Author Topic: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?  (Read 1700 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Glenn63

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
  • Manna: 1
  • Gender: Male
  • 1646 Conf. Baptist, New Cov. Theol., Prt.Preterist
Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« on: Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 11:06:26 »
Jesus was challenged by the Jews in John 2:18:  "So the Jews said to him, “What sign (S4592 semeion) do you show us for doing these things?”  Then Jesus replied by using a symbolism or sign speaking of his body as a "temple"..  “Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”  Now to the start of Revelation:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, [even] the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified (S4591 semaino)[it] by his angel unto his servant John; who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, [even] of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Re 1:1-3)

Checking the Greek for "time is at hand", it is found in 3 places in the NT and I quote them asking why the occurrences in Revelation should be different than what was stated in Matthew?  If Matt. 26:18 can't be stretched for 2000 years, why should the times in Revelation?

Mt 26:18  And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time <2540> is at hand <1451>; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
Re 1:3  Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time <2540> is at hand <1451>.
Re 22:10  And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time <2540> is at hand <1451>.

Not only is it emphatically stated that these symbolic happenings were to "shorty come to pass" and that the "time is at hand" at the beginning of Revelation, it is repeated at the closing, 22:6, 10.  The statements of time of fulfillment are not themselves symbols, just plain statements.  I have yet to find any rational explanation as to why these words do not mean exactly what they say.  The book of Revelation nowhere states it is written in 95-96AD and Rv. 11:1-2 is impossible to explain if the temple were not then still standing. Can you imagine any Jew reading that if the temple was no more? 

I find it contradictory for those who claim a literal approach to Scripture, yet totally ignore those statements of time. 


Christian Forums and Message Board

Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« on: Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 11:06:26 »

Lively Stone

  • Guest
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #1 on: Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 11:26:35 »
Glenn, do you not realize that in Revelation 11, that John is existing in his heavenly vision of the future?

Lehigh

  • Guest
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #2 on: Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 19:02:36 »
Jesus was challenged by the Jews in John 2:18:  "So the Jews said to him, “What sign (S4592 semeion) do you show us for doing these things?”  Then Jesus replied by using a symbolism or sign speaking of his body as a "temple"..  “Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”  Now to the start of Revelation:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, [even] the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified (S4591 semaino)[it] by his angel unto his servant John; who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, [even] of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Re 1:1-3)

Checking the Greek for "time is at hand", it is found in 3 places in the NT and I quote them asking why the occurrences in Revelation should be different than what was stated in Matthew?  If Matt. 26:18 can't be stretched for 2000 years, why should the times in Revelation?

Mt 26:18  And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time <2540> is at hand <1451>; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
Re 1:3  Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time <2540> is at hand <1451>.
Re 22:10  And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time <2540> is at hand <1451>.

Not only is it emphatically stated that these symbolic happenings were to "shorty come to pass" and that the "time is at hand" at the beginning of Revelation, it is repeated at the closing, 22:6, 10.  The statements of time of fulfillment are not themselves symbols, just plain statements.  I have yet to find any rational explanation as to why these words do not mean exactly what they say.  The book of Revelation nowhere states it is written in 95-96AD and Rv. 11:1-2 is impossible to explain if the temple were not then still standing. Can you imagine any Jew reading that if the temple was no more? 

I find it contradictory for those who claim a literal approach to Scripture, yet totally ignore those statements of time. 



Of course, Glen. Time meant time. Soon meant soon. Plus the events are in hyperbolic apocalyptic terms as in the O.T. prophecies. Directed towards Israel as he was in the first century, in Christ's generation.




Offline comitatus1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Manna: 1
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #3 on: Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 20:55:24 »
Jesus was challenged by the Jews in John 2:18:  "So the Jews said to him, “What sign (S4592 semeion) do you show us for doing these things?”  Then Jesus replied by using a symbolism or sign speaking of his body as a "temple"..  “Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”  Now to the start of Revelation:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, [even] the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified (S4591 semaino)[it] by his angel unto his servant John; who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, [even] of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Re 1:1-3)

Checking the Greek for "time is at hand", it is found in 3 places in the NT and I quote them asking why the occurrences in Revelation should be different than what was stated in Matthew?  If Matt. 26:18 can't be stretched for 2000 years, why should the times in Revelation?

