Jonah'sJourney

As I previously noted, Revelation 1:1, 3 make it clear that John is writing about things that, at the time he wrote, had not yet occurred. This includes the events depicted in chapter 12. I'm not sure where the idea comes from that the woman represents God's doctrine from heaven. Although the woman is seen "in heaven," she dwells on the earth, as is seen by the fact that her child is "caught up to God and to his throne" (v. 5), after which she is persecuted on earth by the devil after he is thrown down (vv. 12-13). The throwing down of Satan in verse 9 is not a past event (see first paragraph, above), but a future one. Note in verse 12 that after he is thrown down to the earth, he has only a "short time." It's been nearly 2000 years since the Resurrection, which is not a "short time." But you obviously love Jesus, and our fellowship is in him!

If Satan's casting down in verse 9 is a consequence of the Resurrection, who are those in verse 10 who "overcame him (past tense, aorist active indicative) because of the blood of the Lamb"? Since the blood of the Lamb refers to the death of Christ, that would mean they overcame Satan by means of the crucifixion prior to the crucifixion. Also, according to 1:1, 3, the book has to do with future events, not past events.

No, I'm not post trib. I think that Rev. chpts 4-22 are future, but some people (and even most futurist commentators) think there are some past things mixed in with it, like in 12:1-5 (which they interpret as the birth and ascension of Christ). I'm just seeing if anyone sees other things in chpts 4-22 that don't refer to strictly still-future events. Rev 5:6 is also sometimes mentioned as referring to a past event (the death/crucifixion of the lamb).

Ok, thanks Ezra. I'm not sure that's a common futurist position, but any input is appreciated! Anyone else?

First of all, this question has to do with the futurist interpretation of Revelation, not the preterist or historicist views, so please do not respond according to how those other views interpret the book. Although futurists tend to see the book of Revelation as largely concerning future events, some passages are still often seen as pertaining to past events or issues, such as chapters 1-3 (Christ speaking to John, and the spiritual condition of the seven historical churches themselves), or 12:1-5 (pertaining to the birth/ascension of Christ). My question is, other than those two places, where else does the book of Revelation refer to (or pertain to) past events or occurrences (i.e, things that had/have already happened). Put your thinking caps on

In my timeline I have Shem dying at age 600 (Gen. 11:11) in the year 2159 (after creation of Adam), 150 years after Abram was born, and 50 years after Isaac was born.

I'm curious ... why are they called "stars" in verse 3 but "angels" in verses 7 and 9? It seems to me that, hermeneutically (allowing the context itself to define the terms), it would indicate two different things.

Open your Bible to Matthew chapter 24. Verses 29-31 have specifically to do with "But immediately after the tribulation of those days." These are all things that will happen after the tribulation, including the gathering of the elect in verse 31. Now look at verses 15-22. These are all things that have to do with that same tribulation. Notice in verse 16 who Jesus is referring to in this passage: "then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." He's speaking to those who live in Judea at the time--Jews. In verse 22 it says, "but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short." Again, the immediate context concerns Jews. The word for "elect" (eklektous) in 24:22 is the same word for "elect" in 24:31. At his coming, the Lord will begin to gather together the elect of Israel from among the nations and bring them again into the land. I provided several OT scriptures relating to this in the post above.

That is true, and I believe the Lord is at work in that. But they aren't returning as believers to a nation that acknowledges God, as will be the case in the future. Here are some of the OT passages that talk about Israel's scattering and regathering in the last days: Deut 4.26-30 Deut 30.1-6 Isaiah 11.11-12 the Lord will again recover the second time with His hand the remnant of His people . . . and will assemble the banished ones of Israel, and will gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. Isa 41.9 Isa 56.8 Jer 3.12-18 Jer 16.14-18 Jer 23.1-8 Jer 30.3 note that it includes both Israel and Judah Jer 31.7-10 Jer 32.37 Ezek 11.16-20 Ezek 11.17-20 Ezek 20.34-36, 41-42 Ezek 36.24-25 Ezek 37.16-28 Ezek 38.8b Ezek 39.22-29 Hosea 3.4-5 For the sons of Israel will remain for many days without a king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar and without ephod or household idols. Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness in the last days Micah 5.3 Zech 8.7-8 Zech 10.8-10

I think it's speaking of the regathering of Israel from among the nations. There are lots of OT scriptures relating to the regathering.

LOL it is indeed the wrong thread. I wondered what happened to that post.

