Prophecy vs. Apocalyptic

[Naomi25]

I’m not using hermeneutics as much as I am logical conclusions because it doesn’t help all the time and getting “locked” into one way of seeing things, closes ones eyes to other possibilities. First, the 4 living creatures are described in a manner that is different from human or angel, they apparently don’t look like any angels that John has seen so seeing as how God’s creation has billions of different species, I don’t think it odd that there are other non-angelic-creations in His presence. They do have a similarity to those spoken of in Ez.1which also aren’t referred to as “angels”. Secondly, why assume they’re human? Humanity or the church would not have been judged or rewarded by this time so it is premature for them to be humans and when scripture does show the church sitting on thrones it represents way more than 24. So far, we are only told of three intelligent creations, humans, angels (good and evil) and the four living creatures. We can eliminate the four living creatures and due to the timing, humans, that leaves angels of which we already know there in a hierarchy among them and assuming the crowns to be “rewards” instead of symbols of authority is just guesswork posited mostly be pre-millennials who use this a “proof” for a pre-trib rapture.

So, what you're really saying is that you don't have a hermeneutic. Or, that you feel comfortable jumping hermeneutics (because everyone uses hermeneutics, whether they think so or not)...like...switching from Dispensationalism to Amillennialism, in your interpretive grid...if you think the text sits better that way.

You may think I'm harping on this, and I am...because it IS, in fact, a big deal. It's like being able to have a solid base line for truth...either something IS truth, or it's not. People who start looking at truth as an 'subjective idea' will end up getting blown every direction from Sunday and suddenly find their moral compass in line whatever they feel like having for lunch.
The same is true when we approach how we interpret scripture. If we do not have certain things nailed down, many of our doctrines get lost. If we aren't sure that God is ALL loving, then his justice will seem wrong to us, when in fact the bible teaches his justice is because he is loving. If you claim to refuse to interpret that passage that way, for those hermeneutical reasons, but then choose to interpret that passage the opposite way and embrace the opposite hermenuetical principles, you've essentially just switched from "God is all-loving" to "God is only wrathful".

Respectfully, I think you place too much emphasis upon numbers, which in most cases only represent the number of specific things being spoken of, so much so, it seems to border on numerology which is a pagan way to try and interpret scripture.

Snork...I'm sorry. But...I am honestly constantly boggled by how often people are NOT aware of how God uses numbers in scripture! Not just in Revelation, but all-throughout his word! Does he use them literally, and in 'specific' ways? Of course, because numbers are like that, they are real-world applicable.
But...in the same way, do people never ask why God always seems to choose certain numbers? Why he chose 7 days of creation? Why he chose 12 tribes of Israel? Why he demanded things be made to certain lengths, or marched around a certain time, or prayed a certain number. Is it because we think its a "lucky charm" number? I doubt it, because that truly WOULD be pagan! No....it's all very simple, and to OT Jews...probably to many orthodox Jews of today as well, I'd imagine, the use of numbers was an obvious and normal thing. They didn't hold 'special, powerful' meaning like a voodoo hex bag, or whatever (probably just showed my ignorance there), they just held meaning like Christ's Lion/Lamb image does...they point to something more...usually that something is God and his plan for us!
Here's the thing...IF numbers are ONLY to represent specific things...as you suggest...then any repeated occurance would be, really, a coincidence, surely, except...that's a LOT of coincidences.
But, let's say it is; the only real reason for repeated use for similar numbers would be...what? You tell me...WHY would God choose to use certain numbers, just for stuff...no symbolic meaning intended...over and over?
Where else should we expect to see repeated use of the same few numbers that have NO other meaning? Especially if the 'physical occurance' that 'brings us' that number, is unrelated, so to speak? The only thing in common, is the number...

 

[Trekson]

Jesus defeated Death at His resurrection, but humans will still die right up until the end of the Millennium. Isaiah 65:20
The Great White Throne Judgment takes place after the Millennium, when Pauls prophecy in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 50-56 also happens.
There is no immortality given before then; only when the Book of Life is opened. People should never confuse what happens at the Return, with events after the Millennium.

FYI, that was one of the quotes from Naomi's previous post that I was responding to.

 

[Trekson]

So, wait...you're saying that when Jeremiah prophecies that Babylon will fall, for good, you think it's speaking of the same, last days Revelation "Babylon"? How is that remotely a feasable idea? Jeremiah is writing just as Israel is being carted off into captivity, I believe. That's when we get, a few years later, writings such as Daniel, coming out of the Babylonian empire. Jeremiah is obviously talking about the demise of THAT nation, which came to pass. We can know this because Babylon is currently a pile of stone with no one living there...sounds like God got it right...unsurprisingly.
Put that together with ver 50 that says that Babylon will never be inhabited again, and I feel safe in making the assumption that the Babylon that is being spoken of in Revelation, is not that one.

Nothing to suggest V24 comes after V23 except that it does! And that in any normal reading one would understanding the wording it uses to mean just that! If I told you this:
"It goes in this order: first this, then that", what would your reasonable understanding be?
Because that's what it says! "But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power."

The natural reading puts these things one after another. To suggest that there must be great time gaps inbetween is reading in between the words themselves. The only theologically sound way to do this is to find other, sound scriptures that tell us these 'gaps' must be there. You say that it hinges on death only being defeated at the GWT, but you ignore what 1 Cor 15:23 and 50-55 says. Death is defeated when "perishable puts on imperhisable", and that happens and Christ's return, when we receive what he was "firstfruits of". This is the very order the passage is speaking of, and it is telling us outright that when this event happens, death is defeated. There is absolutely no reference here to a future period or a period of waiting while death finishes it throes. The passage is clear. Therefore we must understand Rev 20, when it speaks of Death being thrown into the Lake of Fire, to be speaking of this event...which is clearly after the 1000 years. That in itself matches 1 Cor 15 when Paul tells us that at Christ's return, at his defeat of death, he delivers the Kingdom to the Father.

It’s amazing how people can look at a passage and see very different things. You recognize the order but you don’t see the obvious time gap. How many years has it been between the “firstfruits” and “those at His coming”? Roughly 2000 yrs. and it is still unfulfilled yet you balk at there being another length of time between the second and third, Why? It was 4000 yrs. between the first prophecy in Genesis until Christ. God’s not in a hurry so why are you?

When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. [Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” -Revelation 6:12–17

Does this description sound, even remotely, like something that is only COMING upon the world? Or does it sound like something that has ARRIVED upon the world? When we are repeatedly told and shown that people do not repent even in the face of overwhelming 'signs' (Rev 9:20, 16:9,11), why should we expect people to 'hide themselves and call for the mountains to fall on them to hide them from wrath" from only something that is "coming"?

First, Rev. 9 and 16 are separate from the events of Rev. 6. It’s really not that hard to understand, maybe a review of one’s hermeneutics may be in order. The sixth seal is not wrath itself, it is the last sign that His wrath is on the way because that is how prophecy tells that it will be. Joel 2:31 – “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes.” Look at it this way, if you saw a bunch of armed men storming a building you were in, would you hide before (is coming) or after the bullets start flying (has come)?

Trekson said, Let’s not confuse realities, Babylon overcame Israel as a judgement of God for their sins and since Babylon wasn’t the mountain, the imagery just doesn’t work in Rev. because they are separate things.

And then Revelation again pulls the image of that city forth. Why? Many believe because that actual city will be rebuilt, but Jer 50 tells us that will never happen. So...why the use of that name? It has to be symbolic, if she won't be rebuilt. Symbolic of what? Well...I've been over that.

