Revelation … everything was written FOR the people living THEN?

[atpollard]

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?

First tell me what makes you think there will be a literal 1000 year kingdom with Christ ruling on Earth. What verses in Revelation makes you think that?

[Then I will point you to the scripture that I was referring to.]

 

[Arial]

Who said that?

You have been reading his posts.

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.

Depends on what you mean by literal. And as per the OP, I believe it is all future except for what was occurring in the seven churches John wrote to, when he wrote it. It is future covering the time between the first and second coming of Christ. And I believe some of it is a perspective of the spiritual real that had already happened, such as the woman and the dragon in Rev 12. Having said all that, it does not mean that everything is a chronological sequence of future specific events. If they were, and one is paying careful attention, they will have things repeating themselves including Christ's return.

So symbolic literature:

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

 

[Arial]

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.

Read A Case For Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger. He does a great job of laying Dispensationalism and A'ism side by side and showing where amil stands in agreement with Scripture and D'ism falls apart.

 

[makesends]

Read A Case For Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger. He does a great job of laying Dispensationalism and A'ism side by side and showing where amil stands in agreement with Scripture and D'ism falls apart.

I'm thinking I've seen that chart. I would have liked to have seen other views besides those two, or, at least, other views similar to DP, that are not Pre-trib (unless 70 ad-ish).

 

[makesends]

Read A Case For Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times by Kim Riddlebarger. He does a great job of laying Dispensationalism and A'ism side by side and showing where amil stands in agreement with Scripture and D'ism falls apart.

Just ordered it. Thanks.

 

[Lees]

You have been reading his posts.

Depends on what you mean by literal. And as per the OP, I believe it is all future except for what was occurring in the seven churches John wrote to, when he wrote it. It is future covering the time between the first and second coming of Christ. And I believe some of it is a perspective of the spiritual real that had already happened, such as the woman and the dragon in Rev 12. Having said all that, it does not mean that everything is a chronological sequence of future specific events. If they were, and one is paying careful attention, they will have things repeating themselves including Christ's return.

So symbolic literature:

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

 

[Arial]

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

Were those things visions? No they were not. It is the visions that use symbolic language!

 

[Arial]

Just ordered it. Thanks.

Enjoy. Let me know what you think of it and if it helps. It is very difficult to do that comparison work on our own, especially when we spent the better half of a long life in Christianity being taught dispensational eschatology as if there was no other way to see Rev. I had that same problem.

 

[Arial]

I'm thinking I've seen that chart. I would have liked to have seen other views besides those two, or, at least, other views similar to DP, that are not Pre-trib (unless 70 ad-ish).

The book doesn't present it as a chart but walks you through the scriptures. And it also deals with full preterism.

 

[Lees]

Were those things visions? No they were not. It is the visions that use symbolic language!

The questions are quite simple. Did John literally see Jesus and fall at His feet as one dead. (Rev. 1:17) Was John 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?

That's not what Jesus said. (Rev. 1:1) "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." Expressed by signs.

And all is called a prophecy. (Rev. 1:3) "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy...."

And was not John's description of Jesus using symbolic language? Some symbols Jesus helped to identify. (Rev. 1:20) "The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches."

But, whether you agree with that or not, your post #(127) did not answer my questions.

Lees

 

[Arial]

The questions are quite simple. Did John literally see Jesus and fall at His feet as one dead. (Rev. 1:17) Was John 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?

That's not what Jesus said. (Rev. 1:1) "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John." Expressed by signs.

And all is called a prophecy. (Rev. 1:3) "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy...."

And was not John's description of Jesus using symbolic language? Some symbols Jesus helped to identify. (Rev. 1:20) "The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches."

But, whether you agree with that or not, your post #(127) did not answer my questions.

Lees

It should have answered your question, so maybe we are simply talking sideways of each other.

John's description of Jesus was a vision. His falling at Jesus' feet was not a vision. Did he literally see Jesus? I would say yes. And there were symbolic elements to what he saw, which as you said, Jesus explained, giving a ground work of interpreting what was to be said about the seven churches. They are all OT images and gives interpretation to the OT and to what is about to be shown.

