Those words are instructions given to John, the one receiving the vision, telling him what to record. They describe the scope and content of what he is shown, not the interpretive principles for later readers.
I agree
but disagree with your conclusion...the interpretive principles for later readers. Rather you should have said...the interpretive principles
are also for later readers
As an easy example Isaiah 53 is presented to the current readers...and for future readers.
The same is true for the book of Revelations. As I have expressed and previous quoted Jesus says....in Rev 1:19...Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are
to take place after this.
The interpretive principles for later readers includes things that are to take place in the future. The return Of Christ Jesus on a white horse is future or something John was to write down to express an event that is
to take place after this.
Therefor, I disagree with your premise.
The interpretive signal for the reader is given earlier, in Revelation 1:1, where we are told the revelation was given “to show” (or “to signify”) the things revealed. That term indicates the use of signs, symbols, and representative imagery — which is exactly how the book then proceeds.
Yes, the book of Revelations presents signs, symbols, and representative imagery. Typically the signs, symbols, and representative imagery are explained. The 7 lamp stands are an example.
20 This is the mystery of the seven stars you saw in My right hand and of the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
Here we are told that the stars represent angels and the 7 lampstands represent the seven churches. The representative imagery is explained.
What you have done is explain away the literal presented in Revelation as purely symbolic generating your own concept of what the imagery represents.
In my post I have looked at the current conditions...the future...and tried to express the meaning in terms consistent with today or possibilities that fulfill what John saw and wrote down for us to read to help us understand the things to come.
Much of what we read in Revelations is extremely difficult to understand...figure out.
For example Rev 6:13 we read... and the
stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs, being shaken by a great wind.
We know that the
stars mentioned don't represent literal
stars, that is
stars such as our sun as it would seem unlikely that all of the
stars that make up the constellations would be able to fall to earth. So, what do the
stars represent? Do the
stars represent angels falling as
stars are called angels in the scripture presented above? Do the
stars represent the things John saw and described them in terms he knew of? Could the
stars be a whole bunch o meteorites falling to earth? Could the
stars be satellites falling to earth?
Your interpretation would present
stars as purely symbolic rather than a literal event....as you seem to be saying that there are no literal events in the book of revelation.
So Revelation itself distinguishes between what John is to write and how the revelation is communicated. The former explains the subject matter; the latter explains the mode.
The issue I have with you and other CT'ers concerning eschatology is you dismiss the possibility of the literal interpretation of future events described by John in a language and terms of his day.
Appealing to Revelation 1:19 as a hermeneutical rule for reading the book reverses those roles.
As I have expressed to you above Rev 1:19 Jesus tells John and through John us.
19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to
take place after this.
Take place after this...refers to the future which tells us portions of the book of Revelations pertains to the literal future.
Rev 13 speaks of what is called the Beast System....a future event. An event that couldn't take place on the global scale that the book of Revelations speaks of until our current time.
Rev 13 speaks of the Mark of the Beast...many thought that the barcode that emerged in 1974 was the Mark, but they were mistaken.
This "mark"...barcode...has matured to what it is today. Very shortly with the advancement in technology it is possible that a Mark could be given to all and required if you want to buy or sell. In other word this Mark John saw could be LITERAL and not pure symbology.
Acts 1 is historical narrative. The angels explain the manner of Christ’s return: the same Jesus, bodily and visibly, returning in glory.
That is true....but the narrative doesn't come close to expressing the narrative presented in Rev 19. It's obvious they are different narratives concerning the return of Christ Jesus.
Paul in 1 Thes 4:16ish doesn't express the resurrection/rapture in the name narrative that John expresses it in Rev 19.
“The same way” refers to continuity of person and visibility, not a requirement that every future description repeat identical imagery.
I disagree. The same way means just what it says...
the same way. For some reason the CT'ers concerning eschatology require the 2 events to represent some sort of symbolism and are the same event. Simple hermeneutics doesn't follow that CT'ers eschatological logic.
Revelation 19 is not historical narration. John explicitly tells us he is seeing a vision.
No, it's not historical as it hasn't happened yet. It's a vision of a future event.
The text itself requires symbolic interpretation: a sword proceeds from Christ’s mouth, His robe is already dipped in blood, and His name is written that no one knows but He Himself. These are not physical mechanics; they are theological disclosures. The vision reveals who Christ is and what His coming means, not how His feet move through the atmosphere.
The vision includes more than that...it presents a description of the second coming of Christ to physically set up His earthly kingdom.
I have already presented the prophetic vision...and the words nations is included in it...as well as Zech 14 which uses the same language.
So Revelation 19 is not redefining Acts 1. It is interpreting the same return through apocalyptic imagery. Visions reveal reality symbolically; they are not camera footage.
