Which was why I said everyone symbolizes to fit their doctrine. It just so happens that some of the things you take literally, the preterit symbolizes. But at least you acknowledge you could be wrong...which is good IMO.
Ha..."two trains of thought depending on the context..." I think the context here is pretty obvious (given the original audience)...and yes, the 1000 years as a day is the famous dispensationalist line. What is ignored is the audience is supposed to understand the warning else, what's the point of warning of them of a soon coming?
Hey bro. Jesus said He would return, gave them signs and admitted HE HIMSELF did not know when it will be....And the bottom line...He never has returned to this day.
Ha..the classic response.."the Jewish race." Again, interpreting based on a 21st century perspective. Let's think about it: the writer of Revelation was Jewish. Do you think he meant the Jewish descendants or actually the group of people that pierced him?
Was it all Jews that pierced him? obviously not. The earliest christians were Jews, so are you now going to say the descendants of only the Jews that pierced him? Also, was it all gentiles that pierced him? obviously not. The context shows that those that pierced him were the ones that crucified him...Of course, this presents an issue for dispy, hence the re-interpretation of the text to mean Jewish descendants.
The Jewish descendants pierced him no more than the native americans in the Americas did...
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, (and) they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Hey bro. , just saw that one. About the Gentiles(not the Jews) piercing Jesus. Thank you.
See how easy it is to fix this...That will help me greatly in a lesson.
But the rest is obviously futuristic, because it just did not literally happen yet. Again, thank you for pointing that out.
So you view some parts of revelation "dispensationally" and some part like the mark in
Rev 13, "literally?" Do you realize you're choosing whatever to fit your doctrine instead of allowing the text to speak for itself?
Well, the "alternative" is to ignore it having any relevance to me and treat it like O.T. history(preterism)...I realize I did not invent my theology, but it must be taught some way some how. I have to look at the best model of eschatology that I can find and teach it until I can find some better model. Otherwise, we can just be like the Pope, who said the book of Revelation is too difficult to understand, so he discourages Catholics from reading it.
So here is "literally" but the other is "dispensationally"...this is choosing what fits in order to maintain the pre-trib model.
Like I said above...
Remember verse 27 says when he comes, he will bring his reward with him for every man. And then He said there'll be some still alive. So the rewards were given in
Acts 2?
Revelation 22:12
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.?????
Matt 16:28
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.?????
Is this what you are talking about? Please clarify bro. I have no idea what you are asking. Are you talking about the "judgement seat of Christ"?
I'm still finding the one that is consistent. To me there's no point in preaching something I see is incoherent.