A Futurist is asking a question of the Partial Preterist [Archive]

View Full Version : A Futurist is asking a question of the Partial Preterist

Daywalker

March 12th 2004, 11:26 PM

dizzle

March 12th 2004, 11:51 PM

Hey Mike I wish I had the time to dedicate to this. Maybe someone else will. As to NeoHymenaeans, no I don't know what they are talking about, for I:

...shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some.

and have no interest sullying myself with that foul cancer.

Daywalker

March 12th 2004, 11:52 PM

Thanks

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 13th 2004, 04:44 PM

Keep in mind that the purpose of this thread is not to convert anybody one way or another, although we both know inside that BOTH groups would want it to be so. Having said that, we both know that some of that spirit is almost guaranteed to come forth probably from both sides. That is okay too...

Having said that, let me post what I put on another thread. I wrote it to one preterist in particular, but it is open to any Partial Preterist...
To give you an idea of what I am, I am an Open View Theist and a Dispensationalist (MOST of my fellow dispy's would regard me as an ULTRAdispensationalist). For the record, I place "the church, which is his body" as starting after the Acts period. By the time that the temple was destroyed, as far as I am concerned, this age had kicked into gear (if not sooner).

This is a CUT and Paste:

Why couldn't God, IN YOUR VIEW, take the faithful remnant that comes from the Jewish lineage and make them an ethno-political ruling body and having believing Gentiles as an EXTENSION of their reign...all of them, mind you, operating under the headship of Christ?

To me, the Israel of God is the believing remnant among the Jews...those that were "in Isaac". The other nations were merely grafted into them.
How does Preterism see this vs. Full Preterism?

Anybody care to comment? I am wanting to know WHY in Preterism it is not permissable for the Jews to have a literal, physical, political, visible kingdom reign in this world where they will be the head of the nations...

Also, I have "heard" some FULL Preterists on paltalk tell me that they believe in dividing Paul's word. Do you guys have any CLUE what THEY mean by that?
Grace,
Mike
I will try to give you brief response to your questions. I do not have time today to give you the kind of response your questions deservers. It is a very good question. :thumb:

Having said that, let me post what I put on another thread. I wrote it to one preterist in particular, but it is open to any Partial Preterist...
To give you an idea of what I am, I am an Open View Theist and a Dispensationalist (MOST of my fellow dispy's would regard me as an ULTRAdispensationalist). For the record, I place "the church, which is his body" as starting after the Acts period. By the time that the temple was destroyed, as far as I am concerned, this age had kicked into gear (if not sooner).

If I was the preterist you originally addressed this too I am sorry I did not answer. I try to answer all people who address me, but it is so hard to keep up. I never avoid answering questions intentionally (unless they are really inane)

Why couldn't God, IN YOUR VIEW, take the faithful remnant that comes from the Jewish lineage and make them an ethno-political ruling body and having believing Gentiles as an EXTENSION of their reign...all of them, mind you, operating under the headship of Christ?

Well, like Dee Dee I do take exception to the word Can't God can do anything He wants that is possible and within his character. After all He is sovereign. But I guess in this instance He truly can't because He said in his word that He wouldn't (or at least that is what I infer, I will not argue that He definitively said that He won't because I don't think that scripture says that. But I also don't think it says that He will)

Many preterist, myself including, see Revelation as a counter to Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy is, as you may know, in the form of an ANE suzerain treaty, which establishes an agreement (literally a covenant) between a King (Jehovah) and His people (Israel).

Revelation is in the same structure as Revelation. But instead of being a making of a covenant, it was a breaking of the covenant established by Deuteronomy.

Most of Revelation is in the style of Hebrew prophecy. Contrary to popular, modern belief, the main job of a prophet of God was not to tell the future. The main job of a prophet is to remind the people of their responsibilities under the covenant, and the consequences for not following the covenant. (Read Deuteronomy it is a conditional covenant.)

In Revelation John is acting as a prophet pronouncing God’s judgment on ethnic Israel for breaking the covenant, by not accepting the conventionally promised Messiah, Jesus. In fact the “whore of Babylon” represents apostate Israel contrasted to the “bride of Christ” representing the Church the subordinate party under the new Covenant”. You see when the Jewish leadership (along with a majority of the Jewish people) declared “we have no king but Caesar” when Jesus was on trial, they were committing idolatry in the sight of God. They had rejected their true King under the covenant in favor of another. The Jewish leadership (along with most of the Jewish people) continued to persecute Christians with the help of the Roman empire. (the Roman Empire being the Sea beast of Revelation and the Jewish leadership being the Land beast).

IOW, Revelation is a “divorce decree” to Israel annulling the old covenant and establishing the new Covenant with the Church. An ethnic Jew can be a member of the new covenant, but the covenant is no longer with any ethnic group exclusively (and the covenant was never with all ethnic Jews, just those of faith).

So to sum up. I suppose God could establish a new separate covenant with ethnic Israel if He really wanted to. But there is nothing in scripture IMHO that indicates that he will. Especially since He declared the Old Covenant to be void due to Israel’s ultimate rejection, apostasy and idolatry.

To me, the Israel of God is the believing remnant among the Jews...those that were "in Isaac". The other nations were merely grafted into them.
How does Preterism see this vs. Full Preterism?

I agree. True Israel is the Church. We are grafted into the root of ancient Judaism. But, the apostate Jews were pruned off. There is no “Jew v. Christian” in the current covenantal economy (I think that’s the right term :huh: ). IMHO, in the first Century there were several “sects” within Judaism all trying practice “true Judaism”: Pharisees Sadducees, Essences, Zealots, and Christians. We are the true Judaism, we got it right. While it is true that the Church is grafted onto the vine of Israel, that doesn’t mean that those who rejected Jesus are still somehow on the vine.

I do believe that someday the majority of ethnic Jews will once again become members of the true vine. However, IMHO they have to do it the same way us gentiles do, by becoming a part of the Church. I also hope it happens soon, because IMHO the church has lost contact with much of it’s Jewish heritage.

The covenant with ethnic Israel has been broken, by ethnic Israel. Remember it was a conditional covenant. Israel did not keep their end of the bargain.

Also, I have "heard" some FULL Preterists on paltalk tell me that they believe in dividing Paul's word. Do you guys have any CLUE what THEY mean by that?

I have no idea, and like Dee Dee said, I have no desire to learn more of that heretical position.

And yes that is the short answer. I could supplement it with scripture references and such, but that would take research that I do not have time for right now.

I hope this was at least somewhat helpful.

Also, I did this in somewhat of a hurry so if it is sloppy I apologize. (IOW allow me the chance to change my mind if I was not clear or misstated my position :pray: )

:sig:

ot/ With that as my short answer, please tell me I’m not turning into Dee Dee. :egad:

Daywalker

March 13th 2004, 05:08 PM

Thank you for your reply. That was what I needed to know.
Grace,
Mike

GhostontheNet

March 13th 2004, 07:58 PM

Daywalker

March 13th 2004, 11:35 PM

Is not even an eventual restoration of Israel possible in Postmillenialism? A few texts tend to make me lean towards a future restoration of Israel, also as I recall Kenneth Gentry takes this position. Though in this view obviously Christ wouldn't be ruling as a king in a physical sense on earth. Because I'm typing on borrowed time I can't back up any of these claims at the moment, save to ask the question.
If this is addressed to me (which I doubt) I would say that I do believe that God will restore Israel as promised. He said, even in the law, that he COULD chasten them but NOT make a full end of them. If he merely transformed them into "the church, which is his body" then he DID make a full end of them because they cease to be the "them" that he was refering to, Israel.

