The Problem(s) of Revelation [Archive]

adam.naranjo

February 14th 2003, 11:48 AM

I pray for the Church -- that God might destroy pop-culture eschatology. I was a dispensationalist (hardcore) for years, and then I actually started reading the Bible without taking for granted the Christian pop-culture -- now I hold an orthodox preterist view and am a postmillennialist. (p.s. If anyone has any questions about Postmillennialism throw them my way -- I love to dispell the myths and preconceptions)

Let me say this: IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SEEK THE TRUTH OF GOD, DO NOT RELY ON FORUMS TO GIVE YOU ENOUGH INFORMATION OR ARGUMENTATION UPON WHICH YOU SHOULD REST THE CASE. PUT IN THE STUDY TIME AND THE MONEY AND PURCHES BOOKS AND TAPES THEREBY ACTUALLY LISTENING TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE, AND SPENDING TIME THINKING AND PRAYING ABOUT IT. I BEG YOU, READ SOME OF THESE BOOKS OR LISTEN TO THE TAPES, YOU WILL BE AMAZED AS I WAS BY THE STRENGTH OF THE ARGUMENTS WHICH GO BEYOND A FEW PARAGRAPHS ON A FORUM OR INTERNET ARTICLE. IF YOU WANT TO STUDY SCRIPTURE, YOU MUST BE DILIGENT...DILIGENCE DOES NOT COME BY INTERNET FORUMS.

WIthout regard to the divorce of Israel:
Divorce of Israel: Introduction & Survey of Revelation (http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=204&1=215&3=495) -- this tape series by Gentry is amazing...There is no possible way a valid and strong argument can be made against this view of Revelation and O.T. prophecy. I should know, I used to be the most PASSIONATE dispensationalist, I know all of the dispensational arguments for the "reformation of Israel" -- the dispensational arguments don't stand a chance against letting sciprture interpret scripture.

Books to read:
He Shall Have Dominion: Postmillennial Eschatology (2d ed.) (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=HSHD&Category_Code=B)
Greatness of the Great Commission (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=GGC&Category_Code=B)
Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875523897/qid=1045237876/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-9064650-9345432?v=glance&s=books)
The Victory of Christ's Kingdom: An introduction to Postmillenialism (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1885767226/qid=1045237876/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-9064650-9345432?v=glance&s=books)
Perilous Times: A Study In Eschatological Evil (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=PT&Category_Code=B) -- Great stuff on the book of Revelation
The Beast of Revelation (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=BBEA&Category_Code=B) -- Amazing and absolutely irrerfutable evidence that the "Beast" of revelations was "NERO CEASER", who's letters of his name adds up to 666 using hebrew numbering (which uses letters as numbers) -- in greek it adds up to 616 (greeks also used letters as numbers), some early manuscripts of Revelation actually say 616 not 666. This and Furthure evidence leaves no logical room for doubt.
The Great Tribulation: Past Or Future? (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=TGT&Category_Code=B) -- this is a debate on tape between Gentry and Tommy Ice (LeHays right hand man)... Gentry (partial preterist postmillennialist, smashes Ice) (PS LeHay will not debate anyone, instead he sends out tommy Ice to get smashed for him)
Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (3rd edition) (http://kennethgentry.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KG&Product_Code=BJF&Category_Code=B) -- Again, the evidence stacks up showing that the book of revelation was written before the tribulation which ended with the desctruction of jerusalem is 70 a.d. (Just like Christ said, "there will not be one stone left standing on another" -- the temple was utterly destroyed, along with the disobedient covanent breakers, Israel -- just like when Christ said [just before the olivet discourse] 'the blood of all the prophets will be avenged on THIS generation" -- and "some here will not taste death until they see the kingdom come with powe" -- "this genereation will not pass away" etc...etc..)
Last Days According to Jesus (https://ecom.ligonier.org/ecom/product.asp?idProduct=LAS02BP)

I strongly suggest reading the Last days according to Jesus. R.C. Sproul has great way of puting strong arguments in lay language.

I also suggest these books and tapes:

The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future (http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=203&1=210&3=9339) This book refutes "pantelism" -- full preterism, which is heresie.
Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism (http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=203&1=210&3=761)

adam.naranjo

February 14th 2003, 12:33 PM

P.S.
The rolled up scroll (in the book of revelation) with writing on both sides, and sealed by the seven seals is a COVENANT.
During that period covenant were made in this fashion, a paper written on boths sides, rolled up, and sealed.

It just so happens that the seven seals are correspondent to judgements that God declared would come on Israel in case of her disobedience....
Comparison of Deuteronomy, the 1st Covenant, Moses, the second Covenant, and Christ (http://www.planetpreterist.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=845) -- This is an articles on the subject of why the Tribulation on Israel before 70A.D. was connected to the promised judgement God would bring upon Israel in her disobedience to the the Law, failure to trust in God, and her Harlotry. Through out the O.T. God warned of a divorce of unfaithfull Israel, but also a renewal of the covenant made with faithfull Israel -- True Israel...thats the new covenant. which could not be established until the later was done way and the judgments were expelled
And YES, as galations says, those who are of Faith are the true sons of abraham, and are the true Israel, grafted in as Christs Chosen and elect....(Romans 11)

im shutting up now.
Adam

Jaltus

February 14th 2003, 01:31 PM

Please post a LOT less links. If you have an argument to make, make it. This website is not for advertisments for books.

And if you think futurists begin and end with LeHaye, you need to get out more.

efta777

February 14th 2003, 02:26 PM

I wish I had time to post a whole argument about the divorce decree, but I don't. I'd love to hear other people's comments on this view, as I am fairly new to looking into it myself.
For now, here are a few verses to start with:

Isaiah 54:5
For your Maker is your husband - the Lord Almighty is his name - the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer; he is called the God of all the Earth.

Jer. 3:14
"Return, faithless people," declares the Lord, "for I am your husband. I will choose you - one froma town and two from a clan - and bring you to Zion."

Jer. 31:31-32
"The time is coming," declares the Lord, "When I will maek a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the Lord.

These verses show that Israel was indeed considered to be the "Wife" of God

Jer. 3:3
That is why the rains have been withheld, and the spring rains have not come. Yet in spite of this you are as obstinate as a prostitue. You refuse to be ashamed of what you have done.
(One way of translating this would be "You have the forhead of a Prostitute" - interesting when compared to the Harlot in Rev 17:5)

Mark 8:38
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory witht he holy angels.

