Christian Forums

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)?

I interpret 'heavens' and 'earth' in Revelation (and elsewhere, depending on context) as symbols referring to the rulership of Israel, and the people of Israel.  Specifically, 'sun' figures the monarchy, 'moon' figures the priesthood, 'stars' figure the nobles and/or prophets, and 'earth' figures the common people of Israel.

So here, I find that a new heavens refers to a new order in the rulership of Israel - that is, Christ is King and rules 'from the heavens.'  And a 'new earth' shows a new group of people being counted as Israel - that is, the church.

I don't dismiss the possibility of a future advent of the Lord (another coming), but I don't find that Revelation speaks of anything past the end of the Bar Kochba rebellion.  It's silent on that matter.

One of the epistles states that Christ will rule until all things are subdued to Himself, and the last enemy to be defeated is death.  I find it hard to believe that all things are subdued (based on my observation of the world, not necessarily Scripture), and I do not see that death has been done away with (certainly arguable).

Part of my concern is that I don't find that Scripture teaches people will 'go to heaven,' which would seem to be required for full preterists.  Rather it seems to say that the Lord will return to the earth (to stay and rule, not to fly by and whisk people away with Him lol).

To bottom line it - I don't believe I know the future based on Scripture, but I believe I understand how most Scripture applies to the past.

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 09, 2013 - 17:09:45

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)?

I interpret 'heavens' and 'earth' in Revelation (and elsewhere, depending on context) as symbols referring to the rulership of Israel, and the people of Israel.  Specifically, 'sun' figures the monarchy, 'moon' figures the priesthood, 'stars' figure the nobles and/or prophets, and 'earth' figures the common people of Israel.

So here, I find that a new heavens refers to a new order in the rulership of Israel - that is, Christ is King and rules 'from the heavens.'  And a 'new earth' shows a new group of people being counted as Israel - that is, the church.

I don't dismiss the possibility of a future advent of the Lord (another coming), but I don't find that Revelation speaks of anything past the end of the Bar Kochba rebellion.  It's silent on that matter.

One of the epistles states that Christ will rule until all things are subdued to Himself, and the last enemy to be defeated is death.  I find it hard to believe that all things are subdued (based on my observation of the world, not necessarily Scripture), and I do not see that death has been done away with (certainly arguable).

Part of my concern is that I don't find that Scripture teaches people will 'go to heaven,' which would seem to be required for full preterists.  Rather it seems to say that the Lord will return to the earth (to stay and rule, not to fly by and whisk people away with Him lol).

To bottom line it - I don't believe I know the future based on Scripture, but I believe I understand how most Scripture applies to the past.

Jarrod

Revelation speaks on the future subjugation of death. Wouldn't it naturally infer that Revelation speaks about the future advent of the Lord then?

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Tue Apr 09, 2013 - 17:09:45

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)?

I interpret 'heavens' and 'earth' in Revelation (and elsewhere, depending on context) as symbols referring to the rulership of Israel, and the people of Israel.  Specifically, 'sun' figures the monarchy, 'moon' figures the priesthood, 'stars' figure the nobles and/or prophets, and 'earth' figures the common people of Israel.

So here, I find that a new heavens refers to a new order in the rulership of Israel - that is, Christ is King and rules 'from the heavens.'  And a 'new earth' shows a new group of people being counted as Israel - that is, the church.

I don't dismiss the possibility of a future advent of the Lord (another coming), but I don't find that Revelation speaks of anything past the end of the Bar Kochba rebellion.  It's silent on that matter.

One of the epistles states that Christ will rule until all things are subdued to Himself, and the last enemy to be defeated is death.  I find it hard to believe that all things are subdued (based on my observation of the world, not necessarily Scripture), and I do not see that death has been done away with (certainly arguable).

Part of my concern is that I don't find that Scripture teaches people will 'go to heaven,' which would seem to be required for full preterists.  Rather it seems to say that the Lord will return to the earth (to stay and rule, not to fly by and whisk people away with Him lol).

Interesting. You say you don't see in Scripture that the believer goes to heaven... do you believe all in Christ are asleep (in Hades) still awaiting the resurrection?

Quote
To bottom line it - I don't believe I know the future based on Scripture, but I believe I understand how most Scripture applies to the past.

