Revelation … everything was written FOR the people living THEN?

[makesends]

Then how do you know what they do not teach?

​

​

​

?????

Yes

So, if the tribulation is happening right NOW, as is stated in Post #75, then it will all be over within seven years. More importantly, Post #44 states the rapture precedes the 7-year tribulation. If the tribulation has already begun and is happening right now, then the rapture must have already occurred and you, me, @3 Resurrections, @Arial, @atpollard, @Carbon, @Hazelelponi, @Lees, @makesends, @Marty, @Rella (and anyone else in this thread I might have left out) have all missed the rapture! .

We both, along with everyone else who discusses eschatology in this forum, know that is incorrect and there are many occasions when I have asked you questions and either never received an answer or had to ask the question(s) repeatedly to get an answer (as was the case here).



The op-relevant point is that the pre-tribulational rapture position presented in this thread is hugely problematic. It is both internally and externally self-contradictory, entirely speculative and, on this occasion, demonstrably false. It is impossible to say the rapture precedes the tribulation AND say the tribulation is happening now while still claiming to look forward to being raptured. AND..... this is another occasion when you've hijacked the op to impose your version of modern futurism. Mods, take note. This op is about the premise Revelation was written for the people living then (when the book was written in the first century).

Revelation 1:1-3
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his bondservants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

That is literally what the text states.

Revelation 1:17-19
When I saw him, I fell at his feet like a dead man. And he placed his right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. Therefore, write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things."

The text literally states John had already seen some of the events recorded in Revelation (they were not in our future). The text literally states some of the events were existing at the time when Jesus gave John the revelation (those events are not, therefore, in our future).

Can somebody please diagram the argument so far, from the OP to this point? I'm lost.

 

[CrowCross]

So, if the tribulation is happening right NOW, as is stated in Post #75, then it will all be over within seven years.

Is that what I said???

No, the tribulation hasn't started yet. The "birth pangs" leading up to the tribulation appear to have started.

 

[Lees]

It seemed a disingenuous post rather than an honest question intended to prompt a discussion. You offered a “gotcha” and I didn’t want to engage in a mean-spirited tit-for-tat. [I apologize if that came across as unkind, you insisted on an answer and that is just an honest answer to the question of “why I did not respond to post #42”].


Yes.


They seemed more “rhetorical” than honest questions expecting an answer.
Let’s look at Post #42 …


I don’t know what I said that would lead you to believe that I reject any verses, including these. I am not advocating that Revelation is false, merely that it is metaphoric symbolism rather than literal reality. Daniel’s vision of a man with a gold head and clay feet was a TRUE PROPHECY without being a LITERAL DESCRIPTION of a man that would actually appear. Jesus with a sword sticking out of his mouth is a TRUE but metaphorical prophecy of the power of His Word without being a literal representation of risen Christ with an actual sword where his mouth should be.


Yes.


Yes.


No. However, the second coming IS represented symbolically in several places in Revelation (unless you think that Jesus will LITERALLY resemble a slain lamb and will have a sword in his mouth and must appear riding on a horse and have names written on his thighs).


I do not see what this has to do with anything? It just feels like a snarky attack and was the primary reason I didn’t respond to your post. There is no cross mentioned in Revelation, so I do not see what that has to do with anything being discussed.

NOW MY TURN:

GIVEN: You believe that the 1000 year reign of Christ on Earth is 100% literal.

AND: According to Revelation, the 1000 year kingdom is only possible because the DRAGON is chained in a pit by angels for 1000 years (before it is ultimately released to attack the Kingdom and be destroyed).

THEREFORE: Is there also a LITERAL Dragon held by LITERAL chains in a LITERAL pit?
If so, then WHERE is this literal pit?
If not, then why must there be a literal KINGDOM when only the chaining of the metaphorical DRAGON makes it possible? Why can both not be symbolic of something real but different?

Well, you said the Book of (Revelation) was not intended to be a literal future prophecy. Yet the verses I gave show that the Book of (Revelation) is intended to be a literal future prophecy. Is providing Scripture now considered 'disingenuous'?

