I'd like to have a calm, rational conversation about End Times...anyone?

[Naomi25]

GINOLJC, Good topic. Romans 15:4 "For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope”. to answer any end time questions, one must answer first, present time questions. #1. we’re in a grace period, which fulfills Psalms 110:1 now, even as we speak. #2. The return of the Lord Jesus is two fold. (two 2nd comings of the Lord Jesus), note, after his resurrection these returns happens. which answers, Matthews 16:28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1. yes, his first return have already happen, and that return happen on the Day Pentecost, (Acts chapter 2), foretold by the prophet Joel. this Day of Pentecost coming was in Spirit and in power, John chapter 14 back this up, which also answers his second return, yet to happen. this second of a two fold return will be in bodily form, (date unknown), but his return will be in the clouds and every eye will see him, (Rev 1:7, and Acts 1:10 & 11) this return can happen at anytime (see Revelation 2:5, 2:16, 3:11, 22:7, 22:12 and 22:20. knowing this, it answers all #4 question above. for as we speaks, Present times, he sits in heaven on the throne, (Revelation chapter 4 & 5)

Hi 101G, thanks for your reply, I found it most interesting. I have heard before that people thought that Jesus "coming in spirit and power" could be seen perhaps in the Transfiguration, or perhaps in the judgement against Jerusalem in 70AD, but I've never heard it said to be at Pentecost before. I agree that when Jesus tells the disciples that some here "will not taste death" the most honest reading of the text is straightforward, therefore we are limited to events that happened in their lifetime. I suppose that could be the Transfiguration, the resurrection/ascension, Pentecost or perhaps the judgement. If we were taking that statement at face value, which I tend to. Thank you, I shall ponder on this and do some reading.

 

[101G]

To Naomi25, thanks for the response. while you ponder on on these thing, especially the Pentecost return in Spirit, just read the 14th Chapter of John, and 1 Corinthians chapter 12 supports the first return. as well as the book of Joel chapter 2:28 & 29. be blessed.

 

[Wormwood]

Hi Wormwood, thanks! It's amazing, isn't it, how much language in Revelation you find in the OT? So much of the imagery is taken from the OT and makes it much easier to understand, especially when you look at it as a series of visions that repeat, only from different perspectives (from heaven, from earth, from those perishing, etc). When you look at it like that, it makes it less weird that "The Nations" who were destroyed by Christ's coming in Chapters 11, 16 and also 19 somehow are 'back again' after those chapters!!

Yes, a chronological reading makes no sense to me. Jesus returns multiple times if we read it chronologically.

“Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?”” (Revelation 6:15–17, NIV84)

“The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great— and for destroying those who destroy the earth.”” (Revelation 11:18, NIV84)

“I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one “like a son of man” with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, “Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.” So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.” (Revelation 14:14–16, NIV84)

“I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean.” (Revelation 19:11–14, NIV84)

“Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.” (Revelation 20:11, NIV84)

I don't understand how this book can be seen as chronological as we see heaven opened and the dead judged in chapters 6, 11, 19 and 20. Moreover, he appears as the slain lamb in chapter 4 and yet is born in chapter 12!

“Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.” (Revelation 5:6, NIV84)

“She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne.” (Revelation 12:5, NIV84)

 

[Wormwood]

Hi 101G, thanks for your reply, I found it most interesting. I have heard before that people thought that Jesus "coming in spirit and power" could be seen perhaps in the Transfiguration, or perhaps in the judgement against Jerusalem in 70AD, but I've never heard it said to be at Pentecost before. I agree that when Jesus tells the disciples that some here "will not taste death" the most honest reading of the text is straightforward, therefore we are limited to events that happened in their lifetime. I suppose that could be the Transfiguration, the resurrection/ascension, Pentecost or perhaps the judgement. If we were taking that statement at face value, which I tend to. Thank you, I shall ponder on this and do some reading.

Naomi,

I agree here that the reference to the coming Kingdom that the disciples would not "taste death" until they saw the kingdom come, would refer to Pentecost. Most of Jesus' parables refer to the kingdom as something that would be a present reality and would be mixed with evil (dough/yeast, wheat/tares, fish net) and that it was something that would not be obvious but some would discover (treasure hidden in a field, a pearl of great price). Moreover, Jesus declares that "all authority" was given to him after his resurrection and thus his reign began upon his ascension. and, Revelation 12 also gives us this image as Christ ascends and this is the point at which his Kingdom is established and Satan is cast down.

“Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ. For the accuser of our brothers, who accuses them before our God day and night, has been hurled down.” (Revelation 12:10, NIV84)

Jesus warned that the "kingdom of heaven is at hand." And, as I see it, that kingdom came, in part, when the Spirit was sent and the Church was established to be the kingdom of God on earth. Here are some other verses to consider...

“Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” (John 3:5, NIV84)

“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,” (Romans 14:17, NIV84)

“I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 1:9, NIV84)

Obviously the full consummation of the kingdom is not yet, but I believe it began when Christ took his throne and empowered his messengers to preach the resurrection.

 

[Wormwood]

Guestman,

I would like to respond to this because I do know Koine Greek and I think you are badly mistaken...

I will chime in, taking on one subtopic at a time, starting with the "first one" on the "1000 years" in the Bible book of Revelation. The question of whether or not it is literal is a valid one. For example, in Koine Greek, the language that Revelation was written in, has a definite article "the" but does not have an indefinite article such as "a", such as "the man" showing a specific person as opposed to "a man" that leaves it as unclear as to who is spoken of.

It is true that the Greek does not have an indefinite article. However, it is very clear that the absence of an article does not mean the author is being indefinite. Colwell's Rule gives clear examples of this. Basically, to make it simple, there are times when a predicate nominative is used and it lacks a definite article, not because it is indefinite, but in order to indicate which noun is the subject of the sentence (in Koine Greek, word order does not matter as a means of determining subject or predicate as is the case in English). Thus, sometimes definite articles are not used as an indicator of which is subject and which is predicate. I will speak more to this as I deal with your reference to John 1.

