the mark of the beast

[Valerie]

Apparently I missed that last part... Why would it be thought that revelation was wrote after?

Because of it's mention of the martyrdom of Antipas, which the histories put at 92 AD- 22 years after the temple.

Those are not "histories", they are traditions passed down from one generation to another, and it may be that there were more than one Antipas. As I noted above, even the Orthodox Church in America which holds some sway over Valerie, states that he died in AD68. It is not a certainty, anymore than the being cooked in a huge brazen caldron is.

Traditions also means "teachings". There were scribes and there were historians that "recorded" history by way of writing down. The Orthodox Church has history (that agrees with Catholicism as they were not divided yet):and can give us information that's helpful. The historical Eastern Orthodox Church is not OCA who mispoke in what you found. You say there "may" have been more than one Antipas. What are the odds of two and to pass being burned alive in a bronze bowl as martyrdom? In your research you found one link from Orthodox Church of America which is a new church compared to Eastern Orthodox that appears to have made an error and what they said every other link that you look for and research that you do shows and to pass being martyred in 92 ad, even the Wikipedia article from Orthodox Church of America that you point out says he was martyred during Nero but then the date they use is 92 ad when it says tt his death date. The teaching of the Church has been he was martyred when Domition was persecuting the Church. He reigned between 81-96.

In David Bercots Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, which covers topics written by early church fathers and their writings in the first three centuries of Christianity, every statement made about the Lord's return puts it at a future date. They were not concerned about Jesus statement of quickly because they know with the Lord a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. God's timetable is much different than our human reasoning. You brought up one of the bishops of the time of the Nicene Creed but The Bishop's unanimously wrote the Nicene Creed and that they would look to the coming of the Lord as in the future- it seems there's always been someone who got this wrong as in the one who troubled the Thessalonian Church.

Remember, that apostle Paul was dealing with someone that was "troubling" the Church of Thessalonia trying to convince them that the Lord had already returned. It seems there will always be somebody making that claim until he actually does return and there will be no debate about it at that time.

[Outsider]

You also mentioned in an earlier reply, G.C., that the Jews missed Jesus coming the first time around. This is true- but it was also prophecied. "The very stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone".

There was no prophecy that anyone should miss the second coming, and "Surely the Lord God does nothing, Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets."

The nature of his coming is what has been misunderstood, and indeed, even Paul warned the people in Thessalonica, the same as Jesus did, to "watch and pray".
Jesus plainly said

Mat 24:34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 

Mat_16:28  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mar_9:1  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Luk_9:27  But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Which was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came down in power upon the Apostles.

He didn't have 2000+ years in mind when he said it.

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

BTW, there are those of the early church who did understand that Jesus came when he said he would, in the way he said he would.
Eusebius Pamphilia, who is responsible for the first know church history, written in the 4th century and who was a member of the Council of Nicea, wrote on the second coming in his treatise entitled "Theophania". Chapter 4 is most instructive.

I think your interpretation of the second coming is a Gnostic view (in that it's a special knowledge, not plain to all). And I will point out again that Christ and the Apostles both warn again and again about "secret comings". Nowhere do they warn about anyone denying his coming or "blink and you'll miss it". Rather it stresses that ALL will know- even those who unbelieve. There'll be no if, ands, or buts.

[gcdonner]

Well, there you have both finally spoken your minds on the matter and labeled me a heretic. I'm sorry that you have such high opinions of your own interpretations. I commend you to the Judge of all who will bring all things to light in their time.

[Outsider]

Well, there you have both finally spoken your minds on the matter and labeled me a heretic. I'm sorry that you have such high opinions of your own interpretations. I commend you to the Judge of all who will bring all things to light in their time.

I think you're wrong, and your particular views on the second coming are gnostic in the dictionary-definition of gnostic (relating to knowledge, especially knowledge that most people do not have: ) - not as being a member of the heretic sect of Gnosticism.

But you may work for the NSA...

[gcdonner]

Well, there you have both finally spoken your minds on the matter and labeled me a heretic. I'm sorry that you have such high opinions of your own interpretations. I commend you to the Judge of all who will bring all things to light in their time.

I think you're wrong, and your particular views on the second coming are gnostic in the dictionary-definition of gnostic (relating to knowledge, especially knowledge that most people do not have: ) - not as being a member of the heretic sect of Gnosticism.

But you may work for the NSA...

So now I understand your reasoning a little better in regards to eschatology. You can say something, but it doesn't really mean what you say, right? Or to put it more succinctly, Jesus said things, but they didn't really mean what he said.

Mat 24:32  Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 
33  So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 
34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 
35  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 

This generation in this context wasn't the same "this generation" that he and the apostles used in every other context. They didn't really mean their contemporary generation. Your argument is not with me, but with Christ himself.

If my beliefs are gnostic, that makes me a gnostic, and if gnosticism is heresy, then by extension I am a heretic. You can't have it both ways.
BTW, why is it when folks quote

2Pe 3:8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 

They always assume that it is limited to the first phrase and not the second? Just thinking out loud...

[gcdonner]

I am not optimistic that anyone will take the time to read the following study, but it is here to demonstrate that Christ and the authors of the bible used the term generation, in it's contexts consistently.

Coming with clouds002.jpg (135.74 KiB) Viewed 679 times

[Outsider]

contained errors.

[Outsider]

If my beliefs are gnostic, that makes me a gnostic, and if gnosticism is heresy, then by extension I am a heretic. You can't have it both ways.

I should have used the lower-case in my original post. Gnostic (the heresy) vs gnostic (the idea of 'hidden knowledge). You're well aware (I would assume from your extensive literacy) of what Gnosticism embraced, and are also very aware that you've posted none of the things (like Jesus being married to Mary M.) they taught. As far as I know, they didn't teach what you teach.

BTW, why is it when folks quote

2Pe 3:8  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 

They always assume that it is limited to the first phrase and not the second? Just thinking out loud...

It could be either. You've just not put forth an opinion that calls for the alternate conclusion. The days of Genesis might call for that.

[gcdonner]

contained errors.

What contained errors?
BTW, I don't believe in hidden knowledge. I believe in what Jesus taught. What history records is irrelevant, unless it fits with Jesus' teachings. The alternative is that Jesus was just what many agnostics have claimed, that he was not divine, he didn't know what he was talking about and his predictions never came to be.
We don't have the sum total of all Christian thought after the time of Christ and it may well be that those whose writings we have were ignorant of many things.
Do you accept the "historical writings" of Papias?

[As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, and said]: “The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, ‘I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.’ In like manner, [He said] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man.”13 [Testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him. And he added, saying, “Now these things are credible to believers. And Judas the traitor,” says he, “not believing, and asking, ‘How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord?’ the Lord said, ‘They shall see who shall come to them.’ These, then, are the times mentioned by the prophet Isaiah: ‘And the wolf shall lie, down with the lamb,’ etc. (Isa_11:6 ff.).”]

Does that fit your eschatology?

[Valerie]

contained errors.

What contained errors?
BTW, I don't believe in hidden knowledge. I believe in what Jesus taught.

And we believe what Jesus taught ad well.
The hidden knowledge would be the claim that He already returned. That is so hidden, that it goes against what He taught.

"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end" says the Lord who is and who was and who is to come the Almighty.,"

So we can agree on what the Lord actually said.

He did not say He already returned