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
    Actually, the inchoate arrogance lies with you. The object of qualifying the thread for "Historicists Only" is for the purpose of precluding unsolicited posts from other paradigms, and it is a rule of the forum. But the rules are not for you, right? You’re special, which makes your opinion special.

    Even so, what makes you think historicists must buy your opinions, based on eisegesis and ad hominem. Obviously, you think a lot about yourself. Your refusal of the explanation of the Greek tenses because it was authored by a futurist is a prime example; it’s a fallacious, ad hominem response. The author’s work is merely acknowledging the original understanding concerning the tenses that were first spoiled by the amillennialists when Constantine legitimized the church, which enervated the church by supplanting Chiliasm. Premillennialism predates Amillennialism by about three hundred years; it was the faith once delivered. Premillennialism has its basis on texts such as Matthew 25:31 and Psalm 110, and, of course, the Revelation.

    In essence, you are entitled to your opinions but not your own truths. In my mind, we are done here. Proponents of amillennialists are never going to accept the truth about the Greek tenses and the scriptures that support premillennialism and historicism but will merely twist or evade the evidence that originally led the Church to teach Chiliasm. And this is why I qualified my post for “historicists only.” Any further response on your part will be met by reminding you of the aforesaid.
     
  2. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    OK, let me get this strait. According to you; asking someone for clarification of what their thread means is "arrogant"; but getting all nasty with someone who asks you, isn't?

    (I could have reported you for this thread; and on account of your nasty responses, your post probably would have been deleted; for your violation of the community standards. But I didn't do that.)

    So....? What do you think Jesus would have done when someone asked him what he meant by something? Do you think he would have responded to them the way you have responded to me?

    (Well, comparing Scripture to Scripture; the answer to that would be; no.)

    And.... how many people do you suppose who looked at this thread, seeing how you responded to me, decided not to offer any comments? How many other historicists (who might have actually agreed with you) may have decided to move on; simply because you have been so nasty to me.

    So... historicists are exempt from exegesis? You are allowed to put what ever meaning you want on what ever Bible passage you want; and it doesn't have to be consistent with anything? - OK; Got it!

    Just as you accuse of me:
    Apparently you don't think that the rules for Bible exegesis apply to you. Are all historicists who fall into your definition of a "historicist"; just like you? It's a "very specific niche" of historicist, should have only responded to this thread?

    You mentioned "Adventists". Are / were you a "7th Day Adventist" who has departed from that group's eschatology, to call yourself a "historicist"?

    No actually, obviously, I think a lot about the integrity of Scripture!

    But you disagree with futurists. So if he's not right about his interpretation of Scripture; how do you know when he's right, on which present tense verb you can accept as a present tense verb and which one you can't?

    The premise that "a present tense verb; isn't always a present tense verb"; leaves interpretation open for an awful lot of guess work. Kind of like transgender doctrine. If biological male and female are meaningless; then yeah, you get boys raping girls in high school bathrooms and men winning trophies in women's sports.

    But premillennialism by definition is futurism; which you don't agree with futurism so; why would this futurists opinion matter???.

    Unless one tries to claim the 2nd coming of Christ already happened; then they would certainly not be a "futurist". Which... one might see smatterings of that belief in the Postmillennialist camp; but the belief that the 2nd coming has already happened, has always been considered by the vast majority of churches as heresy.

    And saying Constantine supplanted Chiliasm; is like saying he supplanted millennialism. Amillennialist, premillennialists and postmillennialists are still millennialists. And all futurists are some form of "Chiliast". The word "Chiliast" is taken from the Greek word "1000"; and at its base, simply means a belief in a 1000 year reign. Now what someone believes about that 1000 year reign throws them into various camps.

    "Chiliast" basically means that the person adheres to a belief that believers "reign with Christ" for 1000 years before the final judgement happens. The term in history became associated with people who were basically premillennial futurists. But Amillennialism did not "supplant" Chiliasm; as most churches believed Judgement day came at the end of the millennium; and what they believed about how believers "reigned" with Christ was pretty "ambiguous" to a certain extent. "Premillennialism" got its distinction from the notion of Jesus returning and believers "would reign" with Him. But Chiliasm became associated with the belief that an earthy reign of Christ ended with Judgement Day.