So, if the 2nd Coming of Christ is prophetic and literal, then the Book of (Revelation) is a literal and future prophecy. That symbols are used at times doesn't mean the prophecy is not literal. Nor does it mean everything recorded in (Revelation) is symbolic.

(Rev. 1:19) "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter:"

(Rev. 4:1) "...Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter."

You said (Revelation) is for future generations to find hope in hard times. Well, you can say that about the whole Bible. The Scriptures I gave above show the specific nature of the prophecy of the Book of (Revelation).

The Jesus John saw in (Rev. 1:12-18) was The Literal Jesus. Johns use of 'like'and 'as' or symbols, does not take away from this being The Literal Jesus Christ. John fell as one dead upon seeing this Literal Christ. He didn't fall dead because he saw a symbol. (Rev. 1:17)

Concerning Jesus as The Lamb slain, speaks to the Cross and it doesn't take away from the literalness of Jesus death upon the Cross. (Rev. 5:9) "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain..." (Rev. 5:12) "Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain...."

Do you believe John really saw this? Do you believe the angels, and living creatures, and elders really said "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain"? Or is all just imagery to give people hope in hard times?

You need to give the Scripture concerning the Dragon and chain and the 1000 year Kingdom you are referring to. And how you use 'different' makes all the difference in the world. What makes you think the Kingdom is based solely on this?

Lees

 

[Josheb]

That's the thing about reading the literary style of scripture.

The word is "literal" not "literary."

1. The word "literal" means to read words with their normal meaning in ordinary usage. Reading scripture literally, with the normal meaning of the words as present in ordinary usage is the first rule of proper scriptural exegesis.
2. The word "literalistic" means to read words in a rigid, strict manner that often misses or avoids their actual or intended meaning. Reading scripture literalistically can make words meaning anything because it is the doctrinal hermeneutic that decides the meaning, not the normal inherent meaning words ordinarily possess.
3. The word "literary" means reading words as a function of literature relevant to the form of what is written. Fiction would not be read in the same manner as history, allegory would not be read in the same manner as fact, etc.

The salient point is that there was a poster in this thread who asserted claims about the "literalist" but then claimed to know nothing about the literalist. Such a person disqualifies themselves from having anything to say about the subject of this op = in Revelation everything was written for the people living then (at the time the book was written). As far as the modern futurist view of Revelation goes, the modern futurists claim to literal when they are actually literalistic. This is especially true in Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) because it is taught as one of the three core principles in the DP hermeneutic. A bait-and-switch is the typical response when this is pointed out because the appeal is, "The prophecy will have a literal fulfillment," when what they mean is prophecy will actually be fulfilled. Every Christian believes prophecy is fulfilled. That's not a new or revelatory statement. Most Christians simply do not believe prophecy will be fulfilled the way a modern futurist thinks prophecy will be fulfilled. Most Christians, regardless of their eschatological orientation, acknowledge and endeavor to practice a simple precept: scripture is first best interpreter of other scripture and then, similarly, understand the importance of understanding the text as it was intended by its first century reader and would have been understood at the time it was written. Those two principles have been understood since the New Testament was first put into writing. They preclude nonsensical interpretations like computer chips, vaccines, and AI being the beats. They preclude Christians from making prognostications that do not come true and they thereby preclude Christians from making themselves false teachers and liars.

What we should all be doing is following the example of the New Testament writers. Where the NT writers treated the OT and the words of Jesus literally then we should do the same. Conversely, where the NT writers treated those sources figuratively, allegorically, symbolically, etc., then we, again, should follow their example...... and when we practice their example we understand the primacy of scripture rendering itself and the practices of the times informing what was written.

Most, if not all, of the apocalyptic modern futurists of the 19th century Restoration Movement failed to abide by these matters.

 

[Josheb]

for the time is near........Well, the tribulation didn't happen.

That is a negative post hoc argument. Just because an event is believed not to have happened does not mean it did not happen.

Post hoc arguments are always and everywhere fallacious. Furthermore, it is only according to DPism that the tribulation hasn't happened. Scripture states it has. In addition to those four problems, this op is about the premise the book of Revelation was written for the people living in the first century. This thread is not about whether or not the tribulation has occurred. Post #103 are again off topic and violates the forum's Rule 4.3.