I believe that What God did (my view) is this:
God said to Moses that He would like to WIPE OUT Israel and make OF MOSES a great nation. It would STILL have been a Jewish nation. God only needs ONE survivor to make it all happen. God has that one survivor, Jesus Christ, the seed of David. With him, and THROUGH HIM the Son can and will resurrect those of Israel and turn his hand on them THE SECOND TIME to restore his people...those that are Jewish, plus IN ISAAC.

Isaiah 11:10-11 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

In Isa. 11, IMHO, the remant of his people is the Jew because that phrase, to me, can only mean one group in that text and it is CONTRASTED with the Gentile, and the phrase "the people" is also a ref. to the Jew. Also the phrase "his people" is used elsewhere in Isa., and I feel certain that they would have understood it as Israel...BELIEVING Israel. They would be born again as a nation.

GhostontheNet

March 14th 2004, 12:56 AM

My post indeed wasn't arguing against you. Rather, it was to note I don't think Preterism requires a replacement theology as Faramir advocates if I read him correctly.

Daywalker

March 14th 2004, 12:57 AM

right. I was just saying...
Thanks,
Mike

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 14th 2004, 03:32 PM

My post indeed wasn't arguing against you. Rather, it was to note I don't think Preterism requires a replacement theology as Faramir advocates if I read him correctly.
Well, I'm not particularly fond of the term replacement theology, thought some preterist (and some futurist as well) do say that the church replaced isreal.

I see the church as a continuation of Isreal. That is true Israel in the first Century consisted of Jewish Christians. God revoked His exclusive covenant with ethnic Israel, and allowed Gentiles to be grafted on to the existing root of Israel.

IOW, the church it the continuation of true Israel, not the replacement of Israel. The church can trace it's roots back to Abraham. That is why I made the comment that IMHO the church has lost touch with it's Jewish heritage.

The breaking of the covenant did not preclude ethnic Jews from being a part of "true Israel". It just took away the exclusive natutre of the covenant from ethnic Jews.

See my comment about there being several sects within Judiasm all trying to get Judiasm right. I list Christianity as one of those sect. The one that got it right.

Maybe it's just semantics, but I really do not like the term replacement theology, because I do not see the church as replacing Isreal, so much as the church being added on to Israel and Israel being reformed as the Church.

I typed this quickly becasue I need to leave for church (small c :wink:) in a few minutes. I hope it was clear enough w/o too many typos.

:sig:

Daywalker

March 14th 2004, 04:37 PM

kofh2u

March 15th 2004, 10:02 AM

Why couldn't God, IN YOUR VIEW, take the faithful remnant that comes from the Jewish lineage and make them an ethno-political ruling body and having believing Gentiles as an EXTENSION of their reign...all of them, mind you, operating under the headship of Christ?

Deuteronomy is, as you may know, in the form of an ANE suzerain treaty, which establishes an agreement (literally a covenant) between a King (Jehovah) and His people (Israel).

Revelation is in the same structure as Revelation. But instead of being a making of a covenant, it was a breaking of the covenant established by Deuteronomy.

In Revelation John is acting as a prophet pronouncing God’s judgment on ethnic Israel for breaking the covenant, by not accepting the conventionally promised Messiah, Jesus. In fact the “whore of Babylon” represents apostate Israel contrasted to the “bride of Christ” representing the Church the subordinate party under the new Covenant”.

You see when the Jewish leadership (along with a majority of the Jewish people) declared “we have no king but Caesar” when Jesus was on trial, they were committing idolatry in the sight of God.

The Jewish leadership (along with most of the Jewish people) continued to persecute Christians with the help of the Roman empire. (the Roman Empire being the Sea beast of Revelation and the Jewish leadership being the Land beast).

An ethnic Jew can be a member of the new covenant, but the covenant is no longer with any ethnic group exclusively

God could establish a new separate covenant with ethnic Israel if He really wanted to. But there is nothing in scripture IMHO that indicates that he will. Especially since He declared the Old Covenant to be void due to Israel’s ultimate rejection, apostasy and idolatry.

Israel of God is the believing remnant among the Jews...those that were "in Isaac". The other nations were merely grafted into them.
How does Preterism see this vs. Full Preterism?

I agree.
I do believe that someday the majority of ethnic Jews will once again become members of the true vine. However, IMHO they have to do it the same way us gentiles do, by becoming a part of the Church. I also hope it happens soon, because IMHO the church has lost contact with much of it’s Jewish heritage.

The covenant with ethnic Israel has been broken, by ethnic Israel. Remember it was a conditional covenant. Israel did not keep their end of the bargain.

Also, I did this in somewhat of a hurry so if it is sloppy I apologize. (IOW allow me the chance to change my mind if I was not clear or misstated my position :pray: )

VERY INFORMATIVE, INDEED!

QUESTION: You idea of apostate Israel, the whore, reigning over the political forces (kings)... fors it fit clearly into the whole context?

1)
Rev. 17:18 And APOSTATE ISRAEL (?) which thou sawest is that culture in society which reigneth over the political leadership of the earth.

2)
Rev. 17:18 And this PAGANISTIC SYSTEM (?) which thou sawest is that culture in society which reigneth over the political leadership of the earth.

Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away in thoughts in my imagination: and I saw XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX sit upon a scarlet coloured beastly cultural institution, full of names of blasphemy, having EXISTED IN (1) EGYPT, (2) ASSYRIA, (3) BABYLON, (4) PERSIA/MEDE, (5) GREECE, (6) ROME (7) WESTERN CULTURE of the ten SHORT PERIODS OF LEADERSHIP:
1. Anarchy, 2. Vandalism, etc, 3. Papacy, 4. Charlemagne, 5. Holy Roman Empire, 6. Italy, 7. Spain, 8. France, 9. Britain, 10. Nazi Germany.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 15th 2004, 02:52 PM

Thanks for the reply. I just think that IF "the church" is a continuation of Israel, then it would not fit in with all the ref. or a Israel that once again has animal sacrifices (Ez.40-48) and a land grant give to IT.

Grace,

Mike

Sorry, I wasn't a clear as I should have been. (But hey I warned you I might not have been so cut me some slack :wink:)

The church is a continuation of "Spiritual" Israel. That is the salvific (sp?) promise that was made in the covenants was continued with the Church in but with a new covenant.

The old covenant was abolished so the land grant was null and void (remember the land grant was conditional, ethnic Israel did not fulfill the conditions, therefore God was just in revoking said covenant).

And you are right about the continuation of animal sacrifices. Of course I see no future animal sacrifices in Ez. (at least not future to us).

IOW. The Mosaic Covenant was made with ethnic Israel. The majority of ethnic Israelites so violated the articles of the covenant that God justly voided the covenant with them.

