PDA

View Full Version : A thoughtful debate on preterism



markedward
May 10th 2007, 06:02 PM
I'm a preterist. Partial-preterist if you want to get technical.

But to be honest, I feel that anytime preterism is brought up in debate on this board, that it has been backed into a corner so that most people who try to defend it either answer inadequately (at least, to the standards of those who aren't preterists).

So, to those who may have questions about preterism, or wish to debate it, I am up for it. However, I put up the disclaimer that if any debate does take place, it must remain thoughtful and considerate. If I present an argument for a certain point of view, I expect the one engaged in debate to thoughtfully consider what my argument is, as opposed to ignoring it or brushing it aside, just as one should expect of me. In which case, if I present an argument, if the other side does not agree with it, I expect a full rebuttal against it, and if the other side presents an argument, I will attempt to refute it.

So... I will leave for a few minutes to allow anyone who is interested to collect their thoughts. When I return, debate can be done through the forum, or if it is more convenient, it can be done through an IM service (my profile has available IM usernames to contact me by).

There are two things to state beforehand.

1 - I do not represent the entirety of preterism. However, I have studied the Bible for a number of years and feel I can adequately defend preterism.

2 - If anyone does take on this debate, I expect them to initiate the debate and to move it forward through questions.

BeOfGoodCourage
May 10th 2007, 07:34 PM
I'm a preterist. Partial-preterist if you want to get technical.

But to be honest, I feel that anytime preterism is brought up in debate on this board, that it has been backed into a corner so that most people who try to defend it either answer inadequately (at least, to the standards of those who aren't preterists).

So, to those who may have questions about preterism, or wish to debate it, I am up for it. However, I put up the disclaimer that if any debate does take place, it must remain thoughtful and considerate. If I present an argument for a certain point of view, I expect the one engaged in debate to thoughtfully consider what my argument is, as opposed to ignoring it or brushing it aside, just as one should expect of me. In which case, if I present an argument, if the other side does not agree with it, I expect a full rebuttal against it, and if the other side presents an argument, I will attempt to refute it.

So... I will leave for a few minutes to allow anyone who is interested to collect their thoughts. When I return, debate can be done through the forum, or if it is more convenient, it can be done through an IM service.

There are two things to state beforehand.

1 - I do not represent the entirety of preterism. However, I have studied the Bible for a number of years and feel I can adequately defend preterism.

2 - If anyone does take on this debate, I expect them to initiate the debate and to move it forward through questions.


I am a realized Millennialist with strong leanings toward the partial preterist view. I think its great the way you phrased your OP and so there should be no reason for anyone, pro or con, to misunderstand the instructions for this desired debate.

If I am allowed, I would like to add my comments for the preterist view as warranted.

markedward
May 10th 2007, 08:20 PM
Agreed, but I would like to mention that all questions be directed at myself. After any answers I post, I think it would be alright for you to post additional comments as you see fit.

markedward
May 10th 2007, 08:30 PM
I also petition that the debate not be shut down by any moderators who may not agree with preterism. As Christians we should be entirely consumed with a pursuit of truth. If preterism is a feasible possibility for truth, it must be considered and not thrown to the side, regardless of what the initial reaction to it may be.

BeOfGoodCourage
May 10th 2007, 09:33 PM
I also petition that the debate not be shut down by any moderators who may not agree with preterism. As Christians we should be entirely consumed with a pursuit of truth. If preterism is a feasible possibility for truth, it must be considered and not thrown to the side, regardless of what the initial reaction to it may be.

Partial Preterism is allowed, Full Preterism is taboo.

matthew94
May 10th 2007, 09:36 PM
But to be honest, I feel that anytime preterism is brought up in debate on this board, that it has been backed into a corner so that most people who try to defend it either answer inadequately (at least, to the standards of those who aren't preterists).Interesting take. I don't spend a ton of time in this section anymore, but whenever I do I get the sense that preterists dominate (though graciously) any thread they take part in. Of course, I'm a partial preterist myself, and so am naturally impressed by such arguments. I'd reckon, though, that many non-preterists feel the opposite way you do. It seems to me a lot of the best and most thorough posters ARE partial preterists. Quanity and quality.

Anyways, didn't mean to interupt, proceed :)

BeOfGoodCourage
May 10th 2007, 09:56 PM
For the benefit of the readers, what is Partial Preterism and how does it compare to Amillennialism?

Parax
May 10th 2007, 09:57 PM
Without wishingot incur any wrath or offend anyone....what's Peterism?

markedward
May 10th 2007, 09:57 PM
Well, from what I've noticed... it seemed like a majority of the threads consist of people comparing people like Osama, Saddam, the leader of Iran with the "Beast" or the "antichrist" or 666, saying the state of Israel was prophecied, etc. And I've noticed more than once that whenever a preterist had anything to say, people ignored it as "nonsense."

markedward
May 10th 2007, 09:59 PM
Without wishingot incur any wrath or offend anyone....what's Peterism?

"Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology) which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_prophecy) concerning the Last Days (or End Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_Times)) refer to events which actually happened in the first century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_century) after Christ's birth. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning "past". Adherents of Preterism are known as Preterists. The two principal schools of Preterist thought are commonly called Partial Preterism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Preterism) and Full Preterism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Preterism)."

markedward
May 10th 2007, 10:01 PM
For the benefit of the readers, what is Partial Preterism and how does it compare to Amillennialism?

I personally hold to an amillenial view. At least, in the sense of a literal 1000 year time period.

Parax
May 10th 2007, 10:02 PM
Okay then. Here's a question - as a Preterist you are concerned with the End Times (according to the explanation links there) so how does this fit in with or affect your beliefs about the way your christian beliefs translate into what to do today or tomorrow or next week?

cwb
May 10th 2007, 10:12 PM
"Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology) which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_prophecy) concerning the Last Days (or End Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_Times)) refer to events which actually happened in the first century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_century) after Christ's birth. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning "past". Adherents of Preterism are known as Preterists. The two principal schools of Preterist thought are commonly called Partial Preterism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Preterism) and Full Preterism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Preterism)."

I have spoken to some people who say they are partial preterists who seem to believe different things. I have spoken to some who siad they believe the both the abomination of desolation Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24 and the beast in Revelation already occurred in 70 AD. Then I have spoken to some who have said that the beast of Revelation is future but the Aod happened in 70 AD. So which viewpoint is really the partial preterist viewpoint. Which do you believe? Maybe you could give some more details about your beliefs?

markedward
May 10th 2007, 10:14 PM
[Remember that while I quoted Wikipedia for an easy definition, it is not the definitive authority for things.]

For myself, in the beliefs I have, it means making the attempt to speak of truth whenever relevant with other Christians. So many Christians in today's society, at least within the US, blindly follow rather than seriously studying the Bible for themselves. As such, so many people are blind to the truth of "end-time" prophecies. I am still to live for Christ as if each day is the only day I have, but I don't allow myself to be duped by stuff in the news as "the end of the world," when in fact, the actions we hear of are nothing new compared to the history of the world. I also know enough not to expect a "secret rapture."

Parax
May 10th 2007, 10:15 PM
Seems reasonable enough.

Are you into prdicting/discerning when you think the End will happen, and if so, why do you feel this is necessary

markedward
May 10th 2007, 10:16 PM
I have spoken to some people who say they are partial preterists who seem to believe different things. I have spoken to some who siad they believe the both the abomination of desolation Jesus spoke about in Matthew 24 and the beast in Revelation already occurred in 70 AD. Then I have spoken to some who have said that the beast of Revelation is future but the Aod happened in 70 AD. So which viewpoint is really the partial preterist viewpoint. Which do you believe? Maybe you could give some more details about your beliefs?

Well, it is obvious that even partial preterists have separate viewpoints, even about preterism. No two people believe things exactly the same.

If you wish to ask me about specific details about the "end-times," or specific prophecies from the Bible in regard to the end-times, I can answer for myself, as well as be taken as a generic example for preterism as a whole.

markedward
May 10th 2007, 10:17 PM
Seems reasonable enough.

Are you into prdicting/discerning when you think the End will happen, and if so, why do you feel this is necessary

I don't claim to know when Jesus' final return/the Final Judgment will happen.

Parax
May 10th 2007, 10:20 PM
Do you think it's important to try and find out?

markedward
May 10th 2007, 10:27 PM
I think that if we were meant to know, that God would have given us a direct way to know. Even faithful Christians thought they knew the exact date, hyped up other Christians, and nothing happened. The Bible, through the book of Daniel, gave us the exact year in which Jesus' ministry would begin. However, there has been nothing in the Bible to tell us when the exact return of Jesus to judge the world would be. If God wanted us to know, He would have given us a way to know. Everything that people have used to try to find out when Jesus' final return would be has been wrong thus far, and will probably be wrong in the future as well. If we've had 2000 years to figure it out, we probably weren't meant to know.

cwb
May 10th 2007, 11:38 PM
[Remember that while I quoted Wikipedia for an easy definition, it is not the definitive authority for things.]

For myself, in the beliefs I have, it means making the attempt to speak of truth whenever relevant with other Christians. So many Christians in today's society, at least within the US, blindly follow rather than seriously studying the Bible for themselves. As such, so many people are blind to the truth of "end-time" prophecies. I am still to live for Christ as if each day is the only day I have, but I don't allow myself to be duped by stuff in the news as "the end of the world," when in fact, the actions we hear of are nothing new compared to the history of the world. I also know enough not to expect a "secret rapture."

I am just curious.I myself lean towrad being pre-trib. That being said, I would be in agreement with you that my beliefs would lead me to make an attempt to speak of truth whenever relevant with other relevant with other Christians. Also I would agree with you that we should not get duped by stuff in the news as the end of the world and that much of what we hear about in the news is nothing new compared to the history of the world.

markedward
May 10th 2007, 11:48 PM
It was obvious to me that he was speaking of those who get their eschatology from books like the left behind series.

That is what I meant. I didn't mean to say that those who are Futurists are duped. I meant to say that those who blindly use works of fiction, such as Left Behind, to use for the foundation of their belief are duped. If you came to your beliefs through reading the Bible, then you weren't "duped."

cwb
May 10th 2007, 11:59 PM
Well, it is obvious that even partial preterists have separate viewpoints, even about preterism. No two people believe things exactly the same.

If you wish to ask me about specific details about the "end-times," or specific prophecies from the Bible in regard to the end-times, I can answer for myself, as well as be taken as a generic example for preterism as a whole.

I know that some partial preterists believe that there is nothing left to come other than the reurn of chirst. Is that what you believe? What about the book of Revelation. Do you believe that everything (except the return) already happened in 70 ad or do you believe some htings are still to occur?

quiet dove
May 11th 2007, 12:05 AM
I also petition that the debate not be shut down by any moderators who may not agree with preterism. As Christians we should be entirely consumed with a pursuit of truth. If preterism is a feasible possibility for truth, it must be considered and not thrown to the side, regardless of what the initial reaction to it may be.

Moderators do not shut threads down based on their personal views, and the topic agreeing or disagreeing with them, there is no need for that concern.:)

BeOfGoodCourage is correct in that full preterism is against forum policy.:)

markedward
May 11th 2007, 12:26 AM
I know that some partial preterists believe that there is nothing left to come other than the reurn of chirst. Is that what you believe? What about the book of Revelation. Do you believe that everything (except the return) already happened in 70 ad or do you believe some htings are still to occur?

I believe, at least in reference to the Revelation, we have from Revelation 20:7 and onward that remains.

RogerW
May 11th 2007, 04:26 AM
I was for awhile leaning toward the partial preterist view without understanding fully what that view expressed. My trouble with the view arose when I realized that the pp looks at the passages of Scripture that speak of the nearness of the kingdom, or the kingdom being at hand as applying strictly to the generation living at that specific time, i.e. the time of Christ. The argument, which is a good one is that this term does not fit a fulfillment some 2000 plus years into the future. My argument is that this term equally does not fit some 40 to 70 years into the future. When you look at the definition of "nearness of the kingdom" or the "kingdom being at hand" it is always defined in an immediate sense, meaning within hours, perhaps days, how do you respond? Another problem I find is how the pp applies "this generation" to only the generation living then, and they fail to make a distinction of when Christ is speaking to the Jewish nation, or to His disciples. Again, how would you respond?

RW

markedward
May 11th 2007, 04:53 AM
I myself used to be a futurist, but I researched more and came to what I believe are the proper conclusions.

In reponse to the urgency of the prophecies:

The book of Daniel contains many prophecies about the "end of the age." When Daniel was finished writing his prophecies, he was told to "seal them up until the end of the age." By Jesus' time, the book of Daniel was well-known and could be quoted by memory. Meaning: the end of the age was at hand. Also, the Gospels only quote Jesus in His "this generation will see the end of the age" statements. Although Jesus stated that His generation would see the end, it was the epistles that created the sense of urgency to Jesus' message. The epistles were written between the 50's and 60's AD, as was the Revelation. Prophecies within the Revelation were already taking place, or at least would begin taking place within the very year it was written and continue onward. After all, John says that "five kings have passed, one reigns now, and seventh will come, though his reign will be short." Considering the epistles were written just prior to the prophecies, and the prophecies were written with the statement that certain events were happening at the very time it was written, and that the others would commence shortly thereafter, it is quite obvious that there was much less than a "40-50 year gap" in between the prophecies saying "soon" and when they actually took place during the 60's and early 70's.

And aside from that, if you do think that a matter of a decade or less makes it not "soon," then surely 2000+ years would be even less "soon," right?

In response to the "generation" question.

Jesus said "I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass before these things take place." He said "this" generation. "This" does not mean "that," as if he were referring to some far off generation in the future. Jesus' disciples said, "What will be the signs of the end?" And He said, "I tell YOU the truth." The disciples asked Him a question, and He answered them. As for the "generation." Jesus often referenced "this generation" in the Gospels, and each time He was always speaking directly about His generation, not His Jewish nation of people. Another occasion, the Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign, to which Jesus replies (using the same word for "generation" as He always had)," A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign." Obviously Jesus wasn't saying "A wicked and adulterous nation," as not all Jews of all time are "wicked and adulterous." Jesus was referring to His own generation when He called it "wicked and adulterous." And aside from that, the Greek word "genea" was always used to mean "a whole multitude of people living at the same time," and this is the precise word used in the Gospels. The word for "race" (or what could be construed as "nation" in referrence to the Jews as a whole) was "genos." The Gospel writers were not unfamiliar with the proper word-usage when they wrote the Gospels down.

third hero
May 11th 2007, 03:10 PM
I myself used to be a futurist, but I researched more and came to what I believe are the proper conclusions.

In reponse to the urgency of the prophecies:

The book of Daniel contains many prophecies about the "end of the age." When Daniel was finished writing his prophecies, he was told to "seal them up until the end of the age." By Jesus' time, the book of Daniel was well-known and could be quoted by memory. Meaning: the end of the age was at hand. Also, the Gospels only quote Jesus in His "this generation will see the end of the age" statements. Although Jesus stated that His generation would see the end, it was the epistles that created the sense of urgency to Jesus' message. The epistles were written between the 50's and 60's AD, as was the Revelation. Prophecies within the Revelation were already taking place, or at least would begin taking place within the very year it was written and continue onward. After all, John says that "five kings have passed, one reigns now, and seventh will come, though his reign will be short." Considering the epistles were written just prior to the prophecies, and the prophecies were written with the statement that certain events were happening at the very time it was written, and that the others would commence shortly thereafter, it is quite obvious that there was much less than a "40-50 year gap" in between the prophecies saying "soon" and when they actually took place during the 60's and early 70's.

So, according to you, Tidus was the Antichrist, since he was the eighth king. But the problem is this, Tidus was not exterminated by the return of the Lord, as Daniel 7 and Revelation 19 proclaims the fate of the little horn is.


And aside from that, if you do think that a matter of a decade or less makes it not "soon," then surely 2000+ years would be even less "soon," right?

I do not interpret the urgency of the epistles in the same light that you do. I see the urgency of the disciples is as they realize that those who do not get that message will ulimately have no hope of salvation, and that they, meaning first the Israelites and then the rest of the world, as Peter was receiving visions and knowledge from the Lord concerning the spreading of the Gospel, will suffer the fate of hell, then judgment, and then the horrible Lake of Fire. Anyone with a shred of compassion for others will have that sense of urgency as well. Besides, they were only following the instructions of CHrist before He ascended to heaven.


In response to the "generation" question.

Jesus said "I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass before these things take place." He said "this" generation. "This" does not mean "that," as if he were referring to some far off generation in the future. Jesus' disciples said, "What will be the signs of the end?" And He said, "I tell YOU the truth." The disciples asked Him a question, and He answered them. As for the "generation." Jesus often referenced "this generation" in the Gospels, and each time He was always speaking directly about His generation, not His Jewish nation of people. Another occasion, the Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign, to which Jesus replies (using the same word for "generation" as He always had)," A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign." Obviously Jesus wasn't saying "A wicked and adulterous nation," as not all Jews of all time are "wicked and adulterous." Jesus was referring to His own generation when He called it "wicked and adulterous." And aside from that, the Greek word "genea" was always used to mean "a whole multitude of people living at the same time," and this is the precise word used in the Gospels. The word for "race" (or what could be construed as "nation" in referrence to the Jews as a whole) was "genos." The Gospel writers were not unfamiliar with the proper word-usage when they wrote the Gospels down.

I present to you, Luke 17.

Verse 22
And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see [it]. (v 23)And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after [them], nor follow [them]. (v 24)For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one [part] under heaven, shineth unto the other [part] under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. (v 25)But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this generation.

I also present to you, Acts 1:6-8
When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth

Jesus tells them that they will want to see the coming of the Son of Man, and they shall not see it. He told them at that point that He is not coming back in their lifetimes. He reiterates to them to not worry about the time that God will restore the Kingdom of Israel, but rather, go forth and proclaim the Gospel, for His kingdom is truly at hand.

I have read the idea of the term, "at hand" being immediate. This I agree, not to the way that the partial preterists are expounding on it, but in another direction. I see the Kingdom as always being at hand. To the unbeliever, it is so close to them that all they need to do is repent of their sins and bow to Christ and proclaim Him their resurrected Lord and Savior, and the kingdom of God is in them. Isn't that what Christ said in Luke 17?

LUke 17:20
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

Jesus is right, the Kingdom of God is not come by observation. It comes by faith, and faith alone.

markedward
May 11th 2007, 03:40 PM
You made a large post. Yet... it's somewhat confusing to discern what questions were meant to be directed at me. Instead of bulking up arguments at me, and putting words in my mouth (I have said nothing up to this point about Titus), if you would like to stop for a moment. If you could please read the original post, this is meant to be a debate. As in, you present questions to me to defend (a small number of questions at a time, please). You, however, only managed to write a lengthy post, which is not the intended manner of this debate, and you attributed words to me that I did not say anything about yet, which is just rude. Please change your approach to the debate, otherwise, I must, in all respect, ask you to step away from it, as I am under the impression you don't sincerely wish to learn from the debate, but that you rather wish to simply pile me under your own beliefs. This thread is meant to be question and answer, not a sermon.

cwb
May 11th 2007, 03:57 PM
I believe, at least in reference to the Revelation, we have from Revelation 20:7 and onward that remains.

Jesus Christ destroys the beast at His second coming in Revelation 19. It seems inconsistent to me for you to say that the beast already happened in the past but the second coming is future (if that is what you are saying).

markedward
May 11th 2007, 04:14 PM
When the thousand years come to an end, Satan will be let out of his prison. He will go out to deceive the nations—called Gog and Magog—in every corner of the earth. He will gather them together for battle—a mighty army, as numberless as sand along the seashore. And I saw them as they went up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded God’s people and the beloved city. But fire from heaven came down on the attacking armies and consumed them. Then the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.I believe we're currently in the "thousand years," and that we are waiting for Christ to return. I'll assume you're asking me about the "thousand years," correct?

RogerW
May 11th 2007, 04:20 PM
I myself used to be a futurist, but I researched more and came to what I believe are the proper conclusions.

In reponse to the urgency of the prophecies:

The book of Daniel contains many prophecies about the "end of the age." When Daniel was finished writing his prophecies, he was told to "seal them up until the end of the age." By Jesus' time, the book of Daniel was well-known and could be quoted by memory. Meaning: the end of the age was at hand. Also, the Gospels only quote Jesus in His "this generation will see the end of the age" statements. Although Jesus stated that His generation would see the end, it was the epistles that created the sense of urgency to Jesus' message.

I agree that by Jesus' time the end of an age was at hand. But the beginning of an age was also at hand. What age (era) is that?



The epistles were written between the 50's and 60's AD, as was the Revelation. Prophecies within the Revelation were already taking place, or at least would begin taking place within the very year it was written and continue onward. After all, John says that "five kings have passed, one reigns now, and seventh will come, though his reign will be short."

I do not agree with you that the book of Revelation was written prior to the 90's. For arguments sake lets say it was. What prophecies within the Revelation were already taking place? How do you know the kings of Rev 17 speak of Roman Emperors? Kings in Revelation can be reference to kings of the earth, kings and priests unto God, even the king of the bottomless pit. What makes you certain that these kings, of whom some have fallen, and others are not yet are Roman rulers? If these kings represent Roman rule, who is the woman, called a great city who rules over the kings of the earth (Rev 17:18)?



Considering the epistles were written just prior to the prophecies, and the prophecies were written with the statement that certain events were happening at the very time it was written, and that the others would commence shortly thereafter, it is quite obvious that there was much less than a "40-50 year gap" in between the prophecies saying "soon" and when they actually took place during the 60's and early 70's.

What event(s) was happening at the very time the epistles were written? You have yet to show how the pp view translates near, and at hand in an immediate sense, i.e. without ANY delay, as used throughout Scripture.



And aside from that, if you do think that a matter of a decade or less makes it not "soon," then surely 2000+ years would be even less "soon," right?

I agree that 2000 plus years does not fit the definition for near, and at hand as used in Scripture. What you fail to acknowledge is that neither does even ten years fit the urgency of the fulfillment of the prophesy. You MUST show what is near, or at hand, because it cannot be the Second Coming that you argue occurs in AD 70, and it cannot be the Second Coming that has yet to come 2000 plus years after the prophesy. Neither of these fit the urgency for near, or at hand.



In response to the "generation" question.

Jesus said "I tell you the truth, this generation will not pass before these things take place." He said "this" generation. "This" does not mean "that," as if he were referring to some far off generation in the future. Jesus' disciples said, "What will be the signs of the end?" And He said, "I tell YOU the truth." The disciples asked Him a question, and He answered them. As for the "generation." Jesus often referenced "this generation" in the Gospels, and each time He was always speaking directly about His generation, not His Jewish nation of people. Another occasion, the Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign, to which Jesus replies (using the same word for "generation" as He always had)," A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign." Obviously Jesus wasn't saying "A wicked and adulterous nation," as not all Jews of all time are "wicked and adulterous." Jesus was referring to His own generation when He called it "wicked and adulterous." And aside from that, the Greek word "genea" was always used to mean "a whole multitude of people living at the same time," and this is the precise word used in the Gospels. The word for "race" (or what could be construed as "nation" in referrence to the Jews as a whole) was "genos." The Gospel writers were not unfamiliar with the proper word-usage when they wrote the Gospels down.

My response will be viewed as repetitious by some here, but since I have already discussed the meaning of generation in another thread, I hope you and others won't mind that I have copied and pasted it again here.

Ac 8:33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. What generation is in view here? I believe it is the generation of the upright we find in Ps 112.
Ps 112:2 His seed shall be mighty upon earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed.

Compare this generation to the generation of the unrighteous.

Pr 30:11 There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
Pr 30:12 There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
Pr 30:13 There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
Pr 30:14 There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

What is Christ the Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, and first and last of?

Re 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

There are only three times in Scripture where generation has been translated from the Greek word Genesis, which means beginning, first. Here in Mt 1:1 speaking of the Lord’s birth, and then twice in James where it is translated natural, of nature. The Greek word Genesis comes from the Greek word Genea, but Genesis defines Christ’s birth (nativity), and nature or natural generation. I believe that all who are in Christ become grafted into the nature of Christ, the natural or true.

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" (Mt 1:1). 1078. Genesis; nativity; figuratively, nature:--generation, nature(-ral).

Jas 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his [natural] face in a glass:

Jas 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course [of nature]; and it is set on fire of hell.

"Unto all generations for ever and ever" (Eph 3:21) (Greek "all the generations of the age of the ages"). 1074. Genea; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time. Here it is said that there will be glory in the church throughout all generations, world without end.

"Hid for (Greek "from the") ages and (from the) generations" (Col 1:26). 1074. Genea; a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time. Here something (a mystery) had been hidden from past generations. The mystery we now know is that salvation has come unto the elect Gentiles, the chosen, or natural generation, of which every believer becomes after the cross.
Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse [nation 1074], among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Here we find sons of God in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation.
When the passage speaks specifically to the Jewish Nation the word “this” is always translated from the Greek word taute followed by generation. In the Olivet discourse the word “this” has been translated from the Greek word houtos followed by generation. This is easily verified by searching the Concordance for “this generation.” Why, if in every reference to that particular people (the Jews) “this” has been translated from taute, would a different Greek word (houtos) be used to translate “this” generation in the Olivet discourse? If the passage “this generation” is speaking specifically to those first century Jews it makes no sense to suddenly find the translation comes from a different Greek word when every other instance where “this generation” is specifically to them it has been translated from another Greek word. To say “this generation” implies those Jews living at that time in the discourse, causes confusion, and inconsistency. If Christ was speaking only to the Jewish Nation then the same Greek word which has consistently been used throughout Scripture would have been used here as well.

5026 Taute; dative case, accusative case and genitive case respectively of the feminine singular of 3778; (towards or of) this:--her, + hereof, it, that, + thereby, the (same), this (same).

3778 Houtos; from the article 3588 and 846; the he (she or it), i.e. this or that (often with article repeated):--he (it was that), hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this (man, same, woman), which, who. (I've highlighted this or that to show "that" could also be in view, since you stated "this" does not mean "that")

Lu 17:25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of [(this) 5026 taute] generation. (speaks of a singular generation, specifically the Jewish nation; this, that)
Lu 21:32 Verily I say unto you, [(This) 3778 houtos] generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. (or that)

Mr 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth [(this) 3778 houtos] generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto [(this) 5026 taute] generation. Christ is asking why doth this houtos (the same as the generation that will not pass away until Christ comes again). Then Christ says this taute (the same generation that reject Him, and kill Him) will be given no sign.
Mr 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that [(this) 3778 houtos] generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Mt 24:34 Verily I say unto you, [(This) houtos] generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Since it makes no sense to say Christ is speaking only to the Jewish Nation, what generation Christ is speaking to. Since the Jewish Nation is the generation of vipers (Lu 3:7), we are left with the generation of Christ, or the generation of the Kingdom age. Christ, speaking to His disciples, who are Jews, is first and foremost speaking to His elect generation, which will consist of every generation throughout the Kingdom age, and telling them that this elect generation, or the elect people of God will not pass away until His literal Second Coming, or all things have been fulfilled. The Olivet discourse speaks of not only things that will literally come to pass for the Jewish Nation, but Christ is also speaking to His first century disciples whom He has hand picked to build His Kingdom through the universal church in time.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

RW

BeOfGoodCourage
May 11th 2007, 04:23 PM
You made a large post. Yet... it's somewhat confusing to discern what questions were meant to be directed at me. Instead of bulking up arguments at me, and putting words in my mouth (I have said nothing up to this point about Titus), if you would like to stop for a moment. If you could please read the original post, this is meant to be a debate. As in, you present questions to me to defend (a small number of questions at a time, please). You, however, only managed to write a lengthy post, which is not the intended manner of this debate, and you attributed words to me that I did not say anything about yet, which is just rude. Please change your approach to the debate, otherwise, I must, in all respect, ask you to step away from it, as I am under the impression you don't sincerely wish to learn from the debate, but that you rather wish to simply pile me under your own beliefs. This thread is meant to be question and answer, not a sermon.

Amen! Please continue in your respectful approach.

RogerW
May 11th 2007, 04:31 PM
Amen! Please continue in your respectful approach.

I too very much appreciate that we are brothers/sisters in Christ, and these differences can be addressed without hostility or degradation.

RW

markedward
May 11th 2007, 04:33 PM
I do not interpret the urgency of the epistles in the same light that you do. I see the urgency of the disciples is as they realize that those who do not get that message will ulimately have no hope of salvation, and that they, meaning first the Israelites and then the rest of the world, as Peter was receiving visions and knowledge from the Lord concerning the spreading of the Gospel, will suffer the fate of hell, then judgment, and then the horrible Lake of Fire. Anyone with a shred of compassion for others will have that sense of urgency as well. Besides, they were only following the instructions of CHrist before He ascended to heaven.

