The Book of Revelation: Mystery Or Profitable?
- Thread starter Arial
- Start date
Arial
Active member
Good point. I don't feel like I am giving up though, just silencing the noise out of my own study. And also, I am new to the idealist view as well as amillennialism as I have left Revelation alone for years. Mainly because I always approached it from the prevalent, singularity heard, premillennialist view, which left me confused. Add to that dispensationalism in one form or another and also singularly presented, though without identifying itself more often than not, and the confusion and impossibility of solving the puzzle those views attempt, and the focus goes so far astray, the great value and purpose of Revelation to all Christians of all time, is utterly concealed.
I can't say that I believe all of what is taught in idealism or amillennialism. I am just learning it and so far it at least makes sense out of Revelation and its purpose. Not only that I am beginning to see the magnitude of the power and love and glory of Christ in a deeper way, that frankly stuns me, and that I cannot begin to put into words. For example, contemplate this: because the Bible tells us that Jesus is seated in heaven at the right hand of God, that wording tends to make us, or me anyway, automatically picture Him as seated, not active, except for interceding on behalf of the saints.
In Revelation, if we do not consign all the judgments, all the activity we see in Revelation, to a seven year period called the Tribulation (another detailed subject in itself) but instead consider what we see as spanning the time of the resurrection to His second coming, we can see something that is so vital and true that in missing it we do Him and us a disservice. I understand seated at the right hand of God to mean the work of His earthly redemption is complete. But our redemption, though secure by the sealing of the Holy Spirit, has not yet reached its consummation in the new heaven and the new earth.
So what is happening in the meantime? Jesus and all of heaven are at war, both defending His people and defeating once and for all His enemies, who are also the enemies of His people. Revelation tells us the things we will have to face as we walk this earth, pilgrims and strangers. He gives us a peek at times into this spiritual warfare, and how it is affecting the inhabitants of earth. The battle now, and since the resurrection, is Satan's attempt to destroy Christ's church, (all believers, both Jew and Gentile, to clarify my meaning) and the devil still thinking he might be able to defeat God and His purposes, and if he can't at least take as many people with him as he can deceive. What Revelation is saying, to put it in a scriptural nut shell is: "Be not afraid. I am your God. Do not be dismayed, for I am with you. I will strengthen you, yes I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand." Is 41:10. "Have I not commanded you? Be strong, and of good courage; do not be afraid, nor be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go."
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Apologies for 'crossing threads' here, but in another thread Glory @glorydaz asks what the difference is between the Bride of Christ and the Body of Christ, or something like that.
Thing is, if we take the bride of the Lamb to be the Bride of Christ to be the Body of Christ to be the Church, then Revelation to me becomes 'dead' easy to understand. It doesn't entirely clear up the mysticism, but it become far less mystical and cryptic in my eyes.
What I don't know is how such a reading of the book squares with your four distinct schools of thought on the book that you've set out. Does it render it idealism, or something else? I don't know.
Right.
If you live in a town where Paul preached and then Peter comes to that same town and preaches, should you tell Peter he is accursed?
Right Divider
Body part
What does Paul say?
Arial
Active member
I do take the bride of the Lamb to be the bride of Christ, to be the body of Christ---all speaking of the same thing and are the church, made up of all believers. I have always believed this from scripture itself, even before looking into the different schools of interpretation. Idealism does agree with this, but I think so does Preterism as well as Historicism and probably the majority of those who adhere to futurism. Those four categories are interpretive schools of thought. Then there is additional view that lays within those views, that of post millennialism, premillennialism, and amillennialism, which have to do with the thousand year reign of Christ. Premillennialists say this thousand years follows the second coming. Amillennialists understand the thousand years to be an expression, as it is used as such on many other places in scripture where that meaning is clear, representing a period of time determined by God, but that length of time unknown to us. (The number 1,000 and multapuls of a thousand is used elsewhere in Rev to represent a vast number or multitude.) As such the thousand years would be "this age", the time from the resurrection until His second coming, where Christ reigns in the hearts of believers.
Postmillennialists believe it is a time of expansion of the the church, some agreeing with the amillennialist view and others that it is a time of Christian triumph just before the second coming. Some, and this was prominent with the earliest emigrants to the US, and may be taking hold again, that Christians, the church, will actually usher in Christ's return. In other words it is up to the church to purify itself and the spread this changed humanity to all the world and when we do that, Jesus will return.
It is encouraging that Rev is clear to you, and I assume you mean its central message. No one will clear up all the symbolism within the visions and it isn't necessary. I don't know if you read the original OP or any of the rest of it, but Rev is really a picture book, not a puzzle book. Little children who have it read to them can get the message (the moral of the story so to speak) because they will naturally send their imagination right to the imagery rather than having a starting point of trying to figure out what each thing means, as adults tend to do. Even young children who read it for themselves. They see it in pictures and aren't asking "When did that happen or when will this happen? " Instead they simply let the story unfold and rejoice in the victory! Oh to be a child again, right?