Mt 26:18  And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time <2540> is at hand <1451>; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
Re 1:3  Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time <2540> is at hand <1451>.
Re 22:10  And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time <2540> is at hand <1451>.

Not only is it emphatically stated that these symbolic happenings were to "shorty come to pass" and that the "time is at hand" at the beginning of Revelation, it is repeated at the closing, 22:6, 10.  The statements of time of fulfillment are not themselves symbols, just plain statements.  I have yet to find any rational explanation as to why these words do not mean exactly what they say.  The book of Revelation nowhere states it is written in 95-96AD and Rv. 11:1-2 is impossible to explain if the temple were not then still standing. Can you imagine any Jew reading that if the temple was no more? 

I find it contradictory for those who claim a literal approach to Scripture, yet totally ignore those statements of time. 



Revelation is symbolic.

And must be interpreted as such.

Therefore, applying 'literal' hermeneutics is a mistake.

A mistake you are making in your post.


Chris

Lehigh

  • Guest
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #4 on: Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 21:29:24 »
Jesus was challenged by the Jews in John 2:18:  "So the Jews said to him, “What sign (S4592 semeion) do you show us for doing these things?”  Then Jesus replied by using a symbolism or sign speaking of his body as a "temple"..  “Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”  Now to the start of Revelation:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, [even] the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified (S4591 semaino)[it] by his angel unto his servant John; who bare witness of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, [even] of all things that he saw. Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Re 1:1-3)

Checking the Greek for "time is at hand", it is found in 3 places in the NT and I quote them asking why the occurrences in Revelation should be different than what was stated in Matthew?  If Matt. 26:18 can't be stretched for 2000 years, why should the times in Revelation?

Mt 26:18  And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time <2540> is at hand <1451>; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples.
Re 1:3  Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time <2540> is at hand <1451>.
Re 22:10  And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time <2540> is at hand <1451>.

Not only is it emphatically stated that these symbolic happenings were to "shorty come to pass" and that the "time is at hand" at the beginning of Revelation, it is repeated at the closing, 22:6, 10.  The statements of time of fulfillment are not themselves symbols, just plain statements.  I have yet to find any rational explanation as to why these words do not mean exactly what they say.  The book of Revelation nowhere states it is written in 95-96AD and Rv. 11:1-2 is impossible to explain if the temple were not then still standing. Can you imagine any Jew reading that if the temple was no more? 

I find it contradictory for those who claim a literal approach to Scripture, yet totally ignore those statements of time. 



Revelation is symbolic.

And must be interpreted as such.

Therefore, applying 'literal' hermeneutics is a mistake.

A mistake you are making in your post.


Chris

No, that's wrong.  God's time statements are absolutely literal.

Proper Biblical hermeneutics for interpretation includes comparing scripture to scripture.  When Pail said he hoped to come to them "soon"  - it's literal.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #4 on: Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 21:29:24 »



Offline Glenn63

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
  • Manna: 1
  • Gender: Male
  • 1646 Conf. Baptist, New Cov. Theol., Prt.Preterist
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #5 on: Tue Feb 19, 2013 - 21:33:14 »
Hi Chris, you misread my post.  I pointed out that the body of the  book of Revelation is written in signs, symbols, just as Jesus spoke of his body as a temple in John.  I purposely pointed this out so that it can be shown the literal wording of timing is applied to those symbols in Revelation.  If we have an improper time frame for the presentation of the symbols, then it is impossible to understand the book.  I believe Revelation was written before 70AD when the temple was destroyed.  It is difficult for me to see how Jews in 95AD when the temple was destroyed would react to 11:1,2.  The time was near to when John wrote so the existence of the temple makes sense.

Offline dpr

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Manna: 5
  • Gender: Male
  • Protestant Huguenot
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #6 on: Mon May 02, 2016 - 09:05:22 »
It is difficult for me to see how Jews in 95AD when the temple was destroyed would react to 11:1,2.  The time was near to when John wrote so the existence of the temple makes sense.

Old thread, but my input on this Preterist idea above.

The orthodox Jews in Jerusalem today have the materials ready to build another temple upon the Temple Mount. They already have some cornerstones cut and have tried to place them upon the mount, but the Israeli government won't allow it, not yet anyway. The Sanhedrin has formed up again in Jerusalem, and some of the orthodox Jews have been doing passover sacrifices on a hill overlooking the temple mount for several years now. They have been researching for Levitical priests and have made temple articles required for temple services per the old covenant worship.

