Jesus is not coming back. He already did in 70 A.D.

When Jesus says that the Pharisees and Sadducees father is the devil in the gospel of John then they are a synagogue of Satan. You may disagree with my interpretation and I'm okay with that. I think He was referring to actual Jewish people in Rev 3: 9 and have good reason for that interpretation.

I'm just saying that his suggestion of 1:1 and 22:6 saying "SHORTLY" is INCORRECT.

I said, "Verses 1:1 and 22:6 both use the NOUN "IN QUICKNESS" ("shortly" is an ADVERB, NOT a NOUN).

That (delirious' wording, not mine) is not being "exegetical," but reading INTO Scripture what it is NOT saying THERE (at that point).

I agree - it's not the first time Jesus has alluded to the Jews in that way:

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Rev 1:19 (Young's Literal) 'Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come after these things;

That's why John stated shortly and meant shortly.

The mental gymnastics is astounding. People simply won't accept what Scripture says.

Seven times the book tells you, at the very beginning and end of it, that the things in it will shortly come to pass. It uses several different words including: shortly (1: 1), near (1: 3), shortly (22: 6), quickly (22:7), at hand (22: 10), quickly (22: 12), quickly (22: 20).

That's 4 different words/phrases used 7 times at the beginning and end of the book that many people simply refuse to accept.

If you want to believe near, at hand, shortly, quickly, means 2,000 years and counting, that is up to you.

This is the Greek:

Strongs

G5034 tachos takh'-os

from the same as G5036;

a brief space (of time), i.e. (with G1722 prefixed) in haste.

KJV: quickly, shortly, speedily.

So John is saying:

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must "in a brief space of time" come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Do any of the full-preterists go to church? WHICH ONE?

I dont know of any denomination that considers full-preterism within orthodoxy.

This is why I stopped coming to the discussion forums a few months ago. People will not accept what the Scripture says without trying to bend it to their paradigm.

When:

age no longer means age and
generation no longer means generation and
near means far and
shortly means a really long time and
quickly means very, very slowly and
at hand means 2,000 years and counting...
then words have lost their meaning

It is better to not waste time with people who have made up their minds. They won't listen no matter how many Scriptures you present.

God bless everyone.

It can be frustrating - you did some searching and adjusted your view right?

Yep. It's because I have always been willing to listen and change my view if it was not correct. I have gotten several doctrines wrong in the past during my evolution as a Christian.

Most recently was the amillennialism I was defending against many people in here a few months ago. I realized it did not fit what the Bible teaches. FP teaches the correct view but it is hard to discover because 98% of Christians aren't aware of it, don't teach it, or won't accept it for emotional reasons. It's a beautiful thing if a person will just accept what Scripture says and not try to manipulate it.

There are many people in this forum, I can name at least 6 off the top of my head, mostly dispensational/futurists, who are very full of pride and do not think they could ever misinterpret Scripture. Many Christians are like that actually.

I've always tried to be willing to reconsider my views and be corrected. That's why I believe I have a much better understanding of Scripture today than I otherwise would have.

[already having covered 1:1 and 22:6 (NOUNS)]… Now, Revelation 22:12 "Behold, I am coming quickly [adverb, here!]" correlates with:

--Revelation 16:14-16 / 19:19-21 / 20:6 ("Behold, I come AS A THIEF." [note: without the "IN THE NIGHT" phrase added, regarding HIMSELF); AND (its correlating passage of...)

--Isaiah 24:21-22[23], which passage has TWO "PUNISH" words separated by a further "specific time period" (which Amill-teaching HAS NO FURTHER "time" following that point in the chronology!! No wonder it is incorrect!); the FIRST of these two "PUNISH" words (aligning with the "Armageddon" time slot ^ , at the time of His Second Coming to the earth) includes both the "punish the host of the high ones that are on high" AND "the kings of the earth upon the earth"... so "WHEN" are you thinking the 1Cor6:3[14] "we SHALL JUDGE ANGELS" occurs? [which I have been saying is a PART of the PURPOSE of our Rapture; and which aligns (time-wise) with the "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" of Romans 16:20 (DURING the SAME TIME-FRAME as the Luke 18:8[chpt-17-end] "AVENGE IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" time frame also, however in separate LOCATIONS)].

