Babylon the Great?

[stauron]

The weakness of the Preterest view on interpreting prophesy is that it doesn't have balance. The Historiscist looks back, looks at the present, and looks to the future, which gives a much better perspective when one attempts to interpret the prophetic passages of Scripture.

That would only be a weakness if there were some proof that scripture was intended to help interpret modern newpapers.

The weakness of the historiscist view is that it guts audience relevance. The original audience could never possibly understand scripture the way the historicist MUST understand scripture.

Let's just pretend that we look at scripture to get our understanding, say these three verses:

16:20 The God of peace will quickly crush Satan under your feet.

2:18 They have strayed from the truth by saying that the resurrection has already occurred, and they are undermining some people’s faith.

2:18 Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour.

It is not possible to view them as broad platitudes true to christians in every generation.

A balanced view of scripture is the one that matches the intent of scripture itself. After exegesis comes application.

We are left further from the meaning when we look at the Old Testament Scriptures and try to use the historicist hermeneutic.

“Go through the city after him and strike people down; you must neither show pity nor spare anyone! 9:6 Old men, young men, young women, little children, and women—wipe them out! But do not touch anyone who has the mark! Begin at my sanctuary!” So they began with the elders who were at the front of the temple.9:7 He said to them, “Defile the temple and fill the courts with corpses. Go out!” So they went out and struck down people throughout the city.

And what about some messianic shadows? We make nonsense of them if they are generalized to some "greater picture of God's actions in history".

11:1 A shoot will grow out of Jesse’s root stock,
a bud will sprout from his roots.
11:2 The Lord’s spirit will rest on him—
a spirit that gives extraordinary wisdom,
a spirit that provides the ability to execute plans,
a spirit that produces absolute loyalty to the Lord.
11:3 He will take delight in obeying the Lord.
He will not judge by mere appearances
or make decisions on the basis of hearsay.

Let's see, we look back at this prophecy, we look at the present and we see that it has already been fulfilled, and we look at the future and see... well the same thing...

So, balance is proper exegesis. Looking at prophecy and giving it the fulfillment and the time frame that God intended.

 

[Ratiocination]

Hi Stauron, thanks for the reply;

1) if we can't tell whether the soon, shortly and quickly mean God's time or human time then we really can't tell anything about revelation at all.

If revelation is God communicating to us, it is meaningless and frankly quite cruel to communicate in a way that is not meant to be understood.

But revelation is meant to be understood, just not with a dictionary, words such as “shortly” should be understood in the context that they are being used, if it’s a Revelation from God, then we need God to explain it to us using other books of the Bible.

2) even if #1 is not true, in this case I would still disagree because 6 times at the beginning and end of the book John uses time statements that are not ambiguous. Particularly noteworthy is the reversal of the specific time indicator from Daniel. Daniel is told to seal up the book because the time is far off; whereas John is told not to seal up the book because the time is near.

IMO, these open ended time statements are for comfort as well as hope, because when we read some of the contents of Revelation it’s clear to see that this world will become a very tough place for a Christian to live, it will take endurance that only Gods power can provide to sustain us through to reach the end. Revelation 7:14 makes a reference to the “Great Tribulation”, which when explained by God in Matthew 24:21 is a Tribulation that is unprecedented in human history, and is also one that will never be experienced again, which rules out immediately the destruction of Jerusalem as we have experienced much more Tribulation in this modern age. Not even the Second World War or Hiroshima was the foretold Great Tribulation, which, according to Revelation culminates with “the war of the great day of God the Almighty” - Rev. 16: 14,15, and the destruction of the wicked on a global scale. That hasn’t happened either.

If you look at Revelation 1:3 you’ll see that these time references are of little worth as it says that it’s the contents of the book, observing these things, that indicate when they are happening.
Of course there’s another point that should also be considered, and that is the fact that Daniel wasn’t going to see the things he recorded take place, yet John was. John was to see all the things he recorded take place because after his death he was then to be eventually resurrected to heaven where he would literally witness Revelation being fulfilled from a heavenly perspective, whereas Daniel wasn’t. Only the perfect sacrifice of Jesus rent the symbolic curtain in two, which opened the way for Christians to also enter into heaven , the antitypical most holy– Hebrews 6:19. You have to be anointed as a follower of Christ to go to heaven, and Daniel wasn’t. BUT that’s a whole different topic. So that could be another reason why John was to see the things “shortly” take place.

3) Revelation is a covenant document identical to the OC prophets. Revelation was the warning before the great judgment on the synagogue of satan, the harlot, the blind guides of the blind, the tares, the children of the devil, the children of Hagar, the white washed sepulchres, the brood of vipers, etc etc. The language is the same as the OC prophetic language and the warning and wrath is in the same catagory as the judgments of old. So the destruction of the wicked system is exactly what was described and happened in the fall of Jerusalem when the kingdom was taken from those rebels and given to a nation producing the fruit.

The kingdom had been long taken away from the Jews before Revelation was written, their “house was abandoned to them” when they killed the Son Jesus - Matt. 23:38. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. was a political move by the Romans, and the Christians were given a detailed warning of what to do when that destruction took place from the gospels.

The congregation had matured and was off, on what I like to call, phase two, which was to preach to the nations. If you try to apply the book of Revelation to that, then you just cover old ground.

Not only that, but the Jewish religion is still there, the Jews are still there, if this was the wicked system that was supposed to be destroyed, then God failed. In Revelation chapter 8, it says that the judgment will completely destroy the dwelling place of shameless luxury. According to Revelation the wicked system that will be destroyed will usher in a global world of peace, were not even death has a hold on mankind, I don’t see that at the moment.



According to the earliest testimony from Irenaeus, John wrote Revelation around 96C.E.

“…We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.”

