Television - Revelations

[ohio jones]

The most simple reason I don’t think Jesus returned is the astonishing lack of documentation of him returning. I think there would be stories recorded of it in the Bible, if not also secular.

Not to mention the Oral Tradition(s) of the One True Church(es).

[Valerie]

The most simple reason I don’t think Jesus returned is the astonishing lack of documentation of him returning. I think there would be stories recorded of it in the Bible, if not also secular.

Not to mention the Oral Tradition(s) of the One True Church(es).

Certainly if they can tell us history of Mary's parents, what became of Zacheaus, the woman at the well & her sisters & their martyrdom, and much other history, how they could have missed Jesus' return - impossible

[gcdonner]

When Christ died and the veil over the holy of holies was rent. Then it was buried with Titus's destruction of the temple.

Your response is problematic in that the book of Hebrews was written some 30 years after that even. The rending of the veil was the beginning of the NC, but not the end of the OC. The OC existed for another 40 years. God gave the OC people a full generation to hear and respond to the NC and Jesus as their Messiah.

Can you demonstrate that Jesus didn't return in the first century, "this generation" just like he said he would????

The OC existed for 40 years after Jesus death? I've never heard that before...what's your logic? Proof texts, please.

Did you read Heb 8:13 which was written more than 30 years after Jesus resurrection?

Heb 8:13  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. 

The 2 covenants existed side by side for 40 years. See also Paul's comments in Gal 4:

Gal 4:21  Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? 
22  For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 
23  But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 
24  Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 
25  For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 
26  But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. 
27  For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. 
28  Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 
29  But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 
30  Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 
31  So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free. 

This was written ca AD 55-58, more than 25 years after the cross. 2 covenants existing side by side.

[gcdonner]

Both from internal evidence in the book itself as well as external evidence from the other books dictates that the fulfillment of the book was found in the first century AD. It is better to adjust our understanding to comply with scripture than to try and force scripture to fit our imaginations.

There are actually several schools of thought on the nature of Revelations. Historicists and Preterists are only two which come to mind off the top of my head- there are more if I'm not mistaken. As I have discussed with pastors and others before- it's not something you need to understand to be in Christ's grace. I certainly haven't all knowledge of the meanings in the book. What I believe strengthens my faith, because I can see prophecies fulfilled. I assume your point of view gives you the same sense. Some things we ultimately just have to agree to disagree on.
There are of course the Futurists, such as in pre-tribulation rapture, mid-tribulation rapture, post-tribulation rapture and then there are also the A-millennialists, and the Post millennialists.

I suggest you interpret the scripture as it was intended. Are you familiar with apocalyptic language?

Well there are several schools of thought on the subject, as I noted.

2Co 4:18  While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. 

I really don't think this discussion is the context in which Paul was writing. He wasn't teaching how to interpret apocalyptic writings- he was talking about the goals of living a Christian life. [color=#004000]He was instructing his people on the seeing things from the Spiritual perspective, not the earthly/carnal perspective.[/color]

How do you see? Was Jesus speaking of physical realities or? "all the tribes of the earth, would be better translated, "tribes of the land".

If the text had been Hebrew, I would say that it could be interpreted that way. I don't know about Aramaic- but it's closely related to Hebrew so it's possible. I don't know.
The NT was primarily written in Greek and the term used in this passage could just as well, and perhaps better been translated "land" as Jesus is speaking to Jewish men, 4 of them in particular and not to a whole group. Do you know which of his disciples he was speaking to?

The book of Hebrews was written sometime in the 60s, not long before the destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem.

He did say when it would be, "in this generation". The word generation is consistently used in the NT and throughout scripture as generally being 40 years, which is the average lifespan of an adult male.

Num_14:18  The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
Num_32:13  And the LORD'S anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation, that had done evil in the sight of the LORD, was consumed.
Deu_1:35  Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers,
Deu_2:14  And the space in which we came from Kadeshbarnea, until we were come over the brook Zered, was thirty and eight years; until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host, as the LORD sware unto them.

All of the things he prophecied, except his coming, did occur. And of that, he said plainly 'I don't know.". If he didn't know, I surely don't know now.

He did warn people not to believe stories of him coming before he appeared, however.

Matthew 24
36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only."
Mark 13
32 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Time means nothing to God, but He speaks to us in time and His prophetic utterances are given time parameters so that we humans can see that He didn't lie to us through His prophets.

