Zone1 What you were never told about Revelation: A revaluation and reassessment

[DudleySmith]

This is only true if you don't believe Revelation to be about the Last Days before the and after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Other than that, the time in which the revelation was given to John doesn't matter to understanding the Book. He may have received the revelation 30 years prior to writing it down. Doesn't matter. It's still about the latter-days.

Actually it matters lot re provenance alone as well other reasons, and as I said it was written down at just the perfect time to close out the NT.

 

[DudleySmith]

Revelation was contemporaneous. John of Patmos was writing to the 7 churches of the first century sometime between 75 AD and 95 AD. He tells them who the letter is for and when.. He also refers to himself as your brother in tribulation.

68 A.D. works a lot better. The Temple fell soon after, ending the Babylomian cult's biggest swindle. Those who want to snipe at the validity of the NT so they can pretend their own edited versions are valid just have to make up a lot of handwaves and bullshit about Constantine they can't back up, is all. See it here every day.

 

[DudleySmith]

This is only true if you don't believe Revelation to be about the Last Days before the and after the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Other than that, the time in which the revelation was given to John doesn't matter to understanding the Book. He may have received the revelation 30 years prior to writing it down. Doesn't matter. It's still about the latter-days.

Jesus 'came' twice already; it is in the Resurrection story itself. Why people dismiss the obvious is just weird, especially for believers.

 

[DudleySmith]

There has been dozens of New World Orders.

Yes, this I agree with.

 

[Cougarbear]

Jesus 'came' twice already; it is in the Resurrection story itself. Why people dismiss the obvious is just weird, especially for believers.

Most people understand that the account of Jesus coming into the closed room is part of the First Coming of Christ. So, to give you some other info, the Jews had been hoping for the Messiah (Christ) to come and destroy their enemies like the Romans. Didn't happen, did it? Yet, Jesus is the Messiah (Christ) and as prophecy has stated, including in Revelation, the Messiah (Jesus Christ) will come and end the waring and save Israel in Jerusalem at the Mount of Olives as stated in Zechariah. The Mount will be divided up into quarters and move to open up and the Messiah will stand in the midst. He will show them His hands and feet wounds in which He will respond that he received the wounds in the house (Israel) of His friends. This hasn't happened yet.
You were correct to say Surada's take on it is better in 68 A.D. than 95 A.D. But, that just to serve to try and force this Second Coming events into what happened back in the Frist Century. But, it doesn't fly with prophecy of OT and other NT scriptures.

 

[surada]

Most people understand that the account of Jesus coming into the closed room is part of the First Coming of Christ. So, to give you some other info, the Jews had been hoping for the Messiah (Christ) to come and destroy their enemies like the Romans. Didn't happen, did it? Yet, Jesus is the Messiah (Christ) and as prophecy has stated, including in Revelation, the Messiah (Jesus Christ) will come and end the waring and save Israel in Jerusalem at the Mount of Olives as stated in Zechariah. The Mount will be divided up into quarters and move to open up and the Messiah will stand in the midst. He will show them His hands and feet wounds in which He will respond that he received the wounds in the house (Israel) of His friends. This hasn't happened yet.
You were correct to say Surada's take on it is better in 68 A.D. than 95 A.D. But, that just to serve to try and force this Second Coming events into what happened back in the Frist Century. But, it doesn't fly with prophecy of OT and other NT scriptures.

The Mount of Olives was divided. Half the Jews were taken into exile. The bad figs were left behind.

Revelation says there is no temple because Jesus is the temple... So the earliest was 75 AD.

 

[DudleySmith]

Most people understand that the account of Jesus coming into the closed room is part of the First Coming of Christ. So, to give you some other info, the Jews had been hoping for the Messiah (Christ) to come and destroy their enemies like the Romans. Didn't happen, did it? Yet, Jesus is the Messiah (Christ) and as prophecy has stated, including in Revelation, the Messiah (Jesus Christ) will come and end the waring and save Israel in Jerusalem at the Mount of Olives as stated in Zechariah. The Mount will be divided up into quarters and move to open up and the Messiah will stand in the midst. He will show them His hands and feet wounds in which He will respond that he received the wounds in the house (Israel) of His friends. This hasn't happened yet.
You were correct to say Surada's take on it is better in 68 A.D. than 95 A.D. But, that just to serve to try and force this Second Coming events into what happened back in the Frist Century. But, it doesn't fly with prophecy of OT and other NT scriptures.

Yes, you're talking about his 'Third Coming', not his Second. Most people don't have much understanding, and are still just pagans in real beliefs, so I don't put a lot of stock in what's popular and what isn't re the history. I go by what is there and what dedicated scholars have to say.

