The Church isn't in Revelation after Ch 4.

[Diaste]

19 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

I find it sad that people depend on "doctrine" and not Scripture.... There is a passage in OT that depicts the faithful watching His wrath as it is occuring. He promises to protect us, if we trust Him, as we watch others being taken in His wrath. He also promises to eliminate fear during this.

Could you cite the passage, please?

19 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

Knowing this eliminates the need to teach a doctrine of removing His people from the earth, only to return them to it.

True.

19 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

I figured, since He protected the three friends of Daniel in the middle of a horrific fire, then He can preserve us while executing His wrath on others.

I see the fiery furnace as the wrath of man. 

" 1“O people of every nation and language, this is what you are commanded: 5As soon as you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes, and all kinds of music,c you must fall down and worship the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. 6And whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into the blazing fiery furnace.” "

God delivered them from the wrath of man, from the forced worship of a man, the same as He will do in at the end of the age, deliver our spirits into eternity with Him. 

19 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

Of course, there are pseudo-scholars who will say that Psalm 91 is merely a promise that God will protect us from worldly harm, but that psalm is specifically about the time of His wrath, and is very specific to a singular event.

Hmmm. My thoughts are it's a comprehensive promise for all those that place their trust in God alone; for all time, in any circumstance. But you could be right.

19 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

Some are taken in His wrath, others are left... not 'behind,' as fictionalized interpretations dictate, but left "unharmed."

I assume you mean the popular notion of the pretrib rapture and millions suddenly disappearing and all other not taken up in the rapture as the 'left behind'. 

I find this to be a lot of things, none of them good. 

I like this:

"Because you have kept My command to persevere, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth."

[Diaste]

13 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Yes, they come out as in being saved. However, they are not the Ekklesia - the called out ones into the Body of Christ. Those of the nations in the great trib, come out of the nations because they are saved BUT they are still of those nationalities. That is why they are `the nations of those who are saved.` (Rev. 21: 24)

And again, where are they supposed to come from? I think you are creating a nuance that doesn't exist. 

The called out ones of the body are from where? A distant star system? No. They are from all nations. There are called out believers in Jesus from every country, all over the world, right now. 

One can't be saved except by the blood of Jesus. The ekklesia are only the ekklesia as they are saved, redeemed, set apart, in salvation by the blood of Jesus. 

And, where is this other group of ekklesia, that's somehow a separate entity from all other saved people, pictured in scripture in heaven with Jesus? 

13 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Actually, our hope is to rule and reign with the Lord ON His very own throne.

(Rev. 3: 21) `To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne.` 

Fact.

13 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

We will rule as kingpriests with crowns. Those of the great multitude do not have crowns.

Logical error. Because the text doesn't mention it here does not mean it doesn't exist. The text would have to say something like, "and these have no crowns" in order for one to determine they in fact, have no crowns. 

The reality is the ones seen here are ruling: "And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image, and had not received its mark on their foreheads or hands. " 

Because it is said of them, "And they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years."

Those are not of a pretrib origin. They faced the beast and won. Those are the ones that are set apart, have a crown, real or metaphor, and live and reign with Jesus. I see no pretrib group here. 

This is also a set apart group: "And I saw something like a sea of glass mixed with fire, beside which stood those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name."

They also won over the authority of the beast. They are seen beside the sea of glass. I see no pretrib group here. 

The ones in Rev 7 are clearly not pretrib either. 

So with the description of the group in heaven with God, as having come out from within GT, and having faced the beast and won, and with no description anywhere of a vast group raptured pretrib, the scriptures contradict a pretrib origin of any ruling group in heaven with God. 

Unless you can find such a description. 

[EddieM]

I think it would be more profitable if you discussed antecedent beliefs before you try to interpret a text in Revelation. Before one even begins to interpret Revelation. one has to first accept or reject Dispensationalism.

Dispensationalists believe that the Church and Israel are always separate groups. This is what is causing you to argue your positions without solving much at all. For a Dispensationalist the 70th week of Daniel (the Tribulation) is the final 7 years of the Jewish Age, who had been promised the return of Christ after 490 years back in the book of Daniel. (The book of Revelation is described by some as the Book of Daniel Part 2)

The saints dying in the Trib are Tribulation Saints, not the Church. In another post I posted, I showed that the 24 Elders represent the Church by the process of elimination. They have to be a group of believers that have been judged/rewarded, who are redeemed, and who have been taken to heaven before the 70th week starts.

So, this is a Dispensational position, nobody who is a mid-trib or post-trib will agree with this. That is to be expected since they hold to antecedent beliefs that are often times not mentioned in a discussion of texts in Rev.

I would suggest that you address antecedent issues before you start to discuss a verse here and there. Also, one's method of interpretation (symbolic, allegorical, literal/grammatical/historical) has to be disclosed and discussed before getting involved in addressing texts in Rev, otherwise, you will get nowhere with each other.