Rev 1 and 4 both say he was in the Spirit. It is fruitless to spend time speculating exactly what that was like and was he literally taken to heaven as it has nothing to do with the message or what John saw.

Rev 1:1-3 is a prelude to the letter recipients (v 4) the seven churches. In v 9 he says he is their brother and partner in tribulation. In v 19 Jesus extends "things that must soon take place" to "Those that are and those that are to take place after this.

But the visions of the prophecy are given with symbols. Therefore they are being used to portray a meaning and idea beyond the literal sense. And those that are, are not prophecy in the sense of foretelling, but an explanation of what is happening. Those churches were experiencing tribulation.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Let me help you out. . .

Christ's return is not imminent (immediate, no other action required prior thereto).
Apostolic teaching (2 Th 2:3) of Christ (Lk 10:16) couldn't be any more clear on the matter.
The great apostasy (falling away) must occur first, and the man of rebellion (lawlessness) must be revealed first (2 Th 2:3), before Christ's return. Ergo, no imminence.

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".

If you stay with the apostolic teaching (2 Th 2:3-4) of Christ (Lk 10:16) on the matter, and out of prophetic riddles subject to more than one interpretation (Nu 12:6-8), it is most clear.

Everything else is personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8), which interpretations are not in agreement with
the teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16) by the apostle (2 Th 2:3-4).

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.

 

[Eleanor]

Enjoy. Let me know what you think of it and if it helps. It is very difficult to do that comparison work on our own, especially when we spent the better half of a long life in Christianity being taught dispensational eschatology as if there was no other way to see Rev. I had that same problem.

Fortunately, I was not. . .and didn't encounter it until after I had studied the whole Bible.
When I first encountered dispensationalism, I found it foreign, strange and its implications nothing short of heritical.

 

[Arial]

Let me help you out. . .

Christ's return is not imminent (immediate, no other action required prior thereto).
Apostolic teaching (2 Th 2:3) of Christ (Lk 10:16) couldn't be any more clear on the matter.
The great apostasy (falling away) must occur first, and the man of rebellion (lawlessness) must be revealed first (2 Th 2:3), before Christ's return. Ergo, no imminence.

If you stay with the apostolic teaching (2 Th 2:3-4) of Christ (Lk 10:16) on the matter, and out of prophetic riddles subject to more than one interpretation (Nu 12:6-8), it is most clear.

Everything else is personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8), which interpretations are not in agreement with
the teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16) by the apostle (2 Th 2:3-4).

Plus, 1 Thess 4 and 1 Cor 15 that clearly show the resurrection of the dead in Christ and those who remain alive being changed-----when he returns. The Dispensationalist has a whole thousand years in there. Christ's return and reign, or partial return?, two resurrections, the resurrected dead all the saints immortal and incorruptible a long with the unredeemed and war waging all around and against Jerusalem.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Just ordered it. Thanks.

I have the book it's excellent.

 

[makesends]

Let me help you out. . .

Christ's return is not imminent (immediate, no other action required prior thereto).
Apostolic teaching (2 Th 2:3) of Christ (Lk 10:16) couldn't be any more clear on the matter.
The great apostasy (falling away) must occur first, and the man of rebellion (lawlessness) must be revealed first (2 Th 2:3), before Christ's return. Ergo, no imminence.

Not that my speculating makes any difference to the facts, but who is to say these haven't already occurred ? As much of Revelation as has swung 2000 years (or more) and back, in my speculating, without solid proof one way or the other, I don't know WHAT to think about that. I'm not denying any of the declarations you make (i.e. great apostasy first, man of lawlessness revealed first) and I have no past (nor current) examples that to me match that terminology, but I can't rule out the possibility that they have already happened. I don't THINK they have, but...

And, by "imminence" I don't mean to say we are on the cusp of his return. I've laughed at myself too long for that. I just mean that I recognize that I don't know, and it could be. I do want to be ready for whichever. I am certainly looking forward to his return, though, granted, I don't mean the thrilling trip up, but being with him fully and finally.

If you stay with the apostolic teaching (2 Th 2:3-4) of Christ (Lk 10:16) on the matter, and out of prophetic riddles subject to more than one interpretation (Nu 12:6-8), it is most clear.

