The Revealing of Jesus Christ

[CHB]

Hi CHB,
Where in the Bible does it say Christ came back and there was a resurrection during John's life time? If there was a resurrection, why is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David etc. still in their tombs?
Also, The Lord coming with His saints cannot be any saints in heaven because there are no saints in heaven even today. The saints He comes with are from the vantage point of the prophet being on the earth and seeing the Lord coming while He is on the earth and the saints coming out of their tombs or while alive and coming with Him.
Again, if the Lord came back after Paul wrote Thessalonians which was pre-70A.D. and Paul said that when the Lord returns they, the living would be changed and those dead would be brought to life, well, it never happened. But if it did, we are on the new earth by now and Christ and God are ruling with the 12 apostles in Jerusalem on the earth PHYSICALLY. And righteousness covers the whole earth (which I sincerely doubt is if we look at Hitler, Stalin, Mugabe, Pol Pot, etc). If this is the new earth then Christ fails at reigning over the nations and so does God as do the 12 and 144,000 etc.

Tony,

Where in the Bible does it say Christ didn't come back? There are more proof that he did than he didn't. Also, how do you know that David, Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac are still in their graves? Why do you say "if this happened we are on the new earth"? Not necessarly.

Friend, I don't deal with "what ifs." After John wrote Revelation he lived quite a while so we know he wasn't taken. If Christ came back in John's day then Paul's prophecy of the saints being changed etc. has already occurred and we are not under grace but under the thumb of the 12 apostles ruling over the nations with an iron club. The only time believers of the nations are taken out is when "the complement of the nations may be entering" (Romans 11:25). Since this has not come to pass yet, (the filling up of the body of Christ to completion) then we know Christ has not returned yet.

Why would we not be under grace. I thought the apostles would be ruling over Israel? Christ coming back and a resurrection doesn't necessarly mean the kingdom is already here. There doesn't need to be a kingdom set up exactly when Christ came back and took the saints back with him. It could still be in the future.

Tony's reply:
That's Matthew 16:28 not Luke 8:27.
But Jesus said he really didn't know the hour or the day of His return:

That was (Luke 9:27) wrong chapter. Sorry.

Mat 24:36  "Now, concerning that day and hour no one is aware, neither the messengers of the heavens, nor the Son; except the Father only."

That is true. I don't know what day nor hour Christ came, if he even did. But what do you do with all the scriptures that indicate that he did return?

And there was the secret administration given to Paul and the secret of Israel being set aside which was not revealed at all in the Scriptures except to Paul, so all bets were off as to the Kingdom coming.

What do you mean "secret of Israel"? I know about the mystery being revealed to Paul. (Eph. 3:5) says the Mystery is now {at that time} revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.

CHB

[Zeek]

Tony's reply:
That's Matthew 16:28 not Luke 8:27.
But Jesus said he really didn't know the hour or the day of His return:

That was (Luke 9:27) wrong chapter. Sorry.

Mat 24:36  "Now, concerning that day and hour no one is aware, neither the messengers of the heavens, nor the Son; except the Father only."

That is true. I don't know what day nor hour Christ came, if he even did. But what do you do with all the scriptures that indicate that he did return?

at the time matthew was written, the "hour" was unknown. 

but look at this verse written approximately 30 years later by John


1Jo 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 

even more proof to me that the imminent return was upon those then.

[WhiteWings]

Sorry to have to say this rosered but your bible is just wrong.
Look at any Greek text from which we get the Bible. The Greek text says: I John was in (Grk. en) spirit in (Grk. en) the Lord's day."
The Greek word for "in" is "en."
The Greek word for "on" is "epi."
Epi is absent.

Better get a better bible.

KJV Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

In and on both have the same Greek word:

1722 ἐν en {en}
Meaning:  1) in, by, with etc.
Origin:  a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between 1519 and 1537); TDNT - 2:537,233; prep
Usage:  AV - in 1874, by 141, with 134, among 117, at 112, on 46, through 37, misc 321; 2782
Misc:  Wigram's frequency count is 2798 not 2782.

evn noun genitive feminine singular from ge,nesij

[GING] ge,nesij
ge,nesij, ewj, h` birth {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Mat 1:18')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Mt 1:18}}}\cf1\ulnone ; {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Luk 1:14')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Lk 1:14}}}\cf1\ulnone . In {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Mat 1:1')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Mt 1:1}}}\cf1\ulnone  g) may mean origin or descent, and the expression bi,bloj gene,sewj may mean genealogy as {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Gen 5:1')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Gen 5:1}}}\cf1\ulnone . pro,swpon g) natural face {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Jam 1:23')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Js 1:23}}}\cf1\ulnone . troco.j th/j g) course of life {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Jam 3:6')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul 3:6}}}\cf1\ulnone .* [Genesis] [pg 38]

[Taffy]

at the time matthew was written, the "hour" was unknown.  

but look at this verse written approximately 30 years later by John


1Jo 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.  

even more proof to me that the imminent return was upon those then.

Hi Zeek

If we search the greater depths of the scriptures we see..there are seasons for all things, within those seasons come Years, Months , Weeks ,Days ,and Hours...they mean the same..ALL appointed Times...

Did the woman  who was In travail Give Birth in a AN hour.?.HER hour(time) had COME...all spiritual and to be understood that way Bro..but you know me anyways... :icon_flower:

[Zeek]

at the time matthew was written, the "hour" was unknown.  

but look at this verse written approximately 30 years later by John


1Jo 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.  

even more proof to me that the imminent return was upon those then.

Hi Zeek

If we search the greater depths of the scriptures we see..there are seasons for all things, within those seasons come Years, Months , Weeks ,Days ,and Hours...they mean the same..ALL appointed Times...

Did the woman  who was In travail Give Birth in a AN hour.?.HER hour(time) had COME...all spiritual and to be understood that way Bro..but you know me anyways... :icon_flower:

I hear ya T, no worries, I "see" what you are saying too. 