Why would the Lord need to write letters to angels? And if each of the letters is written to an individual angel, why does He tell the angel in Rev. 2:10 "Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison"? Some of who? Some of the angels? The Gr word angelos means "messenger," and can refer to either angelic beings or to human persons. It is translated "angel" in the seven letters, but could just as accurately be translated "messenger." The Lord doesn't write letters to angels, as though they would learn something by reading a letter that they wouldn't know otherwise.

The book itself, however, is for the benefit of believers (1:1; 22:16), not angels.

{{{message from heaven}}} GoldenEagle, where are you?

Good observations! I understand the seventh seal to comprise both the 7 trumps and the 7 bowls, with the trumps and bowls being the same judgments viewed from two different perspectives. I also see the Two Witnesses not as two individuals but two groups of believers = the tribulation saints who are martyred then raised.

The book of Revelation was written specifically to the bond-servants of Jesus Christ (1:1)--Christian believers. I think she is the church.

No, by definition Adam was perfect until he sinned. But there was still a sense in which he had to be perfected, tested. Jesus was perfect, yet still had to be tested. (I'm speaking of Jesus as to his humanity, as the "Last Adam.") Adam failed the test, Jesus did not. There is a double application to Genesis 1:26, one physical (relating to Adam) and the other spiritual (relating to Christ). In the historical context of Genesis 1:26, God is speaking to Adam ("Let us ...") by announcing beforehand His intent, which was that Adam, who was created in the image and likeness of God, should bring forth sons and daughters ("... make man ...") who would be in the image and likeness of their father, and therefore in the image and likeness of God ("... in our image, according to our likeness"). Adam was the prototype, the "federal head" of the human race. Those whom Adam beget would be "in Adam," in the sense they would be like him. Adam sinned, and thus all those who descend from him are like him ("in Adam all die" 1 Cor. 15:22). In the prophetic sense, in Genesis 1:26 God is speaking to Christ, the firstborn of a new (spiritual) creation--the Last Adam. God foreknew that the first Adam would sin and that all his descendants would therefore be lost. But He also foreknew that, when the fulness of time came, He would send forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law (Gal. 4:4), who would accomplish what Adam did not. As believers, we are no longer "in Adam," but "in Christ" (1 Cor. 15:22). The reason Jesus is called the "last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45) is because he (as man) is the anti-type of the first Adam, who was a type of Him who was to come (Rom. 5:14). Genesis 1:26 is actually the first Messianic prophecy!

Wonderful topic! Short answer: My view is God is speaking, in the immediate sense, to Adam, who was made in the image of God and was to grow into His likeness (which growth process included testing and thereby learning obedience). God's original plan was for Adam to be in His (God's) image and likeness and bear children who would be in his (Adam's) own image/likeness, and thus be in the image/likeness of God. But as a result of Adam's sin, his offspring have inherited his fallen nature--like father, like son. God knew that would happen, of course, so in the prophetic sense in Gen. 1:26 He is speaking to Jesus as the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45), who (through Mary) is a descendant of Adam, but unlike the first Adam learned obedience from the things that he suffered (Heb. 5:8). Christ is the image of God (Col. 1:15), and at his resurrection became the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18), the firstborn among many brethren (Rom. 8:29)--that's us! As believers, we are being conformed to (Rom. 8:29) and transformed into (2 Cor. 3:18) his image, from glory to glory. So, to be conformed/transformed into the image of Christ = being conformed/transformed into the image of God = Gen. 1:26 fulfilled. "Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive." 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

Maybe it's frustrating to me because I've never had the perception that Jesus, Mary, or the Apostles were not Jews. Not the case with some, apparently, so I'll leave this alone and let others be blessed by it!

Point #2 in the article is an example of what bugs me about some of these "NT is Jewish" articles: I'm not sure what the point is, since the NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. In the Greek, her name appears as Maria (or some form of the noun), so his is argument is with the inspired Greek text, not with the Catholic Church. Today, the name occurs in dozens of languages as some form of Maria/Marie. He's technically right, in point #6, that "James" is not the name of the fellow who wrote the epistle, as even the Greek has Iakwbos. But again, what's the point? "James" is simply the anglicized form of Jacob, just as Seamus is the Irish form, and Giacomo the Italian form.

My wife has been helping to lead CR for a few years now. It's been a great blessing for her personally, and has seen many people set free from all kinds of issues.