Part of the whore?

[Greg Winegar]

What do you think?

[Whammer]

There are some visiting teachers from the LDS church that stop by from time to time at my house and try to get me out of my "apostate condition" and I made a comment to one of them when they showed up again last thursday. This was it.........."I will say that in my thinking I have 1 thing in common with joseph smith's mind........he looked out and viewed all religions/denominations as abominations to God, I feel the same way in that respect."

I believe Jesus has His flock scattered throughout the world in various places and circumstances, but they are, and always have been, few in number (comparatively with the number of people in the world)
I believe that He also has some little assemblies of believers in various locations, but they are relatively small and hard to find at this time.

[jmgipson]

If you are speaking of the whore of Revelation, I don't believe that is how the Holy Spirit has defined this term. Jerusalem who rejected and crucified Jesus was the Great Whore. I don’t pay much attention to the comic books written by Tim Lahey or other futurists. I believe all scripture except the resurrection and the appearing of our Lord is fulfilled. We can’t wrestle scripture to apply it the way we want. My text proof is as follows:

JERUSALEM (Jesus Christ's own words ):

Matthew 23:33-35 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

NOTE IN REVELATION ABOUT WHORE:

Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Keep in mind that two different parties can never be guilty of "all" of the same thing. Jesus said Jerusalem was guilty of all of the blood shed on earth, and so was the whore in Revelation.

TOLD TO WOMEN OF JERUSALEM ( Note : Jesus Christ's own words ):

Luke 23:28-30 But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us .

NOTE IN REVELATION:

Revelation 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

JERUSALEM IS NOTED IN REVELATION AS THE GREAT CITY:

Revelation 11:8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified .

So when we read after this verse, through the rest of the book, whenever we come across a reference to "that great city", its pointing back to the Great City noted above.

Revelation 17:18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

When we let the Bible interpret itself, by noting the references to Jerusalem as being identical to the points about the Great Whore in the book of Revelation, we see that JERUSALEM was that whore. However, this speaks of Jerusalem of Jesus' day. In THAT GENERATION, forty years later, Jerusalem was judged in 70 AD. Revelation is about that judgment.

So I believe that Jerusalem in the 1st century is the whore, the great city, etc.

John

[Saint Nicholas]

Whorish and adulterous religions have been with mankind from Eden, when Adam and Eve tried to cover their sin and nakedness with "FIGLEAVES".
These unrighteous and unholy acts of mankind, in attempting to appease God and expiate their sin and guilt, are spiritual attitudes manifested in and through (1.) False Gospels (2.) False Religions (3.) False Churches.

When trying to limit the identity of the Great Whore to ONLY some Historical Time period, a specific religion, or a specific church, we will miss the broader implications and meaning of scripture pertaining to this subject.

Their is only one valid litmus test that will uncover the whore, from her conception and embrionic stages in Eden all the way through the end of time and history. This litmus test must be "THE GOSPEL," (THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST).

The person of Christ = Diety
The Work of Christ= Justification by an imputed righteousness. Received by Grace Alone through Faith Alone.

All Religious institutions Christian in name only, and non-christian who fail on these bedrock and foudational issues, would be part and parcel of the whorish kingdom.

All whorish religions do not have to be visably linked or tied together by some ecumenical treaty to qualify. They are all linked Spritually in rebellion to the true Gospel of Christ.

It is true that Israel is part the Anti-christ kingdom. But so is Rome and her ecumenical allies, The Orthadox Churches, Pagan religions, and all who pay homage to a false Gospel.

Well much much more can be said...........Later

In Christ
Nicholas

[jmgipson]

Whorish and adulterous religions have been with mankind from Eden, when Adam and Eve tried to cover their sin and nakedness with "FIGLEAVES".
These unrighteous and unholy acts of mankind, in attempting to appease God and expiate their sin and guilt, are spiritual attitudes manifested in and through (1.) False Gospels (2.) False Religions (3.) False Churches.

When trying to limit the identity of the Great Whore to ONLY some Historical Time period, a specific religion, or a specific church, we will miss the broader implications and meaning of scripture pertaining to this subject.

Their is only one valid litmus test that will uncover the whore, from her conception and embrionic stages in Eden all the way through the end of time and history. This litmus test must be "THE GOSPEL," (THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST).

The person of Christ = Diety
The Work of Christ= Justification by an imputed righteousness. Received by Grace Alone through Faith Alone.

All Religious institutions Christian in name only, and non-christian who fail on these bedrock and foudational issues, would be part and parcel of the whorish kingdom.

All whorish religions do not have to be visably linked or tied together by some ecumenical treaty to qualify. They are all linked Spritually in rebellion to the true Gospel of Christ.

It is true that Israel is part the Anti-christ kingdom. But so is Rome and her ecumenical allies, The Orthadox Churches, Pagan religions, and all who pay homage to a false Gospel.

Well much much more can be said...........Later

In Christ
Nicholas

Nicholas,
I agree you can apply this if you please this way. This is why I qualified myself in the beginning, that if your are speaking of the whore in revelation, you must remember that scripture was not written to us in the 21st century. It was written for us. The letter of revelation was written to a specific 7 churches in the 1st century about the great whore jeruslem and God's divorce of her and her destruction. The end of the jewish age (Old covenant). I believe there is only one meaning of this scripture and Jerusalem is meant by it. It is only our (men) application in which we apply it to todays church.

John

[Whammer]

Nicholas,
I agree you can apply this if you please this way. This is why I qualified myself in the beginning, that if your are speaking of the whore in revelation, you must remember that scripture was not written to us in the 21st century. It was written for us. The letter of revelation was written to a specific 7 churches in the 1st century about the great whore jeruslem and God's divorce of her and her destruction. The end of the jewish age (Old covenant). I believe there is only one meaning of this scripture and Jerusalem is meant by it. It is only our (men) application in which we apply it to todays church.

John

There is alot in your posts I find agreeable John. In thinking on 2 other passages........Rev. 20:7-10 and 2 The. 1:5-10. I see alot of things fulfilled in Rev. that are also pictures of the larger scale of conflict that will happen at the 2nd coming of our Lord, so I see Nicholas' post as containing greater light comparatively as we near the coming of the new heavens and earth. There is also a hyper-preteristic tone to your 1st post in this thread that makes me a little uncomfortable John........IMHO:)

Anyway, in re-reading the 2 thes. passage, I was edified by verse 10 again.........when He comes on that day to be glorified in His saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed.........and so my heart echos the words at the end of Revelation.......Amen. Come Lord Jesus!:D

[jmgipson]

There is alot in your posts I find agreeable John. In thinking on 2 other passages........Rev. 20:7-10 and 2 The. 1:5-10. I see alot of things fulfilled in Rev. that are also pictures of the larger scale of conflict that will happen at the 2nd coming of our Lord, so I see Nicholas' post as containing greater light comparatively as we near the coming of the new heavens and earth. There is also a hyper-preteristic tone to your 1st post in this thread that makes me a little uncomfortable John........IMHO:)

Anyway, in re-reading the 2 thes. passage, I was edified by verse 10 again.........when He comes on that day to be glorified in His saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed.........and so my heart echos the words at the end of Revelation.......Amen. Come Lord Jesus!:D

In my humble opinion I am not sure you know what the term hyper-preteristic means the way you throw it around loosely. I can guarentee you that those whoever they are do not believe as I stated above:

JG said: I believe all scripture except the resurrection and the appearing of our Lord is fulfilled.

This my friend is not hyper-preterist. What makes me uncomfortable is when folks take the time text and wrestle them to speak of 2000 years later as though these folks whom the apostle was writing to knew exactly what he meant. ;)

John

[Whammer]

(Old covenant). I believe there is only one meaning of this scripture and Jerusalem is meant by it. It is only our (men) application in which we apply it to todays church.

John

This is what I am talking about John, you restrict the scripture to speak any further than its primary meanings.......what do I mean??
Just as an example......look at Mat. 2:15, Out of Egypt did I call my son.....which is also a quote from Hosea, now the greatest meaning is that of the fulfillment spoken in matthew (Christ is the central theme of scripture), but it was also a reference to Israel being called out and led by Moses.....this is typical of preterists to do, force the scriptures into less truth than is there.

I didnt imply that you were a preterist who denied the resurrection and 2nd coming, I also am not saying that obvious statements of contradiction (pardox theology) are opposing truths as that would be nonsense to attribute multiple meanings to truths revealed in scripture in that way.

Look again at the 2nd coming throughout the NT.....doesnt it look like prior to our Lord's return there is much false doctrine/religion/teachers/prophets in this world?? This is the larger expression of the whore (yes the judaizers were the whore primarily, but not ONLY) who falsely takes Jesus' name on her lips........this is where we live today John.........and the words that applied then...come out of her my people......apply to us today. A much greater whore than just the 1 nation of the ethnic jews is here, it has swallowed up the entire world......I do not want to partake of her sins, I do not want to support her whoredom against God either, I have come out thanks to God's grace!!!!

[Whammer]

I also do not hold to any of the futurist/dispensational/premillinial garbage

[jmgipson]

This is what I am talking about John, you restrict the scripture to speak any further than its primary meanings.......what do I mean??
Just as an example......look at Mat. 2:15, Out of Egypt did I call my son.....which is also a quote from Hosea, now the greatest meaning is that of the fulfillment spoken in matthew (Christ is the central theme of scripture), but it was also a reference to Israel being called out and led by Moses.....this is typical of preterists to do, force the scriptures into less truth than is there.

I didnt imply that you were a preterist who denied the resurrection and 2nd coming, I also am not saying that obvious statements of contradiction (pardox theology) are opposing truths as that would be nonsense to attribute multiple meanings to truths revealed in scripture in that way.

Look again at the 2nd coming throughout the NT.....doesnt it look like prior to our Lord's return there is much false doctrine/religion/teachers/prophets in this world?? This is the larger expression of the whore (yes the judaizers were the whore primarily, but not ONLY) who falsely takes Jesus' name on her lips........this is where we live today John.........and the words that applied then...come out of her my people......apply to us today. A much greater whore than just the 1 nation of the ethnic jews is here, it has swallowed up the entire world......I do not want to partake of her sins, I do not want to support her whoredom against God either, I have come out thanks to God's grace!!!!

You are speaking of types etc. I am speaking of taking scripture that says:

Rev 1:1
1:1 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: KJV

Rev 22:10,20
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. KJV

Matt 24:34
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. KJV


When the whore in Revelation is spoken of as being judged and all that is about to happen, you wrestle scripture by trying to give this a primary and a future fulfilment. I see no justification for this by God's word. There is a big difference in talking about types and talking about this which John said was about to be fulfilled and then trying to say the same thing will happen 2000 plus years from then. I just don't see any scripture giving you justification for this. YES you can apply it to what you want in the future, but the scipture which was written for comfort to the 1st century church means exactly what the Holy Spirit was conveying to them.