In these verses the Jewish people - The Wife of God - are described as having committed spiritual Adultery against Him

Also, compare the scroll of Ezekiel Chapter 2 with the little scroll of Revelation 10.

Eze. 2:9-3:3
Then I looked, and I saw a hand stretched out to me. In it was a scroll, which he unrolled before me. On both sides of it were written words of lament and mourning and woe. And he said to me, "Son of man, eat what is before you, eat this scroll; then go and speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and he gave me the scroll to eat. Then he said to me, "Son of man, eat the scroll I am giving you and fill your stomach with it." So I ate it and it tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth.

Rev. 10: 9-11
So I went to the angel and asked him to give me the little scroll. He said to me, "Take it and eat it. It will turn your stomach sour, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey." I took the little scroll from the angel's hadn and ate it. It tasted as sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it, my stomach turned sour. Then I was told, "You must prophesy again about many peoples, nations, languages and kings."

This view also says that the hailstones of Chapter 16 weighing one talent each are symbolic of the Harlot being stoned for her adultery.

More will have to wait until later.

Darth Xena

February 14th 2003, 05:20 PM

I wish I had more time at this point to develop the divorce idea as well, but Gentry does make a very compelling argument in that tape series referenced by Adam. I have it, and it is very, very good. And yes of course it is a metaphor, but metaphors have real meaning behind them.

Smilax, I am going to be posting an article on "replacement" theology that they may give you a different perspective on the issue, it did me. I have to dig it up out of my files.

Darth Xena

February 14th 2003, 05:39 PM

Smilax, here is the article I was referring to:

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=913

Hitch

February 14th 2003, 05:54 PM

smilax:
Divorce? God hates divorce. Putting the Israelites away? What about the eleventh of Romans. Hmm...

Interesting proposal, will have to think about it. But I do not hold to a replacement theology. Well Idolotry and adultery were capital crimes. ?The illustration of Israel in bed with the the pagan king (Rome) coupled with the notion of Israel as a priestly nation leads to one outcome. .

Execution, and that by fire.

Its no accident the Apocalypse describes Israel as a drunken whore.

Take care

H

Darth Xena

February 15th 2003, 01:44 AM

And that the harlot was stoned with hailstones.

Hitch

February 15th 2003, 09:34 AM

Dee Dee Warren:
And that the harlot was stoned with hailstones. Yup. And burned. ..Reckon that speaks to the finality of the situation? The ultimate sentence for the ultimate crime?

It also localizes the action historicaly and geographicly. Jesus and Pete couldnt have been more explicit in their declarations of the blood guilt, and 'adulterous' nature of that generation.

take care

Hitch

Darth Xena

February 15th 2003, 09:36 AM

It all ties in perfectly, and when you realize that Jesus was alluding to the judgment on ancient Bablyon in the Discourse, it becomes all the more clear why Jerusalem is called Mystery Babylon in Revelation.

Hitch

February 15th 2003, 10:28 AM

Dee Dee Warren:
It all ties in perfectly, and when you realize that Jesus was alluding to the judgment on ancient Bablyon in the Discourse, it becomes all the more clear why Jerusalem is called Mystery Babylon in Revelation. Yup.

I also think there is a connection to the woman caught in the act of adultery. The Judge is the same. There is no question of guilt, lacking only are two or three wittnesses. Well in the Rev we have our two wittnesses. Whether actual men (I reckon not) or not they speak to the idolatry/adultery of Israel as did the Prophets of old.. Its easy to think of Jesus considering the womans repentace as he wept over the City.

H

Darth Xena

February 15th 2003, 10:31 AM

I do believe the two witnesses are the Law and the Prophets which do testify against them. As Jesus even mentioned how Moses bore witness against them.

Jaltus

February 15th 2003, 10:58 AM

Sorry, but the two witnesses bear witness against the ENTIRE WORLD, not Israel. See 11:10.

I think some of your speculation is running far afield.

Babylon is highly unlikely to be Israel or Jerusalem for a few reasons. First, it is identified with the Beast, and the Beast comes from the water, which refers to the Gentiles. Second, you tie it to the Olivet Discourse, but John does not use that! You cannot tie it tematically with something he does not use, and possibly knows little or nothing about. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Darth Xena

February 15th 2003, 11:00 AM

Hey Jaltus, I will hold off on responding further here 'cause I think you and I will get into these issues in our planned conversation if that is okay with you.

Hitch

February 15th 2003, 11:12 AM

Jaltus:
Sorry, but the two witnesses bear witness against the ENTIRE WORLD, not Israel. See 11:10.

I think some of your speculation is running far afield.

Babylon is highly unlikely to be Israel or Jerusalem for a few reasons. First, it is identified with the Beast, and the Beast comes from the water, which refers to the Gentiles. Second, you tie it to the Olivet Discourse, but John does not use that! You cannot tie it tematically with something he does not use, and possibly knows little or nothing about. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Rev 17:5-6
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
(KJV)

I reckon this whole passage refers to the same 'city' and if that is correct the idetification is clear;

Rev 18:24
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
(KJV)

Second, you tie it to the Olivet Discourse, but John does not use that! You cannot tie it tematically with something he does not use, and possibly knows little or nothing about. Now that seems very unlikely.

Hitch

Jaltus

February 15th 2003, 07:00 PM

Hitch,

You are also linking it with something John does not use, namely the lament over Jerusalem in Luke. sorry, but I don't buy that either.

Again, Babylon is not Jerusalem.

Rev 17:18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth."

No way that means Jerusalem. Sorry.

Besides, in 18:21 Babylon is thrown down never to be found again, but a New Jersualem appears shortly after.

Hitch

February 15th 2003, 08:06 PM

Jaltus:
Hitch,

You are also linking it with something John does not use, namely the lament over Jerusalem in Luke. sorry, but I don't buy that either. what I had in mind is M 23;35.

Again, Babylon is not Jerusalem. Niether are Sodom and Egypt...

Rev 17:18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth." With an overall covenantal outlook this passage presents no problem. And of course she is never to regain her beauty and power and is thrown out to be replaced with the New Jerusalem. The divorce must meet the legal requirements before the new Bride comes on the scene.

No way that means Jerusalem. Sorry.

Besides, in 18:21 Babylon is thrown down never to be found again, but a New Jersualem appears shortly after.

