nation of Israel. The place of this revealing would be Jerusalem. Lastly, this revealing would be to those who pierced Him, i.e., the Jews.

The Hebrew word for family in Zechariah is mishpachah and it means family; by extension a tribe or people. So, in essence, Zechariah was saying that the tribes of the land would mourn for Him whom they had pierced. Who were those tribes? The inhabitants of Jerusalem. This also helps us identify the earth in Revelation 1:7. According to Zechariah, the earth is the land of Palestine, specifically, Jerusalem. Also, it is those tribes, i.e., the nation of Israel, who would look on Me whom they had pierced. And because of that, the mourning in Jerusalem would be great. With all of this information, we can see that the tribes of the earth in Revelation 1:7are the nation of Israel. The earth is Palestine. The land that would mourn is Jerusalem.

Notice also that Zechariah does NOT say all the world will see him. Zechariah says the inhabitants of Jerusalem would see him.

We must keep the simple rule of letting Scripture interpret Scripture. Or finding out how they understood the language. In John 19:37 as Jesus hung on the cross the event was also a fulfillment of Zechariah's words

As shown Zechariah 12:10-14 is the background for Revelation 1:7 and the context demands the event be in the first century generation. Our Lord also employed the language of Zechariah/Revelation in such a way that all controversy as to WHEN and WHO it would happen should be dispelled

I don't know who completely ignore the context of Zechariah/Revelation by saying we will all see Him with our spiritual eyes at the point of death, therefore all will indeed see Him at the point in our individual transition.

I agree this person completely side steps all the context. Now lets see how they understood the verses about clouds in there original language, culture, and historical setting in which they were written.

How did they understand the language about clouds in the Old Testament culture setting?

Clouds are depicted as the chariots of God and indicative of his MAJESTY. In Job 22:12ff Job exalts Jehovah as the one who is in the height of heaven and covered with thick clouds. In Psalm 18 which is a highly apocalyptic description of David's deliverance from Saul the former shepherd tells how Jehovah bowed the heavens...and came down with darkness under his feet, he rode upon a cherub, and flew; He flew upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness His secret place; His canopy around Him was dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.

Now one can look but in vain to find a physical event matching these words. Jehovah had acted to deliver his servant and thus he had come. He had acted and his actions had vindicated his righteousness, thus he was depicted as coming in majesty in the clouds. Psalm 68:32-35 also speaks of God who rides on the heaven of heavens and his strength is in the clouds. Again the concept is his majesty and sovereignty. Psalms 104:3 tells us God makes the clouds his chariots and walks on the wings of the wind.

The idea of God's coming in the clouds is also associated with the exercise of his sovereignty in JUDGING his enemies. In Isaiah 19 Jehovah rides on a swift cloud and will come into Egypt. We know from chapter 20 that it was the Assyrians who were God's instrument of wrath on Egypt, see Isaiah 20:1-4; yet it is said that Jehovah was coming on a cloud. In Zephaniah 1:14-16 we are told the great day of the Lord is near; and that it would be a day of wrath, distress, and a day of clouds, when the Lord would come. We know this is a prediction of the impending judgment on Jerusalem, 1:4ff. This judgment came in 606-586 BC.

Similar language is found in Nahum in the prediction of Nineveh's fall. Jehovah has his way in the whirlwind...and the clouds are the dust of his feet. El Shaddai would come, the mountains would melt, the earth would be destroyed at his presence when he came on the clouds. We know that Nineveh was destroyed, not by a literal coming of Jehovah out of heaven on the clouds, but by the invading armies of the Chaldeans and Medes in approximately 612 BC.

Yet another though related concept of the coming with the clouds is the Messianic motif of Daniel. In Daniel 7 one like the Son of man is depicted as coming in the clouds of heaven. This concept of Messiah on the clouds was certainly one well known in the first century. For John to say in Revelation 1:7 that Jesus would come with the clouds was nothing less than an assertion of his Messianic role as the ruler of the kingdom of God. In his coming in the clouds he was exercising the sovereignty and demonstrating the majesty of deity so well known in the Old Covenant. The idea is not a literal coming with the clouds so much as an identifying factor of the one under consideration. He is to be viewed not just as man but the One, who, like Jehovah, rides on the clouds. The association of Jesus coming in the clouds then was a way for the Biblical writers to IDENTIFY Jesus, in a manner well known to those conversant with Old Testament symbolism, as God's Messiah, as the Judge, worthy of majesty and honor.

This is precisely the thought Jesus was conveying to Caiaphas when he told him he would see him coming in the clouds. When Jesus said he was going to come in the clouds this was a claim to the Messianic office and divine nature; Caiaphas responded, He has spoken blasphemy Caiaphas was not responding to a claim that Jesus would literally return on a physical cloud. He was responding to the IDENTITY which Jesus was claiming by associating himself as the one to come in the clouds of heaven

One final thought. We would note the New Testament TIME FRAME for the coming of Jesus in the clouds. Patently Jesus told Caiaphas he would see Jesus' return in the clouds. He did not say he would die and millenia later be resurrected to view the parousia. He was living and was told he would witness Jesus' return, which we hope is now understood to be the exercise of his Messianic sovereignty by an act of judgment.

In Matthew 24:30-34 we are told emphatically that the disciples' generation would see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven. Reader, how can the honest student of the word ignore such emphatic chronological parameters? How can we divorce Revelation 1:7 and the promise of the coming in the clouds, from Revelation 1:1-3 and the prediction it must shortly come to pass and was at hand ?

All these things are profound but easily understood as long as we take the time to study them in their original (language, culture, politics and historical setting in which the Bible was originally written.

God bless

ScottJohnson
Jan 19th 2009, 03:05 AM
The problem is that it wasn't possible in many places. And in the places he did use scripture he was clearly in error in the way he interpreted them
Why? Specifics, please.


The historical events that he has presented so far in NO WAY fulfill the prophecies he says it does.
Why? Specifics, please.


My primary objection is that it violates acceptable exegesis. His teaching, at least what I have seen so far, is pure ISOgesis
Actually, using scripture to interpret scripture as Gentry did is very good exegetical practice. As an example. Where Gentry identifies the Harlot who rides the beast. It's not all that hard to find in the Old Testament where Israel is identified as a harlot for their unfaithfulness to God. With this considered, it becomes very logical to identify the Harlot that rides the beast with OT passages that speak of Israel's unfaithfulness to God. There is absolutely nothing exegetically erroneous with what Gentry had done there.

This is so silly it borders on the absurd. Who saw Jesus when he returned? Paul blows this lie out of the water in here:

2 Thess 2:1-10
we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

What lying signs and wonders did "Nero" perform to deceive the world?
Well, he pretty much convinced the inhabitants of the largest empire on the planet at the time that Christians had set fire to the City of Rome thus launching a world wide persecution of God's people. I'd like to see you do that ;)

I don't feel that 2 Thes 2:1-10 has anything to do with topic at hand though since I'm not so sure they pertain to the same events and activities.

I also don't see how 2 Thes 2:1-10, "blows out of the water", Johns declaration in Rev 1:7 that even those that pierced Him will see him coming in the clouds. No matter how much double reference you put on it, in order for those that pierced/crucified Him to see him coming in the clouds, Jesus must come in the clouds during their lifetime.

It also doesn't "blow out of the water", Rev 1:1 where John declares that the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show his servants must shortly come to pass. Even by double referencing this verse it will still be speaking to it's original recipients, the seven churches and it will still mean that what is to come to pass, will do so quickly and not 2,000+ years into the future. To say otherwise is putting into the text rather than taking out or eisegesis.


. Read this:
http://www.biblicalresearch.info/page57.html
It seems to me that this "law" is intended to achieve a specific outcome.

I also challenge you to do two things.
1)Offer a point point rebuttal to my answers I gave when you questioned my difficulty with Gentry's exegesis.
2) Prove your claims that the letters to the seven churches are "irrelevant"
for today
1) Your answers need to be a little more specific so that I can rebut them

2) I didn't mean to say that the letters to the seven churches were irrelevant. I misspoke. My previous comment was based on the assumption that you were speaking of the seven churches as the "seven dispensations" of the church age. If you weren't I apologize. If you were never mind. I believe that this theory goes beyond absurd. Kind of like when Rev 4:1 is said by some to be the rapture.

As far as the seven churches of Revelation goes, I believe that the struggles that they were going through as well as the ups and downs are very relevant to our understanding of the Book of Revelation. I also believe that they serve as a meter for measuring our own faithfulness to Christ both as the church corporate and as individuals. But I digress.

And on personal note and as a friend, I just want to ask how you got involved in this teaching?
I guess that it started about 6 or 7 years ago when I came to realize that the fulfillment of the persecutions that Jesus spoke of in the Olivet Discourse could be found in the Book of Acts. The next step would have been when I realized that the 70 weeks of Daniel were intended to be 490 years and not 2490 years and counting. Basically, I came to the realization that a future seven year tribulation wasn't to be found in the Bible. From there things just seemed to fall in place.

I also want to mention that my mind isn't made up on eschatology. Please don't assume that I am unteachable just because I offer a biblical challenge. I have bones to pick with ALL of the current models of eschatology.
If I implied that you were unteachable, I apologize that wasn't my intention. Your response to the videos impressed on me, that you felt that anything that went against futurism was heretical.

IamBill
Jan 19th 2009, 03:20 AM
I think I understand what you are saying...in fact some time ago I did a post about this titled something like 'why does God allow all these different end time views?' I phrased it that way because God is in control of everything and if He wanted us all to have the same view..He would make sure we would. So my poor human conclusion (for the moment is this). It doesn't matter...

Doesn't matter what our end time views are because its not a salvation issue. Now that is what "I" as a mere fallible human being think God is thinking on this...I myself though object to this because to me, it does matter!

Now if you are still with me...I find some end time views damaging to the faith and spirit of people...especially ones that date set (which is why its not allowed on the board) far too many in the past have done this and when Jesus doesn't return...or the rapture doesn't happen...it crushes the faith. This is one objection of others I have to why I think it does matter...

But I also know God allows people to be deceived...we see that in more then just this area too regarding other teachings in the bible...

I am very thankful this board doesn't allow date setting...as far as the end times goes..that is probably the most damaging view that is out there...

Anyway so I guess we can both share a straight jacket...:lol:

Thanks for watching and at least taking a look at another end times view point! Its ok to disagree of course..its totally opposite of the pre-trib and even the post trib view and can be very hard for some to consider...and maybe they never heard of this view...so it can be difficult I know, for them.

God bless

And I probably hinted at the "layer thing" in that thread too huh ? :lol:

I agree, I do not "hold" to any particular view, as I watched these though that "layer thing" came to mind ..but not in the way you may think. that is why I mentioned it. ..It makes a bit more sense applied to this view. (because I (we?) can not deny the events/state of this world right now-either way)

:)

IamBill
Jan 19th 2009, 03:37 AM
You know that is a good question..I wish I knew the answer. In Hank Hanegraaff book the Last Disciple, which is a fictional book based on facts and historical evidence...he has John alive...(now whether that part is based on fact or fiction I don't know). John gets off the Island with his scrolls...he wrote the name of Nero in code..the 666 so the Roman's couldn't read it..if they read it and understand he would have been killed on the spot and the scrolls destroyed. This is why so much of Revelation is clouded in OT type of references because anyone having the scroll...naming Nero as the beast and what he would do..would be killed. Plus of course John saw much of this in a vision and visions tend to be symbolic anyway.

Hank with Sigmund Brouwer wrote two books where they are set in the first century and what the Christians were going through at that time. John writes in Revelation he is going through the tribulation with his brethren...so yes he was experiencing it.

Revelation 1:9
I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Nero had Paul beheaded and two other disciples killed. That is fact.

Here is the link to the website about these two books: http://www.decipherthecode.com/00home.html

If John wasn't alive then or his book hadn't been written yet, what good would it have done the first century Christians under going this terrible persecution? He had to get if off the Island and too the Christians for it to be worth anything to them.

God bless

:)
Well that's what I meant, if this was indeed concerning 70ad destruction then John did indeed see this fulfilled and lived well beyond it...what I am wondering is whether there is/has been anything discovered in ANY of his writings hinting to witnessing this event ..seems he would have recognized it and mentioned it, but I also realize "no mention" does not negate anything.

I'm not challenging anything, just wondering.

bennie
Jan 19th 2009, 03:48 AM
Scott and Moonglow

I have been trying to read alot more about Full Preterism and Partial P. I am actualy reading a book on the millenium now. In the book Gentry was invited to make his point about post mill. Good reading. anyway, here is the question i have. If John wrote Revelation before 70AD, why did he write it to the churches in Asia Minor?? The heavyest persecution was going on in Rome. The Jews and Christians in Jerusalem was also suffering severely. Why did John not write the book to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Asia minor is a far distance(for anciant time) away from Jerusalem. If anybody had to be warned, it had to be the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

just some honoust questions.
cheers
bennie

ScottJohnson
Jan 19th 2009, 04:25 AM
Scott and Moonglow

I have been trying to read alot more about Full Preterism and Partial P. I am actualy reading a book on the millenium now. In the book Gentry was invited to make his point about post mill. Good reading. anyway, here is the question i have. If John wrote Revelation before 70AD, why did he write it to the churches in Asia Minor?? The heavyest persecution was going on in Rome. The Jews and Christians in Jerusalem was also suffering severely. Why did John not write the book to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Asia minor is a far distance(for anciant time) away from Jerusalem. If anybody had to be warned, it had to be the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

just some honoust questions.
cheers
bennie
I asked the same question Bennie. I'm not sure why those particular seven churches were chosen. I would imagine that Rev 1:11 had a lot to do with it though. As far as a wild guess, maybe their geographical location was necessary for the further spread of the gospel. I honestly don't know for sure though. I'm pretty sure that none of those churches exists today which does make the futurism of Revelation seem kind of pointless.

The Jews were the target of the judgment that came about in Jerusalem. That was all explained in Matt 23.

And Jesus had already warned the church in Jerusalem about forty years earlier, see Matt 24:15-17; Mark 13:14-16 and Luke 21:20-21. Even Josephus who was not a Christian, noted in his accounts of the Jewish/Roman wars that not one Christian had perished in the siege on Jerusalem.

bennie
Jan 19th 2009, 04:39 AM
I asked the same question Bennie. I'm not sure why those particular seven churches were chosen. I would imagine that Rev 1:11 had a lot to do with it though. As far as a wild guess, maybe their geographical location was necessary for the further spread of the gospel. I honestly don't know for sure though. I'm pretty sure that none of those churches exists today which does make the futurism of Revelation seem kind of pointless.

The Jews were the target of the judgment that came about in Jerusalem. That was all explained in Matt 23.

And Jesus had already warned the church in Jerusalem about forty years earlier, see Matt 24:15-17; Mark 13:14-16 and Luke 21:20-21. Even Josephus who was not a Christian, noted in his accounts of the Jewish/Roman wars that not one Christian had perished in the siege on Jerusalem.

hi scott.

i hear what you are saying. I agree that the Christians was warned. in Matthew. Why warn them again?. They believed Jesus did they not. Jesus spoke it. Like you said, almost no Christians was killed during the siege of Jerusalem. Like i sayd before, the destruction of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the Christians in Asia Minor. They did not care about the teple anymore. They did not need it. 40 years after Jesus died. I am sure the point was driven home by now that the teple was of no tangiable value to any one. The temple is in us and in Heaven
Does that make sence

cheers
bennie

danield
Jan 19th 2009, 04:54 AM
I was really glad I saw this because I can absorb what many have been saying on similar threads for quite some time. It was throwing me how anyone could believe that Revelation happened in Rome’s time. But never the less this clip really explained a lot to me. Ken Gentry seems to be a wonderful Godly man. But the one thing I know about our Lord is that he does not make mistakes. Ken has made a few mistakes. One being his seven Kings. Ken starts off by listing these rulers as the seven kings that is reflected in this passage

Revelation 17:9-11 9 "This calls for a mind with understanding: The seven heads of the beast represent the seven hills where the woman rules. They also represent seven kings. 10 Five kings have already fallen, the sixth now reigns, and the seventh is yet to come, but his reign will be brief. 11 "The scarlet beast that was, but is no longer, is the eighth king. He is like the other seven, and he, too, is headed for destruction.

1. Julius 49-44 BC
2. Augustus 31 BC-14 AD
3. Tiberius 14 - 37 AD
4. Gaius Caligula 37 -54 AD
5. Claudius 41-54 AD
6. Nero 54-68 AD..
7. Galba 68 -69 AD
8. In 69 A.D. Otho and Vitellius also reigned.
9. Vespasian 9-79 A.D. was Emperor from 69-79 A.D. who brought prosperity to the empire, reformed the army, was a patron of the arts, and began the building of the Colosseum.

