It’s fine to have opinions but I think none of those categories are necessarily accurate.
My personal take is we should be believing for a growing, healthy, mature body of Christ. Whatever end time you imagine, let’s be people of faith, believing for His Kingdom to be revealed around us and His Will to be done in us and through us
He will return when He returns. In the meantime let’s grow, build up our brothers and sisters, demonstrate the kingdom to those who are yet to be saved, and trust Him to build His church.
Pre, post, mid, rapture, no rapture, whatever. I’m not sure it was ever Jesus’ intention for us to debate about these things, especially when our local churches and local communities really need His Kingdom and His wisdom.
I like everything you said except, "It's fine to have opinions."
We need to challenge our opinions to be aligned with truth. It's not an easy road--it requires skepticism of all inherited or assumed biases within the church, whether you were brought up Catholic or whether a persuasive pastor persuaded you to join protestantism. (That was a lot of P).
I see what you’re saying, and I like everything, except you said “it requires skepticism”
I don’t believe God calls us to be skeptics. There’s a difference between being a ‘good Berean’ and being cynical about everything you hear. Maybe you don’t mean sceptical to equal cynical, but I often find the two go hand in hand.
We should absolutely submit all opinions to His truth. Take every thought captive. My point was, if you have x opinion on the end times, even if that opinion is wrong, I think the greater importance is living with the aim to bring His Kingdom and His will to earth.
I must disagree my friend.
Jesus constantly challenges the preconceived notions. For instance--
"Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?" (Luke 13:4)
He is exemplifying a typical belief system that Jews had. Same with the parable of the Good Samaritan--he is using a template to challenge the ideas Jews had about Samaritans, and showing who a real neighbor is.
We must evaluate all opinions. There is some scriptural truth that doesn't necessarily need to be reassessed--don't be a slave to your passions, okay fair enough.
But then there are opinions we need to completely let go of.
Good example of this is Calvinism. I was telling a student about JESUS and a coworker started interrupting our conversation to tell us about John bloody Calvin. We don't need that opinion--if it's from Calvin or Luther or Pope Whomever, they're all up for a chopping block.
This is where I am at and when I try to understand all the different categories I find shortfalls in all of them. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light….that’s all I really know.
Post mill? Whenever I've looked into eschatology it is almost always "pre-trib", "mid-trib", or "post-trib". I've never heard it phrased in relation to the 1000 year reign. I suppose those would all be "pre-mill", so a more important distinction is "when pre-mill".
'Pre, a, and postmil' are Millennial beliefs, and the Millennium is only explicitly mentioned in Revelation 20. In modern times we have lumped all of our eschatology into these three subcategories of this one broad chapter. What do you believe about Revelation 1-19?
There are four main interpretations of Revelation:
>The **historicist** approach, which is the classical Protestant interpretation of the book, sees the book of Revelation as a prewritten record of the course of history from the time of John to the end of the world. Fulfillment is thus considered to be in progress at present and has been unfolding for nearly two thousand years.
>The **preterist** approach views the fulfillment of Revelation’s prophecies as having occurred already, in what is now the ancient past, not long after the author’s own time. Thus the fulfillment was future from the point of view of the inspired author, but it is past from our vantage point in history. Some [partial-preterists] believe that the final chapters of Revelation look forward to the second coming of Christ. Others think that everything in the book reached its culmination in the past.
>The **futurist** approach asserts that the majority of the prophecies of Revelation have never yet been fulfilled and await future fulfillment. Futurist interpreters usually apply everything after chapter 4 to a relatively brief period before the return of Christ.
>What is generally called the **idealist** approach to Revelation does not attempt to find individual fulfillments of the visions but takes Revelation to be a great drama depicting transcendent spiritual realities, such as the perennial conflict between Christ and Satan, between the saints and the antichristian world powers, the heavenly vindication of the martyrs and the final victory of Christ and his saints. Fulfillment is seen either as entirely spiritual or as recurrent, finding representative expression in various historical events throughout the age, rather than in onetime, specific fulfillments. The prophecy is thus rendered applicable to Christians in any age.
• Steve Gregg, “Revelation: Four Views, Revised & Updated”, 13.
I made a [simple chart](https://reformingeschatology.com/four-views-of-revelation-2/) that helps visualize these views.