However, there was a faithful remnant of ethnic Jews (most 1st Century Christians were Jewish, especially before AD 70). It was this remnant, along with believing Gentiles, with whom God made the new Covenant. This remnant was under the old covenant as faithful Jews and remained in a Covenantal (sp?) relationship with God under the new covenant. As Paul says (1 Cor. I believe) the gentiles are grafted onto the true vine.

Yes there was a change in Covenants, but I do not see that as a separation so much as a pruning.

I hope this helps.

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 15th 2004, 04:14 PM

VERY INFORMATIVE, INDEED!

QUESTION: You idea of apostate Israel, the whore, reigning over the political forces (kings)... fors it fit clearly into the whole context?

1)

Rev. 17:18 And APOSTATE ISRAEL (?) which thou sawest is that culture in society which reigneth over the political leadership of the earth.

2)

Rev. 17:18 And this PAGANISTIC SYSTEM (?) which thou sawest is that culture in society which reigneth over the political leadership of the earth.

Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away in thoughts in my imagination: and I saw XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX sit upon a scarlet coloured beastly cultural institution, full of names of blasphemy, having EXISTED IN (1) EGYPT, (2) ASSYRIA, (3) BABYLON, (4) PERSIA/MEDE, (5) GREECE, (6) ROME (7) WESTERN CULTURE of the ten SHORT PERIODS OF LEADERSHIP:

1. Anarchy, 2. Vandalism, etc, 3. Papacy, 4. Charlemagne, 5. Holy Roman Empire, 6. Italy, 7. Spain, 8. France, 9. Britain, 10. Nazi Germany.

Not sure what you are asking here Kofh2u, but I think you are asking if I think that apostate Israel is the whore because it fits into the context. So that is the question I will answer. If you had another question, please let me know.

I have included the text in question below for context.

Rev. 17 ESV[/color]"]1Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, 2with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk." 3And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. 4The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's abominations." 6And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly. 7But the angel said to me, "Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her. 8The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. 9This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; 10they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. 11As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. 12And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. 13These are of one mind and hand over their power and authority to the beast. 14They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful."
15And the angel said to me, "The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages. 16And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, 17for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth."

Now I personally think it is bad exegesis to find something that "fits the pattern" then impose that on the scripture (but that makes excellent eisegesis [sp?]). That is one of my problem with much of futurism.

I look at the scripture first to determine what it is saying. Then I look to see it that interpretation “fits the pattern”. I examine the literary style, the context (social, historical, and textual), and I examine similar passages in by the same author and other text in the Bible, and finally other text from the same time period and the same literary style

So lets look at the passage in question

1Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, 2with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk."

Revelation’s literary style is, for the most part prophetic/apocalyptic. It is the only such book in the NT, so we have to look to OT prophetic literature to get and idea as to what John means here. In several OT passages Gods relation ship to Israel is described as a marriage and idolatry was spoken of as infidelity. Numerous occasions idolatrous Israel is described as adulterous and/or prostitution.

In fact the only two cities outside of Israel who have been called “harlot” are Nineveh and Tyre; both of which had at one time acknowledged the true God.

But Like I said earlier in this thread. Jesus, the King was on trial and instead of acknowledging this, the Jewish leadership declared, “We have no king but Caesar”. This is Israel committing “sexual immorality with the “kings of the earth”.

3And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. 4The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's abominations."

Again we look to the OT for meaning in this passage (Rev. is by far the most OT oriented book in the NT). The high priest wears a garment woven with gold and jewels. The high priest also wears the “name of God” on his forehead on the Day of Atonement. This is a symbolic parody of the high priest. The 1st Century Jews had all the “trappings” of following God, but they were actually committing spiritual adultery. (This is actually a very abbreviated commentary on this passage due to time and space constraints. If you have specific questions though, please feel free to ask)

I could go verse by verse, but I think that this sets a good foundation for further discussion. I don’t want to get to bogged down, and this is a passage rich with meaning.

I will address v. 18 since you mention that verse specifically.

18And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.

Now earlier in Revelation John refers to “the great city where our Lord was crucified”. Clearly that is Jerusalem. The confusion comes in with this phrase, “that has dominion over the kings of the earth.” Most people say that this must be Rome, because Rome was the political and military powerhouse of that day. However, the book of Revelation is not a book about politics it is about Covenant. From a Covenantal perspective, Jerusalem was it.

Again I could write pages, if I had the time, on this subject. But I will stop here to keep this discussion focused. I will be happy to answer any specific questions though.

This is longer but less detailed than I had originally planned. I am beginning to see why Dee Dee’s eschatological posts are always so long. :egad:

kofh2u

March 15th 2004, 08:13 PM

Not sure what you are asking here Kofh2u, but I think you are asking if I think that apostate Israel is the whore because it fits into the context. So that is the question I will answer. If you had another question, please let me know.

I have included the text in question below for context.

Rev. 17 ESV[/color]"]1Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, 2with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk." 3And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. 4The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's abominations." 6And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly. 7But the angel said to me, "Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her. 8The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. 9This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated; 10they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he does come he must remain only a little while. 11As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven, and it goes to destruction. 12And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour, together with the beast. 13These are of one mind and hand over their power and authority to the beast. 14They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful."
15And the angel said to me, "The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations and languages. 16And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate the prostitute. They will make her desolate and naked, and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire, 17for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth."

Now I personally think it is bad exegesis to find something that "fits the pattern" then impose that on the scripture (but that makes excellent eisegesis [sp?]). That is one of my problem with much of futurism.

I look at the scripture first to determine what it is saying. Then I look to see it that interpretation “fits the pattern”. I examine the literary style, the context (social, historical, and textual), and I examine similar passages in by the same author and other text in the Bible, and finally other text from the same time period and the same literary style

So lets look at the passage in question

1Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, 2with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk."

Revelation’s literary style is, for the most part prophetic/apocalyptic. It is the only such book in the NT, so we have to look to OT prophetic literature to get and idea as to what John means here. In several OT passages Gods relation ship to Israel is described as a marriage and idolatry was spoken of as infidelity. Numerous occasions idolatrous Israel is described as adulterous and/or prostitution.

In fact the only two cities outside of Israel who have been called “harlot” are Nineveh and Tyre; both of which had at one time acknowledged the true God.

But Like I said earlier in this thread. Jesus, the King was on trial and instead of acknowledging this, the Jewish leadership declared, “We have no king but Caesar”. This is Israel committing “sexual immorality with the “kings of the earth”.

3And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. 4The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. 5And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's abominations."

Again we look to the OT for meaning in this passage (Rev. is by far the most OT oriented book in the NT). The high priest wears a garment woven with gold and jewels. The high priest also wears the “name of God” on his forehead on the Day of Atonement. This is a symbolic parody of the high priest. The 1st Century Jews had all the “trappings” of following God, but they were actually committing spiritual adultery. (This is actually a very abbreviated commentary on this passage due to time and space constraints. If you have specific questions though, please feel free to ask)

I could go verse by verse, but I think that this sets a good foundation for further discussion. I don’t want to get to bogged down, and this is a passage rich with meaning.

