Is There Any New Church doctrine in the Book of Revelation ?

[jonathanbrickman0000]

If you will simply do a little work and study you will easily see that ALL 7 Churches in Rev. 1-3 were in Asia Minor which is today Turkey. Again....it take very little study to find out that they were Jewish assemblies.

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, in Christ Jesus.

 

[Rodger]

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, in Christ Jesus.

Amen! Quite correct.
Personally, I never said anything different .

 

[RandyK]

My dear, friend....the fact that Jesus is God, God tolerates suffering and Jesus is the Lamb of God are all established Christian doctrines established by the Apostles many years before the Revelation was written.

If you are suggesting that the book of Revelation "validates" those established doctrines, then yes I would agree. However, again...what I am saying is that the Revelation has NO church doctrine that the people living then would follow for the simple fact that there is NO church during the 7 year Tribulation Period.

I am Not a Postribulationist.

God bless you.

Reading this post I get a completely different read from what I heard you saying--I apologize if I got you wrong! I heard you say that there is no doctrinal content in the book of Revelation--nothing to hang your hat on with doctrinal relevance or authority.

Now I hear you say something quite different, that *original* doctrine does not appear in the book of Revelation, which would be quite true. I would not argue that original doctrine is in the Revelation, since it came at the end of the Apostolic period. I understand that John was quite old when he received this revelation.

It was the original understanding of what Jesus' life meant after his death on the cross that became original NT doctrine. It was suddenly understood that the Law had come to an end, both as a contractual failure with the nation Israel, and as a natural progression towards somethiing that could only lead to eternal Salvation. The Law provided only a temporary reprieve for Israel until Jesus could win a final Salvation.

So Revelation was building upon this understanding--not originating it. It did provide prophetic truths that were newly minted in the NT time period. Most all other biblical prophecies existed in the OT time frame of the Law. John was given to summarize and complete this prophecy in the 2nd Coming of Jesus, and in the times leading up to that.

I don't care if you're not a Postribulationist. The book of Revelation was written to encourage Christians suffering under tribulational experiences, including the experience of Antichrist. Christians are beheaded for their faith--this is true whether you're a postribulationist or not.

In my view there is no 7 year Tribulation Period. That is concocted from the 70th Week of Daniel, which was fulfilled in the death of Messiah, followed by the fall of Jerusalem, aka the Roman "Abomination of Deslation." But we can disagree agreeably on this. I would also disagree on your sense that the 7 churches of Revelation were strictly Jewish churches.

 

[follower]

How do you know they are not Christian churches ?

They were not addressed as "christian" groups. Rather, as Jewish Assemblies. There is no mention of <gentile> church at all in the books of Hebrews and Revelation.

 

[jonathanbrickman0000]

They were not addressed as "christian" groups. Rather, as Jewish Assemblies. There is no mention of <gentile> church at all in the books of Hebrews and Revelation.

Where do you find "Jewish Assemblies" addressed in the Book of Revelation?

 

[hawkman]

Just going to throw this in here , a Bible study from David Jeremiah on the Seven Churches in Revelation .

https://davidjeremiah.blog/seven-churches-of-revelation-bible-study/

 

[Hopeful 2]

I do not understand the hostility here from you.

Because there is none.

Where am I trying to set myself apart from anyone. Please name the post #.

By excluding Gentiles from Turkish churches, you segregate the assemblies.

I also am a Gentile believer. As such we are all grafted into the Root and yes we are all equal in the eyes of God in Christ.

How can you even think that the Turkish churches had no Gentile members ?

THAT is and has not been said or suggested my friend.
I am simply drawing attention to something that you obviousely are unaware of.

It is inconceivable that there were no Turkish Gentiles in the Turkish churches.

If you will simply do a little work and study you will easily see that ALL 7 Churches in Rev. 1-3 were in Asia Minor which is today Turkey. Again....it take very little study to find out that they were Jewish assemblies.

There is no proof that they were Jewish assemblies.

The abundance of scriptural evidence found in the Bible makes it very clear that Revelation is doctrine for Israel, which was written to Jews who believed in Jesus Christ, by an apostle of the circumcision, for direct application in the prophetic "kingdom" dispensation. Now then, at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, God placed that dispensation on hold (Suspended) in 70 AD, to be resumed in the future 7 year tribulation or Jacobs Trouble.