Arial
Active member
It is you. Some probably fits with more than one of the schools of interpretation. In fact a combination of all four, taking the strengths of each and avoiding the weaknesses is best, and probably what the majority of people do. It is when we put ourselves inside a rigid box and close our eyes to all else, that we get into trouble with Revelation. The four interpretive schools exist, and knowing what they are can, but is not necessary, help us to approach the book from a perspective we might not otherwise see. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to approach from each if it suited our personality or desires or time, and all the while, comparing to what the rest of scripture says, and reach our own conclusions. As long as no truth that leads to salvation is compromised, and we see Jesus in Revelation, nothing to fight about. That's the thing we tend to forget. That book is about Jesus. It is revealing to us Jesus.
Paul said anyone that preaches another gospel than what he was preaching should be accursed.
If Peter is preaching another gospel in scripture than what Paul was preaching then you should be telling anyone you know that reads scripture that Peter should be accursed for the gospel he was preaching.
Right Divider
Body part
No, that is not the WHOLE truth of what Paul said.
Read the scripture more carefully.
Don't forget history. Those who ignore it are forced to put everything into the future where anything is possible.
I do read scripture carefully.
And you can underline "unto you" all you want, but it does not negate the fact that one person could hear both Peter and Paul preach.
I mean, come on, it's not like Paul would ask everyone in the crowd to raise their hands if they were a Jew and then say "Sorry, I can't preach to you because you are the circumcision".
Likewise, it's not as if Peter would do the same and ask those in crowd to raise their hands if they were Gentile and say "Sorry, I can't preach to you because you are not the circumcision".
Here's the scenario ......
One hears Peter preaching the gospel he preaches in the town square.
Should he trust that the gospel Peter is preaching is truth?
Now Paul comes to town and the same one hears him preach the gospel he preaches in the town square.
Should he now declare Peter accursed for the gospel he preaches?
glorydaz
Well-known member
I don't think this has anything to do with towns. I think if Peter or any one else came and preached water baptism or commandment keeping to those who had been saved by faith, he should be rebuked even blamed even accursed, although I don't think Peter would do that. Look at our old friend, God's Truth. She preaches obedience to the commandments to be saved.
Remember, the Apostles had an agreement that Paul would go to the Gentiles to preach his gospel of Grace. I've often thought of this portion of scripture which suggests the propensity of the Jews to go back to the law. Surely Paul doesn't want that sort of stuff to influence those who Paul was preaching his gospel to.
Gal. 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
glorydaz
Well-known member
The point is that this is a forum for discussing topics that are brought up. If you aren't open to other opinions on the matter then you will continue to be frustrated. Let it flow....you might even learn something.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Doesn't Paul say, "let him be accursed"? Paul isn't telling anyone to call people out and curse them. Sounds like he is calling on God to do it when necessary. And rightly so...."6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
glorydaz
Well-known member
A person should never continue preaching what can be proven incorrect. Which is why we have these discussions.
Arial
Active member
GD the thread was DERAILED entirely from its topic. The OP might as well not have existed, as folks started their own thread on their topic and put it inside mine. Start your own. It has nothing to do with whether or not I am open to other opinions, and your yourself said you weren't interested in listening to or learning anything other than what you have determined is the absolute truth, so what are you doing here? And why are you posting replies to something and someone and a view that you have already said you merely skim----and then say whatever it is you want to say, whether it is on topic or off, ignoring what you are replying to as you don't, by your own admission, even know what it is you are replying to.
The topic being discussed had nothing to do with the topic of the OP. I realize that you and Clete insist that it does, but believe me, it does not.
I'm not saying that either.
The 'him' in "let him be accursed" would be Peter in the scenario I presented.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Maybe. But 13:18 is an open puzzle, so if the whole book isn't a puzzle, it is a book which contains a puzzle, and it seems like if you know the answer to the puzzle of 13:18, that it can 'unlock' a bit of the mystery of the book.
Arial
Active member
Have you proved anything that has been said to be incorrect, in any way other than you believe something else? Who makes those determinations? So far I haven't seen you prove anything that you have said and you have been shown very clearly that your view makes the Bible written for two groups of people, but all jumbled together with no clear distinction as to who it applies to. The proof of something does not reside inside one person's or any person's mind.
I am not trying to PROVE something, whereas you are, and you think that you can. All I have been doing is putting forth one particular view. I could do the same with all the views, and we'd still be talking about Paul writing a different gospel to the Gentiles than Peter, James and John wrote to the Jews, no doubt. If you and others have no interest in discussing or even reading what is being put forth, why are you posting in this thread?!
Arial
Active member
The number 666 may be a mystery to us, but it was not to first century Christians. And we make it more of a mystery than it really is by making things that are obviously symbolic, literal. It is a type of writing that was even familiar to pagan cultures. Hidden things, things unseen, revealed in the form of symbols and visions. Which is what Revelation is doing. And yet some things remain a mystery. Six is the number of man, falling short of number seven, the perfection of God and not only that but fallen man in rebellion to God. The triple six to identify the Beast and as the mark of the Beast suggests that it is the ultimate rebellion against God. The Beast is the anti-Christ. And he is the second "person" of an unholy trinity. The dragon, the beast who comes forth from the dragon, the false prophet who deceives the people. There have been many such individuals throughout history, but I think it quite possible that there will be a final anitchrist, the worst of all, just before the second coming, and that he will probably come as a man. But the number is not given to identify him and the mark of the beast is a counterfeit of the sealing by the Holy Spirit of believers.