Who will populate the earth in the 1000 year Reign

[Dave L]

Yep. Already got that. Have addressed the erroneous and reprehensible practice of proof-texting the single verse. You are repeating yourself.


You are not dealing with what has been brought to bear on it. Jesus is in the kingdom and he has flesh. The kingdom came upon the first century Jews and the ekklesia are royal priests in that kingdom now. False dichotomies do not form sound doctrine. Stop proof-texting 1 Cor. 15:50.

Whom do I believe? Jesus and Paul? Or you?

 

[Josheb]

Whom do I believe? Jesus and Paul? Or you?

Everything I have posted is firmly rooted in God's word as written, plainly read and properly exegeted. So, once again, you're arguing another false dichotomy. It is you who proof-texted a single verse ignoring its larger contexts and all that scripture as a whole says on the matter of God's kingdom and the flesh thereof. I, on the other hand, began by working with a few basic truths building a consensus with you so that we could reach unity with God's word.It does none of us any good to agree with each other if that agreement does not reconcile with God's word.

Whom should you believe? Both Jesus and Paul because what they said about the flesh was not in conflict. Jesus has flesh in his resurrected body (Lk. 24:39) and there is nothing in scripture that says that changed as he was glorified to sit at his Father's right hand (Acts 7:55) on his Father's throne (Rev. 3:21). You most certainly have not proven otherwise. Who should you believe? You should believe Jesus because when he says the kingdom was upon them (Mt. 12:28) back in the gospel era he meant what he said. When he said the kingdom is not something you look for here or there but was in their midst (Lk. 17:21) he meant that exactly as he stated it. When Jesus said some would see the kingdom come in power before they died (Mk. 9:1) he meant what he said. So believe him. When Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world don't eisegetically conclude automatically it has nothing to do with this world. He did not come to judge the world he loves (Jn. 3:16-17) and created (Col. 1:16). When the gospel writers write of the kingdom being both a then-current and a future condition believe them. When Paul says the kingdom consists of power (1 Cor. 4:20) believe him. When Peter speaks in the present-tense about royal priests in God's separate nation believe him. When Paul says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God believe him, but believe in context of the inescapable fact and truth the King of the kingdom has flesh.

And don't get irritated with me because I point out these facts and don't get irritated with yourself and turn defensive because you missed a few truths straight out of Jesus' own mouth. Just agree with Jesus!

If you do do that then you and I won't have any conflict and I will do as I have already done numerous times in this op:

1) Affirm that which bears consistency with Good's word as written plainly read,
2) Inquire about that which is either unclear or I don't understand,
3) Refute that which is blatantly inconsistent to or contrary to God's word as written, plainly read.​

These are not denominational nor doctrinal affiliations. These are the standards by which every single one of us should be posting, examining our own posts and then those of others.

Whom do I believe? Jesus and Paul? Or you?

Baseless and unnecessary false dichotomies. Ask yourself why you thought that was a cogent response and recognize that didn't come from the HS.



Sinful flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God but flesh washed clean by the blood of Christ can and does inherit it. The kingdom is not a place in some far away part of the universe but a condition that pervades all of creation because there is and has always been only one King and he and he alone is the King of all kings to whom every knee will one day bow in confession of that fact to the glory of the Father. All will confess him as Lord and King but not all will confess him as Savior.

Everything else is a departure from both scripture and reason. I am immaterial.

 

[Dave L]

Everything I have posted is firmly rooted in God's word as written, plainly read and properly exegeted. So, once again, you're arguing another false dichotomy. It is you who proof-texted a single verse ignoring its larger contexts and all that scripture as a whole says on the matter of God's kingdom and the flesh thereof. I, on the other hand, began by working with a few basic truths building a consensus with you so that we could reach unity with God's word.

Whom should you believe? Both Jesus and Paul because what they said about the flesh was not in conflict. Jesus has flesh in his resurrected body (Lk. 24:39) and there is nothing in scripture that says that changed as he was glorified to sit at his Father's right hand (Acts 7:55) on his Father's throne (Rev. 3:21). You most certainly have not proven otherwise. Who should you believe? You should believe Jesus because when he says the kingdom was upon them (Mt. 12:28) back in the gospel era he meant what he said. When he said the kingdom is not something you look for here or there but was in their midst (Lk. 17:21) he meant that exactly as he stated it. When Jesus said some would see the kingdom come in power before they died (Mk. 9:1) he meant what he said. So believe him. When Jesus says his kingdom is not of this world don't eisegetically conclude automatically it has nothing to do with this world. He did not come to judge the world he loves (Jn. 3:16-17) and created (Col. 1:16). When the gospel writers write of the kingdom being both a then-current and a future condition believe them. When Paul says the kingdom consists of power (1 Cor. 4:20) believe him. When Peter speaks in the present-tense about royal priests in God's separate nation believe him. When Paul says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God believe him, but believe in context of the inescapable fact and truth the King of the kingdom has flesh.

