Evidence for God from Science

puritan lad wrote:G-Man,

Not really a lot of substance in your post. Actually, I only gave a few verses with time frame references. There are many more. How is my case weak? What do you think these men were talking about?

As far as opposing God and using his name in vain, you'll have to be more specific?

B.W.,

You are suggesting that Jesus was speaking of the second death? In that case, what does the coming of His kingdom have to do with it? Are some going to Hell before his kingdom comes, and others afterwards? Is this what the Apostles understood? No wonder that were all mistaken about the Second coming (I've actually had people tell me that in weaker moments.)

Matthew 16:28 is vague – what death is mentioned, PL?

Was it like Stephens death?

Acts 6:5
Acts 6:10
Acts 6:15
Acts 7:55

He saw what?

Or does it refer to the second death or the first resurrection?

Where is Christ, physically ruling from Jerusalem since 70 AD, PL? History holds no hint of peace after 70 AD.

Christ supposed to rule form the church – has not happened either – can one ignore the long bloody history of infighting in the historical record? No peace…

Jesus’ meaning in Matthew 16:28 goes much deeper that Preterism allows and can apply to those martyred whose historical accounts record them seeing Christ coming in the clouds, or see Christ as Stephen did, or the second death, or their own first death and entry into heaven (many hospice accounts from staff report people seeing the angel dance, or Christ coming for them), or the first resurrection of believers where the rewards are given in a new body which has not happened yet. Maybe Jesus meant all these things?

Therefore any who heard Him, what he says would be true for them, as it was for Stephan

Luke 9:27 came before Luke 10:1 who were the Seventy?
-
-
-

B.W. wrote:Matthew 16:28 is vague – what death is mentioned, PL?

It seems pretty clear to me. Only if you hold that this is a still future event would the passage be difficult or vague. I know what the apostles would have thought, because it is reflect throughout their writings.

B.W. wrote:Was it like Stephens death?

Acts 6:5
Acts 6:10
Acts 6:15
Acts 7:55

He saw what?

So. According to Acts 7:55, Jesus standing at the right hand of God is the inauguration of the Kingdom of God? I agree.

B.W. wrote:Where is Christ, physically ruling from Jerusalem since 70 AD, PL? History holds no hint of peace after 70 AD.

Where does the Bible even say that Christ will physically rule from Jerusalem? Has he not already ascended to the throne of David (Acts 2:25-35)? Why would He give that up to come reign in some future temple (that the Bible does not mention)?

B.W. wrote:Christ supposed to rule form the church – has not happened either – can one ignore the long bloody history of infighting in the historical record? No peace…

Christ is not ruling His Church? Strange teaching indeed. I also think that your view of "peace" is more in line with John Lennon and Cat Stevens than with the Bible's view.

B.W. wrote:Jesus’ meaning in Matthew 16:28 goes much deeper that Preterism allows and can apply to those martyred whose historical accounts record them seeing Christ coming in the clouds, or see Christ as Stephen did, or the second death, or their own first death and entry into heaven (many hospice accounts from staff report people seeing the angel dance, or Christ coming for them), or the first resurrection of believers where the rewards are given in a new body which has not happened yet. Maybe Jesus meant all these things?

Therefore any who heard Him, what he says would be true for them, as it was for Stephan

Luke 9:27 came before Luke 10:1 who were the Seventy?

I disagree with the event, but at least we can agree that these passages do not refer to the Second Advent. That's a good start. What about the other passages that haven't been touched yet. Seems to me that, taken together, they demand a first century kingdom of some sort.

jlay,

You didn't answer my first question, so I'll ask again. What reward was given according to each of their works at the transfiguration (Matthew 16:27)?

I'm not ignoring context, but I think it is a stretch to suggest that Jesus is promising that some of his disciples would not die within the next 6 days.

Your exegesis of Matthew 26:64 is quite selective, questionable, and irrelevant. Whether they are singular or plural matters not, because words are 2nd person, not 3rd. No matter how you slice it, Jesus was either addressing the high priest directly, or those who accompanied the high priest.