I want to draw everyone’s attention to the eight king. In 69 AD Rome had 4 rulers, and three of them ended with death during that very year. How can the eighth king, the beast or better known as the AC have died 3 months after he takes office? The language of 17:9-11 is clear and does not need to be retranslated into another dialect… it basically reads that there are 7 kings and the angel is giving John a view point from the 5th king’s vantage. He clearly says that the sixth king will come and serve his full time, and then the seventh king will come and his reign will be short to make way for the AC that will take his place. I can see clearly ken is wrong.

moonglow
Jan 19th 2009, 03:56 PM
:)
Well that's what I meant, if this was indeed concerning 70ad destruction then John did indeed see this fulfilled and lived well beyond it...what I am wondering is whether there is/has been anything discovered in ANY of his writings hinting to witnessing this event ..seems he would have recognized it and mentioned it, but I also realize "no mention" does not negate anything.

I'm not challenging anything, just wondering.

Since so many wars were going on at the time..well a bit later the Roman civil war...the war with Jerusalem that involved surrounding towns too, alot of writings were destroyed...:( And John may have felt just seeing it come true in front of him proved what he has already written so why add more? What would he said..'everything the Lord showed me came true'?


bennie Scott and Moonglow

I have been trying to read alot more about Full Preterism and Partial P. I am actualy reading a book on the millenium now. In the book Gentry was invited to make his point about post mill. Good reading. anyway, here is the question i have. If John wrote Revelation before 70AD, why did he write it to the churches in Asia Minor?? The heavyest persecution was going on in Rome. The Jews and Christians in Jerusalem was also suffering severely. Why did John not write the book to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Asia minor is a far distance(for anciant time) away from Jerusalem. If anybody had to be warned, it had to be the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

just some honoust questions.
cheers
bennie

When I read Revelation I only see the letters to those churches being addressed to those churches..not the whole book of Revelation being addressed to just those churches. I see the rest of the book being for all believers. At least that is how I always took it...


bennie
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottJohnson View Post
I asked the same question Bennie. I'm not sure why those particular seven churches were chosen. I would imagine that Rev 1:11 had a lot to do with it though. As far as a wild guess, maybe their geographical location was necessary for the further spread of the gospel. I honestly don't know for sure though. I'm pretty sure that none of those churches exists today which does make the futurism of Revelation seem kind of pointless.

The Jews were the target of the judgment that came about in Jerusalem. That was all explained in Matt 23.

And Jesus had already warned the church in Jerusalem about forty years earlier, see Matt 24:15-17; Mark 13:14-16 and Luke 21:20-21. Even Josephus who was not a Christian, noted in his accounts of the Jewish/Roman wars that not one Christian had perished in the siege on Jerusalem.

hi scott.

i hear what you are saying. I agree that the Christians was warned. in Matthew. Why warn them again?. They believed Jesus did they not. Jesus spoke it. Like you said, almost no Christians was killed during the siege of Jerusalem. Like i sayd before, the destruction of Jerusalem had nothing to do with the Christians in Asia Minor. They did not care about the teple anymore. They did not need it. 40 years after Jesus died. I am sure the point was driven home by now that the teple was of no tangiable value to any one. The temple is in us and in Heaven
Does that make sence

cheers
bennie

Maybe I don't understand what you two are talking about here...but to me it seems Revelation is warning the believers about the beast...the dangers they will face ..not the destruction of the temple as was pointed out that was of no concern to them. It also does show the wrath of God towards those that had rejected Christ...the destruction of Jerusalem in more detail. It explains the why's...why God did what He did. I think this is good too for the Christians then to understand but also for the future reader...why did God pour His wrath out on those that had rejected Christ. Yes the Christians got out in time so none were killed because they heeded Jesus' warnings and they were warned of false Christ which there were many...but the beast is not someone they would mistake as a false Christ....Revelation 13 makes it clear only those who's names are not written in the book of life will be fooled...meaning the Romans, the pagans, and sadly the Jews honored him over Christ..

John 19:15
But they cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him! Crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar!”


God bless

IamBill
Jan 19th 2009, 06:50 PM
Like I said in the first post - I certainly see why many hold to this :)

I have to echo danield also - "I was really glad I saw this because I can absorb what many have been saying on similar threads for quite some time."

Personally, I have always known Rome to be the beast and nero as an AC except that it was the 4th beast/vision of Daniel
7:7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

That one has no 'likeness' (lion,bear,leopard) Nor does it have seven heads !
This beast only has One head with 'horns' IN it's head

7:19 Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;
Da 7:20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

Rev beast is depicted as all four of Daniels visions combined - IMO wounded head representing Romes head. ...even though we see pictures that we do of this beast, I don't think Rev. tells us anywhere that these "horns" are divided among the heads in anyway as far as placement ..or have I missed that?

:) in a nut shell anyways ...I don't want sidetrack your thread

ScottJohnson
Jan 19th 2009, 08:10 PM
I was really glad I saw this because I can absorb what many have been saying on similar threads for quite some time. It was throwing me how anyone could believe that Revelation happened in Rome’s time. But never the less this clip really explained a lot to me. Ken Gentry seems to be a wonderful Godly man. But the one thing I know about our Lord is that he does not make mistakes. Ken has made a few mistakes. One being his seven Kings. Ken starts off by listing these rulers as the seven kings that is reflected in this passage

Revelation 17:9-11 9 "This calls for a mind with understanding: The seven heads of the beast represent the seven hills where the woman rules. They also represent seven kings. 10 Five kings have already fallen, the sixth now reigns, and the seventh is yet to come, but his reign will be brief. 11 "The scarlet beast that was, but is no longer, is the eighth king. He is like the other seven, and he, too, is headed for destruction.

1. Julius 49-44 BC
2. Augustus 31 BC-14 AD
3. Tiberius 14 - 37 AD
4. Gaius Caligula 37 -54 AD
5. Claudius 41-54 AD
6. Nero 54-68 AD..
7. Galba 68 -69 AD
8. In 69 A.D. Otho and Vitellius also reigned.
9. Vespasian 9-79 A.D. was Emperor from 69-79 A.D. who brought prosperity to the empire, reformed the army, was a patron of the arts, and began the building of the Colosseum.

I want to draw everyone’s attention to the eight king. In 69 AD Rome had 4 rulers, and three of them ended with death during that very year. How can the eighth king, the beast or better known as the AC have died 3 months after he takes office? The language of 17:9-11 is clear and does not need to be retranslated into another dialect… it basically reads that there are 7 kings and the angel is giving John a view point from the 5th king’s vantage. He clearly says that the sixth king will come and serve his full time, and then the seventh king will come and his reign will be short to make way for the AC that will take his place. I can see clearly ken is wrong.
At the risk of contradicting Mr. Gentry, which really isn't an issue with me, let me just say that the sixth head, may represent Nero, but that doesn't make him the beast. Only part of the beast. The Beast is scarlet colored with seven heads and ten horns. In other words, the beast spoken of here is the Roman Empire.


The language of 17:9-11 is clear and does not need to be retranslated into another dialect… it basically reads that there are 7 kings and the angel is giving John a view point from the 5th king’s vantage. He clearly says that the sixth king will come and serve his full time, and then the seventh king will come and his reign will be short to make way for the AC that will take his place. I can see clearly ken is wrong.

Rev 17:9-11
(9) Here is the mind having wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains, where the woman sits on them.
(10) And the kings are seven. The five fell, and the one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he does come, he must remain a little.
(11) And the beast which was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes to perdition.

I guess I'm lost here. I don't see any mention of an anti-Christ here, or anything that resembles the concept. What I am seeing is a slight mention of possibly Galba and Otho. The point is that who ever the eighth king was, he was of the seven or he was a Caesar. It seems to me that Vitellius was not a Caesar but I could be wrong. Vespasian had taken the throne by force and it seems that he was said to be the first non-Caesar emperor or maybe it was that he was the first emperor from the Flavian line.

Now whether or not it is Nero's name that adds up to six hundred and sixty six, I really don't know. It would to one degree make sense since it was Nero that launched the persecutions against the Christians. Up to that point, it was only the Jewish hierarchy that was persecuting the church.

Either way, I believe that the mark of the beast is a political/religious system that was implemented by the Emperor. It was also one that the Jewish leadership had gone along with in spite of how the people may have felt about it.

moonglow
Jan 19th 2009, 10:22 PM
Scott is right...one head of the beast is one head..that suffered the fatal wound...not the whole beast...which was Rome. Persecution continued on the Christians ever after Nero's death. When Nero killed himself, Rome went into civil war and nearly collapsed as a nation because their was no heir to the throne. Nero had killed all his relatives..he was described by God as a 'beast' because of his very beastly behavior. He had kicked his pregnant wife to death, had his mother killed and all other relatives. He invented new ways of killing the Christians in the most horrible ways imaged AND made it entertainment! Image going to a huge newly built arena that held thousands to watch the Christians be torn apart by wild animals...and that was considered family entertainment...:(

As I said before it was under Nero that Paul was beheaded...Peter crucified upside down. As I said when Nero died, Rome nearly died but 'came alive again' and went on to the amazement of the 'world' (the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3625)) That is how the beast lived on, through Rome and those that came next that continued their persecution of the Christians.

I hope that makes sense...I have had one of those days where you run and run and run and am not feeling too whoopy right now...:cool:

God bless

moonglow
Jan 19th 2009, 11:14 PM
I wish I felt better and had more time to put more information on here...hopefully tomorrow I can..but here is a free book http://freebooks.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/kgbr.pdf

PDF download The Beast of Revelation by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr that people can read for further study on this.

God bless

danield
Jan 20th 2009, 03:09 AM
Well one of the key points of Ken’s message is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD which happened under Vespasian. Now he marks this as “Rome” being the beast because it was retribution by God on the Jews who led the way for Rome to kill Christ. So in essence he says that God used Rome, or the Beast to destroy Jerusalem which I disagree with.
Now lets take a look at what the Bible tells us again. Please I want you to focus on what is said by the Bible and not Ken.

Rev 17:9-11
(9) Here is the mind having wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains, where the woman sits on them.
(10) And the kings are seven. The five fell, and the one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he does come, he must remain a little.
(11) And the beast which was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes to perdition.

Now I have bolded the parts of the passage that are prevalent to understanding that the eighth king is similar to the other seven. We all know what a king is. He is the Ruler of a land not an empire. I think John knew what a king was too, so there should not be any disagreement of this. Now the passage goes on and makes a distinction of the eight king to show that he is the Beast. Ken wants us to make a leap of logic to say that the eight king turned from a man to a kingdom (Rome) because Rome at that time had 4 kings in 69 AD. But in this passage on line 11 this script give’s the eight king a pronoun as his description (he), and reinforces it by saying that he was part of the other seven. In essence this beast is a man who is particularly evil. This is consistent logic. The Beast and the false prophet are two dominant characters of Revelation and were described in previous chapters. So we should not make a leap back to Daniel to describe what is an obvious association to the beast and the false prophet. This in short is the Anti-Christ, and at his height of power he will rule the world as an emperor not a king of a land.

I know when we look at the other beasts mention in Revelation we can easily make associations with kingdoms, but this is a specific connotation to when the AC will rise to power. This will be a key component to identifying him, and I certainly do not want to detract from our resources to know what time we are in if it indeed comes in our lifetime.
However let me reiterate how Ken is wrong with this passage. Ken says that the first king is Julius and the last king is Vespasian.

1. Julius 49-44 BC
2. Augustus 31 BC-14 AD
3. Tiberius 14 - 37 AD
4. Gaius Caligula 37 -54 AD
5. Claudius 41-54 AD
6. Nero 54-68 AD..
7. Galba 68 -69 AD
8. Otho 69 A.D.
9. Vitellius 69 A.D.
10. Vespasian69 A.D. – 79 AD He ruled over the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD

That is 10 kings if you use the destruction of Jerusalem as the climax of the beast. In addition, the passage calls for a short reign for the seventh king. Now when a roman Emperor ruled in this period of history, it was a life long term, and is ended when they die now if you lived for 10 years or 3 months, it will still be a full reign. There is no gage to a short or a long term ruler when it is a life long reign. It is your life plain and simple. I will also mention that any combination of those ten emperors would prove to not fit the description that John gave in Rev 17:9-11. So this is a very specific scenario for the beast to rise to Power. I think this is part of the reason why God coded this Book so elusively, and that is because when it happens it can not happen by chance or be mimicked in any way through out history.

I would also like to add that in Christianity many devout Christians do not fear death at all. We know that we will have a joyful after life with our Lord and savior, and that our death will be preceded as a birthday in paradise with him and it will be our ultimate reward. Now if any Christian knew this it was John or any of the disciples. He did not fear reprisal in the least from Rome. John may have known many similarities with his vision of Revelation and Rome, but he made a distinction when writing it. If it was indeed the current events historical reference from those days in Rome he would have said so plainly. There was no need to create such an elaborate guise about past emperors. So it is just hard for me to accept that translation as a genuine interpretation of what our Lord wants us to understand. I have many more discrepancies as to why the beast was not Rome, but I think I have said enough to clearly see that what Ken Gentry teaches in not true.

moonglow
Jan 20th 2009, 04:11 AM
Well one of the key points of Ken’s message is the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD which happened under Vespasian. Now he marks this as “Rome” being the beast because it was retribution by God on the Jews who led the way for Rome to kill Christ. So in essence he says that God used Rome, or the Beast to destroy Jerusalem which I disagree with.
Now lets take a look at what the Bible tells us again. Please I want you to focus on what is said by the Bible and not Ken.

Rev 17:9-11
(9) Here is the mind having wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains, where the woman sits on them.
(10) And the kings are seven. The five fell, and the one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he does come, he must remain a little.
(11) And the beast which was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goes to perdition.

Now I have bolded the parts of the passage that are prevalent to understanding that the eighth king is similar to the other seven. We all know what a king is. He is the Ruler of a land not an empire. I think John knew what a king was too, so there should not be any disagreement of this. Now the passage goes on and makes a distinction of the eight king to show that he is the Beast. Ken wants us to make a leap of logic to say that the eight king turned from a man to a kingdom (Rome) because Rome at that time had 4 kings in 69 AD. But in this passage on line 11 this script give’s the eight king a pronoun as his description (he), and reinforces it by saying that he was part of the other seven. In essence this beast is a man who is particularly evil. This is consistent logic. The Beast and the false prophet are two dominant characters of Revelation and were described in previous chapters. So we should not make a leap back to Daniel to describe what is an obvious association to the beast and the false prophet. This in short is the Anti-Christ, and at his height of power he will rule the world as an emperor not a king of a land.

I know when we look at the other beasts mention in Revelation we can easily make associations with kingdoms, but this is a specific connotation to when the AC will rise to power. This will be a key component to identifying him, and I certainly do not want to detract from our resources to know what time we are in if it indeed comes in our lifetime.
However let me reiterate how Ken is wrong with this passage. Ken says that the first king is Julius and the last king is Vespasian.

1. Julius 49-44 BC
2. Augustus 31 BC-14 AD
3. Tiberius 14 - 37 AD
4. Gaius Caligula 37 -54 AD
5. Claudius 41-54 AD
6. Nero 54-68 AD..
7. Galba 68 -69 AD
8. Otho 69 A.D.
9. Vitellius 69 A.D.
10. Vespasian69 A.D. – 79 AD He ruled over the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD

That is 10 kings if you use the destruction of Jerusalem as the climax of the beast. In addition, the passage calls for a short reign for the seventh king. Now when a roman Emperor ruled in this period of history, it was a life long term, and is ended when they die now if you lived for 10 years or 3 months, it will still be a full reign. There is no gage to a short or a long term ruler when it is a life long reign. It is your life plain and simple. I will also mention that any combination of those ten emperors would prove to not fit the description that John gave in Rev 17:9-11. So this is a very specific scenario for the beast to rise to Power. I think this is part of the reason why God coded this Book so elusively, and that is because when it happens it can not happen by chance or be mimicked in any way through out history.

I would also like to add that in Christianity many devout Christians do not fear death at all. We know that we will have a joyful after life with our Lord and savior, and that our death will be preceded as a birthday in paradise with him and it will be our ultimate reward. Now if any Christian knew this it was John or any of the disciples. He did not fear reprisal in the least from Rome. John may have known many similarities with his vision of Revelation and Rome, but he made a distinction when writing it. If it was indeed the current events historical reference from those days in Rome he would have said so plainly. There was no need to create such an elaborate guise about past emperors. So it is just hard for me to accept that translation as a genuine interpretation of what our Lord wants us to understand. I have many more discrepancies as to why the beast was not Rome, but I think I have said enough to clearly see that what Ken Gentry teaches in not true.

I had alot of trouble understanding your post here...but it sounds like you are saying it couldn't be Rome because John used the word king not emperor...I honestly don't know what different that would make.