John

[jmgipson]

There is alot in your posts I find agreeable John. In thinking on 2 other passages........Rev. 20:7-10 and 2 The. 1:5-10. I see alot of things fulfilled in Rev. that are also pictures of the larger scale of conflict that will happen at the 2nd coming of our Lord, so I see Nicholas' post as containing greater light comparatively as we near the coming of the new heavens and earth. There is also a hyper-preteristic tone to your 1st post in this thread that makes me a little uncomfortable John........IMHO:)

Anyway, in re-reading the 2 thes. passage, I was edified by verse 10 again.........when He comes on that day to be glorified in His saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed.........and so my heart echos the words at the end of Revelation.......Amen. Come Lord Jesus!:D


Would you be speaking of this new heaven and new earth or another:

Isa 65:17-22
17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18 But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19 And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20 There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22 They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. KJV

What new heaven and new earth are we awaiting? I am asking this because this also puzzles me.

John

[MCoving]

Hey just a quick question and clarification.. whats the difference between saying yes that mainline protestant churches are part of the great whore and the last one.. that one believes about all "churches" are decieved and part of the great whore? Are not the two the same or were you thinking something else Greg when you put this option?

I still am having to go and look through my Bible and some little research on being part of the great whore. But in simple terms I do believe all mainline protestant churches do not believe the Truth, this is evident from what their pastor preaches and their doctrinal beliefs. They are very decieved as well.. because many of their theological ideas resemble the Truth but are not it.. they have key phrases and understandings of some passages in the Bible but the meaning, and the overall picture they do not understand. They definitely teach a false gospel and a false work of Christ.. they may get His diety right but they dont have His work correct. I believe actually mainline protestant churches to be the worst out there because they are so deceptive... I know for me I learned from these churches and there was a lot of garbage yet also some things were correct, so its harder to weed thru the vines and tangles of mess... I think it would be easier without any of that, like if one had a clean slate and was taught the correct doctrine from birth or something.. Still doesn't mean a thing unless God opens their eyes. Hopefully you get what I trying to say because I think I just lost my train of thought.. oh well...

on to some studying! :D

Mary

[Whammer]

What new heaven and new earth are we awaiting? I am asking this because this also puzzles me.

John

I was thinking more of what Peter said.......2 Pet. 3:13

[jmgipson]

I was thinking more of what Peter said.......2 Pet. 3:13

So what is the difference between these two?


Isa 65:17-22 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&restrict=0&keywords=&startbook=0&endbook=0&references=0&andor=0&ascdesc=0&highlight=1&createchaps=1&abrv=1&book=isa&chapter=65&verse1=17&verse2=22&version=kjv)

Peter 3:13

How many times is there a new heaven and a new earth?

John

[jmgipson]

I believe the biggest point I am trying to make is that you can call the church a whore or anti christ or anything else, but the church is not a part of the whore spoken of in Revelation. This is specific to Jerusalem and Judaism. They are the only ones who God held resposible for all the righteous blood of the prophets and saints. The 1st street baptist church in 2007 cannot be lumped in with this whore in Revelation.

John

[MCoving]

All I see in the Bible so far that talks about the whore, or the harlot depending on translation is in Revelations 17... I was reading it and dont quite understand it, I for some reason am just not at the place to really understand Revelations, it is tricky for me. But then again I did read it a second time and I pulled this from it that has some meaning maybe to the poll..

14 "These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."15 And he said to me, "The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues.16 "And the ten horns which you saw, and the beast, these will hate the harlot and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire.17 "For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose, and by giving their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God will be fulfilled.

It almost seems to me that there is contrasting here going on. Between the Lord and His chosen and the Harlot. Seems the harlot which sits on waters of people, multitudes and nations are those who are not believers. Says before Babylon the great which is the mother of harlots.. I think anyone who is not God's chosen is a harlot, maybe? When I look up these verses in interlinear for the greek text it says this under harlot/whore:

metaph. an idolatress

of "Babylon" i.e. Rome, the chief seat of idolatrySo... it seems anyone who is worshipping an idol? Right? And if that is the case then yes mainline protestant church is part of the great whore, those who worship an idol.

Just some thoughts.. I dont know as I said I'm not good in understanding Revelations. I really just tried to think through this right now as typing it. Anyone else have more thoughts? Thanks John and Bryan for yours too.. it was very interesting to read.

Mary

[Brandan Kraft]

Hey just a quick question and clarification.. whats the difference between saying yes that mainline protestant churches are part of the great whore and the last one.. that one believes about all "churches" are decieved and part of the great whore? Are not the two the same or were you thinking something else Greg when you put this option?
I don't see much of a difference - I agree with both answers. I didn't even look at the other options when I voted - I just saw "Yes" and pulled the lever. :)

[Whammer]

I believe the biggest point I am trying to make is that you can call the church a whore or anti christ or anything else, but the church is not a part of the whore spoken of in Revelation. This is specific to Jerusalem and Judaism. They are the only ones who God held resposible for all the righteous blood of the prophets and saints. The 1st street baptist church in 2007 cannot be lumped in with this whore in Revelation.

John

If I apply your logic John, there will not be any hope for gentiles in the new covenant. Look at the things prophecied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Look at Heb. 8:8-12 in the NT, which is a quote of Jer. 31:31-34......is there any mention on anyone other than the houses of Israel and Judah?

Would the jews prior to AD 70 have been guilty for the blood of every saint from that time forward till the 2nd coming of Christ? Who will be guilty of all the blood of saints spilt in the last 19 centuries?

[Whammer]

I don't see much of a difference - I agree with both answers. I didn't even look at the other options when I voted - I just saw "Yes" and pulled the lever. :)

I did the same thing (ha ha) and that is why I put in my comments on post #2:)

[jmgipson]

If I apply your logic John, there will not be any hope for gentiles in the new covenant. Look at the things prophecied by Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Look at Heb. 8:8-12 in the NT, which is a quote of Jer. 31:31-34......is there any mention on anyone other than the houses of Israel and Judah?

Would the jews prior to AD 70 have been guilty for the blood of every saint from that time forward till the 2nd coming of Christ? Who will be guilty of all the blood of saints spilt in the last 19 centuries?

1. I don't understand your point? What is it that you are asking me and what logic is it you are talking about?

2. Who is Jesus talking to, Us?

Matt 23:35
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. KJV

He is telling the leaders this. Because they crucified the Lord and shed the righteous blood from Abel to Zacharias, they will be judged. They are called the whore in Revelation and the detruction of the whore was in AD 70. It is that simple.

John


John

[Whammer]

1. I don't understand your point? What is it that you are asking me and what logic is it you are talking about?

2. Who is Jesus talking to, Us?

Matt 23:35
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. KJV

He is telling the leaders this. Because they crucified the Lord and shed the righteous blood from Abel to Zacharias, they will be judged. They are called the whore in Revelation and the detruction of the whore was in AD 70. It is that simple.

John


John

1. I realize John that you dont understand my point, all I can say is to take some time and "re-consider" what has been said.

2. I will not dispute that there is fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy in Matthew......in Rev. and the destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70.
Look at Gen. 15:13-14, Exo. 3:10 and Hos. 11:1
I am not talking about "mere types".....Hosea is inspired to call to mind that God called His son Israel out of Egypt........that was fulfilled prophecy! No doubt about it! God did bring His son Israel out of Egypt! But the greater fulfillment was what happened in Jesus' 1st coming. The more "Christ centered" interpretation is to say that the primary focus of the prophecy, is climactic in Christ.......right? Mat. 2:15, Jesus 1st coming.
So you think that there is not any relation of prophecy that is fulfilled by Jesus in the 1st century, that has no bearing in a greater way in His 2nd coming?
You are severly restricting prophecy here, just because the 1st century jews experienced that prophecied wrath (1 The. 2:16), do you think that those who, in the Name of God, do the very same thing (1 The. 2:14) to every blood bought saint from ad 70 till the 2nd coming of Jesus are going to experience less? Are they not just as much a false religion as the 1st century jew? Have they (a blasphemous whore bearing our Lord's Name in vain) not spilled the blood of the saints century after century?
As has already been said.......the greatest fulfillment of what is "the whore" will be prior to the 2nd coming of Jesus, the greatest destruction of false religion will be then as well......because the devil and all of his children will be dealt with once and for all! Not just a few of his children in a temporal way.

[Greg Winegar]

Hey just a quick question and clarification.. whats the difference between saying yes that mainline protestant churches are part of the great whore and the last one.. that one believes about all "churches" are decieved and part of the great whore? Are not the two the same or were you thinking something else Greg when you put this option?There are plenty of churches not part of a mainline denomination that I believe are part and parcel of the same garbage.

[Whammer]

So what is the difference between these two?


Isa 65:17-22 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&restrict=0&keywords=&startbook=0&endbook=0&references=0&andor=0&ascdesc=0&highlight=1&createchaps=1&abrv=1&book=isa&chapter=65&verse1=17&verse2=22&version=kjv)

Peter 3:13

How many times is there a new heaven and a new earth?

John

Look also at Rev. 21:1-8. The heavens and earth were shaken at the 1st coming of Jesus (His incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension) Psa. 110, Mat. 28:18, Col. 2:14-15, Heb. 1:3, 1 Cor. 15:25, Dan. 2:44-45, Rev. 12:7-13 with Rev. 20:1-6.......and while we live now between the 1st and 2nd comings of Jesus.....Heb. 2:6-9, Mat. 13:24-30, what will the 2nd coming look like? Heb. 12:18-28, Rev. 19:11-21 along with Rev. 21:1-8

[Whammer]

There are plenty of churches not part of a mainline denomination that I believe are part and parcel of the same garbage.

This is absolutely the truth!

[Saint Nicholas]

Gipper, you have brought up many interesting points, however I strongly disagree with you. I can not buy into the Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar’s (1554-1613) PRETERIST system of prophetic interpretation. Called on to defend the Papal Church of Rome from the reformers attacks on the Papacy, Alcazar devised the schema known as preterism. His views held that Revelation deals primarily with the events of the pagan Roman empire. The antichrist was Nero and all prophesies that dealt with the antichrist were fulfilled long before the medieval church of Rome. His views never made to much of an impact within the protestant movement until the last 75-100 years. His Jesuitical views are now being embraced by protestant liberals and rationalist. He also agreed that the Whore of Revelation 17 was Israel, thus camouflaging the Papacy from her true identity.
His counterpart who has had much more success in deception, was the FUTURIST Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591). Either way, these men clouded the fact the Antichrist was always a present reality.
Within Revelation 17, there is much to refute the idea of Israel being the great whore. In my next post I will share my understanding of who the great whore is along with all her whore daughters.
Just a tidbit Rev 17:6 "And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered with a great wonder." Now, please explain to me how John the Apostle, who wrote this many years after he saw the crucifixion of our Christ, and also already experienced the hatred of the Jews, would have wondered with a great wonder about Israel? John was SHOCKED IN THIS VISION OF THE WHORE!! Why? Because this great whore was pretending to be a Christian institution. To John he was amazed at such a veracity of hatred towards the Body of Christ. Even to the point of this institution killing the Saints.
More to come.
Nicholas

[jmgipson]

1. I realize John that you dont understand my point, all I can say is to take some time and "re-consider" what has been said.