I agree that the use of the name is symbolic but not in the way you suggest. Babylon was not a nation, it was the capital city of Chaldea, so to speak, like Israel is many times referred to as just Jerusalem, when one falls, so goes the nation. In Rev. 17 & 18 Babylon is being used in the same way, as a nation (in cp. 17) but also as a city (cp. 18) symbolic of a nation and with the clues given us in the latter vss. of cp. 18, at this time, (it doesn’t mean that can’t change in the future), imo, it can only refer to the USA and NYC. At present we are the world's largest importer of its goods (Rev. 18:11).

Trekson said: While there are a couple of similarities it’s a big stretch to consider them “parallel”.

Can we see similarities here? Should we? I think so. We see God taking away his blessings, both in Eygpt and in Revelation, of clean water, which will kill fish and animals. He will give us a taste of what it is like not to feel the warm sun in our "Goldilocks" zone..bringing darkness upon us. He will use the creatures of this world, that many esteem more than God himself, to torment us, and he will bring death, not life. I think that's the image of what's being spoken of.

To me, similar means things are alike and may make use of the same events but “parallel” means the exact same order, which Rev. is not.

Trekson said - A couple of things, in Rev. Babylon and the 10 nation confederacy are two different things. Jer. 50 &51 is basically the same prophecy as Rev. 17 & 18. They are speaking of the same characters and of the same time.

So, wait...you're saying that when Jeremiah prophecies that Babylon will fall, for good, you think it's speaking of the same, last days Revelation "Babylon"? How is that remotely a feasable idea? Jeremiah is writing just as Israel is being carted off into captivity, I believe. That's when we get, a few years later, writings such as Daniel, coming out of the Babylonian empire. Jeremiah is obviously talking about the demise of THAT nation, which came to pass. We can know this because Babylon is currently a pile of stone with no one living there...sounds like God got it right...unsurprisingly. Put that together with ver 50 that says that Babylon will never be inhabited again, and I feel safe in making the assumption that the Babylon that is being spoken of in Revelation, is not that one.

While Babylon’s greatness was destroyed a couple of centuries after Daniel’s prophecies were written, it has never been unoccupied. It was fairly well populated until the 7th century AD, then it became like a camping spot for nomads. US troops were stationed there during the war and now it is a tourist site opened by Saddam. So that prophecy was never fully fulfilled. Jer. has three timeline in it. Roughly from 627-580 bc. From 627-605 he prophesied to Judah (cps. 2-45), when Judah was threatened by Assyria and Egypt. From 605-586 when Judah was threatened by Babylon and from 586-580 he prophesied to and about the gentiles in (cps. 46-51) after the captivity. He wasn’t captured but continued his ministry in Jerusalem and Egypt. Cp. 52 is a historical account of Jerusalem’s downfall. It’s obvious when really reading Jer. 50 &51 it is speaking of a Babylon to come, not one that was already there. Regarding cps 50 & 51 being the same as Rev. compare these scriptures:

Jer. 50:39 to Rev. 18:2, 50:41 to 17:16, 50:44 to 17:14, 50:46 to 18:9, Jer. 51:6, 45 to Rev. 18:4, 51:7 to 17:2, 51:9 to 18:5, 51:49 to 18:24, 51:63-64 to 18:21 to name a few. As is true in many prophecies that seem to have multiple fulfillments, “history repeats itself”.

 

[Naomi25]

"But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power."

It’s amazing how people can look at a passage and see very different things. You recognize the order but you don’t see the obvious time gap. How many years has it been between the “firstfruits” and “those at His coming”? Roughly 2000 yrs. and it is still unfulfilled yet you balk at there being another length of time between the second and third, Why? It was 4000 yrs. between the first prophecy in Genesis until Christ. God’s not in a hurry so why are you?

Here's the crux of the issue. You say you "see" a gap. But does the text actually give us one? Yes...we know there was a gap between Christ's "firstfruits" and his second coming. We know it because we live this side of his resurrection. But...consider the people alive at Christ's time. Based upon all the prophecies in the OT, none of them knew that the Messiah was to have 2 comings. None of the prophecies gave that expectation. The reason for this is called 'prophectic foreshortening'...the prophets would see the future, and what looked to be one event, was actually several all stacked together. Theologians liken it to looking at a Mountain range from a distance. From a distance it would seem they were all the one range. But as you get closer you can start to perceive that they are, in fact, different mountains...some closer, some further away. It was not until Christ's first coming that the revelation of his two coming was made clear.
Are we to assume, then, that the people in Christ's day were stupid for not 'automatically' knowing that there were two comings? We know Christ berated them for not knowing the signs of his visitation, but he said nothing about their 'misunderstanding' about his two comings. In fact, whenever asked about whether he would "at this time restore the Kingdom", he would patiently reply it was not for them to know. He would also tell them repeatedly that he would come again.
So...when we come to a text like 1 Cor 15, we can correctly see that, yes, there WAS a gap between the 'firstfuits' and 'at his coming'...us. However, it is only assumption AT BEST that would insert another gap afterwards. There is nothing, naturally, in the text that tells us there IS or MUST BE, a gap. It is only blatant 'reading into the text' from a starting standpoint, that would insist there must be one.

First, Rev. 9 and 16 are separate from the events of Rev. 6. It’s really not that hard to understand, maybe a review of one’s hermeneutics may be in order. The sixth seal is not wrath itself, it is the last sign that His wrath is on the way because that is how prophecy tells that it will be. Joel 2:31 – “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes.” Look at it this way, if you saw a bunch of armed men storming a building you were in, would you hide before (is coming) or after the bullets start flying (has come)?

Snork! I'm sorry, but..I'm not sure I'm happy to receive "check your hermeneutic" from you, when you've outright shown you switch yours depending on how you want to see or interpret a text.

And please...please tell me how a "literalist" looks at a text that says "the great day of their wrath has come", and dismisses it as a "wrath is only on it's way" passage.

And regardless of what I might do if I saw armed soldiers coming, that is simply NOT what the text says! They weep, they wail, they attempt to hide...on account of that the DAY of wrath HAS COME!

Now...I know you like to say that the text actually says "IS come", which actually means "is coming"...which only means "on it's way". But...again, I ask you to consider how words can be and have been used. I wonder if you have ever read Jane Austin's "Pride and Predujice"? As a female of the species, I could hardly have escaped it. Toward the very end, one of the heroines is sitting in her room and her mother comes in in a flap because her hopeful young suitor has arrived. And do you know what the mother says? "He is come, Mr Bingley is come! He is indeed!" The fellow is sitting downstairs in their living room and she is upstairs in her nightwear.
Sorry for the short account of literature, but my point is...."IS come" can be, and IS used, to say that something HAS arrived. And when we look at the passage in question, all other actions of the people involved, the cosmic and earthly signs that accompany their terror and the very language of the wrath invovled being bought to bare, tell us that this action is happening now! It is not something they see on the horizon.

 

[Naomi25]

I agree that the use of the name is symbolic but not in the way you suggest. Babylon was not a nation, it was the capital city of Chaldea, so to speak, like Israel is many times referred to as just Jerusalem, when one falls, so goes the nation. In Rev. 17 & 18 Babylon is being used in the same way, as a nation (in cp. 17) but also as a city (cp. 18) symbolic of a nation and with the clues given us in the latter vss. of cp. 18, at this time, (it doesn’t mean that can’t change in the future), imo, it can only refer to the USA and NYC. At present we are the world's largest importer of its goods (Rev. 18:11).

