Christian Forums

Quote from: Stormcrow on Fri Mar 22, 2013 - 22:49:49

QuoteThe Book of Revelation was also written at a time of persecution.
Domitian, who ruled from 81-96 A.D., made it illegal not to take part in religious ceremonies honoring 'state gods'.Christians who refused to honor Domitian as "Lord and God" were to be killed.

Except that Revelation was written under the persecution that was coming from both Nero and the Sanhedrin.  Domitius' (Nero's) reign of terror, not Domitian's.

Yes, Domitius! How possible is it to mix that up with Domitian!?

I don't see why it is so often overlooked that Neron Kesar calculates to both 666 and it's latin equivalent 616. How Nero fits the bill... That's an interesting read on it's own.

So if Nero = the beast of Revelation, then who is the false prophet?

Don't know... but it must have been someone or some group in cahoots with Nero. Possibly the Jewish leadership? Paul does say he fought with "beasts" in Ephesus and the false prophet of Revelation is referred to as another beast. Just one idea..

That's kind of a problem.  There just isn't a figure of that sort surrounding Nero.

Who do you suggest the Beast is?

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Mar 22, 2013 - 23:35:05
So if Nero = the beast of Revelation, then who is the false prophet?

He's not named in Scripture, but is likely to be a Jewish leader, high priest who sought to deceive believers . Unless, of course he was a false prophet - false messiah - to the Jews, & led them in their final rejection of the true Messiah.

Mat. 24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

What we do know is that enough information was given by Jesus & the Apostles for them to take action at the time.

Possibly someone like Elymas was to Sergius Paulus.. although he resisted his lies and sorcery.

raggthyme, you mistakenly wrote the following:
"Yes, Domitius! How possible is it to mix that up with Domitian!?"


Vespasian's second son Domitian (81-96) revived the idea of the emperor as a god, he reignited the persecution of Christians, killing his own cousin, Flavius Clemens, a consul. Domitian's persecutions coincide with the writing of Revelation, thus: the woman "drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" (Rv 17:6). Domitian's successors, from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius (96-161), maintained laws against Christianity, but did not undertake any general campaign of persecution.

Reigns of Relevant Roman Emperors

Tiberius 14-37
Nero 54-68
Vespasian 69-79
Titus 79-81
Domitian 81-96
Trajan 98-117
Marcus Aurelius 161-180
Commodus 180-192
Septimius Severus 193-211
Caracalla 211-217
Phillip the Arab 244-249
Decius 249-251
Valerian 253-260
Aurelian 270-275
Diocletian 284-305
Licinius 308-324
Constantine 306-337
Julian the Apostate 355-363
Christopher Check is Director of Development at Catholic Answers. A graduate of Rice University, for nearly two decades he served as vice president of The Rockford Institute. Before that he served for seven years as a field artillery officer in the Marine Corps, attaining the grade of captain....
more...

Hi neophyte,

What I meant is that the names could be easily mixed up, please note the following:



A popular notion concerning the dating of the book of Revelation has been AD96 or thereabouts.  The only grounds anyone has for purporting this date are a single statement, quite obscure, written by  Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cesarea .  He quoted Irenaues, who lived from AD130 to AD202. 
The bottom line is that there is some degree of uncertainty regarding what Irenaeus meant. Was it Domitian or Domitius (Nero) that Irenaeus was referring to? Where the book of Revelation is included in the Syriac versions it is referred to as "The Revelation which was made by God to John the evangelist in the island of Patmos, into which he was thrown by Nero Caesar."

At any rate, here is what Eusebius quoted:

"In this persecution [of Christians under Domitian], it is handed down by tradition, that the apostle and evangelist John, who was yet living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, indeed, in his fifth book against the heresies, ...speaks in the following manner respecting him: 'If, however, it were necessary to proclaim [the name of the Anti-Christ], ... it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation, for it is not long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign." (Eusebius, III, XVII)

Irenaues did not speak from firsthand experience, but heard this thought from Polycarp.  Polycarp allegedly knew John personally. 

Notice the statement:  "it is not long since it was seen."

The problem here is that the word "it" in the Greek could refer to the visions John saw, the book he wrote, or John himself.  He could have meant, "John, who saw the revelation, was seen," or he could have meant, "John experienced the visions," or thirdly, that "the revelation document that John wrote was seen."  And even if he was talking about the book of Revelation being seen at that time, this does not demand the book to  have been written then.  John did live until the time of Domitian. 

