Was:REVS.1:1 Now Clarified

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Diogenes wrote:
 
> MF blume wrote:
> 
> > But I disagree that Revelation is about the destruction of the temple.

> To clarify....I do not feel the entire book is about the destruction of
> Jerusalem and the temple, yet it cannot be denied that it *is* a central
> issue simply because of the nature of the transition from the OT to the
> NT, i.e. the transition from a structure to our bodies as being the
> temple of God.

I can agree to that.  As mentioned I will yet forward a study to that 
effect.

>>                                                    And you say that
> > Revelation is John's whole book about it.  That may be a point, but
> > it certainly  does not prove that Rev. is talking about 70 AD.  Simply
> > because John never wrote of the 70 AD event in his gospel does not
> > mean that Rev. MUST be about that event.
> 
> It is evident by the very nature of John's opening statement, i.e.
> "things which must shortly come to pass" and "the time is at hand" along
> with the fact that apakolypsis  was addressed to the seven churches of
> Asia Minor, that what John had in mind when he wrote was, "events that
> were soon to transpire".

Good point again.  I think it is silly to say the things soon to
come to pass refer to things 2000 years in the future.

I will agree with your point only if it primarily is using the temple
destruction as a basis for speaking so detailingly about the temples
of our bodies.  And taht may well open much truth up!!  I feel God has
already shown me the temple destruction in light of the temple of
our bodies being the MAIN thought SINCE THEN is much a basis for
Revelation understanding.

> What event was future to John that could be considered important and was
> also revealed by Jesus that would soon come to pass?  Logically it would
> be the demise of the Temple and the destruction of Jeruselem.  This fact
> is a central issue but not the entire scope of the book.  

You did clear that up.  Thanks.  But it made me think, when you
said "John wrote a whole book about it!"

> Just as the
> temple and it's demise is central to the theme of the entire New
> Testament scriptures i.e. the old passing away and the establishing of
> the new.

Excellent!!!

> John writes and I agree the book is The revelation of Jesus Christ (not
> the revelation of His person but the revelation he gave)to shew his
> sevants of things which must shortly come to pass (events ready to
> transpire)  and signified (symbolized) it, unto his servant John (the
> writer of the apakolypsis) then verse 3 The time is at hand!

Yes, but if the revelation of His person involves HIS BEING IN US
as we are TEMPLES through which He desires to REVEAL Himself through is
rally what John meant, then I think you would agree to that thought 
you just refuted.  As a temple, I am to reveal Christ.  But He must
reveal this PURPOSE to me first, which includes the thought of transition
from physical temple to bodily temple.

> > I wil say that the thought of ANOTHER TEMPLE is indeed all related to
> > the 70 AD destruction.  And when Christ rode into Jerusalem and was
> > seen people holding palms and crying Hosanna, but later rejected
> > at the temple, we can see the time when He will march again and find
> > people with palms crying "hosanna" (Blessed be the King) in Rev.
> > 7 in the TRUE TEMPLE - which is the Church.  So 70 AD has a lot
> > to do with it, but the MAIN thought of Revelation is that a NEW TEMPLE
> > of the church replaced the physical one.  I will forward a study
> > regarding this important key to understanding Revelation.
>
> Here we agree!  The Church is us - Individually making up the whole.  I
> am of the opinion that the scriptures teach that we *have* replaced the
> Old with a New Temple: US!

Exactly!!  I think if you reconsider the thought that the revelation of 
Christ is indeed the revelation of Himself and His need, thereupon, to 
be revealed through the temple of His church, you would agree with it.

Again, my study "Renewed Day by Day by the Revelation of Jesus Christ"
gets into that very aspect.  Please, if you have not already, check it out
at ----
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/renewix.htm

> > But I do not accept totally the thought of the ultra-
> > preterist idea that Rev. is committed to 70 AD events.  I feel it
> > is dedicated to spiritual maturity through typology and symbolism.
> > It involves the spiritual temple.
> > The entire Bible points towards salvation and subsequent spiritual
> > growth.  Why should Revelation be strictly about future events
> > or 70 AD?
> >
> You are right to focus upon the symbolism and typology involved in Rev.
> But it is to your disadvantage if you ignor the historic facts and the
> sequences of time related events.  

I wil agree with that.  Thanks, brother.

> Hyper-preterists like Maxx King have
> valid arguments as to historic record.  One can only deny such arguments
> if they want to ignor facts.  The down fall of the Hyper-preterist is
> they miss the eternal truths and spiritual message while focusing on the
> historic record.

Agreed.  Good point.

>  True salvation and spiritual maturity are the goals that God has set for
> us all...."For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be
> conformed to the image of his Son" Romans 8:29
> 
> This is the message we must hear when we read the Apakolypsis!  We are
> agreed!

Amen.  Great thoughts!

-- 
In Christ,
Mike Blume
mfblume@ns.sympatico.ca
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/mblume.htm