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm - P9303_2719209



This was the order of emperors that are of interest; Vespasian (69-79 C.E.) which under whose reign Titus destroyed Jerusalem, Titus himself (79-81 C.E.), and Titus’ brother Domitian (81-96 C.E.). So according to Irenaeus, John received the vision “toward the end of Domitian’s reign” which was around 96 C.E., a long time after the destruction of Jerusalem.

4) the original audience of Revelation would have understood exactly the context and significance of the letter. The view that says the prophecies are for hundreds and thousands of years later would have been no comfort or solace to the readers in the midst of persecution.

Those early Christians would not have thought that the prophecies were for hundreds of thousands of years later, it’s not in the text, that we have established already. From what I can glean from the early church fathers is that there was a great debate as to what these pronouncements meant, which is a far cry from “understanding exactly” what was being said. I have not read a single view, from the early church, that expresses confidence that these prophecies have already seen fulfilment.

Also the first part is meant as a comfort for those immediate Christians as it speaks of maintaining spiritual awareness, which, like most of the Bible, can be applied to all readers, of any time.

 

[stauron]

Hi Stauron, thanks for the reply;




But revelation is meant to be understood, just not with a dictionary, words such as “shortly” should be understood in the context that they are being used, if it’s a Revelation from God, then we need God to explain it to us using other books of the Bible.

Well this is exactly the point.

Let's just look at these:

1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon.

1:3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy aloud, and blessed are those who hear and obey the things written in it, because the time is near!

22:7 (Look! I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy expressed in this book.)

22:10 Then he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy contained in this book, because the time is near.

22:12 (Look! I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to pay each one according to what he has done!

22:20 The one who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon!”

Nearly every place these words are used throughout the rest of the NTS they mean either at hand or soon. Quickly or about to take place is the general meaning. So using your idea supports my point. Twice at the beginning and 4 times at the end, specifically talking about the entire prophecy. I am pretty sure that John was trying to communicate specifically the intent of immenency.

IMO, these open ended time statements are for comfort as well as hope, because when we read some of the contents of Revelation it’s clear to see that this world will become a very tough place for a Christian to live, it will take endurance that only Gods power can provide to sustain us through to reach the end. Revelation 7:14 makes a reference to the “Great Tribulation”, which when explained by God in Matthew 24:21 is a Tribulation that is unprecedented in human history, and is also one that will never be experienced again, which rules out immediately the destruction of Jerusalem as we have experienced much more Tribulation in this modern age. Not even the Second World War or Hiroshima was the foretold Great Tribulation, which, according to Revelation culminates with “the war of the great day of God the Almighty” - Rev. 16: 14,15, and the destruction of the wicked on a global scale. That hasn’t happened either.

If you look at Revelation 1:3 you’ll see that these time references are of little worth as it says that it’s the contents of the book, observing these things, that indicate when they are happening.
Of course there’s another point that should also be considered, and that is the fact that Daniel wasn’t going to see the things he recorded take place, yet John was. John was to see all the things he recorded take place because after his death he was then to be eventually resurrected to heaven where he would literally witness Revelation being fulfilled from a heavenly perspective, whereas Daniel wasn’t. Only the perfect sacrifice of Jesus rent the symbolic curtain in two, which opened the way for Christians to also enter into heaven , the antitypical most holy– Hebrews 6:19. You have to be anointed as a follower of Christ to go to heaven, and Daniel wasn’t. BUT that’s a whole different topic. So that could be another reason why John was to see the things “shortly” take place.

Sorry, but you are going to have to work harder than that. What is open ended about any of the verses? I am just not comfortable allegorizing or spiritualizing these verses. Unless you can demonstrate a pattern or EVEN ONE VERSE that uses quickly, soon, at hand to refer to an event 100s or 1000s of years afterward you have no case.

If you look at Revelation 1:3 you’ll see that these time references are of little worth as it says that it’s the contents of the book, observing these things, that indicate when they are happening.

Not in any translation I have read. The time is near pretty much means the time is near.

that Daniel wasn’t going to see the things he recorded take place, yet John was

There is no way that this was a personal, private message to John. How is this even relevant to the discussion? Daniel gets a revelation and is told to seal it up for a later time. John gets a revelation (that covers the same topics and themes) and is told not to seal it up because it is about to happen.

The kingdom had been long taken away from the Jews before Revelation was written, their “house was abandoned to them” when they killed the Son Jesus - Matt. 23:38. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. was a political move by the Romans, and the Christians were given a detailed warning of what to do when that destruction took place from the gospels.

The congregation had matured and was off, on what I like to call, phase two, which was to preach to the nations. If you try to apply the book of Revelation to that, then you just cover old ground.

Not only that, but the Jewish religion is still there, the Jews are still there, if this was the wicked system that was supposed to be destroyed, then God failed. In Revelation chapter 8, it says that the judgment will completely destroy the dwelling place of shameless luxury. According to Revelation the wicked system that will be destroyed will usher in a global world of peace, were not even death has a hold on mankind, I don’t see that at the moment.

Ok, let's see here. Please give me a few of the verses that give "detailed warning of what to do when the destruction took place".

Please tell me when the Old Covenant ended (with verses) and explain how the Jewish religion was still there after the revolt in 64-70.

Please define "death" in your coment above. Also define "hold".

According to the earliest testimony from Irenaeus, John wrote Revelation around 96C.E.

“…We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.”

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm - P9303_2719209



This was the order of emperors that are of interest; Vespasian (69-79 C.E.) which under whose reign Titus destroyed Jerusalem, Titus himself (79-81 C.E.), and Titus’ brother Domitian (81-96 C.E.). So according to Irenaeus, John received the vision “toward the end of Domitian’s reign” which was around 96 C.E., a long time after the destruction of Jerusalem.

