Anyone else have a unique eschatology?

[Douggg]

Let's recap the upcoming 7 years of Daniel 9:27 with a different style of chart, one for the first half and one for the second half.

 

[trophy33]

Interpretation that is outside of time frame provided by the book of Revelation itself ("the time is near") is hardly a correct one. No modern Israel, no EU, no Russia.

 

[dwb001]

Interpretation that is outside of time frame provided by the book of Revelation itself ("the time is near") is hardly a correct one. No modern Israel, no EU, no Russia.

Yeah... people should not be interpreting Revelation.
Just follow the instructions in the book and you can't go wrong.

 

[Douggg]

 

[trophy33]

Yeah... people should not be interpreting Revelation.
Just follow the instructions in the book and you can't go wrong.

What instructions do you follow?

 

[dwb001]

What instructions do you follow?

The instructions in Revelation on how to read the book.

 

[Timtofly]

Challenge..... hmmm.
How about how Revelation is a one of a kind book of the Bible.
I would say I am a Pre-Trib Post-Mill Rapturist. (Have you heard that one before?)
Do you think that John had any input into Revelation?

From chapter 4 to 21 was John's opinion of what he saw. He was writing down in his words what he saw.

How would you know when "that millennium" started? What is the point of defining a millennium by only the end?

The only way your opinion is unique is that you have to define this millennium. The vast majority of post mill and amil already agree that a tribulation is at the end of this millennium, if indeed you all are talking about the same millennium.

Pre-mill are not the only ones who define this millennium. Unless I read wrong, you do remove a tribulation from this millennium, as your definition, in part, of this millennium. But you only accept a rapture, you don't place this rapture at any point in your eschatology, which is unique. No one states they accept an event, but then only calls it theoretical and not a reality. Would you define your rapturist position as every time a souls leaves earth for heaven?

 

[ViaCrucis]

No pre, mid or post tribulation.
No millennium
No rapture
No second temple
No (the) anti Christ
Yes the second comming
Yes, a last day
Yes, a ressurection
Yes judgment day
Yes a new heaven and earth " The New Jerusalem "

I think that's it for my take on eschatology.

Blessings

This.

Jesus will return on the Last Day in Judgment, the dead will be raised, and God will make all things new. That's my eschatological beliefs in a nutshell.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Timtofly]

Because that is what His name is. Don't need to interpret that.

The name of Jesus is not Lamb. Lamb is symbolism for who Jesus is. The name of Jesus is Jesus. Jesus is not a literal Lamb. A literal Lamb would not be hung on a Cross. The symbolism is the Lamb slain on the alter symbolically in heaven. The alter is literal. If the sacrifice itself was literal, that would have happened prior to, or at the instant, of Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 would be the foundation, a symbolic term used in Revelation 13:8

"of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

This is John's symbolic words stating his opinion based on Isaiah 53:7

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."

John's opinion would resonate with those who have read Isaiah. John did not use a direct quote from Isaiah. John used the symbolism he knew his readers would understand in their accepted interpretation of Scripture. Peter used the same approach in 1 Peter 1:19-20

"But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"

So if one is saying that is how they interpret Scripture, they take the same approach that Peter and John did. They would use symbolism that most of their readers would already accept.

Why would they just say His name was Lamb?

The first mention of Lamb in Revelation is John's opinion .

"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth."

John saw Jesus standing there. Then John described Jesus using symbolism. Many interpret that writing as John actually seeing this symbolism. I don't think that is the correct interpretation. This was John using symbolism his readers would resonate with. Peter did not see Jesus. Peter also used symbolism his readers would understand. They both give their opinions in lock step with each other. Isaiah was the prophetic precedent that was set in the hearts and minds of those reading all of what was written about the Lamb.

 

[dwb001]

I believe you believe there is one , whether someone knows it or not.
When the Creator makes it known, it is known.

Not helpful.

 

[dwb001]

Good, yes the instructions of Scripture are all truth ...
others wrongly believe the lie that Scripture is opinion of men.... it is not.
Yahweh Says Scripture is not from man's thoughts , ideas, opinions or whatever...
Scripture is from Yahweh,
is Truth,
is Unchangeable.

I am only talking about Revelation.

