Revelation … everything was written FOR the people living THEN?

[Josheb]

I find it odd that anyone can think John wrote a letter to seven churches that had nothing to do with them.

Seriously. That kind of denial is on the extreme side of delusional.

 

[Josheb]

Of course back in the 1800's it was only for those people who were alive.

LOL!

Oh, man, my sides hurt .

 

[Tambora]

The word is "literal" not "literary."

I said literary because that's what I meant.

 

[Tambora]

That is how exegesis and hermeneutics are supposed to function.

I doubt the Bible writers took hermeneutics classes before they wrote.

 

[Josheb]

I said literary because that's what I meant.

And I posted accordingly because that is what I meant. "Literary style" does not make something once contradictory later rational, and that is especially true of the first being last. Now, if you know of someone who thinks that is contradictory then, please, by all means, point out that person and I will join you explaining the lack of contradiction to them. Jesus was speaking to the disciples, and they were assured they'd be "first." First to be anointed, first to die, first to be enthroned......

.....after him, that is.

Matthew 20:17-19
As Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and on the way He said to them, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will hand Him over to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up."

But, , I cannot find that mentioned in Revelation, at all .

 

[Josheb]

I doubt the Bible writers took hermeneutics classes before they wrote.

I bet they did.

The Jews took turns reading Tanakh as a regular part of worship and listening and learning the rabbinical teachings was a common practice. Furthermore, Jesus spent every day/night of his earthly ministry teaching the scriptures to the twelve, and after his resurrection he spent forty days with them going through the scripture regarding how Tanakh testified about him. Then, at Pentecost, they were indwelt with the Holy Spirit specifically in a manner that empowered them to leave Jerusalem and present the gospel, reasoning through the scriptures, with others. Paul, especially, was a former Pharisee who had rigorously studied under Gamaliel, the greatest rabbinical teacher of that day. And it is believed John also served as a cleric of some sort because one of the ECFs mentions him wearing priestly garments. The author of Hebrews (which I, personally, believe was probably Barnabas) was clearly very studied regarding the Christological significance of Tanakh.

The fishermen, and the fishers of men, were not throwing darts at the scrolls to see what got stuck.

You might, therefore, want to reconsider that statement.

 

[atpollard]

I doubt the Bible writers took hermeneutics classes before they wrote.

Paul might have.

 

[makesends]

I doubt the Bible writers took hermeneutics classes before they wrote.

I don't expect you really think proper use of scripture is unimportant? That is all hermeneutics is about. It is common sense.

 

[makesends]

Paul might have.

Lol, I hadn't thought of that! You may be right!

 

[Lees]

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.

What you said:

What I said:

Stop misrepresenting what people say.


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.

They are visions.

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.

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.

We are not talking 'sideways' of each other. We disagree with each other.

Ok. So John did 'literally' see Jesus Christ. (Rev. 1:10-18) And John literally fell as dead at the feet of Jesus Christ. And the literal Jesus Christ laid His right hand upon John. (Rev. 1:17)

And concerning what John would be shown, (Rev. 1:1) "...and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:"

We are told, in (Rev. 22:8-9) John fell at the feet of the angel, and the angel warned him to not do it. "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant...."

But when John fell at Jesus feet, Jesus said no such thing. Which, I believe, makes (Rev. 1:10-18), not a vision, but was literally what John saw. When Jesus presented Himself to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, they did not recognize Him. (Luke: 24:16) "but their eyes were holden that they should not know him." Until their eyes were opened. (Luke 24:31) "And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight." That was no vision. It was what they saw. There is a difference.

And Jesus gave the understanding of the seven candlesticks and the seven churches to John. No need to ponder it's meaning. And to each of the 7 churches Jesus will attribute a characteristic found in (Rev. 1:10-18) of Himself as John saw, perfectly fitting to that church.