At Revelation 20:6, the apostle John uses the definite Greek article ho (the) the ensure no ambiguity with regards to persons and time: "Happy and holy is anyone (literally "the one", having the definite Greek article ho) having part in the (Greek ho) first resurrection (establishing that there is only one "first resurrection"); over these the (Greek ho) second death has no authority, but they will be priests of God (literally "the God", establishing that there is only one "true God", John 17:3) and of the (Greek ho) Christ (only one Christ that serves as "the power of God and the wisdom of God", 1 Cor 1:24), and they will rule as kings with him for the (Greek ho) 1,000 years".

This is inaccurate as well. The definite article does not mandate that something is referring to only one thing. It is referring to something specific, but not necessarily a singular thing. Just look at these verses you cite...

“Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such (literally "over this one") the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:6, ESV)

So, the use of the definite article here indicates a particular type of person...a person who has received the first resurrection. John goes on to say, "THEY" (plural in the Greek) will be priests (also plural). So its not one person John is speaking about, but a category. It would be like me saying, "The person who wears his safety belt is intelligent because these are the ones who are most safe from being thrown through a windshield." Thus, the definite article and specific thing pointed to is not a singular person, but a specific type of person, the ones who wear safety belts.

Parallel this with John 1 whereby John writes: "In the beginning was the (Greek ho) Word, and the (Greek ho) Word was with God (literally "the God" or Greek ho theos), and the (Greek ho) Word was a god (no definite article as before God at the beginning of John 1:1, distinguishing "the God" from "the Word" as "a god"). This one was in the beginning with God [literally "the God" or Greek ho theos]".(John 1:1, 2)

This is a typical argument from a JW that is based on a very poor understanding of Koine Greek grammatical rules. Again, the lack of the definite article does not mean something is indefinite or demands the "a" article. In fact, the JW's New World Translation does not translate verse 18 "a god" and yet this also does not have the definite article. Why is that?

“Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.” (John 1:18, NA27)

By your rationale, this should be translated, "No one has ever seen (a god) at any time...." because it lacks a definite article. However, not even the NWT translates it this way. It is just flat wrong and misleading to suggest that the absence of a definite article demands an indefinite one.

These "last days" or "the time of the end" (Dan 2:28; 12:4) is soon to end, for mankind has been in this time frame since 1914 C.E. and in which Jesus paralleled it with the "days of Noah".(Matt 24:37-39) So, counting the 6,000 years of human history and adding "the 1,000 years", this will complete the "seventh (creative) day" of about 7,000 years, as Jehovah has established the number seven as meaning completeness of a particular aspect of his eternal purpose.

Hence, at Revelation 20:6, "the 1,000 years" is literal and not far off from beginning.

This is you reading into the text and making assumptions. Revelation uses multiples of 7, 10, and 12 and specifically thousands symbolically throughout the book.

“And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:” (Revelation 7:4, ESV)

“Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.” (Revelation 14:1, ESV)

“Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands,” (Revelation 5:11, ESV)

“The number of mounted troops was twice ten thousand times ten thousand; I heard their number.” (Revelation 9:16, ESV)

“And at that hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell. Seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.” (Revelation 11:13, ESV)

Should we conclude that John counted the exact number of angels and this number is literal? Did John count the exact number of troops down to the very last one? Were there exactly 7,000 people killed in the earthquake? Not 7,001? Clearly, these numbers are to be weighed, not counted. They express vast numbers and all-encompassing numbers as all are multiples of these symbolic numbers.

 

[Stranger]

So...this might be asking too much. I have noticed that for some reason, nothing seems to send people off the deep end like discussing the end times. People just get mad. If I disagree with their eschatology, then I must be the devil!

So...here's where I am. I grew up in a Christian house where we didn't really talk about end times much, but when we did, I suppose it was with a Pre-trib flavour, because that's what my Grandparents where. Once I grew up myself and became serious about my faith, I decided it was a doctrine that shouldn't be ignored, so I looked into it, assuming that I would follow in my Grandparents footsteps...wonderful, godly people that they were! However, I just couldn't read Pretribulationalism into scripture. So, after a few years of wrestling, I landed Amil (yes, I can hear many of you screaming!). And truly, I have not had my decision shaken throughout the years, only strengthened. I cannot...simply cannot, see how anyone can read Dispensationalism into the texts (sorry, no disrespect meant!).

That being said, I fully acknowledge that I'm faaaarrr from a scholar and could be wrong. And that plenty of godly, wonderful Christian people hold to that position. In fact I've just met a lady who is probably one of the smartest I've ever met (she used to be a scientist before she became ill) and she holds to the Pre-trib position. So I'm wondering how? How can she hold to a position that I consider slightly illogical?

So...I was hoping that some people here might answer (calmly...I really don't want to get into a name calling session) some questions I have about Pretribulationalism.

Ok, first one: How can you say that you hold to a 'literal interpretation', when you just don't? If Hal Lindsey can turn giant bugs into helicopters, then that's not being literal. If the 1000 years has to be a literal 1000 years, then when, in the OT, when God says he owns "the cattle on a 1000 hills"...then I suppose we can only assume he only owns them...not all of them (as the text clearly wants us to take away)....you get my drift. It seems you pick and choose 'literal' to suit your purposes, but then criticise us when we do it based on the genre of the book in question. How does that work? Do you have a hermeneutic behind how you pick and choose that I'm not aware of?

