Anyone else have a unique eschatology?

[2PhiloVoid]

Challenge..... hmmm.
How about how Revelation is a one of a kind book of the Bible.

Yes, I'd say I agree with that. It does have "info" in it that seems to go a bit beyond earlier apocalyptic literature (like Daniel, or even the Gospels, for instance).

I would say I am a Pre-Trib Post-Mill Rapturist. (Have you heard that one before?)

No, I haven't heard of that one. While I'm familiar with most positions, I can't say I've come across yours. Usually, I only encounter the Pre-Trib, Pre-Mill Rapturist version of that sort of thing, along with several others.

Do you think that John had any input into Revelation?

It's possible, but it's difficult to know. If I compare it to another, similar apocalyptic writing of the time (i.e. 2 Esdras), Revelation seems much more in keeping with the prophetic literary pattern for 'telling it' than does 2 Esdras.

I know there's also question as to which John the "John of Patmos" actually was.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on your Pre-Trib Post-Mill Rapturist view that you'd like to share here?

 

[dwb001]

Yes, I'd say I agree with that. It does have "info" in it that seems to go a bit beyond earlier apocalyptic literature (like Daniel, or even the Gospels, for instance).

No, I haven't heard of that one. While I'm familiar with most positions, I can't say I've come across yours. Usually, I only encounter the Pre-Trib, Pre-Mill Rapturist version of that sort of thing, along with several others.




It's possible, but it's difficult to know. If I compare it to another, similar apocalyptic writing of the time (i.e. 2 Esdras), Revelation seems much more in keeping with the prophetic literary pattern for 'telling it' than does 2 Esdras.

I know there's also question as to which John the "John of Patmos" actually was.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on your Pre-Trib Post-Mill Rapturist view that you'd like to share here?

What thoughts on my view? I believe we are in a Pre-Trib time and the Rapture is Post-Mill.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What thoughts on my view? I believe we are in a Pre-Trib time and the Rapture is Post-Mill.

Ok. That's interesting. Where do you see the Parousia taking place or being mentioned in Revelation? (That's not a test question. I'm genuinely asking for the sake of my understanding).

 

[dwb001]

Ok. That's interesting. Where do you see the Parousia taking place or being mentioned in Revelation? (That's not a test question. I'm genuinely asking for the sake of my understanding).

Parousia?

 

[Mr E]

I would love to share what I think... but that would be premature in a hostile environment like this.
I would prefer to sound out if there are people who have non conventional ideas but are flexible and then begin a conversation among less hostile posters.

Seeking a soapbox…. In a closet.
May God protect you from all opinions but your own.

 

[dwb001]

Seeking a soapbox…. In a closet.
May God protect you from all opinions but your own.

Seeking a conference among similar minded individuals in an open space.
My God open our minds to His opinions and ways.

 

[Bobber]

17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.
18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.
19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.

Personally, I've always wondered if John was looking at tanks when he saw this; the turret wouldn't have made sense to him, he would never have seen an explosion before "smoke that kills with the roar of a lion", but he might have been looking at it backwards and thought the cannon was a "tail" and smelt the brimstone (sulphur) of gunpowder.

Yeah very interesting. That's why I tend to have a futurist way of thinking about Revelation with not just this verse but some others also. It just so much does seem like a description of what some of our weaponry does I can't image it being anything different. That were supposed to believe like a preterist believes that this somehow defines something in the first century doesn't make sense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Parousia?

My apologies. I foget that not everyone associates the term, parousia, with harpazo. Let me rephrase my question:

Where do you see the event of "Harpazo" spoken of by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 in the book of Revelation?

 

[dwb001]

My apologies. I foget that not everyone associates the term, parousia, with harpazo. Let me rephrase my question:

Where do you see the event of "Harpazo" spoken of by Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 in the book of Revelation?

Why do people always revert to a foreign language?

So the only time when both death and hell give up the dead.
The only time when the dead rise from the sea.
Rev 20:12-15
They rise up to stand before the Great White Throne.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why do people always revert to a foreign language?

Forgive me. I just think in terms that the bible was never written in English. Just ignore that for now.

