Will the Jews build a Third Temple?

[Josheb]

Greetings again Josheb,

I consider that the list is correct. All of these commentators accepted that the first four Seals were judgements on the Pagan Roman Empire. They did not accept the concept that the first four Seals were fulfilled in the events surrounding AD 70, and they did not believe that the first four Seals were future from thier own time.

None of which means their views were Christadelphian OR that Christadelphian eschatology is identical to those on the list. The argument is factually untrue and logically a fallacy of false equivalence.

If the faithful are upon the earth during the 1000 years and they are WITH Jesus, then Jesus is also upon the earth in His Kingdom during the 1000 years. We may differ in the sequence of events surrounding the return of Jesus to the earth near the beginning of the Kingdom. One of our expositors from another Australian State gave four talks about his understanding of the events before and after the return of Jesus at a local Ecclesia in our area, and I have only last week listened to these talks. They were very interesting and I agree with much of what he elaborated, but not every detail.

I can with some reserve agree here.

Then abandon Christadelphian eschatology.

No, I do not agree.

Sadly, it's not up for disagreement. Historical Premillennialism is demonstrably different than the modern futurists/premillennialisms of the 19th century. HERE is a chart, developed by a Dispensational Premillennialist (a source favorable to your point of view, not mine) that accurately shows many (but not all) of the differences. The facts of Historicisms differences with the more modern iterations are facts, not matters with which disagreement can or should occur.

And the point originally made is this: they lied to you when appeals of similarity were made. Dispensationalists do this a lot. They say "dispensations" were written about going all the way back to the ECFs BUT what they do not tell anyone is that the ECFs always used the word "oukinomia" or "dispensation" in the context of covenant and NEVER separated the two or treated dispensations as lacking continuity. In other words, Dispensational apologists assert a false equivalence based on a lie of omission. Christadelphian apologists do the exact same thing when they conflate all premillennialisms and ignore the difference between Historicism and the modern 19th century versions. Anyone who has actually read the ECFs KNOWS what I just posted is true and anyone who does not already know it has no business disputing it unless and until they have read the ECFs and verified the facts for themselves.

No, I do not agree.

Think that through. The essence of your dissent is "God wants what He has explicitly stated He does not want."

The options here are very limited. Either...

god is nuts and not God,
god does not know his own mind (making him not God),
god changed his mind when he's made it very clear he does not change his mind (Num. 23:19), making himself out to be a liar,
god lied and said he did not want something when he sincerely did want it (again making him not God),
god was only jesting and let his people believe a joke for multiple millennia (again calling into question any rational claim of God),
OR God is who and what He states He is, and He meant exactly what He said when He said it when the whole of scripture is taken to speak with one single voice on every matter.

Either way, the problem is entirely on the side of the Christadelphian eschatology BUT in this case the problem reaches beyond eschatology to soteriology and Theology (because all of these X, y, and Zs are inherently Christological and soteriological, not just eschatological). You are going to end up saying, "Christadelphians believe in a different God and a different salvation, not just a different eschatology." And since that Theology, Christology, soteriology, and eschatology was all invented by John Thomas (not those previously listed in the earlier list), the inescapable necessary conclusion is "I follow a religion invented in the 19th century that is radically different than everything held before in both Judaism and Christianity. I believe god can and does change his mind, lie, and/or at times say things he does not mean, and I do so because I follow the teachings of John Thomas."

.

Yes, Revelation 21 states this, but it is implied in the following...

No, it does no imply any such thing. The ONLY reason that implication is seen is because of already-existing biases. Reading the text exactly as written - the WHOLE text - it teaches Jesus is seated in heaven commanding events that take place in the heavens and on earth while he remains seated in heaven and it is not until chapter 21-22 that he comes down from heaven to earth.

NOTHING is "implied."

Stop reading implications into the book that explicitly tells you NOT to add or subtract from its words. Do not add "implied."

I do not have a clue about your term "Watsonism".

My mistake. I meant "Thomasism." You follow the teachings of John Thomas, not Jesus.