It's time to quite men's doctrines and open our eyes to what our Heavenly Father is showing us today, especially with this kind of thing in Jerusalem involving the building of another temple and the starting up of old covenant sacrifices again.

Who in their right mind would think to be smarter than our Heavenly Father and His Word? Just because the 2nd temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans that means leaving no possibility for another temple being built for the very end??? Well it looks like our Lord Jesus in His Revelation showed us all along in Rev.11:1-2 that very thing of another standing temple in Jerusalem for the end.

Offline Tertullian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 11
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #7 on: Tue Aug 23, 2016 - 23:15:47 »
“The things which must shortly come to pass.... the time is at hand.”

vs.

"Just because the 2nd temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans that means leaving no possibility for another temple being built for the very end??? "

I'll take the word of God over naked pleading. 

The winner of this debate is: Revelation itself denies Futurism. 



Online RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8032
  • Manna: 383
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #8 on: Wed Aug 24, 2016 - 05:28:22 »
The winner of this debate is: Revelation itself denies Futurism.
Well, it depends on what branch of Futurism one is speaking about. The amill "idealist" it will support. We might add~neither does it support the Preterits view, or the half baked Preterits, or the ones that are Historical in their teachings.   

Offline Tertullian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 11
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #9 on: Thu Aug 25, 2016 - 23:02:29 »
Well, it depends on what branch of Futurism one is speaking about. The amill "idealist" it will support. We might add~neither does it support the Preterits view, or the half baked Preterits, or the ones that are Historical in their teachings.

Revelation says, in the introduction, "The things which must shortly come to pass.... the time is at hand."  That them is consistently supported throughout revelation and in the rest of the Bible.  Of those who want to push everything to the future, everything they say is just meaningless noise.   

Any understanding of Revelation has to have some application 2000 years ago, be it preterism or idealism. 

Online RB

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8032
  • Manna: 383
  • Gender: Male
  • Acts 24:16
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #10 on: Fri Aug 26, 2016 - 04:46:40 »
Revelation says, in the introduction, "The things which must shortly come to pass.... the time is at hand."  That them is consistently supported throughout revelation and in the rest of the Bible.  Of those who want to push everything to the future, everything they say is just meaningless noise.   Any understanding of Revelation has to have some application 2000 years ago, be it preterism or idealism.
It does say that in the introduction AS WELL AS IN THE END of Revelation!
Quote
Revelation 22:6,7~"And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
So, INCLUDED in
Quote
things which must shortly be done
would be the marriage supper of the Lamb, and the Great white throne judgement; and the new heavens and earth! Those thing DID NOT take place 2000 years ago. Preterism is a lie.......... A-mill Idealism is the truth taught in God's word. Augustine had it correctly understood 1600 hundreds ago! 

Offline Tertullian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 11
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #11 on: Fri Aug 26, 2016 - 08:07:01 »
would be the marriage supper of the Lamb, and the Great white throne judgement; and the new heavens and earth! Those thing DID NOT take place 2000 years ago. Preterism is a lie.......... A-mill Idealism is the truth taught in God's word. Augustine had it correctly understood 1600 hundreds ago!

Futurists reject what the literal, clear, and repeated biblical teaching teaching about the timing of eschatological events because they reserve their literal interpretation to, ironically, symbols.  This results in expectations of events that can't be seen in the past, and therefor past events must still be in the future. 

I don't know what you imagine the Marriage Supper of the Lamb to be, but Matthew 22 says the kingdom of God is like a wedding feast a King (God, the father) gives for his son (Jesus) where the original invitees (Jews) didn't come, so new people (Gentiles) were invited.  This has already been fulfilled.


Offline raggthyme13

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
  • Manna: 10
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #12 on: Sat Oct 22, 2016 - 21:29:22 »

I don't know what you imagine the Marriage Supper of the Lamb to be, but Matthew 22 says the kingdom of God is like a wedding feast a King (God, the father) gives for his son (Jesus) where the original invitees (Jews) didn't come, so new people (Gentiles) were invited.  This has already been fulfilled.