And the literal Jesus said, not by a vision, "Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter." (Rev. 1:19) And He gave to John what to write to each church. (Rev. 2:1) "Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write...." And to Smyrna write. (Rev. 2:8) And to Pergamos write. (Rev. 2:12) And to Thyatira write . (Rev. 2:18) And to Sardis, write. (Rev. 3:1) And to Philadelphia write. (Rev. 3:7) And to Laodicea write. (Rev. 3:14)

After John is finished with the 7 churches, he is literally taken up in spirit, to heaven, to be shown what comes hereafter. (Rev. 4:1-2) Correct?

Lees

 

[Arial]

After John is finished with the 7 churches, he is literally taken up in spirit, to heaven, to be shown what comes hereafter. (Rev. 4:1-2) Correct?

Thank you for toning it down.

We have already been over the things in your post, so I will not do so again. I will address this one point. The material I quote is from the Reformation Study Bible preview to the book of Revelation. I do this because it is more precise and contained (without wandering) than I would likely be able to do, and so you know that it is not just my own ideas and opinions. It will be in bold and in quotes.

"Date and Occasion of the Writing
Revelation was written during a time of persecution, probably near the end of the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68) or during the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96). Most scholars favor a date about A.D. 95.

It is addressed to seven churches in Asia Minor (1:4,11). Persecution had fallen on some Christians (1:9;2:9,13) and more was coming (2:10; 13:7-10). Roman officials would try to force Christians to worship the emperor. Heretical teachings and declining fervor tempted Christians to compromise with pagan society (2:2,4; 15:20-24; 3:1-2,15,17). Revelation assures Christians that Christ knows their condition and that he calls them to stand fast against all temptation. Their victory has been secured through the blood of the Lamb (5:9,10; 12:11). Christ will come soon to defeat Satan and all his agents (19:11-20; 10), and Christ's people will enjoy Everlasting peace in his presence (7:15-17; 21:3,4)."

The entire book is a letter and the above is what makes it pertinent to Christians of all generations.

A letter: "The prologue of Revelation (1:1-3) explains its basic purpose. Rev 1:4-22; 21 is a letter with a greeting (1:4-5) body (1:5-22:20) and farewell (22:21). The formal features of this common arrangement are also found in Paul's letters.

The main portion of the book (4:1-22:5) consists of seven cycles of judgments, each of which leads to a description of the Second Coming (4:1-8; 8:2-11; 19:11-21; 20:1-15). A final, eighth portion presents the supreme vision of the New Jerusalem (21:1-22:5). Each cycle is best understood as depicting the same spiritual war, but from a fresh vantage point. Later cycles concentrate more and more on the most intense phases of conflict and on the Second Coming itself.

The principle theme of Revelation is that God rules history and will bring it to a triumphal climax in Christ. At the center are the visions of Christ (1:12-16) and of God (4:1-5;14). God displays his Majesty, authority, and righteousness as the Ruler and Judge of the universe (1:12-20). These central visions already foreshadow the consummation of history, when Gods' glory will fill all things (21:22,23; 22:5; 4:1-5;14). Detailed elements in the visions flesh out these truths, and are to be seen as part of a larger picture. Revelation is thus a picture book, a dramatic presentation to enable Christians to have a God-centered view of history. It is not a puzzle book to serve as a source of mysterious calculations.

 

[Eleanor]

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...

You always see more than I do. . .

And, by "imminence" I don't mean to say we are on the cusp of his return.

Keeping in mind that it's not about "cusp," it's about there being no further action required prior thereto, which there is (2 Th 2:4), and which doesn't mean it still isn't another 2,000 years away.

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]

Arial said:
I find it odd that anyone can think John wrote a letter to seven churches that had nothing to do with them.

Seriously. That kind of denial is on the extreme side of delusional.

Not to disagree with the sentiment —that is, I agree it was indeed written to those seven churches— but coming from a background that —(and even though I rebelled against their constant 'spiritualizing' of scriptures)— saw these letters as for all of us, and for ongoing trends in Christendom, and/or even past trends sequentially, I have to say that it is intended for more than simply letters to those 7 churches, and could be actually written to others who can be identified by those characteristics described in that passage.