 

[dwb001]

The name of Jesus is not Lamb. Lamb is symbolism for who Jesus is. The name of Jesus is Jesus. Jesus is not a literal Lamb. A literal Lamb would not be hung on a Cross. The symbolism is the Lamb slain on the alter symbolically in heaven. The alter is literal. If the sacrifice itself was literal, that would have happened prior to, or at the instant, of Genesis 1:1. Genesis 1:1 would be the foundation, a symbolic term used in Revelation 13:8

"of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

This is John's symbolic words stating his opinion based on Isaiah 53:7

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."

John's opinion would resonate with those who have read Isaiah. John did not use a direct quote from Isaiah. John used the symbolism he knew his readers would understand in their accepted interpretation of Scripture. Peter used the same approach in 1 Peter 1:19-20

"But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,"

So if one is saying that is how they interpret Scripture, they take the same approach that Peter and John did. They would use symbolism that most of their readers would already accept.

Why would they just say His name was Lamb?

The first mention of Lamb in Revelation is John's opinion .

"And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth."

John saw Jesus standing there. Then John described Jesus using symbolism. Many interpret that writing as John actually seeing this symbolism. I don't think that is the correct interpretation. This was John using symbolism his readers would resonate with. Peter did not see Jesus. Peter also used symbolism his readers would understand. They both give their opinions in lock step with each other. Isaiah was the prophetic precedent that was set in the hearts and minds of those reading all of what was written about the Lamb.

TL DR

 

[Timtofly]

You do realize that Rev 13+17 are two different beasts, right? Until you can get that right there will be some confusion.

That could be the issue?

Perhaps John wrote the symbolism slightly different to clue us in on the timing aspect of this 7 headed world government?

I think many are stuck on the point John was misunderstanding his own symbolic explanation. John was not necessarily marveling at the symbolism, but the actual event the symbolism is supposed to portray. But John keeps the symbolism in tack instead of using vague thoughts.

John's use of symbolism is to resonate with the readers, the 7 churches this book was sent to. 7 copies to 7 churches. The symbolism was not to be interpreted. It was already supposed to be known. Revelation 12 was the first mention of this 7 headed beast. Revelation 13 adds information about this beast. Revelation 17 is the interpretation of this symbolism, that John introduced in chapter 12.

Even the use of the angel's interpretation was symbolism as placing authority outside of John's personal opinion. Nor is waiting until chapter 17 to provide the interpretation out of the ordinary. Jesus would always explain the parables of that day's teaching, later privately with His disciples. We don't really need the dragon interpreted in chapters 12 or 13. We do need the included symbolism in those chapters to guide us through the entire account that was unfolding.

Now saying they are the same symbolism, or not the same symbolism is the point of interpretation, 1900 years later. You implied they are not the same. That seems to be the normal theological stance over the last 1800 years. But is that the correct interpretation? Is it unique to state they are the same repeated symbolism? How open of a mind does one need to throw into the waste bin hundreds of years of accepted theology? I don't think one needs an open mind. I think one needs to be willing to change what they thought they were taught by others. Having the mind of Christ is not an open mind. It is a mind contrary to human understanding. Humans have open minds, allowing for all sorts of false teachings to come into them. Hopefully to not stick around for very long.

 

[dwb001]

That could be the issue?

Perhaps John wrote the symbolism slightly different to clue us in on the timing aspect of this 7 headed world government?

So you are calling John an unreliable witness and all his testimony should be thrown out.
Say good by the the Gospel of John and Revelation.... you just threw them out of the Bible.

I think many are stuck on the point John was misunderstanding his own symbolic explanation. John was not necessarily marveling at the symbolism, but the actual event the symbolism is supposed to portray. But John keeps the symbolism in tack instead of using vague thoughts.

John's use of symbolism is to resonate with the readers, the 7 churches this book was sent to. 7 copies to 7 churches. The symbolism was not to be interpreted. It was already supposed to be known. Revelation 12 was the first mention of this 7 headed beast. Revelation 13 adds information about this beast. Revelation 17 is the interpretation of this symbolism, that John introduced in chapter 12.

Even the use of the angel's interpretation was symbolism as placing authority outside of John's personal opinion. Nor is waiting until chapter 17 to provide the interpretation out of the ordinary. Jesus would always explain the parables of that day's teaching, later privately with His disciples. We don't really need the dragon interpreted in chapters 12 or 13. We do need the included symbolism in those chapters to guide us through the entire account that was unfolding.