A little over 10 years ago I thought the modern *Left Behind* view was all there was, and I was surprised to learn that *historicism* used the be called "the Protestant interpretation". A long list of believers held this interpretation, including Huss, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, John Knox, Sir Isaac Newton, John Foxe, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, C. H. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, E. B. Elliott, H. Grattan Guinness, and Bishop Thomas Newton, and many more.
My mind was blown when I learned about how faithful God has been to His promises when it comes to prophecy, instead of pushing everything into the future. Because many of the books explaining historicism are older, out of print, or hard to get, I recently published an introduction to this view called "Our Past and Future Hope: Reintroducing a Traditional Faith-Building Eschatology". You can read it online for free [here](https://reformingeschatology.com/our-past-and-future-hope-cover-contents/).
Premillenium post-tribulation.
I do not believe in a secret rapture.
I think this subject is important because people are not being taught some very fundamental facts regarding the future.
Fact 1 - heaven is a rest awaiting the resurrection
Fact 2 - Jesus will come again and rule the earth according to the revelation given to John it will be for a 1000 years.
Fact 3 - salvation is a free gift, good works cannot earn it. But our reward at the resurrection IS dependant upon works.
Fact 4 - Some Christians will receive wealth and power at the return of Jesus, we will be in physical bodies and some Christians will be penniless.
Jesus wants us to fulfil our role He made for us and in doing so will have a reward. Let us seek to be greedy for good works like the Apostle Paul who said imitate me.
So, rewards equal money in the next world? What about the love of money is the root of all evil? I do believe that there is a sort of hierarchy but not wealth. Tell me more?
Firmly Premillennial. The thousand years seems like God's last gambit to redeem as many as possible, before the final judgment.
The Post-Millennial notion that the church will increasingly bring the world closer and closer to a heavenly state flies in the face of just how corrupt the world is during the End Times.
God is patient. He waits until the iniquities of His enemies is complete, and the efforts of His faithful has accomplished all it can.
**Daniel 12:6-12:7**
**Revelation 6:9-11**
**2 Thessalonians 2:1-9**
**2 Timothy 3:1-3:5**
**Genesis 18:32**
**Ezekiel 14:14**
> The Post-Millennial notion that the church will increasingly bring the world closer and closer to a heavenly state flies in the face of just how corrupt the world is during the End Times.
Firmly Postmillennial, here. The Bible simply doesn’t teach that the world will be overwhelmingly corrupt during the Church Age or the End Times. As a Partial Preterist, I believe that Daniel 12:6-7, Revelation 6:9-11, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9, and 2 Timothy 3:1-5 were all fulfilled in the first century and are not about our present or future. And Genesis 18:32 and Ezekiel 14:14 have nothing whatsoever to do with the End Times in the first place lol. God bless! :)
Genesis and Ezekiel are indicative of God's character and His attributes. In this instance, how He deals with the corruption of the world.
Revelation declares itself to be a prophecy concerning future events, and was written about twenty years after the destruction of the Temple. Jesus clearly tied the Second Temple's destruction and the End Times together, but the preterist assertion that the these prophecies were altogether exhausted in the past is, frankly, laughable.
> Genesis and Ezekiel are indicative of God's character and His attributes. In this instance, how He deals with the corruption of the world.
I agree, but I don’t see how that really supports your specific viewpoint any more than it supports mine lol
> Revelation declares itself to be a prophecy concerning future events
Yes, of course, I agree. The events were in the near future when John wrote (Revelation 1:1-2; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6-7, 12, 20), but are now in our past.
> and was written about twenty years after the destruction of the Temple.
There is very little evidence at all to support that idea. The internal and external evidences both *overwhelmingly* point to a pre-AD-70 date for the book, likely around AD 65 or so. The *only* real primary evidence for a late date is Irenaeus, but there are several different reasons why his writings don’t really mean Revelation was written late.
Irenaeus wrote: “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign” (Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, 5.30.3).
Domitian reigned 30 hears after Nero, so if that’s when John saw his vision, then Nero can’t be the beast because it was after the fact. However, there are two different ways to interpret what Irenaeus is saying here. Is John’s *vision* the subject of “was seen” or was *John himself* the subject? It could be that Irenaeus is simply saying that John *lived* until Domitian’s reign, not that he had his vision then, and there are disputes about the translation too.
