Are you preterist or merely 'modified post-trib'?

[Locutus]

Lastly, one of the items being sold to the Harlot was this:

"...and bodies and souls of men."

Was first century Israel engaged in slavery? I know Rome was. I honestly don't know. But we do know the Saudis today are the number one country engaged in slavery with over 1 million sex and labor slaves.

There is no doubt that Jerusalem was being referred to as a Harlot in the Bible but I'm just not sure it applies here.

There are couple of issues here regarding slavery, we know that Torah allowed for the keeping of "slaves" - so whether they did in the 1st century is up for debate.

But I would note that John used the Greek word soma which is body - so the correct translation is per Young's literal:

Rev 18:13 and cinnamon, and odours, and ointment, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and cattle, and sheep, and of horses, and of chariots, and of bodies and souls of men.

There is a perfectly good Greek word for slaves, which John did not use:

Strongs

G1401 doulos doo'-los

from G1210;

a slave (literal or figurative, involuntary or voluntary; frequently, therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency).

Paul uses doulos in Eph:

Eph 6:5 (NASB) Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;

It is possible that John is using "bodies and souls" of men in a more spiritual sense along the lines of what Paul is saying:

1 Cor 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1 Cor 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

But then slavery could have been part of the merchants trade along with all the other "goods" but there is no direct connection to the harlot herself buying/selling slaves - it's the merchants that are doing the selling:

Rev 18:11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:

The area was a center for trade, not just for local consumption. Slaves could have been flowing through Herod's port city into Rome and vice versa.

We do know that the war of 66-70 AD caused an empire wide crisis felt not only in Judea/Jerusalem - just like the US housing and loan debacle had world wide effects.

So to use the "bodies and souls" against identifying the harlot as Jerusalem is "iffy" at best especially when all the other goods flowed into the area.

But we do know the Saudis today are the number one country engaged in slavery with over 1 million sex and labor slaves.

Interesting that you figure that the US is one of the two witnesses, who is a major ally of the Saudi's?

How does that work?

 

[Locutus]

This is the very point I spoke of at the beginning of the thread in that something took place in ad70(DoJ) but what? Each and every time it is narrowed down to the Beast the AoD,the mark,the harlot ect. it will fall all apart and become indefensible because the events of 66-70 do not match the prophecies concerning ad66-70.

It is always narrowed down, to oop's the stone cut out is not being cast at the ten toes/horns of Rome the thing taking place in ad66-70 is being done to Jerusalem and the Jews and even if it's considered in light of the "harlot" and compared to Daniel in Daniel there is no mention of an "woman" riding any of the beast in Daniel,it all unravels here (no offence it just does).

I think I'm gonna rename you Markus...

Dave Hunt probably started the myth of "riding" with his incorrectly titled book "A woman rides the Beast"..

Markus, there does not have to be every element in John's revelation found in another prophet sayings, the woman is not "riding" the beast - she is "sitting" on it.

John is close to the time and the revelation is giving a more detailed and descriptive account of the events coming on 1st century Israel.

Revelation is like a road map taking you from the point of departure to the destination - you only need to identify the major "cites" on the route, you don't have to take into account every little town and village on the route driving into them and fussing over minor details.

 

[iamsoandso]

Somehow you seem to have gained an animosity toward me and feel the need to approach me as if I am the enemy. If I were on the other side so to speak I would have said so. The truth is that if there is a camp called "pre-past" and another called "future" I would be of the one that could prove it was right. As for me I say I am Christian and have no desire to defend either of the two camps. To me I just wish that somehow all the friction and camp stuff could just be set aside and all of us come together and understand what actually did happen and what’s actually really going on today in Gods little world.

I don’t really care who wins the water melon spitting contest. To me if one side won and one side lost then it would be an great day of tears if half the Christians perish because instead of us,the Christian body determining to understand it for the benefit of all of us. If I defend one house I have hated the other. If I loved either of the two it was because I in my heart wanted to be able to see a day when all the friction was lain aside and it finally crossed our minds to just figure out it's truth as if to benefit us both. I call myself a Christian though all have not chose to call me this,one day they might.

 

[Locutus]

Somehow you seem to have gained an animosity toward me and feel the need to approach me as if I am the enemy.

No animosity here Markus, I think that is perception on your part. Enemy - no.

I just respond to your posts, I do think you fuss over things though.