I feel that is a good explanation of it.. I'm kind of there myself.

Quote from: LightHammer on Tue Apr 09, 2013 - 20:49:53
Revelation speaks on the future subjugation of death. Wouldn't it naturally infer that Revelation speaks about the future advent of the Lord then?

I wouldn't use the word advent.  The verses in 1Cor say that the destruction of death is the last event in Jesus' reign, after which He will... let me just quote it...

Then the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.  For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.  The last enemy [that] shall be destroyed [is] death.  1Cor 15:25-26

To me that says Jesus is has already been reigning at that point for some time, and, having completed that work, is handing the whole thing back over to the Father.

You are probably right that it speaks of the same event in Rev 20 - coming just after the 'millennium' section...

Rev 20:14    And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

In which case, I shall have to amend my prior statement about Revelation to say that I'm unsure if the end of the book extends farther than 135AD.  It only details events of the ages up through the Bar Kochba rebellion, BUT I'm unsure if Jesus reign mentioned at the end of the book, extends some (indefinite?) period of time after that (typical amil belief), or whether that is the time of the 'delivering up' mentioned in Corinthians.

I could probably argue for either one...   

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Tue Apr 09, 2013 - 21:17:09
Interesting. You say you don't see in Scripture that the believer goes to heaven... do you believe all in Christ are asleep (in Hades) still awaiting the resurrection?

Thanatology... bleh.  I'm not sure what to make of Biblical Hades.  Historically and in some of the parables, it's a place where people are conscious, which would seem to be at odds with other passages where people are deemed to be 'sleeping' in death. The epistles indicate that Jesus' has raided Hades, and the parable in Luke shows paradise as the alternative destination of believers.  Perhaps hades isn't so important.

I believe in Biblical Paradise (aka Jewish Gan Eden).  What I'm not sure of is WHEN believers get there (is it now, immediately after death, or after 'sleeping') or where exactly it is (heaven, earth). 

I generally reject theories that require God to be an alien in a spaceship flying us off into literal outer space, or positing 'heaven' as some sort of separate dimension or plane of existence (a sci-fi concept completely foreign to the Bible).

I guess I could have just written a question mark here...

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Wed Apr 10, 2013 - 16:21:57


I guess I could have just written a question mark here...

I'm glad you said it. 

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Mon Mar 18, 2013 - 02:03:54

Quote from: DaveW on Sat Mar 16, 2013 - 20:58:23

Quote from: BondServant on Sat Mar 16, 2013 - 01:46:55
Lehigh, you have just proved my first point.

You interpret the book with a preterist viewpoint and then use that interpretation as proof of preterism.  Circular logic.

He also interprets it from an extreme replacement theology viewpoint.

Doesn't replacement theology teach that the church replaced Israel as God's chosen people?

I don't see it as "replacement theology" to understand that the remnant of Israel was saved in the first century, according to the promises of God. (Is 10:22) This remnant was the church... the Israel of God.

Into this tree the gentiles were grafted, but making one new man. There was no longer a separation.. (Jew, Greek etc) but all were made one in Christ Jesus.



How did we get from this NT understanding to the belief that the modern state of Israel is God's chosen... and then there's the Christian Church??? This is the strange theology, in my mind.

Exactly right! Especially when you consider that the New Covenant supersedes the Old, since this latter is fulfilled in the former!  It would even be accurate to say that Christianity is fulfilled Judaism!

Quote from: DaveW on Thu Mar 21, 2013 - 05:34:36

QuoteThe Mosaic Age (Old Covenant; age of Law) ended with the destruction of the Temple. 

That certainly is one theory.  But it cannot be proved by scripture. Hebrews says the Mosaic covenant (written shortly before 70 ad) was "About to disappear." That could be taken as what happened at 70 but that is never confirmed in scripture.

But the passage to which you allude reads in full:

Heb 8:13

13 When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear .
NASB

Evidently, Jerusalem and the temple were still intact when that was penned.

Then Paul wrote:

2 Cor 3:9-11
9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory on account of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.
NASB

Paul basically concurs with the same idea as the writer of Hebrews did, i.e. that the Old Covenant was fading away.  It was on its way out, never to be awakened again!  The temple, being the centerpiece to the Mosaic Covenant, died its ignoble death in 70 A.D. as God poured out his wrath upon the Jews who rejected their Messiah -- the ultimate, unpardonable sin!  Biblical Judaism died along with the temple in 70 A.D.

I haven't read anything in this thread to support a post 70 date for Revelation.

Even from those who suggest a fulfilment after ad 70.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 11:35:28

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

I thought the "temple of God" in this New Covenant economy is the Church (2Cor 6:16)?  Does God have two temples -- an earthly one that has been defiled and a holy one who is inhabited by the Holy Spirit?

Quote from: Rufus on Mon Apr 15, 2013 - 20:32:46

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Fri Apr 05, 2013 - 11:35:28

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

I thought the "temple of God" in this New Covenant economy is the Church (2Cor 6:16)?  Does God have two temples -- an earthly one that has been defiled and a holy one who is inhabited by the Holy Spirit?

That's precisely the reason why I wrote "I'm not sure that this passage should be treated that literally" at the end of that post.

Jarrod

"...since Nero is never actually named..."

Actually, he was:

THE SYRIAC VERSION OF THE APOCALYPSE

Murdock Syriac (5th Century) "The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor."

Etheridge Syriac (5th Century) THE REVELATION WHICH WAS MADE UNTO JUHANON THE EVANGELIST, FROM ALOHA, IN PATHAMON THE ISLAND, WHITHER HE HAD BEEN CAST BY NERO CAESAR.

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1897_gwynn_syriac-apocalypse.html

The only "evidence" that exists for a late dating of Revelation comes from an ambiguous quote from Irenaeus, wherein he writes, "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no (sic) very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

Here is one opinion on the matter of Irenaeus's quote:

Quote
Almost universally it is assumed that it was the Revelation that was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign (AD81-96).  However the phrase "that was seen" is from a masculine verb in the original, and may refer either to John OR the Revelation.  The subject matter is John, who would have named the man whose number was 666 if it had been necessary.  So, it was JOHN who was seen as late as the last years of Domitian's reign, NOT the Revelation (see John 21:20-25).

http://rdlindsey.com/revnotes/Irenaeus.htm

Robert Young, author of Young's Analytical Concordance, presents yet another reason why the quote from Irenaeus has been improperly interpreted for so long:

Quote
"It was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou - i.e., Domitius (Nero).  Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Dimitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder.  The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the early date."

http://www.preteristcentral.com/Dating%20the%20Book%20of%20Revelation.html

Finally, to add credence to Young's view, we have Nero's given name itself:

Quote
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, the future Nero, was born on 15 December 37 in Antium, near Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero

Nero was the 6th and the last emperor of the Julian Dynasty of Roman emperors.

When the evidence is viewed objectively, there is no escaping the conclusion that Revelation was written toward the end of Nero's reign.

It makes sense that it is because the temple in Jerusalem was still standing/ there is no mention of it's destruction at all. Also Babylon (who John calls Mother of Harlots) is used by Peter to refer to Jerusalem, first century. Then, of course. the letters written to the churches in Asia indicate all these things would be fulfilled in their time as they were called to endure unto the end. Nero fits the bill.

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 12:23:06
It makes sense that it is because the temple in Jerusalem was still standing/ there is no mention of it's destruction at all. Also Babylon (who John calls Mother of Harlots) is used by Peter to refer to Jerusalem, first century. Then, of course. the letters written to the churches in Asia indicate all these things would be fulfilled in their time as they were called to endure unto the end. Nero fits the bill.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is that nowhere in the NT is the destruction of the Temple ever mentioned as a past event.  If any book or letter of the NT had been written after 70 AD, why no mention of the single-most important event to the Jew that would've at once and forever validated and vindicated Christ as a true prophet, who correctly prophesied that the Temple would be destroyed before His generation had passed?

The evidence for a late-date writing of Revelation is, at best, unreliable and, at worst, simply not there.

But if the Revelation were, indeed, written near the end of Nero's reign; after Nero had sent Vespasian to crush the Jewish rebellion; after the city had become engulfed in a violent and bloody civil war among three factions; after the 12th legion of Rome had surrounded the city then, for no apparent reason at all, abandoned its siege giving those Christians & Jews wishing to escape Jerusalem the opportunity to do so, then every prophetic verse in the Bible regarding the "time of the end" becomes clear, and harmonizes perfectly with every other "end time" prophecy.

Finally, if this is true, then there is not a single unfulfilled prophecy left anywhere in scripture and it, therefore, falls on us to understand the more problematic symbolism in NT prophecy so that we neither ignore it nor discard it because we can't understand it. 

If we begin with the true assumption that the events which John saw were "at hand", then we must rethink everything else we think we know about apostolic eschatology.  Full preterism is the only interpretive paradigm that can properly harmonize all Biblical prophecy.

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 12:23:06
It makes sense that it is because the temple in Jerusalem was still standing/ there is no mention of it's destruction at all. Also Babylon (who John calls Mother of Harlots) is used by Peter to refer to Jerusalem, first century. Then, of course. the letters written to the churches in Asia indicate all these things would be fulfilled in their time as they were called to endure unto the end. Nero fits the bill.

You are wrong on just about everything that you mentioned. 

QuoteAlso Babylon (who John calls Mother of Harlots) is used by Peter to refer to Jerusalem, first century.

This is a false statement.  No where did Peter, or any of the apostles ever even hinted that the city Jerusalem, was mystery Babylon, the great.  The only time Peter used the word Babylon was in 1 Peter 5:13, and you are assuming that he is speaking of Jerusalem, the city of the Jewish people.  There is no reason from those words of Peter to believe what you want others to believe.  Now, that is a classic example of corrupting the word of God to force an interpretation to fit a doctrine that others hold to, other than what the scriptures teach. 

QuoteNero fits the bill.

You will never be able to prove that with sound biblical exegesis~what you are doing is called: eisegesis!

QuoteNo where did Peter, or any of the apostles ever even hinted that the city Jerusalem, was mystery Babylon, the great.

John did:

10  ...'Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.' Revelation 18:10 (NASB)

21  Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer. Revelation 18:21 (NASB)

24  "And in her [Babylon] was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth." Revelation 18:24 (NASB)

Verse 24 is a direct reference to Christ's words in Matthew 23:

34  "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35  so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36  "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

37  "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38  "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! Matthew 23:34-38 (NASB)

Mystery Babylon is Jerusalem.

QuoteNero fits the bill.

QuoteYou will never be able to prove that with sound biblical exegesis~what you are doing is called: eisegesis!

9  "Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, 10  and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while. Revelation 17:9-10 (NASB)

The succession of Roman emperors (kings) is as follows:

1. Julius
2. Augustus
3. Tiberius
4. Gaius (Caligula)
5. Claudius
6. Nero
7. Galba

Nero reigned from 54 to 68 AD.  Galba reigned only about 7 months, following after Nero's death. 

Nero is the king who is, Galba is the king who - when he comes - will remain (as king) only a little while.

This places the events of Revelation "at hand" to the writer of the apocalypse (Rev.1:1-3).

The "mind with wisdom" sees this. 

For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events ... so that I can even describe the place where the Blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse — his going out, too, and his coming in— his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. - Irenaeus http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.ii.html

The ridiculousness if the question, When was the Revelation of Jesus Christ written?, is exposed by the need to reduce the testimony of the Apostolic Church to pure hearsay, thus declaring their testimony an untrustworthy lie.

Polycarp, the disciple of John, said when. Irenaeus the disciple of Polycarp documented what Polycarp said. I think we can perfectly trust the documentation of Polycarp's testimony from Irenaeus. Because when Irenaeus documented Polycarp's word on the mattter.... There were many many alive who had known Polycarp. If it was not so, it would have been widely disputed.

Having read your citation from Irenaeus several times over, I fail to see how it relates to the discussion at hand.

So are you saying their testimony is just worthless hearsay?

Quote from: Stormcrow on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 21:41:02
Having read your citation from Irenaeus several times over, I fail to see how it relates to the discussion at hand.

I was thinking the same thing.. thought I was missing something. Your point about the "gorilla in the room" is a very sound one.   

QuoteAlso Babylon (who John calls Mother of Harlots) is used by Peter to refer to Jerusalem, first century.

Quote from: Stormcrow on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 16:31:10

QuoteNo where did Peter, or any of the apostles ever even hinted that the city Jerusalem, was mystery Babylon, the great.

John did:

10  ...'Woe, woe, the great city, Babylon, the strong city! For in one hour your judgment has come.' Revelation 18:10 (NASB)

21  Then a strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "So will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer. Revelation 18:21 (NASB)

24  "And in her [Babylon] was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth." Revelation 18:24 (NASB)

Verse 24 is a direct reference to Christ's words in Matthew 23:

34  "Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35  so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36  "Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

37  "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. 38  "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! Matthew 23:34-38 (NASB)

Mystery Babylon is Jerusalem.

Thank you. Also Peter lived in Jerusalem, and he sends greetings from "Babylon".. it seems reasonable to tie these two together, especially in light of Christ's words which you have just quoted.

Quote from: Stormcrow on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 21:41:02
Having read your citation from Irenaeus several times over, I fail to see how it relates to the discussion at hand.

You know why.

The testimony....
"For I have a more vivid recollection of what occurred at that time than of recent events ... so that I can even describe the place where the Blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse — his going out, too, and his coming in— his general mode of life and personal appearance, together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures. These things, through, God's mercy which was upon me, I then listened to attentively, and treasured them up not on paper, but in my heart; and I am continually, by God's grace, revolving these things accurately in my mind. - Irenaeus http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.ii.html

...is about the character of the witnesses.

The first tenet of preterism is the early date of The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

So to do so the testimony must be discredited.

example: - http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html

"
The Late Date Theory

Those who hold to the "late date," have Revelation written during the time of Domitian Caesar (AD 95-96). This date is determined by the following statement by Irenaeus (AD 130 to AD 202), as quoted by Eusebius, the church historian, in AD 325: "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

There are things about this statement that need to be noted. First, Irenaeus did not witness this. He referred to Polycarp (who supposedly knew the apostle John). Secondly, the key part — "it is not long since it was seen" — is ambiguous. According to Irenaeus recollection, Polycarp saw "it" sometime in AD 95-96, during the last part Domitian's reign. Thirdly, we do not know if the "it" Polycarp was referring to was John, the visions he saw, the name of anti-christ, or the book itself and we do not know if he meant that the book was written at that time or not. Furthermore, it comes to us through three people separated by three centuries. Simply put, this is hear-say.

This statement, even with all of this uncertainty, is the only evidence used to support the "late date" theory. It has been accepted by generations of people without really questioning it or examining it in light of the book itself. The late date has been passed on to us in the same way it was passed on to Eusebius, "...it [was] handed down by tradition..." Tradition is not the way to interpret Scripture.

Another statement by Irenaeus seems to indicate the earlier date also. In his fifth book, he speaks as follows concerning the Apocalypse of John and the number of the name of the Antichrist: "As these things are so, and this number is found in all the approved and ancient copies." Domitian's reign was almost in his own day, but now he speaks of the Revelation being written in ancient copies. His statement at least gives some doubt as to the "vision" being seen in 95 AD which was almost in his day, and even suggests a time somewhat removed from his own day for him to consider the copies available to him as ancient. "

Does it discredit their testimony or merely question the popular interpretation of those early writings?

QuoteYou know why.

Don't presume to think you know what I know or don't know.

The citation you quoted has nothing to do with whether Irenaeus was misinterpreted, as Robert Young suggested.  Therefore, it has no place in this discussion.

Please stick to the topic and facts as presented.

Quote from: Stormcrow on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 22:53:35

QuoteYou know why.

Don't presume to think you know what I know or don't know.

The citation you quoted has nothing to do with whether Irenaeus was misinterpreted, as Robert Young suggested.  Therefore, it has no place in this discussion.

Please stick to the topic and facts as presented.

Ummmm... this is what I'm discussing the facts.

It is why I linked a preterist website.
Why I linked a preterist article.
A preterist article discussing this very topic - Why Revelation was written before 70AD

I'm sorry the "facts" I've presented are uncomfortable, but it is the facts about preterism. It is written by preterist, for preterist.

And not only is it factually correct about preterism, it is completely on topic.

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 22:29:02
Does it discredit their testimony or merely question the popular interpretation of those early writings?

The question isn't whether Irenaeus is an unreliable witness (at least as far as the quotes presented from him attest.)  It's whether people who have interpreted Irenaeus have properly understood what he wrote.

Clearly, they have not.

No one here is impugning the character of Irenaeus (at least not in the citations presented.)  Preterist sources question the interpretation of what he wrote.  There's a huge difference.

The question raised by tonka regarding preterism's alleged view of Irenaeus's character is a complete strawman as far as this discussion goes.

Quote from: Stormcrow on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 23:15:05

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 22:29:02
Does it discredit their testimony or merely question the popular interpretation of those early writings?

The question isn't whether Irenaeus is an unreliable witness (at least as far as the quotes presented from him attest.)  It's whether people who have interpreted Irenaeus have properly understood what he wrote.

Clearly, they have not.

No one here is impugning the character of Irenaeus (at least not in the citations presented.)  Preterist sources question the interpretation of what he wrote.  There's a huge difference.

The question raised by tonka regarding preterism's alleged view of Irenaeus's character is a complete strawman as far as this discussion goes.

No strawman.

Its either or.

If the preterist are right then the early church are liars.

If the early church is right then the preterist are liars.

QuoteNo strawman.

Its either or.

If the preterist are right then the early church are liars.

If the early church is right then the preterist are liars.

The earliest church was made up of the apostles and they all believed in Christ's second coming while some of them still lived!

Preterists agree with first century eschatology as believed and taught by the apostles and the earliest church of all!

Therefore, your claims are completely unfounded, and your arguments remain little more than strawmen. 

Quote from: Stormcrow on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 23:57:46

QuoteNo strawman.

Its either or.

If the preterist are right then the early church are liars.

If the early church is right then the preterist are liars.

The earliest church was made up of the apostles and they all believed in Christ's second coming while some of them still lived!

You are pointing to this:
"John21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? 21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? 22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. 23  Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"

And John did "tarry".

And John did see Him come.
"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day"

It seems John had a clue as to what happens when Christ returns.


So, how does your preterism "spiritualize" away most of the Revelation of Jesus Christ?


What? was the "new world", the Americas, the new heaven & the new earth?

The promise of the Holy Kingdom, the new creation, is just what? a mystic metaphor?

And we just evolve till we reach christ conscienceness"?

Quote from: Stormcrow on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 23:15:05

Quote from: raggthyme13 on Wed Jan 08, 2014 - 22:29:02
Does it discredit their testimony or merely question the popular interpretation of those early writings?

The question isn't whether Irenaeus is an unreliable witness (at least as far as the quotes presented from him attest.)  It's whether people who have interpreted Irenaeus have properly understood what he wrote.

Clearly, they have not.

No one here is impugning the character of Irenaeus (at least not in the citations presented.)  Preterist sources question the interpretation of what he wrote.  There's a huge difference.

My point exactly.

QuoteYou are pointing to this:

Not at all.  Go back and reread the verses I specifically cited.  As to the rest, I'm not going to engage your sophistry.  It's a pointless exercise.

QuoteOne of the epistles states that Christ will rule until all things are subdued to Himself, and the last enemy to be defeated is death. 

When in doubt, read from a literal, word-for-word translation of the Bible.  The passage you cite is here:

26  The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27  For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, "All things are put in subjection," it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 1 Corinthians 15:26-27 (NASB)

The NASB and other, modern translations, present a rather confused translation of this passage.  In verse 26, the wording "will be abolished" implies something that has yet to take place, yet in verse 27, Paul writes that "all things" (including death) have already been put under His feet!

The truth is, there is no future tense associated with Paul's assertion in verse 26:

26  εσχατος εχθρος καταργειται ο θανατος 1 Corinthians 15:26 (Wescott-Hort)

This verse literally means "last enemy destroyed is death."  Young's Literal translates it this way:

26  the last enemy is done away--death; 1 Corinthians 15:26 (YLT)

Young's Literal Translation matches perfectly the sentiment Paul expressed to Timothy:

10  and was made manifest now through the manifestation of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who indeed did abolish death, and did enlighten life and immortality through the good news, 2 Timothy 1:10 (YLT)

The abolition of death had already taken place at Christ's resurrection and this good news was already being brought to light through the gospel and the spreading of it when Paul wrote both letters.  Paul did not write one thing to Corinth and something else to Timothy.  He wrote the same thing.  However, Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15 have been translated through the lens of Futurism, which is why a future tense verb was added to them.  That word "will" is not there in the original Greek.

QuoteI find it hard to believe that all things are subdued (based on my observation of the world, not necessarily Scripture), and I do not see that death has been done away with (certainly arguable).

That's why Paul said that we need to walk by faith and not sight.  Looking at the world will sink your faith, just as Peter began to sink into the Sea of Galilee when he focused on the storm and not the one who has power over it.

The death that has been done away with is spiritual death (separation from God) brought about by Adam's sin.  Too many references to mention in this post.  Will support that assertion later.

QuotePart of my concern is that I don't find that Scripture teaches people will 'go to heaven,' which would seem to be required for full preterists.

Paul was clear on this point, too:

1  For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2  For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3  inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.

4  For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.

5  Now He who prepared us for this very purpose is God, who gave to us the Spirit as a pledge. 6  Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord— 7  for we walk by faith, not by sight— 8  we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.

9  Therefore we also have as our ambition, whether at home or absent, to be pleasing to Him. 10  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 (NASB)

Paul was clear: to be absent from this body (to die physically) was to be present with the Lord in heaven, clothed in a new, spiritual body made for eternity with Him in heaven.

That's all for now.

Here is a piece of internal evidence to add to the mix proving Revelation's early date.  I haven't seen this point brought forward yet, but it would place the year AD 67 as the latest possible time for Revelation to be written.

It involves cross-referencing between II Peter 2 and Revelation 2.  The common denominator shared between these two books' chapters is the discussion of the cult that had grown up around Simon and his consort, the ex-prostitute, Helen, from a brothel in Tyre.  (Eusebius' Church History by Maier, p. 72) 

Simon is first introduced to us as the Simon of Acts 8:9-24, who had deceived those in Samaria by his sorceries.  The licentious cult that had eventually grown up around this couple is sharply rebuked in both II Peter 2 and Revelation 2.  II Peter 2:14-15 reproves the followers of this cult who, "having eyes full of an adulteress" (Helen), are forsaking the straight way and "following the way of Balaam, the son of Bosor..."  (Balaam, we remember, was instrumental in leading the Israelites into whoredom with Moabite women and into idolatry at Baal-peor.   Numbers 31:16, 25:1-3)

Rev. 2:14-16 is a similar stinging rebuke to those in Pergamos, who had "them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication."  More than likely, Simon's consort, Helen, is the same woman scathingly labeled as "Jezebel" in Rev. 2:20-22, "...thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things offered unto idols.  And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.  Behold, I will cast her (the adulteress of II Peter 2:14) into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds."  Those in Pergamos who held to this doctrine of Balaam, as well as those who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, are told to "Repent, or else I will come unto thee QUICKLY, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth."  This was a threat of imminent punishment for those holding the doctrine of Balaam at that time.

II Peter 2:13-15 also has the same threat of imminent punishment for these same followers of the way of Balaam, "Being ABOUT TO RECEIVE the reward of unrighteousness."

This threat of a SOON-TO-COME punishment of these cult followers of Balaam's doctrine ties these two books together on the timeline of when they were written.  So, if we know when II Peter was written, we know that Revelation's date is right there with it.  And we do have internal evidence for II Peter's date.  Look at II Peter 1:14-15, "Knowing that SHORTLY I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me.  Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance."

Peter's martyrdom under Nero took place in mid-AD 67, under the same time of persecution which saw the Apostle Paul beheaded.  This links up quite well with John's statement that he was a "companion in tribulation" with his readers in Rev. 1:9.  Peter, Paul, and John were all sharing the identical period of tribulation.

Conclusion?  Just one more reason Revelation could not have been written after AD 67. 

Very interesting. I agree with an early date. However, there is no biblical evidence that Simon even had a consort, is there? Also, 2 Peter 2 speaks about false teachers, servants of corruption who "shall bring in damnable heresies" while promising liberty. These are said to have "eyes full of adultery" not "an adulteress" that cannot cease from sin. But nothing specifically is said about Simon or this woman called Helen.