Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (video series study)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (video series study)

    The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (2 of 25) Intro 1

    The Beast of Revelation: IDENTIFIED (3 of 25) Intro 2

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

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

    God bless
    "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

  • #2
    Added information on this speaker and this view:

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

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


    God bless
    "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

    Comment


    • #3
      I do believe that the scholarship regarding the early dating of Revelation, and all of the NT, is convincing. And necessary to the partial preterist view. There are others who are called the apostolic fathers who made statements indicating they believed they were in the last age. I will have to search for that. The name escapes me at the moment. But he was from Antioch and wrote several epistles on his way to Rome to be fed to the lions. Another letter is attributed to him but is considered to not be his, and appeared much later.

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

      I remembered: edited to say that the early church writer was Ignatius of Antioch. Letter to the Corinthians
      Last edited by Libre; Jan 18th 2009, 12:44 AM. Reason: addition
      Free indeed!

      Comment


      • #4
        Since most of like to start at the beginning I am posting the link to 1

        #1
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q48AA...eature=channel

        You can get the DVD at http://forerunner.com
        Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

        Comment


        • #5
          Even though I disagree with a lot of the post-millennial scheme, I do agree with Rev. Gentry on this topic. I guess it's one more indication of just how close post-millennialism and a-millennialism is.

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

          Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly.
          Leave the rest to the Lord.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by ScottJohnson View Post
            Even though I disagree with a lot of the post-millennial scheme, I do agree with Rev. Gentry on this topic. I guess it's one more indication of just how close post-millennialism and a-millennialism is.

            My one question would be what, if any is the relation between the destruction of Jerusalem and seven gentile churches in Asia Minor?
            I don't know...guess we all will have to study up on that.

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

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

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

            God bless
            "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by moonglow View Post
              I don't know...guess we all will have to study up on that.

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

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

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

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

              Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly.
              Leave the rest to the Lord.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ScottJohnson View Post
                R.C. Sproul is a five point Calvinist, I think he's five pointer anyway. Partial preterism is considered to be reformed theologies so it's not all that unusual to see Calvinists siding with the partials. I'm guessing that Ken Gentry is a Calvinist as well considering I saw a book or media in his store defending predestination. It's kind of interesting that the Catholic Church tends to lean towards partial preterism as well, in light of the fact that preterism is considered to be reformed doctrine.
                I am listening to them now(there aren't many visual study aids in the videos)
                I am on #7 and so far his case is weak and full of holes. He hasn't mentioned anything yet that I can't deal with directly from memory. Perhaps he'll make me go do some extra study yet though. I'm only on #7 of 25
                Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shepherdsword View Post
                  I am listening to them now(there aren't many visual study aids in the videos)
                  I am on #7 and so far his case is weak and full of holes. He hasn't mentioned anything yet that I can't deal with directly from memory. Perhaps he'll make me go do some extra study yet though. I'm only on #7 of 25
                  What holes do you refer to? I thought that his exegesis was pretty solid myself.
                  -----------------
                  Scott

                  Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly.
                  Leave the rest to the Lord.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ScottJohnson View Post
                    What holes do you refer to? I thought that his exegesis was pretty solid myself.

                    These are just the ones I have so far:

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

                    I am still on 11 of 25 so maybe I should wait until the end before weighing in anymore.
                    Mal 3:16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think we have to remember when scripture speaks of the world, it may not be in the contents of the whole world...but the inhabited world...or the nations under Rome...which Jerusalem was under their rule when these scriptures were written.

                      The New Testament Greek Lexicon
                      world
                      Strong's Number: 3625 oi╬koumeĐnh
                      Original Word Word Origin
                      oi╬koumeĐnh feminine participle present passive of (3611) (as noun, by implication of (1093))
                      Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
                      Oikoumene oy-kou-men'-ay
                      Parts of Speech TDNT
                      Noun Feminine 5:157,674
                      Definition


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

                      God bless
                      "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by shepherdsword View Post
                        These are just the ones I have so far:

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

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

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

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

                        A. The time is near. Rev 1:3

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

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

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

                        Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly.
                        Leave the rest to the Lord.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ScottJohnson View Post
                          R.C. Sproul is a five point Calvinist, I think he's five pointer anyway. Partial preterism is considered to be reformed theologies so it's not all that unusual to see Calvinists siding with the partials. I'm guessing that Ken Gentry is a Calvinist as well considering I saw a book or media in his store defending predestination. It's kind of interesting that the Catholic Church tends to lean towards partial preterism as well, in light of the fact that preterism is considered to be reformed doctrine.
                          Thanks for explaining...but I don't understand what the connection would be between being a Calvinist and having this view? I am certainly not a Calvinist..and I know others that hold this PP view that aren't Calvinist either.

                          God bless
                          "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In this video he explains more about Nero being the beast and how the numbers add up to his name: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIWJh...eature=related

                            God bless
                            "People do not drift toward holiness. Apart from grace-driven effort, people do not gravitate toward godliness, prayer, obedience to Scripture, faith, and delight in the Lord. We drift toward compromise and call it tolerance; We drift toward disobedience and call it freedom; We drift toward superstition and call it faith. We cherish the indiscipline of lost self-control and call it relaxation; we slouch toward prayerlessness and delude ourselves into thinking we have escaped legalism; we slide toward godlessness and convince ourselves we have been liberated?" - D A Carson

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by moonglow View Post
                              Thanks for explaining...but I don't understand what the connection would be between being a Calvinist and having this view? I am certainly not a Calvinist..and I know others that hold this PP view that aren't Calvinist either.

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

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

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

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

                              Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly.
                              Leave the rest to the Lord.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X