Actually, Babylon was a nation. It was called Babylonia, and it was often under Ayssrian or Hittite control as the region warred, but the 'Nation' did exist. It had to, because the might of 'one city alone' could not have been mighty enough to capture Jerusalem, as we know they did in 589BC.
It's possible the whole nation is being referred to when just the capital is being referenced, but I'm unsure how that changes things. The capital of that nation would have been a beacon of how the whole nation behaved and thought, and thus were judged. And we know whenever there are references to Rome that the same can be said. 'Rome' was a powerful, morally corrupt, society of man, who worshipped false gods and persecuted the people of God...just as Babylon did. I think looking back to this, when Revelation references that city, is not a stretch. Especially considering how often Rev uses images from the OT.
As for being a single, end time city? I'm not sure it will be. I tend to think that sadly, it will be more global than that. It seems every day the whole world is just a little more hostile to Christians and the truth of God...even America and Australia.

To me, similar means things are alike and may make use of the same events but “parallel” means the exact same order, which Rev. is not.

How about the Gospel accounts then? How do you see them? By all accounts all theologians recognise them as covering the same time period (Christ's ministry) and the same events...which is what we would call 'parallel' accounts. And yet, the telling is quite different across the 4 books. And yet, while quite different, we are encouaged to believe in the accuarcy, perspicuity and divine authorship of these books...and in fact, that their differences make the case for their historical truth more accurate.
So...if you want to dismiss something as parallel, because they only seem "similar", but are not identical...then shouldn't you also dismiss the Gospels and their accounts as accurate??

While Babylon’s greatness was destroyed a couple of centuries after Daniel’s prophecies were written, it has never been unoccupied. It was fairly well populated until the 7th century AD, then it became like a camping spot for nomads. US troops were stationed there during the war and now it is a tourist site opened by Saddam. So that prophecy was never fully fulfilled. Jer. has three timeline in it. Roughly from 627-580 bc. From 627-605 he prophesied to Judah (cps. 2-45), when Judah was threatened by Assyria and Egypt. From 605-586 when Judah was threatened by Babylon and from 586-580 he prophesied to and about the gentiles in (cps. 46-51) after the captivity. He wasn’t captured but continued his ministry in Jerusalem and Egypt. Cp. 52 is a historical account of Jerusalem’s downfall. It’s obvious when really reading Jer. 50 &51 it is speaking of a Babylon to come, not one that was already there. Regarding cps 50 & 51 being the same as Rev. compare these scriptures:

Jer. 50:39 to Rev. 18:2, 50:41 to 17:16, 50:44 to 17:14, 50:46 to 18:9, Jer. 51:6, 45 to Rev. 18:4, 51:7 to 17:2, 51:9 to 18:5, 51:49 to 18:24, 51:63-64 to 18:21 to name a few. As is true in many prophecies that seem to have multiple fulfillments, “history repeats itself”.

The scripture doesn't say people won't camp in the area or tour the area. It says that it will be a 'perptual waste' and that no 'stone shall be taken from you for a corner, and no stone for a foundation.' Basically, it's saying that the rubble will not be rebuilt into another city. And, I'm not sure I've heard of any 'rebuilding' attempts to go on there. In fact, that part of the country is so war-torn that they struggle maintaining the smallest of settlements and cities...I doubt any plans of large-scale city building is going to go on.
And no, it's not "obvious" in 50-51 that he is speaking of a 'Babylon to come'. Why would it be? Does it state it outright? It would need to, to be 'obvious'...otherwise the 'obvious' would be the Babylon that was currently standing and opposing God when it was written.

 

[farouk]

Actually, Babylon was a nation. It was called Babylonia, and it was often under Ayssrian or Hittite control as the region warred, but the 'Nation' did exist. It had to, because the might of 'one city alone' could not have been mighty enough to capture Jerusalem, as we know they did in 589BC.
It's possible the whole nation is being referred to when just the capital is being referenced, but I'm unsure how that changes things. The capital of that nation would have been a beacon of how the whole nation behaved and thought, and thus were judged. And we know whenever there are references to Rome that the same can be said. 'Rome' was a powerful, morally corrupt, society of man, who worshipped false gods and persecuted the people of God...just as Babylon did. I think looking back to this, when Revelation references that city, is not a stretch. Especially considering how often Rev uses images from the OT.
As for being a single, end time city? I'm not sure it will be. I tend to think that sadly, it will be more global than that. It seems every day the whole world is just a little more hostile to Christians and the truth of God...even America and Australia.


How about the Gospel accounts then? How do you see them? By all accounts all theologians recognise them as covering the same time period (Christ's ministry) and the same events...which is what we would call 'parallel' accounts. And yet, the telling is quite different across the 4 books. And yet, while quite different, we are encouaged to believe in the accuarcy, perspicuity and divine authorship of these books...and in fact, that their differences make the case for their historical truth more accurate.
So...if you want to dismiss something as parallel, because they only seem "similar", but are not identical...then shouldn't you also dismiss the Gospels and their accounts as accurate??



The scripture doesn't say people won't camp in the area or tour the area. It says that it will be a 'perptual waste' and that no 'stone shall be taken from you for a corner, and no stone for a foundation.' Basically, it's saying that the rubble will not be rebuilt into another city. And, I'm not sure I've heard of any 'rebuilding' attempts to go on there. In fact, that part of the country is so war-torn that they struggle maintaining the smallest of settlements and cities...I doubt any plans of large-scale city building is going to go on.
And no, it's not "obvious" in 50-51 that he is speaking of a 'Babylon to come'. Why would it be? Does it state it outright? It would need to, to be 'obvious'...otherwise the 'obvious' would be the Babylon that was currently standing and opposing God when it was written.

It includes the idea of a commercial conglomerate, right?

 

[Naomi25]

It includes the idea of a commercial conglomerate, right?

What...as in, something like Google? (Just as an example..)

 

[Trekson]

The reason for this is called 'prophectic foreshortening'..

The reason for this is called 'prophectic foreshortening'...the prophets would see the future, and what looked to be one event, was actually several all stacked together. Theologians liken it to looking at a Mountain range from a distance. From a distance it would seem they were all the one range. But as you get closer you can start to perceive that they are, in fact, different mountains...some closer, some further away. It was not until Christ's first coming that the revelation of his two coming was made clear.

I’ve always referred to that as “telescopic” prophecy.


Are we to assume, then, that the people in Christ's day were stupid for not 'automatically' knowing that there were two comings? We know Christ berated them for not knowing the signs of his visitation, but he said nothing about their 'misunderstanding' about his two comings. In fact, whenever asked about whether he would "at this time restore the Kingdom", he would patiently reply it was not for them to know. He would also tell them repeatedly that he would come again. So...when we come to a text like 1 Cor 15, we can correctly see that, yes, there WAS a gap between the 'firstfuits' and 'at his coming'...us. However, it is only assumption AT BEST that would insert another gap afterwards. There is nothing, naturally, in the text that tells us there IS or MUST BE, a gap. It is only blatant 'reading into the text' from a starting stand point, that insists there must be one.