2nd: How can you find a 'gap' in the last of Daniel's 70th week? Doesn't your 'literal' interpretation mean that we'd need to be specifically told it's there? Even without specific's I don't see any sort of implication of it. Without specific, or implication, it seems to me that going to the text without a preconcieved notion of a 'gap' and then a seven year Tribulation wouldn't see you come away with one. It isn't there. So I suppose my question here is...where is it that you...exactly...get the gap? If it's simply the fact that "it hasn't happened yet", then I'm not sure that's strong enough. Do you have biblical evidence for there being, very specifically, a gap?

3rd: And this one is just a clincher for me. You believe that once Christ returns (second return, part 2) and ushers in his millennial reign on the earth, that after the thousand years, Satan will be released and that he will lead the 'nations' of the earth in a revolt against Jesus. Are we honestly saying that after our Lord and Saviour has ruled and reigned over us for a thousand wonderful years of peace and harmony, that humankind is going to experience another fall? This is really no small thing we're talking about. Jesus will be King. No one will be opposing him. Sure, you say not all mankind will be 'saved' and we all know what human nature is capable of. But the whole bible is full of dealing with the 'fall out' of the first rebellion. Can we truly believe that one, tiny verse in Revelation is all that the bible has to say about a potential kick in the teeth of Jesus' reign? It's obscene, the very thought of it, isn't it? I suppose what I'm asking for here, again, is what your views have to say on this. Is this view only based on Revelations 20...on that small verse there within?

4th: Probably my final question at the moment. I suppose one of the most baffling things I find about the Pre-trib, is how you manage to separate the two 2nd comings of Jesus. I simply cannot find that in scripture. Yes...I can find proof of the Rapture, the doctrine is clear...when Jesus returns Christians will meet him in the air, where we will be given our new bodies. However, I find nothing that tells me that this will be secretly seven years before his other coming. In fact, everything I find that mentions his return seems to be rather final. The Day of the Lord (2 Pet 3:10), also known as Christ's second coming (1 Cor 15:23-24, 2Thess 1:7) seems to usher in the renewal of the cosmos (2 Pet 3:10), the resurrection of the unjust (John 5:29), final judgment of the unjust (Matt 25: 31-33, 2 Thess 1:6, 8-9) as well as the resurrection of the just (John 5:29), final judgement of the just (Matt 25: 31-33, 2 Thess 1:7) and, of course, the defeat of the last enemy, death (1 Cor 15:23-26).
The same passage that talk about cosmic renewal talk about him coming as a thief...isn't that the term you use to describe the Rapture? You have to, because if you follow, we'll be able to calculate when he'll come next, after the Tribulation starts. He won't be thief-like then, he'll be 7 years to the dot.
So how do you separate all these events? How can Jesus return and Judge the unjust, if it's the Rapture? How can he return and make the cosmos new, if it's the Rapture? How can he return and put an end to death, if it's the Rapture? Where in any of these passages does it allow for a secret return with a seven year gap? I can't see it, and I'm not sure how you do? I'm open to passages and pointers if you have them....

1.) The literal interpretation does not ignore metaphors, similes, allegory, symbols, signs, types, etc. It just wants to make sure they are a metaphor, or allegory, etc. In other words, not everything is. And if such language is used, it is used to speak a literal truth. And just because something is an allegory doesn't mean it also was not literal. See (Gal.4:22-31).

2.) Daniel is who first indicated a gap in (Dan.9:25-26).

3.) Those Christ is ruling over in the Millennium are still products of the fall of Adam. Thus there is no second fall. These are those who survived the Tribulation and entered into the Millennium or Kingdom. They still have a sin nature. Children will be born to them. Many who are born will not be believers. Thus Satan is allowed at the end to make a final run and those who are not believers will follow him.

4.) You ask many things here, each of which would involve a discussion itself.

Stranger

 

[Glen55]

So that's a resounding no, then?

That would be correct, what you are looking for is within you not the visible distractions that argue the same script from one generation to the next disregarding that the letter kills the spiritaul intent when seen as carnal history. But have fun worrying about tomorrow in the religious Truman show.

 

[Wormwood]

1.) The literal interpretation does not ignore metaphors, similes, allegory, symbols, signs, types, etc. It just wants to make sure they are a metaphor, or allegory, etc. In other words, not everything is. And if such language is used, it is used to speak a literal truth. And just because something is an allegory doesn't mean it also was not literal. See (Gal.4:22-31).

2.) Daniel is who first indicated a gap in (Dan.9:25-26).

3.) Those Christ is ruling over in the Millennium are still products of the fall of Adam. Thus there is no second fall. These are those who survived the Tribulation and entered into the Millennium or Kingdom. They still have a sin nature. Children will be born to them. Many who are born will not be believers. Thus Satan is allowed at the end to make a final run and those who are not believers will follow him.

4.) You ask many things here, each of which would involve a discussion itself.

Stranger

Just to add my 2 cents...

1. Amillenialists are not arguing that these things are not "real" either. We argue that many of the symbols and images refer to spiritual realities (which are real, even though they are not physical) or are indefinite periods or groups of people. For example, the 1,000 years is a literal time period in history. It is just a symbolic number symbolizing a long, complete period of history. So its not that the period doesn't exist, its just that it is not literally 1,000 years (just like Jesus doesn't "literally" have 7 eyes or 7 horns). In my opinion, the symbolic understanding of these numbers and symbols makes them more meaningful, not less. Jesus' 7 eyes as an image of his omnipotence is far more meaningful than simply envisioning Jesus with 7 literal eyeballs in his head. The same could be said with the 1,000 years, 144,000, or other numbers that have far more meaning in their symbolic expression than simply counting them.

2. Not sure what you are saying here. This isn't a gap. It is relating segments of time framed by significant events, such as the rebuilding of Jerusalem or the ministry of Jesus. I am not seeing any gap here....let alone a 2,000+ year gap. You will have to explain how this indicates a leap-frog over a period of years in verse 25-26.