I don't think that attributing "the audience" to more than those 7, logically means that they are not written to those 7.

 

[Arial]

Arial said:
I find it odd that anyone can think John wrote a letter to seven churches that had nothing to do with them.

Not to disagree with the sentiment —that is, I agree it was indeed written to those seven churches— but coming from a background that —(and even though I rebelled against their constant 'spiritualizing' of scriptures)— saw these letters as for all of us, and for ongoing trends in Christendom, and/or even past trends sequentially, I have to say that it is intended for more than simply letters to those 7 churches, and could be actually written to others who can be identified by those characteristics described in that passage.

I don't think that attributing "the audience" to more than those 7, logically means that they are not written to those 7.

All due respect, no one that I know of is saying or has said that it is only FOR those seven churches. Rather we have said it is TO those seven churches. If it has made it into our canon, obviously it is FOR Christians of all generations. If it is TO those seven churches, it is also applicable and for the benefit of those seven churches. 1:9 identifies that they and John were going through tribulation, and they needed the encouragement and warnings given. So are we and so do we. "We" being Christians of all generations. As the little boy shouted after the final words of the book were read aloud to him. "We win!!"

 

[makesends]

All due respect, no one that I know of is saying or has said that it is only FOR those seven churches. Rather we have said it is TO those seven churches. If it has made it into our canon, obviously it is FOR Christians of all generations. If it is TO those seven churches, it is also applicable and for the benefit of those seven churches. 1:9 identifies that they and John were going through tribulation, and they needed the encouragement and warnings given. So are we and so do we. "We" being Christians of all generations. As the little boy shouted after the final words of the book were read aloud to him. "We win!!"

Lol, I agree heartily. So much so that I wondered to myself, "When did I write that?" and edited it to correct one of 'my' spelling errors!

 

[Lees]

Thank you for toning it down.

We have already been over the things in your post, so I will not do so again. I will address this one point. The material I quote is from the Reformation Study Bible preview to the book of Revelation. I do this because it is more precise and contained (without wandering) than I would likely be able to do, and so you know that it is not just my own ideas and opinions. It will be in bold and in quotes.

"Date and Occasion of the Writing
Revelation was written during a time of persecution, probably near the end of the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68) or during the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96). Most scholars favor a date about A.D. 95.

It is addressed to seven churches in Asia Minor (1:4,11). Persecution had fallen on some Christians (1:9;2:9,13) and more was coming (2:10; 13:7-10). Roman officials would try to force Christians to worship the emperor. Heretical teachings and declining fervor tempted Christians to compromise with pagan society (2:2,4; 15:20-24; 3:1-2,15,17). Revelation assures Christians that Christ knows their condition and that he calls them to stand fast against all temptation. Their victory has been secured through the blood of the Lamb (5:9,10; 12:11). Christ will come soon to defeat Satan and all his agents (19:11-20; 10), and Christ's people will enjoy Everlasting peace in his presence (7:15-17; 21:3,4)."

The entire book is a letter and the above is what makes it pertinent to Christians of all generations.

A letter: "The prologue of Revelation (1:1-3) explains its basic purpose. Rev 1:4-22; 21 is a letter with a greeting (1:4-5) body (1:5-22:20) and farewell (22:21). The formal features of this common arrangement are also found in Paul's letters.

The main portion of the book (4:1-22:5) consists of seven cycles of judgments, each of which leads to a description of the Second Coming (4:1-8; 8:2-11; 19:11-21; 20:1-15). A final, eighth portion presents the supreme vision of the New Jerusalem (21:1-22:5). Each cycle is best understood as depicting the same spiritual war, but from a fresh vantage point. Later cycles concentrate more and more on the most intense phases of conflict and on the Second Coming itself.

