Prophecy ... Different Views Shouldn't Turn into Slanderous Accusations

[iamlamad]

2 hours ago, OldCoot said:

While John did see the throne room in roughly 95AD when He got the Revelation of Yeshua, that doesn't mean he was seeing the throne room of literal 95AD.  When he was given the Revelation of Jesus in 95AD, he also saw the two witnesses, the new heaven and the new earth, and all the other details.  

The point is, in Revelation 4:1, it clearly states "after these things"  that he was shown what would come "after this".   Simple, basic grammatical structure suggests that "after these things" and "after this" has to refer to the "things" that preceded Chapter 4, namely, the Churches.   Just from the textual evidence, one can only conclude that the view John saw in Chapter 4 was of the time after the Churches.  Which when combined with what the 24 Elders say of themselves in Chapter 5, it implies the Church is in heaven at the time John is seeing.

And we went around about this before.  John did not see Yeshua as a man, but as the lamb as it had been slain.  And just because he didn't mention seeing Yeshua sitting at the right hand of God, is not support for some assertion that Yeshua wasn't there.  One cannot legitimately base a position in the absence of evidence.  John concentrated most of his efforts on describing the throne of God.   Just because he didn't mention Yeshua sitting at the Father's right hand does not prove He wasn't there. As was mentioned, Stephen saw Yeshua sitting at the right hand of the Father (Acts 7) long before John got the Revelation, as a matter of fact, just a short time after Yeshua had returned to the Father.  Likewise, though the text doesn't say it specifically, I think that Paul had the same experience on the road to Damascus, and that experience was expounded upon a little in 2 Corinthians 14.  But that is just speculation on my part.

But what is the standard to prove what one hears and who it is from?  The Bible, as per 1 John 4:1.  You know... the same guy who was given the Revelation of Yeshua.

But also, YHVH is very consistent in how scripture is laid out.  He tends to follow similar patterns (especially in regards to prophecy), use idioms that maintain a similar meaning throughout scripture (principle of expositional constancy), follows high standards of grammatical structure, and legal logic that would stand up in a courtroom (ask any number of lawyers that are also Christian Apologists).   And He requires in the Torah than no matter can be established except by the testimony of two or more witnesses.  We have those two witnesses.  The OT and the NT.  Something must have good support in both for it to be considered valid.  The example of the Bereans affirms this, and was commended by the Holy Spirit.  They had the presentation of the Paul (who's writings are a major portion of the NT) and they searched the scriptures (OT) daily to see if what Paul taught them was true.  Any doctrine one gleans from the NT must be supported in the OT.  Only those things that are called "mysteries" in the NT are exempt, as "mystery" in the context of scripture means something that has not been revealed previously.

So anything "word of knowledge" or any other sort of "hearing His voice", must be supported in the entirety of scripture, both OT and NT.  For there is no private interpretation of prophecy in scripture., per Peter.  It must be confirmed in scripture and from both sections... OT and NT, per the example of the Bereans and the requirement of the Torah.

But also keep in mind that... if someone claimed a prophecy that didn't come to pass, that person was to be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death according to the Torah.  There is a very high standard.  100% accuracy and fulfillment.  

 

It is VERY difficult to get an "old coot" to change his mind on anything. I understand that. 

After "namely, the Churches."  This is not really accurate! Be honest with scripture! Take off your preconceived glasses! 

John had just listened to Jesus dictate letters to 7 existing churches - circa 95 AD.  After Jesus finished this dictation, then John wrote "after." God was going to show John something different now. You would have to stretch this verse to the breaking point of exegesis to make it say "after the church age" which you are hinting.  This well known theory is simply NOT good exegesis. 

"the view John saw in Chapter 4 was of the time after the Churches."  Absolutely NOT!  Preconceptions are overriding your reading and understanding abilities.  It was after Jesus dictated messages to churches existing in 95 AD.  "after these things" in context would be after Jesus finished dictating the messages to the churches.  Keep in mind, John actually WROTE after the fact, after the visions were finished. He is looking back and remembering that Jesus dictated letters, then moved on to visions.  Just let the text say what it is saying and don't read it with preconceptions! After the message to the last church, it is still 95 AD and John is probably thinking about the messages. But now God wants to show John visions. You could say He "turned the page." To imagine He jumped 2000 years is really really really stretching those words all out of its context. 

