The Restoration of Israel, as Described in the Holy Scriptures

[Jack Terrence]

Two things are different about my belief in Revelation and all the rest of the theories presented on this thread as I read them:

1) I actually believe what is written as it is written in Revelation. When it makes good sense in its literal sense, I believe it as literal.

2) I believe it is written in Chronological order.

You don't get to pick and choose what is literal and what is not literal. The opening statement of the book says that it is "signified." Therefore, it ALL is symbolic.

 

[iamlamad]

You don't get to pick and choose what is literal and what is not literal. The opening statement of the book says that it is "signified." Therefore, it ALL is symbolic.

This is a theory, and it is a wrong theory. This is not at all the intent of the Author in the word "signified."

I have signified the truth of this in these few words, and it is all literal.

 

[Rev20]

Two things are different about my belief in Revelation and all the rest of the theories presented on this thread as I read them:

1) I actually believe what is written as it is written in Revelation. When it makes good sense in its literal sense, I believe it as literal.

2) I believe it is written in Chronological order.

No one is stopping you from believing that way.

 

[Jack Terrence]

This is a theory, and it is a wrong theory. This is not at all the intent of the Author in the word "signified."

I have signified the truth of this in these few words, and it is all literal.

NOPE. The word "signified" means that the visions were given in symbolic speech.

 

[keras]

In Revelation 1:1, the KJV uses the word 'signified', but modern translations do not.
Rev. 1:1...He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John.REB.
Sure some of the content of Revelation is symbolic, but most is literal and will be literally fulfilled. The world will be judged and punished and Jesus will Return.
Other than putting a scare into people, what is the point of it all if its just a fairy tale?

 

[Rev20]

In Revelation 1:1, the KJV uses the word 'signified', but modern translations do not.
Rev. 1:1...He made it known by sending His angel to His servant John.REB.
Sure some of the content of Revelation is symbolic, but most is literal and will be literally fulfilled. The world will be judged and punished and Jesus will Return.
Other than putting a scare into people, what is the point of it all if its just a fairy tale?

Maybe it was a guide book for the early Christians who were being subject to persecution and the great tribulation during the AD60's. It might also have been left to us to provide hope that Satan would one day be destroyed.

 

[iamlamad]

NOPE. The word "signified" means that the visions were given in symbolic speech.

That is only man's reasoning, and theory.....a false theory at that.

Notice the other uses of the Greek word in our Bible - NONE of which means symbolic:

Jhn 12:33
This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Jhn 18:32
That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake, signifying what death he should die.

Jhn 21:19
This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

Act 11:28
And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

Act 25:27
For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.

Strongs: to indicate, to make known as well as to make a sign. In all these uses, it is used to INDICATE or make known or get some knowledge across to others. In every case, it was done with words.

 

[Interplanner]

Lamad,
pay closer attention. On 12:33, for ex., the indication is not that clear. He said that in relation to the judgement on this world and the prince of this world. So to 'signify' there means that his death would judge the world and the prince of this world. We don't know if lifted means to be esteemed highly, or the plain, mechanical 'to be hung up in the air on a cross.'

And then there is draw. Does he mean positively--to attract them to God's grace? Or does he mean that the worst and most vile accusations and insults would be expressed?

Or does lift up naturally fall in with glorify up in 28?

The crowd's question gives some clarity: to lift up must mean total forsakeness and relegation to the most humiliating position: a naked body hung on a public walkway. And meant to contrast with 'remain forever' as in their understanding of Messiah.

Or again, lifted up might be the resurrection. Wouldn't that draw all men? (and then there's the question of "all"!)

Hope you can see that the image-rich words 'driven' 'lifted up' and 'draw' don't lend themselves to the simplistic kind of plain meaning over in the Rev that you are using simply because you grew up in it.

 

[parousia70]

1) I actually believe what is written as it is written in Revelation. When it makes good sense in its literal sense, I believe it as literal.

So When Jesus PROMISED the 1st century Christians at Sardis that His Thief's Coming would befall THEM if they did not watch for it(Rev 3:3), you would say that is literal or symbolic?

 

[iamlamad]

Lamad,
pay closer attention. On 12:33, for ex., the indication is not that clear. He said that in relation to the judgement on this world and the prince of this world. So to 'signify' there means that his death would judge the world and the prince of this world. We don't know if lifted means to be esteemed highly, or the plain, mechanical 'to be hung up in the air on a cross.'

And then there is draw. Does he mean positively--to attract them to God's grace? Or does he mean that the worst and most vile accusations and insults would be expressed?

Or does lift up naturally fall in with glorify up in 28?

The crowd's question gives some clarity: to lift up must mean total forsakeness and relegation to the most humiliating position: a naked body hung on a public walkway. And meant to contrast with 'remain forever' as in their understanding of Messiah.