At any rate, it is absolutely inconclusive to say the book was written then.  We cannot tell if he meant that he saw John then, or saw the book at the time.  And we cannot tell if he meant the book was written at the time. 

Why grasp for this straw to propose that Revelation was written in AD96 ?  It's too ambiguous.  It's certainly not something to put your interpretive stocks in.  Even if tradition has ascertained that this is what Irenaeus meant, we still have no grounds for anything solid along those lines.
Irenaeus is infamous, anyhow, for error in dates and times.  He wrote a very strange and ridiculous dating for the age of Jesus Christ.  Irenaeus taught that Jesus lived to the age of 50 years.

From: Irenaeus Against Heresies

Chapter 22 is headed as follows:
"Chapter XXII.-The Thirty Aeons are Not Typified by the Fact that Christ Was Baptized in His Thirtieth Year: He Did Not Suffer in the Twelfth Month After His Baptism, But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died."
"...but they mentioned a period near His real age , whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old ..."

If Irenaeus did imply the book was written in 96 A.D., how reliable is his dating anyway? Saying Jesus died at fifty years of age is a similar type of dating error that Irenaeus proposed.

The bible is it's own best reference for interpretation.  Internal evidence -- words found in the book of Revelation, itself, prove it to be pre-AD70 in dating.
And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;   (Rev. 3:14).
Laodicea was destroyed by a mighty earthquake in 60 B.C.  It was hit again in 65 AD. 

One source says:  " It was destroyed by an earthquake (A.D. 66, or earlier) and rebuilt by Marcus Aurelius. "  Strong's Lexicon agrees.  Aurelius was not even born until 121 AD, and died in 161 A.D.  So how could there have been a church there if it was destroyed by an earthquake in the mid 60's and not rebuilt until decades later?

Also, we see the precise time of Jerusalem's destruction (3.5 years) noted in this book:
But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. (Rev 11:2).

All the pieces fit together. Read my studies concerning Jesus' statements about the Jerusalem of His day that correlate with Revelation's references to the harlot. Revelation was not written in 96 AD. It was written before 70 AD.
-MF Blume http://mikeblume.com/revdate.htm








To your comment about the woman drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, the Lord told us who that woman was. She was the great city, the mother of harlots... Jerusalem (in gospel times) who Jesus said was guilty of all the righteous blood shed upon the land.

And it appears it was Domitius, not Domitian who had part in her destruction.

raggthyme,

When you copy and paste from another website, please make sure you post a link to the source.

Thank you,
Bond

Quote from: BondServant on Mon Mar 25, 2013 - 01:32:19
raggthyme,

When you copy and paste from another website, please make sure you post a link to the source.

Thank you,
Bond

http://mikeblume.com/revdate.htm

There is a further very significant link :

QuoteIF MOST OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION IS FULFILLED...
WHAT'S THE POINT OF IT TODAY?
MF Blume
June 2003

Many have heard the past fulfillment interpretation of the book of Revelation, and reacted prematurely saying that such a thought renders Revelation irrelevant to the church of our day and to each of us as Believers. Such a response is extremely incorrect. In fact, past fulfillment causes one to realize just how much more we should be doing for the Lord because of its implications. My entire concept has changed about my life as a Christian right in the here and now as a result of this understanding!

There were nearly three decades between the Crucifixion and the first books of the New Testament and nearly eight decades between the Crucifixion and the last of them. Two generations at least were deprived of the Book of Revelation, surely one of the most critical of the books of the Bible. Many Christians already had gone to their deaths for the sake of Christ, but had never heard the words of Paul, for the simple reason that Paul had not yet written them. Indeed, at least one Christian died as a direct and intended consequence of Paul himself: Stephen. Are we then to exclude Stephen from salvation because he was unaware of Paul's writings not yet written?