[Tony N]

John was IN spirit IN the Lord's day. The Lord's day is yet future. It has not come yet. He was not in spirit on Sunday.

so what is the Lords Day Tony.I concur Not a Sunday, WHAT is it, where can we find it in the scripis,,just Revelation? It ? ...then maybe we can Discuss what Happens In\on IT?

What say you T?

I say the Lords DAY Is Christ, did ya ever Notice that the LORDS DAY Got LORD in IT?

Ever Notice we are IN the LORD and the LORD is IN us?..is that In suffice for you?

Im a Simple type of Guy T, so can we start with Basics before we Move to your Level?
:icon_flower:

Hi dear T., Yes we are in the Lord, not on the Lord. And yes, the Lord is in us, not on us.
If we are "in the Lord" why cannot John be in the future day of the Lord? The phrase "day of the Lord" is the same as "the Lord's day." Just as "the Son of God" is the same as "God's Son" and "the Lord's supper" is the same as "the supper of the Lord."

T, I already said what the day of the Lord is. Please, T, look at the third post on page one of this thread to see what "the day of the Lord" is. It can't be Christ because Christ is not "the day." And "the day" is not IN us.

"In all these places, as the context abundantly proves, the Day of the Lord is the (day of His public interference in the affairs of men and the display of His judgments in the earth—the day when amidst an avalanche of ruin "the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of man shall be brought low: and Yahweh alone shall be exalted" (Isa.2:17). The Day of the Lord appears in the New Testament three times, 1 Thess.5:2; 2 Thess.2:2, and 2 Peter 3:10, in precisely the same way—in connection with apostasy, the manifestation of the man of sin, and the advent of Christ in judgment. And the Lord's Day in Revelation is seen in the same relation as the Day of the Lord in both Testaments—the judgment of the host of the high ones on high, and the kings of the earth on the earth, accompanied by seismic convulsions and the shaking of the powers of heaven." (Unsearchable Riches, vol.1, pg.349).

[Nathan]

In glancing through your #3 post, I notice you are using Matthew 24 to back up your opinion that the Lord's day is not Christ . . . but at the same time, Matthew 24 has the same language as Revelation . . .We saw Christ come as the redeemer in the flesh.  We saw him come as the comforter in the Spirit in the upper room . .and both Matthew 24, and Revelation . as well as Daniel's prophecy, all speak of Christ returning as judge to a nation that called for the blood to be upon them and their children. 

What is the significance of John taking the pains to explain that it was on Sunday or Saturday, literally, if there is not a spiritual picture being drawn there?

[Taffy]

T, I already said what the day of the Lord is. Please, T, look at the third post on page one of this thread to see what "the day of the Lord" is. It can't be Christ because Christ is not "the day." And "the day" is not IN us.

"In all these places, as the context abundantly proves, the Day of the Lord is the (day of His public interference in the affairs of men and the display of His judgments in the earth—the day when amidst an avalanche of ruin "the loftiness of man shall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of man shall be brought low: and Jehovah alone shall be exalted" (Isa.2:17). The Day of the Lord appears in the New Testament three times, 1 Thess.5:2; 2 Thess.2:2, and 2 Peter 3:10, in precisely the same way—in connection with apostasy, the manifestation of the man of sin, and the advent of Christ in judgment. And the Lord's Day in Revelation is seen in the same relation as the Day of the Lord in both Testaments—the judgment of the host of the high ones on high, and the kings of the earth on the earth, accompanied by seismic convulsions and the shaking of the powers of heaven." (Unsearchable Riches, vol.1, pg.349).

Hi Tony Good yo nice chatting again, ya may not remeber as Ive had many handles we chatted the savior for all Forum moons back.

First, I was RAISED on what Your telling me, nothing NEW here ,I see BOTH sides OF the Coin.

What You see is WHAT happens on the Lords DAY..not what the LORDS Day Is...


so Bud explain that away..t like I mentioned,,can we start at basics First before we get to your level?...

Yes T , I  Know the Thief in the NIGHT verses etc...read some posts of mine to get Know more of my veiws on such things...It may help you Bro...to at least KNOW where in coming From. :icon_flower:
.

again T what IS the LORDS day

[Tony N]

In glancing through your #3 post, I notice you are using Matthew 24 to back up your opinion that the Lord's day is not Christ . . . but at the same time, Matthew 24 has the same language as Revelation . . .We saw Christ come as the redeemer in the flesh.  We saw him come as the comforter in the Spirit in the upper room . .and both Matthew 24, and Revelation . as well as Daniel's prophecy, all speak of Christ returning as judge to a nation that called for the blood to be upon them and their children. 

What is the significance of John taking the pains to explain that it was on Sunday or Saturday, literally, if there is not a spiritual picture being drawn there?

I don't think John was saying it was on a Sunday or Saturday literally or figuratively. I am saying that when John was "in spirit in the Lord's day" that he was in spirit thousands of years in the future from his day when he saw, in his vision, the day of the Lord.

[Zeek]

In glancing through your #3 post, I notice you are using Matthew 24 to back up your opinion that the Lord's day is not Christ . . . but at the same time, Matthew 24 has the same language as Revelation . . .We saw Christ come as the redeemer in the flesh.  We saw him come as the comforter in the Spirit in the upper room . .and both Matthew 24, and Revelation . as well as Daniel's prophecy, all speak of Christ returning as judge to a nation that called for the blood to be upon them and their children. 

What is the significance of John taking the pains to explain that it was on Sunday or Saturday, literally, if there is not a spiritual picture being drawn there?

I don't think John was saying it was on a Sunday or Saturday literally or figuratively. I am saying that when John was "in spirit in the Lord's day" that he was in spirit thousands of years in the future from his day when he saw, in his vision, the day of the Lord.

so what he saw was thousands of years in the future, but he thought it was "at hand".  He just wasn't shown the "mystery" i take it, the church age??  is that what u think??

[Tony N]

Hi Taffy,
I don't recognize your name from the savior for all forums.