The reason John wrote the way he did about Rome was because he was being held on this Island by the Romans to stop his preaching...here he sits writing down a vision God gave him. If you compare all the visions given by God throughout the bible they sound very similar to how John wrote it...the expressive imagery...second, especially with the name of the beast, John's scrolls would have never gotten past the Roman if they knew who it was about. Nero was very paranoid and anyone that said anything against him would be killed. So John used the numbering system the Hebrews and Greeks used...whole sentences could be written just using numbers and only understood by them...the Roman's could not figure it out. Even just saying "Rome" would have been enough to have him killed on the spot!

Lastly all through the OT God used other nations to enact His punishment on the Jews or others. This is not usual at all and fits in perfectly with how He has always done things. And the believers were kept from God's wrath in this...they all heeded Jesus' words and fled the city when they saw it surrounded: Luke 21:20 “And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the time of its destruction has arrived. 21 Then those in Judea must flee to the hills. Those in Jerusalem must get out, and those out in the country should not return to the city. 22 For those will be days of God’s vengeance, and the prophetic words of the Scriptures will be fulfilled.

Also the warning about the beast weren't so the Christians wouldn't be killed...God shows many examples in the bible of preparing His children about certain things. I mean good grief...to say well we don't care if we get killed so God doesn't need to prepare us, just makes no sense to me. He is our Father! And He loves us. Any earthly father would warn their children of dangers or at least what to expect, which is mostly what Revelation 13 does...it doesn't say stay away...instead it tell them what to expect.

7 And the beast was allowed to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them.

And he was given authority to rule over every tribe and people and language and nation. 8 And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.

9 Anyone with ears to hear
should listen and understand.
10 Anyone who is destined for prison
will be taken to prison.
Anyone destined to die by the sword
will die by the sword.

This means that God’s holy people must endure persecution patiently and remain faithful. Alot more examples of this all through Revelation and even all through the NT. Paul is constantly giving encouragement and comfort because of the persecution they were all going through. This wasn't about avoiding Rome..or saving their lives...Peter in fact was leaving Rome to save his life and turned around and went back.

So like I said I don't understand your thinking in your post when we see all of this lining up well with how God has always done things all through the bible.

God bless

danield
Jan 20th 2009, 05:34 AM
I had alot of trouble understanding your post here...but it sounds like you are saying it couldn't be Rome because John used the word king not emperor...I honestly don't know what different that would make.
I am sorry, I was writing the post keeping in mind what was said on Ken’s video. Ken said that the Beast or the eighth king was Rome and not any one king mainly because there were 4 kings in 69AD and he needed to solidify those 4 kings into one which he called Rome. I state that the eighth king is going to be a man just as the other 7 kings were and not a kingdom. I am not disputing the verbiage of king or emperor written in the bible at all. I have made the association that John knew what a king was and he also knew what an empire is. I also made the assumption that when the eighth king rules he will rule over the entire world, which would be an emperor.


The reason John wrote the way he did about Rome was because he was being held on this Island by the Romans to stop his preaching........
......
Even just saying "Rome" would have been enough to have him killed on the spot!

If we look at any other time in acts when the disciples were imprisoned they actually preached to their jailers about the good news and were never at any time in fear of anything….

Luke 21:20 “And when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that the time of its destruction has arrived. 21 Then those in Judea must flee to the hills. Those in Jerusalem must get out, and those out in the country should not return to the city. 22 For those will be days of God’s vengeance, and the prophetic words of the Scriptures will be fulfilled.

This is a noted passage, but I want to remind everyone that the Jews are still God’s chosen people. He just wants them to follow Christ's teachings. I feel certain that there were innocent people in Jerusalem at that time, and I know God’s hand would never do large scale harm to the innocent especially of his chosen people. If this wasn't his vengeance, and we are trying to prove that it was, then are we trying to prove that God is unjust in his vengeance? Remember that the average person lived about 25 years in that day. Christ died in 33 AD and the destruction took place in 70 AD? So that would put mostly a new generation in Jerusalem at the time of the destruction that had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. Would it be “just” to let the people who committed the crime live their lives and punish the innocent people who grew up in the city afterwards? Please know I am not questioning God but I am questioning Ken Gentry. I think God is perfect in everyway. And I just do not see him taking vengeance on those people who had nothing to do with Christ's death. Many were indeed God fearing people and not like those in the days of Noah.

I would also like to add that no one from this point of view has interpreted the mathematical impossibilities of Rome being the beast when Revelation dictates that there will be an army of this size

Revelation 9:15-16 15 Then the four angels who had been prepared for this hour and day and month and year were turned loose to kill one-third of all the people on earth. 16 I heard the size of their army, which was 200 million mounted troops.

The Army that took Jerusalem was nothing in comparison, and Jerusalem did not contain 1/3 of the earth's population. Please at least admit that Ken is wrong about this…No one can manipulate history and scripture to fit this.


to say well we don't care if we get killed
MG, I said that we do not fear Death…. There is a big difference in what I said and what you are implying of not caring.

shepherdsword
Jan 20th 2009, 11:40 AM
Why? Specifics, please.


1) His "proof' that the book was written prior to 70 ad because rev 11 refers to a measuring of the temple. It was simply referring to a FUTURE temple
2) His interpretation that the "beast who's deadly wound was healed" referred to Vespasian's getting the empire back on the right track. That is just plain spurious. The "whole word" HARDLY wondered at that.
3) His interpretation that Jerusalem is the "harlot riding the beast" !
I heard his "defense" of this interpretation it is a convoluted piece of illogic as I have ever heard.
4)Jesus is going to judge those that specifically pierced him so this can't refer to a future fulfillment. The only problem is that he interprets that to mean that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. I wonder how many of those specific people were alive at that time?
5)He claims that the woman clothed with scarlet and purple is Jerusalem and then pulls a verse out of exodus to prove it that states that ephod is purple,scarlet and BLUE. To make up for this inconsistency he pulls a rabbit out of hat and quotes Josephus when he mentioned a tapersty in Babylon that had purple ,scarlet and blue in it. SHEESH
6)He mentions that Jerusalem is called spiritually "Sodom and Eygpt" and uses that to excuse his reference to her as "Babylon"
7)His interpretation that "666" refers to Nero. He uses the classic Gematric method that the Kabblahist do to assign numeric values to words for a mystical incantation.
8)he ignores the prophetic law of double reference when speaking of the seven churches ignores totally their similarity with different states of the church today



Why? Specifics, please.See above

Actually, using scripture to interpret scripture as Gentry did is very good exegetical practice. As an example. Where Gentry identifies the Harlot who rides the beast. It's not all that hard to find in the Old Testament where Israel is identified as a harlot for their unfaithfulness to God. With this considered, it becomes very logical to identify the Harlot that rides the beast with OT passages that speak of Israel's unfaithfulness to God. There is absolutely nothing exegetically erroneous with what Gentry had done there.No where in scripture in Jerusalem ever called Babylon . If you want to let scripture interpret scripture then stick to what revelation calls Jerusalem and that is spiritually "Sodom"


Well, he pretty much convinced the inhabitants of the largest empire on the planet at the time that Christians had set fire to the City of Rome thus launching a world wide persecution of God's people. I'd like to see you do that ;)WHAT? Are you actually trying to define the beasts lying signs and wonders as Nero's blaming the burning of Rome on the Christians? Come on now,you have to do a lot better than this to persuade me.
What about the beast who's deadly wound was healed?
Revelation says that the world wondered after the beats who's deadly wound was healed. Gentry defined that as the world wondering after Vespasian's ability to keep Rome from falling. That is of course absurd.
This is another example of the stretch that some will go to to fit the word into their little box.


I don't feel that 2 Thes 2:1-10 has anything to do with topic at hand though since I'm not so sure they pertain to the same events and activities.

I also don't see how 2 Thes 2:1-10, "blows out of the water", Johns declaration in Rev 1:7 that even those that pierced Him will see him coming in the clouds. No matter how much double reference you put on it, in order for those that pierced/crucified Him to see him coming in the clouds, Jesus must come in the clouds during their lifetime.You don't see how a clear scriptural reference to the second coming of Christ applies to Gentry's view? Not only does it apply but it actual warns us against the kind of interpretation that Gentry is propagating.


It also doesn't "blow out of the water", Rev 1:1 where John declares that the Revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show his servants must shortly come to pass. Even by double referencing this verse it will still be speaking to it's original recipients, the seven churches and it will still mean that what is to come to pass, will do so quickly and not 2,000+ years into the future. To say otherwise is putting into the text rather than taking out or eisegesis.Not hardly, once again let scripture interpret scripture.
"A day with the Lord is as a thousands years and A Thousand years as a day"


It seems to me that this "law" is intended to achieve a specific outcome.Yes, it is used to show the numerous places in scripture where the prophecy applies to two separate events.


1) Your answers need to be a little more specific so that I can rebut themYou are joking right? I mean, this is an attempt to lighten up the item with some comic relief,right?:rofl:
How can I make it any clearer?. You asked me for specifics before right? i have
I have posted them twice in this item. Once in #10 and once again in this very post.


2) I didn't mean to say that the letters to the seven churches were irrelevant. I misspoke. My previous comment was based on the assumption that you were speaking of the seven churches as the "seven dispensations" of the church age. If you weren't I apologize. If you were never mind. I believe that this theory goes beyond absurd. Kind of like when Rev 4:1 is said by some to be the rapture.No, I was speaking of them as current states of the Church here in different parts of the word right now.
I won't define them all but I will two just so you get the idea.
Laodocia..America's prosperity church
Smyrna..China's suffering church.
I don't believe that Rev 4:1 refers to any "rapture" either so on that we agree.


As far as the seven churches of Revelation goes, I believe that the struggles that they were going through as well as the ups and downs are very relevant to our understanding of the Book of Revelation. I also believe that they serve as a meter for measuring our own faithfulness to Christ both as the church corporate and as individuals. But I digress.You can find different churches right now that fits into one of the seven categories. Just like revelation predicts would happen in the future;)


I guess that it started about 6 or 7 years ago when I came to realize that the fulfillment of the persecutions that Jesus spoke of in the Olivet Discourse could be found in the Book of Acts. The next step would have been when I realized that the 70 weeks of Daniel were intended to be 490 years and not 2490 years and counting. Basically, I came to the realization that a future seven year tribulation wasn't to be found in the Bible. From there things just seemed to fall in place. As I said before I think all of our current end times models are screwy.
It reminds me of the coming of Jesus the first time when none of the sects of Judaism had it right. I guess our hard hearts,sin and worldliness have blinded us almost as bad as theirs did them.


If I implied that you were unteachable, I apologize that wasn't my intention. Your response to the videos impressed on me, that you felt that anything that went against futurism was heretical.No problem. I don't expect that any of us has the whole truth on biblical prophecy. There isn't any reason that we can't have some fun and discuss and critique the different models. I like the old saying "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst"

Romber
Jan 20th 2009, 02:55 PM
I'm glad you posted this Moonglow. I watched 2 and 3 last night and was very intrigued.

moonglow
Jan 20th 2009, 06:02 PM
I am sorry, I was writing the post keeping in mind what was said on Ken’s video. Ken said that the Beast or the eighth king was Rome and not any one king mainly because there were 4 kings in 69AD and he needed to solidify those 4 kings into one which he called Rome. I state that the eighth king is going to be a man just as the other 7 kings were and not a kingdom. I am not disputing the verbiage of king or emperor written in the bible at all. I have made the association that John knew what a king was and he also knew what an empire is. I also made the assumption that when the eighth king rules he will rule over the entire world, which would be an emperor.

I haven't been able to watch all the video's yet..so its hard for me to follow everything you are talking about. If I knew which ones you were referring too that would be helpful.


If we look at any other time in acts when the disciples were imprisoned they actually preached to their jailers about the good news and were never at any time in fear of anything….


There were also many times where God caused certain events to happen so that person wasn't killed. Image if John had been killed and his scrolls destroyed? We wouldn't have them now. At any rate I never said he never witnessed while imprisoned...we don't know...we don't know if their were guards there or not...but at some point he got off the island...whether guards took him off and looked over his scrolls, I don't know. Whether he was totally alone on the island and there was no one to witness too..we don't know that either. All we know is he got off alive and got what he wrote to the Christians.


This is a noted passage, but I want to remind everyone that the Jews are still God’s chosen people. He just wants them to follow Christ's teachings.

Of course God wants everyone to come to Him.
You need to provide scriptures showing the Jews are still chosen ...they rejected His Son, remember. The bible tells us 'everyone' regardless of race can come to God for salvation the same as everyone else..Jew or not.
Galatians 3
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Who Are God's Chosen People? (http://www.preteristarchive.com/PartialPreterism/2006_kessler_chosen-people.html)
By Scott Kessler
12/2006

Preterists are often accused of holding to “Replacement Theology”. The truth of the matter is that we do no such thing. Replacement theology is a misnomer. No one has been “replaced” in regard to the blessings of the Covenant. The church is “Israel” (Galatians 6:16), and always has been, even in the Old Testament.(read the rest at the link)



I feel certain that there were innocent people in Jerusalem at that time, and I know God’s hand would never do large scale harm to the innocent especially of his chosen people. If this wasn't his vengeance, and we are trying to prove that it was, then are we trying to prove that God is unjust in his vengeance? Remember that the average person lived about 25 years in that day. Christ died in 33 AD and the destruction took place in 70 AD? So that would put mostly a new generation in Jerusalem at the time of the destruction that had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus. Would it be “just” to let the people who committed the crime live their lives and punish the innocent people who grew up in the city afterwards? Please know I am not questioning God but I am questioning Ken Gentry. I think God is perfect in everyway. And I just do not see him taking vengeance on those people who had nothing to do with Christ's death. Many were indeed God fearing people and not like those in the days of Noah.[/QUOTE]

Where do you get these stats they only lived until 25? Jesus lived until age 33.(still lives of course) ....His mother was still alive. Paul died as an old man....John lived to be a very old man. The NT tells us John the baptist parents were older when they had him..Luke 1:5-18. Anna and Simeon were old when they saw baby Jesus: Luke 2: 25-32/Luke 2:36-38.

The Jews condemned themselves AND their children for the rejection Jesus:

Matthew 27:24-26 (New King James Version)

24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”
25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

The bible tells us no one is innocent..we are all guilty of sin, other wise some of us would not need a Savior and this simply isn't true. In the OT when God had Babylon destroy the first temple, kill many Jews and take many as slaves...babies and children were killed also.

Psalm 137

1 Beside the rivers of Babylon, we sat and wept
as we thought of Jerusalem.
2 We put away our harps,
hanging them on the branches of poplar trees.
3 For our captors demanded a song from us.
Our tormentors insisted on a joyful hymn:
“Sing us one of those songs of Jerusalem!”
4 But how can we sing the songs of the Lord
while in a pagan land?

5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand forget how to play the harp.
6 May my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth
if I fail to remember you,
if I don’t make Jerusalem my greatest joy.

7 O Lord, remember what the Edomites did
on the day the armies of Babylon captured Jerusalem.
“Destroy it!” they yelled.
“Level it to the ground!”
8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed.
Happy is the one who pays you back
for what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!

This bible commentary explain what was going on and why this was written:http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ps&chapter=137

Time and time again the Jews turned away from God and went to worshiping pagan gods. Because of the type of worshiped involved (it wasn't just praying to some idol...so much worse then that) God would send prophets to warn them if they didn't stop...the killed many of those prophets..they refused to listen and continued doing these terrible things..and eventually God would send disaster on them. He didn't seperate the innocent from the ones doing these things...as I explained before..no one is truly innocent.

Then Jesus declares this on Jerusalem:

Matthew 24
34 “Therefore, I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers of religious law. But you will kill some by crucifixion, and you will flog others with whips in your synagogues, chasing them from city to city. 35 As a result, you will be held responsible for the murder of all godly people of all time—from the murder of righteous Abel to the murder of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed in the Temple between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, this judgment will fall on this very generation.

Jesus Grieves over Jerusalem

37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God’s messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn’t let me. 38 And now, look, your house is abandoned and desolate. 39 For I tell you this, you will never see me again until you say, ‘Blessings on the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

What God did here in sending the Roman army is no different then went He sent Babylon the first time.

Deuteronomy 32:35
Vengeance is Mine, and recompense;Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.’



I would also like to add that no one from this point of view has interpreted the mathematical impossibilities of Rome being the beast when Revelation dictates that there will be an army of this size

Revelation 9:15-16 15 Then the four angels who had been prepared for this hour and day and month and year were turned loose to kill one-third of all the people on earth. 16 I heard the size of their army, which was 200 million mounted troops.

The Army that took Jerusalem was nothing in comparison, and Jerusalem did not contain 1/3 of the earth's population. Please at least admit that Ken is wrong about this…No one can manipulate history and scripture to fit this.