Rev 11:8
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
(KJV)

Rev 18:16
16 And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! Priestly colors
(KJV)

Rev 16:19-21
19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.
20 And every island fled away, and the mountains were not found.
21 And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great.
(KJV)

I reckon its clear where this comes from:

Ezek 5:1-5
1 And thou, son of man, take thee a sharp knife, take thee a barber's rasor, and cause it to pass upon thine head and upon thy beard: then take thee balances to weigh, and divide the hair.
2 Thou shalt burn with fire a third part in the midst of the city, when the days of the siege are fulfilled: and thou shalt take a third part, and smite about it with a knife: and a third part thou shalt scatter in the wind; and I will draw out a sword after them.
3 Thou shalt also take thereof a few in number, and bind them in thy skirts.
4 Then take of them again, and cast them into the midst of the fire, and burn them in the fire; for thereof shall a fire come forth into all the house of Israel.
5 Thus saith the Lord GOD; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her.
(KJV)
There can be no question of the city here.

Please note the common reference 'great city' and the distinction in 19, this Babylon is not a gentile city. And we know many local gentile cites also feel about this time.

1. Why do you think the writer is unfamilair with the Olivet discourse?

2. Do you think the city in 17 is the same city in 18;24 ?

Hitch

Jaltus

February 16th 2003, 09:56 AM

1. Yes.

2. Yes.

Again, you are making assumptions. The language is not remenscient enough, nor does the imagery fit.

You are pulling in parallels that are not parallels. Just because a city has priestly colors does not make it Jerusalem, it just means it has priestly colors. There is no way Jerusalem ruled over the earth, that part just does not fit at all. How can Jeruslame be called spiritual Egypt? There are just too many parts that do not add up.

Darth Xena

February 16th 2003, 10:04 AM

You and I are going to have fun Jaltus. I know my Jedi mind tricks are already starting to have a bit of an effect.

But, sigh, you are going to laugh, you know me and my big mouth... I belong to a Yahoo theology discussion group, and got into a discussion on, what else?? But my favorite obsession, preterism, and then of course, could not resist myself but issued a debate challenge for one of the futurists to come over here and join me in the Gym. I just could not not help myself!!!

Hitch

February 16th 2003, 12:25 PM

Jaltus:
1. Yes.

2. Yes.

Again, you are making assumptions. The language is not remenscient enough, nor does the imagery fit.

You are pulling in parallels that are not parallels. Just because a city has priestly colors does not make it Jerusalem, it just means it has priestly colors. There is no way Jerusalem ruled over the earth, that part just does not fit at all. How can Jeruslame be called spiritual Egypt? There are just too many parts that do not add up.
How can Jeruslame be called spiritual Egypt? There are just too many parts that do not add up.

Does this need further explanation?

Rev 11:8
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
(KJV)

I dont believe for a minute you missed this so why the games?

I asked why you think the writer wouldnt know about the Olivet discourse and you answer 'yes'. Hmmmmmm

. If you just dont care to talk to me about this just say so.

Hitch

Jaltus

February 17th 2003, 09:26 PM

Good points Hitch. Let me get back to you.

And I misread the second question...I did not notice the "why." My answer would be dating, if I were a preterist. However, I just think that Revelation does not tie in enough with the synoptics for us to see if the author knew them or not.

The exception would be Mark, as John seems to be written to fill in the gaps of Mark (see Richard Bauckham's article in, I believe, JBL).

GrayPilgrim

February 17th 2003, 10:19 PM

Let's see where "great city" (megalh polis or ths polews ths megalhs or any derivation there of) occurs outisde of Revelation:

RSV Genesis 10:12 Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.

RSV Joshua 10:2 he feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, like one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all its men were mighty.

RSV Jeremiah 22:8 "`And many nations will pass by this city, and every man will say to his neighbor, "Why has the LORD dealt thus with this great city?"

RSV Jonah 1:2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness has come up before me."

RSV Jonah 3:2-3 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim to it the message that I tell you. So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days' journey in breadth.

RSV Jonah 4:11 And should not I pity Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle?"

RSV Judith 1:1 In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh, in the days of Arphaxad, who ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana --

It is used to refer to the city of Ninevah 6 times (Gen 10, Jonah 1, 3-4 and Judith 1:1). The phrase is used of Gibeon in Joshua. Only in Jeremiah do we see it in reference to Jerusalem. So the onus is on you to make this phrase genrally linked to the magnificance of the Fertile Crescent and the Assyrian Empire (which Babylon overthrough) refer to Jerusalem in toto when the descriptor is to Babylon, which captured Ninevah. The inter-textuality millitates against this being a referent to Jerusalem.

Hitch

February 17th 2003, 10:33 PM

Inter what???

Ok I'll get to it but for right now the first use and the last in the Apocalypse.

Rev 11:8
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
(KJV)

First negative or natural, then the positive or spiritual...

Rev 21:10
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
(KJV)

An old whore is a terrible sight, but every man loves a beautiful chaste Bride.

Take care

Hitch

Rev 18:17-18
17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
(KJV)

I reckon you have a geographical problem here GP. Near as I can figue its about 150 miles to the nearest shore of the Persian Gulf and the Mediterainian is out of the question.

GrayPilgrim

February 18th 2003, 11:49 AM

Hitch:
Inter what???

This is the usage of earlier themes within the Bible in later passages. For example: the phrase h)myn b- (believe in) in the OT is first used in Gen 15:6. The other 20 occurrences draw their meaning from this initial usage. So that when we see the phrase used in Jonah 3:5 we are to draw on the positive connotation from Gen 15:6. And when we read it in context we see this reinforced so that we are able to ascertain that the repentance of Nineveh was genuine.

Ok I'll get to it but for right now the first use and the last in the Apocalypse.

Rev 11:8
8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
(KJV)

First negative or natural, then the positive or spiritual...

Rev 21:10
10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
(KJV)

An old whore is a terrible sight, but every man loves a beautiful chaste Bride.

I have no problem with 11:8 referring to Jerusalem. In fact I think it is. If you will look again at my post I said, I have a problem of using "great city" in toto referring to Jerusalem as you were arguing for. So yes it does refer to Jerusalem here

Rev 18:17-18
17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,
18 And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
(KJV)

I reckon you have a geographical problem here GP. Near as I can figure its about 150 miles to the nearest shore of the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean is out of the question.

You have just as big a geographical problem as Jerusalem is a land locked city with no water source except Gihon (not exactly the place for sailors to frequent with their vessels). My point is that Babylon stands for the anti-God forces of the nations. It is an illegitimate designator for a punished, unfaithful bride.