3. Im not tracking what the two of you were discussing on this point so I won't try to address this.

 

[Naomi25]

That would be correct, what you are looking for is within you not the visible distractions that argue the same script from one generation to the next disregarding that the letter kills the spiritaul intent when seen as carnal history. But have fun worrying about tomorrow in the religious Truman show.

Yeah, see, that puts you so far outside the bounds of orthodoxy, that I don't actually consider you and I are of the same faith (that being based on scripture). So...thanks for the conversation, but I suspect we won't agree over anything.

 

[Naomi25]

1.) The literal interpretation does not ignore metaphors, similes, allegory, symbols, signs, types, etc. It just wants to make sure they are a metaphor, or allegory, etc. In other words, not everything is. And if such language is used, it is used to speak a literal truth. And just because something is an allegory doesn't mean it also was not literal. See (Gal.4:22-31).

2.) Daniel is who first indicated a gap in (Dan.9:25-26).

3.) Those Christ is ruling over in the Millennium are still products of the fall of Adam. Thus there is no second fall. These are those who survived the Tribulation and entered into the Millennium or Kingdom. They still have a sin nature. Children will be born to them. Many who are born will not be believers. Thus Satan is allowed at the end to make a final run and those who are not believers will follow him.

4.) You ask many things here, each of which would involve a discussion itself.

Stranger

Well, Wormwood answered this post so well, I'm not sure I need to. But, since it was addressed to me, I suppose I shall anyway!

1.) The literal interpretation does not ignore metaphors, similes, allegory, symbols, signs, types, etc. It just wants to make sure they are a metaphor, or allegory, etc. In other words, not everything is. And if such language is used, it is used to speak a literal truth. And just because something is an allegory doesn't mean it also was not literal. See (Gal.4:22-31).

I suppose I'm wondering, if you claim your interpretation doesn't ignore metaphors etc, then why do you have such a hard time seeing Revelation as a book full of apocalyptic imagery? It's not even like it's never been used in scripture before. Even Daniel used it, describing various nations through the strange beast imagery. And yet when you hit Revelation, suddenly it has to be helicopters or giant demon monsters? What if it's another symbol for a powerful nation? You seem to discard that notion altogether and accuse those who consider it as liberals. Why?

2.) Daniel is who first indicated a gap in (Dan.9:25-26).

But did he? Just because 70 comes after 69 doesn't necessarily mean there is a gap between them, especially a gap of over 2000 years. I know you see it, but do you only see it because you come to scripture expecting to see it? Because many others don't. I don't. There doesn't appear to be any verses at all that actually say...specifically or even implied...that there is a gap. Just saying that Daniel "indicated" it, doesn't really fly, I don't think.

3.) Those Christ is ruling over in the Millennium are still products of the fall of Adam. Thus there is no second fall. These are those who survived the Tribulation and entered into the Millennium or Kingdom. They still have a sin nature. Children will be born to them. Many who are born will not be believers. Thus Satan is allowed at the end to make a final run and those who are not believers will follow him.

Yes. I get how the Millennium is supposed to work. But it is nonsensical. In every way. It seems to me that Pre-Mill people are so busy trying to make it all fit (who goes where in what body and then goes through into what bit of what time portion to do what, where) that they don't really take a step back and look at it. And then consider if the bible actually talks about the notion behind it. Think about it. What is THIS life about? This age? We sinned. Christ had to come and save us...from ourselves, and from Satan. The bible tells us...is FULL of "the blessed hope". Which is Christ's return. When that happens, all the rubbish of this life will be over. The weariness, the sin, the sickness, the wars...all of it.
And yet...we're supposed to then believe that no...it's not really over. When the bible talks of the 'next age' (which, by the way, it always does in the terms of the eternal), we're supposed to believe it's just a small do-over of this age. Again. For no particular reason. People get to do their thing and stuff it up all over again. Why? What possible reason is there for this? Where do you possibly get this in the bible? It simply is not there! The bible speaks of this age (temporal, sinful, wasting away) and the next (eternal, perfect, everlasting). There is no in-between age, or third age.

Now, granted, we can say that as far as "for what purpose", that if God decrees it, then that is purpose enough. But when you read through the Bible with an eye out for the references for "this age" and "the age to come" as well as what we are to expect from Christ's coming ... I tell you...expecting a 1000 years where all we can look forward to is human nature and Satan once more soiling the universe before the ultimate consummation of Christ's victory...it just isn't there.

 

[Stranger]

Well, Wormwood answered this post so well, I'm not sure I need to. But, since it was addressed to me, I suppose I shall anyway!



I suppose I'm wondering, if you claim your interpretation doesn't ignore metaphors etc, then why do you have such a hard time seeing Revelation as a book full of apocalyptic imagery? It's not even like it's never been used in scripture before. Even Daniel used it, describing various nations through the strange beast imagery. And yet when you hit Revelation, suddenly it has to be helicopters or giant demon monsters? What if it's another symbol for a powerful nation? You seem to discard that notion altogether and accuse those who consider it as liberals. Why?



But did he? Just because 70 comes after 69 doesn't necessarily mean there is a gap between them, especially a gap of over 2000 years. I know you see it, but do you only see it because you come to scripture expecting to see it? Because many others don't. I don't. There doesn't appear to be any verses at all that actually say...specifically or even implied...that there is a gap. Just saying that Daniel "indicated" it, doesn't really fly, I don't think.



Yes. I get how the Millennium is supposed to work. But it is nonsensical. In every way. It seems to me that Pre-Mill people are so busy trying to make it all fit (who goes where in what body and then goes through into what bit of what time portion to do what, where) that they don't really take a step back and look at it. And then consider if the bible actually talks about the notion behind it. Think about it. What is THIS life about? This age? We sinned. Christ had to come and save us...from ourselves, and from Satan. The bible tells us...is FULL of "the blessed hope". Which is Christ's return. When that happens, all the rubbish of this life will be over. The weariness, the sin, the sickness, the wars...all of it.
And yet...we're supposed to then believe that no...it's not really over. When the bible talks of the 'next age' (which, by the way, it always does in the terms of the eternal), we're supposed to believe it's just a small do-over of this age. Again. For no particular reason. People get to do their thing and stuff it up all over again. Why? What possible reason is there for this? Where do you possibly get this in the bible? It simply is not there! The bible speaks of this age (temporal, sinful, wasting away) and the next (eternal, perfect, everlasting). There is no in-between age, or third age.

Now, granted, we can say that as far as "for what purpose", that if God decrees it, then that is purpose enough. But when you read through the Bible with an eye out for the references for "this age" and "the age to come" as well as what we are to expect from Christ's coming ... I tell you...expecting a 1000 years where all we can look forward to is human nature and Satan once more soiling the universe before the ultimate consummation of Christ's victory...it just isn't there.

Let me answer just one at a time as it is too long to address all. I will start with the first.

I don't understand your statement concerning Daniel and Revelation. I believe the beasts in Daniel represented certain empires. But, I am not left to my own to believe that. We are told that in (Dan.7:15-28). Thus when the same subject matter is discussed and described in the book of Revelation, then the same manner of interpretation is to be used. That would still be a literal interpretation.

I never said yet anything about helicopters and demon monsters. So, I don't know exactly what verses you are addressing. I do believe demons are active in the book of Revelation. See (Rev. 16:13-14). As to your question as to why couldn't these be nations instead?, it is because Scripture clearly says that they are "spirits of devils". (16:14) Again, a literal interpretation.

I'm not sure where I indicated those who disagreed with me here are liberals. I say this because I know that those who were amillennial in the past have been very conservative Christians. I would accuse the amillennialist of interpreting the Scriptures allegorically when they don't need to be.

Stranger

 

[Guestman]

2nd: How can you find a 'gap' in the last of Daniel's 70th week? Doesn't your 'literal' interpretation mean that we'd need to be specifically told it's there? Even without specific's I don't see any sort of implication of it. Without specific, or implication, it seems to me that going to the text without a preconcieved notion of a 'gap' and then a seven year Tribulation wouldn't see you come away with one. It isn't there. So I suppose my question here is...where is it that you...exactly...get the gap? If it's simply the fact that "it hasn't happened yet", then I'm not sure that's strong enough. Do you have biblical evidence for there being, very specifically, a gap?

When a person reads the Bible book of Daniel without bias (as well as the rest of the Bible), carefully examining the context (ever heard of taking words "out of context"), a person can more readily gain the meaning behind those words. At Daniel 9, the "seventy weeks of years" is clearly seen as a time period concerning the arrival of the Messiah, that are not divided up as many have done.

Genesis 3:15, as the first prophecy in the Bible, established that there would be an "offspring" of the "woman" that would strike the "serpent" in the "head" while the "serpent would cause a "heel" wound in the ' woman's offspring '. This prophetic statement by God is the first of the many Messianic prophecies throughout the Bible, and in which Daniel 9 lays the time frame for his arrival on the earth and its subsequent fulfillment.

At Daniel 9:24, it says that "there are seventy weeks that have been determined for your (Daniel's) people and your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies".

This one verse launches the many things to be accomplished by our Maker, Jehovah God, through his Son, Jesus in order to fulfill his eternal purpose of a paradise earth for "meek" ones.(see 2 Cor 1:19, 20) For perfection to be attained by those the "meek" ones who are to "inherit the earth"(Matt 5:5; Prov 2:21, 22), their error must be atoned for so that sin can be ' finished off ' and then "everlasting righteousness" be reached, for Genesis 3:15 to be fulfilled (such as giving the deathblow to the "serpent" in the "head", Satan the Devil, see Rev 12:9) and "to anoint the Holy of Holies", the heavenly, spiritual reality (spiritual temple arrangement) represented by the Most Holy of the earthly tabernacle and of the later temple in Jerusalem.

Daniel 9:25 determines the starting point for when the Messiah would arrive on the earth, saying: "You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks". When was the command to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem" issued ?

Nehemiah 2 says that "in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes", or 455 B.C.E., that Nehemiah sought the king's permission to travel to and begin rebuilding Jerusalem (Neh 2:1, 5), that had been destroyed in 607 B.C.E. by Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, though there had been Jews living there since 537 B.C.E.

This began the "seventy weeks" of years, a time period amounting to 490 years. Going forward past the first "seven weeks" of years (or over the course of 49 years) whereby the walls and the city of Jerusalem were rebuilt to the extent necessary "in times of distress" (Dan 9:25b), and adding the "62 weeks" of years (or 483 years), brings us down to 29 C.E.

During the fall of that year, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, thus beginning his role as the Messiah. Daniel 9:26 now says that "after 62 weeks, Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself ". But at Daniel 9:27, it provides needed details, saying that "he (Jesus) will keep the (Abrahamic) covenant in force for the many for one week (or until 36 C.E., opening the way for Gentiles or "people of the nations" into this covenant and not just Abraham's fleshly offspring, see Rom 9:6-8); and at the half of the week (or 33 C.E.), he (Jesus by means of his sacrificial death), will cause (animal) sacrifice and gift offering to cease (that had been performed at the tabernacle and later temple for some 1,500 years)".

Hence, with Jesus sacrificial death on Nisan 14, 33 C.E., the need for animal sacrifices and gift offering ceased, which were only a "band-aid" fix for sin.(Heb 9:25; 10:1-4) The Mosaic Law covenant became "obsolete".(Heb 8:13) Then at the end of the "one week" or seventieth week (or 36 C.E.), this brought into Jehovah God's "fold" both Jews and Gentiles (see John 10:16), so that his eternal purpose of having people from all the nations come into his spiritual arrangement for true worship and gain everlasting life, either in heaven as "kings and priests" (see Rev 5:9, 10) or as "meek" ones who will inherit the earth.(Matt 5:5; Ps 37:11, 29)

 

[bbyrd009]

Yeah, see, that puts you so far outside the bounds of orthodoxy, that I don't actually consider you and I are of the same faith (that being based on scripture). So...thanks for the conversation, but I suspect we won't agree over anything.

who do you imagine are the "wolves" that Paul assured us would immediately rush in, as soon as he left, Naomi?

