Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Revelation - The Way it Happened
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
The Book of Revelation - Apocalyptic Showdown
message 151:
by
Lee
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Dec 05, 2013 08:40AM
haha, my hope in being raptured has been restored.
reply
|
flag
Fair enough Robert. I guess this is just where we disagree. Hopefully this is still somewhat on topic, but I'll lay out what I think and how we disagree.
I believe God called Abraham (and thus Israel, the Jews) and in this they are the "chosen people." But this chosen-ness was for the purpose of God's ultimate plan - to bring salvation to all nations. This is seen in Genesis 12 and throughout the OT. The problem was that while the Jews were chosen to bring salvation to the nations, they more often wanted to be like the nations (thus they ask for a king to be like everyone else in 1 Samuel). Their hope for a new temple was not just for a building - the temple/tabernacle was the place where God dwelt among them, the place where heaven and earth met. Of course this was seen as a literal brick and mortar temple by Ezekiel but it was fulfilled in Jesus who "tabernacled" with us (John 1).
I thus don't think all Jews are automatically saved or anything like that just by being born Jewish. The Old Testament is pretty clear that even the chosen people can lose their place if they sin, whether in the prophets or in the story of Achan (Josh. 7). On the flip-side, outsiders like Rahab were always welcomed in.
So they were promised a temple - and the promise was fulfilled in Jesus. Jews, like all people, are saved through Jesus Christ. And all people are called to come to Jesus in faith, no one is exempt because of their race or ethnicity.
I am inspired to post on my blog about the temple of the new City of God. It'll be liberal and this-worldly, of course, but I'll link y'all when I get it posted so you can tear down another temple of God.
Thank you, David for your thoughts; we're coming at the same thing from different directions. Jews come in 3 flavors; Messianic, Righteous, and Unrighteous. Neither the Righteous or Unrighteous are saved, but the Righteous are given a second chance at Armageddon by being "dem bones" and filling out the army of the Lord. The Unrighteous Jews are toast just like Unrighteous Gentiles. Righteous Gentiles who are Christians are saved, all other Gentiles (Righteous or Unrighteous are toast). In order for the antichrist to defile "the Temple", there must be a physical one as he can hardly defile Jesus. The 144,000 Jews who witness for Christ featured in Revelation will convert many more. After the Rapture, Israel will be the Christian state and the rest of the world will be pagan and under control of the Beast.
CHAPTER 10: HAPPILY EVER AFTERThankfully, the story ends well. The destroyed Jerusalem is replaced by a new one, which comes floating down from heaven. Rev 21:1 speaks of a new heaven and a new earth...I think the word "new" is better understood as "renewed" (see 21:5) The nations stream to the New Jerusalem, giving God the glory. God comes down and dwells with men (Rev 21:3). Revelation is clear many times over that this City of God resides on earth, not up in heaven.
The Jews, having undergone the covenantal promises, are now restored. It's clear from the 12 gates of the new City that this invites the return of the 12 tribes to God. The phrase "People, multitudes, nations, and languages" is discussed on pages 291-292 and gives a very hopeful picture, a touching picture of God's mercy toward the Jews.
A river of the water of life flows from the Lamb (the new Temple) in the center of the city, and everywhere it touches in the world, life blooms. According to Ezekiel, when the river reaches the Dead Sea, even its saltwater is transformed into a haven for multitudes of fish. A great banquet celebrates the age of God's rule, when everyone on earth has plenty to eat and all tears are wiped away.
"Behold, I am coming soon." Not 2,000 years later. The question I leave you with is this: Was this all a pipe dream, or did it really happen? (Or should I say, is it still happening as planned...is the water of life flowing out from the resurrected Jesus today, reaching into all the world?)
Lee - nice story, fine book. In reality, there is no new Jerusalem present, there is not plenty to eat and all tears are not wiped away. Jesus has not returned, but his influence is now truly worldwide. Liberals tend to be communal while conservatives are individualists. So, to me, as the latter, I ask each person, not group, "What's your choice going to be, buddy?"
Yes, I agree with your analysis of liberals and conservatives here. I ask each person AND each group: "What are you doing to keep the Christian dream alive and advancing?"
APPENDIX: Alas, the threat of Nero petered out over time, the Parthians were soundly clobbered when the war finally happened, and no city came floating down from heaven. Yet many Christians continued to read Revelation quite literally, and were surely disappointed when Jesus delayed his return. As more and more Latin-speaking Christians got involved, Nero's number changed from 666 to 616 (you probably have this alternative described in the margin of your Bible). This is because NWRN QSR became, in its Latin form, NWR QSR ... a fifty-point letter is dropped. For hundreds of years, Christians still anticipated Nero's return, or else considered him still alive.