It really doesn’t matter how the direct audience understood it, as it is prophecy. Was it possible things could conclude in their lifetime? Yes, but it didn’t, so it would be foolish of us to ignore what our advantage of hindsight shows us. We need to take that text (1 Cor. 15) and combine it with the other prophetic information we are given to, hopefully, come to a greater understanding of what to expect. For example Matt. 24:29, lets us know that because the events of that scripture did not occur (immediately) after 70 AD, that, that wasn’t the time of great tribulation prophesied. We are still to look for it. 1 Thess. 5:4-5 shows us that for the church; his return will NOT be as a thief in the night, why? Because we have been given the signs to look for as did the OT Jews. They missed those signs and that should be a lesson to us to “watch”, pay attention, take heed to what is happening around us. The “signs” are the other prophecies of Paul and John and Christ’s teachings of it like Matt. 24. Also as God is the author we should add Rev. as well, because God knew that (part of the) revelations given to John would be for the church generation who will be here at the time these events are fulfilled.

And regardless of what I might do if I saw armed soldiers coming, that is simply NOT what the text says! They weep, they wail, they attempt to hide...on account of that the DAY of wrath HAS COME!

Really, it’s not that hard. Exactly what do you think it is that has them being afraid that his wrath “has come”? It is one thing and only one thing alone and that is the signs of the 6th seal. Exactly how long it is between that sign and Rev. 7:9 and the 1st trumpet (when the wrath of the Lamb actually begins), we don’t know but I believe it will be a relatively short time, perhaps only hours, if that. The wraths of the Lamb and of God cannot begin until the 7th and final seal is opened because they are contained “within” the sealed scroll. The seals are not all on the outside, the scroll is layered and they begin and end, one at a time, as each seal is broken consecutively.

"He is come, Mr Bingley is come! He is indeed!" The fellow is sitting downstairs in their living room and she is upstairs in her nightwear. Sorry for the short account of literature, but my point is...."IS come" can be, and IS used, to say that something HAS arrived. And when we look at the passage in question, all other actions of the people involved, the cosmic and earthly signs that accompany their terror and the very language of the wrath invovled being bought to bare, tell us that this action is happening now! It is not something they see on the horizon.

The folks who are hiding are not scripturally literate and it is they that errantly equate the signs of the sixth seal with his wrath, however, it could be as short as one hour between them. It really shouldn’t matter that much but if the church ignores the order of prophecy as given than they too will miss out on the first stage of his second coming, much to their chagrin.

Actually, Babylon was a nation. It was called Babylonia, and it was often under Ayssrian or Hittite control as the region warred, but the 'Nation' did exist. It had to, because the might of 'one city alone' could not have been mighty enough to capture Jerusalem, as we know they did in 589BC.


They are both the same. Babylonia became known as Chaldea when Nabopolassar became king in 625 BC.

So...if you want to dismiss something as parallel, because they only seem "similar", but are not identical...then shouldn't you also dismiss the Gospels and their accounts as accurate??

Personally, I don’t consider the Gospels to be “parallel”. I see them as similar but that in no way dismisses their authenticity or accuracy. Have you heard of the “Parallel Bible”? That is a bible gives the exact same accounts but in different translations. The most popular has the NIV, KJV, NASB and NLT all in one book. Do you see the difference?

And no, it's not "obvious" in 50-51 that he is speaking of a 'Babylon to come'. Why would it be? Does it state it outright? It would need to, to be 'obvious'...otherwise the 'obvious' would be the Babylon that was currently standing and opposing God when it was written.

Now let’s try really reading it this time. Aside from the verses I showed you, consider these: Jer. 50:9, 41 – The Medo-Persians conquered Babylon from the East, NOT the north!! 50:20 – Have you seen or heard of a time that both Israel and Judah could be considered pure and sinless? That won’t happen until the end of the 70th week and at the beginning of the millennium. Another fact if you figure out the millennial size of Israel as given in the latter chapters of Ezekiel, it is massive and will include the land of Babylon as 50:19 suggests. Also compare 50:31 w/ Rev. 18:7 and 50:46 w/ Rev. 18:15-19. See also Jer. 51:6 and Rev. 18:4, 51:7 w/ 18:6. In 50:28 & 51:45, Israel did not need to flee, they were released by Cyrus as prophesied, however see Rev.18:4. In these two chapters (Jer. 50 & 51) there are both near and far prophecies as there are in Luke 21. With all this mountain of evidence I’ve shown you, if you still don’t ‘see” it then it’s because you don’t want to see it.

 

[Naomi25]

I’ve always referred to that as “telescopic” prophecy.

I believe its the same thing.

It really doesn’t matter how the direct audience understood it, as it is prophecy. Was it possible things could conclude in their lifetime? Yes, but it didn’t, so it would be foolish of us to ignore what our advantage of hindsight shows us.

What...so you're suggesting that just because from our vantage point we know there was a gap between Christ's 'firstfruits' and his second coming, that we must therefore understand the text to be describing another gap between his second coming and what happens afterwards? Even though it does not explicitly state it?
Because...I would question that method; strongly. Assumptions are always iffy....and assumptions when reading God's word will land us in bad doctrinal waters.

We need to take that text (1 Cor. 15) and combine it with the other prophetic information we are given to, hopefully, come to a greater understanding of what to expect. For example Matt. 24:29, lets us know that because the events of that scripture did not occur (immediately) after 70 AD, that, that wasn’t the time of great tribulation prophesied. We are still to look for it.

I fully agree that by combining 1 Cor 15 with other texts we can build a fuller picture. However, I'm not sure the picture emerging is one that supports your view.
You say that Matt 24:29 tells us that those events then were obviously not "The Great Tribulation", as the return did not happen "immediately" afterwards. However, I disagree and I think the context of Matt 24 will stand up under that. Let me explain:
There are 2 types of 'tribulation' described in scripture. The first is what I suppose we'd call plain tribulation...the hardship all Christian's must endure for their faith as they dwell in this ever worsening world. The second type is what the Bible called 'great tribulation'...
Let's discuss the second one first. 'great tribulation' is only mentioned, specifically, twice in scripture. In Matt 24:21 and Rev 7:14. What are we to make of these references? Rev 7 is the only one that say THE great tribulation, implying there IS a time period attached to it. This is not a foreign thought in scripture, as we know that all creation has been groaning and that things are only going to get worse; just as birth pangs do. But...what about Matt 24 and it's reference to 'great tribulation'? In context, it is quite clear what it is being referred to; the destruction of the temple and the seige of Jerusalem. And indeed, it was great tribulation for the Jewish people.
Why then, does Matt 24:29 insist that Christ's coming must be "immediately" after the "tribulation of those days"? Shouldn't that mean immediately after the 'great tribulation of the temple being destroyed"? No...and that brings us to the second use of 'tribulation' in scripture.

John 16:33 - I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

There are, of course, other references like this one, but this shows how the bible uses the phrase. In Matt 24 Jesus; on either side of the description of the destruction of the temple, gives his Disciples warnings and descriptions of what they will face within this general time period...this interadvental time period. These are often called "the birth pangs of the Messiah". Wars, rumors of wars, pestilence, famine, false christs, persecution, friction with family, false signs and wonders. In a word...tribulation. Tribulation that will get worse (birth pangs) until there is a final crescendo. And then Christ will come.

All this to say: we do not look at Matt 24:21 and 29 and assume Christ was speaking of some future temple destruction, just because he didn't return as soon as the 70AD temple down. The context of the passage allows us to see that he IS clearly speaking of the 70AD destruction and the callamity surrounding it. The tribulation that occurs before Christ's return is the tribulation we are currently seeing. It might get worse, it might not...either way, the only real thing left is for the 'sun to be darkened and the moon not to give her light'...and for him to return.

1 Thess. 5:4-5 shows us that for the church; his return will NOT be as a thief in the night, why? Because we have been given the signs to look for as did the OT Jews. They missed those signs and that should be a lesson to us to “watch”, pay attention, take heed to what is happening around us. The “signs” are the other prophecies of Paul and John and Christ’s teachings of it like Matt. 24. Also as God is the author we should add Rev. as well, because God knew that (part of the) revelations given to John would be for the church generation who will be here at the time these events are fulfilled.

