How Are Your End Time Views Different?

[Midst]

Anyway, about to plow through this forum, likely over the weekend, but I am interested first in soliciting various members viewpoints about how they have what they see as very different then mainstream (or not!) viewpoints.

And maybe how you came to these viewpoints.

Besides what I will read as I start to dig into these posts...

 

[kingdomwitness]

Am sorry I don't really understand you.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Gottservant]

I see the future as ending before the present.

That is why the past never dies.

 

[Danoh]

Most appear to arrive at.their views either through their own reasoning into passages, and or through books based in that same kind of reasoning.

Very few, it appears, first seek out principles by which.they.might remain objective.

As a result, over time, not only is their view all they end able to see, but they often find themselves having to be spoonfed another's understanding of a different view only to reject it, so blind to any other view their own has made them.

Again, very few apparantly seek a means of objectivity before they plunge in.

Thus, their "understanding," is no more than their "what it means to me."

A means of objectivity both, before, as well as througout, is simply not taught. Without it, years of supposed study end up keeping even the most reknowned unakilled in the Word of righteousness.

Unfortunately, an aspect of that is being practically unable to see this fact, even when it is pointed out, thus, for example, why the Lord spoke in parables when and to whom He did. It separates those with ears to hear from those whose subjectivity has rendered them simply unable to.

 

[interpreter]

I hold the historicist view, that the Revelation began unfolding in 312 AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow. That day is known as the turning point in history because ever since that day, Christian nations have been the dominant force on earth.

 

[Interplanner]

Midst,
I would say the main thing that caught my attention was the total range of the fulfillment that was being addressed by the NT. Here is what I mean:

I was raised that 'prophecy' had two major fulfillment points: the events of Jesus in a very exact, proveable way (virgin birth, trip to Egypt), and then future events coming in and about Israel with the same kind of exact, proveable features.

But I was able to hear a teacher who showed that there were huge themes coming true in Christ that weren't about mere exact features, because broad OT themes like justification, the righteousness of God, the kingdom of God, 'grace and truth' (Jn 1) had arrived. These were broad themes in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalms. Also, at the same time, the institution of Judaism was set aside. So...if it was set aside by the supreme sacrifice of Divine Love in Christ, why would the thing be set up all over again in a positive way (ie that God was going back to it, separately, for Israel, alone)?

I had no handle for that separate thing until being required to read DTS Prof Ryrie (same as 'the Ryrie study bible' which truly is a study about him) and his chapter 'Two Peoples, Two Programs'. I then realized I was into something that was extremely confusing.

This was before being able to study the 1st century milieu on a master's level with 3 years of koine Greek already undertaken. I began to realize there was something far more riveting and tragic about the NT, especially Luke (because scholars wish to 'tie' all of Paul's thought together and Luke-Acts together; Luke traveled with and transcribed Paul, for ex., Acts 13's sermon). It was far more engaging and sensible than the 'evacuation' to the future over and over while reading Mt24A, etc., and trying to piece together today's news from modern Israel.

The drama and tragedy of the NT period is that the mission work of the Gospel was offered to Israel, and the risk to Israel of refusing to do so was to be controlled and led by Judaism's zealots who would take Israel into a foolish war; 'if a king takes on an enemy that outnumbers him 2:1, shouldn't he seek 'terms of peace'? Lk 14. In the same way, if you (especially Zealots in Galilee, where Jesus performed his riskiest ministry) do not give up everything (fighting your messianic revolt), you cannot be my disciple.

I then began to notice that the very direct, present, urgent, practical advisories of Jesus in Mt24A were set up: Mt 21, 22, 23 all had put Israel on notice that God knew Israel had rejected their job in His Vineyard, and the city was to be crushed. Mt24A was about how those believers could know when to flee the sinking ship. "B" starts at v29 "right after those horrible days" would be the worldwide judgement of God, but that is allowed to be delayed considerably in his remarks and in the parable of the attentive servants.

 

[Midst]

Am sorry I don't really understand you.

At 15 you probably are unaware of the many mainstream or even many of the 'not so mainstream' views of Revelation out there.