2. I will not dispute that there is fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy in Matthew......in Rev. and the destruction of Jerusalem in ad 70.
Look at Gen. 15:13-14, Exo. 3:10 and Hos. 11:1
I am not talking about "mere types".....Hosea is inspired to call to mind that God called His son Israel out of Egypt........that was fulfilled prophecy! No doubt about it! God did bring His son Israel out of Egypt! But the greater fulfillment was what happened in Jesus' 1st coming. The more "Christ centered" interpretation is to say that the primary focus of the prophecy, is climactic in Christ.......right? Mat. 2:15, Jesus 1st coming.
So you think that there is not any relation of prophecy that is fulfilled by Jesus in the 1st century, that has no bearing in a greater way in His 2nd coming?
You are severly restricting prophecy here, just because the 1st century jews experienced that prophecied wrath (1 The. 2:16), do you think that those who, in the Name of God, do the very same thing (1 The. 2:14) to every blood bought saint from ad 70 till the 2nd coming of Jesus are going to experience less? Are they not just as much a false religion as the 1st century jew? Have they (a blasphemous whore bearing our Lord's Name in vain) not spilled the blood of the saints century after century?
As has already been said.......the greatest fulfillment of what is "the whore" will be prior to the 2nd coming of Jesus, the greatest destruction of false religion will be then as well......because the devil and all of his children will be dealt with once and for all! Not just a few of his children in a temporal way.

Then you tell me, what types are yet to be fulfilled? Israel, a type of the church? You tell me what in scripture is left that has not been fulfilled outside of the resurrection and the appearing of Jesus Christ? Show me scripture of something left undone except what I mentioned.

2 Pet 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (KJV)

John

[jmgipson]

Gipper, you have brought up many interesting points, however I strongly disagree with you. I can not buy into the Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar’s (1554-1613) PRETERIST system of prophetic interpretation. Called on to defend the Papal Church of Rome from the reformers attacks on the Papacy, Alcazar devised the schema known as preterism. His views held that Revelation deals primarily with the events of the pagan Roman empire. The antichrist was Nero and all prophesies that dealt with the antichrist were fulfilled long before the medieval church of Rome. His views never made to much of an impact within the protestant movement until the last 75-100 years. His Jesuitical views are now being embraced by protestant liberals and rationalist. He also agreed that the Whore of Revelation 17 was Israel, thus camouflaging the Papacy from her true identity.
His counterpart who has had much more success in deception, was the FUTURIST Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591). Either way, these men clouded the fact the Antichrist was always a present reality.
Within Revelation 17, there is much to refute the idea of Israel being the great whore. In my next post I will share my understanding of who the great whore is along with all her whore daughters.
Just a tidbit Rev 17:6 "And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered with a great wonder." Now, please explain to me how John the Apostle, who wrote this many years after he saw the crucifixion of our Christ, and also already experienced the hatred of the Jews, would have wondered with a great wonder about Israel? John was SHOCKED IN THIS VISION OF THE WHORE!! Why? Because this great whore was pretending to be a Christian institution. To John he was amazed at such a veracity of hatred towards the Body of Christ. Even to the point of this institution killing the Saints.
More to come.
Nicholas

Why is that a difference cannot be worked out in scripture instead of always going to some cult that may have believed this. This seems to be a habit. Your statement Nick means nothing to me. Everyone is a form of preterist. Jesuits believe Jesus is the Son of God also. So what. There are many cults that hold to some form of truth. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning "past".

That said,

Scripture being fulfilled in Revelation speaking of the whore or Israel:

Isa 29:2-7

2 Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel.
3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.
4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.
5 Moreover the multitude of thy strangers shall be like small dust, and the multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that passeth away: yea, it shall be at an instant suddenly.
6 Thou shalt be visited of the LORD of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise, with storm and tempest, and the flame of devouring fire.
7 And the multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel, even all that fight against her and her munition, and that distress her, shall be as a dream of a night vision.
(KJV)


Luke 19:41-44

41 And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
(KJV)


Rev 19:2-3

2 For true and righteous are his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.
3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever. (KJV)

I suppose to you this verse has a future fulfillment:

Matt 16:28
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (KJV)


Thanks for your answers. I think this will be my last post on this subject. I must go say my hail marys.

John

[jmgipson]

I missed this one last scripture:


Luke 21:20-22
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (KJV)

[Whammer]

Then you tell me, what types are yet to be fulfilled? Israel, a type of the church? You tell me what in scripture is left that has not been fulfilled outside of the resurrection and the appearing of Jesus Christ? Show me scripture of something left undone except what I mentioned.

2 Pet 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (KJV)

John I'll try and better re-sate what I have already laid out John, shortly. I do not believe that "ethnic Israel" has any place in the future, the dividing wall between jew and gentile was broken down in Christ never to be rebuilt Eph. 2:14-16........but the city (with many mansions Joh. 14:1-2) of the Lord that is being built has to be completed....Eph. 2:21 (the context Eph. 2:11-22). The whore of babylon does not just have 1 mini-fulfillment in who she is anymore than Christ only has 1 coming. The jews were a mini-historical fulfillment of the greater fulfillment. The great whore is also the entire false satanic system that will be destroyed at the 2nd coming of our Lord. I already gave enough scripture in my other posts to show that Christ is reigning now, putting down His enemies systematically untill the climax. The wheat and tares will grow till the time of the harvest, the tares will come against the saints in the end, with their master (Rev. 20:7-10)........then the "fullness" of the kingdom of Christ will come as the new heavens and earth are now opened.....there are many things recorded in Rev. that have multiple fulfillments, not just ONE! And these are not contradictory events, Psa. 110 and the others I already quoted.

[Saint Nicholas]

Gipper,......Any one of us can link together a bunch of scriptures to prove a point. Starting with a basic premise (presupposition) then logicaly building on that premise to a logical conclusion. However I see no conclusion in your efforts. Again I must ask a very simple question that you failed to answer in my previous post. When John the Apostle was givin this vision of the Great Whore, Why was he troubled and amazed? Allow me to give you an example: Let's suppose you were married to a woman, and you knew that this woman was a murderer, an adulterous, a fornicator, a hater of God, self righteous, and finally a rejector of Christ and his gospel. This knowledge of her you already possessed. Now some 30 to 40 years in the future you are givin a vision from God about all the things about her that you already knew. Would this be new knowledge to you? Would this same knowledge cause you to wonder? I doubt it! John had seen from God in the vision a more terrible and horrible manifistation of Whoredom. A whore that absorbed and manifested every foul and unclean thing.

PS: Don't forget to say your hail Mary's. :rolleyes:

In Love for the True Gospel
Nicholas

[rlhuckle]

My sense is that the prophecy had its physical fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem, but its spiritual fulfillment remains to be fully seen. Just a thought.

[lionovjudah]

My sense is that the prophecy had its physical fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem, but its spiritual fulfillment remains to be fully seen. Just a thought.

I agree with this also. There is too much in Rev that points to a future event to limit it only to 1st century world.

[Robert R. Higby]

The letter of revelation was written to a specific 7 churches in the 1st century about the great whore jeruslem and God's divorce of her and her destruction. The end of the jewish age (Old covenant). I believe there is only one meaning of this scripture and Jerusalem is meant by it. It is only our (men) application in which we apply it to todays church.

I have not chimed in on this one yet.

I do not agree with the Preterist interpretation at all, whether pure, partial, radical, absolute . . . whichever. I am convinced that every one of the tenets of Preterism do not fit the historical situation to which Revelation was addressed.

The book is about the past, present, and future. To suggest that the future aspect was all fulfilled within a few years after its writing misses the broad scope of its picture of history between the Advents of Christ.

1. The Preterist interpretaion is 100% dependent on a 60's A.D. dating of the historical situation of the book; if that date goes the whole system goes. I personally do not believe the situation described fits that decade at all--but describes a time significantly later (based on the content of the letters to the 7 assemblies). Irenaeus said it was written in the 90's A.D. and describes the reasons; although I don't believe he is authoritative on a lot of issues--I believe he was citing correct oral tradition on that one.

2. Even in the 60's A.D. apostate Judaism was no longer the primary persecutor of the Lord's people. That 'office' was clearly and dramatically transitioning to the Roman government by then.

In considering the identity of the great whore, which I identify as a single movement (the great religious apostasy springing from historical roots connected with the true people of God), it is certainly important to recognize Talmudic Judaism as the foundation of it. In fact, it was the first manifestation of the whore. Apostate Judaism was the first great religious persecutor of Christ's ekklesia but by no means the greatest or last. Subsequently, we have all of the apostate Christian churches throughout history and also Islam--which all have their religious roots in doctrine that was PART of the 'truth' heritage of God's people--biblical revelation. We could mention thousands of sects of heresy--each containing a different slant on the best and 'most pleasureable' way to commit adultery against Christ and his true complete gospel.

The apostate religious whore has always united with the beast of governments who are under God's judgment for their rebellion against Christ. Together they work to persecute the Lord's people. The message of Revelation is as relevant today as ever--the beast ridden by the woman is to have a final resurrection before the last Advent of Christ!

[jmgipson]

The letter of revelation was written to a specific 7 churches in the 1st century about the great whore jeruslem and God's divorce of her and her destruction. The end of the jewish age (Old covenant). I believe there is only one meaning of this scripture and Jerusalem is meant by it. It is only our (men) application in which we apply it to todays church.

I have not chimed in on this one yet.

I do not agree with the Preterist interpretation at all, whether pure, partial, radical, absolute . . . whichever. I am convinced that every one of the tenets of Preterism do not fit the historical situation to which Revelation was addressed.

The book is about the past, present, and future. To suggest that the future aspect was all fulfilled within a few years after its writing misses the broad scope of its picture of history between the Advents of Christ.