The book of Revelation is unique in comparison to every other book in the Bible. It shares a lot of similarities with other books, but Revelation alone is the revelation of Jesus Christ revealed to John and we're told not to add to or subtract from it. That prohibitive statement instantly rules out ALL the teachings of EVERYONE AND ANYONE who dares to add their "interpretation" to the revelation of Revelation.

That would include John Thomas.

And I am encouraging you to be honest with yourself, not just me and the other posters here.

 

[Josheb]

Do you believe that the faithful will be Kings and Priests on the earth, but Jesus will still be in heaven?

I believe scripture answers that question for us, so my answer to the question is meaningless if it departs from what God has already said. I believe the question betrays you because it indicates you do not know the answer scripture itself explicitly states. I also believe this is going to be an instantly critical moment for you because you are either going to have to side with scripture, or John Thomas because the answer to this question is contradictory to Thomas' eschatology.

1 Peter 2:4-10
As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in Scripture: “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.” So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

According to Peter, those who are sanctified of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood (vs. 1:1) are already royal priests (kings and priests) AND he wrote that inspired by Jesus while Jesus is reigning in heaven.

AND I know I have already covered this content with you, so I also know 1) I am being asked a question I have already answered directly to you, and therefore,

YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION​

and not believing scripture as written.

• Briefly, (because I have covered all of this previously with you), God always combined the two (king and priest) and it was disobedient humans that divided the two. The first noted "king and priest" in scripture is Melchizedek. He is the king of Salam and a High Priest of God. He is a king and priest. He is the king AND the priest of the city of peace ("salem" means peace). Salem eventually become Jerusalem (jeru = city; "salem" = peace).
• When God summoned Moses at the burning bush God wanted Moses to go alone back to Egypt; He wanted Moses to be both civil and religious rule and guide for the covenant descendants of Abraham. Moses refused, creating excuses for why he should not have to speak for God and have to go. As a consequence, the two roles were split with Moses becoming the civic rule and his brother Aaron becoming the forerunner of the Levitical priesthood. God wanted the unified role.
• The divided roles and rules persisted until the era of the Judges, when God established a civic and religious authority where the two roles were re-united. Judges were kings and priests.
• The Judges failed because 1) they were imperfect men and women and 2) Israel was chronically faithless and disobedient. As a consequence, the people of Israel petitioned God for a king like all the other nations (1 Sam. 8). God told explicitly and unabashedly them 1) He did NOT want them to have a king like all the other nations and 2) He took their request as a rejection of God as their king. But God acquiesced and gave the Israelites a "second best." The monarchy and the priesthood were again separated.
• This persisted until Jesus showed up. I know Christadelphianism denies the deity of Christ and the existence of literal demons, but that is immaterial for the point being made. Jesus is repeatedly described in the gospels as having authority over both civil and religious rule, and after his resurrection (but prior to his ascension) he explicitly states ALL power and authority has been given to him (Mt. 28:18), and he in turn gave it to the eleven. The epistolary then proceeds to describe how Jesus is the rule above all other rule (that would include both civil and religious rules - Eph. 1:20-21). He is the ONLY sovereign, and king of kings and lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15), and Rev. 19:16 he wears a robe declaring that title........... long before the thousand years of Revelation 20 begins. In the book of Hebrews the author tells us Jesus is the great High Priest in the order of Melchizedek, an order far superior to that of the Levitical order. Mel was BOTH king and priest. Jesus is BOTH king and priest AND HE DOES NOT NEED TO BE ON EARTH TO BE BOTH KING AND PRIEST.
• We, those who believe in the name of God's only resurrected Son are both kings and priests. In Peter's words, we are "royal" priests. Paul explicitly stated we are the temple of God in which God dwells (1 Corinthians 3:16). One of the OT prophecies the NT writers are referencing when they make these claims is Exodus 19:6, God's promise to make His people a nation of priests. We are it. In Ephesians 3 Paul wrote that all of it was intended as a witness of God's wisdom to those in the heavenly realm. In other words, those here on earth bear witness to those in heaven.

