Book of Revalation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Can someone explain the rebuilding of the temple? Is it where the Dome of the Rock is supposed to be? Who is supposed to rebuild it? Israel?

also

Is it pretty much a consensus that there will be some form of 1 world government? That is what I got from scripture study? RFID Chip possible Mark of Beast?

Sorry if this wasn’t the direction of the thread you wanted BBriere, just figured I would ask it here.[/quote]

I always like to ask this question when someone asks about the temple.

Where does it say it will be rebuilt?
Followed by wasn’t that book written before the second temple was built?
Why a need for a third temple?
[/quote]

Thanks for trying to involve me in the debate, however I am so far behind most of your guys in the knowledge dept on this issue. I will try tho…

  1. Not sure, I guess Herods Temple? Temple on the Mount
  2. I see your point here
  3. None really imo because of the Holy Spirit/New Coveant?[/quote]

No worries. I usually just ask those questions so people will think about what they have been told and accept.

All descriptions of a rebuilt temple are found in the OT. During the time of captivity.
So pre-second temple.
[/quote]

Is this a fairly common interpretation? You are correct in that I have been taught a completely different view in Church…Dang, the Book is hard enough to understand as is!

42

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup. Still waitin on that dead guy to come back.

http://www.preterism.info/articles/jesus-predicted.htm

Taking bets on who rises again first, the south or jesus. Any takers?[/quote]

You obviously don’t understand what is meant by return in the preterist description.[/quote]

I’ve always understood “the return” to be Jesus coming back to earth.

Feel free to explain what it really means.[/quote]

Preterist and partial preterist, believe the return described at the Olivet discourse was a symbolic return that described Christ’s judgement on the Nation of Israel. It is meant to describe His vindication.

For instance when He said you will see the Son of Man coming on clouds. That is an OT description that is used in prophecy to describe God’s judgement on a nation. In fact that
term is almost always used that way in the OT.

Most people today think like you do, in that it is a return to the Earth. When the worl will be made right etc…

I don’t think that is what it means.

43

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup. Still waitin on that dead guy to come back.

http://www.preterism.info/articles/jesus-predicted.htm

Taking bets on who rises again first, the south or jesus. Any takers?[/quote]

You obviously don’t understand what is meant by return in the preterist description.[/quote]

I’ve always understood “the return” to be Jesus coming back to earth.

Feel free to explain what it really means.[/quote]

Preterist and partial preterist, believe the return described at the Olivet discourse was a symbolic return that described Christ’s judgement on the Nation of Israel. It is meant to describe His vindication.

For instance when He said you will see the Son of Man coming on clouds. That is an OT description that is used in prophecy to describe God’s judgement on a nation. In fact that
term is almost always used that way in the OT.

Most people today think like you do, in that it is a return to the Earth. When the worl will be made right etc…

I don’t think that is what it means.[/quote]

You beat me to it.

44

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup. Still waitin on that dead guy to come back.

http://www.preterism.info/articles/jesus-predicted.htm

Taking bets on who rises again first, the south or jesus. Any takers?[/quote]

You obviously don’t understand what is meant by return in the preterist description.[/quote]

I’ve always understood “the return” to be Jesus coming back to earth.

Feel free to explain what it really means.[/quote]

The sermon on the mount was not talking about his return. Jesus’ deciples asked 3 questions: the signs of the destruction of the temple, the end of the age (the Jewish Commonwealth) and of his return. The first question that was answered was about the temple, which did occur in the generation of the apostles, happening at 70 AD. When Christ is talking about his return, he makes known that it will be unexpected, like a theif in the night, and no one, not even the angels of heaven, know when he will return because the world will be carrying on like normal (as described when he compares it to the days of Noah).

45

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup. Still waitin on that dead guy to come back.

http://www.preterism.info/articles/jesus-predicted.htm

Taking bets on who rises again first, the south or jesus. Any takers?[/quote]

You obviously don’t understand what is meant by return in the preterist description.[/quote]

I’ve always understood “the return” to be Jesus coming back to earth.

Feel free to explain what it really means.[/quote]

The sermon on the mount was not talking about his return. Jesus’ deciples asked 3 questions: the signs of the destruction of the temple, the end of the age (the Jewish Commonwealth) and of his return. The first question that was answered was about the temple, which did occur in the generation of the apostles, happening at 70 AD. When Christ is talking about his return, he makes known that it will be unexpected, like a theif in the night, and no one, not even the angels of heaven, know when he will return because the world will be carrying on like normal (as described when he compares it to the days of Noah).