This is the first time I've heard this interpretation… I've always wondered how full preterists explain the marriage supper. This is very simple. But I would ask… isn't the invitation still going out, with the actual feast still to come?
« Last Edit: Sat Oct 22, 2016 - 21:54:09 by raggthyme13 »

Offline Tertullian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 11
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #13 on: Sun Oct 23, 2016 - 03:34:22 »
This is the first time I've heard this interpretation… I've always wondered how full preterists explain the marriage supper. This is very simple. But I would ask… isn't the invitation still going out, with the actual feast still to come?

The invitation was issued 2000 years ago.  Yes, since then, the church has been in the business of delivering that invitation. The marriage itself is allegory.  The Gospel isn't an invitation to a literal wedding feast (between Jesus and a non-literal bride).

If we're being invited to a wedding feast, then isn't the wedding feast yet to come? I think when we come to Jesus, we take part in the wedding feast and celebrate Christ's union with the Church.  I think of a church service itself as a wedding celebration (not the wedding itself).  Revelation itself says the wedding feast has come (Rev 19:7).   I don't take that claim that the wedding feast has come to be a future pronouncement.  The wedding feast is an ongoing spiritual truth. 

bornofgod

  • Guest
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #14 on: Fri Oct 28, 2016 - 04:13:21 »
Those who are involved in a visible church of the world do not know what the Beast is.

Those who are involved in the invisible church of Christ learn what the Beast is.

If you don't understand what the Beast is, you will never understand what the Tree of Life is that was hidden from man all these years.

notreligus

  • Guest
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #15 on: Fri Oct 28, 2016 - 07:27:07 »
Well, it depends on what branch of Futurism one is speaking about. The amill "idealist" it will support. We might add~neither does it support the Preterits view, or the half baked Preterits, or the ones that are Historical in their teachings.

Revelation says, in the introduction, "The things which must shortly come to pass.... the time is at hand."  That them is consistently supported throughout revelation and in the rest of the Bible.  Of those who want to push everything to the future, everything they say is just meaningless noise.   

Any understanding of Revelation has to have some application 2000 years ago, be it preterism or idealism.

Revelation had application to those who were living at the time it was written.   It is an apocalyptic book, similar to other texts written before and after Revelation with an emphasis on the Messiah's setting up an earthly kingdom (the view of the Jews).    However, Revelation is identified specifically with Christ and it is called a prophecy.   Revelation also had special meaning to those of the Church during the first thousand years of the Church as there was an expectation that Christ would return sometime near the end of the thousand years; i.e. the end of history in general.   Because it is a book identified with Christ it is a book that has meaning today and it is not tied only to the first century.  We are still waiting for Jesus to return to set up His earthly kingdom.  The debate has never been about the fact that He would return and there would be cataclysmic events before His return (the view that He returned in AD 70 has no validity), but the debate has been about a Messianic kingdom, one that is tied to Israel, minus the Church or Gentiles.  The belief that this 1,000 year kingdom is a Messianic kingdom is the kingdom during which Christ will reign over Israel (not the Church) contributes to other errors in beliefs such as the rejection of New Covenant being in effect now and the rejection of the Law being made obsolete by the cross and Christ's finished work.   

Messianism, ever-evolving Dispensationalism, and Open Theism are challenging the acceptance of the Scriptures at face value with a Christ-centered emphasis.   

Offline Tertullian

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 600
  • Manna: 11
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #16 on: Fri Oct 28, 2016 - 08:50:09 »
Because it is a book identified with Christ it is a book that has meaning today and it is not tied only to the first century.  We are still waiting for Jesus to return to set up His earthly kingdom.  The debate has never been about the fact that He would return and there would be cataclysmic events before His return (the view that He returned in AD 70 has no validity), but the debate has been about a Messianic kingdom, one that is tied to Israel, minus the Church or Gentiles.  The belief that this 1,000 year kingdom is a Messianic kingdom is the kingdom during which Christ will reign over Israel (not the Church) contributes to other errors in beliefs such as the rejection of New Covenant being in effect now and the rejection of the Law being made obsolete by the cross and Christ's finished work.   

I don't think I've seen any  post of your that shows understanding of the doctrine Jesus returned in 70 AD.  Without understanding it, are you in a position to call it invalid?  Throughout the Bible, the term "coming" is often used to mean judgement, not a physical arrival.   On this point, anyone who is biblically literate would concede that 70 AD is a coming of Christ, and in fact one that fits very well with Jesus' famous passage on the Tribulation. 

Further, the Church is Israel.

bornofgod

  • Guest
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #17 on: Fri Oct 28, 2016 - 09:05:09 »
Jesus never returned in 70 a.d. That is nothing but a lie fabricated by the Beast minded false prophets ( Satan influenced ) people who have never heard the voice of God and obeyed His commandments.

There was still over 1900 years left of the 1,000 year reign of Christ at the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and killed all the Jews besides destroying the Ark of the Covenant they rebuilt with the Beast in their mind after they came back from Babylon.

In fact, there were some saints and chosen believers who were forewarned by the Holy Spirit during the Roman invasion of Jerusalem so they escaped to keep the first witness of the Gospel going until they were finally killed by the Roman government. The Christians were turning in the saints who were preaching the true Gospel. The Christians were preaching false gospels that the antichrists started after stealing the writings from the saints and memorized some of the words from the Gospel they preached. Christians wrote the New Testament while they were stealing the writings from God's saints.

Offline dpr

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Manna: 5
  • Gender: Male
  • Protestant Huguenot
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #18 on: Wed Feb 08, 2017 - 09:47:27 »
....

Not only is it emphatically stated that these symbolic happenings were to "shorty come to pass" and that the "time is at hand" at the beginning of Revelation, it is repeated at the closing, 22:6, 10.  The statements of time of fulfillment are not themselves symbols, just plain statements.  I have yet to find any rational explanation as to why these words do not mean exactly what they say.  The book of Revelation nowhere states it is written in 95-96AD and Rv. 11:1-2 is impossible to explain if the temple were not then still standing. Can you imagine any Jew reading that if the temple was no more? 

I find it contradictory for those who claim a literal approach to Scripture, yet totally ignore those statements of time.

It is impossible for the time of Jesus' 2nd coming to be at any other time than the last day of this present world, simply because that is what all of God's prophets and Apostles testify.

There are so many Scriptures in God's Word which make that declaration plainly (Rev.16:15 with 1 Thess.5 and 2 Pet.3:10 about the "day of the Lord" timing being one of biggest declarations which coincides with what the OT prophets were given to write.

Offline dpr

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Manna: 5
  • Gender: Male
  • Protestant Huguenot
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #19 on: Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 12:25:19 »
Because it is a book identified with Christ it is a book that has meaning today and it is not tied only to the first century.  We are still waiting for Jesus to return to set up His earthly kingdom.  The debate has never been about the fact that He would return and there would be cataclysmic events before His return (the view that He returned in AD 70 has no validity), but the debate has been about a Messianic kingdom, one that is tied to Israel, minus the Church or Gentiles.  The belief that this 1,000 year kingdom is a Messianic kingdom is the kingdom during which Christ will reign over Israel (not the Church) contributes to other errors in beliefs such as the rejection of New Covenant being in effect now and the rejection of the Law being made obsolete by the cross and Christ's finished work.   

I don't think I've seen any  post of your that shows understanding of the doctrine Jesus returned in 70 AD.  Without understanding it, are you in a position to call it invalid?  Throughout the Bible, the term "coming" is often used to mean judgement, not a physical arrival.   On this point, anyone who is biblically literate would concede that 70 AD is a coming of Christ, and in fact one that fits very well with Jesus' famous passage on the Tribulation. 

Further, the Church is Israel.

Your whole premise and delivery of false Preterist doctrines is like a salesman declaring how safe it is for children to play with dynamite.

The OT prophets and NT Apostles declare how when Jesus comes, He will sit upon David's throne and reign over all Israel, and over ALL nations, and there will be NO MORE WAR, the people beating their weapons into ploughshares.

Since 70 A.D. there have been how many wars????

Sly delivery of false doctrines like Preterism still does not make them true.


Offline lea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Manna: 8
  • I am rezar
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #20 on: Sat May 30, 2020 - 20:14:05 »
Futurists reject what the literal, clear, and repeated biblical teaching teaching about the timing of eschatological events because they reserve their literal interpretation to, ironically, symbols.  This results in expectations of events that can't be seen in the past, and therefor past events must still be in the future. 