Either Revelation 1:3 was written for the people living at the time the book was written, or it was not written for them. We'll talk about verses 1:9, 2:9-10, 2:22, and 7:14 (the only verses in Revelation that mention the word "tribulation) when verse 3 has been addressed and resolved and I, for one, will not be collaborating with any attempt to hijack the op or support any modern futurist practice to constantly change the subject to avoid addressing the op-specified subject and what scripture explicitly states in support of that position when scripture is read exactly as written and logical fallacies like post hoc arguments are not practiced.

The fact is the word "near" means near. Additional facts prove the New Testament never uses the word "near" to mean anything other than near. The modern futurist interpretation, therefore, ignores the normal, ordinary meaning of the word, ignores the uniform precedent of all other scriptures, and violates its own hermeneutic requiring the modern futurist to read prophecy literally.

The fact is the book of Revelation was written for the Christians (bondservants of Christ) living in the first century. That does not mean Revelation does not have meaning and significance for Christians living today; it simply means the book was not originally written for us.

for the time is near........Well, the tribulation didn't happen.

John explicitly stated he was a partaker in the tribulation.

Revelation 1:9
I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

If John partook in the tribulation - as is explicitly stated in Revelation - then the tribulation did happen, and it is you, not me, who is saying the Bible is wrong (so be careful about not violating Rules 4.3 and 5.1-2).

 

[CrowCross]

Well, you said the Book of (Revelation) was not intended to be a literal future prophecy. Yet the verses I gave show that the Book of (Revelation) is intended to be a literal future prophecy. Is providing Scripture now considered 'disingenuous'?

I agree....the book of Revelations is a literal prophecy. A still future event.
In other words the literal events as described by literal descriptions or metaphoric descriptions will happen in a literal form.

So, if the 2nd Coming of Christ is prophetic and literal, then the Book of (Revelation) is a literal and future prophecy. That symbols are used at times doesn't mean the prophecy is not literal. Nor does it mean everything recorded in (Revelation) is symbolic.

I also agree. The non-futurist see only symbolism.

(Rev. 1:19) "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter:"

(Rev. 4:1) "...Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter."

Especially when one understands the book of Revelations was written after the destruction of the temple.

You said (Revelation) is for future generations to find hope in hard times. Well, you can say that about the whole Bible. The Scriptpures I gave above show the specific nature of the prophecy of the Book of (Revelation).

There's not a whole lot of hope in the description of the tribulation part of Revelation. 6-18.
Chapter 13 speaks of war with the saints and the saints losing....where's the hope? Our only hope is in Christ Jesus.

The Jesus John saw in (Rev. 1:12-18) was The Literal Jesus. Johns use of 'like'and 'as' or symbols, does not take away from this being The Literal Jesus Christ. John fell as one dead upon seeing this Literal Christ. He didn't fall dead because he saw a symbol. (Rev. 1:17)

Especially when he said..“Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades."

Concerning Jesus as The Lamb slain, speaks to the Cross and it doesn't take away from the literalness of Jesus death upon the Cross. (Rev. 5:9) "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain..." (Rev. 5:12) "Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain...."

Do you believe John really saw this? Do you believe the angels, and living creatures, and elders really said "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain"? Or is all just imagery to give people hope in hard times?

As they contemplate that question...I think they will realize that there is some literal portions of Revelations.

You need to give the Scripture concerning the Dragon and chain and the 1000 year Kingdom you are referring to. And how you use 'different' makes all the difference in the world. What makes you think the Kingdom is based solely on this?

Sometimes a symbolic description can describe the literal. Foie example Jesus is called a "gate" John 10:7. Jesus is literally a gate....but He not a wooden structure hanging on a door post with hinges.

Lees

 

[Arial]

The problem is when people take Revelation and make it a metaphor....the metaphor can mean anything.

Considering you don't take Revelation as literal....that would be, ah, er...you.

Who says I don't take it as literal? I don't give literal the same definition that you do. When something in a vision is expressed with symbolic images, I realize they are not necessarily symbols of something literal and that I must find out what grasshoppers means in the vision considering technology hadn't advanced as far in John's day as it has today. And then say, "Ah yes, he must have been seeing helicopters since they kind of look like grasshoppers." Puzzle solved, no need to ask any more questions. That would be both literal and metaphorical since the scriptures says "grasshoppers".