All the teachings of the apostles are "traditional" teachings, not "written"—"Traditional" in the radical (root) sense of the term, from the Latin "tradere," to hand over (not "down" as so many have it—nor does the idea of "trade," also derived from that verb, enter into it implying some exchange of one sort or another), simply the passing along from one to another. The Bible is the written portion of Tradition, as is amply evidenced by John himself at the very end of his Gospel, where he says that "many other things did Jesus do and say, so many, I think, that if they were all written down the world itself would not be large enough to hold the books that would have to be written to hold them." Even taken in their most gentle sense, those words inescapably mean that in no way can the Bible be taken as the complete record of everything Jesus did, said, or taught.

Most of the beliefs and practices that Fundamentalists condemn among Catholics are rooted in Sacred Tradition, the unwritten portion; though I also must make certain that it is understood that no Tradition, however longstanding, may contradict Scripture.

Revelation is of a piece; it is not a patchwork quilt, from which we pick and choose those things that please us or which may threaten us less. Salvation and revelation are a package deal—they go together, and we accept all or none.
Answered by: Fr. Hal Stockert

Quotethe woman "drunk with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus" (Rv 17:6).

This is a reference to first century Jerusalem and its apostate priesthood, who were first to persecute the apostles of Christ.  See also Matthew 10, Matthew 23, and Acts 7-9.

I know where he got it from, covenanter.  I was asking him to source websites that he got his post from.  It's part of the forum rules.

    I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was  dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. The name written on her forehead was a mystery: Babylon the Great, the mother of prostitutes, and of the abominations of the earth. I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God's holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. (Rv 17:3-6)

As a Protestant reading those words, you couldn't help but think of the opulence of the Roman prelates in their palaces. You see the cardinals and canons in their robes of purple and scarlet celebrating  Mass at an altar glittering with jewels and holding up a golden cup. Then when you read that the "seven heads" were the seven hills on which the harlot sat, and you knew that Rome was the city of seven hills: The Roman Catholic Church was that great whore, and she had sold her soul to the disgusting, devil-worshipping pagan religions of ancient Rome.

Never mind that the writer of Revelation was actually referring to the decadent court of the Roman emperors; it is only a short hop from there to see in every manner of Catholic beliefs and practices a reenactment of the pagan religions. With only a little bit of imagination, you see that Christmas and Easter are versions of the pagan spring and winter celebrations, that the "worship" of the Blessed Virgin Mary is derived from the ancient cult of Diana, that the Eucharist is taken from Egyptian fertility rites, that the cross was the ancient Egyptian tau symbol, that baptism and the idea of the sacraments were lifted from Mithraism, and that not only was the bishop's miter part of the secret worship of Dagon the fish god of the Philistines, but the icthus fish sign of the early Christians was part of the pagan conspiracy too!

The list could go on and on. In fact, it is only limited by the imagination of those who wish to discover pagan connections to Catholicism. It's simple. As with any conspiracy theory, look hard enough, and you will find what you seek. Begin with your theory and then find the "facts" to support it. All of these "historical" connections of paganism with Catholicism can be easily refuted with a bit of research and  explanation, but instead of tackling the different particular theories, I would like to unlock the thinking behind the fable that Catholicism is rehashed paganism and show how best to counter it.

Taken in part from an article by a Catholic priest.

Quote from: BondServant on Mon Mar 25, 2013 - 01:32:19
raggthyme,

When you copy and paste from another website, please make sure you post a link to the source.

Thank you,
Bond

Sorry, I will remember to do that from now on.

Thank you raggthyme.

neophyte, I need to ask you the same thing.  Please source your material when you copy paste.

Thanks,
Bond

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 - 00:42:58
Who do you suggest the Beast is?

Simon bar Kosiba (Kochba)

Making the false prophet Rabbi Akiba.

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 02, 2013 - 17:19:19

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 - 00:42:58
Who do you suggest the Beast is?

Simon bar Kosiba (Kochba)

Making the false prophet Rabbi Akiba.

Jarrod

Is the Beast of the Earth the same as the false prophet? If not it would be that Jerusalem was the Whore of Babylon, Rome was the Beast of the Sea that she rides upon, and Simon Bar Kochba was the false prophet/Beast of the Earth?

That's where I think I'm at right now with Revelation in part.

I don't think so.  I differentiate the false prophet, believing that to be Rabbi Akiba.  Read up on Akiba if you haven't already.  He was the one who began the movement in Judaism to ostracize Christianity from Judaism entirely.