 

[iamsoandso]

Maybe at a glance it would seem that way but if you consider the things I have brought up from the beginning of the thread i.e. mark,AoD,Rev.13,ect. , and compare it to the things being discussed in the last page or two of this thread it is where the discussion ended up. So now is the time in this thread where the things about the mark are fitted into the story and it don’t seem to fit.

There's the thing about it, at this point in most threads on this subject neither of the two opposing sides can declare a decisive victory against the other and why is because none can decisively pinpoint the beast,mark ect....So at this point in most thread debates/discussions we are faced with going by gut instinct and one determines to see it Pre and the other future.

This is when in many threads the frustration sets in and the and everyone throws their hands up and says to themselves "I'm going with this because it seems more correct than the other",so to speak. It's the point I reference as "the foggy grey area". In times past,in other threads some have stated about the mark,beast ect. "even if we don’t see it's being fulfilled,it just must have" but even that’s not scriptural seeing Paul said "and the man of sin revealed" so he was not yet revealed and then he would be revealed afterwards. So we either do not understand him being revealed or he has not yet been revealed either way he still remains to be revealed.

 

[abcdef]

This is the very point I spoke of at the beginning of the thread in that something took place in ad70(DoJ) but what? Each and every time it is narrowed down to the Beast the AoD,the mark,the harlot ect. it will fall all apart and become indefensible because the events of 66-70 do not match the prophecies concerning ad66-70.

It is always narrowed down, to oop's the stone cut out is not being cast at the ten toes/horns of Rome the thing taking place in ad66-70 is being done to Jerusalem and the Jews and even if it's considered in light of the "harlot" and compared to Daniel in Daniel there is no mention of an "woman" riding any of the beast in Daniel,it all unravels here (no offence it just does).

Hi iamsoandso,

What I think that you have realized here is that "pre-trib" and, "everything done by 70 ad" is,

Leaving out approx. 1900 yrs of history.


This would be 70 ad. through the present, by the "everything done by 70 ad" group,

And approx. 33 1/2 ad through the present for the "pre-trib" group.


The HUGE time period is not identified in either theory, with variations allowed for, of course.


======


What I believe is that this time period is the times of the gentiles in Lk 21:20-24,24.

The time that the gentile nations control Jerusalem until it is restored to Israel.


=====


On the "everything is done by 70 ad" side,

The result is, that all prophecy must be condensed into a time period of a few years, by 70 ad.

And the images and symbols must be distorted to fit in.

--

One current example is the ID of the harlot in Rev 17.

If the harlot is ID' as Rome, then the "done by 70 ad." theory falls apart, as the time of the harlot would extend beyond the time of the dest of Jeru.

(it's kind of like a big crack in a dam, if the theory fails at the crack, the whole "dam" theory falls apart, ha ha)

--

For pre-trib it's kind of the opposite.

They must make everything fit into a theory that says the trib, mill, etc. is yet to come.

Matt 24, Mk 13, Lk 17 & 21, are good examples of this problem.

If they admit that any facet of these scriptures is about the dest of Jeru, which they are, then the pre-trib theory falls
apart,

By having the sequence of events, all tied together, and all related to the dest of Jeru.

--

This is a great division, which only be solved by the truth and open minds.

---

But the truth is not far away,

It is in your Bible and in your heart.

Keep searching.

Keep testing your theories.

Listen, speak.

 

[Locutus]

The "man of sin" is often misunderstood, elements that would give a time indicator for the "man of sin" are glossed over:

2 Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

2 Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

2 Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

2 Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Obviously Paul is adding to what he already told them about this character "when I was yet with you"

Even though we are not privy to the conversations Paul had with them we can draw some very positive conclusions:

The "man of sin" is a man - as a man we know that the iniquity that he was "involved" in "doth already work".

This means the "man of sin" was alive during Paul's writing - no man alive then is alive today.

The "man of sin" was something that the Thessalonian's and Paul were concerned with, if "the man of sin" is hundreds of years into the future then they would have no real interest in this as it had no practical effect on their daily lives.

Something was "withholding" him - it can hardly be said that he's been withheld/restrained for 1900 years and counting.

That there was a "falling away" in the 1st century prior to Jerusalem's destruction is well attested in the new testament letters.

Conclusion - the man of sin was a 1st century AD phenomena.

 

[Locutus]

If the harlot is ID' as Rome, then the "done by 70 ad." theory falls apart, as the time of the harlot would extend beyond the time of the dest of Jeru.