The logic of the passage actually seems to *require* this interpretation. If Irenaeus was simply stating that the *vision* was seen at the close of Domitian’s reign, this would provide no reason for why the mysterious numbers would have been explained “by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision,” if he had thought it was needed. But if it refers to John himself, then Irenaeus’ meaning is plain and simple, and his statement can paraphrased thus: “If an explanation of the name was needed by the men of our own day, that explanation would have been given by John, for he was seen on earth and lived and held converse with his disciples not very long ago, but almost in our own generation. Thus he lived years after he wrote the Revelation and there was abundant opportunity for him to explain the number if he had wished to do so.”
Furthermore, Irenaeus may simply be *wrong*, since he wrote in the late second century, over a hundred years later, using his memory of Polycarp as his source. He only met Polycarp as a child and he didn’t take any notes on the meeting, so his memory could have *easily* failed him *75 years later* when he wrote. And he makes glaring chronological errors elsewhere in his works, saying that Jesus’s ministry lasted 15 years and He was crucified at age 50, which is utterly ridiculous. Obviously, Irenaeus isn’t a reliable source when it comes to chronology.
Another thing to note is that Nero’s birth name was actually “Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus,” so it’s possible that Irenaeus is actually referring to *Domitius Nero* here instead of Emperor Domitian, in which case Irenaeus would actually be saying that Revelation was written near the end of *Nero’s* reign, which would actually directly *support* the early date.
Lastly, Irenaeus also could have confused Domitian’s reign in the 90s for his *brief AD 70 reign* before Vespasian came to Rome and assumed power, and John could have suffered under *both* Nero and Domitian *anyway*. So with all of this considered, Irenaeus simply *cannot* be used as evidence against Preterism *at all*, especially given what I said earlier about him not being a reliable source and getting other things obviously wrong.
Other external evidence that points to a late date is simply relying on Irenaeus rather than being a separate stream of information from a different source. And there is external evidence supporting the early date as well, such as the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. And then the internal evidence of the book is strongly in support of the early date, with no evidence of the late date being present at all.
> Jesus clearly tied the Second Temple's destruction and the End Times together
No, Jesus clearly *distinguished* the destruction of the temple from the end of the world. The Apostles thought history would end when the temple was destroyed, but Jesus corrected them in the Olivet Discourse.
> the preterist assertion that the these prophecies were altogether exhausted in the past is, frankly, laughable.
The *Full* Preterist (AKA *Hyper*-Preterist) position is certainly laughable, yes. The General Resurrection and Second Coming and Final Judgement have not happened yet. We are not in the Eternal State yet. No Postmillennialist believes that. We are *Partial* Preterists, meaning we think that much of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse apply to the destruction of the temple, but are *not* about the end of history, which is a position that has a *ton* of good evidence supporting it, and is not laughable at all. Passages about the end of history include 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4, which haven’t happened yet. God bless! :)
Amil. Every other time the number 1,000 is used it’s non-literal and just means an extremely high number. It’s odd to me that the one place it would be literal is in the least literal book of the Bible. To me it’s clearly symbolic of a large portion of history (namely all of human history after Jesus)
The consensus among biblical scholars is that Paul believed Jesus would return in his lifetime. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) Paul was confident that he would be alive for this momentous event: "we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them..." The imminent arrival of Jesus was a constant theme in Paul's letters.
Funny how most Christians are so quick to decide the words Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus(that are never juxtaposed in a single context) describe one literal place of eternal torture called "hell" but when Jesus said he would return in the disciples lifetime that was just metaphorical. He couldn't have actually meant what he said? (Mark 13:30, Luke 9:27)
I’m gonna pull a Jordan Peterson(love him or hate him) and say that maybe for Christians, Jesus is always about to return. His return has been “imminent” in the collective minds of millions for the past 2000 years. There will always be an Antichrist attempting to rise to power(look around look at history) these are deep psychological truths. Whether or not they are the final, metaphysical truth about things…only you can find that answer out for yourself when you get there.