Yes, this comprises the main, and in many cases, the only "evidence" for the late date. There are 2 textual problems with the quote. It is very ambiguous to start with and may refer to either John or the prophecy. And secondly IF the prophecy is the refererant, it does not prove that John had the revelation "almost in our day" but that the book was seen. Considering the wealth of internal evidence and other historical events it is virtually impossible that 96, toward the end of little- Nero's reign is the right date. Please read Before Jerusalem Fell (available free onlinehttp://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/kgbj/kgbj.html ) for an overwhelming presentation for the early date.

Those early Christians would not have thought that the prophecies were for hundreds of thousands of years later, it’s not in the text, that we have established already. From what I can glean from the early church fathers is that there was a great debate as to what these pronouncements meant, which is a far cry from “understanding exactly” what was being said. I have not read a single view, from the early church, that expresses confidence that these prophecies have already seen fulfilment.

I am not talking about the chuch fathers. I am talking about the Christians that were tortured, persecuted and held in contempt by the harlot (aka the synagogue of satan, the brood of vipers, the children of the devil...). They were able to see God vindicating His children by the removal of the unclean, rebellious false sons. The rabel that is commonly called the "early" church fathers are mostly 30-100 years after the change in ages which is as the same as being 1000 years away. Plus, not many agree with eachother let alone with our contemporary view of sin, baptism, communion regeneration just to name a few.

Also the first part is meant as a comfort for those immediate Christians as it speaks of maintaining spiritual awareness, which, like most of the Bible, can be applied to all readers, of any time.

Wow, this is a cop out. The first three chapters contain every major element presented in the rest of the letter. It is a very clear literary device. Each of the promises and comforts presented to the the churches find their completion in the rest of the book.

John shared in the persecution with them.
They would eat from the tree of life.

2:10 Do not be afraid of the things you are about to suffer. The devil is about to have some of you thrown into prison so you may be tested, and you will experience suffering for ten days. Remain faithful even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown that is life itself. 2:11 The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will in no way be harmed by the second death.’

They were going to suffer, but they were also going to conquer, receive the crown of life and not be harmed by the second death.

2:16 Therefore, repent! If not, I will come against you quickly and make war against those people with the sword of my mouth.

Not only is the immenency apparent, but note that Christ is going to come quickly and make war with their enemies with the sword of His mouth.

2:22 Look! I am throwing her onto a bed of violent illness, and those who commit adultery with her into terrible suffering, unless they repent of her deeds. 2:23 Furthermore, I will strike her followers with a deadly disease, and then all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts. I will repay each one of you what your deeds deserve

Hmm, illness suffering, deadly disease and repay each what their deeds deserve...and all happening right then...

to you I say: I do not put any additional burden on you. 2:25 However, hold on to what you have until I come.

Hmm, hold on untill I come, poor deluded fools! If they only waited a couple thousand more years they would have made it...

There is no way these things can be general platitudes for all ages. They are meaningless to everybody if they aren't specifically relevant to the original audience.

 

[Ratiocination]

1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must happen very soon.

1:3 Blessed is the one who reads the words of this prophecy aloud, and blessed are those who hear and obey the things written in it, because the time is near!

22:7 (Look! I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy expressed in this book.)

22:10 Then he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy contained in this book, because the time is near.

22:12 (Look! I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to pay each one according to what he has done!

22:20 The one who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon!”
Nearly every place these words are used throughout the rest of the NTS they mean either at hand or soon. Quickly or about to take place is the general meaning. So using your idea supports my point. Twice at the beginning and 4 times at the end, specifically talking about the entire prophecy. I am pretty sure that John was trying to communicate specifically the intent of immenency.

Objections;

1) It’s all very well believing he is trying to impose a sense of urgency, but it never identifies explicitly who, or what, generation it is directed at, all it says is “slaves”, are you today not a slave of Christ? I find your objection without solid ground as it’s not possible to ascertain who specifically it’s referring to, only when the contents are looked at can we get a clearer picture.

2) If you check a lexicon regarding the use of tacoß -shortly, in Revelation 1:1 you’ll find it has a meaning of quickness or speed, so it can be argued that John is implying that all events within the book of Revelation will take place with speed or quickness from start to finish, and not implying the nearness of when the events will start.

Sorry, but you are going to have to work harder than that. What is open ended about any of the verses?

Well, they’re not direct at a specific time, so it’s context that should be look at to find which audience is intended.
Where should I look in history to find an event that is more chaotic and distressing than Hiroshima or the Second World War? As you know Revelation says that such an event will take place. Do you consider the destruction of Jerusalem to be more severe than Atomic warfare?

I am just not comfortable allegorizing or spiritualizing these verses. Unless you can demonstrate a pattern or EVEN ONE VERSE that uses quickly, soon, at hand to refer to an event 100s or 1000s of years afterward you have no case.

Well then, you would have to enforce a stanch literal view for the entire book of Revelation, which would leave you believing in dragons and beasts with seven heads and so on. So unless you can show that these things exist, you have no case. How are you deciding what is real and what isn’t? What’s your formula? If you read Revelation 1:1 it clearly says that the prophecy is presented in signs, so on what grounds are you taking the word “shortly” literally, as I said above it could simply mean quickness or speed, even if it was intended to be taken literally.
Even so there was no deception on the part of God to have words recorded such as “soon” and “quickly” - 2Peter 3:8.

There is no way that this was a personal, private message to John. How is this even relevant to the discussion? Daniel gets a revelation and is told to seal it up for a later time. John gets a revelation (that covers the same topics and themes) and is told not to seal it up because it is about to happen.

I never said it was! In the context of what I was saying you’ll read that I said Daniel wasn’t an anointed follower of Christ, and only anointed followers were to go to heaven, so in that vein the addressees of this book were to see these things take place “shortly”, for after they died they would be in heaven, which isn’t bounded by time as I’m sure you’ll agree. You’re trying to understand certain words from a human, grab the dictionary, type perspective, without reasoning on certain Biblical facts, like who was this book written to. It wasn’t written to an old Jewish audience, it was written to those with the heavenly calling.

