Revelation and Symbolism

Status
Not open for further replies.

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
G'day Pericles :wave:

You have to understand one thing: Mandy, RKF and co' have to hold an "anythings goes" with respect to issues of "time" in the Scriptures -as their dispensational theology demands it. I'm just glad that when God the Son said three days and three nights in the belly of the earth He actually literally meant it -and not three thousand years. :D I wonder if they also believe in a literal six day creation? -or does it get stretched out to six thousand years? -that's that beauty with diSpENSATIONAL futurism, anything goes. :rolleyes:

davo
 
Upvote 0

RKF

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2002
408
0
texas
Visit site
✟934.00
Davo, ol' buddy ol' pal, I don't hold on to anything called anything goes, I believe in the Bible. I read the thing long before I went to any church or denomination. So that I wouldn't get just some preached at me view. I take the word of God as a whole for what it says and all of it.
To me it is truely the word of God. I know this though that the preterest views hasn't been around that long but the word of God has been around a long long long time.
To me the bible is timeless...........Until the end, that is the race that I am in, the Bible says that he that endurth to the end the same shall be saved, I shall endure.
No I don't believe in any man made trinity, just like I don't believe in the preterest views, in fact I don't care for any labels. Yall always say let the bible interpretate the Bible but your main reference is Josephus, him I don't find in the Bible at all. He was a Jewish historian and more thn likely didn't even believe in Jesus, So I wouldn't hold any stock in what he says any how. Thank you
 
Upvote 0

davo

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2002
471
3
Visit site
✟1,104.00
RKF, ol' buddy ol' pal, I'm glad you "shall endure." :clap:

As for Josephus -he wasn't even on my mind, however seeing as you brought him up; he is simply a handy historical reference regarding the life and times in question [around the destruction of Jerusalem etc]. And he and his writtings are not inspired -that however does not devalue their worth as critical reference material. He was a Jew and was NOT a Christian, so he had no vested interests [only in saving his own hide :) ].

My postion still stands however: that your lack of respect for the Biblical text [in dismissing by explaining away time references] you claim to adhere to is simply for theological expedience and convenience. [and I use the word "theological" with some reserve]

davo
 
Upvote 0

Pericles

Christian
May 21, 2002
428
1
Dayton, Ohio
Visit site
✟702.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by RKF
To me the bible is timeless...........Until the end, that is the race that I am in, the Bible says that he that endurth to the end the same shall be saved, I shall endure.
Yall always say let the bible interpretate the Bible but your main reference is Josephus, him I don't find in the Bible at all. He was a Jewish historian and more thn likely didn't even believe in Jesus, So I wouldn't hold any stock in what he says any how. Thank you

Hmm...a few things to get you back on track and hopefully motivate you to actually ADDRESS my previous point:

1. The Bible is not "timeless". Every single passage written in the bible has a literary and historical context. Paul and Peter actually DID write actual letters to people that actually were alive 2,000 years ago. Jesus did walk around and talked to people that were alive 2,000 years ago, and John's latest letter, also called Revelation, says in the beginning "John to the seven churches that are in Asia". Unless I am way off here, RKF, do you live in Asia, and if so, which church do you attend there?

2. The verse that you quoted illustrates the fact that you don't understand point 1, that biblical passages have a literary and a historical context. Jesus was telling his disciples that they will be hated by many of their own countrymen because of their faith in Him. Quoting that verse in this forum shows the lack of your understanding of the passage. I don't hate you, and I doubt that davo hates you, so I don't see why you are quoting that verse here in our discussion. Furthermore, the very next verse in Matthew 10:23 says:

“But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes."

The fact that you again quoted half of a statement from Christ and completely ignored the conclusion of his sentence, re-enforces and proves what I already said. Care to explain if the disciples are still alive today going through the cities of Israel?

3. I don't see anyone here saying that Josephus' writings are in the Bible. WWW II is also not in the Bible, so someone must have dreamed up the entire war, or obviously it must have never happened! Non-believers often point out just this kind of attitude in Christians that burry their heads in the sand, and become socially irrelevant, because certain things are not in the bible. Cancer research is not in the bible yet Christians that have cancer go and get therapy. That doesn't make any sense to me...

4. My previous post concerning the two passages (from Revelation and Daniel) prove the opposite of your claim, that God is aware of our timeline, and that soon means soon, and distant future means distant future. Please address this point...with biblical evidence, not statements that "the bible is timeless"
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Mandy
I meant that since God is not bound by time, everything is according to His "time". He can't be accused of not acting fast enough or too fast. He does not measure things the way we do. In other words, a thousand years is no different to God than one day. The context of the passage in 2 Peter is that God is not prolonging anything, He will be faithful to keep His promises even though it may appear to us He is slacking in doing so. Also this verse can't be used to say anything different.

So Mandy,
Would you agree then, that if God promised to do something for you tomorrow, He could wait 1000 years to do it and still be true to His promise?

Isn't that what you are saying here?

Thanks,
YBIC,
P70
 
Upvote 0

Mandy

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2001
3,482
8
51
California
Visit site
✟7,109.00
Originally posted by parousia70


So Mandy,
Would you agree then, that if God promised to do something for you tomorrow, He could wait 1000 years to do it and still be true to His promise?

Isn't that what you are saying here?

Thanks,
YBIC,
P70

No that isn't what I was saying and I am quite sure you know that. I was merely pointing out that there is no time with God and there is little if any difference to Him between a day and a thousand years like there is to us . I was pointing out that the verse had to be taken in context.
 
Upvote 0

Pericles

Christian
May 21, 2002
428
1
Dayton, Ohio
Visit site
✟702.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Mandy
No that isn't what I was saying and I am quite sure you know that. I was merely pointing out that there is no time with God and there is little if any difference to Him between a day and a thousand years like there is to us . I was pointing out that the verse had to be taken in context.

Mandy, I couldn't agree with you more, but try to address my post concerning Daniel and Revelation. There is no time with God, but God is communicating with us humans, on our terms. When we read about "time" in the Bible, it has to mean something, otherwise, our Creator would be unable to communicate with us, and we would have no clue what anything in the Bible means. :)
 
Upvote 0

Mandy

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2001
3,482
8
51
California
Visit site
✟7,109.00
Originally posted by Pericles
Mandy, so based on your previous statement, any time statements in the Bible mean absolutely nothing, because we really have no idea what God means (if He really means soon or a million years), therefore "biblical time" is irrelevant and useless...

The Bible is not addressed to God, but to us humans, and we DO exist in a space-time dimenstion. As evidence that God can actually tell time, here is a statement in Daniel concerning the "end of the age":

“The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.” Daniel 8:26

As comparison, here is a statement from Revelation:

Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy.” Revelation 22:10-11

Now this is amazing to me. Here is Mandy and RKF saying that time statements mean absolutely nothing, and here is Daniel, writing about 500 and so years before Christ, being told that these things will take place in a "distant future". On the other hand, John, writing 500 years later, is being told the opposite...don't seal the prophecy because the time is near...in fact, don't even worry about correcting people's behaviour, let the evil be evil and let the holy be holy...because THE TIME IS NEAR! Now, it's been more than 2,000 years since John was told this...it looks like either our religion is based on a lying God, or something is twisted in our expectation of what the future holds.

It looks to me like 500+ years makes a big difference in God's calendar...GOD CAN TELL TIME. Soon really means soon, and distant future really means distant future. :)

Does the time is at hand equal a specific time or date? No.
And I will kindly ask that you refrain from making false statements as to what I said or meant. I never stated that time statements mean nothing. I was referring only to 2 Peter 3:8-9. Also, I find it impossible that Jesus had come again around 70AD, since the book of Revelation was written between 85 and 95AD.
 
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

Pericles

Christian
May 21, 2002
428
1
Dayton, Ohio
Visit site
✟702.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Mandy


Does the time is at hand equal a specific time or date? No.
And I will kindly ask that you refrain from making false statements as to what I said or meant. I never stated that time statements mean nothing. I was referring only to 2 Peter 3:8-9. Also, I find it impossible that Jesus had come again around 70AD, since the book of Revelation was written between 85 and 95AD.

My intention was not to make false statements about you. If I did, I apologize. I don't know how else to interpret your view of biblical time statements, so now I am even more confused, especially since you are saying that they do mean something. What do these biblical time statements mean then?

On your claim about the date of the book of Revelation, I would like to see some evidence for your statement. Why do you think that Revelation was written between 85 and 95 AD?
 
Upvote 0

Pericles

Christian
May 21, 2002
428
1
Dayton, Ohio
Visit site
✟702.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Mandy
Actually I think that the book of Revelation tends to be over symbolized and spiritualized. Granted there are some things that are symbolic, like the harlot, etc.
Revelation is actually quite easy to understand if you study it from a more literal point of view. Just look at the title, it's the revelation(the act of reavealing) of Jesus Christ.

Apocalyptic language (which is what the book of Revelation is) in general is full of imagery...in fact that's how God mostly communicated to Israel. The Revealing of Christ, the atonement lamb was done using jewish poetic images, images with which first century jews and christians were very familiar with. Furthermore, the Bible actually says the opposite...that images and symbolism is used much more than literalism..and that Christ did NOT speak to the crowds without images:

"All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world.” Mat. 13:34,35
 
Upvote 0

Mandy

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2001
3,482
8
51
California
Visit site
✟7,109.00
Originally posted by Pericles


Apocalyptic language (which is what the book of Revelation is) in general is full of imagery...in fact that's how God mostly communicated to Israel. The Revealing of Christ, the atonement lamb was done using jewish poetic images, images with which first century jews and christians were very familiar with. Furthermore, the Bible actually says the opposite...that images and symbolism is used much more than literalism..and that Christ did NOT speak to the crowds without images:

"All these things Jesus spoke to the crowds in parables, and He did not speak to them without a parable. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet: I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things hidden since the foundation of the world.” Mat. 13:34,35

Ok, let me try to explain my position more clearly. I am not saying that symbolism wasn't used, my point was that things like the 1,000 year reign of Christ, etc., is not symbolic. Besides, the Book of Revelation is an unveiling, not a parable.
 
Upvote 0

Pericles

Christian
May 21, 2002
428
1
Dayton, Ohio
Visit site
✟702.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Mandy
According to the Apostolic tradition, John had been banished to the Isle of Patmos about 95AD and was released the next year, and that it was after his release and return to Ephesus that he wrote Revelation about 96AD.

Ahhh...apostolic tradition. So your entire eschatological structure is based on tradition rather than Scripture?
 
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

Pericles

Christian
May 21, 2002
428
1
Dayton, Ohio
Visit site
✟702.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Mandy


Ok, let me try to explain my position more clearly. I am not saying that symbolism wasn't used, my point was that things like the 1,000 year reign of Christ, etc., is not symbolic. Besides, the Book of Revelation is an unveiling, not a parable.

Why isn't the 1,000 year reign of Christ symbolic?
 
Upvote 0

Pericles

Christian
May 21, 2002
428
1
Dayton, Ohio
Visit site
✟702.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Mandy
Why would it be symbolic? In Acts 1, the disciples were told that Jesus would return. What would he return for except to reign?

Because throughout the Bible numbers often mean something. When the psalmist wrote "The cows on a thousand hills belong to God", in your opinion God only owns the cows that are on 1,000 hills, or you think he owns all the cows, on all hills?
 
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

Mandy

Well-Known Member
Dec 28, 2001
3,482
8
51
California
Visit site
✟7,109.00
Originally posted by Pericles


Because throughout the Bible numbers often mean something. When the psalmist wrote "The cows on a thousand hills belong to God", in your opinion God only owns the cows that are on 1,000 hills, or you think he owns all the cows, on all hills?


You didn't really answer my question though, why did Jesus return then? Revelation is not written to be so symbolic that everything would be so obscured. Revelation is an unveiling not a veiling.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.