Remember, that God used Assyria to punish the Northern Kingdom and then he used Babylon to punish Assyria, whose capitol was Nineveh, for touching His people. Then God used Babylon to punish Judah. Then he punished Babylon by using Persia to conquer them for touching his people. Babylon is linked up with the punish of his covenant people who have rejected him. NOT! NOT! NOT! a name for Jerusalem. In Ezekiel S&G and Egypt are used to show the extent of the wickedness of Jerusalem and Judah so for John to call Jerusalem Sodom and Egypt is just picking up on this old prophetic theme (inter-textuality once again). However, it is inter-textually illegitimate to call Jerusalem Babylon. That was the point of my earlier post, that you have made a phrase in toto refer to Jerusalem, when in fact this phrase only rarely has referred to Jerusalem.

GP

David

February 18th 2003, 12:08 PM

Revelation is future tense it waas given in about 90 A.D. and was talking about the churches at that time and then chronologically goes on to the End, and seeing the Last Seven Years haven't started we are not yet into the Trumpets and obviously not the Vials, and obviously not the Millinium

Go over the easy to understand future scenario's of Revelation
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/Revelation.html

or the longer rev Timeline

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/RevelationsTimeline.html

If you have specific questions along the timeline or Rev 17 and 18 just ask.. giving your opinion first

Thanks

David

David

February 18th 2003, 12:10 PM

PSST.. There are no probelems with revelation, only problems with people's understanding of it, as many want to put it in the past tense, rather than the prophetic future tense.

But that's their choice, in not wanting to fill up their lamps with the oil to sustain them in the future.

Pity

David

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/RaptureAfterTribulation.html

Jaltus

February 18th 2003, 01:39 PM

Um, we are looking to have a discussion, not to have links posted "solving everything." Most of us here are quite knowledgable about these matters, we just want to talk about them.

David

February 18th 2003, 01:56 PM

Then procceed with your talking Jaltus, and don't mind me, as you can talk endlessly about minor points in Revelation without concentrating or focusing on anything. You can misplace trees because you can't see the forest and the overall view.

So I just threw in an overall view which might make individual tree locations much easier to pin point.

But the problem being is that preterists can't go by timelines because they can't make any cohesive ones because they would be so disjointed that it would truly be a embarassment and so stick with minute details that can be bantered about endlessly

In my opinion, as an overview

Thanks

david

Lizard

February 18th 2003, 03:00 PM

David:
Then procceed with your talking Jaltus, and don't mind me, as you can talk endlessly about minor points in Revelation without concentrating or focusing on anything. You can misplace trees because you can't see the forest and the overall view.

So I just threw in an overall view which might make individual tree locations much easier to pin point.

But the problem being is that preterists can't go by timelines because they can't make any cohesive ones because they would be so disjointed that it would truly be a embarassment and so stick with minute details that can be bantered about endlessly

In my opinion, as an overview

Thanks

david

I really appreciated your enthusiasm for your eschatological viewpoint.

However, this is a discussion forum. I.E. the participants here want to discuss issues. As Jaltus pointed out, most of us here are "quite knowledgeable about these matters."

If you disagree with any of the "minor points", by all means tell us why. I would love to engage in a discussion with you about these issues.

I followed your links, and can honestly say that I found them far from than convincing, and really did not see anything that I had not seen before.

Blanket statements that you are right and everyone else is wrong will not persuade anyone that your "opinion" is in fact the truth. For example if I said:

But the problem being is that Dispensationalist go by convoluted timelines because their framework is so flimsy that if they were to focus on all the individual points it would be so obviously disjointed that it would truly be a embarrassment and so stick with grandiose timeframes to detract from their flimsy framework.

Does that convince you that you are wrong? Of course not! I am not trying to criticize here; I am trying to help.

I repeat this is a discussion forum; I want to encourage you to discuss these issues. I would like to here what you have to say. I would like for you to address specific areas where we disagree. I want to give you a chance to convince me that I am wrong (and hope that you will give me a chance to do the same). However, if you continue to make blanket statements with nothing to support it but links to other web pages, then you are just wasting your time my friend, and you have really missed what discussion forums are all about.

I hope this helps.

e4e

February 18th 2003, 07:09 PM

I think it is established in scripture that a metaphor for government is beast. The beast or governments are the tools of the whore. It is the whore that rides the back of the beast and that makes the beast the servant of the whore. The whore is not a government but an aythority that uses government to accomplish it's will. Assigning Jerusalem as the whore is nonsense. :doh:

Hitch

February 18th 2003, 08:22 PM

I have no problem with 11:8 referring to Jerusalem. In fact I think it is. If you will look again at my post I said, I have a problem of using "great city" in toto referring to Jerusalem as you were arguing for. So yes it does refer to Jerusalem here

So thats his opening use.

Rev 18:20
20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
(KJV)

Rev 18:24
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
(KJV)

Of course you are aware that Jesus set the guilt of the innocents against only one city , Jerusalem. And here in 18;24 again ,Jerusalem. In the light of M23 it makes no sense for God to take vengeance for the Prophets and Apostles against babylon,requiring changing his own judgement from Jerusalem to Babylon.

Adn John's final use of 'great city' sits right in the middle of these two wittnesses against Jerusalem:

Rev 18:21
21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
(KJV)

Thats may not prove 'en toto' but its got em bracketted pretty well.

Hitch

Reba

February 18th 2003, 08:48 PM

e4e:
I think it is established in scripture that a metaphor for government is beast. The beast or governments are the tools of the whore. It is the whore that rides the back of the beast and that makes the beast the servant of the whore. The whore is not a government but an aythority that uses government to accomplish it's will. Assigning Jerusalem as the whore is nonsense. :doh:

The whore is not a government but an aythority that uses government to accomplish it's will.

Matt 27:1-2
27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
KJV

e4e

February 18th 2003, 08:52 PM

Hitch, may I make a suggestion. Parse out just the verses in Rev:17 that mention the whore and see what she is doing. Then ask yourself the question ,Why is the whore hated and not the beast by the 10 kings that shall receive a kingdom?I think you will find that all down through history it has been the whore that pleased the governments.

Because of what the whore offers the governments, the goverments are willing to be ruled by the whore. The whore rides the governments. The whore is not a government.

I would be happy to discuss Rev 17 with you.

Reba

February 18th 2003, 08:52 PM

The whore is not a government but an aythority that uses government to accomplish it's will.