The Greek word used for the Tribulation is thlipsis. This word is used of the first half of the Tribulation and the last half of the Trib. This is why Dispensationiists hold that the entire Trib is 7 years long. Because Christ is the One opening the 7 seals, Dispensationalist believe that the entire 7 years is God's wrath. And for this reason the Church is exempt from the entire 7 years. This follows, but only if you are a Dispensationist.

I enjoy following discussions like you are having, but I have come to a settled conviction of how and when the Tribulation will play out so I don't get involved too often.

 

 

[Indentured Servant]

5 hours ago, Diaste said:

Could you cite the passage, please?

True.

I see the fiery furnace as the wrath of man. 

" 1“O people of every nation and language, this is what you are commanded: 5As soon as you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipes, and all kinds of music,c you must fall down and worship the golden statue that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. 6And whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into the blazing fiery furnace.” "

God delivered them from the wrath of man, from the forced worship of a man, the same as He will do in at the end of the age, deliver our spirits into eternity with Him. 

Hmmm. My thoughts are it's a comprehensive promise for all those that place their trust in God alone; for all time, in any circumstance. But you could be right.

I assume you mean the popular notion of the pretrib rapture and millions suddenly disappearing and all other not taken up in the rapture as the 'left behind'. 

I find this to be a lot of things, none of them good. 

I like this:

"Because you have kept My command to persevere, I will also keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth."

Psalm 91 openly states that we, who trust God as protector, will witness His wrath, "but it will not come near" us. It speaks of us seeing thousands dying around us in God's wrath.

Yes, the firey furnace is an example of man's wrath, theen trusted God as protector. If God protects us from man's wrath, it is certain He can shield us from His own wrath. Our faith and confidence in Him is what is being tested. 

Yeah, I threw the left "behind" reference in there, because when people read "left," they assume "left behind." The passage tells us that Noah and his family were "left," and that those outside of the ark were the ones "taken..." by the wrath of God.

An accurate rendering/translation of Rev 3:10 is "because you have guarded my command... I will guard you from the hour of testing." [This is how it reads in Greek. English translations are vague and use words that have multiple meanings that can be defined and interpreted with a variety of meanings. For instance, the word "from" is translated "because of" in another chapter by the same author, John.

 

If I may make a personal assessment of this...

People don't welcome fearful things, they want to see their future as secure and free from harm. When someone properly fears God, as scripture expects of us, then we'll not have fear of future events, or the evil that men can do to us today.

The use of vague word makes the words easy to manipulate, giving people what they desire to hear, (to scratch their itching ears); thereby, manipulating people's belief and where to go to get that sense of security through doctrine.

If 'my' preacher tells me that God will remove me before anything bad happens, and another preacher just reads what Scripture says to reveal that God allows persecution and the testing of our faith, I'll stick with my preacher... I don't want to have my faith tested, "God will never allow it."

It goes back to, "Did God really say that?" We use doctrine, often, to circumvent God's call to persevere, endure even unto death, etc.

I don't say this in debate of anyone, but only to prompt others to seek God for interpretation of Scripture, and God alone. I personally do not supplement God's Word with preaching, as I know the pure words of scripture hold all the answers if I ask God to open scripture to me, in Him.

[Diaste]

17 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

Psalm 91 openly states that we, who trust God as protector, will witness His wrath, "but it will not come near" us. It speaks of us seeing thousands dying around us in God's wrath.

One thing I see a bit differently here is God's wrath. I'm not convinced,

"You will only see it with your eyes and witness the punishment of the wicked."

equates to wrath. God punished the Egyptians with plagues when Pharoah would not assent, no plagues came near Israel, but they witnessed it all. 

I don't think this has to be full on 'orge' in this context. 

17 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

Yes, the firey furnace is an example of man's wrath, theen trusted God as protector. If God protects us from man's wrath, it is certain He can shield us from His own wrath. Our faith and confidence in Him is what is being tested. 

I agree. 

17 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

Yeah, I threw the left "behind" reference in there, because when people read "left," they assume "left behind." The passage tells us that Noah and his family were "left," and that those outside of the ark were the ones "taken..." by the wrath of God.

Sure. Context matters.

Three Rule of Interpretation:

1. Context

2. Context

3. Context

:)

 

17 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

An accurate rendering/translation of Rev 3:10 is "because you have guarded my command... I will guard you from the hour of testing." [This is how it reads in Greek. English translations are vague and use words that have multiple meanings that can be defined and interpreted with a variety of meanings. For instance, the word "from" is translated "because of" in another chapter by the same author, John.

Correct. I find it to say, "I will place a guard/watch over you." not, "I will remove you from one place and take you to another.", which is what a pretrib doctrine demands when they cite that verse.