 John did not see Yeshua as a man, but as the lamb as it had been slain.  Old Coot, do you have ANY concept of time and the movement of time? I am guessing you are an old man, so you SHOULD understand time moving on. It always does, no matter what.  Now, go back to Rev. 4 and read what John saw FIRST as He saw the throne room in this vision. 

"behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne."  

"there was a rainbow round about the throne"

"round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting"

"out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices:"

"there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God."

"before the throne there was a sea of glass"

"round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind."

This is what John saw. Jesus was NOT THERE. Not even by any kind of stretching. He is simply NOT THERE.  Don't even think of suggesting He was there but somehow John did not see Him.  He was gone elsewhere. Don't come back with "He was there in chapter 5." We are not IN chapter 5 yet, which is AFTER TIME PASSED.

Face it! Confess it! Jesus was simply not in the throne room in chapter 4.  I CAN base a position on lack of seeing, because Jesus Christ, the head of the church ask me WHY He was not there. I will take His word for the fact that He was not there.  Now you can say I must have heard from a different spirit  - or just imagined I heard something - but the fact will still remain, If Jesus had been at the right hand of the Father, John would have seen Him. The point is, God is giving this vision and WANTED John to see a throne room WITHOUT Jesus, to establish TIME and TIMING. In other words, John saw EXACTLY what God wanted Him to see: a throne room with Jesus MISSING. 

This point, however can be backed up three more times: three more witnesses:

1. The Holy Spirit was there. We both KNOW Jesus said that He would send Him down as soon as He ascended: yet here, in chapter 4, there He is, IN the throne room. WHY? 

2. There was a search made for one worthy. It was a real and legitimate search.  But this search ended in failure, for John "wept much" for "no man was found." WHY? Why was no man found in this search? Again God is establishing TIMING. You though, wish to ignore His timing as if you had a better idea than God. Remember, John is seeing EXACTLY what God wants him to see: a throne room with Jesus missing but the Holy Spirit there. Don't try to change the text: you cannot add to or take away from what John wrote: it is what it is and God expects us to understand it. 

3. In chapter five, sudden a change: suddenly someone was found. So immediately we know that after that first search ended a new search was started. And we know something else. Something about JESUS had changed. What possible change to take Him from a position of NOT being worthy, to a position of being FOUND worthy? Well, TIME moved on and Jesus rose from the dead. It seems the very moment He rose from the dead, He was found worthy. In other words, His RESURRECTION was very much a part of His becoming the redeemer of mankind. He rose, and was found worthy.

Can you see time moving? John has gone from a time when Jesus was NOT found worthy, to a later time when He WAS found worthy -  a time before He rose from the dead - to a time AFTER He rose from the dead. And this was EXACTLY what God wanted John to see.  

Of course in this book John does not have to tell us about Mary, and how Jesus told her not to touch Him for He had not yet ascended. The next thing John tells us is that Jesus suddenly showed up in heaven. And we KNOW this from other scriptures. Paul for example tells us He took His own blood to the altar in heaven.   " by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us"

So we KNOW Paul had to ascend. 

4. As soon as Jesus entered the throne room, the Holy Spirit - previously seen there in chapter 4, was immediately sent down.  "having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth"

As you can see, EVERYTHING Jesus said to me came right from the scriptures. He only spoke of verses from these two chapters - but expounded on them. You have the witness of several scriptures now. You have the power to override your preconceptions and allow the word to SPEAK.  Don't let your preconceptions be so loud you cannot read and understand the intent of the scriptures. 

His first question: Why did John not see me in the vision of the throne room in chapter 4?  Can you admit finally that John DID NOT see Him there in chapter 4? 

Why was "no man found?" Can you admit that these were are exactly what is written? 

Why was the Holy Spirit there in chapter 4? Can you admit He is there? 

Perhaps you cannot admit you have been mistaken. Some people cannot or will not. 

If we look at the 5th seal, we have yet another witness. SO MANY imagine they are 70th week martyrs. They are all mistaken. If they were 70th week martyrs, they all would know they just had to finish out the 7 years - so no need to ask. They are told they must wait for judgment for the very last martyr killed as they were killed. If they were 70th week martyrs that would mean no judgment until the end of the 70th week, which is very silly! The entire 70th week is judgment. 

So what is written and just plain common sense tells us these are church age martyrs that were told they must wait for the end of the church age before Judgment can come - and we already know that! Judgment - and therefore the end of the church age, starts with the very next seal, the 6th. 

Thanks for the questions. You challenged me.

