TEMPLE......TO BE OR NOT TO BE....THAT IS MY QUESTION!!!!!

[Cameron143]

That underlined part is the wrong question... it should be, "and what are the things that must come to pass in quickness [noun] after the things WHICH ARE [/exist in the present]?" That's different from the question you're conveying, which I believe misses the point.

Kroogz had it, where he explained:



I believe when one CONFLATES the "in quickness [noun]" of verse 1 with that of the "near/soon [adverb]" issue of the other verses containing this word, only then can one come to the [incorrect] conclusion that the "after these things" things, had to have happened in the first century (the events surrounding 70ad, i.e. "soon" or "imminently" from when written).

That's not right. You can make such an argument from verse 1, but not in light of verse 3 and 7. Verse 3 says at hand and verse 7 says those who pierced Him would see Him. You ignore 2 other verses that place the time as 1st century.
And I've asked you a handful of times what was God's primary message in the book of Revelation. You haven't been considerate enough to give an answer. @Kroogz said it was about the rapture. Do you believe this too?

 

[cv5]

I already answered your questions.

How the world can you rightly answer anything if you reject Biblical truth and supplant it with heresies?

 

[Cameron143]

That's how "prophecies" work. No?



["Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy ..."]

Prophesies come with time frames. There are clues to when it is that is being considered. At hand is never considered 2000 years in the future.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

That's not right. You can make such an argument from verse 1, but not in light of verse 3 and 7. Verse 3 says at hand and verse 7 says those who pierced Him would see Him. You ignore 2 other verses that place the time as 1st century.

Did you read my previous post, where I'd said that v.1's "in quickness [noun]" is speaking of a DISTINCT THING from that of what v.3's adverb "near/soon/imminent" is speaking of?

 

[Cameron143]

How the world can you rightly answer anything if you reject Biblical truth and supplant it with heresies?

You mean the understanding you ascribe to. And yet you can't even give the arguments of a book in the Bible made by its author.

 

[cv5]

That's not right.

@TheDivineWatermark is "not right" about as often as a sighting of Haley's comet.

And he is definitely right about this too. Definitely.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Prophesies come with time frames. There are clues to when it is that is being considered. At hand is never considered 2000 years in the future.

"AT HAND" is NOT used in v.1 where it is referencing the "future" aspects of the Book ("the things which MUST come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" but which you say transpire over the course of at least 2000 years, if not things which transpired [and will transpire] over the course of entire human history, as it seems some of your posts have intimated).

The "in quickness [noun]" (v.1) is what John is going to be "SHOW[n]" starting in 4:1, which verse says "AFTER THESE THINGS"/"... AFTER THESE THINGS"

(meaning, AFTER "the things WHICH ARE" [chpts 2-3] which were NOT said of THEM that they are "things which must come to pass in quickness" BY CONTRAST)

 

[Cameron143]

Did you read my previous post, where I'd said that v.1's "in quickness [noun]" is speaking of a DISTINCT THING from that of what v.3's adverb "near/soon/imminent" is speaking of?

Verse 3 says at hand. Its relationship with verse 1 limits verse 1, not 1 limiting verse 3. The proof is verse 7. The only way for those who pierced Him to see Him is 1st century.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

@Cameron , you've asked for an outline of Romans... I had made a partial one some time back, perhaps you could peruse this post at link (to save me some typing):

Post #733 (from Jan 2021) - https://christianchat.com/threads/i...-restrains-the-antichrist.195880/post-4459983

 

[cv5]

You mean the understanding you ascribe to. And yet you can't even give the arguments of a book in the Bible made by its author.

You aren't packing the gear enough to exegete the word "UNTIL" and you think you can exegete the book of Romans? Ridiculous.

After 20 years of working on "UNTIL", you can then move on to "IN THAT DAY".

 

[Cameron143]

@Cameron , you've asked for an outline of Romans... I had made a partial one some time back, perhaps you could peruse this post at link (to save me some typing):

Post #733 (from Jan 2021) - https://christianchat.com/threads/i...-restrains-the-antichrist.195880/post-4459983

The point wasn't the outline. The point was the line of reasoning that led to the particular verse in Romans 11. Someone who has studied the book could have done so in a post in 5 minutes. I pressed the issue because I was making a point. Whatever someone believes about the relationship between God and the nation Israel is not a salvation issue and I could care less what someone thinks on the issue. But the verse didn't mean what the poster said it did and understanding Paul's line of thought and the arguments he has made to that point would bear it out. Turns out, the one who accuses others of not accepting the truth of scripture himself is guilty of what he accuses. But that's often the case.
I don't possess a perfect understanding of scripture and don't claim to. But to call someone a heretic because they disagree with their understanding is beyond poor judgment.
And you are full of answers yourself except for the ones that would answer the questions I actually ask you. I've taken time to respond to your posts and answered your questions and objections. Why don't you pay me the same courtesy?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

Its relationship with verse 1 limits verse 1, not 1 limiting verse 3.

Verse 3 is all about the "writing" / "words" (because the "readers" started once the "writing / words / prophecy of this book" was written and then distributed "unto the churchES"--which started way back then, yeah!!--But "the things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS" and which take place "AFTER THESE THINGS" [after "the things WHICH ARE"] is prophetic, and not necessary to transpire right then also.)




As to v.7, remember when Peter in Acts 3 said to "ye men of Israel" (v.12), "whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
And killed the Prince of life..." and then said, "And now, brethren,... REPENT ye therefore"... and "many of them which heard the word believed" (4:4), about 5000, I think it says...
So, yes, why would those "ye" not be present in that future day (as we will be)...