I will address v. 18 since you mention that verse specifically.

18And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth.

Now earlier in Revelation John refers to “the great city where our Lord was crucified”. Clearly that is Jerusalem. The confusion comes in with this phrase, “that has dominion over the kings of the earth.” Most people say that this must be Rome, because Rome was the political and military powerhouse of that day. However, the book of Revelation is not a book about politics it is about Covenant. From a Covenantal perspective, Jerusalem was it.

Again I could write pages, if I had the time, on this subject. But I will stop here to keep this discussion focused. I will be happy to answer any specific questions though.

This is longer but less detailed than I had originally planned. I am beginning to see why Dee Dee’s eschatological posts are always so long. :egad:

Hi faramir,
Thanxz for the insight into how you do your guessing.

I use a slightly different approach.

First, I look for one (1) basic hypothesis, right from chapter one.

That is, just one idea, one that seems to be the possible foundation for step by step theories to follow. I look for a brainstorming overview. Try some, brainstorm more, on and on.

In this, I sort of build what Emanuel Kant described as a logical "geometry" of ideas.

This house of cards could come tumbling down, of course, as I might run into a problem. Like the one you have with this 7 headed beast. The whore sits on the whole western society from Egypt on. That was before Moses, even.

For instance, the point where I get to chapter 17,... all other preceeding chapters having pretty much yielded to the network of geometrically connected propositions,... I notice that this whore sits upon a beast with those 7 heads and ten horns of power.

I see, also, that in chapter 12 there is a dragon with the same anatomy!

Rev. 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in my thoughts; and behold a great red dragon, Paganism, that SYSTEM OF SEXUAL MORES having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Culture! Culture, in the symbolism of this dragon, is accompanied with a series of political successions, each a change in political power. The kings change, the names of the empires change, but the people do not! Western paganism is the culture of the people.

Now this leads me to wonder, what "whore" could possibly be involved here, with kings and Paganism? Political rulers and the culture of sexual mores?

Unlike your guess, I see that this little community of Jews couldn't be involved. Too small, empires too big. And, this dragon goes back, as do the kings, to Egypt... before there even was a Jewish people,... before Moses. This is the same dragon Moses called Baal and Ashtorah worship! Sex is involved here the mores!

Eureka! It's working, my first hypothesis is still working! All the way through, consistently right up to chapter 17!

See how I do it? Like Oscam's Razor.

Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away in thought into my imagination: and I saw the Paganism of all Western Culture, a socio-sexual complex, institutionalizing a corrupted sacred MATRIMONY, as if a whore who did sit upon a scarlet coloured socio-economic system, full of names of blasphemy, having EXISTED IN (1) EGYPT, (2) ASSYRIA, (3) BABYLON, (4) PERSIA/MEDE, (5) GREECE, (6) ROME (7) THE WESTERN CULTURE of the ten horns:
1. Anarchy, 2. Lombard/Vandalism, 3. Papacy, 4. Charlemagne, 5. Holy Roman Empire, 6. Italy, 7. Spain, 8. France, 9. Britain, 10. Nazi Germany.

Now here's the thing, the book of Revelation has a whole lot of other symbolized and never explained stuff that flows naturally into this scheme of geometric reasoning. So, I am very supported, not by OT deductions, though that too, but by the "readability" of the whole book, as a story, chapter 1 thru 22.

The unanswered stuff, like the "hidden manna," and the "seal of God on the forehead," or the "Iron Rod,"... it all naturally fits together, as a story without explaining and arguing each idea.

Anyway, it sure is fun, isn't it?

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 15th 2004, 10:44 PM

Hi faramir,
Thanxz for the insight into how you do your guessing.

I use a slightly different approach.

First, I look for one (1) basic hypothesis, right from chapter one.

That is, just one idea, one that seems to be the possible foundation for step by step theories to follow. I look for a brainstorming overview. Try some, brainstorm more, on and on.

In this, I sort of build what Emanuel Kant described as a logical "geometry" of ideas.

This house of cards could come tumbling down, of course, as I might run into a problem. Like the one you have with this 7 headed beast. The whore sits on the whole western society from Egypt on. That was before Moses, even.

For instance, the point where I get to chapter 17,... all other preceeding chapters having pretty much yielded to the network of geometrically connected propositions,... I notice that this whore sits upon a beast with those 7 heads and ten horns of power.

I see, also, that in chapter 12 there is a dragon with the same anatomy!

Rev. 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in my thoughts; and behold a great red dragon, Paganism, that SYSTEM OF SEXUAL MORES having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

Culture! Culture, in the symbolism of this dragon, is accompanied with a series of political successions, each a change in political power. The kings change, the names of the empires change, but the people do not! Western paganism is the culture of the people.

Now this leads me to wonder, what "whore" could possibly be involved here, with kings and Paganism? Political rulers and the culture of sexual mores?

Unlike your guess, I see that this little community of Jews couldn't be involved. Too small, empires too big. And, this dragon goes back, as do the kings, to Egypt... before there even was a Jewish people,... before Moses. This is the same dragon Moses called Baal and Ashtorah worship! Sex is involved here the mores!

Eureka! It's working, my first hypothesis is still working! All the way through, consistently right up to chapter 17!

See how I do it? Like Oscam's Razor.

Rev. 17:3 So he carried me away in thought into my imagination: and I saw the Paganism of all Western Culture, a socio-sexual complex, institutionalizing a corrupted sacred MATRIMONY, as if a whore who did sit upon a scarlet coloured socio-economic system, full of names of blasphemy, having EXISTED IN (1) EGYPT, (2) ASSYRIA, (3) BABYLON, (4) PERSIA/MEDE, (5) GREECE, (6) ROME (7) THE WESTERN CULTURE of the ten horns:
1. Anarchy, 2. Lombard/Vandalism, 3. Papacy, 4. Charlemagne, 5. Holy Roman Empire, 6. Italy, 7. Spain, 8. France, 9. Britain, 10. Nazi Germany.

Now here's the thing, the book of Revelation has a whole lot of other symbolized and never explained stuff that flows naturally into this scheme of geometric reasoning. So, I am very supported, not by OT deductions, though that too, but by the "readability" of the whole book, as a story, chapter 1 thru 22.

The unanswered stuff, like the "hidden manna," and the "seal of God on the forehead," or the "Iron Rod,"... it all naturally fits together, as a story without explaining and arguing each idea.

Anyway, it sure is fun, isn't it?
I don't have time for a full reply (my last full reploy took over an hour) 'cause it's late here. But I do want to say that I agree with you in two areas.

1) It sure is fun. :grin:
2) I agree with you that the dragon is ancient. (I am assuming we are talking about the same passage)

In fact I see the land beast (Jewish leaders) as a puppet of the Sea beast (Rome) who in turn is a puppet of the dragon (Satan). So my dragon in ancient indeed.

I will try to answer all of you post tomorrow. If I have time. I do have a tennis court match I still have to answer thoug and moderating duties.

Till then
:sig:

GhostontheNet

March 15th 2004, 11:57 PM

Faramir: As I said, seems to be promoting. As you do not agree, I retract my statement, opting for your own definition of your position instead.