If a literal interpretation of Revelation sounds too much like a pipe dream or just plain old nonsense, I encourage you to read my second book about John's Gospel. This was probably published about 15 years after Revelation, and gets back to the original teaching of Jesus, reinterpreting Revelation's dreams of a new world in a more practical manner.
My denomination does not believe in the Rapture.I am presently reading Revelation from The People's Bible Series. These books are one each of the Bible Books. They give passages and then commentary. Once I have read Revelation I will have read the entire Bible, but have so much to learn yet.
There is so much in the Bible that you must be in God's Word daily to keep feeding the soul.
I am hoping to understand why we don't believe in the Rapture because to me it still sounds like it happens. I don't understand why we don't believe in it. Even with a book with commentary, the commentary gets hard to understand in the Book of Revelation.
Go with your gut feelings Judy. There are scholars who will attempt to mislead you in every possible way. If you and the Holy Spirit are on the same page (the truth should be present eventually.)I'm okay if there is or isn't a rapture.
But the Bible seems to lean heavily towards Christians not being present or effective during the endtimes. Why call 144,000 to do the job WE are doing now?
Most of my favorite Bible teachers agree with a Rapture: (Chuck Swindol, John MacArthur...)
Lee, in response to your question - I don't think it "happened" the way you interpret it. I do think it is still happening in the way your very last line states, as the water is flowing out to reach the whole world. And I do think that there will come a day when heaven and earth become one which I think is John's deepest hope, however he saw it in specifics. New heavens and new earth, renewal, is the point more than the specifics of what this looks like.
That's very well put, David!What "happened" is that Jesus was resurrected. The Gospel message is that the resurrected Jesus is the new Temple. The Gospel of John is explicit that Jesus became the new Temple three days after his death. Is there reason to believe the outflowing of living water did not begin at that time?
John 7:38: He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Has anybody believed on Jesus? Then the event described in Revelation 22 has happened. The new Temple has arrived, the flow of living water has begun.
It is hardly Jesus' fault if heaven and earth have not yet become one (I love that image, thanks!). It is our own failings, not fully spreading the Gospel which makes earth heavenly.
Rod wrote: "Go with your gut feelings Judy. There are scholars who will attempt to mislead you in every possible way. If you and the Holy Spirit are on the same page (the truth should be present eventually.)..."
Rod, you are a kind and respectful person and I thank you for your reply.
It's is funny that you should happen to mention John MacArthur. He is Baptist and I listen to a lot of Baptist preachers, including John because he is so good, and they of course believe in the rapture. I need to understand why my denomination doesn't.
I am Lutheran (WELS). I believe in what we teach and believe but there are 2 things I can't get past and that is the rapture part and that Baptists believe in Baptism after a child has been taught of God and we Baptize at birth.
I am not looking for an argument here, please know that. I think we are all adults and can respect each others views. What John MacArthur teaches about the Catholics scares me. I have a son who married a Catholic girl and he turned Catholic. I was Catholic once so I know the differences and how I feel about them. I think John MacArthur is right and I think Martin Luther was right. But the Church still goes on today and has people pay for a Mass for a dead person, amongst other things. You can't do anything for a person who is dead, they have been judged when they died.
I realize this is a whole new topic but I don't know where to open it up. I sure would like to see a conversation going on this subject because I worry about my son and his family.
The rapture doctrine stems primarily from one verse, 1 Thess 4:17:After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
I'm curious, Judy, how does WELS interpret this verse?
No one believed in a pre-tribulation rapture until the 1800s. Mostly because it is not in the Bible at all, unless you stretch 1-2 verses (such as the one Lee mentioned). Why does your denom not believe in it? Because they read the Bible for 1800 years and never saw it. It took a few random people in America to think it up. Note - when I say no one believed it, I mean the system that all the Christians will be raptured before a 7 year tribulation. That is a new invention with even less historical christian support then universalism.
The biggest reason I don't believe in the rapture (other then its not in the Bible) is that it doesn't preach outside of the American context it was born in. Go ahead and tell an Iranian Christian, or any Christian in the persecuted church, that they'll be raptured and avoid the 7 year tribulation, that they'll avoid suffering for their faith. They are already living in the tribulation.
David, did no one believe in a post-trib rapture either?
