Discussion on the End Times

[GraceAndTruth]

Truth7t7.....Revelation was not hidden from the churches of Asia...John wrote it FOR the churches of Asia. Polycarp was most likely in possession of the original (no copies at that time) which he most likely shared with the other churches. The church in Ephesus was considered the rock of sound doctrine as John also pastored there before and after Patmos.

It would make sense to believe that John would send his epistle to the people it was addressed to. What else would John do with it? It also would make sense that Polycarp would share that epistle with the other churches mentioned in it...they were in the same general area....Asia minor. (check a map or google the area, the same names exist today)

This was John's warning to them so they would understand the things that were about to happen. People of the churches, living at that time, would understand completely John's symbolism, which he used so the Romans would not.......if it fell in the hands of the Romans it would mean greater persecution for the church.....as parts of Revelation make it clear the who and what was referred to.

REVELATION 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne,

How can you just dismiss the plain wording there?

I trust the evidence I have in being Amillenial. it is spot- on to the symbolism of Revelation and Daniel on the who , where and when.
I don't believe there are any symbols that I have not squared with my eschatology. I don't care about your "preterist" (partial OR full), ideas because I am Amillenist. I don't think you know the difference.

I'm willing and ready to tackle and put down your theory on antichrist too.

And yes, I am annoyed with you. ........so I must stop posting and go cool my heels.

 

[Truth7t7]

You like to skip over your past mis-statements and try to slip into a different topic, as you did with your response to my statements on the earlier date for Revelation. Iraeneus, on his OPINION of antichrist, which is wrong and while we like the early church fathers for some points of history, customs, etc, they are NOT scripture NOR are they authorative as expositors OF scripture.

Your 'red herring' of tossing in that antichrist nonsense did nothing to address the subject of the early date for Revelation. You refuted nothing of what I wrote, except with your false statement you attributed to Iraeneus and you later admitted you were wrong.
So back to square 1.

Ireaneus Below Soundly Refutes The Preterist Claim Of A Pre 70AD Date Of The Revelation, "Destroyed"!

It's a fact Ireanaeu was speaking of the (Vision) being seen at the end of Emperor Domitians reign, that was from 81-96AD

(For that Was Seen) the (Vision)

You will closely note, no personal pronouns are used (He, Him) to even hint at suggesting it was John seen.

The Revelation wasn't seen pre 70 AD as preterist Falsely claim.

Polycarp was a disciple of John who saw and wrote the Revelation, Ireaneus was a disciple of Polycarp.

(The exact statement below)

Early Christian Writings

Ireaneus: Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 30.3

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

 

[Truth7t7]

Truth7t7.....Revelation was not hidden from the churches of Asia...John wrote it FOR the churches of Asia. Polycarp was most likely in possession of the original (no copies at that time) which he most likely shared with the other churches. The church in Ephesus was considered the rock of sound doctrine as John also pastored there before and after Patmos.

It would make sense to believe that John would send his epistle to the people it was addressed to. What else would John do with it? It also would make sense that Polycarp would share that epistle with the other churches mentioned in it...they were in the same general area....Asia minor. (check a map or google the area, the same names exist today)

This was John's warning to them so they would understand the things that were about to happen. People of the churches, living at that time, would understand completely John's symbolism, which he used so the Romans would not.......if it fell in the hands of the Romans it would mean greater persecution for the church.....as parts of Revelation make it clear the who and what was referred to.

REVELATION 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.
3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.
4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne,

How can you just dismiss the plain wording there?

I trust the evidence I have in being Amillenial. it is spot- on to the symbolism of Revelation and Daniel on the who , where and when.
I don't believe there are any symbols that I have not squared with my eschatology. I don't care about your "preterist" (partial OR full), ideas because I am Amillenist. I don't think you know the difference.

I'm willing and ready to tackle and put down your theory on antichrist too.

And yes, I am annoyed with you. ........so I must stop posting and go cool my heels.