And don't get irritated with me because I point out these facts and don't get irritated with yourself and turn defensive because you missed a few truths straight out of Jesus' own mouth. Just agree with Jesus!

If you do do that then you and I won't have any conflict and I will do as I have already done numerous times in this op:

1) Affirm that which bears consistency with Good's word as written plainly read,
2) Inquire about that which is either unclear or I don't understand,
3) Refute that which is blatantly inconsistent to or contrary to God's word as written, plainly read.​

These are not denominational nor doctrinal affiliations. These are the standards by which every single one of us should be posting, examining our own posts and then those of others.

Baseless and unnecessary false dichotomies. Ask yourself why you thought that was a cogent response and recognize that didn't come from the HS.



Sinful flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God but flesh washed clean by the blood of Christ can and does inherit it. The kingdom is not a place in some far away part of the universe but a condition that pervades all of creation because there is and has always been only one King and he and he alone is the King of all kings to whom every knee will one day bow in confession of that fact to the glory of the Father. All will confess him as Lord and King but not all will confess him as Savior.

Everything else is a departure from both scripture and reason. I am immaterial.

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John 3:6 (KJV 1900)

 

[Josheb]

The next time you post think before you do so. Think about the reality of Christ crucified and both King and Savior and Lord over both heaven and earth in the resurrected flesh. If you do that I won't have to point this out the obvious....

...again and again and again.

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” John 3:6 (KJV 1900)

Yep. And Jesus has both.

In the kingdom.



Adjust your thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly.

 

[Dave L]

The next time you post think before you do so. Think about the reality of Christ crucified and both King and Savior and Lord over both heaven and earth in the resurrected flesh. If you do that I won't have to point this out the obvious....

...again and again and again.

Yep. And Jesus has both.

In the kingdom.



Adjust your thinking, doctrine, and practice accordingly.

Too many scriptures say differently.

 

[Josheb]

Too many scriptures say differently.

That has yet to be proven. What you've done so far is proof-text, Dave. That's all I've received.

Jesus says he has flesh and bone.
Paul says flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom.
You've agreed with me Jesus is in the kingdom and that he rules on the Davidic throne.​

So work it out: how does the ruler of the kingdom have flesh if flesh cannot inherit the kingdom? Work it out in such a manner that bears consistency with the fact the kingdom had come upon the first century Jew as evidenced by Jesus' powerful miracles performed..... in his body of flesh, blood, and bone. Because until you have congruity with these seemingly disparate facts a few of these posts make a self-contradictory argument and assert a position having some direct conflicts with God's whole word.

 

[Jamdoc]

Ultimately I think none of this is going anywhere. Millennium stances end up all being able to justify their positions using scripture and all of them have 1 or 2 problem verses that they can't reconcile or they have to spiritualize or abstract everything to the point of it no longer really having meaning

 

[sovereigngrace]

Yep. Already got that. Have addressed the erroneous and reprehensible practice of proof-texting the single verse. You are repeating yourself.


You are not dealing with what has been brought to bear on it. Jesus is in the kingdom and he has flesh. The kingdom came upon the first century Jews and the ekklesia are royal priests in that kingdom now. False dichotomies do not form sound doctrine. Stop proof-texting 1 Cor. 15:50.

The problem is: it conflicts with countless Scripture. Full Preterism is heresy and is banned here.

 

[Josheb]

The kingdom arrived with Jesus and is here now.
“Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” Luke 17:21 (KJV 1900)

Hmmm....

In this case only glorified saints fitted with bodies like Jesus would populate the "Millennium".

He doesn't. This is why a physical Millennium is impossible.

Well, which is it? Is the millennium populated with glorified saints or is it impossible?

In this case only glorified saints fitted with bodies like Jesus would populate the "Millennium". These Satan would use to attack each other when the 1000 years end.

Satan has power over the saints who are raised incorruptible?

He doesn't. This is why a physical Millennium is impossible.