While your post is hard for me to derive any questions from, this is the most solid point on which I can bring a reply for. Other than that, I must admit that your post was simply too long for me to find anything to reply to. Again, if you could please crop it down and form it into a question or a small number of questions.

Now. Although you may "interpret it in a different light," most, if not all, Bible scholars [scholars meaning they devote their whole lives to studying Scripture, and they know more about it than you or I] agree that the New Testament has a definite sense of urgency, and that the authors of the apistles most definitely believed the "end of the age" was in their own time period. Even famous futurist Tim LaHaye believes that the 1st-century disciples believed in a soon-to-come judgment:

"The apostles and first century church universally expected His return in their lifetime, which is why they were so motivated to live holy lives and so dedicated to evangelism and reaching the world for Christ." ("The Signs of the Times Imply His Coming," in 10 Reasons Why Jesus is Coming Soon: Ten Christian Leaders Share Their Thoughts: Multnomah, p. 191)

I understand your point of view that the early church had a sense of urgency within the epistles on getting saved, but those instances within the epistles are entirely different from the urgency on a soon-to-come judgment.

These verses show a sense of urgency to become saved.


And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone. Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.


In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.

These verses, however, show a sense of urgency of a coming judgment, of some incredible event or series of events about to unfold.


Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe.


Dear children, the last hour is here. You have heard that the Antichrist is coming, and already many such antichrists have appeared. From this we know that the last hour has come.


The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. May the grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.


And they speak of how you are looking forward to the coming of God’s Son from heaven—Jesus, whom God raised from the dead. He is the one who has rescued us from the terrors of the coming judgment.


In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

There is an obvious difference between the epistles having a sense of urgency on being saved and not being idle to accept the Messiah, and of the urgency of some sort of unimaginable event on its way.

markedward
May 11th 2007, 05:10 PM
I agree that by Jesus' time the end of an age was at hand. But the beginning of an age was also at hand. What age (era) is that?So, as you know the prophecies were about the "end of the age" (which, oftentimes, may mistakenly be translated to "end of time" or "end of the world"). The age that is ending, as they prophecied, was the Mosaic Age, and the age that was coming over it was the Messianic Age. As anyone can surely tell, there is a difference between the way God's followers handled their sin before Christ (sacrificing a lamb on a regular basis) and how His followers handled their sin after Christ (simply accepting Christ's salvation). The epistles constantly speak of an Old Covenant (the Mosaic Age), and a New Covenant (the Messianic Age). The Revelation speaks of how Christ's followers sing a "new song." What is the new song, and if it is the "new" one, there must be an old one, right? The "old song" would thusly be the Mosaic Covenant/Age, and the "new song" would thusly be the Messianic Covenant/Age.


I do not agree with you that the book of Revelation was written prior to the 90's. For arguments sake lets say it was. What prophecies within the Revelation were already taking place? How do you know the kings of Rev 17 speak of Roman Emperors? Kings in Revelation can be reference to kings of the earth, kings and priests unto God, even the king of the bottomless pit. What makes you certain that these kings, of whom some have fallen, and others are not yet are Roman rulers? If these kings represent Roman rule, who is the woman, called a great city who rules over the kings of the earth (Rev 17:18)?
Preterism calls for the belief that the Book of Revelation was written during the mid-60's AD, as I'm sure you know. Internal evidence of Revelation supports this view. In response to the "kings" theory, though the wording may indeed be construed to mean "spiritual" kings... why does that possible definition mean that physical earthly kings are absolutely out of the question? John states he was exiled to the island of Patmos (mind you, Patmos was not a barren island, but a bustling centerpoint between Rome and the rest of Asia Minor). He states that of the kings, the sixth "rules now." If we compare the "kings" to the Roman emperors: 1 - Julius Caesar (though he may not have been titled "emperor," he was indeed the undisputed "dictator for life" over the Roman world, as appointed by the senate), 2 - Augustus, 3 - Tiberius, 4 - Caligula, 5 - Claudius. John said that "five have fallen." If the Revelation was written in the mid-60's, during the Christian persecution, then obviously five Roman rulers had already ruled and died. "The sixth is" Nero, the sixth ruler of the Empire, and the one who began the Christian persecution. Also, you've no doubt heard the argument that the "number of a man, which is 666" (or 616 depending on your version) has been attributed to Nero, correct? Without going to deeply on the number itself, unless you wish me to, this number can only refer to Nero. Aside from the use of gematria, let's look at the rest of the wording. "Let one with understanding and wisdom solve the meaning of the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man." Now, continuing on with the idea that the Revelation was written within the 60's AD, and that the Revelation was about events taking place within the 60's and 70's, and the fact that the Revelation was addressed as a letter to seven churches, then we should rightly assume that the Revelation was written to the people of John's time, to warn them of the coming events, to warn them to remain faithful despite the persecution they would endure. If that is so, then they could, as first-century people, could rightly discern the meaning of the number 666, because not only was the practice of "gematria" common in the first-century, but it was relevent to them who the number would refer to. However, if the number of 666 was meant to refer to "a man" that lived 2000+ years after them, then John, and in turn Jesus, as the one who was revealing this vision to John, would only succeed in confusing and instilling false hope within those who lived in the first century. Obviously those who lived in the first-century could not "solve the meaning" of the number of a man if the man wouldn't be alive for another two millenia. As such, the idea that the 666 number applies to anyone other than someone they could easily identify within the first century is a false promise. If Jesus, through John's Revelation, said that the first-century believers could use wisdom and understanding to determine the number's meaning and the man it was attributed to, then that man must have lived within the first-century as well.

The "woman" who rides the beast is called a "harlot" or "prostitute," and is also called "Babylon." She is drunken with the "blood of the saints." Comparing Scripture to Scripture is a vital process of unveiling the symbolism and metaphors and prophetic imagery within the Revelation. So, in comparing the Revelation "harlot Babylon" to the Old Testament, what do we find? First, go back to your Bible and read the description of the clothing the "harlot" wears. If it sounds familiar, go back to Exodus 28:4-14. The "harlot" is wearing the same clothes as the Temple priests were to wear. Also, if you read the prophetic books of Ezekiel and in Isaiah. "Babylon" was a named given to sinful Jerusalem in the OT. Occasionally, Jerusalem was even called a "harlot." In comparing the Bible to the Bible, the harlot of the Revelation is obviously meant to represent the unrepentant Jerusalem, that is, it represents those who claimed to follow God, but instead killed the Son of God, their very own Messiah. The fact that she is "drunk with the blood of the saints" also gives evidence to this, as the early Christian church was persecuted by the Jewish leadership (this is evident as early as Acts, with the martyrdom of Stephen).


What event(s) was happening at the very time the epistles were written? You have yet to show how the pp view translates near, and at hand in an immediate sense, i.e. without ANY delay, as used throughout Scripture.Please read the previous post I have made on the sense of urgency throughout the epistles and Revelation.



I agree that 2000 plus years does not fit the definition for near, and at hand as used in Scripture. What you fail to acknowledge is that neither does even ten years fit the urgency of the fulfillment of the prophesy. You MUST show what is near, or at hand, because it cannot be the Second Coming that you argue occurs in AD 70, and it cannot be the Second Coming that has yet to come 2000 plus years after the prophesy. Neither of these fit the urgency for near, or at hand.
Of course. As I stated above, John was writing the Revelation during the time period of Nero's persecution of the Christians. John referred to Nero as the "sixth king who is now." He also stated that the beast of the sea of Revelation 13 had power over the holy people for 42 months. Nero's persecution of the Christians began in late 64 AD, and lasted to his death, 42 months later in mid-68 AD. Certain prophecies that John was writing down were happening as he wrote them, so there was no delay to his prophecies, as they were taking place during the very days he wrote of them. Not all of the prophecies he wrote down happened all at once, but they had already started their course by the time he penned them.




Since it makes no sense to say Christ is speaking only to the Jewish Nation, what generation Christ is speaking to. Since the Jewish Nation is the generation of vipers (Lu 3:7), we are left with the generation of Christ, or the generation of the Kingdom age. Christ, speaking to His disciples, who are Jews, is first and foremost speaking to His elect generation, which will consist of every generation throughout the Kingdom age, and telling them that this elect generation, or the elect people of God will not pass away until His literal Second Coming, or all things have been fulfilled. The Olivet discourse speaks of not only things that will literally come to pass for the Jewish Nation, but Christ is also speaking to His first century disciples whom He has hand picked to build His Kingdom through the universal church in time.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
1Pe 2:10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.


While I can understand what you're saying here, not all of it makes sense. First of all, the 1 Peter verses you quoted aren't necessarily linked to the distinction of Jesus' remarks about "this generation." Secondly, it is quite possible people often read into the text more than is really there. Not to go into anything too deeply but, say you found a piece of paper on the ground in front your closet, and it said, "I came out of the closet." Now, in the context of where you found it and what it said, the most obvious and literal meaning is that someone was in a closet, walked out, and wrote down that they had just come out of a closet. However, if you were to take this paper, and give it to your friends, no doubt somewhere along the line, someone is going to read to much into the sentence and assume that whoever wrote it meant more than that they had simply walked out of a physical closet. But, when it comes right down to it, all you have is what was written and the context in which it was written (right outside of an actual closet). Jesus was outside of the Jerusalem temple, His disciples were pointing out the temple, His disciples were asking Him questions about the "end of the age," and Jesus responded to them by saying, "THIS temple. THIS generation. YOU will see the kingdom coming. YOU will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven." To read to much into it simply misconstrues the plain and simple meaning. Jesus wasn't trying to use any prophetic symbolism as the Revelation did. He was being outright and forward.

However, I don't want to get too tangled up on a single point. If we simply don't agree on the "generation" argument, perhaps we should leave it for now and move onto another point, eh?

BeOfGoodCourage
May 11th 2007, 06:30 PM
The "woman" who rides the beast is called a "harlot" or "prostitute," and is also called "Babylon." She is drunken with the "blood of the saints." Comparing Scripture to Scripture is a vital process of unveiling the symbolism and metaphors and prophetic imagery within the Revelation. So, in comparing the Revelation "harlot Babylon" to the Old Testament, what do we find? First, go back to your Bible and read the description of the clothing the "harlot" wears. If it sounds familiar, go back to Exodus 28:4-14. The "harlot" is wearing the same clothes as the Temple priests were to wear. Also, if you read the prophetic books of Ezekiel and in Isaiah. "Babylon" was a named given to sinful Jerusalem in the OT. Occasionally, Jerusalem was even called a "harlot." In comparing the Bible to the Bible, the harlot of the Revelation is obviously meant to represent the unrepentant Jerusalem, that is, it represents those who claimed to follow God, but instead killed the Son of God, their very own Messiah. The fact that she is "drunk with the blood of the saints" also gives evidence to this, as the early Christian church was persecuted by the Jewish leadership (this is evident as early as Acts, with the martyrdom of Stephen).



I agree with this. I have written a commentary on this fact and have posted it in this forum. Babylon can only be Jerusalem and is the only city ascribed to be the bride who turned to harlotry. It is not well received, but it is biblical and has all the Scriptural proof required.

Keep up the good work in your presentation.

markedward
May 11th 2007, 06:39 PM
It is not well received, but it is biblical and has all the Scriptural proof required.
Sadly this is true.

I would like to point out that the common argument against the Revelation being a set of prophecies against the unrepentent Jews of the first-century is commonly regarded as anti-Semitic.

HOWEVER, to deny it is simply wrongful. Read the Old Testament. Read the Chronicles, and the Prophets. Ever notice something? God is conditional with His promised-land. He tells the Jews that if they are obedient to Him, He will shower them with peace and with prosperity. He tells them that if they are not obedient to Him, He will take away their prosperity and send nations against them as punishment. The most well-known example is that of the Babylonians. The Old Testament verifies that God sent the Babylonian Empire to take over the Jews because they were a sinful nation. And when the Jews finally came to their senses, God allowed them to return to Jerusalem to rebuild their temple. Simply put, God rewards His followers for goodness, and He punishes them for their wrongdoings. This is not anti-Semitic if the Tanakh itself, written by Jews, states this. So, in relation to the Revelation, the Jews did wrong against God, namely, the crucified and denied their own Messiah, so God justly sent punishment upon the Jews through the hands of the Romans, and He took away Israel from them. This is no different than God sending punishment through the hands of the Babylonians and taking Israel away from them. To deny it is to deny God's promise to them. He promised to reward them for their goodness, and He promised to punish them for their wickedness.

(And, of course, God is not punishing ALL of the Jews. If you read the OT, God did spare certain Jews from the harsh treatment of the overbearing nations. A good example is Daniel himself. Though his nation was taken over and harshly treated, Daniel and his friends were faithful to God and thusly prospered, even under the harsh hands of the Babylonians.)

cwb
May 11th 2007, 06:46 PM
My question was never answered. The beast of Revelation is detroyed when Jesus christ returns from heaven with His armies in Rev. 19. How to partial preterists say they believe the second coming of Christ is yet in the future but the part of Revealtion speaking of the beast already happened in the first century? Also who do you believe the beast was in the first century?

markedward
May 11th 2007, 06:53 PM
I apologize.

Revelation 19:17-21, right?

This is not defining a physical battle between Jesus and the nations of the earth. This is a view into the spiritual. It is a vision of the spiritual defiance of the beast, Rome, and the false prophet, the unbelieving Jews. This is a vision of those who defied Jesus in life being condemned in their death. It is a vision of God’s promise that all who persecute Jesus and His people will reap what they sow.

I admit this argument is not a strong one alone, for it is dependent on how the rest of Revelation is interpreted. So, until I can more properly explain points related to earlier verses in Revelation, this one is simply hanging by a thread. However, while this argument I have presented is a weak point on its own, when it stands with the rest of my arguments it is certainly feasible. Just a warning to not assume this brings the entirety of preterism down.

Now, in response to the identity of the beast.

The beast of the sea of chapter 13, correct?


Then I saw a beast rising up out of the sea. It had seven heads and ten horns, with ten crowns on its horns. And written on each head were names that blasphemed God. This beast looked like a leopard, but it had the feet of a bear and the mouth of a lion! And the dragon gave the beast his own power and throne and great authority.

Look at the description. Compare it to Daniel's four beast of Daniel 7. This beast of Revelation takes on the same characteristics as all four beasts of Daniel's vision. It is comprised of the main points of the fourth beast (ten horns), but it also contains attributes of the other three beasts. As should be obvious to most who studied Daniel, the first three beasts (as well as the statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream) represent sequential empires, each taking over the previous one's territories: the Babylonians, the Medo-Persians, and the Greeks. The fourth beast, Rome, follows the Greek empire. The fact that the Roman one is set apart is because it is comprised of much of the three previous empires, but it is also the most terrifying.

Note the seven "heads." If you read Revelation 17, it states that the "heads" of the beast are seven hills. Rome is commonly known as "la città dei sett colli," or "the city of seven hills." Now, in the assumption that the beast from Revelation 13 dually represents both Rome as a whole as well as the Emperor Nero, let's look at the "wounding" of the beast. Now, the one of the beast's heads is wounded. This is saying something happened to the city of Rome itself. During Nero's reign, part of Rome caught fire, and it made it into the history books as "the great fire of Rome." Much of the city of Rome was damaged. But in all high hopes, Nero paid for relief efforts out of his own pocket, and the city was rebuilt even better than before (the wound was healed). Revelation 13 says that, in turn, people practically worshiped the beast, and that even a statue was built in his honor. During relief efforts for the fire, Nero had a statue built of himself, more than a hundred feet tall, and demanded people worship him as a savior and god. Revelation 13 also says that the beast, after the miraculous healing, was able to wage for on God's holy people for 42 months. As I stated before, Nero's persecution of the Christians began in late 64 AD, and ended with his death in mid-68 AD, 42 months later.

Other verses within Revelation point to Nero as the emperor who ruled during the time the Revelation was written. the 666/616 directly refers to "Nero Caeser" by name, and the fact that he was the sixth ruler of the Roman empire matches him directly with the "sixth king rules now" statement.

Also, the Revelation, which was written to people of John's own time, says that they can identify the man who belongs to the number 666/616. If the man the number refers to wouldn't even be alive for another two millenia, then it can be said that Jesus, through John's Revelation, was giving the first-century Christians a false promise and false hope. The only way to remove all doubt that the early Christians could identify the man of the number of the beast would be if that man lived in their own time.

cwb
May 11th 2007, 08:11 PM
I apologize.

Revelation 19:17-21, right?

This is not defining a physical battle between Jesus and the nations of the earth. This is a view into the spiritual. It is a vision of the spiritual defiance of the beast, Rome, and the false prophet, the unbelieving Jews. This is a vision of those who defied Jesus in life being condemned in their death. It is a vision of God’s promise that all who persecute Jesus and His people will reap what they sow.

I admit this argument is not a strong one alone, for it is dependent on how the rest of Revelation is interpreted. So, until I can more properly explain points related to earlier verses in Revelation, this one is simply hanging by a thread. However, while this argument I have presented is a weak point on its own, when it stands with the rest of my arguments it is certainly feasible. Just a warning to not assume this brings the entirety of preterism down.

Now, in response to the identity of the beast.

The beast of the sea of chapter 13, correct?



Look at the description. Compare it to Daniel's four beast of Daniel 7. This beast of Revelation takes on the same characteristics as all four beasts of Daniel's vision. It is comprised of the main points of the fourth beast (ten horns), but it also contains attributes of the other three beasts. As should be obvious to most who studied Daniel, the first three beasts (as well as the statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream) represent sequential empires, each taking over the previous one's territories: the Babylonians, the Medo-Persians, and the Greeks. The fourth beast, Rome, follows the Greek empire. The fact that the Roman one is set apart is because it is comprised of much of the three previous empires, but it is also the most terrifying.

Note the seven "heads." If you read Revelation 17, it states that the "heads" of the beast are seven hills. Rome is commonly known as "la città dei sett colli," or "the city of seven hills." Now, in the assumption that the beast from Revelation 13 dually represents both Rome as a whole as well as the Emperor Nero, let's look at the "wounding" of the beast. Now, the one of the beast's heads is wounded. This is saying something happened to the city of Rome itself. During Nero's reign, part of Rome caught fire, and it made it into the history books as "the great fire of Rome." Much of the city of Rome was damaged. But in all high hopes, Nero paid for relief efforts out of his own pocket, and the city was rebuilt even better than before (the wound was healed). Revelation 13 says that, in turn, people practically worshiped the beast, and that even a statue was built in his honor. During relief efforts for the fire, Nero had a statue built of himself, more than a hundred feet tall, and demanded people worship him as a savior and god. Revelation 13 also says that the beast, after the miraculous healing, was able to wage for on God's holy people for 42 months. As I stated before, Nero's persecution of the Christians began in late 64 AD, and ended with his death in mid-68 AD, 42 months later.

Other verses within Revelation point to Nero as the emperor who ruled during the time the Revelation was written. the 666/616 directly refers to "Nero Caeser" by name, and the fact that he was the sixth ruler of the Roman empire matches him directly with the "sixth king rules now" statement.

Also, the Revelation, which was written to people of John's own time, says that they can identify the man who belongs to the number 666/616. If the man the number refers to wouldn't even be alive for another two millenia, then it can be said that Jesus, through John's Revelation, was giving the first-century Christians a false promise and false hope. The only way to remove all doubt that the early Christians could identify the man of the number of the beast would be if that man lived in their own time.

I am not following you here. I am assuming when you say the sixth king you are talking about Rev 17:10

And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, [and] the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Let me know if that is not what you are talking about as I know what assuming can do. Where I am not following you is that is says in verse 11 that the beast is the eighth and not the sixth.

RogerW
May 11th 2007, 08:20 PM
The age that is ending, as they prophecied, was the Mosaic Age, and the age that was coming over it was the Messianic Age.

Yes, the Old Mosaic era comes to an end when Christ ushers in the Messianic era. When Christ speaks throughout the gospels of the Kingdom being near, nigh, or at hand He is NOT speaking of His coming in glory in the fullness of time, He is speaking of dying on the cross, and be resurrected from the grave which ushers in the Kingdom of God. This is the Messianic Age you speak of. The thing that was near, nigh, at hand is the Kingdom through Christ.



The Revelation speaks of how Christ's followers sing a "new song." What is the new song, and if it is the "new" one, there must be an old one, right? The "old song" would thusly be the Mosaic Covenant/Age, and the "new song" would thusly be the Messianic Covenant/Age.

In Rev 5 John sees the full embodiment of the redeemed in heaven from every kindred, tongue, and people, and nation. I believe John is seeing redemptive history from the vantage point of heaven prior to the foundation of the world. I too see the song as encompassing both the Old and New eras.

Re 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

Then in Rev 14 John sees those redeemed in heaven before the gospel goes unto all the world. These sing the new song, but these are only 144,000 who are redeemed from the Old Testament era.

Re 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song (as it were; or as it had been; i.e. in that manner) before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

Finally after the gospel has gone unto all the world, and all who have gotten victory over the beast, his image, his mark, and the number of his name stand before the Lord and sing the song of Moses (Ex 15) AND the song of the Lamb. So we see that all the redeemed sing the song of Moses and the new song of the Lamb. The song of Moses celebrates the deliverance from Egypt. Now the Church experiences a similar deliverance but infinitely greater, the old song is recast to express both victories, the lesser and the greater, at once.

Re 15:3 And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.



Preterism calls for the belief that the Book of Revelation was written during the mid-60's AD, as I'm sure you know. Internal evidence of Revelation supports this view. In response to the "kings" theory, though the wording may indeed be construed to mean "spiritual" kings... why does that possible definition mean that physical earthly kings are absolutely out of the question?

And what if Preterism is wrong about the dating of Revelation? I don’t find your internal evidence convincing. Yet I read compelling evidence from the writings of the early church fathers that the time of the writing was near the end of the reign of Domitian, AD 95-96. To be honest I would more likely rely on the writings of the early church fathers, then I would those who have a view to prove. Why would they (the fathers) be so certain about when John was exiled, when he wrote, and when he was freed? These fathers are writing from a vantage point of having lived during or very near the time of Christ, and John. Most will tell you that the closer you are to the original writings, original audience the more accurate the evidence.

The definition of “kings” does not have to mean “spiritual” kings, but it also does not have to mean “literal” kings. Why do you argue for literal kings in a book filled with symbolism, while ignoring every other mention of kings?



Also, you've no doubt heard the argument that the "number of a man, which is 666" (or 616 depending on your version) has been attributed to Nero, correct? Without going to deeply on the number itself, unless you wish me to, this number can only refer to Nero. Aside from the use of gematria, let's look at the rest of the wording. "Let one with understanding and wisdom solve the meaning of the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man."

Yes, I have heard the argument that correlates the number 666 of A man to Nero. Unfortunately the rendering of Rev 13:18 has been horribly mutilated by the translators. When the verse is correctly interpreted we find that 666 is not the number of A man, but the number for mankind. Consider this translation from the Concordant Version of Scripture: “Here is wisdom. Let him who has a mind calculate the number of the wild beast, for it is the number of mankind, and its number is six hundred sixty-six.” Those living from the first century to the last century can understand how mankind under the power of the beast symbolize this number.



The "woman" who rides the beast is called a "harlot" or "prostitute," and is also called "Babylon." She is drunken with the "blood of the saints." Comparing Scripture to Scripture is a vital process of unveiling the symbolism and metaphors and prophetic imagery within the Revelation. So, in comparing the Revelation "harlot Babylon" to the Old Testament, what do we find? First, go back to your Bible and read the description of the clothing the "harlot" wears. If it sounds familiar, go back to Exodus 28:4-14. The "harlot" is wearing the same clothes as the Temple priests were to wear. Also, if you read the prophetic books of Ezekiel and in Isaiah. "Babylon" was a named given to sinful Jerusalem in the OT. Occasionally, Jerusalem was even called a "harlot."

I have no problem seeing Jerusalem as the woman, the harlot, the great whore, mystery Babylon. However that does not answer my question. If the kings symbolize Roman authority, power, rule and the woman symbolizes Jerusalem when did Jerusalem reign over Roman Emperors, Roman Authority?

Re 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.



Please read the previous post I have made on the sense of urgency throughout the epistles and Revelation.

I understand the urgency of becoming saved. However this is not what we’re speaking of when we talk of things being near, nigh, at hand. It seems the pp view interprets this nearness as His Second Coming in AD 70, but you fail to acknowledge that the urgency defined in this phrase eliminates that possibility.



Not all of the prophecies he wrote down happened all at once, but they had already started their course by the time he penned them.

John’s prophecies I would like to address are Rev. 1:1,3; 2:5,16;3:11; 22:7,10,12,20. Can you comment on these? Do you view them as already fulfilled in AD 70?



Jesus was outside of the Jerusalem temple, His disciples were pointing out the temple, His disciples were asking Him questions about the "end of the age," and Jesus responded to them by saying, "THIS temple. THIS generation. YOU will see the kingdom coming. YOU will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven." To read to much into it simply misconstrues the plain and simple meaning. Jesus wasn't trying to use any prophetic symbolism as the Revelation did. He was being outright and forward.

Yes, there were things that Christ spoke of explicitly to those first disciples. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple for example. He also assures them that they too will see Him coming on the clouds of heaven, and they will, along with all the rest of humanity (Rev 1:7). When Christ tells them they will see the Kingdom come, He was not speaking of His coming again, He was speaking of the Kingdom He ushered in at the cross. This is what the pp fails to realize. That is what is near, nigh, at hand…the Kingdom of God came with power, and glory, not in AD 70 but when He went to the cross, and defeated Satan, and death.



However, I don't want to get too tangled up on a single point. If we simply don't agree on the "generation" argument, perhaps we should leave it for now and move onto another point, eh?

Is it your intention to try to come to agreement by helping me to come over to the pp view, or is it your intention to try to find truth? It isn’t my desire to argue endlessly about things we shall never agree on, but when I presented my argument for “this generation” I used many more passages of Scripture then 1Peter, which is the only passage you bothered to respond to. Other than implying that I may be reading to much into Scripture, you give me no hint that you have seriously considered any of my arguments. This surprises me since in your OP you said, “ If I present an argument for a certain point of view, I expect the one engaged in debate to thoughtfully consider what my argument is, as opposed to ignoring it or brushing it aside, just as one should expect of me. In which case, if I present an argument, if the other side does not agree with it, I expect a full rebuttal against it, and if the other side presents an argument, I will attempt to refute it.”

RW

John146
May 11th 2007, 09:09 PM
So, to those who may have questions about preterism, or wish to debate it, I am up for it.

Hi there. What is your interpretation of Revelation 11:15-18 and Revelation 14:14-20?

Also, do you believe in a visible, bodily return of Christ?

Eric

markedward
May 11th 2007, 09:13 PM
I am not following you here. I am assuming when you say the sixth king you are talking about Rev 17:10

And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, [and] the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Let me know if that is not what you are talking about as I know what assuming can do. Where I am not following you is that is says in verse 11 that the beast is the eighth and not the sixth.

The beast of the sea dually represents Nero and Rome under Nero. The horns representing kings is simply meant to reinforce that.

The scarlet beast that the harlot rides to her destruction does dually represent an emperor and Rome, the emperor the scarlet beast represents is not Nero. Read the entirety of the description of the scarlet beast. It states that five have fallen, one is (logically, the number that follows five is six, who is Nero). It then says a seventh king will come for a short time, followed by an eighth king, and that the eighth king is the emperor that the scarlet beast dually represents. So:

Beast of the Sea (Rev 13) = Rome under the sixth king (Nero, the one "who is now")
Scarlet Beast (Rev 18) = Rome under the eighth king

Let's recount the rulers of Rome. Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius all make five. Nero is the sixth "who is" currently ruling over the Empire as John wrote the Revelation. It says that the seventh will rule for a short time. Now, obviously, Galba ruled immediately after Nero. But then what of the other two mock-emperors who ruled in the same year, each for a matter of months? They may have had the title of "emperor," but they could hardly be considered emperors of Rome when they appointed themselves in a desperate power struggle over the empire. So, Galba could rightly be called the seventh king who reigned for a short time, but it seems proper to skip over the meager Otho and Vitellius who each ruled for a mere number of months.

In comes the eighth king, Vespasian. Note the numbering in the Book of Daniel: ten horns representing kings. Three horns are "plucked out" and discounted from the line-up. Ten minus three is seven. However, soon after another "small horn" came up from among them. This small horn becomes the actual eighth horn. And just as the three previous rulers of Rome all died within a year of each other, Vespasian was given the title of Emperor.

In regards to the "who once was, but is not now" remark: Vespasian was a mighty general. However, as historian Suetonius records, "he bitterly offended the emperor by either going out often while Nero was singing, or falling asleep, if he remained." So, Nero banished him, and Vespasian left to a "little out‑of-the‑way town, until a province and an army were offered him while he was in hiding and in fear of his life." The "is not now" statement reinforces this, as he was probably in hiding during the time John wrote the Revelation.

