Partial preterisim in Revelation Chapter by chapter part 1

[Waiting on him]

Clearly. Indisputable.

Spiritual letters that were dictated by the spirit- Jesus Christ to John, for the angels (spirits) before God's throne and John writes this letter as a record of what he saw and heard in spirit.

There is definitely a spiritual realm. I can’t personally say I’ve ever been too heaven, but I’ve been to Oklahoma.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

You see my dilemma?

These may or may not help with your dilemma?

God's Word Of Truth, Rightly Divided:

Distinctions Of prophecy and Mystery

Bible Contrasts 1
+
Bible Contrasts 2

Please Be Very Richly Edified And Encouraged In The LORD And His Word...

 

[Mr E]

Where is heaven?

Within.

Right where Jesus says it is.

 

[Waiting on him]

Within.

Right where Jesus says it is.

Why is that so hard for people to recognize?

 

[Timtofly]

Why is that so hard for people to recognize?

Because your body is not the total sum of all creation. It is just a part of creation.

You are not a universe. You are so insignificant to the rest of creation, that you really don't count at all. So you are not heaven, neither is heaven and earth within you.

Besides the verses about heaven is my throne and earth is the footstool is in contrast to containing God within a physical tabernacle. Now you claim you have that ability to force all of creation into your physical body/tabernacle, just the opposite of what God's Word is pointing out.

How can one not see you are just corrupting Scripture and leading folks astray from God's Word?

Christ in you, is the hope of glory; it is also figurative and not literal. Why would you literally put God into the cesspool of human flesh, when that same human flesh cannot even enter the presence of God?

 

[ewq1938]

I believe that we are now reigning spiritually on earth and in heaven

You guys are doing a terrible job because the enemy is killing children and Christians and all sorts of wickedness abound. *the worst rulers ever!*

 

[amigo de christo]

Your claims are false Marty, you throw your preterist interpretation in pre 70AD fulfillment around as if it were reality "Wrong"!

The book of Revelation was written in 96AD, its a big laugh to think John was writing about something fulfilled

When Was The Book Of Revelation Written?​

Author: Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier

Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.

In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.

External Evidence​

The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus​

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria​

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus​

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

Jerome​

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,


To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence​

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446

Well there is also this .
Notice the message to the seven churches . TO the seven churches OF ASIA .
WHY was the church in jerusalem not mentioned . Was it because perhaps the church had already fled jersualem
due to the attack by the romans in seventy AD .

 

[Marty fox]

You guys are doing a terrible job because the enemy is killing children and Christians and all sorts of wickedness abound. *the worst rulers ever!*

And how does your view end? With billions of people turning against God doesn't that sound like the worst reign ever?

My interpretation of reigning is completely different than yours just like Jesus‘ first coming was completely different than what the first century Jews thought it would be.

The Messiah was not what the Jews thought He would be so much so that most Jews today and the nation still reject Jesus as the Messiah. That is because Jesus had a much greater spiritual meaning and saving plan than they could of ever imagined.

Don’t you see you are making the same mistake as they did?

A forced physical reigning is not in Gods nature. He wants to reign freely in our hearts in life and death now when it’s our will to let Him reign within us. God gives us the choice to let Him reign within us because people have value and matter it’s not until I understood this that I truly felt loved and free.

You see my interpretation has a happy successful ending and your interpretation ends with a failed reigning where billions of people have the choice and turn against God once they can.

 

[ewq1938]

And how does your view end? With billions of people turning against God doesn't that sound like the worst reign ever?

The reign is great, no rebellion or any murders during the actual reign. Unlike your reign, which is full of wickedness and actual ruling and reigning of evil rejectors of Christ.

In both our bibles, there is a brief rebellion AFTER the Millennium. In Premill there is no rebellion etc during the Millennium but in Amill there is rebellion etc DURING the Amill Millennium.

The Amill Millennium is a disaster, a failure of a "rule". Not so in the Premill/biblical Millennium

My interpretation of reigning is completely different than yours just like Jesus‘ first coming was completely different than what the first century Jews thought it would be.

Mine is what reigning actually means. The Amill version of reigning is not reigning in any meaningful or measurable sense (imaginary reigning).

The Messiah was not what the Jews thought He would be so much so that most Jews today and the nation still reject Jesus as the Messiah. That is because Jesus had a much greater spiritual meaning and saving plan than they could of ever imagined.

Don’t you see you are making the same mistake as they did?

I'm not. You are. They expected the Messiah to reign RIGHT THEN. He didn't. Amill thinks Jesus is also reigning RIGHT NOW. He isn't.

A forced physical reigning is not in Gods nature. He wants to reign freely in our hearts in life and death now when it’s our will to let Him reign within us. God gives us the choice to let Him reign within us because people have value and matter it’s not until I understood this that I truly felt loved and free.

You see my interpretation has a happy successful ending and your interpretation ends with a failed reigning where billions of people have the choice and turn against God once they can.