So the only time when both death and hell give up the dead.
The only time when the dead rise from the sea.
Rev 20:12-15
They rise up to stand before the Great White Throne.

Ok. I guess there's always that possibility. Thanks for sharing your view on that!

 

[Matt5]

It's obvious the Bible isn't super clear on everything. If the biblical writers had been super clear, we probably wouldn't have all of the diverse denominations or different End Times guesses that.......................we all too plentifully find in our larger world.

In Matthew 13, Jesus explains the use of parables which we could also apply to other complex language, like that used in Revelation: Punishment.

Because you refuse to believe, what little you could have gotten has been removed. If it were clear then you still wouldn't believe.

Why wouldn't you believe?

Because the news is so bad, like the news for the Jews in the 30s in Germany.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In Matthew 13, Jesus explains the use of parables which we could also apply to other complex language, like that used in Revelation: Punishment.

True enough. Parables do have their special epistemological and spiritual boundaries.

Because you refuse to believe, what little you could have gotten has been removed. If it were clear then you still wouldn't believe.

Why wouldn't you believe?

Because the news is so bad, like the news for the Jews in the 30s in Germany.

I never said anything about a refusal to believe. Where is everyone getting the idea that I'm not a Christian?

I've been on these forums----as a Christian----- for years.

 

[Matt5]

True enough. Parables do have their special epistemological and spiritual boundaries.


I never said anything about a refusal to believe. Where is everyone getting the idea that I'm not a Christian?

I've been on these forums----as a Christian----- for years.

Sorry, I didn't mean "you" personally.

 

[Mr E]

True enough. Parables do have their special epistemological and spiritual boundaries.


I never said anything about a refusal to believe. Where is everyone getting the idea that I'm not a Christian?

I've been on these forums----as a Christian----- for years.

Many people want a kind of theology by consensus. They have a natural aversion to ‘different.’ They come seeking to have their beliefs affirmed, not challenged.

So if you believe differently and divert from popular opinion, you might expect to be shunned to some degree. Take comfort in knowing it happened most famously, to Jesus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sorry, I didn't mean "you" personally.

Ok. Maybe I was missing the connectives in the context you were presenting. My bad!

Now that I've re-read your previous post, I see what you're were saying. Those are good points.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Many people want a kind of theology by consensus. They have a natural aversion to ‘different.’ They come seeking to have their beliefs affirmed, not challenged.

So if you believe differently and divert from popular opinion, you might expect to be shunned to some degree. Take comfort in knowing it happened most famously, to Jesus.

Yes, it does help to know that.

 

[Jamdoc]

Isaiah 63:1-6, is a description of the Sixth Seal devastation and depopulation of the Middle East. As Ezekiel 30:1-5m Zephaniah 1:14-18 and many other Prophesies tell us. The blood splashing His garments is allegorical, as Jesus does not actually touch earth on His Terrible Day of fiery wrath. Psalms 11:4-6, Habakkuk 3:4, Amos 1 & 2:1-5

Isaiah 63 and Revelation 19 agree that Jesus was on Earth staining His raiment.

as for what you gave... Psalm 11 is a prayer, not a prophecy, so was Habakkuk 3

I mean
Habakkuk 3:1

1 A prayer of Habakkuk the prophet upon Shigionoth.

a prayer from a man, not a prophecy from the Lord.
and Amos...
Early Amos, 1 and 2 seems to actually be about the Babylonian captivity. The Philistines were destroyed as a distinct people group by them, so were most of the other people groups mentioned in Amos 1 and 2, outside of Judah. God is also referring to sins that were taking place in Amos' time (around 750 BC). Ashdod and Ashkelon were historically Philistine cities. They were warned alongside Gaza in Amos 1, but they are Israeli cities that Gaza is firing on now daily.
It's a different setup and scenario.
So yes, God did send judgement on all these places. He sent the Babylonians to judge them all.
Amos 5 is more specifically about the North Kingdom, and the Assyrians, which destroyed the North Kingdom, and they were taken into captivity north of Damascus, and, well, as far as WE know, they never came back as distinct people groups. There will be some people from most of those tribes still existing as descendants and be among the 144,000 as a miracle, but as far as we humanly know? They're gone completely.
in Amos 5 God warns for them NOT to desire the Day of the Lord (when God comes down from Heaven and brings Judgement.. along with salvation for the righteous), that they'd all be on the judged side. But the punishment that God actually decrees in Amos 5 is their captivity north of Damascus. Assyrian conquest.
In Amos 1, Damascus was judged itself.. Babylonian conquest.
Amos 6 specifically also goes into this, after the North Kingdom was specifically warned, the kingdom of Judah was warned too:

14 But, behold, I will raise up against you a nation, O house of Israel, saith the Lord the God of hosts; and they shall afflict you from the entering in of Hemath unto the river of the wilderness

and that happened. Babylonian conquest.
All the way up through Amos 7, is talking about the destruction and captivity of each of the 2 kingdoms that happened by the Assyrians, and then the Babylonians. Amos 7 is specifically talking about the death of Jeroboam, and Amos being sent to Judah for prophecying against Jeroboam to Amaziah.

It is only Amos 8 that is future prophecy for us.
THIS is about the 6th seal.
Amos 8:

9 And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day:
10 And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning of an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day.

.

 

[DavidPT]

Do you think that John had any input into Revelation?

Speaking for myself, I tend to think he did to some degree. One reason why, first he sees the visions in question while writing down what he is seeing. Then at a later point in time, apparently meaning after seeing all these visions, he then makes a finished book containing what all he wrote down earlier.

Take, for example, the following.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Is not John the speaker in this verse? How then would he know one way or the other, that all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world?

He knows that based on all the visions he has seen throughout. Keeping in mind, he is not saying some of these things while he is initially seeing the visions. He is saying these things after he has reviewed all the the notes he had taken by writing what he saw at the time, IOW, once he formulates this finished book, the book of Revelation.

The first cpl of verses alone in ch 1 proves that he is not formulating a finished book in real-time, so to speak, involving these visions. But that he sees the visions first, takes notes concerning the visions, then later makes a finished book out of what he saw earlier.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.


How would he already know this before what is recorded in Revelation 1:10 and the verses that follow occur first? Already, this alone proves that the book of Revelation is not in chronological order throughout, since it is not reasonable that John could already know about what verse 3 is involving before what verse 10 is involving even occurs.

You keep bringing up that verse 3 proves that the book of Revelation requires no interpreting of anything. What I submitted above, aside for now, is that a reasonable conclusion to come to pertaining to verse 3, in light of the following, for example?

Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

How does one do what is recorded in verse 18 without it involving interpreting anything?

Since this post ended up being lengthier than I initially anticipated, I guess I better stop here then.

 

[dwb001]

Speaking for myself, I tend to think he did to some degree. One reason why, first he sees the visions in question while writing down what he is seeing. Then at a later point in time, apparently meaning after seeing all these visions, he then makes a finished book containing what all he wrote down earlier.

Take, for example, the following.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Is not John the speaker in this verse? How then would he know one way or the other, that all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world?

Or is it simple observation by John?

He knows that based on all the visions he has seen throughout. Keeping in mind, he is not saying some of these things while he is initially seeing the visions. He is saying these things after he has reviewed all the the notes he had taken by writing what he saw at the time, IOW, once he formulates this finished book, the book of Revelation.

The first cpl of verses alone in ch 1 proves that he is not formulating a finished book in real-time, so to speak, involving these visions. But that he sees the visions first, takes notes concerning the visions, then later makes a finished book out of what he saw earlier.

Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.


How would he already know this before what is recorded in Revelation 1:10 and the verses that follow occur first? Already, this alone proves that the book of Revelation is not in chronological order throughout, since it is not reasonable that John could already know about what verse 3 is involving before what verse 10 is involving even occurs.

You keep bringing up that verse 3 proves that the book of Revelation requires no interpreting of anything. What I submitted above, aside for now, is that a reasonable conclusion to come to pertaining to verse 3, in light of the following, for example?

Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

How does one do what is recorded in verse 18 without it involving interpreting anything?

Why would interpretation be needed?

Since this post ended up being lengthier than I initially anticipated, I guess I better stop here then.

 

[AYM]

I ain't interpreting anything... that is where I differ.

What does the word "interpret" mean to you?