46

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I�??�??�?�¢??ve read revelations, several books about it and done bible studies on it.

The most convincing explanation I’ve seen out there is that it’s really written about the time in which the book was written. Pretty much all of the “futuristic” references in it can be tied to events and circumstance in the roman empire of that time.

666 is a good example of what I’m talking about. You couldn’t get away with outright saying bad things about the emperor (nero). You could however do it in code. In the roman world it was not entirely uncommon to refer to people by the number equivalent in roman numerals of their name. They actually still have what is essentially carved graffiti where people use that terminology. What makes it really convening that 666 is referring to nero is the fact that there are actually 2 spellings of nero. One spelling is the number 666 the other is the number 669. That is important because there are actually a few early versions of the text that use the number 669 instead of 666. That is beyond coincidence.

I think the real truth of revelation is that it is just a common style of writing from that age. People wrote that way. Today, it comes of as mystic and prophetic because we just plain aren’t familiar with the style.

There is a very short book call “the mystery of revelation” or “reveling the mystery of revelation” or something that does a pretty convincing job.

I think there are things you can learn from the book, but I don’t think the message is to watch out for the mark of the beast on people’s foreheads or some other nonsense. I actually think the book is written about the past.

I can post the title of the book later if people are interested.
[/quote]

In reagards to this viewpoint, what happens before Jesus comes back? [/quote]

In the viewpoint, Revelation relates to the time at hand (early AD) and really isn’t so much a prophecy about future events and what specifically happens step by step before Jesus comes back.[/quote]

So no 1 world gov., currency, antichrist? How does the world come to an end? [/quote]

Only in the sense that the Roman empire did those things. And it isn’t about the actual specific conditions and events of the end of the world in a literal sense.[/quote]

This may be the dumbest question ever…but here goes…

All these interpretations do not change the fact that Only because of God’s grace thru Jesus can we reach heaven? Correct? Is that still a tenant regardless?

47

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
Where does the anti-christ fit in? Isn’t there supposed to be some guy who comes along “supposedly” helping people and leads all of the Christians to their deaths? And by deaths I mean God takes them back to heaven or what not? Is that the basis of the whole anti-christ schtick? [/quote]

It depends on your interpretation of Revelation. Futurists believe that the Anti-Christ will arise at the end of times and lead many toward disobeying God. Historicists, such as Martin Luther and many church reformers, believed the papacy to be the Anti-Christ. [/quote]

I don’t care about WHO is the antichrist. I’m asking what the antichrist is supposed to do. Was I hitting the gist of it? He is supposed to rise up and lead the people in the final days - only he winds up leading the Christians to death(return to their lord in heaven), no? I’m not asking for “interpretation” I’m asking what the hell your scripture says… Is this what it describes? Every single source I find that is what it says… And recalling my last reading of revelation that is what I remember. I’m asking you guys because I assume you know your holy book better than I… Why can’t I get a good answer? If I must rephrase the question to avoid the “Well different people interpret it differently” lack of an answer - is this how YOU believe the antichrist? Another thing, is the antichrist essential to this revelation prophecy? If so why is he not a focal point in any of this discussion? Is he not the catalyst?

48

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
Where does the anti-christ fit in? Isn’t there supposed to be some guy who comes along “supposedly” helping people and leads all of the Christians to their deaths? And by deaths I mean God takes them back to heaven or what not? Is that the basis of the whole anti-christ schtick? [/quote]

It depends on your interpretation of Revelation. Futurists believe that the Anti-Christ will arise at the end of times and lead many toward disobeying God. Historicists, such as Martin Luther and many church reformers, believed the papacy to be the Anti-Christ. [/quote]

I don’t care about WHO is the antichrist. I’m asking what the antichrist is supposed to do. Was I hitting the gist of it? He is supposed to rise up and lead the people in the final days - only he winds up leading the Christians to death(return to their lord in heaven), no? I’m not asking for “interpretation” I’m asking what the hell your scripture says… Is this what it describes? Every single source I find that is what it says… And recalling my last reading of revelation that is what I remember. I’m asking you guys because I assume you know your holy book better than I… Why can’t I get a good answer? If I must rephrase the question to avoid the “Well different people interpret it differently” lack of an answer - is this how YOU believe the antichrist? Another thing, is the antichrist essential to this revelation prophecy? If so why is he not a focal point in any of this discussion? Is he not the catalyst?
[/quote]

Well, then, no the AntiChrist won’t be leading any Christians. He will be leading those that have turned against God. He will lead a rebellion against God before the millennial peace on Earth.