Some things are given time parameters. Some things aren't. Jesus' prophecies all had time parameters.

Have you read the first 3 verses of the book of Revelation?

Rev 1:1  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 
Rev 1:2  Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. 
Rev 1:3  Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
It answers point by point the verses that you quoted from Matt 24 & Mk 13.

Yes, many of the thing prophecied in Revelation occurred right after the time of John. The dragon giving the beast his power and authority after sending out a flood to destroy the remnant of the seed of the woman who descended from heaven, surely. But the timing is vague- unlike the prophecies of Daniel which gives weeks and days (which aren't really weeks and days) which work out to the exact time of Jesus.

He expected, as did Paul, Peter and the other NT writers to see the end in their own time. Peter said,

1Pe 4:7  But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. 

Because they were aware of their ignorance on the matter. If the NT writers were ignorant when they said such things as Peter did (see below), and Paul did

1Th 4:15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that
unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 

which Paul clearly included himself in the "we"

1 Thessalonians 5
[ The Day of the Lord ] But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. ...

Who is the "they"?
1Th 2:14  For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: 
1Th 2:15  Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: 
1Th 2:16  Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. 
I suggest the "they" is referring to the Jews of the OC.

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

I suggest you will find the answer to when this happened, also in the book of Hebrews:

Heb 12:26  Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 
27  And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 
28  Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 
29  For our God is a consuming fire.

 
The things that could be shaken were all the types and shadows of the OC, and they definitely were all burned up in AD 70. The things that could not be moved, he plainly declares when he says,

Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire.

God did indeed burn up all the things that pertained to the OC so that since AD 70, the only thing that has remained is the NC. There is no more OC priesthood, no more OC sacrifices, no more OC temple, no more OC city. What remains is only a crumbled remnant and this for over 2000 years now.
Go back earlier in the 12th chapter to see where we are now, and what has remained:

18  For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, 
19  And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: 
20  (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: 
21  And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) 
22  But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, 
23  To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 
24  And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. 

Was he speaking of the end of the world, or the end of all things that Jesus had predicted

I'll say the plain meaning.
The plain meaning when taken in context with the rest of scripture, not with what we have imagined.

Here is something to contemplate that was written by the author of the book to the Hebrew Christians:

Heb 8:13  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. 

The Old Covenant was about to "vanish away". When did that happen?

When Christ died and the veil over the holy of holies was rent. Then it was buried with Titus's destruction of the temple.

The NC began at the cross, but you lost your time context, there was a generation between the NC coming in and the OC vanishing away, however essentially you nailed it because when it was buried by Titus, then the OC was finished.
Just as the first generation of those who came out of Egypt ended up wandering for a whole generation until they passed away and only the next/new generation was able to enter the promised land, even though they traveled together for that whole generation, so it was in the time of Christ and the apostles. Only the new generation, ie, the NC people entered into the Kingdom of God. It was the Christians of the first century who received the kingdom (see above vs 28).

[gcdonner]

The most simple reason I don’t think Jesus returned is the astonishing lack of documentation of him returning. I think there would be stories recorded of it in the Bible, if not also secular.

Not to mention the Oral Tradition(s) of the One True Church(es).

Certainly if they can tell us history of Mary's parents, what became of Zacheaus, the woman at the well & her sisters & their martyrdom, and much other history, how they could have missed Jesus' return - impossible

There were those who told of the "second coming" of Christ, There is a book/sermon by Eusebius (recognized as the first historian of the church) in the early 300s entitled "Theophania". He clearly believed that Christ had already returned and there are other indicators from non-christian historians reporting things that were attributed to the second coming of Christ.
It is not for lack of documentation, but for lack of reading and being familiar with the history of the church.

[gcdonner]

The most simple reason I don’t think Jesus returned is the astonishing lack of documentation of him returning. I think there would be stories recorded of it in the Bible, if not also secular.

Not to mention the Oral Tradition(s) of the One True Church(es).

Certainly if they can tell us history of Mary's parents, what became of Zacheaus, the woman at the well & her sisters & their martyrdom, and much other history, how they could have missed Jesus' return - impossible

I suspect that there were in the early church many who did not read and who misunderstood scripture, just as there are today. I offer here an example of one such person who had wild imaginings rather than understanding what was actually said. Papias wrote near the end of the first century AD. This can be found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 1

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.11

IV.12
[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.).”]