Now saying they are the same symbolism, or not the same symbolism is the point of interpretation, 1900 years later. You implied they are not the same. That seems to be the normal theological stance over the last 1800 years. But is that the correct interpretation? Is it unique to state they are the same repeated symbolism? How open of a mind does one need to throw into the waste bin hundreds of years of accepted theology? I don't think one needs an open mind. I think one needs to be willing to change what they thought they were taught by others. Having the mind of Christ is not an open mind. It is a mind contrary to human understanding. Humans have open minds, allowing for all sorts of false teachings to come into them. Hopefully to not stick around for very long.

You are saying that John wrote a story that he was free to modify... so John did not do as Jesus commanded him to.
If John did not write an accurate and precise copy of his vision... then he failed and his work is not trustworthy.

The visions of the beast are different because they are different beasts.
Compare and contrast... there are many more contrasts then comparables.

 

[dwb001]

Good. No change. Revelation is Scripture.

And Revelation is different from all other Scripture.

 

[Timtofly]

The visions of the beast are different because they are different beasts.
Compare and contrast... there are many more contrasts then comparables.

That is what everyone keeps saying.

You are not unique in your understanding.

You are just another voice in a sea of voices.

 

[dwb001]

That is what everyone keeps saying.

You are not unique in your understanding.

You are just another voice in a sea of voices.

So if someone says that the beasts are the same... are they wrong... because lots of people say there are two beasts.

 

[Timtofly]

So if someone says that the beasts are the same... are they wrong... because lots of people say there are two beasts.

The dragon had 7 heads and 10 horns. The beast of the sea represents those 7 heads and 10 horns. This same beast with 7 heads and 10 horns is later mentioned with a woman sitting on this beast.

Should we interpret that as evolutionary?

John starts out with the woman facing this 7 headed beast.

"and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered"

Then John ends up with a woman sitting on that beast as a harlot.

Certainly it makes more sense to separate Satan from this human government representation, but is that necessary? Certainly Satan has had his influence on all of human government.

The only change of description is the placement of the crowns.

What is wrong about either view, same or not the same? One's interpretation would be wrong. In symbolism one is called a dragon as opposed to beast. But pointing out the involvement of Satan in human affairs should be key. Human government more conformed to Satan looks like a dragon. Less conformed is a beast. One also can turn to the explanation as given by the angel.

If you think interpretation is not necessary, then calling it the same beast is not really interpretation. Seven heads and ten horns is the consistent description. John's interpretation is what is changing the symbolism as it varies from chapter to chapter. John wants us to get his points at each step. Otherwise John would have used totally different symbolism and words.

Since there are 3 mentions is that 3 different beasts? You mentioned 2 beasts. Is a dragon not a beast but with a specific description as opposed to an ambiguous description? Daniel called most of his kingdoms beasts. Some recognizable animals. Why would a dragon not also be a beast? Does no one get the point that John never told us who those heads really were? Perhaps we should stop coming up with ideas and accept that we already know the history of world government as given in Daniel 2?

The only head we are really told about is Satan. Obviously the clearest symbol.

"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"

Certainly Satan does not need 6 other heads. Yet here we are stuck with these heads in the book of Revelation. And every one seems to have them figured out.

 

[FredVB]

Apparently I am alone left to understand Mystery Babylon as shown is not representing what others say it does. It should not be uniquely my perspective, all should see the characteristics in the representation show all big cities of civilization, which are all godless with ambition, materialism, selfishness, exploitation, and corruption.

 

[FredVB]

I find so many Christians have a passive sort of faith which uses the rapture understood from the Bible to excuse them from action they should take, it has them answer that God will just take us out, and passages like, "Come out from her!" just refer to God's action to take the believers up from this world, and that they are not going to have to see coming trouble in this world from what they still are involved in, and they do not have to answer to the required stewardship we are here for, that being in the image of God really involves. The Bible is not showing what justifies that sort of faith. We must do things ourselves, being taken out from this world is not for believers now to be away from troubles coming here anymore than earlier believers who saw more troubles than we do, it will be with coming judgment from God on the unrepentant.