1. The Preterist interpretaion is 100% dependent on a 60's A.D. dating of the historical situation of the book; if that date goes the whole system goes. I personally do not believe the situation described fits that decade at all--but describes a time significantly later (based on the content of the letters to the 7 assemblies). Irenaeus said it was written in the 90's A.D. and describes the reasons; although I don't believe he is authoritative on a lot of issues--I believe he was citing correct oral tradition on that one.

2. Even in the 60's A.D. apostate Judaism was no longer the primary persecutor of the Lord's people. That 'office' was clearly and dramatically transitioning to the Roman government by then.

In considering the identity of the great whore, which I identify as a single movement (the great religious apostasy springing from historical roots connected with the true people of God), it is certainly important to recognize Talmudic Judaism as the foundation of it. In fact, it was the first manifestation of the whore. Apostate Judaism was the first great religious persecutor of Christ's ekklesia but by no means the greatest or last. Subsequently, we have all of the apostate Christian churches throughout history and also Islam--which all have their religious roots in doctrine that was PART of the 'truth' heritage of God's people--biblical revelation. We could mention thousands of sects of heresy--each containing a different slant on the best and 'most pleasureable' way to commit adultery against Christ and his true complete gospel.

The apostate religious whore has always united with the beast of governments who are under God's judgment for their rebellion against Christ. Together they work to persecute the Lord's people. The message of Revelation is as relevant today as ever--the beast ridden by the woman is to have a final resurrection before the last Advent of Christ!

I could no leave this alone. I find alot of statements, but no evidence of your statements. There is no internal evidence at all for the late date and that seems very shakey to me. Your statement I believe is not totally true. This seems to be the only proof of a late date.



The Late Date Theory
Those who hold to the "late date," have Revelation written during the time of Domitian Caesar (AD 95-96). This date is determined by the following statement by Irenaeus (AD 130 to AD 202), as quoted by Eusebius, the church historian, in AD 325: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

There are things about this statement that need to be noted. First, Irenaeus did not witness this. He referred to Polycarp (who supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part — "it is not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in AD 95-96, during the last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it" Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to us through three people separated by three centuries. Simply put, this is hear-say.

This statement, even with all of this uncertainty, is the only evidence used to support the "late date" theory. It has been accepted by generations of people without really questioning it or examining it in light of the book itself. The late date has been passed on to us in the same way it was passed on to Eusebius, "…it [was] handed down by tradition…" Tradition is not the way to interpret Scripture.

Another statement by Irenaeus seems to indicate the earlier date also. In his fifth book, he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John and the number of the name of the Antichrist: "As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies." Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he speaks of the Revelation being written in ancient copies. His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision" being seen in 95 AD which was almost in his day, and even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own day for him to consider the copies available to him as ancient.


Evidence for a late date:
A number of current scholars believe the Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian who was emperor over the Roman Empire from A.D. 81 to A.D. 96. This would place the events of the Revelation after the fall of Jerusalem. Belief in a post A.D. 70 authorship of Revelation is based on two primary considerations, one scriptural and the other external to scripture.

Consideration #1:
There was a superstition that developed after Nero’s death in A.D. 68 that he would return from the dead and rule Rome again. Because of his similar behavior, Domitian, who began his reign in A.D. 81, was widely regarded as a “second Nero” and therefore was looked upon as being the “mortal wound that was healed” spoken of in Revelation 13. It is also felt by many interpreters that emperor worship is alluded to in Chapter 13. It is believed, however, that such worship was not enforced until the reign of Domitian. It is therefore believed the Revelation pertains to the time of Domitian and thereafter.

While these are interesting observations, they do little to establish when the Revelation was written because even if John did have Domitian in mind in chapter 13, he still could have written the Revelation prior to A.D. 70. These observations have no direct bearing on when John wrote the Revelation.

Consideration #2:
The church leader Irenaeus, who wrote in the middle of the second century A.D., made a statement that could be interpreted as saying that either John’s vision or John, himself, was seen toward the end of Domitian’s reign.

The statement by Irenaeus is considered problematical in so much as scholars are not certain as to the meaning of his statement. If Irenaeus did mean the Revelation was received toward the end of Domitian’s reign, it would make the idea that Chapter 13 is prophetic of Domitian a mute point as his reign would have been practically over when John wrote the Revelation and could not be considered prophetic of his reign.

In this same statement by Irenaeus, he also alludes to there being “ancient copies” available of the Revelation. This is thought to be a puzzling statement by Irenaeus if he also said the Revelation appeared during the end of Domitian’s reign. Since there are historical indicators that John lived into the A.D. 90’s, it would appear more evidential to conclude that Irenaeus is talking about John being seen near the end of Domitian’s reign and not the Revelation being written at that time.

There is one interesting piece of history that may explain the confusion surrounding the dating of the Revelation. Historian G Edmundson in a series of lectures given in 1913, entitled “The Church in Rome in the First Century,” speaks of Domitian, the younger son of Emperor Vespasian, actually acting as Roman Emperor in early A.D. 70 on behalf of his Father who was occupied at the time with affairs in Alexandria. The young Domitian was relived of his duties upon the return of his father and later became Emperor after his father’s death. It could be that Irenaeus was referring to John being seen during the time of this temporary reign of a young Domitian and not during the time of Domitian’s reign after A.D. 70.


My point is there is no internal proof which carries much more weight with me. Bob, I find you make alot of statements about facts and what you believe, but I need more than that. I need scripture. Books written by men who can really give no proof of what they state such as Judiaism was not persucuting Christians in the 60's gives me no comfort.

Prophecy focuses upon the Cross of Jesus. I find no evidence that the battle of Gog and Magog is some future battle when you see the weapons used. You end up in the comic books with Hal Lindsey etc. I see no future prophecy other than the reserection and the appearing of Christ.

John

[MCoving]

I could no leave this alone. I find alot of statements, but no evidence of your statements. There is no internal evidence at all for the late date and that seems very shakey to me. Your statement I believe is not totally true. This seems to be the only proof of a late date.



The Late Date Theory

Those who hold to the "late date," have Revelation written during the time of Domitian Caesar (AD 95-96). This date is determined by the following statement by Irenaeus (AD 130 to AD 202), as quoted by Eusebius, the church historian, in AD 325: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

There are things about this statement that need to be noted. First, Irenaeus did not witness this. He referred to Polycarp (who supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part — "it is not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in AD 95-96, during the last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it" Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to us through three people separated by three centuries. Simply put, this is hear-say.

This statement, even with all of this uncertainty, is the only evidence used to support the "late date" theory. It has been accepted by generations of people without really questioning it or examining it in light of the book itself. The late date has been passed on to us in the same way it was passed on to Eusebius, "…it [was] handed down by tradition…" Tradition is not the way to interpret Scripture.

Another statement by Irenaeus seems to indicate the earlier date also. In his fifth book, he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John and the number of the name of the Antichrist: "As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies." Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he speaks of the Revelation being written in ancient copies. His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision" being seen in 95 AD which was almost in his day, and even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own day for him to consider the copies available to him as ancient.


Evidence for a late date:
A number of current scholars believe the Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian who was emperor over the Roman Empire from A.D. 81 to A.D. 96. This would place the events of the Revelation after the fall of Jerusalem. Belief in a post A.D. 70 authorship of Revelation is based on two primary considerations, one scriptural and the other external to scripture.

Consideration #1:
There was a superstition that developed after Nero’s death in A.D. 68 that he would return from the dead and rule Rome again. Because of his similar behavior, Domitian, who began his reign in A.D. 81, was widely regarded as a “second Nero” and therefore was looked upon as being the “mortal wound that was healed” spoken of in Revelation 13. It is also felt by many interpreters that emperor worship is alluded to in Chapter 13. It is believed, however, that such worship was not enforced until the reign of Domitian. It is therefore believed the Revelation pertains to the time of Domitian and thereafter.

While these are interesting observations, they do little to establish when the Revelation was written because even if John did have Domitian in mind in chapter 13, he still could have written the Revelation prior to A.D. 70. These observations have no direct bearing on when John wrote the Revelation.

Consideration #2:
The church leader Irenaeus, who wrote in the middle of the second century A.D., made a statement that could be interpreted as saying that either John’s vision or John, himself, was seen toward the end of Domitian’s reign.

The statement by Irenaeus is considered problematical in so much as scholars are not certain as to the meaning of his statement. If Irenaeus did mean the Revelation was received toward the end of Domitian’s reign, it would make the idea that Chapter 13 is prophetic of Domitian a mute point as his reign would have been practically over when John wrote the Revelation and could not be considered prophetic of his reign.

In this same statement by Irenaeus, he also alludes to there being “ancient copies” available of the Revelation. This is thought to be a puzzling statement by Irenaeus if he also said the Revelation appeared during the end of Domitian’s reign. Since there are historical indicators that John lived into the A.D. 90’s, it would appear more evidential to conclude that Irenaeus is talking about John being seen near the end of Domitian’s reign and not the Revelation being written at that time.

There is one interesting piece of history that may explain the confusion surrounding the dating of the Revelation. Historian G Edmundson in a series of lectures given in 1913, entitled “The Church in Rome in the First Century,” speaks of Domitian, the younger son of Emperor Vespasian, actually acting as Roman Emperor in early A.D. 70 on behalf of his Father who was occupied at the time with affairs in Alexandria. The young Domitian was relived of his duties upon the return of his father and later became Emperor after his father’s death. It could be that Irenaeus was referring to John being seen during the time of this temporary reign of a young Domitian and not during the time of Domitian’s reign after A.D. 70.


My point is there is no internal proof which carries much more weight with me. Bob, I find you make alot of statements about facts and what you believe, but I need more than that. I need scripture. Books written by men who can really give no proof of what they state such as Judiaism was not persucuting Christians in the 60's gives me no comfort.

Prophecy focuses upon the Cross of Jesus. I find no evidence that the battle of Gog and Magog is some future battle when you see the weapons used. You end up in the comic books with Hal Lindsey etc. I see no future prophecy other than the reserection and the appearing of Christ.