John146
May 11th 2007, 09:27 PM
Yes, I have heard the argument that correlates the number 666 of A man to Nero. Unfortunately the rendering of Rev 13:18 has been horribly mutilated by the translators. When the verse is correctly interpreted we find that 666 is not the number of A man, but the number for mankind. Consider this translation from the Concordant Version of Scripture: “Here is wisdom. Let him who has a mind calculate the number of the wild beast, for it is the number of mankind, and its number is six hundred sixty-six.” Those living from the first century to the last century can understand how mankind under the power of the beast symbolize this number.

I concur. The Greek word used there is anthropos which means mankind. The "a" was added by the translators.

markedward
May 11th 2007, 09:33 PM
Hi there. What is your interpretation of Revelation 11:15-18 and Revelation 14:14-20?

Also, do you believe in a visible, bodily return of Christ?

Eric
Revelation 11:15-18 -

This is an announcement that the earth has finally taken on Christ’s kingdom. As hinted at by the verse in Luke…

Luke 17:21 “You won’t be able to say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘It’s over there!’ For the Kingdom of God is already among you.” –Jesus

... the Kingdom is seen as not physical, but spiritual.

Matthew 16:28 “And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.” –Jesus

Matthew 24:30 “And then at last, the sign that the Son of Man is coming will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the peoples of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” –Jesus

The earth is now reclaimed by Christ, and the [spiritual] Kingdom is upon the earth. I agree with the prior statement that Christ's kingdom came about through His resurrection, but I also believe that the destruction of the physical temple in Jerusalem was a way of solidifying Christ's kingdom by permanently putting an end to the temple sacrifices. If the sacrifices had stayed, then people who were observant of the Law in the OT would still be able to perform their regular sacrifices, which would in turn show that the sacrifice of Christ wouldn't atone for all sins. So, Christ's kingdom came about with His sacrifice and resurrection, but was made solid when God, through the hands of the Romans, put an end to the temple sacrifices.

Revelation 14:14-20 -

The Son of Man is obviously Jesus, and the “harvest” refers to the ones who He saves. As for the second harvest, it is noted that these “grapes,” the people, are taking on God’s judgment. So from what can be gathered here, this is simply another reference, through symbolism, to God’s judgment, issued through the Roman armies, being taken out on the Jews who rejected Jesus as their Messiah. Also, the cloud is not a literal cloud, but a metaphor for Jesus’ right to judge. Much of the Old Testament refers to God as "coming on a cloud" when it refers to His judgment.

As for Christ's return, all I can say is look to Revelation 20:7 and onward.

markedward
May 11th 2007, 09:41 PM
(Sorry RogerW, I am a bit short on time at the moment, but I will be sure to go back to your full post and try to re-answer it as best as I can. In the mean time, can I ask that you try to keep your posts shorter? I realize that my own answers are a bit longer, but it takes more to answer than to ask... so... just a couple of questions at a time, please?)


I concur. The Greek word used there is anthropos which means mankind. The "a" was added by the translators.
This same word "anthropos" is also used in the Greek wording "Son of Man" when referring to Christ. However, I don't assume that to actually mean "Son of Mankind," as the "Son of Man" title connects Him to the "one like a son of man" from Daniel. "Anthropos" has multiple meanings, ranging from "mankind" to "an individual, a man."

John146
May 11th 2007, 10:01 PM
Revelation 11:15-18 -

This is an announcement that the earth has finally taken on Christ’s kingdom. As hinted at by the verse in Luke…

Luke 17:21 “You won’t be able to say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘It’s over there!’ For the Kingdom of God is already among you.” –Jesus

... the Kingdom is seen as not physical, but spiritual.

Matthew 16:28 “And I tell you the truth, some standing here right now will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom.” –Jesus

Matthew 24:30 “And then at last, the sign that the Son of Man is coming will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the peoples of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” –Jesus

The earth is now reclaimed by Christ, and the [spiritual] Kingdom is upon the earth. I agree with the prior statement that Christ's kingdom came about through His resurrection, but I also believe that the destruction of the physical temple in Jerusalem was a way of solidifying Christ's kingdom by permanently putting an end to the temple sacrifices. If the sacrifices had stayed, then people who were observant of the Law in the OT would still be able to perform their regular sacrifices, which would in turn show that the sacrifice of Christ wouldn't atone for all sins. So, Christ's kingdom came about with His sacrifice and resurrection, but was made solid when God, through the hands of the Romans, put an end to the temple sacrifices.

I agree that we are in Christ's spiritual kingdom now. The kingdom that does not come with observation and is not of this world. However, I don't believe your answer satisfies what is mentioned in verse 18:

And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. - Rev 11:18

Here, we see mention of God's wrath having come and that it is the time of the dead, that they should be judged and that God would give reward unto His people. I believe this is clearly speaking of the day of judgment, which occurs at the second coming of Christ (2 Timothy 4:1, Matthew 25:31-46). Also, I believe the seventh trumpet is the very same as the last trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15:52. What is your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:50-55?



Revelation 14:14-20 -

The Son of Man is obviously Jesus, and the “harvest” refers to the ones who He saves. As for the second harvest, it is noted that these “grapes,” the people, are taking on God’s judgment. So from what can be gathered here, this is simply another reference, through symbolism, to God’s judgment, issued through the Roman armies, being taken out on the Jews who rejected Jesus as their Messiah. Also, the cloud is not a literal cloud, but a metaphor for Jesus’ right to judge. Much of the Old Testament refers to God as "coming on a cloud" when it refers to His judgment.

It says the sickles are thrust on the entire earth, not just in Jerusalem. Sorry, but I don't find your answer to be convincing at all. Do you believe the parable of the wheat and tares applies to 70 AD as well?



As for Christ's return, all I can say is look to Revelation 20:7 and onward.

What do you mean by this exactly? My question was, do you believe in a visible, bodily return of Christ? Yes or no, please.

wpm
May 11th 2007, 10:17 PM
I have no problem seeing Jerusalem as the woman, the harlot, the great whore, mystery Babylon. However that does not answer my question. If the kings symbolize Roman authority, power, rule and the woman symbolizes Jerusalem when did Jerusalem reign over Roman Emperors, Roman Authority?

Re 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.


Great point.

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 11th 2007, 10:21 PM
I have no problem seeing Jerusalem as the woman, the harlot, the great whore, mystery Babylon. However that does not answer my question. If the kings symbolize Roman authority, power, rule and the woman symbolizes Jerusalem when did Jerusalem reign over Roman Emperors, Roman Authority?

Re 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.


Great point.

Paul


It did because their God delivered into their hands all the kingdoms of the earth. Its is just that when they defeated king after king they themselves prostituted themselves with the gods of those kingdoms. It wasn't until Rome that they slept with them figuritively. Remember for example when the Jews said - "We have no king but Ceasar."?

wpm
May 11th 2007, 10:28 PM
It did because their God delivered into their hands all the kingdoms of the earth. Its is just that when they defeated king after king they themselves prostituted themselves with the gods of those kingdoms. It wasn't until Rome that they slept with them figuritively. Remember for example when the Jews said - "We have no king but Ceasar."?

I don't think you are adequately addressing this query. Could you enlarge with historic facts to support this. When did Jerusalem reign over these Roman kings?

As an Amil I too looked at Partial Preterism but found too many discrepancies in its school of thought. I feel that they are too pre-fixed with AD70. I would now be an Idealist.

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 11th 2007, 10:59 PM
I don't think you are adequately addressing this query. Could you enlarge with historic facts to support this. When did Jerusalem reign over these Roman kings?

As an Amil I too looked at Partial Preterism but found too many discrepancies in its school of thought. I feel that they are too pre-fixed with AD70. I would now be an Idealist.

Paul


Paul, I didn't mention rome until my last couple of sentences. Before that I was including all kings from the time of the exodus up to Babylon and others that defeated Israel - and all because of their adultry against God - in which God passed judgement on Israel.

Paul, you, like me, are always claiming we need to let Scripture interpret Scripture. This mention of Jerusalem being the harlot is not the first mention in the Bible. Infact, any Jew at that time knew the OT passage well, which described them as the harlot. But I will provide them for you but first in view of Revelation;


Only the fall of Jerusalem occurred within the time frame of Revelation’s prophecy (must shortly take place). Jerusalem had already been called: The great city, Sodom and Egypt (11:8 ). The division of the city into 3 parts (16:19) fits Jerusalem best (Ezekiel 5). Only Jerusalem can be described as a harlot since only Jerusalem had been in a covenant relationship with God. No city other than Jerusalem could be charged with the blood of the prophets, saints & apostles (17:6, 18:20+24). This seems to be a fulfillment of Ezekiel 16:37-41.
Jerusalem (the woman) is riding on Rome (the beast) in the vision. This is because of the unholy alliance which the Jews had formed with Rome. Thus, the reference to the seven mountains on which the woman sits (Rev. 17:9) is speaking of this alliance. This works well in light of Rev. 17:16-18. Here we read that the beast hates the harlot, makes her desolate and naked, eats her flesh and burns her with fire… “For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose… until the words of God are fulfilled.” This makes much sense if the harlot is Jerusalem and Rome is the beast.

As a reader, we are told, in Chapter 17:7, that we are getting an explanation of this mystery:

But the angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.

As a reminder in Revelation Chapter 12 the woman who fled from the dragon was nurtured by God for 3-1/2 years. Here we see another woman in the wilderness. Not the woman of Chapter 12 who fled for safety, but we see this woman in the wilderness and she is a harlot. So, we have the woman of Chapter 12 “the bride” and the woman of Chapter 17 “the harlot”. So we have a contrast between the harlot and the Bride just as we have the contrast between Babylon and the New Jerusalem. It is clear that the harlot is Babylon and the bride is the New Jerusalem.


John sees the woman but she is riding upon the beast. The beast is somewhat familiar to us. The beast is said to have seven heads and ten horns in Rev. 17:3 and that is the description we saw of the first beast that came out of the sea in Chapter 13 and therefore is almost certainly the same beast. Here we are told in 17 verse 3 that it was scarlet in color

“And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast ”

We are not told that about the beast in Chapter 13, but in Chapter 12 we saw that the Dragon was red in color and he also had seven heads and 10 horns. The Chapter 17 beast has all the same characteristics shared with the Dragon and we know that the Dragon was Satan, therefore the beast seems to also be Satan in disguise. Satan acting through some kind of entity that represents a state system that Satan inspires against Christianity to persecute the saints.

Now at the time that John wrote this, the paticular state system that was doing this was the Roman Empire under Nero, and for the sake of his own readers in the 1st century, John tends to identify the beast for them as Rome. And more precisely, Nero. John does this in Chapter 17:10


10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.

If the seven kings refers to seven Emperors, the 1st being Julius Ceasar, the sixth, the one he says “now is” would have to be Nero. This indentifies what has to be the current manifestation of the beast’s activities as centered in Nero and the Roman Empire and the beast has all the marks of Rome - 7 heads and 7 mountains “vs. 9?. Rome was called the city with 7 hills.
Remember, the angel is saying that he is explaining this mystery. The readers were supposed to understand. So we need not read into this anything more than what history already has shown us.


Verse 18; “And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”And now other Scripture evidence that the “Harlot” “Babylon” is Jerusalem?

Rev. 11:8 great city - Jerusalem
Rev 17:18 great city
Rev 18:10, 18 great city
Isa. 1:21 How the faithful city has become a harlot!
Ezek. 16:15 …and played the harlot on them.
Hosea 2:2 Let her put away her harlotries from her sight

wpm
May 11th 2007, 11:27 PM
BeOfGoodCourage


Only the fall of Jerusalem occurred within the time frame of Revelation’s prophecy (must shortly take place).

I partially agree, so that make me a Partial Idealist. :pp

Revelation 1:19 records John being instructed, “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.”

This often overlooked reading reveals the wide scope of this prophecy and wide time period intended in its relevance. It therefore embodies the past, present and future.

1. The things which thou hast seen - PAST
2. The things which are - PRESENT
3. The things which shall be hereafter – FUTURE



I didn't mention rome until my last couple of sentences. Before that I was including all kings from the time of the exodus up to Babylon and others that defeated Israel - and all because of their adultry against God - in which God passed judgement on Israel.

Paul, you, like me, are always claiming we need to let Scripture interpret Scripture. This mention of Jerusalem being the harlot is not the first mention in the Bible. Infact, any Jew at that time knew the OT passage well, which described them as the harlot. But I will provide them for you but first in view of Revelation;

Jerusalem had already been called: The great city, Sodom and Egypt (11:8 ). The division of the city into 3 parts (16:19) fits Jerusalem best (Ezekiel 5). Only Jerusalem can be described as a harlot since only Jerusalem had been in a covenant relationship with God. No city other than Jerusalem could be charged with the blood of the prophets, saints & apostles (17:6, 18:20+24). This seems to be a fulfillment of Ezekiel 16:37-41.
Jerusalem (the woman) is riding on Rome (the beast) in the vision. This is because of the unholy alliance which the Jews had formed with Rome. Thus, the reference to the seven mountains on which the woman sits (Rev. 17:9) is speaking of this alliance. This works well in light of Rev. 17:16-18. Here we read that the beast hates the harlot, makes her desolate and naked, eats her flesh and burns her with fire… “For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose… until the words of God are fulfilled.” This makes much sense if the harlot is Jerusalem and Rome is the beast.

As a reader, we are told, in Chapter 17:7, that we are getting an explanation of this mystery:

But the angel said to me, “Why did you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.

As a reminder in Revelation Chapter 12 the woman who fled from the dragon was nurtured by God for 3-1/2 years. Here we see another woman in the wilderness. Not the woman of Chapter 12 who fled for safety, but we see this woman in the wilderness and she is a harlot. So, we have the woman of Chapter 12 “the bride” and the woman of Chapter 17 “the harlot”. So we have a contrast between the harlot and the Bride just as we have the contrast between Babylon and the New Jerusalem. It is clear that the harlot is Babylon and the bride is the New Jerusalem.


John sees the woman but she is riding upon the beast. The beast is somewhat familiar to us. The beast is said to have seven heads and ten horns in Rev. 17:3 and that is the description we saw of the first beast that came out of the sea in Chapter 13 and therefore is almost certainly the same beast. Here we are told in 17 verse 3 that it was scarlet in color

“And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast ”

We are not told that about the beast in Chapter 13, but in Chapter 12 we saw that the Dragon was red in color and he also had seven heads and 10 horns. The Chapter 17 beast has all the same characteristics shared with the Dragon and we know that the Dragon was Satan, therefore the beast seems to also be Satan in disguise. Satan acting through some kind of entity that represents a state system that Satan inspires against Christianity to persecute the saints.

Now at the time that John wrote this, the paticular state system that was doing this was the Roman Empire under Nero, and for the sake of his own readers in the 1st century, John tends to identify the beast for them as Rome. And more precisely, Nero. John does this in Chapter 17:10


10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.

If the seven kings refers to seven Emperors, the 1st being Julius Ceasar, the sixth, the one he says “now is” would have to be Nero. This indentifies what has to be the current manifestation of the beast’s activities as centered in Nero and the Roman Empire and the beast has all the marks of Rome - 7 heads and 7 mountains “vs. 9?. Rome was called the city with 7 hills.
Remember, the angel is saying that he is explaining this mystery. The readers were supposed to understand. So we need not read into this anything more than what history already has shown us.


Verse 18; “And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”And now other Scripture evidence that the “Harlot” “Babylon” is Jerusalem?


Rev. 11:8 great city - Jerusalem
Rev 17:18 great city
Rev 18:10, 18 great city
Isa. 1:21 How the faithful city has become a harlot!
Ezek. 16:15 …and played the harlot on them.
Hosea 2:2 Let her put away her harlotries from her sight


At the time John wrote Revelation, five kingdom’s were fallen, one was (which in John’s day was Rome), and one was still to come. This seventh, which was to come, and was to continue a short space, is the final reign of the beast (Satan’s overall kingdom), when Satan is loosed for a short period near Christ's Second Advent.

Revelation 17:7-8 continues, “The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”

Revelation 17:9-13 further enlarges, “The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.”

A plain reading of these passages prove that, whatever the beast truly represents, it was expressly in existence before the time that John received this symbolic revelation. The beast cannot therefore merely be a last few years end-time phenomenon, as some would try and argue. After all, he existed before John wrote Revelation. We learn through the apostle’s first century testimony that the beast expressly “was” (past tense). In fact, the passage mentions this fact three times (twice in verse 8, and once in verse 11). Therefore, he existed before John. He also existed at the time of John – who said of his day, the beast “is” (present tense). John then explained that the beast would continue after his day, saying it “shall” be (future tense). In fact, Scripture tells us that the beast, and the false prophet, will only finally be destroyed at the all-consummating Second Coming of the Lord, where they will be “cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone” (Revelation 19:20). Why would this world system be destroyed at Christ’s Coming and then re-emerge in a future millennium as the sand of the sea?

Having said all this, the terminology that follows is strange and appears contradictory, saying, “is not, and yet is.” One could naturally be tempted to reason: the beast either is or else it isn’t, although, this reading plainly says that the beast both “is” and “is not” at the same time. Whilst the import of the reading indicates that the beast existed in John’s day, it would seem to suggest that it did so in a restrained or restricted manner. How else can we marry the two facts that the beast “is” and “is not” at the same time. The system represented by the beast must have been around in John’s day, albeit in a curtailed manner. A bit like a prisoner that has full movement within a prison, although, even then, he is restricted to particular areas at particular times and must continually abide by the careful rules and guidelines that govern his movements. He has freedom – to a degree, but in another hand he is not free to do as he wishes. The bottom line is, the prisoner would be viewed by every sane observer as bound.

If we take the beast to represent the anti-Christ system existing within the kingdoms of men on the earth, then 2 Thessalonians 2:5-8 would seem to correlate and shed further light (and support) upon the idea that there has been a restraint upon evil since the Cross. It says, “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.”

Paul seems to agree with John here. It seems reasonable to identify “the mystery of iniquity” in 2 Thessalonians 2 with the beast-influence in Revelation 17. Moreover, whilst explaining that “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” in his day, he also explains that God “withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.” Definite chains of restraint weight-down this evil global influence. Prior to the cross, the beast ruled all nations unchallenged (through various strong heathen empires), but since Calvary (which was when John wrote this book) the devil’s kingdom found itself under significant global assault by a militant Church. As the kingdom of God advanced through the early disciples it brought the good news of salvation to the nations. The anti-Christ spirit of this intra-Advent age was dislodged from its hitherto well-embedded position. Where the devil once ruled supreme there was serious injury done to his kingdom. So, just like Satan was bound from deceiving the Gentiles (as before) at the Cross, so the beast also feels the consequence of the Cross through the global evangelisation of the nations and the liberation of the blinded heathens. Scripture seems to suggest that this great Gospel freedom that has existed for near-2,000 years will be curtailed once more at the end.

The beast "was" because Satan operated long before Christ ever invaded his territory at the first Advent. He is deemed "is not" because, through Christ's successful completion of His Father’s assignment on earth He roundly defeated Satan in his own backyard and spiritually spoiled his goods. Christ instigated the great triumphant global advance upon the kingdom of darkness. This has inflicted great injury and damage upon the enemy for near 2,000 years. Christ went forth conquering and to conquer through the successful spread of the Gospel to the nations. The fact is, the gates of hell can never prevail against the Church of Jesus Christ. The beast "is not" because Satan no longer exercises complete control over the nations as he once did before the cross. The beast "is" (at the time of John's writing) because even though Christ spiritual bound him at the cross, he was allowed to continue to operate, albeit under very definite limits which God has divinely set. These cannot be penetrated.

Satan’s kingdom was defeated at the Cross and his influence over the once-darkened nations has been seriously damaged. Notwithstanding, his iniquity still exists, albeit not to the same unrestrained degree as before. Since the Cross the devil’s kingdom has been curtailed by the chains that Christ placed on him through Calvary. Satan must now deal with countless rebels that have forsook his cause and have abandoned his own deluded kingdom and went to the other side. They have been rescued from the bondage of the kingdom of darkness and translated in the joy, peace and victory of the kingdom of God. Christ plundered his house and took a spoil. That spoil is that great unfathomable number of redeemed Gentile saints that were once viewed as the heathen. This body of believers throughout the nations are set against his every move. The once-darkened nations have now seen a great light that has brought salvation to the many. Many have been seized from his empire and have been translated to the kingdom of God.

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 11th 2007, 11:46 PM
Thanks Paul, for your view. I won't respond so as not to derail the intent of the OP. I believe he would like to answer the debate questions.

markedward
May 12th 2007, 12:15 AM
At the time John wrote Revelation, five kingdom’s were fallen, one was (which in John’s day was Rome), and one was still to come. This seventh, which was to come, and was to continue a short space, is the final reign of the beast (Satan’s overall kingdom), when Satan is loosed for a short period near Christ's Second Advent.
Could you please clarify by stating what the five subsequent kingdoms are, in reigning order, and how they relate to both Revelation AND to the beasts of Daniel 7? Revelation is heavily parallel to the visions within Daniel. Both the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar and the visions of Daniel suggest that there were only four subsequent empires, and that the fourth one was the empire to follow Greece, namely, the Roman Empire. While you may dispute this case through the Revelation verses, the book of Daniel makes it incredibly obvious that the first three kingdoms were, in order, the Babylonians (or Chaldeans/Neo-Babylonians, whatever term you prefer), followed by the Medo-Persian Empire, followed by the Greek empire, followed by a fourth empire, though unnamed, could only be Rome, as it subsequently followed the Greeks. And as Daniel makes this so obvious, it is also obvious that the beast from Revelation 13 was purposely described in such a way that would both link it to all four beasts of Daniel 7, but to also solidify it as the fourth beast alone from Daniel 7.

Cyberseeker
May 12th 2007, 04:46 AM
Ive probably arrived a bit late to this conversation but I would like to remind everyone that there is another view to the timing of prophetic events other than Preterism and Futurism. Its called Historicism and is somewhere between the part pretties and the dispies.

Historicism is unlike Preterism, which teaches that most of prophecy has been fulfilled in the past. It also differs from Futurism, which teaches that prophecy will only be fulfilled at some future date. In brief, Historicism teaches that biblical predictions are being fulfilled throughout history and continue to be fulfilled today.

The Book of Revelation is a pre-written history of the Church from the time of its writing to the future Second Advent of Christ, which shall usher in the new heaven and new earth.

Preterism has little to say to us today since it inteprets predictions as mostly fulfilled. Futurism crams most prophecy into a tiny 7 year time frame yet to come. However, the Bible and Revelation speak to the Church in ALL ages and I believe Historicism has a better balance than the others in this regard.

Cyber

cwb
May 12th 2007, 08:12 AM
The beast of the sea dually represents Nero and Rome under Nero. The horns representing kings is simply meant to reinforce that.

The scarlet beast that the harlot rides to her destruction does dually represent an emperor and Rome, the emperor the scarlet beast represents is not Nero. Read the entirety of the description of the scarlet beast. It states that five have fallen, one is (logically, the number that follows five is six, who is Nero). It then says a seventh king will come for a short time, followed by an eighth king, and that the eighth king is the emperor that the scarlet beast dually represents. So:

Beast of the Sea (Rev 13) = Rome under the sixth king (Nero, the one "who is now")
Scarlet Beast (Rev 18) = Rome under the eighth king

Let's recount the rulers of Rome. Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius all make five. Nero is the sixth "who is" currently ruling over the Empire as John wrote the Revelation. It says that the seventh will rule for a short time. Now, obviously, Galba ruled immediately after Nero. But then what of the other two mock-emperors who ruled in the same year, each for a matter of months? They may have had the title of "emperor," but they could hardly be considered emperors of Rome when they appointed themselves in a desperate power struggle over the empire. So, Galba could rightly be called the seventh king who reigned for a short time, but it seems proper to skip over the meager Otho and Vitellius who each ruled for a mere number of months.

In comes the eighth king, Vespasian. Note the numbering in the Book of Daniel: ten horns representing kings. Three horns are "plucked out" and discounted from the line-up. Ten minus three is seven. However, soon after another "small horn" came up from among them. This small horn becomes the actual eighth horn. And just as the three previous rulers of Rome all died within a year of each other, Vespasian was given the title of Emperor.

In regards to the "who once was, but is not now" remark: Vespasian was a mighty general. However, as historian Suetonius records, "he bitterly offended the emperor by either going out often while Nero was singing, or falling asleep, if he remained." So, Nero banished him, and Vespasian left to a "little out‑of-the‑way town, until a province and an army were offered him while he was in hiding and in fear of his life." The "is not now" statement reinforces this, as he was probably in hiding during the time John wrote the Revelation.

So you are saying the beast who ascends out of the bottomless pit is Vespasian. In Revelation 11, it says that beast kills the two witnesses. Who do you believe the two witnesses are? Also, the beast which comes out of the earth, who do you believe that beast is?

wpm
May 12th 2007, 10:25 AM
[/color]
Could you please clarify by stating what the five subsequent kingdoms are, in reigning order, and how they relate to both Revelation AND to the beasts of Daniel 7? Revelation is heavily parallel to the visions within Daniel. Both the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar and the visions of Daniel suggest that there were only four subsequent empires, and that the fourth one was the empire to follow Greece, namely, the Roman Empire. While you may dispute this case through the Revelation verses, the book of Daniel makes it incredibly obvious that the first three kingdoms were, in order, the Babylonians (or Chaldeans/Neo-Babylonians, whatever term you prefer), followed by the Medo-Persian Empire, followed by the Greek empire, followed by a fourth empire, though unnamed, could only be Rome, as it subsequently followed the Greeks. And as Daniel makes this so obvious, it is also obvious that the beast from Revelation 13 was purposely described in such a way that would both link it to all four beasts of Daniel 7, but to also solidify it as the fourth beast alone from Daniel 7.

I agree with the connection with Daniel. Firstly, Rome was one of the four kingdoms Daniel saw. It was also the existing kingdom when John received this prophesy here. John sees five great kingdoms before the one existing in his day (Rome). Three of the five former kingdoms refer to Daniel’s kingdoms: Babylon, Media and Persia and Grecia. This leaves two more – obviously subsequent to them. I believe these refer to the Egyptian Dynasty and Assyria.

Paul

wpm
May 12th 2007, 10:32 AM
Ive probably arrived a bit late to this conversation but I would like to remind everyone that there is another view to the timing of prophetic events other than Preterism and Futurism. Its called Historicism and is somewhere between the part pretties and the dispies.

Historicism is unlike Preterism, which teaches that most of prophecy has been fulfilled in the past. It also differs from Futurism, which teaches that prophecy will only be fulfilled at some future date. In brief, Historicism teaches that biblical predictions are being fulfilled throughout history and continue to be fulfilled today.

The Book of Revelation is a pre-written history of the Church from the time of its writing to the future Second Advent of Christ, which shall usher in the new heaven and new earth.

Preterism has little to say to us today since it inteprets predictions as mostly fulfilled. Futurism crams most prophecy into a tiny 7 year time frame yet to come. However, the Bible and Revelation speak to the Church in ALL ages and I believe Historicism has a better balance than the others in this regard.

Cyber

There is another view often overlooked by Preterists that I believe best represents Revelation and that is Idealism. It has had a significant following over the years. The Idealist believes Revelation to be a number of figurative parallels embodying comparable symbolic visions revealing the overall battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. John had one vision after the other revealed to him, notwithstanding, that didn't in anyway mean they were chronological. The idealist believes that these visions are of a similar nature to that of Peter's symbolic vision re the advance of the Gospel to the Gentiles, or Jacob's ladder, and are therefore to be interpreted symbolically. They too believe it relates, like every other New Testament book, to the period running between the first and Second Advents. Significantly, the conclusion of each parallel terminates with a record of the glorious Second Advent, which includes the rescue of His saint and the final destruction of the wicked.

Analysis of all Four Views

The Preterist is certainly right in believing that the book is generally figurative in that its make-up and that it was primarily addressed to the early Church. He is also right in relating its relevance to early Church history. However, he is wrong in restricting it relevance solely to that time-period as he ignores the rest of Church history and the many undoubted references to the glorious Second Coming of Christ and that which precedes it.

No one is denying the initial spread of the Gospel from Israel, but Rev is written to Asian Minor believers. The old Jerusalem was not their fixation but Christ and the NJ. Moreover, that was not the end of the story, the Gosepl went out to the nations. It didn't get bogged down at AD70 as some Preterists would try and keep Rev. Rev is not centered or stuck at AD 70. It is an intra-Advent book addressed to the Church.

The Futurist is right in believing that the book relates to the end-times, however, he is wrong in restricting Revelation solely to that time-period. He ignores the fact that the book was primarily written to the seven early churches in Asia Minor and was a specific comprehensible symbolic significance to them. The futurist is also notoriously hyper-literalist in his interpretation of the signs and symbols of Revelation, and therefore misunderstands the overall symbolic import the book. In projecting its relevance forward to a supposed 7-year end-period they wrongly render its present relevance and true significance impotent to every passing Church generation.