Ok, let's see here. Please give me a few of the verses that give "detailed warning of what to do when the destruction took place".

The warnings were for Christians to leave before the destruction took place, we read this here at Luke 21:22 as well as in Matthew 24:15<. Read Luke 19:43,44 as this gives some details of the methods used.
Which again leaves us in a dilemma, the Christians were told by Jesus to leave Jerusalem when they saw the encamped armies, yet in Revelation Christians literally live through and in the midst of the destruction. So your view is way off. Why didn’t God destroy other cities at that time in other nations that were persecuting Christians?

Please tell me when the Old Covenant ended (with verses) and explain how the Jewish religion was still there after the revolt in 64-70.

Your an intelligent man, I’m sure you don’t need me to show you from the Bible that Jesus replaced the old law.
As to the Jewish religion still being there, well it must have survived, it’s still there today, so as I said, according to you God failed to destroy them completely. Rev. 18:21, this can’t be directed at the old Jewish religion. It was abandoned!

Please define "death" in your coment above. Also define "hold".

In the context it’s being used – Revelation 21:4, Death over mankind will be no more, we will live in the promised paradise earth that will eventually encompass the entire globe as promised to the prophets of old, and screamed through the book of Revelation. Would you like the verses from the OT that say we will live forever as humans in a new order after God cleanses this earth of ALL wickedness. Would you also like to know when it will happen.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm - P9303_2719209

Yes, this comprises the main, and in many cases, the only "evidence" for the late date. There are 2 textual problems with the quote. It is very ambiguous to start with and may refer to either John or the prophecy. And secondly IF the prophecy is the refererant, it does not prove that John had the revelation "almost in our day" but that the book was seen. Considering the wealth of internal evidence and other historical events it is virtually impossible that 96, toward the end of little- Nero's reign is the right date.

Lets dissect this; “For that was seen (the visions) no very long time since (Irenaeus was around) , but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.(ding)”
This clearly states that Irenaeus held the view that he had just missed the time of the vision given to John, it can’t be twisted.
I’d like to know what you feel is “overwhelming internal evidence” because as far as I can tell so far it’s the similarity in language to Daniel that convinces you, but even certain prophecies of Daniel are being fulfilled today, I’m sure there must be more though so I’ll let you explain.

Please read Before Jerusalem Fell (available free online

http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/kgbj/kgbj.html ) for an overwhelming presentation for the early date.

Would you mind if I asked you to paste parts that you feel support an earlier date, I’m a bit pushed for time to read the whole thing.

am not talking about the chuch fathers. I am talking about the Christians that were tortured, persecuted and held in contempt by the harlot (aka the synagogue of satan, the brood of vipers, the children of the devil...). They were able to see God vindicating His children by the removal of the unclean, rebellious false sons. The rabel that is commonly called the "early" church fathers are mostly 30-100 years after the change in ages which is as the same as being 1000 years away. Plus, not many agree with eachother let alone with our contemporary view of sin, baptism, communion regeneration just to name a few.

Such a view is impossible to uphold, they lived so close to the time of these events one would imagine that they were told or heard from Christians at the time whether these things had already taken place, as I’ve said I haven’t read anything that even remotely suggests that such a view was held. Maybe there’s something in your link, I’m not sure. Irenaeus could almost be regarded as an eyewitness, (emphasis on “almost”)
What is this “change of ages”? How is it some kind of time portal like you seem to assert.
How do you know what the first Christians thought of the book of Revelation? Can I have a quote from an early Church father that disagrees with Irenaeus?

---see next post---

 

[Ratiocination]

Also the first part is meant as a comfort for those immediate Christians as it speaks of maintaining spiritual awareness, which, like most of the Bible, can be applied to all readers, of any time

.Wow, this is a cop out. The first three chapters contain every major element presented in the rest of the letter. It is a very clear literary device. Each of the promises and comforts presented to the the churches find their completion in the rest of the book.

John shared in the persecution with them.

They would eat from the tree of life.

No cop out! I was referring to the spiritual encouragement that is given to the congregations (which can be beneficial to all Christians of any era) rather than literacy tools.
Also can you explain what the purpose of seven congregations that are nowhere near Jerusalem at the time of its destruction, if you’re applying the prophecies to that event? You see Revelation is presented in signs, so what do the seven congregations represent? What does “Jezebel” represent, what do those persecuting “Jews” represent? Wheres your licence to decide what is literal and what isn’t?
Do you hold that revelation was forecasting the destruction of the entire Jewish religion, or just Jerusalem?

2:10 Do not be afraid of the things you are about to suffer. The devil is about to have some of you thrown into prison so you may be tested, and you will experience suffering for ten days. Remain faithful even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown that is life itself. 2:11 The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who conquers will in no way be harmed by the second death.’

They were going to suffer, but they were also going to conquer, receive the crown of life and not be harmed by the second death.

I agree, only I think I miss your point!

2:16 Therefore, repent! If not, I will come against you quickly and make war against those people with the sword of my mouth.

Not only is the immenency apparent, but note that Christ is going to come quickly and make war with their enemies with the sword of His mouth.

Actually it says he will come against those who do not repent. I.e. “Christians”

2:22 Look! I am throwing her onto a bed of violent illness, and those who commit adultery with her into terrible suffering, unless they repent of her deeds. 2:23 Furthermore, I will strike her followers with a deadly disease, and then all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts. I will repay each one of you what your deeds deserve

Hmm, illness suffering, deadly disease and repay each what their deeds deserve...and all happening right then...

Fine and dandy, but who does the woman jezebel represent in this symbolic portrayal.

to you I say: I do not put any additional burden on you. 2:25 However, hold on to what you have until I come.

Hmm, hold on untill I come, poor deluded fools! If they only waited a couple thousand more years they would have made it...