Taffy, let me put it this way, if you read Revelation and see all the judgments, the bowls being poured out (and I don't mean cereal bowls either he he) earthquakes, lightning, pestilence, famine, darkness, death, destruction, all in that future day THAT IS THE DAY OF THE LORD. That is the Lord's day. Right now we are in what is called "man's day."
1Co 4:3 "Now to me it is the least trifle that I may be being examined by you or by man's day. But neither am I examining myself."
Man's day is when man tries to do things by the will of the flesh. Man's day has been going on for thousands of years. When the Lord's day arrives it will be a time of judgment . . . a settling of accounts . . . a setting right of wrongs done.

[Tony N]

I don't think John was saying it was on a Sunday or Saturday literally or figuratively. I am saying that when John was "in spirit in the Lord's day" that he was in spirit thousands of years in the future from his day when he saw, in his vision, the day of the Lord.

so what he saw was thousands of years in the future, but he thought it was "at hand".  He just wasn't shown the "mystery" i take it, the church age??  is that what u think??
[/quote]

That is quite possible. John might have thought these things were right around the corner since he did not know about the "mystery" or "secret" that was given to Paul.

[Nathan]

John "might" have???  That's not what it says . .it's pretty straight forward that it was upon them and John wasn't the one saying it . . .he was recording what was being said to him.

 Not sure if you answered the "open/close" book question earlier either.

What about signed and signified?  What about written to the "bond" servants?  What about while in the spirit he had to "turn" in order to see?

I can't help but see the correlation between those who choose to take it literally, and the disciples, Pharisees, and just general listeners of Christ who also couldn't understand a word he said either . .because they took everything he said literally, rather than "looking for" the spiritual significance.

What good did it do for God to allow John to be captured, beaten, boiled in oil, then thrown on an Island which ironically means "Place of my killing" which also apparently has no significance either, then given this Revelation which was specifically directed toward 7 specific churches. . .and the language is ironically the same as what Jesus described in Matthew 24 where leading into it he also speaks of the fact that these things were to happen "to this generation" and again in Matthew 23 he says the same . . .but Jesus prophecy was meant for "another" generation 2000 years later?  Again, the traditional way of looking at it just doesn't fit.

I know they say that John recorded "that which was, is and is to come" and that is their reasoning for saying it's a futuristic event . . .but did they read the part just 11 verses previous to that?

Revelation 1:19
19Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter

Verse 8
8I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Hebrews 13:8
8Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Seems to be a pattern emerging.

[Taffy]

Hi Taffy,
I don't recognize your name from the savior for all forums.

Taffy, let me put it this way, if you read Revelation and see all the judgments, the bowls being poured out (and I don't mean cereal bowls either he he) earthquakes, lightning, pestilence, famine, darkness, death, destruction, all in that future day THAT IS THE DAY OF THE LORD. That is the Lord's day. Right now we are in what is called "man's day."
1Co 4:3 "Now to me it is the least trifle that I may be being examined by you or by man's day. But neither am I examining myself."
Man's day is when man tries to do things by the will of the flesh. Man's day has been going on for thousands of years. When the Lord's day arrives it will be a time of judgment . . . a settling of accounts . . . a setting right of wrongs done.

No worries

Gee brud, you see very Much in the literal sence and Spirit which IS the word Of Christ Ya dont Im afraid, wel will be Here  for ever, getting Nowheres.


So If I may...We are In the LORDS DAY now, as THAT DAY is Now as scriptures notes its so..oh if ya want the scrips ASK


TO DAY is the DAY of Salvation, Today Is the same as The first Day which is the same as the Third day , which equally the 7th day and The 8th...

Which makes Christ the same to day and yesterday and tomorrow, which also includes the Covenats...

TO DAY is The DAY of Salvation WHICH comes TO EACH MAN as THEIF in the NIGHT,,,,

look up  the difference BETWEEN NIGHT and DAY...

That May help you understand why HE COMES in the NIGHT not the DAY...he doesnt come in the DAY cos HE IS THE DAY.



Christ seperates THE DAY from the NIGHT, for there are TWLVE hrs In each...but both testify to HIM,

Jhn 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.  
.

This day is the DAY of the LORD.....we dont have two or three..WE HAVE ONE....

We walk in the DAY Tony , not the NIGHT, for the Night has Past as watch In the NIGHT...

We see In day cos ITS light NOT DARKNESS,BUT i dont think  YOU  KNOW what darkness and Light is...
LET you eye BE FULL OF LIGHT,.....

Tony me bro,,the DAY of the LORD is NOW, lest we have NO hope..what you read in REVELATION is literal and youll be forever stumbling around from pillar to post , going round and Round and get Nowheres...

Your turn Go check the Little I gave ON SHOWING WHO the LORDS day IS AND  then ya may come to see why JOHN was in\on the Lords DAY..he was always there Bro..The vision was a REVEALING of the LIFE of Christ, written In symbols...

Scripture SPEAKS of ONE and HIS..CHRIST....thats It.

seek him where hes Hidden, youll see differently then..but thats Just me Bud...

Christ is Life Not death and so Is revelation if we can start to see it

time for beddies T .till we talk again

Nice chatting :icon_flower:

[rosered]

Sorry to have to say this rosered but your bible is just wrong.
Look at any Greek text from which we get the Bible. The Greek text says: I John was in (Grk. en) spirit in (Grk. en) the Lord's day."
The Greek word for "in" is "en."
The Greek word for "on" is "epi."
Epi is absent.

Better get a better bible.