John 18:28-31
28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
KJV

Hitch

February 18th 2003, 09:02 PM

e4e:
Hitch, may I make a suggestion. Parse out just the verses in Rev:17 that mention the whore and see what she is doing. Then ask yourself the question ,Why is the whore hated and not the beast by the 10 kings that shall receive a kingdom?I think you will find that all down through history it has been the whore that pleased the governments.

Because of what the whore offers the governments, the goverments are willing to be ruled by the whore. The whore rides the governments. The whore is not a government.

I would be happy to discuss Rev 17 with you. What ever you're getting at escapes me.

That whore is a city is without question, so I cant make sense of what you're saying

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

Take care

Hitch

Hitch

February 18th 2003, 09:10 PM

Reba:
The whore is not a government but an aythority that uses government to accomplish it's will.

John 18:28-31
28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.

29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.

31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
KJV Perf!

H

e4e

February 18th 2003, 09:33 PM

The whore is the eight beast who is of the seven. That simply means that the whore will be a power in her own right at the end of this age.

The seven beast are seven grate world governments that served the whore. 1.Chaldeian @ Egyption 3 Babalonian 4 Medeian-Pershion 5 Geacian 6 Roman 7. Future world power not named 8 Mystery Babalon. The 8th is of the 7 meaning that she has been here all along opperating behind the scene of the seven governments before her.

The chaldean and the egyption empires were before Israel was a nation so Jerusalem is not a cannadate for the whore.

The Roman Empire is the beast that now is at the time this prophicy was recorded.

Reba

February 18th 2003, 09:37 PM

Gotta love all that scripture

e4e

February 18th 2003, 09:48 PM

Reba, HitcH and I are discussing the great whore or Mystery Babolon in Rev. 1 If you have something to add then say it and spop your fooleshness.

Reba

February 18th 2003, 09:58 PM

Reba:

The whore is not a government but an aythority that uses government to accomplish it's will.

Matt 27:1-2
27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
KJV

I will repete for you e4e

Reba

February 18th 2003, 10:00 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e4e:
I think it is established in scripture that a metaphor for government is beast. The beast or governments are the tools of the whore. It is the whore that rides the back of the beast and that makes the beast the servant of the whore. The whore is not a government but an aythority that uses government to accomplish it's will. Assigning Jerusalem as the whore is nonsense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whore is not a government but an aythority that uses government to accomplish it's will.

Matt 27:1-2
27:1 When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.
KJV

If scripture is foolishness to you that is your problem.

e4e

February 18th 2003, 10:03 PM

Reba, what is your point? Please show the relationship of Matt. 27:2 to the topic of discussion.:huh:

Hitch

February 18th 2003, 10:09 PM

You have just as big a geographical problem as Jerusalem is a land locked city with no water source except Gihon (not exactly the place for sailors to frequent with their vessels). My point is that Babylon stands for the anti-God forces of the nations. It is an illegitimate designator for a punished, unfaithful bride. Holford reports that from the top of Psephinos in good weather one could see the Mediterranean ( The Destruction of Jerusalem p 4) So it follows that the smoke of a city wide fire could likely be seen from ships at sea.

H

Reba

February 18th 2003, 10:18 PM

The whore is not a government but an aythority that uses government to accomplish it's will.

The religious leaders of Jerusalem used the the govenerment of Rome to accomplish their will.

GrayPilgrim

February 18th 2003, 10:19 PM

The celebrated tower of Psephinos, before which Titus at first encamped, was erected on this latter wall, and even excelled it in the superior style of its architecture : it was seventy cubits high and had eight angles, each of which commanded most extensive and beautiful prospects. In clear weather, the spectator had from them a view of the Mediterranean sea, of Arabia, and of the whole extent of the Jewish dominions.
http://www.bible.ca/pre-destruction70AD-george-holford-1805AD.htm

Sorry read closely. He said that they could see the Med, not that you could see it from the Med. How many 25 foot tall buildings can you see from over 30 miles away on the other side of mile high cliffs? Moreover, there is no way that you could see the Galillee from there nor could you see Kineret which was at a higher eleveation. THis guys description bears more likeness to fancy than to fact.

Not to mention that I've never run across this celebrated tower before in any of my readings.

Hitch

February 18th 2003, 10:33 PM

Well GP we were talking about seeing a collumn of smoke from a burning city. Not the tower. Read more closely.

Found a map.

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/603.htm

Near as I can tell Jerusalem is about 50 clicks from the beach, as the crow flies. About 30 miles, close enough to see the smoke of a big fire.

e4e

February 18th 2003, 10:47 PM

RebaThe whore is not a government but an aythority that uses government to accomplish it's will.

The idea that it is man that uses governments to do its bidding and that man rewards governments to the extent that governments will act on there behalf ia a bet of a strech. Governmens subjugate men. That is the nature of government.

There are thoses who follow an evel. The evel uses men to subjugate government and the evel rewards the leaders of the goverments that yeald to the evil devices.

When Jesus was offered the kingdoms of the world it was not an idle statement by the devil. He could deliver on his promiss.

Reba

February 18th 2003, 10:51 PM

e4e,

these 2 statments of yours seem to be at odds with eachother

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whore is not a government but an aythority that uses government to accomplish it's will.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The idea that it is man that uses governments to do its bidding and that man rewards governments to the extent that governments will act on there behalf ia a bet of a strech. Governmens subjugate men. That is the nature of government.

e4e

February 18th 2003, 11:07 PM

Saten operates through human agency to accomplish his perpose. Man thinks that it is his power but it is not. The system that has operated through history by saten through the agency of man is much to old to assign to a man. The people who believe in the evil system are what is observeable and it is the system that has rewarded the past world empires that will come from behind the scenes that will form an 8 th world empire that the 10 kings will destroy.

GrayPilgrim

February 19th 2003, 01:18 AM

Hitch:
Well GP we were talking about seeing a collumn of smoke from a burning city. Not the tower. Read more closely.

Found a map.

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/603.htm

Near as I can tell Jerusalem is about 50 clicks from the beach, as the crow flies. About 30 miles, close enough to see the smoke of a big fire.

Ahh, pretty good to see a column of smoke the other side of a few mountain ranges a mile above your position when it would also be obscured by sea haze and said mountain ranges.

BTW I was impeaching the credibility of your source by pointing out that you cannot see "the whole extent of the Jewish dominions". Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains which don't exactly make for unimpeded view of anything let alone "the extent of the Jewish domains".