As you are posting here, it is very likely you do hold some interpretations as being true and have been taught some interpretations.

For instance, an "interpretation" is a definition: if you do not know what the word "snow" means because you grew up in a primitive, South American jungle and have never seen snow before it would be difficult to explain. Someone from outside who has seen and even experienced snow might try and describe it to you, but without video you really would have no idea of what it means.


A good "for instance" is also with "cargo cults". You would have to google cargo cult and probably read the wiki definition to really get the meaning there.

Then you have to go: how are we human beings in the "modern", "civilized" world possibly like cargo cults? How is earth like an island? And how might Heaven be so much more sophisticated and we might misinterpret things and statements from Heaven -- just as the islanders misinterpreted the people who left cargo on their islands?



An even more direct possibility is considering the various views the Jews had when Jesus came. Some believed one thing, some believed something else. Same verses, but they came to very different conclusions.


Some had divine evidence from Heaven for their conclusions. Some merely believed what they wanted to believe because it fit their personal preferences.

 

[Midst]

The seven thunders part is followed by John having to jumble
around what he has seen and heard. John had to make the mystery
of God. This mystery of God section finishes at the 7th trumpet.

John saw Rev. 12 and 13, even 15 began before he ever wrote the events
of chapter 8.

Rev. 12 - is where signs begin
signs/wonders in heaven

I believe that we should follow proper grammar as we study
Revelation's order. John would not have told us about seeing
the seven angels of Rev. 8 before he saw them first in Rev. 15 as
seven angels. Revelation 15 is where they change from seven angels
to the seven angels. Rev. 15 shows they leave heaven dressed in
the OT occupation attire for sealing people.

It is pretty mainstream to consider Revelation as entirely linear, but this may not be the case. I mentioned this in another thread, but many consider, for instance, Revelation 12 to have elements of a prologue. For instance, they may see the war in Heaven happening at or before the Garden of Eden. (A popular Catholic and other viewpoint.)


I did not point out that in Daniel, you see the same situation depicted in multiple dreams. So, if Revelation follows the example of Daniel, then it is not linear and there may be repeats where different metaphors are used to explain the same thing.


I am not sure if the "seven thunders" are the "seven angels", though this seems a distinct possibility. The letters to the church do seem to be outside of any other ordering.


The mystery of God being finished is a very odd statement to have been made. Consider how much appears to be "yet to come". And there does appear to be some linear progression here: the first woe had come, the second woe and the third woes were yet to come.

 

[Midst]

I see the future as ending before the present.

That is why the past never dies.

How do you mean?

It is certainly very possible in a variety of ways. I personally do see that God, at creation, first considered the end and then worked back. Then everything came into being. Good writers do this, and this is how buildings are built.

Another way to view this is ultimately it is all about children and the revelation of God. God, in a sense, takes time to be revealed as He really is.

There are other possibilities as well: such as time not being what we think it is. Though these run into the above, as well.

 

[Midst]

Most appear to arrive at.their views either through their own reasoning into passages, and or through books based in that same kind of reasoning.

Very few, it appears, first seek out principles by which.they.might remain objective.

As a result, over time, not only is their view all they end able to see, but they often find themselves having to be spoonfed another's understanding of a different view only to reject it, so blind to any other view their own has made them.

Again, very few apparantly seek a means of objectivity before they plunge in.

Thus, their "understanding," is no more than their "what it means to me."

A means of objectivity both, before, as well as througout, is simply not taught. Without it, years of supposed study end up keeping even the most reknowned unakilled in the Word of righteousness.

Unfortunately, an aspect of that is being practically unable to see this fact, even when it is pointed out, thus, for example, why the Lord spoke in parables when and to whom He did. It separates those with ears to hear from those whose subjectivity has rendered them simply unable to.

I see, that is an interesting way to put it and quite original. Unique.

I tend to come to the same conclusion, though I understand it my own self like with looking at conspiracy theories versus history which is proven.

Or, considering police work, and how it might be done poorly, or correctly.