Daywalker

March 16th 2004, 01:23 PM

Thanks to all that are on this thread for trying to answer my questions what you guys believe. Well, it looks like you have answered my questions so I thank you all.
Have a great "rest of the thread" :smile:

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 16th 2004, 03:00 PM

Faramir: As I said, seems to be promoting. As you do not agree, I retract my statement, opting for your own definition of your position instead.
Not a problem. I hope you did not take my earlier comments as a "harsh/angry rebuke" because they were not meant that way. If I decide a post deserves a nasty resonse, it is usually pretter obvious :wink: You'r post did not, and if it was taken that way, I apologize.

The reason I object to the term replacement theology is because there are some who do promote the fact that Israel was totally replaced by the church. My position is that the church was grafted onto the remnant of faithful Israel. Of course when I was 'splainin my position on this thread, I realized that from a covental position, the Church did "replace" Israel, in a sense, although I like to think of it more as a merger than a replacement. So "replacement theology" would be an accurate discription except for the fact that those who advocate a total replacement theology have already claimed that name.

Also, I agree with you that preterism does not necesitate any type of replacement theology. However, I have found that holding to this type of, for lack of a better term, "modified replacement theology" makes it a whole lot easier to reconcile Revelation and a lot of Paul's eschatological writing with a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

Just my :2cents:

kofh2u

March 16th 2004, 03:22 PM

I don't have time for a full reply (my last full reploy took over an hour) 'cause it's late here. But I do want to say that I agree with you in two areas.

1) It sure is fun. :grin:
2) I agree with you that the dragon is ancient.

In fact I see the land beast (Jewish leaders) as a puppet of the Sea beast (Rome) who in turn is a puppet of the dragon (Satan). So my dragon in ancient indeed.

I will try to answer all of you post tomorrow.
Till then
:sig:

Hi fari,
Hope your tennis courtin' was pleasant.

I sort of made the job {interpretation} less time consuming by reducing the exercise to a multiple choice, fill in the blanks "test."

Whoever wants to can participate. Just fill in the bracketed "questions" with answers.

If it consistently makes sense of St John's staement to us, no big explanation needed, then you have as good a guess as possible, in my opinion.

Rev. 17 ESV
1Then one of the seven angels {WHO ARE THESE SEVEN ANGELS?} who had the seven bowls {WHAT IS THE SYMBOLIC MEANING OF BOWLS} came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute {A PROSTITUTE RECEIVES MONEY/BENEFITS FROM USERS OF HER SERVICES... EXPLAIN!} who is seated on many waters, 2with whom the kings of the earth {ALL KINGS? FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL?} have committed sexual immorality {SEX, ITS ABOUT SEX?}, and with the wine {?} of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk." 3And he carried me away{?} in the Spirit {?} into a wilderness {WHERE IS THIS}, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet {?} beast {?} that was full of blasphemous names {PLURAL?} , and it had seven heads {?} and ten horns {?}. 4The woman was arrayed in purple {?} and scarlet {?}, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls {RICH! HOW, WHY?), holding in her hand a golden {?} cup {?} full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality {ITS A SEX THING!}. 5And on her forehead was written a name of mystery {? MYSTERY, WHY OR WHAT IS HER MYSTERY? WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?}: "Babylon the great {WHY BABYLON?}, mother {IT STARTED HERE?} of prostitutes {LITERAL? IT REFERS TO SEX?} and of earth's abominations {WHAT ARE THESE ABOMINATIONS} ." 6And I saw the woman, drunk {OUT OF RATIONAL CONTROL? HOW?} with the blood of the saints {JEWS?}, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus {WHO KILLED THESE MARTYRS?}. When I saw her, I marveled greatly. 7But the angel said to me, "Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery {?} of the woman, and {THE MYSTERY IS ASSOCIATED SOMEHOW WITH THE BEAST} of the beast {THE BEAST MUST BY ASSOCIATED WITH THE MYSTERIOUS WOMAN!} with seven heads (?) and ten horns {?} that carries (!} her. 8The beast that you saw was {?}, and is not {?}, and is about to rise {?} from the bottomless pit {?} and go to destruction {?}. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life {BOL, ?} from the foundation of the world {?} will marvel to see the beast, because it was {?} and is not {?} and is to come {?}. 9This calls for a mind with wisdom {WE ARE ENCOURAGED TO GUESS, AND FILL IN THESE BLANKS!}: the seven heads are seven mountains {MOUNTAINS?} on which the woman is seated {A LIVING BREATHING DYNAMIC ENTITY}; 10they are also {THE MOUNTAINS!} seven kings, five {?} of whom have fallen, one is {?}, the other has not yet come {?}, and when he does come he must remain only a little {?} while {THE OTHERS REMAINED LONG A WHILE?}. 11As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth {???} but it belongs to the seven {?}, and it goes to destruction. 12And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings {HAH HA! HORNS ARE POLITICAL POWERS!} who have not yet{EHEN IS THIS HISTORICALLY SPEAKING?} received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour {LITERAL? I THINK NOT!} , together {!} with the beast {?}. 13These are of one mind {WHAT EXACTLY IS THEIR THINKING, THEN?} and hand over their power and authority to the beast {EXPLAIN THIS, A HANDING OVER BY THE POLITICAL FORCES}. 14They will make war on the Lamb {?}, and the Lamb {?} will conquer them {WHEN?}, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful {?}."
15And the angel said to me, "The waters {?} that you saw, where the prostitute is seated {?}, are peoples and multitudes and nations {?} and languages {?}. 16And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate {?} the prostitute. They will make her desolate {?} and naked {?, and devour her flesh {?} and burn {?} her up with fire, 17for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose {WHICH IS?} by being of one mind {WHICH MEANS?} and handing over {HOW? WHEN? WHY} their royal power to the beast, until the words of God {WHAT WORDS EXACTLY?} are fulfilled. 18And the woman that you saw is the great city {?} that has dominion {POWER OVER POLTICAL POWERS, hmmm...} over the kings of the earth {EVERYWHERE?}."

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 17th 2004, 11:30 AM

Maybe someone else can answer this. You are asking for a lot of information. And I still haven't responded to my tennis court thang.

If no one answers, I will try to get back to this, but it may be awhile since I will be out of town and away from my computer this weekend.

kofh2u

March 17th 2004, 05:51 PM

Faramir said that his insight can explain Revelation 17.

That seems to pretty much suggest that Rev 12 and 13 are also pretty simple. He said:
"I could go verse by verse,"...

But, he added that he is very busy right now.

So, I thought while we await his solution to this ancient puzzle, maybe the Futurists or the Preterist on board will give us their explanation.

Below, I sort of emphasized the blanks we need to specifically address. Its like a "Fill in the blanks" test.

Whose willing?
Anyone willing to give their Denomination's interpretation?