Jarrod

How could Akiva be the false prophet?  If everything wrapped up in 70 ad, Akiva would have been only 20 years old. (born 50 ad)

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 12:27:54
How could Akiva be the false prophet?  If everything wrapped up in 70 ad, Akiva would have been only 20 years old. (born 50 ad)

How does his age prevent him from being the false prophet? If I understand right it would even help the claim. If in Judaism one had to be 30 before he would be considered a legitimate prophet and/or leader and/or priest then by definition Akiva who assumed the mantle of the same before he was of legitimate age would then be illegitimate and therefore false.

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 12:27:54
How could Akiva be the false prophet?  If everything wrapped up in 70 ad, Akiva would have been only 20 years old. (born 50 ad)

I don't believe it 'wrapped' in 70AD.  I believe Revelation forecasts through the Bar Kochba rebellion... 135AD.

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 18:24:41

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 12:27:54
How could Akiva be the false prophet?  If everything wrapped up in 70 ad, Akiva would have been only 20 years old. (born 50 ad)

I don't believe it 'wrapped' in 70AD. I believe Revelation forecasts through the Bar Kochba rebellion... 135AD.

Jarrod

My interest is peaked. What do you call this eschatological view, Jarrod? And how would you reconcile it with what Jesus said in Luke 21:22 concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of Herod's temple?

This is where I really struggle... if at that time all things would be fulfilled, how could Revelation be written later, and fulfilled during the time you say?

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 19:12:00

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 18:24:41

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 12:27:54
How could Akiva be the false prophet?  If everything wrapped up in 70 ad, Akiva would have been only 20 years old. (born 50 ad)

I don't believe it 'wrapped' in 70AD. I believe Revelation forecasts through the Bar Kochba rebellion... 135AD.

Jarrod

My interest is peaked. What do you call this eschatological view, Jarrod? And how would you reconcile it with what Jesus said in Luke 21:22 concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of Herod's temple?

This is where I really struggle... if at that time all things would be fulfilled) how could Revelation be written later, and fulfilled during the time you say?

I don't have a separate name for it.

Luke 21:22    For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Luke refers to all things which were already written in his day.  The OT prophecies are all about the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem.  These are what Luke refers to here.

That doesn't mean that the things which were written AFTER Luke are included.  Revelation was written after Luke, which is the 2nd earliest gospel. 

Look at how Revelation builds on Daniel.  It is basically a continuation of the prophecy in Daniel.  It's "Here's what happens after that..."  The topic of Revelation is what happens AFTER 70AD, and leading up to the re-destruction of Jerusalem in 135.

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Apr 04, 2013 - 14:30:43

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 19:12:00

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 18:24:41

Quote from: DaveW on Wed Apr 03, 2013 - 12:27:54
How could Akiva be the false prophet?  If everything wrapped up in 70 ad, Akiva would have been only 20 years old. (born 50 ad)

I don't believe it 'wrapped' in 70AD. I believe Revelation forecasts through the Bar Kochba rebellion... 135AD.

Jarrod

My interest is peaked. What do you call this eschatological view, Jarrod? And how would you reconcile it with what Jesus said in Luke 21:22 concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of Herod's temple?

This is where I really struggle... if at that time all things would be fulfilled) how could Revelation be written later, and fulfilled during the time you say?

I don't have a separate name for it.

Luke 21:22    For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Luke refers to all things which were already written in his day.  The OT prophecies are all about the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem.  These are what Luke refers to here.

That doesn't mean that the things which were written AFTER Luke are included.  Revelation was written after Luke, which is the 2nd earliest gospel. 

Look at how Revelation builds on Daniel.  It is basically a continuation of the prophecy in Daniel.  It's "Here's what happens after that..."  The topic of Revelation is what happens AFTER 70AD, and leading up to the re-destruction of Jerusalem in 135.

Jarrod

I see what you're saying, but Luke was recording what Jesus said many years prior, right? So the "all things written" would be what was already written at the time he said it, not before Luke was written.

In this case, no NT book was written when Jesus spoke those words. But Peter, for instance, writing years later, references the destruction of ad70 saying the "elements" would melt with fervent heat etc. So we know scripture written after the fact was still fulfilled in ad70.. why not the prophecy of Revelation? Furthermore, if it were written after the destruction of Herod's temple, why is the temple still standing in the prophecy? And why no mention of the prior desolation?