Which is it? Is satan gonna use glorified saints or not?

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. Only the born again can see it. Jesus says it is not of this world......etc.

And yet Jesus' resurrected body has flesh.

The kingdom arrived with Jesus and is here now.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. Only the born again can see it. Jesus says it is not of this world......etc.

The kingdom has already arrived? Or it's something yet to be inherited and not of this world?



This is just a sample of the inconsistencies posted. And I'm largely on your side! You're not helping our cause any. Please hone your posts.

 

[Josheb]

Ultimately I think none of this is going anywhere. Millennium stances end up all being able to justify their positions using scripture....

Slight adjustment: "...justify their positions abusing scripture...."

A proper exegetical use of scripture does not result in multiple disparate positions.

 

[Josheb]

The problem is: it conflicts with countless Scripture.

You have yet to show anything I've posted conflicting with scripture in any way. No one else here has, either.

Full Preterism is heresy and is banned here.

Good thing I'm not full-pret. Sad you've wasted these last few posts with irrelevancy.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You have yet to show anything I've posted conflicting with scripture in any way. No one else here has, either.

Good thing I'm not full-pret. Sad you've wasted these last few posts with irrelevancy.

1. Is the second coming of Christ a past event, an ongoing process or a literal future physical climactic event?
2. Is the resurrection of the dead a past event, an ongoing process or a literal future physical climactic event?

 

[Jamdoc]

Slight adjustment: "...justify their positions abusing scripture...."

A proper exegetical use of scripture does not result in multiple disparate positions.

It absolutely does. That's why these 3 positions exist. Because there are missing details and scripture that appear to conflict each other on the surface, and people make assumptions reading into scripture where it's not there, like people thinking all non believers die at the end of revelation 19 but revelation 19 itself just says the Kings of the Earth and their armies, not all the women and children and elderly etc

 

[sovereigngrace]

It absolutely does. That's why these 3 positions exist. Because there are missing details and scripture that appear to conflict each other on the surface, and people make assumptions reading into scripture where it's not there, like people thinking all non believers die at the end of revelation 19 but revelation 19 itself just says the Kings of the Earth and their armies, not all the women and children and elderly etc

Revelation shows two armies - Christ's and the beast's. All men are in one or the other. One returns in total with Christ, the other is left behind for total destruction. Revelation 19 forbids Premil.

Premils create groups and sub-groups within the wicked and righteous in order to facilitate the mass re-population of the wicked into the Premil millennium. Amils strongly reject this. They believe there are only 2 peoples on this earth – as there has always been - saved and lost. When Jesus comes the righteous will all be rescued, the wicked will all be destroyed. This is a repeated and clear truth throughout Scripture. In all Christ's teaching He only saw 2 peoples, not 3 or 4 as you submit. His parables are a case-in-point.

He described the wicked as goats or tares, the righteous as sheep and wheat. Rev 19 fits into this undoubted and repeated pattern.

The Lord encounters only types of people when He comes – saved or lost, sheep or goats. The sheep enter into their eternal inheritance; the goats receive their eternal punishment. Nothing could be simpler. Premils invent a third group in order to populate a supposed future millennium after the Coming of the Lord. They say they are a company of mortals too wicked to be sheep (and be raptured) but also too good to be goats. However, Scripture knows nothing of such half-breeds.

In Revelation the Lord describes two people and two marks. We see that both of these two spiritual marks are referred to in generous detail:

God’s Mark – Revelation 3:12, 7:3, 4 (x2), 5 (x3), 6 (x3), 7 (x3), 8 (x3), 9:4, 14:1, 22:4.

This favoured company are found in the heavenly Mount Zion.

Devil’s Mark – Revelation 13:16, 17, 14:9, 11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20, 20:4.

This rebellious company are found shut out of that great heavenly city.

 

[Jamdoc]

Revelation shows two armies - Christ's and the beast's. All men are in one or the other. One returns in total with Christ, the other is left behind for total destruction. Revelation 19 forbids Premil.

Premils create groups and sub-groups within the wicked and righteous in order to facilitate the mass re-population of the wicked into the Premil millennium. Amils strongly reject this. They believe there are only 2 peoples on this earth – as there has always been - saved and lost. When Jesus comes the righteous will all be rescued, the wicked will all be destroyed. This is a repeated and clear truth throughout Scripture. In all Christ's teaching He only saw 2 peoples, not 3 or 4 as you submit. His parables are a case-in-point.