If you are truly 'grafted in', you too are one with Jewish believers, and everything they are taught is also taught to you.

 

[Hopeful 2]

They were not addressed as "christian" groups. Rather, as Jewish Assemblies. There is no mention of <gentile> church at all in the books of Hebrews and Revelation.

Where, exactly, is that mention ?
Why do you presume that there are differences between Gentile and Jewish believers ?
Have they not all come to repentance and been washed of past sins by the same blood ?
Have they not all received the same Spirit ?
In Christ, we are one body !

 

[for_his_glory]

The definition of the word Revelation means the unveiling. All that is written by John, in whom the angel that was sent to him by Jesus and His words are written to reveal all these visions John received while he was in the Spirit while on the isle of Patmos being held a prisoner by the Romans for preaching the word of God in Ephesus. the book of Revelation is for the Church (Body of Christ) to show those things that must come first before the return of Christ on the last day.

It is our witness and testimony of Christ Jesus to take these visions of John out into the world to teach believers and unbelievers what is yet to come. These are warnings, just as it is written on Hosea 4:6-7, for Christians in how they must stand in a greater faith, and also for those who have not yet accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior. If we pray and ask the Holy Spirit to teach us then we will not fall prey to all the false doctrines that are being taught by others that add to and take away from the that which has already been written as even at one time I fell prey to what man tries to teach apart from the Holy Spirit teaching them first. We can not study the word of God with a carnal logical mind, but only by seeking the very Spirit of God to reveal all that He has given us for our Spiritual understanding that we have eternal life with Jesus when He returns for His Bride.

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.


Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
Rev 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

 

[Rodger]

Reading this post I get a completely different read from what I heard you saying--I apologize if I got you wrong! I heard you say that there is no doctrinal content in the book of Revelation--nothing to hang your hat on with doctrinal relevance or authority.

Now I hear you say something quite different, that *original* doctrine does not appear in the book of Revelation, which would be quite true. I would not argue that original doctrine is in the Revelation, since it came at the end of the Apostolic period. I understand that John was quite old when he received this revelation.

It was the original understanding of what Jesus' life meant after his death on the cross that became original NT doctrine. It was suddenly understood that the Law had come to an end, both as a contractual failure with the nation Israel, and as a natural progression towards somethiing that could only lead to eternal Salvation. The Law provided only a temporary reprieve for Israel until Jesus could win a final Salvation.

So Revelation was building upon this understanding--not originating it. It did provide prophetic truths that were newly minted in the NT time period. Most all other biblical prophecies existed in the OT time frame of the Law. John was given to summarize and complete this prophecy in the 2nd Coming of Jesus, and in the times leading up to that.

I don't care if you're not a Postribulationist. The book of Revelation was written to encourage Christians suffering under tribulational experiences, including the experience of Antichrist. Christians are beheaded for their faith--this is true whether you're a postribulationist or not.

In my view there is no 7 year Tribulation Period. That is concocted from the 70th Week of Daniel, which was fulfilled in the death of Messiah, followed by the fall of Jerusalem, aka the Roman "Abomination of Deslation." But we can disagree agreeably on this. I would also disagree on your sense that the 7 churches of Revelation were strictly Jewish churches.

Post #39.......
"I would say that there is NO NEW Church doctrine in the Revelation.

There are topics such as are repeated and validate but there is no new doctrine given to church simply because there is NO church on the earth during the 7 year Tribulation Peroid that the Rev. explaines."

What I said or should have said was that there is NO ORIGINAL Christain doctrine in the Revelation.
Whether you believe that there is a 7 Year Tribulation or not, does not matter. If there is NO 7 year Trib. then we can remove the book of Daniel from our Bibles.

Your Commet tells me that you are a Preterist in your understanding and that right there is another set of problems for you.

 

[Rodger]

Where do you find "Jewish Assemblies" addressed in the Book of Revelation?

Rev.2:9......​

“I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”​

There seems to be some misunderstanding here from some. I AM NOT saying that there were not Christians in those 7 churches in Rev. 1-2-3. Obviously there was.