KJV Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

In and on both have the same Greek word:

1722 ἐν en {en}
Meaning:  1) in, by, with etc.
Origin:  a primary preposition denoting (fixed) position (in place, time or state), and (by implication) instrumentality (medially or constructively), i.e. a relation of rest (intermediate between 1519 and 1537); TDNT - 2:537,233; prep
Usage:  AV - in 1874, by 141, with 134, among 117, at 112, on 46, through 37, misc 321; 2782
Misc:  Wigram's frequency count is 2798 not 2782.

evn noun genitive feminine singular from ge,nesij

[GING] ge,nesij
ge,nesij, ewj, h` birth {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Mat 1:18')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Mt 1:18}}}\cf1\ulnone ; {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Luk 1:14')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Lk 1:14}}}\cf1\ulnone . In {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Mat 1:1')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Mt 1:1}}}\cf1\ulnone  g) may mean origin or descent, and the expression bi,bloj gene,sewj may mean genealogy as {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Gen 5:1')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Gen 5:1}}}\cf1\ulnone . pro,swpon g) natural face {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Jam 1:23')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul Js 1:23}}}\cf1\ulnone . troco.j th/j g) course of life {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "BwRef('BGT_Jam 3:6')"}}{\fldrslt{\cf0\ul 3:6}}}\cf1\ulnone .* [Genesis] [pg 38]

you see what I see bro ! yaaaaayyyh!

[Zeek]

I don't think John was saying it was on a Sunday or Saturday literally or figuratively. I am saying that when John was "in spirit in the Lord's day" that he was in spirit thousands of years in the future from his day when he saw, in his vision, the day of the Lord.

so what he saw was thousands of years in the future, but he thought it was "at hand".  He just wasn't shown the "mystery" i take it, the church age??  is that what u think??

That is quite possible. John might have thought these things were right around the corner since he did not know about the "mystery" or "secret" that was given to Paul.
[/quote]

So when did Paul receive the "secret"?  It must have been after the time of Romans, I,II Corinth, I,II Thes, I,II Timothy since he talked of an imminent return of Christ. 

What book do you think then applies to you today??  only Ephesians and maybe Collosians?? 

[Tony N]

I think it is important to get back to what started this thread.
The Berean said that since John was told to measure the temple of God and the altar etc. in Revelation 11:1.
He stated that the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Fair enough.
So he stated that Revelation must have been written before 70 A.D.

I maintain John was in spirit IN the Lord's day and was looking into the far off future when the temple would be built again with the altar etc. Why? Why was he looking into the future?

The New City Jerusalem did not land on the earth before 70 A.D. Yet John said he saw it being measured:
Rev 21:15-17  And he who is speaking with me had a measure, a golden reed, that he should be measuring the city, and its portals, and its wall."  (16)  And the city is lying four square: and its length is as much as the breadth. And he measures the city with the reed to twelve thousand stadia. Its length and breadth and height are equal.  (17)  And he measures its wall of a hundred forty-four cubits of a human measure, which is that of the messenger."

The new earth did not come at 70 A.D. because the whole earth nor the heavens were  destroyed in 70 A.D. by fire and possibly nuclear destruction (booming noise).

2Pe 3:10 "Now the day of the Lord will be arriving as a thief, in which the heavens shall be passing by with a booming noise, yet the elements shall be dissolved by combustion, and the earth and the works in it shall be found."

Jerusalem was not John's nor Peter's nor the Lord's world. They traveled far and wide (John to Patmos, Peter to Babylon, Jesus to Egypt as a youth).

So do you see the problem?
The Berean man is using the measuring of the temple to say Revelation was written pre-70A.D. But more internal evidence shows the New City Jerusalem being measured which puts John in spirit thousands of years into the future.

Therefore, in John's vision, he still looked forward to the thousand year reign of Christ. Even if John's revelation was written in 60 some A.D. it is impossible to  have the thousand year reign of Christ and the New earth take place all within 10 years or less (before 70 A.D).

Let's try to stick with this issue which started this thread and then we can branch out. O.K.?

[Nathan]

I think it is important to get back to what started this thread.
The Berean said that since John was told to measure the temple of God and the altar etc. in Revelation 11:1.
He stated that the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Fair enough.
So he stated that Revelation must have been written before 70 A.D.

I maintain John was in spirit IN the Lord's day and was looking into the far off future when the temple would be built again with the altar etc. Why? Why was he looking into the future?

The New City Jerusalem did not land on the earth before 70 A.D. Yet John said he saw it being measured:
Rev 11:15-17  And he who is speaking with me had a measure, a golden reed, that he should be measuring the city, and its portals, and its wall."  (16)  And the city is lying four square: and its length is as much as the breadth. And he measures the city with the reed to twelve thousand stadia. Its length and breadth and height are equal.  (17)  And he measures its wall of a hundred forty-four cubits of a human measure, which is that of the messenger."

The new earth did not come at 70 A.D. because the whole earth nor the heavens were  destroyed in 70 A.D. by fire and possibly nuclear destruction (booming noise).

2Pe 3:10 "Now the day of the Lord will be arriving as a thief, in which the heavens shall be passing by with a booming noise, yet the elements shall be dissolved by combustion, and the earth and the works in it shall be found."

Jerusalem was not John's nor Peter's nor the Lord's world. They traveled far and wide (John to Patmos, Peter to Babylon, Jesus to Egypt as a youth).

So do you see the problem?
The Berean man is using the measuring of the temple to say Revelation was written pre-70A.D. But more internal evidence shows the New City Jerusalem being measured which puts John in spirit thousands of years into the future.

Therefore, in John's vision, he still looked forward to the thousand year reign of Christ. Even if John's revelation was written in 60 some A.D. it is impossible to  have the thousand year reign of Christ and the New earth take place all within 10 years or less (before 70 A.D).

Let's try to stick with this issue which started this thread and then we can branch out. O.K.?

I maintain John was in spirit IN the Lord's day and was looking into the far off future when the temple would be built again with the altar etc

First, for me, regardless of the throngs of men who believe the temple will be rebuilt . .I am not one that sees that ever happening.  A.D. 70 was the completion of the removal of that which Jesus began on the cross.  The Levitical system has already been removed and it was replaced "once and for all" by the ultimate sacrifice which was the Lamb of God.  To think that God would turn around and allow the old system to be rebuilt is to say that God didn't see his Son as the remedy, only as an "option" for us to choose as a remedy.  And that was definitely not the case.

Man didn't come up with the temple sacrifices in the first place, what makes us think that man will be able to start them now?  The reason why so many have taken that point of view is again, because they're assuming the things written are literal and not instead, literal symbols that point to a spiritual experience rather than a natural one.  To have man rebuild the temple is saying that yesterday's manna is still edible . . .even though Scripture states that it rots and is full of worms (carnality).