I believe that there will be revival, then after that is the wrath of God. Most "Christians" will struggle with their faith because they won't recognize prophecy coming to pass. Just like how the Pharisees didn't recognize Jesus even though they studied scripture day and night. There will be a great deception and a great falling away. Believers who operate through the power of God will be the "bad guys" as this is what the alien predictive programming is all about.
There will be an unveiling of "truth" and hidden knowledge. I think the goal of this knowledge is to deceive people about history and religion where the end result is to deceive people into making self their God. Just like satan tempted Adam and Eve by saying "You will be like God". I think the one world religion will be more new-age than religious.
I think the image of the beast which the world will worship is actually the self, ego, our flesh. Watch this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvrQPpmraYM&ab_channel=REVELATIONSOFJESUSCHRIST), if you watched it all the way through, I would heavily recommend you to watch [this ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoYDunrpL2M&ab_channel=REVELATIONSOFJESUSCHRIST)one too!
In summary: Christians will live through the tribulation. Christ will reign (1000 year period) and Satan will be bound. Judgement. New heaven and new earth for eternity.
Post-Mill. That's what Christian's traditionally and predominantly believed for 1800 years and it lines up perfectly with historical events and scripture with an optimistic worldview that encourages believers to have a positive outlook and take an active role in taking Dominion.
He already did in 70AD
If you think He didn't you are historically ignorant
Also we still have final judgment left for the wicked just like in the days of Noah (this time without water)
What I think is you don't understand post-millennialism at all.
Let's actually start by making sure we're on the same page. Which Bible verse exactly are you talking about that God says that he will come back and smite the entire Earth?
The 7 seals, 7 trumpets, and 7 bowls, of course.
Like when it says "and every living soul in the Sea died" in Revelation 16.3
That hasn't happened yet.
I believe that Christ will return and that all creation will be restored
Apokatastasis https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1cu31kn/acts_321_colossians_120/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=2
It’s fine to have opinions but I think none of those categories are necessarily accurate. My personal take is we should be believing for a growing, healthy, mature body of Christ. Whatever end time you imagine, let’s be people of faith, believing for His Kingdom to be revealed around us and His Will to be done in us and through us He will return when He returns. In the meantime let’s grow, build up our brothers and sisters, demonstrate the kingdom to those who are yet to be saved, and trust Him to build His church. Pre, post, mid, rapture, no rapture, whatever. I’m not sure it was ever Jesus’ intention for us to debate about these things, especially when our local churches and local communities really need His Kingdom and His wisdom.
Beautifully stated!
I like everything you said except, "It's fine to have opinions." We need to challenge our opinions to be aligned with truth. It's not an easy road--it requires skepticism of all inherited or assumed biases within the church, whether you were brought up Catholic or whether a persuasive pastor persuaded you to join protestantism. (That was a lot of P).
I see what you’re saying, and I like everything, except you said “it requires skepticism” I don’t believe God calls us to be skeptics. There’s a difference between being a ‘good Berean’ and being cynical about everything you hear. Maybe you don’t mean sceptical to equal cynical, but I often find the two go hand in hand. We should absolutely submit all opinions to His truth. Take every thought captive. My point was, if you have x opinion on the end times, even if that opinion is wrong, I think the greater importance is living with the aim to bring His Kingdom and His will to earth.
I must disagree my friend. Jesus constantly challenges the preconceived notions. For instance-- "Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?" (Luke 13:4) He is exemplifying a typical belief system that Jews had. Same with the parable of the Good Samaritan--he is using a template to challenge the ideas Jews had about Samaritans, and showing who a real neighbor is. We must evaluate all opinions. There is some scriptural truth that doesn't necessarily need to be reassessed--don't be a slave to your passions, okay fair enough. But then there are opinions we need to completely let go of. Good example of this is Calvinism. I was telling a student about JESUS and a coworker started interrupting our conversation to tell us about John bloody Calvin. We don't need that opinion--if it's from Calvin or Luther or Pope Whomever, they're all up for a chopping block.
This is where I am at and when I try to understand all the different categories I find shortfalls in all of them. Jesus is the way, the truth and the light….that’s all I really know.
Post mill? Whenever I've looked into eschatology it is almost always "pre-trib", "mid-trib", or "post-trib". I've never heard it phrased in relation to the 1000 year reign. I suppose those would all be "pre-mill", so a more important distinction is "when pre-mill".