The principle theme of Revelation is that God rules history and will bring it to a triumphal climax in Christ. At the center are the visions of Christ (1:12-16) and of God (4:1-5;14). God displays his Majesty, authority, and righteousness as the Ruler and Judge of the universe (1:12-20). These central visions already foreshadow the consummation of history, when Gods' glory will fill all things (21:22,23; 22:5; 4:1-5;14). Detailed elements in the visions flesh out these truths, and are to be seen as part of a larger picture. Revelation is thus a picture book, a dramatic presentation to enable Christians to have a God-centered view of history. It is not a puzzle book to serve as a source of mysterious calculations.

{Edited for violating rule 2.1 and 2.2 disrespectful discourse.}

You say the principal theme of Revelation is that God rules history and will bring it to a triumphal climax in Christ. Who can argue with that? Could be said of the whole Bible. Very generic and general. It's like saying the theme of (Revelation) is that God loves us.

The letters to the 7 churches come under the heading of prophecy. (Rev. 1:3) "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy...." Which means the letters to the 7 churches are prophetic..

Were they really addressed to 7 churches in John's day? Of course they were. Did they pertain to the condition of the churches in John's day? Of course they did. Were they prophetic of the Church? Yes they were. Only 7 churches were chosen. Why...there were other churches? Because these churches had elements in them that will be found in all churches at various times. But they also distinguish certain a characteristic that defines them, that identifies a certain church age and provides a picture of the history of the Church from it's origin at Pentacost to it's being taken out of the earth at the Rapture. The seven churches in (Revelation) are prophetic of the march of the Church ages in it's history.

Thus, in the next to the last Church age, the church of Philadelphia, nothing is said negatively. And because of this Christ says, "Because thou hast kep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." (Rev. 3:10)

How does He keep them from the hour of temptation? He takes them out of the world. And then you have the church of (Laodicea). A nauseating church to God. Lukewarm. That He spews out of His mouth. (Rev. 3:16). You see? After the Raputre of the true Church, there will still be church on the earth. A church where Christ is no longer welcome on the inside, but is on the outside. (Rev. 3:20) "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him...."

And this perfectly aligns with John being taken up into heaven at the sound of a trumpet. (Rev. 4:1) The Church is in Heaven and the hour of temptation is come upon those on the earth.

Lees

 

[makesends]

Appears to be a 'nice way' of saying you won't address my post. That's fine.

Was there some reason she should reply in kind to non-toned-down posting? Drop it, man.

 

[Arial]

The letters to the 7 churches come under the heading of prophecy. (Rev. 1:3) "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy...." Which means the letters to the 7 churches are prophetic..

prophēteias prophecy
4394

prophecy, prophesying; the gift of communicating and enforcing revealed truth.



Usage: In the New Testament, "prophéteia" refers to the gift of communicating and enforcing revealed truth. It encompasses both the foretelling of future events and the forthtelling of God's will, often for the purpose of edification, exhortation, and comfort within the church.

But they also distinguish certain a characteristic that defines them, that identifies a certain church age and provides a picture of the history of the Church from it's origin at Pentacost to it's being taken out of the earth at the Rapture. The seven churches in (Revelation) are prophetic of the march of the Church ages in it's history.

There is no such thing as church ages. If you mean church history, past present and future, then it would be best to say that. When you say Rapture do you speak of a pre-trib rapture as dispensationism does? ANd that the church is not going to actually experience the "prophecy " given in Revelation? If so---those what is the point of the book? The seven of the seven churches is signifying completion---iow it applies to the church of all time til Christ returns. It was specific to them but the warnings and the encouragement apply to this age---the between the first and second coming.

Thus, in the next to the last Church age, the church of Philadelphia, nothing is said negatively. And because of this Christ says, "Because thou hast kep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." (Rev. 3:10)

OK. You really did mean church age. I challenge you to find any where in the NT where Jesus or the apostles spoke of church ages. They only ever speak of two ages. This age. And the age to come.

How does He keep them from the hour of temptation? He takes them out of the world. And then you have the church of (Laodicea). A nauseating church to God. Lukewarm. That He spews out of His mouth. (Rev. 3:16). You see? After the Raputre of the true Church, there will still be church on the earth. A church where Christ is no longer welcome on the inside, but is on the outside. (Rev. 3:20) "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him...."