Lee, to clarify what I meant: I've found that when I discuss the rapture with people, they don't always define it. For some the rapture is just Jesus coming back and Christians going to heaven. My above definition is to explicitly connect the rapture to dispensationalism, thus adding in the 7 year tribulation framework. That, I argue, is a new belief.I would assume, though I have not studied much, that the new part is a future seven year tribulation prior to the final end. Thus, I would say the whole argument about the tribulation (Pre-, mid-, post-) is itself new. In my reading of church history (which includes Augustine's City of God, Calvin's Institutes, a good bit of Luther, many early church fathers) I have not come across a debate on this.
If I recall, many in the early church did believe in pre-millennialism, that Jesus would return and set up an earthly kingdom (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus maybe...I can't remember). I know Augustine was kind of the main amillennial guy. I am not sure when post-millennialism became a thing, but I recall Jonathan Edwards and many other Reformed guys holding to it.
All that to say, just going by church history, dispensational premillennialism (rapture followed by 7 years of tribulation) has little backing. This doesn't rule it out, since we go to the Bible. But I am always leery with totally new Bible views; the burden of proof is on the person holding the new view.
(This whole thing itself is ironic as I hold new views on many subjects that were minority throughout history. Like I said above, to hold to the rapture is to be in the same boat as a universalist [like Rob Bell, gasp!])
Thanks! Just in case I was misunderstood, I wasn't being snarky...I am certainly no scholar of present-day religion. :)In the book (talking now about my Revelation book) I weasel on the topic. I find post-trib rapture aesthetically pleasing, because I see the commonalities between the punishments in Revelation and the plagues of Egypt, and I recognize the theme of deliverance. In Egypt, Israel was "raptured post-trib," so to speak, though they were protected from the punishments.
Lee wrote: "The rapture doctrine stems primarily from one verse, 1 Thess 4:17:After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. A..."
Lee, I'm not sure, but when my Pastor comes to give me Communion I will certainly ask him and post it here what he says.
These are the things that I don't understand either. It seems as if it is written right there in God's Word and it seems so easy to understand why people believe in the Rapture. I need this clarified as far as my denomination goes because I can only see Rapture also.
Judy, with all due respect, what exactly do you see that makes it easy to understand why people believe in the rapture? Where do you see it? How do you define it? How do you explain that no one ever saw it in the Bible till recently? That the only verse to maybe point to has to be stretched, as if the only way to find it there is that you already believe it and want to find it there?
Oh, so now everything "new" is suspect. Guess the "new" liberal Christian churches must be held to the same criterion. Judy - with the sole purpose of the 7 years of tribulations being a last, desperate attempt using draconic methods to bring nonbelievers to Christ, those already converted are not needed for this earthly purpose (they're too gentle!), nor will anything be accomplished by tormenting them (what's the use of converting twice?) so they are raptured out of the mix.
Yes, everything new is suspect! I both alluded to that above and in another post - if you come up with a view that no one has had before, or has been the minority, the burden of proof is on YOU to over-turn the traditional view.
Good stuff Judy - this is finally getting interesting. I'll start some new threads, or someone can.
Thank you for the friendly words Judy.I will warn you now: I am only respectful to the truth. I am kind when something leads to the truth.
I have no tolerance for anything that dismisses the truth.
And yet many things are fit to be abused by a sense of humor. Elijah demonstrated this wonderfully.
David, Rod, and Robert. You have all made good points.I have heard Baptists preach about the rapture and also the 1000 year reign of Christ, which is another thing our Church does not believe in.
I can't come up with the passages right now, I have to do some studying in my Bible because I only believe in Scriptural truth also. I don't speculate whatsoever when it comes to God's Word. I want the truth and I want it explained with Scripture. I am in Revelation right now and just about finished. It is taking me awhile because I have commentary for all the passages. In some of the commentary he explains why WELS does not believe in the rapture nor the 1,000 year Millenium reign of Christ.
Yes Rod, that would be good to start new threads. I do not know how. But what would you start them on? Isn't this group only for Christian Apologetics...And Beyond discussion? I would really be interested in others views on Catholicism since my son has turned Catholic in his marriage. I don't want to offend anyone though. But I want t know the facts. There is so much to be discussed when it comes to this. I don't want my son or his family to not be in Eternity, but then does it really matter what denomination you are as long as you believe that the only way to God and Eternity is through faith, and an active faith that produces good fruits, in Jesus Christ?
:) I love how Rod dismisses Revelation with the words "I have no tolerance for anything that dismisses the truth."
Not sure how you made that connection Lee?! What you should have gathered is: I don't tolerate Islam, atheism, Mormonism, JW's, Immorality etc. and especially Liberalism (that ones just for you BUDDY. :c) )Giving those beliefs respect or brotherhood is like saying bad math is okay on certain occasions.
I do not dismiss Revelation. It's essential. It also agrees perfectly with the rest of scripture. When you read it properly.