No, I'm not a full preterist. However, you may want to do some study on the subject before commenting further (just a suggestion). Consider Isaiah 19:1 and it's subsequent fulfillment in Isaiah 20:1-4, and you may get a little insight into Matt. 24:30-31. Many still insist on this being the second advent, but Matthew 24:34 is a big (and I would suggest, insurmountable) obstacle to this interpretation.

What evidence do you have as to Caiphas living in 70 A.D.? It would certainly be a strong evidence for preterism.

That isn't an exegesis. It is simply noting the personal pronouns. Are you saying that this is wrong?

Haven't studied the history of Caiaphas, but he's more likely to have been living in 70 Ad then he is now. Anyway, you missed the point. Even if you is plural, he was still addressing a first century audience.

puritan lad wrote:Haven't studied the history of Caiaphas, but he's more likely to have been living in 70 Ad then he is now. Anyway, you missed the point. Even if you is plural, he was still addressing a first century audience.

Sure. But was Jesus mistaken? If Caiaphis was dead, and likely others ther were also dead in 70 A.D., then they did not see. And if they did see the destruction of the temple, did they see Jesus coming? By what means do you equate the destruction of the temple to Jesus coming in the clouds?
As I see it, preterist are using literal events to defend their position. Events I really have no qualm with. Persecution-literal. Fleeing Jerusalem- literal.
Then suddenly we jump to a mystical fulfillment?

puritan lad wrote:G-Man,

Not really a lot of substance in your post.

Likewise...

puritan lad wrote:Actually, I only gave a few verses with time frame references. There are many more. How is my case weak? What do you think these men were talking about?

What do you think these verses are implying? Who's time are you talking about?

puritan lad wrote:As far as opposing God and using his name in vain, you'll have to be more specific?

I don't know.. You are the one asking if G-d can tell time.. Can He or can't He?

jlay wrote:As I see it, preterist are using literal events to defend their position. Events I really have no qualm with. Persecution-literal. Fleeing Jerusalem- literal.
Then suddenly we jump to a mystical fulfillment?

Not at all. I guess we are focusing on the Olivet Discourse now, though the list I gave much broader. What portion of Matthew 24 do you hold was not literally fulfilled?

GMan wrote:What do you think these verses are implying? Who's time are you talking about?

We are talking about the time frame references throughout Scripture, specifically given to the early church. Did these events happen when God said that they would?

GMan wrote:I don't know.. You are the one asking if G-d can tell time.. Can He or can't He?

I hold that He can. It is the futurists that have some 'splainin' to do.

You still haven't showed where I took his name in vain,

This is my opinion on What the church taught.

Only with a possible exception of Clement, no one in the first 400 years of church history had a clue that the Book of Revelation had been written during Nero’s reign. Nor did anyone see the fall of Jerusalem as a fulfillment of this book. The early church's view was that the tribulation, rapture and the coming anti-Christ were future.

John was exiled on Patmos under Domitian (9)
Irenaeus (115-202) – Against Heresies, bk. V, Ch. 30
Hegesippus (~150) – Church History, bk. III, ch. 17-18
Apocryphal (150-200) – Acts of John
Hippolytus (170-236) – On Christ and Antichrist, 36
Victorinus (?-303) – Commentary on the Apocalypse, ch. 10 and 17
Eusebius (265-340) – Church History, bk. III, ch. 17-18 and 23; bk. V, ch. 8
Pseudo-Hippolytus (300's) – On the Apostles and Disciples, On the twelve apostles, 3
Jerome (342-420) – Against Jovinianus, bk. I, 26; De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), ch. 9
Sulpitius Severus (363-420) – Sacred History, bk. II, ch. 31

John’s exile with questions left
Clement of Alexandria (150-220) – (Tyrant - Domitian??) Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?, XLII (see Eusebius, Church History, bk. III, ch. 23), but also see Stormata or Miscellanies, bk. VII, ch. XVII and bk.