Wow. I don't really know what to say so I will just ask a question: Where are you getting this from? A particular sect or church or are you making your own religion. I have never heard of such a thing and certainly I don't glean it from the scriptures themselves. It just isn't in them.

And now that I have responded to your post, even though you opened with a denial of having changed your ways, refusing even the kindness of a thank you, and continued posting in a disrespectful way: do you think you could actually address anything that was said (and they were not my words as you so condescendingly called them) in post #151.

 

[Lees]

prophēteias prophecy
4394

prophecy, prophesying; the gift of communicating and enforcing revealed truth.



Usage: In the New Testament, "prophéteia" refers to the gift of communicating and enforcing revealed truth. It encompasses both the foretelling of future events and the forthtelling of God's will, often for the purpose of edification, exhortation, and comfort within the church.

There is no such thing as church ages. If you mean church history, past present and future, then it would be best to say that. When you say Rapture do you speak of a pre-trib rapture as dispensationism does? ANd that the church is not going to actually experience the "prophecy " given in Revelation? If so---those what is the point of the book? The seven of the seven churches is signifying completion---iow it applies to the church of all time til Christ returns. It was specific to them but the warnings and the encouragement apply to this age---the between the first and second coming.

OK. You really did mean church age. I challenge you to find any where in the NT where Jesus or the apostles spoke of church ages. They only ever speak of two ages. This age. And the age to come.

Wow. I don't really know what to say so I will just ask a question: Where are you getting this from? A particular sect or church or are you making your own religion. I have never heard of such a thing and certainly I don't glean it from the scriptures themselves. It just isn't in them.

And now that I have responded to your post, even though you opened with a denial of having changed your ways, refusing even the kindness of a thank you, and continued posting in a disrespectful way: do you think you could actually address anything that was said (and they were not my words as you so condescendingly called them) in post #151.

As I said...prophetic. (Rev. 1:3) "...the words of this prophecy...."

I used the term church age. If you don't like the term, that is fine. Church periods of history. Though I dont see that phrase used either. That they indicate distinct periods of time in the history of the Church is the important thing, which I believe they do.

I have said before that I am dispensational and pre-trib. (Revelation) involves not just the Church. It involves unbelieving Israel and the unbelieving Gentiles, and the Judgement that is to come upon the world. (Rev. 3:10) "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."

You say it applies to the Church of all time. But, I believe the Church did not begin until Pentecost and is taken out of this world at the Rapture. In other words, the Old Testament is equally important to me as the New Testament, though I do not see the Church directly in the Old Testament. And those parts of the book of (Revelation) that are not involving the Church are equally important to me.

I believe I am showing in Scripture where I get this from. I have said I am dispensational, pre-trib, rapture....all of it. But that is still a broad classification. But that is from where I approach the Bible. In other words, from what I read of your views, you are not dispensational. But, in actuality you are to a degree, as everyone is to a degree. If your Bible contains the Old and New Testament, which of course it does, then you recognize two dispensations. The Old and the New. It's just that other dispensationalist's recognize more than just two. But, I understand what you mean when you reject 'dispensationalism'.

I said in post #(156) 'You said'. I assume that is what you're addressing when you say 'they were not my words'. If so, yes, I knew they were not your words. But you presented them as you are in agreement with them.

It's difficult enough on a forum when discussing volatile topics, to keep up with who said what and address it accordingly, without introducing an article by someone else that I am supposed to address also. In other words we could just give each other a book list and say read this and get back with me.

My opinion.

Lees

 

[EarlyActs]

Revelation was a warning that a soon coming first century persecution was coming but also a promise that Jesus would walk through it with them and that the church would prevail and flourish

Revelation was written to the saints of the first century but it is also for us today an instruction to remain faithful and that we will be virtuous

Yes, the first page says so twice.