All I am doing is pointing out the "Jewisness" of the book of Revelation itself and by doing so verifying that there is NO NEW Christian doctrine being established.

IF there is, I would ask someone to post that Doctrine for me. Chapter, verse and Doctrinal teaching that is NEW.

It should also be noted that the author is the Apostle John who was a Jew as were all the others.

First just to point out the Jewish-ness of the 7 churches in Revelation consider the setting of the vision of Chapter 1:12-20. The “Candlesticks” and the “Angels” who are the “Messengers to the 7 Churches.”

The “Candlesticks” were the light of God in Israel’s Temple. “Angels” according to Hebrews 1:14 through 2:5 are “ministering spirits” to those who are “heirs” of the “world to come.” That is Israel’s “salvation” – Hebrews; and the Kingdom the Lord Jesus began to preach unto them.

Then note: “remove thy candlestick” – Rev 2:5; “synagogue of Satan” –
Rev 2:9; “Balaam” and “children of Israel” –
Rev 2:14; “Jezebel” and “my servants” –
Rev 2:20; “the key of David” – Rev 3:7; “Jews and are not” –
Rev 3:9; and the promise “grant to sit with me in my throne” –
Rev 3:21; are all terms and promises concerning the nation of Israel.

Also, Peter is writing the Jewish believers who are now scattered among the Gentiles. The cities he visited are the places Paul was forbidden to go to.
I believe Peter’s Galatia is different from Paul’s Galatia. However there is no question about Asia and the city of Ephesus.
There were Jewish Kingdom believers scattered there and Paul did not build on another man’s foundation.

But some years later Paul finally did preach in Ephesus. First for a short time in Acts 18:19-21, and then after that when he returned in Acts 19 “And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” – verse 10. In fact the verses that follow indicate he stayed another year totaling a three year stay. Here according to Romans 15:17-20 he preached to “Gentiles.” This is the church of Ephesus Paul wrote to.

It just can not be ignored that John in the book of Revelation is witting to the Jewish assembly that Peter also wrote to.

There is also one more important thing to consider about the 7 Churches of Revelation. Since John is caught away “on the Lord’s day” meaning the future “day of the Lord,” then those 7 Churches are future Jewish Churches who must “overcome” the future day of the Lord. It cannot be proven that all the 7 Churches mentioned in the book of Revelation existed in John’s day. Some did, but historians have not proven all 7 did. I have never tried to prove it either way, because I know they will have to exist in the future to successfully make it through the tribulation.

Now you have even more to think about.

 

[RandyK]

Post #39.......
"I would say that there is NO NEW Church doctrine in the Revelation.

I think the Apostles had pretty well summed up with the "New Testament" was by the time Revelation was written.

There are topics such as are repeated and validate but there is no new doctrine given to church simply because there is NO church on the earth during the 7 year Tribulation Peroid that the Rev. explaines."

Now this is something completely different than stating no "New Doctrine" is given in the Revelation. Whether the Church is here during a supposed "7 year Tribulation Period" or not doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether Revelation was based upon an already-laid doctrinal foundation.

What I said or should have said was that there is NO ORIGINAL Christain doctrine in the Revelation.
Whether you believe that there is a 7 Year Tribulation or not, does not matter. If there is NO 7 year Trib. then we can remove the book of Daniel from our Bibles.

Daniel remains in our Bibles whether or not we interpret Dan 9 to represent a *future Tribulation Period* or not. Quite frankly, most of the early Church Fathers interpreted the "70th Week of Daniel" to have been fulfilled at Christ's 1st Coming, and the "Abomination of Desolation" to be related to the Roman siege that followed Christ's death.

Your Commet tells me that you are a Preterist in your understanding and that right there is another set of problems for you.

You are wrong--I'm not a Preterist. I just agree with Preterists on the fact the Olivet Discourse was precipitated by Jesus' focus on the destruction of Jerusalem to take place in his own generation. That is a fact for both Preterists and non-Preterists like myself.

The tendency to interpret the Olivet Discourse in strictly "Futurist" terms completely ignores this. And that's why I think there is so much confusion interpreting what Jesus was saying there.