True, Rev 19 is not redefining Acts 1...or 1 Thes 4:16ish. Why? They are separate events.
It's like how the Jews of Jesus' time thought the Messiah would come and set up His kingdom and defeat their enemies, the Romans.
As you know Jesus came to die on the cross...the defeat of their enemies and the actual setting up His kingdom where He rules on earth physically would be a later and separate event.
The imagery itself is consistent with Scripture. The white horse is covenantal war imagery drawn from the prophets (Zechariah 10:3) and signifies royal conquest. The robe dipped in blood points to Christ’s finished sacrifice and judicial authority. The sword from His mouth is explicitly identified elsewhere as the Word of God (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17) and represents its power to judge and rule.
As I have said ad-nauseum....The description presented in Rev 19 is nothing like the description of Christ ascension where Jesus is said to return the same way.
None of these are intended to function as transportation details.
As I said...and refuted above...I disagree.
Many disagree as
seen here. What It looks like exactly, I don't know...
The choice is not between “symbolism” and “reality.” Both Acts 1 and Revelation 19 are Scripture, and both describe reality. The question is how different genres communicate that reality.
Your constant error is presenting reality as symbolic....always seeming to disregard the literal reality.
There are some so-called christians who teach Jesus didn't "literally" rise from the dead....but rather it is only symbolic. Keep in mind I don't think you believe that.
Your conclusion assumes that if two passages describe the same event with different imagery, they must be describing different events. Scripture itself does not operate that way.
I have provided you with the logic of scripture that shows you are not always correct. Especially concerning Revelations.
Historical narrative tells us that an event happens. Apocalyptic vision tells us what that event means. Differences in imagery do not create different events; they reveal different dimensions of the same reality.
Have already shown you that Revelations shows future events.
Acts 1 describes the return of Christ in plain, historical terms: the same Jesus, bodily and visibly, returning in glory. Revelation 19 does not contradict that. It expands it by unveiling Christ’s kingship, authority, and judgment through symbolic imagery appropriate to apocalyptic vision.
Acts 1 presents nothing like Rev 19. Even in symbolic imagery.
If different imagery required different events, then Scripture would constantly multiply resurrections, kingdoms, and comings. Instead, the Bible regularly presents one reality through multiple lenses.
It can....but in this instance you haven't demonstrated it.
So Revelation 19 does not redefine or replace Acts 1. It interprets the same return by revealing who Christ is and what His coming accomplishes. The difference is not in the event itself, but in the mode of revelation.
You're repeating
yourself.
I've made my point pretty clear. If you disagree, then so be it. I'll continue to teach Revelation is futuristic and the two events are separate.
Prophetic revelation does not cancel or reverse earlier, clearer teaching; it unfolds and deepens it.
What the CT'ers presents concerning eschatology clouds the issue. In this case they try to mix oil with vinegar.
The same hermeneutical principle applies to Revelation 20.
On Revelation 20 and the binding:Scripture defines the binding’s purpose precisely: “so that he might not deceive the nations anymore” (Rev 20:3). It does not say Satan is unable to persecute, tempt individuals, oppose the church, or influence governments—only that he is restrained from deceiving the nations as a whole.
How can Satan do what you mentioned above if he is in the sealed pit? Do you remember what I said about Al Capone? Why would it be any different?
Did the angels only throw the "deceiving the nations" portion of Satan into the pit then seal it up? Of course not. What you present makes no sense.
Jesus Himself interprets this binding: He has bound the strong man to plunder his house (Matt 12:28–29), inaugurating the kingdom by casting out demons through the Spirit.
Satan is "bound" in the reality of sin has no recurse in our salvation.
Jesus goes on to say....
31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
This is present reality, not future.
When you can demonstrate how Satin sealed in the abyss...can affect us, get back to me.
The apostles elaborate: Pre-Christ, the nations were left in darkness while God focused on Israel (Acts 14:16; Ps 147:19–20).
Post-resurrection, Christ claims all authority and commissions disciple-making among all nations (Matt 28:18–20). Paul declares the gospel bearing fruit “in the whole world” (Col 1:6), even amid persecution.This is the binding in action: Satan can no longer prevent the nations from hearing and responding to the gospel.
2 Cor. 11:14...And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light....how can that be if Satan is currently in the sealed abyss?
He rages (Rev 12:17; 1 Pet 5:8), persecutes, and deceives individuals—but he fails to stop Christ building His global church (Matt 16:18).
Once again I ask you....how can Satan persecute and deceive individuals if he is in a sealed abyss? Do the chains that keep him there mean nothing?
in the room issue with CT. A return of Christ mentions a white horse. The white horse in any kind of scenarion is found void in Acts 1.
