Jump to content


The Book of Revelation contains Historical events prior to AD 96?


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_composer_*

Guest_composer_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 March 2008 - 10:16 PM

On another Forum I wrote -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian_Composer
No! - Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, (Rev. 1: 3) KJV

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 signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. (Rev. 1:1 - 2) KJV

IF John had already seen it then a) It wouldn't be a revelation. b) It wouldn't be prophesy, it would be some history. c) This was a Revelation given to Christ's servant's. John, being a Servant of Christ could not be given this information / revelation if he had already ' seen it previously '. d) What john was asked to record was ' what he saw as the Revelation was unfolded before him '.[/quote]
The respondent replied -

Ειδες is in the past tense. Thus, Jesus is revealing the things hidden from the beginning of time to the end of time.

That is the purpose of the Book of Revelation; to integrate the Holy Bible from start to finish...and this is exactly what it does by referencing numerous books and repeating the same theme over, and over again with varying metaphors...

CA comments please (those familiar with Greek also please?)

#2 Flappie

Flappie

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 7,643 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 18 March 2008 - 11:30 PM

Does he mean Ειδες in Rev 1:19?
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#3 Guest_composer_*

Guest_composer_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 March 2008 - 11:35 PM

Does he mean Ειδες in Rev 1:19?

They didn't specify but I think so, I could ask (I shall)

#4 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,737 posts

Posted 19 March 2008 - 09:06 AM

Does he mean Ειδες in Rev 1:19?

They didn't specify but I think so, I could ask (I shall)


It shouldn't matter as he has already seen a vision (Rev 1:10-16) which would justify the usage of edio...

#5 Guest_composer_*

Guest_composer_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 March 2008 - 09:14 PM

Does he mean Ειδες in Rev 1:19?

They didn't specify but I think so, I could ask (I shall)


It shouldn't matter as he has already seen a vision (Rev 1:10-16) which would justify the usage of edio...

Apple Pie writes:

ειδες is in the perfect tense (i.e completed)...thus, this is a past event...
This is his justification that the Book of Revelation pertains to Historical events that have as such already occurred so the Book of Revelation . . . shortly come to pass . . . (Rev. 1: 1) is basically misleading.

He refuses to come here and discuss with other Greek speakers.

He said for them to go to him.

http://community.bel...ed=1#post371481

Can any one help please?

Composer

#6 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,737 posts

Posted 21 March 2008 - 07:52 AM

Does he mean Ειδες in Rev 1:19?

They didn't specify but I think so, I could ask (I shall)


It shouldn't matter as he has already seen a vision (Rev 1:10-16) which would justify the usage of edio...

Apple Pie writes:

ειδες is in the perfect tense (i.e completed)...thus, this is a past event...
This is his justification that the Book of Revelation pertains to Historical events that have as such already occurred so the Book of Revelation . . . shortly come to pass . . . (Rev. 1: 1) is basically misleading.

He refuses to come here and discuss with other Greek speakers.

He said for them to go to him.

http://community.bel...ed=1#post371481

Can any one help please?

Composer


"ειδες is in the perfect tense (i.e completed)...thus, this is a past event..." According to the lexicons it is in the second aorist, which essentially means it indicates completed action in the past. In my e-Sword it lists the word as:

V-2AAI-2S

Second aorist
Active
Indicative
Second person Singular

According to what I've read (ie. very little in comparison to others), this is in the sense of the immediate past, not in the ancient past....

Perhaps others (Fort, Steven etc) could be of more help.

#7 Guest_Corky_*

Guest_Corky_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 March 2008 - 10:30 AM

The book of Revelation is about the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 AD. It is further about the return of Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom immediately after the fall of Jerusalem. The Revelation was given to Jesus from God to give to his servants.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him (Jesus), to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he (Jesus) sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: 2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. (Rev. 1:1 - 2) KJV

Jesus did not know the day or hour of his return while on earth but only that it would be within "this generation" of 1900+ years ago. But now, Jesus had the Revelation (from God) of when his return would be and it would be immediately or i.e. "quickly" from the time of the writing of it by John. Therefore, as predicted in the gospel of John, John did live to see the return of Christ.