David - because there are at least 3 other views on Revelation, a premillenial dispensation viewpoint is hardly overturning anything. Whether or not a Rapture or any of the other aspects of the belief proves correct depends on future events. But the NEW liberal Christian church is easier to analyze. Other than singing simplisic, repetitive songs and doing love chants, it is no improvement over the traditional variety and does great harm by de-emphasizing Biblical truth. It's a great step backwards for the Word of God.
Robert, do you just use "liberal" for what you don't like?I ask because most churches who sing the sort of songs you mention are conservative evangelical churches. New-style worship songs have taken hold in the same churches that lead the fight against, for example, gay marriage.
The more "liberal" churches, mainline churches, tend to have a very boring liturgical service filled with hymns, the Lord's Prayer, reciting creeds, etc.
Or are you saying all the big conservative churches (Rick Warren, for example) are really, deep down, liberal?
No, David, the churches I am referring to are liberal in every sense. The only prerequisite for membership is everyone love each other, no other questions are asked. The service is almost entirely very simple songs, repeated ad nauseum and the only real message is that Jesus as hippie was a really, cool, loving dude and, no matter our livestyle, approves of it if we say his name enough.
Robert, may we categorize you as traditional rather than conservative, then? Of course, I think of "traditional" Christians as those who place continuity with parental belief systems above the words of the Bible. Hope it doesn't offend you to say I see that in you; for example, traditional Christianity teaches that hell is a place of eternal torment, so you embrace that and ignore David's long list of verses that show annihilation as biblical. Traditional Christianity teaches the rebuilding of the Temple, so you embrace that rather than recognize that, as David pointed out so clearly, John's Gospel says the new temple has already been built (it's Jesus). You have no SCRIPTURAL foundation for your beliefs, so it must be what yo mama taught you.
Rod wrote: "Not sure how you made that connection Lee?! What you should have gathered is: I don't tolerate Islam, atheism, Mormonism, JW's, Immorality etc. and especially Liberalism (that ones just for you BUD..."Rod, I was just laughing at how after 150 or so detailed posts about what Revelation really says, when the topic of the rapture comes up (which, at least the way churches teach it today, contradicts Revelation), you finally jump in and say "hey, this is finally getting interesting, I have no tolerance for anything that dismisses the truth." It probably isn't what you meant, but it SOUNDS like "wow, how good it feels to ignore everything in Revelation and start talking about the truth."
You are quite the comic, Lee; no, I am not offended by your puerile observations. My thoughts are entirely Scriptural, but I don't cherry-pick individual verses to substantiate my worldview. Rather, I consider the entire OT and NT and selected commentary by established theologians (not the kooks you cite) to attain a comprehensive, sensible belief platform. What the afterlife (hell as you put it) consists of for those not saved through Jesus Christ is exceedingly nebulous. The traditional teachings are as good as any. if strictly speculation. NONE have any knowledge of rhe true disposition of lost souls so Dante and Goethe make as much sense as anything you can come up with, Lee. As far as the new temple is concerned, it is prophesized in Ezekiel right down to the measurements and what it should contain. Do you just overlook this and focus entirely on NT, Lee? Actually, as usual, I think you're just happy in the role of Devil's Advocate as you really have no use for Jesus, either.
Robert, I can't speak for Lee, but since it was my talk on the temple that was referred to. We don't overlook the OT but we recognize that Jesus redefined the whole thing. Perhaps the best question to ask - do you celebrate Sabbath on Saturday? Or do you go to church on Sunday, the Lord's Day, in light of the resurrection on the first day of the week? If you don't worship on Saturday, you must be overlooking the entire thing and focusing only on the NT?
Do you follow the Jewish dietary laws? Is circumcision the sign of the covenant? No...why are you overlooking the OT?
The point is, in those things you, like the rest of us Christians since pretty much Paul, have redefined everything in light of Jesus. Jesus is the Word made flesh, the fullness of God in human form. We don't follow the law because of Jesus.
In the same way, yeah, the Old Testament speaks of a rebuilt temple. But when we read the NT we see Jesus is the temple (and in another way, so too is the church).
We are left with two options:
*Ezekiel's prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus
*Ezekiel's prophecy was not fulfilled in Jesus
If you take number 2, then you have a much harder time explaining what John means (and Paul) when they speak of temple.
David - Ezekiel's prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus for gentiles and Messianic Jews. Ezekiel's prophecy was not fulfilled in Jesus for non-Messianic Jews. Looking at everything through the eyes of a Christian is understandable because that's your only entryway as a miserable Goyim into the Bible. Jews have their own route to follow and it's provided for by their covenants. Your (our) New Covenant IS NOT APPLICABLE.