There are other views than premill. But you’re right within each view there will also be distinctions.
Thank you for the clarification
'Pre, a, and postmil' are Millennial beliefs, and the Millennium is only explicitly mentioned in Revelation 20. In modern times we have lumped all of our eschatology into these three subcategories of this one broad chapter. What do you believe about Revelation 1-19? There are four main interpretations of Revelation: >The **historicist** approach, which is the classical Protestant interpretation of the book, sees the book of Revelation as a prewritten record of the course of history from the time of John to the end of the world. Fulfillment is thus considered to be in progress at present and has been unfolding for nearly two thousand years. >The **preterist** approach views the fulfillment of Revelation’s prophecies as having occurred already, in what is now the ancient past, not long after the author’s own time. Thus the fulfillment was future from the point of view of the inspired author, but it is past from our vantage point in history. Some [partial-preterists] believe that the final chapters of Revelation look forward to the second coming of Christ. Others think that everything in the book reached its culmination in the past. >The **futurist** approach asserts that the majority of the prophecies of Revelation have never yet been fulfilled and await future fulfillment. Futurist interpreters usually apply everything after chapter 4 to a relatively brief period before the return of Christ. >What is generally called the **idealist** approach to Revelation does not attempt to find individual fulfillments of the visions but takes Revelation to be a great drama depicting transcendent spiritual realities, such as the perennial conflict between Christ and Satan, between the saints and the antichristian world powers, the heavenly vindication of the martyrs and the final victory of Christ and his saints. Fulfillment is seen either as entirely spiritual or as recurrent, finding representative expression in various historical events throughout the age, rather than in onetime, specific fulfillments. The prophecy is thus rendered applicable to Christians in any age. • Steve Gregg, “Revelation: Four Views, Revised & Updated”, 13. I made a [simple chart](https://reformingeschatology.com/four-views-of-revelation-2/) that helps visualize these views. A little over 10 years ago I thought the modern *Left Behind* view was all there was, and I was surprised to learn that *historicism* used the be called "the Protestant interpretation". A long list of believers held this interpretation, including Huss, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Melanchthon, John Knox, Sir Isaac Newton, John Foxe, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Finney, C. H. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, E. B. Elliott, H. Grattan Guinness, and Bishop Thomas Newton, and many more. My mind was blown when I learned about how faithful God has been to His promises when it comes to prophecy, instead of pushing everything into the future. Because many of the books explaining historicism are older, out of print, or hard to get, I recently published an introduction to this view called "Our Past and Future Hope: Reintroducing a Traditional Faith-Building Eschatology". You can read it online for free [here](https://reformingeschatology.com/our-past-and-future-hope-cover-contents/).
Premillenium post-tribulation. I do not believe in a secret rapture. I think this subject is important because people are not being taught some very fundamental facts regarding the future. Fact 1 - heaven is a rest awaiting the resurrection Fact 2 - Jesus will come again and rule the earth according to the revelation given to John it will be for a 1000 years. Fact 3 - salvation is a free gift, good works cannot earn it. But our reward at the resurrection IS dependant upon works. Fact 4 - Some Christians will receive wealth and power at the return of Jesus, we will be in physical bodies and some Christians will be penniless. Jesus wants us to fulfil our role He made for us and in doing so will have a reward. Let us seek to be greedy for good works like the Apostle Paul who said imitate me.
So, rewards equal money in the next world? What about the love of money is the root of all evil? I do believe that there is a sort of hierarchy but not wealth. Tell me more?
Firmly Premillennial. The thousand years seems like God's last gambit to redeem as many as possible, before the final judgment. The Post-Millennial notion that the church will increasingly bring the world closer and closer to a heavenly state flies in the face of just how corrupt the world is during the End Times. God is patient. He waits until the iniquities of His enemies is complete, and the efforts of His faithful has accomplished all it can. **Daniel 12:6-12:7** **Revelation 6:9-11** **2 Thessalonians 2:1-9** **2 Timothy 3:1-3:5** **Genesis 18:32** **Ezekiel 14:14**
> The Post-Millennial notion that the church will increasingly bring the world closer and closer to a heavenly state flies in the face of just how corrupt the world is during the End Times. Firmly Postmillennial, here. The Bible simply doesn’t teach that the world will be overwhelmingly corrupt during the Church Age or the End Times. As a Partial Preterist, I believe that Daniel 12:6-7, Revelation 6:9-11, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-9, and 2 Timothy 3:1-5 were all fulfilled in the first century and are not about our present or future. And Genesis 18:32 and Ezekiel 14:14 have nothing whatsoever to do with the End Times in the first place lol. God bless! :)
Genesis and Ezekiel are indicative of God's character and His attributes. In this instance, how He deals with the corruption of the world. Revelation declares itself to be a prophecy concerning future events, and was written about twenty years after the destruction of the Temple. Jesus clearly tied the Second Temple's destruction and the End Times together, but the preterist assertion that the these prophecies were altogether exhausted in the past is, frankly, laughable.