If you know who "Satan" is, and Satan is bound and this corresponds with the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, then it will all make sense. Satan in the Revelation is the Jews, the accuser of the brethren. They have been "released" from the bottomless pit since 1948, by the way. Question is, are they setting about to deceive the nations once again? Yes, they are! Which means the consummation of the ages is very near and the resurrection at the end of the "thousand years" is very near too.

The key to understanding the Revelation is to believe that it is "things which must shortly come to pass" and not "begin" to come to pass as some people like to add words to the prophecy in spite of the warning not to do so. You must understand that Mystery Babylon is Jerusalem or the whole prophecy makes no sense whatsoever.

#8 Guest_composer_*

Guest_composer_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 March 2008 - 03:34 PM

. . . Therefore, as predicted in the gospel of John, John did live to see the return of Christ.

You are saying (are you) that when Christ appeared in the upper room, that this constitutes his return to Judge the earth?

#9 Guest_Corky_*

Guest_Corky_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 March 2008 - 10:32 AM

. . . Therefore, as predicted in the gospel of John, John did live to see the return of Christ.

You are saying (are you) that when Christ appeared in the upper room, that this constitutes his return to Judge the earth?




No, His return, or rather, Parousia (presence) was at the judgment and destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the earthly priesthood in 70 AD. This began the "thousand year" (symbolic time period of indefinite length) reign from Jerusalem "which is above" (Gal. 4:26).

As Peter said, "the end of all things is at hand", meaning the "elements" of the world which would "melt with fervent heat". The elements of the world is the physical law with the Levitical priesthood (Gal. 4:3, 9; 2Pet. 3:10, 12).

After the passing away of the old "heaven and earth" (symbolic of the temple and Priesthood, ie. the rulers and the ruled - that is, the old system of things under the law and earthly Jewish priesthood) comes the new heaven and earth - a new system with a new priesthood (Jesus Christ) who reigns over the earth from Jerusalem which is above through the word we call the New Testament.

All things will remain this way until all things are put under Christ, the consummation of the ages when the thousand years are finished, then will come the resurrection of "the rest of the dead" (Rev. 20:5).

Jesus' kingdom is "not of this world", his representatives were in this world but now only through the scriptures do the apostles reign over the earth and not a physical reign, a spiritual reign.

You didn't really think that "soon", "shortly", "quickly", "this generation", "at hand" etc. meant 2,000 or more years did you? But then, no one seems to believe what Jesus and the apostles said - even though they say they do.

#10 Guest_composer_*

Guest_composer_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 March 2008 - 06:10 PM

This began the "thousand year" (symbolic time period of indefinite length) reign from Jerusalem "which is above" (Gal. 4:26).

. . . . . (Jesus Christ) who reigns over the earth from Jerusalem which is above through the word we call the New Testament.)

Jerusalem is above?

Could you clarify please?

All things will remain this way until all things are put under Christ, the consummation of the ages when the thousand years are finished, then will come the resurrection of "the rest of the dead" (Rev. 20:5).

Jesus' kingdom is "not of this world", his representatives were in this world but now only through the scriptures do the apostles reign over the earth and not a physical reign, a spiritual reign.

So Christ will never literally come to reign ON the literal earth nor God either come literally amongst His chosen people, because you say the earth isn't the literal earth but just a Spiritual reign from somewhere else?

And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which [is] before Jerusalem on the east, . . . (Zech. 14: 4) KJV

So that isn't referring to this earth you are saying?

You didn't really think that "soon", "shortly", "quickly", "this generation", "at hand" etc. meant 2,000 or more years did you? But then, no one seems to believe what Jesus and the apostles said - even though they say they do.

So the thousand years according to you is flexible and could mean any duration (say 10,000 years), but 2000 years is too long for you?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users