End Times Question

[Endoscopy]

I hold to the full preterist position - all fulfilled by 70 AD - I don't need to read "the links" as I know the other "views" very well and have noted where they are in error when moving to full preterism.

The problem with that is when the book was written. Paul was in prison and later banished to an island when he wrote it.

Early Church tradition dates the book to end of the emperor Domitian (reigned AD 81–96), and most modern scholars agree, although the author may have written a first version after Nero's Great Fire in Rome (AD 64) under Vespasian (AD 69–79) and updated it under Domitian.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Are you an amil theologically? That is one of the 4 Views. Did you bother to read the links? You also ignore God's view of time. It isn't our view. The specific events depicted haven't occurred yet. Are you adhering to the view that they occurred in heaven?

Eschatology gets confusing.

Hello Endoscopy,

God's view of time as you mention above, does not change the fact that events written in Revelation take place in real time on the earth and to its inhabitants. These are the types of teachings that distort the word of God and give way to these other so-called views.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Hi Lucy,

I thought that I was saying it, ha ha.

Please understand, the way I try to reach understanding, is by asking questions. The questions are supposed to bring some one to the answer with out my saying it directly. This way, the person has to think about it, reason about it, and come to the conclusion on their own. But I enjoy being direct also.

So here we go.

If the Revelation shows the rapt/resur, then we can know the circumstances surrounding the event.

If you were to say, "The 7th trumpet is showing Jesus coming for the kingdom," Then I would ask, "what are the events leading up to the 7th trumpet, and what are the details shown in the description of the 7th trump."

Then I would ask, "Do we have enough details, to see it coming, if so what would they be?"

---

I believe the answers are there, we just have to think about them, reason them out to the conclusion.

Right, I see what you mean. There are so many people involved in this (discussion

??).
it's a bit all over the place. It would be good to do a verse by verse study together and all move along at the same pace on the same theme.
That's probably not possible with this format. I am interested in hearing the different cases for a rapture event and whether it's Pre mid or post trib because I believe it would help me in my own studies. I have no intention of putting the Revelation aside, I think no matter how long you've been studying it there are still things to learn.

And as has been pointed out, we haven't had much input from the post-trib rapture position.

 

[Locutus]

The problem with that is when the book was written. Paul was in prison and later banished to an island when he wrote it.

Early Church tradition dates the book to end of the emperor Domitian (reigned AD 81–96), and most modern scholars agree, although the author may have written a first version after Nero's Great Fire in Rome (AD 64) under Vespasian (AD 69–79) and updated it under Domitian.

Even if John wrote during Vespasian's reign - the time statements still need to be honoured rather than explained away.

Kenneth Gentry (while not full preterist) does an excellent job on showing that the revelation was written before 70 AD:

BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Dating the Book of Revelation An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-A.D. 70 Composition.

Free PDF:

https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/before_jerusalem_fell.pdf

It's well worth the time and effort to read.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

The problem with that is when the book was written. Paul was in prison and later banished to an island when he wrote it.

What book are you talking about?

 

[Ahwatukee]

What book are you talking about?

Though Paul was in prison, I can't ever remember Paul being banished to an island. John was banished to Patmos, but scripture never states that Paul was.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Then why the accusation that the 4 views are from denominations. I understand the distinctives of many denominations and I don't know what denomination teaches a specific eschatologyical view. The ones I have belonged to and had associated with avoid selecting a specific view like the plague. The issue is too murky. Nothing is clear like for example John 1.

Whatever you want to call it. I don't know why you are so hung up on it. If you must look at The Revelation under the microscope of established theological or religious dogma you are entitled to do so. I'm not interested.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Though Paul was in prison, I can't ever remember Paul being banished to an island. John was banished to Patmos, but scripture never states that Paul was.

That's why I was asking. I thought they might have been talking about a different book. If it's Revelation, The Lord used John to pen that one. At least he claims to be John in the intro.

