The Beast of Revelation (19 of 25) Dual Fulfillment Theory?

[HaveUconsidered]

So, to be consistent, Gentry must be a full (hyper) preterist since he continually reminds us that the events of Revelation are near (1:3 and 22:10).

That being the case, it must be true that the second coming,the resurrection, the great white throne judgement, the new heavens and new earth also happened back in 70 A.D. because, after all, the events are near, right?

Or is Gentry, (like dispensationalists) a partial "futurist"?

[jcr4runner]

I think you know that already.

[HaveUconsidered]

Yes, now that I've watched all the vids, I've gotten an answer. But, as I told my pastor, ironically, the partial-preterist is a victim to his suppossed greatest defence against dispensationalism; that being that the events in Rev must happen "soon" or "near". The irony is that part-prets don't believe all the events are happening soon either!!!!!

Concerning Revelation, both dispy's and part-prets believe part of Rev is past, part is still future.

You've into your the hole you dug for us.

[writerguy78]

@jcr4runner Unless you have stood upon the sand of the sea, then you will never know who the beast is.

[tonythatjesusloves]

what about the church letters at the start of the book do we still see these as being representative of church ages leading up to today ??

[thekingofcraps]

False Teachers

Satan has yet to be bound for 1000 yrs.

None of what is being taught is correct - it`s from a scholarly viewpoint.

[vbirdieb]

Rev. 10: 11 answers that question.

[johnchingford]

If John's Book of Revelation was written after the fall of Jerusalem, Ken's entire argument falls to pieces because he bases all his argument on John writing before AD70.

What do you do with the famous passage by Irenaeus, the great Church father who was alive when some of John's disciples were alive, who dates John's exile to the isle of Patmos during the reign of Domitian, over 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem.

[jcr4runner]

Didn't you just watch the video prior to this (18 of 20)??

It deals with the correct translation of what Irenaeus was writing. He didn't say the Revelation ("THAT") was seen almost in our day, but John was seen.

Essentially, Irenaeus is saying that if John knew the identity of the Beast, he didn't reveal it directly.

Christians were being killed by the Emperor, so it was not a good idea to say that the Emperor Nero (or by that time, Domitian) is the Beast.

[Saiaton]

It doesn't fall to pieces at all because pretending to be writing earlier than he is, John can make 'prophesies' to fit what he knows has happened. He produces his 'prophesy' like someone today faking a warning about Lenin or Hitler and wave it say "Wow, they knew what would happen"

But it could have deeper meaning. Domitian identified with Nero, so pretending to write in Nero's time could be like Soviet writers criticising the Tsar when everybody knows they mean Stalin but anti-Tsar always OK.

[PeterCornstalk]

If you read Gentry's book you would see that your argument does not hold water as per jcr4runner says in his reply. Also, Irenaeus was reporting others had seen John. Irenaeus also wrote that Jesus had to be 40 to 50 years old when he preached the gospel. So that was written wrong or interpreted wrong. I would not put all my eggs in Irenaeus' basket.

[jcr4runner]

We don't know what the first century Christians thought about the Beast -- or what John's disciples thought. Irenaeus was a chiliast (a premillennial futurist). He thought the Beast could be still to come.

Among the chiliasts, very early on, we find the "Nero Redivivus Legend," a popular belief that Nero would rise from the dead as the Beast.

So we know that Christians associated the Beast with Nero, but that they didn't get the audience relevance of John's letter to the seven churches.

[johnchingford]

The apostasy of the Babylonc religion by RC church continued on for about 150 years almost unchallenged. Basically the gap is based on the exile of the Jews from their land. It is interesting that fulfilment of prophecies ended soon after end of 1st century but started being fulfiilled again in the last century with the reemergence of Israel as a nation. All of a sudden things are happening very quickly again.

[johnchingford]

Shortly may simply be referring to things happening speedily rather than drawn out over a long period of time. The Babylonic mystery system was already known by the church elders as mentioned by Paul in one of his letters. He says mystery of iniquity already is working. Early church were being warned against it. Certain things were happening quickly in their time, but then the dark ages of Christianity for over a thousand years held back much of prophecy until our day

[johnchingford]

Peter said that a day is as a thousand years and that the Lord is not slow regarding His promise. We cannot state for sure that "soon or shortly" definitely referred to the 1st century. Certainly some of the prophecies were fulfilled in the 1st 2 centuries, for example the warnings to the 7 churches of Revelation. Ephesian church DID fall. Daniel was told to seal up because Jesus had not yet opened up the way of salvation. In Revelation the way of Jesus was made open to them

[johnchingford]

Ken's only back up of his argument is the statement that these things would happen shortly and that Daniel was told to seal up the vision wheras John was told to NOT seal it up. You CANNOT base your whole argument that the whole of Revelation has already been fulfilled based on that. Clearly not everything has been fulfilled. Ken even stated that an apostacy is still to happen (on one of his messages) which actually discredits his whole argument.

[johnchingford]

For example, why does he quote parts of verses or passages but not quote the part that contradicts what he is saying. For example Zechariah 12:10. If all Revelation was fulfilled in 1st century, why does most of Revelation discuss events never happened. Example the disasters in the universe, the sky rolling up like a scroll, the old earth passing away replaced by a new Earth.

[johnchingford]

The Word Of God should change our thinking. All scripture is inspired by God so is the true measure. We should never determine our doctrine based on some isolated text but compare scripture with scripture - good to use a concordance.

With this in mind we need to ask Ken Gentry some important questions

[xev1n777]

Mat 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be again.

Remember Jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple in 24:1.

So if futurism is correct than that would mean that another temple would have to be created then destroyed again then rebuilt again, for Matthew 24 to be applicable to solely the future.

[WisdomVision2002]

Some of you seem to not understand what the meaning is.

You don't always see what your not looking for......

Don't always read into scriptures literally, they can be just as true metaphorically. It's all decided within yourself.

[drnhawkins]

the Bible says that the Day of the Lord is near yet surely, this ha not come! Similarly, the kingdom of heaven was said to be near aswell. The Bible says that many antichrists have come. Matthew says that the last week of Daniel is in the future and will immediately precede the second coming of Christ.

[nymphrenic]

A lot of Revelation wasn't fulfilled though.

That is, unless you listen to this guy, who likes only reading parts of Revelation while ignoring the rest.

So are we to believe John made a flavored prophecy by adding waaaay more than needed for dramatic effect or what? Is John a comedian now?

I don't know why I keep watching these videos. I guess I'm hoping there will be a paradigm shift where I'll see what this guy sees.

[jcr4runner]

He doesn't ignore the rest. You really need to read the books by Chilton and Gentry. They cover everything.

I don't agree with every point, but the first century context is the only thing that makes sense.

[damildlyshreddah]

Would somewhat agree with Gentry on this but are we consistent? Many of the prophecies in the OT have their fulfilment in the immediate history but at the same time have a greater fulfilment the future like many prophecies about Christ.

Sure, John says these things will take pass shortly and they did but this doesn't mean that they can't point to a greater fulfilment and that is in the future. Who says that A.D 70 isn't just a shadow of the judgement that is to come?