Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jamey who wrote (37561)	6/7/2004 12:15:58 AM
From: Jamey	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

Revelation (continued) "Sequence in Revelation We must recognize then that, while there are obviously things disclosed by Jesus unto John that will shortly come to pass (relative to the time of John),3 the events accompanying the opening of the seven seals (chap. 6) are not future to John (even as a proximate or imminent future relative to his writing). They have already occurred by the time John is given his visions and are thus past events from his late-first-century perspective (having occurred sometime between the time of Christ's ascension into heaven and the time of John's Patmos visions). The events accompanying the unsealing of the scroll are likely intended to be understood as the rather general signs4—"the beginning of sorrows"—mentioned in the first portion of the Olivet Discourse (cf. Mt 24:6-8), including the famine during the reign of Claudius that is mentioned in Acts 11:28. If the opening of the seals is past for John (as seems obvious), then the blowing of the trumpets and pouring out of the vials may be past as well. If some of the events associated with the trumpets and seals deal with the judgment of Jerusalem (as seems likely exegetically), this identification of the reference of the visions to Jerusalem's fall does not then warrant an early date (in the 60s, during Nero's reign) on the argument that we must preserve the integrity of genuine prophecy (foretelling of the future) consonant with our high view of Scripture as divinely inspired revelation (i.e., the argument from internal evidence for a Neronian dating). A later date (after Jerusalem's fall) does not place us in the dilemma of having either to choose a false truth-claim (alleged prophetic foretelling that is really vaticanium ex eventu) or intended references to something other than the fall of Jerusalem (i.e., to something else yet future for John). Clearly, John wants his readers to understand that a hostile Empire, as an enemy of Christ, will suffer a similar fate as apostate Jerusalem (its judgment is inevitable and will follow the same pattern; the judgment of one enemy—the wicked Jews—portends the judgment of all who similarly oppose God's reign), but the references to Jerusalem's fall are simply too clear to be gainsaid and transferred to some other historical referent beyond John's time, and we need not attempt such an interpretation in the interests of accepting a dating within the reign of Domitian (a dating which I believe has far more to commend it than a Neronean date). Thus, this view of what Revelation is intended to be gives us the best of both worlds." Joseph Braswell preteristarchive.com Now you state that my understanding of Revelation is flawed then please read carefully what Mr. Braswell has written and tell me what part of it you disagree with and the reasons why you disagree with it using the Bible to prove your futurist contentions about Revelation being a book to us that is still future and not as a message to the Churches who were already seeing the beginning of sorrows for that time. James