49

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
Where does the anti-christ fit in? Isn’t there supposed to be some guy who comes along “supposedly” helping people and leads all of the Christians to their deaths? And by deaths I mean God takes them back to heaven or what not? Is that the basis of the whole anti-christ schtick? [/quote]

It depends on your interpretation of Revelation. Futurists believe that the Anti-Christ will arise at the end of times and lead many toward disobeying God. Historicists, such as Martin Luther and many church reformers, believed the papacy to be the Anti-Christ. [/quote]

I don’t care about WHO is the antichrist. I’m asking what the antichrist is supposed to do. Was I hitting the gist of it? He is supposed to rise up and lead the people in the final days - only he winds up leading the Christians to death(return to their lord in heaven), no? I’m not asking for “interpretation” I’m asking what the hell your scripture says… Is this what it describes? Every single source I find that is what it says… And recalling my last reading of revelation that is what I remember. I’m asking you guys because I assume you know your holy book better than I… Why can’t I get a good answer? If I must rephrase the question to avoid the “Well different people interpret it differently” lack of an answer - is this how YOU believe the antichrist? Another thing, is the antichrist essential to this revelation prophecy? If so why is he not a focal point in any of this discussion? Is he not the catalyst?
[/quote]

According to the pre and post tribulational view, the Antichrist is supposed to usher in world peace for 7 years (more specifically peace with Israel). In the middle of the 7 years (so 3 1/2 years later) he breaks that peace treaty and forces the world to follow him. The world is to recieve a mark, either on their forehead or wrist, and this mark is the name or number of this person’s name. Anyone who doesn’t have it cannot buy or sell, or just may be put to death. He will claim to be God, sitting in the temple found in Jerusalem. Stuff happens…Christ returns, judges the world, and sentences the followers of the antichrist and unregenerate Christians. Believers remain on Earth and rule with Christ for a thousand years, while Satan is bound in Hell for a thousand years. Then the battle of Armageddon takes place, Satan is released and conjures up an army to fight against Christ and his army of believers and angels. Satan loses, and him an his army go back to hell for eternity. The dead rise and they are judged. Believers spend eternity with Christ and unbelievers go to hell. Then the earth is destroyed.

This is basically the pre/post tribulational view (I may have gotten a few things wrong about this view). It doesn’t flow well and doesn’t fit scriptural teachings.

50

Oh and the antichrist is not mentioned anywhere in Revelation. It appears only 4 times in the NT, and it refers to antichrists (plural).

51

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I�??�??�??�?�¢??ve read revelations, several books about it and done bible studies on it.

The most convincing explanation I’ve seen out there is that it’s really written about the time in which the book was written. Pretty much all of the “futuristic” references in it can be tied to events and circumstance in the roman empire of that time.

666 is a good example of what I’m talking about. You couldn’t get away with outright saying bad things about the emperor (nero). You could however do it in code. In the roman world it was not entirely uncommon to refer to people by the number equivalent in roman numerals of their name. They actually still have what is essentially carved graffiti where people use that terminology. What makes it really convening that 666 is referring to nero is the fact that there are actually 2 spellings of nero. One spelling is the number 666 the other is the number 669. That is important because there are actually a few early versions of the text that use the number 669 instead of 666. That is beyond coincidence.

I think the real truth of revelation is that it is just a common style of writing from that age. People wrote that way. Today, it comes of as mystic and prophetic because we just plain aren’t familiar with the style.

There is a very short book call “the mystery of revelation” or “reveling the mystery of revelation” or something that does a pretty convincing job.

I think there are things you can learn from the book, but I don’t think the message is to watch out for the mark of the beast on people’s foreheads or some other nonsense. I actually think the book is written about the past.