The answer to your question is 1 Peter 2:9.

So...

PAY ATTENTION!

Exodus 19:5-6
"Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel.

1 Peter 2:7-10
So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.” But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Revelation 5:9-10
And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth."

The only reason people stumble over Rev. 5:10 is because they do not believe 1 Pet. 2:9 exactly as written.

So why did you not know the answer to the question before asking it (or was this some kind of trick, a disingenuously asked question?)?
Do you now believe God's word exactly as written, or still choose to ideologically side with John Thomas' views that were invented in the 19th century?

Either way, the fact of scripture is Revelation does not explicitly report Jesus coming to earth until chapter 21-22. He's not on earth in chapter 5, chapter, 10, chapter 12, chapter 19, or chapter 20.

Adjust your thinking, your doctrine, and your practice accordingly.

 

[EarlyActs]

Of course I meant a Greek grammar commentary that says “this” is not the resurrection. There is no other way to establish your point.

The above post was especially for Trevor. The only antecedent there is the resurrection. It's just that it is not the kind of kingdom expected, partly by reading the OT as Judaism did. This the question of the mystery, or the hiddenness of the meaning, Romans 16's final paragraph. It was embedded there.

 

[EarlyActs]

The first half of Acts has some 20 quotes of the OT about these things; these quotes and usages of the OT are the very closest we can get to the 40 days of teaching. Other than the one about the replaced apostle, none sound like the system that Trevor is using which is mostly the futurist dispensationalism of Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, Lindsey, Walvoord. They truly have an entirely different framework. It is certainly not literalism, because Christ and his accomplishment are the central idea.

Oddly when that is touched on by dispensationalism, as in Dan 9:24, it is treated as something future as well, instead of in a normal sense of what took place in 490 years. One teacher I know says 'Israel's sins will be atoned for in a future event.'

 

[Josheb]

None...NONE...NONE...of the judgements presented in Revelation have happened yet. NONE.

You're moving the goal posts again.

The original statement said nothing about "judgments."

Post 295 asks you to speak to the problems and Post 298 ignores the request in favor of a completely dishonest move of the goal posts that indicates the truth of Post 295. You will not acknowledge the mistake made in the original claim. You will not be consistent with a corrected or amended claim, and you're not sincerely interested in the answers to any of your questions (yet you expect us to play along with that subterfuge).

Revelation 1:19
Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.

Some of Revelation has occurred.

Say it.

 

[Josheb]

I believe the better translations of this Revelation 5:10 verse read a bit differently, as in "We shall reign OVER the earth".

I do not care and you're wrong.

The Greek word is "epi." It is a very common prefix in English and in Greek its definition is not "over." However, you are playing into their trap. When you collaborate with competing "interpretations" you've already lost the conversation. At best what you will accomplish is some explanation of your interpretation versus the other person's interpretation, and only fools did not realize that is what the entire debate is about. All that happens with competing interpretations is the enacting, the acting out, of the dance that divided everyone before the op was posted.

My efforts are always (usually) to work with what is explicitly stated, and NOT with inferences, implications and/or doctrines.


Post 299 does NOTHING for @TrevorL's inquiry, and it pits his belief against yours. You go have that conversation with Trevor, not me. The answer to his question is 1 Peter 2:9, regardless of his beliefs, your beliefs, or my beliefs. That which is explicitly stated in both verses, and that which is not stated is objectively verifiable and not a function of interpretation. The only belief relevant is

Do I believe what Peter stated exactly as written?

If the answer is "Yes," then any and all eschatologies denying the existence of a royal priesthood, of kings and priests on the earth right now while Jesus is still in heaven is wrong. The label of the ~ism is irrelevant. If the answer is "No," then there's no sense trying to have a conversation with anyone who denies what is explicitly stated in scripture. Every end times board in every Christian forum is filled with never-decided threads and one of the chief reasons that happens is because few start with what is stated and most deny it when read. The most commonly occurring problem, however, is modern futurists bait others into the trap of competing biases. Don't let them do that to you again.