What I do is use the definition of symbol in symbolic literature. Which is:

A symbol in literature is an object, character, or event that represents a deeper meaning or abstract idea beyond its literal sense. For example, a heart often symbolizes love, conveying complex emotions through a simple image.
A metaphor on the other hand is:

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol.
3. The transference of the relation between one set of objects to another set for the purpose of brief explanation; a compressed simile; e. g., the ship plows the sea.

So it is you who is interpreting Revelation metaphorically according to #2, not me. The grasshoppers are helicopters.

Literal: 1. conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words. In this way I interpret literally

2. Word for word; verbatim---as in a literal translation.

3.Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor or embellishment; factual;prosaic.

The visions in Revelation are NOT literal and so their meaning cannot be found by a literal interpretation. And the Bible uses symbols specifically and consistently throughout apocalyptic writings, and even metaphorically in other types of writing, so it is possible to ascertain the message being given.

 

[Arial]

Sheeze, all you guys do is belly ache and point to a "rules violation" when your arguments have been reduced to rubble.

Rules violations are pointed out because rules violations have occurred. You violated another here by misrepresenting others and doing so in an insulting manner. Pay attention to the violations and stop committing them.

This OP is not about the rapture or the dispensational view of the tribulation, or identifying symbolic language according to the dispensational view and arguing about it.

Read the OP and respond according to the points made in it. Revelation was written to and for the people it was written to. And as such, how it also has the same value and purpose to us today and to all generations.

 

[CrowCross]

Who says I don't take it as literal? I don't give literal the same definition that you do. When something in a vision is expressed with symbolic images, I realize they are not necessarily symbols of something literal and that I must find out what grasshoppers means in the vision considering technology hadn't advanced as far in John's day as it has today. And then say, "Ah yes, he must have been seeing helicopters since they kind of look like grasshoppers." Puzzle solved, no need to ask any more questions. That would be both literal and metaphorical since the scriptures says "grasshoppers".

What I do is use the definition of symbol in symbolic literature. Which is:

A symbol in literature is an object, character, or event that represents a deeper meaning or abstract idea beyond its literal sense. For example, a heart often symbolizes love, conveying complex emotions through a simple image.
A metaphor on the other hand is:

1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol.
3. The transference of the relation between one set of objects to another set for the purpose of brief explanation; a compressed simile; e. g., the ship plows the sea.

So it is you who is interpreting Revelation metaphorically according to #2, not me. The grasshoppers are helicopters.

Literal: 1. conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words. In this way I interpret literally

2. Word for word; verbatim---as in a literal translation.

3.Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor or embellishment; factual;prosaic.

The visions in Revelation are NOT literal and so their meaning cannot be found by a literal interpretation. And the Bible uses symbols specifically and consistently throughout apocalyptic writings, and even metaphorically in other types of writing, so it is possible to ascertain the message being given.

It has always been my position that the book of Revelations uses the literal to express the literal as well as symbolic language to express the literal.

It has also always been my position that the book of Revelations is future and portions of it were written for the people of the generation when the tribulation is happening.

Is Rev 9: 71-10 describing helicopters? Drones? Are the grasshoppers in the vision future technology? Or are they supernatural creatures that come from the shaft of the bottomless pit? Currently we don't know. What we do know is that this event has never happened in HISTORY and is still future...another point that shows Revelations is written for a future generation.

 

[Arial]

Rev 13:5 is A.I.

And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months.

Opinion stated as fact and supported by opinion. Therefore void of any value. You have been asked repeatedly not to do this. There is absolutely no room for discussion, reason, or debate when someone posts things they cannot possibly know, in that manner.

 

[Josheb]

What seems contradictory to us today may not have been looked at that way in ancient times.

And one of the first precepts in sound exegesis is to first understand the text as the original author and his original readers would have understood it.

Modern futurists do not do that. They try to make Revelation fit with the latest modern newscast.

"The last shall be first, and the first shall be last" also seems contradictory.