You are missing the point...the view does not take the prophecies as literal...even when you check The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/) it will show many of these things are not to be taken literally..in some cases they are..others they aren't. Take a thousand years...few bible commentaries and other study material don't take this as a literal thousand years...just like when I posted the original Hebrew for the word world...it doesn't always mean the literal entire world: The New Testament Greek Lexicon
world
Strong's Number: 3625 oiÎkoumeÑnh
Original Word Word Origin
oiÎkoumeÑnh feminine participle present passive of (3611) (as noun, by implication of (1093))
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Oikoumene oy-kou-men'-ay
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Feminine 5:157,674
Definition
1. the inhabited earth
1. the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
2. the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
3. the whole inhabited earth, the world
4. the inhabitants of the earth, men
2. the universe, the world
It depends on the content. Of course something literally happens...here read this it helps explain it better then I can:

200 Million Chinese Horse Soldiers
by Gary DeMar (http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/demar200million.html)



MG, I said that we do not fear Death…. There is a big difference in what I said and what you are implying of not caring. [/QUOTE]

Ok I misunderstood what you were saying. It seemed like you thought John was trying to warn the Christians away from Rome...which he wasn't...only to prepare them for what was coming.

God bless

moonglow
Jan 20th 2009, 06:37 PM
I am not Scott but I thought I would help him out by answering some of your questions. I realize this view is probably something so startling different to you then you have been taught, it can take awhile to really get a grasp on it. I was raised pre-trib rapture and it was so ingrained in me my whole life it was very difficult to first see the errors in it, then open myself up to at least looking at other views...it never hurts to consider other end time views. Even if you don't agree, you can understand what others are talking about in discussions on here.


[QUOTE=shepherdsword;1951272]1) His "proof' that the book was written prior to 70 ad because rev 11 refers to a measuring of the temple. It was simply referring to a FUTURE temple

There is no scriptures about the building of a third temple though.


2) His interpretation that the "beast who's deadly wound was healed" referred to Vespasian's getting the empire back on the right track. That is just plain spurious. The "whole word" HARDLY wondered at that.

The New Testament Greek Lexicon
world
Strong's Number: 3625 oiÎkoumeÑnh
Original Word Word Origin
oiÎkoumeÑnh feminine participle present passive of (3611) (as noun, by implication of (1093))
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Oikoumene oy-kou-men'-ay
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Feminine 5:157,674
Definition
1. the inhabited earth
1. the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians
2. the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire
3. the whole inhabited earth, the world
4. the inhabitants of the earth, men
2. the universe, the world

At that time in history, Rome ruled the known world.


3) His interpretation that Jerusalem is the "harlot riding the beast" !
I heard his "defense" of this interpretation it is a convoluted piece of illogic as I have ever heard.

WHO IS THE GREAT WHORE OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION? (http://mikeblume.com/greatwh.htm) This article includes scriptures showing the rejecting Jerusalem was indeed the Harlot.



4)Jesus is going to judge those that specifically pierced him so this can't refer to a future fulfillment. The only problem is that he interprets that to mean that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. I wonder how many of those specific people were alive at that time?

Why wouldn't they be?


5)He claims that the woman clothed with scarlet and purple is Jerusalem and then pulls a verse out of exodus to prove it that states that ephod is purple,scarlet and BLUE. To make up for this inconsistency he pulls a rabbit out of hat and quotes Josephus when he mentioned a tapersty in Babylon that had purple ,scarlet and blue in it. SHEESH

He quotes scriptures too...that is how the Jewish priest were told to dress for their temple duties in the OT. Plus Josephus is a very reliable historical source...I don't see why you are discounting that?


6)He mentions that Jerusalem is called spiritually "Sodom and Eygpt" and uses that to excuse his reference to her as "Babylon"

He backed that up with scriptures also.

7)His interpretation that "666" refers to Nero. He uses the classic Gematric method that the Kabblahist do to assign numeric values to words for a mystical incantation.

How do you know he was using Kabblahist gematrics? He isn't alone in coming up with this number though by any means and it adding up to Nero's name.

8)he ignores the prophetic law of double reference when speaking of the seven churches ignores totally their similarity with different states of the church today

If there is such a prophetic law to be applied to those churches, why should he bring it up? His study wasn't about that.

See above
No where in scripture in Jerusalem ever called Babylon . If you want to let scripture interpret scripture then stick to what revelation calls Jerusalem and that is spiritually "Sodom"


WHAT? Are you actually trying to define the beasts lying signs and wonders as Nero's blaming the burning of Rome on the Christians? Come on now,you have to do a lot better than this to persuade me.
What about the beast who's deadly wound was healed?
Revelation says that the world wondered after the beats who's deadly wound was healed. Gentry defined that as the world wondering after Vespasian's ability to keep Rome from falling. That is of course absurd.
This is another example of the stretch that some will go to to fit the word into their little box.

Why do you have to talk like this? In such a demeaning way? Can't we just discuss this view without the snide remarks?

Here is what I find worrying...is that people think satan as the same abilities of God to bring someone back to life! The bible never says satan has such abilities...in fact it says he can only kill, steal and destroy...he certainly cannot bring back to life a dead man. There is great danger in thinking such a thing too because it can bring into question whether God raised Jesus...or if Jesus was raised by satan and some imposter! Here read this:


Hank Hanegraaff
What is at stake here is nothing less than the deity and resurrection of Christ. In a Christian worldview, only God has the power to raise the dead. If Antichrist could "raise (himself) from the dead' and control 'the earth and sky," Christianty would lose the basis for believing that Christ resurrection vindictes His claim to deity. Further, if satan possesses the creative powers of God, this would subvert the post-resurrection appearance of Christ in that Satan could have masqueraded as the resurrected Christ. Moreover, the notion that satan can perform acts that are indistinquishable from the genuine miracles suggest a dualistic worldview in which God and satan are equal powers competing for dominance.




You don't see how a clear scriptural reference to the second coming of Christ applies to Gentry's view? Not only does it apply but it actual warns us against the kind of interpretation that Gentry is propagating.

He is not ignoring nor denying the scriptures about the actual bodily Second Coming though.


Not hardly, once again let scripture interpret scripture.
"A day with the Lord is as a thousands years and A Thousand years as a day"

Yes, it is used to show the numerous places in scripture where the prophecy applies to two separate events.

You are joking right? I mean, this is an attempt to lighten up the item with some comic relief,right?:rofl:
How can I make it any clearer?. You asked me for specifics before right? i have
I have posted them twice in this item. Once in #10 and once again in this very post.

No, I was speaking of them as current states of the Church here in different parts of the word right now.
I won't define them all but I will two just so you get the idea.
Laodocia..America's prosperity church
Smyrna..China's suffering church.
I don't believe that Rev 4:1 refers to any "rapture" either so on that we agree.

You can find different churches right now that fits into one of the seven categories. Just like revelation predicts would happen in the future;)

And there were churches like that a thousand years ago too. They can apply to churches literally any time in history.


As I said before I think all of our current end times models are screwy.
It reminds me of the coming of Jesus the first time when none of the sects of Judaism had it right. I guess our hard hearts,sin and worldliness have blinded us almost as bad as theirs did them.

No problem. I don't expect that any of us has the whole truth on biblical prophecy. There isn't any reason that we can't have some fun and discuss and critique the different models. I like the old saying "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst"

yes it would be nice to have a nice discussion..I don't know about fun..since your post sounds so angry. :confused

moonglow
Jan 20th 2009, 07:29 PM
For ScottJohnson...you asked about the significances of the seven churches in Revelation..maybe this will interest you:


PATTERN OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY IN LETTERS TO SEVEN CHURCHES (http://mikeblume.com/symbrev.htm)

And the seven churches and their letters show a parallel to the entire Old Testament period. So we see how the Old was a shadow of the New.

EPHESUS

This is the GARDEN PICTURE.

Jesus is in the midst of the candlesticks as in the Garden trees. And The angel is commended for guarding the church against error, as Adam was to guard or keep the Garden. But the angel left his first love, as Adam had fallen. And the candlestick would be removed, as Adam was removed from the Garden, if they did not repent. And the Garden remains open to theovercomer, as Jesus tells the overcomers that they may eat of the fruit of life.

SMYRNA

This is the period following the Garden when the Patriarchs lived. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph up to Moses.

Isaac and Joseph both experienced a sort of death come to life again. Isaac was resurrected in a sense from the altar, since Abraham fully intended to slay him and have God resurrect him to fulfill the promise of having seed from Isaac. Josephwas left as dead, in Jacob's mind, when the boys sold him, and he "arose" to rule in Egypt. Smyrna's church was poor yet rich, like the "fathers' who lived as strangers in the land. They would be imprisoned as Joseph was. And in Moses' day Aaron wore a crown of life as high priest. And the tribulation paralleled the plagues in Egypt they endured.

PERGAMOS

Wilderness journey from Egypt.

The wilderness is likened to an abode of devils, just as Pergamos' believers were where satan's seat was. During the Exodus, Balaam and Balak were resisting, just as is mentioned to this church. The angel of the Lord stood ready to smite Balaam with a sword. Balaam was slain with the sword by Phinehas the priest in Numbers 31. The enemies of this church would be smitten with the sword of God's mouth. And the overcomers are the ones who go into the most holy place to eat the hidden manna from the ark inside there!!

THYATIRA

This corresponds to the age after the exodus when Israel had a monarchy and brings in David's kingdom.

Jesus calls himself Son of God, as is parallel in David (Read Psalm 2:7, and many more Psalms, where David speaks of himself in foreshadow of Son of God). The church tolerated Jezebel, a wicked queen in the time of the monarchs of Israel. 3.5 years of tribulation occurred in her day due to backsliding, and this is parallel, of course, with the 3.5 years mentioned throughout Revelation. Then it ends with ruling with a rod of iron, which is a Psalm of David (2:9).

SARDIS

End of the monarchy in Israel.

The people of God were defeated and taken captive into Babylon. Church thinks its alive but really dead. A few people are faithful. Like a remnant that would come out of Babylon.

PHILADELPHIA

Return from Exile in Babylon with Ezra and Nehemiah.

They rebuilt the temple, which is noted in this letter to this church. But there is a synagogue of satan. False Jews fought Ezra and Nehemiah in Ezra 4 and Neh. 4, 6 and 13. An hour of testing would come paralleled by Antiochus Epiphanes who came after the old testament period as prophesied in Dan 8 and 11, witnessed by the historical, but uninspired, book called Maccabees. New Jerusalem was the reward of the overcomers... a new temple!

LAODICAEA

Last Days from time of Jesus when Pharisees and scribes ruled. They bragged of self-sufficiency. They were naked and poor! Jesus said they bwoulde spewed out, just as God wowouldmash Jerusalem 40 years after killing Jesus. They must repent and sup with Jesus, as in the communion supper of bread and wine. They would rule with Jesus on his throne, as indicated by the entire church age.
In the letter to the church at Ephesus, which did exist in the days John wrote the book of Revelation, Jesus tells this specific church:

quote: Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.


Now, we know that this would not be THE second coming. But its like many other references to His coming. He said He'd come AGAINST THEM. He'd remove the candlestick from its place.
*****************************
You have to scroll about half way down to find this...though you might enjoy the whole article. It goes on with more comparison of the OT with Revelation.

God bless

shepherdsword
Jan 21st 2009, 12:19 AM
For ScottJohnson...you asked about the significances of the seven churches in Revelation..maybe this will interest you:


PATTERN OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY IN LETTERS TO SEVEN CHURCHES (http://mikeblume.com/symbrev.htm)

And the seven churches and their letters show a parallel to the entire Old Testament period. So we see how the Old was a shadow of the New.

EPHESUS

This is the GARDEN PICTURE.

Jesus is in the midst of the candlesticks as in the Garden trees. And The angel is commended for guarding the church against error, as Adam was to guard or keep the Garden. But the angel left his first love, as Adam had fallen. And the candlestick would be removed, as Adam was removed from the Garden, if they did not repent. And the Garden remains open to theovercomer, as Jesus tells the overcomers that they may eat of the fruit of life.

SMYRNA

This is the period following the Garden when the Patriarchs lived. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph up to Moses.

Isaac and Joseph both experienced a sort of death come to life again. Isaac was resurrected in a sense from the altar, since Abraham fully intended to slay him and have God resurrect him to fulfill the promise of having seed from Isaac. Josephwas left as dead, in Jacob's mind, when the boys sold him, and he "arose" to rule in Egypt. Smyrna's church was poor yet rich, like the "fathers' who lived as strangers in the land. They would be imprisoned as Joseph was. And in Moses' day Aaron wore a crown of life as high priest. And the tribulation paralleled the plagues in Egypt they endured.

PERGAMOS

Wilderness journey from Egypt.

The wilderness is likened to an abode of devils, just as Pergamos' believers were where satan's seat was. During the Exodus, Balaam and Balak were resisting, just as is mentioned to this church. The angel of the Lord stood ready to smite Balaam with a sword. Balaam was slain with the sword by Phinehas the priest in Numbers 31. The enemies of this church would be smitten with the sword of God's mouth. And the overcomers are the ones who go into the most holy place to eat the hidden manna from the ark inside there!!

THYATIRA

This corresponds to the age after the exodus when Israel had a monarchy and brings in David's kingdom.

Jesus calls himself Son of God, as is parallel in David (Read Psalm 2:7, and many more Psalms, where David speaks of himself in foreshadow of Son of God). The church tolerated Jezebel, a wicked queen in the time of the monarchs of Israel. 3.5 years of tribulation occurred in her day due to backsliding, and this is parallel, of course, with the 3.5 years mentioned throughout Revelation. Then it ends with ruling with a rod of iron, which is a Psalm of David (2:9).

SARDIS

End of the monarchy in Israel.

The people of God were defeated and taken captive into Babylon. Church thinks its alive but really dead. A few people are faithful. Like a remnant that would come out of Babylon.

PHILADELPHIA

Return from Exile in Babylon with Ezra and Nehemiah.

They rebuilt the temple, which is noted in this letter to this church. But there is a synagogue of satan. False Jews fought Ezra and Nehemiah in Ezra 4 and Neh. 4, 6 and 13. An hour of testing would come paralleled by Antiochus Epiphanes who came after the old testament period as prophesied in Dan 8 and 11, witnessed by the historical, but uninspired, book called Maccabees. New Jerusalem was the reward of the overcomers... a new temple!

LAODICAEA

Last Days from time of Jesus when Pharisees and scribes ruled. They bragged of self-sufficiency. They were naked and poor! Jesus said they bwoulde spewed out, just as God wowouldmash Jerusalem 40 years after killing Jesus. They must repent and sup with Jesus, as in the communion supper of bread and wine. They would rule with Jesus on his throne, as indicated by the entire church age.
In the letter to the church at Ephesus, which did exist in the days John wrote the book of Revelation, Jesus tells this specific church:

quote: Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.


Now, we know that this would not be THE second coming. But its like many other references to His coming. He said He'd come AGAINST THEM. He'd remove the candlestick from its place.
*****************************
You have to scroll about half way down to find this...though you might enjoy the whole article. It goes on with more comparison of the OT with Revelation.

God bless
Since revelation refers to future events at the time of the writing(Even Gentry admits that). I struggle a bit with an old testament model for the seven churches. It is interesting though.
As for the videos.
I watched them and found them interesting.I found them as entertaining as the "Left Behind" series...and just as fictional;)

danield
Jan 21st 2009, 03:18 AM
Where do you get these stats they only lived until 25? Jesus lived until age 33.(still lives of course) ....His mother was still alive. Paul died as an old man....John lived to be a very old man. The NT tells us John the baptist parents were older when they had him..Luke 1:5-18. Anna and Simeon were old when they saw baby Jesus: Luke 2: 25-32/Luke 2:36-38.
The Jews condemned themselves AND their children for the rejection Jesus:


I just wanted to touch on this topic you addressed for the moment. I can not remember which book I have read this in but I have read it numerous times. I have found this web site that shows a census of an area in ancient times. It was written on papyrus.
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/age/roman.html (http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/age/roman.html)


Age in Roman Egypt



The following data are based on papyri with census returns found in Egypt and dateable to the first three centuries AD (11/12 AD - 257/258 AD) .These returns provide data on ordinary households, including servants and slaves. From the evidence of these papyri it can be assumed that there was every 14 years a census, starting in 33/34 and ending in 257/258. The few census papyri dating before 33/34 are a little bit obscure and do not necessarily come from a census.





Go to the link the chart messed up :(



As you can clearly see the number of people who made it past 40 dwindled considerably. Life was hard in those days and decent medical procedures did not exist. So it was only natural that the life expectancy was about 25 to 35ish. Christ died in 33 AD the temple was destroyed in 70 AD so that is 37 years difference. If the people who committed the crime of bringing Christ to the cross were 20 to 25ish that would put them at the age of 57 – 62. Now you can clearly see that chances are they did not make it to this age.


Of course God wants everyone to come to Him.
You need to provide scriptures showing the Jews are still chosen ...they rejected His Son, remember. The bible tells us 'everyone' regardless of race can come to God for salvation the same as everyone else..Jew or not.
I agree MG, but I still know that God will keep his promise to Abraham and have a special place in his heart for the Jewish people of this world (if they accept Christ) that is all I am saying.