(bear in mind also that the "ye" in the Olivet Discourse is a "proleptic 'ye'" and a "consistent 'ye'"...speaking of THOSE TO WHOM the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom was promised: Israel's "earthly things"; "proleptic"=all those in the future of the SAME CATEGORY; It would be like if the governor of California wrote a letter to those living in that state: "when you feel the rumblings start, hightail it outta there and run to Iowa!" The letter isn't telling them "when" it will take place, but that IT WILL and when it DOES, whoever OF THEM are living there at that time needs to RUN, coz this and such is GOING TO TAKE PLACE at that time: "ye Californians, when ye shall SEE ALL OF THESE things...". But suppose it isn't slated to BLOW for another 150-200 years, does this INVALIDATE the "ye" TO WHOM it was addressed? NO!)

 

[Cameron143]

Verse 3 is all about the "writing" / "words" (because the "readers" started once the "writing / words / prophecy of this book" was written and then distributed "unto the churchES"--which started way back then, yeah!!--But "the things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS" and which take place "AFTER THESE THINGS" [after "the things WHICH ARE"] is prophetic, and not necessary to transpire right then also.)




As to v.7, remember when Peter in Acts 3 said to "ye men of Israel" (v.12), "whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.
But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;
And killed the Prince of life..." and then said, "And now, brethren,... REPENT ye therefore"... and "many of them which heard the word believed" (4:4), about 5000, I think it says...
So, yes, why would those "ye" not be present in that future day (as we will be)...

(bear in mind also that the "ye" in the Olivet Discourse is a "proleptic 'ye'" and a "consistent 'ye'"...speaking of THOSE TO WHOM the promised and prophesied earthly Millennial Kingdom was promised: Israel's "earthly things"; "proleptic"=all those in the future of the SAME CATEGORY; It would be like if the governor of California wrote a letter to those living in that state, "when you feel the rumblings start, hightail it outta there and run to Iowa!" The letter isn't telling them "when" it will take place, but that IT WILL and when it DOES, whoever OF THEM are living there at that time needs to RUN, coz this and such is GOING TO TAKE PLACE at that time: "ye Californians, when ye shall SEE ALL OF THESE things...". But suppose it isn't slated to BLOW for another 150-200 years, does this INVALIDATE the "ye" TO WHOM it was addressed? NO!)

I get your point. But I don't believe that's the proper perspective. That's why I asked you what you believed God's purpose was in writing the book of Revelation. Since you have been silent on the matter, I know your perspective but not why.
@Kroogz said he believes the purpose is concerning the rapture. Given that, it is easy to see why he understands as he does. But you don't say. So I don't understand why you believe as you do.
At any rate, thanks for the discussion. Grace and peace.

 

[Kroogz]

That's not right. You can make such an argument from verse 1, but not in light of verse 3 and 7. Verse 3 says at hand and verse 7 says those who pierced Him would see Him. You ignore 2 other verses that place the time as 1st century.
And I've asked you a handful of times what was God's primary message in the book of Revelation. You haven't been considerate enough to give an answer. @Kroogz said it was about the rapture. Do you believe this too?

I did not say The revelation was about the rapture. How did you get that idea?

 

[cv5]

The point wasn't the outline. The point was the line of reasoning that led to the particular verse in Romans 11. Someone who has studied the book could have done so in a post in 5 minutes. I pressed the issue because I was making a point. Whatever someone believes about the relationship between God and the nation Israel is not a salvation issue and I could care less what someone thinks on the issue. But the verse didn't mean what the poster said it did and understanding Paul's line of thought and the arguments he has made to that point would bear it out. Turns out, the one who accuses others of not accepting the truth of scripture himself is guilty of what he accuses. But that's often the case.
I don't possess a perfect understanding of scripture and don't claim to. But to call someone a heretic because they disagree with their understanding is beyond poor judgment.
And you are full of answers yourself except for the ones that would answer the questions I actually ask you. I've taken time to respond to your posts and answered your questions and objections. Why don't you pay me the same courtesy?

Oh you mean this verse from Romans? Yes, we understand it well. And how it concatenates with THE ENTIRE PLAN OF SALVATION FOR ISRAEL. This plan foreordained BEFORE the foundation of the world. As were ALL of Gods plans.

Rom 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Luk 21:24
“And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

 

[Kroogz]

The revelation shows us what must take place AFTER the rapture. It will be the guide for people and Israel going through the Great tribulation.

 

[Cameron143]

I did not say The revelation was about the rapture. How did you get that idea?

From post #1131.

 

[cv5]

I did not say The revelation was about the rapture. How did you get that idea?

Cameron gets a lot of flighty ideas. Unfortunately he is no Kelly Johnson, so few if any get off the ground.

 

[cv5]

The revelation shows us what must take place AFTER the rapture. It will be the guide for people and Israel going through the Great tribulation.

Absolutely correct Sir.

 

[Kroogz]

From post #1131.

Cameron143 said:
Okay. So what event is so imminent and catastrophic that deals with Israel after 70 AD? Even others here who believe as you do on many things admit that 70 AD is partially in view.
And, what is God's purpose in writing Revelation?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The rapture is imminent. And the purpose of The Revelation is......
Revelation 1:1

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

This is not about how long the edge or rope is.........It's about when the world falls off the edge or the rope. Everything happens FAST after that point.