Or again, lifted up might be the resurrection. Wouldn't that draw all men? (and then there's the question of "all"!)

Hope you can see that the image-rich words 'driven' 'lifted up' and 'draw' don't lend themselves to the simplistic kind of plain meaning over in the Rev that you are using simply because you grew up in it.

30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die.


You make a simple verse difficult. He TOLD US what he meant by "lifted up." It was the way He would die. We know now that He would die on a cross. Did His listeners know? They did not know at that time.

 

[iamlamad]

So When Jesus PROMISED the 1st century Christians at Sardis that His Thief's Coming would befall THEM if they did not watch for it(Rev 3:3), you would say that is literal or symbolic?

His promise was to all believers, not just those in the first century. Since He has not yet come, we know that specifically he was not going to come to those first century believers. However, they did not know that. Neither did the next generation....or the next....right up to our generation. Every generation of believers have expected Him to come in THEIR generation....and it seems that is the way God wanted it.

 

[keras]

His promise was to all believers, not just those in the first century. Since He has not yet come, we know that specifically he was not going to come to those first century believers. However, they did not know that. Neither did the next generation....or the next....right up to our generation. Every generation of believers have expected Him to come in THEIR generation....and it seems that is the way God wanted it.

Very good reply.
Deniers who want to make all prophecy fit into history, which is impossible and a foolish idea and leaves them clueless about God's plans for our future.

 

[Jack Terrence]

His promise was to all believers, not just those in the first century. Since He has not yet come, we know that specifically he was not going to come to those first century believers. However, they did not know that. Neither did the next generation....or the next....right up to our generation. Every generation of believers have expected Him to come in THEIR generation....and it seems that is the way God wanted it.

No, the promise of His coming was NOT to all believers of all generations. Paul told the Thessalonians that Christ would appear from heaven to give THEM relief from THEIR persecutions (2 Thessalnians 1:3-8). Paul did NOT promise that to all believers. The Thessalonians had special dispensation because of the intense persectuions they suffered.

If Christ was not revealed from heaven to give THEM relief as Paul said, then Paul was a FALSE prophet and no believer can trust his word.

You CANNOT read letters written to the individual churches of the first century and apply the promises and warnings to all believers of that time, and most certainly not for succeeding generations.

 

[parousia70]

His promise was to all believers, not just those in the first century. Since He has not yet come, we know that specifically he was not going to come to those first century believers.

So He failed to follow through on His promise to them, as well as every successive generation of Christians before ours??

Do you see your conundrum?
Probably not, but I'm betting our readers can.

I'll spell it out:
1) you just agreed Christ promised those 1st century Christians He would come as a thief TO THEM (you simply added all other believers of all time to that promise)
2) in the next breath you actually said Christ did not Come as a thief to them as He promised them He would!!
While at the same time implying He failed to follow through on that promise to all previous generations of Christians prior to ours.

Please explain How that paradigm does not make Christ into a false prophet?

In My Bible, when Christ makes a promise to specific people He is DIRECTLY ADDRESSING, We can bank on the fact that He fulfilled that promise to them.
No if's and's or but's about it.

However, they did not know that. Neither did the next generation....or the next....right up to our generation. Every generation of believers have expected Him to come in THEIR generation....and it seems that is the way God wanted it.

So, just so I'm clear, you believe God wanted all generations of Christians prior to ours to believe and accept as truth something that was in fact not true?

Really???
That's what you are hanging your hat on here?

No, the promise of His coming was NOT to all believers of all generations. Paul told the Thessalonians that Christ would appear from heaven to give THEM relief from THEIR persecutions (2 Thessalnians 1:3-8). Paul did NOT promise that to all believers. The Thessalonians had special dispensation because of the intense persectuions they suffered.

If Christ was not revealed from heaven to give THEM relief as Paul said, then Paul was a FALSE prophet and no believer can trust his word.

You CANNOT read letters written to the individual churches of the first century and apply the promises and warnings to all believers of that time, and most certainly not for succeeding generations.

BINGO!

Either:
1) The 1st century Thessalonian Congregation is STILL suffering persecution at the hands of their 1st Century persecutors TODAY

OR

2) Christ came to them as He promised He would, Gave them Rest from their persecution and punished those that were persecuting them.

Those are the ONLY two options that retain the integrity of Scripture and of Christ.

Which are you more comfortable with?

 

[parousia70]

30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake. 31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” 33 This He said, signifying by what death He would die.


You make a simple verse difficult. He TOLD US what he meant by "lifted up." It was the way He would die. We know now that He would die on a cross. Did His listeners know? They did not know at that time.

Hang on.... did you just point out that 2000 years ago Jesus said "Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.

What do you claim Jesus meant by "NOW"?

