Page 4 of 10

Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:03 am
by puritan lad
Kokujin wrote:Now, why would the tribulation occure BEFORE revelation was written? Revelation was written sometime between 90 AD and 96 AD. Even as the book starts "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to his bond-servants, the things which must soon take place" (Revelation 1:1) Why would the bible depict a great tribulation that must "soon take place" when it has already happend?

I'm sorry if I sound abrupt, but the bible is pretty much clearly as day telling me that Tribulation is to take place after 90 AD. Now, don't get me wrong. I have no wish to engage in a "personal name-calling match", It just seems to me that the answers are clearly written out here...
Kokujin,

That is a common myth that Revelation was written during Domitian's reign in 96 AD. However, I will provide overwhelming evidence that it was written much earlier, probably around 66 AD.

External Evidence

I.) The Syriac History of John, the Son of Zebedee makes reference to John's banishment under Nero, who reigned from 54 to 68 AD. It states:

“After these things, when the Gospel was increasing by the hands of the Apostles, Nero, the unclean and impure and wicked king, heard all that had happened at Ephesus. And he sent and took all that the procurator had and imprisoned him; and laid hold of St. John and drove him into
exile; and passed sentence on the city that it should be laid waste.”


Elsewhere in the Syriac tradition, we should note that both of the Syriac Versions of the Revelation give in the title the statement that John was banished by Nero. Their titles say.- “The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar.“ Since John was banished to Patmos by Nero, and Nero died in 68 AD, then Revelation was written prior to 68 AD.

II.) The Muratorian Canon states “…for the blessed apostle Paul himself, following the order of his predecessor John, he wrote to only seven churches by name, in the following order…”. Paul was killed in 68 AD by Nero. Since Paul copied John's example of writing to 7 churches, then John wrote Revelation prior to 68 AD.

III.) In his work Against Jovinianum (1:26), Jerome states, “But if thou art near to Italy, thou hast Rome, where we also have an authority close at hand. What an happy Church is that, on which the Apostles poured out all their doctrine, with their blood: where Peter had a like Passion with the Lord; where Paul bath for his crown the same death with John; where the Apostle John was plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and was afterwards banished to an island.”

It is almost universally accepted that Peter and Paul were murdered by Nero. Jerome places John's banishment in the same time period (as do many other church fathers).

IV.) In Quis Salvus Dives (Section 42), Clement of Alexander writes,

”… a true account of John the apostle that has been handed down and preserved in memory. When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of' Patmos to Ephesus,”

The fact that Clement does not identify “the tyrant” suggests that it was probably Nero, not Domitian. Nero was universally feared and despised, and his name became the household word for anything evil.

Internal Evidence

I.) Revelation was written during the reign of the 6th Roman Emperor (Nero)

Revelation 17:10
“There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.”

1. 69 B.C. - 44 A.D. Julius Caesar
2. 31 B.C. - 14 A.D. Augustus Caesar
3. 14 A.D. - 37 A.D. Tiberius Caesar
4. 37 A.D. - 41 A.D. Gaius (Caligula)
5. 41 A.D. - 54 A.D. Claudius
6. 54 A.D. - 68 A.D. Nero Caesar

The Seventh king was Galba, who was killed in office after only 6 months.

II.) Revelation was written during a time of great persecution of the Church

Revelation 2:10
”Do not fear any of those things which you are about to suffer. Indeed, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and you will have tribulation ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.”

III.) Revelation was written while the temple was still standing in Jerusalem, before the Romans destroyed the holy city.

Revelation 11:1-2
”Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.”

IV.) Revelation was written while there were still other apostles alive.

Revelation 2:2
”I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars;”

V.) There is a lot more internal evidence, such as Judaists in the church and the state of the churches themselves. For more information, read "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry.

Evidence for a late date?

The only evidence for the 95 AD date is a vague statement made by Irenæus, the second century bishop of Lyons. In his book "Against Heresies", 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 not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.” — Against Heresies Book V, Chapter 30, Verse 3 (Domitian reigned from 81 to 96 AD).

Irenæus's statement is quite vague. He's not real clear on exactly what was seen “towards the end of Domitian's reign.” However, even if we allow for the understanding that John saw the vision during Domitian's reign, Irenæus remains a questionable source at best. In this same book,
he wrote that Jesus had an earthly ministry of 15 years and live to be almost 50 years old.