Why? Why was he looking into the future?
He wasn't, he was looking into Christ.  This is not a revelation of natural events happening to a natural world.  This is a revelation of Jesus Christ . . .who is a spirit.

The New City Jerusalem did not land on the earth before 70 A.D. Yet John said he saw it being measured:

The New Jerusalem isn't going to "land" anywhere.  Whenever we see some one or some thing ascending or descending, what we're seeing is something "appearing" or "disappearing".  It's transcending from one realm into another.  The New Jerusalem is not a literal city any more than the temple is a literal temple.  I should say also that even though I don't believe that the temple so many feel is going to be rebuilt will ever come to be, I "do" believe there is "a" temple that "is" being rebuilt . .but not by men.  Jesus stated "tear down this temple and in 3 days I . . . ."I" . . .will rebuild it.  When we let Scripture interpret itself, rather than find two verses that appear to support each other and "interpet" what they are both saying . . .we'd see that "we" are living stones with which God is using to build his temple of worship . . ."we" are that temple . . .and "we" are the New Jerusalem.  When the sons of God manifest to the groaning earth . .that is the same as the New Jerusalem "descending" from "heaven".  It's already finished in the spirit, but now it's manifesting in the flesh. 

The disciples that were spread out across the world THEN were the first generation of that New Jerusalem.  And this next piece is where I see the traditional interpretation really starts falling apart . .if it hasn't already.  It's your quote of Revelation.

Rev 21:15-17  And he who is speaking with me had a measure, a golden reed, that he should be measuring the city, and its portals, and its wall."  (16)  And the city is lying four square: and its length is as much as the breadth. And he measures the city with the reed to twelve thousand stadia. Its length and breadth and height are equal.  (17)  And he measures its wall of a hundred forty-four cubits of a human measure, which is that of the messenger."

Tell me, how can you have a literal city that is a square cube . . including "height"?  I understand you can have width and length to be squared . .but height also?  Here's where the traditional belief "decides" to go spiritual.  And that's been my problem with the traditional take of Revelation from the get-go.  The claim is that it's all literal, until they get to places like this and then they'll say "oh, well, this city isn't like the cities we live in now . .this city is actually "suspended" in the air and only those who have their new bodies will be able to enter into it because they can fly now . . . "  I taught Revelation "before" realizing there was much demo work to be done in my doctrine in order for the spiritual perspective could manifest.

The point is . . .you can't jump back and forth from literal to spiritual, and back again.  "It's all spiritual".  Jesus Christ THE SAME Yesterday, Today, and Forever . . .in every dimension, there is the consistency of Truth.  This city's dimension are the same in width, length and height, this city is us in the completion of all things . . .and even though I am currently incomplete in the flesh . . .I am fully complete in the spirit.  So, my responsbility now is, to enter into my completed state in the spirit, and call out those finished things in the spirit into my flesh.  At any rate, this New Jerusalem is the of equal measure in all dimensions.  natural, (body) moral (soul) and spiritual (spirit)

2Pe 3:10 "Now the day of the Lord will be arriving as a thief, in which the heavens shall be passing by with a booming noise, yet the elements shall be dissolved by combustion, and the earth and the works in it shall be found."

For me, when there is a passing of the "heavens" it's saying that it's a spiritual event that is happening, but when the earth also passes . .it's telling me that what is transpiring in the spirit, is also affecting the flesh.  A booming noise . . .thunder . . .what causes thunder?  It's a CLASHING of atmospheres . . there is a change of climate coming (was).  That's what happened at the cross, there was thunder then to, and earth quakes . .what makes an earthquake?  There is a shifting of the "fault lines" interesting use of definition there . . .beneath the surface of my earth.  Paul speaks of this as inner wrestling going on and you don't do what you should and you do do what you shouldn't . .this creates earthquakes in us.  In fact, Hebrews tells us that there is going to be one final shaking to remove the things in us that God never built so that only the things God did build will remain.

Lastly, I could finish out your entire post this way, but it's already lengthy and the point is made that natural reasoning just doesn't fit here.  But lastly, the elements will be burned up in fervent heat . . .you may want to look up that word "elements" because it's not referring to natural objects . .but it's referring to principles . . .doctrines . .belief systems . . .there are a couple other places in Scripture where it uses the term "rudiments" which is the exact same word.  This is depicting the affects of the lake of Fire . .which again . .is God . .a "consuming" Fire . .the lake part is connecting it to the laver.

Ezekiel was caught up in the spirit, same as John, and he was shown the glory of God leaving the temple IN THE SPIRIT before the Babylonians came in and destroyed the temple in the flesh.  It's all spiritual. Nothing was intended to be taken literally.  There are comments that we need to start at the beginning before we can build anything further . . .and then the references quoted begin in Revelation 11?  Kind of interesting.

[Sarah]

it is impossible to  have the thousand year reign of Christ and the New earth take place all within 10 years or less (before 70 A.D).

In order to believe the 1000 years was literal, you must maintain that Christ and John were not speaking by the spirit regarding the issure of immediacy. Revelations is chaulk full of symbolism, imagry, and metaphor, why would we then think that because it is a number it is all of a sudden literal?

[Zeek]

I think it is important to get back to what started this thread.
The Berean said that since John was told to measure the temple of God and the altar etc. in Revelation 11:1.
He stated that the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Fair enough.
So he stated that Revelation must have been written before 70 A.D.

I maintain John was in spirit IN the Lord's day and was looking into the far off future when the temple would be built again with the altar etc. Why? Why was he looking into the future?

The New City Jerusalem did not land on the earth before 70 A.D. Yet John said he saw it being measured:
Rev 21:15-17  And he who is speaking with me had a measure, a golden reed, that he should be measuring the city, and its portals, and its wall."  (16)  And the city is lying four square: and its length is as much as the breadth. And he measures the city with the reed to twelve thousand stadia. Its length and breadth and height are equal.  (17)  And he measures its wall of a hundred forty-four cubits of a human measure, which is that of the messenger."

