Searching_for_Christ

simul justus et peccator
Nov 14, 2009
2,410
201
33
In my mind.
✟18,609.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I have some specific questions. If all "end times" stuff has already been fulfilled then...can you please explain the resurrection of the people? What about Jesus coming in full Glory on the clouds? if this already all happened wouldn't this be the more..err..dominate end times view?
 

PROPHECYKID

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2007
5,982
528
35
The isle of spice
Visit site
✟73,684.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have some specific questions. If all "end times" stuff has already been fulfilled then...can you please explain the resurrection of the people? What about Jesus coming in full Glory on the clouds? if this already all happened wouldn't this be the more..err..dominate end times view?

No explanation needed. It just can't happen.
 
Upvote 0

cubinity

jesus is; the rest is commentary.
Jun 11, 2010
3,171
403
✟20,090.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I have a question.

I was taught that Revelation is not prophetic, but historical. The author used apocalyptic literature to describe the state of Christianity under the reign of Caesar Nero, and he used the language and symbolism he did because his ideas were treasonous, and he sought to camouflage them so they could be circulated effectively.

Is this considered full preterism?
 
Upvote 0

PROPHECYKID

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2007
5,982
528
35
The isle of spice
Visit site
✟73,684.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have a question.

I was taught that Revelation is not prophetic, but historical. The author used apocalyptic literature to describe the state of Christianity under the reign of Caesar Nero, and he used the language and symbolism he did because his ideas were treasonous, and he sought to camouflage them so they could be circulated effectively.

Is this considered full preterism?

Yes it would be and it is wrong. Futurism is the exact opposite. They both had a particular purpose. Fransisco Ribera was the one who really for pushing Futurism and Luis De Alcazar was responsible for pushing Preterism. They were both Jesuit Priests and they both did this to protect their church, the Roman Church. Have a read about them here.

Francisco Ribera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is an objective place to start.

The Counter Reformation

This source tell us about all about their work and what they accomplished, what they taught and why.
 
Upvote 0

Evergreen48

Senior Member
Aug 24, 2006
2,300
150
✟17,819.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I have some specific questions. If all "end times" stuff has already been fulfilled then...can you please explain the resurrection of the people?

1 Cor. 15:50 "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality."

Incoruptibility and immortality are not 'things' which can be viewed with the earthly eyes. The 'change' was/is within. It did/does not affect the physical appearance of anyone. Jesus was the perfect example of that, for surely He was immortal and incoruptible. Yet in His appearance He was like any other human being, but no one saw Him as He actually was while He was here on earth.

1 John 3:2 "Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is."


In 1 Thess. 4:16-17 we read that "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

"The Lord himself" is an antithesis to Moses, who was a type or shadow of Christ who would come down from heaven replacing the old laws which were engraved in tables of stone, with His spiritual laws which were to be engraved in the hearts and minds of His people.

The catching up of those who were alive and remained, with those who had been resurrected, would be a spiritual 'catching up' only. Because it has been appointed unto men to die once, each and every one of us will die. And until then, we shall continue to inhabit our earthly bodies. Jesus kept His same earthly body until He ascended unto the Father, even though He was immortal and incoruptible all the while.

What about Jesus coming in full Glory on the clouds?

Clouds

Clouds were an emblem of prosperity and glory. To rule on the clouds is to rule and conquer. When no storm accompanies, or no attribute is attached to it, a cloud is an emblem of majesty and glory, By Daniel it is said, "One llike the son of man came with clouds of heaven;" To which the Lord added as an explanatory of the symbol, "With power and great Glory". (Matthew 24:30)

Clouds are symbolic of armies and multitudes, probably by their grand majestic movements. They betokened the presence of God, as on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19:9); in the temple (1Kings 8:10), in the cloudy pillar, and on the Mt of transfiguration. They are found in many representations of the majesty of God. (Psa. 18:11-12, 67:2 Revelation 13: 14-16.)