Revelation 11

1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.



Isn't this the same "treading" of the city that Christ spoke of here, in reference to the ad70 destruction?


Luke 21:24

"...and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."



Daniel speaks of this time as well:

Dan 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.




It appears from this that the prophecy of Revelation is tied to the same destruction.


How would you explain this?

raggthyme13, you wrote: "and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.''

31/2 years, 42 months, 1,260 days - a short, limited period 666- The evilest one [ Nero Caesar ]

I will 'try' and explain when I get back.One of my problems is that my posts must be approved by a moderator first, so by that time your posts are way ahead in the discussion and my posts are never read in most cases.comment removed.

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 - 16:41:22
I see what you're saying, but Luke was recording what Jesus said many years prior, right? So the "all things written" would be what was already written at the time he said it, not before Luke was written.

In this case, no NT book was written when Jesus spoke those words. But Peter, for instance, writing years later, references the destruction of ad70 saying the "elements" would melt with fervent heat etc. So we know scripture written after the fact was still fulfilled in ad70.. why not the prophecy of Revelation?

We can date it as the time when Luke wrote his gospel, or the date when Jesus spoke; it doesn't really change anything.  If John is writing after both dates (and he is), then why would we apply Luke's "everything written" to it?  It wasn't written yet.

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Thu Apr 04, 2013 - 16:41:22
Furthermore, if it were written after the destruction of Herod's temple, why is the temple still standing in the prophecy? And why no mention of the prior desolation?

Revelation 11

1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Bar Kochba rebuilt the temple between 132-135AD.  Not to its former splendor, perhaps, but rebuilt it nonetheless.  He also minted his own coinage (forbidding the use of foreign currency... in fulfillment of Revelation), and put a picture of his rebuilt temple on the front of it.



So it's quite possible for the angel to go measure the temple literally (although I'm not sure that this passage should be treated that literally).

Jarrod

Jarrod, I didn't know about the rebuilt temple. That's an interesting point.

What then do you make of the fact that Jesus spoke concerning Herod's temple when he said that Jerusalem shall be trodden down (and it was for 42 months)... yet in Revelation it speaks of the temple and the treading of the holy city (and for the same amount of time)? Coincidence?

And again, if "all things written" includes Daniel, and Daniel speaks of the same 3 and a half years as the Revelation, wouldn't that mean that John didn't write new prophecy, but was unfolding what was already written?

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 12:34:44
What then do you make of the fact that Jesus spoke concerning Herod's temple when he said that Jerusalem shall be trodden down (and it was for 42 months)... yet in Revelation it speaks of the temple and the treading of the holy city (and for the same amount of time)? Coincidence?

I don't find the # of  months in Luke or Matthew, but I guess you got the number for a history somewhere?

Not so much a coincidence as a feature of Biblical prophecy.  The NT writers all believed that Scripture, even if it had been fulfilled already, had formative power on the future.  The words of God for the past, could also shape the future, and have a second (3rd, 4th, 5th...) fulfillment.  The secondary fulfillment needn't even be in the same way as the primary fulfillment.  They cite a number of OT prophecies that were already fulfilled in the author's days (else they would be false prophets), and apply them to events in their own days.

Two examples that readily come to mind are "out of Egypt I have called my Son" and "a virgin shall be with child."  The former originally referred to Israel in the exodus, but was applied to Jesus flight from Herod and subsequent return to Galilee.  The latter originally referred to Isaiah's taking of a temple virgin as his wife and fathering sons by her (all of which received prophetic names), but in the NT it is applied to Jesus virgin birth.

So it's not a coincidence  - it's a cyclical pattern.

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 12:34:44
And again, if "all things written" includes Daniel, and Daniel speaks of the same 3 and a half years as the Revelation, wouldn't that mean that John didn't write new prophecy, but was unfolding what was already written?

I believe Daniel's prophecy refers first to the events of his immediate future - to the rebuilding of the temple under Ezra and Nehemiah.  That it finds echos in the 70AD event, or that other timetables naturally fit onto the 70 weeks there doesn't surprise me, for the reasons given above.  if it also applies well to the Bar Kochba war and/or his rebuilding of the temple, again no great surprise.