There were also many times where God caused certain events to happen so that person wasn't killed. Image if John had been killed and his scrolls destroyed? We wouldn't have them now.
I know for certain that God would have never allowed this to happen. If God wants something to happen there is nothing man can do to stop it not even restricting someone in Jail. IE look at Daniel and the Lions! As we all know Rome and all it’s glory pale in comparison to what God is capable of doing!

At any rate I never said he never witnessed while imprisoned...we don't know...we don't know if their were guards there or not...but at some point he got off the island...whether guards took him off and looked over his scrolls, I don't know. Whether he was totally alone on the island and there was no one to witness too..we don't know that either. All we know is he got off alive and got what he wrote to the Christians.
We know the disciples witnessed to people where ever there were and in every condition. I do not think John would change his ways at the end of his life.

moonglow
Jan 21st 2009, 03:51 AM
I just wanted to touch on this topic you addressed for the moment. I can not remember which book I have read this in but I have read it numerous times. I have found this web site that shows a census of an area in ancient times. It was written on papyrus.
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/age/roman.html (http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/age/roman.html)


Age in Roman Egypt



The following data are based on papyri with census returns found in Egypt and dateable to the first three centuries AD (11/12 AD - 257/258 AD) .These returns provide data on ordinary households, including servants and slaves. From the evidence of these papyri it can be assumed that there was every 14 years a census, starting in 33/34 and ending in 257/258. The few census papyri dating before 33/34 are a little bit obscure and do not necessarily come from a census.





Go to the link the chart messed up :(



As you can clearly see the number of people who made it past 40 dwindled considerably. Life was hard in those days and decent medical procedures did not exist. So it was only natural that the life expectancy was about 25 to 35ish. Christ died in 33 AD the temple was destroyed in 70 AD so that is 37 years difference. If the people who committed the crime of bringing Christ to the cross were 20 to 25ish that would put them at the age of 57 – 62. Now you can clearly see that chances are they did not make it to this age.


I agree MG, but I still know that God will keep his promise to Abraham and have a special place in his heart for the Jewish people of this world (if they accept Christ) that is all I am saying.



I know for certain that God would have never allowed this to happen. If God wants something to happen there is nothing man can do to stop it not even restricting someone in Jail. IE look at Daniel and the Lions! As we all know Rome and all it’s glory pale in comparison to what God is capable of doing!

We know the disciples witnessed to people where ever there were and in every condition. I do not think John would change his ways at the end of his life.


I was thinking about this age thing again (I'll look at the link tomorrow..too tired tonight). If a woman got married at 14-15 which I know they married younger then...and died at 25 the child would only be ten years old. If that many were dying that young their would be a massive amount of orphans and back then no one took care of the until Jesus taught them to do so. It seems like many of those children would die from lack of care ... the Jewish race decline not grow. It doesn't make sense too me that this would be the case...we know even when the Hebrews were slaves their numbers increased so much the Pharaoh was threatened by their large numbers...so then decided to start killing all the baby boys. Exodus 1

If God wanted those that pieced Christ to live to see judgment come upon Jerusalem He would have made that so too.

As far as John goes...we have no idea if anyone was on the Island with him to witness too! He says nothing about others being on there with him.

If I missed anything, I'll get it tomorrow. :)

God bless

danield
Jan 21st 2009, 04:08 AM
I was thinking about this age thing again (I'll look at the link tomorrow..too tired tonight). If a woman got married at 14-15 which I know they married younger then...and died at 25 the child would only be ten years old. If that many were dying that young their would be a massive amount of orphans and back then no one took care of the until Jesus taught them to do so. It seems like many of those children would die from lack of care ... the Jewish race decline not grow. It doesn't make sense too me that this would be the case...we know even when the Hebrews were slaves their numbers increased so much the Pharaoh was threatened by their large numbers...so then decided to start killing all the baby boys. Exodus 1

If God wanted those that pieced Christ to live to see judgment come upon Jerusalem He would have made that so too.

As far as John goes...we have no idea if anyone was on the Island with him to witness too! He says nothing about others being on there with him.

If I missed anything, I'll get it tomorrow. :)

God bless

I give up MG :kiss: Have a great night :)

God bless!

ScottJohnson
Jan 21st 2009, 06:32 AM
Please let me state for the record, that I cannot defend everything that Ken Gentry says in this video. Truth be told, I've never heard or read to much of his work before. I've only watched these videos once and my memory being that what it is, would require me to go back and review those things which you object to in the actual context that he said it. Tain't gonna do that. :no: Basically, what this means is that for the most part and in most cases I will be responding according to my own beliefs and not necessarily his.

1) His "proof' that the book was written prior to 70 ad because rev 11 refers to a measuring of the temple. It was simply referring to a FUTURE temple
That would be a lot easier to accept were it not for the absence of any mention of the destruction of Herod's temple or the building of another. If we go with an early writing of Revelation, then there would be no question to the original reader that this spoke of Herod's Temple. If we go with the later dating, then the reader has to speculate as to the building of a third temples since there is no mention of one any where in this book. This is one reason why I lean towards a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation.

2) His interpretation that the "beast who's deadly wound was healed" referred to Vespasian's getting the empire back on the right track. That is just plain spurious. The "whole word" HARDLY wondered at that.
I don't see a problem with that in light of the fact that I view the beast as the Roman Empire. When you look at it from that perspective, the turmoil between took place between the reigns of Nero and Vespasian certainly can symbollically come across as a beast (the Roman Empire), recovering from a fatal wound. The empire at that time was going through power struggles and civil wars and could very easily have imploded.

As far as did the "whole world" wonder at that or not, you might want to consider that the whole world in the New Testament often times refers to the Roman Empire. Look at Luke 2:1. Did Augustus' decree go out to the Chinese, Britannia or the huns? There existance was known at that time. I would think that anyone living under the rule of Rome at that time would be very interested in politics of the empire.

3) His interpretation that Jerusalem is the "harlot riding the beast" !
I heard his "defense" of this interpretation it is a convoluted piece of illogic as I have ever heard.
I disagree. Israel was subjugated to the Roman Empire. All that they did had to go through or be okayed by an empire rep. They wanted Christ crucified, but they couldn't do it. His execution had to be carried out by Rome. Even there persecution of the church had to be monitored by Rome.

4)Jesus is going to judge those that specifically pierced him so this can't refer to a future fulfillment. The only problem is that he interprets that to mean that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. I wonder how many of those specific people were alive at that time?
Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

I don't know. Johns says that every eye will see him though, even those that pierced Him. I see your point though.

5)He claims that the woman clothed with scarlet and purple is Jerusalem and then pulls a verse out of exodus to prove it that states that ephod is purple,scarlet and BLUE. To make up for this inconsistency he pulls a rabbit out of hat and quotes Josephus when he mentioned a tapersty in Babylon that had purple ,scarlet and blue in it. SHEESH
This is just an add on to your third point. This woman is the harlot. I still don't see a problem with his exegesis here. Read the Old Testament, how many times is Israel spoken of as whore. Read Matthew 23. Jesus declares that because of the crimes of those that he was speaking too, that the judgment and vindication would be carried out on that generation. The destruction of Jerusalem fits that judgment that Jesus spoke of perfectly. And for that reason, the harlot in Revelation fits the persona of Israel.

6)He mentions that Jerusalem is called spiritually "Sodom and Eygpt" and uses that to excuse his reference to her as "Babylon"
I don't see a problem with that.

7)His interpretation that "666" refers to Nero. He uses the classic Gematric method that the Kabblahist do to assign numeric values to words for a mystical incantation.
I don't necessarily agree with this myself. I personally believe that the mark of the beast is the acceptance and adhering to a political/religious system....not unlike emperor worship.

8)he ignores the prophetic law of double reference when speaking of the seven churches ignores totally their similarity with different states of the church today
Yes, you've pointed this out before and it's highly unlikely that a post-millennialist is going to utilize a dispensationalistic method of interpretation.

With this method, the birds in the parable of the sower, Matt 13:4 represent evil then by double reference, every mention of birds in the Bible must be evil.
Another case would be the cursing of the fig tree in Matt 21:19 is considered to be a symbolic gesture representing a cursing of Israel. Now every time that "fig tree" is mentioned, it's considered to be Israel. By double reference, the "fig tree" in Matt 24:32 is speaking of Israel being recognized as a nation in 1948. Yet a parallel passage in Luke 21:29 speaking of the "fig tree and all the trees" is ignored.

See above
No where in scripture in Jerusalem ever called Babylon . If you want to let scripture interpret scripture then stick to what revelation calls Jerusalem and that is spiritually "Sodom"
actually, it is in Revelation.

WHAT? Are you actually trying to define the beasts lying signs and wonders as Nero's blaming the burning of Rome on the Christians? Come on now,you have to do a lot better than this to persuade me.
I don't think it would matter if I laid down any indisputable evidence, you wouldn't be convinced.

What about the beast who's deadly wound was healed?
Revelation says that the world wondered after the beats who's deadly wound was healed. Gentry defined that as the world wondering after Vespasian's ability to keep Rome from falling. That is of course absurd.
This is another example of the stretch that some will go to to fit the word into their little box.
I still disagree with you here just as I did above. I dont' see it as a stretch. Yes it contradicts futurism, but to me that's a plus.

You don't see how a clear scriptural reference to the second coming of Christ applies to Gentry's view? Not only does it apply but it actual warns us against the kind of interpretation that Gentry is propagating.
What I said I said. I don't see the "clear scriptural reference to the second coming of Christ" or 2 Thes 2:1-10, to speak of the same thing as Jesus coming in judgment against Israel. Simple as that.

Not hardly, once again let scripture interpret scripture.
"A day with the Lord is as a thousands years and A Thousand years as a day"
Okay then why don't we let scripture interpret scripture. This passage that you took out of 2 Peter 3, speaks of God's compassion, not wanting to see anyone perish. This was spoken in response to those that questioned the validity of Christ's return, (physically), and in no way makes terms such as "soon", "Shortly", "quickly", etc. mean anything other than what they mean. This is not some prophetic code for changing the true chronological passing of time.

Yes, it is used to show the numerous places in scripture where the prophecy applies to two separate events.
Um yeah.

You are joking right? I mean, this is an attempt to lighten up the item with some comic relief,right?:rofl:
Actually my reply regarding Nero's persecution as the signs and wonders was intended to lighten things up. This had to do with the things that I had asked you to be more specific on.

How can I make it any clearer?. You asked me for specifics before right? i have
I have posted them twice in this item. Once in #10 and once again in this very post.
You were far more specific in this post and I was able to respond as best I could.

No, I was speaking of them as current states of the Church here in different parts of the word right now.
I won't define them all but I will two just so you get the idea.
Laodocia..America's prosperity church
Smyrna..China's suffering church.
Okay, I can accept that. I'm not sure of it's significance in eschatology, but I can see where you're coming from anyway.

I don't believe that Rev 4:1 refers to any "rapture" either so on that we agree.
I am glad to hear that. I have come across quite a few that really do believe it.

You can find different churches right now that fits into one of the seven categories. Just like revelation predicts would happen in the future;)
I don't see the significance that this has in regard to eschatology. As I said earlier, I see the seven churches first as the recipients of John's Revelation, but i also see them as a type of scale to measure ourselves in our walk with and service to Christ.

As I said before I think all of our current end times models are screwy.
It reminds me of the coming of Jesus the first time when none of the sects of Judaism had it right. I guess our hard hearts,sin and worldliness have blinded us almost as bad as theirs did them.
You might be right. I don't think that we could gain real understanding of the Bible, even if we had twenty lifetimes to do it in. All we can do is keep studying.

ScottJohnson
Jan 21st 2009, 06:37 AM
For ScottJohnson...you asked about the significances of the seven churches in Revelation..maybe this will interest you:


PATTERN OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY IN LETTERS TO SEVEN CHURCHES (http://mikeblume.com/symbrev.htm)

And the seven churches and their letters show a parallel to the entire Old Testament period. So we see how the Old was a shadow of the New.

EPHESUS

This is the GARDEN PICTURE.

Jesus is in the midst of the candlesticks as in the Garden trees. And The angel is commended for guarding the church against error, as Adam was to guard or keep the Garden. But the angel left his first love, as Adam had fallen. And the candlestick would be removed, as Adam was removed from the Garden, if they did not repent. And the Garden remains open to theovercomer, as Jesus tells the overcomers that they may eat of the fruit of life.

SMYRNA

This is the period following the Garden when the Patriarchs lived. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph up to Moses.

Isaac and Joseph both experienced a sort of death come to life again. Isaac was resurrected in a sense from the altar, since Abraham fully intended to slay him and have God resurrect him to fulfill the promise of having seed from Isaac. Josephwas left as dead, in Jacob's mind, when the boys sold him, and he "arose" to rule in Egypt. Smyrna's church was poor yet rich, like the "fathers' who lived as strangers in the land. They would be imprisoned as Joseph was. And in Moses' day Aaron wore a crown of life as high priest. And the tribulation paralleled the plagues in Egypt they endured.

PERGAMOS

Wilderness journey from Egypt.

The wilderness is likened to an abode of devils, just as Pergamos' believers were where satan's seat was. During the Exodus, Balaam and Balak were resisting, just as is mentioned to this church. The angel of the Lord stood ready to smite Balaam with a sword. Balaam was slain with the sword by Phinehas the priest in Numbers 31. The enemies of this church would be smitten with the sword of God's mouth. And the overcomers are the ones who go into the most holy place to eat the hidden manna from the ark inside there!!

THYATIRA

This corresponds to the age after the exodus when Israel had a monarchy and brings in David's kingdom.

Jesus calls himself Son of God, as is parallel in David (Read Psalm 2:7, and many more Psalms, where David speaks of himself in foreshadow of Son of God). The church tolerated Jezebel, a wicked queen in the time of the monarchs of Israel. 3.5 years of tribulation occurred in her day due to backsliding, and this is parallel, of course, with the 3.5 years mentioned throughout Revelation. Then it ends with ruling with a rod of iron, which is a Psalm of David (2:9).

SARDIS

End of the monarchy in Israel.

The people of God were defeated and taken captive into Babylon. Church thinks its alive but really dead. A few people are faithful. Like a remnant that would come out of Babylon.

PHILADELPHIA

Return from Exile in Babylon with Ezra and Nehemiah.

They rebuilt the temple, which is noted in this letter to this church. But there is a synagogue of satan. False Jews fought Ezra and Nehemiah in Ezra 4 and Neh. 4, 6 and 13. An hour of testing would come paralleled by Antiochus Epiphanes who came after the old testament period as prophesied in Dan 8 and 11, witnessed by the historical, but uninspired, book called Maccabees. New Jerusalem was the reward of the overcomers... a new temple!

LAODICAEA

Last Days from time of Jesus when Pharisees and scribes ruled. They bragged of self-sufficiency. They were naked and poor! Jesus said they bwoulde spewed out, just as God wowouldmash Jerusalem 40 years after killing Jesus. They must repent and sup with Jesus, as in the communion supper of bread and wine. They would rule with Jesus on his throne, as indicated by the entire church age.
In the letter to the church at Ephesus, which did exist in the days John wrote the book of Revelation, Jesus tells this specific church:

quote: Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.


Now, we know that this would not be THE second coming. But its like many other references to His coming. He said He'd come AGAINST THEM. He'd remove the candlestick from its place.
*****************************
You have to scroll about half way down to find this...though you might enjoy the whole article. It goes on with more comparison of the OT with Revelation.

God bless
Thanks MG. This is a new one for me.

There is also a dispensational teaching that states that the seven churches of Revelation are seven dispensations of the church age. Apparently it's used as some kind of timeline to let us know when the end is to come.

shepherdsword
Jan 21st 2009, 09:21 AM
Please let me state for the record, that I cannot defend everything that Ken Gentry says in this video. Truth be told, I've never heard or read to much of his work before. I've only watched these videos once and my memory being that what it is, would require me to go back and review those things which you object to in the actual context that he said it. Tain't gonna do that. Basically, what this means is that for the most part and in most cases I will be responding according to my own beliefs and not necessarily his.

That would be hard to do even if you did know all his writings.;)


That would be a lot easier to accept were it not for the absence of any mention of the destruction of Herod's temple or the building of another. If we go with an early writing of Revelation, then there would be no question to the original reader that this spoke of Herod's Temple. If we go with the later dating, then the reader has to speculate as to the building of a third temples since there is no mention of one any where in this book. This is one reason why I lean towards a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation.This position would be easier to defend if Israel hadn't become a nation again. In fact many of the old scholars who adopted[ this position did so based on the apparent impossibility of Israel ever becoming a nation again. The fact about the temple in revelation is that only the outer court was given to the gentiles....the temple at the time of Rome was totally subjected to the Gentiles


I don't see a problem with that in light of the fact that I view the beast as the Roman Empire. When you look at it from that perspective, the turmoil between took place between the reigns of Nero and Vespasian certainly can symbollically come across as a beast (the Roman Empire), recovering from a fatal wound. The empire at that time was going through power struggles and civil wars and could very easily have imploded.Whatever, if you can't see how weak this is as an argument for the fulfillment of this prophecy then there's no point in discussing it anymore.
I mean, I saw it's weak and you say it's not. I think most scholars will agree with my position though.