    Postmillennialism though put a bit of a different "spin" on the notion of the earthly reign of Christ; as postmillennialists pretty much believe in some sort of socio-political "golden age" of the spread of Christianity that "takes over the world" before the end. And not that Christianity has not impacted the socio-political life of nations. It certainly has. But it has never produced any "golden age" of global peace and harmony.

    And saying Amillennialism supplanted Chiliasm isn't historically accurate either, because Chiliasm from its inception was considered a heresy. Although in its current form of Premillennial dispensationalism it's very popular. The eastern church was never prone to Chiliasm to begin with. And of course the eastern church goes back to the 1st century and was initially "bigger" than the western church. The western church was not established as a "political entity" until Constantine came along.

    Truth stands on the Scripture; which is where I stand.

    But the Greek tenses do not support premillennialism - and THAT is your problem! Thus your clinging to a teaching that cherry picks which present tense verbs you will accept as "legitimately present tense".

    Thus I find it quite ironic that you should make these statements:

    Particularly upon the point that you have been caught in your own snare.

    OK, so now that you've made it clear that you no longer are interested in comparing Scripture with Scripture. I'll leave you alone now. Have a nice day.
     
  3. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    As I stated in my last response, the inchoate affront was on your part. Now you’re adding gaslighting to your snarky responses. It started with your snarky comment “implying” that we historicists do not interpret scripture with scripture to determine if prophecy has been fulfilled or is still awaiting fulfillment. And then you persisted by being blunt and posting: “We compare Scripture to Scripture; not Scripture to history.” Truly, you did not break the rules to come on this thread for clarification, that’s mendacity, but to try and discredit historicism, which is a crass violation of the rules.

    As to the Chiliast comments, the truth is that Chiliasm predated Amillennialism and comes closer to the faith first delivered. The Chiliast belief adheres to the interpretation of the Greek present tense as conveyed in the study I posted. Protest as much as you want, one can disagree with futurism but that does not preclude they are correct on some viewpoints, even as a broken watch is right twice a day. Case in point, Hebrews 2:8. The predicate of the first sentence is in the aorist active indicative, which conveys a present perspective that all things have been placed under Christ, but due to the amplification at the end of the verse that, “But now we see not yet all things put under him,” the futurist’s analysis I posted is vindicated.

    No doubt, you did not break the rules to post on this thread for clarification, but to practice your snarky pursuit of positing your fallacious opinion that you are endowed with the special gift of interpreting scripture with scripture, while we historicists stumble in the darkness. So why are you surprised when we, as historicists, amuse ourselves at your expense?
     
  4. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Since Adventists as well as other historicists parrot the interpretations of Guinness then such interpretations are open to revision concerning progressive revelation. So it is with the interpretation that Revelation 4-5 represents the first advent inauguration of the heavenly sanctuary.

    Even so, progressive revelation has led some historicists to maintain the linear narration of Revelation 4-5. Historicists Frank W. Hardy, Ph.D., creator of Historicism.org, and R. Dean Davis, Professor of Religion at Atlantic Union College in South Lancaster, Massachusetts, have reevaluated the traditional interpretation with the sound proposal that the throne scene is the same one depicted in Daniel 7 and that it is concurrent with the Laodicean church era.

    "The throne scene takes place in the timeframe to which the seven letters have brought us, i.e., the timeframe of the letter to Laodicea, in and after 1844."[1]

    "In Rev 5 the portrayal is that of a traditional divine council in session… an investigative-type judgment…. Contrary to the views of most modern interpreters, there is evidence for interpreting the seven-sealed scroll as the Lamb’s book of life. The evidence includes: (1) the occurrences of the phrase (or equivalent) “Lamb’s book of life” (13:8; 20:12), (2) the reaction of those who have a definite stake in the contents of the scroll, (3) the corporate solidarity between the Lamb as Redeemer and the righteous saints as the redeemed, and (4) the parallel passage of Daniel 7, which describes the same corporate solidarity between the saints of the Most High and one like a son of man who receives the saints of the Most High as his covenant inheritance."[2]​

    Acknowledging the linear development between the throne scene in Revelation 4-5 and the seven churches also concedes the connection with the open door concerning the Philadelphian era of the church.