(it's kind of like a big crack in a dam, if the theory fails at the crack, the whole "dam" theory falls apart, ha ha)

The "done by 70 AD" system does not have the harlot as Rome - so your theory about it falls apart.

You need to know what you are disputing before you can attempt to dispute it..

 

[iamsoandso]

Hi iamsoandso,

What I think that you have realized here is that "pre-trib" and, "everything done by 70 ad" is,

Leaving out approx. 1900 yrs of history.


This would be 70 ad. through the present, by the "everything done by 70 ad" group,

And approx. 33 1/2 ad through the present for the "pre-trib" group.


The HUGE time period is not identified in either theory, with variations allowed for, of course.


======


What I believe is that this time period is the times of the gentiles in Lk 21:20-24,24.

The time that the gentile nations control Jerusalem until it is restored to Israel.


=====


On the "everything is done by 70 ad" side,

The result is, that all prophecy must be condensed into a time period of a few years, by 70 ad.

And the images and symbols must be distorted to fit in.

--

One current example is the ID of the harlot in Rev 17.

If the harlot is ID' as Rome, then the "done by 70 ad." theory falls apart, as the time of the harlot would extend beyond the time of the dest of Jeru.

(it's kind of like a big crack in a dam, if the theory fails at the crack, the whole "dam" theory falls apart, ha ha)

--

For pre-trib it's kind of the opposite.

They must make everything fit into a theory that says the trib, mill, etc. is yet to come.

Matt 24, Mk 13, Lk 17 & 21, are good examples of this problem.

If they admit that any facet of these scriptures is about the dest of Jeru, which they are, then the pre-trib theory falls
apart,

By having the sequence of events, all tied together, and all related to the dest of Jeru.

--

This is a great division, which only be solved by the truth and open minds.

---

But the truth is not far away,

It is in your Bible and in your heart.

Keep searching.

Keep testing your theories.

Listen, speak.

Yes,either of the two theories sound real good at first but at some point they both get to the end of the parts they consider resolved and cannot explain the rest. 70aism and MAD are the two I think you are referencing in your analogy and are the two "extremes" of the left and the right position wise. The only other position would be an "Modified" form of one or the other of the two extremes.

If we consider the Apostolic fathers and then the ones who wrote in the 2nd century of the Church they themselves I would describe as "modified" that is they spoke of Jerusalem with full understanding that they had just been destroyed but also of things concerning Rome,fourth beast,temple ect as if other things had not been fully fulfilled as prophesied and would or were in the midst of being fulfilled. CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle of Barnabas ,in chapter 15,16 Barnabas when speaking speaks of Jerusalem's temple as if he knows it has been destroyed but he also mentions it being rebuilt. Then he describes an spiritual temple as if it is in the midst of being built. So why did he think another would be rebuilt? He also refers to them "going to war" as if they did this not understanding something.

In A.H. book 5 chapter's 25-36 Irenaeus speaks as though he also knows the temple/Jerusalem is destroyed but he also speaks of Rome as if the forth beast is still active in prophecy in that it(Rome) is there and ruling but all of it's heads were not present and the horns had not yet come. CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus)

To them it seemed like they saw things stuck between the two as if some were fulfilled at that time and some were going on and some would come after their days.

 

[Locutus]

None of the church "fathers" can be considered totally reliable, they in some cases were way off the mark. I take what they say with a large grain of salt. They basically are not a lot of help - they are men with opinions not inspired.

 

[iamsoandso]

The "man of sin" is often misunderstood, elements that would give a time indicator for the "man of sin" are glossed over:

2 Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

2 Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

2 Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

2 Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.

2 Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Obviously Paul is adding to what he already told them about this character "when I was yet with you"

Even though we are not privy to the conversations Paul had with them we can draw some very positive conclusions:

The "man of sin" is a man - as a man we know that the iniquity that he was "involved" in "doth already work".

This means the "man of sin" was alive during Paul's writing - no man alive then is alive today.

The "man of sin" was something that the Thessalonian's and Paul were concerned with, if "the man of sin" is hundreds of years into the future then they would have no real interest in this as it had no practical effect on their daily lives.

Something was "withholding" him - it can hardly be said that he's been withheld/restrained for 1900 years and counting.

That there was a "falling away" in the 1st century prior to Jerusalem's destruction is well attested in the new testament letters.

Conclusion - the man of sin was a 1st century AD phenomena.