And does this say that they wouldn’t die before Jesus came? No!
Can you support your apparent belief that all those that die with faith and accurate knowledge of Christ are gone forever? That seems to be what you are saying. As I stated above, these were of the heavenly calling, so to ignore that would be tantamount to totally ignoring context in the Bible. When they died how long does it take God to resurrect them to heaven?

There is no way these things can be general platitudes for all ages. They are meaningless to everybody if they aren't specifically relevant to the original audience.

That’s non-sense! It’s a prophecy!
Also I have never said they are to be applied to all generations, portions of encouragement can be up-building to all, but the prophetic elements are locked to one generation, the generation that lives in the “lords day”


Things in Revelation that can’t be reconciled to bygone ages;


1)The Great Tribulation (biggest ever, not to be surpassed) Matthew 24:21 – Revelation 7:14.
2)Removal of all false religion (for ever)Consider - Jeremiah 51:59-64 with what has actually happened to that ancient city, then read the same forecast for our modern day – Revelation 18:21
3)Destruction of all human government (for ever] Daniel 2:44 - Revelation 16:14,16.
4)Total Destruction of wicked men – Proverbs 2:21,22, Psalm 37:9-11,28,29
5)Restoration of earthly paradise - Matt. 5:5; 6:9, 10,Ephesians 1:9-11,Hebrews 2:5,Revelation 21:1-5

 

[BrightCandle]

That would only be a weakness if there were some proof that scripture was intended to help interpret modern newpapers.

The weakness of the historiscist view is that it guts audience relevance. The original audience could never possibly understand scripture the way the historicist MUST understand scripture.

Let's just pretend that we look at scripture to get our understanding, say these three verses:



It is not possible to view them as broad platitudes true to christians in every generation.

A balanced view of scripture is the one that matches the intent of scripture itself. After exegesis comes application.

We are left further from the meaning when we look at the Old Testament Scriptures and try to use the historicist hermeneutic.



And what about some messianic shadows? We make nonsense of them if they are generalized to some "greater picture of God's actions in history".



Let's see, we look back at this prophecy, we look at the present and we see that it has already been fulfilled, and we look at the future and see... well the same thing...

So, balance is proper exegesis. Looking at prophecy and giving it the fulfillment and the time frame that God intended.

How can the true Preterest come to a proper conclusion when they have determined that everything prophetic in the Bible is has already been fullfilled! The Historiscits realizes that some of Bible's prophesies have obviously been fullfilled e.g. first coming of Jesus), some are in the process of being fullfilled (the preaching of Gospel to all the world), and some have not been fullfilled yet (e.g. second coming of Christ).

That is the difference. And it not that complicated to determine what is what if you look at the context of prophesy and compare it to all others of similar kind.

Brooks

 

[stauron]

How can the true Preterest come to a proper conclusion when they have determined that everything prophetic in the Bible is has already been fullfilled! The Historiscits realizes that some of Bible's prophesies have obviously been fullfilled e.g. first coming of Jesus), some are in the process of being fullfilled (the preaching of Gospel to all the world), and some have not been fullfilled yet (e.g. second coming of Christ).

That is the difference. And it not that complicated to determine what is what if you look at the context of prophesy and compare it to all others of similar kind.

Brooks

How can historicists come to any conclusions when they ignore the time limiters scripture places on itself?

Now if you would like to have a discussion please intereract with some of the material, don't just continue to make vague ad hominems.

 

[stauron]

blah blah blah <selectively snipped by stauron>

Ratiocination buddy,

way too much good stuff to address in a single post. I will pull some of the stuff that I think is important out and cover those. Please let me know if there are specifics that you think are important and I will get those too.

Good discussion, keep thinking.

 

[Ratiocination]

Ratiocination buddy,

way too much good stuff to address in a single post. I will pull some of the stuff that I think is important out and cover those. Please let me know if there are specifics that you think are important and I will get those too.

Good discussion, keep thinking.

Phew, i'm glad you said that, these things can turn into massive topics taking up so much time. The only trouble is, looking back it seems were only discussing one thing, and thats who is the book directed at. I'm not sure how else to look at it other then the types of things that are being discussed now.
What do you think? Can we narrow the scope any more than it already is.

 

[BrightCandle]

Stauron:

I've said enough already, It seems that you want to control the discussion, and not look at the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the historicist view of Bible prophecy. As a Protestant don't you feel a uneasy with a method of interpretation that was developed by a Roman Catholic Jesuit to counter the Protestant Reformer's historicist method of identifying the Antichrist?

Brooks

 

[unbound]

Ive got a few things to throw in here. It seems the Preterist base thier views on the words Jesus spoke, like "near" "at hand" and so on.

I am of the opinion that 2000 years is really nothing when compared to the timeline of God. Id say from Jesus time to now, well, that is all just part of the Sixth day. The Seventh day is when we shall enter into rest with God. The days of creation were VERY long, probably thousands or more years apiece. Yes, I think creation is VERY old. And, I also think that the days in Genesis are NOT 24 hour days.

So it doesnt come as a surprise to me that Jesus said they were in the last days then, because 2000 years is really not even a blip in the overall scheme of creation.

 

[stauron]

Stauron:

I've said enough already, It seems that you want to control the discussion, and not look at the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of the historicist view of Bible prophecy. As a Protestant don't you feel a uneasy with a method of interpretation that was developed by a Roman Catholic Jesuit to counter the Protestant Reformer's historicist method of identifying the Antichrist?

Brooks

I am just waiting for some actual arguments, but it seems you have run out and are resorting to ad hominems and repetition.

 

[stauron]

Phew, i'm glad you said that, these things can turn into massive topics taking up so much time. The only trouble is, looking back it seems were only discussing one thing, and thats who is the book directed at. I'm not sure how else to look at it other then the types of things that are being discussed now.
What do you think? Can we narrow the scope any more than it already is.

Yeah, I know. I am not sure how to whittle any off...