The Historist is right in believing that the book of Revelation relates to the period existing between the two Advents, although their meticulous search for historic events is notoriously speculative and few agree exactly on the true meaning and application of particular events. Frankly, if this view is right, then the student of Revelation would not simply need the Holy Spirit as a teacher but a human university teacher, who is an astounding student of history, to outline world history and ALL its many world events and Church happenings to in some way establish its meaning. After all that, they would have to find another educated history expert who would agree with their undoubted speculation. Frankly, the futurist view and the historist view suffer from their numerous (un-provable) speculations. This book is ONLY spiritually discerned, not academically!!!

What the Historist must do is explain how one could CONCLUSIVELY identify each historic event in Revelation. How can the 21st Century Bible Student know which Historist historic expert is right? I find most only agree on the anti-Christ, and this is the one subject (not surprisingly) that most modern-day Historists concentrate upon. If we forget about Rome, Historists are all over the place - speculating like the Pretribbers on every minute detail. This is where I struggle with the concept. Idealism on the other-hand lets Scripture interpret Scripture, including all of the peculiar symbols, Old Testament places and the metaphorical detail.

Should we interpret Scripture by the fluid opinions of men (irrespective of how historically informed they are), or by the infallible unchanging God-breathed words of God?

The Idealist view, I believe, is the most credible. It undoubtedly recognises (1) the SYMBOLIC spiritual thrust of the book and (2) its specific relevance and credence to the Church – period. It refuses to enter into unprofitable speculation about specific past or future events. It looks at the book, as primarily a supernatural REVELATION of our Saviour – Jesus Christ not world events. Thus, the name Revelation (meaning an unveiling) relates specifically to the Lord Jesus Christ, not Titus, Napoleon, the Pope or any future leader, as the other views would try and advance. In saying this, I am not undermining the wickedness of these alternative men!!!

Revelation 1:1, in the original introduces the book “Apokulpsis Leesou Christou” being simply interpreted “the Revelation of Jesus Christ.” From a meticulous examination of this prophecy and an awareness of the undoubted New Testament pattern there seems overwhelming evidence to believe that this whole book relates primarily to a revelation of the person of Jesus Christ and to His Sovereign dealings with mankind.

The futurist must recognize that the book of Revelation was initially and primarily addressed, like every other New Testament epistle, to first century believers. And in particular the seven churches in Asia Minor. In the opening chapter of Revelation – chapter 1 – verse 4 we read, “John to the seven churches which are in Asia.” Here we note that the book in its entirety, not just in part (as some would have us believe), is addressed to these seven early churches. This truth is deliberately outlined at the start of this prophetic book in order to establish its general overall focus and dispel any doubt as to its primary destination.

Unquestionably, the whole book of Revelation was initially and primarily addressed to the seven Asian churches of John’s day. Notwithstanding, like every other New Testament epistle, it has a current and powerful relevance for the Church today as it has previously been down through history. It will also have spiritual relevance for the Church right up until the glorious Second Advent. There is no doubt that the other New Testament books (in whole) from Matthew to Jude were initially written to early church Christians and/or to specific local assemblies of them Christians, as a marvellous inspired record and testimony to the person, work and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, they also carry a wider relevance to the Church of the Jesus Christ– period – as an infallible Divine message of truth, instruction and admonition to the Church. Revelation is no different.

The concluding chapter of this prophetic book – chapter 22 – significantly confirms this supposition and verifies the absolute relevance of the full content of Revelation to the seven churches of Asia in John’s day and to the wider Church throughout time. Therefore, the whole book of Revelation was primarily written to the seven churches in Asia Minor for their spiritual edification and well-being. The final chapter of Revelation – chapter 22 – confirms in verse 16, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

Everything, therefore, sandwiched between the opening chapter of this book (which clearly outlines its primary destination) and the closing chapter (which confirms its destiny) expressly relates to the Church past (from John’s day), present and future. In fact, its relevance applies fully to the Church general between the two advents of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is also reasonable to assume that the seven churches in Asia Minor who received this comprehensive Divine record would have fully understood the intricate detail of this prophecy, its general theme and the symbolic style of its language. The overall message must surely have been comprehensible to these early churches to which it was primarily addressed, and completely relevant to the trying circumstances to which they found themselves in. It was therefore written to them for their enlightenment, admonition and spiritual enrichment and edification. The Historist seems to ignore this reality with all his unprofitable historic speculations.

Finally, the idealist view agrees with the preterist in that the book was specifically and primarily written to the early Church. However, he doesn’t restrict its application to that time. It also agrees with the futurist in that it relates to matters occurring at and before the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, it does not restrict the book to ONLY that period. They agree with the historist in that it relates to the time period between the two Advents. However, it doesn’t sink into the wealth of futile and unprofitable speculations about history.

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 12th 2007, 12:41 PM
There is another view often overlooked by Preterists that I believe best represents Revelation and that is Idealism. It has had a significant following over the years. The Idealist believes Revelation to be a number of figurative parallels embodying comparable symbolic visions revealing the overall battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. John had one vision after the other revealed to him, notwithstanding, that didn't in anyway mean they were chronological. The idealist believes that these visions are of a similar nature to that of Peter's symbolic vision re the advance of the Gospel to the Gentiles, or Jacob's ladder, and are therefore to be interpreted symbolically. They too believe it relates, like every other New Testament book, to the period running between the first and Second Advents. Significantly, the conclusion of each parallel terminates with a record of the glorious Second Advent, which includes the rescue of His saint and the final destruction of the wicked.

Analysis of all Four Views

The Preterist is certainly right in believing that the book is generally figurative in that its make-up and that it was primarily addressed to the early Church. He is also right in relating its relevance to early Church history. However, he is wrong in restricting it relevance solely to that time-period as he ignores the rest of Church history and the many undoubted references to the glorious Second Coming of Christ and that which precedes it.

No one is denying the initial spread of the Gospel from Israel, but Rev is written to Asian Minor believers. The old Jerusalem was not their fixation but Christ and the NJ. Moreover, that was not the end of the story, the Gosepl went out to the nations. It didn't get bogged down at AD70 as some Preterists would try and keep Rev. Rev is not centered or stuck at AD 70. It is an intra-Advent book addressed to the Church.

The Futurist is right in believing that the book relates to the end-times, however, he is wrong in restricting Revelation solely to that time-period. He ignores the fact that the book was primarily written to the seven early churches in Asia Minor and was a specific comprehensible symbolic significance to them. The futurist is also notoriously hyper-literalist in his interpretation of the signs and symbols of Revelation, and therefore misunderstands the overall symbolic import the book. In projecting its relevance forward to a supposed 7-year end-period they wrongly render its present relevance and true significance impotent to every passing Church generation.

The Historist is right in believing that the book of Revelation relates to the period existing between the two Advents, although their meticulous search for historic events is notoriously speculative and few agree exactly on the true meaning and application of particular events. Frankly, if this view is right, then the student of Revelation would not simply need the Holy Spirit as a teacher but a human university teacher, who is an astounding student of history, to outline world history and ALL its many world events and Church happenings to in some way establish its meaning. After all that, they would have to find another educated history expert who would agree with their undoubted speculation. Frankly, the futurist view and the historist view suffer from their numerous (un-provable) speculations. This book is ONLY spiritually discerned, not academically!!!

What the Historist must do is explain how one could CONCLUSIVELY identify each historic event in Revelation. How can the 21st Century Bible Student know which Historist historic expert is right? I find most only agree on the anti-Christ, and this is the one subject (not surprisingly) that most modern-day Historists concentrate upon. If we forget about Rome, Historists are all over the place - speculating like the Pretribbers on every minute detail. This is where I struggle with the concept. Idealism on the other-hand lets Scripture interpret Scripture, including all of the peculiar symbols, Old Testament places and the metaphorical detail.

Should we interpret Scripture by the fluid opinions of men (irrespective of how historically informed they are), or by the infallible unchanging God-breathed words of God?

The Idealist view, I believe, is the most credible. It undoubtedly recognises (1) the SYMBOLIC spiritual thrust of the book and (2) its specific relevance and credence to the Church – period. It refuses to enter into unprofitable speculation about specific past or future events. It looks at the book, as primarily a supernatural REVELATION of our Saviour – Jesus Christ not world events. Thus, the name Revelation (meaning an unveiling) relates specifically to the Lord Jesus Christ, not Titus, Napoleon, the Pope or any future leader, as the other views would try and advance. In saying this, I am not undermining the wickedness of these alternative men!!!

Revelation 1:1, in the original introduces the book “Apokulpsis Leesou Christou” being simply interpreted “the Revelation of Jesus Christ.” From a meticulous examination of this prophecy and an awareness of the undoubted New Testament pattern there seems overwhelming evidence to believe that this whole book relates primarily to a revelation of the person of Jesus Christ and to His Sovereign dealings with mankind.

The futurist must recognize that the book of Revelation was initially and primarily addressed, like every other New Testament epistle, to first century believers. And in particular the seven churches in Asia Minor. In the opening chapter of Revelation – chapter 1 – verse 4 we read, “John to the seven churches which are in Asia.” Here we note that the book in its entirety, not just in part (as some would have us believe), is addressed to these seven early churches. This truth is deliberately outlined at the start of this prophetic book in order to establish its general overall focus and dispel any doubt as to its primary destination.

Unquestionably, the whole book of Revelation was initially and primarily addressed to the seven Asian churches of John’s day. Notwithstanding, like every other New Testament epistle, it has a current and powerful relevance for the Church today as it has previously been down through history. It will also have spiritual relevance for the Church right up until the glorious Second Advent. There is no doubt that the other New Testament books (in whole) from Matthew to Jude were initially written to early church Christians and/or to specific local assemblies of them Christians, as a marvellous inspired record and testimony to the person, work and teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, they also carry a wider relevance to the Church of the Jesus Christ– period – as an infallible Divine message of truth, instruction and admonition to the Church. Revelation is no different.

The concluding chapter of this prophetic book – chapter 22 – significantly confirms this supposition and verifies the absolute relevance of the full content of Revelation to the seven churches of Asia in John’s day and to the wider Church throughout time. Therefore, the whole book of Revelation was primarily written to the seven churches in Asia Minor for their spiritual edification and well-being. The final chapter of Revelation – chapter 22 – confirms in verse 16, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

Everything, therefore, sandwiched between the opening chapter of this book (which clearly outlines its primary destination) and the closing chapter (which confirms its destiny) expressly relates to the Church past (from John’s day), present and future. In fact, its relevance applies fully to the Church general between the two advents of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is also reasonable to assume that the seven churches in Asia Minor who received this comprehensive Divine record would have fully understood the intricate detail of this prophecy, its general theme and the symbolic style of its language. The overall message must surely have been comprehensible to these early churches to which it was primarily addressed, and completely relevant to the trying circumstances to which they found themselves in. It was therefore written to them for their enlightenment, admonition and spiritual enrichment and edification. The Historist seems to ignore this reality with all his unprofitable historic speculations.

Finally, the idealist view agrees with the preterist in that the book was specifically and primarily written to the early Church. However, he doesn’t restrict its application to that time. It also agrees with the futurist in that it relates to matters occurring at and before the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, it does not restrict the book to ONLY that period. They agree with the historist in that it relates to the time period between the two Advents. However, it doesn’t sink into the wealth of futile and unprofitable speculations about history.

Paul


Its not like we each belong to our own club or organization. Each of us have certain elements from each view that we call our own. We may identify in general with one group or the other but we cannot claim to be card carriers of any one group.

Lets stay on topic.

wpm
May 12th 2007, 02:18 PM
Its not like we each belong to our own club or organization. Each of us have certain elements from each view that we call our own. We may identify in general with one group or the other but we cannot claim to be card carriers of any one group.


I think if you re-read my post you will see that that was my point.

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 12th 2007, 02:36 PM
I think if you re-read my post you will see that that was my point.

Paul

Yes I know Paul, and I nutshelled it. What it has to do with the OP I don't see. If partial preterism is the subject here, and it is, and if it is to be a debate on PP, and it is, then all comments should be within those boundries. Already our few posts have taken a skewed course from the op.

Cyberseeker
May 12th 2007, 05:07 PM
Analysis of all Four Views

The Preterist ...

The Futurist ...

The Historist ...

The Idealist ...

Fair points Paul. I acknowledge that Historicism has had just as bad a record as Futurism when it comes to speculative stuff. That is why I describe myself as a 'new-style' historicist.

Cyberseeker
May 12th 2007, 05:37 PM
But I digress ...

Question for the Pretties :hmm:

Exactly who are the 10 horns of Daniel 7:20? Would you care to name each of them please?

markedward
May 12th 2007, 08:04 PM
So you are saying the beast who ascends out of the bottomless pit is Vespasian. In Revelation 11, it says that beast kills the two witnesses. Who do you believe the two witnesses are? Also, the beast which comes out of the earth, who do you believe that beast is?

The two witnesses:

The two witnesses, though the imagery John uses reminds one to think of Moses or Elijah, as is quite common, is actually a representation of the church itself. Why only two witnesses to refer to the church as a whole? Well, again, the Revelation refers heavily to other verses in the Bible.


But never put a person to death on the testimony of only one witness. There must always be two or three witnesses.


’I also tell you this: If two of you agree here on earth concerning anything you ask, My Father in heaven will do it for you. For where two or three gather together as my followers, I am there among them.'


This is the third time I am coming to visit you (and as the Scriptures say, ‘The facts of every case must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses’).

Essentially, it is saying to be an effective witness, there need to be more than one, and if there are more than one and they are in togetherness, than God is with them. The "plagues" they can call down is simply metaphoric that they have God's authority to preach to the people, and to point out there errors and sins. Also, in specific regards to the verse that they can breathe fire:


Therefore, this is what the Lord God of Heaven’s Armies says: ‘Because the people are talking like this, My messages will flame out of your mouth and burn the people like kindling wood.'

Obviously they're not going to literally breathe fire, but that Christ's words will be with them, to help them to preach and to expose sin. The beast, Rome, is being described as overcoming the Christian witness. With the great persecution of Christians under the Romans and Jews (and later with the fall of Jerusalem, as the Romans thought that such a tumult of defeat to the Jews would be equally disastrous to the Christians) it is no wonder the Romans would think the Christians would be all but wiped out. Jerusalem is spiritually called “Sodom” and “Egypt,” so this in turn is saying that the judgments in Revelation ought to also be described as spiritual in how it is presented, not literal. Rome leaving the Christian witness lying dead in the streets and that “no one will be allowed to bury them” is inferring that Rome had supposed that the Christian witness had been destroyed and suffer the shame of defeat (the shame of not being “buried”). Later on, Titus, in charge of the Roman armies, is noted by historian Severus as trying to eliminate Christians with the Jews during the destruction of Jerusalem, because “the Christiani arose from the Jews, [and] with the root removed, the branch is easily killed." However, as Revelation shows, the two witnesses are revived after three and a half days. This is paralleling Christ's resurrection. A number of verses in the epistles say how just as Christ died, we died, and just as Christ was resurrected, so we are resurrected. The witnesses being resurrected is made to parallel our resurrection through Christ. Then they go to heaven to be with God, obviously referring to the salvation Christians receive, with the promise to be with Christ in heaven.

The beast of the sea I have presented to be dually representing Nero and Rome under Nero. It says that the beast of the sea (Nero/Rome) persecuted God's holy people (the Christians) for 42 months (late 64 AD-mid 68 AD). It's no secret that during this time that it wasn't just the Romans who persecuted the Christians, but the Jewish leadership as well.

The beast of the earth is stated to have the horns of a lamb (made to appear innocent and righteous). This comparison to a lamb is referring to the Jewish leadership. The voice of a dragon and authority of the first beast shows that the Jewish leadership had, up to this time, been allied of a sort with Rome in the persecution of Christians. The voice of a dragon specifically refers to the dragon of Revelation 12, and that the Jewish leadership was, in literal terms, being defiant of the truth of Jesus. This beast has traditionally been called the “false prophet,” and in a sense, that is an accurate description, for the Jewish leadership, claiming to speak on behalf of God, was in reality completely lost to His way of life. The beast of the earth is then described as being able to call down fire and performs miracles, and that it required its followers to praise or worship the beast of the sea. This is just more symbolism to refer to the power that the Jewish leadership held over its people. It is mostly referring, again, that the Jewish priests of the time convinced the people to honor Rome and the Emperor. The “great statue” may or may not be literal (although Nero did indeed have an exceedingly large statue of himself built during the relief efforts for the great fire of Rome, and stated that he should be worshiped as a savior), but it is at the very least stating that the beast of the sea is basically being idolized. One of the main commandments from God is we are to not create any false idols and to not carve any “graven images.” The point that is supposed to get across here is that the beast of the sea is being idolized, and that the beast of the earth is reinforcing this idolatry in some form or another. And during this time period, the Jewish leadership did indeed help the Romans in the persecution of the Christians. Also, the beast of the earth is said to tell its followers to take on the "mark of the beast," the number that represents a man. Again, as I stated before, the beast/man is Nero, and the number is gematria coding of his name. But, aside from the number being the "mark," it says that those who follow the beast will have the mark on their right hand or their forehead. Once again, let's refer back to the Old Testament.


'And you must commit yourselves wholeheartedly to these commands that I am giving you today. Repeat them again and again to your children. Talk about them when you are at home and when you are on the road, when you are going to bed and when you are getting up. Tie them to your hands and wear them on your forehead as reminders.'

Here in Deuteronomy, God is stating that His holy people are to commit to Him, and to be in constant rememberance of what they are doing. He even says that to help themselves remember, they should put His way of life on their hands or on their foreheads. He's obviously not saying to go and tie something to their hands or foreheads, but He is saying that no matter what they do (hands) or what they think (head), they are to constantly act according to God's way of life that He told them to live under. In comparison to the "mark of the beast" being applied to followers' hands or heads, it is essentially saying that they are to act and think and live as the beast (Rome/Nero) directs them to. Anyone who does not live as Nero tells them to would not be allowed to take part in everyday life. This is pretty much what happened to the Christians during Nero's rule. To be a Christian was to be a dead man, because they supposedly trying to upset or overthrow the Roman Empire.

Beast of the sea: Nero/Rome
Beast of the earth: Jewish leadership
Mark of the beast: Nero/Rome's enforced way of life

RogerW
May 12th 2007, 08:38 PM
This same word "anthropos" is also used in the Greek wording "Son of Man" when referring to Christ. However, I don't assume that to actually mean "Son of Mankind," as the "Son of Man" title connects Him to the "one like a son of man" from Daniel. "Anthropos" has multiple meanings, ranging from "mankind" to "an individual, a man."

Everywhere in Rev we find the Greek word anthropos it speaks of human(ity), mankind. This is difficult to see in Scripture because like Rev 13:18 the translators had a difficult time translating this. Christ is in fact the firstborn (incarnate, born of flesh) among many brethren, so it is proper to speak of Him as the Son of Mankind/humanity.

Son of Man:
( 1.) Denotes mankind generally, with special reference to their weakness and frailty ( Job 25:6 (http://www.bibleforums.org/kjv/Job/Job025.html%20/%206); Psa 8:4 (http://www.bibleforums.org/kjv/Psa/Psa008.html%20/%204); 144:3 (http://www.bibleforums.org/kjv/Psa/Psa144.html%20/%203); 146:3 (http://www.bibleforums.org/kjv/Psa/Psa146.html%20/%203); Isa 51:12 (http://www.bibleforums.org/kjv/Isa/Isa051.html%20/%2012), etc.).

( 2.) It is a title frequently given to the prophet Ezekiel, probably to remind him of his human weakness.

( 3.) In the New Testament it is used forty-three times as a distinctive title of the Saviour. In the Old Testament it is used only in Psa 80:17 (http://www.bibleforums.org/kjv/Psa/Psa080.html%20/%2017) and Dan 7:13 (http://www.bibleforums.org/kjv/Dan/Dan007.html%20/%2013) with this application. It denotes the true humanity of our Lord. He had a true body ( Hbr 2:14 (http://www.bibleforums.org/kjv/Hbr/Hbr002.html%20/%2014); Luk 24:39 (http://www.bibleforums.org/kjv/Luk/Luk024.html%20/%2039)) and a rational soul. He was perfect man.

444 - anthropos
1) a human being, whether male or female
a) generically, to include all human individuals
b) to distinguish man from beings of a different order
1) of animals and plants
2) of from God and Christ
3) of the angels
c) with the added notion of weakness, by which man is led into a mistake or prompted to sin
d) with the adjunct notion of contempt or disdainful pity
e) with reference to two fold nature of man, body and soul
f) with reference to the two fold nature of man, the corrupt and the truly Christian man, conformed to the nature of God
g) with reference to sex, a male
2) indefinitely, someone, a man, one
3) in the plural, people
4) joined with other words, merchantman

It seems odd that if A certain man, i.e. Nero, is in view in Rev 13:18 that “a man” was not translated from the Greek word tis, which speaks of a certain, or specific one?
5100 - tis
1) a certain, a certain one
2) some, some time, a while

It seems that the pp relies very heavily upon historical records outside of Scripture to prove their view. How could one come to this understanding if one is never privy to the same historical records? Shouldn't our dependence be more on the Bible, with historical record to help confirm the Bible, instead of using the Bible to try to confirm our history?

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

RW

markedward
May 12th 2007, 08:52 PM
But I digress ...

Question for the Pretties :hmm:

Exactly who are the 10 horns of Daniel 7:20? Would you care to name each of them please?

(Man, I keep reading that as "pretties," like... "pretty.")

As I believe, these ten horns are the first ten ruling leaders of Rome.

Julius (1), Second Triumvirate (possibly solely Marc Antony, who was given rule over the eastern half of the empire, which, of course, included Judea) (2), Augustus (3), Tiberius (4), Caligula (5), Claudius (6), Nero (7), the most obvious ones are the three who were "plucked out," Galba (8), Otho (9), and Vitellius (10), and followed by another horn, Vespasian. Note that the Daniel account says the eleventh horn was boastful. This is actually a pretty accurate description of Vespasian:


In Judaea, Vespasian consulted the oracle of the God of Carmel and was given a promise that he would never be disappointed in what he planned or desired, however lofty his ambitions. Also, a distinguished Jewish prisoner of Vespasian's, Josephus by name, insisted that he would soon be released by the very man who had now put him in fetters, and who would then be Emperor.


...Vespasian's good fortune succeeded to his wishes everywhere, and the public affairs were, for the greatest part, already in his hands; upon which he considered that he had not arrived at the government without divine providence, but that a righteous kind of fate had brought the empire under his power...

markedward
May 12th 2007, 09:22 PM
I agree with the connection with Daniel. Firstly, Rome was one of the four kingdoms Daniel saw. It was also the existing kingdom when John received this prophesy here. John sees five great kingdoms before the one existing in his day (Rome). Three of the five former kingdoms refer to Daniel’s kingdoms: Babylon, Media and Persia and Grecia. This leaves two more – obviously subsequent to them. I believe these refer to the Egyptian Dynasty and Assyria.

Paul


At the time John wrote Revelation, five kingdom’s were fallen, one was (which in John’s day was Rome), and one was still to come. This seventh, which was to come, and was to continue a short space, is the final reign of the beast (Satan’s overall kingdom), when Satan is loosed for a short period near Christ's Second Advent.


I assume you were speaking about what is said in Revelation 17, right? In that case... John says the heads of the scarlet beast represent seven hills, and also seven kings, not kingdoms. Daniel states there were four "empires of the world" (world referring to the land including Judea and the surrounding regions... the Greek term used for "the whole world" actually has three prime definitions that were used during the first century: the "Mediterranean world," the "Greek world," and, when the fourth empire came on the scene, shifted to mean the "Roman world." Christ once said that His disciples were to preach to the "whole world" and then certain prophecies would only take place after such had happened. In turn, the epistles state that they had indeed preach to the "whole world." Well, obviously it wasn't the whole earth, but rather the definition they used was the "Roman world").

wpm
May 12th 2007, 11:10 PM
I assume you were speaking about what is said in Revelation 17, right? In that case... John says the heads of the scarlet beast represent seven hills, and also seven kings, not kingdoms. Daniel states there were four "empires of the world" (world referring to the land including Judea and the surrounding regions... the Greek term used for "the whole world" actually has three prime definitions that were used during the first century: the "Mediterranean world," the "Greek world," and, when the fourth empire came on the scene, shifted to mean the "Roman world." Christ once said that His disciples were to preach to the "whole world" and then certain prophecies would only take place after such had happened. In turn, the epistles state that they had indeed preach to the "whole world." Well, obviously it wasn't the whole earth, but rather the definition they used was the "Roman world").

Again, I disagree with the Preterist preoccupation with the Roman Empire and AD70. It reminds me of the Dispy preoccupation with Israel and their supposed 7yrs end-time GT. Sorry, I feel both are too subjective. Idealism views the whole landscape and identifies Rev with the whole intra-Advent period. Preterists need to realise that the world continued on after AD70 and the Gospel has progressed ever since thus fulfilling Christ's prophetic words.

I believe the beasts are kingdoms and the heads are kings, although often the two are indivisible.

Paul

wpm
May 12th 2007, 11:18 PM
I assume you were speaking about what is said in Revelation 17, right? In that case... John says the heads of the scarlet beast represent seven hills, and also seven kings, not kingdoms. Daniel states there were four "empires of the world" (world referring to the land including Judea and the surrounding regions... the Greek term used for "the whole world" actually has three prime definitions that were used during the first century: the "Mediterranean world," the "Greek world," and, when the fourth empire came on the scene, shifted to mean the "Roman world." Christ once said that His disciples were to preach to the "whole world" and then certain prophecies would only take place after such had happened. In turn, the epistles state that they had indeed preach to the "whole world." Well, obviously it wasn't the whole earth, but rather the definition they used was the "Roman world").

Here are some thoughts I have previously presented.

Some Bible students believe the “beast” and the “false prophet” (known as the second beast) to be two literal individual people that come into existence in the last few years of this age. However, as one carefully studies the detail and teaching attached to these two beings you find there are compelling grounds for rejecting that perception. In fact, by studying the symbolism and language of Revelation there are many reasons to believe that they refer to two distinct yet inextricably linked influences/systems, rather than actual persons. Notwithstanding, it is needful to examine this matter in more depth in order to establish what is the real identity/meaning of these figures.

In piecing the jig saw together in relation to these two beasts, it would be unwise to ignore the comparable symbolism / terminologies in the book of Daniel. There can be little doubt there are many striking similarities between Revelation and the book of Daniel in the Old Testament. In fact, what Daniel is to the Old Testament Revelation is to the New Testament. Both are written in a peculiar style, involving much symbolic/apocalyptic language. They must therefore be carefully and studiously dissected using the rest of Scripture to assist us in comprehending their detail. On the matter before us reference the symbolism of the beast, we can gain helpful assistance insight Understanding the interpretation of the beasts in Daniel will aid us in comprehending the meaning of these symbolic beasts in Revelation.

Revelation 13:8 states, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the beast), whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

We are given much illumination and help in establishing the identity of, and the extent of those who pay homage to, the beast in this passage. In fact, it is extremely difficult to ignore the extraordinary influence of the beast outlined in the whole book of Revelation. The aforementioned verse tells us that his/its adherents include every single person “whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Therefore, the beast specifically and symbolically must relate to some all-embracing Christ-rejecting influence or body that controls the affections of the sum total of the non-elect, those that will be eternally damned.

Of course, the first person/entity that comes to mind as fitting this immense influence is Satan; however, Scripture shows us that it cannot be him. Revelation 20:10 demonstrates,“the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”This passage along with many others clearly distinguishes between the Satan and the beast, thus proving that they are separate entities. The beast expressly precedes the devil to the lake of fire. So the beast and the devil must be different.

Furthermore, Revelation 13:2-4 makes plain that Satan is the actual source of power for the beast, saying, “And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast.” Again, we see a clear distinction between the beast and the devil yet equally a definite and intimate inter-dependence upon each other. The beast and the dragon are therefore two different entities.

In order to help us identify the beast we must first establish the identity and magnitude of the beast’s seduced devotees. The colossal rebellious composition of men that come under his/its influence and “worship him” are described as encompassing “all that dwell upon the earth” apart from those “whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). We must therefore conclude, there are two completely distinct companies in Revelation (as the rest of Scripture) that share two diametrically opposed allegiances and therefore end up in two eternally separated abodes. Those that withhold their veneration of this evil beast are assuredly the elect of God – those chosen from the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-6, 11, Titus 1:1-2, II Thessalonians 2:13-14, 2 Timothy 1:9). The beast’s disciples include everyone else – that great number of Christ-rejecters on the broad road to destruction “whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Revelation 17:8 supports this, saying, “The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.”