"draw some conclusions" is what I spoke of when I said "gut instinct" ,at this point any way we word it we run out of decisive, tangible proof. So in the end there are two,one follows the conclusion to the left and the other to the right. One would say 1900 years and counting about the time between then and now and the other 1900 years and counting in a 1000 year kingdom.

 

[Locutus]

"draw some conclusions" is what I spoke of when I said "gut instinct" ,at this point any way we word it we run out of decisive, tangible proof. So in the end there are two,one follows the conclusion to the left and the other to the right. One would say 1900 years and counting about the time between then and now and the other 1900 years and counting in a 1000 year kingdom.

When I say conclusions, I'm using Paul's own words - if they don't mean anything then a conclusion doesn't mean anything.

When critiquing a "conclusion" you have to point out where the conclusion fails or falls short. Nothing to do with gut instinct.

 

[iamsoandso]

None of the church "fathers" can be considered totally reliable, they in some cases were way off the mark. I take what they say with a large grain of salt. They basically are not a lot of help - they are men with opinions not inspired.

And then quote a man named Josephus who was not a Christian at all? Whose the most reliable when it comes to all this? The Flight to Pella ,that is the sources given are to state the case of Pella right? And then reading through it the Ebionites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites and the Nazarene sect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect) and if we read both of the two followed different books than us,they denounced Paul's writings and demanded that Christians be circumcised and follow the law.

On the other hand in the Revelation John is told to give this to the 7 Churches that were in Asia(not Pella) then Peter writes to those who were strangers in 1Peter 1:1(not Pella) ,then Paul writes his letters to the Churches he established(not Pella) and as tradition has it both Peter and Paul around ad66-68 die in Rome(not Pella) Luke writes Luke and Acts ending Acts and writing as if he is in Rome with Paul(not Pella).

At some point if we weigh out which of the two are more credible in where the real Church fled to well all of the proof given by us is either in the scriptures or so called "church fathers and historians" so of the two which is more reliable?

 

[iamsoandso]

Consider this though in all fairness what does the Pella verses Scripture part change in the water melon seed spitting contest? If you think about it well it only proves that some questionable Christians fled to Pella and the ones we consider Christians fled to Asia. So it doesn’t give any death blow it only makes our information more accurate.

 

[Locutus]

I take Josephus with a grain of salt, but that does not make him wrong on all accounts - he's made errors - I think his account of the 66-70AD war can be taken seriously, there maybe some embellishments to his account. It was written under the Romans, so there could be some bias.

But we can use some of the works of earlier writers to help build a picture.

As for Pella, it's possible, it may be just a tradition. Jesus told people to flee when Jerusalem was being surrounded by armies - I'm sure some of them heeded the warning and did so.

It's one of those things we accept on faith just like Jesus' death and resurrection. We can claim the proof of these things subjectively by receiving of His spirit - but you can't objectively state from other sources it happened because none of us were there.

 

[garee]

The Amil position works the best for me. No literal reign of Christ on this corrupted earth and heaven.

The word thousand in Revelation 20 represents a unknown amount of time throughout the scriptures, a period beginning at the rendering of the veil, the end of shadows and types that were used until the time of reformation. Nineteen thousand literal years have already occupied the metaphorical thousand year reign.

The 2 Thessalonian 2 reference is in respect to the last day .It began at the rendering of the veil marking the first century reformation. The last day or seventh trump completes the second and final resurrection. The day the believer will receive their new incorruptible bodies which will be neither male or female Jew or gentile, and like the angels no way to procreate, as well as judgement day for the lost

The man of sin is simply natural unconverted man .He is recognized in that parable as a beast (made up of the dust of the earth) by the number metaphor 666 or 2/3.

The mystery of iniquity that was already working it began with Cain in the garden. He was marked as restless wanderer not looking for the city to come on the last day, the new Jerusalem as the mother of all . Cain sold out the truth like Esau rather than buying it.

But the Lord said, “Your brother’s blood calls to me from the ground. What have you done? You are hereby banished from this ground which you have defiled with your brother’s blood. No longer will it yield crops for you, even if you toil on it forever! From now on you will be a fugitive and a tramp upon the earth, wandering from place to place.” Cain replied to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. For you have banished me from my farm and from you, and made me a fugitive and a tramp; and everyone who sees me will try to kill me. ”The Lord replied, “They won’t kill you, for I will give seven times your punishment to anyone who does.” Then the Lord put an identifying mark on Cain as a warning not to kill him. 16genesis 4:10-16

 

[Locutus]

Consider this though in all fairness what does the Pella verses Scripture part change in the water melon seed spitting contest? If you think about it well it only proves that some questionable Christians fled to Pella and the ones we consider Christians fled to Asia. So it doesn’t give any death blow it only makes our information more accurate.