You, @3 Resurrections, could probably answer every single, "When did that happen?" @CrowCross could ever ask and where you can't I can fill in most of the gaps. But you and I also both know it will not make any difference. The problem is not one of information. The problem is one of ideology.

 

[CrowCross]

You're moving the goal posts again.

Not really. You're just not very convincing.

 

[CrowCross]

You, @3 Resurrections, could probably answer every single, "When did that happen?" @CrowCross could ever ask and where you can't I can fill in most of the gaps. But you and I also both know it will not make any difference. The problem is not one of information. The problem is one of ideology.

If the world went through such destruction as Revelations presents...believe me, we would all know about it previously happening.

I don't think God would have left that "fulfilled prophecy" go to such waste.

But then again Revelation is future.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Josheb, 3 Resurrections and CrowCross,

Sadly, it's not up for disagreement. Historical Premillennialism is demonstrably different than the modern futurists/premillennialisms of the 19th century. HERE is a chart, developed by a Dispensational Premillennialist (a source favorable to your point of view, not mine) that accurately shows many (but not all) of the differences. The facts of Historicisms differences with the more modern iterations are facts, not matters with which disagreement can or should occur.

My beliefs are much closer to column 2 and I disagree with much of column 1.

I believe the better translations of this Revelation 5:10 verse read a bit differently, as in "We shall reign OVER the earth"

The Greek word is "epi." It is a very common prefix in English and in Greek its definition is not "over."

I endorse "on" not "over".

If the world went through such destruction as Revelations presents...believe me, we would all know about it previously happening.
I don't think God would have left that "fulfilled prophecy" go to such waste.
But then again Revelation is future.

You seem to understand the many messages of Revelation as literal. They are symbolic.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Josheb]

Not really.

Yes, really.

You're just not very convincing.

It has nothing to do with me.

AND.... once again, the salient matters have been avoided.

 

[Josheb]

If the world went through such destruction as Revelations presents...

Where does Revelation say the whole world will go through destruction?

believe me, we would all know about it previously happening.

Some of us do. It's only those subscribing to a set of 19th century man-made doctrines that do not.

I don't think God would have left that "fulfilled prophecy" go to such waste.

Who said anything went to waste? You're pulling out a lot of fallacies here in Post 308.

But then again Revelation is future.

Prove it.

AND..... once again, the salient matters have been avoided.

 

[EarlyActs]

Trevor, I wasn’t clear about about the antecedent of this. I said it was the resurrection, but it was the Davidic enthronement . That’s what occurred in the resurrection. One cog off.

Clearly the Davidic took place in the resurrection. There is no other meaning possible. And the emphatic points of the speech say this.

 

[Josheb]

Greetings again Josheb, 3 Resurrections and CrowCross,

My beliefs are much closer to column 2 and I disagree with much of column 1.

That is good. It does not change the fact Revelation never explicitly reports Jesus is physically on earth until chapters 21-22. ALL premillennialism is, therefore, wrong. The entire end-times doctrine is made entirely from inference. ALL of the premillennialisms have this exact same problem (or set of problems).

They all read inferences of physical presence on earth into the scriptures where none is stated.
They select individual verses out from other texts (like Zec. 14:4) and eisegetically splice them together to make both the original text and the text into which the splice is made say things they do not actually state.
They ignore what is plainly stated and the plain reading of various texts that would preclude the inferences (rank assumptions) from being correct.
Basic principles of exegesis (like original meaning, literal reading, audience affiliation, and temporal markers to name only a few) are ignored.
Two centuries worth of false teachers, those who have demonstrably been proven in correct, those who have a 100% fail rate are followed instead of scripture plainly read as written.
Protests boil down to post hoc fallacy or ad hominem, red herring, and straw man (with the exception of the straw man, you @TrevorL, have been the exception to the rule).
When a better alternative is provided the idolatrous, ideological allegiance persists and scripture is subjected to doctrine instead of doctrine submitted to scripture.

I endorse "on" not "over".

Good, but it is irrelevant. The fact is the texts you cited say the saints rule, not Jesus is physically living on the earth.