I don't know what you imagine the Marriage Supper of the Lamb to be, but Matthew 22 says the kingdom of God is like a wedding feast a King (God, the father) gives for his son (Jesus) where the original invitees (Jews) didn't come, so new people (Gentiles) were invited.  This has already been fulfilled.
Oh exactly, you tell him Tertullian. The apostate Jews were cast out from the Wedding feast of the Lamb!

Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Manna: 13
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #21 on: Sun May 31, 2020 - 05:33:05 »
Oh exactly, you tell him Tertullian. The apostate Jews were cast out from the Wedding feast of the Lamb!

..except that the feast hasn't happened yet.

Offline lea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Manna: 8
  • I am rezar
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #22 on: Sun May 31, 2020 - 13:07:59 »
Oh exactly, you tell him Tertullian. The apostate Jews were cast out from the Wedding feast of the Lamb!

Bump!

Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Manna: 13
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #23 on: Sun May 31, 2020 - 13:57:20 »
Bump!

Again, hasn't yet happened.

Offline lea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Manna: 8
  • I am rezar
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #24 on: Sun May 31, 2020 - 14:23:34 »
Hi Chris, you misread my post.  I pointed out that the body of the  book of Revelation is written in signs, symbols, just as Jesus spoke of his body as a temple in John.  I purposely pointed this out so that it can be shown the literal wording of timing is applied to those symbols in Revelation.  If we have an improper time frame for the presentation of the symbols, then it is impossible to understand the book.  I believe Revelation was written before 70AD when the temple was destroyed.  It is difficult for me to see how Jews in 95AD when the temple was destroyed would react to 11:1,2.  The time was near to when John wrote so the existence of the temple makes sense.

I agree.

Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Manna: 13
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #25 on: Sun May 31, 2020 - 14:58:56 »
I agree.

  Simply wrong. The AOD will occur in the new the Jews will build. Nowhere is it recorded that it occurred in the old temple.

Offline lea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Manna: 8
  • I am rezar
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #26 on: Sun May 31, 2020 - 15:27:52 »
  Simply wrong. The AOD will occur in the new the Jews will build. Nowhere is it recorded that it occurred in the old temple.

I told you before, Christian Zionists are being used by rabbinic Israel today. I bet you don't give a dime to anything anyway.
I know your kind. Always looking for the easy way out to, even if it's trying to prove your same old "hasn't happened yet" rhetoric.

And yup, the Romans caused the A.O.D.

The Romans attacking the 2nd temple is not in history? Are you a fool altogether?

Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Manna: 13
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #27 on: Sun May 31, 2020 - 17:09:27 »
I told you before, Christian Zionists are being used by rabbinic Israel today. I bet you don't give a dime to anything anyway.
I know your kind. Always looking for the easy way out to, even if it's trying to prove your same old "hasn't happened yet" rhetoric.

Well, it HASN'T, & you can't prove otherwise.

Quote
And yup, the Romans caused the A.O.D.

MMRRPP  !  WRONG !

Hasn't happened yet.

Quote
The Romans attacking the 2nd temple is not in history? Are you a fool altogether?

  They attacked/destroyed it. They DIDN'T commit the AOD in it.

Offline lea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Manna: 8
  • I am rezar
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #28 on: Sun May 31, 2020 - 19:31:49 »
Well, it HASN'T, & you can't prove otherwise.

MMRRPP  !  WRONG !

Hasn't happened yet.

  They attacked/destroyed it. They DIDN'T commit the AOD in it.

Get with the program. We already posted what Titus did in AD70.

You only heard yourself trolling!

Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Manna: 13
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #29 on: Mon Jun 01, 2020 - 04:55:29 »
Get with the program. We already posted what Titus did in AD70.

You only heard yourself trolling!

And the AOD was NOT committed then.

Offline lea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 673
  • Manna: 8
  • I am rezar
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #30 on: Mon Jun 01, 2020 - 20:34:01 »
And the AOD was NOT committed then.
You mean your AOD, boy?

Offline robycop3

  • Mr.
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 761
  • Manna: 13
  • Gender: Male
  • A wet bird never flies at night - Sam Hall
Re: Doesn't Revelation itself deny futurism?
« Reply #31 on: Tue Jun 02, 2020 - 04:39:30 »
You mean your AOD, boy?

That's what I said. The AOD is still future.

 

     
anything