He described the wicked as goats or tares, the righteous as sheep and wheat. Rev 19 fits into this undoubted and repeated pattern.

The Lord encounters only types of people when He comes – saved or lost, sheep or goats. The sheep enter into their eternal inheritance; the goats receive their eternal punishment. Nothing could be simpler. Premils invent a third group in order to populate a supposed future millennium after the Coming of the Lord. They say they are a company of mortals too wicked to be sheep (and be raptured) but also too good to be goats. However, Scripture knows nothing of such half-breeds.

In Revelation the Lord describes two people and two marks. We see that both of these two spiritual marks are referred to in generous detail:

God’s Mark – Revelation 3:12, 7:3, 4 (x2), 5 (x3), 6 (x3), 7 (x3), 8 (x3), 9:4, 14:1, 22:4.

This favoured company are found in the heavenly Mount Zion.

Devil’s Mark – Revelation 13:16, 17, 14:9, 11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20, 20:4.

This rebellious company are found shut out of that great heavenly city.

You know I just don't see elderly, infirm, and children marching with the beast to fight Jesus at Armageddon.
Where are you getting that every single man woman and child is involved in Armageddon? Because I'm not seeing it in Revelations 19. I see the kings of the earth, and their armies. Not an exhaustive total world population thing.

 

[Jamdoc]

Proverbs 25:2 is why we have omitted details in scripture, why it's not spelled out plainly and simply all in chronological order.

 

[Josheb]

It absolutely does. That's why these 3 positions exist. Because there are missing details and scripture that appear to conflict each other on the surface, and people make assumptions reading into scripture where it's not there, like people thinking all non believers die at the end of revelation 19 but revelation 19 itself just says the Kings of the Earth and their armies, not all the women and children and elderly etc

"Scripture that appear to conflict each other on the surface" does not actually conflict. Folks whop work out the conflicts so the seemingly disparate is understood as a congruous whole never have the problem of "Scriptures that appear to conflict each other on the surface." Never. Ever. Those that do have conflicts are abusing scripture and what I said in my previous post is thereby proven correct.

"People make assumptions..." is also an abuse of scripture. Inferential reasoning is a rational, scriptural, and appropriate methodology when based upon content actually found in scripture there is a fundamental and objectively observable difference between exegetical inference and eisegetic inference and every single one of us should understand the difference and examine both our extra-biblical source material and our posts before we presume to tell anyone else what to believe. To base an inference upon what is stated in scripture is exegetical. To base an inference upon assumptions not actually in evidence is eisegetical; the latter is inferential inference, not exegetical inference. The latter is an abuse of scripture and what I said in my previous post is proven correct when we read such content.

"People make assumptions reading into scripture where it's not there..." is the textbook definition of eisegesis. It is the antithesis of exegesis. It is an abuse of scripture and it too is objectively observable and thereby evidence proving what I said in my previous post correct.



Which is why 1) I endeavor to stick as much as possible to what is actually stated, properly exegeted and 2) folks have lots of problems with the preterist approach (shared by more than one eschatology) but never actually prove it incorrect. The book of Revelation says the events described therein will happen quickly because the time is near. That is what it states, not what I assumed or read into the text. The Greek "tachy" can be translated a few different ways but the word "engys" cannot be diversely rendered. The word "near" means near. If we examine other scripture and examine how the term "near" is used elsewhere we find "near" never means anything other than near, but for some reason folks will ignore ALL the entire precedent of scripture itself and claim that one particular example of "near" doesn't actually mean what it states. It means something entirely different than all other scriptural uses of the term. The book of Revelation opens and closes with this admonition and, exegetically speaking when scripture repeats itself and when a prophesy opens and closes with repetition that is a sign of importance and veracity. That is how the first century reader would have understood the word "near." They would also have understood those opening sentence in the context of Christ, and Christ's then anticipated return. There is much in the text leading to an otherwise ordinary reading of the term and nothing in the text indicating the word "near" means "2000 or more years from now."

Now I will concede this point about the word "near" is simply and solely one single point amidst a myriad of other points but if we accept what is stated as stated and as fact then whatever else we read must be read understanding the events subsequently described occurred near to the time of..... the author and his original audience. This "audience affiliation" is another fundamental objective precept core to the practice of sound exegesis. We are compelled to first understand every single text in the NT as it would have been understood by its first century readership. Those books written to anyone (such as the gospels) can and should be understood in that context and the books written solely to believers (such as the epistles and Revelation) should be understood in that context.

