Evidence for God from Science

JessS wrote:Since Daniel was written before the fall of Jerusalem, I can see how some of it could pertain to 70A.D., but Revelations was written after the fall of Jerusalem

Jess,

The Book of Revelation was written before AD 70. See Dating The Book of Revelation.

I've come to the conclusion that no one has any hard evidence of the true date, it's just another thing to butt heads about.

I do have trouble wrapping my mind around how the early Church could have missed the fact that the apocalypse had already happened, or chose to completely ignore it.

Why didn't John or anyone else point out that his prophecy or parts of it had come to pass? It seems like someone would have taken the time to jot down a few instructions to the Church about this.

Depends on when you think John wrote Revelations?? PL has a great amount of information why he may have written Revelations before 70 AD so it is prophecy because Nero did not do what he did until around 70 AD

JessS,

There isn't much material in the early church on the Book of Revelation itself. However, almost all of the early church fathers, to a man, viewed the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) as being fulfilled in AD 70.

Some today want to hold Matthew 24 as being fulfilled, while putting Revelation into the future. The problem, as I have pointed out, is that they are the same prophecy.

I can't see it, or feel it when I read it. Mark and Luke don't recall the questions the same way as Matthew.

If Jesus wasn't speaking of two separate things, and meant a "generation" = a literal generation like he did the ten times he said generation in Matthew, he must have been mistaken, and I can't believe that he's capable of a mistake.

If the early church fathers believed Jesus had returned in the clouds in 70A.D., surely they would have instituted some small ritual celebrating this.
Jesus said the Jews would recognize him as the Messiah when he returned. I spent six months in Israel, and Jews calling Jesus the Messiah must be few and far between.
It also seems to me that "the times of the Gentiles" are still going pretty strong.

I just can't get past; if generation means generation, and all wasn't fulfilled in that generation, then........is scripture fallible?

You guys got me to google up several hours worth of the Preterists perspective in the past few days and I can see the argument is pretty good, but I can't feel it.

If I'm wrong.....well Jesus has forgiven me for a lot worse. Thanks for the feedback, I'll check out anything you have to show me. I love learning about Christ.

JessS,

This may help clear things up.

Apocalyptic Language in the Bible
Signs of the Olivet Discourse Part V

The "coming" in Matthew 24:30 is not the Second Advent, but a typical "cloud coming", something that God does quite often in the Scriptures. In this instance, the owner of the vineyard came to destroy the Pharisees, and those who rejected His Lordship (Matthew 21:33-45).

There are some who want to redefine "this generation" to mean something else. However, they really have a time trying to explain away Matthew 16:27-28.

I have a whole series explaining the Postmillennial Preterist view of the end times from Novemer to December (as well as a few recent posts answering the objections of Pulpit Magazine.

See Covenant Theology

Hope this helps.

Some say he's referring to the Transfiguration, but I think he's talking about John's vision of Revelation.

Like I said, if we get literal with every word, the bigger problem still exists.

If the Olivet Discourse, Revelation and Daniel are speaking of the same thing, then "all things" weren't fulfilled while those present still lived.

Many have argued for the "Transfiguration" out of desperation. The very same ones who do this will have a fit if we postmillennialists "allegorize" Matthew 25:31-34 to be AD 70, despite the fact that the language is virtually identical with Matthew 16:27-28. They will demand that the Matthew 25 coming be taken literal, but cannot do so with Matthew 16, for obvious reasons.

In the Transfiguration, Jesus did not "come in His Kingdom", not did he "come with his angels in the glory of his Father", nor did he "repay each person according to what he has done". He did, however, do those things in AD 70 (See Matthew 21:33-45).

Besides, the "transfiguration" interpretation makes no sense. That would have Jesus prophesying, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death within the next 6 days". I'll bet that required some Divine insight :).

In any case, we can see that "literalists" must be quite choosy about what they take literally.