 

[stauron]

Objections;

1) It’s all very well believing he is trying to impose a sense of urgency, but it never identifies explicitly who, or what, generation it is directed at, all it says is “slaves”, are you today not a slave of Christ? I find your objection without solid ground as it’s not possible to ascertain who specifically it’s referring to, only when the contents are looked at can we get a clearer picture.

Ok, this is as good as any place to start, the begining...

Rev 1:9 I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony about Jesus.

Mixed in with the urgency is the audience, the author and the events.

It has to be assumed (and proved) that John is speaking about events and people outside his immediate context. The natural (whatever that means) reading is "I am writing to YOU about things about to happen, things that I am participating in with you. God is watching and knows your suffering and will cause you to persevere."

Well then, you would have to enforce a stanch literal view for the entire book of Revelation, which would leave you believing in dragons and beasts with seven heads and so on. So unless you can show that these things exist, you have no case. How are you deciding what is real and what isn’t? What’s your formula? If you read Revelation 1:1 it clearly says that the prophecy is presented in signs, so on what grounds are you taking the word “shortly” literally, as I said above it could simply mean quickness or speed, even if it was intended to be taken literally.
Even so there was no deception on the part of God to have words recorded such as “soon” and “quickly” - 2Peter 3:8.

See, here is the rub, you are totally right. Everyone does the dance someplace. Each one chooses where they draw the line. Are the locusts demons, helicoptors or just symbols (just as one example)?

But I do have to strongly object to the use of 2 Pet for anything.

I am sure you don't mean something like God took 6000 years to create or that Christ didn't build the temple for 3000 years. But it is odd that this only comes up in this discussion. Do we really mean that God has a warped veiw of time? Do we literally mean some kind of exchange for days and years like in Jeremiah and Daniel? I doubt it. I doubt that Peter thought in those terms.

At any rate this is not conclusive for anyone's argument.

And does this say that they wouldn’t die before Jesus came? No!
Can you support your apparent belief that all those that die with faith and accurate knowledge of Christ are gone forever? That seems to be what you are saying. As I stated above, these were of the heavenly calling, so to ignore that would be tantamount to totally ignoring context in the Bible. When they died how long does it take God to resurrect them to heaven?

Hmm, we seem to not be communicating. My point is that it is not any comfort to persecuted, languishing folks if death is the relief.

Hold on till I come is not the kind of comfort death holds...

 

[stauron]

Ive got a few things to throw in here. It seems the Preterist base thier views on the words Jesus spoke, like "near" "at hand" and so on.

I am of the opinion that 2000 years is really nothing when compared to the timeline of God. Id say from Jesus time to now, well, that is all just part of the Sixth day. The Seventh day is when we shall enter into rest with God. The days of creation were VERY long, probably thousands or more years apiece. Yes, I think creation is VERY old. And, I also think that the days in Genesis are NOT 24 hour days.

So it doesnt come as a surprise to me that Jesus said they were in the last days then, because 2000 years is really not even a blip in the overall scheme of creation.

Nope. The time statements are some of the easiest to point out.

The real crux is the end of the OC. The promises and curses God obligated Himself to perform. The typology of Moses and the Aaronic priesthood, and the comparison of scripture with scripture for unity in thought about salvation, resurrection, the promises to the fathers and the integrity of Jesus as a prophet. Preterism is the only consistent answer to the problems as well as the only view that asks the right questions about the problems.

All other views just assume that the OC has ended and that salvation is complete. But they can't logically or consistently defend their position.

The near, at hand, soon, quickly, etc. are totally in agreement with the time frame when these things took place. Expecting fulfillments like the Nicodemus and the Jews still has a stranglehold on christians. Unfortunately "how can these things be?" is asked by the atheist, the futurist and many cults. Jesus came to fulfill "in the fulness of time" and did exactly the plan He had in mind at the culmination of the ages.

 

[Ratiocination]

Rev 1:9 I, John, your brother and the one who shares with you in the persecution, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony about Jesus.

Mixed in with the urgency is the audience, the author and the events.

It has to be assumed (and proved) that John is speaking about events and people outside his immediate context. The natural (whatever that means) reading is "I am writing to YOU about things about to happen, things that I am participating in with you. God is watching and knows your suffering and will cause you to persevere."

Again it’s not definite which generation of Christians he addressing, we all suffer the persecutions of Christ if we are true to our faith. John is my brother, I’ve never met him but he’s still my brother in Christ.

We can also say with the same justification that it has to be assumed that John is addressing the Christians then, and not now. The basis for that is it’s said to be presented in “signs”, so the seven congregations represent something.

It seems that the number seven throughout scripture generally denotes completeness, like the creative acts which have God resting on the seventh day, setting a pattern for Sabbaths, also the festival of unleavened bread and the festival booths were both seven days long, there is much more evidence for “seven” being used to denote completeness, so could it be that the symbolic use of “seven” regarding the congregations in Revelation is depicting the entire Christian organisation on a global scale, which would have more bearing for our time as there are more Christians on earth today than there was in Johns day.

See, here is the rub, you are totally right. Everyone does the dance someplace. Each one chooses where they draw the line. Are the locusts demons, helicoptors or just symbols (just as one example)?

I think the locusts symbolize something because they are described as having certain features that obviously don’t belong to a literal locust like men’s faces and women’s hair, there also said to where crowns of gold.

But I do have to strongly object to the use of 2 Pet for anything.

I am sure you don't mean something like God took 6000 years to create or that Christ didn't build the temple for 3000 years. But it is odd that this only comes up in this discussion. Do we really mean that God has a warped veiw of time? Do we literally mean some kind of exchange for days and years like in Jeremiah and Daniel? I doubt it. I doubt that Peter thought in those terms.

At any rate this is not conclusive for anyone's argument.

Of course your right it’s not conclusive at all, but on the other side of the coin it’s also not conclusive to think of “shortly” in a literal mans view.

