Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

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

  • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

    Originally posted by David Reese View Post
    A temple was a place of prayer and worship. Can be as small as your heart, your church, your city, your country, your planet, your cosmos. I believe its literal. 8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

    9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

    10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

    satan is god of earth. satan stands before these two nations and gets mad and attacks them. That is what these verse are saying. The beast you speak of please explain. I understand the beast in Revelations and Ezekiel.
    You must use "Reply With Quote" to copy who you're responding to. That way, they know you are referring to their post.

    Comment


    • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
      Marty has a real chronology issue. He has John see the visions in the 60s, but when you try to pin him down as to which year he seems quite evasive.
      This is because Nero started persecuting the Christians after Rome burnt in July 64.
      Now John could not be in exile until AFTER that event, as there was no Roman persecution to send him there.
      Further the persecution was basically localised to "ItalY".
      Now if we assume it was actually more widely spread then someone must have been told to exile the Christians rather than crucify them or put them in the Colosseum, or personally was a secret Christian.
      There needs to be time for this to be sent from Rome to Asia Minor and elsewhere.
      Now 4 years later Nero is dead.
      This means the final 3.5 years must ALL occur IMMEDIATELY without any time for John to be taken, transported or given the vision, and then for him to write it and send it out.
      Further according to Revelation the events of chapters 2 and 3 occur BEFORE the rest.
      This means there is NO previous prophecy about the 5 months of the locusts - except He makes that be about Jerusalem AFTER Nero is dead, and yet Nero is the 666 and the one who fulfilled the role of AC.
      As soon as you explore it with any reality it burst apart at the seams, but then it is bot supported by the ECFs as being a correct time.
      Of course everyone is evasive on the date because nobody knows for sure when it was written. I believe that it was about 65AD.

      I also believe that the events of 70AD are the main focus of God's wrath in revelation

      The beast is a demon of Rome and Nero played a main part in the beast but the beast carried on after his death

      Comment


      • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

        Originally posted by marty fox View Post
        Of course everyone is evasive on the date because nobody knows for sure when it was written. I believe that it was about 65AD.
        I also believe that the events of 70AD are the main focus of God's wrath in revelation
        The beast is a demon of Rome and Nero played a main part in the beast but the beast carried on after his death
        The simple question is if John was only exiled in 65 Ad and then wrote his letter, then who is it that reigns for 42 months?
        Nero didn't as his reign ended before he died on 8th June 68 AD. 42 months earlier would be December 64 AD or at the very latest January 65 AD, yet John would need to have written AND distributed the prophecy for it to have any value or meaning. This would also mean you have the trumpets all messed up, with the locusts being AFTER the 3 and half years of the Beast.
        Chronologically your idea does not work.

        Never mind the other issues as to your interpretation.

        Comment


        • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

          Originally posted by marty fox View Post
          I also believe that the events of 70AD are the main focus of God's wrath in revelation
          Really? Is 70 AD greater in importance than all the end-time events?

          Comment


          • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

            Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
            Really? Is 70 AD greater in importance than all the end-time events?
            No not at all why would you say that I didn't say that at all?

            I said that it was the main focus of God's wrath was 70AD. The main focus of Revelation was the revealing of Jesus and what He did. Revelation also deals with the outcome of the beast and the end of our world in chapter 20 and then our future in heaven with God

            Comment


            • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

              Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
              The simple question is if John was only exiled in 65 Ad and then wrote his letter, then who is it that reigns for 42 months?
              Nero didn't as his reign ended before he died on 8th June 68 AD. 42 months earlier would be December 64 AD or at the very latest January 65 AD, yet John would need to have written AND distributed the prophecy for it to have any value or meaning. This would also mean you have the trumpets all messed up, with the locusts being AFTER the 3 and half years of the Beast.
              Chronologically your idea does not work.

              Never mind the other issues as to your interpretation.
              It would make sense if revelation was written after the start of the 42 month persecution. John wrote about it to give the saints hope that it would end after 3 1/2 years

              I see the 42 months as the persecution of the church not the total reign of Nero it was the time he was allowed to overcome the saints and the beast is not complete in Nero but is Rome.