1. Yahweh's Presence and Glory:
The metaphoric and symbolic uses of clouds are many, and furnish some of the most powerful figures of Scripture. In the Old Testament, Yahweh's presence is made manifest and His glory shown forth in a cloud. The cloud is usually spoken of as bright and shining, and it could not be fathomed by man: "Thou hast covered thyself with a cloud, so that no prayer can pass through" (Lam 3:44). Yahweh Himself was present in the cloud (Ex 19:9; 24:16; 34:5) and His glory filled the places where the cloud was (Ex 16:10; 40:38; Nu 10:34); "The cloud filled the house of Yahweh" (1 Ki 8:10). In the New Testament we often have "the Son of man coming on" or "with clouds" (Mt 24:30; 26:64; Mk 13:26; 14:62; Lk 21:27) and received up by clouds (Acts 1:9). The glory of the second coming is indicated in Rev 1:7 for "he cometh with the clouds" and "we that are alive .... shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord" and dwell with Him (1 Thess 4:17).
2. Pillar of Cloud:
The pillar of cloud was a symbol of God's guidance and presence to the children of Israel in their journeys to the promised land. The Lord appeared in a pillar of cloud and forsook them not (Neh 9:19). They followed the guidance of this cloud (Ex 40:36; Ps 78:14).
3. Bow in Cloud:
The clouds are spoken of in the Old Testament as the symbol of God's presence and care over His people; and so the "bow in the cloud" (Gen 9:13) is a sign of God's protection.
4. Clouds Blot Out:
As the black cloud covers the sky and blots out the sun from sight, so Yahweh promises "to blot out the sins" of Israel (Isa 44:22); Egypt also shall be conquered, "As for her, a cloud shall cover her" (Ezek 30:18; compare Lam 2:1).
5. Transitory:
There is usually a wide difference in temperature between day and night in Israel. The days axe warm and clouds coming from the sea are often completely dissolved in the warm atmosphere over the land. As the temperature falls, the moisture again condenses into dew and mist over the hills and valleys. As the sun rises the "morning cloud" (Hos 6:4) is quickly dispelled and disappears entirely. Job compares the passing of his prosperity to the passing clouds (Job 30:15).


6. God's Omnipotence and Man's Ignorance:
God "bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds" (Job 26:8) and the "clouds are the dust of his feet" (Nah 1:3). Yahweh "commands the clouds that they rain no rain" (Isa 5:6), but as for man, "who can number the clouds?" (Job 38:37); "Can any understand the spreadings of the clouds?" (Job 36:29); "Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge?" (Job 37:16). See BALANCINGS. "He that regardeth the clouds shall not reap" (Eccl 11:4), for it is God who controls the clouds and man cannot fathom His wisdom. "Thick clouds are a covering to him" (Job 22:14).
7. Visions:
Clouds are the central figure in many visions. Ezekiel beheld "a stormy wind .... out of the north, a great cloud" (Ezek 1:4), and John saw "a white cloud; and on the cloud one sitting" (Rev 14:14). See also Dan 7:13; Rev 10:1; 11:12.
8. The Terrible and Unpleasant:
The cloud is also the symbol of the terrible and of destruction. The day of Yahweh's reckoning is called the "day of clouds" (Ezek 30:3) and a day of "clouds and thick darkness" (Zeph 1:15). The invader is expected to "come up as clouds" (Jer 4:13). Joel (2:2) foretells the coming of locusts as "a day of clouds and thick darkness" which is both literal and figurative. Misfortune and old age are compared to "the cloudy and dark day" (Ezek 34:12) and "the clouds returning after rain" (Eccl 12:2).
9. Various Other Figures:
Clouds are used in connection with various other figures. Rapidity of motion, "these that fly as a cloud" (Isa 60:8). As swaddling clothes of the newborn earth (Job 38:9); indicating great height (Job 20:6) and figurative in Isa 14:14, "I will ascend above the heights of the clouds," portraying the self-esteem of Babylon. "A morning without clouds" is the symbol of righteousness and justice (2 Sam 23:4); partial knowledge and hidden glory (Lev 16:2; Acts 1:9; Rev 1:7).

( I found this in my files, but have lost the source. Its from some bible encyclopedia, but I can't say which one. Sorry
:sorry:)

if this already all happened wouldn't this be the more..err..dominate end times view?

There are plenty of us around who believe this has aready happened. We have always been around but we are just not as famous as those who believe otherwise. The most popular beliefs are not always the right beliefs. :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cubinity

jesus is; the rest is commentary.
Jun 11, 2010
3,171
403
✟20,090.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yes it would be and it is wrong. Futurism is the exact opposite. They both had a particular purpose. Fransisco Ribera was the one who really for pushing Futurism and Luis De Alcazar was responsible for pushing Preterism. They were both Jesuit Priests and they both did this to protect their church, the Roman Church. Have a read about them here.

Francisco Ribera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is an objective place to start.

The Counter Reformation

This source tell us about all about their work and what they accomplished, what they taught and why.

I haven't. Thanks for the links!
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Site Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,185
1,809
✟826,432.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I have a question.

I was taught that Revelation is not prophetic, but historical. The author used apocalyptic literature to describe the state of Christianity under the reign of Caesar Nero, and he used the language and symbolism he did because his ideas were treasonous, and he sought to camouflage them so they could be circulated effectively.

Is this considered full preterism?

How can it all be history and prodict the destruction of Rome?
 