John


Hey I wouldn't mind reading more on this could you please provide the links to where you got this information? I found parts everywhere.. one was here http://www.theologicalperspectives.com/REVELATION.html and another here... http://ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html. I'm just curious of the credibility of these statements like origin and history and what not.. its interesting why people interpret things differently and from where they find their sources. Thanks!! :)

Mary

[Brandan Kraft]

I find no evidence that the battle of Gog and Magog is some future battle when you see the weapons used. You end up in the comic books with Hal Lindsey etc. I see no future prophecy other than the reserection and the appearing of Christ. What about prophecy that is being fulfilled now? Is there any prophecy that is being fulfilled now? Are saints undergoing tribulation? Is Christ reigning? If so, were these things not prophecied? Historicism is not futurism - to equate it to tells me that you do not understand historicism at all. Please investigate our position before you start making wild claims like the one above. Thanks - Brandan

[Brandan Kraft]

Oh and John - please cite your sources when you quote from another piece of literature. Thanks. - Brandan

[jmgipson]

Hey I wouldn't mind reading more on this could you please provide the links to where you got this information? I found parts everywhere.. one was here http://www.theologicalperspectives.com/REVELATION.html and another here... http://ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html. I'm just curious of the credibility of these statements like origin and history and what not.. its interesting why people interpret things differently and from where they find their sources. Thanks!! :)

Mary

Mary,
This may be I am not sure. All I was looking for is what evidence shows late date. Not necessarily to disprove it. What I found amongs many searches on evidence of late date is summed up above. In other words, there is no internal evidence for the late date. If you really want to research both views of the date then do a search on what evidence is used for both views. I don't like it when people make broad statements about the date and have no proof. I keep my mind open and research everything I hear. When men make a statement of facts which I cannot prove in scripture, that is the way I leave it. But I do keep my mind open:

Proverbs 18:13

Solomon told us that we should be able to at least listen thoroughly to an alternative interpretation rather then simply cast it aside because it was something we have not heard before. If you really want to look at a book on all the evidence both external (not from scripture) and internal (scripture), then I would recommend a book by Kenneth Gentry called "Before Jerusalem fell". You can get a free copy of it here.

http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2206_47e.htm

He is writing from a partial preterist (just remember that all christians have a preterist doctrine, it just depends on how much prophecy they think of as historical-fulfilled) view, but he is very fair and researched much of the external evidence that me or you have no access to. This is why I don't like it when doctrine is supported by statements that we as christians cannot verify. We have to take someones word for it. That sounds like the making of a cult.

John

[jmgipson]

What about prophecy that is being fulfilled now? Is there any prophecy that is being fulfilled now? Are saints undergoing tribulation? Is Christ reigning? If so, were these things not prophecied? Historicism is not futurism - to equate it to tells me that you do not understand historicism at all. Please investigate our position before you start making wild claims like the one above. Thanks - Brandan

I never said all Prophecy has been fulfilled. But what I did say is that most of Revelation applies to the first century church in that it is fulfilled in the desctruction of the temple (which John is told to measure) and the city of Jerusalem. It is the end of the age. The Jewish age (old covenant). I never once said the church does not go through tribulations, etc. But the tribulation spoken of by Jesus is a judgement specific to a people whom filled their cup up for the rejecting and killing of the Christ. That generation is what most of Revelation is speaking of. Not battles throughout history until know. I do not see how that can be supported.

I do know the position of Historicism I think. It is like any other system. It fails in many places. Is this the Historicism you are speaking of:

The Historicist Approach:

The historicist believes that God reveled the entire church age in advance through the symbols of the Revelation. This approach makes great use of the “year for a day” principle. It advocates that God revealed exact time frames for various events but cast them in symbols that represent a year for a day. According to this methodology, the 1260 days of the Revelation would equal 1,260 years in actual fulfillment.
The historicist sees a great deal of the Revelation fulfilled in events associated with the Roman Empire. For example, the breaking of the seven seals is seen as the barbarian invasions that brought the Western Roman Empire to its knees. The Arabs attacking the Eastern Roman Empire is seen as associated with the locusts that come out of the bottomless pit. The papacy is considered the antichrist under this system.

Like all interpretive systems, historicists disagree among themselves as to how certain prophesies are fulfilled. For example, whereas many historicists agree among themselves that the seven trumpets are associated with the Arabs attacking the Eastern Empire, they disagree among themselves as to whether the seven seals relate to the fall of the Western Empire or the fall of Jerusalem. Like several other interpretive systems, historicists tend to see the culmination of history occurring during their lifetime which over and over it fails to do. A major problem with the historicist approach is that its interpretations are of such nature as to leave little applicability to those to whom the Revelation was initially addressed. It primarily focuses on the period of the Middle Ages and the Reformation. Yet the original audience to whom the Revelation was addressed was told that the time was near and the events prophesied in the Revelation must soon take place.

The historicist approach has been around to one degree or another since the second century to the beginning of the nineteenth century. This interpretive approach has been somewhat discredited and is not currently in vogue within the Christian community. (Taken from the same web site above)

John

[Robert R. Higby]

What you are labeling as the 'historicist' approach is only one of a hundred versions of historicism. It is a false labeling.

There is no 'proof' of anything when dating Revelation EXCEPT internal evidence. Scholars have never agreed. All I am saying is that I can clearly see that all of those who are Preterist go for the mid-60's date because if that date fails, the whole system fails.

I do not believe the mid-60's date is accurate based on internal considerations.

1. The situation described with the 7 assemblies makes more far sense if it is adjudged to be in a time much farther removed from when the apostles were still alive (or just recently martyred).

2. The exhortations within the book are more applicable to believers removed from the apostolic testimony (and living in the entirety of the Christian era).

3. The context of the 'temple' chapter (11) is apocalyptic not literal. The mid-60's proponents state that the temple must have been still standing in order for this symbolism to be used--which makes no sense; the book is addressing the new Israel or new temple of God.

I could list more but I'm in a hurry right now.

Of course, I could be wrong and the date truly was in the 60's--I just find it unlikely based on the content of the book.

Anyway, the book--being prophetic in nature and culminating in the final Advent of Christ--only makes sense if it covers all of Christian history. The real issue is this: Is there a future Advent of Jesus Christ? This pure preterism denies.

[MCoving]

Umm I dont know if this really goes here but the terms keep being discussed and I think I'd like to understand them more now.. Does anyone have a good article or website that discusses what preterist, historicist, and futurist all mean?? And also other terms I dont know.. premillenial, postmillenial, and amillenial oh and I think there's panmillenial?? I dont get all these terms and just curious if there was anything that kind of compared them and the beliefs they had. Obviously it has to do with ones interpretations of Revelations right? I still, as one can tell on my profile, have "I dont know" when it comes to all of this.. because I dont. I was taught views such as Left Behind series.. I didn't know there were other views and three of them.. or six or whatever those words mean.

Thanks!

Mary

[Robert R. Higby]

Does anyone have a good article or website that discusses what preterist, historicist, and futurist all mean??

I know of no good website defending historicism without a lot of sectarian dogma. It is like many things--not a lot of well-published material about it.

There are tons of websites defending both Preterism and Futurism from every angle imaginable. For me, none of them good because I think their hermeneutic is way way off.

From a historical amillenial perspective, of the well-published writings, I believe Hoeksema is the best there is:

http://www.spindleworks.com/library/hoeksma/intro.htm

Especially on the question of the identity of the whore (although his perspective needs expanded upon).

however, as one might guess, I think he is wrong on a lot of things.

Interestingly, this is what he had to say on the question of date (hardly anything):


The same is true of the question concerning the time when this book was written. Here also opinions are divided between an earlier and a later date. Although, therefore, it is our personal conviction that the author is the apostle John and that the book was written about the year 95 A.D., we do not consider the matter of sufficient importance to add to the mass of material that has already been written on these questions.

[Robert R. Higby]

Excerpt from chapter 40 of Hoeksema (on the great whore)

In the words of our text, therefore, we have a picture of the harlot church, the false church, the counterfeit church. For even as the devil aims at establishing a counterfeit kingdom, so he also establishes a counterfeit church. Naturally! We have told you before that he uses all the institutions which God has placed on earth in this dispensation for the maintenance and establishment of his kingdom, that he employs them all for his own purpose and for the propagation of his own principle. The same is true of the church. Also the church as an institution in this dispensation, designed to be the army of the kingdom,- also that church the devil shrewdly employs in his service. And the result is that a counterfeit church, the harlot church, is established. The true church is the spiritual bride of Christ, ingrafted into Him by a true faith, and through Him stands in covenant relation with the Lord Jehovah. But that counterfeit church is the church which still bears the name of church, still appears as the church in the world, still claims or pretends to be the church, outwardly also looks like the church, has its ministers and sacraments, the preaching of the Word and teaching, and all kinds of institutions and societies besides, but employs all the blessings she has outwardly received in the service of Antichrist, and not in the service of Jehovah. Her ministers preach for Antichrist. The officebearers work for Antichrist. Publicly she displays all the signs of Antichrist, and all her members she educates to work for the dragon and his kingdom. She enjoys the favor and the good will of the world, of the great and the mighty and the strong and the rich in the world. And they bless and deck her with all kinds of precious jewels and gold. She becomes great and powerful. And the more she labors in the interest of the antichristian kingdom, the more she will enjoy the favor of the dragon: for she is nothing but his harlot, and allows herself to be the instrument of Antichrist.
That this is true is plain from the description that is given of her in the text. For she is called the harlot, and is described as one who commits fornication with the great of the earth and with all that dwell in the world. That this is true is plain also from the fact that she is sitting on the scarlet beast with his seven heads an ten horns, evidently implying that she is borne by the power of Antichrist, and, at the same time, controls that power with her fascinating fornications. That this is true, finally, is also plain from the fact that of her the terrible sentence is expressed that she is fairly drunken with the blood of the saints. Surely, this woman is the church as she appears on earth; but it is the false church, rapidly developing in our own time. It is the church that has abandoned the truth of the Word of God, that laughs about the truth of the atonement of Christ and tramples under foot the blood of the new covenant. Every pledge with her Lord and covenant God she has broken. And even those who do remain faithful she kills in her hatred.

[lionovjudah]

There is one point I must make in this discussion which does support Pagan Rome and apostate jerusalem as the whore

20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.
24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.



There has been no apostles nor prophets since the first century.




But also, this Mystery Babylon is said to be destroyed and never to rise again.

Jerusalem is still in existence.


21And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

So looking at the scripture this way will support a both and interpretation. 1st century Jeruaelm/rome, and all spiritual adulterous christ rejecting peoples

Now if The olivet discourse:

34Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Is used to present a complete fulfillment of the whore being jerusalem, it makes an interprative mistake. Look at ::

Deuteronomy 18:15 "The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as He raised me up. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you

So obviously this is speakign of Christ of which noone hearing it would be the 'you' spoken about.

when Jesus said this generation will not pass, he could have been speaking of any future generation who would be alove when the signs He predicted came.

[Robert R. Higby]

Here is one 'somewhat' helpful source although I can't go crazy over it:

http://www.historicist.com/articles/revdate_4.html

[Saint Nicholas]

Gippers statement in post #3
“ I believe all scripture except the resurrection and the appearing of our Lord is fulfilled.”


Gipper I am going to share a host of scriptures with you. Please give me your insights. These scriptures are from Jesus's own mouth. I will share my understanding , then I want you to share your understanding. I am going to hold you to your above statement (premise). It is pointless to continue discussion pertaining to the book of Revelation being that both you and I are viewing scripture from a different premise. For the sake of truth, let's first examine the below scriptures in light of your premise to see if there is harmony.