 

[Naomi25]

Let me answer just one at a time as it is too long to address all. I will start with the first.

I don't understand your statement concerning Daniel and Revelation. I believe the beasts in Daniel represented certain empires. But, I am not left to my own to believe that. We are told that in (Dan.7:15-28). Thus when the same subject matter is discussed and described in the book of Revelation, then the same manner of interpretation is to be used. That would still be a literal interpretation.

Stranger

Hi Stranger! I'm sorry if my reply confused you, in honesty, I did make some jumps that perhaps I shouldn't have. I was assuming that our conversation was following on from some previous conversations with others above. And also, I wasn't pointing to "you" so much, as "Pre-tribbers". This can get tricky, as I'm sure you know, as not everyone believes exactly the same thing, even though they might label themselves under the same label, for want of a better term.
So, to try and clarify without pointing a finger at 'you' you!:

I never said yet anything about helicopters and demon monsters. So, I don't know exactly what verses you are addressing. I do believe demons are active in the book of Revelation. See (Rev. 16:13-14). As to your question as to why couldn't these be nations instead?, it is because Scripture clearly says that they are "spirits of devils". (16:14) Again, a literal interpretation.

I have come across so many Pre-trib/rapture proponents who claim that the literal interpretation of Rev 9:7-10 is that of war helicopters. That he describes them as giant locust/human/lion/winged horses, because he'd have no other way to describe to his audience such a modern machine. And this is more likely than taking a similar approach than what Daniel did? That is where I was going with that thought. I was simply shaking my head in confusion and asking about the rationality behind it. But this leads me to ask (as to the point of my thread and understanding!)..are you a Pre-tribber who understands these passages in Revelation to be speaking about something else entirely? I would look forward to how you understood it...
And yes, I agree that Revelation does speak of supernatural goings on. But I'm not sure it's something we see here on 'planet earth', so to speak. I think it speak in symbolic references of spiritual truths...still very real, just something we do not get to see with our eyes.

I'm not sure where I indicated those who disagreed with me here are liberals. I say this because I know that those who were amillennial in the past have been very conservative Christians. I would accuse the amillennialist of interpreting the Scriptures allegorically when they don't need to be.

Sadly, a lot of Pre-Mil people call Amil believers liberal. I'm glad you don't, but it's not hard to find. John MacArthur is perhaps one of the more popular/vocal proponents. We get things tossed at us like 'liberal', or 'anti-Semite'. Sometimes 'un-calvinistic' or even as far as 'unsaved'. It's quite astounding really. But liberal is usually the most common, becuase it implies we take the bible very lightly and as we chose it. So, it's with that background, that I comes at this, if you can understand. How can Pre-tribbers (in general) call us liberal for reading Revelation as it calls to be read (literal in places, symbolic in others, but always true and meaningful), especially when they claim to do the same. I don't think they do, really...because...hello...helicopters. But I suppose while I'm talking with you that's not really an issue!

I suppose I'm getting off track! I think I hear you saying that while you are Pre-trib, you don't believe Amil are liberal, and you aren't likely to interpret Revelation so "literally" you're seeing helicopters. Can I ask, however...are you still expecting there to be a time...I'm assuming in the Tribulation, where there will be giant locust beats, with human faces, stings in their tails etc?

 

[Naomi25]

who do you imagine are the "wolves" that Paul assured us would immediately rush in, as soon as he left, Naomi?

Oh...I know they're out there. That's why I like to clarify. I wanted to know for sure what Glen was saying before I made any kind of call.
I do find it interesting that this board would allow someone who denies the bodily return of Jesus to stay here. There appears to be enough discord amongst the believers as it is without the help of the wolves.

 

[Stranger]

Hi Stranger! I'm sorry if my reply confused you, in honesty, I did make some jumps that perhaps I shouldn't have. I was assuming that our conversation was following on from some previous conversations with others above. And also, I wasn't pointing to "you" so much, as "Pre-tribbers". This can get tricky, as I'm sure you know, as not everyone believes exactly the same thing, even though they might label themselves under the same label, for want of a better term.
So, to try and clarify without pointing a finger at 'you' you!:



I have come across so many Pre-trib/rapture proponents who claim that the literal interpretation of Rev 9:7-10 is that of war helicopters. That he describes them as giant locust/human/lion/winged horses, because he'd have no other way to describe to his audience such a modern machine. And this is more likely than taking a similar approach than what Daniel did? That is where I was going with that thought. I was simply shaking my head in confusion and asking about the rationality behind it. But this leads me to ask (as to the point of my thread and understanding!)..are you a Pre-tribber who understands these passages in Revelation to be speaking about something else entirely? I would look forward to how you understood it...
And yes, I agree that Revelation does speak of supernatural goings on. But I'm not sure it's something we see here on 'planet earth', so to speak. I think it speak in symbolic references of spiritual truths...still very real, just something we do not get to see with our eyes.



Sadly, a lot of Pre-Mil people call Amil believers liberal. I'm glad you don't, but it's not hard to find. John MacArthur is perhaps one of the more popular/vocal proponents. We get things tossed at us like 'liberal', or 'anti-Semite'. Sometimes 'un-calvinistic' or even as far as 'unsaved'. It's quite astounding really. But liberal is usually the most common, becuase it implies we take the bible very lightly and as we chose it. So, it's with that background, that I comes at this, if you can understand. How can Pre-tribbers (in general) call us liberal for reading Revelation as it calls to be read (literal in places, symbolic in others, but always true and meaningful), especially when they claim to do the same. I don't think they do, really...because...hello...helicopters. But I suppose while I'm talking with you that's not really an issue!

