Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
"First, even if it is, it must have happened shortly after Revelation was written. After all, the angel of Revelation said this prophecy would happen soon, for the time was at hand ( Rev. 22:10). Therefore, it must have happened in the first century."
The problem is the underlying fundamental premise (quoted above). The conclusion drawn by the author places all the events of Revelation in the first century, which means the final judgment has occurred already, and therefore there is no basis to believe anyone after that time has any future whatsoever. If death, hell, and the lost have been destroyed in the lake of fire, if the great judgment has already happened, upon what basis can anyone claim there is any future judgment for anyone else? There is no basis for a belief in a future judgment that I can see? |
I hear that alot in my teachings. "The prophecies of Revelation could not have happened, because (fill in the blank) has not happened yet, therefore, shortly, at hand, time is at hand, time statements, are not really."
That is one flaw so many do, and that is judge a prophecy, by what they interpret it to mean. Many of those in Israel today, do not believe Jesus came as Messiah/Saviour 2000 years ago, merely because he didn't come the way they thought, but we all know he did. So who is right?
The position should not be, the time is not when it clearly declared it would, but how did it happen during the time it was declared it would.
I know, now comes the. "well, if it did happen in the first century, why, or how do (fill in the blank) occur?
First one has to accept the basic foundation...the time statements found throughout the book, and elsewhere in the New Testament, and they are there for a reason, not for private interpretations.