Matthew 22: 1-14 I believe the King in verse 2 is a reference to God the Father. The son of the King is Jesus. And the marriage, a reference to the marriage of Christ and His elect bride. Verses 3 – 6, describe God sending prophets to National Israel and like usual ,Israel killed the prophets of God. Verse 7 describes God's punishment of National Israel sending in armies and burning their city. Now is the burning of the city is a reference 70 AD ? When did Paul's missionary efforts to the Gentiles begin? Before 70 Ad or After 70 Ad? Verses 9-10 show the servants of God going to the Gentile nations to gather the elect Gentiles to the wedding feast. Verse 11, describes the King's anger at the religious man who was not wearing Christ's perfect Robe of Righteousness, but rather is own filthy rags. It was customary in those days for a King to supply royal garments to his guests. Verse 12, The King's accusation. Verse 13, A clear reference to hell (outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth).


Now Gipper according to your above premise listed above in quotation marks, do you really believe that this Parable ( scripture) is completely fulfilled?


Matthew 7: 22;23 In verse 22 there is a prophetic allusion to “ That Day “. If all scripture according to you ,is fulfilled. Then have the events portrayed in verses 22 & 23 been fulfilled prior and up to 70 AD also?


Matthew 25: 31-45 Gipper, was verse 31 fulfilled? Did Christ come with all His holy angels in 70 AD? In verses 32 -33 was the final tally of Sheep and Goats separated in 70AD? Has verse 41 been fulfilled? Or does this verse speak of the final judgment along with the sentence carried out in verse 46? Was this all fulfilled in 70AD according to you?


Matthew 13: 24-30 In verse 30 was the “time of the harvest” fulfilled by 70AD? Were the tares (reprobates),gathered, binded in bundles and burned (an allusion to hell) by 70AD? Were the wheat (elect) gathered into the barn ( an allusion to a safe place to store the wheat,ie: heaven) by 70AD?


According to your premise Gipper, that all prophesy was filled by 70AD, except for the resurrection and the second coming, then scripture would not have any present eschatological meaning for anyone including sheep and goats. Because this final prophetic judgment would have already taken place.


I can cite numerous scriptures to refute the nonsense of preterism weather it be hyper, full, or partial. From an amillenial perspective of scripture being myself more of a comprehensivist, I cannot confine symbolic and metaphoric language which is used in the Bible to convey the greater spiritual reality, to only one era. In reference to the Whore of Revelation I will agree that National Israel was and still is a whore but not the only one. ALL FALSE GOSPEL SYSTEMS ARE RELIGIOUS WHORES ! ALL ARE PART OF MYSTERY BABYLON! Just as in the parable of the Tares. Our Lord waits till they are fully manifested for what they really are before Judgment. This is for our benefit! When the last elect sheep is brought into the fold, I believe the Whore of Revelation will be fully matured, and fully ripened for judgment. Then the consummation of days and end of history. The whore is a spiritual satanic entity.” For we wrestle not with flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having having on the breastplate; of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.” Ephesians 6: 12-18


Let's continue to “DITCH THE GARBAGE” Preterism and Dispensational Futurism do nothing but try to conceal the true enemy of the God's elect people. Satan, demons, reprobate men, false religions, false christian gospels, false christs, were and always be with us till the end of the world. “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev. 18:4 Read whole chapter.

In Christ
Nicholas

[MCoving]

Here is one 'somewhat' helpful source although I can't go crazy over it:

http://www.historicist.com/articles/revdate_4.html

Thanks Bob for those sites! I am going to read over them some tomorrow.. I also just read some stuff on wiki as well, obviously I'm sure like anything it may not due much justice to each of the different positions but it at least gave me a start into what each position believes... here's the link if want to read or critique its under schools of interpretation.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation. I also saw a couple of other sites that briefly compared all three. Which funny thing is that link you provided me I found another one on there that explains.. http://www.historicist.com/articles/historicism.htm It gives me a semi place to work from on understand these ideas, and then I'm also going to go back and reread through Revelations... in the last year I've read it twice now.. but it just seems confusing to me. Maybe this time more things will click with some preknowledge from these articles and other things I've read.. as I said before I've always just believed the mainstream end time beliefs.. such as Left Behind series.. Thanks for those links! Some reason I feel like these doctrines are harder for me to understand right now than others.. like Satan being a murderer from the beginning that is pretty straight forward in Scripture but this seems tricky.. how did you come to the conclusion of being a historicist/amil? I think thats what you are right Bob? And whats pan? just all pan out? Is that just a belief that says their isn't any theories but it will just happen as it does?

Thanks again!!

Mary

[jmgipson]

Thanks Bob for those sites! I am going to read over them some tomorrow.. I also just read some stuff on wiki as well, obviously I'm sure like anything it may not due much justice to each of the different positions but it at least gave me a start into what each position believes... here's the link if want to read or critique its under schools of interpretation.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation. I also saw a couple of other sites that briefly compared all three. Which funny thing is that link you provided me I found another one on there that explains.. http://www.historicist.com/articles/historicism.htm It gives me a semi place to work from on understand these ideas, and then I'm also going to go back and reread through Revelations... in the last year I've read it twice now.. but it just seems confusing to me. Maybe this time more things will click with some preknowledge from these articles and other things I've read.. as I said before I've always just believed the mainstream end time beliefs.. such as Left Behind series.. Thanks for those links! Some reason I feel like these doctrines are harder for me to understand right now than others.. like Satan being a murderer from the beginning that is pretty straight forward in Scripture but this seems tricky.. how did you come to the conclusion of being a historicist/amil? I think thats what you are right Bob? And whats pan? just all pan out? Is that just a belief that says their isn't any theories but it will just happen as it does?

Thanks again!!

Mary

This shows the different views known as full pret. and Partial Pret.

http://www.apocalipsis.org/preterism.htm

John

[jmgipson]

Gippers statement in post #3
“ I believe all scripture except the resurrection and the appearing of our Lord is fulfilled.”





Gipper I am going to share a host of scriptures with you. Please give me your insights. These scriptures are from Jesus's own mouth. I will share my understanding , then I want you to share your understanding. I am going to hold you to your above statement (premise). It is pointless to continue discussion pertaining to the book of Revelation being that both you and I are viewing scripture from a different premise. For the sake of truth, let's first examine the below scriptures in light of your premise to see if there is harmony.



Matthew 22: 1-14 I believe the King in verse 2 is a reference to God the Father. The son of the King is Jesus. And the marriage, a reference to the marriage of Christ and His elect bride. Verses 3 – 6, describe God sending prophets to National Israel and like usual ,Israel killed the prophets of God. Verse 7 describes God's punishment of National Israel sending in armies and burning their city. Now is the burning of the city is a reference 70 AD ? When did Paul's missionary efforts to the Gentiles begin? Before 70 Ad or After 70 Ad? Verses 9-10 show the servants of God going to the Gentile nations to gather the elect Gentiles to the wedding feast. Verse 11, describes the King's anger at the religious man who was not wearing Christ's perfect Robe of Righteousness, but rather is own filthy rags. It was customary in those days for a King to supply royal garments to his guests. Verse 12, The King's accusation. Verse 13, A clear reference to hell (outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth).



Now Gipper according to your above premise listed above in quotation marks, do you really believe that this Parable ( scripture) is completely fulfilled?



Matthew 7: 22;23 In verse 22 there is a prophetic allusion to “ That Day “. If all scripture according to you ,is fulfilled. Then have the events portrayed in verses 22 & 23 been fulfilled prior and up to 70 AD also?



Matthew 25: 31-45 Gipper, was verse 31 fulfilled? Did Christ come with all His holy angels in 70 AD? In verses 32 -33 was the final tally of Sheep and Goats separated in 70AD? Has verse 41 been fulfilled? Or does this verse speak of the final judgment along with the sentence carried out in verse 46? Was this all fulfilled in 70AD according to you?



Matthew 13: 24-30 In verse 30 was the “time of the harvest” fulfilled by 70AD? Were the tares (reprobates),gathered, binded in bundles and burned (an allusion to hell) by 70AD? Were the wheat (elect) gathered into the barn ( an allusion to a safe place to store the wheat,ie: heaven) by 70AD?



According to your premise Gipper, that all prophesy was filled by 70AD, except for the resurrection and the second coming, then scripture would not have any present eschatological meaning for anyone including sheep and goats. Because this final prophetic judgment would have already taken place.



I can cite numerous scriptures to refute the nonsense of preterism weather it be hyper, full, or partial. From an amillenial perspective of scripture being myself more of a comprehensivist, I cannot confine symbolic and metaphoric language which is used in the Bible to convey the greater spiritual reality, to only one era. In reference to the Whore of Revelation I will agree that National Israel was and still is a whore but not the only one. ALL FALSE GOSPEL SYSTEMS ARE RELIGIOUS WHORES ! ALL ARE PART OF MYSTERY BABYLON! Just as in the parable of the Tares. Our Lord waits till they are fully manifested for what they really are before Judgment. This is for our benefit! When the last elect sheep is brought into the fold, I believe the Whore of Revelation will be fully matured, and fully ripened for judgment. Then the consummation of days and end of history. The whore is a spiritual satanic entity.” For we wrestle not with flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having having on the breastplate; of righteousness; and your feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.” Ephesians 6: 12-18



Let's continue to “DITCH THE GARBAGE” Preterism and Dispensational Futurism do nothing but try to conceal the true enemy of the God's elect people. Satan, demons, reprobate men, false religions, false christian gospels, false christs, were and always be with us till the end of the world. “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev. 18:4 Read whole chapter.


In Christ
Nicholas




Nick,
I can see that what you really are looking for is a Catholic behind every door. You know I don't believe the judgement has happened. I don't believe you even deserve an answer from me. If you want the answers to any other question on what partial preterist believe, research it on the web. Good luck.

John

[jmgipson]

What I find amazing are those who would rather wrestle scripture to say soon means 2000 years later. The liberals who claim the bible is inspired love Christians like this. They are not stupid, they know when Jesus is saying this generation, they are intelligent enough to know that it means exactly that as it does in all other places He uses this term. They are not dingy enough to say Oh that is the generation that sees the signs.

What you end up with is what this pastor says:

"The Apostles preached the coming of the Lord because they thought it was the last days. Two thousand years later I am preaching the coming of the Lord because it is the last days." (Rev. Nathaniel Urshan ?)

Think about what that says about God's Word.

Think about what Acts 1:11 says?