Like Revelation 13:8, this reading indicates that all “they that dwell on the earth” (apart from those “whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world”) will “wonder” or thaumazo (Strong’s 2296) or admire and marvel at the beast. This can only refer to the full amount of those among the wicked that stubbornly refuse to bow their knee to Christ in this current life. It is they that are beguiled by the subtle prompting of the beast and are shown to have no time for the things of God. The awful consequence of this delusion is that they have no part or portion “in the book of life” which is said to be written in eternity – “from the foundation of the world” It must be recognised in passing, the delusion poured out by the beast is directed at human beings, not angels. We know for sure that those that are written in the book of life are the redeemed of God alone – embracing all those that have/will put their trust in Christ alone. Therefore, we can deduce, the beast’s adherents are the remainder of mankind – the sum total of the Christ-rejecting world, also known in the Bible as the damned.

When we examine the rest of the New Testament to ascertain an awesome individual or influence (other than the devil) that would command such power and meet such a depiction, the Bible only seems to supply one possible option – the ongoing reign of Satan on the earth throughthe world secular anti-Christ system. It is Satan earthly empire on this globe throughout time. In fact, the description of the beast’s subjects is so comprehensive and inclusive of all the non-elect that it could only possibly relate to those that give themselves over (through a life of rejecting Christ) to the devil’s evil empire. It is the earthly expression of the devil’s purpose for mankind. It is the vehicle that contains and deludes the ungodly. Plainly, if one isn’t in the Church they are in the world; if they aren’t in the world they are in the Church. When we say “the Church” we of course mean the true Church – the redeemed Church. Not the visible Church but the invisible – them that are born from above. One is the direct antithesis of the other. There is no third vehicle for man, no alternative path in this life or no middle ground. Men are either saved or lost. To be saved is to be redeemed, to be lost is to be captivated by this world (the beast).

The beast is simply speaking of Satan’s overall evil kingdom/empire on this earth over the centuries. It refers to that wicked system of influence that opposes God and everything He represents and commands. It finds its origins right back in the Garden of Eden when Satan first attempted to abort the will of God at the beginning and foist his blueprint upon mankind. This kingdom is captivated and controlled by the spirit of anti-Christ and represents everything that is contrary to the plan, purpose and will of God for mankind.

Paul

markedward
May 13th 2007, 04:09 AM
Again, I disagree with the Preterist preoccupation with the Roman Empire and AD70. ... Preterists need to realise that the world continued on after AD70 and the Gospel has progressed ever since thus fulfilling Christ's prophetic words.

I'm not sure you fully understand the preterist view, or at least my own preterific interpretation of the Revelation. There are two things it seems I need to point out. Not to prove them to you, but just to let you know a couple of things you seem to have mixed up about what preterism believes, or at least what I as a preterist believe.

1 - While I agree that preterism shouldn't get hooked up on the 70 AD point of the interpretation, the explanation for why Revelation centers around the 60's and 70's AD is very simple. First, it prophesies the coming persecution of the Christians, the trial that the church would have to face. There is no denying that Christ's followers suffered worst in their early years. It doesn't matter what decade or century it would have been in, whether it was 70 AD, or 700 AD. The thing is, the historical persecution during that time period is exactly as the prophecies say. Secondly, it prophesies the coming judgment of the Jews. There is no denying that God's followers were punished for there wrongdoings during the Old Testament. God gave them Israel to call their own land when they were faithful. God took their homeland away when they were sinful. And, I think everyone can agree, the Jews did bad when they rejected their own Messiah! In the Old Testament the Jews strayed from God, so He sent conquering empires to rule over them and take them out of their home. In the New Testament, the Jews spit in the face of their own Savior, so He sent a conquering empire to destroy their temple and scatter their nation. Whether it had happened in 70 AD or 700 AD, the date does not matter. The thing is, the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the Diaspora is exactly as the prophecies say.

2 - You say "preterists need to realize that the world continued on after AD70." I have already stated before, yet it seems as if you missed it or ignored it: I don't believe the world ended at 70 AD (as is plainly obvious... I'm here, aren't I?). The phrase in the Bible that so many people mistranslate as "end of time" or "end of the world" is really "end of the age." Age, meaning, an era of time. The age that was coming to an end was the Age of the Law. The age of Christ had already come about, but there were still people offering sacrifices to God through the temple, under the Jewish leadership, under the laws of Moses. Again, it is not a good idea to get too hooked onto the point of 70 AD, but that does not mean one can say the events of 70 AD were insignificant. They were defining moments to history, to ways of life. They were defining moments to the Jews and to the Christians. In 70 AD, the Age of the Law was firmly and resolutely and definitively put to an end. God's own children had their own God beaten, tortured, mocked, crucified. So God had their temple destroyed, and their nation scattered. Obviously the world went on, but it went on differently. No more temple sacrifices. No more being bound to sin. Instead, one sacrifice for all, for all time. Free from sin under grace. And, sometime out there in the future, the final return of the Messiah to put an eternal end to sin.

markedward
May 13th 2007, 06:19 AM
Some Bible students believe the “beast” and the “false prophet” (known as the second beast) to be two literal individual people that come into existence in the last few years of this age. However, as one carefully studies the detail and teaching attached to these two beings you find there are compelling grounds for rejecting that perception. In fact, by studying the symbolism and language of Revelation there are many reasons to believe that they refer to two distinct yet inextricably linked influences/systems, rather than actual persons. Notwithstanding, it is needful to examine this matter in more depth in order to establish what is the real identity/meaning of these figures.Agreed... for the most part. I agree that the false prophet (beast of the earth) does not represent an individual, but a grouping of people or a system of people. The beast (of the sea) I agree represents more than just an individual... however, I believe it represents an individual and his empire (Nero/Rome).


In piecing the jig saw together in relation to these two beasts, it would be unwise to ignore the comparable symbolism / terminologies in the book of Daniel. There can be little doubt there are many striking similarities between Revelation and the book of Daniel in the Old Testament. In fact, what Daniel is to the Old Testament Revelation is to the New Testament. Both are written in a peculiar style, involving much symbolic/apocalyptic language. They must therefore be carefully and studiously dissected using the rest of Scripture to assist us in comprehending their detail. On the matter before us reference the symbolism of the beast, we can gain helpful assistance insight Understanding the interpretation of the beasts in Daniel will aid us in comprehending the meaning of these symbolic beasts in Revelation.Agreed. And yet... somehow it seems we come to different conclusions, despite both of us relying on scripture to interpret scripture.


We are given much illumination and help in establishing the identity of, and the extent of those who pay homage to, the beast in this passage. In fact, it is extremely difficult to ignore the extraordinary influence of the beast outlined in the whole book of Revelation. The aforementioned verse tells us that his/its adherents include every single person “whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Therefore, the beast specifically and symbolically must relate to some all-embracing Christ-rejecting influence or body that controls the affections of the sum total of the non-elect, those that will be eternally damned.Agreed.


Of course, the first person/entity that comes to mind as fitting this immense influence is Satan; however, Scripture shows us that it cannot be him... Revelation 13:2-4 makes plain that Satan is the actual source of power for the beast...Agreed.


In order to help us identify the beast we must first establish the identity and magnitude of the beast’s seduced devotees. The colossal rebellious composition of men that come under his/its influence and “worship him” are described as encompassing “all that dwell upon the earth” apart from those “whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). We must therefore conclude, there are two completely distinct companies in Revelation (as the rest of Scripture) that share two diametrically opposed allegiances and therefore end up in two eternally separated abodes. Those that withhold their veneration of this evil beast are assuredly the elect of God – those chosen from the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-6, 11, Titus 1:1-2, II Thessalonians 2:13-14, 2 Timothy 1:9). The beast’s disciples include everyone else – that great number of Christ-rejecters on the broad road to destruction “whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Like Revelation 13:8, this reading indicates that all “they that dwell on the earth” (apart from those “whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world”) will “wonder” or thaumazo (Strong’s 2296) or admire and marvel at the beast. This can only refer to the full amount of those among the wicked that stubbornly refuse to bow their knee to Christ in this current life. It is they that are beguiled by the subtle prompting of the beast and are shown to have no time for the things of God.Here is where I partly agree. We both recognize that the beast is Christ-rejecting, and also calls for allegience and admiration and worship. But while you interpret the beast as a system... I compare the beast directly to Daniel and... well, you know by now the points I made about the beasts of Daniel, and the beast of the sea of Revelation 13, and the beasts horns, and the 666, and the wounding of one of the hills and the miraculous healing, and the 42 months of authority, etc. (If you don't remember, simply click back a few pages) Now, I have presented my beliefs about the specifics on the verses. I have given detailed interpretations of many individual points. May I ask you to give your indepth interpretation on the beast of the sea? At least for starters? You have presented what you think the beast represents, but can you also present how you interpret things such as the wound, the healing, the 42 months of authority, the number/mark of the beast, the significance of the right hand and forehead?

Cyberseeker
May 13th 2007, 07:30 AM
(Man, I keep reading that as "pretties," like... "pretty.")

As I believe, these ten horns are the first ten ruling leaders of Rome.

Julius (1), Second Triumvirate (possibly solely Marc Antony, who was given rule over the eastern half of the empire, which, of course, included Judea) (2), Augustus (3), Tiberius (4), Caligula (5), Claudius (6), Nero (7), the most obvious ones are the three who were "plucked out," Galba (8), Otho (9), and Vitellius (10), and followed by another horn, Vespasian ...

I was hoping the 'part pretties' might have been different. ;)

No Ohtaryon, I really do not find your explanation convincing. I'll stay with Historicism which identifies 10 kingdoms that arose out of the Roman Empire at its dissolution in 476AD.

But I will leave it till another time so as not to derail your thread.

GBY

Cyber

cwb
May 13th 2007, 09:11 AM
The two witnesses:

The two witnesses, though the imagery John uses reminds one to think of Moses or Elijah, as is quite common, is actually a representation of the church itself. Why only two witnesses to refer to the church as a whole? Well, again, the Revelation refers heavily to other verses in the Bible.



Here you are saying the two witnesses are the church and in another post you said the beast who ascends out of the bottomless pit was Vespasian. According to your view (and reading Rev 11), Vespasian would have had to kill the whole church and the church would have to have risen three and a half latter. The church was not killed in the first century. Neither was there any resurrection of the church in the first century.

third hero
May 13th 2007, 09:41 AM
I'm not sure you fully understand the preterist view, or at least my own preterific interpretation of the Revelation. There are two things it seems I need to point out. Not to prove them to you, but just to let you know a couple of things you seem to have mixed up about what preterism believes, or at least what I as a preterist believe.

1 - While I agree that preterism shouldn't get hooked up on the 70 AD point of the interpretation, the explanation for why Revelation centers around the 60's and 70's AD is very simple. First, it prophesies the coming persecution of the Christians, the trial that the church would have to face. There is no denying that Christ's followers suffered worst in their early years. It doesn't matter what decade or century it would have been in, whether it was 70 AD, or 700 AD. The thing is, the historical persecution during that time period is exactly as the prophecies say. Secondly, it prophesies the coming judgment of the Jews. There is no denying that God's followers were punished for there wrongdoings during the Old Testament. God gave them Israel to call their own land when they were faithful. God took their homeland away when they were sinful. And, I think everyone can agree, the Jews did bad when they rejected their own Messiah! In the Old Testament the Jews strayed from God, so He sent conquering empires to rule over them and take them out of their home. In the New Testament, the Jews spit in the face of their own Savior, so He sent a conquering empire to destroy their temple and scatter their nation. Whether it had happened in 70 AD or 700 AD, the date does not matter. The thing is, the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the Diaspora is exactly as the prophecies say.

2 - You say "preterists need to realize that the world continued on after AD70." I have already stated before, yet it seems as if you missed it or ignored it: I don't believe the world ended at 70 AD (as is plainly obvious... I'm here, aren't I?). The phrase in the Bible that so many people mistranslate as "end of time" or "end of the world" is really "end of the age." Age, meaning, an era of time. The age that was coming to an end was the Age of the Law. The age of Christ had already come about, but there were still people offering sacrifices to God through the temple, under the Jewish leadership, under the laws of Moses. Again, it is not a good idea to get too hooked onto the point of 70 AD, but that does not mean one can say the events of 70 AD were insignificant. They were defining moments to history, to ways of life. They were defining moments to the Jews and to the Christians. In 70 AD, the Age of the Law was firmly and resolutely and definitively put to an end. God's own children had their own God beaten, tortured, mocked, crucified. So God had their temple destroyed, and their nation scattered. Obviously the world went on, but it went on differently. No more temple sacrifices. No more being bound to sin. Instead, one sacrifice for all, for all time. Free from sin under grace. And, sometime out there in the future, the final return of the Messiah to put an eternal end to sin.

So let me see if I am understanding this correctly.

According to you brand of preterism, the age of Salvation, which some call the age of the Gentiles, or Chruch age, is the present age in which Revelation, according to you, is explaining? Maybe I am a little off here, but I am trying to understand you position.

DurbanDude
May 13th 2007, 11:11 AM
I'm not sure you fully understand the preterist view, or at least my own preterific interpretation of the Revelation. There are two things it seems I need to point out. Not to prove them to you, but just to let you know a couple of things you seem to have mixed up about what preterism believes, or at least what I as a preterist believe.

1 - While I agree that preterism shouldn't get hooked up on the 70 AD point of the interpretation, the explanation for why Revelation centers around the 60's and 70's AD is very simple. First, it prophesies the coming persecution of the Christians, the trial that the church would have to face. There is no denying that Christ's followers suffered worst in their early years. It doesn't matter what decade or century it would have been in, whether it was 70 AD, or 700 AD. The thing is, the historical persecution during that time period is exactly as the prophecies say. Secondly, it prophesies the coming judgment of the Jews. There is no denying that God's followers were punished for there wrongdoings during the Old Testament. God gave them Israel to call their own land when they were faithful. God took their homeland away when they were sinful. And, I think everyone can agree, the Jews did bad when they rejected their own Messiah! In the Old Testament the Jews strayed from God, so He sent conquering empires to rule over them and take them out of their home. In the New Testament, the Jews spit in the face of their own Savior, so He sent a conquering empire to destroy their temple and scatter their nation. Whether it had happened in 70 AD or 700 AD, the date does not matter. The thing is, the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the Diaspora is exactly as the prophecies say.

2 - You say "preterists need to realize that the world continued on after AD70." I have already stated before, yet it seems as if you missed it or ignored it: I don't believe the world ended at 70 AD (as is plainly obvious... I'm here, aren't I?). The phrase in the Bible that so many people mistranslate as "end of time" or "end of the world" is really "end of the age." Age, meaning, an era of time. The age that was coming to an end was the Age of the Law. The age of Christ had already come about, but there were still people offering sacrifices to God through the temple, under the Jewish leadership, under the laws of Moses. Again, it is not a good idea to get too hooked onto the point of 70 AD, but that does not mean one can say the events of 70 AD were insignificant. They were defining moments to history, to ways of life. They were defining moments to the Jews and to the Christians. In 70 AD, the Age of the Law was firmly and resolutely and definitively put to an end. God's own children had their own God beaten, tortured, mocked, crucified. So God had their temple destroyed, and their nation scattered. Obviously the world went on, but it went on differently. No more temple sacrifices. No more being bound to sin. Instead, one sacrifice for all, for all time. Free from sin under grace. And, sometime out there in the future, the final return of the Messiah to put an eternal end to sin.

I found this to be very well thought and clearly stated. Even as a post-trib I have always seen the significance of the year 70 AD.

Now that the compliments are over , I'm going to submit my objections to the partial preterist view. Please forgive and ignore those objections where I have misunderstood your view , I'm still learning the various standpoints. Since coming on this site 2 weeks ago I immediately recognised the futility of these discussions because every major viewpoint by nature has to have differing interpretations over many verses , and because of the language of the bible, interpretations are subjective. So to each individual their own explanations for verses that appear to contradict their view are satisfactory , yet to others the points look weak.

DurbanDude
May 13th 2007, 11:29 AM
Daniel 7 states that the saints inherit the kingdom after the destruction of the horn of the beast. Dan7:21 Dan 7:25-27

My question: Who is this horn , and when (and how) did the saints inherit the kingdom as spoken in Daniel 7?

DurbanDude
May 13th 2007, 11:41 AM
Preterists often regard Daniel's 70 sevens as already fulfilled. Yet if the fulfilments of Dan 9:24 "finish transgression ,to put an end to sin , to atone for wickedness , to bring in everlasting righteousness , to seal up prophecy and to anoint the most holy" happened at the crucifixion only , this is 3.5 years too early , in the middle of the last seven. Some preterists say the 70th seven was complete 3.5 years after the crucifixion when the gospel went out to the gentiles , but none of the events mentioned in the above verse happened then. Other preterists seem to say that the fulfilment of the 70 sevens occurred in 70 AD , yet this doesn't explain what happened in the last 3.5 years of the 70 sevens , and a clear explanation of the need for a 40 year break in the 490 year period is needed. Please explain this.

DurbanDude
May 13th 2007, 12:47 PM
There are 2 main theories regarding the seven heads of Revelation 17:9. The historical perspective is normally that these are 7 consecutive emperors , and to fit this Rev is regarded as being written before 70 AD , the 6th one that existed at that time is Nero , the 7th one is regarded as Galba , then the 8th and 9th are ignored as insignificant , and the 10th one Titus is regarded as the 8th 'head' of Rev 17:9.

There is a more futurist interpretation which also fits in very well , it regards these 7 heads as 7 consecutive kingdoms the original languages referring to "soveriegn powers" not kings or kingdoms. These could be Egypt. Assyria, Babylon , Persia , Greece , Rome , with 2 empires to follow after Rome. Rome is therefore seen as the 6th empire which existed at the time of writing of Revelation.

I will acknowledge that until the 6th emperor the historical approach does seem to fit , if you ignore the preferred dating of 95 AD for the dating of Revelation. I am a bit doubtful about the 7th and 8th emperors Otho and Vitellius being left out.

My question is: On the balance of the 2 theories why should I go with the historical approach of 8 non-consecutive emperors (2 being ignored) and the least popular dating of Revelation , when I could go with a more futurist perspective of 8 consecutive empires and that fits in with the more popular date of 95 AD for Revelation?

Second question: Will you admit that alternative interpretations also can fit the bible even if they are opposed to yours.

wpm
May 13th 2007, 04:11 PM
I'm not sure you fully understand the preterist view, or at least my own preterific interpretation of the Revelation. There are two things it seems I need to point out. Not to prove them to you, but just to let you know a couple of things you seem to have mixed up about what preterism believes, or at least what I as a preterist believe.

1 - While I agree that preterism shouldn't get hooked up on the 70 AD point of the interpretation, the explanation for why Revelation centers around the 60's and 70's AD is very simple. First, it prophesies the coming persecution of the Christians, the trial that the church would have to face. There is no denying that Christ's followers suffered worst in their early years. It doesn't matter what decade or century it would have been in, whether it was 70 AD, or 700 AD. The thing is, the historical persecution during that time period is exactly as the prophecies say. Secondly, it prophesies the coming judgment of the Jews. There is no denying that God's followers were punished for there wrongdoings during the Old Testament. God gave them Israel to call their own land when they were faithful. God took their homeland away when they were sinful. And, I think everyone can agree, the Jews did bad when they rejected their own Messiah! In the Old Testament the Jews strayed from God, so He sent conquering empires to rule over them and take them out of their home. In the New Testament, the Jews spit in the face of their own Savior, so He sent a conquering empire to destroy their temple and scatter their nation. Whether it had happened in 70 AD or 700 AD, the date does not matter. The thing is, the historical destruction of Jerusalem and the Diaspora is exactly as the prophecies say.

2 - You say "preterists need to realize that the world continued on after AD70." I have already stated before, yet it seems as if you missed it or ignored it: I don't believe the world ended at 70 AD (as is plainly obvious... I'm here, aren't I?). The phrase in the Bible that so many people mistranslate as "end of time" or "end of the world" is really "end of the age." Age, meaning, an era of time. The age that was coming to an end was the Age of the Law. The age of Christ had already come about, but there were still people offering sacrifices to God through the temple, under the Jewish leadership, under the laws of Moses. Again, it is not a good idea to get too hooked onto the point of 70 AD, but that does not mean one can say the events of 70 AD were insignificant. They were defining moments to history, to ways of life. They were defining moments to the Jews and to the Christians. In 70 AD, the Age of the Law was firmly and resolutely and definitively put to an end. God's own children had their own God beaten, tortured, mocked, crucified. So God had their temple destroyed, and their nation scattered. Obviously the world went on, but it went on differently. No more temple sacrifices. No more being bound to sin. Instead, one sacrifice for all, for all time. Free from sin under grace. And, sometime out there in the future, the final return of the Messiah to put an eternal end to sin.


The cross was the end of the old age and the beginning of the new age, not AD70. AD70 simply seen the removal of the outward form of the old covenant. This did not mean that AD30 to AD70 related to the old covenant age - it didn't. Again, I struggle with the elevation of AD70 in Preterist thinking.

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 13th 2007, 04:21 PM
The cross was the end of the old age and the beginning of the new age, not AD70. AD70 simply seen the removal of the outward form of the old covenant. This did not mean that AD30 to AD70 related to the old covenant age - it didn't. Again, I struggle with the elevation of AD70 in Preterist thinking.

Paul


Wouldn't you agree paul that when there was finally no temple then the Mosaic age had its end? I know Jews only put it on hold, but we know its end was sure and final.

wpm
May 13th 2007, 04:27 PM
Wouldn't you agree paul that when there was finally no temple then the Mosaic age had its end? I know Jews only put it on hold, but we know its end was sure and final.

In God's eyes the cross ended the Mosaic system. That is all that matters. The reason the temple stood for so long was probably the grace of God. He gave them 40 yrs (a generation) to repent. However, it is wrong to locate that as the end of the old covenant age.

Ephesians 2:13-16 says, “in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.”

Colossians 2:14-15 plainly declares, speaking of Calvary, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”

Hebrews 9:13-15 declares, “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this causehe is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

As Jesus was dying, he cried: "It is finished." At Calvary, Jesus finished transgression by becoming sin for us. No future sacrifice can or will ever finish transgression; it was completely and perfectly finished at Calvary.

The once all-sufficient satisfactory sacrifice occurred through Christ at Calvary. The old system of repeated sacrifices (types) where thus terminated (in God’s economy) when God’s only begotten Son became the final sacrifice for sin. Whilst the Jews continued their divinely abolished temple sacrifices for forty more years, God did not recognize them. Such imperfect sacrifices would never again appease the wrath of Almighty God, as the death of Christ perfectly satisfied the one all-sufficient, final atoning sacrifice for sin forever.

Paul

wpm
May 13th 2007, 04:36 PM
Agreed... for the most part. I agree that the false prophet (beast of the earth) does not represent an individual, but a grouping of people or a system of people. The beast (of the sea) I agree represents more than just an individual... however, I believe it represents an individual and his empire (Nero/Rome).[/font]

Agreed. And yet... somehow it seems we come to different conclusions, despite both of us relying on scripture to interpret scripture.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Here is where I partly agree. We both recognize that the beast is Christ-rejecting, and also calls for allegience and admiration and worship. But while you interpret the beast as a system... I compare the beast directly to Daniel and... well, you know by now the points I made about the beasts of Daniel, and the beast of the sea of Revelation 13, and the beasts horns, and the 666, and the wounding of one of the hills and the miraculous healing, and the 42 months of authority, etc. (If you don't remember, simply click back a few pages) Now, I have presented my beliefs about the specifics on the verses. I have given detailed interpretations of many individual points. May I ask you to give your indepth interpretation on the beast of the sea? At least for starters? You have presented what you think the beast represents, but can you also present how you interpret things such as the wound, the healing, the 42 months of authority, the number/mark of the beast, the significance of the right hand and forehead?

Nero/Rome can't be the beast. As I have shown, whoever or whatever it is every unregenerate sinner must give allegiance to it - history shows that Nero/Rome never carried such influnce. Indeed as I have previously stated, the beast specifically and symbolically must relate to some all-embracing Christ-rejecting influence or body that controls the affections of the sum total of the non-elect, those that will be eternally damned. I believe it is talking about the Christ-rejecting world.

This anti-Christ system finds its first convert in the book of Genesis with the first Christ-rejecter Cain. In fact, Cain and Abel are representative of two distinct opposing systems in time. Since the Garden two different religious developed. One represented righteousness and the plan of God, the other represented wickedness and rebellion and the plan of Satan for mankind. One adhered strictly to the blood the other to the bloodless way. These two sacrifices have been the pattern for man ever since. One is genuine and biblical the other is counterfeit and unscriptural. Cain’s sacrifice was outwardly impressive and beautifully adorned; however, it was not pleasing unto the Lord. You see it was a bloodless offering and was therefore an offence to God.


The beast system (epitomizing the kingdom of darkness) originates back with Cain and will last until that last wicked generation alive at Christ’s Coming. This kingdom is just a mirror of its master Satan; it is Satan personified. It is full of evil and is the very essence of evil. The dragon (Satan himself) gives the beasts its power (Revelation 13:4).In essence, the beast is the main overall empire from which seven major evil empires spring forth.

I believe the binding of Satan at the Cross and his casting into the abyss – a place of restraint – is paralleled with the beast experiencing the same. They are both so interconnected and interdependent on each other that they mirror each other in their experiences. Therefore, I feel there are strong grounds for believing the release of Satan at the end from the abyss restriction (Revelation 20:7) corresponds with the beast also rising from the abyss (Revelation 17:8). The detail of the operation of the beast during the three and a half years – Revelation 13:5 -18 seems to correspond with the detail described in the end-time assault of the wicked on the camp of the saints in Revelation 20:9 in Satan’s little season.

When you listen to many modern-day preachers they speak much of the mark of the beast in Revelation, but have little if anything to say of the mark of God. Also, most have little else to advance on the intricacies of Revelation, although they enter into all forms of supposed expert assumption on the matter of the mark of the beast. Most Christians that swallow the varied speculations about silicon chips or literal imprints support their notions with different newspapers articles rather than any other explicit Scripture. In fact, no other New Testament Scripture is found to corroborate the hyper-literalist notion on this matter; therefore, we are justified in rejecting a literalist interpretation of either mark. We must discard it as erroneous and lacking in any real credibility. This is a common feature with many matters pertaining exclusively to Revelation. Instead of aligning the highly symbol detail of Revelation with the rest of Scripture, they interpret the plain, simple and repeated in Scripture with the visionary apocalypse.
Both of these marks should be viewed as the final stamps (or proofs) of ownership that seal a man’s destiny. In fact, every single man or woman ever born belongs to one of these two conflicting camps (no in-betweens), that is saved or lost, sheep or goats, God’s or Satan’s. Together, these marks embrace the sum total of all mankind – dead and living; people are either one or the other.

I believe the mark of the beast is the final mark of reprobation in the world that denotes a man will never again be saved. It relates solely to the unbeliever who stubbornly rejects the Gospel message – period. It is they alone that populate hell. It is not simply those who are in the world, it is those that perpetually, resist the strivings of God and then consequently surrender to the way of the world and finally die outside of Christ. It is they alone that are not written in “the book of life from the foundation of the world.” Whilst many unsaved have already breached the line of reprobation in this life, whereon the voice of God will never again speak, many others haven’t. Most probably realise that awful condemnation when they breathe their last breath. The elect of God that are still in the world are not included in this damned company, as they will eventually believe.

The mark of reprobation upon a man means he will never thereafter be saved, therefore it can’t strictly relate to all those currently participating in the things of the world. After all, God is still presently striving with many unsaved within the world. It must be remembered, we look at things from an imperfect finite position, however, God looks at it from an eternal infinite viewpoint, i.e., He knows them that are eternally His and that possess His divine spiritual mark. Our eternal destiny is known in all eternity; therefore we don't need to speculate about who is, or when they become, Christ's. God plainly knows the end from the beginning; it is He that finally reprobates. Jesus asserts in relation to His sheep, in John 10:14, “I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.”

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 13th 2007, 05:26 PM
In God's eyes the cross ended the Mosaic system. That is all that matters. The reason the temple stood for so long was probably the grace of God. He gave them 40 yrs (a generation) to repent. However, it is wrong to locate that as the end of the old covenant age.

Ephesians 2:13-16 says, “in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.”

Colossians 2:14-15 plainly declares, speaking of Calvary, “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”

Hebrews 9:13-15 declares, “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this causehe is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

As Jesus was dying, he cried: "It is finished." At Calvary, Jesus finished transgression by becoming sin for us. No future sacrifice can or will ever finish transgression; it was completely and perfectly finished at Calvary.

The once all-sufficient satisfactory sacrifice occurred through Christ at Calvary. The old system of repeated sacrifices (types) where thus terminated (in God’s economy) when God’s only begotten Son became the final sacrifice for sin. Whilst the Jews continued their divinely abolished temple sacrifices for forty more years, God did not recognize them. Such imperfect sacrifices would never again appease the wrath of Almighty God, as the death of Christ perfectly satisfied the one all-sufficient, final atoning sacrifice for sin forever.