 

[DudleySmith]

The Mount of Olives was divided. Half the Jews were taken into exile. The bad figs were left behind.

Revelation says there is no temple because Jesus is the temple... So the earliest was 75 AD.

Actually already said the Temple was a farce, and would fall so yeah, it could easily be before 75 A.D. Christians rejected the TEmple scam from the beginning, as did other, non-Christian Jewish sects, like the Samaritans and Essenes, to name two; there were several more. It was heavily discriminatory toward most Jews at the time.

 

[Cougarbear]

The Mount of Olives was divided. Half the Jews were taken into exile. The bad figs were left behind.

Revelation says there is no temple because Jesus is the temple... So the earliest was 75 AD.

Do you have a clue what the Mount of Olives is and where it is? Doesn't sound like it. Zechariah 14:4, "And his (THE LORD) feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall CLEAVE in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the MOUNTAIN shall remove toward the north and half of it toward the south." Chapter's 12 and 13 give you more information and chapter 14 should be before 12 and 13. So, this obviously doesn't mean anything about half of the Jews. Again, is English a challenge for you? Seriously...

 

[Cougarbear]

Yes, you're talking about his 'Third Coming', not his Second. Most people don't have much understanding, and are still just pagans in real beliefs, so I don't put a lot of stock in what's popular and what isn't re the history. I go by what is there and what dedicated scholars have to say.

So, what is your "Second Coming?" Again, the Resurrected Jesus being seen in the closed room and on the road to Emus is not the "Second Coming." So, what do you claim to be the Second Coming of Christ?

 

[surada]

Do you have a clue what the Mount of Olives is and where it is? Doesn't sound like it. Zechariah 14:4, "And his (THE LORD) feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall CLEAVE in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the MOUNTAIN shall remove toward the north and half of it toward the south." Chapter's 12 and 13 give you more information and chapter 14 should be before 12 and 13. So, this obviously doesn't mean anything about half of the Jews. Again, is English a challenge for you? Seriously...

Yes. I have been there several times. Three two week trips as a matter of fact.

What do you think Zechariah is about?

 

[Cougarbear]

Yes. I have been there several times. Three two week trips as a matter of fact.

What do you think Zechariah is about?

I'm asking a specific question about the Mount of Olives and specifically about the "Cleaving" of the mount. You do know what "cleave" means, don't you? To cut and separated. The mount is cut and separated in 4 directions. East, West, North and South. The Lord stands in the middle with a resurrected body that the people can see, feel and touch. It's all in chapters 12, 13 and 14. So, this had to occur after the Lord's resurrection. The Mount did not divide then, nor in the days Jesus walked the earth nor in our days as of yet. You have been slam dunked on, posterized! You are WRONG!

 

[surada]

I'm asking a specific question about the Mount of Olives and specifically about the "Cleaving" of the mount. You do know what "cleave" means, don't you? To cut and separated. The mount is cut and separated in 4 directions. East, West, North and South. The Lord stands in the middle with a resurrected body that the people can see, feel and touch. It's all in chapters 12, 13 and 14. So, this had to occur after the Lord's resurrection. The Mount did not divide then, nor in the days Jesus walked the earth nor in our days as of yet. You have been slam dunked on, posterized! You are WRONG!

You take it literally. Zechariah was writing about the Babylonian exile.

 

[Cougarbear]

You take it literally. Zechariah was writing about the Babylonian exile.

Did the Mount of Olives part leaving a valley? No. Did the Lord stand in the middle of the valley created by the parting? No. So, you are wrong...

 

[surada]

Did the Mount of Olives part leaving a valley? No. Did the Lord stand in the middle of the valley created by the parting? No. So, you are wrong...

It's symbolic.. all apocryphal writing is full of symbolism.

 

[norwegen]

Yes, you're talking about his 'Third Coming', not his Second. Most people don't have much understanding, and are still just pagans in real beliefs, so I don't put a lot of stock in what's popular and what isn't re the history. I go by what is there and what dedicated scholars have to say.

The New Testament relates many comings. He came as a baby. He came in his kingdom. From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven. And of course he came in judgment in AD 70.

These comings are in addition to his comings beforehand, when he came in clouds of heaven with his armies or in dreams. According to Paul, Christ was the rock who had historically followed the faithful in Israel (1 Cor 10:4).

 

[DudleySmith]

The New Testament relates many comings. He came as a baby. He came in his kingdom. From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven. And of course he came in judgment in AD 70.

These comings are in addition to his comings beforehand, when he came in clouds of heaven with his armies or in dreams. According to Paul, Christ was the rock who had historically followed the faithful in Israel (1 Cor 10:4).

Yes, there are several prophecies in the book. Technically his Resurrection was his 2nd coming; it could also be reference to a 2nd coming as a teacher and leader, or any number of other meanings. Given his focus on the orginalTorah, I would look for his meaning there, probably in Psalms for the main ones.