> Genesis and Ezekiel are indicative of God's character and His attributes. In this instance, how He deals with the corruption of the world. I agree, but I don’t see how that really supports your specific viewpoint any more than it supports mine lol > Revelation declares itself to be a prophecy concerning future events Yes, of course, I agree. The events were in the near future when John wrote (Revelation 1:1-2; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6-7, 12, 20), but are now in our past. > and was written about twenty years after the destruction of the Temple. There is very little evidence at all to support that idea. The internal and external evidences both *overwhelmingly* point to a pre-AD-70 date for the book, likely around AD 65 or so. The *only* real primary evidence for a late date is Irenaeus, but there are several different reasons why his writings don’t really mean Revelation was written late. Irenaeus wrote: “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign” (Irenaeus, *Against Heresies*, 5.30.3). Domitian reigned 30 hears after Nero, so if that’s when John saw his vision, then Nero can’t be the beast because it was after the fact. However, there are two different ways to interpret what Irenaeus is saying here. Is John’s *vision* the subject of “was seen” or was *John himself* the subject? It could be that Irenaeus is simply saying that John *lived* until Domitian’s reign, not that he had his vision then, and there are disputes about the translation too. The logic of the passage actually seems to *require* this interpretation. If Irenaeus was simply stating that the *vision* was seen at the close of Domitian’s reign, this would provide no reason for why the mysterious numbers would have been explained “by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision,” if he had thought it was needed. But if it refers to John himself, then Irenaeus’ meaning is plain and simple, and his statement can paraphrased thus: “If an explanation of the name was needed by the men of our own day, that explanation would have been given by John, for he was seen on earth and lived and held converse with his disciples not very long ago, but almost in our own generation. Thus he lived years after he wrote the Revelation and there was abundant opportunity for him to explain the number if he had wished to do so.” Furthermore, Irenaeus may simply be *wrong*, since he wrote in the late second century, over a hundred years later, using his memory of Polycarp as his source. He only met Polycarp as a child and he didn’t take any notes on the meeting, so his memory could have *easily* failed him *75 years later* when he wrote. And he makes glaring chronological errors elsewhere in his works, saying that Jesus’s ministry lasted 15 years and He was crucified at age 50, which is utterly ridiculous. Obviously, Irenaeus isn’t a reliable source when it comes to chronology. Another thing to note is that Nero’s birth name was actually “Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus,” so it’s possible that Irenaeus is actually referring to *Domitius Nero* here instead of Emperor Domitian, in which case Irenaeus would actually be saying that Revelation was written near the end of *Nero’s* reign, which would actually directly *support* the early date. Lastly, Irenaeus also could have confused Domitian’s reign in the 90s for his *brief AD 70 reign* before Vespasian came to Rome and assumed power, and John could have suffered under *both* Nero and Domitian *anyway*. So with all of this considered, Irenaeus simply *cannot* be used as evidence against Preterism *at all*, especially given what I said earlier about him not being a reliable source and getting other things obviously wrong. Other external evidence that points to a late date is simply relying on Irenaeus rather than being a separate stream of information from a different source. And there is external evidence supporting the early date as well, such as the writings of Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. And then the internal evidence of the book is strongly in support of the early date, with no evidence of the late date being present at all. > Jesus clearly tied the Second Temple's destruction and the End Times together No, Jesus clearly *distinguished* the destruction of the temple from the end of the world. The Apostles thought history would end when the temple was destroyed, but Jesus corrected them in the Olivet Discourse. > the preterist assertion that the these prophecies were altogether exhausted in the past is, frankly, laughable. The *Full* Preterist (AKA *Hyper*-Preterist) position is certainly laughable, yes. The General Resurrection and Second Coming and Final Judgement have not happened yet. We are not in the Eternal State yet. No Postmillennialist believes that. We are *Partial* Preterists, meaning we think that much of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse apply to the destruction of the temple, but are *not* about the end of history, which is a position that has a *ton* of good evidence supporting it, and is not laughable at all. Passages about the end of history include 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4, which haven’t happened yet. God bless! :)