Now what is the difference when you read Revelation 19:11? Instead of the clouds that the angels said He would return on in like manner, we have Him returning on a white horse. I can't live with these kind of differences as most Christiandumb can. I know that all God's word is inspired and every original word has a purpose. So I know there must be an answer somewhere in scripture. And of course there is when you look at apoclyptic language in the OT. Research all the comings in the clouds in the OT. Was there a change in the NT or is apocalyptic language carried over from OT into the NT? Since Christ has been given all judgement, why would He not also come in judgement as Jehovah did many times in OT?

John

John

[MCoving]

This shows the different views known as full pret. and Partial Pret.

http://www.apocalipsis.org/preterism.htm

John

Just so I get this clear I tried reading back or checking your profile but I kind of wanted to be clear on what you believe with all of this. So do you believe in full pret then? I think reading over what you wrote that you interpret it as all or most of Revelations as already have happened, right? Thats why you say the great whore was Jerusalem right? And the proof texts that were used to support that idea are in this thread: http://www.predestinarian.net/showpost.php?p=52761&postcount=3. So is that your main proof or do you see other areas of Revelation also having been done already? And also since one would believe all these events had already happened when the book was written the book would of had to have been written at an early date such as 68. Is that right?

haha I seriously dont know any of this! Its interesting to try and put my mind around it all and grasp each understanding. But then course at some point I'm going to read through Revelations again and maybe a third and fourth time!... I think I always just saw it with my "old glasses" on, thinking it was all in the future. Which is the modern interpretation of these events.. the whole Left Behind idea..

And then Bob your interpretation of Revelations is historicist and amil? Which means that you interpret Revelations as happening in the past, present and future? That different things in there have either been done, are being done, or will be. I wonder which events are which and how does one know? Okay and amil believes that the thousand years mentioned in Ch 20 is just figuritive languange and not specifically a thousand years right? Its just talking about the years between when Christ rose and his second coming? In Chapter 20 if its viewed that way who are the people that reign with Christ for a 1000 years? And what does it mean by the first resurrection?

Okay I think I am understanding parts now but of course in understanding some i have more questions! haha Maybe the article you gave me Bob will answer some of these.. I need to take some time to read through that, sometimes I am not that patient and just jump in wanting quick explanations but I have some time today I'll read through that article. And also yours too John, thanks so much everyone! Hope you all are having a good summer. :D

Mary

[Saint Nicholas]

Gipper Wrote..."Nick,
I can see that what you really are looking for is a Catholic behind every door. You know I don't believe the judgement has happened. I don't believe you even deserve an answer from me. If you want the answers to any other question on what partial preterist believe, research it on the web. Good luck."

John

Gipper As per your request, I cited scripture. Being that you think I do not use scripture. If you would only read all the post's I have written since I became a member of this forum, your accusation would be thus groundless. Furthermore, you are coward in not even answering my questions in my previous post. Also I am not looking for a Catholic behind every door. When I raised the issue of the two Jesuits Alcazar and Ribera I was just stating a historical fact. Instead of using cheap character assasinations, as all cowards do, please respond to the scriptures and questions that I have raised. You remind me of modern day Zionists and Jews. When any news broadcastor, journalist, author, politician etc. etc. says anything even in truthfull disagreement with a Jew. That person is labled as anti-semitic. Likewise anytime someone says anything about the Pope or the Catholic Church that individual is painted as a bigot or hateful.
Tell me Gipper, What have I said about the Catholic Church that is NOT TRUE? please tell me. And what have I said about Protestants and protestant churchman that is not true? Please tell me my friend.

All who have read my prvious post will see that the tone is INCLUSIVE OF ALL FALSE RELIGIONS. NOT ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

I appeal to all the my brothers and sisters in the Lord right now this very moment, to see if your accusations against me is warranted. If they are in agreement with you Gipper, then I will most gladly humble myself before all on this forum with an apology. This is the only way to solve conflicts within the Body of Christ.

I ask all my brothers and sisters on this forum to prayerfully respond with your verdict.

For the cause of Christ and the True Gospel,

Nicholas

[Robert R. Higby]

I will try and respond to the current points and questions in broad terms right now rather than exchange with specific quotes.

To answer the liberalism charge, the favorite system of interpretation of any liberal that I have ever known is a C.H. Dodd type of full Preterism. The main difference between a 'conservative' Preterist and a liberal would not be the interpretation of the events of Revelation but the DATE it was written--the liberal would state that it was written AFTER 70 A.D. and merely parrots already fulfilled detailed events in symbolism. But the conservative Preterist also looks back and makes the detailed events of 65-70 A.D. 'fit', just as certain brands of historicism do the same thing with the 'year day principle' interpretation of the tribulation, etc. By the way, I fully reject the year-day principle held to by many historicists in every way. Even with Dan. 9:24-27 we are not dealing with a year-day principle but with seventy 'sevens'--which in the apocalyptic context are 70 units of 7 years.

No one is suggesting that 'soon' means 2000 years, by the way. The emphasis is that Christ's coming is always near, even at the doors. The same tension between 'near' and 'far' exists in Christ's own parables; He stated that the master returned to settle his accounts 'after a long time' (Mt. 25:19). So His coming (whether the Final Advent or His coming to judge individual souls) is at a time that is unexpected and it is always immanent; none of us will still be in this earthly sojourn 100 years from now!

The notion that anyone would ever know that Christ's Advent was surely going to occur within 10 years (like the Preterist interpretation proposes) is foreign to all that Christ taught about the time being unknown.

To answer your question Mary, I don't hold that specific detailed events can be 'pinned' from Revelation except in 'broad strokes', as it were. The events that were already past are clearly stated in the book. The future (from John's time) is projected mainly with spiritual principles that are to govern history until Christ's final return. Many of the sequences of events involving God's judgment and vindication keep happening with increasing intensity. For example, the beast and whore (the civic and religious aspects of antichrist) continue to manifest themselves in ever-increasing measure and in different governments and religious institutions until their 'last hour of glory' in Rev. 17. And the symbolism varies; the whore in chapter 17 is a lamblike beast in ch. 13., etc.

Nick, on interpretaion I think we are pretty much in agreement on everything! I think this identity of the apostasy is critical; the whore is a religious institution ever attempting to control the governments and not a government power--as Hoeksema so amptly demonstrates. Her original manifestation was not Jerusalem but APOSTATE JUDAISM--which continues to this day along with all of the other institutions that constitute the whore. Added to her were all of the false institutions of a christendumb that rejected its original gospel (resulting in amalgamation of pagan religion with aspects of Christian belief) and also Islam--which was conceived using apostate Jewish and apostate Christian doctrines.

--Bob

[jmgipson]

I think this thread probably went farther than HF wanted it to go so I will leave it alone. Even though I don't follow alot of what R.C. Sproul writes, I believe he has a good series on this view of Partial pret. He has a book and video series called the last days according to Jesus. It goes into alot of this view with an open mind. Thanks for all the (good and productive only) debate on this issue.

John

[Greg Winegar]

I think this thread probably went farther than HF wanted it to go so I will leave it alone.Actually I have enjoyed this a lot.
Even though I don't follow alot of what R.C. Sproul writes, I believe he has a good series on this view of Partial pret. He has a book and video series called the last days according to Jesus. It goes into alot of this view with an open mind. Thanks for all the (good and productive only) debate on this issue.

JohnJohn, there are many writings by many people with many different slants. There are many who are highly educated, some with many letters behind their names and some without. However, that being said it is my belief that material written by people who start off from non-high-grace, non-supra points of view can't possibly reach a proper conclusion, though I do think one can glean helpful things from these sources.

From what I have observed, digesting material from these people by and large is a waste of time. And if one is digesting this murky water consistently, it could certainly make it harder to see through the hazy liquid and come to truthful conclusions if one depends on their insights for truth.

I have watched your contributions on this forum since I have been here. I saw you on the conference videos, and liked what you had to say and how you have contended for the truth on this forum.

However, your statements on this poll and on the "faith in Christ vs. the faith of Christ" thread I have found puzzling. It has caused me to wonder why have you been buying into any of this low-grace-infra-preterist garbage?

If the water is bad at it's source, why drink it?

Greg

[lionovjudah]

However, your statements on this poll and on the "faith in Christ vs. the faith of Christ" thread I have found puzzling. It has caused me to wonder why have you been buying into any of this low-grace-infra-preterist garbage?

If the water is bad at it's source, why drink it?

Greg

How has what John said resembled anything of your broad brush stoke HF? How does preterism or faith in vs faith of equal low grace infra garbage? Makes no sense and there is no connection.

[Robert R. Higby]

I think Greg's point is this: there is no well-published Preterist or proponent of justification 'apart from' personal faith who holds to the doctrines of high grace as we love and cherish them. So he is confused where John is coming from by defending these teachings--as am I.

[Greg Winegar]

I think Greg's point is this: there is no well-published Preterist or proponent of justification 'apart from' personal faith who holds to the doctrines of high grace as we love and cherish them. So he is confused where John is coming from by defending these teachings--as am I.I agree Bob.

[lionovjudah]

I think Greg's point is this: there is no well-published Preterist or proponent of justification 'apart from' personal faith who holds to the doctrines of high grace as we love and cherish them. So he is confused where John is coming from by defending these teachings--as am I.

Mike Krall is one of them.

[Eileen]

Excerpt from chapter 40 of Hoeksema (on the great whore)

In the words of our text, therefore, we have a picture of the harlot church, the false church, the counterfeit church. For even as the devil aims at establishing a counterfeit kingdom, so he also establishes a counterfeit church. Naturally! We have told you before that he uses all the institutions which God has placed on earth in this dispensation for the maintenance and establishment of his kingdom, that he employs them all for his own purpose and for the propagation of his own principle. The same is true of the church. Also the church as an institution in this dispensation, designed to be the army of the kingdom,- also that church the devil shrewdly employs in his service. And the result is that a counterfeit church, the harlot church, is established. The true church is the spiritual bride of Christ, ingrafted into Him by a true faith, and through Him stands in covenant relation with the Lord Jehovah. But that counterfeit church is the church which still bears the name of church, still appears as the church in the world, still claims or pretends to be the church, outwardly also looks like the church, has its ministers and sacraments, the preaching of the Word and teaching, and all kinds of institutions and societies besides, but employs all the blessings she has outwardly received in the service of Antichrist, and not in the service of Jehovah. Her ministers preach for Antichrist. The officebearers work for Antichrist. Publicly she displays all the signs of Antichrist, and all her members she educates to work for the dragon and his kingdom. She enjoys the favor and the good will of the world, of the great and the mighty and the strong and the rich in the world. And they bless and deck her with all kinds of precious jewels and gold. She becomes great and powerful. And the more she labors in the interest of the antichristian kingdom, the more she will enjoy the favor of the dragon: for she is nothing but his harlot, and allows herself to be the instrument of Antichrist.
That this is true is plain from the description that is given of her in the text. For she is called the harlot, and is described as one who commits fornication with the great of the earth and with all that dwell in the world. That this is true is plain also from the fact that she is sitting on the scarlet beast with his seven heads an ten horns, evidently implying that she is borne by the power of Antichrist, and, at the same time, controls that power with her fascinating fornications. That this is true, finally, is also plain from the fact that of her the terrible sentence is expressed that she is fairly drunken with the blood of the saints. Surely, this woman is the church as she appears on earth; but it is the false church, rapidly developing in our own time. It is the church that has abandoned the truth of the Word of God, that laughs about the truth of the atonement of Christ and tramples under foot the blood of the new covenant. Every pledge with her Lord and covenant God she has broken. And even those who do remain faithful she kills in her hatred.