Why do you pretend that doesn't happen in your bible too? It's so weird you think that little season rebellion only happens in the bible's of Premill. That is pure hypocrisy.

 

[covenantee]

You guys are doing a terrible job because the enemy is killing children and Christians and all sorts of wickedness abound. *the worst rulers ever!*

Do you think that the NT Church was "doing a terrible job because the enemy is killing children and Christians and all sorts of wickedness abound. *the worst rulers ever!*"?

Within three decades, despite overwhelming suffering, persecution, and tribulation, the NT Church had spread the Gospel to the entire known world. Romans 1:8;16:26 Colossians 1:6,23

But it was obviously "doing a terrible job because the enemy is killing children and Christians and all sorts of wickedness abound. *the worst rulers ever!*"

Such is modernist premil/dispen carnalized foolishness, fantasy, and fallacy.

 

[Marty fox]

The reign is great, no rebellion or any murders during the actual reign. Unlike your reign, which is full of wickedness and actual ruling and reigning of evil rejectors of Christ.

In both our bibles, there is a brief rebellion AFTER the Millennium. In Premill there is no rebellion etc during the Millennium but in Amill there is rebellion etc DURING the Amill Millennium.

The Amill Millennium is a disaster, a failure of a "rule". Not so in the Premill/biblical Millennium






Mine is what reigning actually means. The Amill version of reigning is not reigning in any meaningful or measurable sense (imaginary reigning).





I'm not. You are. They expected the Messiah to reign RIGHT THEN. He didn't. Amill thinks Jesus is also reigning RIGHT NOW. He isn't.




Why do you pretend that doesn't happen in your bible too? It's so weird you think that little season rebellion only happens in the bible's of Premill. That is pure hypocrisy.

No I don’t think that the little season happens only in the premillennialism view that is a false claim by you and I have never claimed that. I have said many times that I believe it to be the conforming church like we see today

 

[ewq1938]

No I don’t think that the little season happens only in the premillennialism view that is a false claim by you and I have never claimed that. I have said many times that I believe it to be the conforming church like we see today

Still, you pretend that the little season AFTER the Mill has ended is somehow evidence of Premill failure when the same exact event happens in your bible, but magically it has a totally different meaning for you. The truth is the Premill Mill is perfect, and has no wickedness or rebellion or anything while the Amill Mill is the greatest disaster in human history, second only (maybe) to the horrific state of the world in Gen 6. After both versions of the Mill comes that satanic rebellion. That is allowed to happen and is not the result of any failure of the Mill ruling parties. The true issue is what happens during each version of the Mill, not what comes after.

 

[Marty fox]

Still, you pretend that the little season AFTER the Mill has ended is somehow evidence of Premill failure when the same exact event happens in your bible, but magically it has a totally different meaning for you. The truth is the Premill Mill is perfect, and has no wickedness or rebellion or anything while the Amill Mill is the greatest disaster in human history, second only (maybe) to the horrific state of the world in Gen 6. After both versions of the Mill comes that satanic rebellion. That is allowed to happen and is not the result of any failure of the Mill ruling parties. The true issue is what happens during each version of the Mill, not what comes after.

No not at all what has happened in millions of Christian lives for the last 2000 years isn’t a failure

 

[covenantee]

No not at all what has happened in millions of Christian lives for the last 2000 years isn’t a failure

Romans 8
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.

Modernist premil/dispen is so thoroughly carnalized that it is utterly incapable of recognizing such spiritual truth as the foregoing.

It is furthermore a betrayal of the spiritual wisdom and discernment which characterize not only amil, but which have also characterized historic premil.

It is an ideology of defeat.

 

[ewq1938]

No not at all what has happened in millions of Christian lives for the last 2000 years isn’t a failure

Millions or more Christians being murdered, homosexuality growing, abortions etc...that's the failure of a "reign". None of that happens in the real Millennium.

 

[Marty fox]

Millions or more Christians being murdered, homosexuality growing, abortions etc...that's the failure of a "reign". None of that happens in the real Millennium.

That has nothing to do with Christ reigning in our lives

 

[covenantee]

Millions or more Christians being murdered, homosexuality growing, abortions etc...that's the failure of a "reign". None of that happens in the real Millennium.

What a loser.

If that had been the mentality of Paul and the historic true Christian Church, there would be no true Christian Church today.

 

[ewq1938]

That has nothing to do with Christ reigning in our lives

It proves Christ is not reigning the nations with a rod of iron yet which proves we are not in the thousand years yet.

 

[Marty fox]

It proves Christ is not reigning the nations with a rod of iron yet which proves we are not in the thousand years yet.

When has God ever wanted to rule with a rod of iron? God has always given free will

It only proves that God isn’t reigning in the way you think that He will that was talking about Gods judgment not reigning

 

[Truth7t7]

It proves Christ is not reigning the nations with a rod of iron yet which proves we are not in the thousand years yet.

Jesus destroys with a rod of iron at his second coming, the rod of iron is a tool of destruction, not a kings scepter as you claim