No mention of Jesus.
No mention of Jesus.
No mention of Jesus.
No mention of Jesus.
No mention of Jesus.
No mention of Jesus.
No mention of Jesus.
No mention of Jesus.
No mention of Jesus.
No mention of Jesus.
No mention of Jesus.

This is apparent in the verse itself. This is self-evident. But the premillennialists reads in the verse anyway. It doesn't exist but it is read anyway. It does not exist but the non-existent words are read anyway and no amount of pointing to the absence will cause the premil to see what is written and only what is written.

You seem to understand the many messages of Revelation as literal. They are symbolic.

Straw man. Now we are back to the hogwash of Post 257.

I do not "seem" to do any of that, and YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION. Whether literal, figurative, metaphorical, symbolic, or allegorical the fact remains Jesus is never stated to be on earth until chapters 21-22. As a prophetic apocalypse, the book of Revelation employs a variety of literary devices. It is the premillennialist who ignores them. They do not read the literal literally and they don't read the allegorical allegorically. They ignore the basic principles of exegesis and make the scriptures fit their doctrine, rather than the other way around. This is moct evident in the fact they read Jesus physically on earth when/where the verses they cite never state any such thing, and on the rare occasion where some verse outside of Revelation is employed it is ripped from its surrounding text because the surrounding text precludes the premillennialists' abuse of the verse. ALL of this premillennial abuse is on record in this thread.


Acts 2:30-31 is an example of the New Testament writers use of allegory. It is the New Testament writer and the apostle Peter who both testify to the fact the promise of a throne was not literally a physical chair but, instead, something hidden for ages: a man would return from the grave, defeat sin and death, and thereby gain ascendance over all other rule, power, and authority but his Father's.

Please do not misrepresent my views again. If something I have posted is not understood then ask, don't tell.

"Josh, do you think many messages of Revelation are literal?"​

"I do not know what you mean by 'many,' but there are over 400 verses in the book of Revelation, many of which are literal and should be read literally in accordance with the first rule of exegesis: read the text exactly as written with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage... unless there is something in the text itself providing reason to do otherwise. There is plenty in Revelation providing reason to do otherwise BUT in nearly all such occasions the first place to look for an explanation is other scripture. The book of Revelation employs a variety of literary devices including, but not limited to, first century figures of speech, metaphors that were understood by the original first century readers, as well as symbolism that was also understood by the original readers. There are more than 340 references to the Old Testament in the book of Revelation (John was one of the most "Jewish" of the NT writers) and..... nothing written in Revelation can or does contradict the while of scripture (like Psalm 110:1)."​

Most importantly, Revelation does not report Jesus being on earth until chapter 21, and that is true of a literal reading, a figurative reading, a symbolic reading, and allegorical reading and every other type of reading.

He does not come to earth until chapter 21 and chapter 21 is after the one thousand years of Revelation 20. It is post-millennial. The sad irony of your misguided claim is that Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Idealism all agree: the one thousand years i not literal!

You seem to understand the many messages of Revelation as literal.

The thousand years is not literal.


Jesus is NOW king of all kings and lord of all lords and high priest above all others and there will never be a time when is not preeminent. He has been king, lord, and high priest for two millennia already. If he did come to earth for one thousand fixed and finite years, he would still be king/lord/high priest before doing so, the entire time while doing so, AND for millennia of millennia afterwards. It is the premillennialist who has a misguided understanding of what is literal and what is not.

In other words, man-made doctrines are unnecessary. All you need is a Bible and the use of your God-given faculties of reason guided by His Spirit. Logic tells us the one thousand years is not literal because Jesus is reported throughout the entire NT to already have been King, Lord, and Priest. ANYONE WHO IS NOT PRETERIST MUST RECONCILE THAT FACT WITH THEIR ADDITION-ADDING MAN-MADE DOCTRINE!!