Upvote 0

RevKidd

Simple Mans Theologian
Dec 18, 2002
1,167
69
48
Visit site
✟9,180.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Futurism and Preterism hinge on one thing IMO. Dating the authorship of Revelation. If it is post 70 AD (which is the main stream of thought) than futurism is very possible. If the dating of Revelation which is Pre 70 AD, than Preterism has very strong evidence.

If people really gave preterism a serious thought, wiped out all preconceived notions, there is a ton of evidence for it.. But you have to read about it with an open mind.

It's a huge change of thought and perspective.. I totally used to be on the future boat.. not any longer.. and it all started with understanding the dating or Revelation.
 
Upvote 0

cubinity

jesus is; the rest is commentary.
Jun 11, 2010
3,171
403
✟20,090.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Futurism and Preterism hinge on one thing IMO. Dating the authorship of Revelation. If it is post 70 AD (which is the main stream of thought) than futurism is very possible. If the dating of Revelation which is Pre 70 AD, than Preterism has very strong evidence.

If people really gave preterism a serious thought, wiped out all preconceived notions, there is a ton of evidence for it.. But you have to read about it with an open mind.

It's a huge change of thought and perspective.. I totally used to be on the future boat.. not any longer.. and it all started with understanding the dating or Revelation.

This is exactly why I often feel orthodoxy chokes honest discourse. We read the Bible with orthodoxy controlling what we perceive the Bible to say, rather than setting down the rules on how to interpret it and just letting the text speak for itself, particular in light of what we know and don't know about its historical context, as you've pointed out.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PROPHECYKID

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2007
5,982
528
35
The isle of spice
Visit site
✟73,684.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Futurism and Preterism hinge on one thing IMO. Dating the authorship of Revelation. If it is post 70 AD (which is the main stream of thought) than futurism is very possible. If the dating of Revelation which is Pre 70 AD, than Preterism has very strong evidence.

If people really gave preterism a serious thought, wiped out all preconceived notions, there is a ton of evidence for it.. But you have to read about it with an open mind.

It's a huge change of thought and perspective.. I totally used to be on the future boat.. not any longer.. and it all started with understanding the dating or Revelation.

I don't think the date of when it was written really matters. Revelation and Daniel must be studied together in order to understand these prophecies. Many people treat Revelation as a stand alone book and that is wrong. For example I can tell you that Revelation 13 is an extension of Daniel 7 but if one doesn't understand Daniel 7 then how can one understand Revelation 14. You can name any one of the protestant reformers and they were historicists. Protestantism first held a historicists view of bible prophecy and people like Francisco Ribera, a Jesuit Priest, and many after him helped to change this so we find today that most protestants are Futurists.
 
Upvote 0

RevKidd

Simple Mans Theologian
Dec 18, 2002
1,167
69
48
Visit site
✟9,180.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is exactly why I often feel orthodoxy chokes honest discourse. We read the Bible with orthodoxy controlling what we perceive the Bible to say, rather than setting down the rules on how to interpret it and just letting the text speak for itself, particular in light of what we know and don't know about its historical context, as you've pointed out.

Absolutely.. When we read scripture, we have to understand that it was not written to us, but for us. Scripture interprets scripture. So when we read Revelation, we can't read it as a novel that was just written by Stephen King. It was written by Jew in the first century and IMO before 70 AD. We then have to take in consideration that John was writing to a literal body of believers that would understand that Jewish apocalyptic metaphors and symbolism that he used. For a Jew, the Book or Revelation was not a mystery, they understood it. Yet we have for some reason, decided that it's historical relevance means nothing to us, and we throw all that away for our own supernatual thriller to take place.... we just don't know when... And that leads to speculation after speculation after speculation.. while 100's and 1000's of year go by. There has to be answer, and IMO, the answer is found in the history. We just have to read the bible for what it says..

Scripture interprets scripture.
Scripture Builds Doctrine - Not the other way around.
 
Upvote 0

RevKidd

Simple Mans Theologian
Dec 18, 2002
1,167
69
48
Visit site
✟9,180.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't think the date of when it was written really matters. Revelation and Daniel must be studied together in order to understand these prophecies. Many people treat Revelation as a stand alone book and that is wrong. For example I can tell you that Revelation 13 is an extension of Daniel 7 but if one doesn't understand Daniel 7 then how can one understand Revelation 14. You can name any one of the protestant reformers and they were historicists. Protestantism first held a historicists view of bible prophecy and people like Francisco Ribera, a Jesuit Priest, and many after him helped to change this so we find today that most protestants are Futurists.

Dating Revelation means alot. Post 70 AD authorship means that Preterism has no foot to stand on and futurism is correct.