“For how had He disciples, if He did not teach? And how did He teach, if He had not a Master's age? For He came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old; (for so Luke, who hath signified His years, hath set it down; Now Jesus,
when He came to Baptism, began to be about thirty years old:) and He preached for one year only after His Baptism: completing His thirtieth year He suffered, while He was still young, and not yet come to riper age. But the age of 30 years is the first of a young man's mind, and that it
reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness…”
— Against Heresies Book II, Chapter 22, Verse 5

Irenæus was a great Christian and church father, but was a poor historian. Those who continue to hold to the late date based on Irenæus's statement do so out of theological desperation, not sound historical research.

There are other church fathers, such as Victorious and Eusebius, who also hold to this late date. However, they clearly use Irenæus as the source for their belief.

“Irenæus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him:” Eusebius — History of the Church Book III, Chapter 18, Verse 5

In fact, Eusebius, in his work “Evangelical Demonstrations”, contradicts this belief, placing John's banishment under Nero.

Conclusion

When the evidence is weighed, both internally and externally, it clearly supports the Neronic date. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the Book of Revelation itself that would lead one to suggest a late date. This fact is crucial considering that John was writing to the First Century Churches of Asia Minor regarding “things which must shortly take place” (Rev. 1:1), were “near” (Rev. 1:3), and were “about to take place” (Rev. 1:19).

Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:35 am
by waynes world
Theres one problem here: Revelation had to have been written later than 70 ad because John was quite a bit younger than most of the other disciples. Also we think John lived a bit longer than the rest and he wrote Revelation later in life. I think he was boiled in oil around 70ad but survived and lived a few years later. Therefore no 70ad resurection. Israel didn't become a nation until 1948. It was driven out of its land in 70ad. None of the plagues could have happened in 70ad. Exekiel talks about Israel returning to its homeland first and then the plagues will start. Remember that the plagues were meant for Israel to draw them to believe in Christ as their savior. How could that be possible if Israel were scattered. Revelation was probably written later than 90ad, 96 ad is accepted by most evangel scholars. Also a generation in Matt24 lasts 70 years not 40. Add 30 plus 70 and you get 100ad, not 70 ad, so any early date would have to be 100ad and not 70ad. That idea just isn't biblical. Revelation 18:4 says we believers will not suffer the plagues. Therefore the rapture happens first and then the trubulation. If anyone should have been the beast it would have been Hitler because there were many more lives lost and especially his hatered for the Jews. But again Israel wasn't a nation yet. That is what Jesus meant by the fig tree.

Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:59 am
by puritan lad
Ah, this is much better Wayne. Substance. Now let me address the substance.
waynes world wrote:Theres one problem here: Revelation had to have been written later than 70 ad because John was quite a bit younger than most of the other disciples. Also we think John lived a bit longer than the rest and he wrote Revelation later in life. I think he was boiled in oil around 70ad but survived and lived a few years later.
Why could John not have written Revelation as a younger man? Remember, John was already an adult during Jesus' ministry. What makes you say that he wrote Revelation later in life? Some church fathers write about John chasing down an apostate young man on horseback after his release from Patmos. Hard to imagine a 90 year old man doing that, though it is possible.
waynes world wrote:Therefore no 70ad resurection.
No one said that there was.
waynes world wrote:Israel didn't become a nation until 1948. It was driven out of its land in 70ad.
What were they prior to 70 AD?
waynes world wrote:None of the plagues could have happened in 70ad.
Which ones?
waynes world wrote:Exekiel talks about Israel returning to its homeland first and then the plagues will start.
Ezekiel's prophecy was fulfilled after the Babylonian exile.
waynes world wrote:Remember that the plagues were meant for Israel to draw them to believe in Christ as their savior. How could that be possible if Israel were scattered.
Says who?
waynes world wrote:Revelation was probably written later than 90ad, 96 ad is accepted by most evangel scholars. Also a generation in Matt24 lasts 70 years not 40. Add 30 plus 70 and you get 100ad, not 70 ad, so any early date would have to be 100ad and not 70ad.
What will you do with the temple that John in supposed to measure? How about the 6th king?
waynes world wrote:That idea just isn't biblical. Revelation 18:4 says we believers will not suffer the plagues. Therefore the rapture happens first and then the trubulation.
Rev. 18:4 says nothing about a rapture. It is a commandment to God's people (Christians) to leave Israel before God detroys it. (See also Luke 21:20-24).
waynes world wrote:If anyone should have been the beast it would have been Hitler because there were many more lives lost and especially his hatered for the Jews. But again Israel wasn't a nation yet. That is what Jesus meant by the fig tree.
The fig tree say nothing about a rebirth of Israel. The fig tree already has leaves in the parable, but no fruit. Jesus cursed the fig tree so that it would never bear fruit again. The kingdom was taken from them and given to His church.

Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:32 pm
by Kokujin
Well, puruitan lad, as much "evidence" you have come up with (which is questionable) your way of answering me seems blunt. I just can't accept that almost EVERY figure and action in Revelation isn't supposed to be taken literal (ie: The two prophets). Your ideas are going around what the bible says specificaly, and just interpreting it in a diffrent (and strange) way. I mean, the bible Clearly states these things

- Tribulation will begin the end
- Jesus will come back after tribulation (with suggestion of soon after if not right after)
- When the end comes, everyone will know and the announcment can be made (read Rev. 11:15-19)
- Revelations is CLEARLY a book written to depict the END OF TIMES for the entire Earth! If the tribulation only pertained to the "70 AD" idea, then why does it describe entire nations being angry? Your ideas just dont make sense.

Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:55 pm
by waynes world
They really don't I agree! I would think there would have been a lot written about the plagues had happened. The old testiment clearly states that Israel had to return to its homeland before any tribulation starts. The exact opposite happened. The date of 95 ad is the date most scholars accept for the book of Revelation and that wipes out the 70ad date right there. Plus like you said the dates in Matt 24 cannot be taken as literal for generation and thats the stumbling block here. I would suggest that Revelation 18 verse 4 says we will not go through any of the plauges that Jesus talked. And the resurection must take place. Otherwise Paul (and Jesus) are lying! and we're dead in our sins. The Corinthians believed the rapture had already happened too and were corrected for that.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:13 am
by puritan lad
Kokujin wrote: I just can't accept that almost EVERY figure and action in Revelation isn't supposed to be taken literal (ie: The two prophets).
This is a common objection by futurists, but they really don't believe this. (No one believes in a literal beast with literally seven heads and literally 10 horns literally rising out of a literal sea). Despite the dispensational claims of "literalism", they still manage to find prophecies in Revelation about computer chips, Soviet missiles, killer bees, space travel, etc.

The book of Revelation is full of symbolism, which almost everyone agrees with. The question before us, therefore, isn't one of "symbolism" vs. "literalism", but rather how to interpret the symbols. Do interpret them with other scriptures, or with the New York Times and a lot of guesswork? Unfortunately, most have chosen the latter, which means that they are always having to rewrite their entire theology to match the latest headlines. Remember the Soviet Union, which was supposed to be Gog and Magog, that great enemy from the north? What happened to them?

If we use the Old Testament to interpret Revelation, then it becomes clear. We don't have to guess at who he beast is. Daniel 7 tells us very clearly. Same with the great whore (Isaiah 1:21, Ez. 16 and 23), the "two witnesses" (Zech. 14), and many others.
Kokujin wrote:- Tribulation will begin the end.
The end of what? The "end of the age", of Old Covenant Judaism. He causes sacrifices to cease.
Kokujin wrote:- Jesus will come back after tribulation (with suggestion of soon after if not right after).
Jesus came (not literally) in judgment against Jerusalem (See the parable of the wicked vinedressers in Matthew 21.)
Kokujin wrote:- When the end comes, everyone will know and the announcment can be made (read Rev. 11:15-19)
.
The end of what? You are ignoring the temple in chapter 19. It is not a future temple (which the Bible is silent about), but the temple which was still standing in Jerusalem (See verses 1,2,8).
Kokujin wrote:- Revelations is CLEARLY a book written to depict the END OF TIMES for the entire Earth! If the tribulation only pertained to the "70 AD" idea, then why does it describe entire nations being angry? Your ideas just dont make sense.
Correction - Revelations is CLEARLY a book written to depict the END OF TIMES for the entire "land" (ge). The "land" represents Israel throughout the Bible.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:33 am
by LittleShepherd
Remember the Soviet Union, which was supposed to be Gog and Magog, that great enemy from the north? What happened to them?
Well, it's a bit broken up compared to what it used to be, but a huge chunk of the area's still called Russia, and I don't know all the smaller breakaway country names, so I'm just going to stick with the name we all know.

There's a sizable chunk of Russia in eastern Europe that's highly Islamic. Also, Russia has begun dealing with nearby Muslim countries recently. These areas have never made a cooperative attack on Israel, so the prophecy that mentions most Muslim areas and what we believe to be Russia(or a portion of Russia) coming against Israel, only to have their armies struck down without harming any Israelites hasn't been fulfilled.