Hmm, we seem to not be communicating. My point is that it is not any comfort to persecuted, languishing folks if death is the relief.

Hold on till I come is not the kind of comfort death holds...

The point is we have A) the time when Jesus says these things, and B) the time when he comes; nothing is in the text to rule out death happening in the meantime. Anyway, what’s to say he wasn’t directing those words to you and I, we are the ones who are living in the last days of this Satanic world, we are the ones who will see Jesus coming on clouds of heaven with power and great glory, so it’s possible that we will not see death, but instead survive the Great Tribulation.

 

[stauron]

Again it’s not definite which generation of Christians he addressing, we all suffer the persecutions of Christ if we are true to our faith. John is my brother, I’ve never met him but he’s still my brother in Christ.

We can also say with the same justification that it has to be assumed that John is addressing the Christians then, and not now. The basis for that is it’s said to be presented in “signs”, so the seven congregations represent something.

Let's just examine this. Paul writes to the Thessalonians with warnings, comfort and exhortations. To understand Paul's message we START with the bare minimum or understanding the audience. No one argues that the audience was an actual group of believers in Thessalonica.

John does the same thing to a group of churches in Asia Minor. But to understand John we START by looking to other times and other people?

The burden is on you to show that this is in fact the right way to proceed.

Hermeneutics and language totally break down if we can't take

From John, to the seven churches that are in the province of Asia

as meaning something very like "from John to the seven churches in Asia.

It seems that the number seven throughout scripture generally denotes completeness, like the creative acts which have God resting on the seventh day, setting a pattern for Sabbaths, also the festival of unleavened bread and the festival booths were both seven days long, there is much more evidence for “seven” being used to denote completeness, so could it be that the symbolic use of “seven” regarding the congregations in Revelation is depicting the entire Christian organisation on a global scale, which would have more bearing for our time as there are more Christians on earth today than there was in Johns day.

It could be that John was talking about The Great Green Arkleseizure, but that wouldn't help our understanding of God and His plan. Your part about "more bearing for our time" is quite insiteful. Why is this important? Why is it all about US? That is the real weak point that I see. Maybe we should have learned something from that Carly Simon song.

The point is we have A) the time when Jesus says these things, and B) the time when he comes; nothing is in the text to rule out death happening in the meantime. Anyway, what’s to say he wasn’t directing those words to you and I, we are the ones who are living in the last days of this Satanic world, we are the ones who will see Jesus coming on clouds of heaven with power and great glory, so it’s possible that we will not see death, but instead survive the Great Tribulation.

This does not resolve any of the dilemma. The problem is that if we can't know to WHOM he was directing his letter we can't take comfort from his words or understand the warnings. If he was directing those words to you and I then all those other people have been wrong, including the people that received the letter and very shortly afterwards were tested and persecuted.

The church in Thyatira got the letter saying "hold on till I come" addressed to them, but instead of comfort they were killed and persecuted because the letter was really to us.

 

[Ratiocination]

Let's just examine this. Paul writes to the Thessalonians with warnings, comfort and exhortations. To understand Paul's message we START with the bare minimum or understanding the audience. No one argues that the audience was an actual group of believers in Thessalonica.
John does the same thing to a group of churches in Asia Minor. But to understand John we START by looking to other times and other people?
The burden is on you to show that this is in fact the right way to proceed.

The mistake you make is assuming that the churchs in Asia Minor were the literal addressees, but as has been show to you the revelation is presented in signs. So again, what do the seven churches symbolize, they must have to symbolize somthing because all the prophecies cannot be pinned to the literal existing congs. The evidence i have given in previous post is that prophecies cannot be pinned to the generation, it's immpossible. So the burden of proof rests with you to show where these things took place.

It could be that John was talking about The Great Green Arkleseizure, but that wouldn't help our understanding of God and His plan. Your part about "more bearing for our time" is quite insiteful. Why is this important? Why is it all about US? That is the real weak point that I see. Maybe we should have learned something from that Carly Simon song.

It would have to be about us because certain events in Revelation DIDN'T happen to them.

This does not resolve any of the dilemma. The problem is that if we can't know to WHOM he was directing his letter we can't take comfort from his words or understand the warnings. If he was directing those words to you and I then all those other people have been wrong, including the people that received the letter and very shortly afterwards were tested and persecuted.

With that logic the entire Bible is meaningless for our time, because it would seem that 21st century Christians are never directly addressed, correct?

The church in Thyatira got the letter saying "hold on till I come" addressed to them, but instead of comfort they were killed and persecuted because the letter was really to us.

Bingo! they were killed and persecuted anyway, even if they did think this symbolic letter was intended for them!!!
So, when did Jesus "come" to the cong. of Thyatria?

 

[stauron]

The mistake you make is assuming that the churchs in Asia Minor were the literal addressees, but as has been show to you the revelation is presented in signs. So again, what do the seven churches symbolize, they must have to symbolize somthing because all the prophecies cannot be pinned to the literal existing congs. The evidence i have given in previous post is that prophecies cannot be pinned to the generation, it's immpossible. So the burden of proof rests with you to show where these things took place.

It is only impossible in this case because you have already a priori made the judgment. Any other prophecy, from anyplace else is keyed very specifically to the audience. So following that pattern is the norm, and you are suggesting the break.

And, just so we are clear, you are saying that the following passages have already taken place and are different from Revelation?

