How Are Your End Time Views Different?

[Midst]

Interplanner,

I am sorry, but I am not sure on what you are saying.... it sounds interesting, however.

What is your view on Israel, exactly? I am not sure what you are saying about the zealots, either? Jesus had at least one zealot, and the zealots were involved in getting Rome attacking Israel.... but I am not sure how you are tying this into prophecy.

I tend to consider the zealots simply as a typical organization of the region.... not of much importance, but those who did act out against Rome and helped bring about the downfall of Israel at the time.

 

[Midst]

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.

It is, just check out wiki on some of the main symbols of Revelation. I remember Hank Hanagraff finally disclosing himself as historicist. There is strong evidence in Revelation of some sort of historicist view. I am unpersuaded myself, as there is a difference between *conclusive* evidence and strong evidence.

Also, as I noted, Catholicism, is, of course, very big and while I disagree with a lot of their viewpoints, they do have a number of the historicist viewpoints... and with some good reason.

But, I tend to view, instead, the events of the past as likely related to something happening in the future.

I think, besides, for instance the major failings of Christian majority states: the inquisition, colonialism, neo-colonialism, the mess the US has been making in Muslim lands, and so on... this, though, remains a problem for me.

My view is more that these nations want to seduce Christians with the idea that they are with them, but their actions seem to show they are against them.

I have to say God surely was behind some of these behaviors, however, even if they were savage. God is known to work with where people are and with even their savage tendencies. Otherwise, how would we as human beings have any converse with God at all?


I am not at all so sure about fulfillment of the last seven plagues being as you say. Cancer has been around but only recently identified as such, for instance. You see really horrendous plagues in the Middle Ages. And then in the last century you saw really incredible evil in Hitler and Stalin, as well as across the world (Hoover, Pol Pot, Mao, and so on).

 

[Midst]

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...

I really am skeptical on Constatine as well. So, this is another reason why I am not big on a pure historicist version.

In general, on most things of Revelation, I am "I do not know".


I want to know, but I need evidence. I hold a lot of theories, but the evidence seems weak.

 

[Midst]

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?

People have a tendency to say 'I do not care' when they *do* care, however.

I am not saying this is your case.

Revelation does say 'blessed are those who regard these words'.


It is a mystery, and a fascinating one, I think.

 

[Midst]

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

I am not aware of where the destruction of Jerusalem is spoken of in Revelation.

Jesus did predict the destruction of the temple, and he also referred to the destruction of Israel.

 

[Midst]

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.

This sounds - to me - a lot like some of the traditional views I hear, but can see where you have a few different pieces on this.

I tend to not see this in Daniel as many who hold this view have.

That verse seems to have been fulfilled in the time of Maccabees, and while it may have future stance... I am not sure what that may be.


I tend to *not* see "the man of sin" as being one person, either. A major reason for this is, for one, you do have a role like the Pope (though I find this 'not so plausible'), but above all, for two, you have so many who act as if they are the 'man of sin'. For instance, the evolutionist idea is that human beings are effectively the height of creation, and essentially as gods.


(Yes, that may not be so obvious and few would directly say such things, but their viewpoint is very bleak, and very dark. )


I also am very wary of pinning guilt again on the Jews, and tend to view this... with difficulty.


Technically, I am not sure if the EU will ever be able to step ahead of the US by its' own self. The EU seems to follow the US around like its' lapdog.


Actions in the ME are started and maintained by the US, not EU.

It seems like this is unlikely to change. Anything is possible.

But, it seems like this is the course until the end.

 

[Midst]

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.'

Catholicism is the largest bulwark of historicism, but there are strong strains in Protestant and Orthodox viewpoints.

I am not persuaded my own self, and doubt I will be.


Last time I was here, I think it was about two years ago, you or interpreter had persuaded me of the message of the end being more like a slow change of season - like winter in Alaska - then a bright sudden dawn... and that The City floats above the earth.

Point is, doubt I will be persuaded of this or that, I never know when someone might say something that has profound impact.


If I did, I think, then I could really just order what I want at the store of Spiritual Progress and Heavenly Truth.



Also, the same person may have said that as believers we do not get a guarantee of knowing all on global events, which is true.



As for the 'man of sin', I *tend* to see this more as "modern human kind", especially in relation to the atheist, evolutionist viewpoint.

I tend not to see "Satan" as just one person amongst the people of the earth.


Omen was a great movie, but I do not view it as the truth....

 

[Midst]

The start of Rev. 12 is where John will begin seeing a section as to signs.
Rev. 15 shows him the sign of seven angels. This whole signs section
was actually seen during Rev. 7. John saw signs that led him to viewing
actions by seven angels. This made those angels later called in Rev. 8-"the seven angels". This set descends in Rev. 15 and ascends in Rev. 7 to
go seal the 144,000. Later, they become the trumpets and vials set of angels.

What John saw after the end of Rev. 11 was actually the start of Rev. 16.
John didn't describe any earthquake damage at the end of Rev.11, as no quake took place to damage anything. This is just like in Rev. 8 a bit before the seven angels prepared themselves to sound. There isn't an earthquake (in the time of trumpets) nor great hail (in the time of vials) until the end. John was getting clued in as to how long each set of plagues would last. The trumpets end with an earthquake, while the vials will end with great hail.

How have you come to these conclusions?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I believe as the Christian Church has always believed:

That there will come a day when the Lord Jesus Christ will return, coming as judge of both the living and the dead. The dead shall be raised, the righteous to eternal life, and the wicked to contempt. God will make all things new, wipe away every tear, and in God's new world there will be no more suffering, no more dying. But peace, justice, and life forever and ever.

The various "end times" scenarios of modern popular Christian fiction, such as the "Left Behind" books are nothing more than populist tripe. Bad theology built upon bad theology.

What we hope for is Christ the Lord, coming again, and our eternal home with Him when God sets the world--all creation--right. Not in a far-away place up in the sky, but right here on solid earth, because when Jesus comes the dead are raised up--you and I are raised up, bodily, from the dirt of the earth to new and eternal life in and with God. Forever. World without end.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Midst]

I believe as the Christian Church has always believed:

That there will come a day when the Lord Jesus Christ will return, coming as judge of both the living and the dead. The dead shall be raised, the righteous to eternal life, and the wicked to contempt. God will make all things new, wipe away every tear, and in God's new world there will be no more suffering, no more dying. But peace, justice, and life forever and ever.

The various "end times" scenarios of modern popular Christian fiction, such as the "Left Behind" books are nothing more than populist tripe. Bad theology built upon bad theology.

What we hope for is Christ the Lord, coming again, and our eternal home with Him when God sets the world--all creation--right. Not in a far-away place up in the sky, but right here on solid earth, because when Jesus comes the dead are raised up--you and I are raised up, bodily, from the dirt of the earth to new and eternal life in and with God. Forever. World without end.

-CryptoLutheran

I would agree that the "left behind" series is "populist tripe", and even kind of gross. They seem to relish in this idea of being so specifically right on so many matters, and flaunt this concept of being taken away to avoid all hardship. Reality has been Christians have been deeply persecuted and still are.


And I strongly doubt "The End" will be easy on *anyone*.


I also share your dismay with this concept of "being taken away to some place in the literal sky", as Revelation and Jesus clearly say nothing of the kind -- instead they are very clear that Heaven comes to earth.

Which is, you know? The whole reason God sacrificed his Son? To save the earth.

Metaphorically, yes, it is true.

Literally, no.

 

[Douggg]

This sounds - to me - a lot like some of the traditional views I hear, but can see where you have a few different pieces on this.

I tend to not see this in Daniel as many who hold this view have.

That verse seems to have been fulfilled in the time of Maccabees, and while it may have future stance... I am not sure what that may be.

What verse? Of what chapter? I didn't refer to a specific verse in Daniel.

I referred to Daniel 7 and 8, the emergence of the little horn. In Daniel 11, the historical parts, have a verse that refers to the Macabbees.

The end times verses of Daniel 11 begin in Daniel 11:36 which is the willful King claiming to be greater than any god, and speaking against the true God. The willful king in Daniel 11:36 is the beast of Revelation 13, the person in that last 42 months.

I tend to *not* see "the man of sin" as being one person, either. A major reason for this is, for one, you do have a role like the Pope (though I find this 'not so plausible'), but above all, for two, you have so many who act as if they are the 'man of sin'. For instance, the evolutionist idea is that human beings are effectively the height of creation, and essentially as gods.

Okay, you are rambling. Making fragmented statements. And confusing the views of others, not really understanding those views, then misrepresenting those views in your "evaluations".

Start putting together a start to finish end times scenario of your own that everything fits. When you are done or gone as far as you can, put it in outline form, and open a new thread for everyone to see. We can go from there. We can't push jello here, and that is what you are presenting.

And/or focus on a single end times matter, make a thread regarding that specific subject. And we can go from there.

I personally am done with this thread.

No Jello, Spanky ?

That's right. No Jello !

 

[Danoh]

A thought, Midst...

Read all sixteen chapters of Romans [KJV] a minimum of twenty-five through without attempting to understand any of it. Likewise with Ephesians.

Together, they form the Apostle Paul's God given systematic Theology.

Once you have done that, and you have all that Word in you, begin to look at all else in light of that. Study any and all issues out from that, including those within Romans and Ephesians.

You do that by thinking on what passages in those two books might shed light on other passages within those two books.

As you grow in that, you will grow both in your understanding and in your ability to study out other issues.

Stay away from outside sources until you have a grasp of passages based on their sister passages alone. If you're tempted to read commentaries, well, Scripture takes care of that also - Corinthians and Galatians, for example, are commentaries based on Romans.

Likewise with Philippians and Colossians as to Ephesians.

I don't view Paul as having written Hebrews as its content is based on "another man's foundation," Romans 15, so I won't comment on it at this time.

In between Romans and Ephesians are the perspective of Thessalonians. Though based on both of those Thessalonians concerns their summing up.

You will get that from Romans and Ephesians if you'll just let them teach you through their sister passages.

The balance of Paul's writings deal mostly with Pastoral issues.

That is as far as I will comment on all that as it is vitally important that those books teach you over the reasoning of men many threads on here are plagued, if not so consistently interrupted with.

 

[Danoh]

Interplanner, regarding your bio post on page one, post #7, of this thread, I can understand where you might have had a wake up call regarding Ryrie et al, as Traditional, or Classic Dispensationalism results in about in as many problems as it purports solving due to its wandering off into resorting to reason as a means of solving for said problems.

I get that. It is not consistent Dispensationalism. At such points it resorts to the same "solution" many of the schools of thought on here resort to - the reasoning of men.

But I also see that is where you ended up, just a different school of reason, as the answer to these issues is in Scripture, 2 Timothy 3: 16, 17.

Not it books about, nor in attempting to applying reason outside of how Scripture does.

For example, throughout Acts, Luke relates Paul's journeys, words, actions, etc.

And yet, he never mentions the Mystery, we are left with Paul on Paul's Perspective, Acts basically being a record of events as to the fall of Israel and salvation going to the Gentiles outside of what haf been Israel's rise to its prophesied glory before the Gentiles.

I realize we differ on this due to our first source: mine being Paul's words on these issues in light of Paul, yours being Paul's words via Luke, and that, in light of what the reasoning of scholarship considers is the impact of secular issues on Luke's narrative.

I am Mid-Acts in my Dispensationalism, and deliberately consistent in it's Hermeneutic.

One aspect of which views Acts through Paul's Perspective, not only not the other way around, but, as to the historic transition taking place in Acts through said Pauline Perspective alone.

Meaning, that in Paul's Perspective, Israel is "diminishing" in focus as the Acts narrative changes from the early Messianic assembly of Matt. 16 thru early Acts, to Israel's fall, and the salvation and commissioning of Paul.

That is my Pauline Perspective - that God's focus begins to gradually shift from a focus on this Earth, Israel, and their signs and wonders, to a Heavenly people.

At the same time, He is for a time provoking Israel to jealousy, as Israel looks out a sees its signs among the Gentiles, thus, why even Israel's elect "were astonished" by this "signs...confirmed" shift.

By the end of Acts, as God has, for the third and final time announced through this odd new, unexpected Apostle, "that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it," by the end of that, the signs among the Gentiles have ceased, as God is no longer provoking Israel to jealousy "with men of other tongues."

In this, God no longer focused on this Earth "until... after this.." the events in Israel's life after Acts 28 had no more to do with God, than 1948, or what have you. Both 70 AD and 1948 AD fall outside of God's turn from thar nation.

70AD was their doing every bit as much as landing oneself in trouble with local government when one, reaping what one sews in the flesh does so, in their own departure from God if they are Christian, or if they are lost and simply walking in their own way.

You wanna be consistent - there it is - either He ceased dealing with Israel through secular powers because He ceased dealing with that nation prior to 70AD [until... after this] or He continued to contrary to the final word of Acts in light of Paul...

Answers you won't find in the Greek and studies of Jewish Wars. Rather, in a consistent, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism...

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Interplanner]

Danoh,
the essay above was much improved communication! Thank you. It sounds like you had some help staying on track and continuity.

I don't agree that what you think it solves does so. There was no shift by God as Acts progressed. That buries the fact that Paul taught in Gal 3, which was historic, which was that the plan all along was for the Gospel to go to the nations, and none of the land promises mattered in perpetuity. The mission to the nations was the plan all along.

3:17 is critical here: it contains evidence of the misconceptions of Judaism. The voided and replaced the promise to the nations with a view of the Law in which God is obligated to give them certain things because they are obeying it. That was never to be the structure or dynamic of it and not the goodies either. Dt 8 (?) says "it was not because of your righteousness that I'm blessing you, but because I loved you." But the pulse of Judaism is that man can obligate God (see Rom 9:31, 10:3, 11:5 [echoing ch 4A] and 11:35).

As you may know, the trinity of Judaism is God--Torah--land, says conservative R. Prager. Is it any wonder? But is it Christian? No.

I now think I know what you are trying to say about mid-Acts, and it is trying to accommodate 2P2P and say God slowly shifted away from it. Sorry, but that is not what the passages that matter say.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Midst]

What verse? Of what chapter? I didn't refer to a specific verse in Daniel.

I referred to Daniel 7 and 8, the emergence of the little horn. In Daniel 11, the historical parts, have a verse that refers to the Macabbees.

The end times verses of Daniel 11 begin in Daniel 11:36 which is the willful King claiming to be greater than any god, and speaking against the true God. The willful king in Daniel 11:36 is the beast of Revelation 13, the person in that last 42 months.


Okay, you are rambling. Making fragmented statements. And confusing the views of others, not really understanding those views, then misrepresenting those views in your "evaluations".

Start putting together a start to finish end times scenario of your own that everything fits. When you are done or gone as far as you can, put it in outline form, and open a new thread for everyone to see. We can go from there. We can't push jello here, and that is what you are presenting.

And/or focus on a single end times matter, make a thread regarding that specific subject. And we can go from there.

I personally am done with this thread.


No Jello, Spanky ?


That's right. No Jello !

Erased the goofy pictures that were put in place of a point. I think it is wise you do not return to this thread because you relied on semantic arguments and personal attacks.

The arguments I made were extremely simple and did not need verse numbers and quotes because the arguments are very well known.

If you are unaware of these arguments, as you claim, then you are unaware of the major reason used against the interpretations you are believing. Is it wise to believe something without researching it enough to hear the other perspectives?