As far as did the "whole world" wonder at that or not, you might want to consider that the whole world in the New Testament often times refers to the Roman Empire. Look at Luke 2:1. Did Augustus' decree go out to the Chinese, Britannia or the huns? There existance was known at that time. I would think that anyone living under the rule of Rome at that time would be very interested in politics of the empire.So I guess by this interpretation then we should have expected a mark to occur on the right hand or forehead in order to buy and sell in the Roman empire? When did that happen?


I disagree. Israel was subjugated to the Roman Empire. All that they did had to go through or be okayed by an empire rep. They wanted Christ crucified, but they couldn't do it. His execution had to be carried out by Rome. Even there persecution of the church had to be monitored by Rome.I am confused by this response. Please explain why this is a proper response, maybe it's late and I'm missing something. I am at work waiting for a call and I am tired


Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

I don't know. Johns says that every eye will see him though, even those that pierced Him. I see your point though.Yeah, hey it's not like I wouldn't accept what he's saying if I couldn't challenge it. I am looking for some real insight into this book. I see hundreds of different takes on it but only one can be the truth,right?


This is just an add on to your third point. This woman is the harlot. I still don't see a problem with his exegesis here. Read the Old Testament, how many times is Israel spoken of as whore. Read Matthew 23. Jesus declares that because of the crimes of those that he was speaking too, that the judgment and vindication would be carried out on that generation. The destruction of Jerusalem fits that judgment that Jesus spoke of perfectly. And for that reason, the harlot in Revelation fits the persona of Israel.

I don't see a problem with that.The problem I have with this position is that that the symbology of the harlot riding the beast seems to imply that She will have some power over the beast that will cause the beast to despise her and make her desolate


I don't necessarily agree with this myself. I personally believe that the mark of the beast is the acceptance and adhering to a political/religious system....not unlike emperor worship. it appears to be an economic one as well with the mention of no one being able to buy or sell without the mark.


Yes, you've pointed this out before and it's highly unlikely that a post-millennialist is going to utilize a dispensationalistic method of interpretation.

With this method, the birds in the parable of the sower, Matt 13:4 represent evil then by double reference, every mention of birds in the Bible must be evil.
Another case would be the cursing of the fig tree in Matt 21:19 is considered to be a symbolic gesture representing a cursing of Israel. Now every time that "fig tree" is mentioned, it's considered to be Israel. By double reference, the "fig tree" in Matt 24:32 is speaking of Israel being recognized as a nation in 1948. Yet a parallel passage in Luke 21:29 speaking of the "fig tree and all the trees" is ignored.I think you misunderstand the law. It doesn't force a continuity of symbolism in interpretation it just means that many things have a double fulfillment.
Take Daniel's "abomination of desolation" for instance. Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled it not long after the prophecy but we see Jesus referring to it again in Mat 24.


actually, it is in Revelation.No, you got this wrong. In Revelation it is referred to as "Sodom and Egypt"
In case you haven't brushed up on your symbolism Eypt is about as far away as you can get from Babylon symbolically. They both stood for captivity but at opposite ends of the scale.


I don't think it would matter if I laid down any indisputable evidence, you wouldn't be convinced.This is where you are totally wrong. However, the evidence you have presented isn't remotely indisputable. In fact, and I dont' mean this as an insult so please bear with me, it's absurd. I just can't in good conscience,agree with it. I guess we will just agree to disagree and leave it at that.


I still disagree with you here just as I did above. I dont' see it as a stretch. Yes it contradicts futurism, but to me that's a plus.There we have it. This statement shows that you have preconceived notions about Gentry's position. you have a bias that causes you to accept it even though you readily admit that there are several problems with it. Listen, I would accept it if it didn't have so many holes. Now you can truthfully accuse me of shooting down all the theories and offering none because that is the truth. I think there are holes in all of them. However, I do believe preterism to be one of the weaker ones. I have seen sharper minds than you are I debate it and it seems the preterist lose every time.



What I said I said. I don't see the "clear scriptural reference to the second coming of Christ" or 2 Thes 2:1-10, to speak of the same thing as Jesus coming in judgment against Israel. Simple as that.You don't see this as a major problem with that whole view? It sure seems to reference positions like these to me.


Okay then why don't we let scripture interpret scripture. This passage that you took out of 2 Peter 3, speaks of God's compassion, not wanting to see anyone perish. This was spoken in response to those that questioned the validity of Christ's return, (physically), and in no way makes terms such as "soon", "Shortly", "quickly", etc. mean anything other than what they mean. This is not some prophetic code for changing the true chronological passing of time.The scripture is a clear indicator of how the Lord regards time.


yeah.Check out the numerous places in scripture where the law has been proven before such a casual dismissal. You might be surprised


Actually my reply regarding Nero's persecution as the signs and wonders was intended to lighten things up. This had to do with the things that I had asked you to be more specific on.That you did my friend that you did. Lets face it. this topic isn't going to make us any holier or help us to love one another or Jesus more. It's just an exercise of iron sharpening iron. The real thing to watch here is our attitude toward one another.


You were far more specific in this post and I was able to respond as best I could.Thanks,I apologize if the earlier post wasn't up to par


Okay, I can accept that. I'm not sure of it's significance in eschatology, but I can see where you're coming from anyway.

this brings up a WHOLE other topic that IS critical...the state of the Church today.


I am glad to hear that. I have come across quite a few that really do believe it.I have always wondered why since it seems to me to very clear what it was. A door that opened for John into heaven.


I don't see the significance that this has in regard to eschatology. As I said earlier, I see the seven churches first as the recipients of John's Revelation, but i also see them as a type of scale to measure ourselves in our walk with and service to Christ.

You might be right. I don't think that we could gain real understanding of the Bible, even if we had twenty lifetimes to do it in. All we can do is keep studying.and praying while seeking God for some real revelation on what is true, that's all we can do.

moonglow
Jan 21st 2009, 05:28 PM
Thanks MG. This is a new one for me.

There is also a dispensational teaching that states that the seven churches of Revelation are seven dispensations of the church age. Apparently it's used as some kind of timeline to let us know when the end is to come.

I vaguely remember that...but don't recall how they were doing this? :hmm: Oh well...

I had posted this information earlier in this thread about this verse:

Revelation 1:7
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen

Didn't know if you saw it or not:http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1949762&postcount=24

I am bringing this up again because of what you said in your last

shepherdsword:post:4)Jesus is going to judge those that specifically pierced him so this can't refer to a future fulfillment. The only problem is that he interprets that to mean that this refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. I wonder how many of those specific people were alive at that time?
Rev 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

ScottJohnson:I don't know. Johns says that every eye will see him though, even those that pierced Him. I see your point though.


danield doesn't think they could have lived that long from a stats she listed:

danield:As you can clearly see the number of people who made it past 40 dwindled considerably. Life was hard in those days and decent medical procedures did not exist. So it was only natural that the life expectancy was about 25 to 35ish. Christ died in 33 AD the temple was destroyed in 70 AD so that is 37 years difference. If the people who committed the crime of bringing Christ to the cross were 20 to 25ish that would put them at the age of 57 – 62. Now you can clearly see that chances are they did not make it to this age.

(actually He was put on the cross in 30 AD then it was forty years later judgment came on Jerusalem) 70 AD.

When I read the bible I read about alot of old people in it...as I mentioned, Jesus' mother was still alive when Jesus went to the cross...John the baptist parents were old when they had him. Paul lived to be an old man inspite of the horrible hardships he went through. Alot of old people mentioned in the bible. I never read it and thought..why are all these people so young in the bible...where are all the elderly people? That thought never crossed my mind. If anything I have been amazed at the great age these people were, especially in the OT where life was even harder and condition worse as they endured slavery, wars, famines, diseases. If say God did many miracles in the bible but can't contribute Him (if necessary) to extend the life of those that pierced His Son by a few years...:hmm: I don't think it was necessary...I think the Jews were strong people and lived longer then we think...I am just going by what the bible says too on this.

If nothing else to consider here wonder about this. If none of these prophesies were about the destruction of the second temple and the destruction of Jerusalem...but all apply to some future tribulation, then where are the scriptures about the destruction of the second temple? There was certainly plenty about the destruction of the first temple! So the destruction of the second suddenly became unimportant? When Jesus talks about the destruction of the temple in Matthew that is suppose to be about a third temple? He totally skips its destruction as He stands right by it? That just makes no sense to me.

God bless

ScottJohnson
Jan 21st 2009, 07:36 PM
Hi shepherdsword, these posts are getting kind of lengthy so I've opted to not respond to certaing points that seem to be straying over to other topics. If there is something that you think that I should have addressed, go ahead an let me know.

This position would be easier to defend if Israel hadn't become a nation again. In fact many of the old scholars who adopted[ this position did so based on the apparent impossibility of Israel ever becoming a nation again. The fact about the temple in revelation is that only the outer court was given to the gentiles....the temple at the time of Rome was totally subjected to the Gentiles
This is the first time that I've heard that the temple was subjected to gentiles during the Roman occupation. If that were the case then I would expect to see mentions of temple defilement in the Gospels and some of the epistles.

I think that the concept of at third temple is based on speculation and necessity for a futurist doctrine The epistles make it more than clear that the temple of God is the believers that make up the corporate church. I also feel that the erection of a third temple will fly in the face Christ who's sacrifice ended the need for any further sacrifice. With that said, I don't doubt that a third temple could be built one day but I don't believe that it would be of God's will.

Whatever, if you can't see how weak this is as an argument for the fulfillment of this prophecy then there's no point in discussing it anymore.
I mean, I saw it's weak and you say it's not. I think most scholars will agree with my position though.
I agree fully. We must agree to disagree and most scholars would take your position. It's no secret that most scholars tend to lean towards futurist view of end times studies. One need only look at the eschatology section in a Christian bookstore to figure that out.

So I guess by this interpretation then we should have expected a mark to occur on the right hand or forehead in order to buy and sell in the Roman empire? When did that happen?
It's not that far fetched for a people to be forced to pledge allegiance to a political authority in order to participate in commerce. A follower of Christ could easily renounce his faith in order to satisfy his or his family's hunger. Of course in order for him to do so, would mean that he was switching his loyalty from faith in Christ over to loyalty to a political authority...or taking a mark. Would you renounce Christ in order to feed your belly? How about to avoid being mauled to death by a wild beast? This is what the church faced in the latter part of the first century. And yet Christ expected faithful loyalty even to the death. Talk about hard.

(34) And calling near the crowd with His disciples, He said to them, Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take his cross, and let him follow Me.
(35) For whoever desires to save his life, he shall lose it. But whoever shall lose his life for My sake and the gospel, that one shall save it.
(36) For what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?
(37) Or what shall a man give as an exchange for his soul?
(38) For whoever may be ashamed of Me and My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father, along with the holy angels. Mar 8:34-38

Those who take the mark may eat, but they lose their eternal soul. Obviously it's not that difficult for non-Christians to give their loyalty over to idols or other entities. But this was written to believers and must be considered as a warning to them.

If you're looking for a physical mark, maybe a tattoo or a bio chip then what I say is probably foolishness to you. If you accept that the book of Revelation was written to seven churches going through severe persecution just prior to 70 AD, then you might see it my way.

I am confused by this response. Please explain why this is a proper response, maybe it's late and I'm missing something. I am at work waiting for a call and I am tired
My point dealt with the harlot riding the beast. I believe that harlot to be Israel and the Beast to be Rome. I likened the harlot (Israel) riding the beast (Rome) to the fact that Israel's own laws were subjected to Roman scrutiny. As an example. Israel wanted Christ crucified, they couldn't do it without Romes approval. At the churches inception Israel persecuted the early church. Yet this persecution had to be monitored by Rome. All the crimes that the Jews had committed against the Christ and the early church we're done at the behest of Rome. This is Israel riding Rome. This is the halot riding the beast.

The problem I have with this position is that that the symbology of the harlot riding the beast seems to imply that She will have some power over the beast that will cause the beast to despise her and make her desolate
I don't know about power. Israel was broken into factions in the late sixties. Some wished to maintain cooperation with Rome in order to maintain peace. Others like the Zealots, who by this time had grown into a fairly sizable force thought that they could force Rome out of their land. It was the Zealots that were most responsible for the Jewish/Roman War.

I think you misunderstand the law. It doesn't force a continuity of symbolism in interpretation it just means that many things have a double fulfillment.
Take Daniel's "abomination of desolation" for instance. Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled it not long after the prophecy but we see Jesus referring to it again in Mat 24.
But if it's necessary to follow this law in biblical interpretation then it has to be surmised that all prophecy has more than one fulfillment.

There we have it. This statement shows that you have preconceived notions about Gentry's position. you have a bias that causes you to accept it even though you readily admit that there are several problems with it. Listen, I would accept it if it didn't have so many holes. Now you can truthfully accuse me of shooting down all the theories and offering none because that is the truth. I think there are holes in all of them. However, I do believe preterism to be one of the weaker ones. I have seen sharper minds than you are I debate it and it seems the preterist lose every time.
I've never denied that I'm coming at this from anything but a preterist veiw. I'm an a-millennialist, I have a link in my signature that goes to a page that represents my perspective. I'm not hiding anything. I really wish that people would be honest about where they are coming from. Unfortunately they either don't know or they choose to remain silent about it for what ever reason. I try to let people know right out of the gate that I am an a-millennialist of the partial preterist variety.

Likewise, whether you hold to any one view or not. You are coming from a very futurist perspective. Your view about measuring the temple is a futurist concept. That law of double reference looks like something that comes from the dispensational camp. The website that you linked me to is a Zionist site which only reinforce my concern about it.

You feel that preterism is weak. Of course you do, it has to do with an obvious pre-millennial bias on your part. I was a pre-millennialist for about the first fourteen or fifteen years of my walk with Christ. It was all the holes in the premill theory that brought me to where I am now.

Also, where as you place so much emphasis on the law of double reference, I place an emphatic reliance on interpreting the OT and the Book of Revelation in the light of the gospels, Acts and the epistles. The NT came after Christ so I feel that it's the final authority.

You don't see this as a major problem with that whole view? It sure seems to reference positions like these to me.
I don't see the passage in 2 Thess as a parallel to either Rev 1:7 or Matt 24:29-31. So far anyway, I feel the latter two passages refers to 70AD and the former speaks of Christ's physical return at the end of history.

The scripture is a clear indicator of how the Lord regards time.
I disagree. The passage is clear indication of God's love for His creation and His desire to see all come to repentence. It in no way negates the meaning of terms such as; shortly, quickly, soon, at hand, at the door, etc.

Check out the numerous places in scripture where the law has been proven before such a casual dismissal. You might be surprised

Okay, give me a list.

Thanks,I apologize if the earlier post wasn't up to par
It was up to par just fine, it was just too generalized to respond to.

Partaker of Christ
Jan 21st 2009, 10:13 PM
That would be a lot easier to accept were it not for the absence of any mention of the destruction of Herod's temple or the building of another. If we go with an early writing of Revelation, then there would be no question to the original reader that this spoke of Herod's Temple. If we go with the later dating, then the reader has to speculate as to the building of a third temples since there is no mention of one any where in this book. This is one reason why I lean towards a pre 70 AD writing of Revelation.

Hi Scott!

What I don't get, and no has yet given me an answer to, is this:

If this was Herod's Temple, then why would John be told to measure a Temple, that had already been measured?

Why tell John, to not measure the outer court, that has already been measured?