Obviously, Jesus started out at the temple by explaining that the temple was soon to be destroyed. That's what precipitated the questions that evolved, with their answers, on the Mt. of Olives.

Turning the "Abomination of Desolation" into the "Antichrist" or some future event is in the interest of modern prognosticators, who wish to guess what "666" means, who the Antichrist will be, and whether a temple will be built in Jerusalem. Have fun with that!

 

[RandyK]

Rev.2:9......​

“I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”​

There seems to be some misunderstanding here from some. I AM NOT saying that there were not Christians in those 7 churches in Rev. 1-2-3. Obviously there was.

You called them "Jewish Churches, or "Jewish Assemblies." Does the appearance in these churches of a few Jewish believers make the churches "Jewish Churches" for you?

That is a grossly inadequate conclusion to draw, particularly when the Jews had largely rejected Jesus for the Gentile World. The Jewish Apostles of Jesus were called to only begin in resistant Israel and work their way out into the Gentile world to form churches there.

This is clearly the case in the book of Revelation. I know of no other authoritative source that would claim these were 7 "Jewish Assemblies!"

All I am doing is pointing out the "Jewisness" of the book of Revelation itself and by doing so verifying that there is NO NEW Christian doctrine being established.

IF there is, I would ask someone to post that Doctrine for me. Chapter, verse and Doctrinal teaching that is NEW.

It should also be noted that the author is the Apostle John who was a Jew as were all the others.

First just to point out the Jewish-ness of the 7 churches in Revelation consider the setting of the vision of Chapter 1:12-20. The “Candlesticks” and the “Angels” who are the “Messengers to the 7 Churches.”

The “Candlesticks” were the light of God in Israel’s Temple. “Angels” according to Hebrews 1:14 through 2:5 are “ministering spirits” to those who are “heirs” of the “world to come.” That is Israel’s “salvation” – Hebrews; and the Kingdom the Lord Jesus began to preach unto them.

Then note: “remove thy candlestick” – Rev 2:5; “synagogue of Satan” –
Rev 2:9; “Balaam” and “children of Israel” –
Rev 2:14; “Jezebel” and “my servants” –
Rev 2:20; “the key of David” – Rev 3:7; “Jews and are not” –
Rev 3:9; and the promise “grant to sit with me in my throne” –
Rev 3:21; are all terms and promises concerning the nation of Israel.

Also, Peter is writing the Jewish believers who are now scattered among the Gentiles. The cities he visited are the places Paul was forbidden to go to.
I believe Peter’s Galatia is different from Paul’s Galatia. However there is no question about Asia and the city of Ephesus.
There were Jewish Kingdom believers scattered there and Paul did not build on another man’s foundation.

But some years later Paul finally did preach in Ephesus. First for a short time in Acts 18:19-21, and then after that when he returned in Acts 19 “And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks” – verse 10. In fact the verses that follow indicate he stayed another year totaling a three year stay. Here according to Romans 15:17-20 he preached to “Gentiles.” This is the church of Ephesus Paul wrote to.

It just can not be ignored that John in the book of Revelation is witting to the Jewish assembly that Peter also wrote to.

There is also one more important thing to consider about the 7 Churches of Revelation. Since John is caught away “on the Lord’s day” meaning the future “day of the Lord,” then those 7 Churches are future Jewish Churches who must “overcome” the future day of the Lord. It cannot be proven that all the 7 Churches mentioned in the book of Revelation existed in John’s day. Some did, but historians have not proven all 7 did. I have never tried to prove it either way, because I know they will have to exist in the future to successfully make it through the tribulation.

Now you have even more to think about.

 

[for_his_glory]

It just can not be ignored that John in the book of Revelation is witting to the Jewish assembly that Peter also wrote to.

It wasn't just a Jewish assembly that John was writing to, but an assembly of both Jews and Gentiles being the body of Christ with Jesus being the head of the body as both Jew and Gentile were the first to be called Christians in Antioch. The first Church was in Jerusalem and after the scattering of the Disciples after Stephen was stoned to death scattered themselves to different nations preaching the word of God to both Jew and Gentile as they were no longer called Jews, but Christians in Antioch, Acts 10 & 11.

