Revelation Chapters 21 and 22... later 19 and 20

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The verse only says that the ones who pierced him will see him, nothing about sore grapes[guilt].

Look more carefully. It said the ones who see Him come would be the ones "who pierced Him". When you say someone pierced another, then you are saying that this someone is GUILTY. It's right there and you are missing the whole point.

We would not call these people the ones "who pierced" Jesus unless they were actually guilty of piercing Jesus. It did not say the Lord would come in a day when the descendants of those who pierced Him would see Him, as if the perpetrators and not their descendants alone were guilty, and this coming was still in our future. It said THOSE guilty of having PIERCED HIM would see Him come. That means whoever sees Him is GUILTY OF PIERCING HIM. Since Ezekiel 18 said God does not consider the children guilty of their fathers' sins, then God would not say in His word that the DESCENDANTS of the people are called those who "pierced" Jesus. If God is to say someone pierced Jesus, He cannot say it was the descendants of the folks who did, but the people who did it, themselves, due to Ezek 18.

We cannot ignore Ezekiel 18 because it does not fit our ideas of what Rev 1 says.

People wailing has to do the fear of punishment.

Fine. No problem there. But that is not all the verse says. The rest of the verse ties the coming of Jesus in with a time when the people "who pierced" Jesus see it. So, if God cannot call the DESCENDANTS of Jews the ones who pierced Jesus, then the rest of the verse cannot occur outside the time frame of the lives of those WHO ARE the ones who actually are guilty of having pierced Him. That limits it to the first century, since the only ones whom God could accuse of having pierced Jesus cannot be the race, but the actual generation of people who did it.

Jesus is coming again in the future resurrection, rapture, second coming, appearing -- all the same thing at the same time. But Rev 1 is not at all speaking of that. It cannot be.

Rev 6:15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
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:
17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

That does not change what I said earlier. And this passage you quote raises an awesome thought. Have you ever noticed this?

Luk 23:27-30 KJV And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. (28) But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. (29) 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. (30) Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.

Jesus distinctly said the ones who would cry for the rocks and mountains to cover them were those people alive in His day. That directly associates itself with the Jews crying for His blood to be on them and their children. If you would consider this, you would find it is everywhere!

But my point in referring to the Ezekiel 18 reference is to show you that the Jews as DESCENDANTS CANNOT BE said to be those who pierced Jesus. If they were, that would violate God's own words for the descendants to not be punished for their ancestors.

2 Thess 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

This chapter basically says each man is accountable for their own sins.

Then why do you say the jews' DESCENDANTS are punished when their forefathers alone actually pierced Jesus?

Those that pierced him is a phrase describing a people, Jews.

Cannot be. It is a phrase saying people guilty of the piercing would see Him. If you're not guilty of shooting John Doe, then I cannot say you shot John Doe. It's so simple, you are missing it.

I don't take it to mean Jesus is coming to specifically punish the descendants of the Sanhedrin of Jesus' day for what their fathers did but it only refers to Jewish people. ie: the Jews will see Him in the clouds as well.

But the verse states the ones "who pierced Him" would see Him -- only the guilty ones. You're not guilty enough to be amongst those who are said to be "those who pierced Him" if you are only a descendant of the ones who did it. That matches with the rest of the references to SHORTLY and AT HAND.

But all the things in Revelations have not come to pass yet. Jesus hasn't come back in the clouds.

Ancient history records Israelites seeing armies of chariots in the clouds when the temple was destroyed. It is documented. In some cases "coming in clouds" has nothing to do with actually seeing God come.

2Sa 22:11-12 KJV And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen (YET NO MAN HAS EVER SEEN GOD) upon the wings of the wind. (12) And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies. (DAVID NEVER SAW GOD COME ON CLOUDS -- IT IS A BIBLICAL FIGURE OF SPEECH REGARDING WRATH).