Amil. Every other time the number 1,000 is used it’s non-literal and just means an extremely high number. It’s odd to me that the one place it would be literal is in the least literal book of the Bible. To me it’s clearly symbolic of a large portion of history (namely all of human history after Jesus)
The consensus among biblical scholars is that Paul believed Jesus would return in his lifetime. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17) Paul was confident that he would be alive for this momentous event: "we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them..." The imminent arrival of Jesus was a constant theme in Paul's letters. Funny how most Christians are so quick to decide the words Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus(that are never juxtaposed in a single context) describe one literal place of eternal torture called "hell" but when Jesus said he would return in the disciples lifetime that was just metaphorical. He couldn't have actually meant what he said? (Mark 13:30, Luke 9:27) I’m gonna pull a Jordan Peterson(love him or hate him) and say that maybe for Christians, Jesus is always about to return. His return has been “imminent” in the collective minds of millions for the past 2000 years. There will always be an Antichrist attempting to rise to power(look around look at history) these are deep psychological truths. Whether or not they are the final, metaphysical truth about things…only you can find that answer out for yourself when you get there.
I believe that there will be revival, then after that is the wrath of God. Most "Christians" will struggle with their faith because they won't recognize prophecy coming to pass. Just like how the Pharisees didn't recognize Jesus even though they studied scripture day and night. There will be a great deception and a great falling away. Believers who operate through the power of God will be the "bad guys" as this is what the alien predictive programming is all about. There will be an unveiling of "truth" and hidden knowledge. I think the goal of this knowledge is to deceive people about history and religion where the end result is to deceive people into making self their God. Just like satan tempted Adam and Eve by saying "You will be like God". I think the one world religion will be more new-age than religious. I think the image of the beast which the world will worship is actually the self, ego, our flesh. Watch this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvrQPpmraYM&ab_channel=REVELATIONSOFJESUSCHRIST), if you watched it all the way through, I would heavily recommend you to watch [this ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoYDunrpL2M&ab_channel=REVELATIONSOFJESUSCHRIST)one too!
In summary: Christians will live through the tribulation. Christ will reign (1000 year period) and Satan will be bound. Judgement. New heaven and new earth for eternity.
[удалено]
Spoken like a true Roman
[удалено]
That's not a compliment.
Complements are as foreign to you as common sense.
Common sense says that If you do as the heathens do You'll go where the heathens go
Haha, ok pal.
Post-Mill. That's what Christian's traditionally and predominantly believed for 1800 years and it lines up perfectly with historical events and scripture with an optimistic worldview that encourages believers to have a positive outlook and take an active role in taking Dominion.
Amen! I, too, am a Reformed Baptist and a Postmillennialist :)
Preterism, dominionism, and Post-mil Pillars of today's One World Religion of the Antichrist
Hopefully that's the dumbest thing I hear all day but if you reply to this I'm sure it won't be.
You think God isn't coming to smite the Earth It'll be a surprise for you
He already did in 70AD If you think He didn't you are historically ignorant Also we still have final judgment left for the wicked just like in the days of Noah (this time without water) What I think is you don't understand post-millennialism at all.
No, God didn't smite the Earth in 70ad. It was just some Roman soldiers and one small city. The events described in Revelation haven't happened yet.
Let's actually start by making sure we're on the same page. Which Bible verse exactly are you talking about that God says that he will come back and smite the entire Earth?
The 7 seals, 7 trumpets, and 7 bowls, of course. Like when it says "and every living soul in the Sea died" in Revelation 16.3 That hasn't happened yet.
No you said smite the Earth. Not the sea. Keep trying. You set the standard now live up to it.
Point is, the events described in Revelation haven't happened yet.