Paul

I guess I will have to disagree with your thinking that the end of the age was at the cross simply because the disciples asked when the things that Christ told them of were going to happen and of the end of the age. The Disciples certainly didn't know all the implications of what they were asking but Jesus didn't lead them down any other reasoning except to say when they saw all these things happen then the end would come. Those 4 who were with Him did see those things and so they were not misled.

Yes, of course the cross is the end of the Old system and it was said to be finished but it, like the kingdom being here then and even in Daniels time was described, takes on shape as time rolls on. Little by little this Old System habit became less and less in the minds of believers and had a sudden and abrupt end in the eyes of the Jews when Rome destroyed the temple.

Maybe you can show by way of Scripture that the Cross was the age the disciples and Jesus were referring to.

Blessing to you Paul

markedward
May 13th 2007, 05:59 PM
Here you are saying the two witnesses are the church and in another post you said the beast who ascends out of the bottomless pit was Vespasian. According to your view (and reading Rev 11), Vespasian would have had to kill the whole church and the church would have to have risen three and a half latter. The church was not killed in the first century. Neither was there any resurrection of the church in the first century.
The beast, Rome, is being described as overcoming the Christian witness. With the great persecution of Christians under the Romans and Jews (and later with the fall of Jerusalem, as the Romans thought that such a tumult of defeat to the Jews would be equally disastrous to the Christians) it is no wonder the Romans would think the Christians would be all but wiped out. Jerusalem is spiritually called “Sodom” and “Egypt,” so this in turn is saying that the judgments in Revelation ought to also be described as spiritual in how it is presented, not literal. Rome leaving the Christian witness lying dead in the streets and that “no one will be allowed to bury them” is inferring that Rome had supposed that the Christian witness had been destroyed and suffer the shame of defeat (the shame of not being “buried”). Later on, Titus, in charge of the Roman armies under Vespasian, is noted by historian Severus as trying to eliminate Christians with the Jews during the destruction of Jerusalem, because “the Christiani arose from the Jews, [and] with the root [the Jews] removed, the branch [Christianity] is easily killed." The resurrection of the witnesses signifies God’s assurance that the Christian faith would not be destroyed by the hands of the beast, Rome. Also, even during the time of the persecutions and wars, many Christians were leaving the faith, so it probably seemed as if Christianity would all but die out. The witnesses rising to heaven is to signify that they are God’s chosen people. The three and a half days is simply meant to parallel that just as Christ died and was resurrected, the Christians are spiritually resurrected through Jesus’ physical sacrifice.

markedward
May 13th 2007, 06:15 PM
There is a more futurist interpretation which also fits in very well , it regards these 7 heads as 7 consecutive kingdoms the original languages referring to "soveriegn powers" not kings or kingdoms. These could be Egypt. Assyria, Babylon , Persia , Greece , Rome , with 2 empires to follow after Rome. Rome is therefore seen as the 6th empire which existed at the time of writing of Revelation.Alright. Then... what are the other two empires, and why is there such a ridiculously huge gap in between Rome and the one that follows it, when all of the other empires were 1-2-3-4-5-6 right in a row? The way that the Revelation and Daniel describe it, these empires came one immediately after the other, usually by conquering the remains of the previous empire. The only empires I can think of that followed the Roman Empire would be the "Holy Roman Empire" in Medieval Europe and the "Third Reich" in the early 1900's... but as my history professor stated, most historians agree that the "Holy Roman Empire" was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. It was even ruled by people who claimed to be Christians. And as for the "Third Reich," though it is obvious that it persecuted the Jews, it could hardly be called a world-ruling "empire." It was in ruins after only so many years, and obviously failed to conquer Europe.


I will acknowledge that until the 6th emperor the historical approach does seem to fit , if you ignore the preferred dating of 95 AD for the dating of Revelation.Whose preferred dating? The entire Catholic church (which is arguably the largest Christian denomination) prefers the pre-70 AD dating. A number of other denominations prefer the pre-70 AD dating. In fact, the 95 AD dating only came about in the last couple of centuries. Even a large number of Futurists and secular scholars believed that the early church believed the "end of the age" was in their time period, that they believed an event of catastrophic proportions was in their time period, and then all of the mentioned events happen between the 60's and 70's AD? Too "coincidental" to be mere coincidence.

markedward
May 13th 2007, 06:36 PM
Preterists often regard Daniel's 70 sevens as already fulfilled. Yet if the fulfilments of Dan 9:24 "finish transgression ,to put an end to sin , to atone for wickedness , to bring in everlasting righteousness , to seal up prophecy and to anoint the most holy" happened at the crucifixion only , this is 3.5 years too early , in the middle of the last seven. Some preterists say the 70th seven was complete 3.5 years after the crucifixion when the gospel went out to the gentiles , but none of the events mentioned in the above verse happened then. Other preterists seem to say that the fulfilment of the 70 sevens occurred in 70 AD , yet this doesn't explain what happened in the last 3.5 years of the 70 sevens , and a clear explanation of the need for a 40 year break in the 490 year period is needed. Please explain this.
Daniel says that after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued, a period of 7 sevens and 62 sevens would take place. 7x7=49. 62x7=434. 49+434=483. In 457 BC, Artaxerxes I issues the decree for Jerusalem to be rebuilt and re-established as an independent city. 457 BC+483 years (excluding the non-existent year 0)=27 AD. Jesus is said to have been born around 4 or 3 BC. The Bible states He was baptized on His 30th birthday. 3 BC+30 years (excluding the non-existent year 0)=27 AD. The year of Jesus' baptism. Daniel then says that after the 62 sevens (and obviously after the 7 sevens), the Anointed One would come and be killed, appearing as if He accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise (it does not say exactly when a ruler will arise. Simply that a ruler will arise sometime after the Anointed One is killed), and he will destroy the city and the temple, ending the temple sacrificies halfway through a seven-year time period. The Jewish Rebellion began in 66 AD. Vespasian was appointed to stop the rebellion, and when his troops arrived, he made the attempt to restore order. However, after three and a half years, in 70 AD, Vespasian had his son and the armies destroy the city and the temple. As a result, the temple sacrifices were put to a permanent end. The Jewish Rebellion finally ended in 73 AD at Masada, three and half years after the brunt of the war. That's where the infamous seven years is.

markedward
May 13th 2007, 06:54 PM
So let me see if I am understanding this correctly.

According to you brand of preterism, the age of Salvation, which some call the age of the Gentiles, or Chruch age, is the present age in which Revelation, according to you, is explaining? Maybe I am a little off here, but I am trying to understand you position.
Correct (in that's what I believe). Revelation and the NT say that an age is ending ("the end of the age"). The age that ended was the Mosaic Age, the age/epoch/era in which God's holy people were confined to following the Law, and were dead under sin. The age that began with Christ's resurrection is the Messianic Age, the age/epoch/era in which God's holy people are not confined to following the Law, and are alive under Christ's salvation and grace (though we still sin, Christ cleanses us of sin so that we do not have to fear the penalty of death under the Law). Christ's kingdom (which He stated is not something to be physically seen) is the new age, the Messianic Age, that came about when the Mosaic Age came to an end. Revelation says that Christ's kingdom will rule for a 1000 years (after which Satan will be released a short time). I believe we are yet in that 1000 years, and that "1000" is not literal, but simply metaphoric for a lengthy amount of time. Why? Well, looking at how God uses the number 1000 in the OT a few times can reveal this.

Deuteronomy 7:9 “Understand, therefore, that the Lord your God is indeed God. He is the faithful God who keeps His covenant for a thousand generations and lavishes His unfailing love on those who love Him and obey His commands.”

If we interpret this verse literally, and note that it is from one of the law books, which generally are taken in all literalness, then this is saying that God will keep His covenant for 1000 generations. If we average a generation to be around 20-40 years, then this is literally saying from the time the covenant was made with Abraham, God would keep the covenant on through 20,000-40,000 years afterwards. In which case, we have a long, long way to go still, from the start of the covenant from Abraham to 20,000-40,000 years in his future. Another verse to compare, used previously for the armies of Revelation 9:

Psalms 50:10 “For all the animals of the forest are Mine, and I own the cattle on a thousand hills.”

Again, the “thousand” is just simply a metaphorical device that is saying “all the cattle are God’s.” In this same essence, the “thousand-year” kingdom is not a literal one-thousand years, but rather a numerical value applied to a lengthy time frame that is undefined.

wpm
May 13th 2007, 10:00 PM
I guess I will have to disagree with your thinking that the end of the age was at the cross simply because the disciples asked when the things that Christ told them of were going to happen and of the end of the age. The Disciples certainly didn't know all the implications of what they were asking but Jesus didn't lead them down any other reasoning except to say when they saw all these things happen then the end would come. Those 4 who were with Him did see those things and so they were not misled.

Yes, of course the cross is the end of the Old system and it was said to be finished but it, like the kingdom being here then and even in Daniels time was described, takes on shape as time rolls on. Little by little this Old System habit became less and less in the minds of believers and had a sudden and abrupt end in the eyes of the Jews when Rome destroyed the temple.

Maybe you can show by way of Scripture that the Cross was the age the disciples and Jesus were referring to.

Blessing to you Paul

The end of the old covenant was not a process as you are suggesting but an act. Calvary was that final transaction.

The end of the age talked about by Jesus was actually the Coming of Christ. We are still anticipating that. Jesus taught in the parable of the wheat and tares (in Matthew 13:24-30), “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed among the wheat, and went his way …Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, (1) Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but (2) gather the wheat into my barn.”

Verses 39-43 continues, “the harvest is the end of the world (or) aioonos (or) age; and the reapers are the angels. (1) As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (2) Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

Who are the wheat and who are the tares in this parable? And, is there anyone excluded from the scope of these two inclusive groupings? Or, put another way; are there any in-betweens or semi-tares / semi-wheat that are omitted in their description? Firstly, the wheat and tares are a symbolic collective inclusive representation of all mankind; the wheat representing “the children of the kingdom” (Matthew 13:38) – those saved by God’s wonderful grace; the taresrepresenting “the children of the wicked one” (Matthew 13:38) – those outside of grace and of God. The righteous in this story are notably planted of God; the tares on the other hand are planted of the “enemy” – the devil. In fact, Matthew 13:39 states, “The enemy that sowed them is the devil.” This again corroborates the view that we are viewing the only two sole peoples that Scripture recognises. Plainly if one isn’t off the Lord then there are off the devil. There are no hybrids.

The parable that preceded this correlates closely and reinforces the fact that the tares are Satan’s people. Jesus said in Matthew 13:24-30, “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.”

In this parable, “the end of the world” is plainly identified with the Coming of the “Son of man” with all “his angels” to gather together “the righteous” unto Himself in order that they will finally “shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” in their glorified state. This event also (significantly) simultaneously sees the uprooting of the tares (in total) to be finally and completely destroyed by casting them “into a furnace of fire.” It is at the Second Coming therefore that Christ “shall send forth his angels” to reap that one final all-consummating harvest. The phrase “end of the world” is the end of the aioonos or age. Both wheat and tares are collectively and wholly judged together at the end of this present Gospel age.

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 13th 2007, 10:16 PM
Still, can you can show by way of Scripture that the Cross was the age the disciples and Jesus were referring to?

wpm
May 13th 2007, 10:43 PM
Still, can you can show by way of Scripture that the Cross was the age the disciples and Jesus were referring to?

Hebrews 9:24-28 says, “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world (or) aion (or) age hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”

Here we have it. The end of the age is the cross. Through Calvary He did away with the old. Nothing could be clearer.

Speaking of His final sacrifice for sin, Christ said in Hebrews 10:4-12 explains, “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”

The old covenant was removed with the intro of the new. I thought this was a fundamental doctrine. Calvary removed the old abolished system. This was the end of the old covenant age.

Hebrews 10:14-20 then affirms, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil,that is to say, his flesh.”


2 Corinthians 3:11-14 similarly says, “For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious… And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; whichvail is done away in Christ.”

Hebrews 10:26 says, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth,there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.”

The introduction of the new covenant arrived at the cross not AD70 as Preterists suggest. The old only became old with the arrival of the new. That came through the atonement. Preterists undermine the finality of the cross with their elevation of AD70, which was just the final removal of the paraphanelia of the abolished old arrangement.

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 13th 2007, 11:01 PM
Thank you for the evidence you have provided which only succeeds in proving the act of Christ finished it all but in the context of Matthew 24 was not completely done in action by worshippers until the temple no longer existed once and for all. The temple still played a very important role as a transitional role for all the early believers who were Jewish and this was the crux of the question that matered to the disciples and the question Jesus answered. The end of the Mosaic age had its culmination at 70AD. No more could the sacrificial practice be maintained without the temple and the altar. The Jewish Christians honored its imporatnce as well in various ways which included the recordings we have that the disciples themselve participated in.

Just as the end of the world is on its way, the end of the Mosaic age had to end through a process which took an addition 40 years after the crucifiction.

wpm
May 13th 2007, 11:08 PM
Thank you for the evidence you have provided which only succeeds in proving the act of Christ finished it all but in the context of Matthew 24 was not completely done in action by worshippers until the temple no longer existed once and for all. The temple still played a very important role as a transitional role for all the early believers who were Jewish and this was the crux of the question that matered to the disciples and the question Jesus answered. The end of the Mosaic age had its culmination at 70AD. No more could the sacrificial practice be maintained without the temple and the altar. The Jewish Christians honored its imporatnce as well in various ways which included the recordings we have that the disciples themselve participated in.

Just as the end of the world is on its way, the end of the Mosaic age had to end through a process which took an addition 40 years after the crucifiction.

I disagree. They honoured Christ and His final sacrifice for sin alone. Please read the NT writers who all wrote during this period. They say no spiritual value in the abolished sacrifices. Hebrews 9:24-28 continues, “For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”

Romans 6:9-10 says, “Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died,he died unto sin once:but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.”

We can therefore testify of Calvary, "Christ died for our sins"(1 Corinthians 15:3), where He "bare our sins in his own body on the tree" (l Peter 2:24). Therefore, "He was manifested to take away our sins"(l John 3:5).

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 14th 2007, 12:21 AM
Paul, don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with you over the finished work of Christ but I am only pointing out that the mindset trailed this even among the disciples. Take, for example, Peter and his return to Jewish traditions when in front of Jews but acted otherwise when in front of Gentiles. Paul rebuked this of Peter but the fact is Peter and others had not yet completely turned their mindset to the eventual obolishment of the Mosaic law until their death or if later the destruction of Jerusalem.

This truly fits the context of Matthew 24. The disciples knew nothing of the upcoming death of Christ but they were understanding the coming destruction of Jerusalem and thus their question rang out. Jesus had the opportunity to correct their erroneous view on the end of the age if it were to be at His death but did not. As I have said, He instead answered their question within its context.

DurbanDude
May 14th 2007, 09:05 AM
Alright. Then... what are the other two empires, and why is there such a ridiculously huge gap in between Rome and the one that follows it, when all of the other empires were 1-2-3-4-5-6 right in a row? The way that the Revelation and Daniel describe it, these empires came one immediately after the other, usually by conquering the remains of the previous empire. The only empires I can think of that followed the Roman Empire would be the "Holy Roman Empire" in Medieval Europe and the "Third Reich" in the early 1900's... but as my history professor stated, most historians agree that the "Holy Roman Empire" was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. It was even ruled by people who claimed to be Christians. And as for the "Third Reich," though it is obvious that it persecuted the Jews, it could hardly be called a world-ruling "empire." It was in ruins after only so many years, and obviously failed to conquer Europe.

Whose preferred dating? The entire Catholic church (which is arguably the largest Christian denomination) prefers the pre-70 AD dating. A number of other denominations prefer the pre-70 AD dating. In fact, the 95 AD dating only came about in the last couple of centuries. Even a large number of Futurists and secular scholars believed that the early church believed the "end of the age" was in their time period, that they believed an event of catastrophic proportions was in their time period, and then all of the mentioned events happen between the 60's and 70's AD? Too "coincidental" to be mere coincidence.

There are many views regarding the final 2 empires , none of which involve a huge gap. So if you re-read what I said , why should I choose a non-consecutive emperors theory over a perfectly consecutive empires theory. This theory is not historical but is still unfolding therefore the 8th empire could be in the future. And please could you admit that my theory can fit the bible too , I think that to be able to admit that 2 opposing theories can actually fit , enables the type of open discussion where people may end up changing views based on the general evidence.

Some examples : A) 7th empire - Papal Rome (contrary to what you say the Vatican has had huge and direct influence over politics in Europe and the Middle East since the fall of Rome , anyone doing a basic google search into history can confirm this within 5 minutes - please do this any readers out there)

8th empire : Future empire controlled by Israel
or Non-religious capitalist/scientific/ humanist dominance started by France in 1798 when they conquered Rome, removed the Pope , and conquered Israel.

B) 7th empire - Islam - when they conquered the Byantium empire which is the Eastern Roman Empire The 8th empire could therefore be the Israel/Britain/USA alliance which took over control of the region in 1917 , defeating the Moslems.

Like I said before , your point that they are consecutive is in your disfavour because your own theory ignores 2 emperors because their reign was short and insignificant.

Your point regarding dating , well I do accept it. Yes the dating of Revelation is uncertain, and although the 95 AD date has become popular it is difficult to ascertain exactly which is more popular. However with the 8 consecutive empires theory , both dates fit in with Rome as the 6th empire.

DurbanDude
May 14th 2007, 09:42 AM
Daniel says that after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued, a period of 7 sevens and 62 sevens would take place. 7x7=49. 62x7=434. 49+434=483. In 457 BC, Artaxerxes I issues the decree for Jerusalem to be rebuilt and re-established as an independent city. 457 BC+483 years (excluding the non-existent year 0)=27 AD. Jesus is said to have been born around 4 or 3 BC. The Bible states He was baptized on His 30th birthday. 3 BC+30 years (excluding the non-existent year 0)=27 AD. The year of Jesus' baptism. Daniel then says that after the 62 sevens (and obviously after the 7 sevens), the Anointed One would come and be killed, appearing as if He accomplished nothing, and a ruler will arise (it does not say exactly when a ruler will arise. Simply that a ruler will arise sometime after the Anointed One is killed), and he will destroy the city and the temple, ending the temple sacrificies halfway through a seven-year time period. The Jewish Rebellion began in 66 AD. Vespasian was appointed to stop the rebellion, and when his troops arrived, he made the attempt to restore order. However, after three and a half years, in 70 AD, Vespasian had his son and the armies destroy the city and the temple. As a result, the temple sacrifices were put to a permanent end. The Jewish Rebellion finally ended in 73 AD at Masada, three and half years after the brunt of the war. That's where the infamous seven years is.

Ok thanks for explaining this as per my request. Obviously you are satisfied that those events listed: Dan 9:24 "finish transgression ,to put an end to sin , to atone for wickedness , to bring in everlasting righteousness , to seal up prophecy and to anoint the most holy" were finally completed at Masada at your completion of the 70 sevens period.

New question: why do you place a gap in the 490 year period? According to the Masada theory it is a 529 year period. And which of the 6 fulfilments mentioned in Daniel 9:24 happened at Masada?

DurbanDude
May 14th 2007, 09:52 AM
Daniel 7 states that the saints inherit the kingdom after the destruction of the horn of the beast. Dan7:21 Dan 7:25-27

My question: Who is this horn , and when (and how) did the saints inherit the kingdom as spoken in Daniel 7?

Just reminding you of this question.

wpm
May 14th 2007, 10:14 AM
Paul, don't get me wrong, I am not disagreeing with you over the finished work of Christ but I am only pointing out that the mindset trailed this even among the disciples. Take, for example, Peter and his return to Jewish traditions when in front of Jews but acted otherwise when in front of Gentiles. Paul rebuked this of Peter but the fact is Peter and others had not yet completely turned their mindset to the eventual obolishment of the Mosaic law until their death or if later the destruction of Jerusalem.

This truly fits the context of Matthew 24. The disciples knew nothing of the upcoming death of Christ but they were understanding the coming destruction of Jerusalem and thus their question rang out. Jesus had the opportunity to correct their erroneous view on the end of the age if it were to be at His death but did not. As I have said, He instead answered their question within its context.

The death of the Mosaic ordinances occurred at the cross. It was the end of the OT age. I showed this to you as you requested. The fact that the disciples were politically required to keep certain customs as Jews did not negate their belief in the finality of the abolished system at the cross. The replication of old covenant ordinances is not a proof that they were still valid after Christ's death but that God had a set time to remove the main setting for it and the focal-point for Christ-rejecting Judaism. AD70 is not the beginning of the new covenant as Preterists argue but the cross.

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 14th 2007, 11:42 AM
The death of the Mosaic ordinances occurred at the cross. It was the end of the OT age. I showed this to you as you requested. The fact that the disciples were politically required to keep certain customs as Jews did not negate their belief in the finality of the abolished system at the cross. The replication of old covenant ordinances is not a proof that they were still valid after Christ's death but that God had a set time to remove the main setting for it and the focal-point for Christ-rejecting Judaism. AD70 is not the beginning of the new covenant as Preterists argue but the cross.

Paul

I don't know of one Preterist that says that 70AD is the beginning of the New Covenant. All of us, as far as I know say it just like Christ when He declared it at the Last Supper.

When did the presence of the Lord God leave the temple?

DurbanDude
May 14th 2007, 12:30 PM
New question: In Ezekiel 39 and Zechariah 12-14 we see that a great battle is predicted against Jerusalem. In both Zechariah and Ezekiel this battle is won by Israel with God's help , and in Zechariah 14 this is followed by a period on earth with particular blessing for Israel and where the nations are forced to serve God. Most pre-mills regard this battle as the final battle before Jesus physically reigns on earth for 1000 years. Please explain these verses to me from a preterist point of view.

My point here is that the pre-mill position of a 1000 year future period of Christ's reign in Jerusalem while the mortal unrighteous continue to live seems to explain these verses well. The bible speaks of this period after a great war which Israel wins , followed by a period of extreme blessing but mortality for some (Isaiah 65:17-21) and forced rule of God over the nations (Zechariah 14) and the unsaved still living but being ashamed and still continuing in their lies (Zechariah 13:3-6).

This also fits in with Rev 22:14,15 about those who have overcome being allowed into the city while outside the city the unrighteous continue to practice their sins.

wpm
May 14th 2007, 12:45 PM
I don't know of one Preterist that says that 70AD is the beginning of the New Covenant. All of us, as far as I know say it just like Christ when He declared it at the Last Supper.

When did the presence of the Lord God leave the temple?

The presence of the Lord God was not restricted to a temple made with hands from the Lord's earthly ministry. The temple became the body of Christ. I already showed you Scripture that demonstrates that.

Paul

wpm
May 14th 2007, 01:10 PM
I don't know of one Preterist that says that 70AD is the beginning of the New Covenant. All of us, as far as I know say it just like Christ when He declared it at the Last Supper.

When did the presence of the Lord God leave the temple?

I thought you were talking about the old covenant age and the old covenant age. One ended at AD70 the other began.

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 14th 2007, 04:28 PM
The presence of the Lord God was not restricted to a temple made with hands from the Lord's earthly ministry. The temple became the body of Christ. I already showed you Scripture that demonstrates that.

Paul


What I am asking, Paul, is prior to the ministry of Christ, and I mean just prior, was the presence of the Lord in the temple, specifically in the Holy of Holies?

If so, then when did He depart from there. I ask this because it ties in with Zech 14.

wpm
May 14th 2007, 05:29 PM
What I am asking, Paul, is prior to the ministry of Christ, and I mean just prior, was the presence of the Lord in the temple, specifically in the Holy of Holies?

If so, then when did He depart from there. I ask this because it ties in with Zech 14.

Please enlarge upon your question before I commit myself

Paul

markedward
May 14th 2007, 06:06 PM
There are many views regarding the final 2 empires , none of which involve a huge gap. So if you re-read what I said , why should I choose a non-consecutive emperors theory over a perfectly consecutive empires theory. This theory is not historical but is still unfolding therefore the 8th empire could be in the future. And please could you admit that my theory can fit the bible too , I think that to be able to admit that 2 opposing theories can actually fit , enables the type of open discussion where people may end up changing views based on the general evidence.Okay. I admit it does fit, although from my perspective it fits less. I'll give an analogy to let you know why I think so: Say these two view points are literally puzzles with puzzle pieces, and each verse of Revelation is one puzzle piece. For the preterism puzzle, I see a mostly complete puzzle. There are a few pieces missing here and there which I am trying to find, and there's a large chunk missing in one corner, but I know where they are, they just aren't put in yet. But when I think about the historicist puzzle (that's the view you're presenting I think, right? Correct me if I'm wrong), the puzzle seems to only be a fraction of the size as the other puzzle, and while you know have the other puzzle pieces sitting in a pile to your side, most of them are just regular squares with no puzzling-protrusions, so they can fit almost anywhere you want them to.

Now, I'm not trying to say Historicism will never work. For all I know, it could be the correct way to interpret scripture. But there are sooooo many verses within Revelation that can be ambiguously attached to multiple points throughout history for me to lend it a credible eye (at least, so far). For instance, the great earthquakes. There's only two or three of them in the Revelation (forgive me, I don't have my Bible on hand at the moment), but there's just too many major earthquakes throughout history to attach the Revelation earthquakes to, and even then the accompanying verses (such as the "tenth of the city" being destroyed) must fit perfectly as well, which most Historicist interpretations don't know where to put it, while I find that it fits within the realm of descriptions of Jerusalem's destruction.


Some examples : A) 7th empire - Papal Rome (contrary to what you say the Vatican has had huge and direct influence over politics in Europe and the Middle East since the fall of Rome , anyone doing a basic google search into history can confirm this within 5 minutes - please do this any readers out there) I don't deny that the Catholic Church has been heavily involved in the world... but it can hardly be called an empire. And aside from that, while it may be argued that the Papacy is the 7th Empire... it has to fit in the consistency of the empires rising and falling consecutively. The Papacy has existed since the fourth century and 1700 years later it's still here. To be considered an empire, the Papacy would need to have territory to conquer, an economy of its own, and a population of citizens. While it may be argued that the Vatican is the territory, most Catholics do not live in the Vatican, they live in countries all around the world. So for the 7th Empire to fall, one would have to conquer the entire world and gather all of the Catholics into one place and declare them all as no-longer being Catholic. Catholicism is a religion, not a nationality.

8th empire : Future empire controlled by Israel
or Non-religious capitalist/scientific/ humanist dominance started by France in 1798 when they conquered Rome, removed the Pope , and conquered Israel.


B) 7th empire - Islam - when they conquered the Byantium empire which is the Eastern Roman Empire The 8th empire could therefore be the Israel/Britain/USA alliance which took over control of the region in 1917 , defeating the Moslems.Also an ambiguous thing to call an "empire." You're missing the consistency of all the previous empires, in that they were empires, not religions. While Islam, under Muhammed, did conquer cities and even countries, and the religion spread, it can hardly be called an empire. For one, it's still around, and still rules in much of the Middle East and even in Africa and eastern Europe. And, just the same as Catholicism, Islam exists all over the world.

The problem with the two empires you have given is that they are religions, not empires. One can't conquer a religious faith. Even if an eighth empire were to conquer the entire world, Islam and Catholicism would not stop being practiced by its followers.


Like I said before, your point that they are consecutive is in your disfavour because your own theory ignores 2 emperors because their reign was short and insignificant.Granted. I must admit chapter 17 has been the hardest for me to interpret, but all previous chapters I find to hit right on the mark. But even still, while what I have interpreted thus far for 17 regarding the emperors may be wrong, it does, I think, hit closely to the Daniel comment about the three horns being "plucked out" (Galba who ruled a short time, and Otho and Vitellius, who can hardly be called emperors) and followed by another horn (Vespasian) that would destroy the city (Jerusalem) and its temple. But that is, I admit, one of the few puzzle pieces I am trying to find.


However with the 8 consecutive empires theory , both dates fit in with Rome as the 6th empire.The first six empires may fit, but I find any following theories fall apart.

BeOfGoodCourage
May 14th 2007, 08:04 PM
Please enlarge upon your question before I commit myself

Paul


Paul, I am jumping around it seems, I know, but your answers and mine should shed light on where I am going with this. What I am asking at this time is when in your understanding did the shekinah glory of God depart from the second temple? Did it depart at a time far before Christ entered the scene? Did it depart when Christ declared the Temple desolate, or did it depart at its destruction or at the cross and what evidence do you have?

Keep in mind that this question has nothing to do with our previous discussion. It only aided in developing this question. Also keep in mind that even though you may not know where I am headed with this, it does have much to do with Zech 14.