17 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

 

If I may make a personal assessment of this...

People don't welcome fearful things, they want to see their future as secure and free from harm. When someone properly fears God, as scripture expects of us, then we'll not have fear of future events, or the evil that men can do to us today.

Right. They don't make God their refuge. They trust man more than God. 

17 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

The use of vague word makes the words easy to manipulate, giving people what they desire to hear, (to scratch their itching ears); thereby, manipulating people's belief and where to go to get that sense of security through doctrine.

I find the simplest way to put an end to that is asking for definitions. lol

17 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

If 'my' preacher tells me that God will remove me before anything bad happens, and another preacher just reads what Scripture says to reveal that God allows persecution and the testing of our faith, I'll stick with my preacher... I don't want to have my faith tested, "God will never allow it."

It goes back to, "Did God really say that?" We use doctrine, often, to circumvent God's call to persevere, endure even unto death, etc.

Yes.

17 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

I don't say this in debate of anyone, but only to prompt others to seek God for interpretation of Scripture, and God alone. I personally do not supplement God's Word with preaching, as I know the pure words of scripture hold all the answers if I ask God to open scripture to me, in Him.

I was just chatting with someone who relies on commentaries for scriptural knowledge. I find that frustrating. They get so heavily invested in what they think they know, there isn't the smallest crack in their fortress to slip in a single straw of scriptural truth. 

[Indentured Servant]

4 hours ago, Diaste said:

I was just chatting with someone who relies on commentaries for scriptural knowledge. I find that frustrating. They get so heavily invested in what they think they know, there isn't the smallest crack in their fortress to slip in a single straw of scriptural truth. 

I used to rely heavily on commentaries, and had even begun writing a commentary.  I got rid of them years ago, including mine.

I was also a self-professing "sermon addict," until about two years ago, at which time I pleaded with God to show me what Scripture really says and to rid me of all the theological conflict.  I'd had a habit of listening to at least two to five sermons a day, and I woke up a few days after, and suddenly couldn't stand to hear another sermon. Listening, all I heard was "stuff." No matter how well-meaning the message was, I saw nothing but the failure of modern preaching and theology. (I've even turned down an invitation to be the "2nd" preacher for a church... Can't even stand to hear myself, haha.)

I learned to rely on the Spirit that I was given to provide me with real scriptural knowledge, wisdom, and insight. Sadly, this is a lifestyle that offends most people who chant, "it's not a religion, it's a relationship." 

The reactions I get are:

*"You can't know God like that!"

I say, "He says we can."

*"You're deluded by Satan" (that was a pastor who told me that)

*"God won't give you anything that He doesn't give to everyone." 

I ask, "Has everyone else asked Him, or do they trust another man to teach them?"

*"We have the 'completed bible,' the Holy Spirit has told you all you need to know in writing" 

Me: "Then why has He allowed us to divide over conflicting interpretations of His 'complete bible? 

 

There is a scriptural method for us all to learn together, but the only thing we seem to want to bring to the table are the words of another who we've placed as authority over our knowledge of Scripture.

 

 

[Diaste]

18 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

I used to rely heavily on commentaries, and had even begun writing a commentary.  I got rid of them years ago, including mine.

I was also a self-professing "sermon addict," until about two years ago, at which time I pleaded with God to show me what Scripture really says and to rid me of all the theological conflict.  I'd had a habit of listening to at least two to five sermons a day, and I woke up a few days after, and suddenly couldn't stand to hear another sermon. Listening, all I heard was "stuff." No matter how well-meaning the message was, I saw nothing but the failure of modern preaching and theology. (I've even turned down an invitation to be the "2nd" preacher for a church... Can't even stand to hear myself, haha.)

I learned to rely on the Spirit that I was given to provide me with real scriptural knowledge, wisdom, and insight. Sadly, this is a lifestyle that offends most people who chant, "it's not a religion, it's a relationship." 

The reactions I get are:

*"You can't know God like that!"

I say, "He says we can."

*"You're deluded by Satan" (that was a pastor who told me that)

*"God won't give you anything that He doesn't give to everyone." 

I ask, "Has everyone else asked Him, or do they trust another man to teach them?"

*"We have the 'completed bible,' the Holy Spirit has told you all you need to know in writing" 

Me: "Then why has He allowed us to divide over conflicting interpretations of His 'complete bible? 

 

There is a scriptural method for us all to learn together, but the only thing we seem to want to bring to the table are the words of another who we've placed as authority over our knowledge of Scripture.

 

I had a similar experience, experiences. 

One day, I started checking the references I heard the preacher give as the theme to his sermon. I found them accurate. What I didn't find was whatever he was saying about that scripture reference. That put me on the path I am now. 

When asking about what was going on with such a diverse teaching from what is written, I was immediately ostracized. 

I guess they didn't care for the challenge to their personal authority. 