I’m a bit late in any reply or response here, I’m not too sure that I understand the whole realm of what is being discussed. I answered no to this question because, simply put, I don’t think that every ‘church’, every ‘institution’ is part of the RCC. There is no question that the true church is the spiritual bride of Christ; I don’t find many who disagree with that. My question here with HH would be this: Was he speaking of every ‘institution’, including his own beloved PRC where he labored so faithfully, preaching the Word of God? Was he saying that in the above quote? There is a counterfeit church, wasn’t he saying that church was the RCC and those who adhere to her doctrine or do you believe he was saying that ALL institutions are the counterfeit church, including his own?

I see your point in agreement with HH that the great whore would be the continuing and approaching apostasy of the church institutions on this earth. I just have a very hard time considering them all such as harlots, I honestly think that if I considered them that way I wouldn’t want to set foot in them ever and so I see that perhaps that is why most here shun the organized institution. I guess I am, at this point in my life and understanding, outside the forum camp.

Eileen~

PS What book of Hoeksema’s is this quote from? I just ordered his commentary on the Canons of Dordt and I’m truly looking forward to the read.

[Robert R. Higby]

Because of the new Poll, I had missed the previous post by Eileen.

Hoeksema is not referring to the RCC alone when he describes the whore church; he is describing the entirety of apostate Judeo-Christianity and its stepdaughters since the apostles.

On the situation with today's churches here is where many of us stand:

1. In many localities all institutions calling themselves churches are apostate.

2. Overall, a VERY small portion of institutions calling themselves churches love the gospel truth in a way that crucifies bare institutional power and 'playing' church. A large number of true believers can find no local institution that loves the gospel more than ecclesiastical security.

3. Most true gospel assemblies are nonconformist and 'below the radar screen'; they are not institutional churches.

Btw, my quote from Hoeksema came from chapter XL of the link I posted in the prior post (his commentary on Revelation).

--Bob

[Eileen]

Thank you for the reply. I wonder if there might be any who would respond to the thoughts and questions below. I’m asking in general with today’s ‘institutions’ in mind, those in the reformed tradition, not obvious apostate ‘institutions’.

1. Is apostasy defined as ‘doctrinal’ in nature, i.e. leaving the True simplistic Gospel of Christ crucified and justification by faith alone and then adhering to other ‘whorish’ beliefs and practices to replace the pure Gospel? Is apostasy also defined as holding to the True simplistic Gospel in its purity for salvation but adding other beliefs and practices along side that are not defined in Scripture or biblical?
2. Some of those ‘whorish’ beliefs and practices along side could and do include:

Sacramentalism
Progressive Sanctification
Tithing
Church Membership
Denying the Lord’s Supper to those without membership.
Abuse of power in demands of submission by those ‘in authority’
Binding of the conscience to beliefs within denominations

These are just a few that came to mind that many ‘institutions’ hold to. Would you consider these practices ‘adultery’ against Christ and His True Gospel’? I’m sure the answer is yes to that question, what then becomes of the True believer in the Gospel, do you come out from among her and not partake of her sins?

Do the true gospel assemblies have within their peoples true unity ONLY in the Gospel of Christ and the rest is left aside? Where on earth do you find such assemblies?

Eileen~

[Greg Winegar]

Thank you for the reply. I wonder if there might be any who would respond to the thoughts and questions below. I’m asking in general with today’s ‘institutions’ in mind, those in the reformed tradition, not obvious apostate ‘institutions’.

1. Is apostasy defined as ‘doctrinal’ in nature, i.e. leaving the True simplistic Gospel of Christ crucified and justification by faith alone and then adhering to other ‘whorish’ beliefs and practices to replace the pure Gospel? Is apostasy also defined as holding to the True simplistic Gospel in its purity for salvation but adding other beliefs and practices along side that are not defined in Scripture or biblical?
2. Some of those ‘whorish’ beliefs and practices along side could and do include:

Sacramentalism
Progressive Sanctification
Tithing
Church Membership
Denying the Lord’s Supper to those without membership.
Abuse of power in demands of submission by those ‘in authority’
Binding of the conscience to beliefs within denominations

These are just a few that came to mind that many ‘institutions’ hold to. Would you consider these practices ‘adultery’ against Christ and His True Gospel’? I’m sure the answer is yes to that question, what then becomes of the True believer in the Gospel, do you come out from among her and not partake of her sins? Eileen, these are great questions.

As far as do I consider this adultery against Christ and His true gospel? Yes would be my response.
Do the true gospel assemblies have within their peoples true unity ONLY in the Gospel of Christ and the rest is left aside? Where on earth do you find such assemblies?I do believe that these assemblies do exist, but I think one would be hard pressed to find such an animal.

I think that one of the mistakes of the reformers was that they kept trying to put a band aid on a broken machine. I think that they should have pitched all their formulas that slithered out of rome and started over.

I think that the reformed church today looks like a religious institution, and has nothing to do with the truth.

The closest I think we can get to a NT assembly in this day and age is a home church, meeting the elect over coffee or a beer, or even what we have here on this forum.

The elect are scattered, few and precious, and anyway I can connect with them in gospel fellowship, it is my desire to do so.

Here is another way to gather: http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=4241

I hope this was encouraging to you.

Greg

[Robert R. Higby]

Sacramentalism
Progressive Sanctification
Tithing
Church Membership
Denying the Lord’s Supper to those without membership.
Abuse of power in demands of submission by those ‘in authority’
Binding of the conscience to beliefs within denominations

I think that we need to carefully distinguish between doctrines of devils and teaching that diverges from the NT use of language. For instance, Sacramentalism would be a doctrine of devils whereas certain forms of 'progressive sanctification' are divergent teachings that can be corrected to use biblical language if the teacher promoting such things has a mind to submit to the apostolic message.

[Eileen]

Greg,

Thanks for the reply, I'm not sure at this time of struggle that there is much that is encouraging regarding this specific subject. It certainly is an ongoing trial and a test of my faith, but one that I am confident the Lord will settle me in according to His will.

I'm thankful that there are brethren who do find great joy apart from any 'institution' and that you are one of them, that in itself is encouraging.

Bob,

I certainly agree with your assessment of the biblical language issue but I was talking specifically of those who 'actually' do teach a progressive holiness that the Christian WILL experience in their life, the goal being to strive for perfection. I have asked the question countless times over the years.......what becomes more holy.... and have never received a direct answer. I guess it just kinda sounds good.

Thanks to both for your time and input.
Eileen~

[Greg Winegar]

Pope reasserts other Christian denominations are not true churches

By Nicole Winfield, Associated Press

Last update: July 10, 2007 – 3:07 PM

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — Pope Benedict XVI reasserted the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says other Christian communities are either defective or not true churches and Catholicism provides the only true path to salvation.
The statement brought swift criticism from Protestant leaders. "It makes us question whether we are indeed praying together for Christian unity," said the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, a fellowship of 75 million Protestants in more than 100 countries.

"It makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the reformed family and other families of the church," the group said in a letter charging that the document took ecumenical dialogue back to the era before the Second Vatican Council.

It was the second time in a week that Benedict has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-1965 meetings that modernized the church. On Saturday, Benedict revived the old Latin Mass — a move cheered by Catholic traditionalists but criticized by more liberal ones as a step backward from Vatican II.

Among the council's key developments were its ecumenical outreach and the development of the New Mass in the vernacular, which essentially replaced the old Latin Mass.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers its erroneous interpretation by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Benedict headed before becoming pope, said it was issuing the new document Tuesday because some contemporary theological interpretations of Vatican II's ecumenical intent had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.

The new document — formulated as five questions and answers — restates key sections of a 2000 text the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which riled Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

The commentary repeated church teaching that says the Catholic Church "has the fullness of the means of salvation."

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," said the document released as the pope vacations at a villa in Lorenzago di Cadore, in Italy's Dolomite mountains.

The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles — and therefore their priestly ordinations are not valid, it said.

The Rev. Sara MacVane, of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said that although the document contains nothing new, "I don't know what motivated it at this time."

"But it's important always to point out that there's the official position and there's the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglicans and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics," she said.

The document said that Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But it said they do not recognize the primacy of the pope — a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them, it said.

"This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an 'internal constitutive principle' of the very existence of a particular church," said a commentary from the congregation that accompanied the text.

Despite the harsh tone, the document stressed that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.

"However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants, but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith," the commentary said.

The top Protestant cleric in Benedict's homeland, Germany, complained the Vatican apparently did not consider that "mutual respect for the church status" was required for any ecumenical progress.

In a statement titled "Lost Chance," Lutheran Bishop Wolfgang Huber argued that "it would also be completely sufficient if it were to be said that the reforming churches are 'not churches in the sense required here' or that they are 'churches of another type' — but none of these bridges is used" in the Vatican document.

The Vatican statement, signed by the congregation prefect, American Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Saints Peter and Paul — a major ecumenical feast day.

There was no indication why the pope felt it necessary to release it now, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles.

Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics or that the congregation was sending a message to certain theologians it did not want to single out. Or, it could be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.

In fact, the only theologian cited by name in the document for having spawned erroneous interpretations of ecumenism was Leonardo Boff, a Brazilian clergyman who left the priesthood and was a target of then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's crackdown on liberation theology in the 1980s.

[Robert R. Higby]

Isn't it interesting how the apostate protestant 'johns' continually court the great whore for a momentary thrill like lovesick schoolboys? Yet the deceiving jade forever scorns those who court her and courts those who scorn her!

[Saint Nicholas]

Good Article Greg!

This pope is pre-vatican II in his thinking. Vatican II was a clever piece a work in that it had a surface appearance of reform to trick the protest-ANTS and evangellyicals, while still maintaining her core essential blasphemous doctrines. The church world for the most part bought it. There are even some on this forum who defend the papal church, and call it a Christian church. How true the Lord Jesus's word are. Matthew 15:14 "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

Nicholas :)