We do not randomly change "NOUNS" into "ADVERBS" to suit our cause. They EACH speak to something SPECIFIC.

Then your identifying Jerusalem as the image of the beast that was forced on everyone in ad66-70 and every nation saying buy and sell with my money? How be it though the whore riding the beast is Israel as we agreed on in another thread.

Rev1:1 (22:6 also): NOUN -

https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/1-1.htm

"IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (yes, the things described in the "FUTURE" aspects of the Book ["things which must come to pass," as in 4:1 also] must come to pass IN QUICKNESS, but they do not START until Jesus will "STAND to JUDGE" [Isa3:13; Lam2:3-4 (LIKE the wording in 2Th2:7b-8a); Rev5:6] at the time when "the Day of the Lord" IS PRESENT (when it WILL be, future to now). [note: NOT a singular 24-hr day, but that which STARTS with "SEAL # 1" and unfolds upon the earth over much time!]


"quickly, rapidly, shortly, speedily" are all ADVERBS (NOT "NOUNS" as 1:1 and 22:6 both have).

Revelation 1:19 "things that are SURE / CERTAIN TO [G3195 - mello / mellei ] take place" (I think we went over this in a previous post ). That is the nature of "prophecy."

No Soandso Jerusalem is not the "image" - The woman "sits" on the beast:

Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Rev 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Rev 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

We know that the leadership of Jerusalem was propped up by Rome and in league with it until Rome turned on the Jews/whore:

Rev 17:16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

Your under the illusion that they ask about the sign of his coming meaning his second coming but if you examine the Gospels in every case when Jesus spoke to them of his death they did not understand. So by the timeline of the Olivet discourse they(the disciples) did not understand or believe in a "second coming" and so were asking him about the "sign of thy coming" because he had just said the Temple they thought they(Israel) was going to rule from would be cast down and they saw him ruling all the nations from it.(the women thought the gardener moved the body, Thomas, I will not believe unless I put my fingers in the holes...",Peter,"I'm going fishing" ect.

So none of the disciples believed at the time of the Olivet discourse that Jesus would die and be raised. So in Luke 24:21 disciples like Cleopas were pointing out that they "had thought" that he was the Messiah but that he was dead instead.

So in Matthew 24:3 they ask what was the sign of your coming as the king,Messiah that is going to rule the world from the Temple you just said would not be standing for him to rule in. And the age they were in when it would end in aspect to the things he said(these things be?),,,The point is though if you examine all three Gospels(after Christ death) none of the Disciples/Apostles undersood he would die,be buried or rise the third day and so it is impossible that they ask him about the sign of his second coming so they had to be asking him about the sign of the only coming they understood as the King,Messiah that rules the world and every nation bows to in the Temple he just said would be destroyed.

Regardless of what they understood about his death he was plain about his coming, and as regarding the resurrection they definitely had this as a "doctrine" however poorly they may have understood it Soandso - so I think your line of reasoning is without merit.

John 11:24) Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.


Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Then the woman,Israel,Jerusalem stumbled, realized their error and minted their own money and God punished them when they revolted,refused to bow down to Rome,died to the uttermost in the siege to keep Caesar from setting up idols in the temple and they worshiped Rome's image? I don't know about that usually revolt,rebel refuse to bow,don't let pagans set up idols ect. means they didn't worship the image not that they did,lol

Highly speculative at best, Josephus can only give us some insight.

Your posit that the current "Israel" is somehow the "image" makes no sense in light of John's "things which must shortly come to pass" which implies the image was "setup" shortly after he wrote.

I'm Just going by what the scriptures said they understood because it dones't make sense to think they were asking about his second coming when other Scripture shows they didn't understand that at the time of the discourse.