1 Thess 5 in no way suggests that the reason we "won't be surprised" by Christ's return is because of signs.

But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. -1 Thessalonians 5:4–6

There is nothing here pointing to signs, but only to a state of alertness. When we dwell in the light and stay awake we shall not be caught by surprise. In fact...this suggests the opposite of signs! If a person knows they must watch always, lest they be caught by surprise...they 'stay awake'. But if people believe they only need to be alert after witnessing certain signs, they're going to be lazy and 'asleep' before they see those signs.

 

[Naomi25]

Really, it’s not that hard. Exactly what do you think it is that has them being afraid that his wrath “has come”? It is one thing and only one thing alone and that is the signs of the 6th seal. Exactly how long it is between that sign and Rev. 7:9 and the 1st trumpet (when the wrath of the Lamb actually begins), we don’t know but I believe it will be a relatively short time, perhaps only hours, if that. The wraths of the Lamb and of God cannot begin until the 7th and final seal is opened because they are contained “within” the sealed scroll. The seals are not all on the outside, the scroll is layered and they begin and end, one at a time, as each seal is broken consecutively.

Wait...so, let me get this straight. You are ignoring what the text clearly SAYS, in favor of the idea that something "can't" happen because it doesn't line up visually for you?

The folks who are hiding are not scripturally literate and it is they that errantly equate the signs of the sixth seal with his wrath, however, it could be as short as one hour between them. It really shouldn’t matter that much but if the church ignores the order of prophecy as given than they too will miss out on the first stage of his second coming, much to their chagrin.

Wait...are you saying that the people hiding in terror from the face of the Lamb are doing so because they are "biblically illiterate" and therefore don't understand that they are not actually facing the Lamb's wrath at that second? In other words...it's all just a cosmic misunderstanding? They need to chill for another hour before they "take 2"...?

Personally, I don’t consider the Gospels to be “parallel”. I see them as similar but that in no way dismisses their authenticity or accuracy. Have you heard of the “Parallel Bible”? That is a bible gives the exact same accounts but in different translations. The most popular has the NIV, KJV, NASB and NLT all in one book. Do you see the difference?

Parallel: occurring or existing at the same time or in a similar way; corresponding. "similar, analogous, comparable, corresponding, like, resembling, much the same, of a kind, akin, related, kindred, equivalent, correspondent"

Interesting how "similar" is a synonym of "parallel", isn't it?

Now let’s try really reading it this time. Aside from the verses I showed you, consider these: Jer. 50:9, 41 – The Medo-Persians conquered Babylon from the East, NOT the north!! 50:20 – Have you seen or heard of a time that both Israel and Judah could be considered pure and sinless? That won’t happen until the end of the 70th week and at the beginning of the millennium. Another fact if you figure out the millennial size of Israel as given in the latter chapters of Ezekiel, it is massive and will include the land of Babylon as 50:19 suggests. Also compare 50:31 w/ Rev. 18:7 and 50:46 w/ Rev. 18:15-19. See also Jer. 51:6 and Rev. 18:4, 51:7 w/ 18:6. In 50:28 & 51:45, Israel did not need to flee, they were released by Cyrus as prophesied, however see Rev.18:4. In these two chapters (Jer. 50 & 51) there are both near and far prophecies as there are in Luke 21. With all this mountain of evidence I’ve shown you, if you still don’t ‘see” it then it’s because you don’t want to see it.

Actually, while Persia may have been directly East of Babylon, if you do a bit of digging, you discover that Cyrus actually came at Babylon from the North. How do we know this? Because on his way there he had to cross a river called Gyndes, which swept away one of his sacred white horses. This river is directly North of Babylon.

Also...it's interesting when we read Jer 50:20, we discover that the reason 'iniquity is not found' is because God has pardoned them. That makes one wonder if they are truly sinless, or, like Christians in the new covenant, they are seen as justified and blameless in Christ.
But...here's the other thought. If it is indeed speaking of a time when people are sinless...their sin-natures are gone, that begs a question, does it not? About the "Millennium". Because as I understand it, people believe that many Christians who are still alive at the time of Christ's second coming, will go into the millennium in the bodies they have now...in other words, not their new, imperishable, spiritual bodies. This is a problem, because it is these bodies that are 'perishable and corruptable'. These bodies are both effected by sin and subjected to it. It is only once we have gone through the resurrection, either through death or Rapture, that we leave this sin-nature behind.
Besides, the bible is rather clear...when Jesus Christ returns, people are Raptured and judged. Who on earth is going to be LEFT in their 'natural' state, to go into this Millennium? And if we're all in our new, resurrected bodies, no longer affected by sin, and unable to marry or give in marriage, and all unjust people have been judged....then what's the point of this 'earthly kingdom' anyway? We may as well just move on into eternity.

 

[Trekson]

What...so you're suggesting that just because from our vantage point we know there was a gap between Christ's 'firstfruits' and his second coming, that we must therefore understand the text to be describing another gap between his second coming and what happens afterwards? Even though it does not explicitly state it?

But when you take that text and combine it with all the others and scripture specifically states that there will be at least a thousand years between the events, then yes, but I would not say it’s an assumption as much as I would declare it a logical conclusion based on the scriptural evidence we have to date.

There are 2 types of 'tribulation' described in scripture. The first is what I suppose we'd call plain tribulation...the hardship all Christian's must endure for their faith as they dwell in this ever worsening world. The second type is what the Bible called 'great tribulation'...
Let's discuss the second one first. 'great tribulation' is only mentioned, specifically, twice in scripture. In Matt 24:21 and Rev 7:14. What are we to make of these references? Rev 7 is the only one that say THE great tribulation, implying there IS a time period attached to it. This is not a foreign thought in scripture, as we know that all creation has been groaning and that things are only going to get worse; just as birth pangs do. But...what about Matt 24 and it's reference to 'great tribulation'? In context, it is quite clear what it is being referred to; the destruction of the temple and the seige of Jerusalem. And indeed, it was great tribulation for the Jewish people.
Why then, does Matt 24:29 insist that Christ's coming must be "immediately" after the "tribulation of those days"? Shouldn't that mean immediately after the 'great tribulation of the temple being destroyed"? No...and that brings us to the second use of 'tribulation' in scripture.

It seems like you’re doing the same thing you accused me of. The scripture does NOT say it is referencing the events of 70AD, that is jumping to a conclusion. The AoD as mentioned in Daniel is a specific event not, “things will get worse”. I would say the holocaust was a worse event than 70AD (Matt. 24:21). The AoD will be an image set up in a wing of the temple that the a/c demands to be worshipped instead of God. That did not happen in 70AD.

In Matt 24 Jesus; on either side of the description of the destruction of the temple, gives his Disciples warnings and descriptions of what they will face within this general time period...this interadvental time period. These are often called "the birth pangs of the Messiah". Wars, rumors of wars, pestilence, famine, false christs, persecution, friction with family, false signs and wonders. In a word...tribulation. Tribulation that will get worse (birth pangs) until there is a final crescendo. And then Christ will come.

That’s what I call generalizing another specific event. The great trib will not be a ‘time of great hardship”. It will be a global slaughter of Christians because, imo, they, most likely, will be accused of restraining humanities spiritual evolution and transformation into an age of greater enlightenment. An argument could be given that because of the order of Matt. 24, 70AD was only the first “birth pang” and all the others will occur later, well after 70AD.