David wrote that, and He did not actually see God in clouds. But in other cases, as in Acts 1:11, there are visible clouds mentioned. Again, we have to analyze every reference involved in the verses in order to ascertain which biblical picture is being used. Figurative, as in 2 Sam 22, or literal as in Acts 1:11.

This is to be a major global event. If it had happened it would have been on the news or be in the history books. Zech 4. A mountain is going to be split in half! Major news!

You mean Zech 14. And that is not literal either, because it is speaking about RIVERS OF LIVING WATERS. That refers to the Holy Ghost. Jesus told us that.

Thanks for your thoughts, though. I only ask you consider what I say.

[mfblume]

A clincher in all of this -- and I cannot see how anyone could refute it -- is that Daniel and John were both directed to deal with the sealing of the book.

Daniel wrote some five hundred years before John wrote. And Daniel was told to not seal the book because the time was afar off for it's fulfillment.

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. (Dan 12:4)

And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. (Dan 12:9)

Compare that with:

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

If Daniel was only 500 years behind John, and was told to seal the book because time was too far away to concern Daniel, but this was not so with John, then how can two thousand years after John fit the scenario?

Originally Posted by Revelationist

I believe the Word... and the Word says...

2 Cor 5:17

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

KJV

Does it not say "ALL THINGS" are become new? It's not what I'm saying, it's what the Word says...

Jerry Moon

I believe that in that passage, old things passing away refers to the remission of sins, and all things becoming new refers to the nature change that we recieve during the new birth. The notion that it refers to the new heavens and new earth shows no support from the context.

Secondly, consider the fact that similar languege in two places does not prove that those two passages mean the same thing. Both God and Abraham are our Father, but does that mean that God is Abraham? No! Likewise, I do not believe that Similar languege between Revelation 21 and passages dealing with the new birth mean that the new heavens and new earth is the new birth.

Thirdly, I believe that the Bible is real clear about there being a future new heavens and new earth in many places, such as 2 Peter 3:10-13.

[Revelationist]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

So today in the church there is NO tears-sorrow-death-pain???????????????

Where are you pastoring I have never seen that church. Never sick, never any sorrow, not ever a funeral service, NOT one tear shed what a church. And you said you are where?

In our church they speak in tounges, get drunk in the Holy Ghost, ect... I've never seen no sorrow when people get to drinking the new wine.

Death? Do you not believe this?

John 11:26
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
KJV


Jerry Moon

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Look more carefully. It said the ones who see Him come would be the ones "who pierced Him". When you say someone pierced another, then you are saying that this someone is GUILTY. It's right there and you are missing the whole point.

We would not call these people the ones "who pierced" Jesus unless they were actually guilty of piercing Jesus. It did not say the Lord would come in a day when the descendants of those who pierced Him would see Him, as if the perpetrators and not their descendants alone were guilty, and this coming was still in our future. It said THOSE guilty of having PIERCED HIM would see Him come. That means whoever sees Him is GUILTY OF PIERCING HIM. Since Ezekiel 18 said God does not consider the children guilty of their fathers' sins, then God would not say in His word that the DESCENDANTS of the people are called those who "pierced" Jesus. If God is to say someone pierced Jesus, He cannot say it was the descendants of the folks who did, but the people who did it, themselves, due to Ezek 18.

We cannot ignore Ezekiel 18 because it does not fit our ideas of what Rev 1 says.



Fine. No problem there. But that is not all the verse says. The rest of the verse ties the coming of Jesus in with a time when the people "who pierced" Jesus see it. So, if God cannot call the DESCENDANTS of Jews the ones who pierced Jesus, then the rest of the verse cannot occur outside the time frame of the lives of those WHO ARE the ones who actually are guilty of having pierced Him. That limits it to the first century, since the only ones whom God could accuse of having pierced Jesus cannot be the race, but the actual generation of people who did it.

Jesus is coming again in the future resurrection, rapture, second coming, appearing -- all the same thing at the same time. But Rev 1 is not at all speaking of that. It cannot be.