Not to me. Not to many Christians. I would venture to say most of us here have no problem whatsoever understanding that statement because we know and understand all else that scripture states on the matter and do not remove the verse from its multiple contexts. We understand that statement as Jesus originally intended it and as his original audience would have understood it. We then take that original meaning and apply it to our lives.

That is how exegesis and hermeneutics are supposed to function.

 

[Josheb]

Is that what I said???

Yes, it is what you said. Post #75 proves that is what you said. I quoted the post and copied the post to prove it.

It's happening right NOW. You can look the other way if you like.

You said it. Post #75 explicitly states it (the tribulation) is happening right now.

No, the tribulation hasn't started yet.

Then you have contradicted Post #75. You have contradicted your own words and rather than asking me if that is what you said, you should have checked your own words - especially since I had already linked everyone to the post - and self-corrected.

The "birth pangs" leading up to the tribulation appear to have started.

So, you say. The problem is no one can rely on what you say because one post says one thing and another post says another, scripture is not held to be authoritative and is instead subjugated to the latest newscast, scripture is read l literalistically and not literally or exegetically, and modern futurist doctrine drives your interpretations eisegetically.

Now you've gone on record stating there now exist "birth pangs" leading up to the tribulation. Birth pangs occur immediately prior to delivery. Borth pangs do last weeks, months, years, decades, or centuries. Birth pangs are imminent. When Jesus mentions birth pangs in Matthew 24 (verse 8) that is NOT Revelation. So.... this is just another example of how you and other modern futurists prove incapable of staying on topic, using bait-and-switch to avoid topical discussion and accountability for your own stated views and errors of exegesis.


This op sis about whether or not Revelation was written for the people living when it was written. This thread is not about birth pangs in some other book in the Bible.​

 

[Josheb]

With all due respect.....Revelations hasn't happened.

I do not find the statement disrespectful of me. I find it disrespectful of God and His word. The statement "Revelation hasn't happened" contradicts what is explicitly stated in the opening and the closing of Revelation. The rest of Post 108 simply dodges what is written and attempts a red herring. The fact of scripture is that Revelation 1:1-3 explicitly states the things recorded in the book of Revelation were revealed because they were going to happen quickly because the time was then at hand or near. That is what the verses actually, factually, explicitly and specifically stated. Those verses are qualified just a few verses later when John is told he is to write down events that he'd already seen, events that were currently existing at the time of the revelation, and what would follow thereafter. That is, again, what is actually, factually, explicitly and specifically stated in the text.

These are examples of evidence proving Revelation was written for the people living at the time Revelation was written. John had written a gospel and penned at least three letters. His readers would have known what he'd seen and what conditions existed at the time because, apart from their own experience, they knew what he'd written.

The modern futurist denies all of the above.

I am not the one disrespected when that happens.

 

[Josheb]

nt

 

[Arial]

I find it odd that anyone can think John wrote a letter to seven churches that had nothing to do with them. As has been stated. Evidently the only people, according to those posts, that the letter is written to are those alive right now. Of course back in the 1800's it was only for those people who were alive.

 

[Hazelelponi]

EXACTLY

There do seem to be conclusions reached based on facts not in evidence.

Matthew doesn't indicate any of what the post claims. Only that some graves opened and some formerly dead saints [now living] were walking around.

Nowhere were they called first fruits of anything, only Christ is called the first fruits of the ressurected dead.

Those came back to life as a sign that Jesus was the Messiah.

Figured it looks like the thread is all straightened out so I'd jump in again. Now where were we?

 

[Arial]

It has always been my position that the book of Revelations uses the literal to express the literal as well as symbolic language to express the literal.

Read those definitions I gave again and use words correctly. A metaphor could express something literal but a symbol in symbolic literature (which is what Revelation is, is:

A symbol in literature is an object, character, or event that represents a deeper meaning or abstract idea beyond its literal sense.

It has also always been my position that the book of Revelations is future and portions of it were written for the people of the generation when the tribulation is happening.