    And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. (Revelation 3:7-10)​

    The key of David is a reference to Isaiah 22:22 by which additional discovery can be garnered. Commentators convey the chapter in Isaiah pertains to a typical example of impending judgment at the hands of an invading army and the intervention of a Messiah-type individual that determines who is fit or not to enter the city, signified by the open and shut door. The connection between the phenomena related as the open door in Revelation 3:7-10, the throne scene, and seven seals are overwhelming. The discrimination between them “which say they are Jews, and are not” and the true Philadelphian is figurative and not by blood, considering that the church was a Gentile congregation. The intent is a parting of those who are indeed Christ’s from those who are not. And this parting is accomplished by the trial that is about to come upon “them that dwell upon the earth.” The trial is clearly conveyed by the seven seals, insomuch as the saints depicted in the fifth seal petition for relief from this trial at the hands of the four horsemen of the previous four seals. Considering the impending judgments conveyed in the fifth and sixth seals, Historicist Jon Paulien recognizes the significance of said framework as it pertains to the judgment scene in Revelation 8:3–5 that introduces the sounding of the seven trumpets, at the opening of the seventh seal,

    "The seven trumpets, like the churches and seals before them, are preceded by a view of the heavenly sanctuary (8:2–6)...
    Thus the prayers of the saints in Revelation 8:3–5 are probably cries for deliverance from the oppression visited by their enemies as depicted in the seven seals...
    Two basic ideas are portrayed in Revelation 8:3–5, mediation and judgment...

    This relationship is, perhaps, best understood by examining the apparent connection between the fifth seal. In the fifth seal (Rev 6:9–11) John sees martyred souls under “the” altar crying out “How long, O Lord, the Holy and True One, do you not judge and avenge our blood upon those who live on the earth...
    The spiritual connection between the trumpets and the fifth seal is made in Rev 8:3–5 where incense from the golden altar is mingled with “the prayers of the saints (tôn katoikountôn epi tês gês).”14 This scene symbolizes Christ’s intercession for His saints. He responds to their prayers by casting His censer to the earth, with frightful results.
    This connection between the altar of 6:9–11 and that of 8:3–5 indicates that the seven trumpets are God’s response to the prayers of the saints for vengeance on those who have persecuted and martyred them. The martyrs were anxious for the judgment to begin but it was delayed until all the seals had been opened."[3]​

    Paulien conveys the very judgment that is to “come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth” (Revelation 3:10) when one accepts the linear narration from Revelation 1 through 5 that Hardy and Davis concede. One cannot put the trail that is about to come upon the whole earth behind the throne scene in Revelation 4-5 if the scene overlaps the era of the final “church of the Laodiceans,” especially when one accepts “that judgment must begin at the house of God” (1 Peter 4:17).

    [1] Frank W. Hardy, Ph.D., “Historicism and the Judgment A Study of Revelation 4-5 and 19a,” Historicism.org, (August 8, 2006, Modified April 15, 2010), 1. http://www.historicism.org/Documents/Lecture1Rev4-5.pdf
    [2] R. Dean Davis, “The Heavenly Court Scene of Revelation 4-5” (Andrews University Dissertations, Paper 31, 1986), 243-244.
    https:// digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1030&context=dissertations
    [3] Jon Paulien, “Interpreting the Seven Trumpets,” A Paper Prepared for the Daniel and Revelation Committee of the General Conference of SDAs (March 5-9, 1986), 6-7, 11-13. http://www.thebattleofarmageddon. com/7trumpets pdf/Interpreting%20the%20Seven%20Trumpets2.pdf
     
  5. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    And.... you've still made that clear that you are not willing to compare Scripture with Scripture. So.... have a nice day!
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2021
  6. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    It’s a foolish and arrogant position to take that the other schools of interpreting prophecy do not compare scripture with scripture. Any sincere and learned assessment would have to acknowledge they all stive at such an approach. The more sublime stance is in taking issue with their presuppositions, like the one I take with your eisegesis on temporal indicators.