I can post the title of the book later if people are interested.
[/quote]

In reagards to this viewpoint, what happens before Jesus comes back? [/quote]

In the viewpoint, Revelation relates to the time at hand (early AD) and really isn’t so much a prophecy about future events and what specifically happens step by step before Jesus comes back.[/quote]

So no 1 world gov., currency, antichrist? How does the world come to an end? [/quote]

Only in the sense that the Roman empire did those things. And it isn’t about the actual specific conditions and events of the end of the world in a literal sense.[/quote]

This may be the dumbest question ever…but here goes…

All these interpretations do not change the fact that Only because of God’s grace thru Jesus can we reach heaven? Correct? Is that still a tenant regardless?[/quote]

Uh, I don’t know that most of the books in the bible specifically say something to that effect. I’m not aware of any specific contradiction of that point if that is what you are asking.

52

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
Where does the anti-christ fit in? Isn’t there supposed to be some guy who comes along “supposedly” helping people and leads all of the Christians to their deaths? And by deaths I mean God takes them back to heaven or what not? Is that the basis of the whole anti-christ schtick? [/quote]

It depends on your interpretation of Revelation. Futurists believe that the Anti-Christ will arise at the end of times and lead many toward disobeying God. Historicists, such as Martin Luther and many church reformers, believed the papacy to be the Anti-Christ. [/quote]

I don’t care about WHO is the antichrist. I’m asking what the antichrist is supposed to do. Was I hitting the gist of it? He is supposed to rise up and lead the people in the final days - only he winds up leading the Christians to death(return to their lord in heaven), no? I’m not asking for “interpretation” I’m asking what the hell your scripture says… Is this what it describes? Every single source I find that is what it says… And recalling my last reading of revelation that is what I remember. I’m asking you guys because I assume you know your holy book better than I… Why can’t I get a good answer? If I must rephrase the question to avoid the “Well different people interpret it differently” lack of an answer - is this how YOU believe the antichrist? Another thing, is the antichrist essential to this revelation prophecy? If so why is he not a focal point in any of this discussion? Is he not the catalyst?
[/quote]

According to the pre and post tribulational view, the Antichrist is supposed to usher in world peace for 7 years (more specifically peace with Israel). In the middle of the 7 years (so 3 1/2 years later) he breaks that peace treaty and forces the world to follow him. The world is to recieve a mark, either on their forehead or wrist, and this mark is the name or number of this person’s name. Anyone who doesn’t have it cannot buy or sell, or just may be put to death. He will claim to be God, sitting in the temple found in Jerusalem. Stuff happens…Christ returns, judges the world, and sentences the followers of the antichrist and unregenerate Christians. Believers remain on Earth and rule with Christ for a thousand years, while Satan is bound in Hell for a thousand years. Then the battle of Armageddon takes place, Satan is released and conjures up an army to fight against Christ and his army of believers and angels. Satan loses, and him an his army go back to hell for eternity. The dead rise and they are judged. Believers spend eternity with Christ and unbelievers go to hell. Then the earth is destroyed.

This is basically the pre/post tribulational view (I may have gotten a few things wrong about this view). It doesn’t flow well and doesn’t fit scriptural teachings. [/quote]

Oh okay, forbes. The way I always heard the story was that the antichrist do whatever antichrist shit he has to do then God would return and take all of his people back to heaven. In your accounting though where do all the Christians die and return to heaven? Does god kill them all? Or does god just magically ascend them all to heaven with him? I’m lost at that point.

And the antichrist is not mentioned in revelation? Is the antichrist at all pivotal to the revelation prophecies? Or is this some weird extrapolation made by post biblical christians? I’m kinda really lost here.

53

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
Where does the anti-christ fit in? Isn’t there supposed to be some guy who comes along “supposedly” helping people and leads all of the Christians to their deaths? And by deaths I mean God takes them back to heaven or what not? Is that the basis of the whole anti-christ schtick? [/quote]

It depends on your interpretation of Revelation. Futurists believe that the Anti-Christ will arise at the end of times and lead many toward disobeying God. Historicists, such as Martin Luther and many church reformers, believed the papacy to be the Anti-Christ. [/quote]