The people John was writing TO were undergoing great tribulation and more and worse was close on its heels. Why that also has meaning to us is because our very life on planet earth is marked by tribulation. There have been times in history where the tribulation against the saints in places was catastrophic and there will be again. There have always been earthquakes and famines and wars, and there always will be until Christ returns. ANd one think that must not be done in interpreting Revelation (or anything) is say for example, the stars falling from the sky isn't literal, but but 1/3 of the people or whatever is literal. The Bible does not mix things together like that.

Is Rev 9: 71-10 describing helicopters? Drones? Are the grasshoppers in the vision future technology? Or are they supernatural creatures that come from the shaft of the bottomless pit? Currently we don't know. What we do know is that this event has never happened in HISTORY and is still future...another point that shows Revelations is written for a future generation.

Check out what the Bible has to say about grasshoppers and how God used them for his purposes and you will find the meaning and idea that is being expressed beyond the literal sense. That is how to interpret apocalyptic literature. God did not look into the future and base Revelation on our future technology! I am pretty sure that when John described his vision and records it as grasshoppers, grasshoppers is what he saw. There is no reason to speculate otherwise. In doing so, and say one concludes John really saw helicopters, one is altering John's words to fit their own vision or imagination.

 

[Lees]

I agree....the book of Revelations is a literal prophecy. A still future event.
In other words the literal events as described by literal descriptions or metaphoric descriptions will happen in a literal form.

I also agree. The non-futurist see only symbolism.

Especially when one understands the book of Revelations was written after the destruction of the temple.

There's not a whole lot of hope in the description of the tribulation part of Revelation. 6-18.
Chapter 13 speaks of war with the saints and the saints losing....where's the hope? Our only hope is in Christ Jesus.

Especially when he said..“Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades."

As they contemplate that question...I think they will realize that there is some literal portions of Revelations.

Sometimes a symbolic description can describe the literal. Foie example Jesus is called a "gate" John 10:7. Jesus is literally a gate....but He not a wooden structure hanging on a door post with hinges.

Good points made.

Lees

 

[makesends]

I find it odd that anyone can think John wrote a letter to seven churches that had nothing to do with them. As has been stated. Evidently the only people, according to those posts, that the letter is written to are those alive right now. Of course back in the 1800's it was only for those people who were alive.

Being brought up with the assumption of the timeline and some of the thinking of Dispensationalism, I have some pretty obvious leftovers that I have not studied away, nor proven, such as the imminent return and a millenial year-reign on earth. At this point, seeing the contention and poor reasoning currently in the production of these notions, I can't utterly support them, but, I also can't utterly reject them ...yet. Lol, I don't even know just what they ARE anymore, except that I would be pleased and not at all disappointed, were I to find myself in the air to meet him right now ...well, that is, if he'll wait long enough for me to finish this post.

Study has not firmed any of these in my mind, but only caused my hands to go up and my shoulders to shrug. As @Eleanor says, "prophetic riddles". But, I can't shake the feeling that there is a lot more to this than anyone in this temporal existence knows. There's just too much paralleling, coincidence, and, always, that "already but not yet" thing going on.

Over the years I've come to the conclusion that there is, within the fact of the firm reality of what is to come, vs the vapor of the present, a 'literal' use of some passages that goes beyond what we (temporal and ignorant beings) consider 'literal'. How that applies to the fantastic prophetic is more than I can say, though. But I can say that we don't know what we are talking about, and that we need to recognize that fact in our studying.

 

[Lees]

I find it odd that anyone can think John wrote a letter to seven churches that had nothing to do with them. As has been stated. Evidently the only people, according to those posts, that the letter is written to are those alive right now. Of course back in the 1800's it was only for those people who were alive.

Who said that?

The Book of (Revelation) is given for the people of God no matter what time period we are in. That doesn't change the fact that it is a future prophecy. And is a literal prophecy concerning the end of the ages.

The Book of (Revelation) pertains to the 2nd Coming of Jesus Christ. (Rev. 1:7) "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."

Did John literally see Jesus and fall at His feet as one dead. (Rev. 1:17) Was John really taken literally in the spirit to heaven to be shown what he would later write down concerning 'things which shall be hereafter'? (Rev. 4:1-2) (Rev. 1:19). Or is this just symbolic imagery given to give hope for believers in hard times?

Lees