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

[Rodger]

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.

The literal WORD "synagogue" was not floating in the ocean but was written by John in the Revelation as I posted.

It really does not take a lot of intelligence to understand that the word "synagogue" which denotes a Jewish assembly means that the letter and focus and Context was on a Jewish assembly.

 

[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. 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.

Talking to you is like trying to eat Jello with a fork.

You said....."I am not a Preterist"!

Then immediately you posted.........
" I'm *not* a Preterist merely because I believe the Olivet Discourse is focused primarily on the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

 

[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.

You are probably correct and there is no reason to argue.

However, I think that you will agree that in Rev. 2:9 we see.......
"‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan."

Then in Rev. 3:9......
“I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you”.

I also believe if anyone will do the study they will find out that the synagogue of Satan was a group of unbelieving Jews.

The synagogue of Satan refers to specific Jewish communities in Smyrna and Philadelphia that were persecuting the church, not to any modern situation.

The point I was making has nothing to do with anything other than John obviously directed his focus on a group of Jews in Asia Minor.

 

[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!"

The literal word......"Synagogue" denotes Jewish assemblies my dear friend.

 

[RandyK]

The literal word......"Synagogue" denotes Jewish assemblies my dear friend.

If you find a note in a bottle with the word "synagogue" on it out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, please don't call the Pacific Ocean a "Jewish Ocean!" ;)

 

[RandyK]

Talking to you is like trying to eat Jello with a fork.

You said....."I am not a Preterist"!

Then immediately you posted.........
" I'm *not* a Preterist merely because I believe the Olivet Discourse is focused primarily on the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

You think a silly bit of humor will put a dent in what I told you earlier in post #58?
Read it again...

quote
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.
unquote

If you don't understand what I'm saying I will explain it to you in further detail. If you just don't want to understand, then there's nothing I can do for you.

But if you disagree, please explain *where* you disagree with what I've had to say about Preterism. Then we can discuss this in the most civilized way possible.

 

[for_his_glory]

You are probably correct and there is no reason to argue.

However, I think that you will agree that in Rev. 2:9 we see.......
"‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan."

Then in Rev. 3:9......
“I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you”.

I also believe if anyone will do the study they will find out that the synagogue of Satan was a group of unbelieving Jews.

The synagogue of Satan refers to specific Jewish communities in Smyrna and Philadelphia that were persecuting the church, not to any modern situation.

The point I was making has nothing to do with anything other than John obviously directed his focus on a group of Jews in Asia Minor.

I understand what the synagogue of Satan is as it has always existed, even today among the Jew and Gentile as many claim to be a Christian, but only having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof as God said, from such turn away. 2Timothy 3:5.

 

[for_his_glory]

If we go back to the OP and the title of this thread being, "is there any new doctrine in the book of revelation" I would have to say no as there is no new doctrine, but only what Jesus gave this angel to show and teach John of theses visions starting with instructions to the seven Church's in Asia that represents the whole body of Christ with He being the head of the body. The visions that John received where for his time, and what must come first before the return of Christ. Revelation means the unveiling.

 

[Rodger]

You think a silly bit of humor will put a dent in what I told you earlier in post #58?
Read it again...

quote
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.
unquote

If you don't understand what I'm saying I will explain it to you in further detail. If you just don't want to understand, then there's nothing I can do for you.

But if you disagree, please explain *where* you disagree with what I've had to say about Preterism. Then we can discuss this in the most civilized way possible.

You do not know me.
You do not know my educational position.

I disagree with Everything the Preterist position takes!

I was not being funny in any way. I was simply showing everyone the folly of your debating ability......
You said....."I am not a Preterist"!

Then immediately you posted.........
" I'm *not* a Preterist merely because I believe the Olivet Discourse is focused primarily on the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Where I come from, that is called hypocritical.

 

[Rodger]

If you find a note in a bottle with the word "synagogue" on it out in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, please don't call the Pacific Ocean a "Jewish Ocean!" ;)

Do you not have the ability to discuss topics rationally? Do you think that sarcasm is the best way to communicate with others?

Rev. 3:9.......
"Look at those who belong to the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews but are liars instead. I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and they will know that I love you".

 

[Rodger]

You think a silly bit of humor will put a dent in what I told you earlier in post #58?
Read it again...

quote
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.
unquote

If you don't understand what I'm saying I will explain it to you in further detail. If you just don't want to understand, then there's nothing I can do for you.

But if you disagree, please explain *where* you disagree with what I've had to say about Preterism. Then we can discuss this in the most civilized way possible.

Now.........please go and read the Original post of this thread.

"THERE IS NO NEW CHURCH DOCTRINE IN THE REVELATION".

Can you focus your thoughts on THAT instead of trying to highjack the thread into something else!

So........that being the case, can you now post the Chapter and verse in the Revelation where a New Church Doctrine is introduced!!!!!

 

[RandyK]

Now.........please go and read the Original post of this thread.

"THERE IS NO NEW CHURCH DOCTRINE IN THE REVELATION".

Can you focus your thoughts on THAT instead of trying to highjack the thread into something else!

So........that being the case, can you now post the Chapter and verse in the Revelation where a New Church Doctrine is introduced!!!!!

When someone calls me a Preterist in the course of focusing on the main subject I have to treat the false accusation. It is an attempt to divert me away from my point, which is in fact addressing the main point.

Since I've already made my points, I need not repeat them. In post #52 I addressed a point that *you* brought up concerning a supposed "7 year Tribulation" in the future. You branded the historical view of Daniel's 70th Week as "Preterist," and I corrected that false notion for the record, although this is a very common misconception.

 

[hawkman]

Moderator note .
This is not a court of law to convict someone of their doctrine .

7. Once you have made a point, refrain from flooding the forum with additional threads or posts making the same point over and over.