 

[norwegen]

Yes, there are several prophecies in the book. Technically his Resurrection was his 2nd coming; it could also be reference to a 2nd coming as a teacher and leader, or any number of other meanings. Given his focus on the orginalTorah, I would look for his meaning there, probably in Psalms for the main ones.

Jesus never said anything about his "second" coming. He said only that he comes. He wouldn't come for his resurrection; he was already here (in a tomb). He would come for the resurrection.

The Lord comes repeatedly. We might even say that he comes continuously. The scant and loose references to a “return” (second coming) therefore, must be viewed in narrowly defined contexts. A return, or second coming, must be taken strictly in a New Testament context. How did Christ “return” if he didn’t leave? (Because he didn't leave.) Jesus himself never said that he would return per se, only that he comes and that he would come in judgment.

The Lord ascended to be with the Father while also remaining with his flock on the earth. This is an overarching New Testament context for his comings, including his Parousia. So even the following passage must fit that context:

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. (Heb 9:27-28)​

This is the only passage in scripture that definitively and directly mentions Christ coming a second time. Otherwise, references to his Parousia are generally references not to his return but simply to his comings. If Christ was the rock who historically followed Israel in her exploits, as Paul affirmed—if the Messiah was the Lord who throughout Israel’s history accompanied God’s nation in her battles—then his coming in this case would not have been his second coming, except in the context that the book of Hebrews places it in.

All through Israel’s history, Christ had come on some occasion or another, most notably in humility as a man (Phil 2:6-8). That is, he was appointed to die, and he did for the sins of his people. And, as this passage in Hebrews notes, he would come again for the resurrection. In this “end-of-the-age” context, the Lord came for two reasons: kingdom and judgment. He came in his kingdom to deal with sin and then again in judgment for the resurrection. He came to bless some, and then again to curse others. This is the two-edged sword that he wielded. This passage synchronizes the Parousia with judgment and resurrection. Jesus came to save those who were eagerly waiting for him. Some translations say that he came a second time to them who wait for him unto salvation. If the Parousia is still future, as dispensationalists contend, then Christ has not yet saved anyone.

This passage summarizes the two-fold message of the New Testament. All of Christ’s other comings are well and good and have their places in history and the Scriptures, but these two comings are the two that are pertinent to the above Hebrew passage and generally to the New Testament narrative. These two comings encapsulate the sacrifice narrative that closed out the Old Covenant system. The last paragraph of Hebrews chapter 9 lies entirely within the context of sacrifice, both the shadow of it under the Law and its fulfillment in Christ.

 

[DudleySmith]

Jesus never said anything about his "second" coming.

Exctly. The 'Second Coming' is a later invention.

He wouldn't come for his resurrection; he was already here (in a tomb)

His 'Coming' back to life was a 2nd coming in the literal sense, a'rising', or return, as people then understood 'resurrection'; that is implicit the 're' prefix in the word 'resurrection'. 'Surrection' is a word in itself. It derives from Latin and French, and then to English. It is in turn an accurate translation from Aramaic and Hebrew.

The Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew words for "Resurrection" | AHRC

While the word

www.ancient-hebrew.org

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, (ASV, Matthew 22:31)

While the word "resurrection" does not appear in English translations of the Tanakh (Old Testament), it does appear in the New Testament as a translation for the Greek word αναστασις (anastasis, Strong's #386). This noun is derived from the word ανιστημι (anistemi, Strong's #450), which means "to stand up" or "to rise up." This Greek word appears once in the Septuagint, a 2,000 year old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.

And behold I establish [in the sense of something standing firm] my covenant with you, and with your seed after you, (LXE, Genesis 9:9)

In the Peshitta, a 5th Century Aramaic New Testament, the word used for "resurrection" in the verse above is the word קימתא (q'yam'ta). This Aramaic word translates into Hebrew as תקומה (tequmah, Strong's #8617).

In Modern Hebrew, the word for "resurrection" is תקומה (tequmah), the same word from the Peshitta. This word is derived from the verbal root קום (Q.W.M, Strong's #6965) meaning "to stand up" or "to rise up." The word תקומה (tequmah) is found once in the Hebrew Bible.

And they shall stumble one upon another, as it were before the sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies. (ASV, Leviticus 26:37)

From all of this, we can gather that the ancient understanding of the "resurrection of the dead," is the "rising up of the dead, or more literally, the "standing up of the dead."​

 

[JustAGuy1]

Jesus 'came' twice already; it is in the Resurrection story itself. Why people dismiss the obvious is just weird, especially for believers.

Sorry no, the Word makes it clear;

7Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen