1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Historicist Only The True Structuring of the Revelation

Discussion in 'Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum' started by Jerryhuerta, Nov 7, 2021.

  1. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The Historicist’s notion that Revelation 4-5 represents Christ’s ascension to heaven at the first advent is untenable. It neglects that Christ is already illustrated mediating in the first compartment in Revelation 1. His mediation affirms that he has already inaugurated the heavenly sanctuary in order to commence his mediation. [see Davidson, Richard M., “Christ’s Entry “Within the Veil” in Hebrews 6:19-20: The Old Testament Background” (2001). Faculty Publications. Paper 55.] Christ’s mediation is illustrated in Revelation 1:13 with Christ “clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.” The priestly garments illustrate the typical consecration of Aaron to his office (Leviticus 8:7). The seven candlesticks, instrumental in the typical mediation, are also indicative of Christ’s antitypical mediation. Consequently, Revelation 1 represents Christ’s antitypical mediation and not the typical Aaronic one.

    Such evidence confirms that Christ’s approach to the throne in Revelation 4-5 is extra indicative of the yearly perambulation of the high priest during the seventh month and typical day of judgment, or Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur (Hebrews 9:1-5). The traditionalist structuring has Christ returning to the inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary again. This corrective view is supported by the trumpet’s sound in 4:1, which heralded the opening of each month between the spring and autumnal festivals, Yom Teruah being the most significant of the sounding of the trumpets (Leviticus 23:23-24). John hears the same voice heard in Revelation 1:10 that announces the “Day of the LORD,” the same voice that sounds and conveys the judgments of the historical and prophetic seven church eras. Christ’s voice is equated to the sounding of a trumpet to illustrate the seven churches are antitypical of the seven months between the spring and autumnal festivals, which equates the throne scene in Revelation 4-5 with Daniel’s throne scene in his chapter 7. This structuring indicates the seven seals pertain to the opening of the same books in Daniel 7, the judgment scene. Revelation 4-5 illustrate judgment upon the church and the release of the horsemen, easily related to the horsemen in Joel 2:4, the locust army that God sends as a judgment upon his people for their sins. This proper structuring coincides with the warning to the church era of Sardis and the open door left for the church of Philadelphia concerning the “hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (Revelation 3:10). There is a tremendous amount of supportive scripture that points to Revelation 4-5 being placed during the time of the last era of the church of the Laodiceans. The Adventist’s interpretation of the seven seals, taken from Henry Grattan Guinness, is untenable.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Not sure I understand the assertion being made here? Adventists didn't adhere to Scripture only. They believed Ellen White's assertions were divinely inspired; so thus they interpreted Scripture out of her assertions. That's not the same foundational authority as would be a historicist; so I'm not sure what the comparison is. (Comparing apples to kiwis.)

    Now granted, I don't know enough about historicist interpretations of what (for example) the "time of the last era of the church of Laodiceans" was? Most historicists; (who came out of the Reformation) didn't do a lot with the book of Revelation. Which, I kind of understand why. But assuming the last era of the church of Laodicea, to a historicist, would have something to do with a date in the end of the 1st century; I'm not sure I understand the question (or statement being made)?

    As per things related to types out of the Old Testament; unless something has a "time reference"; I'm not sure trying to pinpoint a "date of fulfillment" is possible, or even necessary.

    Yet if one was to make "time comparisons" from Old Testament to New Testament; one could say 15th century historicism has become today's preterism. (Related, but not totally overlapping.)

    As per events being "fulfillment of prophecy" from post 1st century on; I personally have found some "interesting coincidences"; but often those are conjecture of sometimes rather obscure historical events. Like it's 1000 years from Nenhmiah and Ezra's rebuilding to the destruction of the Samaritans in about 480 A.D. This appears to be related to a somewhat inconspicuous verse about a king (kingdom) reigning for "a time" that's recorded in Daniel.

    It's a lot easier to compare Old Testament Scripture events to New Testament Scripture events as opposed to trying to compare them to historical events that take place after the canon was complete. Because in that case, one has no way of knowing what they "pegged" as a "viable historical event" is correct. At least with preterism that uses events recorded in the New Testament; one has something known as prophetic fulfillment to compare to.

    (Though admittedly, not even sure if that's the feedback you're looking for?)
     
  3. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The thread is for "Historicists Only". You don't understand what I'm talking about because, obviously, you are not a historicist.
     
  4. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Is this what you mean by a historicist? (My understanding of a historicist comes out of the Reformation.)

    Timeout: Revelation and the Crisis of Historicism
     
  5. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    As to points 2 and 3 of the critique, it actually affirms we live in the Laodicean era. The public is dumbed down and accepts knowledge from their pastors and scholars vicariously. They think they're rich and increased with goods and know not that they are wretched and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. Christ's admonition to the era of the Laodiceans describes accurately the condition of the contemporary market-driven church.
     
  6. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    The dividing of the churches in Revelation into "era Christians" is not a historicist belief though. There was no "church era" in Revelation that the reformers thought "fit" the era of the Reformation. That schema comes out of dispensationalism; which is like 400 years post the Reformation.

    And besides; tell Christians in Iran or Afghanistan that they live in Laodicea! (See how well that goes over.)
     
  7. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Prophecy is always understood after it's been fulfilled. As to the eras, they pertain to the zeitgeist, which allows for all the spirits of the churches to abide at any time, but only one is the general spirit of the time.
     
  8. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    But that idea "one is the general spirit of the time" isn't historically consistent, nor is it accurate. Especially not now. Would a Huguenot living through the inquisition consider themselves a member of the church of Smyrna? (Yeah, as much as a Christian living in Afghanistan today would.)

    You can't look at what you perceive around you and try and say that's consistent to the rest of the world's circumstances. Especially when you consider that more people have been martyred in the 20th / 21st centuries than any other era in history.

    The historicist of the Reformation would not have agreed with the majority of the assertions of the "modern historicist". And what would have been considered a "historicist" in the middle-ages would have been defined differently too. Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate would have considered himself a "historicist"; although his eschatological beliefs would have aligned closer to Preterism; especially in regards to the beast in Revelation 13 and the heads on that beast. (He saw the 7 heads as the 1st century Herodian dynasty. Which I would agree with him there.)

    Just like a "historic premillennialist" is not the same thing as a "dispensational premillennialist". A "historic premillennialist" would look closer to an 18th century postmillennialist.

    These definitions aren't stagnant through the course of church history. What you think is a historicist is closer to a 19th century dispensationalist, than it is to a Reformation era historicist.

    Church history is rather tricky that way.
     
  9. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Actually, it is uncanny how the churches fit the general zeitgeist of progressive church history. And it's not unfathomable that God would assess the spirit of the Huguenots during the inquisition as that of Smyrna. That doesn't preclude that the spirit of Thyatira fits the general spirit of the church during the 1260 years of papal dominance with Jezebel as the papacy.

    And as stated previously, prophecy is always understood after it's been fulfilled, which acknowledges that early Protestant historicism is subject to revision. Historicism can certainly reconcile the Revelation more than Preterism or Futurism, especially when progressive revelation is acknowledged.
     
  10. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Is Scripture subject to revisionism though? Because if you want to understand the prophecy of Scripture as Old Testament relates to New Testament, you have to compare Scripture to itself.

    "Low I come in the volume of the Book it is written of me....."

    Same goes with the rest of Scripture. Did you know that 666 was a census number in the book of Ezra? It's also the number of gold talents foreign kings (one of them named as the king of Tyre) gave to Solomon. Now do you know what that means? (Who does the king of Tyre represent and who does Solomon represent?)

    Now look really carefully at the number 666 in the book of Revelation. The wise are told to subtract "the number of the man" from "the number of the beast". "The man's" number is 666. Now go back to the census in Ezra 2:13 and look up what the names mean of the 666 decedents that came out of Babylon with Andonikan. Look up what Andonikan means. I'll give you a hint. Andonikan is a descendent of David!

    Now the numbers in Revelation:
    Did you know there is 1260 days between the time the angel appeared to the father of John the Baptist and when Herod tried to kill Jesus?

    There's 2300 days between the angel appearing to the father of John the Baptist and Jesus returning from Egypt.

    Did you know there's 1290 days between the death of John the Baptist and the Friday the commenced the week that ended with the crucifixion? That's the 62 weeks in the book of Daniel.

    Did you know there's 1335 days between the death of John the Baptist and Pentecost? That's the "70 weeks of Daniel 9".

    Did you know that "the great tribulation" had to do with the crucifixion?

    If "a day is as 1000 years and 1000 years is as a day" then 3.5 days = 3500 years. What happened almost 3500 years ago now? (the Exodus). This means that humanity has had written Scripture for almost 3500 years. (The 2 witnesses in Revelation = 3.5 years.)

    All of this I've found just digging through the Bible.

    You want to know what else I've found? Here's some of the rest of it: (There's all kinds of Bible studies I have posted on here that you can read.) And I explain how some of these things are connected to history; both history recorded in the Bible as well as secular historical records.

    https://www.fanfiction.net/s/125050...stRA6BC7v8nM86BWqSfk-1636345906-0-gaNycGzNB30
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2021
  11. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Never said that scripture is subject to revision. What I said was interpretation is subject to revision as history advances and we find prophecy fulfilled. The earliest views of the antichrist were obviously wrong when considering that Daniel 7 prophesied it would rise out of the fourth beast, the Roman Empire, and the uprooting of three of the horns. Preterists and Futurists refuse to grasp this today. This is why only historicism provides the proper hermeneutics to unlock the symbolism and narration of Revelation. Albeit, when revisions and progressive revelation are acknowledged.
     
  12. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    But how does Scripture tell us to interpret the prophecy within it? Are we to interpret the Old Testament through the New Testament; or are we to try and find what we think it means from history?

    Go back and read Daniel and Revelation really carefully. They both say the 4th beast is not like the previous 3. The Roman Empire was a political empire just like the Persians, Greeks and Babylonians.

    At the point Revelation is written it says "5 kings are fallen, one is and one is yet to come". (Revelation 17:10) Various eschatological systems through history have tried to say that the 7 heads on the beast were Roman emperors. But in the time span between the birth of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD; Rome had at least 9 emperors, not 7.

    YET there were exactly 7 Herods that ruled Judea in that time span.

    So the fact that the text itself says that the heads on the beast had (and were) reigning; at the point the book or Revelation was written; excludes the Roman Catholic Church as being the beast (which is what the Reformers had said). The Roman Catholic Church wouldn't exist for another 400 years.

    The text also tells us that "Babylon the mother of harlots" "sits on 7 mountains". She's also called "the great city". The "great city" is where the two witnesses are killed. "The great city" is "spiritually called Sodom and Egypt where our Lord was crucified." Jesus was not crucified in Rome. He was crucified in Jerusalem. "Babylon the mother of harlots" is Jerusalem.

    "The beast" is a system (run by the dragon = who is Satan) which is working to attain it's way to global dominance. It's not a singular empire. It's a global satanic cabal that rules nations behind the scenes. Today "conspiracy theorists" call it "the deep state". This "beast system" is the driving force behind "the great reset" the pandemic, the lock downs the vaccine mandates, the "health passports", the election fraud and all this other B.S. that's going on today. Look at what's happened in the past nearly 2 years. How do you think this all would be so coordinated if there wasn't some group behind the scenes pulling the proverbial strings. Look at our congress, our mainstream media, the banking system, Hollyweird. What group has predominance in all of this? How many people in our congress have duel citizenship and with which nation do they have duel citizenship?

    Now go back and look at Old Testament history. Do you know what the term "blood libel" means? Sacrificing their children to Baal. Do you know why child trafficking is such a huge issue in the world today? Look at all the global political figures attached to Epstein. What was Epstein arrested for? And where have millions of children disappeared to? (It's all connected to "the beast system".)

    They (the cabal) are trying to push the premillennial dispensational narrative with it's focus on Zionism onto the world stage. If you know the history behind how Israel came to be a nation in this modern era; you'd know it's not at all the fulfillment of prophecy that they claim it is. But make no mistake; Jewish zionism and Christian zionism are part of the "beast system".

    Look at the 2nd beast in Revelation 13. It has "lambs horns" but "speaks as the dragon". The 2nd beast tells the world to worship the 1st. Who do you hear (all over the place) are "God's chosen people"?

    Now do you know historically what happened to the rebellious Jews by the end of the 1st century? (They either converted to Christianity and got out of the area; or they were destroyed by the Roman army.) Today, there are no genetic descendants of Jacob. 85% of "Jews" today, aren't even Semitic.

    So thus "clue" as to who "the beast system" originated with.

    "The beast" actually had it's origin in the Babylonian captivity. We see this out of Nebuchadnezzar's statue dream. He's the head, than comes the Persians and the Greeks and then comes the return from exile. That return from exile sets up this beast that is different from the previous 3. It continues from the end of the Babylonian captivity to the end of time. We know this because Revelation tells us this beast (and the false prophet) are cast into the Lake of Fire at the end of time.

    The false prophet comes out of the 2nd beast. The "false prophets" from the 2nd beast are apostate Christian churches. The 1st beast originated with apostate Judaism (which is still with us today); whereas the Roman Empire is not.

    If you dare to go down all these historical rabbit holes. (The Masons, the Vatican, the British royal family, the Saudi Arabian royal family, about 70% of American politicians, the Chinese communist party, the EU, the great reset, the FED) They are all part of "the beast system". Who's responsible for 9/11? (Go down that rabbit hole.)

    Start digging through history. There's a lot more to this picture than you realize! But be aware; it gets "really dark" fast.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2021
  13. LoveGodsWord

    LoveGodsWord Well-Known Member

    +6,414
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    Just wanting to pass some helpful comments. Perhaps review your understanding of Yom Kippur of the annual Feasts. Spend some time researching this subject matter. Yom kippur is not a first apartment administration in regards to the Sanctuary according to the scriptures. It is a second apartment administration only held once a year for the cleansing of the Sanctuary for all the sins of Gods' people had committed through out the year. For me personally, I do not believe Revelation 1:10 is talking about "the day of the Lord" either which would be written in the Greek as ημέρα κυρίο. It is written in the Greek as "the Lords day" (κυριακή ημέρα) which means "pertaining to the Lord" or the "Lord's ownership of the day". "The day of the Lord" in the Hebrew scriptures however was always in context to the "second coming" where as the context of Revelation 1:10 is John in vision in the presence of Jesus in the heavenly Sanctuary (seven golden candlesticks v12). I am unfamiliar with who you are quoting from (Henry Grattan Guinness) so I cannot comment on him as I have not read what he is saying. I do not think it is a very positive thing though to try and refute someone that has no right of reply as it is a one sided argument. Perhaps I do not understand what your OP is trying to point out. Are you trying to make an argument with Historist interpretation of the book of Revelation? I see a lot of assumptions in some of the other claims your making in the op that you have to read into the scriptures that I do not have time to address here so I am only making brief comments. We should be careful with the book of Revelation that we show it's meaning from scripture by letting the scriptures interpret scripture with support by historical evidence of fulfillment of scripture in my view. This is why I believe the books of Daniel and Revelation go very well together. I do believe however that the annual Feast days of the old covenant and the book of Hebrews can also help in our understanding of the book of Revelations especially in regards to Christs ministration on our behalf in the heavenly Sanctuary that the Lord pitched and not man. Of course without Jesus guiding us in this subject matter we will never know what these prophecies are talking about. I probably do not have time for this discussion but just wanted to pass a few helpful comments before leaving.

    May God bless you as you seek Him through His Word :wave:
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2021
  14. LoveGodsWord

    LoveGodsWord Well-Known Member

    +6,414
    Australia
    SDA
    Married
    Sorry but I respectfully disagree and believe this is complete misinformation and nonsense. Adventist believe that scripture alone is the final authority and sole rule of faith and that Gods' Spirit is our only guide and teacher. I would be careful what you read from the word of website. Not everything you read from the web is factual or true.

    Take care.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2021
  15. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Such a lack of proper analysis is the reason Preterism and Futurism exist. No one is doubting that we interpret the OT by the New but I would add the converse is just as true; it’s called the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, joined with progressive revelation. I mentioned proper analysis because you proceed to tell us what you think the prophecies mean from history. I don’t find this ironic anymore. I would say the whole point of prophecy is God's attribute in foreseeing the history of the world and sharing it with us. The object is to reconcile history to prophesy by taking into account that literal as well as hyperbolic language is used that must be deciphered by the scriptures themselves.

    You have failed to do justice to the syntax and grammar in the Revelation, especially chapters 13 and 17. There is a tremendous amount of poor exegesis on your account of Revelation but let me just deal with the most significant part of it. Revelation 17:10 does not say “that the heads on the beast had (and were) reigning.” It says: “five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come.” That would make the one that “is” the sixth reigning head and the next one that abides only a short time the seventh, which it says. And then verse 11 makes it clear “the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth,” which affirms the eighth is the wounded head, singular, spoken of in Revelation 13:3 and one of the fallen five that rises as the eighth in the end. That’s why it takes wisdom to figure it out. This is easily reconciled to history from the hermeneutic of historicism, as the fifth head is easily affirmed in history as the papacy that supplants the seat and great authority of the fallen Roman Empire.

    Of course, wisdom also affirms John’s perspective is not the first century but that he was actually taken by the Spirit to the Day of the LORD to witness the judgment of the harlot Babylon during the time of the Laodicean church, our time. From our time the sixth head is the second beast in Revelation 13 and the image, the seventh, which has not yet come to fruition. History affirms that America came up as a lamb espousing Christian principles but is well on its way to speaking as a dragon, which is what you’re documenting when speaking of the “deep state.” There is much that affirms this, as the symbolism of the mountains. The OT is replete with indications that mountains are symbolic of kingdoms in prophecy and not to be taken literally. When the mountains are viewed as kingdoms then we have the fallen five represent, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and then the papacy. The sixth is America and the seventh is the image, and the eighth rises when the seat and authority are returned to the papacy who suffered its deadly wound when Protestant America rose to secularize society. It was disestablishment that wounded the fifth head. There is a tremendous amount of more to add, but for now, you have a lot to ponder.
     
  16. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Hum??? Why is it that you neglect to mention that what I'd said about prophecies related to history; was in the context of history recorded in Scripture?

    We compare Scripture to Scripture; not Scripture to history (unless that history is recorded in Scripture)!

    :scratch:

    Are you denying that Revelation was written before the Roman Catholic Church existed? Are you denying that Revelation was completed by the end of the 1st century?

    :doh:

    Now shall we talk about hermeneutics and verb tense?
    Revelation 17:5:
    And there are seven kings: five are fallen,
    (2nd aorist active indicative = this is a singular action that has already happened at the point the text was penned.) and one is, (present tense indicative = this king is reigning at the point this text was written) and the other is not yet come; (2nd aorist active indicative for both verbs "come" and "is" = this king exists at the time of the writing of the verse, but he has not began to reign yet) and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

    VERY CLEARLY
    the verbs in this passage are present tense! Contemporary to the time of the writing of the passage. (Which was long before the existence of the RCC.)


    And.... how is this different than what I said about the beast continuing to the end of time?

    :|

    Shall we have another grammatical syntax lesson:

    Revelation 1:1
    The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew
    (aorist active infinitive) unto his servants things which must (PRESENT impersonal active indicative) shortly (see note below) come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

    G1722 - en - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv)

    What John sees, is still anchored to John's time. No where in the text does it say: "John, I'm showing you what happens at the end."

    So.... you think the 2nd beast is the United States? Who is the 1st beast that the United States is telling the world to worship? You are aware that the "deep state" is a global entity; correct?

    Which is already indicated by the grammatical verbiage of the text, that these kings are "present tense" in relation to when Revelation was penned.

    7 heads are seven mountains the whore sits on. (Revelation 17:9)
    The whore is a city. (Revelation 14:8, Revelation 16:19 & Revelation 18:10)
    The "great city" is "where our Lord was crucified" (Revelation 11:8)

    Babylon the mother of harlots is Jerusalem.

    Compare this verse: 1 Peter 5:13
    Where's Peter? He's to preach "the gospel to the circumcision" (Galatians 2:7) Who were the circumcision (Psst - Jews). Where were the Jews? (Psst - Jerusalem)

    You can not get away from the geographical context of the New Testament as it related to the 1st century. These are real historical events that had their place in real time and space.

    If the 6th head is America and the 2nd beast is America.... How's that work?

    And.... how about we ponder what Scripture actually says?

    Acts 17:11
    These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.


    But hey, if you don't want to look at what Scripture actually says; then I guess we're done.

     
  17. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    You say “we compare scripture with scripture.” Who are “we?” The point that went over your head is that you’re no different than anyone here. We all say we compare scripture with scripture before we try and resolve prophecy to history. The question is, whose presuppositions are best in resolving prophecy to history? Certainly, yours aren’t by any historicist’s standard. Actually, I have indulged you for my amusement because this thread is for “historicist only,” and you’re no historicist. Aren’t you presumptuous?

    For example, your presuppositions on “tense” in determining the fulfillment of prophecy are fallacious. In 1 Corinthians 15:27, we read: “For he hath put (aorist active indicative) all things under his feet.” Yet, Hebrews 2:8 declares: “But now we see not yet all things put under him.” Such evidence destroys your preterist presuppositions on tense where prophecy is concerned. Historicism is quite solid on the protraction of time in prophecy.

    For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year. (Ezekiel 4:5-6)​

    Nowhere are these fallacies on tense more apparent than in your eisegesis on Revelation 17:10-11. The context includes past (five are fallen), present (one is), and future (and the other is not yet come) tenses. What in the world do you mean by stating the context is “present tense?” Furthermore, there is nothing in the context that maintains the heads are transient in nature. And this is where Daniel comes in. You know, that comparing scripture with scripture thing! Revelation 13:2 draws in Daniel’s beasts from his chapter 7 to render the heads as the same kingdoms in Daniel. The connection with Daniel 7 maintains the heads are not transient, like men, but represent the kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome and the little horn that abides until he is consumed by the burning flame and destroyed at the end without hands (Daniel 7:11, 26; 8:25; Revelation 19:20).

    As I said, Revelation 17:10-11 states it takes wisdom to decipher the heads, and wisdom maintains John’s perspective was not the first century. The papacy had already fallen from John’s perspective, which is the Laodicean era, a time in which the church is the harlot and that is what my book is about. She has “a whore's forehead,” not unlike Ephraim in Jerimiah 3:3. I have a plethora of evidence, based on comparing scripture with scripture, to vindicate my thesis.


    Now, are we done?
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2021
  18. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    We who are believers! (Does that include you?)

    That is a presupposition that came out of your own head; as nowhere in this thread, have I ever indicated that I believed I was different than anyone else; (or at least any other believer).

    The first principle of interpretation is to compare Scripture to Scripture. So thus historical events recorded in Scripture that make reference to themselves as fulfillment of prophecy are what they are; (fulfillment of prophecy). To interpret Scripture with Scripture; means we aren't to interpret it through history; UNLESS - again; the history we are looking at is already recorded in Scripture.

    Well, I guess you are correct there; because I'm using Scripture to interpret itself!

    Am I as presumptuous as you are arrogant?

    Ehh....??? Maybe it would help if you quoted the entirety of both verses? You're aware that both passages have the same verb tenses...... right?

    1 Corinthians 15:27
    For he hath put
    (aorist active indicative) all things under his feet. But when he saith (2nd aorist active subjective = this verb is "subjective" the the "indicative" first verb in the sentence; which is affirming the actuality of the truth of the statement. - That all things are under His feet.) all things are put (perfect passive indicative) under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put (aorist active participle) all things under (aorist active participle) him

    Hebrews 2:8
    Thou hast put
    (aorist active indicative) all things in subjection (aorist active indicative) under his feet. For in that he put all (aorist active infinitive) in subjection under him, he left (aorist active indicative) nothing that is not put (accusative) under him. But now we see not yet (present active indicative) all things put under (perfect passive) him.

    WOW - I'm impressed! Good job!

    Galatians 3:17
    And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.


    Ezekiel 4:5-6 - Nailed it again! Good job!
    I'm double impressed!

    Revelation 17:10
    And there are
    (verb - present tense) seven kings: five are fallen, (verb - 2nd aorist active) and one is, (verb - present tense) and the other is (verb - present indicative) not yet come (verb - 2nd aorist active indicative); and when he cometh, he must (verb - present tense impersonal active indicative) continue (verb - aorist active infinitive) a short space.

    Revelation 17 :: King James Version (KJV)

    You've heard of "The Blue Letter Bible" website - right?

    So.... the 7 head are who? .... Nebuchanazzar? Darius? Alexander the Great? Augustus Caesar?...... Um???? The Roman Catholic Church? The United States and..... the Chinese Communist Party????

    Daniel 8 on the other hand says:
    23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

    24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

    25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

    Who was "the king" in Judea who "stood up" against Jesus Christ? REMEMBER - that interpret Scripture with Scripture thing!

    26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

    Daniel 7:
    https://www.fanfiction.net/s/12505087/8/Bible-Study-END-TIMES

    So... you said that the passage states that it takes wisdom ehh? (Hum???... Interesting??? I must be missing something, because I don't see anything in these two verses about wisdom... nor does it say: "This is not about the 1st century!"

    Revelation 17:10-11
    And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

    And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

    Hum???? You do concede that Revelation was written when John was alive correct?

    100 A.D. Estimated date John died.
    313 A.D. Constantine legalizes Christianity.
    322 A.C. Constantine begins to build the first St. Peter basilica in Rome.
    590 A.D. Gregory is the first pope in Rome.
    852 A.D. The first wall in "the "Vatican" around the basilica goes up.
    1626 A.D. The current St Peter's basilica is finished.
    1929 A.D. Vatican City is established as a sovereign nation.

    Hum..... So you wrote a book and so this thread isn't actually about "historicists only" but your thesis.

    OK - got it!

    That all depends on whether or not you want to compare Scripture with Scripture? But I do suppose that if your answer here is to be snotty about this; it means you DON'T want to compare Scripture with Scripture?
     
  19. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    As to your insult whether I’m a believer, that stems from a lack of grace. I made my posts for historicists only because of the lack of grace and understanding that comes from preterist and futurist posts. There are exceptions, but they are rare and your insults are evidence you are not an exception.

    As to the lack of understanding, your post does nothing to surmount the point made concerning 1 Corinthians 15:27 and Hebrews 2:8. I’ll defer to a scholar who writes on the issue:

    “The view that the present tense in New Testament Greek inherently indicates a continuous, habitual, linear state or action is a deeply ingrained misconception. Unfortunately, most Greek grammar books taught this view of the present tense as recently as about 30 years ago. Since that time, Greek language scholars have demonstrated convincingly that Greek tense forms inherently convey the writer’s viewpoint on an action (aspect), not the kind of action itself (Aktionsart). Similarly, Greek grammarians have also come to conclude that the present tense does not automatically refer to an ongoing action or state,[4] and likewise that the use of the aorist-tense verb form does not by itself mean a once-for-all action or state.[5] However, many Bible interpreters and teachers today are still stuck in the old paradigm that equates tense with kind of action.” CLARIFYING THE MISUNDERSTOOD PRESENT TENSE

    Preterists or those of your ilk are stuck in the old paradigm of misrepresenting the Greek tenses in Revelation and other texts. They are also ignorant of prophetic telescoping for the most part. Caught in their misrepresentations they resort to insults, not unlike yourself. The historicist’s paradigm presents the presupposition that scripture is used to interpret scripture that rightly determines the action in its relation to temporal events, unlike the foolishness of the expositors of your ilk.

    And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. (Revelation 17:9-11 ephasis added)​
     
  20. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Hum..... speaking of lack of grace..... The first question I raised to you; and you came back with this:

    And then.... (speaking of insults). You have been pretty consistent in asserting an arrogant attitude that your eschatology and definition of a "historicist" is superior to other people you perceive to be preterists or futurists. Despite the fact that a reasonable person would acknowledge that the definition of "historicist" has changed through out church history.

    Premillennial and Postmillennial particularly are ever changing schemas, specifically because people aren't using the Bible to explain to them what the Bible means.

    What you call "historicism" appears to me to have more in common with post WWII dispensationalism than it has with any eschatological schema the Reformers, the early church fathers or even what the RCC in the middle ages, would have believed. Yet the more I pressed you on that issue; the snottier you get.

    :scratch:

    That's not a sign of maturity. Not even in a secular sense.

    And.... this is because I amply demonstrated that what you were asserting was the difference between those two passages, wasn't really there. (The tenses were both the same.)

    If you're going to "rightly divide the word of truth"; you can't "cherry pick" Scripture and say: "I like this 'present tense' here; but reject that 'present tense' over there." (because that 'present tense' doesn't support your thesis).

    CLARIFYING THE MISUNDERSTOOD PRESENT TENSE

    I find it fascinating, that it appears to me, that this link that you posted here, is written by a futurist. He makes some statement (in there somewhere) about "live and reign" (with Christ) in Revelation, as being present tense; insisting the "millennial reign" hasn't happened yet. For the amillennialist though; (which up even well into the 20th century) the vast majority of theologians were amillennialist. "Live and reign with Christ" (1000 years) fits "present tense".

    Theologians through the past 1900 years apparently weren't confused by that. But... maybe they were also more keenly aware of passages like:

    Ephesians 1:
    19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

    20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,

    21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

    22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

    Obviously the "millennial reign" began at the resurrection. Which also makes sense in the context of the atonement. Why would Jesus "not reign" if he'd accomplished the atonement? The assertions compared to the truths about redemption that are alleged to be espoused to; don't make sense.

    Yet that "old paradigm" has been consistently followed for the past 1900 years; and is the only thing that holds the constancy of the grammar of the text to itself. If you believe "holy men of old wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" than you'd have to concede that God caused them to express verbs the way that they did for His purposes.

    There's no "Well the author was thinking 'this' and that's why he wrote the verbiage one way here; but it doesn't mean the same thing over there." That's the same fallacy of: "This part of Scripture is Divinely inspired; but that part over there isn't." It's either all true or none of it's true; and if only part of it's true, than none of it matters because there's no way of knowing what part is true.

    THIS is why the Scripture tells..... believers to compare it to itself.

    A lot of people also get caught up in: "Well, what did 1st century Jews believe this meant?" Or "What did someone of the era of king David believe this meant?" Or "What is the historical context". These question all turn into useless "traditions of men" because first and foremost; we have NO WAY of knowing what king David thought this meant; or what Isaiah thought that meant.

    If there's a way of finding out, some of this could be useful to know. For example, it's not necessary to understand that "when the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times" was not that there were chickens in the court yard. "The cock" was a colloquial term that indicated what time of night they'd hear two trumpet blasts in the city; who's purpose was to let Roman soldiers know when their watch was about to begin. The "crowing of the cock" was generally at 3 A.M. Which would be useful for those trying to construct a timeline of what happened; but it's not necessary to understand the context of how this event related to Peter and Jesus. It's an interesting detail, but would not affect what one understands about redemption.

    And this is why.... believers are told to compare the Scripture to itself because proper interpretation is found in letting the text define itself. (As opposed to "shots in the dark" of what any individual thinks it might mean!) This is why 100 different people have 100 different interpretations.

    And thus they DON'T do THIS!

    But apparently you know this, because you get all hot under the collar when it's brought up.

    Despite the fact that your accusations are invalid because comparing Scripture to Scripture is exactly what I've done.

    And thus your result has been:

    Says you who'd said this to me: :oldthumbsup: (Yeah, right on!) :amen:

    Which, shall I ask again? Am I'm more presumptuous than you are arrogant?

    Which, much like you're neglecting to reference the entire verses in Corinthians and Hebrews; Do you have the humility to go back and say "Ooopse, I forgot to include verse 9 of Revelation 17."

    (I won't hold my breath in anticipation that you would be willing to admit you made an error. That doesn't seem it would be consistent with your measure of maturity at this point.)


    I don't know? You tell me. Are you done being willing to compare Scripture with Scripture?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2021
Loading...