Libre
Jan 21st 2009, 10:39 PM
Burton Coffman says this:

Measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship ...
"Temple of God" in this passage is impossible to accept as a reference to the literal Jewish temple in Jerusalem, called by the Son of God himself a "den of thieves and robbers." That an angel of God should have been concerned with having John measure that desolation (Matthew 23:38 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=mt+23:38)) is inconceivable. "It scarcely seems possible to doubt that temple here is used figuratively for the faithful portion of the Church of Christ." F8 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#8) In fact, the word here rendered temple is actually sanctuary (ASV margin), "The Greek word [nous] means the." holy house, where God dwells ... The use of [Greek: nous] here for the thing to be measured makes a literal interpretation of temple impossible." F9 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#9) "For John, the temple is the Christian Church, the people of God." F10 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#10) "This sanctuary symbolizes the true church." F11 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#11)
If any distinction is to be made between the temple and the altar, which is doubtful, it would appear to be that the altar refers to the worship itself, the doctrine and practice of the faithful portion of the church; and the temple refers to the whole body of the church.
The measuring of the "worshippers" would naturally mean the evaluation of their lifestyle, character, and behaviour by the principles taught in the word of God. Thus the corporate body of the church, its doctrine, worship, and teaching, as well as the individual character and conduct of its members would all be included in the measuring. Significantly, there have been pronounced departures from the word of God in all of these categories by the historical church.
What is the purpose of the measuring? In the Old Testament, things were "measured" either for destruction or for preservation; but the identity of what is measured here suggests that "the measuring is a symbolical way of declaring its preservation, not from physical sufferings, but from spiritual danger." F12 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#12) Hendriksen likewise concurred in the judgment that the measuring here means "the setting apart from that which is profane." F13 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#13)
This measuring by the word of God has the same purpose and effect as the sealing of the 144,000 in Rev. 7. The sealing there is done by the Holy Spirit; and the measuring here is by the word, i.e., those who are indwelt by the word (Colossians 3:16 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=col+3:16)). The indwelling, whether by the Spirit, or by the word, being exactly the same either way. There is no difference. See my Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, pp. 97-99. It is good to note that many scholars have seen this correspondence with the sealing. "This corresponds to the sealing in Rev. 7:1-8." F14 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#14) An important deduction from this is that:


The vision therefore declares that whatever corruptions invade the church, the kernel of the church will never be destroyed; but out of it there will arise those who will be true to the Master's commission. F15 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#15) This promise of protection for God's church, indicated in this vision by the "measuring," was made by the Lord himself in Matt. 28:18-20.


http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#Re11_1

Partaker of Christ
Jan 22nd 2009, 12:24 AM
What I said I said. I don't see the "clear scriptural reference to the second coming of Christ" or 2 Thes 2:1-10, to speak of the same thing as Jesus coming in judgment against Israel. Simple as that.

How soon was 'soon'?

Deu 4:26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
Deu 4:27 And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you.

How soon is 'at hand'?

Isa 13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
Isa 13:7 Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt:
Isa 13:8 And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.
Isa 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Isa 13:11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.


Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

Joel 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

How soon is 'quickly'?

Jos 23:15 Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
Jos 23:16 When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.

How soon is 'Now is the end come upon thee'?

Eze 7:1 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Eze 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.
Eze 7:3 Now is the end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee, and will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense upon thee all thine abominations.
Eze 7:4 And mine eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have pity: but I will recompense thy ways upon thee, and thine abominations shall be in the midst of thee: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

How son is 'it is come'?

Eze 7:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD; An evil, an only evil, behold, is come.
Eze 7:6 An end is come, the end is come: it watcheth for thee; behold, it is come.
Eze 7:7 The morning is come unto thee, O thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is near, and not the sounding again of the mountains.
Eze 7:8 Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee, and accomplish mine anger upon thee: and I will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense thee for all thine abominations.
Eze 7:9 And mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: I will recompense thee according to thy ways and thine abominations that are in the midst of thee; and ye shall know that I am the LORD that smiteth.
Eze 7:10 Behold the day, behold, it is come: the morning is gone forth; the rod hath blossomed, pride hath budded.
Eze 7:11 Violence is risen up into a rod of wickedness: none of them shall remain, nor of their multitude, nor of any of theirs: neither shall there be wailing for them.
Eze 7:12 The time is come, the day draweth near: let not the buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn: for wrath is upon all the multitude thereof.

ScottJohnson
Jan 22nd 2009, 02:40 AM
Hi Scott!

What I don't get, and no has yet given me an answer to, is this:

If this was Herod's Temple, then why would John be told to measure a Temple, that had already been measured?

Why tell John, to not measure the outer court, that has already been measured?
Of course I don't have an answer for you, Partaker. I do have a question though. Why would God want John to measure a temple that doesn't exist and one in which He has given no hint that it ever would exist?

ScottJohnson
Jan 22nd 2009, 04:56 AM
How soon was 'soon'?

Deu 4:26 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
Deu 4:27 And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you.

You do realize that this is a warning to the future people or inhabitants of the promised land for what would happen if they turn away from God's covenant. Which by the way came to pass.

How soon is 'at hand'?

Isa 13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
Isa 13:7 Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt:
Isa 13:8 And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.
Isa 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Isa 13:11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
I don't have an exact timeline for you but I believe that God destroyed the Babylonian Empire just prior to the end of Judah's seventy years of captivity.


Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

Joel 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

I don't know. It's possibly a warning about 70 AD or maybe the physical return of Christ. I'd bet money on 70 AD though.

Matthew Henry put it like this.

"This chapter is the description of a lamentable devastation made of the country of Judah by locusts and caterpillars. Some think that the prophet speaks of it as a thing to come and gives warning of it beforehand, as usually the prophets did of judgments coming. Others think that it was now present, and that his business was to affect the people with it and awaken them by it to repentance. I. It is spoken of as a judgment which there was no precedent of in former ages (Joe_1:1-7). II. All sorts of people sharing in the calamity are called upon to lament it (Joe_1:8-13). III. They are directed to look up to God in their lamentations, and to humble themselves before him (Joe_1:14-20)".

Adam Clark seems to feel that it has two meanings one mysterious and one pertaining to the Babylonian invastion.


How soon is 'quickly'?

Jos 23:15 Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you all evil things, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you.
Jos 23:16 When ye have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which he commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which he hath given unto you.

This is just another forewarning. When the people transgress. Then shall they "Perish quickly".


How soon is 'Now is the end come upon thee'?

Eze 7:1 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Eze 7:2 Also, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD unto the land of Israel; An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.
Eze 7:3 Now is the end come upon thee, and I will send mine anger upon thee, and will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense upon thee all thine abominations.
Eze 7:4 And mine eye shall not spare thee, neither will I have pity: but I will recompense thy ways upon thee, and thine abominations shall be in the midst of thee: and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

How son is 'it is come'?

Eze 7:5 Thus saith the Lord GOD; An evil, an only evil, behold, is come.
Eze 7:6 An end is come, the end is come: it watcheth for thee; behold, it is come.
Eze 7:7 The morning is come unto thee, O thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is near, and not the sounding again of the mountains.
Eze 7:8 Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee, and accomplish mine anger upon thee: and I will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense thee for all thine abominations.
Eze 7:9 And mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: I will recompense thee according to thy ways and thine abominations that are in the midst of thee; and ye shall know that I am the LORD that smiteth.
Eze 7:10 Behold the day, behold, it is come: the morning is gone forth; the rod hath blossomed, pride hath budded.
Eze 7:11 Violence is risen up into a rod of wickedness: none of them shall remain, nor of their multitude, nor of any of theirs: neither shall there be wailing for them.
Eze 7:12 The time is come, the day draweth near: let not the buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn: for wrath is upon all the multitude thereof.

A foretelling of the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. Again, I can't give you an exact timeline between the prophecy and the actual event but I'll bet it was less than 2,000 years.

third hero
Jan 22nd 2009, 04:58 AM
Of course I don't have an answer for you, Partaker. I do have a question though. Why would God want John to measure a temple that doesn't exist and one in which He has given no hint that it ever would exist?

The same reason why Ezekiel had to measure the temple in Chapters 40-48. The purpose of God having both prophets measuring the temples is so that the people can see that God is going to allow to have another temple built.

Now, Scott, you agree with me that Ezekiel's temple in the book of Ezekiel 40-48 is the description of the 2nd temple, the one that should have been built if the people of Israel would have wailed in unison when they have seen the foundation of the temple being rebuilt in Ezra.

With that said, what both prophets, Ezekiel and John the Elder, have in common is the idea that when both have "measured" the temple, it was not in existence when they did it. This would confirm the idea that a temple has to be built. (Notice that I did not call this temple, "the third temple", mainly because even though the temple will be built, it will NOT be the ACTUAL building of God. Instead, it will be a building dedicated to God, although the Judaizers will say otherwise). This furthers the idea that the writing of Revelation has to be after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

DERAIL ALERT!

When conparing the measuring of the temple in Ezekiel and that in Revelation, there seems to be a great difference. The information in Ezekiel is specific, while John's is not even defined, except for the "outer court being given to the Gentiles" thing. This suggests to me that the building will be built without an outer court. If this is the case, then it is easy to think that the Temple can be built without having the Domeo f the Rock destroyed. It also would explain why in the same chapter that John is told to measure the temple that the city in which it is placed in is called "Spiritual Sodom and Egypt".

ScottJohnson
Jan 22nd 2009, 05:56 AM
The same reason why Ezekiel had to measure the temple in Chapters 40-48. The purpose of God having both prophets measuring the temples is so that the people can see that God is going to allow to have another temple built.

Now, Scott, you agree with me that Ezekiel's temple in the book of Ezekiel 40-48 is the description of the 2nd temple, the one that should have been built if the people of Israel would have wailed in unison when they have seen the foundation of the temple being rebuilt in Ezra.

With that said, what both prophets, Ezekiel and John the Elder, have in common is the idea that when both have "measured" the temple, it was not in existence when they did it. This would confirm the idea that a temple has to be built. (Notice that I did not call this temple, "the third temple", mainly because even though the temple will be built, it will NOT be the ACTUAL building of God. Instead, it will be a building dedicated to God, although the Judaizers will say otherwise). This furthers the idea that the writing of Revelation has to be after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD.

DERAIL ALERT!

When conparing the measuring of the temple in Ezekiel and that in Revelation, there seems to be a great difference. The information in Ezekiel is specific, while John's is not even defined, except for the "outer court being given to the Gentiles" thing. This suggests to me that the building will be built without an outer court. If this is the case, then it is easy to think that the Temple can be built without having the Domeo f the Rock destroyed. It also would explain why in the same chapter that John is told to measure the temple that the city in which it is placed in is called "Spiritual Sodom and Egypt".

Yup, I do agree with you T.H. that Ezekiel is speaking of the second temple. But I don't believe that the John's motive is the same as Ezekiel's was. Similar maybe but not the same.

First off it's highly questionable that John received the Revelation after 70 AD. I'm sure that you know where I stand on the dating of Revelation so there's no need to get into a debate over that. I will concede that a third temple is on the way, in fact it's construction is taking place write now.

Matt 26:61; 1Cor 3:16; 2 Cor 6:16; Ephesians 2:19-22; Eph 4:13-16.

I believe that we are the temple and God's dwelling place is with in us. For another brick and mortar temple to be built would only fly in the face of Christ. He made the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Animal sacrifices cannot take away sin and that is exactly what a temple is for, is to sacrifice animals to God.

Ezekiel's contemporaries required a temple for the forgiveness of their sins. John's contemporaries and those beyond John, are part of a Holy Temple because Jesus Christ washed away our sins.

A third temple may or may not be built. I just don't believe that it would be built according to God's will.

moonglow
Jan 22nd 2009, 03:36 PM
Burton Coffman says this:

Measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship ...
"Temple of God" in this passage is impossible to accept as a reference to the literal Jewish temple in Jerusalem, called by the Son of God himself a "den of thieves and robbers." That an angel of God should have been concerned with having John measure that desolation (Matthew 23:38 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=mt+23:38)) is inconceivable. "It scarcely seems possible to doubt that temple here is used figuratively for the faithful portion of the Church of Christ." F8 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#8) In fact, the word here rendered temple is actually sanctuary (ASV margin), "The Greek word [nous] means the." holy house, where God dwells ... The use of [Greek: nous] here for the thing to be measured makes a literal interpretation of temple impossible." F9 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#9) "For John, the temple is the Christian Church, the people of God." F10 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#10) "This sanctuary symbolizes the true church." F11 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#11)
If any distinction is to be made between the temple and the altar, which is doubtful, it would appear to be that the altar refers to the worship itself, the doctrine and practice of the faithful portion of the church; and the temple refers to the whole body of the church.
The measuring of the "worshippers" would naturally mean the evaluation of their lifestyle, character, and behaviour by the principles taught in the word of God. Thus the corporate body of the church, its doctrine, worship, and teaching, as well as the individual character and conduct of its members would all be included in the measuring. Significantly, there have been pronounced departures from the word of God in all of these categories by the historical church.
What is the purpose of the measuring? In the Old Testament, things were "measured" either for destruction or for preservation; but the identity of what is measured here suggests that "the measuring is a symbolical way of declaring its preservation, not from physical sufferings, but from spiritual danger." F12 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#12) Hendriksen likewise concurred in the judgment that the measuring here means "the setting apart from that which is profane." F13 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#13)
This measuring by the word of God has the same purpose and effect as the sealing of the 144,000 in Rev. 7. The sealing there is done by the Holy Spirit; and the measuring here is by the word, i.e., those who are indwelt by the word (Colossians 3:16 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/desk/?query=col+3:16)). The indwelling, whether by the Spirit, or by the word, being exactly the same either way. There is no difference. See my Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, pp. 97-99. It is good to note that many scholars have seen this correspondence with the sealing. "This corresponds to the sealing in Rev. 7:1-8." F14 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#14) An important deduction from this is that:


The vision therefore declares that whatever corruptions invade the church, the kernel of the church will never be destroyed; but out of it there will arise those who will be true to the Master's commission. F15 (http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#15) This promise of protection for God's church, indicated in this vision by the "measuring," was made by the Lord himself in Matt. 28:18-20.


http://www.searchgodsword.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=11&verse=1#Re11_1

Excellent post. I agree. I am reading the Apocalypse Code by Hank Hanegraaff that covers this also. It would be an abomination to God Himself to even have a third temple built! Truly a slap in the face to Christ...saying His dying on the cross wasn't enough!

While I realize the mulsim temple on that spot is an insult to God...especially with it inscribed with 'God has no son'...it would actually be worse to have another temple built and especially scarifies to start up again. I honestly don't see that God will ever allow that to happen again. Why repeat history anyway? Why do over what has been done?


WHEN AND WHAT ARE THE "TIMES OF THE GENTILES"?
MF Blume (http://mikeblume.com/timesgen.htm)

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months . (This verse is noted because the duration of time for the Gentiles to tread Jerusalem underfoot is indicated here, and directly relates to Jesus' words in Luke 21:24 concerning the "times of the gentiles". )

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

These are the only verses that mention this issue.

Please note that Revelation 11:2 associates the times of the gentiles with destruction upon the city of Jerusalem. And it says that siege will last 3.5 years. This is precisely how long it took Rome to destroy Jerusalem, which ended in 70 AD! In Luke 21:24, Jesus also associated the times of the gentiles with the destruction of Jerusalem . Had nobody read any views of many concerning the "times of the Gentiles," no one would ever guess that such a term in the Bible is synonymous with the period of salvation for the Gentiles exclusively (with the exception of a few Jews here and there, like the early disciples). The Apostles said nothing about times of the gentiles being the church age!

Luke 21 mentions the times of the gentiles in lieu of the Jerusalem destruction, which occurred in 70AD. Jesus said that Jerusalem would be trodden down until this period is fulfilled. Jesus said those were the days of vengeance. Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies and that would signal the church to flee. So when this siege would be over, the times of the Gentiles would be completed. And Revelation 11 says the duration would be 3.5 years. Think about it. The gentiles would do the treading. And Rome indeed tread down Jerusalem for 3.5 years. And Jesus said that would be the end of the times of the gentiles.

The Romans were the Gentile power of the earth at this time.

So what is the times of the gentiles? Its the period God used Gentile nations to afflict Jerusalem! This occurred since Old Testament times.

Daniel's vision of the four gentile kingdoms (not five) spoke of the very same thing! Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and finally Rome, all afflicted Jerusalem throughout history. But it would end in 70 AD. Those years would be fulfilled in 70 AD. One of the first elements that caught my attention, and pointed me in this direction, was the discovery that Rome took precisely 3.5 years to tread down Jerusalem, and it ended in 70 AD, as Revelation 11:2 noted!

A popular interpretation of Romans 11 is highly regarded as the key chapter for the popular perspective. However, a closer look at this chapter will reveal that it, too, is referring to the days of the early church until 70 AD. Keep in mind that nowhere do the apostles teach that the "times of the gentiles" refers to the "church age", as it were, as many propose. Nowhere do they teach that God will work exclusively with Jews after Gentiles are dealt with. The church is comprised both of Jew and Gentile, and there never will be any division of those groups. God is not dealing with the Gentiles today as though the Jews are in reserve for a future dealing. the church is the last thing God is working with and it will continue to be the greatest entity in relationship to God throughout all eternity!

The church age is not some interim work to occupy the Lord while the Jews, His major concern, have been put on hold. His major concern is the Church! The Church is what has been His goal since before mankind fell into sin. The Lord Jesus was ordained to be slain on the cross for the salvation of all humanity before the world existed! It is not some Plan B, as though Plan A (Israel) failed and must be recovered.(read the rest at the link)
*********************************

God bless

sarahgrace
Jan 23rd 2009, 05:10 AM
The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (2 of 25) Intro 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjOThGeEnyc&feature=channel)

The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (3 of 25) Intro 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTlrPtJIjc&feature=channel)

You can find the links to the rest of them by scrolling down and looking on the right hand side...see the thumbnails of the video's there...find part three and so on.

Oh I forgot to say I didn't list part one cause it was just a brief introduction thing. This view is from a Partial Preterist view point too.