I suppose I'm getting off track! I think I hear you saying that while you are Pre-trib, you don't believe Amil are liberal, and you aren't likely to interpret Revelation so "literally" you're seeing helicopters. Can I ask, however...are you still expecting there to be a time...I'm assuming in the Tribulation, where there will be giant locust beats, with human faces, stings in their tails etc?

Hello Naomi25

Let me say at this time, I am pre-trib and dispensational. I don't have time this evening to answer your post as I should. I will get back in the morning and respond completley. And, you are not getting off track at all.

Stranger

 

[Naomi25]

When a person reads the Bible book of Daniel without bias (as well as the rest of the Bible), carefully examining the context (ever heard of taking words "out of context"), a person can more readily gain the meaning behind those words. At Daniel 9, the "seventy weeks of years" is clearly seen as a time period concerning the arrival of the Messiah, that are not divided up as many have done.

Isn't it interesting! Everyone reads without bias! Honestly...no one can read the bible without bias. We all like to think we do, but we don't. And I think those who claim to, are those who are only more confused than the rest of us. Everyone has presuppositions.

Amil people come with covenant understandings, and I believe Dispensationals come with an Israel centered hermeneutic.
We believe that the bible is built up on God's covenants with his people...covenants of promise, covenants of works, covenants of obligation made to Israel, and so on. We also say the in the NT Jesus speaks of a lot of the OT passages and reinterprets them....so we have a Christ centered hermeneutic. Bascially we say that the NT tells us how to interpret the OT.
Dispensationalist, however (as I understand it), believe that there are two distinct purposes; one for Israel, and one for 'the church'. They look at Daniel as the 'key' to prophetic understanding because they have an Israel centered hermenutic. Because of this, they see Daniel and the OT as telling us what the NT means, what it can say about end time, Israel and the church.

These are the basic operating assumptions we come to scripture with. And please don't try and tell me that you don't come without any. Even if I haven't managed to paint your dispensationalist beliefs correctly, you do have some, and you do come to scripture with them. You have a full life behind you. You have lived, learned, grown, read, understood, held opionions. All these things come with you whenever you open the word. You are not an island. No one is. So I would beg you not to tell me I need to come to scripture unbiased as you have done, and only then may I see the truth.

Genesis 3:15, as the first prophecy in the Bible, established that there would be an "offspring" of the "woman" that would strike the "serpent" in the "head" while the "serpent would cause a "heel" wound in the ' woman's offspring '. This prophetic statement by God is the first of the many Messianic prophecies throughout the Bible, and in which Daniel 9 lays the time frame for his arrival on the earth and its subsequent fulfillment.

At Daniel 9:24, it says that "there are seventy weeks that have been determined for your (Daniel's) people and your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, to finish off sin, to make atonement for error, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the Holy of Holies".

This one verse launches the many things to be accomplished by our Maker, Jehovah God, through his Son, Jesus in order to fulfill his eternal purpose of a paradise earth for "meek" ones.(see 2 Cor 1:19, 20) For perfection to be attained by those the "meek" ones who are to "inherit the earth"(Matt 5:5; Prov 2:21, 22), their error must be atoned for so that sin can be ' finished off ' and then "everlasting righteousness" be reached, for Genesis 3:15 to be fulfilled (such as giving the deathblow to the "serpent" in the "head", Satan the Devil, see Rev 12:9) and "to anoint the Holy of Holies", the heavenly, spiritual reality (spiritual temple arrangement) represented by the Most Holy of the earthly tabernacle and of the later temple in Jerusalem.

Daniel 9:25 determines the starting point for when the Messiah would arrive on the earth, saying: "You should know and understand that from the issuing of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be 7 weeks, also 62 weeks". When was the command to "restore and rebuild Jerusalem" issued ?

Nehemiah 2 says that "in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes", or 455 B.C.E., that Nehemiah sought the king's permission to travel to and begin rebuilding Jerusalem (Neh 2:1, 5), that had been destroyed in 607 B.C.E. by Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, though there had been Jews living there since 537 B.C.E.

This began the "seventy weeks" of years, a time period amounting to 490 years. Going forward past the first "seven weeks" of years (or over the course of 49 years) whereby the walls and the city of Jerusalem were rebuilt to the extent necessary "in times of distress" (Dan 9:25b), and adding the "62 weeks" of years (or 483 years), brings us down to 29 C.E.

I follow you so far, and wouldn't disagree on anything.

During the fall of that year, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, thus beginning his role as the Messiah. Daniel 9:26 now says that "after 62 weeks, Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself ". But at Daniel 9:27, it provides needed details, saying that "he (Jesus) will keep the (Abrahamic) covenant in force for the many for one week (or until 36 C.E., opening the way for Gentiles or "people of the nations" into this covenant and not just Abraham's fleshly offspring, see Rom 9:6-8); and at the half of the week (or 33 C.E.), he (Jesus by means of his sacrificial death), will cause (animal) sacrifice and gift offering to cease (that had been performed at the tabernacle and later temple for some 1,500 years)".

Now I've lost you. Don't dispensationalists usually say that the 'he' who makes a covenant with the many is the antiChrist? I mean, I agree with you that Daniel is actually talking about Jesus. But then, you seem to talking about the Abrahamic covenant, but we know that Jesus came to make a new covenant with his elect (Jer 31:31, Luke 22:20). Then you seem to say that that the Abrahamic covenant becomes the new covenant...which negates the word "new", really, doesn't it? And then you seem to fit the last 'week' to the time period surrounding Jesus' death, which is unusual for a dispensationalist, isn't it? Or am I understanding you incorrectly? At this point I'm too confused about what you believe to discuss it in any kind of depth, or argue for or against it.