A pre 70 AD authorship means that the Book of Revelation and Daniel was about to happen... John references many times that these things will soon take place...

Dating Revelation means alot... It can change the authors intent and audience. To say it doesn't change anything means that we aren't to concerned with whom that author is talking too and his intent. If I find a letter talking about death and destruction in NY city dated 9/11/05, then I can rest assured knowing that it's not talking about 9/11/01. But if it is written prior to 2001, then I better change my thinking and how I read the letter. Dating can mean a lot and in this case, with Revelations, it means everything IMO.
 
Upvote 0

PROPHECYKID

Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2007
5,982
528
35
The isle of spice
Visit site
✟73,684.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Dating Revelation means alot. Post 70 AD authorship means that Preterism has no foot to stand on and futurism is correct.

A pre 70 AD authorship means that the Book of Revelation and Daniel was about to happen... John references many times that these things will soon take place...

Dating Revelation means alot... It can change the authors intent and audience. To say it doesn't change anything means that we aren't to concerned with whom that author is talking too and his intent. If I find a letter talking about death and destruction in NY city dated 9/11/05, then I can rest assured knowing that it's not talking about 9/11/01. But if it is written prior to 2001, then I better change my thinking and how I read the letter. Dating can mean a lot and in this case, with Revelations, it means everything IMO.

Well from what I know Revelation was written around 96AD. But the best way to look at bible prophecy is from a historical standpoint. You must follow prophecy through history if the prophecy does give historical landmarks to do so. The way the reformers like Martin Luther and John Wesley understood bible prophecy is the best way and using this way they were able to identify the Antichrist power. The date of the book is not as important as its contents because its contents itself will tell you the intended audience.
 
Upvote 0

cubinity

jesus is; the rest is commentary.
Jun 11, 2010
3,171
403
✟20,090.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Well from what I know Revelation was written around 96AD. But the best way to look at bible prophecy is from a historical standpoint. You must follow prophecy through history if the prophecy does give historical landmarks to do so. The way the reformers like Martin Luther and John Wesley understood bible prophecy is the best way and using this way they were able to identify the Antichrist power. The date of the book is not as important as its contents because its contents itself will tell you the intended audience.

It is obvious that you have specific axioms that propel your insistence about your views on this subject being right. It is not likely that even the most brilliant philosophies and rhetoric will be able to break you of those axioms if you choose to remain committed to them (this is true of us all).

However, try for a moment to consider that those prerequisites to your claims may not be agreed upon by every Christian. For example, not ever Christian feels compelled to "follow prophecy through history." Most of us are looking to endure, and some of us have the luxury to excel, in our participation of the Kingdom of God as it applies to our lives today (a description of Christianity that also applied to John's intended audiences). For some of those Christians, decoding whether an ancient text means this or that about the unknowable future or about the distant past simply isn't a priority. There are simply too many opinions and too many differing certain conclusions like your own for a Christian to know what to do with them.

However, if we consider the various historical audiences of the Bible (including Luther and Wesley) with the same historical consideration we consider its authorship, then we see why different theologians at different times in history and in different life-situations all came to different conclusions about the text. They, being honest, came to the conclusion that was most relevant to their own world-view (not so unlike what the diversity of Christians do today).

Therefore, to say that one interpretation is somehow the best way is a fair comment, but it is also a very subjective one. It may be the best considering your goals and axioms. It is not the best way considering mine (The coolest part of Protestants is our functional diversity).

Help people find the best interpretations considering their axioms and goals, and you will do them a great justice in bringing them closer to Jesus. Ignore what drives them, insist on your way above all others, and you may not have an audience left to convince of anything.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RevKidd

Simple Mans Theologian
Dec 18, 2002
1,167
69
48
Visit site
✟9,180.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well from what I know Revelation was written around 96AD.

This statment speaks volumes then. Do you know why Revelation is traditionally dated 90-95 ad? To say "From what I Know".. tells me that you don't know.. and that you should probably use those four words with everything that you say. It's ok to admit that you don't know.. I didn't at one time. But then I studied it and realized that my "traditions" were probably wrong.

This is pretty much the only reason why tradition puts Revelation around 90-95 AD.

Irenaeus (180-90 AD).
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of the 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.(Against Heresies 5:30:3)

Irenaeus Quote can be some what puzzling. But what also had me believing that his dating is off, is that he believes Christ was around 55 years of age at his crucifixion as well. Irenaeus's timeline is off by a good 25-35 years...

Here is a nice essay/report on the early dating of revelation. I would suggest that it be read with an open mind, not because of absurdities, but because it speaks volumes of truth.

Dating and Interpreting Revelation
 
Upvote 0