God bless

I seldom post but these videos definitely require a word or two....thanks for posting this! I intend to watch them all. :)

moonglow
Jan 23rd 2009, 02:31 PM
I seldom post but these videos definitely require a word or two....thanks for posting this! I intend to watch them all. :)

Sure...if nothing else it gives people a chance to see another end times view besides the one they were raised with. I realize its greatly different from the more popular end time views, but I hope you are blessed by them.

God bless

bennie
Jan 23rd 2009, 04:44 PM
Excellent post. I agree. I am reading the Apocalypse Code by Hank Hanegraaff that covers this also. It would be an abomination to God Himself to even have a third temple built! Truly a slap in the face to Christ...saying His dying on the cross wasn't enough!

While I realize the mulsim temple on that spot is an insult to God...especially with it inscribed with 'God has no son'...it would actually be worse to have another temple built and especially scarifies to start up again. I honestly don't see that God will ever allow that to happen again. Why repeat history anyway? Why do over what has been done?


WHEN AND WHAT ARE THE "TIMES OF THE GENTILES"?
MF Blume (http://mikeblume.com/timesgen.htm)

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Revelation 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months . (This verse is noted because the duration of time for the Gentiles to tread Jerusalem underfoot is indicated here, and directly relates to Jesus' words in Luke 21:24 concerning the "times of the gentiles". )

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.

These are the only verses that mention this issue.

Please note that Revelation 11:2 associates the times of the gentiles with destruction upon the city of Jerusalem. And it says that siege will last 3.5 years. This is precisely how long it took Rome to destroy Jerusalem, which ended in 70 AD! In Luke 21:24, Jesus also associated the times of the gentiles with the destruction of Jerusalem . Had nobody read any views of many concerning the "times of the Gentiles," no one would ever guess that such a term in the Bible is synonymous with the period of salvation for the Gentiles exclusively (with the exception of a few Jews here and there, like the early disciples). The Apostles said nothing about times of the gentiles being the church age!

Luke 21 mentions the times of the gentiles in lieu of the Jerusalem destruction, which occurred in 70AD. Jesus said that Jerusalem would be trodden down until this period is fulfilled. Jesus said those were the days of vengeance. Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies and that would signal the church to flee. So when this siege would be over, the times of the Gentiles would be completed. And Revelation 11 says the duration would be 3.5 years. Think about it. The gentiles would do the treading. And Rome indeed tread down Jerusalem for 3.5 years. And Jesus said that would be the end of the times of the gentiles.

The Romans were the Gentile power of the earth at this time.

So what is the times of the gentiles? Its the period God used Gentile nations to afflict Jerusalem! This occurred since Old Testament times.

Daniel's vision of the four gentile kingdoms (not five) spoke of the very same thing! Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and finally Rome, all afflicted Jerusalem throughout history. But it would end in 70 AD. Those years would be fulfilled in 70 AD. One of the first elements that caught my attention, and pointed me in this direction, was the discovery that Rome took precisely 3.5 years to tread down Jerusalem, and it ended in 70 AD, as Revelation 11:2 noted!

A popular interpretation of Romans 11 is highly regarded as the key chapter for the popular perspective. However, a closer look at this chapter will reveal that it, too, is referring to the days of the early church until 70 AD. Keep in mind that nowhere do the apostles teach that the "times of the gentiles" refers to the "church age", as it were, as many propose. Nowhere do they teach that God will work exclusively with Jews after Gentiles are dealt with. The church is comprised both of Jew and Gentile, and there never will be any division of those groups. God is not dealing with the Gentiles today as though the Jews are in reserve for a future dealing. the church is the last thing God is working with and it will continue to be the greatest entity in relationship to God throughout all eternity!

The church age is not some interim work to occupy the Lord while the Jews, His major concern, have been put on hold. His major concern is the Church! The Church is what has been His goal since before mankind fell into sin. The Lord Jesus was ordained to be slain on the cross for the salvation of all humanity before the world existed! It is not some Plan B, as though Plan A (Israel) failed and must be recovered.(read the rest at the link)
*********************************

God bless


I believe God put The Dome of the Rock right where it is now. Or God allowd it to be buit. It is a seal to show israel that they rejected Christ the last time. The temple will not be built again.

bennie

Libre
Jan 23rd 2009, 04:53 PM
Regarding the Dome of the Rock. I beleive it is there on the temple mount as a final statement that the old system is finished. As Jesus said. I don't expect the Dome to be removed as long as there are Muslims.

The idea of another Jewish temple is so repugnant to God that He would rather see Islam there. Some Jews today recognize this. God put memorials of His acts in various places to remind the Jews, down through their history. This is the final one.

(Interesting. I was writing mine while bennie was posting his!)

moonglow
Jan 23rd 2009, 05:11 PM
I believe God put The Dome of the Rock right where it is now. Or God allowd it to be buit. It is a seal to show israel that they rejected Christ the last time. The temple will not be built again.

bennie



Libre Regarding the Dome of the Rock. I beleive it is there on the temple mount as a final statement that the old system is finished. As Jesus said. I don't expect the Dome to be removed as long as there are Muslims.

The idea of another Jewish temple is so repugnant to God that He would rather see Islam there. Some Jews today recognize this. God put memorials of His acts in various places to remind the Jews, down through their history. This is the final one.

(Interesting. I was writing mine while bennie was posting his!)

I agree.

What I don't understand with any future tribulation view is why they keep saying we are on the verge of the tribulation starting when SO much has to happen first....that dome would have to be removed...probably through a major war...a new one built which could take years...a peace treaty..(which is always on the verge of happening but never does)..a red heifer being born to purify the new temple...major problems in that area...a totally pure Jewish priest of the purest Jewish bloodline to perform this ritual...one world government...considering Russia, China, North Korea and all the Islamic nations that isn't going to happen any time soon! One world currency that everyone uses..a mark to use that money...my gosh the list is SO long and not one of these things is actually happening...though always on the verge of happening...:hmm: So why keep saying the tribulation is about to start? The only fulfillment (which is based on OT scriptures and already fulfilled thousands of years ago) is Israel becoming a nation again. Since then though...none of these other things have come close to happening...though we are told they are on the verge of happening anytime now. Well I have been waiting since the 1970's and see little progress in these areas.

off my soapbox now.

God bless

Jude
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:26 PM
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/gates_of_hell-1.jpg


Does this have anything to do with this doctrine? I watched a couple of his video clips which leads me to this. If it ends up being this doctrine then its a doctrine of devils.

The serpent seed and the Kenites

Two additional distinguishing and erroneous doctrines of the Shepherd's Chapel are known as the Serpent Seed doctrine and the Kenite doctrine. These are intimately related. The Serpent Seed doctrine is the teaching that in the Garden of Eden, the serpent (the devil) had sexual relations with Eve. The result was that she bore Cain. The descendents of Cain are called Kenites. Abel, however, is the result of Adam and Eve having relations.

Arnold Murray, the pastor of the Shepherd's Chapel, is the primary advocate of these doctrines which he adamantly teaches and which his followers have adopted as biblical truth. Mr. Murray states,

When you look for the in-depth meaning of "men as trees, walking", you are able to see that Christ wants us to understand there are plantings of God and plantings of the devil. The plantings of that wicked one began in the garden of Eden with the conception of Cain and follow down through his progeny, the Kenites. (Newsletter #195, Jan 1995. See also, #202, August 1995).

The Kenites, according to Mr. Murray, must be exposed. "We must continue to teach who the Kenites are," says Mr. Murray, (Newsletter #190, August 1994). He states that the Kenites survived the flood (he denies the global flood) and are found in the lineage of Israel, not Judah, (Newsletter #179, Sept. 1993). Eventually, the Kenites permeated the nation of Israel and are the ones who shouted "Crucify Him," in reference to Jesus, (Newsletter #179, Sept. 1993).

In an attempt at biblical support, on his website at Answers to Critics, Mr. Murray states:

In Gen. 3:15 God is speaking to the serpent, "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel."

Mr. Murray infers that when God says "thy seed" to Satan, He is referring to the Kenites, the descendents of Cain which were literally produced through the literal "seed" of Satan.

Of course, I disagree with Mr. Murray in his analysis. We do not really know exactly what form Satan was in the Garden, though I will submit to God's word and affirm it was a snake of some sort. The word "serpent" is "nachash" and means serpent or snake. If we take the word literally and it means snake, then Mr. Murray would be forced to explain how a literal snake could have sexual intercourse with Eve. If Mr. Murray were to acknowledge the potential of a figurative usage of the term here, then he needs to explain why the term "serpent" would be figurative and the term "seed" would be literal. Furthermore, if the serpent were Satan in a different form, and Eve spoke to the serpent, then did Eve have sex with a snake or with a different form of the snake; that is, did the snake change into another more apropos form to consummate his deception? If so, wouldn't Eve have been suspicious of a talking snake that changes form into something else with which she then agrees to sexual intercourse? As you can see, the issue, from Mr. Murray's perspective, is wrought with problems -- none of which he has answered.

Nevertheless, his entire position is easily refuted when we examine Gen. 4:1: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord." We can see that the Bible clearly tells us who the Father of Cain is: Adam. The Serpent Seed idea is proven wrong.

In addition, I believe that it is more natural to attribute the term "seed" in Gen. 3:15 as a reference to the spiritual decedents of Satan, not his literal ones. We can see that being a true spiritual descendent is by faith, not by biology.

* "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God," (Rom. 2:28-29).
* "For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God," (Rom. 8:14).
* "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him," (Rom. 8:16).
* "That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants," (Rom. 9:8).

Clearly, being a descendent has a spiritual quality. Likewise, Satan's descendents are those who identify with him in his lies. This is why Jesus said in John 8:44 to the Pharisees, "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature; for he is a liar, and the father of lies."

In addition, "seed" is also referred to as the word of God (Matt. 13:18-23; Luke 8:11; 1 Pet. 1:23) and as the spiritual life in (1 John 3:9). The whole flavor of spiritual identification with God is included in terms of being the offspring of God (Gal. 3:29; Acts 17:28) and the children of God (Rom. 8:16-17). Consider 1 John 3:9 which says, "No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Obviously, the Christian does not contain the literal seed of God in him. Seed here, must refer to a spiritual element of indwelling, of ideology, and of faith. The Christian does not practice sin. It is against his beliefs and confession. Therefore, God's seed abides in the Christian, but it isn't literal seed as a descendent through procreation, but through spiritual identification.
Us against Them

The Serpent Seed doctrine is an unscriptural and unfortunate teaching. From it is derived an "us against them" mentality in which anyone who disagrees with Mr. Murray can easily be accused of being a Kenite. This is obvious in some of his quotes:

* "How many today are teaching from a quarterly written by a Kenite, rather than teaching from God's Word? (Newsletter #193, Nov. 1994).
* How can we sum this up? If you are doing God's will, don't worry about criticism from others. "Well, Pastor Murray they say we are a cult." Who cares what they say? God is on our side. Victory is a certainty. Does it ever seem like the enemy is winning? Anytime you get to feeling this way, turn to Psalms 9. This Psalm tells us what we should be earnestly expecting. Keep the meaning of "apokaradokia" in mind as we read this Psalm. (Newsletter #229 - November 1997).

Of course, if you study with him you are not being deceived, but if you are studying elsewhere, you're studying with a Kenite or siding with the enemy. Such are the machinations of this leader who teaches false doctrines.

Please be very wary of the Shepherd's Chapel.

http://www.carm.org/chapel/serpent_seed.htm

Libre
Jan 23rd 2009, 06:35 PM
Huh?:o

How does anyone make such a connection? Jude,this is way off topic. :note:

moonglow
Jan 23rd 2009, 07:15 PM
Jude...I watched nearly all the video's in this series now that I posted and they are about the end times. Nothing about Eve or satan in the garden. Sounds like you have this video series confused with another one. I have also read quite a bit of Ken Gentry work and nothing like what you posted as ever been brought up. His studies involve Jerusalem and what happened before and in 70 AD in relation to scriptures.

God bless

Jude
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:13 PM
Jude...I watched nearly all the video's in this series now that I posted and they are about the end times. Nothing about Eve or satan in the garden. Sounds like you have this video series confused with another one. I have also read quite a bit of Ken Gentry work and nothing like what you posted as ever been brought up. His studies involve Jerusalem and what happened before and in 70 AD in relation to scriptures.

God bless

It wasn't anything other than what I saw from his video if wrong then
I stand corrected. Living life in these last days I'd rather put a flag on
some of this doctrine being fed to the sheep than just take it with a
grain of salt. But those kids wearing those serpent seed t-shirts got
my attention, its not like I wanted to start a debate. :giveup:

Jude

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

moonglow
Jan 23rd 2009, 09:20 PM
It wasn't anything other than what I saw from his video if wrong then
I stand corrected. Living life in these last days I'd rather put a flag on
some of this doctrine being fed to the sheep than just take it with a
grain of salt. But those kids wearing those serpent seed t-shirts got
my attention, its not like I wanted to start a debate. :giveup:

Jude

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif




Oh no problems at all. :) I certainly understand your concern...
But there wasn't any pictures of kids wearing serpent T-shirts ..in fact there are no kids in any of these video's at all....its just a man talking...here look again: The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (2 of 25) Intro 1
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjOThGeEnyc&feature=channel)
Now this man talks in the first couple of them then it goes to another man talking. And that's it...just presenting another view on the end times.

I just think you have this video's series confused with some other ones.

God bless

Jude
Jan 24th 2009, 05:55 AM
Jude...I watched nearly all the video's in this series now that I posted and they are about the end times. Nothing about Eve or satan in the garden. Sounds like you have this video series confused with another one. I have also read quite a bit of Ken Gentry work and nothing like what you posted as ever been brought up. His studies involve Jerusalem and what happened before and in 70 AD in relation to scriptures.

God bless

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTlrPtJIjc&feature=related

Moonglow please ff this video to 355-400 and what do you see on the boxers tee shirts. Whenever I examine theory's I'm more skeptical of the ones that are pleasing to the ears. Remember Satan himself is can appear as an angel of light.

Jude

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

moonglow
Jan 24th 2009, 03:32 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTlrPtJIjc&feature=related

Moonglow please ff this video to 355-400 and what do you see on the boxers tee shirts. Whenever I examine theory's I'm more skeptical of the ones that are pleasing to the ears. Remember Satan himself is can appear as an angel of light.

Jude

http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

Oh ok now I see what you are talking about. You said 'kids'..like small children is how I took it and more then one, since you put an s on it. So I was thinking of a group of young children...I had no idea you meant these adult boxers ...I had totally forgotten about them too..only one has this T-shirt on too. I was looking for a group of children with these on and couldn't image what you were talking about. So thanks for posting that link so I could see what you are talking about...

The way I understand it he is using the boxers as an example to explain some bibical views and popular end time views...God and satan battling it out. As I said before there is nothing about Eve in these video's let alone Eve having sex with satan. I certainly would have not posted such a thing on the board...if I had the mods would have taken it off. Everyone knows Eve did not have sex with satan.

As he explains we are all born from Adam into sin.. We can be born again and be the children of God..not Adam.

Genesis 3:15

15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”

This is prophecies...how Christ will 'bruise' the head of satan at the cross and when He overcomes death. Its all spiritual...not physical.

David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible (http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=003)
e. He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel: Finally, God prophesies the doom of Satan, showing that the real battle is between Satan and the Seed of the Woman.

i. There is no doubt this is a prophecy of Jesus' ultimate defeat of Satan. God announces Satan would wound the Messiah (you shall bruise His heel), but the Messiah would crush Satan with a mortal wound (He shall bruise your head).

ii. The heel is the part within the serpent's reach; Jesus, in taking on humanity, brought Himself near to Satan's domain so Satan could strike Him.

iii. This prophecy also gives the first hint of the virgin birth; declaring the Messiah, the Deliverer, would be the Seed of the Woman, but not of the man.

iv. Genesis 3:15 has been called the protoevangelium, the first gospel. Luther said of this verse: "This text embraces and comprehends within itself everything noble and glorious that is to be found anywhere in the Scriptures." (Leupold)
**************************************
The Adam Clarke Commentary (http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=003)
But there is a deeper meaning in the text than even this, especially in these words, it shall bruise thy head, or rather, hu, HE; who? the seed of the woman; the person is to come by the woman, and by her alone, without the concurrence of man. Therefore the address is not to Adam and Eve, but to Eve alone; and it was in consequence of this purpose of God that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin; this, and this alone, is what is implied in the promise of the seed of the woman bruising the head of the serpent. Jesus Christ died to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and to destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. Thus he bruises his head-destroys his power and lordship over mankind, turning them from the power of Satan unto God; Acts 26:18. And Satan bruises his heel-God so ordered it, that the salvation of man could only be brought about by the death of Christ; and even the spiritual seed of our blessed Lord have the heel often bruised, as they suffer persecution, temptation, all that is intended by this part of the prophecy.
***************************************
Romans 5

Death in Adam, Life in Christ

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)

God bless