Premillennialist: "Jesus is king for one thousand years."[/i]​

The Bible: "Jesus has already been King for two millennia and he will be king until the new city of peace comes down out of heaven."[/i]​

There are huge contradictions between all premillennialisms and scripture, and they are not being engaged in this thread. The Jews will not build another temple, and even if they do it will have absolutely nothing to do with Christian eschatology. We're NOT Jews and reading Tanakh literally where the New Testament instructs us not to do so (like Jn. 2:21, Acts 2:31, and Gal. 3:16, to name only a few examples) is a mistake. Judaizing Christian eschatology with temples and monarchies and dependence on Israel is disobedience (and irrational) and borders on the idolatrous.

 

[Josheb]

Trevor, I wasn’t clear about about the antecedent of this. I said it was the resurrection, but it was the Davidic enthronement . That’s what occurred in the resurrection. One cog off.

Clearly the Davidic took place in the resurrection. There is no other meaning possible. And the emphatic points of the speech say this.

And scripture explicitly states this.

Acts 2:29-35
“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being therefore a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”’

When God promised to set one of David's descendants on his throne God was speaking of the resurrection and Jesus not decaying in the grave. That is exactly what is explicitly stated and that is NOT a matter of interpretation. The promised throne is the resurrection.

And all these premils have had this shown to them countless times. They will NOT believe this passage. If they did then all premillennialisms would have to be abandoned. Instead, we have Zionists, Dispensationalists, Historicists, and Christadelphians collaborating to defend a set of end-times doctrines that blatantly contradict the fact of scripture: Jesus is NOW already King, Lord, and High Priest with all rule, power, and authority. He's been that guy for more than two millennia already.

 

[CrowCross]

You seem to understand the many messages of Revelation as literal. They are symbolic.

Yes, some is symbolic...such as the lampstands in Rev 1. But some will be literal such as the mark in Rev 13.

The trumpets in Rev 8 seem to be somewhat of a mixture....and to this day haven't happened yet.

You do understand that all of Revelation isn't purely symbolic?

 

[CrowCross]

Where does Revelation say the whole world will go through destruction?

Many places...here's one.....7Then the first angel sounded his trumpet, and hail and fire mixed with blood were hurled down upon the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, along with a third of the trees and all the green grass.

Some of us do. It's only those subscribing to a set of 19th century man-made doctrines that do not.

Some of you do? OK. If Revelation was fulfilled...such world wide disaster I think history would have reorded it. Perhaps similuarly to how the world wide flood of Noah was reorded.

Who said anything went to waste? You're pulling out a lot of fallacies here in Post 308.

Prove it.

That's easy.....show me where history has recorded the events mentioned in the book of Revelation.

AND..... once again, the salient matters have been avoided.

 

[Josheb]

Many places...here's one.....7Then the first angel sounded his trumpet, and hail and fire mixed with blood were hurled down upon the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, along with a third of the trees and all the green grass.

That says a third of the earth, not the whole world.

So, you either cannot tell the difference between a third and a whole, or you're deliberately making the verse say things it does not actually state. You should be asking yourself why it is you make scripture say things it does not actually state AND why you do it so frequently and without your conscience piquing you when it happens. Do not follow teachers who teach you to abuse God's word. You do not owe them any allegiance.

And use your brain. Logic is your friend, a gift from God. Think for a few minutes what it would literally be like if a literal third of the earth was burned up. What kind of hail, specifically, causes fire. Hail is frozen water, not fire. The text states hail (frozen water) and fire mixed with blood were hurled on the earth. How did the blood not evaporate in the heat of a fire so intense it burned through our atmosphere and burned up a third of the earth? Do you think John literally meant literal hail and literal fire and literal blood? 71% of the earth is water, not land. Only 29% is land. Of that 29% there are no trees in any of the deserts or above any of the tree lines throughout the world. I could not find an exact measure, but the estimates are that only 30% of the earth has trees. In other words, only 30% of the 29% has trees on it. If a third of the world were literally burned up then it is a very real possibility all the trees would be destroyed.

Have you ever put a smidgen of thought into what it would mean if there were no trees on the planet?