 

[abcdef]

Brother Ahwatukee, I truly believe, that even though people disagree on some scriptures, when the scriptures are discussed, it is like music to Jesus, sweet love of God's Word. Please remember, that we agree on almost everything else outside of the prophetic side of the scriptures.

Here it is abcde,

After the letters to the seven churches, which is the "what is now" part of what John was told to write in Rev.1:19 and which we are currently still in, we read the following:

The now was 96 ad. The now of John's time. The 7 congregations yes. But the time of now doesn't necessarily reach into our time, in the context of this statement.

"After this I looked and saw a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had previously heard speak to me like a trumpet was saying, “Come up here, and I will show you what must happen after these things.” - Rev.4:1

The above is a prophetic allusion to the gathering of the church.

Oh wait, this is literal, ha ha. There is nothing there to support a symbolic view. John was the only one taken through the door. There is nothing to indicate that John is symbolic of the kingdom.

In support of this, throughout chapters 1 thru 3 we have the word "ekklesia" translated as "church" used 18 times. In those same chapters you will not find the word "Hagios" translated as "Saints." Like wise from chapter 4 onward we only see the word Saints, but the word church is never used again.

That only proves that those seen in heaven with Jesus are NOT part of the Pentecost kingdom/church, they are OT saints that resurrected with Jesus.

The reason for this is that the church is gathered in Rev.4:1 and the word "Saints" is in reference to those great tribulation saints introduced in Rev.7:9-17. These are those in the white robes which no man can count from every tribe, nation, people and language who come to Christ after the church has been gathered and during the time of God's wrath.

The trib saints mentioned there came from the time before the resurrection of Jesus in 33 ad. They are from the time of the Roman invasion of Israel, until the resur.

All the scriptures that you use to support the claim about avoiding God's wrath, pertain exclusively to the wrath of the 2nd death and not the time of Jacob's trouble, the trib.

So, there is a definite distinction being made between the use of the word "church" and the word "saints." For all the naysayers, you would think that the word church would appear just once from Rev.4 thru 18, but it is never used again.

No, because they are OT saints.

The next time we see the church alluded to is in Rev.19:6--8 referred to as the bride. The next time we se e the word church is not until Rev.22:16 which is outside the narrative of God's wrath and at the closing of the book.

The bride is also Israel of the OT, Not necessarily, exclusively, the Pentecost kingdom/church.

Furthermore, the "voice that sounds like a trumpet" is synonymous with the "trumpet call of God" found in 1 Thes.4:16 where Paul is giving a detailed account of the gathering of the church.

The voice is not a trumpet, it sounds like a trumpet, but is not a trumpet. Paul indicates that there is a trumpet and the voice. But here there is no trumpet.

And besides, how can that be the last trumpet, when there are 7 more to sound?

The "what must take place later" is synonymous with when the voice like a trumpet says "come up here and I will show you
what must take place after this."

What you have seen = Everything written from Rev.1:1 to Rev.1:19

What is now = Represented by the letters to the churches and representing the entire church period

What will take place later = All of the events that take place after the "what is now" i.e. after the church period

This statement about now, etc, does not exclude changes in the narrative from future to past, to present, or any other time line variation.

So there is the scripture proof regarding the gathering of the church in Revelation.

Jesus coming for the kingdom is demonstrated in Rev.19:11-21,

That is not Jesus returning to planet earth. It says that heaven is opened, not that Jesus returns to planet earth.

The passage shows the fall of the Roman Empire, the sea beast.

The beast is defeated by the gospel sword, which shows the symbolism of the passage.

which is when He returns to the earth to end the age and establish His millennial kingdom.

No one can see His face and live. Ex 33.

When Jesus comes in His glory, this planet ends.

So, when do we see His face, His glory?

At the rapt/resur? Then what? If we return to this planet, will Jesus then hide His face from us? His glory?

What about everyone else? Can they see His face? During the mill?