All this to say: we do not look at Matt 24:21 and 29 and assume Christ was speaking of some future temple destruction, just because he didn't return as soon as the 70AD temple down. The context of the passage allows us to see that he IS clearly speaking of the 70AD destruction and the calamity surrounding it.

I do not believe 70AD fulfilled any prophecy except for Matt. 24:2 and that is questionable because the wailing wall still exists and there are remnants in a couple of other areas. Another reason is because as non-believers the Jews didn’t heed the warnings and flee and couldn’t because the city was surrounded and secondly, the Christians were long gone by the time things got bad. The event you see as being fulfilled is, imo, the time that Rev.12:13-14 prophesies about by understanding the “woman” is “Judea/Israel”.

1 Thess 5 in no way suggests that the reason we "won't be surprised" by Christ's return is because of signs. There is nothing here pointing to signs, but only to a state of alertness.

But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. -1 Thessalonians 5:4–6

I respectfully disagree. How are children of the light separate from children of the darkness? We possess spiritual knowledge, we have a greater understanding of WHY things are happening in the world, the way they are. We can see how specific events are announcing the nearness of His arrival. Dan. 12:4 tells us that knowledge will be increased and I believe that to include spiritual knowledge of prophetic events as well as worldly knowledge like technology. Yes, being alert and watchful is part of that but as Heb. 10:25 points out we will “see” the day approaching” and we will only be able to do that if we know what signs we are to look for and the signs given us are those in Matt. 24, 1 &2 Thess. and Rev. 6 which parallels part of Matt. 24 and other parts of scripture.

Wait...so, let me get this straight. You are ignoring what the text clearly SAYS, in favor of the idea that something "can't" happen because it doesn't line up visually for you?

I am saying exactly what the scripture is saying, with all due respect, you are the one taking things out of context. You don’t run and hide after the fact, you hide before the fact because you can see what is coming not what has been happening for a period of time. The fact is, they are in fear because they see “by the signs” in the sky that surely God’s wrath must be on its way.

Also...it's interesting when we read Jer 50:20, we discover that the reason 'iniquity is not found' is because God has pardoned them. That makes one wonder if they are truly sinless, or, like Christians in the new covenant, they are seen as justified and blameless in Christ.

This is a future event and this passage is associated with Jer. 31:20 that most believe still remains unfulfilled.

But...here's the other thought. If it is indeed speaking of a time when people are sinless...their sin-natures are gone, that begs a question, does it not? About the "Millennium". Because as I understand it, people believe that many Christians who are still alive at the time of Christ's second coming, will go into the millennium in the bodies they have now...in other words, not their new, imperishable, spiritual bodies. This is a problem, because it is these bodies that are 'perishable and corruptable'. These bodies are both effected by sin and subjected to it. It is only once we have gone through the resurrection, either through death or Rapture, that we leave this sin-nature behind.

There will be very few Christians left by the end of Daniel’s 70th week, however, if any did happen to become Christians than yes, they would enter the millennial age in their human bodies. God has the ability to change our bodies in any way he sees fit. The bible says in Is. 65:20 – “There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.” The longevity of humans will become longer and tho their bodies may not be un-corruptible, many of the problems that causes humanity to die young will be gone. The “land” will no longer be accursed and the tempter and his minions will not be here to tempt and lead people into sin. Sin will exist but certainly nowhere near like it is now.

Besides, the bible is rather clear...when Jesus Christ returns, people are Raptured and judged. Who on earth is going to be LEFT in their 'natural' state, to go into this Millennium?

In my opinion, during the time between the rapture and the second coming, the church will be judged at the Bema seat of Christ and rewards and crowns will be given at that time. At the end of the 70th week, the judgment foretold in Matt. 25 will only consist of humans, both gentiles and Israelites, left alive after Armageddon and they will be judged by the parameters of the latter part of that chapter. Those deserving will enter the millennial age, those not, will meet their fate. They and all those that come after will be judged at the GWTJ after the millennium.

Thanks for the discussion. My time here will be severely limited until the fall. There just doesn't seem to be enough hours in the day to get things done around here. To all who may read this: Have a blessed summer and Lord willing, I'll be back in the fall.

 

[Naomi25]

But when you take that text and combine it with all the others and scripture specifically states that there will be at least a thousand years between the events, then yes, but I would not say it’s an assumption as much as I would declare it a logical conclusion based on the scriptural evidence we have to date.

But I would argue that there isn't such a text. We have Revelation 20 that mentions the 1000 years, yes? Then we see AFTER that 1000 years that Satan is defeated and thrown into the lake of fire (which IS his final defeat), and then also Hades and Death are also thrown into the lake of fire. This too comes AFTER the 1000 years.
Now, when we read 1 Cor 15 and Eph 1:20, we see a clear picture emerge. 1 Cor 15 tells us several things: AT Christ's return death is defeated (not suspended or carried on into the Millennium) at reciept of our resurrection bodies. And the 'Kingdom' is handed to the Father AT this final defeat of the LAST enemy. We know death is the 'last' enemy, because we are told ALL other powers, rulers authorities will have already been put under his feet by this time....the time that death is defeated.
And when we read Eph 1:20, we see that those powers, names and authorities are under Christ's feet NOW. And when the bible says ALL things are under his feet, it does not give us leave to make assumptions that that means everything BUT Satan. And when 1 Cor 15 says that death is the LAST enemy, we must believe that NO OTHER enemy, even Satan, will be needed to be defeated at that point.
And, since we know that AT Christ's return, it is THEN we receive our new, imperishable, resurrection bodies, and that moment is the 'defeat of death', then there is absolutely no other conclusion but to correlate that event with 'death and Hades' being thrown into the lake of fire AFTER the 1000 years.
So...please. Tell me where the 1000 year gap is...in any of these verses? Because from what I see of these scriptures....none exists.

It seems like you’re doing the same thing you accused me of. The scripture does NOT say it is referencing the events of 70AD, that is jumping to a conclusion. The AoD as mentioned in Daniel is a specific event not, “things will get worse”. I would say the holocaust was a worse event than 70AD (Matt. 24:21). The AoD will be an image set up in a wing of the temple that the a/c demands to be worshipped instead of God. That did not happen in 70AD.