Everything else is personal interpretation of prophetic riddles not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8), which interpretations are not in agreement with
the teaching of Christ (Lk 10:16) by the apostle (2 Th 2:3-4).

I agree, but God can do as he will, neverminding my opinions. (Kind of reminds me of my commitment to never marry again. I say I never will; I have learned my lesson and will never submit to that 'slavery' again, I say. BUT, God can do whatever he wants.)

Personally, I like to think that he fooled us all, though some of you will object to the notion that any of Scripture was written to be misunderstood by His People. I am looking forward to the day we will be amazed at the nature of things in Heaven and how the things of Heaven fit all of Scripture in every detail —more detail (even in number and intensity and flavor) than we see here on Earth.

 

[Eleanor]

Not that my speculating makes any difference to the facts, but who is to say these haven't already occurred ?

I guess the fact that NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17), as distinct from personal interpretation of prophetic riddles subject to more than one interpretation (Nu 12:6-8) locates the resurrection, second coming, and rapture together at the end of time demonstrates that they have not already occurred.

As much of Revelation as has swung 2000 years (or more) and back, in my speculating, without solid proof one way or the other, I don't know WHAT to think about that. I'm not denying any or the declarations you make (i.e. great apostasy first, man of lawlessness revealed first) and I have no past (nor current) examples that to me match that terminology, but I can't rule out the possibility that they have already happened. I don't THINK they have, but...

And, by "imminence" I don't mean to say we are on the cusp of his return. I've laughed at myself too long for that. I just mean that I recognize that I don't know, and it could be. I do want to be ready for whichever. I am certainly looking forward to his return, though, granted, I don't mean the thrilling trip up, but being with him fully and finally.

I agree, but God can do as he will, neverminding my opinions. (Kind of reminds me of my commitment to never marry again. I say I never will; I have learned my lesson and will never submit to that 'slavery' again, I say. BUT, God can do whatever he wants.)

Personally, I like to think that he fooled us all, though some of you will object to the notion that any of Scripture was written to be misunderstood by His People. I am looking forward to the day we will be amazed at the nature of things in Heaven and how the things of Heaven fit all of Scripture in every detail —more detail (even in number and intensity and flavor) than we see here on Earth.

 

[makesends]

I guess the fact that NT apostolic teaching (1 Th 4:16-17), as distinct from personal interpretation of prophetic riddles subject to more than one interpretation (Nu 12:6-8) locates the resurrection, second coming, and rapture together at the end of time demonstrates that they have not already occurred.

This is weird. On my page above I see no such text, but only a quote of what I said. But when I "replied", this showed up. I will reference @Carbon and @Arial here, for their notice, assessment, advice. Does it show up on your page at post #137, without replying to it?

Anyhow, I admit you have a strong point, there, and I agree. I'm only not discounting the fact that I am human and these events are, after all, still not visible to us, which does not necessarily imply that the former (riddles) have not already happened, nor that we are correct that what sounds to us like these will be the same event necessarily ARE the same event. And, yes, I know this is two strokes —i.e. not just the riddles but the apostolic teaching (as applicable to the riddles)! Once again, I say, we don't know what we are talking about. (Lol, or, at least, I don't!)

 

[Lees]

It should have answered your question, so maybe we are simply talking sideways of each other.

John's description of Jesus was a vision. His falling at Jesus' feet was not a vision. Did he literally see Jesus? I would say yes. And there were symbolic elements to what he saw, which as you said, Jesus explained, giving a ground work of interpreting what was to be said about the seven churches. They are all OT images and gives interpretation to the OT and to what is about to be shown.

Rev 1 and 4 both say he was in the Spirit. It is fruitless to spend time speculating exactly what that was like and was he literally taken to heaven as it has nothing to do with the message or what John saw.

Rev 1:1-3 is a prelude to the letter recipients (v 4) the seven churches. In v 9 he says he is their brother and partner in tribulation. In v 19 Jesus extends "things that must soon take place" to "Those that are and those that are to take place after this.

But the visions of the prophecy are given with symbols. Therefore they are being used to portray a meaning and idea beyond the literal sense. And those that are, are not prophecy in the sense of foretelling, but an explanation of what is happening. Those churches were experiencing tribulation.