 

[abcdef]

Right, I see what you mean. There are so many people involved in this (discussion

??).
it's a bit all over the place. It would be good to do a verse by verse study together and all move along at the same pace on the same theme.
That's probably not possible with this format. I am interested in hearing the different cases for a rapture event and whether it's Pre mid or post trib because I believe it would help me in my own studies. I have no intention of putting the Revelation aside, I think no matter how long you've been studying it there are still things to learn.

And as has been pointed out, we haven't had much input from the post-trib rapture position.

I'm never afraid to hear what people have to say, you can learn from every one.

Keep listening, and discussing, there is great knowledge to be found.

What I have to say about prophecy is different from the others, not so different, just some variations in the time lines and symbolism.

I am happy to discuss or answer any question.

 

[Ellsworth1943]

Here it is abcde,

After the letters to the seven churches, which is the "what is now" part of what John was told to write in Rev.1:19 and which we are currently still in, we read the following:

"After this I looked and saw a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had previously heard speak to me like a trumpet was saying, “Come up here, and I will show you what must happen after these things.” - Rev.4:1

The above is a prophetic allusion to the gathering of the church. In support of this, throughout chapters 1 thru 3 we have the word "ekklesia" translated as "church" used 18 times. In those same chapters you will not find the word "Hagios" translated as "Saints." Like wise from chapter 4 onward we only see the word Saints, but the word church is never used again. The reason for this is that the church is gathered in Rev.4:1 and the word "Saints" is in reference to those great tribulation saints introduced in Rev.7:9-17. These are those in the white robes which no man can count from every tribe, nation, people and language who come to Christ after the church has been gathered and during the time of God's wrath.

So, there is a definite distinction being made between the use of the word "church" and the word "saints." For all the naysayers, you would think that the word church would appear just once from Rev.4 thru 18, but it is never used again. The next time we see the church alluded to is in Rev.19:6--8 referred to as the bride. The next time we see the word church is not until Rev.22:16 which is outside the narrative of God's wrath and at the closing of the book.

Furthermore, the "voice that sounds like a trumpet" is synonymous with the "trumpet call of God" found in 1 Thes.4:16 where Paul is giving a detailed account of the gathering of the church.

The "what must take place later" is synonymous with when the voice like a trumpet says "come up here and I will show you
what must take place after this."

What you have seen = Everything written from Rev.1:1 to Rev.1:19

What is now = Represented by the letters to the churches and representing the entire church period

What will take place later = All of the events that take place after the "what is now" i.e. after the church period

So there is the scripture proof regarding the gathering of the church in Revelation. Jesus coming for the kingdom is demonstrated in Rev.19:11-21, which is when He returns to the earth to end the age and establish His millennial kingdom.

You have stated we need to understand the difference between the literal and the symbolism in Rev. and I agree with you.
So why are you putting a symbolic meaning to the seven churches that John was to send that letter to and that Jesus personally addressed? "The Church" the whole body of believers is not mentioned at all. These are seven local churches that Jesus personally spoke to concerning positive and negative characteristics. Has nothing to do with todays churches.
And you have done the same thing with Rev. 4:1. There is no allusion to the "rapture of the church".
This is exactly the problem I was speaking about when I said that "interpretation" of the Word of God leads to problems.
You have changed a literal passage of Scripture into a symbolic meaning to support your belief.

 

[heartofdavid]

You have stated we need to understand the difference between the literal and the symbolism in Rev. and I agree with you.
So why are you putting a symbolic meaning to the seven churches that John was to send that letter to and that Jesus personally addressed? "The Church" the whole body of believers is not mentioned at all. These are seven local churches that Jesus personally spoke to concerning positive and negative characteristics. Has nothing to do with todays churches.
And you have done the same thing with Rev. 4:1. There is no allusion to the "rapture of the church".
This is exactly the problem I was speaking about when I said that "interpretation" of the Word of God leads to problems.
You have changed a literal passage of Scripture into a symbolic meaning to support your belief.

Harvest is 4 parts. Leviticus and elsewhere.