              Yes the locus were after the persecution time of the saints as the locus were against Jerusalem as Revelation states that they don't harm the saints

              Comment


              • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

                Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                It would make sense if revelation was written after the start of the 42 month persecution. John wrote about it to give the saints hope that it would end after 3 1/2 years
                I see the 42 months as the persecution of the church not the total reign of Nero it was the time he was allowed to overcome the saints and the beast is not complete in Nero but is Rome.
                Yes the locus were after the persecution time of the saints as the locus were against Jerusalem as Revelation states that they don't harm the saints
                No it does not make sense for John to have written it AFTER 42 months of persecution.
                This would mean it was NOT prophecy but history!

                Also after the 42 months were over Nero was dead and persecution of Christians stopped until Domitian, which is when the ECFs say Revelation was written. Now IF the persecution has ALREADY stopped then what is the need for a letter stating that it will stop? It bit backwards. Rather you need the letter BEFORE it even starts so you are able to go through it. IOW Revelation is written mainly for a period of persecution that was NOT a present persecution.

                Comment


                • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

                  Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                  Yes the locus were after the persecution time of the saints as the locus were against Jerusalem as Revelation states that they don't harm the saints
                  Just read this again and it is clear you haven't read what is stated about the locusts.
                  The locusts are UNABLE to kill.

                  Note they are NOT against Jerusalem but against everyone who is not a Christian.

                  It does not work for 70 AD as it states people would seek death but NOT find it. However in these 5 months of the Jerusalem siege people clearly found death and many died.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

                    Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                    No it does not make sense for John to have written it AFTER 42 months of persecution.
                    This would mean it was NOT prophecy but history!

                    Also after the 42 months were over Nero was dead and persecution of Christians stopped until Domitian, which is when the ECFs say Revelation was written. Now IF the persecution has ALREADY stopped then what is the need for a letter stating that it will stop? It bit backwards. Rather you need the letter BEFORE it even starts so you are able to go through it. IOW Revelation is written mainly for a period of persecution that was NOT a present persecution.
                    I didn’t say after the persecution I said after the start of the persecution which we know because John states in the first chapter that he is already in the persecution so it makes perfect sense

                    Comment


                    • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

                      Originally posted by ForHisglory View Post
                      Just read this again and it is clear you haven't read what is stated about the locusts.
                      The locusts are UNABLE to kill.

                      Note they are NOT against Jerusalem but against everyone who is not a Christian.

                      It does not work for 70 AD as it states people would seek death but NOT find it. However in these 5 months of the Jerusalem siege people clearly found death and many died.

                      I know that many died during the seize I’ve read books on it but what I’m saying is that Jerusalem as a city would not die until after the 5 months which is the time of the locus and the seige people reading revelation would know how long the seige would last

                      I don’t think that Joel chapter two is a coincidence

                      Comment


                      • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

                        Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                        No not at all why would you say that I didn't say that at all?

                        I said that it was the main focus of God's wrath was 70AD. The main focus of Revelation was the revealing of Jesus and what He did. Revelation also deals with the outcome of the beast and the end of our world in chapter 20 and then our future in heaven with God
                        It's just that your understanding of eschatological chronology is often awry and hard to follow.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

                          Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                          I didnít say after the persecution I said after the start of the persecution which we know because John states in the first chapter that he is already in the persecution so it makes perfect sense
                          You never give up, do you? It will help if you take some time to read the relevant scriptures once again to gain a new perspective. Perhaps you'll see things differently.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

                            Originally posted by Trivalee View Post
                            You never give up, do you? It will help if you take some time to read the relevant scriptures once again to gain a new perspective. Perhaps you'll see things differently.
                            Am I wrong or did John say that he was in the persecution?

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

                            Comment


                            • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

                              Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                              I know that many died during the seize I’ve read books on it but what I’m saying is that Jerusalem as a city would not die until after the 5 months which is the time of the locus and the seige people reading revelation would know how long the seige would last

                              I don’t think that Joel chapter two is a coincidence
                              The locusts weren't attacking a city, but they are sent against PEOPLE. And some people they can't harm because they are sealed by God and others they can because they are not.
                              It has NOTHING to do with 70 AD.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Is the temple in Rev 11:1-2 literal?

                                Originally posted by marty fox View Post
                                I didn’t say after the persecution I said after the start of the persecution which we know because John states in the first chapter that he is already in the persecution so it makes perfect sense
                                That still means it is NOT prophecy. John writes of it as a FUTURE persecution NOT a PRESENT one.
                                IOW the persecution he underwent is NOT the same as that he is being given a prophecy about!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X