Revelation 19- A major Key to understanding Revelations
- Thread starter tttallison
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
They said that about Jesus as well. They could not understand the born again doctrine. And so much more.
But you hold to a rapture doctrine wherein you and all believers are caught up into the sky to meet Jesus. And you have no regard to the things that precede this event. No, you believe that nothing precedes this event. When scripture clearly shows the saints of God going through the tribulation. So you modify doctrine so as to accommodate the verses showing that the saints go through the tribulation. That you and your group are exempt but others who come later are not.
The rapture doctrine is absolutely false. Everyone who remains upon the earth will have lived through the tribulation. Anyone who does not live through the tribulation has died the mortal death. And then comes the saints rising up off the earth to meet Christ in the air as the earth is burned. That is, when the saints rise into the air the earth is burned. And this comes at the very end of the seven years.
What, you think the saints rise into the air twice. Once at the beginning of the tribulation and once at the end. Really?
John was given the promise that he would live till Jesus comes again. This is metaphorically called the testimony of Jesus Christ. Here is Rev. 1:2.
Speaking of John
2Who bare record of the word of God,
and of the testimony of Jesus Christ,
and of all things that he saw.
Notice the order of the verse: a, b, c
it is a chiasmus with the testimony of Jesus Christ in the center
a) John 1
b) John 21
c) John 2-20
The Book of Revelation is similarly organized. Rev. 1:18
a) 19Write the things which thou hast seen, (Rev. 1-3)
b) and the things which are, (Rev. 22)
c) and the things which shall be hereafter; (Rev. 4-21)
The point is that John living at Patmos had the testimony of Jesus Christ as stated in Rev. 1:9. Meaning that he will live till Jesus comes again as given in that testimony.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed.
If that was so, Mary's father would have been a Davidic king as well. Jesus Christ had David's throne, not because His maternal grandfather had that throne, but because His heavenly Father gave it to Him, as Luke 1:32 says. As Jesus had the throne eternally, why should any other sons of Mary be given it?
Agreed.
Where do we read that Jesus had a successor?
Agreed.
Where are we told that there would be another Davidic king after Jesus? If He was given the throne of His father David, and if His reign would be forever, and His kingdom everlasting, there is no need for a replacement.
Give a Scriptural reference for this then, and explain how John could take over as king anyway if the reign of Jesus would have no end.
The last king of Judah was Zedekiah. Later "kings", the Herods, for example, were not descendants of David, but puppet kings appointed by Rome. So how is the succession to the Davidic throne easy to see?
Not as king he doesn't. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible of any of the apostles being a king.
I have asked you several times for scriptural support for this notion of Christians needing to have a Davidic king (apart, of course, from Jesus Christ) to survive the tribulation. All you keep doing is repeating the notion, with no scriptural support.
No, Jesus' stepfather Joseph was the Davidic King. He was of the house of David (Luke 2:4). This is also given in the line of Davidic Kings given in Matthew at Verse 1:16.
I have shown you these things and you can not accept them.
You keep getting the mortal rule of the Davidic Kings confused with the Jesus' eternal rule as the eternal Davidic King. When you can stop crossing the two things together then you will see it.
D, you just don't get it. And, I am not trying to teach you a complicated subject.
Kings pass their kingdoms to their sons, nephews, cousins, etc.
Jesus passed the Davidic Kingship over Israel to John.
Mary was married to Joseph who was the rightful Davidic King. Therefore, her sons were the heirs to the Davidic throne.
Just because the Davidic Kings prior to Jesus were not coronated does not mean that they were not of that Davidic line of kings. After all, Jesus was not coronated and the people accepted him is the rightful Davidic King of his day. They called him the Son of David which means the Davidic King. He was their rightful King by birthright.
The apostles are not Davidic Kings. Mary's sons are heirs to the Davidic Throne.
D, you can not see this simple line of succession that is commonplace throughout kingdoms on the earth. I do not know what to say. If you can not understand this thing that is common then you will never see the implications of the Davidic covenant to the tribulaiton.
And that my friend is an important point.
Isa. 49:2-5, Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. 2And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; 3And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. 4Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God. 5And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength. 6And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth. 7Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the LORD that is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, and he shall choose thee. 8Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;
Whether you take the lineage through Mary or through Joseph makes no difference to what I wrote. We are not told that Joseph, his father, his grandfather, his great-grandfather, etc. were Davidic kings. As for Matthew 1:16, it says:
NKJV Mat 1:16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
Nothing about him being a king.
But you have not shown me these things from the Bible.
That is not confusing the two. Mary was told that Jesus would be given the throne of His father David. No hint that there were two thrones of David, one temporal and the other eternal.
Where are we told that? You say it, but where in the Bible s it even hinted that Jesus passed the Davidic kingdom to anybody else?
If that is so, why are we not told in the Bible that Joseph was the rightful Davidic king?
I didn't say that kingship depended on coronation. Even these days in the UK, when Queen Elizabeth II dies, Charles immediately became King Charles III, even though his coronation took place several months later. But his kingship wasn't kept secret. You seem to hold that after the last recorded king, Zedekiah, his descendants really were kings, even though we are never told that they were kings in the Bible.
And He said, "My kingdom is not of this world."
But you keep saying that the apostle John was such a king.
There you go again, just stating it as though it were fact. Give Bible v]backing for the notion that Mary's sons (apart from Jesus) are heirs to the Davidic throne, or that Jesus past His kingship on to anybody else.
I go by what the Bible says. If the God said in His word that the Davidic covenant is linked to the tribulation so that anybody without John as their king will not survive the tribulation, or that Jesus passed on His kingship to somebody else, or any of the other unusual doctrines you propose, I would believe them.
D,
Thank you. So you do not see Jesus as being in the family line of the Davidic Kings But if you were to search the bloodlines of the Jewish people then someone would have legal claim to the Davidic throne. But not Jesus. He can not hold that legal claim and has a supernatural claim to the Davidic Kingship. I think this is what you are saying.
Jesus does not have legal claim by family associations. He has legal claim by his own power and authority.
That is, one claim is by birthright in the family, and they other is legal claim by virtue of being God. And a lot of people believe that.
I was clarifying D's position. I know Jesus was the Davidic king by birthright. D does not know this.
Dave can you accurate ly. Explain this scripture i was to ask this other day forgot tbut here see what you can do and by All means use the whole passage pay atnnt o nike and FAITH
For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory [nike] that overcometh the world, even our faith."
F,
D is arguing that Jesus' stepfather Joseph was not of the line of the Davidic Kings. That if Israel was being ruled by the true and rightful Davidic King when Jesus was born, then Joseph was not that individual but someone else.
As a result then Jesus was not heir to the Davidic Throne by birthright. D is saying that.
If by "D" you mean me, I do indeed know that Jesus was given the throne of David forever, not by His birth, but by His heavenly Father. Why would the Father need to give Him the throne if He inherited it because His human ancestry was via the line of David? If you meant somebody else whose name begins with D, then I apologise and ask you to ignore this post.
As with all Scripture, context is vital. Here is the verse you quoted, in its context:
NKJV 1Jn 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments.
1Jn 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.
1Jn 5:4 For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.
1Jn 5:5 Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
So the passage seems to be about overcoming, or being victorious over, "the world", which in this context does not mean the planet, or the nations of the world, but the temptations, sins, and godlessness of the physical world, as John wrote earlier in hs letter:
NKJV 1Jn 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world.
Through our Saviour, we overcome the world and its temptations. When we take our eyes off the Saviour, when our faith in Him wavers, we fall into temptation and sin. As Paul wrote:
NKJV 1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.
1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.