    No doubt, you did not break the rules to post on this thread for clarification, but to practice your snarky pursuit of positing your fallacious opinion that you are endowed with the special gift of interpreting scripture with scripture, while we historicists stumble in the darkness. This is a crass violation of the rules. So why are you surprised when we, as historicists, amuse ourselves at your expense?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  7. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Yet, no where does Scripture say that the RCC is "Babylon the mother of harlots". And so no; you are not comparing Scripture with Scripture.

    So in that sense you are only gaslighting yourself; because you are not interpreting Scripture through the lens of Scripture. You are trying to interpret Scripture through the lens of history. That is not how Scripture tells you to interpret it.

    Isaiah 28:
    9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

    10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

    Psalms 40:7 and Hebrews 10:7
    Acts of the Apostles 17:11
    1 Corinthians 2:13
    2 Peter 1:20
    2 Peter 3:16
    2 Timothy 2:15

    So, have a nice day.
     
  8. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Neither does it say Jerusalem is “Babylon the mother of harlots.” And so, you are not comparing Scripture with Scripture. 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 and commence with 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.
     
  9. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    OK, apparently you need a demonstration of how to compare Scripture with Scripture.

    "Babylon the mother of harlots" is called "the great city".
    Revelation 14:8
    Revelation 16:19
    Revelation 17:18
    Revelation 18 = all the way through the chapter.

    Now compare Revelation 11:8
    And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

    Where was Jesus crucified? (Hint = Not in Rome.)

    Now compare Revelation 21:10
    And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

    The earthy Jerusalem is corrupt. That's why they crucified Jesus Christ. What city killed the prophets in the Old Testament? (Jerusalem - Matthew 23:37). (Revelation 16:5) "The great city" - Revelation 16:19. "Babylon" Revelation 16:19

    1 Peter 5:13
    The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you; and so doth Marcus my son.


    Where is Peter when he writes this? (Hint - He was't some 60 miles south of what would today be called Bagdad Iraq!) Some claim Peter went to Rome. There is no historical evidence that was ever the case though. (Why not?) Because Peter was the the apostle to the circumcision.

    Galatians 2:7
    But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, (Paul) as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;


    Who were "the circumcision"? (Hint = Jews.)
    And where were the Jews? (Hint = Jerusalem!)

    Jesus told Peter that he would die in the same manner as Christ had. (John 21:17-19). Remember Peter had vowed that he'd go to his death right next to Jesus. And Jesus told him "Before the cock crows twice; you will deny me 3 times."

    Now Acts 21:
    Paul wants to go to Jerusalem. (Acts 21:4) The Holy Ghost (through other believers) told him not to. Acts 21:11) Paul didn't listen. (Acts 28:17 - He's taken into the custody of the Romans so the Jews don't kill him.)

    Now why do you suppose Paul was so animate about going to Jerusalem? (They'd been told to flee Jerusalem when "you see armies surrounding Jerusalem".) No where past Acts 21, do we hear anything about Peter. (Why do you suppose that is? = Probably because Peter was already dead!)

    SO - after putting all these passages together. Comparing Scripture to itself. Who is the "great city" that "kills the prophets" "where the Lord was crucified"? (Hint - It wasn't Rome!)

    It was...... (wait for it)..... JERUSALEM!

    Which... should it be my regrets to have to point this out to you? But for a "historicist"; you sure are lacking in your knowledge of history.

    Now - for "the icing on the cake"! The political kingdoms in the book of Daniel. Three of them (Babylon, Persia and Greece) never extended to the point that they included the city of Rome. BUT - Babylon, Persia, Greece and the Roman Empire...... (wait for it)..... all included the city of...... Jerusalem!

    And THAT is how you use the Scripture to understand the Scripture.

    And now... have you changed your mind in your willingness to compare Scripture to itself?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2021
  10. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    No, apparently you need a demonstration of how to compare Scripture with Scripture.

    Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Hebrews 13:12

    Christ was not crucified in Jerusalem according to scripture. So, we are led to seek another entity as to who is Babylon the harlot.

    Furthermore, 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, the mediation depicted by the Revelation cannot represent the punishment of the Jews under the Old Covenant. If one wants to read the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem under the Old Covenant in AD 70 and the diaspora that followed read Ezekiel 34:10-31, Micah 5:1-4, and Zechariah 10 and 11. Christ’s mediation concerns the church, not the Old Testament Aaronic Covenant.

    Since the Revelation depicts the mediation of Christ over the church then the Jerusalem in question has to identify with the church under the New Covenant, illustrated in Revelation 12:1, Galatians 4:26, and Hebrews 12:22-24. John sees the church in the wilderness in Revelation 12, fed in fulfillment of Micah 5:1-4, and then he sees the same woman in the wilderness after the passage of time in Revelation 17, only now she is a harlot. The passage of time is affirmed by the heads, five are fallen, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the little horn. She is depicted during the time of the sixth, the two-horned beast. As I stated, it takes wisdom to determine the heads, which your poor attempt to compare scripture with scripture will never ascertain.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2021
  11. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    No he was "crucified outside the gate". Hebrews 13:12 (The gate of what city?) (Hint = it wasn't Rome!)

    And clearly Revelation 11:8 says "the great city" (spiritually called sodom and Egypt) "where also our Lord was crucified".

    So do tell; oh ye "wise" one. Where was Jesus crucified?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2021
  12. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The “gate” enclosed the city of Jerusalem, as gates do. This tells us we cannot interpret the great city in Revelation 11:8 as the Jerusalem that was in bondage (Galatians 4:25). Your misrepresentation has Christ being crucified for the city under bondage when in converse he was truly crucified for heavenly Jerusalem.

    Since the Revelation depicts the mediation of Christ over the church then the great city in question has to identify with the church under the New Covenant, illustrated in Revelation 12:1, 21:10; Galatians 4:26; and Hebrews 12:22-24. John sees the church in the wilderness in Revelation 12, fed in fulfillment of Micah 5:1-4, and then he sees the same woman in the wilderness after the passage of time in Revelation 17, only now she is a harlot. The passage of time is affirmed by the heads, five are fallen, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the little horn. She is depicted during the time of the sixth, the two-horned beast. As I stated, it takes wisdom to determine the heads, which your poor attempt to compare scripture with scripture will never ascertain.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2021
  13. LoveGodsWord

    LoveGodsWord Well-Known Member

    +6,414
    Australia
    SDA
    Married

    Hello Jerryhuerta, nice to meet you. I will not stay for this thread as I do not have much time or interest here in your OP. That said reading your post here in response to what you are quoting from I noticed your response here does not address anything in the post you are quoting from that disagrees with your claims and teachings. You seem to be just promoting a view and teachings of someone your following which as I have pointed out earlier is reading into the scriptures what the scriptures to not say or do not teach. We cannot do this with the book of revelation.

    Scripture must interpret the scriptures (Isaiah 28:9-10) as the book is not of any private interpretations (2 Peter 1:20). Of course you are free to believe as you want. That is between you and God but beware of the warning given not to add to these words given in Revelation 22:18. In your posts you seem to be making a big deal of the teachings of people that have a PhD that your following? According to the scriptures this is foolishness in God's eyes as God brings to nothing the wisdom of the wise if they are not being taught by His Spirit.

    It is true that Adventist interpretation of the prophecies have similarities to the views of the early reformers as shown in one of my threads somewhere but this is where it ends. To be honest I do not know or have heard of "Guinness" who you mention in your post. Following some of your thread all I see is a lot of speculation unsupported by evidence. Anyhow that is my view so I guess we will agree to disagree and leave it at that. There is so many different interpretations of the book of Revelation as there is different Christian religions of the World.

    So let's be honest here. How are you going to know you have the right teaching if you are trying to find it in your own strength? For it is written I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. And again, He takes the wise in their own craftiness.(1 Corinthians 1:19-20; 1 Corinthians 3:19).

    How do you know the version of the what you believe is truth is in fact the truth? Something to pray about. Anyhow nice to talk to you.

    Take Care.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2021
  14. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hey LGW (LoveGodsWord),

    I believe you are confused about understanding private interpretation. If that were not the case you would not be as dismissive of the scriptural foundation, I base my thesis upon. Like the post you’re responding to affirmed that Frank W. Hardy, Ph.D., creator of Historicism.org, and R. Dean Davis, Professor of Religion at Atlantic Union College in South Lancaster, Massachusetts, have reevaluated the traditional interpretation with the sound proposal that the throne scene is the same one depicted in Daniel 7 and that it is concurrent with the Laodicean church era. Their analysis is a correction of the traditional historicist’s interpretation of Revelation 4-5, which was taken from Guinness and that many SDA's hold today. It is your propagative to dismiss it, but it’s not based on private interpretation but on sound exegesis. I merely build on it.
     
  15. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    So you do admit Jesus was crucified outside of Jerusalem.

    But you don't understand what Galatians 4:25 means either though, now do you? The Jerusalem that was in bondage to what? Why did they crucify Christ.... outside of Jerusalem!

    (Because they weren't the children of promise; they were the children of the flesh.) The only thing the law (Mt. Sini) could do was condemn people. (Thus the analogy to Hagar; who did bear a son; but he was not the "Son of promise".) No, the "Son of promise" was Christ. He is the seed of Abraham.

    But you still can't get away from the comparison made in Revelation 11:8 "the great city" "spiritually called sodom and Egypt" "where our Lord was crucified". There's no way you can construe that; (particularly given the context of the rest of Revelation) to mean that "the great city" is anything other than Jerusalem.

    Particularly when Revelation 21:10 speaks of "the great city" and the "holy Jerusalem".

    Compared to the Jerusalem in Galatians 4:25, which is "in bondage with her children".

    Now compare Revelation 18 with the description in Ezekiel 16.
    "Son of man cause...... (wait for it).... Jerusalem to know her abominations."

    Now Ezekiel 16 gets pretty graphic. Jerusalem "gets around". The Egyptians, the Philistines, the Amorites. Name a country; she's "done" it. She murders her own children. She murders God's children. (vs 20 &21) (Same description in Revelation of "Babylon the mother of harlots".)

    Rome is never named in a description anywhere in Scripture as a harlot. Jerusalem though.... the city that's "fast" and "loose".

    Verses 40 on of Ezekiel 16 describe Samaria as Jerusalem's older sister and one of her daughter is Sodom. ("spiritually called sodom and Egypt").

    Keep going there; ya burying yourself real good!
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2021
  16. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Do you admit you conceded my point when you wrote: Why did they crucify Christ.... outside of Jerusalem! I agree Christ was not crucified in Jerusalem, that’s what “without the gate” means. The text goes on to admonish us to seek the one to come.

    Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. Hebrews 13:12-13

    You keep coming back to the city we are admonished to leave behind, but Christ moved on to the one to come in his mediation depicted by the Revelation. He mediates to heavenly Jerusalem and not the one in bondage.

    As to the president set in Ezekiel 16, it only affirms that when the church is prophesied to apostatize itself according to Revelation 3:14-19, Matthew 24:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:2–3, and 1 Timothy 4:1–3, she is also guilty of abominations and has a harlot’s forehead.
     
  17. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    Do you admit you concede my point that it was Jerusalem and not Rome? Thus Revelation 11:8! "the great city" (which is described as Babylon the mother of harlots) is Jerusalem. Ezekiel 16 names it specifically.

    He wasn't crucified outside of "heavenly Jerusalem" either. The city, who's gate he was outside of was earthly Jerusalem. And do you think earthly Jerusalem was not corrupt at the point they crucified him; thus your statement about "the Jerusalem in bondage"? If they weren't in bondage to their own sin; they would not have crucified Christ!

    Except Ezekiel 16 doesn't say the church. It says Jerusalem. Gotta compare Scripture with itself!

    Nowhere in the New Testament does God equate false believers, or apostate churches as "Jerusalem". Jerusalem the earthy city is associated with the Old Testament. That's what Galatians 4:25 is about. He only equates the "holy Jerusalem" to be associated with those who've been atoned for.

    "Also guilty"??? Guilty in comparison to whom? I thought you said Babylon the mother of harlots was the RCC? Do you now mean there's more than one "Babylon mother of harlots"? Revelation doesn't say there's two "Babylon mother of harlots".

    (My, how one's eschatology can so quickly change when they've managed to paint themselves into a corner!)

    And what is this "has a harlot's forehead" (other than you just made it up)? The only reference to "forehead" in Revelation is that "Babylon mother of harlots" is written on the forehead of this entity that's described as a city.

    Guinness??? meaning "book of world records" or... the beer?

    And yeah, I see that you really want the thesis of your book to be accepted; but, it's just plain wrong, because it's not predicated on what Scripture actually says; only your hypothesis of what this or that passage means.

    (Again "private interpretation".)

    You know the SDA's went outside of Scripture don't you? They adhered (and many still do) to the "visions" of Ellen G. White. Allegedly in one of her "prophecies" she saw a halo around the sabbath commandment and thus from then on, their sabbath was on Saturday.

    Which seems to me that is just one more example of "private interpretation" because it's comparing Scripture to what she allegedly saw; as opposed to comparing it to itself.

    Which again; are you willing to compare Scripture to Scripture; as opposed to your interpretation of what you think it means?
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2021
  18. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    As I stated, you didn’t break the rules to post on this thread for “clarification;” that’s mendacity. It’s clear that your motive was to try and discredit historicism, which is a crass violation of the rules. Such motives are a lack of veracity. Why would anyone think they’re going to be taken seriously with such a lack of veracity? And why would they be offended when we, as historicists, amuse ourselves at their expense?

    This lack of veracity manifests contorted interpretations of texts such as Revelation 11:8 that the great city is Jerusalem. But Hebrews 13:12-13 compelled the admission: Why did they crucify Christ.... outside of Jerusalem! As I said, I agree, Christ was crucified outside of Jerusalem so the great city in the Revelation cannot be Jerusalem, because that is not where Christ was crucified according to Revelation 11:8.

    The rest of what you wrote is just as much nonsense and a lack of sincerity concerning your so-called intent for “clarification.” If you were sincere, you would actually read what I write because it would preclude you from contending with strawmen. I don’t interpret the harlot as the RCC nor do I accept she is Jerusalem either.

    As to the president set in Ezekiel 16, it only affirms that when the church is prophesied to apostatize itself according to Revelation 3:14-19, Matthew 24:12, 2 Thessalonians 2:2–3, and 1 Timothy 4:1–3, she is also guilty of abominations and has a harlot’s forehead. Your rhetoric doesn’t surmount the aforesaid.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  19. The Righterzpen

    The Righterzpen Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

    +1,142
    United States
    Reformed
    Widowed
    :oldthumbsup: What a display of Christian maturity you have here! I'm impressed.

    And at this point you've aptly displayed to me that you are not willing to compare Scripture with Scripture.

    So, time to "shake the dust off my feet" and move on! (You have my permission to "have the last word" if you feel the dire narcissistic compulsion to respond to this!)

    Have a nice day!
     
  20. Jerryhuerta

    Jerryhuerta Historicist Supporter

    535
    +100
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    What kind of response does a lack of veracity deserve? You didn’t break the rules of the forum for “clarification,” you broke the rules in order to try and discredit historicism, which is a crass violation of the rules.

    Yet, try as you might, the only one that got caught in failing to interpret scripture with scripture was you.
     
Loading...