I mean, you are a literalist right?

 

[Rev20]

In My Bible, when Christ makes a promise to specific people He is DIRECTLY ADDRESSING, We can bank on the fact that He fulfilled that promise to them.
No if's and's or but's about it.

Amen. But some require a live-action video with real-time reporting to believe.

 

[iamlamad]

No, the promise of His coming was NOT to all believers of all generations. Paul told the Thessalonians that Christ would appear from heaven to give THEM relief from THEIR persecutions (2 Thessalnians 1:3-8). Paul did NOT promise that to all believers. The Thessalonians had special dispensation because of the intense persectuions they suffered.

If Christ was not revealed from heaven to give THEM relief as Paul said, then Paul was a FALSE prophet and no believer can trust his word.

You CANNOT read letters written to the individual churches of the first century and apply the promises and warnings to all believers of that time, and most certainly not for succeeding generations.

Anyone can MAKE BELIEVE Jesus "came" sometime in the past. That is what preterists do. But the truth is, He has not yet come. Therefore those verses that seem to say He would come in their generation really don't. You will have to ask God when you get to heaven why He chose to write it that way.

 

[iamlamad]

Amen. But some require a live-action video with real-time reporting to believe.

If you think Jesus returned way back then, you can play make believe if you want. Meanwhile, most of the Church believes His 2nd coming is still future.

 

[iamlamad]

So He failed to follow through on His promise to them, as well as every successive generation of Christians before ours??

Do you see your conundrum?
Probably not, but I'm betting our readers can.

I'll spell it out:
1) you just agreed Christ promised those 1st century Christians He would come as a thief TO THEM (you simply added all other believers of all time to that promise)
2) in the next breath you actually said Christ did not Come as a thief to them as He promised them He would!!
While at the same time implying He failed to follow through on that promise to all previous generations of Christians prior to ours.

Please explain How that paradigm does not make Christ into a false prophet?

In My Bible, when Christ makes a promise to specific people He is DIRECTLY ADDRESSING, We can bank on the fact that He fulfilled that promise to them.
No if's and's or but's about it.



So, just so I'm clear, you believe God wanted all generations of Christians prior to ours to believe and accept as truth something that was in fact not true?

Really???
That's what you are hanging your hat on here?



BINGO!

Either:
1) The 1st century Thessalonian Congregation is STILL suffering persecution at the hands of their 1st Century persecutors TODAY

OR

2) Christ came to them as He promised He would, Gave them Rest from their persecution and punished those that were persecuting them.

Those are the ONLY two options that retain the integrity of Scripture and of Christ.

Which are you more comfortable with?

You can play make believe: that Jesus DID return then, to that generation, and in doing so fulfilled all the verses about his "coming," but meanwhile the church believes His 2nd coming is FUTURE.

You see, you have the very same conundrum: I could point out all the verses specifically about His coming that WAS NOT FULFILLED back then are still are not fulfilled. So you have two choices:

1: He did come to those in that generation, but did not fulfill the verses about His coming.

2. He did NOT come to that generation or any generation yet, and those verses you place so much weight on do not really mean what it seems they mean.

You see, it all depends on which verses you place more emphasis on. Meanwhile the vast majority of the church is waiting for His 2nd coming.

 

[parousia70]

You can play make believe: that Jesus DID return then, to that generation, and in doing so fulfilled all the verses about his "coming," but meanwhile the church believes His 2nd coming is FUTURE.

Both can be true lamad.

You see, you have the very same conundrum:

No, I don't.

I could point out all the verses specifically about His coming that WAS NOT FULFILLED back then are still are not fulfilled.

Every passage you can show me that you believe you can prove as unfulfilled, I can show corroborating scripture pointing to the fact that the nature of the fulfillment you are expecting is misguided and needs correction.

So go ahead and point out one or 2 of them.

So you have two choices:

1: He did come to those in that generation, but did not fulfill the verses about His coming.

2. He did NOT come to that generation or any generation yet, and those verses you place so much weight on do not really mean what it seems they mean.

You see, it all depends on which verses you place more emphasis on. Meanwhile the vast majority of the church is waiting for His 2nd coming.

I will submit you have a 3rd choice:
The paradigm you hold about the NATURE of what you THINK that Fulfillment Should look like is incorrect, and since the apostolic teaching about the TIMING is correct, your opinions about the nature need to be corrected to fit the God Ordained timing.

Rev 3:3 and 2 Thess 1:3-8 are hard ones for self proclaimed Literal Futurists, because a LITERAL rendering of either passage mandates a 1st century fulfillment of both of them, the implications of which are wholly destructive to the hyper futurist view.

Thus the hyper futurist is forced to render those passage elastic/spiritual, abandoning any literal rendering.

I get why you must do that.
You are lamad.