Yes the statement of Ireaneus below invalidates the Preterist teaching that the (Antichrist) was Pre- 70AD, Nero, Titus, etc

(Iranaeus, 130-202AD) saw a (Future) Antichrist from his 2nd century life, as is clearly seen in his statement below

Polycarp was a disciple of John who saw and wrote the Revelation, Ireaneus was a disciple of Polycarp.

(The exact statement below)

Early Christian Writings

Ireaneus: Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 30.3

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Yes the statement of Ireaneus below invalidates the Preterist teaching that the (Antichrist) was Pre- 70AD, Nero, Titus, etc

(Iranaeus, 130-202AD) saw a (Future) Antichrist from his 2nd century life, as is clearly seen in his statement below

Polycarp was a disciple of John who saw and wrote the Revelation, Ireaneus was a disciple of Polycarp.

(The exact statement below)

Early Christian Writings

Ireaneus: Against Heresies Book 5, Chapter 30.3

"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

Ireaneus does not make doctrine for me. He has never been the source for any doctrinal beliefs. Works of the Apostolic Fathers are helpful for history, their world view at the time, people, places and things of their generation. NOT doctrine. It was Tertullian who wrote the letter to Perpetua on baptizing her baby, which gave insight into the thinking of his day on that subject, yet Tertullian made several docrinal errors and later in life even fell to the error of Montanism which marked him as a heretic in the church. And capitalizing antichrist as if it were a specific person puts him in a false position of isogesis of John.

AND this is NOT a discussion about 'antichrist' but if you keep insisting to bring it up out of context.....
I think you have confused the beast with antichrist. John said the antichrist was many people, some had come, some were coming (future) John called it the spirit of antichrist.....which I think would be the devil.
antichrist was not mentioned in Revelation though John was the only apostle to use the term. John used the term 'antichrist' 3 times. 1 John 2:8, 1 John 4:3, and 2 John 7:4 It was used by John as a term for those who were against Christ (ie: false teacher)
anti-against'

Daniel never used it though I have seem some refer to Daniel. Daniel used the term 'abomination of desolation' which is the Roman army as Luke explained in his telling of the Olivet Discourse. READ with BOTH eyes.

 

[Truth7t7]

Ireaneus does not make doctrine for me. He has never been the source for any doctrinal beliefs. Works of the Apostolic Fathers are helpful for history, their world view at the time, people, places and things of their generation. NOT doctrine. It was Tertullian who wrote the letter to Perpetua on baptizing her baby, which gave insight into the thinking of his day on that subject, yet Tertullian made several docrinal errors and later in life even fell to the error of Montanism which marked him as a heretic in the church. And capitalizing antichrist as if it were a specific person puts him in a false position of isogesis of John.

AND this is NOT a discussion about 'antichrist' but if you keep insisting to bring it up out of context.....
I think you have confused the beast with antichrist. John said the antichrist was many people, some had come, some were coming (future) John called it the spirit of antichrist.....which I think would be the devil.
antichrist was not mentioned in Revelation though John was the only apostle to use the term. John used the term 'antichrist' 3 times. 1 John 2:8, 1 John 4:3, and 2 John 7:4 It was used by John as a term for those who were against Christ (ie: false teacher)
anti-against'

Daniel never used it though I have seem some refer to Daniel. Daniel used the term 'abomination of desolation' which is the Roman army as Luke explained in his telling of the Olivet Discourse. READ with BOTH eyes.

You use the typical name game on the word (Antichrist)

Of course John used the word to explain the general (Spirit) within humans in Denial of Jesus Christ.