Lee quote:"you finally jump in and say "hey, this is finally getting interesting, I have no tolerance for anything that dismisses the truth." It probably isn't what you meant, but it SOUNDS like "wow, how good it feels to ignore everything in Revelation and start talking about the truth."
My comment was to clarify my thoughts to Judy. They were not about Revelation at all. They were about my dismissal towards unbiblical teachings. Revelation is very Biblical - gives us the wonderful END OF THE STORY.
I'm just not a Big prophecy guy. I prefer theology and philosophy.
I enjoy hearing your 150 posts on Revelation: But i don't for a minute agree with you on many of them. Just cause you are talking does not mean TRUTH is spilling out. Atheists seem to make that mistake as well.
Read a history book if you think I'll telling lies about what happened, Rod! :)
I never think you are lying Lee. You're Just finding support for your worldview. I'm guilty of the same thing on occasion.Be careful what you attempt to learn from history books. Muslims, Mormons, JW's, communists, Catholics, Protestants, etc all have history books. Lots of contradictory opinions.
Robert wrote: "No, David, the churches I am referring to are liberal in every sense. The only prerequisite for membership is everyone love each other, no other questions are asked. The service is almost entirely ..."I'm trying to imagine what Jesus considered a prerequisite for membership. Here are a few accepted members:
• Samaritans (people of different religious persuasion).
• Tax collectors (people of ill repute).
• Lepers (social outcasts).
• Prostitutes (sinners).
• The lame and blind (people disallowed from religious institutions, like the Temple).
• The poor (people who cannot return your favor).
• Ethiopians and Nigerians (people of differing nationality).
• Eunuchs (people of differing sexual orientation).
• Slaves (people below us in caste).
You seem to have that list very confused Lee. Those are many attributes people can have BEFORE becoming a Christian or even a member of Jesus Kingdom.In heaven there will be NO:
Differing religious persuasion.
People of ill repute.
Prostitutes or sinners.
Lame or Blind.
No Poor.
No sexual orientation whatsoever. (especially no G.L.B.T.)
Or Slaves. WE will all be adopted children.
lol, Rod. You are really hung up on this "heaven" thing.How fun it will be peeking out the pearly gates at everybody outside wanting in. Reminds me of when we were kids. We built our clubhouses and hung up our signs saying "no girls allowed."
The Bible has alot to say about what God will tolerate for an eternity. His eternal Kingdom will have some very strict rules. You have read the Bible carefully haven't you Lee? :D
lol. ok, you worry about God's heaven with its list of rules for entrance. I'll worry about Jesus' vision for earth. That's how we'll divide things up. I'll explain to you how Jesus wants us to live this side of the grave, and you can boss me around for eternity if you make the cut.
Wow, twin megalomaniacs at their finest!
Robert do you NOT think God has some very strict rules about his Kingdom? Personally - whatever God desires is good with me. Who am I to complain.1 Corinthians 6:9-
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…
I don't make this stuff up. I'm not that creative...
To be fair, Revelation also has a similar list of baddies:Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
A "dog" is a pejorative term for a male prostitute.
Rod and Lee - yes, God has strict rules for entrance into Heaven and progressively (I can't believe I used that word!) clamps down on Believers (those who truly accept Jesus as the Savior - which exempts Lee) to repent and turn away from the earthly desires which have them in chains. But in trying to one up each other with supposed knowledge of the exact nature and scope of those aforementioned rules you've exceeded your mortal pay grades. Sure, part of the fun here is to out-exagerate the other guy, and playing God For A Day is part of the program, but when you SERIOUSLY believe you've got God's agenda all figured out: a cosmically induced downfall is on your horizon.
Lee - yes, you have the tablesetting portion of the process of conversion correct. Jesus calls all the denizens of the categories you mentioned in msg. 189 and more. But, if they respond, and accept the Lord as what he says he is: Savior with the ability to take on sins, then the responder BETTER be ready for a complete reorganization of his sinful nature. Faith with works isn't just helping out humanity - it involves a thorough personal housecleaning. Somehow you missed that part, didn't you, Lee?
Robert, are you (like Rod) discussing a sort of entrance exam to heaven? I get the feeling you still envision the kingdom of God as something up in the sky; something still in our future; something that will happen after Jesus comes storming down to earth with fire in his eyes and slaughters two hundred million gays/blacks/alcoholics/anything else you may discriminate against.
Lee - Jesus doesn't need my help when he comes storming down from the sky, He knows exactly whom His targets consist of and so would you if you believed the Bible rather than your quack humanism.