That does not change what I said earlier. And this passage you quote raises an awesome thought. Have you ever noticed this?

Luk 23:27-30 KJV And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. (28) But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. (29) 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. (30) Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.

Jesus distinctly said the ones who would cry for the rocks and mountains to cover them were those people alive in His day. That directly associates itself with the Jews crying for His blood to be on them and their children. If you would consider this, you would find it is everywhere!

But my point in referring to the Ezekiel 18 reference is to show you that the Jews as DESCENDANTS CANNOT BE said to be those who pierced Jesus. If they were, that would violate God's own words for the descendants to not be punished for their ancestors.



Then why do you say the jews' DESCENDANTS are punished when their forefathers alone actually pierced Jesus?



Cannot be. It is a phrase saying people guilty of the piercing would see Him. If you're not guilty of shooting John Doe, then I cannot say you shot John Doe. It's so simple, you are missing it.



But the verse states the ones "who pierced Him" would see Him -- only the guilty ones. You're not guilty enough to be amongst those who are said to be "those who pierced Him" if you are only a descendant of the ones who did it. That matches with the rest of the references to SHORTLY and AT HAND.



Ancient history records Israelites seeing armies of chariots in the clouds when the temple was destroyed. It is documented. In some cases "coming in clouds" has nothing to do with actually seeing God come.

2Sa 22:11-12 KJV And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen (YET NO MAN HAS EVER SEEN GOD) upon the wings of the wind. (12) And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies. (DAVID NEVER SAW GOD COME ON CLOUDS -- IT IS A BIBLICAL FIGURE OF SPEECH REGARDING WRATH).

David wrote that, and He did not actually see God in clouds. But in other cases, as in Acts 1:11, there are visible clouds mentioned. Again, we have to analyze every reference involved in the verses in order to ascertain which biblical picture is being used. Figurative, as in 2 Sam 22, or literal as in Acts 1:11.



You mean Zech 14. And that is not literal either, because it is speaking about RIVERS OF LIVING WATERS. That refers to the Holy Ghost. Jesus told us that.

Thanks for your thoughts, though. I only ask you consider what I say.

I will consider your words. Thank you for your thoughts as well.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I will consider your words. Thank you for your thoughts as well.

God bless. I wil also consider your thoughts.

[Digging4Truth]

Brother Moon...

Thank you so much for all you have contributed to this thread so far. It has been helpful.

I tried to ask the question I am about to ask once before and it was between Evang Benincasa & mfblume...

Friends... that is too explosive of a combination to get anything done. I finally had to just abandon the thread and let them have at it.

I am not necessarily even trying spark a debate. I am just trying to get a grasp on what the difference is between full & partial preterism.

Brother Moon...
What is the difference between full & partial preterism and why is it important to understand the portion of the doctrine that makes the difference?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Revelationist

In our church they speak in tounges, get drunk in the Holy Ghost, ect... I've never seen no sorrow when people get to drinking the new wine.

Death? Do you not believe this?

John 11:26
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
KJV


Jerry Moon

You have never preached a funeral of a saint in your church?
You have thrown away your bottle since no one is ever sick?
You have never had to encourage the anyone in sorrow?

Now where is this church?

Someone has said imagination is the biggest nation in the world.

[Digging4Truth]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

You have never preached a funeral of a saint in your church?
You have thrown away your bottle since no one is ever sick?
You have never had to encourage the anyone in sorrow?

Now where is this church?

Someone has said imagination is the biggest nation in the world.

John 11:26
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
KJV

Elder Epley... do you believe the verse above?

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth

John 11:26
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
KJV

Elder Epley... do you believe the verse above?

Now digging you know I believe this verse ALONG with the ones who speak of saints dying. What you do not know is when they had a forum I went over and over with them over this off the wall interpetations. When I would corner them another would post something even more goofy. There is NO end to the stretch these folks will go to prop up their heresy even to making the resurrected body of Jesus evaporate into gases.