The church has used this term in reference to a future human man, who will blaspheme God, in the future,and proclaim to be God Messiah

This future human figure will be a man, he us referred to by many different names in Scripture

Little Horn, Man of Sin, The Beast, Lawless One, Son Of Perdition

When I use the term (The Antichrist) it refers to this future human man

Daniel states that this human man will be present on earth, up to the consummation (The End)

No the interpretation of this human man, isnt seen as multiple figures throughout past history, a false teaching

This future human man will be present at the second coming, and destroyed by the Lord Jesus at his (Futyre) coming, (The Consummation)

Daniel 9:27KJV
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

You use the typical name game on the word (Antichrist)


This future human man will be present at the second coming, and destroyed by the Lord Jesus at his (Futyre) coming, (The Consummation)

Daniel 9:27KJV
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

This thread is about the end times. Your obsession with antichrist being one person to be revealed does not follow John's description, and Daniel does not use the term EVER. Everything you offer is assumption......you have no scripture. You think he is future, I say it is Nero.......recognized by the list of the 7 kings.

Judas was called the son of perdition......was he THE antichrist........or one of the many as John said?

Since you won't acknowledge the scripture a gave you....I don't think this exchange is edifying.

 

[Ahwatukee]

This thread is about the end times. Your obsession with antichrist being one person to be revealed does not follow John's description, and Daniel does not use the term EVER. Everything you offer is assumption......you have no scripture. You think he is future, I say it is Nero.......recognized by the list of the 7 kings.

Judas was called the son of perdition......was he THE antichrist........or one of the many as John said?

Since you won't acknowledge the scripture a gave you....I don't think this exchange is edifying.

Good day, GraceAndTruth,

Though scripture states that there will indeed be many antichrists, it also states that there will be one particular antichrist, also referred to in the singular as the man of lawlessness.

"Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed. He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."

Now, the person identified above is in the singular as being the "son of destruction" and cannot be referring to Judas. For when did Judas ever seat himself in the temple of God and proclaim himself to be God?

Revelation refers to the antichrist as the beast, which is also identified in the singular:

"But the beast was captured along with the false prophet, who on its behalf had performed signs deceiving those who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. Both the beast and the false prophet were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

The scripture above in stating that "both the beast and the false prophet" would represent two individuals, one being the beast.

I would also add that, Nero did not fulfill any of the characteristics of the antichrist, except for one not confessing that Jesus had come in the flesh. That would make him, along with many others, as having the spirit of the antichrist, but not the antichrist himself.

Also, Paul says that the man of lawlessness/antichrist will be destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's coming. Consequently, Nero took his own life by stabbing himself in the neck. Therefore, he does not fit the prophecy of being the antichrist.

 

[Truth7t7]

This thread is about the end times. Your obsession with antichrist being one person to be revealed does not follow John's description, and Daniel does not use the term EVER. Everything you offer is assumption......you have no scripture. You think he is future, I say it is Nero.......recognized by the list of the 7 kings.

Judas was called the son of perdition......was he THE antichrist........or one of the many as John said?

Since you won't acknowledge the scripture a gave you....I don't think this exchange is edifying.

There ya go with the name game once again, I clearly stated when I use the word (The Antichrist) it refers to the future human man identified by many names in the scripture.

Then you go farther to State Daniel dosent use the term, as if to cancel a future human man, as I clearly stated one of these names was (The Little Horn) and that is Daniel's description.

As Ahwatukee stated above, Jesus Christ will return and destroy (The Beast/Antichrist) with the brightness of his coming, (A Future Event) and your 1st century Nero don't fit the bill.

2 Thessalonians 2:8-9KJV
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Good day, GraceAndTruth,

Though scripture states that there will indeed be many antichrists, it also states that there will be one particular antichrist, also referred to in the singular as the man of lawlessness.

"Let no one deceive you in any way, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness—the son of destruction—is revealed. He will oppose and exalt himself above every so-called god or object of worship. So he will seat himself in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God."

Now, the person identified above is in the singular as being the "son of destruction" and cannot be referring to Judas. For when did Judas ever seat himself in the temple of God and proclaim himself to be God?