Thanks Paul

DurbanDude
May 14th 2007, 09:42 PM
Okay. I admit it does fit, although from my perspective it fits less. I'll give an analogy to let you know why I think so: Say these two view points are literally puzzles with puzzle pieces, and each verse of Revelation is one puzzle piece. For the preterism puzzle, I see a mostly complete puzzle. There are a few pieces missing here and there which I am trying to find, and there's a large chunk missing in one corner, but I know where they are, they just aren't put in yet. But when I think about the historicist puzzle (that's the view you're presenting I think, right? Correct me if I'm wrong), the puzzle seems to only be a fraction of the size as the other puzzle, and while you know have the other puzzle pieces sitting in a pile to your side, most of them are just regular squares with no puzzling-protrusions, so they can fit almost anywhere you want them to.

Now, I'm not trying to say Historicism will never work. For all I know, it could be the correct way to interpret scripture. But there are sooooo many verses within Revelation that can be ambiguously attached to multiple points throughout history for me to lend it a credible eye (at least, so far). For instance, the great earthquakes. There's only two or three of them in the Revelation (forgive me, I don't have my Bible on hand at the moment), but there's just too many major earthquakes throughout history to attach the Revelation earthquakes to, and even then the accompanying verses (such as the "tenth of the city" being destroyed) must fit perfectly as well, which most Historicist interpretations don't know where to put it, while I find that it fits within the realm of descriptions of Jerusalem's destruction.

I don't deny that the Catholic Church has been heavily involved in the world... but it can hardly be called an empire. And aside from that, while it may be argued that the Papacy is the 7th Empire... it has to fit in the consistency of the empires rising and falling consecutively. The Papacy has existed since the fourth century and 1700 years later it's still here. To be considered an empire, the Papacy would need to have territory to conquer, an economy of its own, and a population of citizens. While it may be argued that the Vatican is the territory, most Catholics do not live in the Vatican, they live in countries all around the world. So for the 7th Empire to fall, one would have to conquer the entire world and gather all of the Catholics into one place and declare them all as no-longer being Catholic. Catholicism is a religion, not a nationality.

8th empire : Future empire controlled by Israel
or Non-religious capitalist/scientific/ humanist dominance started by France in 1798 when they conquered Rome, removed the Pope , and conquered Israel.

Also an ambiguous thing to call an "empire." You're missing the consistency of all the previous empires, in that they were empires, not religions. While Islam, under Muhammed, did conquer cities and even countries, and the religion spread, it can hardly be called an empire. For one, it's still around, and still rules in much of the Middle East and even in Africa and eastern Europe. And, just the same as Catholicism, Islam exists all over the world.

The problem with the two empires you have given is that they are religions, not empires. One can't conquer a religious faith. Even if an eighth empire were to conquer the entire world, Islam and Catholicism would not stop being practiced by its followers.

Granted. I must admit chapter 17 has been the hardest for me to interpret, but all previous chapters I find to hit right on the mark. But even still, while what I have interpreted thus far for 17 regarding the emperors may be wrong, it does, I think, hit closely to the Daniel comment about the three horns being "plucked out" (Galba who ruled a short time, and Otho and Vitellius, who can hardly be called emperors) and followed by another horn (Vespasian) that would destroy the city (Jerusalem) and its temple. But that is, I admit, one of the few puzzle pieces I am trying to find.

The first six empires may fit, but I find any following theories fall apart.

Thank you for the honest analysis , its not often that one feels that they are truly heard on this site. Just for the record , even historians call Rome's influence over Europe the "Holy Roman Empire". The usage of the word empire is because of the political control Papal Rome exerted over Europe , over and above its role as a religious organisation. The catholics are not the subjects of this empire , but any subjects of any government that is controlled by the Vatican , maybe because the leader is catholic , or maybe because the leader of the nearest powerful country is catholic and is threatening to invade that country. There are many more subtle influences nowadays whereby the policies of a country can be controlled externally , by coups and revolutions , or by international loans or assassinations , by media control to influence voters.


I agree with you about my mention of the word Islam. I should have said the Ottoman empire (which happened to be Islamic) which conquered the Byzantium Empire and ruled over that region and Israel until the allied British forces conquered the region in 1917.

I am basically a premill post-trib but am seriously looking into the historicist approach because of some historical periods that fit too closely for co-incidence. however i agree with you completely that there are enough events in history to use any event as a so-called significant milestone , to make it fit into prophecy. But we cant throw the baby out with the bathwater , there appears to be some truth in the historicist approach , which can possibly reconcile some of the amill/pre-trib debates.

wpm
May 14th 2007, 10:55 PM
Paul, I am jumping around it seems, I know, but your answers and mine should shed light on where I am going with this. What I am asking at this time is when in your understanding did the shekinah glory of God depart from the second temple? Did it depart at a time far before Christ entered the scene? Did it depart when Christ declared the Temple desolate, or did it depart at its destruction?

Keep in mind that this question has nothing to do with our previous discussion. It only aided in developing this question. Also keep in mind that even though you may not know where I am headed with this, it does have much to do with Zech 14.

Thanks Paul

When the veil was rent in twain.

Paul

BeOfGoodCourage
May 14th 2007, 11:16 PM
When the veil was rent in twain.

Paul


Paul, I said it has to do with zech 14 - work with me on this, man :pray:

wpm
May 14th 2007, 11:55 PM
Paul, I said it has to do with zech 14 - work with me on this, man :pray:

I'm not a mind reader - so lay your cards on the table. I have never been one to answer my questions simply to please an enquirer. ;) What I have said I believe is substantiated by Scripture.

Paul

markedward
May 17th 2007, 06:57 PM
Thank you for the honest analysis , its not often that one feels that they are truly heard on this site. Just for the record , even historians call Rome's influence over Europe the "Holy Roman Empire". The usage of the word empire is because of the political control Papal Rome exerted over Europe , over and above its role as a religious organisation. The catholics are not the subjects of this empire , but any subjects of any government that is controlled by the Vatican , maybe because the leader is catholic , or maybe because the leader of the nearest powerful country is catholic and is threatening to invade that country. There are many more subtle influences nowadays whereby the policies of a country can be controlled externally , by coups and revolutions , or by international loans or assassinations , by media control to influence voters.The problem with the Holy Roman Empire, I find, is that it existed the same time as European nations were finally taking form; France, Spain, England. They were calling themselves their own countries, and they coincided with the HRE, eliminating the possibility of the HRE being a "world" empire.



I agree with you about my mention of the word Islam. I should have said the Ottoman empire (which happened to be Islamic) which conquered the Byzantium Empire and ruled over that region and Israel until the allied British forces conquered the region in 1917.Ottoman Empire maybe... but it also coincided with the supposed Papal Empire... if you consider it to be an empire. And at the time the British conquered the region, were they not still considered an Empire during the early 1900's? I'm pretty sure that was when they still carried the name "British Empire," as they had conquered territory all around the world. The territory may not be conjoined at all times, but they weren't called an Empire for nothing. If we stay to the title of the British Empire as an Empire, then that adds in one extra empire, doesn't it? If the Roman Empire was the sixth horn as you say, and it was followed by the Byzantine Empire as the seventh, which coincided in time with the HRE, which would thusly be the eighth, and in turn was followed by the Ottoman Empire as the ninth (which, although it conquered the Byzantine Empire, it coexisted with the HRE), which in turn was followed by the British Empire as a tenth... then that would leave still one more empire to follow in the future, at least in the assumption that there will be one more empire ruling the world when Christ returns.

However, I find one flaw with this dating system. For it to work, one must assume the HRE and/or the Byzantine Empire as at least one or two of the horns. Which I find doubtful, considering both the HRE and the Byzantium Empires followed Christ, and the "horns" that you interpret as kingdoms/empires are clearly shown to be enemies of Christ within the context of Revelation. It wouldn't make sense for two Empires consisting of Christ-followers to contend to be the horns that are presented as enemies of Christ. But to take out the HRE or the BE, it throws the entire dating system out of whack, as it rules out a consecutive series of empires.

DurbanDude
May 18th 2007, 08:54 AM
The problem with the Holy Roman Empire, I find, is that it existed the same time as European nations were finally taking form; France, Spain, England. They were calling themselves their own countries, and they coincided with the HRE, eliminating the possibility of the HRE being a "world" empire.


Ottoman Empire maybe... but it also coincided with the supposed Papal Empire... if you consider it to be an empire. And at the time the British conquered the region, were they not still considered an Empire during the early 1900's? I'm pretty sure that was when they still carried the name "British Empire," as they had conquered territory all around the world. The territory may not be conjoined at all times, but they weren't called an Empire for nothing. If we stay to the title of the British Empire as an Empire, then that adds in one extra empire, doesn't it? If the Roman Empire was the sixth horn as you say, and it was followed by the Byzantine Empire as the seventh, which coincided in time with the HRE, which would thusly be the eighth, and in turn was followed by the Ottoman Empire as the ninth (which, although it conquered the Byzantine Empire, it coexisted with the HRE), which in turn was followed by the British Empire as a tenth... then that would leave still one more empire to follow in the future, at least in the assumption that there will be one more empire ruling the world when Christ returns.

However, I find one flaw with this dating system. For it to work, one must assume the HRE and/or the Byzantine Empire as at least one or two of the horns. Which I find doubtful, considering both the HRE and the Byzantium Empires followed Christ, and the "horns" that you interpret as kingdoms/empires are clearly shown to be enemies of Christ within the context of Revelation. It wouldn't make sense for two Empires consisting of Christ-followers to contend to be the horns that are presented as enemies of Christ. But to take out the HRE or the BE, it throws the entire dating system out of whack, as it rules out a consecutive series of empires.

I see what you are saying above , my main point is that a less historical approach is seen by many as more fitting with the bible compared to the emperors theory. And there is just as much or more logic behind it. Each theory on which empire is the 7th and which the 8th has its own merits and demerits , but I personally believe in the 8 consecutive empires theory explaining the 8 heads of the beast. In a way I am just showing the futility of these arguments because they become so subjective , at the same time I am trying to stir up open-mindedness so people can more easily be open to the truth , rather than just assuming their original thoughts are more logical.

Referring to what you say above , the nature of an empire is to rule over countries that pay tribute to and obey the empire , which those new fledgling countries did to the Vatican. So the Vatican could be the 7th empire , a smooth transition from Roman Empire to Papal authority.

The view that the Ottoman empire is the 7th empire would be to leave out Papal Rome as the 7th , so their simultaneous existence would be irrelevant.A smooth transition from the remnant of the Roman Empire to the Ottoman.

Again , I am not arguing the relative merits , just pointing out that other viewpoints clearly fit scripture , so we have to look at the theory that has the most consistent and least complicated explanations , because when you start getting complicated logic to explain the bible it becomes doubtful because the bible was written for everyone to understand.

As for the ten horns , relating heads and horns to the symbolism of Daniel we would assume the heads and the horns are simultaneous not consecutive. The only reason the 7 heads of Rev are consecutive is the bible indicates this , by saying 5 were 1 is and 1 is to come. The ten horns appear to be more simultaneous and happen right at the end. Now an amill because of the historical perspective will try to fit these ten regions into history , but a premill doesn't have to do so. Relating to Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 which seem to indicate that A) the 4th empire , the Roman empire continues its dominance right until the Ancient of days is worshipped by all people and rules over all rulers. And B) also indicates the Roman empire will dominate the whole earth.

I therefore interpret this as meaning the Roman empire is going to dominate the whole earth first and then the ten horns shall rise (ten regions of earth). Followed by all rulers obeying God and all peoples worshipping God.

7:21 I saw, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;
7:22 until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom

The saints only possess the kingdom at the time the horn is destroyed , because the horn dominates right until the ancient of days comes and then only judgement is given to the saints , and this is the time that the saints inherit the kingdom. This appears futurist to me.

wpm
May 19th 2007, 10:34 PM
Paul, I said it has to do with zech 14 - work with me on this, man :pray:

When the veil was rent in twain.

Paul

wpm
May 19th 2007, 10:37 PM
The problem with the Holy Roman Empire, I find, is that it existed the same time as European nations were finally taking form; France, Spain, England. They were calling themselves their own countries, and they coincided with the HRE, eliminating the possibility of the HRE being a "world" empire.


Ottoman Empire maybe... but it also coincided with the supposed Papal Empire... if you consider it to be an empire. And at the time the British conquered the region, were they not still considered an Empire during the early 1900's? I'm pretty sure that was when they still carried the name "British Empire," as they had conquered territory all around the world. The territory may not be conjoined at all times, but they weren't called an Empire for nothing. If we stay to the title of the British Empire as an Empire, then that adds in one extra empire, doesn't it? If the Roman Empire was the sixth horn as you say, and it was followed by the Byzantine Empire as the seventh, which coincided in time with the HRE, which would thusly be the eighth, and in turn was followed by the Ottoman Empire as the ninth (which, although it conquered the Byzantine Empire, it coexisted with the HRE), which in turn was followed by the British Empire as a tenth... then that would leave still one more empire to follow in the future, at least in the assumption that there will be one more empire ruling the world when Christ returns.

However, I find one flaw with this dating system. For it to work, one must assume the HRE and/or the Byzantine Empire as at least one or two of the horns. Which I find doubtful, considering both the HRE and the Byzantium Empires followed Christ, and the "horns" that you interpret as kingdoms/empires are clearly shown to be enemies of Christ within the context of Revelation. It wouldn't make sense for two Empires consisting of Christ-followers to contend to be the horns that are presented as enemies of Christ. But to take out the HRE or the BE, it throws the entire dating system out of whack, as it rules out a consecutive series of empires.

You argue the beast is the Roman Empire. However, the description and detail asigned to the beast in Rev doesn't meet the beast.

Revelation 13:8 states, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the beast), whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Whatever the beast is, he must command the worship of all the wicked since Adam - the Roman Empire at the time of Christ didn't fulfil that. I don't know how you can imagine that all the unelect from Cain worshipped the beast.

Paul

Benaiah
May 20th 2007, 03:36 AM
You argue the beast is the Roman Empire. However, the description and detail asigned to the beast in Rev doesn't meet the beast.

Revelation 13:8 states, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the beast), whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Whatever the beast is, he must command the worship of all the wicked since Adam - the Roman Empire at the time of Christ didn't fulfil that. I don't know how you can imagine that all the unelect from Cain worshipped the beast.


Because Rome like all other satanic influenced and empowered nations manifest the character of the one that influence and empower them. namely satan. that is clear enough from scripture. the beast has seven heads which the angel explaining the vision tells us are seven mountains (clearly pointing to Rome) AND they are seven kings. while these kings are human individuals they are clearly influenced and empowered by satan and this is precisely how God views them. as manifestations of satan himself. in the same manner that the prince of tyre is equated with satan in ezekiel whose prophecy speaks to BOTH the human prince and the power behind him which is satan.

wpm
May 20th 2007, 12:27 PM
Because Rome like all other satanic influenced and empowered nations manifest the character of the one that influence and empower them. namely satan. that is clear enough from scripture. the beast has seven heads which the angel explaining the vision tells us are seven mountains (clearly pointing to Rome) AND they are seven kings. while these kings are human individuals they are clearly influenced and empowered by satan and this is precisely how God views them. as manifestations of satan himself. in the same manner that the prince of tyre is equated with satan in ezekiel whose prophecy speaks to BOTH the human prince and the power behind him which is satan.

I have to disagree. Whilst the devil empowers the beast, he is not the beast. Partial Preterists over-concentrate upon the Roman Empire and AD70. The beast is greater and more powerful than the Roman Empire. It is the anti-Christ system since Cain. This is evidenced by the fact that all the un-elect worship the beast. This can't merely be this empire.

Paul

Benaiah
May 20th 2007, 08:12 PM
I have to disagree. Whilst the devil empowers the beast, he is not the beast. Partial Preterists over-concentrate upon the Roman Empire and AD70. The beast is greater and more powerful than the Roman Empire. It is the anti-Christ system since Cain. This is evidenced by the fact that all the un-elect worship the beast. This can't merely be this empire.
In God's view the servant is the same as the master he serves. That is why all who bear the image of Christ are declared righteous in God's eyes and all who bear the image of the beast are condemned. the servant shares the eternal destiny of the master he serves. just as those who serve christ have His obedience and righteousness imputed to them, those that serve the beat have his unrighteous deeds imputed to them as well as thier own.

Daniels vision revels the manifestation of the beast in four different kinigdoms each one more vicious and more powerful than it' predecessor manifestation. John's vision reveal the manifestation of the beast in his day. john's vision was addressed to real historical churches and uses language that clearly reflects that the vision was relevant to them. but most systems of eschatology deny this. they ignore that john repeatedly uses terms like "must soon take place", "is at hand" etc. and instead place his vision and words into some far off distant future. denying that it really had anything to do with the people that john addressed it to.

Jesus said that the scribes and the pharisees would be held accountable for the all the righteous blood shed upon the earth since abel. this is because they they shared the guilt of the one they shared, their father the devil. the one who was a murderer from the begining.

Mograce2U
May 20th 2007, 08:55 PM
ohtaryon,

Referring back to your posts #64 & #84 about the 2 witnesses of Rev 11 which you say is the church; I'd like to expand on it somewhat.

These few verses in Rev 11 are replete with OT references about Moses and the plagues on Egypt, Elijah and his prayers to stop and start rain, Zerubbabel & Josiah and the Holy Spirit, Michael & Gabriel as the 2 olive trees who pour out the oil into the 2 lampstands, etc. Even John the Baptist as Elijah come again and Jesus as The Prophet from Deut 18:15. These all concern the prophecies about Jesus as Messiah which John 5:39 says is why we ought to search the scriptures if we are to find eternal life.

In John 5:31-47, we find Jesus speaking about His 2 witnesses that the Father Himself gave to Him to testify that He is Messiah. These were specifcally the miracles He did and the prophecies He fulfilled. The Holy Spirit who was to be given at Pentecost would specifically remind the disciples concerning this testimony.

In Revelation, I think it is significant that these 2 witnesses who prophesy during the 42 months that Jerusalem is under siege are also seen to suffer death and resurrection in direct relation to the earthly minstry of Jesus and His death and resurrection after 3 days. The Jews who thru Rome crucified the Lord, thought (for 3 days anyway) that they had silenced Jesus' testimony against them. Now this judgment that Jesus prophecied would come, would arrive and speaks out against them. The only rejoicing these men would have done would have been during the 3 (3 1/2 ?) days that Jesus was in the grave. I doubt knowing what Jerusalem underwent during the siege that anyone would be rejoicing at that time.

I think this passage concerning the 2 witnesses is given for our edification (and the 7 churches who would witness the siege), that we might understand the irony and the fulfillment of the prophecy - not that we are to think 2 actual men dressed in sackcloth appeared during that time. The prophets speak even though they are long dead thru the Holy Spirit to those who have been given ears to hear them.

(Rev 19:10 KJV) And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Mograce2U
May 20th 2007, 09:21 PM
Paul, I am jumping around it seems, I know, but your answers and mine should shed light on where I am going with this. What I am asking at this time is when in your understanding did the shekinah glory of God depart from the second temple? Did it depart at a time far before Christ entered the scene? Did it depart when Christ declared the Temple desolate, or did it depart at its destruction or at the cross and what evidence do you have?

Keep in mind that this question has nothing to do with our previous discussion. It only aided in developing this question. Also keep in mind that even though you may not know where I am headed with this, it does have much to do with Zech 14.
Zech 14:4 also references Ezekiel 11:23. It would seem the glory of the Lord departed just before judgment came upon the city. So when the Christians flee the city the Lord goes with them? Zech refers to the Lord standing on the mount of Olives which is where we see Him with the 144,000. During those 40 years before judgment fell, we need to remember that the lost sons of Israel (remnant) were still being found and saved. I think that is why the temple was allowed to remain for that last generation.

BeOfGoodCourage
May 20th 2007, 09:32 PM
Zech 14:4 also references Ezekiel 11:23. It would seem the glory of the Lord departed just before judgment came upon the city. So when the Christians flee the city the Lord goes with them? Zech refers to the Lord standing on the mount of Olives which is where we see Him with the 144,000. During those 40 years before judgment fell, we need to remember that the lost sons of Israel (remnant) were still being found and saved. I think that is why the temple was allowed to remain for that last generation.


Very well done Mograce. So many believe that the He in Zechariah 14 is Christ who will come and physically stand on the mount of olives and split it in two, but the text does not say that the He is anyone other than God Himself who once again removes His presence from the Temple just as He di before the Babylonian exile.

wpm
May 20th 2007, 09:38 PM
In God's view the servant is the same as the master he serves. That is why all who bear the image of Christ are declared righteous in God's eyes and all who bear the image of the beast are condemned. the servant shares the eternal destiny of the master he serves. just as those who serve christ have His obedience and righteousness imputed to them, those that serve the beat have his unrighteous deeds imputed to them as well as thier own.

Daniels vision revels the manifestation of the beast in four different kinigdoms each one more vicious and more powerful than it' predecessor manifestation. John's vision reveal the manifestation of the beast in his day. john's vision was addressed to real historical churches and uses language that clearly reflects that the vision was relevant to them. but most systems of eschatology deny this. they ignore that john repeatedly uses terms like "must soon take place", "is at hand" etc. and instead place his vision and words into some far off distant future. denying that it really had anything to do with the people that john addressed it to.

Jesus said that the scribes and the pharisees would be held accountable for the all the righteous blood shed upon the earth since abel. this is because they they shared the guilt of the one they shared, their father the devil. the one who was a murderer from the begining.

Whilst the Roman Empire was part of the beast system it wasn't the totality of it. It was much greater. Just like the Church went right back to the Garden and relates to all those "who bear the image of Christ" the beast embodies all those who are "not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world” The beast embodies all the unelect. This must therefore relate to all the wicked since Cain.

Paul

John146
May 21st 2007, 01:59 AM
John's vision reveal the manifestation of the beast in his day. john's vision was addressed to real historical churches and uses language that clearly reflects that the vision was relevant to them. but most systems of eschatology deny this. they ignore that john repeatedly uses terms like "must soon take place", "is at hand" etc. and instead place his vision and words into some far off distant future. denying that it really had anything to do with the people that john addressed it to.

1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. - Revelation 1:1-3

6And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. - Rev 22:6

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. - Revelation 22:10

At the very least, you acknowledge that Satan's little season, the second coming of Christ, the judgment and the appearing of the new heavens and new earth are future events, right? Well, notice in the verses I quoted that it implies that everything written in the book of Revelation was at hand or shortly to come to pass. Well, clearly, from a human point of view at least, Satan's little season, Christ's second coming, the judgment and the appearing of the new heavens and new earth were not at hand if we understand "at hand" to mean very soon. So, unless you want to agree with the full preterists, I don't think the "at hand" argument is valid.

Mograce2U
May 21st 2007, 02:44 AM
1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. - Revelation 1:1-3

6And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. - Rev 22:6

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. - Revelation 22:10

At the very least, you acknowledge that Satan's little season, the second coming of Christ, the judgment and the appearing of the new heavens and new earth are future events, right? Well, notice in the verses I quoted that it implies that everything written in the book of Revelation was at hand or shortly to come to pass. Well, clearly, from a human point of view at least, Satan's little season, Christ's second coming, the judgment and the appearing of the new heavens and new earth were not at hand if we understand "at hand" to mean very soon. So, unless you want to agree with the full preterists, I don't think the "at hand" argument is valid.But something IS at hand, at least for those to whom this letter is written. Personally, I think it is that the fullness of the kingdom of God will soon be shown to be present in power. During the persecution of the saints in the 1st century, I imagine it seemed unlikely that this was the case. Once the events of 70 AD came about - which much of Revelation is talking about - they would know the word of the Lord had come to pass and that Jesus WAS ruling from His throne in heaven. Its one thing to be the told the truth when circumstances would dictate otherwise, and quite another to witness it first hand.

The absence of a temple in Jerusalem continues to witness to us today that God means what He says.

Benaiah
May 21st 2007, 03:48 AM
1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

2Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 3Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. - Revelation 1:1-3

6And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. - Rev 22:6

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand. - Revelation 22:10

At the very least, you acknowledge that Satan's little season, the second coming of Christ, the judgment and the appearing of the new heavens and new earth are future events, right? Well, notice in the verses I quoted that it implies that everything written in the book of Revelation was at hand or shortly to come to pass. Well, clearly, from a human point of view at least, Satan's little season, Christ's second coming, the judgment and the appearing of the new heavens and new earth were not at hand if we understand "at hand" to mean very soon. So, unless you want to agree with the full preterists, I don't think the "at hand" argument is valid.

Eric,

Revelation ends with many of the same statements made at it's begining. I dont see this to be grounds to declare that well, soon and at hand must not mean soon or at hand. Obviously not all of the things revealed in revelation was even future in johns time. for instance the birth of the man child. also john is told in the explanation of the beast with seven heads that five of those were already fallen even in his day. and you yourself as an amil see events depicted in Rev 20 as having been a reality for the past 2000 years.

Naphal
May 22nd 2007, 08:10 AM
Eric,

Revelation ends with many of the same statements made at it's begining. I dont see this to be grounds to declare that well, soon and at hand must not mean soon or at hand. Obviously not all of the things revealed in revelation was even future in johns time. for instance the birth of the man child. also john is told in the explanation of the beast with seven heads that five of those were already fallen even in his day. and you yourself as an amil see events depicted in Rev 20 as having been a reality for the past 2000 years.

I think you missed his point which was that there are many things said to be happening "soon" or "at hand" that most of us agree are still future events being some 2000 years in the making. Therefore the argument that most of Rev must be past events because "at hand" and "soon" was used is weak and proves nothing for the Preterist viewpoint. I've always said that time is relative and often told from God's point of view even though he is speaking to us.

John146
May 22nd 2007, 04:49 PM
But something IS at hand, at least for those to whom this letter is written.

Yes, I agree. But not everything in the book was at hand at the time it was written, and that is my point. I don't understand how preterists conclude that everything within Revelation 4-19 already happened. Certainly, the "at hand" argument cannot be used to support that view. That argument can only be used to show that not everything spoken about is in the future, as futurists claim.



Personally, I think it is that the fullness of the kingdom of God will soon be shown to be present in power. During the persecution of the saints in the 1st century, I imagine it seemed unlikely that this was the case. Once the events of 70 AD came about - which much of Revelation is talking about - they would know the word of the Lord had come to pass and that Jesus WAS ruling from His throne in heaven. Its one thing to be the told the truth when circumstances would dictate otherwise, and quite another to witness it first hand.

So, the day of Pentecost wasn't enough to convince people that the fullness and power of the kingdom of God was at hand? Believers who had experienced the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them were not aware of the kingdom of God coming in power just because they were being persecuted? They needed Jerusalem to be destroyed in order to understand that the kingdom of God had come in power? Sorry, I don't agree.

John146
May 22nd 2007, 04:58 PM
Eric,

Revelation ends with many of the same statements made at it's begining. I dont see this to be grounds to declare that well, soon and at hand must not mean soon or at hand. Obviously not all of the things revealed in revelation was even future in johns time. for instance the birth of the man child. also john is told in the explanation of the beast with seven heads that five of those were already fallen even in his day. and you yourself as an amil see events depicted in Rev 20 as having been a reality for the past 2000 years.

As Naphal already pointed out, I'm just saying that the "at hand" argument can't be used to support the preterist view that everything from Revelation chapters 4 through 19 already happened. It can, however, be used to refute the futurist view.

Romulus
May 22nd 2007, 05:30 PM
I've always said that time is relative and often told from God's point of view even though he is speaking to us.

I must disagree. The only scripture we get that time is from God's point of view is

2 Peter 3:7-9


7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

This scripture has absolutely nothing to do with how we are to interpret time in scripture. First of all it says a thousand years are LIKE a day, not ARE a day. Second and more importantly, this scripture is talking about God's heart and how he is patient in waiting for you. His heart is to wait for all to come to repentance (many will not). This scripture is stating the love of God for all to be in relationship with Him. It is not a scripture about how time is to be viewed in scripture. If it were, every time statement given in scripture would not be true, "soon", "near", "about to happen", "40 years", "70 years", "generation" would all be erroneous since they are from God's point of view. How could His words be a comfort to the reader if the fufillment of prophecy was thousands of years away. How could the Jews in exile in Babylon be comforted when God says he will deliver them when He really means thousands of years later. The prophecy would not be relevant to them. The comfort and love is for another audience

Anyway, interpreting that God is writing with his nature to us I don't believe to be correct. God is writing to the Children He loves. He understands us and wants us to understand Him. He is not writing in His time, he is writing to an audience who He wants to understand His Word. If we interpret time with 2 Peter 3 in mind, then how can we trust what God is saying is true and will happen when He says it will happen? In Genesis God says creation took 6 days, well if this is in His mind it could have taken 6000 years, how would we know?

The scripture in 2 Peter 3 is about God's heart, it is not about how time is to be interpreted in scripture. If it is, then ALL time statements in scripture are in error as they mean something totally different then the literal reading of them. The comforting message given by God would be irrelevant for the audience hearing it since it was for an audience far in the future. This would take away the love and comfort God wanted to give to the audience who heard it and the fufillment that was exactly in the time that God said it would happen.