It can also be like technical work: be you a doctor or a computer scientist, you have specific dictates you have to stick to. You deal with the unknown, and you are motivated to actually fix the problem. So you learn that to be successful you must follow certain principles in trying to figure out what the unknown is: what virus or bacteria or other problem is happening? Or what is the right and best way to create a program or figure out why someone's computer is misbehaving?

Laypeople may not be so diligent and disciplined. They may come to absurd conclusions, but ultimately they are not fixing the problem anyway so they do not have to know.

Same thing even with more minor situations: what is causing your sink to not work, and how to fix it? What is causing your car to not run and how to fix it?

The mechanic or handyman has to figure this out accurately.

But the layperson does not.


So it is that people often just believe what they are told, and whether they are right or wrong really has no impact to them. Or so they believe, anyway. Until they are corrected.

 

[Midst]

I hold the historicist view, that the Revelation began unfolding in 312 AD when the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the clouds, and Jesus came into power through St. Constantine who rode a white horse and conquered with a bow. That day is known as the turning point in history because ever since that day, Christian nations have been the dominant force on earth.

A view very difficult to not consider seriously.

There is a lot of evidence which points to this.


I generally do not know, but have plunged into this here and now. I have had time periods in my life when I believe and trust in "Christian nations" or see God as directing the Christian nations.

I am much more skeptical of this viewpoint now.

Consider, for instance, the mess in Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

There is a point where someone says they are shooting at the apple on someone's head and really trying to hit the apple... but when they keep hitting the person instead... eventually I come to the conclusion that they just do not like that person.

And are not missing, but are better shots then they are letting on.


These things said, how are your views different? This is a mainstream viewpoint (even if not so considered here or by some churches).

These views are quickly seen, for instance, wiking the various meanings found in Revelation.

And they have been held, clearly, by majorities and powerful minorities in Catholic and Protestant nations for millenia...


(As you are a regular here, I am sure you have some different takes on matters.)

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[interpreter]

A view very difficult to not consider seriously.

There is a lot of evidence which points to this.


I generally do not know, but have plunged into this here and now. I have had time periods in my life when I believe and trust in "Christian nations" or see God as directing the Christian nations.

I am much more skeptical of this viewpoint now.

Consider, for instance, the mess in Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

There is a point where someone says they are shooting at the apple on someone's head and really trying to hit the apple... but when they keep hitting the person instead... eventually I come to the conclusion that they just do not like that person.

And are not missing, but are better shots then they are letting on.


These things said, how are your views different? This is a mainstream viewpoint (even if not so considered here or by some churches).

These views are quickly seen, for instance, wiking the various meanings found in Revelation.

And they have been held, clearly, by majorities and powerful minorities in Catholic and Protestant nations for millenia...


(As you are a regular here, I am sure you have some different takes on matters.)

LOL. I've never considered my view as being a mainstream view, The vast majority of posters here are futurists, so my view is certainly different. The historicist view is clearly correct however because we are now experiencing the 7 last plagues (such as skin cancer, red tides and global warming) which means all previous prophecies have already been fulfilled.

 

[Danoh]

A view very difficult to not consider seriously.

There is a lot of evidence which points to this.


I generally do not know, but have plunged into this here and now. I have had time periods in my life when I believe and trust in "Christian nations" or see God as directing the Christian nations.

I am much more skeptical of this viewpoint now.

Consider, for instance, the mess in Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

There is a point where someone says they are shooting at the apple on someone's head and really trying to hit the apple... but when they keep hitting the person instead... eventually I come to the conclusion that they just do not like that person.

And are not missing, but are better shots then they are letting on.


These things said, how are your views different? This is a mainstream viewpoint (even if not so considered here or by some churches).

These views are quickly seen, for instance, wiking the various meanings found in Revelation.

And they have been held, clearly, by majorities and powerful minorities in Catholic and Protestant nations for millenia...


(As you are a regular here, I am sure you have some different takes on matters.)

I'd advise you strongly consider staying away from both what makes and does not make sense to you, until you have arrived first at, at least the beginnings of a means of looking at anything in accordance with principles behind looking at a thing objectively - principles that apply no matter the field of endeavor, including Bible study.