Revelation refers to the antichrist as the beast, which is also identified in the singular:

"But the beast was captured along with the false prophet, who on its behalf had performed signs deceiving those who had the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. Both the beast and the false prophet were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

The scripture above in stating that "both the beast and the false prophet" would represent two individuals, one being the beast.

I would also add that, Nero did not fulfill any of the characteristics of the antichrist, except for one not confessing that Jesus had come in the flesh. That would make him, along with many others, as having the spirit of the antichrist, but not the antichrist himself.

Also, Paul says that the man of lawlessness/antichrist will be destroyed by the brightness of the Lord's coming. Consequently, Nero took his own life by stabbing himself in the neck. Therefore, he does not fit the prophecy of being the antichrist.

NOWHERE, in any of those "scriptures" you offered was there ONE mention of antichrist. No antichrist mentioned in Revelation. John, who was the only one to use the term, never used it in his revelation, though had it been his intention to identify the beast as such he could have said so. John uses antichrists also.......the plural.... meaning more than one. Perhaps had you quoted you would have seen that.

I never said Judas was referred to as son of destruction.......the bible uses the words "son of perdition" as did I.
Perdition means damnation, Judas was a vessel made for destruction, a son of hell
The beast is both a person (Nero) and a nation (Rome). Personal characteristics indicate a person, national characteristics a nation.
Beast as person is described in Rev 13: 11-18 Beast as nation in Rev 13: 1-10

You do understand that Revelation is written in allegory, symbolism and literally, right?
Trying to make a biblical point using eisegesis makes the meaning too subjective. I prefer direct quotes.

 

[Truth7t7]

NOWHERE, in any of those "scriptures" you offered was there ONE mention of antichrist. No antichrist mentioned in Revelation. John, who was the only one to use the term, never used it in his revelation, though had it been his intention to identify the beast as such he could have said so. John uses antichrists also.......the plural.... meaning more than one. Perhaps had you quoted you would have seen that.

I never said Judas was referred to as son of destruction.......the bible uses the words "son of perdition" as did I.
Perdition means damnation, Judas was a vessel made for destruction, a son of hell
The beast is both a person (Nero) and a nation (Rome). Personal characteristics indicate a person, national characteristics a nation.
Beast as person is described in Rev 13: 11-18 Beast as nation in Rev 13: 1-10

You do understand that Revelation is written in allegory, symbolism and literally, right?
Trying to make a biblical point using eisegesis makes the meaning too subjective. I prefer direct quotes.

No (The Beast) is described many places throughout Scripture, with different names, he will be a future human man, and the Lord Jesus Christ destroys him at the second coming, your 1st century Nero committed suicide, satan destroyed him!

Perhaps the teachings of Boettner, Riddlebarger, And Sproul, need to be placed in the circular file where they belong.

2 Thessalonians 2:8-9KJV
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

 

[Absolutely]

Ireaneus does not make doctrine for me. He has never been the source for any doctrinal beliefs. Works of the Apostolic Fathers are helpful for history, their world view at the time, people, places and things of their generation. NOT doctrine. It was Tertullian who wrote the letter to Perpetua on baptizing her baby, which gave insight into the thinking of his day on that subject, yet Tertullian made several docrinal errors and later in life even fell to the error of Montanism which marked him as a heretic in the church. And capitalizing antichrist as if it were a specific person puts him in a false position of isogesis of John.

AND this is NOT a discussion about 'antichrist' but if you keep insisting to bring it up out of context.....
I think you have confused the beast with antichrist. John said the antichrist was many people, some had come, some were coming (future) John called it the spirit of antichrist.....which I think would be the devil.
antichrist was not mentioned in Revelation though John was the only apostle to use the term. John used the term 'antichrist' 3 times. 1 John 2:8, 1 John 4:3, and 2 John 7:4 It was used by John as a term for those who were against Christ (ie: false teacher)
anti-against'

Daniel never used it though I have seem some refer to Daniel. Daniel used the term 'abomination of desolation' which is the Roman army as Luke explained in his telling of the Olivet Discourse. READ with BOTH eyes.