Rev. 17 ESV
1Then one of the seven angels {WHO ARE THESE SEVEN ANGELS?} who had the seven bowls {WHAT IS THE SYMBOLIC MEANING OF BOWLS?} came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute {A PROSTITUTE RECEIVES MONEY FROM USERS OF HER SERVICES...EXPLAIN!} who is seated on many waters {SPECIFICALLY, WHAT?}, 2with whom the kings of the earth {ALL KINGS? FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL?} have committed sexual immorality {?}, and with the wine {?} of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth{ALL THE WORLD?} have become drunk." 3And he carried me away in the Spirit {?} into a wilderness {WHERE IS THIS}, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet {?} beast {?} that was full of blasphemous names {PLURAL?} , and it had seven heads {?} and ten horns {?}. 4The woman was arrayed in purple {?} and scarlet {?}, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls {RICH! HOW, WHY?), holding in her hand a golden {?} cup {?} full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality {ITS A SEX THING!}. 5And on her forehead was written a name of mystery {? MYSTERY, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?}: "Babylon the great {WHY BABYLON?}, mother {IT STARTED HERE?} of prostitutes and of earth's abominations {WHAT ARE THESE ABOMINATIONS} ." 6And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints {JEWS?}, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus {WHO KILLED THESE MARTYRS?}. When I saw her, I marveled greatly. 7But the angel said to me, "Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery {?} of the woman, and {THE MYSTERY IS ASSOCIATED SOMEHOW WITH THE BEAST? EXPLAIN THIS ASSOCIATION} of the beast {THE BEAST MUST BY ASSOCIATED WITH THE MYSTERIOUS WOMAN!} with seven heads (?) and ten horns {?} that carries (!} her. 8The beast that you saw was {?}, and is not {?}, and is about to rise {?} from the bottomless pit {?} and go to destruction {?}. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life {BOL, ?} from the foundation of the world {EARTH OR WORLD, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE??} will marvel to see the beast, because it was {?} and is not {?} and is to come {?}. 9This calls for a mind with wisdom {WE ARE ALLOWED TO GUESS AND FILL IN THESE BLANKS!}: the seven heads are seven mountains {MOUNTAINS?} on which the woman is seated {A LIVING BREATHING DYNAMIC ENTITY}; 10they are also {THE MOUNTAINS ARE ALSO KINGS! HOW?} seven kings, five {?} of whom have fallen, one is {?}, the other has not yet come {?}, and when he does come he must remain only a little {?} while {THE OTHERS REMAINED A LONGER WHILE?}. 11As for the beast that was and is not, it is an eighth {???} but it belongs to the seven {?}, and it goes to destruction. 12And the ten horns that you saw are ten kings {HAH HA! HORNS ARE POLITICAL POWERS! TRUE OR FALSE?} who have not yet received royal power, but they are to receive authority as kings for one hour {LITERALLY? I THINK NOT! EXPLAIN.} , together {!} with the beast {?}. 13These are of one mind {WHICH IS?} and hand over their power and authority {HOW? IN WHAT WAY?} to the beast. 14They will make war on the Lamb {?}, and the Lamb {?} will conquer them {WHEN?}, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful {?}.
15And the angel said to me, "The waters that you saw, where the prostitute is seated, are peoples and multitudes and nations {WHICH NATIONS?} and languages {?}. 16And the ten horns that you saw, they and the beast will hate {WHY?} the prostitute. They will make her desolate {HOW?} and naked {LIKE THE EMPEROR'S CLOTHES OR LITERALLY?}, and devour her flesh {?} and burn {?} her up with fire, 17for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose {?} by being of one mind {WHICH MEANS?} and handing over {HOW? WHEN?} their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18And the woman that you saw is the great city {LITERALLY?} that has dominion {POWER OVER POLTICAL THESE SEVEN POWERS, hmmm...} over the kings of the earth {EVERYWHERE?}."

Since this is nearly identical to the post you had earlier in this thread, and in violation of our double posting rule. I merged the thread you started in Theology 101 with this thread. Also note, that this may have messed up anyone who subscribed to this thread, you may have to resubscribe.

GhostontheNet

March 19th 2004, 06:57 PM

If you're out for a Preterist commentary on symbolism in Revelations, perhaps you should see The Days of Vengeance by David Chilton, also hosted at http://www.freebooks.com/docs/2226_47e.htm .

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 19th 2004, 07:21 PM

If you're out for a Preterist commentary on symbolism in Revelations, perhaps you should see The Days of Vengeance by David Chilton, also hosted at http://www.freebooks.com/docs/2226_47e.htm .
Excelent advice GhostontheNEt. In fact. That book is a lot of the source material for my position (But I do not agree with everything in it)

kofh2u. I would like to answer your questions, but you ask a lot. Maybe I can answer it a verse or two at a time. If you can't wait or don't want to wait, I suggested you take GhostontheNet's advice and read DOV, after all it is free.

GhostontheNet

March 19th 2004, 07:54 PM

Excelent advice GhostontheNEt. In fact. That book is a lot of the source material for my position (But I do not agree with everything in it)

kofh2u. I would like to answer your questions, but you ask a lot. Maybe I can answer it a verse or two at a time. If you can't wait or don't want to wait, I suggested you take GhostontheNet's advice and read DOV, after all it is free.
Its impossible for everyone of any view to agree on everything, and if this occurs something is amiss. Also, one with less patience could see this article by J.P. Holding http://www.tektonics.org/revdate.html .

Chief of Staff Lizard

March 20th 2004, 05:47 PM

Kofh2u. Because my response to you needs to have column formatting, I am attaching it as a word document as well as pasing it here:

Kofh2u, I will answer your questions, but only in small doses for a couple of reasons.

1) It will be easier for people who are reading to follow.

2) I don’t have the time to answer all at once

3) It will give you a chance to ask follow up questions at a pace that I can respond.

Now onto the first verse:

Then one of the seven angels {1. WHO ARE THESE SEVEN ANGELS?} who had the seven bowls {2. WHAT IS THE SYMBOLIC MEANING OF BOWLS} came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute {3. A PROSTITUTE RECEIVES MONEY/BENEFITS FROM USERS OF HER SERVICES…EXPLAIN!} who is seated on man waters.

1. These are the seven angels who had been given bowls, in Rev. 16.

2. The bowls are the seven bowls also mentioned in Rev. 16 that contain God’s wrath. David Chilton, in Days of Vengeance says that the bowls are symbolic parody of the bowls used in the drink offering of the temple ritual. He further compares them to the seven trumpets and seven plagues on Egypt. See below from DOV p. 420

Chalices

1. On the Land, becoming sores (16:2)

2. On the sea, becoming blood (16:3)

3. On rivers and springs, becoming blood (16:4-7)

4. On the sun, causing

it to scorch

(16:8-9)

5. On the throne of

the Beast, causing

darkness (16:10-11)

6. On the Euphrates,

drying it up to make

way for kings of the

east; invasion of

frog-demons; Armageddon

(16:12-16)

7. On the air, causing

storm, earthquake,

and hail(16:17-21)

Trumpets

1. On the Land; Y3

earth, trees, grass

burned (8:7)

2. On the sea; 1X sea

becomes blood, Y3

sea creatures die, 1/3

ships destroyed

(8:8-9)

3. On the rivers and

springs; 1% waters

become wormwood

(8:10-11)

4. 1X of sun, moon,

and stars darkened

(8:12)

5. Demonic locusts

tormenting men

(9:1-12)

6. Army from

Euphrates kills Y3

mankind (9:13-21)

7. Voices, storm,

earthquake, hail

(11:15-19)

Plagues on Egypt

1. Boils (sixth

plague: Ex. 9:8-12)

2. Waters become

blood (first plague:

Ex. 7:17-21)

3. Waters become

blood (first plague:

Ex. 7:17-21)

4. Darkness (ninth

plague: Ex. 10:21-23)

5. Locusts (eighth

plague: Ex. 10:4-20)

6. Invasion of frogs

from river (second

plague: Ex. 8:2-4)

7. Hail (seventh

plague: Ex. 9:18-26)

3. Throughout the Old Testament the metaphor of prostitution has been used exclusively to refer to a city or country that was once faithful to the true God, and turned to false religions. In all but two instances it referred to apostate Israel.

kofh2u

March 20th 2004, 08:00 PM

If you're out for a Preterist commentary on symbolism in Revelations, perhaps you should see The Days of Vengeance by David Chilton, also hosted at http://www.freebooks.com/docs/2226_47e.htm .