Aside from all the deaths due to fire, the lack of oxygen and the failure of the trees to absorb toxins like carbon dioxide, would render ALL life on earth dead within a very short time. Not a third of the earth, but ALL of it. Not even eight people would survive. The entire planet's ecosystem would be destroyed.

IS that what you read the Bible to teach? God will destroy His own creation so violently every single human on the planet will die. It won't matter whether they are Christian, Jew, Buddhist, or Outer Slabhavian. With the earth's atmosphere gone no one would survive.

Revelation 7:13-14
Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?" I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

That would be a logical impossibility. There could be no survivors of that kind of tribulation in which a fire covering a third of the earth destroys the earths entire ecosystem. We're supposed to use our God-given brains when we read God's word.

1. The verse you cited does not state "whole world."
2. If the verse was taken literally, then all life on the entire planet would be destroyed.

Both possibilities prove the verse is being abused.

You were asked, "Where does Revelation say the whole world will go through destruction?" and tried to argue Rev. 8:7 is such a verse. Not only does the verse state a third of the earth.... but Jesus is in heaven when that happens.

Some of you do? OK. If Revelation was fulfilled...such world wide disaster I think history would have reorded it.

Why? Why would you think history would have recorded it? Why would you trust that history? It's not scripture. That history would be extra-biblical information. Every time anyone in any of these thread posts any extra-biblical facts of history you ignore it or deny its relevance, validity, and veracity. Your entire existence in the eschatology boards is self-contradictory! You cannot ask for evidence and then deny it.

The obvious fact to every Christian is that the entire world has changed since the ends of the ages fell upon the early church. The gospel has been preached throughout all creation and Christians predominate the world - the world that once violently persecuted and prosecuted them. No one is dipping live Christians in pitch and lighting them afire as streetlights.

The world has changed, and it has changed because of Christ.

Perhaps similuarly to how the world wide flood of Noah was reorded.

No, it would have to be worse than the flood of Noah. According to premillennialists the great tribulation will be the worst thing ever. Less than eight people will survive and all animal life except LESS THAN seven pairs of clean animals and only one pair of unclean animals will survive. Any survival greater than that is contradictory to the premillennial reading of Matthew 24:21 and the premillennialists will have again contradicted his own doctrine.

That's easy.....show me where history has recorded the events mentioned in the book of Revelation.

No, many people have showed you many times where various events have come true and you deny them all. Your question is dishonest. You're also shifting the onus. You are supposed to be proving Revelation hasn't happened. You're supposed to be proving Jesus is NOT King f Kings. You are supposed to be proving there is nothing in Revelation qualifying within the first two measures of Revelation 1:19. You're supposed to be proving Jesus was wrong when he told John to write down the things he'd seen and things that were. You're supposed to be proving Jesus was not born of a woman and then taken up by God to his throne.

You are supposed to be proving your claim, not asking anyone else to prove theirs.

 

[CrowCross]

Why? Why would you think history would have recorded it?

I honestly can't believe you're asking this question. Seriously. How would history not record such an event(s)

Until those that claim Rev has already happened...preterist...untill you can show me historical records of such a world wide tribulation...you'll never convince me.

No, it would have to be worse than the flood of Noah. According to premillennialists the great tribulation will be the worst thing ever. Less than eight people will survive

Is the tribulation about survival? In fact when Jesus returns it will be like the days of Noah. There are many rabbit holes to go down on this issue....but of course your rabbit hole is the only correct possibility.

 

[CrowCross]

That says a third of the earth, not the whole world.

The earth is the whole world.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The earth is the whole world.

Not always, and not even most of the time in scripture, either.

God often spoke of the land of Israel as "the earth" or "the land" (tes ges), even addressing the earth personally, as in Jeremiah 22:29. "O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the Lord..." "The earth" (tes ges) being addressed was the land of Judah, where Coniah was going to want to return to his own homeland, but would be left to die in another country instead.

God again addresses "His land" of Israel and His people in Joel 2:18- 21, saying "Fear not, O land;" (ge) "be glad and rejoice: for the Lord will do great things." This was a particular blessing that was coming for the inhabitants of the land of Israel and its people.