But it is also wise to not return because I do not think that interpretation is able to stand scrutiny at all.

It is extremely popular, but it is not a view that can be reasoned for or against because there is no evidence for it. It is just something people "believe", and there is a lot of evidence that they believe it simply because they want to believe it.

It goes well with televangelists who receive no scrutiny, but plays out horribly under forums where the believers will receive scrutiny against it.

 

[Midst]

Hi Midst,

I'm thrilled you asked. As we study Revelation, we want to make sure that the grammar lines up. We need to follow proper rules of grammar
to see how events (chapters or such) come together. Rev. 15 begins with the word "And". This lets us know it must make a smooth connection to somethng else that John previously wrote about seeing or hearing.

Rev. 15:1
"And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvellous..."

So with this verse we should understand that John is now seeing a later
sign in heaven and we should learn what that sign is.

What was the first sign in heaven that John saw?
What was the second?
Is this the third sign in heaven?

The signs began to be shown to John at chapter 12.
Rev. 12:1
"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven, a woman..."

appeared a great wonder
We know this is the very first of the group of signs in heaven, because
John wrore it here as - a.

a great wonder in heaven

Next, John told us about a woman.
John did not say - the woman. So we can tell that this is the very
first time John sees her.

Rev. 12:3 will tell us about the second sign in heaven that John
saw.

Rev. 12:3
"And there appeared another wonder in heaven...a great red dragon..."
Watch what John did at this point. He told us - another - and a.
another wonder
a great red dragon.

The phrase "another wonder" reveals that at least one other wonder
was seen ahead of this wonder.
The part as to "a" great red dragon -revealed that John is only now
viewing this dragon for the first time, as he is marking off to his readers just when this dragon entered the book of Revelation.

If we use this method to try to put Revelation in the order that John
experienced, then we can learn a whole lot more as to what is going on
in this book.


Looking at how Rev. 7 begins, we have the following:

Rev. 7:1
"And after these things I saw four angels..."

John used - And
John used - after these
John marked the starting point of four angels.

This set of angels must stay standing on the four corners of the earth to keep
the winds from blowing. This means they can't be helping to seal people.

John also told us about another angel.

Rev. 7:2
"And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of God..."

John told us - another.
We know that he then is coming with a group of other angels.
All of these angels that ascend from the east will be the ones that go out and
seal the 144,000. We know that John is not just seeing one angel at this point with
the task of sealing people, because the angel even tells that he comes as "we".

I am not sure if Greek uses "and" or "a's".... have you checked this?

There is surely some linearity because of timing statements, however: first woe, then second yet to come, and so on. First trumpet, second trumpet, etc.

However, these passages are also blocks. This does not mean they may not be separated their own selves outside of their blocks.

For instance, as Lillamb has pointed out, the "Gog and Magog" and armageddon scenes may be one and the same. Which would mean that there is a repeating, such as one finds in Daniel.

For instance, in Revelation 9, Satan comes out of the Abyss. Afterwards, he gathers together the nations against the believers on earth, and then is destroyed. Likewise, this happens again later in Revelation.


Also note here: Satan is described as coming out of the abyss in revelation 9, and then described as falling from heaven to earth in revelation 12.



Under sheer linear constraints, how has that happened?


And how did Satan and the demons end up in the Abyss to start with, so that they could be released, in Revelation 9??

 

[parousia70]

Jesus did predict the destruction of the temple, and he also referred to the destruction of Israel.

Hya Midst...
Would you say in this parable Jesus is referring to the 66-70AD destruction of Israel?

Matt 21:33-45
33 “Hear another parable: There was a certain landowner who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a far country. 34 Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. 35 And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. 36 Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them. 37 Then last of all he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 38 But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.’ 39 So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him.

40 “Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?”

41 They said to Him, “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.”

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

‘The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the Lord’s doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes’?[j]
43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. 44 And whoever falls on this stone will be broken; but on whomever it falls, it will grind him to powder.”

45 Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking of them.