He does indicate in “Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?” that Christ’s visible return is future:
“Let one believe these things, and the disciples of God, and God, who is surety, the Prophecies, the Gospels, the Apostolic words; living in accordance with them, and lending his ears, and practicing the deeds, he shall at his decease see the end and demonstration of the truths taught. FOR HE WHO IN THIS WORLD WELCOMES THE ANGEL OF PENITENCE will not repent at the time that he leaves the body, NOR BE ASHAMED WHEN HE SEES THE SAVIOUR APPROACHING IN HIS GLORY AND WITH HIS ARMY. He fears not the fire.”

Tertullian (160-225) – The Prescription against Heretics, ch. 36

Antichrist and/or the Tribulation are Future (23)
Epistle of Barnabas (~130-131) – Chapter 15
Justin Martyr (100-165) – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 110
Irenaeus (115-202) – Against Heresies, bk. V, Ch. 25, 28 and 30
Hermas (~160) – The Pastor or The Shepherd, bk. I, vision 4
Tertullian (160-225) – The Prescription against Heretics, ch. 4
Hippolytus (170-236) – On Christ and Antichrist
Origen (185-253) – Contra Celsus, bk. VI, ch. 45-46, 79
Cyprian (?-258) – Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle 54, sect. 19; Epistle 55, sect. 1, 7
Commodianus (~250) – On Christian Discipline, XLIV, LXXX
Victorinus (?-303) – Commentary on the Apocalypse, ch. 6.5, 7.2, 9.13-14, 13.13, 20.1-3
Rufinus (written 307-309) – Commentary of the Apostle's Creed, sect. 34
Lactantius (240?-320?) – Divine Institutes, Book VII (Of a Happy Life), ch. 19
Alexander of Alexandria (?-326) – Epistles of Arianism, 2.1
Athanasius (296-373) – History of the Arians, Part VIII, sect. 70-71, 78, 80
Pseudo-Hippolytus (300's) – On the End of the World, ch. 21, 25
Cyril (315-386) – Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 15, sect. 9-12, 17-18, 33
Gregory Nazianzen (325-389) – Orations, Oration 21, sect. 21
Gregory of Nyssa (330-394) – Against Eunomius, bk. XI, sect. 4
Ambrose (340-397) – On the Holy Spirit, bk. 1, ch. 13, sect. 155
John Chrysostom (374-407) – Homily 4 on second Thessalonians
Sulpitius Severus (363-420) – Sacred History, bk. 2, ch. 7, 28, 33
St. Augustine (354-430) – City of God, bk. XVIII, ch. 53 and bk. XXI, ch. 26
John Cassian (c. 360-c. 435) – Conferences, Conference 8, ch. 4

Students of John
Some claim that John was really banished under Nero and that Irenaeus got the name wrong. Nero ruled form 54 until his death in 68 A.D., so John would have been banished to Patmos in A.D. 68 and released that same year (the fourteenth year).

Polycarp was a hearer of John and was born by about 69 A.D. Papias was a companion of Polycarp and was also a hearer of John. He may have been born a couple of years earlier. It only makes sense that to be hearers/students of John, that they would have been at least teenagers or in their twenties. Tertullian states that the register in Smyrna has John ordaining Polycarp as bishop (The Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 32). This of course would conflict with the timing of John’s death, if Nero was the Emperor in question. If John died within 5 years of Nero’s death, the two students would have only been about 4-7 yrs. old. In other words John would have had to live long after Nero in order to have these two as students. Church tradition says that John died not long after his release from Patmos.

Since Irenaeus has John dying within a few years of the death of Domitian and Clement of Alexandria has John a very old man after the death of “the tyrant,” it seems much more reasonable that both spoke of Domitian. This makes both hearers around thirty years old when John died. This gives them plenty of time to hear the teachings of John.

Irenaeus has John dying in the early part of Trajan’s reign (98-117), probably by the year 100 (A. H. Bk. II, ch. 22. 5).

dayage,

Sort of a different subject matter, but this is related. You have listed a ton of alleged resources. Can you give some exact quotes? In previous discussions, I have seen similar lists, but those who post the lists either take quotes out of context, or else reference Irenaeus as the soruce of their information.

In particular, I'd like to see the alleged quotes concerning the late date of Revelation. You list 9 sources. I have done an in depth study of early church eschatology, and have not found this many references to the date of Revelation. I can't imagine that I would have missed so many, but it's possible. I would like to see your quotes.

Also, remember any later father who references Irenaeus, either directly or indirectly, cannot be considered a separate source. I hold that Irenaeus is the only late date source, so I will need to see otherwise.

As far as the timing of the Great Tribulation goes, Jesus clear stated that it would happen within the Apostles' generation. Surely that would take precedence over any number of church fathers.

Haven't studied the history of Caiaphas, but he's more likely to have been living in 70 Ad then he is now. Anyway, you missed the point. Even if you is plural, he was still addressing a first century audience.

Sorry, was wanting to rehash this a while back but haven't had time.

Your exegesis of Matthew 26:64 is quite selective, questionable, and irrelevant. Whether they are singular or plural matters not, because words are 2nd person, not 3rd. No matter how you slice it, Jesus was either addressing the high priest directly, or those who accompanied the high priest.

I'm trying to understand how singular and plural doesn't matter. It does matter. Especially when one studies prophecy. For example, Moses said to the Israelites in Deut 18:15-19. “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, or I will die.’ 17 The LORD said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up a prophet from among their [l]countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 It shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him.

According to Luke, this was fulfilled 1,500 years later by Jesus. Acts 3: 20-26 and again in Acts 7:37. Jesus was the prophet like Moses. 1st century Jews, knowing these scriptures were not saying that this propechy was fulfilled to the contemporaries of Moses. They were not calling Moses a false prophet. No, in fact, the Jews were looking for a Messiah based on this and other prophecies. So to say, "This generation," or, "You," must require the events to occur within the life spans of those hearing this, doesn't comply with traditional prophecy.

Not following you at all on Isaiah 19

Many still insist on this being the second advent, but Matthew 24:34 is a big (and I would suggest, insurmountable) obstacle to this interpretation.

i agree it's not the 2nd advent, but that only creates another glitch in the partial preterist's doctrine. Does "All these things" mean, "all these things?"

You didn't answer my first question, so I'll ask again. What reward was given according to each of their works at the transfiguration (Matthew 16:27)?

I'm not ignoring context, but I think it is a stretch to suggest that Jesus is promising that some of his disciples would not die within the next 6 days.

It doesn't have to be six days. The trans was a foretaste of what at least one of those would see (eido). That being the son of man coming and rewarding. In fact we know that one present did see, and wrote down the revelation of what he saw.

Puritan,

I tried to give as exact a location, for each father, as the sources would allow. Here are the two sights that you can find the context. Some can only be found at ccel, but most are at New Advent. New advent is easier to navigate. If you go to the source of each quote, you can do a (Ctrl F) and do a word search on the page. That should make it easy. Tertullian refering to the ordaining of Polycarp is definitely not a quote from Irenaeus. I'll just report, you decide.
A more exact location for Victorinus (?-303) – Commentary on the Apocalypse, ch. 10.11 and 17.10

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Upon review, ignore Hegesippus.

Puritan,

If the Tribulation took place then, then Christ has already returned. Why did the earlier church (and everyone else) not know that these things had occured?

puritan lad wrote: We are talking about the time frame references throughout Scripture, specifically given to the early church. Did these events happen when God said that they would?

Whose time clock are you referring to? G-d's or man's

puritan lad wrote:I hold that He can. It is the futurists that have some 'splainin' to do.

You still haven't showed where I took his name in vain,

Can G-d tell time?