[natashaasbj]

Would you consider television the "image of the beast" as foretold in Revelations? Because I do.

I have believed this since I was 18 years old- even though after a brief period of trying to convince my family and friends of this I drifted off to sleep and universalism. It was easy to do, as it has happened with the main body of the Quaker community, as I have been led to believe (perhaps wrongly?). But I'm taking myself down a "bunny trail" here.

I think the Catholic/Orthodox empires were the first beast, and the Protestant empires (in which we now live) are the second. I believe the television, movies, etc. are the "image of the beast". Look at the values it's presenting. Am I alone in thinking this?

If you have a Computer you pretty much have TV. One can watch anything they want on YouTube. Many are glued to social media in our day and time. I would not be too concerned about TV. It is way less tempting that the whole world at your fingertips in a moment.

[Valerie]

Would you consider television the "image of the beast" as foretold in Revelations? Because I do.

I have believed this since I was 18 years old- even though after a brief period of trying to convince my family and friends of this I drifted off to sleep and universalism. It was easy to do, as it has happened with the main body of the Quaker community, as I have been led to believe (perhaps wrongly?). But I'm taking myself down a "bunny trail" here.

I think the Catholic/Orthodox empires were the first beast, and the Protestant empires (in which we now live) are the second. I believe the television, movies, etc. are the "image of the beast". Look at the values it's presenting. Am I alone in thinking this?

If you have a Computer you pretty much have TV. One can watch anything they want on YouTube. Many are glued to social media in our day and time. I would not be too concerned about TV. It is way less tempting that the whole world at your fingertips in a moment.

In the beginning though- computers didn't really have entertainment though. The fact that they've evolved, doesn't seem to make them equal with tv which main purpose was to entertain. One could have received the news from radio. A computer has many benefits that have nothing to do with a desire to be entertained so is it fair to equate them?

[gcdonner]

Would you consider television the "image of the beast" as foretold in Revelations? Because I do.

I have believed this since I was 18 years old- even though after a brief period of trying to convince my family and friends of this I drifted off to sleep and universalism. It was easy to do, as it has happened with the main body of the Quaker community, as I have been led to believe (perhaps wrongly?). But I'm taking myself down a "bunny trail" here.

I think the Catholic/Orthodox empires were the first beast, and the Protestant empires (in which we now live) are the second. I believe the television, movies, etc. are the "image of the beast". Look at the values it's presenting. Am I alone in thinking this?

If you have a Computer you pretty much have TV. One can watch anything they want on YouTube. Many are glued to social media in our day and time. I would not be too concerned about TV. It is way less tempting that the whole world at your fingertips in a moment.

In the beginning though- computers didn't really have entertainment though. The fact that they've evolved, doesn't seem to make them equal with tv which main purpose was to entertain. One could have received the news from radio. A computer has many benefits that have nothing to do with a desire to be entertained so is it fair to equate them?

Yup it is. The internet has far more pervasive negative information available than the TV. I haven't had TV for 30 years, but I find that the possibility of the internet is waaaaaay higher than the TV, though anymore, TV is directly connected anyway, so they are essentially the same monster.

[Valerie]

If you have a Computer you pretty much have TV. One can watch anything they want on YouTube. Many are glued to social media in our day and time. I would not be too concerned about TV. It is way less tempting that the whole world at your fingertips in a moment.

In the beginning though- computers didn't really have entertainment though. The fact that they've evolved, doesn't seem to make them equal with tv which main purpose was to entertain. One could have received the news from radio. A computer has many benefits that have nothing to do with a desire to be entertained so is it fair to equate them?

Yup it is. The internet has far more pervasive negative information available than the TV. I haven't had TV for 30 years, but I find that the possibility of the internet is waaaaaay higher than the TV, though anymore, TV is directly connected anyway, so they are essentially the same monster.

I don't deny that, but that becomes a matter of the will. TV began for entertainment. Many Christians do without, but have pure intent with computer usage. I guess I don't see them as the same for all - even if evil is available, one could own & use for business, fellowship, learning not to be entertained. Many on Mennonet use computers but abstain from tv- seeing the difference. I'm not sure it's fair to accuse computer owners of owning a tv