David

February 19th 2003, 10:43 AM

In My opinion according to scriptures, The Whore is basically America...as she gets destroyed by the Anti-Christ at the start of the tribulation. Russia gets the nuclear shield before America and so America can't retaliate when she is attacked for being so violent and war mongering.

She like two other nuclear countries are negated according to daniel and revelation, and yet even after her destruction scriptures talk about Babylon being decimated by the Lord's earthquake at the End of the WRath of 45 days which starts 1260 days after the tribulation starts. This means that of course, America represents the city system of man, before the trib, but that same spirit of course lives on in the AC's evil kingdom as his cites are even worse because of the worship of man and their evil leader the AC.

SEE a more detailed wording of this opinion from scriptures at http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/TwodestructionsofBabylon.html

So the key here is that the Lord is not nationalistic and doesn;t have favourites whether it is supposed Christian countries like America and supposed blessed countries like Israel...as the Lord's people are not nationalistic and not patriotic, but seek a better plave whose builder an maker is the Lord....the Lord's new nation

Love in His Kingdeom

David

Hitch

February 19th 2003, 11:13 AM

Ahh, pretty good to see a column of smoke the other side of a few mountain ranges a mile above your position when it would also be obscured by sea haze and said mountain ranges. [/quote]
LOL [quote]
BTW I was impeaching the credibility of your source by pointing out that you cannot see "the whole extent of the Jewish dominions". Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains which don't exactly make for unimpeded view of anything let alone "the extent of the Jewish domains".

Ok then do it. Of course you've read Holford's work and compared it to other sources of his vintage and ,,, or you read a paragraph or two?

You lose GP. On the issue of the possiblity of the smoke beining visible at sea from Jerusalem or Babylon, Jerusalem is the only possibilty.

Take care

Hitch

GrayPilgrim

February 19th 2003, 11:36 AM

Hitch:
Ahh, pretty good to see a column of smoke the other side of a few mountain ranges a mile above your position when it would also be obscured by sea haze and said mountain ranges.
LOL
BTW I was impeaching the credibility of your source by pointing out that you cannot see "the whole extent of the Jewish dominions". Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains which don't exactly make for unimpeded view of anything let alone "the extent of the Jewish domains".

Ok then do it. Of course you've read Holford's work and compared it to other sources of his vintage and ,,, or you read a paragraph or two?

You lose GP. On the issue of the possiblity of the smoke beining visible at sea from Jerusalem or Babylon, Jerusalem is the only possibilty.

Take care

Hitch

Ummm..at what point did I identify "Babylon" in Rev with the city of Babylon? Hmmm....last I checked I was just saying it wasn't Jerusalem, I had not made a positive reference for Babylon in hte book of Revelation! I wsa showing how "the grreat city" in Scripture generally referred to non-Israelite cities Gibeon and Ninevah among other's I would say that Babylon is a representative of the ungodly rulers of this world localized in the great enemy of Israel, Babylon. Kind of like in the OT when Babylon, the oppressor of God's people, is called Sheshek (B=2nd letter $=2nd to last letter and L=12th with K=11th) so here Rome, the oppressor of the Church, is called Babylon.

:rant: You're pentient for putting words and thoughts in other people's heads makes it esay for you to light up teh night sky with your strawmen:rant:

Hitch

February 19th 2003, 01:10 PM

You're pentient for putting words and thoughts in other people's heads makes it esay for you to light up teh night sky with your strawmen

1-800- wahh

Jaltus

February 19th 2003, 05:40 PM

Hitch,

Learn how to quote.

Hitch

February 19th 2003, 05:51 PM

Nevermore....

John Reece

April 5th 2003, 07:55 PM

Jaltus,

I just discovered this thread, where I find this statement:

Sorry, but the two witnesses bear witness against the ENTIRE WORLD, not Israel. See 11:10.

In Revelation 11:10, I find no reference to "the ENTIRE WORLD".

I find only a reference to του&sigmaf; κατοικουντα&sigmaf; επι τη&sigmaf; γη&sigmaf; (those dwelling upon the land), which is language used in both Hebrew and Greek in reference to the land (ארץ / γη&sigmaf;) of Israel.

Or have I missed something?

John Reece

April 6th 2003, 12:18 PM

After writing the above posts, it occurred to me that it might be interesting to check the commentaries.

Here are excerpts from C. H. Charles (ICC) re Revelation 11:10:

The phrase (του&sigmaf; κατοικουντα&sigmaf; επι τη&sigmaf; γη&sigmaf;) is the equivalent of the Hebrew ישבי הארץ . In the O.T. this phrase can denote either (1) “the inhabitants of the land,” i.e. Palestine, Hos. 4:1; Joel 1:2, 14; 2:1; Jer. 6:12; 10:18, etc. ; or (2) “the inhabitants of the earth,” Isa. 24:6, 26:21, etc.

Both these O.T. meanings appear in our text. The latter is found in 3:10, 6:10, 8:13; 13:8, 14; 22:8, and the former at all events originally in the verse we are now dealing with [= Rev. 11:10 – JR]. For, as Bousset in loc. has rightly urged, it is hard to see what the inhabitants of the earth would have to do with the two prophets who appear in Jerusalem in the struggle against the Beast from the abyss. And besides, when the Witnesses fell, the inhabitants could within three and a half days hear of their death, rejoice and send presents to each other ; but this could not be possible if the phrase were taken to mean the inhabitants of the earth.

In the next place, the phrase can either have a good ethical meaning, as in Enoch 37:2, 5, 40:6, 7; 48:5, or a neutral meaning as in our text in 14:6 ; where, however, in most MSS, though not in A, it has the form του&sigmaf; καθμενου&sigmaf; επι τη&sigmaf; γη&sigmaf; ; or it can have a bad ethical meaning, as in 1 Enoch 54:9, etc…, and in our text (Revelation) in 3:10, 6:10, 8:13; 11:10 (bis) 13:8, 14; 17:8. Thus in the original document the phrase meant the inhabitants of Palestine, and there is no convincing ground for assigning a different meaning to it in its new context. The city which is mentioned in 11:8, 13 is clearly Jerusalem, and , lest there should be any mistake on this head our author adds the damning clause in 11:8. The κατοικουντα&sigmaf; επι τη&sigmaf; γη&sigmaf; are Palestinians – likewise Jews ; and though they rejoice over the martyrdom of the Witnesses, they are not painted in such dark colours as the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 13:8.