When John came to Ephesus around 38 and 47 AD his focus was that of preaching not only to the Jews, but also the Gentiles as he established the first Christian Church in Ephesus.

 

[Rodger]

It wasn't just a Jewish assembly that John was writing to, but an assembly of both Jews and Gentiles being the body of Christ with Jesus being the head of the body as both Jew and Gentile were the first to be called Christians in Antioch. The first Church was in Jerusalem and after the scattering of the Disciples after Stephen was stoned to death scattered themselves to different nations preaching the word of God to both Jew and Gentile as they were no longer called Jews, but Christians in Antioch, Acts 10 & 11.

When John came to Ephesus around 38 and 47 AD his focus was that of preaching not only to the Jews, but also the Gentiles as he established the first Christian Church in Ephesus.

Which is what I stated. Thanks!

 

[Rodger]

You called them "Jewish Churches, or "Jewish Assemblies." Does the appearance in these churches of a few Jewish believers make the churches "Jewish Churches" for you?

That is a grossly inadequate conclusion to draw, particularly when the Jews had largely rejected Jesus for the Gentile World. The Jewish Apostles of Jesus were called to only begin in resistant Israel and work their way out into the Gentile world to form churches there.

This is clearly the case in the book of Revelation. I know of no other authoritative source that would claim these were 7 "Jewish Assemblies!"

Thanks for your response and to be brutally honest.....whether you agree with me or not really does not alter the facts. We are debating semantics that have no end.

The Scriptures say..... "but are the synagogue of Satan.”

Is "synagogue" a word for Christian Churches or a Jewish assembly????

Jesus was a Jew. ALL of the disciples were Jews. All of the Apostles were Jews.

Cornelius (Greek: Κορνήλιος) was a Roman centurion who is considered by Christians to be the first Gentile to convert to the faith, as related in Acts of the Apostles. The baptism of Cornelius is an important event in the history of the early Christian church, along with the conversion and baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. The Christian church was first formed around the original disciples and followers of Jesus, all of whom, including Jesus himself, were Jewish. Certain traditions hold Cornelius as becoming either the first bishop of Caesarea, or the bishop of Scepsis in Mysia.
(Source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_the_Centurion

 

[Rodger]

I think the Apostles had pretty well summed up with the "New Testament" was by the time Revelation was written.

Now this is something completely different than stating no "New Doctrine" is given in the Revelation. Whether the Church is here during a supposed "7 year Tribulation Period" or not doesn't seem to have anything to do with whether Revelation was based upon an already-laid doctrinal foundation.

Daniel remains in our Bibles whether or not we interpret Dan 9 to represent a *future Tribulation Period* or not. Quite frankly, most of the early Church Fathers interpreted the "70th Week of Daniel" to have been fulfilled at Christ's 1st Coming, and the "Abomination of Desolation" to be related to the Roman siege that followed Christ's death.

You are wrong--I'm not a Preterist. I just agree with Preterists on the fact the Olivet Discourse was precipitated by Jesus' focus on the destruction of Jerusalem to take place in his own generation. That is a fact for both Preterists and non-Preterists like myself.

The tendency to interpret the Olivet Discourse in strictly "Futurist" terms completely ignores this. And that's why I think there is so much confusion interpreting what Jesus was saying there.

Obviously, Jesus started out at the temple by explaining that the temple was soon to be destroyed. That's what precipitated the questions that evolved, with their answers, on the Mt. of Olives.

Turning the "Abomination of Desolation" into the "Antichrist" or some future event is in the interest of modern prognosticators, who wish to guess what "666" means, who the Antichrist will be, and whether a temple will be built in Jerusalem. Have fun with that!

And we now know why we are in disagreement on such a simple topic.

To say....."I am not a Preterist. I just agree with Preterists on the facts of the Olivet Discourse".

My friend, I do not know you until we just met on this forum. However I must tell you a simple fact of life..........If it quakes like a duck, flies like a duck and swims like a duck IT IS A DUCK.
By your own admission, YOU are a Preterist when you agree with their teaching.