Sheep know the voice of their shepherd. 

Most sermons are smooth and uplifting. If there is doom and gloom it's usually pointed at groups outside the local congregation. 

Jesus speaks the hard truths people don't want to hear. 

A pretrib gathering is an easy pill to swallow, no one want to hear they will be going though a difficult time. 

The people want prophets to tell them what they want to hear. 

And I don't get it. Jesus promised He would take care of us in that time. Is that promise not good enough so a whole other story had to be invented? 

I don't think we are waiting for the delusion, we're in it, and it's growing. 

 

[Indentured Servant]

5 hours ago, Diaste said:

The people want prophets to tell them what they want to hear. 

They would rather feel safe than be guided to safety. 

This 'itching ears' syndrome clouds the real message of those actually chosen by God to speak for Him. 

I believe that if a pulpiteer were to cut his strings to the philosophical manipulation of God's Word and just read an entire book of scripture with the same fervor he uses to showcase his own sermon prowess, people would see the truth revealed by the Spirit and not as dictated by a doctrinal mandate.

[abcdef]

On 11/13/2024 at 5:39 AM, Diaste said:

Sure. Context matters.

Three Rule of Interpretation:

1. Context

2. Context

3. Context

:)

Context matters yes, definition matters also. This is a part of the problem I believe.

---

First, the "church" is the kingdom of Israel. It began on Pentecost. It is a spiritual kingdom that is on this planet earth. John was in the kingdom in 85-96 AD ish, Rev 1:9.

The definition of the word "church" is often varied. For example, the 7 churches in Rev 2 & 3. They are called "churches" but are actually congregations of the same Kingdom. I try not to use the word "church" because it distorts the intended message.

So rather than say, Find the "church" in the Rev after Ch 4, we might better find it if we look for the kingdom, of Israel.

The kingdom is Israel. Gentiles are grafted into the family of Israel. But when reading the Revelation, the tendency is to think of the "church" as gentiles exclusively. When I think of the kingdom of Israel I must remember that the kingdom is centered on the children of Israel and not the gentile side of the kingdom.

Calling the "church" the kingdom of Israel centers the discussion on the Israel side of the kingdom instead of the gentile side.

So when we read the Revelation, the stories are centered on Israel kingdom and not the gentiles.

Rev 12 shows Jesus is born in 1 AD. He is caught up to heaven in 33 AD.

Then the woman flees into the wilderness. It is not the gentile side of the "kingdom" that flees in 70 AD ish, but it follows the children of Israel side of the kingdom that flees.

That fleeing ends when the children of Israel side of the Pentecost gospel kingdom return to control Jerusalem and end the times of the gentiles, Lk 21:24.

---

Second, the tribulation began when Rome invaded Israel in 63 BC. That is the 4th beast nation of Dan 7. Rev 1:9 also states that John in 85-96 AD is in the tribulation period.

John the Baptist, Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Apostiles all lived during the 4th beast tribulation period.

This means that the children of Israel who lived between 63 BC and the first resurrection were all from the tribulation period. Some were killed by the Dan 7, 4th beast Roman nation and some were betrayed by their of fellow Israelites. 

These are the martyrs in Rev 6:9-11. The call for justice is against Jerusalem and those who betrayed them. The answer is the 6th seal destruction of Jerusalem.

( Jesus came as God at the 70 AD destruction bring gentile armies to destroy Jerusalem, just as God had done in the past for their rejection of Him, but it wasn't a resurrection coming.)

---

The OT saved are in heaven now, from the first resurrection with Jesus. 

No one from the 33 AD Pentecost gospel kingdom are there yet, they rise when Jesus comes. 

The Pentecost gospel kingdom of Israel, the children of Israel side is seen as the 2 witnesses, the woman in Rev 12, being persecuted by the Dan 7 4th beast Roman nation in Rev 13, and being surrounded in Jerusalem by Magog in Rev 20.

 

[Diaste]

18 hours ago, Indentured Servant said:

They would rather feel safe than be guided to safety. 

This 'itching ears' syndrome clouds the real message of those actually chosen by God to speak for Him. 

I believe that if a pulpiteer were to cut his strings to the philosophical manipulation of God's Word and just read an entire book of scripture with the same fervor he uses to showcase his own sermon prowess, people would see the truth revealed by the Spirit and not as dictated by a doctrinal mandate.

Religion is more about shining pews and collecting tithes. It's no doubt the religious wolves knew about the psychology of large groups. Give 'em what they want and they'll show up in masses, and you can relieve them of their cash.

If the preachers stayed in the Word in the truth of the Spirit, they would get a crowd of 5-10 on Sunday. 

People need to realize that the Jesus they say they follow, the Jesus that's all about love and forgiveness and redemption and the resurrection, is the same Jesus that called the religious leaders hypocrites and vipers, and made a whip and beat the moneychangers.