Hence, with Jesus sacrificial death on Nisan 14, 33 C.E., the need for animal sacrifices and gift offering ceased, which were only a "band-aid" fix for sin.(Heb 9:25; 10:1-4) The Mosaic Law covenant became "obsolete".(Heb 8:13) Then at the end of the "one week" or seventieth week (or 36 C.E.), this brought into Jehovah God's "fold" both Jews and Gentiles (see John 10:16), so that his eternal purpose of having people from all the nations come into his spiritual arrangement for true worship and gain everlasting life, either in heaven as "kings and priests" (see Rev 5:9, 10) or as "meek" ones who will inherit the earth.(Matt 5:5; Ps 37:11, 29)

So...once again I might be misunderstanding you, but, from what I understand: if you believe that Christ's work brought and end to the 70th week in 36C.E. and that bought into the fold both Jew and Gentile, making the Mosaic Law obsolete....then why do you hold to a position that states the 70th week is yet to come (the Tribulation), that the Jews have a separate destiny that must play out in the Tribulation and that the promises made to them must yet be fulfilled to them and only them, rather than to the one people of God now...which was God's plan all along? I don't really follow your logic here. Sorry.

 

[Wormwood]

Isn't it interesting! Everyone reads without bias! Honestly...no one can read the bible without bias. We all like to think we do, but we don't. And I think those who claim to, are those who are only more confused than the rest of us. Everyone has presuppositions.

Amil people come with covenant understandings, and I believe Dispensationals come with an Israel centered hermeneutic.
We believe that the bible is built up on God's covenants with his people...covenants of promise, covenants of works, covenants of obligation made to Israel, and so on. We also say the in the NT Jesus speaks of a lot of the OT passages and reinterprets them....so we have a Christ centered hermeneutic. Bascially we say that the NT tells us how to interpret the OT.
Dispensationalist, however (as I understand it), believe that there are two distinct purposes; one for Israel, and one for 'the church'. They look at Daniel as the 'key' to prophetic understanding because they have an Israel centered hermenutic. Because of this, they see Daniel and the OT as telling us what the NT means, what it can say about end time, Israel and the church.

Naomi,

You hit the nail on the head here. My biggest concern with dispensationalism is their improper (in my view) fixation on national Israel. I think we see the NT clearly indicate that flesh accounts for nothing, but only faith and that Christ removed these boundaries. Moreover, the NT clearly says that God shows no favoritism and that there is no longer Jew or Greek. The entire purpose of the "rapture" for dispensationalists is to remove the church so God can focus on his true love, national Israel. I find this concept to be horrific and to undermine much of the NT teaching and the underlying work of the cross. The idea that the Temple needs to be rebuilt, sacrifices re-established and physical Israel in an earthly land once again becomes central to God's focus and plans seems to be a very unhealthy and even dangerous view because of its focus on flesh rather than faith. It seems to me that Paul lost his life fighting against such Judaizing efforts and this end-times view is something that should be strongly disputed.

 

[Naomi25]

Naomi,

You hit the nail on the head here. My biggest concern with dispensationalism is their improper (in my view) fixation on national Israel. I think we see the NT clearly indicate that flesh accounts for nothing, but only faith and that Christ removed these boundaries. Moreover, the NT clearly says that God shows no favoritism and that there is no longer Jew or Greek. The entire purpose of the "rapture" for dispensationalists is to remove the church so God can focus on his true love, national Israel. I find this concept to be horrific and to undermine much of the NT teaching and the underlying work of the cross. The idea that the Temple needs to be rebuilt, sacrifices re-established and physical Israel in an earthly land once again becomes central to God's focus and plans seems to be a very unhealthy and even dangerous view because of its focus on flesh rather than faith. It seems to me that Paul lost his life fighting against such Judaizing efforts and this end-times view is something that should be strongly disputed.

I agree Wormwood. But I think it goes even a step further. In fixing upon Israel so strongly and what they see as the division between the Jew and Gentile, they miss the great, big, startling, point. Jesus. It was never about Jew or Gentile. It was never about a tiny little dot of land...that's just where the story got played out. It's about Jesus...beginning, middle, end. And Jesus bought not just Israel (the land) for his people (the elect), but the whole world...the whole cosmos! It's because of him that Jew or Gentile means nothing...we are just his.

But the Dispensationalists seem to want to put that division back up, narrow it back down to a tiny plot of land, build that temple again and start the sacrifices that will be nothing but an insult to the one who saved us. I simply cannot understand their thinking. Like I said...pure bafflement!

Why look at Israel when we can look at Jesus? Why look at the dot of land when we can look at the whole earth? Why put up divides between people when we are all brothers and sisters in Christ? As you say...doesn't Paul spend much of his time fighting against this? Just odd!

 

[Stranger]

Naomi25

Concerning (Rev. 9) I do not believe these to be helicopters. I do take it literally. I believe these creatures are supernatural and demonic or evil in origin as they come from the bottomless pit. And, I believe these are not unseen by man at this time. I believe all is visible to mankind.

You had great geological changes occur on the earth and a change in heaven also in (Rev.6:12-14). This caused mankind to see that they were seen by God and the Lamb, Christ. (Rev.6:15-16). Just as heaven is opened so I believe mankind's eyes are now opened to the Spirit world, be it good or evil. There is no reason for it not to be this way. For this is the end. This is the time of the 'wrath of the Lamb'. (6:16)

Concerning your conversation with Wormwood and dispensationalists fixation upon Israel, I don't see how it is a fixation when Israel is found throughout the whole Bible. And amillennialists must be equally fixated on Israel though their interpretation of who Israel is is not the same.

As to the temple being rebuilt and the sacrifices again started during the millennium, do you see these as an insult to God before Christ came? Because they never put away sin. Do you believe these sacrifices started again are for the purpose of removing sin? We don't.

Stranger