24:15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation—spoken about by Daniel the prophet—standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 24:16 then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. 24:17 The one on the roof must not come down to take anything out of his house, 24:18 and the one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 24:19 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 24:20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. 24:21 For then there will be great suffering unlike anything that has happened30 from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen. 24:22 And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 24:23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him. 24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 24:25 Remember, I have told you ahead of time. 24:26 So then, if someone says to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe him. 24:27 For just like the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. 24:28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21:21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Those who are inside the city must depart. Those who are out in the country must not enter it, 21:22 because these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. 21:23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress on the earth and wrath against this people. 21:24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away as captives among all nations. Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. 21:25 “And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and on the earth nations will be in distress, anxious over the roaring of the sea and the surging waves. 21:26 People will be fainting from fear and from the expectation of what is coming on the world, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 21:27 Then they will see the Son of Man arriving in a cloud with power and great glory. 21:28 But when these things begin to happen, stand up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”

It could be that John was talking about The Great Green Arkleseizure, but that wouldn't help our understanding of God and His plan. Your part about "more bearing for our time" is quite insiteful. Why is this important? Why is it all about US? That is the real weak point that I see. Maybe we should have learned something from that Carly Simon song.

It would have to be about us because certain events in Revelation DIDN'T happen to them.

This is circular logic. This has to be about us because these things didn't happen and these things couldn't have happened because Revelation is about us...

With that logic the entire Bible is meaningless for our time, because it would seem that 21st century Christians are never directly addressed, correct?

Do you keep the 10 commandments? What about the 600+ civic and ceramonial laws? Did Moses or Abraham or David ever directly address 21st century Christians? You are coming to the exact opposite conclusion. When Paul or Jeremiah or Joshua was talking or writing to someone, their words are still meaningful and significant to us. BUT they were not addressed TO us. If you found a box in the attic filled with love letters from you grandfather to your grandmother while he was in another country on military duty, you would not understand anything if you started out assuming they were written TO YOU. You would examine the details of the letter and get the history and context by looking at the original audience, and then trying to apply things. The letters could still be immensly valuable and relevant to you, but you were not in mind when he wrote them. The encouragment, suggestions and love would be helpful maybe, but not if you assumed it was a letter to you.

But after reading them, you could easily apply his advise when you are in the same situation, learn respect and love for him and your grandmother and know more about them.

In the same way Scripture, on the very most surface level, is valuable and meaningful to us. Obviously there is much more because it is God's word, but it is never any less.

Bingo! they were killed and persecuted anyway, even if they did think this symbolic letter was intended for them!!!

Yep so they had false hope and no way to know what this letter ADDRESSED TO THEM meant or to what it applied.

So, when did Jesus "come" to the cong. of Thyatria?

When He came in judgement, just like He did against Babylon, Edom and the others (Isa 13ff). The destruction of Jerusalem was the antitypical cloud coming wrath of God described all throught the Old Testament against the harlot. Jesus' plan and mission was to bring many sons to glory and to reveal His bride, and vindicate them.

 

[Ratiocination]

It is only impossible in this case because you have already a priori made the judgment. Any other prophecy, from anyplace else is keyed very specifically to the audience. So following that pattern is the norm, and you are suggesting the break.

No! the book isn't directed to a specific audience, it just says "slaves", the refferences to the seven congs. come after it is said to be presented in "signs", which means you have to fit in with the intended audience 1) the Great Trib, 2) destruction of A harlot (for ever), 3) destrution of all government, etc, etc. Where were these events in history? It is not me that is trying to apply certain things all over the place, it is in fact you, unless you can show when these things took place.

And, just so we are clear, you are saying that the following passages have already taken place and are different from Revelation?

Not all of them clearly! It says to let the reader use discernment, which is what we should do.

It would have to be about us because certain events in Revelation DIDN'T happen to them

This is circular logic. This has to be about us because these things didn't happen and these things couldn't have happened because Revelation is about us...

I agree, you’ve sentence is circular, but mine wasn’t! I’m saying Revelation is full of things that cannot be pinned to their time, therefore it is more likely to be fulfilled in our time. [as we live in the most unique time in history]

Do you keep the 10 commandments? What about the 600+ civic and ceramonial laws? Did Moses or Abraham or David ever directly address 21st century Christians? You are coming to the exact opposite conclusion. When Paul or Jeremiah or Joshua was talking or writing to someone, their words are still meaningful and significant to us. BUT they were not addressed TO us. If you found a box in the attic filled with love letters from you grandfather to your grandmother while he was in another country on military duty, you would not understand anything if you started out assuming they were written TO YOU. You would examine the details of the letter and get the history and context by looking at the original audience, and then trying to apply things. The letters could still be immensly valuable and relevant to you, but you were not in mind when he wrote them. The encouragment, suggestions and love would be helpful maybe, but not if you assumed it was a letter to you.

The only audience in revelation is the seven symbolic congs. There really is nothing of any weight that should make you look at these in a literal way? Even the things said to them are presented in symbolisms, like “jezebel” etc.

What parts of the Bible do we apply to us? I mean we are living in the most wicked time in all history and it would have been nice of God to let us know why.

Your illustration is invalid. It doesn’t take into account the other parties mentioned in rev. 1:1, it should read something like; “what if you found letters from your grandfather that were sent to your grandmother showing her things that will take place so she can tell the rest of her family! (notice the “family” is unspecific like the “slaves” in rev 1:1)

Bingo! they were killed and persecuted anyway, even if they did think this symbolic letter was intended for them!!!

Yep so they had false hope and no way to know what this letter ADDRESSED TO THEM meant or to what it applied.

Jesus didn’t “come” to the congregation of Thyatira, you even say this when below you say he went to Jerusalem. Which is it?

So, when did Jesus "come" to the cong. of Thyatria?

When He came in judgement, just like He did against Babylon, Edom and the others (Isa 13ff). The destruction of Jerusalem was the antitypical cloud coming wrath of God described all throught the Old Testament against the harlot. Jesus' plan and mission was to bring many sons to glory and to reveal His bride, and vindicate them.

Ok, so what does the destruction of a foreign city mean to the people of Thyatira? Lets note that it wasn’t the Jews in general that were destroyed, they’re still there, and so is Jerusalem, so as I said before God must of failed to destroy them completely if we take your interpretation as truth. What comfort would it have been to them?