Edited October 6, 2018 by iamlamad

[OldCoot]

You are right about me!  No sale.  Especially since you offer no OT support for your assertion.  Torah is pretty clear.  A matter is not established without that.  And the action of the Bereans affirmed that.  The two witnesses have to be independent of each other.  Two from the NT is not two independent testimonies, but one.  Two has to mean both the OT and NT.  This prevents being gullible for any concept that shows up.

And your approach does not adhere to standard hermeneutical principles.  if there are no standard baselines in scripture exegesis, then anything goes.  But then, anything goes is the M.O. for today.

Edited October 6, 2018 by OldCoot

[JoeCanada]

2 hours ago, iamlamad said:

 

behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne."  

"there was a rainbow round about the throne"

"round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting"

"out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices:"

"there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God."

"before the throne there was a sea of glass"

"round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind."

 

Hi iamlamad,

John saw ''one sat on the throne".......but then he adds "out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices:"

If there is only 'one' on the throne, then how could there be 'voices', implying more than 'one'?

He did not identify the 'one' on the throne. We can suspect it was God the Father, but we are not told here. We could also suspect it was both the Father and Jesus...... "I and the Father are one"....John 10:30

[iamlamad]

6 hours ago, JoeCanada said:

Hi iamlamad,

John saw ''one sat on the throne".......but then he adds "out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices:"

If there is only 'one' on the throne, then how could there be 'voices', implying more than 'one'?

He did not identify the 'one' on the throne. We can suspect it was God the Father, but we are not told here. We could also suspect it was both the Father and Jesus...... "I and the Father are one"....John 10:30

You can reason about this until Jesus comes: and still Jesus was NOT SEEN at the right hand of the Father, voices or no voices. This is God's plan in this vision: to show a throne scene WITHOUT Jesus being there. His purpose is to show TIMING. 

This is confirmed by the search that ended in failure where John wept much.  The question is, WHY did this search end in failure? I can assure you,  it was for the very same reason Jesus was NOT THERE in the throne room. 

Next, the Holy Spirit WAS THERE even when Jesus said He would send Him down as soon as HE ascended. WHY was the Holy Spirit there? I can assure you, it is for the very same reason "no man was found" and for the same reason JEsus was not seen there. 

Why then in chapter 5 did John suddenly see Jesus when He was not there before? lt is because after chapter 4 Jesus rose from the dead, was found worthy, talked to Mary, then ascended and John got to see that moment - and then the Holy Spirit was sent down.

[iamlamad]

9 hours ago, OldCoot said:

You are right about me!  No sale.  Especially since you offer no OT support for your assertion.  Torah is pretty clear.  A matter is not established without that.  And the action of the Bereans affirmed that.  The two witnesses have to be independent of each other.  Two from the NT is not two independent testimonies, but one.  Two has to mean both the OT and NT.  This prevents being gullible for any concept that shows up.

And your approach does not adhere to standard hermeneutical principles.  if there are no standard baselines in scripture exegesis, then anything goes.  But then, anything goes is the M.O. for today.

Are you telling us you throw out the verses about Jesus talking to Mary, because it is not found in the Old? How about His meeting the two guys on the road? How about when He showed Thomas His hands and feet? Do you throw all this out? Sorry, but you simply cannot find EVERYTHING written in the new, also in the Old. 

Ps. 16:⁸ I have set the Lord always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.

Ps. 16:¹⁰ For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

There is His resurrection in the Old.

The Peter quoted this verse:

Acts. 2:

²⁴ Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

²⁵ For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:

Here it is, in the Old and in the NEW: Jesus raised to set at the Father's right hand. And Stephen SAW Him there. 

Now, try and find Him there in Rev. 4. 

I guess you will have to throw out all the verses about the BOOK, because it is not found in the Old - unless it is the same book seen in Daniel 12:4, which is VERY doubtful. 

I guess then, you will have to take Revelation out of your bible, because everything from chapter 8 on is what is written inside the book. 

And your approach does not adhere to standard hermeneutical principles.   OF COURSE it does! the ONLY reason you would say such a thing is that my theory disagrees with your theory. The reason is very simple: your theory does not follow the Text.  My theory comes STRAIGHT from the text, correctly understood. Yet, in all this time you cannot come up with any reasonable answer to the questions. If you are good with standard Hermeneutical  principles, your answers to the questions should be better than mine. 

Edited October 7, 2018 by iamlamad

[OldCoot]

7 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

Are you telling us you throw out the verses about Jesus talking to Mary, because it is not found in the Old?

No... but you can ditch the sarcasm game. It doesn't help anyone and just looks foolish.