I don’t care about WHO is the antichrist. I’m asking what the antichrist is supposed to do. Was I hitting the gist of it? He is supposed to rise up and lead the people in the final days - only he winds up leading the Christians to death(return to their lord in heaven), no? I’m not asking for “interpretation” I’m asking what the hell your scripture says… Is this what it describes? Every single source I find that is what it says… And recalling my last reading of revelation that is what I remember. I’m asking you guys because I assume you know your holy book better than I… Why can’t I get a good answer? If I must rephrase the question to avoid the “Well different people interpret it differently” lack of an answer - is this how YOU believe the antichrist? Another thing, is the antichrist essential to this revelation prophecy? If so why is he not a focal point in any of this discussion? Is he not the catalyst?
[/quote]

According to the pre and post tribulational view, the Antichrist is supposed to usher in world peace for 7 years (more specifically peace with Israel). In the middle of the 7 years (so 3 1/2 years later) he breaks that peace treaty and forces the world to follow him. The world is to recieve a mark, either on their forehead or wrist, and this mark is the name or number of this person’s name. Anyone who doesn’t have it cannot buy or sell, or just may be put to death. He will claim to be God, sitting in the temple found in Jerusalem. Stuff happens…Christ returns, judges the world, and sentences the followers of the antichrist and unregenerate Christians. Believers remain on Earth and rule with Christ for a thousand years, while Satan is bound in Hell for a thousand years. Then the battle of Armageddon takes place, Satan is released and conjures up an army to fight against Christ and his army of believers and angels. Satan loses, and him an his army go back to hell for eternity. The dead rise and they are judged. Believers spend eternity with Christ and unbelievers go to hell. Then the earth is destroyed.

This is basically the pre/post tribulational view (I may have gotten a few things wrong about this view). It doesn’t flow well and doesn’t fit scriptural teachings. [/quote]

Oh okay, forbes. The way I always heard the story was that the antichrist do whatever antichrist shit he has to do then God would return and take all of his people back to heaven. In your accounting though where do all the Christians die and return to heaven? Does god kill them all? Or does god just magically ascend them all to heaven with him? I’m lost at that point.

And the antichrist is not mentioned in revelation? Is the antichrist at all pivotal to the revelation prophecies? Or is this some weird extrapolation made by post biblical christians? I’m kinda really lost here.
[/quote]

Your inline with most Christians view today. Those ideas were made popular by a man Darby in the early 19th century.

The beast is mentioned in Revelation in chapter 13. The anti-Christ(s) is mentioned in other books. most people think the anti-Christ(s) is the beast. I find no reason to think they are the same other than someone trying to make a Bible prophecy fit with what they want to believe.

There is also a reference to the man of sin, and the abomination that causes desolation. Modern Christians think all of those refer to the anti-Christ or something he will do.

54

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]Deorum wrote:
Where does the anti-christ fit in? Isn’t there supposed to be some guy who comes along “supposedly” helping people and leads all of the Christians to their deaths? And by deaths I mean God takes them back to heaven or what not? Is that the basis of the whole anti-christ schtick? [/quote]

It depends on your interpretation of Revelation. Futurists believe that the Anti-Christ will arise at the end of times and lead many toward disobeying God. Historicists, such as Martin Luther and many church reformers, believed the papacy to be the Anti-Christ. [/quote]

I don’t care about WHO is the antichrist. I’m asking what the antichrist is supposed to do. Was I hitting the gist of it? He is supposed to rise up and lead the people in the final days - only he winds up leading the Christians to death(return to their lord in heaven), no? I’m not asking for “interpretation” I’m asking what the hell your scripture says… Is this what it describes? Every single source I find that is what it says… And recalling my last reading of revelation that is what I remember. I’m asking you guys because I assume you know your holy book better than I… Why can’t I get a good answer? If I must rephrase the question to avoid the “Well different people interpret it differently” lack of an answer - is this how YOU believe the antichrist? Another thing, is the antichrist essential to this revelation prophecy? If so why is he not a focal point in any of this discussion? Is he not the catalyst?
[/quote]

According to the pre and post tribulational view, the Antichrist is supposed to usher in world peace for 7 years (more specifically peace with Israel). In the middle of the 7 years (so 3 1/2 years later) he breaks that peace treaty and forces the world to follow him. The world is to recieve a mark, either on their forehead or wrist, and this mark is the name or number of this person’s name. Anyone who doesn’t have it cannot buy or sell, or just may be put to death. He will claim to be God, sitting in the temple found in Jerusalem. Stuff happens…Christ returns, judges the world, and sentences the followers of the antichrist and unregenerate Christians. Believers remain on Earth and rule with Christ for a thousand years, while Satan is bound in Hell for a thousand years. Then the battle of Armageddon takes place, Satan is released and conjures up an army to fight against Christ and his army of believers and angels. Satan loses, and him an his army go back to hell for eternity. The dead rise and they are judged. Believers spend eternity with Christ and unbelievers go to hell. Then the earth is destroyed.