As I peruse commentaries, it seems to me I can discern the presence of the presuppositions of the authors in their comments. The futurist vs. preterist controversy affects the more modern commentaries. Which is one reason I like the commentaries (such as Charles in the ICC) that were written before the controversy became a predominant factor in exegetical studies.

John Reece

April 6th 2003, 01:41 PM

This from Moses Stuart (1845):

Κατοικουντα&sigmaf; επι τη&sigmaf; γη&sigmaf; must plainly mean, the inhabitants of the country and city. On another occasion (Rev. 6:10), Ewald, to make out his view of the writer’s plan, asserts the expression is generic. But what have all the inhabitants of the world to do with this event? How could they all come to look on the corpses and insult them, or have sent mutual presents during only three and half days? And, in reference to the last part of the verse, how could all the inhabitants of the earth have been tormented by the two witnesses, during only 1260 days. Ewald passes these matters with a – haud anxie quaerendum!.

Bill the Cat

April 25th 2003, 05:35 AM

As John Reece said, I just found this thread too.

2 things.

1. the seals in Rev are not covenant decrees. They are the same as seals on a Land deed.

2. The great City can be Rome, because that's where the order to crucify Jesus came from.
Also the Geneva Bible commentary says this about the verse in question:
Rev 11:8 - And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the (13) street of the great city, which (d) spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, (14) where also our Lord was crucified.

(13) That is, openly at Rome: where at that time was a most great crowd of people, the year of Jubile being then first ordained by Boniface to the same end, in the year 1300, an example of which is read in chapter 1 "Extra, de poenitentys & remissionibus." So by one act he committed two wrongs against Christ, both abolishing his truth by restoring the type of the Jubile, and triumphing over his members by wicked superstition. O religious heart! Now that we should understand the things of Rome, John himself is the author, both after in the seventeenth chapter almost throughout, and also in the restriction now next following, when he says, it is that great city (as he calls it) (Rev_17:18) and is spiritually termed Sodom and Egypt: and that spiritually (for that must here again be repeated from before) Christ was there crucified. For the two first names signify spiritual wickednesses: the latter signifies the show and pretence of good, that is, of Christian and sound religion. Sodom signifies most licentious impiety and in the most confident glorying of that city, as it were in true religion, being yet full of falsehood and ungodliness. Now who is ignorant that these things do rather, and better fit Rome, than any other city? The commendations of the city of Rome for many years past, are publicly notorious, which are not for me to gather together. This only I will say, that he long since did very well see what Rome is, who upon leaving, used these verses: "Roma vale, vidi, Satis est vidisse: revertar, Quumleno, meretrix, scurra, cinadus ero." "Now farewell Rome, I have seen thee, it was enough to see: I will return when as I mean, bawd, harlot knave to be"
(d) After a more secret type of meaning and understanding.

(14) Namely in his parts, as also he said to Saul in (Act_9:5)

we must remember that the place is one in which our Lord was spiritually crucified. This is done by apostasy. See Heb_6:6. That the reference is to spiritual declension is plain.
The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson

"the great city" . This term is used eight times in Revelation. It is never used of Jerusalem. It is in contrast with the Holy City. As the Holy City is a symbol of the church, a wicked City would symbolize a false religion, or apostate church.
The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson

Rev 11:2 "Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.

Here Jerusalem is called the Holy City, not the great city.

Darth Xena

April 25th 2003, 08:06 AM

we must remember that the place is one in which our Lord was spiritually crucified. This is done by apostasy. See Heb_6:6. That the reference is to spiritual declension is plain.
The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson

"the great city" . This term is used eight times in Revelation. It is never used of Jerusalem. It is in contrast with the Holy City. As the Holy City is a symbol of the church, a wicked City would symbolize a false religion, or apostate church.
The People's New Testament (1891) by B. W. Johnson

Rev 11:2 "Leave out the court which is outside the temple and do not measure it, for it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.

Here Jerusalem is called the Holy City, not the great city.

First the order the crucify Christ did not come from the city of Rome, just as an aside. But regarding these comments.... it is a case I believe of assuming what you need to prove. There is no reason why Jerusalem cannot be called both, the great city and the holy city. You are missing the connection to Isaiah 13 in Jesus' condemnation of Jersualem in the Discourse which then directly identifies Jerusalem with Babylon, which explains a lot of the symbolism in Revelation. Quoting multiple commentaries simply does not do it for me as these same commentaries will tell me how soon does not mean soon and near does not mean near.

The Geneva commentary is coming from a historicist presupposition where Rome is the Catholic Church if I am not mistaken.

There is a lot more that could be said, but I find some of the explanations that are come up with, first of all, ignore the clear near temporal indicators of the book, and are quite ad hoc, and suddenly the literalists are so darned literal when they don't like what the text says.

I am not saying this of your pesonally, but making more generalized comments.

Hitch

April 25th 2003, 10:00 PM

There is a lot more that could be said, but I find some of the explanations that are come up with, first of all, ignore the clear near temporal indicators of the book, and are quite ad hoc, and suddenly the literalists are so darned literal when they don't like what the text says.

I am not saying this of your pesonally, but making more generalized comments.

LOL Yup. Literalizing later passages of the Apocalypse is always done at the expense of chapter one, and just about any thing Jesus ever saiid on the subject as well.

Take care

H

Bill the Cat

April 25th 2003, 11:55 PM

Today @ 08:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78311#post78311)
Dee Dee Warren:

First the order the crucify Christ did not come from the city of Rome, just as an aside.

But the power to do so was from Rome. The whole of the Empire was named for the capital and seat of power, Rome. And as an aside, Jesus was not crucified IN Jerusalem, but outside the gates. Golgotha is not the traditional place of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, but a place outside of the city, probably what is now called Gordon’s Calvary, a hill north of the city wall which from the Mount of Olives looks like a skull, the rock-hewn tombs resembling eyes in one of which Jesus may have been buried. I know, picky, picky.

But regarding these comments.... it is a case I believe of assuming what you need to prove. There is no reason why Jerusalem cannot be called both, the great city and the holy city.

Because Jerusalem is called the Holy City. The symbolism of the Great City is told in the "mystically is called Sodom and Egypt" part. Sodom was famous for it's sexual perversion, just as Rome was (Caligula is a prime example) and Egypt was famous for it's multiple god worship and slavery of the children of Israel, as was Rome.

