Gary DeMar - What do "near, shortly, quickly" mean?

[GBlues1]

It depends on your point of view. Don't forget, 1,000 years to man is as 1 day to god. It is written in the bible, probably for a reason. So look at this, by our counting it's been 2,000 years since Jesus's passing. That's 2 days to god. If something happens in 2 or 3 days, did it not happen quickly? Was it not near, or shortly to happen? Well, yeah. We are on god's time table, he is not on ours. He is never late, nor does he say anything that will not come to pass.

[csdr0]

From internal evidence Revelation was written prior to 70 AD so most of the prophecies in the Book refer to the coming Local Great Tribulation in Judea as predicted by Christ in his Olivet Discourse. But the latter part of Revelation is yet unfulfilled.

[mpenaco]

Matthew 24 verses 1-34 were all fulfilled during the generation of the apostles, just as Jesus prophesied. The idea of a second future fulfilment is a dispensationalist concoction created to fit their faulty system of interpretation

[Silam81]

Reasonable enough. I do have questions that I need to answer.

Why the futurist interpretation of the Bible? Why the belief in a coming tyranny, Armageddon, etc? The idea that a bloody Armageddon is fated doesn't give me any hope at all for the future.

And there are people who seem to desire a literal Armageddon, even provoke it. Government power over our lives seems to increase. I don't mind admitting how terrifying that is. Any answers you might have would help me greatly. Thank you.

[tempusfugit68]

He flubbed again. When John recorded "behold, I come quickly" he was speaking from his present position which was 2,000 plus years ahead of 90AD. The "quick coming" has to do with when the events of Revelation begin to take place.

[jcr4runner]

The problem is that this is the first thing it says in Revelation 1:1:

"... things that must shortly come to pass ..."

This was written to seven churches in the first century, not the 21st century.

[tempusfugit68]

Yes, shortly come to pass from the time the events begin to take place.

Rev. 1:7 mentions Christ coming with clouds and every eye seeing him. That hasn't happened yet, has it?

You have to keep verse 1 in context of the rest of the chapter.

Oh, and those churches that John wrote to are churches in the future. This is why he writes to the "angels" of those churches and not the churches themselves.

[stevenbecky03]

No debating here, I am just trying to understand the difference between the two. If all the "time is at hand" verses mean just that then it seems that all of Revelation has already taken place.

OIC, I don't see Matt 24 as having a future fulfillment.

Thank you for your time!

[jcr4runner]

I'd say that all parts except those that say one thousand years in the future.

Full preterists are in an odd position of having to accept a "millennium " that lasts 40 years 30 to 70 AD.

But I am not going to debate that!

There are parts of Matthew 24 that have a future fulfillment and ALL of Matthew 25 is unfulfilled. Mathew 25 is part of the Mount Olivet Discourse too. A lot of people forget that.

[stevenbecky03]

Are you a full preterist then?

[jcr4runner]

No, in fact, I don't allow debate between full preterism and preterism here. It just confuses there issue.

Every interpreter is at least a partial preterist. Even Hal Lindsey says that Matthew 24 is about the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD -- he differences from us in that he thinks it has a FUTURE fulfillment as well.

What I am asking is for people to consistently interpret the texts, Daniel, Mt 24, Revelation, etc., and see what the texts are meant to say to the reader.