This is basically the pre/post tribulational view (I may have gotten a few things wrong about this view). It doesn’t flow well and doesn’t fit scriptural teachings. [/quote]

Oh okay, forbes. The way I always heard the story was that the antichrist do whatever antichrist shit he has to do then God would return and take all of his people back to heaven. In your accounting though where do all the Christians die and return to heaven? Does god kill them all? Or does god just magically ascend them all to heaven with him? I’m lost at that point.

And the antichrist is not mentioned in revelation? Is the antichrist at all pivotal to the revelation prophecies? Or is this some weird extrapolation made by post biblical christians? I’m kinda really lost here.
[/quote]

Your inline with most Christians view today. Those ideas were made popular by a man Darby in the early 19th century.

The beast is mentioned in Revelation in chapter 13. The anti-Christ(s) is mentioned in other books. most people think the anti-Christ(s) is the beast. I find no reason to think they are the same other than someone trying to make a Bible prophecy fit with what they want to believe.

There is also a reference to the man of sin, and the abomination that causes desolation. Modern Christians think all of those refer to the anti-Christ or something he will do.
[/quote]

Well that is interesting. These stories are entertaining at least. I kinda want to just read revelation again lol.

55

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup. Still waitin on that dead guy to come back.

http://www.preterism.info/articles/jesus-predicted.htm

Taking bets on who rises again first, the south or jesus. Any takers?[/quote]

You obviously don’t understand what is meant by return in the preterist description.[/quote]

I’ve always understood “the return” to be Jesus coming back to earth.

Feel free to explain what it really means.[/quote]

Preterist and partial preterist, believe the return described at the Olivet discourse was a symbolic return that described Christ’s judgement on the Nation of Israel. It is meant to describe His vindication.

For instance when He said you will see the Son of Man coming on clouds. That is an OT description that is used in prophecy to describe God’s judgement on a nation. In fact that
term is almost always used that way in the OT.

Most people today think like you do, in that it is a return to the Earth. When the worl will be made right etc…

I don’t think that is what it means.[/quote]

I forget that the bible is always true and right, because it’s possible to interpret anything in a way that makes it true and right.

He predicted a return. It didn’t happen. Quit doing logical backflips to say “Well, it could be right, in a sense!”

56

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup. Still waitin on that dead guy to come back.

http://www.preterism.info/articles/jesus-predicted.htm

Taking bets on who rises again first, the south or jesus. Any takers?[/quote]

You obviously don’t understand what is meant by return in the preterist description.[/quote]

I’ve always understood “the return” to be Jesus coming back to earth.

Feel free to explain what it really means.[/quote]

Preterist and partial preterist, believe the return described at the Olivet discourse was a symbolic return that described Christ’s judgement on the Nation of Israel. It is meant to describe His vindication.

For instance when He said you will see the Son of Man coming on clouds. That is an OT description that is used in prophecy to describe God’s judgement on a nation. In fact that
term is almost always used that way in the OT.

Most people today think like you do, in that it is a return to the Earth. When the worl will be made right etc…

I don’t think that is what it means.[/quote]

I forget that the bible is always true and right, because it’s possible to interpret anything in a way that makes it true and right.

He predicted a return. It didn’t happen. Quit doing logical backflips to say “Well, it could be right, in a sense!”