The new earth did not come at 70 A.D. because the whole earth nor the heavens were  destroyed in 70 A.D. by fire and possibly nuclear destruction (booming noise).

2Pe 3:10 "Now the day of the Lord will be arriving as a thief, in which the heavens shall be passing by with a booming noise, yet the elements shall be dissolved by combustion, and the earth and the works in it shall be found."

Jerusalem was not John's nor Peter's nor the Lord's world. They traveled far and wide (John to Patmos, Peter to Babylon, Jesus to Egypt as a youth).

So do you see the problem?
The Berean man is using the measuring of the temple to say Revelation was written pre-70A.D. But more internal evidence shows the New City Jerusalem being measured which puts John in spirit thousands of years into the future.

Therefore, in John's vision, he still looked forward to the thousand year reign of Christ. Even if John's revelation was written in 60 some A.D. it is impossible to  have the thousand year reign of Christ and the New earth take place all within 10 years or less (before 70 A.D).

Let's try to stick with this issue which started this thread and then we can branch out. O.K.?

the measuring of the temple is one piece of the puzzle, but when taking the whole picture into consideration, the immediancy of scriptures, the "some standing here.... verse", the "this generation verse...., the gospel preached to the whole world then the end comes, and Paul stating the gospel was preached to the whole earth, the "no one knows the hour, yet in I John, it is not the "last hour", the "one stone will not be left standing" and the destruction of the temple, the Josephus account, the fact that the temple has never been rebuilt, the symbolism, the "apocrolyptic sp??" examples given earlier, the "you" statements to those alive at the time, the suffering the apostles went through and the hope they hung onto etc.  I could go on and on. 

[Zeek]

I think it is important to get back to what started this thread.
The Berean said that since John was told to measure the temple of God and the altar etc. in Revelation 11:1.
He stated that the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. Fair enough.
So he stated that Revelation must have been written before 70 A.D.

I maintain John was in spirit IN the Lord's day and was looking into the far off future when the temple would be built again with the altar etc. Why? Why was he looking into the future?

The New City Jerusalem did not land on the earth before 70 A.D. Yet John said he saw it being measured:
Rev 11:15-17  And he who is speaking with me had a measure, a golden reed, that he should be measuring the city, and its portals, and its wall."  (16)  And the city is lying four square: and its length is as much as the breadth. And he measures the city with the reed to twelve thousand stadia. Its length and breadth and height are equal.  (17)  And he measures its wall of a hundred forty-four cubits of a human measure, which is that of the messenger."

The new earth did not come at 70 A.D. because the whole earth nor the heavens were  destroyed in 70 A.D. by fire and possibly nuclear destruction (booming noise).

2Pe 3:10 "Now the day of the Lord will be arriving as a thief, in which the heavens shall be passing by with a booming noise, yet the elements shall be dissolved by combustion, and the earth and the works in it shall be found."

Jerusalem was not John's nor Peter's nor the Lord's world. They traveled far and wide (John to Patmos, Peter to Babylon, Jesus to Egypt as a youth).

So do you see the problem?
The Berean man is using the measuring of the temple to say Revelation was written pre-70A.D. But more internal evidence shows the New City Jerusalem being measured which puts John in spirit thousands of years into the future.

Therefore, in John's vision, he still looked forward to the thousand year reign of Christ. Even if John's revelation was written in 60 some A.D. it is impossible to  have the thousand year reign of Christ and the New earth take place all within 10 years or less (before 70 A.D).

Let's try to stick with this issue which started this thread and then we can branch out. O.K.?

I maintain John was in spirit IN the Lord's day and was looking into the far off future when the temple would be built again with the altar etc

First, for me, regardless of the throngs of men who believe the temple will be rebuilt . .I am not one that sees that ever happening.  A.D. 70 was the completion of the removal of that which Jesus began on the cross.  The Levitical system has already been removed and it was replaced "once and for all" by the ultimate sacrifice which was the Lamb of God.  To think that God would turn around and allow the old system to be rebuilt is to say that God didn't see his Son as the remedy, only as an "option" for us to choose as a remedy.  And that was definitely not the case.

Man didn't come up with the temple sacrifices in the first place, what makes us think that man will be able to start them now?  The reason why so many have taken that point of view is again, because they're assuming the things written are literal and not instead, literal symbols that point to a spiritual experience rather than a natural one.  To have man rebuild the temple is saying that yesterday's manna is still edible . . .even though Scripture states that it rots and is full of worms (carnality).

Why? Why was he looking into the future?
He wasn't, he was looking into Christ.  This is not a revelation of natural events happening to a natural world.  This is a revelation of Jesus Christ . . .who is a spirit.

The New City Jerusalem did not land on the earth before 70 A.D. Yet John said he saw it being measured:

The New Jerusalem isn't going to "land" anywhere.  Whenever we see some one or some thing ascending or descending, what we're seeing is something "appearing" or "disappearing".  It's transcending from one realm into another.  The New Jerusalem is not a literal city any more than the temple is a literal temple.  I should say also that even though I don't believe that the temple so many feel is going to be rebuilt will ever come to be, I "do" believe there is "a" temple that "is" being rebuilt . .but not by men.  Jesus stated "tear down this temple and in 3 days I . . . ."I" . . .will rebuild it.  When we let Scripture interpret itself, rather than find two verses that appear to support each other and "interpet" what they are both saying . . .we'd see that "we" are living stones with which God is using to build his temple of worship . . ."we" are that temple . . .and "we" are the New Jerusalem.  When the sons of God manifest to the groaning earth . .that is the same as the New Jerusalem "descending" from "heaven".  It's already finished in the spirit, but now it's manifesting in the flesh. 

The disciples that were spread out across the world THEN were the first generation of that New Jerusalem.  And this next piece is where I see the traditional interpretation really starts falling apart . .if it hasn't already.  It's your quote of Revelation.

Rev 21:15-17  And he who is speaking with me had a measure, a golden reed, that he should be measuring the city, and its portals, and its wall."  (16)  And the city is lying four square: and its length is as much as the breadth. And he measures the city with the reed to twelve thousand stadia. Its length and breadth and height are equal.  (17)  And he measures its wall of a hundred forty-four cubits of a human measure, which is that of the messenger."

Tell me, how can you have a literal city that is a square cube . . including "height"?  I understand you can have width and length to be squared . .but height also?  Here's where the traditional belief "decides" to go spiritual.  And that's been my problem with the traditional take of Revelation from the get-go.  The claim is that it's all literal, until they get to places like this and then they'll say "oh, well, this city isn't like the cities we live in now . .this city is actually "suspended" in the air and only those who have their new bodies will be able to enter into it because they can fly now . . . "  I taught Revelation "before" realizing there was much demo work to be done in my doctrine in order for the spiritual perspective could manifest.

The point is . . .you can't jump back and forth from literal to spiritual, and back again.  "It's all spiritual".  Jesus Christ THE SAME Yesterday, Today, and Forever . . .in every dimension, there is the consistency of Truth.  This city's dimension are the same in width, length and height, this city is us in the completion of all things . . .and even though I am currently incomplete in the flesh . . .I am fully complete in the spirit.  So, my responsbility now is, to enter into my completed state in the spirit, and call out those finished things in the spirit into my flesh.  At any rate, this New Jerusalem is the of equal measure in all dimensions.  natural, (body) moral (soul) and spiritual (spirit)

2Pe 3:10 "Now the day of the Lord will be arriving as a thief, in which the heavens shall be passing by with a booming noise, yet the elements shall be dissolved by combustion, and the earth and the works in it shall be found."

For me, when there is a passing of the "heavens" it's saying that it's a spiritual event that is happening, but when the earth also passes . .it's telling me that what is transpiring in the spirit, is also affecting the flesh.  A booming noise . . .thunder . . .what causes thunder?  It's a CLASHING of atmospheres . . there is a change of climate coming (was).  That's what happened at the cross, there was thunder then to, and earth quakes . .what makes an earthquake?  There is a shifting of the "fault lines" interesting use of definition there . . .beneath the surface of my earth.  Paul speaks of this as inner wrestling going on and you don't do what you should and you do do what you shouldn't . .this creates earthquakes in us.  In fact, Hebrews tells us that there is going to be one final shaking to remove the things in us that God never built so that only the things God did build will remain.

Lastly, I could finish out your entire post this way, but it's already lengthy and the point is made that natural reasoning just doesn't fit here.  But lastly, the elements will be burned up in fervent heat . . .you may want to look up that word "elements" because it's not referring to natural objects . .but it's referring to principles . . .doctrines . .belief systems . . .there are a couple other places in Scripture where it uses the term "rudiments" which is the exact same word.  This is depicting the affects of the lake of Fire . .which again . .is God . .a "consuming" Fire . .the lake part is connecting it to the laver.

Ezekiel was caught up in the spirit, same as John, and he was shown the glory of God leaving the temple IN THE SPIRIT before the Babylonians came in and destroyed the temple in the flesh.  It's all spiritual. Nothing was intended to be taken literally.  There are comments that we need to start at the beginning before we can build anything further . . .and then the references quoted begin in Revelation 11?  Kind of interesting.

Enjoyed the post Nathan. 

[Zeek]

I'd still be interested Tony, which scriptures you think apply to today, during your parenthetical "church" age?  Which Pauline epistles was Paul wrong on, and which one's was he right on??  When did he receive the "secret"?  and do any of the books written by John, James and Peter apply to the "church age"?

[Tony N]

it is impossible to  have the thousand year reign of Christ and the New earth take place all within 10 years or less (before 70 A.D).

In order to believe the 1000 years was literal, you must maintain that Christ and John were not speaking by the spirit regarding the issure of immediacy. Revelations is chaulk full of symbolism, imagry, and metaphor, why would we then think that because it is a number it is all of a sudden literal?

Hi Sarah, you certainly give some good thoughts to chew on.
First the immediacy issue. Jesus told John that these things occur swiftly. The bowls, the judgments, the destruction, all occur swiftly. They are not long drawn out.

Revelation is filled with symbolism. I surely agree with you, imagry, metaphor etc. But the symbol must stand for the real. The metaphor must stand for the real.

The lamb in Revelation is not a real lamb but represents that which is real . . . Jesus.

The sword issuing out of the Lord's mouth is symbolic of the actual, literal words which will issue from His mouth which will be death to those smitten by His actual words.

Now then, Sarah, I appreciate what you have brought up. Let's look at some things Jesus said which are not symbolic but were meant to be taken literally:

Mat 19:28  And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Peter alluded to the above passage when he said:   "Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" (Act 3:21) .

When Christ comes again to set up His kingdom will He do it invisibly? No . . .

Act 1:11  Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

In what manner was He taken up? Visibly, by over 500 witnesses. He will come visibly:

Mat 24:30  And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

This will be a visible return with power and great glory. The apostle Paul saw the Lord in great glory and it temporarily blinded him. But this appearing to Saul/Paul was not the return to gather all the tribes of Israel back to the land of promise. That will happen once the restitution of all things occurs. Until then He must remain in heaven.

Now then, when He does indeed visibly return, John in Revelation writes of that return thusly:

Rev 20:3-6  And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.  (4)  And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.  (5)  But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.  (6)  Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

The above passage is when the restitution of all has been completed and is the beginning of the regeneration Christ spoke of in my Matthew passage.

Why regeneration? Because the earth as we know it will go through a lot of literal destruction. Much of mankind wiped out by plagues, pestilance, earthquakes in which the cities of the world will fall. Imagine all the skyscrapers of just New York falling. If you thought the twin towers falling caused such a disruption to our economy imagine every building of every city in the world falling. Bridges collapsing from the great earthquake. Water towers falling. No fresh water. No showers. No way to wash clothes, wash dishes. Electric power plants shut down. Natural gas lines no longer giving gas for warmth and cooking. No bridges to get food from farms to people. Mass starvation. This all must happen first before Christ comes and a regeneration follows.