Jarrod

hmmm.. ok, thanks Jarrod. I'll have to think on these things for awhile.

I'm not as good at arguing as some here. 

Sorry, I'm kind of on a tangent, I know.  I find it hard to discuss end things with people, because invariably there's something fundamentally different about the paradigm I approach Scripture from.  And when I try to explain how I approach the Bible, it seems to be kind of a show-stopper.  People just go hmmmm.... 



Jarrod

I know, it's throwin' me for a loop cos I've never encountered this view before.

I need to wrap my mind around the points you've made and think about it for a good, long while.


I will ask, you said you believe Revelation is fulfilled in the Bar Kochba Revolt, is that ALL of Revelation.. or do you separate out another coming of Christ and a New Heavens and New Earth (meaning planet and cosmos)?

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 18:57:41
I know, it's throwin' me for a loop cos I've never encountered this view before.

I need to wrap my mind around the points you've made and think about it for a good, long while.


I will ask, you said you believe Revelation is fulfilled in the Bar Kochba Revolt, is that ALL of Revelation.. or do you separate out another coming of Christ and a New Heavens and New Earth (meaning planet and cosmos)?

Don't just think. Pray for Holy Spirit to direct your thoughts.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 14:29:41

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 12:34:44
What then do you make of the fact that Jesus spoke concerning Herod's temple when he said that Jerusalem shall be trodden down (and it was for 42 months)... yet in Revelation it speaks of the temple and the treading of the holy city (and for the same amount of time)? Coincidence?

I don't find the # of  months in Luke or Matthew, but I guess you got the number for a history somewhere?

Not so much a coincidence as a feature of Biblical prophecy.  The NT writers all believed that Scripture, even if it had been fulfilled already, had formative power on the future.  The words of God for the past, could also shape the future, and have a second (3rd, 4th, 5th...) fulfillment.  The secondary fulfillment needn't even be in the same way as the primary fulfillment.  They cite a number of OT prophecies that were already fulfilled in the author's days (else they would be false prophets), and apply them to events in their own days.

Two examples that readily come to mind are "out of Egypt I have called my Son" and "a virgin shall be with child."  The former originally referred to Israel in the exodus, but was applied to Jesus flight from Herod and subsequent return to Galilee.  The latter originally referred to Isaiah's taking of a temple virgin as his wife and fathering sons by her (all of which received prophetic names), but in the NT it is applied to Jesus virgin birth.

So it's not a coincidence  - it's a cyclical pattern.

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 12:34:44
And again, if "all things written" includes Daniel, and Daniel speaks of the same 3 and a half years as the Revelation, wouldn't that mean that John didn't write new prophecy, but was unfolding what was already written?

I believe Daniel's prophecy refers first to the events of his immediate future - to the rebuilding of the temple under Ezra and Nehemiah.  That it finds echos in the 70AD event, or that other timetables naturally fit onto the 70 weeks there doesn't surprise me, for the reasons given above.  if it also applies well to the Bar Kochba war and/or his rebuilding of the temple, again no great surprise.

Jarrod

I accept that OT prophecy necessarily has an immediate fulfilment - or the warnings would not apply to the prophets' hearers. Much of Daniel's prophecy finds fulfilment in the inter-testamental years with the rise & fall of a series of empires, & specifically with Antiochus Epiphanes & his 3 1/2 year desecration of the temple.

Does that apply to the very specific prophecies like the 70 weeks? No. The 69 weeks takes us to Jesus' baptism & anointing by the Holy Spirit, with a further 7 years to run, finding fulfilment in the 3 1/2 years of Jesus' ministry, & a further 3 1/2 years of Apostolic ministry. Acts doesn't give dates, but it is reasonable to see the martyrdom of Stephen, with his Spirit-inspired declaration that the Jewish leaders are uncircumcised as the end of the 70th week. Nothing remained but the prophesied destruction.

I do not think we should consider subsequent Jewish activity as further fulfilment of the same prophecy. The 12 tribes of ethnic Israelites are counted in by the Gospel, NOT as a continuing entity to be persecuted by supposed Christians.

Rev. 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred [tribes], and tongue, and people, and nation;
10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Rom. 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

Similarities in events emphasis that we should not disregard prophetic warnings because they were fulfilled in ad 70 - but we should take warning, & repent lest we suffer a similar fate.