Wow!
Free, too.
I didn't know there were whole books available. Thanxz!

I read a couple of the author's ideas on particular chapters, like Rev 1 and Rev 18.

Interesting. From a critical point of view, it seemed to find a need for immediatevsupport and argument of almost each insight and guess it rendered. This had the effect of focusing attention on thatbone item. It made it less obvious that so many other things were left just as much a mystery as before. It attributed so many things to hyperbola of a spiritual heavenly matter unrevealed to us that I wondered why John would bring the ideas to our attention. I mean, like suggesting that tge four strange beasts before the throne, Rev 4 and 5 are beyond us,... matters that give us a preview of how wierd heaven is going to be,... like, yooo, St John, don't even start, there is enough stuff down here, in the symbolism, to confound us.

I liked it, tho'. It gives me a benchmark when comparing the Freudian Bible Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

Thankz...

PS
Here is what I mean in comparison, that the Freudian Bible just says it... straight out... lets the reader accept or criticize, without the confusing lengthy diversions into supportive argument.

Rev. 4:1 After this, having shown me the sociological development of the seven churches, I looked, and, behold, a further understanding was opened to my mind: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will show thee insight into that which must be hereafter the formation of the seventh church, Laocidea, the Age of Christian Humanitarianism.

GhostontheNet

March 21st 2004, 12:18 AM

kofh2u

March 21st 2004, 03:43 AM

You're welcome. And as to the Freudian Bible, perhaps you should get another translation of the bible closer to the original text just to juxtupose the two together. That'll definately get you a benchmark for comparison.

Good suggestion, but it looks like Farimar is going to slowly anaylyze the translation he uses, and I'll respond afterwards with the Freudian Bible so we can compare what sense to make of them.

He listed the seven mysterious plagues coming from the seven vials of wrath from seven undisclosed and unnamed angelic entities.

He also listed what we know is specified in chapter eight,... the seven trumpets... Exodus plagues,... all the things which we must explain.

I can hardly wait for Farimar to return and show us what to make of this!

Chalices: DIRECT UNEXPLAINED QUOTATIONS FROM REVELATION 16

1. On the Land, becoming sores (16:2)
???????????????????
2. On the sea, becoming blood (16:3)
????????????????????
3. On rivers and springs, becoming blood (16:4-7)
??????????????????????????
4. On the sun, causing
it to scorch
(16:8-9)
??????????????????????????
5. On the throne of
the Beast, causing
darkness (16:10-11)
?????????????????????????????
6. On the Euphrates,
drying it up to make
way for kings of the
east; invasion of
frog-demons; Armageddon
(16:12-16)
???????????????????????????????
7. On the air, causing
storm, earthquake,
and hail(16:17-21)
????????????????????????
FIT THE EXPLANATIONS OF THESE SYMBOLIC EXPRESSIONS INTO REV 16... that'll be enough... I don't wish to impose.

go,go... I am very enthusiastic!

Dr. Jack Bauer

March 24th 2004, 12:25 AM

Is not even an eventual restoration of Israel possible in Postmillenialism?Absolutely! As long as they are not "restored" in the sense of being brought back to the status of having a unique covenant relationship with God, since the New Covenant in Christ's blood was made with people from all nations. Any unique covenant with Israel would either be another new covenant, which is not biblical, or a jump back to the Old Covenant, which is unthinkable. But that Israel should be converted and made into a nation that Glorifies its Messiah, definitely, I think all postmils would accept that, like Gentry.

GhostontheNet

March 24th 2004, 12:49 AM

Absolutely! As long as they are not "restored" in the sense of being brought back to the status of having a unique covenant relationship with God, since the New Covenant in Christ's blood was made with people from all nations. Any unique covenant with Israel would either be another new covenant, which is not biblical, or a jump back to the Old Covenant, which is unthinkable. But that Israel should be converted and made into a nation that Glorifies its Messiah, definitely, I think all postmils would accept that, like Gentry. No argument here, after all was it not Christ who answered the question of whether he would restore Israel with "It is not for you to know the times of the father" instead of 'no, in fact I will never.' I wouldn't accuse him of equivocation.

kofh2u

March 24th 2004, 12:54 AM

Absolutely! As long as they are not "restored" in the sense of being brought back to the status of having a unique covenant relationship with God, since the New Covenant in Christ's blood was made with people from all nations. Any unique covenant with Israel would either be another new covenant, which is not biblical, or a jump back to the Old Covenant, which is unthinkable. But that Israel should be converted and made into a nation that Glorifies its Messiah, definitely, I think all postmils would accept that, like Gentry.

It will be a two way street.

The last, the Jew, will be first in the end, and the first, the Christians, will be last to realize that is has happened, the second coming approaches as a thief, unobserved at first.

Zech. 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of
all the denominations of Christian religion which came against this New Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles, and build cube shaped geometries as if Sukkots.

GhostontheNet

March 24th 2004, 01:38 AM

It will be a two way street.

The last, the Jew, will be first in the end, and the first, the Christians, will be last to realize that is has happened, the second coming approaches as a thief, unobserved at first.

Zech. 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of
all the denominations of Christian religion which came against this New Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles, and build cube shaped geometries as if Sukkots.

Hmm, and we're not connecting this first to last last to first with such passages as Lazarus and the Rich Man?

Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths. -ESV

ForHimAlone

July 16th 2006, 10:05 PM

Keep in mind that the purpose of this thread is not to convert anybody one way or another, although we both know inside that BOTH groups would want it to be so. Having said that, we both know that some of that spirit is almost guaranteed to come forth probably from both sides. That is okay too...

Having said that, let me post what I put on another thread. I wrote it to one preterist in particular, but it is open to any Partial Preterist...
To give you an idea of what I am, I am an Open View Theist and a Dispensationalist (MOST of my fellow dispy's would regard me as an ULTRAdispensationalist). For the record, I place "the church, which is his body" as starting after the Acts period. By the time that the temple was destroyed, as far as I am concerned, this age had kicked into gear (if not sooner).