Again, by YOUR OWN WORDS.....you agree that Preterism is the belief that the prophecies in Matthew 24 (spoken by Jesus on the Mount of Olives) and the Book of Revelation were largely or completely fulfilled in the past, particularly in the events leading up to and surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70.

Now, for those of you who may be new to Bible study, Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation have to do largely with the tumultuous events leading up to Christ’s Second Coming to the Earth which has not yet taken place.

This right here is why you and I will not be agreeing on a lot of things so I suggest that we move on to other things so that this does not become confrontational.

May God bless you my friend.

 

[RandyK]

And we now know why we are in disagreement on such a simple topic.

To say....."I am not a Preterist. I just agree with Preterists on the facts of the Olivet Discourse".

My friend, I do not know you until we just met on this forum. However I must tell you a simple fact of life..........If it quakes like a duck, flies like a duck and swims like a duck IT IS A DUCK.
By your own admission, YOU are a Preterist when you agree with their teaching.

Again, by YOUR OWN WORDS.....you agree that Preterism is the belief that the prophecies in Matthew 24 (spoken by Jesus on the Mount of Olives) and the Book of Revelation were largely or completely fulfilled in the past, particularly in the events leading up to and surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70.

Now, for those of you who may be new to Bible study, Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation have to do largely with the tumultuous events leading up to Christ’s Second Coming to the Earth which has not yet taken place.

This right here is why you and I will not be agreeing on a lot of things so I suggest that we move on to other things so that this does not become confrontational.

May God bless you my friend.

I'm sorry, but you lack knowledge on the subject. It's understandable because I've been through this many times before on other forums. It is often thought that a "past" view of the Olivet Discourse means someone is a "Preterist."

But you really have it wrong. Preterism believes that biblical prophecy in general is in the past, having been fulfilled in the Early Church. All Christians, however, believe *some biblical prophecies* have been fulfilled in the past.

For example, nearly all of the Early Church Fathers believed that the Olivet Discourse, in some respects, was fulfilled in the past, in the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. But they weren't Preterists. Preterism hadn't even been born yet. Luis de Alcasar was born in the 1500s!

Preterists have largely believed that even the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the past, while I'm a Futurist who believes in a future Antichrist and in a future salvation of national Israel. I'm *not* a Preterist merely because I believe the Olivet Discourse is focused primarily on the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. After all, that's precisely what Jesus said, that the temple would fall, stone by stone, and that it would happen in his generation.

So call me what I'm not--that's your problem.

 

[RandyK]

Thanks for your response and to be brutally honest.....whether you agree with me or not really does not alter the facts. We are debating semantics that have no end.

The Scriptures say..... "but are the synagogue of Satan.”

Is "synagogue" a word for Christian Churches or a Jewish assembly????

Jesus was a Jew. ALL of the disciples were Jews. All of the Apostles were Jews.

So you think that if you find the word "Jew" floating in the Pacific Ocean that makes the ocean "Jewish?" Your logic is fatally flawed.

 

[Rodger]

I'm sorry, but you lack knowledge on the subject. It's understandable because I've been through this many times before on other forums. It is often thought that a "past" view of the Olivet Discourse means someone is a "Preterist."

But you really have it wrong. Preterism believes that biblical prophecy in general is in the past, having been fulfilled in the Early Church. All Christians, however, believe *some biblical prophecies* have been fulfilled in the past.

For example, nearly all of the Early Church Fathers believed that the Olivet Discourse, in some respects, was fulfilled in the past, in the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. But they weren't Preterists. Preterism hadn't even been born yet. Luis de Alcasar was born in the 1500s!

Preterists have largely believed that even the book of Revelation was fulfilled in the past, while I'm a Futurist who believes in a future Antichrist and in a future salvation of national Israel.not* a Prete I'm *rist merely because I believe the Olivet Discourse is focused primarily on the destruction of the

So you think that if you find the word "Jew" floating in the Pacific Ocean that makes the ocean "Jewish?" Your logic is fatally flawed.

After all, that's precisely what Jesus said, that the temple would fall, stone by stone, and that it would happen in his generation.

So call me what I'm not--that's your problem.

If it looks like a duck....quakes like a duck and swims like a duck, there is a really good chance that it is a duck.