The two factors of temporal marker (sometimes inaccurately alluded to as "time stamps") and audience affiliation are consider many eschatological positions will instantly be negated, like far-futurist Dispensational Premillennialism. The entire paradigm is eradicated once the statements of Rev. 1:3 and 22:10 are read as written. If we do not pit scripture against scripture and do not make any assumptions about the text and do not read into the sentence(s) anything not actually there then we accept what is written as written plainly read. And from that point on we have at least one means of 1) approaching the text further and 2) measuring all competing eschatologies. We may not know what to make of any other prophesy but whatever we make of any other prophesy we know it was near to the lifetime of the apostles and the NY-era ekklesia.




Now many folks are going to respond to what I just posted but not a single one of them will be able to prove "near" does not mean near. You watch, Jamdoc. It is not going to happen. You will see that the first response is likely an appeal to a post hoc fallacy: "When did it happen?" Whatever did or did not happen.... happened near. Period. Scripture measures history, not the other way around. So instantly every single one of those dissenters will have voluntarily revealed their lack of logic and exegetical mindset. Instantly. Others will bring up a myriad of completely different passages by which they will blatantly practice the short list you just provided (seeming conflict and assumptions not in evidence). Not a single one of them will even vaguely make any effort to view whatever passage they're bring up through Rev. 1:3 and 22:10. They will be the ones with scripture pitted against scripture irreconcilably. Both camps will observably ignore the exegetical precepts od scripture as written, comparative use of scripture, examination of the original language, the audience affiliation, temporal markers and most importantly the Messianic context!




For most people eschatology isn't considered a very important doctrine. It's not critical and it's not to be belabored because none of us actually does or can know how things will end. But eschatology can be critically important to the life of the believer because the way a person thinks the world will end can have a great deal of influence on the way s/he lives today, and the testimony or witness about Christ that manner of reasoning and living brings to outsiders. Do we think and live with integrity or not?

 

[sovereigngrace]

You know I just don't see elderly, infirm, and children marching with the beast to fight Jesus at Armageddon.
Where are you getting that every single man woman and child is involved in Armageddon? Because I'm not seeing it in Revelations 19. I see the kings of the earth, and their armies. Not an exhaustive total world population thing.

There is no literal physical battle of Armageddon. It is figurative language depicting a spiritual warfare. The only holy wars today are those fault in the spiritual realm. The beast's army is all whose names are not in the Lamb's Book of Life from before the foundation of the earth.

Futurists see Armageddon everywhere in Scripture, but it is just limited to one lone passage in Revelation, and its context is highly figurative and relates to the spiritual realm.

Rev 16:12-16 tells us: "And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."

 

[Josheb]

Proverbs 25:2 is why we have omitted details in scripture, why it's not spelled out plainly and simply all in chronological order.

We have scriptures in both the OT and the NT telling us people in the OT were actively prevented by God from understanding. 2 Corinthians 3:14-15 would be one such example.

Where in the NT do you find evidence God has concealed the prophesies from the God-indwelt believer in a comparable manner? The book of Revelation states there is a blessing for those who read and practice what's contained in the prophesy.

How do you think the reader can practice that which is concealed from him?
How do you think God can hold the reader accountable for not practicing something He has concealed? How do you think God can hold the reader accountable for not practicing something He has concealed unless the accompanying blessing has something do with understanding consequent to that reading?

In the last chapter of Revelation we find a reference to Daniel. Where Daniel was told to seal up the prophesies because the time was then not yet at hand, John is told to leave the words of the prophesy unsealed because the time was then near. Do you find that evidence of Pr. 25:2? Is God concealing that which He Himself has commanded be left unsealed? In other words, how exegetical is it to apply Pr. 25:2 to Rev. 22:10?

More importantly, if we are going to apply Pr. 25:2 to Rev. 22:10 then how do we do so exegetically?

 

[sovereigngrace]

"Scripture that appear to conflict each other on the surface" does not actually conflict. Folks whop work out the conflicts so the seemingly disparate is understood as a congruous whole never have the problem of "Scriptures that appear to conflict each other on the surface." Never. Ever. Those that do have conflicts are abusing scripture and what I said in my previous post is thereby proven correct.