This is a CUT and Paste:

Why couldn't God, IN YOUR VIEW, take the faithful remnant that comes from the Jewish lineage and make them an ethno-political ruling body and having believing Gentiles as an EXTENSION of their reign...all of them, mind you, operating under the headship of Christ?

To me, the Israel of God is the believing remnant among the Jews...those that were "in Isaac". The other nations were merely grafted into them.
How does Preterism see this vs. Full Preterism?

Anybody care to comment? I am wanting to know WHY in Preterism it is not permissable for the Jews to have a literal, physical, political, visible kingdom reign in this world where they will be the head of the nations...

Also, I have "heard" some FULL Preterists on paltalk tell me that they believe in dividing Paul's word. Do you guys have any CLUE what THEY mean by that?
Grace,
Mike
"Anybody care to comment? I am wanting to know WHY in Preterism it is not permissable for the Jews to have a literal, physical, political, visible kingdom reign in this world where they will be the head of the nations..."

I am a believing Jew by the grace of Christ. Israel as a national people have never been the "head of the nations" and were, in fact, among the smallest of peoples nationally speaking. And yet, for the partial preterist crowd, or, to those who believe that the "faithful remnant" is comprised of Jews who came to believe in the Messiah or those who were justified by their faith in the OT promises concerning Messiah, the Jewish nation is no longer viewed nationally by Jehovah. They were viewed nationally when Israel was God's typical national people, I say, they were a type - "the church in the wilderness" as St. Stephen said - of the universal household of faith, comprised of Jews and Gentiles in one mystical body of Christ.

In the OT, we see intimations of this union of peoples, nations and languages by the inclusion of certain Gentiles into the Covenant and Commonwealth of Israel, as Rahab and Ruth for instances. These were people who joined themselves to Israel's Covenant and Covenant God. Jews who rejected God's truth in the NT era concerning God giving of His Son, being the fulfillment of what God had promised and then produced in the NT, were rejected as spiritual thorns and briars; as fig tress without fruit. Such were the unbelieving Pharisees and common people who turned and walked with Him no more. They could not "eat his flesh and drink his blood."

National Israel, because of Christ's coming and fulfilling every jot and tittle of the Covenant's precepts and requirements, as well as its prophecies, can now no longer have a future socio-political rule over the national kingdoms in the world to come. To conclude this is to obviscate and subvert the kingdom of Christ as it exists now and shall then in the ages of the ages after the Consummation. The Triune Jehovah's goal was expressly to make "of twain, one new man, so making peace, as St. Paul said in the third of Ephesians.

Now there is "Neither Jew nor Greek, Barbarian or Scythian." Ethnicity no longer counts as a means by which men may enter the covenant. We are all one through faith in the precious blood and resurrection of Christ Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile. We have been all made to drink into One Spirit.

Having said this, some of my dispy friends may be a little crunchy about now, as they fondly hope God will restore unto Israel a socio-political kingdom where they get to rule over everyone. But how could God do this when He hath promised the kingdom to His sons and daughters? But, those among the Israelites who are "Israel after the flesh" rejected their King - even the Prince of the Covenant in whom they said they delighted - and in so doing shall they now have clemency from Christ and inherit everlasting consolation? Nay, I tell you, unless they repent, they shall likewise perish. As Christ said, if they were Abraham's children, they would have loved Jesus.

Today the Jewish nation's only hope is the same as it was in the days when God told Abraham of Ur that "in thy seed shall ALL the NATIONS of the earth be blessed." The promise, as St. Paul said, was that Abraham's SEED would be the "HEIR OF THE WORLD." Jews no longer can point to their national origin and say they are thereby the people of God. Or else the cross of Christ, and faith therein, made void.

Jews who reject the Savior make all manner of pretense to deny what their own OT and masters said concerning the coming and Person of their Messiah. They would not have their Savior die on Calvary. But Owen asks, "who told them so?" Anyone who has taken the time to read, just for one example, Volume One of John Owen's masterpiece of exposition on the Hebrew's letter will see that Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Rambam (Maimonides) and a host of the Jewish doctors all ascribed the texts Christians cite as Messianic to the Messiah Jesus. They are yet deceived who walk with the veil of the OT over them in denial of Christ, who is come in the flesh. This is, as John said, the 'spirit of antichrist.'

Those among national Israel who do believe Jesus was and is their rightful, true, and only Messiah, make up what is typified in Isaac. Therefore are they called the "children of promise." They are, as Paul said, persecuted by the children of the flesh - ie. national Jews and Gentiles who reject Christ as Lord - as Paul says in the fourth of the Galatian letter.

Jews who believe make up the "remnant according to the election of grace" and shall have their blessed portion with those of the OT. There is, to my mind, one "household of faith" and "one people of God" because there is only One God and One Lord Jesus Christ and we are all brethren, making up Christ's one, mystical -yet truly physical - body.

The goal of history is the final judgment and the vindication of all God promised by the mouth of His apostles and prophets since the world began. Christ is at the apex of history and to the cross men are beckoned to look, that they too might be saved, as Moses bid those smitten of serpents to look upon the brazen serpent in the wilderness.

Those who are born of God, rather than born after the flesh, make up that faithful remnant. Earthly Jews who reject Christ have no atonement. Those who sin under the Law shall be judged by the Law and those who have sinned without the Law shall perish without law. God hath concluded them all under sin.

The partial preterist is therefore an individual who sees a continuity between what God promised the patriarchs in the OT fulfilled by his Christ and apostles in the NT. The Covenant came to its logical conclusion, for it was not the blood of bulls and goats that should take away sin. The bringing in of a new hope did, by the which we (collective we - Jews and Gentiles) draw nigh to God. Jews can't hog God for themselves anymore. Halleluia!

Hitch

July 16th 2006, 11:05 PM

John Reece

July 17th 2006, 10:05 AM

To me, the Israel of God is the believing remnant among the Jews...those that were "in Isaac". The other nations were merely grafted into them.
How does Preterism see this vs. Full Preterism?

You ae mistaken. It is our kinship ,out brotherhood with Christ and our reliance of the Blood of his covenant not the blood of Abe and Issac, that makes every believer a member of the commonwealth'

Anybody care to comment? I am wanting to know WHY in Preterism it is not permissable for the Jews to have a literal, physical, political, visible kingdom reign in this world where they will be the head of the nations...Because Christ took that kingdom away from them and gave to a 'nation that bears its fruit'.

Long ago the jews had a temporal kingdom with a godly monarch and a Temple that was the real geographical and even cosmic center of true worship. All this was but a shadow of their real eternal king who rode in to town on a donkey. The whole world now is the promised land and the fruitful nation is busy gathering the reward of his sacrfice.

Hitch,

I had to expend time and energy figuring out
that the bold print = a quote, rather than your own words;
that, in the third paragraph, the part not in bold is your response to the part that is in bold rather than a continuation of the emboldened comment; and
that the bold print = a quote from the OP rather than from the most recent post before yours in a multiple-page thread wherein the OP was written many weeks ago, whereas the most recent post was put up within the past 24 hours.

I like to read your posts for the pithy wit and wisdom I usually find therein.

However, in posts like the above, I wonder if it’s really worth the effort your refusal to use TWeb’s quote system requires of me to figure out who is saying what to whom.