Okay...I'd say two things here: the first....Christ does not specifically mention 70AD by name...as in "in 50 years the Romans are coming to destroy the city and Temple". However, when we read the text, especially the corresponding Chapters in Luke and Mark, the evidence is overwhelming that that is indeed the event he was referring to. And we know, historically, that when the Christians saw the Roman army headed towards Jerusalem, instead of taking refuge behind a walled city (as was the common sense response), they remembered Christ's words and fled to the Mountains. It is said that no believer died in the seige of Jerusalem. The chances of that is....astronomical...unless it was prophecied, remembered, and acted upon. So...is that any more 'jumping to a conculsion', or fitting text to history, as scholars have clearly, and rightly done, in other texts such as Daniel in regards to the Nations that the statute and the beasts represent?
Secondly...have you heard of the phrase; 'prophetic idiom'? Basically we see it being used throughout scripture in the form of strange phrases that come to have significant prophetic meaning. For example, we see in the OT/NT that Babylon, while referring to Babylon initially, also comes to mean a rebellious, anti-God state. We see that phrases like 'the stars fell from heaven and the sky receeded' stood not for actual world ending events, but for massive National upheaval...on the same level we would experience should the USA go under. Basically, it would be similar to us saying "the world is ending!!" It's not really, but we are using the phrase to express our emotional or financial or relgious reality.
Thus, we also see the phrase 'Abomination of Desolation' having prophetic weight. We can assign meaning to the words themselves, but they're sort of meaningless...unless we first see how they're used in Daniel. That's our starting point. History then shows us again how Antiochus Epiphanes defiled the Temple, profaning it. So when we come to Christ's use of it again in Matthew, we understand he is using the phrase prophetically. Something is going to happen to or in the Temple to profane it, to defile it.
Now...as to what that exactly is? It could be any number of things: I know many believe a new temple must be built so an Antichrist can sit in it. But if we recognize Christ's sacrifice for what it was, we also must recognize that the ongoing Jewish sacrifices within the 'old' temple before it was destroyed was also an abomination in God's eyes. So...there is room for debate within this AOD label.
Now...as to the AOD being a 'specific event'...well...I was replying to your comment that because the 'world didn't end', is what I believe it came down to, after the 'tribulation' of 70AD...it couldn't possibly have been the 'AOD' Matt 24 was talking about.
The problem is, and the point I was attempting to make, is that 'tribulation' will be with us to the end, so at some point rather definitely, Christ will return "immediately after" the tribulation of those days. I expect, it will occur after the worst tribulation of 'these days'.
And...why couldn't 70AD be the AOD? I don't doubt that there is potential for others in the sight of God...but I have no question that 70AD is a stand out in history. Yes...potentially worse than even the holocaust. I know that is an outrageous thing to say, and trust me, I am well aware of the hideous and soul wrenching events that happened in Nazi Germany.
But, as terrible as they were for the Jewish people, they only touched upon the Jewish Nation. When Rome razed Jerusalem and the Temple, it took not only the dignity of the people, but also it's religious ability to worship. In the eyes and minds of the Jewish collective, nothing was more disasterous. Hitler certainly killed more Jews, number wise, and the monsters working for him created some of the worst ways to kill them, but the siege of Jerusalem saw the Jewish people themselves perpetrating the worst of sins against themselves. Canabalism (which we know from Christ's conversation about eating his flesh and drinking his blood was a cultural taboo, even beyond other cultures)...even mothers eating their own children, as they all starved. Those attempting to flee the city were caught and either crucified as a display to those still in the city, or cut open because many of them swallowed their precious items to smuggle out safely.
When the seige was done over 1.1 million Jews were dead and over 97,000 were enslaved, thousands of them forced to become gladiators or sold into slavery.
Unlike WW2, the disopora hadn't spread the Jewish people far and wide...this event devestated their population. It is only through God that we say that the Jewish people thrive now.

That’s what I call generalizing another specific event. The great trib will not be a ‘time of great hardship”. It will be a global slaughter of Christians because, imo, they, most likely, will be accused of restraining humanities spiritual evolution and transformation into an age of greater enlightenment. An argument could be given that because of the order of Matt. 24, 70AD was only the first “birth pang” and all the others will occur later, well after 70AD.

I think again we have a mix up on terms. A "specific" event would be "behold, planes will come from the sky and knock down towers". Saying "you will hear of wars and rumours of wars, earthquakes and famines"....is not specific. It would be specific if Christ had said, "there will be a epidemic of bubonic plague in the 14th century", or "watch out for the big one in California in 2025". You get my picture....

 

[Naomi25]

I do not believe 70AD fulfilled any prophecy except for Matt. 24:2 and that is questionable because the wailing wall still exists and there are remnants in a couple of other areas. Another reason is because as non-believers the Jews didn’t heed the warnings and flee and couldn’t because the city was surrounded and secondly, the Christians were long gone by the time things got bad. The event you see as being fulfilled is, imo, the time that Rev.12:13-14 prophesies about by understanding the “woman” is “Judea/Israel”.

Then Christ didn't answer the question the Disciples put to him.
Except....yes he did. It makes literaly no sense for the Disciples to ask about the Temple he JUST said was going to 'come down' and for him to answer them about a future temple that was going to come down instead. You really have to do some doctrinal hot-step to fit that one in rationally...sorry.

And...once again...the Wailing Wall is a retaining wall. Its the wall they built to make the surrounding DIRT solid enough to build the foundations of the REAL temple. People don't have their houses burn down and then go "'S'kay...cause look, my garden wall and fence are still standing...so technically my house is still up". Sorry...it just doesn't work like that.

The warning wasn't for the Jews, it was for the believers, so I'm not following you there. The believers heard the warning, they heeded the warning, they survived it. The Jews, who were 'hardened partially' and broken off....are not to be 'grafted back in' until they receive Messiah. But in no way does scripture teach that this must be done in a new temple. They, like us, come to faith in Christ.

I'm sorry, but I can see no correlation between Matt 24 and your point with Rev 12. Is 'the woman' in Rev 12 Israel? Yes, I believe so, but how on earth does that have anything to do with Christ's warning to flee armies, the destruction of the temple, or the fact that history played out exactly as Christ said it would. You would make us assume that it all was coincidence?

I respectfully disagree. How are children of the light separate from children of the darkness? We possess spiritual knowledge, we have a greater understanding of WHY things are happening in the world, the way they are. We can see how specific events are announcing the nearness of His arrival. Dan. 12:4 tells us that knowledge will be increased and I believe that to include spiritual knowledge of prophetic events as well as worldly knowledge like technology. Yes, being alert and watchful is part of that but as Heb. 10:25 points out we will “see” the day approaching” and we will only be able to do that if we know what signs we are to look for and the signs given us are those in Matt. 24, 1 &2 Thess. and Rev. 6 which parallels part of Matt. 24 and other parts of scripture.

Alright...even if we assume that the clear meaning of being children of light IS that we have 'special understanding' of signs and events....you are still missing the very clear and obvious...open and outright even...meaning at the end. "Let us not sleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober."
When we couple this sentence with the 'this day will not "surprise" you', of the first sentence, then, as I said, the picture emerging is not one of special signs appearing before us to 'show the way'...but of not sleeping. When someone is awake, they are ready, they are waiting, they are prepared.
You objected beforehand to my type of referring to 'generalized' signs...but...indeed, these are the ONLY signs scripture gives. And it is only those AWAKE who will notice them. Even an idiot would be 'awakened' by a neon light in heaven. But no...that's not what those of us who are 'awake' and 'in the light' are to be aware of.

I am saying exactly what the scripture is saying, with all due respect, you are the one taking things out of context. You don’t run and hide after the fact, you hide before the fact because you can see what is coming not what has been happening for a period of time. The fact is, they are in fear because they see “by the signs” in the sky that surely God’s wrath must be on its way.

But the text doesn't say they are hiding AFTER the fact. It says they are hiding DURING the fact. And that's the whole point....it's happening THEN. It's not "on it's way"...it's not a threat, or a maybe, or a divine 'watch out'. It's a "I'm IN YOUR FACE NOW" by the Lamb and the one on the throne! No wonder they tremble and hide.
I still can't really believe this is a debate. The earth is quaking, the sun has disappeared, the sky has rolled up, the stars are falling, the moon looks like blood, and the people of the earth are hiding in fear because of the wrath of the lamb, which HAS come...the 'day' of their wrath HAS come.
Still seems like a no-brainer to me.

There will be very few Christians left by the end of Daniel’s 70th week, however, if any did happen to become Christians than yes, they would enter the millennial age in their human bodies. God has the ability to change our bodies in any way he sees fit. The bible says in Is. 65:20 – “There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.” The longevity of humans will become longer and tho their bodies may not be un-corruptible, many of the problems that causes humanity to die young will be gone. The “land” will no longer be accursed and the tempter and his minions will not be here to tempt and lead people into sin. Sin will exist but certainly nowhere near like it is now.

And yet....every passage I see that talks about receiving our new resurrection bodies, and indeed, Christ's second advent, leads me to believe that no one is getting out of this 'age' as they are. We are judged and sent into either eternal condemnation or life; resurrection bodies and life or to the resurrection of judgement. So...I simply cannot see how on earth ANYONE will be able to head on into the 'Millennium' in their 'natural state'.

Also...in Is 65, I have a much easier time beleiving that the "an child will die at a hundred" is figurative language for 'we'll live a long, long, long time'.....then I do totally ignoring the clear "Behold! I make a new heavens and a new Earth"...which is clear language from Rev 21 when we are told that the first heaven and earth have "passed away".
So...

In my opinion, during the time between the rapture and the second coming, the church will be judged at the Bema seat of Christ and rewards and crowns will be given at that time. At the end of the 70th week, the judgment foretold in Matt. 25 will only consist of humans, both gentiles and Israelites, left alive after Armageddon and they will be judged by the parameters of the latter part of that chapter. Those deserving will enter the millennial age, those not, will meet their fate. They and all those that come after will be judged at the GWTJ after the millennium.

Mmmm. Again...too many assumptions for me. Not enough verses (or any, to my mind) to show a difference between the Rapture coming and the second coming. Scripture seems to paint them as a single event. Also, I don't see anything to suggest what you seem to be advocating, sorry.

Thanks for the discussion. My time here will be severely limited until the fall. There just doesn't seem to be enough hours in the day to get things done around here. To all who may read this: Have a blessed summer and Lord willing, I'll be back in the fall.

No worries...I also enjoy a good debate. My hope is that even though I do disagree with you, and am not shy about doing so, that you don't get the feeling that I am belittling or poo-hooing you in any way. Because that's not my intent...I just want to be able to freely toss about biblical theology, and I've certainly enjoyed doing so with you!
It's heading into Winter here, but yes...enjoy your Summer!

 

[Jay Ross]

I think again we have a mix up on terms. A "specific" event would be "behold, planes will come from the sky and knock down towers". Saying "you will hear of wars and rumours of wars, earthquakes and famines"....is not specific. It would be specific if Christ had said, "there will be a epidemic of bubonic plague in the 14th century", or "watch out for the big one in California in 2025". You get my picture....

Oh Naomi, Revelation.16:12-16 describe foul smelling frog like spirits doing signs and wonders which were seen right around the world and that these signs and wonders would herald the beginning of the drawing of the kings of the earth to Armageddon when Christ will appear like a thief when He comes to judge the kings of the earth at Armageddon. If you look at a frog jumping from one place to another from below, the silhouette portrait of the frog against the sky would have in John's time looked just like a frog and he saw three of them. Satan sent four frogs but the people on the fourth plane rose up against the evil in the plane and overcame them.

In the NT the Greek word Semos is better understood to have the meaning of turmoil rather than earthquakes.

This too leads to confusion.

Shalom

 

[Naomi25]

Oh Naomi, Revelation.16:12-16 describe foul smelling frog like spirits doing signs and wonders which were seen right around the world and that these signs and wonders would herald the beginning of the drawing of the kings of the earth to Armageddon when Christ will appear like a thief when He comes to judge the kings of the earth at Armageddon. If you look at a frog jumping from one place to another from below, the silhouette portrait of the frog against the sky would have in John's time looked just like a frog and he saw three of them. Satan sent four frogs but the people on the fourth plane rose up against the evil in the plane and overcame them.

In the NT the Greek word Semos is better understood to have the meaning of turmoil rather than earthquakes.

This too leads to confusion.

Shalom

I'm...sorry. But...what? That made absolutely no sense! What looks like the shadow of a frog hopping? Who's on the fourth plane? What IS the fourth plane?
And actually, the word used in Matt 24:7 is seismoi, which is to be understood as 'earthquake'. It's branched from seismos, which is defined as: "a commotion, shaking" and is most often used in scripture as 'earthquake' rather than storm. And 'seismos' itself comes from the root of seió, which means: "to shake" or "I shake; fig: I agitate".
So...I dunno...if we really want to get picky, we could say God is asking for the world "shaken, not stired".

 

[Jay Ross]

I'm...sorry. But...what? That made absolutely no sense! What looks like the shadow of a frog hopping? Who's on the fourth plane? What IS the fourth plane?
And actually, the word used in Matt 24:7 is seismoi, which is to be understood as 'earthquake'. It's branched from seismos, which is defined as: "a commotion, shaking" and is most often used in scripture as 'earthquake' rather than storm. And 'seismos' itself comes from the root of seió, which means: "to shake" or "I shake; fig: I agitate".
So...I dunno...if we really want to get picky, we could say God is asking for the world "shaken, not stired".

And that is the turmoil that I speak of, shaken or stirred?

 

[Jay Ross]

I'm...sorry. But...what? That made absolutely no sense! What looks like the shadow of a frog hopping? Who's on the fourth plane? What IS the fourth plane?

9-11 is what was being described. Three of the planes reached their intended targets, the fourth plane did not as the people on the plane rose up in opposition to the hijackers of the plane and overcame them only to then die. Consider the events on that day with the applicable portion of Rev.16:12-16 and then see the ongoing forces working to draw the kings of the earth to Armageddon.

Shalom

 

[Naomi25]

And that is the turmoil that I speak of, shaken or stirred?

Well...going on the common usage of the Greekn word, it seems 'shaken' or 'to shake' would fit best. And considering that 'earthquake' (seismos) is also used in Acts 16:26 to describe the event that loosened Paul and Silas' bonds and set the jail open....I'm not sure we can understand that as a 'civic unrest' event, but a physical shaking event that literally shook everything loose!

 

[Naomi25]

9-11 is what was being described. Three of the planes reached their intended targets, the fourth plane did not as the people on the plane rose up in opposition to the hijackers of the plane and overcame them only to then die. Consider the events on that day with the applicable portion of Rev.16:12-16 and then see the ongoing forces working to draw the kings of the earth to Armageddon.

Shalom

I'm sorry, but I see this as a bit of a stretch.

 

[Jay Ross]

Well...going on the common usage of the Greekn word, it seems 'shaken' or 'to shake' would fit best. And considering that 'earthquake' (seismos) is also used in Acts 16:26 to describe the event that loosened Paul and Silas' bonds and set the jail open....I'm not sure we can understand that as a 'civic unrest' event, but a physical shaking event that literally shook everything loose!

If you read the verse again, it has an earthquake followed by the shaking of the foundations of the jail such that the doors where all opened and the chairs fell off the prisoners. I somehow think that the foundations of the jail was cause by the turmoil going on and around the jail. Why was there turmoil in and around the jail? Because God was working a miracle to save a man and his family and to release the prisoners from the jail, a great turmoil was occurring in and around the jail. It seems to me that the shaking of the ground was rather localised to say the least. Therefore, if a great earthquake had occurred as is supposedly reported in Acts 16:26, then logically we would be able to find a report that the city was destroyed and shaken as well, but Luke does not record that this also happened.

For me, the word seems to be used to describe turmoil which can be used to describe the action of waves on the Lake of Galilea when Jesus was asleep in the boat or the shaking of people such that they had a great fear or the like because of what was happening around them. In the OT it is also used to describe the turmoil of war which is the usage in the Revelation 16:17-21 passage.

Shalom