How can you state with any certainty that it was "questionable Christians" who fled to Pella as against "real™ Christians"?

I don't know how you come to these "conclusions".

 

[iamsoandso]

I take Josephus with a grain of salt, but that does not make him wrong on all accounts - he's made errors - I think his account of the 66-70AD war can be taken seriously, there maybe some embellishments to his account. It was written under the Romans, so there could be some bias.

But we can use some of the works of earlier writers to help build a picture.

As for Pella, it's possible, it may be just a tradition. Jesus told people to flee when Jerusalem was being surrounded by armies - I'm sure some of them heeded the warning and did so.

It's one of those things we accept on faith just like Jesus' death and resurrection. We can claim the proof of these things subjectively by receiving of His spirit - but you can't objectively state from other sources it happened because none of us were there.

I think so to as to how to look at the "other writings" as they should be approached with caution. They really only give us an Idea of what they saw around them and they were tossing it all around in their heads trying to make heads or tails of it all the same as us. The only exception to that would be the letters written by the second century Church and why is that it's leaders/bishops/deacons ect. were appointed by the Apostles themselves so in their opinions(the apostles) they left after them those who they thought were of the same position as they held on all this.

I'll be back tonight I have thins to do,lol.

 

[iamsoandso]

How can you state with any certainty that it was "questionable Christians" who fled to Pella as against "real™ Christians"?

I don't know how you come to these "conclusions".

In the links I gave research who the Ebionites,Nazorenes mentioned in the "flight to Pella" link and see what they believed and taught. in the one reference "Eutychius of Alexandria" is quoted,in his Quote James the brother of Jesus is killed before the war(ad66-70) but by Church tradition he lives to be an old man around 100.

 

[abcdef]

Yes,either of the two theories sound real good at first but at some point they both get to the end of the parts they consider resolved and cannot explain the rest. 70aism and MAD are the two I think you are referencing in your analogy and are the two "extremes" of the left and the right position wise. The only other position would be an "Modified" form of one or the other of the two extremes.

If we consider the Apostolic fathers and then the ones who wrote in the 2nd century of the Church they themselves I would describe as "modified" that is they spoke of Jerusalem with full understanding that they had just been destroyed but also of things concerning Rome,fourth beast,temple ect as if other things had not been fully fulfilled as prophesied and would or were in the midst of being fulfilled. CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle of Barnabas ,in chapter 15,16 Barnabas when speaking speaks of Jerusalem's temple as if he knows it has been destroyed but he also mentions it being rebuilt. Then he describes an spiritual temple as if it is in the midst of being built. So why did he think another would be rebuilt? He also refers to them "going to war" as if they did this not understanding something.

In A.H. book 5 chapter's 25-36 Irenaeus speaks as though he also knows the temple/Jerusalem is destroyed but he also speaks of Rome as if the forth beast is still active in prophecy in that it(Rome) is there and ruling but all of it's heads were not present and the horns had not yet come. CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus)

To them it seemed like they saw things stuck between the two as if some were fulfilled at that time and some were going on and some would come after their days.

iamsoandso,


The great time of trouble that Jesus spoke about in Matt 24 etc,

Was from 70 ad until 1967, when Israel was restored to control of Jerusalem.

This is when the times of the gentiles ended Lk 21:20-24.

--

The invasion of Israel by the 4th beast and iron legs, began when Rome invaded Israel.

Rome is the beast, the mark of the beast is Rome, Caesar.

Rome (Roman Empire/RCC) ruled over Israel (natural branches) and the Pentecost Kingdom (true church) until 1967.

(unless those times were shortened, no FLESH Israel would survive, WW 2 drove Israel back to Jerusalem).

--

The 70 ad group cannot recognize this present day Israel as legitimate because then the whole 70 ad theory would fall apart.

But the reality is that there is an Israel, and they control Jerusalem.

Reality is a hard thing to disprove, but some try.

--

The pre-trib group doesn't doesn't want the beast to be Rome/RCC/Caesar, but it is, (iron legs).

If they admit that the beast is Rome, then it is past, not future.

--

Put the round peg into he round hole,

and the square peg into the square hole.

It will all fit perfectly, when we see correctly.