[/quote]

  1. I told you that what you thought preterist think it means is wrong.
  2. This view is one of the oldest views that the Church has held on that passage. Only in the 19th century did the view you are familiar with become popular. In fact several times in Church history the current popular view was considered heretical in the various forms that it showed up in.
  3. It doesn’t matter to me if you believe any of this. It only matters that I live out what I believe. Which is nothing more than what Jesus is quoted as saying the two greatest commands are.
  4. I never said it was right in a sense. I am applying basic laws or interpretation (which would apply to any ancient document, not just the Bible) and trying to understand what is being said. IE. Jesus lived in the first century so His hyperbole, and slang would be first Century. Go to any first level Bible study class and they will all give you defined rules for understanding the Bible. The problem is almost no one goes to one of those classes. So you have a lot of Biblically illiterate people that are giving you an isagesis interpretation and don’t know how to give an exegesis interpretation. I understand your complaint and feel the same way.
57

Here are a couple things I wanted to point out quickly:

Futurists intepretation of Revelation is based on a literal intepretation of the Bible. However, when it comes to very key aspects of the Futurist viewpoint (the Rapture, the army of 200 million, the AntiChrist, etc.) these things are never actually mentioned in Revelation. The Futurist viewpoint also has to re-interpret the scripture that instructs John to not seal up the prophecy because the time of its fulfillment is near.

It’s interesting that the vast majority of Christians today, my wife included, believe heavily in the Futurist viewpoint even to the point that some believe another viewpoint would be considered heretical. My mother works at a Pentecostal Christian college where the belief in Futurism is just a given. When she tried to share the Preterist idea with some of her co-workers they became visibly angry and told her they would pray for her.

I’m not condemning Futurists by any means. Afterall, we could all be wrong in our interpretation. I just wanted everyone to know that there are three valid and one somewhat valid viewpoints on Revelation so we should all be willing to learn about others’ points of view.

58

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup. Still waitin on that dead guy to come back.

http://www.preterism.info/articles/jesus-predicted.htm

Taking bets on who rises again first, the south or jesus. Any takers?[/quote]

You obviously don’t understand what is meant by return in the preterist description.[/quote]

I’ve always understood “the return” to be Jesus coming back to earth.

Feel free to explain what it really means.[/quote]

Preterist and partial preterist, believe the return described at the Olivet discourse was a symbolic return that described Christ’s judgement on the Nation of Israel. It is meant to describe His vindication.

For instance when He said you will see the Son of Man coming on clouds. That is an OT description that is used in prophecy to describe God’s judgement on a nation. In fact that
term is almost always used that way in the OT.

Most people today think like you do, in that it is a return to the Earth. When the worl will be made right etc…

I don’t think that is what it means.[/quote]

I forget that the bible is always true and right, because it’s possible to interpret anything in a way that makes it true and right.

He predicted a return. It didn’t happen. Quit doing logical backflips to say “Well, it could be right, in a sense!”

[/quote]

Jesus did not predict a physical return. He told those in the Olivet Discourse that they would see the Son of Man coming in the clouds. Clouds were an Old Testament symbol of God’s power and wrath. Clouds decended upon a place during God’s judgment. He told those he spoke to that their generation would not pass away before they saw these things. This would have been around 30AD. Jerusalem was conquered and the Temple destroyed in 70AD. This would have still been during the same generation.

59

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup. Still waitin on that dead guy to come back.

http://www.preterism.info/articles/jesus-predicted.htm

Taking bets on who rises again first, the south or jesus. Any takers?[/quote]

You obviously don’t understand what is meant by return in the preterist description.[/quote]

I’ve always understood “the return” to be Jesus coming back to earth.

Feel free to explain what it really means.[/quote]

Preterist and partial preterist, believe the return described at the Olivet discourse was a symbolic return that described Christ’s judgement on the Nation of Israel. It is meant to describe His vindication.

For instance when He said you will see the Son of Man coming on clouds. That is an OT description that is used in prophecy to describe God’s judgement on a nation. In fact that
term is almost always used that way in the OT.

Most people today think like you do, in that it is a return to the Earth. When the worl will be made right etc…

I don’t think that is what it means.[/quote]

I forget that the bible is always true and right, because it’s possible to interpret anything in a way that makes it true and right.

He predicted a return. It didn’t happen. Quit doing logical backflips to say “Well, it could be right, in a sense!”

[/quote]

His return is yet to come. If you’re referring to his sermon on the mount, that was not about his return. I already explained this in another post in this thread.

60

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Agreed. For some reason many tie America too much with the biblical references. A few people I have talked to believe the U.S(as we know it) may not even be around when final pieces are in line. Of course thats all skepticism. [/quote]

Many American Christians have mistakenly fused theological interpretation with nationalism.