Apply such to your pursuit of coming to Scripture's own subjective objectivity. Only then will you arrive at it. For, as it has noted "Eye hath NOT seen, NOR hath ear heard, the things that GOD HATH prepared FOR them that love him."

Meaning, you won't get it through how you reason, through how you make sense of things, through your "well, what I think, see, believe, Dr. So and said said, what makes sense to me..."

The things of God did not originate, neither in that, nor from that, nor are they understood through that.

Get objective. Then, study out salvation. Then apply it to the likes of Constantine and you'll know the guy was as lost as can be the very day a Priest was called to his deathbed to keep him as lost in the RCC's hellish doctrine as the day he was born into this word in the first Adam.

But, don't take my word for it - other than the importance of the need to establish first, true principles behind actual objectivity.

In fact, it is how I arrived at the Mid-Acts Perspective I hold to - through principles behind true objectivity.

Yep, that is a plug for my perspective. I am that objective - that I am aware of my.actions even as I engage them. Most just claim they are. Of course, asserting this throws them. Unobjective as they are, all they arrive at is "the guy is a bit full of himself." Nonsense. Fact is, speaking knowingly, with authority only sounds brash, only to those stuck in one, subjective way of looking at a thing. Where all is the same...

 

[Proud Parrot]

I don't care one way or the other.
It's all predetermined and I'm just here for the ride I was dealt. Why sweat what is out of your hands?

“Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.”
― George Orwell, 1984

 

[Interplanner]

Midst,
do you understand the reasons why people think it relates to the Destruction of Jerusalem in 66+? See my #8 or so

 

[Douggg]

Anyway, about to plow through this forum, likely over the weekend, but I am interested first in soliciting various members viewpoints about how they have what they see as very different then mainstream (or not!) viewpoints.

And maybe how you came to these viewpoints.

Besides what I will read as I start to dig into these posts...

All of the mainstream views have one thing in common and that they all have a position regarding the Antichrist.

The historist view is that the office of Pope is the Antichrist
The futurist view is that the Antichrist is a single person.

There is debate in the futurist view whether the person will be a Jew or Gentile. Some think he will be a muslim.

I hold the futurist view, but differ from the mainstream on these accounts:

1. The person starts out as the 7th (Julio-Claudian) king of the Roman Empire, end times, final form of the EU government. Daniel 7 and 8. He is not the Antichrist at this time.

2. Then the person enters a phase whereby the Jews think he is their long awaited promised great King of Israel, son of David. The prince who shall come Daniel 9. He will be anointed King of Israel, illicit. It is then he officially becomes the Antichrist.

3. As the King of Israel, he confirms the Mt. Sinai covenant for the 7 year cycle required by Deuteronomy 31:10-11. (the traditional view is that he makes a 7 year peace treaty instead)

4. Half way through the 7 years, he reveals himself to be the man of sin, and claims to be God, 2Thessalonians2. The Jews are mortified and reject him as being their King of Israel. His stint of being the Antichrist is officially over at that point.

5. God has the man of sin killed for going into the temple and claiming to be God, Ezekiel 28:1-10. In Isaiah 14:19-20, God in his disdain for the person, brings him back to life.

6. Satan and the brought back to life man of sin conspire to be possessed by the unclean spirit of an ancient person currently in the bottomless pit. Possessed by the unclean spirit, he becomes the 8th Julio-Claudian King of the Roman Empire, endtimes, the EU final form, as the beast of Revelation 13.

The big difference in my view and the traditional views is (1) the basis for the 7 years and what starts it, and (2) that the person is only the Antichrist while he is the King of Israel, which will be for about 3 1/2 years (the first half of the 7 years).

The rest of the time, before and after, the person is associated with the Roman Empire, end times, as the 7th and 8th king of it. That's why you don't see "the Antichrist" term anywhere in Revelation.

 

[Interplanner]

The last historicist I heard said that the popular revivalism of today was the spirit of AC because it had subjectivized the historic Gospel--the 'gospel' of the changed life. Speaking in the 70s he predicted that it would join spiritualities with many others considered to be at odds, all on the basis of 'this changed my life.' That was their understanding of Daniel's 'truth was thrown to the ground.'