It is the Dispensational view that is the minority view. Most of Christianity is and has been amillennialist. Dispensational futurism is very popular but it is not the majority view. It is also a newcomer to the field of eschatology. The earilest doctrinal positions were either historical millennial (post-trib) or amil. Since the days of Augustine the church has been overwhelmingly amil.
In other words, that statement just made is factually incorrect.
Look it up.
A history of doctrinal positions in the church and a plethora of commentary on Revelation
prove otherwise. I strongly encourage you to read some diverse perspective. Anthony Hoekema's book "
The Bible and the Future" is considered seminal. Kim Riddlebarger's "
The case for Amillennialism" is quite rigorous. The Dispensational Premillinial view didn't even exist prior to John Darby and it didn't receive much interest until Scofield published his study Bible. That model was aggressively resisted by
all the leading theologians of the day and it wasn't until Dallas Theological Seminary wa founded as a Dispensational seminary that it gained any legitimacy.
Your facts are wrong. I understand this may be new to you and therefore confrontational, but it isn't me personally attacking you. I'm telling you to go verify what I have posted. See for yourself. If you do bother to
look it up then you'll see. If you don't look it up it's because you think you already know and do not
want to see. Don't blame or attack me personally for
that.
I've sent you back to scripture. I've sent you back to scripture repeatedly. I've sent you back to scripture with every post:
Look it up! That is what I am supposed to do: send you to scripture, because scripture is the authority, not the competing doctrines made by men and not my opinion or yours. The objectively observable
fact is Revelation plainly states the things described were near
and the fact of scripture is that scripture never uses the term "near" to mean anything other than near
and I invite you in good faith to look it up and verify what I just said.
What you do with that is up to you.
What you've chosen to do with that is make derisive personal attacks. That's not on me either.
Let's check that out to see if that statement is true, shall we?
In post #28, my very first post in this discussion I stated, "
It was Jerusalem and the Jewish leaders that bore the blood of the saints (see Mt. 23), not Rome." Anyone with a Bible can easily and readily turn to Matthew 23 and verify that statement. This is not an absence of scripture and neither is it stating the scripture "
in passing." Another poster affirmed that post. He understood it.
In post #53 I wrote, "
there are events described in the book, such as the birth of Christ in chapter 12, were past not future events in the first century," and the statement "
The harlot is Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood. Jesus declared them dead in Matthew 23, told them their house was left to them desolate, and told them the long-awaited judgment they deserved would come upon that generation"
came with a link taking the reader to the text! This is not an absence of scripture and it is not scripture in passing.
When I did mention scripture without referencing the specific addresses it was because I observed a knowledge of the Bible I believed I could rely upon and which you've here acknowledged exists. You cannot simultaneously assert a knowledge of scripture and complain when others treat you accordingly. That's not on me.
The same conditions exist in post #66. This is important because your posts were affirmed where they bear integrity with scripture. We have not always disagreed and I have endeavored to note the places where we consensus and build from there only to have it ignored.
In post #68 I expressed agreement with what I read and again the mention of Revelation 1 is clearly present and the link takes the reader to the text.
In post #69 I am discussing a text you yourself already cited so there should be no requirement for me to repeat what had already been posted. IN that post the two mentions of "
Look it up" link the reader to the specific verses cited and that webpage contains direct links to the Greek and Strong's Concordance.
So it cannot be said I didn't cite sources and it cannot be said I cited scripture in passing. Everything that was needed was provided,
especially for anyone who has a knowledge of scripture. Those who do not have a knowledge of scripture have no business telling others what or how to believe.
But, I will gladly cite every scripture referenced from here on out. It won't change anything because you've made it clear scripture isn't authoritative for you and you've no interested in changing your view based on plainly read scripture. That's not on me.
Yep. I suspected as much and you've just confirmed that. You've got no business complaining for my working with what you know you already know.
And you would be wasting both our time because 1) I never mentioned anything other than "quickly" and 2)
I completely agreed with the rendering of "tachei" that was posted! It is not a point of contention between us. Why you would re-bring it up as if it is a point of contention is irrational. Again, the facts in evidence prove me correct and you incorrect.
The point of contention is over the word "near," not the word "quickly."
And you are avoiding that fact and the facts of scripture plainly written and plainly read. The text states the time was near (Rev. 1:3 and 22:10) and scripture itself never uses the word "near" to mean anything other than near.
Look it up.
The text states otherwise and........ you just alluded to scripture without citing the specific text of the Bible.
The evidence proves otherwise.
Again, the
evidence says otherwise. I wasn't the one who ignored the op-relevant content. I wasn't the one who posted personal attacks. I wasn't the one who threatened to report and did nothing. I'm not the one running away from the discussion and putting posters on ignore because the facts in evidence won't be engaged.
What I did do is endeavor to stay op-relevant, affirm that which clearly bears integrity with scripture, work from sound exegetical principles beginning with the reading of scripture as written and letting scripture render scripture, build from consensus, and request appropriate change when content violated the tou.
Those are the facts in evidence.
The
fact is Revelation begins with a statement the things described therein were going to happen quickly because the time was near. This is also repeated near the end of the book. These two statements are found in Rev. 1:3 and 22:10 and anyone can turn in their Bible and verify those two facts. The book of Revelation opens and ends with those two qualifiers. In between those two qualifiers it contains content that describes past events (like the birth of Christ and the past kings), conditions that were present tense (such as the conditions of the seven churches), and content that was future to the first century Christian reader. Logic tells us that if the content was about Christians living many, many centuries later then it was meaningless to the first century reader and one of the most basic and fundamental of all exegetical principles is to
first understand what is written ans the author and his original audience would have understood it.
And they would have understood "near" to mean near." They would not have understood "near" to mean "twenty centuries from now."
And
nothing posted in response has refuted those facts. It may seem like that in your view, but that is not objectively the case and if you put me on ignore this is the way the matter now stands for all reading the posts so you go ahead and do what you feel you need to do but I encourage and exhort you to 1) not imagine vainly, and 2)
look at the text of Rev. 1:3 and 22:10 and deal what it actually states and not what some say it says.
We don't have anything else to discuss until some consensus is gained with
that text because everything else will be dependent upon the believer's ability to accept God's word as written or the preference to interpret it based on some eschatological doctrine that was developed much later after the canon was closed.