You are missing the connection to Isaiah 13 in Jesus' condemnation of Jersualem in the Discourse which then directly identifies Jerusalem with Babylon, which explains a lot of the symbolism in Revelation.

Isaiah 13 concerns the destruction of Babylon by the Medes. I see no link with the Olivet discourse.

Quoting multiple commentaries simply does not do it for me as these same commentaries will tell me how soon does not mean soon and near does not mean near.

The Geneva commentary is coming from a historicist presupposition where Rome is the Catholic Church if I am not mistaken.

For a description of the Geneva Bible, see: http://www.globalcorp.com/geneva-bible/
The Geneva Bible is a critical, yet almost completely forgotten part of the Protestant Reformation. Driven out of England by the persecutions of Bloody Mary, several future leaders of the Reformation came to Geneva to create a pure and accurate translation of the Holy Writ. Concerned about the influence that the Catholic Church had on the existing translations of the Bible from the Latin, these men turned to the original Hebrew and Greek texts to produce the Geneva Bible. This made the Geneva Bible the first complete Bible to be translated into English from the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

The marginal notes of the Geneva Bible enraged the Catholic Church, since the notes deemed the act of confession to men – the Catholic Bishops – as unjustified by Holy Script.

The greatest distinction of the Geneva Bible, however, is the extensive collection of marginal notes that it contains. Prominent Reformation leaders such as John Calvin, John Knox, Miles Coverdale, William Whittingham, Theodore Beza, and Anthony Gilby wrote the majority of these notes in order to explain and interpret the scriptures. The notes comprise nearly 300,000 words, or nearly one-third the length of the Bible itself, and they are justifiably considered the most complete source of Protestant religious thought available.

It is from a protestant viewpoint. As far as being from a historicist viewpoint, I don’t know the presuppositions of the authors listed above, but they seem to agree that the Beast is/was the Roman Empire. Which brings up another question. Who are the 2 prophets?

There is a lot more that could be said, but I find some of the explanations that are come up with, first of all, ignore the clear near temporal indicators of the book, and are quite ad hoc, and suddenly the literalists are so darned literal when they don't like what the text says.

I am not saying this of your pesonally, but making more generalized comments.

Those of us taking a consistently literal interpretation of the entire Olivet Discourse take a different literal interpretation of “this generation” than supposed by preterist suggestion. I believe that the timing of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 is governed by the related phrase “all these things.” In other words, Christ is saying that the generation that sees “all these things” occur will not cease to exist until all the events of the future tribulation are literally fulfilled. Christ is not ultimately speaking to His contemporaries, but to the generation to whom the signs of Matthew 24 will become evident. Dr. Darrell Bock, in commenting on the parallel passage to Matthew 24 in Luke’s Gospel concurs:

What Jesus is saying is that the generation that sees the beginning of the end, also sees its end. When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for many generations. It will happen within a generation. . . . The tradition reflected in Revelation shows that the consummation comes very quickly once it comes. . . . Nonetheless, in the discourse's prophetic context, the remark comes after making comments about the nearness of the end to certain signs. As such it is the issue of the signs that controls the passage's force, making this view likely. If this view is correct, Jesus says that when the signs of the beginning of the end come, then the end will come relatively quickly, within a generation.
Darrell Brock, Luke 9:51-24:53 pp 1691-92

The use of “this generation” in the Olivet Discourse in the fig tree passages are prophetic texts. In fact, when one compares the use of “this generation” at the beginning of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 23:36 (which is an undisputed reference to A.D. 70) with the prophetic use in Matthew 24:34, a contrast seems obvious. Jesus is contrasting the deliverance for Israel in Matthew 24:34 with the predicted judgment of Matthew 23:36.
Rev. Thomas Ice

Edited later:
The temple John is told to measure is not the temple that stood in that day. It is Ezekiel's temple. This prophetical passage about measuring the temple is a plain reference to what we find in Ezekiel's vision, Eze_40:3

Bill the Cat

April 26th 2003, 12:08 AM

Yesterday @ 10:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=79054#post79054)
Hitch:

There is a lot more that could be said, but I find some of the explanations that are come up with, first of all, ignore the clear near temporal indicators of the book, and are quite ad hoc, and suddenly the literalists are so darned literal when they don't like what the text says.

I am not saying this of your pesonally, but making more generalized comments.

LOL Yup. Literalizing later passages of the Apocalypse is always done at the expense of chapter one, and just about any thing Jesus ever saiid on the subject as well.

Take care

H

What's the problem with Chapter One? Vrse 7 describes Jesus' return to Earth when He takes control of the governments of the world to fulfill Isaiah 9:6 and rules with a rod of iron symbolizing firm authority over all the Earth.

Hitch

April 26th 2003, 12:41 AM

If you say you're going to do something soon what do you mean?

Bill the Cat

April 26th 2003, 01:01 AM

Ask my wife.... :yipee:

Bill the Cat

April 26th 2003, 01:09 AM

and BTW, verse 7 does not say the word soon, shortly, quickly, nor any of the other so called "time texts"

And no one wanted to touch the 7 seals comment either. If it is a land deal and not a covenant decree, then it can't be a divorce decree because it has to do with redeeming land by the rightful owner.

Jer 32:6 And Jeremiah said, "The word of the LORD came to me, saying,
Jer 32:7 'Behold, Hanamel the son of Shallum your uncle is coming to you, saying, "Buy for yourself my field which is at Anathoth, for you have the right of redemption to buy it."'
Jer 32:8 "Then Hanamel my uncle's son came to me in the court of the guard according to the word of the LORD and said to me, 'Buy my field, please, that is at Anathoth, which is in the land of Benjamin; for you have the right of possession and the redemption is yours; buy it for yourself.' Then I knew that this was the word of the LORD.
Jer 32:9 "I bought the field which was at Anathoth from Hanamel my uncle's son, and I weighed out the silver for him, seventeen shekels of silver.
Jer 32:10 "I signed and sealed the deed, and called in witnesses, and weighed out the silver on the scales.
Jer 32:11 "Then I took the deeds of purchase, both the sealed copy containing the terms and conditions and the open copy;
Jer 32:12 and I gave the deed of purchase to Baruch the son of Neriah, the son of Mahseiah, in the sight of Hanamel my uncle's son and in the sight of the witnesses who signed the deed of purchase, before all the Jews who were sitting in the court of the guard.

The document with the 7 seals is a document showing Jesus' ownership of the Earth.