Blessings!

Benaiah
May 22nd 2007, 08:08 PM
I think you missed his point which was that there are many things said to be happening "soon" or "at hand" that most of us agree are still future events being some 2000 years in the making. Therefore the argument that most of Rev must be past events because "at hand" and "soon" was used is weak and proves nothing for the Preterist viewpoint. I've always said that time is relative and often told from God's point of view even though he is speaking to us.

I dont confuse what most here believe with being the standard of what scripture says. Scripture is true regardless of what interpretation most here or I myself, put on it.

Mograce2U
May 22nd 2007, 08:40 PM
So, the day of Pentecost wasn't enough to convince people that the fullness and power of the kingdom of God was at hand? Believers who had experienced the power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them were not aware of the kingdom of God coming in power just because they were being persecuted? They needed Jerusalem to be destroyed in order to understand that the kingdom of God had come in power? Sorry, I don't agree.Good grief why would you say this? It was BECAUSE Jerusalem was going to be destroyed in fulfillment of God's word, that the indwelling Holy Spirit would prompt them to leave. This is about faith, man.

(Mark 8:38 KJV) Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
(Mark 9:1 KJV) And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

(Rev 12:10-11 KJV) And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. {11} And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

(Mat 6:13 KJV) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

ShirleyFord
May 22nd 2007, 10:49 PM
But something IS at hand, at least for those to whom this letter is written. Personally, I think it is that the fullness of the kingdom of God will soon be shown to be present in power. During the persecution of the saints in the 1st century, I imagine it seemed unlikely that this was the case. Once the events of 70 AD came about - which much of Revelation is talking about - they would know the word of the Lord had come to pass and that Jesus WAS ruling from His throne in heaven. Its one thing to be the told the truth when circumstances would dictate otherwise, and quite another to witness it first hand.

The absence of a temple in Jerusalem continues to witness to us today that God means what He says.

Robin,

The saints in the first century had evidence of Christ in heaven ruling from His throne that He had inherited from His father David at His resurrection. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Penticost in Acts 2, 10 days after His ascension was the evidence that the vast multitude both saw and heard.

And as Stephen was dying in Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God

The healing of the lame man, lame all of his life, 40 years, and made a living by being placed at the Gate Beautiful and begging from those who went in and out of the temple area every day. Even though he was a Jew, he was cut off from God and from His people all of those many long years. He was a nobody. I can imagine that he was dirty and grimy and stinking. His clothes were probably rags exept the beggar's cloak he had to wear in order to legally beg just for enough food to keep him alive.

He had no hope. We all have been down sometime during our lifetime. So we know that sense of hopelessness that we have sometimes felt. But no matter how rough things have been for any of us, I wouldn't think that any of us have ever been to the depth of this man's hopelessness. But we can sure sympathize with this man.

But hey, today is his day. He doesn't know it yet but shotly he is going to have to go into town and buy him a suit of clothes. He won't be needing that beggars garment any longer. He will be going to court with Peter and John as their evidence that Christ has been raised from the dead and has all power in heaven and in earth as He reigns in heaven.

Acts 3:1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.

Acts 3:2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;

Acts 3:3 Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple asked an alms.

Acts 3:4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with John, said, Look on us.

Acts 3:5 And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them.

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 3:7 And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up: and immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength.

Acts 3:8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.

Acts 3:9 And all the people saw him walking and praising God:

Acts 3:10 And they knew that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple: and they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.

Acts 3:11 And as the lame man which was healed held Peter and John, all the people ran together unto them in the porch that is called Solomon's, greatly wondering.

Acts 3:12 And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.

Acts 3:14 But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;

Acts 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 3:16 And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.

Acts 3:17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.

Acts 3:18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

Acts 3:21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Acts 3:23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.

Acts 3:24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.

Acts 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Acts 3:26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities



Shirley

Naphal
May 23rd 2007, 01:02 AM
I must disagree. The only scripture we get that time is from God's point of view is

2 Peter 3:7-9

That's hardly the only one. All scriptures that are about things shortly at hand or near but haven't happened yet is obviously written in a different understanding of time.


This scripture has absolutely nothing to do with how we are to interpret time in scripture. First of all it says a thousand years are LIKE a day, not ARE a day.

The difference is too slight to matter.



How could His words be a comfort to the reader if the fufillment of prophecy was thousands of years away.

Many prophecies did not come to pass until a great many years had passed. Messiah was prophesied in the OT but it took many generations before he arrived.




How could the Jews in exile in Babylon be comforted when God says he will deliver them when He really means thousands of years later. The prophecy would not be relevant to them. The comfort and love is for another audience

Indeed. Their comfort would have to come in the form of knowing their descendants would be freed.




Anyway, interpreting that God is writing with his nature to us I don't believe to be correct. God is writing to the Children He loves. He understands us and wants us to understand Him. He is not writing in His time, he is writing to an audience who He wants to understand His Word.

No, not true at all. God often writes in ways that make it impossible for some to understand while others can understand. God works (and writes) in mysterious ways.





If we interpret time with 2 Peter 3 in mind, then how can we trust what God is saying is true and will happen when He says it will happen? In Genesis God says creation took 6 days, well if this is in His mind it could have taken 6000 years, how would we know?

We know from science. God left many clues about the creation of the world. It is quite common for one thing to actually represent another in scripture.



The scripture in 2 Peter 3 is about God's heart, it is not about how time is to be interpreted in scripture.

It's both.





If it is, then ALL time statements in scripture are in error as they mean something totally different then the literal reading of them.


Most things in scripture mean something different than the literal reading of them. This is well known but many scholars and bible students.

John146
May 23rd 2007, 05:17 AM
Good grief why would you say this? It was BECAUSE Jerusalem was going to be destroyed in fulfillment of God's word, that the indwelling Holy Spirit would prompt them to leave. This is about faith, man.

Robin,

I said what I said because it seemed as though you were saying that the kingdom did not come in power until 70 AD. Isn't that what you were implying? If not, then I guess I just don't understand what you were trying to say in your previous post.

Eric

Mograce2U
May 23rd 2007, 05:54 AM
Shirley, #130 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1269190&postcount=130)
I agree that the power of the Holy Spirit that came into their lives was (is) a marvelous testimony. I have often wondered what it must have been like to live during those early years after Pentecost when the church shared their joy so completely with one another. But their troubles began rather soon when persecution scattered them - which also spread their testimony. And it was a trial of their fledgling faith intended to strengthen it as well as separate them. Because the Church was intended to spread into all the world - which it has.

When you look back at the example of Israel when they were delivered from Egypt - have you noticed that it took a mere 30 days for them to begin grumbling? And God's presence was still with them in the cloud and the pillar of fire at that time. The memory of miracles apparently doesn't last long.

Even John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb and was present at Jesus' baptism, suffered serious doubt when he was in prison that Jesus was even the Christ. Jesus said for his disciples to remind him of all the miracles they had witnessed to help shore up his faith.

It is especially wonderful to know that Jesus is reigning from heaven and that His power is known in the earth as well. As Christians we love to share the goodness of God with one another. But if we do not also experience that goodness first hand, I doubt many would still be abiding. 70 AD was an awful time for those upon whom judgment fell. But it was the goodness of God towards His saints and would have brought rejoicing - not for the destruction of His enemies but for His mercy towards them (the saints). A real faith builder if you ask me!

ShirleyFord
May 23rd 2007, 08:51 AM
But something IS at hand, at least for those to whom this letter is written. Personally, I think it is that the fullness of the kingdom of God will soon be shown to be present in power. During the persecution of the saints in the 1st century, I imagine it seemed unlikely that this was the case. Once the events of 70 AD came about - which much of Revelation is talking about - they would know the word of the Lord had come to pass and that Jesus WAS ruling from His throne in heaven. Its one thing to be the told the truth when circumstances would dictate otherwise, and quite another to witness it first hand.

The absence of a temple in Jerusalem continues to witness to us today that God means what He says.

Robin, the true saints in those 7 Churches wouldn't have been sitting around, I wouldn't think, waiting to see some physical sign that "the fulness of the kingdom of God" was indeed "present in power".

Look what John wrote to those 7 Churches:

Revelations 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

John said that He was already in the kingdom. Not only that but a companion of those true saints in the kingdom with him as well. Those true saints together with John were in tribulation. They were in tribulation because they were in the kingdom of Jesus Christ.

According to Jesus prophecies, the 70 AD destruction was localized to just the city of Jerusalem and to the temple in Jerusalem. Those saints in the 7 Churches to whom Jesus told John to write the book of Revelation were located outside of the nation of Israel, nowhere near the city of Jerusalem.

Besides that, Jesus made it clear to the Jewish leaders in Matt 23 that the 70 AD judgement was on the Jews. Those saints in the 7 Churches were mainly Gentile. So God's judgement in 70 AD wouldn't have affected them in the least, even the Jewish saints there.



Shirley, #130 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1269190&postcount=130)
I agree that the power of the Holy Spirit that came into their lives was (is) a marvelous testimony. I have often wondered what it must have been like to live during those early years after Pentecost when the church shared their joy so completely with one another. But their troubles began rather soon when persecution scattered them - which also spread their testimony. And it was a trial of their fledgling faith intended to strengthen it as well as separate them. Because the Church was intended to spread into all the world - which it has.

They did just as Jesus commaned them and led them by His Spirit.


When you look back at the example of Israel when they were delivered from Egypt - have you noticed that it took a mere 30 days for them to begin grumbling? And God's presence was still with them in the cloud and the pillar of fire at that time. The memory of miracles apparently doesn't last long.

Even John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb and was present at Jesus' baptism, suffered serious doubt when he was in prison that Jesus was even the Christ. Jesus said for his disciples to remind him of all the miracles they had witnessed to help shore up his faith.

Wouldn't you have been wondering too what in the would is going on? Soon as Jesus comes on the scene and John baptizes Him and introduces Him to Israel, he gets put in prison awaiting his head getting chopped off. John was still in his mortal body. He hadn't arrived to the perfected state. None of have. But we are not home yet.



It is especially wonderful to know that Jesus is reigning from heaven and that His power is known in the earth as well. As Christians we love to share the goodness of God with one another. But if we do not also experience that goodness first hand, I doubt many would still be abiding. 70 AD was an awful time for those upon whom judgment fell. But it was the goodness of God towards His saints and would have brought rejoicing - not for the destruction of His enemies but for His mercy towards them (the saints). A real faith builder if you ask me!

Yes, and they knew the goodness and mercy of God first hand before 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem.


Shirley

Mograce2U
May 23rd 2007, 02:24 PM
Shirley,
Many (most) of those first Christians were also Jews. How do you suppose 70AD would have affected them? Remember the Babylon captivity? Those who obeyed and submitted also saw their beloved city and temple destroyed. Lamentations is worth a read... as are the prayers of Nehemiah and Daniel, or any of the minor prophets.

ShirleyFord
May 23rd 2007, 03:40 PM
Shirley,
Many (most) of those first Christians were also Jews. How do you suppose 70AD would have affected them? Remember the Babylon captivity? Those who obeyed and submitted also saw their beloved city and temple destroyed. Lamentations is worth a read... as are the prayers of Nehemiah and Daniel, or any of the minor prophets.

I dare say Robin that all Christians living in Jerusalem from the time of the book of Acts to 70 AD were Jews, according to what we read in the historical record that God has left us, the book of Acts.

Jesus had not come when the Babylonian Captivity took place. Nor had the New Covenant before Jesus went to the cross and confirmed it in His own blood. They were still under the Old Covenant law where the temple in Jerusalem was required in order to keep it so that the sacrifices offered there by the priests would stay the hand of God's wrath against their disobedience and wickedness. So all Jews throughout the nation of Israel were affected by the destruction of Jeruslem and the temple at that time since no one could keep the law perfectly until this Jew, Jesus, came who kept the law perfectly.

70 AD occured after Calvary, when God's new economy was in place through Jesus' one and ultimate sacrifice was offered in the true temple of God that those first century Christians (and we today who have accepted His perfect sacrifice) wouldn't have been needing something which represented the type but not the real thing that could do anything about their sins.


Shirley

Mograce2U
May 23rd 2007, 04:18 PM
Shirley,

70 AD occured after Calvary, when God's new economy was in place through Jesus' one and ultimate sacrifice was offered in the true temple of God that those first century Christians (and we today who have accepted His perfect sacrifice) wouldn't have been needing something which represented the type but not the real thing that could do anything about their sins.

I get the sense that you do not consider the events of 70 AD as part of the gospel and that we need not dwell too much upon it as a result. But it is part of the gospel of Christ - the part about judgment. Calvary is our deliverance from sin and 70 AD is the judgment upon those who refused their deliverance. It is important because it is the fulfillment of the word of Lord.

An eternal judgment also awaits those who neglect their salvation since Calvary. It is what we have been delivered FROM. This was a work of God against His own people which they took lightly that He would do what He had said. Many make the same mistake today, thinking God will not judge.

If I have over emphasized a focus upon the events of 70AD it is for this reason.

ShirleyFord
May 23rd 2007, 04:37 PM
Shirley,


I get the sense that you do not consider the events of 70 AD as part of the gospel and that we need not dwell too much upon it as a result. But it is part of the gospel of Christ - the part about judgment. Calvary is our deliverance from sin and 70 AD is the judgment upon those who refused their deliverance. It is important because it is the fulfillment of the word of Lord.

An eternal judgment also awaits those who neglect their salvation since Calvary. It is what we have been delivered FROM. This was a work of God against His own people which they took lightly that He would do what He had said. Many make the same mistake today, thinking God will not judge.

If I have over emphasized a focus upon the events of 70AD it is for this reason.

Robin,

God's people though would never refuse their deliverance.

God never pours out His wrath on His own people, never did in the OT, NT or now or ever.

Shirley

BeOfGoodCourage
May 23rd 2007, 05:53 PM
Robin,

God's people though would never refuse their deliverance.

God never pours out His wrath on His own people, never did in the OT, NT or now or ever.

Shirley


Shirley, this is not what Robin is saying though, unless you believe God's people were the Jews who rejected Christ. God had no other choice but to remove His glory from the temple. The main reason being is His Son is His glory. So what the Jews were left with was an empty shell of a building where they continued for 40 years to call the temple of God even though He was no longer there. This judgement was remeniscent of their own empty lives of power and self-gratification. They simply were going through the motion that they were of God.

So what we have here is the destruction of the Jewish religious system and the death of millions who refused to love God and honor Him through His Son. This is the definition of God's wrath.

ShirleyFord
May 23rd 2007, 06:35 PM
Shirley, this is not what Robin is saying though, unless you believe God's people were the Jews who rejected Christ.

Just to be clear, this is what Robin actually said though:


Shirley,


I get the sense that you do not consider the events of 70 AD as part of the gospel and that we need not dwell too much upon it as a result. But it is part of the gospel of Christ - the part about judgment. Calvary is our deliverance from sin and 70 AD is the judgment upon those who refused their deliverance. It is important because it is the fulfillment of the word of Lord.

An eternal judgment also awaits those who neglect their salvation since Calvary. It is what we have been delivered FROM. This was a work of God against His own people which they took lightly that He would do what He had said. Many make the same mistake today, thinking God will not judge.

If I have over emphasized a focus upon the events of 70AD it is for this reason.

And this was my response to her:


Robin,

God's people though would never refuse their deliverance.

God never pours out His wrath on His own people, never did in the OT, NT or now or ever.

Shirley

Mograce2U
May 23rd 2007, 09:09 PM
Shirley,
Perhaps I should have clarified with: "those who thought" they were God's people? The family, friends, neighbors & countrymen who didn't escape this judgment would certainly have concerned these 1st century believers.

Idealism seems to want to put the gospel on a plane whereby spiritual becomes ethereal without any relationship to our daily lives. Which no doubt is because I do not understand the doctrine.

wpm
May 23rd 2007, 09:14 PM
Idealism seems to want to put the gospel on a plane whereby spiritual becomes ethereal without any relationship to our daily lives. Which no doubt is because I do not understand the doctrine.

If you would have taken time to ask (or research it) you definately wouldn't have come to such a conclusion.

Paul

ShirleyFord
May 23rd 2007, 10:35 PM
Shirley,
Perhaps I should have clarified with: "those who thought" they were God's people? The family, friends, neighbors & countrymen who didn't escape this judgment would certainly have concerned these 1st century believers.



Robin,

Perhaps, afterward. But you have been saying that the time of Revelation was before 70 AD, and trying to make the case that Rev 1:7 is actually the coming of Christ in judgement on Jerusalem in 70 ADl

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.


Shirley

BeOfGoodCourage
May 23rd 2007, 11:05 PM
Robin,

Perhaps, afterward. But you have been saying that the time of Revelation was before 70 AD, and trying to make the case that Rev 1:7 is actually the coming of Christ in judgement on Jerusalem in 70 ADl

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.


Shirley


Perhaps, Shirley, its time for you to prove without a shadow of doubt that the receiving of the Revelation by John was after 70AD. What we do have is the account given that points to the great Tribulation time from 66AD to 70AD. With almost no exception, from chapter 1 to the middle of chapter 19 it can be shown from the Bible and with the fact of History that these things which was time after time referred to by Jesus did indeed take place.

What the non-partial preterist and none historistist has is a wait and see-ism view because those events by their own admission have not yet occurred. In a court of law to prove what has not yet happened would be futile, however in the same court of law proving an event spoken of in prophecy and shown by history (in this case the great tribulation spoken of by Jesus) are solid facts with concrete evidence, the proverbial smoking gun.

Mograce2U
May 24th 2007, 12:10 AM
Robin,

Perhaps, afterward. But you have been saying that the time of Revelation was before 70 AD, and trying to make the case that Rev 1:7 is actually the coming of Christ in judgement on Jerusalem in 70 ADl

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.


Shirley,
Here are the 3 passages that refer to this:

(Zechariah 12:10-11) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. {11} In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

(John 19:36-37) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. {37} And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

(Revelation 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.

The common reference here would seem to be the cross.

Zechariah predicts it, John confirms it has been fulfilled and then Jesus reveals to John a different unrelated fulfillment for some 2000 years into the future? I think the only way to see the relevance here is to see its connection to the judgment that would come upon those who actually had a part in His death.

I do think the doctrine of the future coming of Christ is well developed in the scriptures. I just don't happen to believe that every single mention we have of a coming in the clouds is only a reference to that event.

Mograce2U
May 24th 2007, 12:37 AM
If you would have taken time to ask (or research it) you definately wouldn't have come to such a conclusion.

Paul,
And I may do that someday. But right now - at least for the past couple of years; I am trying to rid myself of these man-made doctrinal ideas. I don't want to learn a system of theology, I want to learn about Christ. For ME to know the power of His resurrection in this life, is not anything anyone else can teach me.

If I thought Idealism was heresy I probably would look into it so as not to get caught in its errors. But that is not how I see this doctrine, rather I see it as putting limits upon one's ability to think outside its box. In a similar way that we have seen other doctrinal systems do...

Blessings,

Benaiah
May 24th 2007, 12:44 AM
Paul,
And I may do that someday. But right now - at least for the past couple of years; I am trying to rid myself of these man-made doctrinal ideas. I don't want to learn a system of theology, I want to learn about Christ. For ME to know the power of His resurrection in this life, is not anything anyone else can teach me.

If I thought Idealism was heresy I probably would look into it so as not to get caught in its errors. But that is not how I see this doctrine, rather I see it as putting limits upon one's ability to think outside its box. In a similar way that we have seen other doctrinal systems do...

Blessings,

:agree:

I try to avoid ISM's and see little point in trading one pair of doctrinally tinted lens for another. in the end all you have done is traded ISM'S.

ShirleyFord
May 24th 2007, 01:45 AM
Shirley,
Here are the 3 passages that refer to this:

(Zechariah 12:10-11) And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn. {11} In that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, as the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon.

(John 19:36-37) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. {37} And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

(Revelation 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.

The common reference here would seem to be the cross.

Zechariah predicts it, John confirms it has been fulfilled and then Jesus reveals to John a different unrelated fulfillment for some 2000 years into the future? I think the only way to see the relevance here is to see its connection to the judgment that would come upon those who actually had a part in His death.

I do think the doctrine of the future coming of Christ is well developed in the scriptures. I just don't happen to believe that every single mention we have of a coming in the clouds is only a reference to that event.

I agree Robin.

Prophecy declares Jesus will return from heaven in the exact same manner that that he ascended back into heaven after His resurrection.

We find the prophecy of His ascension back into heaven in Daniel 7.

Daniel 7:13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

Jesus fulfilled that prophecy at His ascension as we see in Acts 1.


Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

We have this promise:

Acts 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

Acts 1:11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven

Jesus is Coming the Second time bodily from heaven with the clouds of heaven:

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.


Shirley

DurbanDude
May 24th 2007, 12:21 PM
With almost no exception, from chapter 1 to the middle of chapter 19 it can be shown from the Bible and with the fact of History that these things which was time after time referred to by Jesus did indeed take place.

What the non-partial preterist and none historistist has is a wait and see-ism view because those events by their own admission have not yet occurred. In a court of law to prove what has not yet happened would be futile, however in the same court of law proving an event spoken of in prophecy and shown by history (in this case the great tribulation spoken of by Jesus) are solid facts with concrete evidence, the proverbial smoking gun.

I agree , the wait and see approach is the more applicable approach where history has not been conclusive about the fulfilment of prophecy. Only during or after the fact can we see exactly how the prophecies are fulfilled; until then we can specualte and watch for signs and prepare our hearts. Yet I haven't heard much conclusive evidence that most of Revelation has been fulfilled historically.

For example the debate I am currently haveing with Ohtayron concerning Papal Rome being the 7th empire of the 7 consecutive empires. He is proposing a 7 non-consecutive emperors theory as opposed to the 7 consecutive empires theory. If you read all that has been said objectively in this thread about this subject you can see that the evidence possibly weighs in the favour of the empires theory, which is more futurist because the 8th empire is future.

Take also Daniel 7 , the historical perspective is often that this horn is Nero or some other emperor, yet the verse below says that the horn prevails against the saints until a) the ancient of days came b) judgement given c) the time that the saints possess kingdom.

Daniel 7:21 I saw, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them 7:22 until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom

I do understand that these verses if looked at from certain angles can be made to fit history , but normally the historical explanations sound unsatisfying, but I would like to hear your explanation. Its a lot clearer to anticipate a future "horn" who will rule completely and persecute the saints right until the great second coming.

Further preterist logic that appears inconclusive to my sense of logic is that concerning the harlot of Revelation 17. A clear explanation is needed of who the harlot was , how the harlot rode the beast , and who the beast was.

Additionally during which historical period did the harlot exist as a great ruling city during a period the beast did not exist , because in the same chapter John is told the harlot "is the great city that rules" .... and John is told the beast "was but is not and is to come".

A futurist perspective can explain this with logic and ease but am not so sure about a historical explanation?

BeOfGoodCourage
May 24th 2007, 12:44 PM
Take also Daniel 7 , the historical perspective is often that this horn is Nero or some other emperor, yet the verse below says that the horn prevails against the saints until a) the ancient of days came b) judgement given c) the time that the saints possess kingdom.

Daniel 7:21 I saw, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them 7:22 until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom

I do understand that these verses if looked at from certain angles can be made to fit history , but normally the historical explanations sound unsatisfying, but I would like to hear your explanation. Its a lot clearer to anticipate a future "horn" who will rule completely and persecute the saints right until the great second coming.



I will do my best, DD, but will you give me several hours before I respond? I am about to go to my work and can't devote the time right now. Will that be alright?

DurbanDude
May 24th 2007, 02:15 PM
I will do my best, DD, but will you give me several hours before I respond? I am about to go to my work and can't devote the time right now. Will that be alright?

That's fine , thanks.

BeOfGoodCourage
May 25th 2007, 01:41 AM
Take also Daniel 7 , the historical perspective is often that this horn is Nero or some other emperor, yet the verse below says that the horn prevails against the saints until a) the ancient of days came b) judgement given c) the time that the saints possess kingdom.

Daniel 7:21 I saw, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them 7:22 until the ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom

I do understand that these verses if looked at from certain angles can be made to fit history , but normally the historical explanations sound unsatisfying, but I would like to hear your explanation. Its a lot clearer to anticipate a future "horn" who will rule completely and persecute the saints right until the great second coming.



The text speaks of 10 horns growing out of the 4th beast while it is alive. We later see the 4th beast (Rome) destroyed in verse 11. We know Rome was destroyed by the barbarians. So we have a not too difficult verse to interpret. but the 4 beast was destroyed after the little horn had already made the scene. This suggests strongly that the career of the little horn actually began before the destruction of the Roman Empire, the 4th beast. And notice what it says in verse 12;
12 As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.

This is a difficult verse but I understand that each of the beasts, in its own turn, surrendered its dominion to its successor. Babalyon to Medio Persia, they to the Greeks and the greeks to the Romans. Each of these beasts had its kingdom taken away by whatever beast succeeded it.
The fact that their dominion is taken away,(vs 12) is intended as a contrast the kingdom of the saints in verse 14 that says of the Messiah that His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom which shall not pass away.
The text does not allow for the resurrection of the Roman beast as is believed by some.

I believe that the 3 1/2 years in Daniel are the same 3 1/2 years we find in Revelation. I believe that the 3 1/2 years in revelation represents the entire church age. Or at least the church age beginning at a certain point early on going to the end. I would have to spill over into Revelation to give you the compelling reasons I have for this (at least compelling in my mind). and I am not prepared to do that at this time.

The non-dispensational view does not see the end of time in the fourth beast or in the 10 horns or in the little horn neccessarily - perhaps it extends to the end of time. But you see the dispensational view believes that the little horn that arises among the 10 out of the fourth beast is a person, an individual who is antichrist in the end time and who will dominate the political/religious scene in the 7 year tribulation period, making a 7 year covenant with Israel, breaking that covenant in the midst of the week, setting up an image in the temple. None of those things are stated in Scripture but that is nonetheless the picture that many hold concerning the little horn and the future antichrist.

The non-dispensational view throughout most, at least protestant history, has taken the little horn to be the papacy. Not all protestants who are non-dispensationalists agree about this, but it has been a majority view throughout the, at least, 500 years.

The funny thing about this is that before the protestant reformation, there were Catholic scholars who interpreted things similarly even though they maintained loyalty to the pope. I am referring to the Fransiscan Monks who were quite ready to see this beast in Revalation and this little horn as the papacy and that was before the reformation. But there may be a stumbling block in the way of this view and it is verse 25 of Daniel 7.
In verse 25 it speaks that the little horn shall speak pompus words and so forth, and at the end of verse 25 its says "For a time, times, and half a time." Time, times and half a time are not at all clear designations of a specific time frame, however else, especially Revelation the term is used and it is equated with the time period also called 1260 days and alternately 42 months. In Revelation there are 5 references to such a time period.

Now the reason this is a bit problamatic is because 42 months is 3 1/2 years and to a Jew 1260 days is the same as 3 1/2 Jewish years, so if time, times, and half a time is equated with 3 1/2 years then there is a problem because the career of the little horn seems to last that period of time. And if the little horn was in fact the papacy one would have to explain the timing difference since the papacy has far exceeded 3 1/2 years.

This fact probably gives strength to the dispensational view since in their view the little horn has not shown up yet.

DurbanDude
May 29th 2007, 12:41 PM
I believe that the 3 1/2 years in Daniel are the same 3 1/2 years we find in Revelation. I believe that the 3 1/2 years in revelation represents the entire church age. Or at least the church age beginning at a certain point early on going to the end. I would have to spill over into Revelation to give you the compelling reasons I have for this (at least compelling in my mind). and I am not prepared to do that at this time.

None of those things are stated in Scripture but that is nonetheless the picture that many hold concerning the little horn and the future antichrist.

Time, times and half a time are not at all clear designations of a specific time frame, however else, especially Revelation the term is used and it is equated with the time period also called 1260 days and alternately 42 months. In Revelation there are 5 references to such a time period.



BOGC sorry to reply so late , I've had a busy weekend and Monday.

I was questioning your historical approach , being a premill I see a lot of these verses as futurist , so was enquiring about your reasoning. Well your reasoning seems to be that these verses are about the church age , and yet you say above that you are'nt prepared to delve into your reasons at this stage. Hmm not quite a satisfactory answer :) , when you have time ...

Although I disagree with the theory of a future 7 year trib starting with the 'peace treaty' i do see their biblical evidence. It is basically taking a futurist perspective of the whole of Daniel 9:27 . This is generally the pre-mill perspective. The amill perspective is the whole of Daniel 9:27 is historical. My perspective is that half of Daniel 9:27 is past (Jesus) and half of it is speaking of the future 3.5 year period , and like you I do see all the various 3.5 year periods as simultaneous , but I see this as an actual 3.5 year period of tribulation.