So a nation is thrown into the LOF ?

 

[GraceAndTruth]

So a nation is thrown into the LOF ?

Like I am supposed to know what LOF is?

 

[Absolutely]

This thread is about the end times. Your obsession with antichrist being one person to be revealed does not follow John's description, and Daniel does not use the term EVER. Everything you offer is assumption......you have no scripture. You think he is future, I say it is Nero.......recognized by the list of the 7 kings.

Judas was called the son of perdition......was he THE antichrist........or one of the many as John said?

Since you won't acknowledge the scripture a gave you....I don't think this exchange is edifying.

Rev 19:20 - And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.ev 20:4 - And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image

 

[Absolutely]

Like I am supposed to know what LOF is?

Lake of fire

 

[Absolutely]

NOWHERE, in any of those "scriptures" you offered was there ONE mention of antichrist. No antichrist mentioned in Revelation. John, who was the only one to use the term, never used it in his revelation, though had it been his intention to identify the beast as such he could have said so. John uses antichrists also.......the plural.... meaning more than one. Perhaps had you quoted you would have seen that.

I never said Judas was referred to as son of destruction.......the bible uses the words "son of perdition" as did I.
Perdition means damnation, Judas was a vessel made for destruction, a son of hell
The beast is both a person (Nero) and a nation (Rome). Personal characteristics indicate a person, national characteristics a nation.
Beast as person is described in Rev 13: 11-18 Beast as nation in Rev 13: 1-10

You do understand that Revelation is written in allegory, symbolism and literally, right?
Trying to make a biblical point using eisegesis makes the meaning too subjective. I prefer direct quotes.

That dynamic is always there.

There is not some bogy man in unpacking the bible using all three.
The word
Types/shadows/ allegory
Revelatory enlightenment

You left out the last item.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

That dynamic is always there.

There is not some bogy man in unpacking the bible using all three.
The word
Types/shadows/ allegory
Revelatory enlightenment

You left out the last item.

I'm not sure where you came in on my posts to Truth7t7 to which Ahwatukee added comments, but posts about antichrist(s) was started by Truth, I was not in agreement with him, so the anti thing began. We started out on the earlier dating of Revelation. Truth can't stick to a topic without wandering all over the place, though he means well.

If you are trying to instruct me, I need to know what you are trying to tell me.
However, your post of 'revelatory enlightenment' just sent a big red flag on your "enlightenment".

 

[Absolutely]

I'm not sure where you came in on my posts to Truth7t7 to which Ahwatukee added comments, but posts about antichrist(s) was started by Truth, I was not in agreement with him, so the anti thing began. We started out on the earlier dating of Revelation. Truth can't stick to a topic without wandering all over the place, though he means well.

If you are trying to instruct me, I need to know what you are trying to tell me.
However, your post of 'revelatory enlightenment' just sent a big red flag on your "enlightenment".

Then Jesus should have been real upset when peter ,through revelation of the spirit,identified Christ as the messiah.
The entire nt is dependent on a spiritual hook up with revelation.

I know none that got saved mentally or mentally understanding a verse.

Paul was set aside and taught of the Holy Spirit.
Paul said what he recieved was not of man but through REVELATION of /by the Holy Spirit.
I mean are you really against council with God? (Revelatory information)
I speak...God speaks back.
That is red flag????

 

[Absolutely]

I meet with business men 3 times a week for bible study.

They are all baptists.

None of them hear Gods voice.

I show them that they do by recieving the word of God (bible).

If God speaks to me then I belong to him.

Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice. The voice of another the do not obey"
If we do not talk to him, are we His ?

 

[Absolutely]

When God talks to me it is never in King James style english.

When he spoke mat 18;18 into me he used "allow" vs "bind" in the kjv

 

[Absolutely]

There is hardly a chapter in Hebrews that does not have revelatory enlightenment using types and shadows.