Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
We all know also that if these churches were mentioned in ANY OTHER order at all, they would not be chronological and this is probably why Our Lord chose them and placed them in this order.
|
Is that true because the premise of chronology is true, or that the overlay that presumes chronology looked for and found a way to define a chronology around them? There is nothing in the text that points to a chronology. Why would you expect one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
The fact that the more well-known churches are omitted and that this particular order was given using these lesser-known churches seems to seal the deal (it does for me) that these are church ages that would come to pass.
|
Really? A fact that would have nothing to do with chronology is the reason that it must be a chronology?
This is where conspiracy theories start. The insistence that something must mean something else that there is no actual evidence in support. And even when there is evidence that it is incorrect, they claim that the evidence against it is proof of its truth.
So you believe that there has not been arrogance in knowledge and teaching prior to the onset of the Protestant movement and then the Brethren and others like them?
I find it interesting that virtually all references to Laodicea insist that it is the result of falling from Philadelphia. On what basis? Must those who claim to know everything and be spiritually rich have previously just been hanging on with a little strength? You don't think that the EO is at some level lukewarm because of its "high" position of being the "first church" or that each denomination is often similarly complacent because of their belief system. Maybe all those who simply hold to "once saved always saved" are just sliding by on their doctrine.
Besides, when you look at Thyatira, seems that the LCM could fit it well. They welcomed, even fought to retain a sexual predator as a high official in their group. So they not only fit Laodicea, but Thyatira.
That makes Thyatira last in terms of a chronological observation. A completely new group (since the early-mid 1900s) has fallen into the trap of allowing a form of Jezebel among them.
And oddly Smyrna was persecuted. And what does saying the persecution will last for 10 days mean? For a long time? For just a little while? How does this relate to the constant persecution of churches in parts of the world that continues to this day? It is clear that the persecution of the church in Asia and Europe was on and off for a long time — essentially until Constantine. So how does 10 days equal around 3 centuries? It doesn't fit with Daniel's 1 week = 7 years formula. Or the day is as a 1,000 years (unless we have a long way to go before the end times — like 8,000 more years).
The problem is that with the information provided in Rev 2 and 3, if you want to make it fit a pattern, you can probably find something to make it seem so. I therefore need more than the notions of a 19th or 20th century theologian to have dredged this out of a cauldron of ideas that does not have any more support than the claim that it is true.
It is a little like the idea that the events of this day mean the end is coming. Could be true. I intend to live as if it is. But I also note that every generation has had things to point to that seemed to fit the pattern. So maybe we are prone to see the end times in every pattern. Just like we still expect a sabre tooth tiger in every rustling of bushes. We like to find what we think we want to find.