Sideways? I haven't been talking sideways. Have you?

You say 'now' John's description of Jesus was a vision. Yet in post #(127) you said they were not a vision.

So, what made John's description of Jesus a vision? There is nothing to indicate it was a 'vision'. And how is John falling to the ground as one dead separated from what John saw? You say now he literally saw Jesus. Well and good. That is not a vision. That is the same thing Jesus told him also. (Rev. 1:20) "'which thou sawest in my right hand"

No. You claim the visions are where 'symbolic' language is used. Yet, there is nothing to indicate any vision in (Rev. 1:9-18), yet symbolic language is used.

The problem is what 'you' want to interpret as symbolical. You say in a vision. Yet there was no vision.

Being in the spirit doesn't negate literal. Where did you come up with that? The verses I gave, (Rev. 4:1-2), and (Rev. 1:19), and the question I asked concerning them has everything to do with our discussion. You want to draw the line between 'literal' and 'spiritual', so let's pay attention to the line.

You say John literally did see Jesus. Which means he literally must have fell at his feet as one dead. Correct? (Rev. 1:17) And John is literally commanded by Christ to write the things which he saw, which are, and which shall be. (Rev. 1:19) Correct?

(Rev. 1:1-3) shows that the message to the seven churches, as well as the rest of the book, is to be considered as prophecy and signified by the angel of the Lord.

You say the visions of 'the prophecy' are given with symbols. By which you give a definition of symbol. It is, you say, 'beyond the literal sense'. Yet the Bible never uses the term 'symbol'. Least of all your definition of the term 'symbol' as contrast with 'literal'.

And, being in the spirit does not mean it is not literal. So, was John literally taken up into heaven and shown things that woud be hereafter? (Rev. 4:1-2)

Lees

 

[Arial]

Sideways? I haven't been talking sideways. Have you?

What is with all this misrepresentation in many of your posts?
I said sideways of each other. That does not mean either one of us is talking sideways. If you don't know what that means, ask.

You say 'now' John's description of Jesus was a vision. Yet in post #(127) you said they were not a vision.

What you said:

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?

What I said:

Were those things visions? No they were not. It is the visions that use symbolic language!

Stop misrepresenting what people say.

So, what made John's description of Jesus a vision? There is nothing to indicate it was a 'vision'. And how is John falling to the ground as one dead separated from what John saw? You say now he literally saw Jesus. Well and good. That is not a vision. That is the same thing Jesus told him also. (Rev. 1:20) "'which thou sawest in my right hand"

John's description of Jesus was a vision. His falling at Jesus' feet was not a vision. Did he literally see Jesus? I would say yes. And there were symbolic elements to what he saw,

So far your response has been in violation of rule 2.1 and 2.2. These courtesy cautions in red are to make the poster aware of how they are violating the rules, in an attempt to keep the forum from becoming contentious and unpleasant.

No. You claim the visions are where 'symbolic' language is used. Yet, there is nothing to indicate any vision in (Rev. 1:9-18), yet symbolic language is used.

They are visions.

The problem is what 'you' want to interpret as symbolical. You say in a vision. Yet there was no vision.

I interpret symbols as symbols wherever they occur. Do you think, if you were a skilled artist you could paint and accurate portrayal of Jesus by the descriptors given in 12-19? They are symbols. The fact that his appearance is depicted symbolically does not mean John did not really see him.

You say the visions of 'the prophecy' are given with symbols. By which you give a definition of symbol. It is, you say, 'beyond the literal sense'. Yet the Bible never uses the term 'symbol'. Least of all your definition of the term 'symbol' as contrast with 'literal'.

What do you think the word signified means? Look it up.

"He signified" (Rev 1:1) Strongs 4591 semaino




Usage: The Greek verb "sémainó" is used to convey the act of indicating or making something known, often through signs or symbols. In the New Testament, it is frequently used in contexts where a deeper or hidden meaning is revealed, often through divine or prophetic communication. It implies a form of communication that goes beyond mere words, often involving symbolic or metaphorical language.

I am not dealing with the rest as you are simply being argumentative instead of having a discussion. I suggest you alter your way of posting. A proper attitude towards others will make that possible.