I was very clear that it is doctrinal positions that have to be substantiated from both the OT and NT.  Not individual conversations or situational events.  

You really don't realize how ridiculous a statement like that of yours looks, do you?

Edited October 7, 2018 by OldCoot
Spelling

[iamlamad]

35 minutes ago, OldCoot said:

No... but you can ditch the sarcasm game. It doesn't help anyone and just looks foolish.

I was very clear that it is doctrinal positions that have to be substantiated from both the OT and NT.  Not individual conversations or situational events.  

You really don't realize how ridiculous a statement like that of yours looks, do you?

I just wanted you to make this clear. So is Jesus NOT SEEN in the throne room a doctrinal position?

Is "no man found" a doctrinal position?

Is the Holy Spirit in the throne room of 95 AD when Jesus said He would send Him down as soon as He ascended a doctrinal position? 

Or are these just events John saw and heard?

[OldCoot]

8 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Is the Holy Spirit in the throne room of 95 AD

Again you are assuming that the throne room that John saw was in 95AD.  You continue to avoid Revelation 4:1 that sets the time stage for that part.... "after these things" which grammatically can only refer to what came before it, which is the Churches of chapters 2 - 3.   Since the Churches existed in 95 AD and after that, the time period that John is witnessing the throne room scene is later than 95AD, including after the period we are writing these posts.

Just like Daniels vision in Daniel 7 regarding the "son of man" was between 500BC and 600BC was not set at the time that He saw it, it was indeed future of even now.  Or Ezekiel's vision of the Temple for 5 chapters, again, future.  

Edited October 7, 2018 by OldCoot
Spelling

[iamlamad]

2 hours ago, OldCoot said:

Again you are assuming that the throne room that John saw was in 95AD.  You continue to avoid Revelation 4:1 that sets the time stage for that part.... "after these things" which grammatically can only refer to what came before it, which is the Churches of chapters 2 - 3.   Since the Churches existed in 95 AD and after that, the time period that John is witnessing the throne room scene is later than 95AD, including after the period we are writing these posts.

Just like Daniels vision in Daniel 7 regarding the "son of man" was between 500BC and 600BC was not set at the time that He saw it, it was indeed future of even now.  Or Ezekiel's vision of the Temple for 5 chapters, again, future.  

You are forgetting John saw a vision, and in a vision the time can be history, present or future or all of the above. 

You are overlooking the obvious. 

Suppose a secretary is told to come into the bosses office and the boss will dictate a letter to President Trump. So the boss talks, and the secretary writes. In the letter, the boss is telling the President thanks for the new trade deal which he, the boss thinks will really help his business. After the boss is finished, he tells the secretary to get it printed up and fax it to the white house. So she leaves His office, prints and faxes the document, and then redoes her nails. 

In her diary, that evening, she writes, I took dictation about a letter to the president. After the president, I redid my nails. 

Now, is this really truth? She may understand it when she is 99, but maybe not. The truth is, it was not after "the president," but after she took the dictation, printed the letter and faxed it. The president was really a SIDE ISSUE. 

So "after these things" is not really after the churches - for in Rev. 4:1 perhaps only a minute has gone by! The churches are still there in chapter 4, and still there when John finishes writing chapter 22. 

What it really is -  is after John hear what he was to write about the churches AND includes after the events of chapter 1. 

I assume NOTHING. I read the text and understand it (with God's help.)

We can guess it was around 95 AD when John saw this vision. Others would argue for an earlier date. 

What God is showing us is that this vision of the throne room was a vision from the past - John's past. 

You are ignoring the truth: that God can show ANY time in a vision.  It may appear that John was called up in 95 AD (or earlier) and actually saw the throne room with His two spiritual eyes. The truth is, He saw a VISION of the throne room. A vision is not reality. Make no mistake, this vision came from God and was EXACTLY what God wanted John to see.

Edited October 7, 2018 by iamlamad

[WilliamL]

On 10/1/2018 at 5:32 PM, iamlamad said:

Jesus' words to me:  

 “When John first saw into the throne room, why didn’t he immediately see Me at the right hand of the Father? There are many scriptures that say  that is where I should be. Stephen saw Me at the right hand of the Father years before John saw this vision.”

Notice carefully, this is Jesus Christ, the head of the church speaking to me

No, it is YOU SAYING this is Jesus Christ. With no substantiation at all other than literary rationalizations, which have been equally refuted. You have no second witness. Same with your other "messages from Jesus."