"People make assumptions..." is also an abuse of scripture. Inferential reasoning is a rational, scriptural, and appropriate methodology when based upon content actually found in scripture there is a fundamental and objectively observable difference between exegetical inference and eisegetic inference and every single one of us should understand the difference and examine both our extra-biblical source material and our posts before we presume to tell anyone else what to believe. To base an inference upon what is stated in scripture is exegetical. To base an inference upon assumptions not actually in evidence is eisegetical; the latter is inferential inference, not exegetical inference. The latter is an abuse of scripture and what I said in my previous post is proven correct when we read such content.

"People make assumptions reading into scripture where it's not there..." is the textbook definition of eisegesis. It is the antithesis of exegesis. It is an abuse of scripture and it too is objectively observable and thereby evidence proving what I said in my previous post correct.



Which is why 1) I endeavor to stick as much as possible to what is actually stated, properly exegeted and 2) folks have lots of problems with the preterist approach (shared by more than one eschatology) but never actually prove it incorrect. The book of Revelation says the events described therein will happen quickly because the time is near. That is what it states, not what I assumed or read into the text. The Greek "tachy" can be translated a few different ways but the word "engys" cannot be diversely rendered. The word "near" means near. If we examine other scripture and examine how the term "near" is used elsewhere we find "near" never means anything other than near, but for some reason folks will ignore ALL the entire precedent of scripture itself and claim that one particular example of "near" doesn't actually mean what it states. It means something entirely different than all other scriptural uses of the term. The book of Revelation opens and closes with this admonition and, exegetically speaking when scripture repeats itself and when a prophesy opens and closes with repetition that is a sign of importance and veracity. That is how the first century reader would have understood the word "near." They would also have understood those opening sentence in the context of Christ, and Christ's then anticipated return. There is much in the text leading to an otherwise ordinary reading of the term and nothing in the text indicating the word "near" means "2000 or more years from now."

Now I will concede this point about the word "near" is simply and solely one single point amidst a myriad of other points but if we accept what is stated as stated and as fact then whatever else we read must be read understanding the events subsequently described occurred near to the time of..... the author and his original audience. This "audience affiliation" is another fundamental objective precept core to the practice of sound exegesis. We are compelled to first understand every single text in the NT as it would have been understood by its first century readership. Those books written to anyone (such as the gospels) can and should be understood in that context and the books written solely to believers (such as the epistles and Revelation) should be understood in that context.

The two factors of temporal marker (sometimes inaccurately alluded to as "time stamps") and audience affiliation are consider many eschatological positions will instantly be negated, like far-futurist Dispensational Premillennialism. The entire paradigm is eradicated once the statements of Rev. 1:3 and 22:10 are read as written. If we do not pit scripture against scripture and do not make any assumptions about the text and do not read into the sentence(s) anything not actually there then we accept what is written as written plainly read. And from that point on we have at least one means of 1) approaching the text further and 2) measuring all competing eschatologies. We may not know what to make of any other prophesy but whatever we make of any other prophesy we know it was near to the lifetime of the apostles and the NY-era ekklesia.




Now many folks are going to respond to what I just posted but not a single one of them will be able to prove "near" does not mean near. You watch, Jamdoc. It is not going to happen. You will see that the first response is likely an appeal to a post hoc fallacy: "When did it happen?" Whatever did or did not happen.... happened near. Period. Scripture measures history, not the other way around. So instantly every single one of those dissenters will have voluntarily revealed their lack of logic and exegetical mindset. Instantly. Others will bring up a myriad of completely different passages by which they will blatantly practice the short list you just provided (seeming conflict and assumptions not in evidence). Not a single one of them will even vaguely make any effort to view whatever passage they're bring up through Rev. 1:3 and 22:10. They will be the ones with scripture pitted against scripture irreconcilably. Both camps will observably ignore the exegetical precepts od scripture as written, comparative use of scripture, examination of the original language, the audience affiliation, temporal markers and most importantly the Messianic context!




For most people eschatology isn't considered a very important doctrine. It's not critical and it's not to be belabored because none of us actually does or can know how things will end. But eschatology can be critically important to the life of the believer because the way a person thinks the world will end can have a great deal of influence on the way s/he lives today, and the testimony or witness about Christ that manner of reasoning and living brings to outsiders. Do we think and live with integrity or not?

I do not accept your comments. The major error in your theology is your fixation with the coming of Titus and AD70. You see it everywhere. However, Scripture is the opposite. It is fixated with Christ, His First Advent and His glorious future physical visible second coming, to introduce perfect, incorruption, and eternity.

When it comes to words like "near" or "shortly" they are spoken from God's heavenly perspective where a thousand years on earth is like one eternal day.