Does this help? I maintain that John saw a literal, visible return of Christ and will visibly rule with his disciples/apostles in the regeneration. John saw this in the far off future.

He measured the temple in the future and saw the new city Jerusalem being measured in the future.

Nathan, your post is so huge it will take me some time to digest what your wrote.

Peace!

Tony

[Taffy]

2Pe 3:10 "Now the day of the Lord will be arriving as a thief, in which the heavens shall be passing by with a booming noise, yet the elements shall be dissolved by combustion, and the earth and the works in it shall be found."

For me, when there is a passing of the "heavens" it's saying that it's a spiritual event that is happening, but when the earth also passes . .it's telling me that what is transpiring in the spirit, is also affecting the flesh.  A booming noise . . .thunder . . .what causes thunder?  It's a CLASHING of atmospheres . . there is a change of climate coming (was).  That's what happened at the cross, there was thunder then to, and earth quakes . .what makes an earthquake?  There is a shifting of the "fault lines" interesting use of definition there . . .beneath the surface of my earth.  Paul speaks of this as inner wrestling going on and you don't do what you should and you do do what you shouldn't . .this creates earthquakes in us.  In fact, Hebrews tells us that there is going to be one final shaking to remove the things in us that God never built so that only the things God did build will remain.

Lastly, I could finish out your entire post this way, but it's already lengthy and the point is made that natural reasoning just doesn't fit here.  But lastly, the elements will be burned up in fervent heat . . .you may want to look up that word "elements" because it's not referring to natural objects . .but it's referring to principles . . .doctrines . .belief systems . . .there are a couple other places in Scripture where it uses the term "rudiments" which is the exact same word.  This is depicting the affects of the lake of Fire . .which again . .is God . .a "consuming" Fire . .the lake part is connecting it to the laver.

As you were so Brief, :laughing7:

These Elements , rudiments can be found Elswhere to what they are,

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:


Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,


Gal 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Gal 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Dont take much figuring for mine , sounds awfully like the Old C...

Thsi LOUD Noice, Thunder maybe ?
Thunder is Likened to HIS Voice

Rev 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:

Psa 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

Earthquakes we see can Mean Release...to OPEN up

Mat 27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

Mat 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

Mat 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Mat 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.

The KEY of Hades OPENS

Mat 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

Act 16:26 And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed.    

Its no doubt for mine that Christ who comes as A Theif In the NIGHT, night comes before DAY ,as does the Old C come before The New , TO reveal THE HIDDEN man of the Heart, we Hear HIS voice, blessed are those who SEE and Hear,Releasing Man FROM LAW and bondage which came with IT,Pufiying our Mind and HEART through the FIRE( new SOUL)


And people are still waiting for this?......Hope Not


The Golden REED is Christ , we are the Living stones within the City, PILLARS,etc which consist of the HIM and the Church, symbolized by the 144 ,ooo etc etc


Oh ,Lightening COMES where all righteouness comes from...THE EAST, a revelation , a LIGHT,which is Him also.
:icon_flower:

[ScarletWren]

Hey All,

This is a great topic, one that we won't agree on until it is all evidently in the 'past'.  

I certainly don't have any educated or spiritual 'revelation' on this.  First, tho, let's make it clear that the book of Revelation is in the singular, one revelation, not plural...revelations.  I'm not saying this to say anyone who has stated it as revelations has an inferior position, spelling and grammar is certainly not everyone's forte and does not make his/her opinions/insights any less valuable

I remember reading Hal Lindsay's take on Revelation back when I was in Babylon.  I was amazed at his insights, lol.  Enthralled even.  It seemed so intellectual and I felt he had unravelled the thread.  Now I'm sort of back at square one.

To me, Revelation is something that has happened, is happening and will happen.  Just as the story of Joseph and his brothers really happened in the past, it keeps happening over and over in each overcomer during his lifetime, and then, I believe there will be a literal antitype with Christ taking the throne under God as did Joseph under Pharoah and then his family receiving special blessings with Benjamin (whom I believe represents the overcomers) having extra special blessings.

I believe what happened to Jerusalem was in part a fulfillment of Revelation plus prophecies in the Old Testament.  I also think there is much symbolic in it of what happens to each believer as we advance in our journey.  There will continue to be revelation until God is all in all.  But personally, I think there will be many more ages than just one or two before that happens.  The Bible does not reveal everything about God's creation nor, in my opinion, does it reveal everything about what is to be beyond the next few ages.

It always bothered me when people said that time will be no more.  I don't know how we can exist without time.  Time will no longer be an enemy for we will never fear that we won't have enough 'time' to do whatever we desire to do. We won't become 'old' and get sick, etc.  But for things to keep on 'happening' it seems to me that there has to be time.  Perhaps what I view as time is different to others' views of time. Sometimes the way some Christians describe the culmination of creation sounds to me similar to those who talk about Nirvana where everyone will be just one big consciousness with no personal identity.  What was the use of any of this if that is true?  Just because we will be in complete harmony with God does not mean that we won't have personal feelings or activities we like more than others.  I guess that to me is what makes Christianity so unique.  We maintain a personal identity even in the midst of so much harmony.

We all have such diverse opinions.  And that is ok for now.  Some of us disagree on the scope of free will, the trinity doctrine, consciousness after death, etc.  It is good to discuss it.  It is normal to get frustrated when we can't make someone else see our point of view.  I'm sure many of you will feel I have too simplistic a view of all of this.  Well, my brain is simple and I can only digest so much at a time.  When God wants me to change my views or come into new knowledge it will happen and not one moment sooner.  I've learned that.  Doesn't mean I am always content with that, lol.

Anyway, just an insert here.  Let the controversy continue.  It is a good place to see just how different we can view the scriptures.  I respect each one of you and know you all love the things of God.  I know I certainly can learn a lot.  You all seem to study more than I do lately.