Firstfruits has happened.
Main harvest is the rapture.
Corners and gleaners is rev 14.

Main can not happen postrib or midtrib

 

[heartofdavid]

That's why I was asking. I thought they might have been talking about a different book. If it's Revelation, The Lord used John to pen that one. At least he claims to be John in the intro.

Yes John did write it.
Foxes book of martyrs gives an account of John after he left patmos.
Very powerful.

But John completely destroys any hope of preterists.
( his book was after 70 ad).
....so how could the AC/GT be past events

 

[Locutus]

How can the great tribulation be a past event?

Easy, Jesus told his disciples when it would happen and what to do:

Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

What to do:

Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

Luke is speaking of the same "fleeing" as Matthew:

Luke 21:21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

"When" they were to flee prior to the great tribulation:

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

As can be seen from the context from Matthew and Luke the time to flee was when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies in 66 AD because then would the great tribulation start.

No flees on me..

 

[Endoscopy]

What book are you talking about?

Oops. Had what happened to John mixed up with Paul. Both suffered persecutions. John was exiled to the island of Patmos. He was the last living disciple.

 

[Endoscopy]

Whatever you want to call it. I don't know why you are so hung up on it. If you must look at The Revelation under the microscope of established theological or religious dogma you are entitled to do so. I'm not interested.

It is not dogma but interdenominational theologians trying to understand the confusing symbolism of Daniel and Revelation to come up with a view of eschatology. This work theologians have worked on for centuries. Now along come a couple of persons who know much more than those theologians working on it for centuries. They ignore the work done by the centuries of theologians to create the 4 seperate Biblical views of end times. I believe their egos are getting in the way real theology. The "I know better than everybody" attitude comes through loud and clear.

 

[Endoscopy]

I have studied eschatology since I was in my late teens to early 20s. Later as deacon and elder in three different churches (moved twice) I had classes taught by the pastors that included the 4 views of end times. At 73 years old I have found nothing that allows any of the 4 Biblical views to be thrown out. The symbolism in the books makes that impossible. Historically symbols in the Bible are only known for sure after the fact.

Did you bother to look at the two sites I posted? They are nondenominational.

 

[abcdef]

I have studied eschatology since I was in my late teens to early 20s. Later as deacon and elder in three different churches (moved twice) I had classes taught by the pastors that included the 4 views of end times. At 73 years old I have found nothing that allows any of the 4 Biblical views to be thrown out. The symbolism in the books makes that impossible. Historically symbols in the Bible are only known for sure after the fact.

Did you bother to look at the two sites I posted? They are nondenominational.

Hi Endoscopy,

Here is the main problem with those theories, they were all written before Israel was restored to Jerusalem.

Because of that, they do not put the events together in the correct time line.

For preterism everything ends at 70 ad.

For pre trib, they skip everything after Pentecost, until the resurrection. 1900+ yrs.

Both avoid the times of the gentiles, 70 ad-1967.

 

[tanakh]

Armageddon is Gods judgement of Israel and Jerusalem. In revelation the City is called Egypt and Sodom. The book also speaks of the harlot killing the Prophets. In the whole bible the only city accused of killing Prophets is Jerusalem. Jesus confirms this where he named Jerusalem as the only place that Prophets are killed. Jerusalem in the last days is Spiritual Babylon where Antichrist rules from. Only one third of the Jewish population will be saved.

 

[Ahwatukee]

Armageddon is Gods judgement of Israel and Jerusalem.

Good day tanakh,

Armageddon will involve all nations. It is not specifically a judgement against Israel, as can be seen from the following:

"And I saw three unclean spirits that looked like frogs, coming from the mouths of the dragon, the beast, and the false prophet. These are demonic spirits that perform signs and go out to all the kings of the earth, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God, the Almighty. "

Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armiesassembled to wage war against the One seated on the horse, and against His army.

Do you see the reference above regarding Armageddon that it involves all the kings of the earth and thier armies? As you can see, Armageddon will involve all nations.