The mystery of God in Eschatology

Spiritual Jew said:

Yeah, I already get that you take everything written in a highly symbolic book literally. Thanks.

I noticed that you made no attempt to explain the purpose of mixing blood with fire and hail. Can you tell me what purpose that would serve if that's literally going to happen?

Click to expand...

did the 10 plagues of Egypt happen? did Elijah call down fire upon the priests of Baal?

3 Resurrections said:

Errrr, not exactly the right wording there. The Antichrist is nowhere mentioned in that context. Just the "mouth" of the Sea Beast having that dominion. And his world power "dominion" was NOT limited to a mere 42 months. It was given to him to "MAKE WAR" on the saints for a 42 month period of his dominion, and to "overcome them". So, part of the time period this Sea Beast was in power over the known world was taken up with a concentrated effort to "MAKE WAR" on the saints for 42 months, and to overcome them by killing them. Which Nero did for a literal 42 months after the AD 64 fire at Rome, which ended up being blamed on the Christians.

Click to expand...

It never says kill, so that is an added private interpretation. The first century view needs that added private interpretation to "work". So now you need Josephus instead of the Holy Spirit to teach us God's Word.

Timtofly said:

It never says kill, so that is an added private interpretation.

Click to expand...

To be "overcome" IS a result of being killed. Revelation 3:21 interprets this "overcome" condition for us. "To him that OVERCOMETH will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I ALSO OVERCAME, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Christ "overcame" His own death by resurrecting Himself from the grave, after which He sat down on that throne in heaven.

Timtofly said:

So now you need Josephus instead of the Holy Spirit to teach us God's Word.

Click to expand...

I don't need it, but if extra-biblical accounts align with what scripture already said was soon to happen in those days when John was writing, then it simply gives human confirmation of what I already know to be true. Much like archaeologists finding the evidence of four boat anchors in the sea exactly where Acts 27:40 says that those anchors were cut from Paul's ship - this is only added human confirmation of what I already knew to be true. I don't need the evidence of the anchors, but its nice to see scripture's stories backed up by concrete evidence.

3 Resurrections said:

To be "overcome" IS a result of being killed. Revelation 3:21 interprets this "overcome" condition for us. "To him that OVERCOMETH will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I ALSO OVERCAME, and am set down with my Father in his throne." Christ "overcame" His own death by resurrecting Himself from the grave, after which He sat down on that throne in heaven.



I don't need it, but if extra-biblical accounts align with what scripture already said was soon to happen in those days when John was writing, then it simply gives human confirmation of what I already know to be true. Much like archaeologists finding the evidence of four boat anchors in the sea exactly where Acts 27:40 says that those anchors were cut from Paul's ship - this is only added human confirmation of what I already knew to be true. I don't need the evidence of the anchors, but its nice to see scripture's stories backed up by concrete evidence.

Click to expand...

So we are going to kill people in overcoming? Still not proof killed is an appropriate interpretation.

You do need historical proof for your interpretation. If you had none, you would have to write your own history as proof.

Timtofly said:

So we are going to kill people in overcoming? Still not proof killed is an appropriate interpretation.

You do need historical proof for your interpretation. If you had none, you would have to write your own history as proof.

Click to expand...

It sounds illogical, but this is the way Christ describes it: For the saints, to lose your life in martyrdom for Christ's sake is to gain it. This is how we "overcome", even when killed for Christ's sake.

The wicked persecuting the righteous in scripture may have thought they "overcame" the saints, but in reality, this is how the saints "overcome", in the same way that Christ "overcame" the grave.

And historical records and archaeological proofs do exist that duplicate the fulfilled Revelation prophecies.

Brian Mcnamee said:

did the 10 plagues of Egypt happen? did Elijah call down fire upon the priests of Baal?

Click to expand...

Yes to both. That somehow means that Revelation 8:7 has to be interpreted literally as well? Were the accounts of the 10 plagues of Egypt or of Elijah calling down fire upon the priests of Baal written within highly symbolic books like the book of Revelation? No. You have to read scripture in context and in such a way that doesn't contradict other scripture.

Here is the text for the verse that was referenced:

Revelation 8:7 The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up.

Can you tell me why blood would be mixed with hail and fire if this is meant to be taken literally? Where would the blood come from and what purpose would it serve in this scenario?

Think about this, also. How is it possible that literally all green grass on the earth could be burned up but only a third of the trees? Aren't more than a third of the trees on earth near grass, which would mean the grass near some trees would be burned up, but the trees near the grass would not be burned up somehow? Explain that if this is supposed to be taken literally.

Consider the third trumpet as another example. Is it supposed to taken literally?

Revelation 8:10 The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water— 11 the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.

How exactly could one star fall upon a third of all the many rivers and springs of water on the earth without destroying the earth itself? Imagine the sun, an average sized star, falling to the earth, for example.

Clearly, one star falling to the earth couldn't just affect the rivers and springs of water, but would affect the entire earth and would do a lot more than just poison a third of the rivers and springs of water on earth, so this has to be symbolic language here.