Of course, that prophecied attack may or may not have anything to do with the Tribulation or the End Times(depends on who you ask), but you asked about Russia so there you go.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:34 am
by waynes world
The end of the world thats what! The world didn't end in 70ad it kept on going. Gods dealings will be with Israel thats why the resurection has to be a future event not something in any past. You sound like you don't have much hope in your life and you are not offering much hope at all to believers. Is Paul lying when he talks about the blessed hope in Titus 3:7? Thats the rapture and it has to come first. It couldn't have happened in 70ad because there was no Israel but the tribes were all scattered in 70ad not brought together. The preterist idea just isn't biblical.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:47 am
by puritan lad
Little Shepherd,

The prophecy pundits of the 1980's were convinced that the Soviet Union was Gog and Magog (not just Russia). Point is, they were wrong. Any theology that has to keep rewriting it's theories every 10 years just to match the current headlines is superficial at best (Not to mention that Russia is never mentioned in the Bible.)

Wayne, you obviously know next to nothing about the preterist view, so let me fill you in (again).

We do believe that the resurrection is a future event. (There are some heretical "hyper-preterists" who say otherwise, but they are the small minority.) The resurrection (not the rapture) is our blessed hope. We believe that the Great Tribulation is a past event (because Jesus said so). We do not believe that the "rapture" took place in 70 AD. We don't believe in it at all.

What do you mean that there was no Israel in 70 AD? Who did the Romans destroy? God is not going to be dealing with "Israel after the flesh" because He cursed the fig tree, so that it would never bear fruit again. The church is the true Israel. Christ rejecting Jews in the Middle East are not the seed of Abraham, but are of their father the Devil (John 8:44)

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:59 am
by August
Is Paul lying when he talks about the blessed hope in Titus 3:7? Thats the rapture and it has to come first.
Sorry, I just don't see how you arrive at that conclusion.

Titus 3:7 (KJV)
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The hope described there is the hope that we get as a result of grace, and that gives us the way to eternal life. Please provide your exegesis that shows this to be related to the rapture.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:41 pm
by Kokujin
Well, as far as what I know and by what I have believed in so far, it doesn't seem to be unrealistic. I mean, look at hurrican rita

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

I'm sure its on the front page. Already Catagory 5! Katrina was thought of as an end of ultimate hurricanes for a while, but no. This one comes along and will probably do some serious damage. Even scientifically, our Earth is coming to an end. I read an article a while ago (way before katrina) saying that at the rate things are going, we would have some CRAZY hurricanes 50 years from now of unrealistic proportions. Siberia is thawing out releasing uncanny amounts of green-house gases into the air (and this is a recent development) Oil is becoming a problem for everyone, imagin what kind of wars could be started because of oil. I mean, virtually every country absolutly NEEDS oil. Especially major export and population countries like China. All this, plus the whole terrorist events? It sounds like things are going to crash hard soon wether it be the end of the world or not. But from what the bible says (soley on what is depicted in Revelations, not what I have heard about "computer chips, Soviet missiles, killer bees, space travel, etc." Things are going as planned. As far as symbolism, I think that because of how the information was presented to the writter of Revelations, some things are obviously symbolic (such as scrolls and dragons with horns) but when the bible says something as clear as the 2 prophets dieing and being brought back to life, you are supposed to take it litteral. Especially when it even tells you how long these people celebrate their death (3 1/2 days I think). If its something as blunt and obvious as that, then i'm going to stick to it. Why would God expect all the readers of the bible to think that the 2 prophets (clearly a role of a human!) are just symbolic? Its not only that, its just that which I choose to use as an example. Only time can tell, and I believe you might be changing views here shortly.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:24 pm
by waynes world
August wrote:
Is Paul lying when he talks about the blessed hope in Titus 3:7? Thats the rapture and it has to come first.
Sorry, I just don't see how you arrive at that conclusion.

Titus 3:7 (KJV)
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The hope described there is the hope that we get as a result of grace, and that gives us the way to eternal life. Please provide your exegesis that shows this to be related to the rapture.
Its interesting that you leave out the part of that verse that talks about the blessed hope. And its not just about eternal life its about the resurection we who believe will all face. Don't you know that without it we are dead in our sins? Didn't you know that the Corinthians were also preterists and thought they had missed the rapture? I think you should read Daniel and Ezekiel if you don't think Israel will return to its homeland because if its not true. If there is no hope that the mortal must put on the immortal than Paul is lying and the whole Bible is a lie. The preterist view is not biblical because the dispersion of the Jews was prophesied by Jesus, not any resurection in 70 ad. Plus the book of Revelation was written in 95 ad long after it happened.

Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:33 pm
by waynes world
puritan lad wrote:Little Shepherd,

The prophecy pundits of the 1980's were convinced that the Soviet Union was Gog and Magog (not just Russia). Point is, they were wrong. Any theology that has to keep rewriting it's theories every 10 years just to match the current headlines is superficial at best (Not to mention that Russia is never mentioned in the Bible.)

Wayne, you obviously know next to nothing about the preterist view, so let me fill you in (again).

__I know its not a biblical doctrine___

We do believe that the resurrection is a future event.

---then why do you contradict yourself??? Yopu have said over and over that it happened in 70ad---


(There are some heretical "hyper-preterists" who say otherwise, but they are the small minority.) The resurrection (not the rapture) is our blessed hope. We believe that the Great Tribulation is a past event (because Jesus said so). We do not believe that the "rapture" took place in 70 AD. We don't believe in it at all.

----Thats not what your last post said. Again you change your view---

What do you mean that there was no Israel in 70 AD? Who did the Romans destroy?

---It was the nation of Israel. Jesus fortold that in Matt 24---

God is not going to be dealing with "Israel after the flesh

----What scripture memtions that? certainly not Matt 24---


because He cursed the fig tree, so that it would never bear fruit again. The church is the true Israel. Christ rejecting Jews in the Middle East are not the seed of Abraham, but are of their father the Devil (John 8:44)
There was no Israel in 70ad becuse Jesus foretold there would be none in Matt 24. There was no end times in 70 ad there could not have been such because Revelation wasn't written until at least 90ad. Would it make any sense for John to write about something that had already happen? Especially if he says in chapeter 1 that the events must happen in the future. Either there will be a resurection of the dead or Paul and Jesus are the world/s biggest liars in the word. The preterist view is not biblical

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:55 am
by August
You keep on saying the same things without proof. I have read all your arguments before. I am asking for Scriptural proof, and sound analysis to back your statements. Repeatedly saying something does not make it true.
Its interesting that you leave out the part of that verse that talks about the blessed hope.
Which Bible are you reading? That is the complete verse.
And its not just about eternal life its about the resurection we who believe will all face.
It's pretty hard to get to enternal life as described in the Bible without a final judgment and resurrection.
Didn't you know that the Corinthians were also preterists and thought they had missed the rapture?
Please quote Scripture to prove this. You keep asserting things without proof.
I think you should read Daniel and Ezekiel if you don't think Israel will return to its homeland because if its not true.
Can you please define who Israel is as described in Daniel and Ezekiel?
If there is no hope that the mortal must put on the immortal than Paul is lying and the whole Bible is a lie.
No-one is debating that. You keep saying that there will be 2 future comings, not one, and that the first one is a rapture. Please provide Scripture and exegesis to prove what you are saying.
The preterist view is not biblical because the dispersion of the Jews was prophesied by Jesus, not any resurection in 70 ad.
Same as above. Scripture and analysis please. I should point out that I am not necessarily holding a full preterist view.
Plus the book of Revelation was written in 95 ad long after it happened.
There are 2 views on this, either 54-68 ad, or 81-96 ad. Please provide evidence for your statement.

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:08 am
by puritan lad
Wayne, this is getting old. Why do you keep making stuff up? Show me ONE post where I said that the resurrection happened in 70 AD. Please post the link if you can find it. You can't, because I never said that. Show me ONE post where I said that the rapture happened in 70 AD. Again, you can't find it.

Thou shall not bear false witness.
waynes world wrote: We do believe that the resurrection is a future event.

---then why do you contradict yourself??? You have said over and over that it happened in 70ad---
Thou shall not bear false witness

waynes world wrote:(There are some heretical "hyper-preterists" who say otherwise, but they are the small minority.) The resurrection (not the rapture) is our blessed hope. We believe that the Great Tribulation is a past event (because Jesus said so). We do not believe that the "rapture" took place in 70 AD. We don't believe in it at all.

----Thats not what your last post said. Again you change your view------
Thou shall not bear false witness.
waynes world wrote:There was no Israel in 70ad becuse Jesus foretold there would be none in Matt 24.
Don't say it. Prove it...
waynes world wrote:There was no end times in 70 ad there could not have been such because Revelation wasn't written until at least 90ad.
Don't say it. Prove it...