The Date of Revelation: an odd question

[Ted]

We're all generally familiar with the argument about the date of Revelation. How do we read Irenaeus' comment? Does the chapter 11 pericope demand an early date? We could go on about both the internal and external evidence.

As I was posting on another thread, an odd thought came to mind. The Preterist view is that Revelation was written in the AD60's, gives information about AD70 (primarily), and was designed to give support to the early church. But the history of the canon reveals that Revelation was one of the last books to be accepted as canonical (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, and Revelation were all late to the party.). Even if we accept the evidence of the Muratorian Fragment to show consolidation by the first decade of the second century, Revelation wasn't widely accepted until several decades after the destruction of Jerusalem.

If Revelation wasn't accepted as canonical in the AD60's, how could it provide support to a church under attack by Nero? It seems that the Shepherd of Hermas was widely accepted (not as canonical, but as inspirational reading) long before Revelation was. I'm not aware of evidence that Revelation was accepted even in the manner of the Shepherd of Hermas until long after the time of its supposed benefit.

Comments?

Ted

[Hitch]

It easy to think the narrow focus,,, seven churches in Asia, more than accounts for time involved regarding general acceptance. No to forget the bizzar nature of the work.

Take care

H

[Lost]

It easy to think the narrow focus,,, seven churches in Asia, more than accounts for time involved regarding general acceptance. No to forget the bizzar nature of the work.

Take care

H

Bizzar nature?
If it was to give so much urgent support to those 7 churches then it would have had a major impact on them and they were major churches so that it would have had a very very significant acceptance at the time and would have been remembered very vividly because John must have been alive at the time that the so-called letters were read to the churches, if indeed they were actually read to the churches which I doubt.

[Hitch]

Bizzar nature? well if you think the Apaclypse is on the same plane as the leter to Gallatia oe Corinth, more power to ya but you willbe in the minority
If it was to give so much urgent support to those 7 churches then it would have had a major impact on them and they were major churches so that it would have had a very very significant acceptance at the time and would have been remembered very vividly because John must have been alive at the time that the so-called letters were read to the churches, if indeed they were actually read to the churches which I doubt.You doubt eh? Well that implies that you have some unusual insight or information . I dont think so Tim..

[Lost]

well if you think the Apaclypse is on the same plane as the leter to Gallatia oe Corinth, more power to ya but you willbe in the minority You doubt eh? Well that implies that you have some unusual insight or information . I dont think so Tim..

Not unusual but just trying to look at things like I was back there then.
For instance John, if it was the disciple John ie, appears to have been given some urgency in getting these letters to those churches and yet he didn't bother writing the whole thing down until he had left patmos.
Maybe he got an early release or maybe he didn't have pen and paper but then he must have had a darn good memory to remember all that stuff and then God might as well have waited till he left the island to give him those visions.
All sounds strange to me - not something I would like to put too much importance on and I can understand why it nearly missed the cut.

[Ted]

Do any of the confirmed Preterists have a comment?

Ted

[themuzicman]

I think you're confusing two different things. John was clearly an apostle, so his writings would have been authoritative by those who read it, regardless of any "canonical" concerns.

I imagine that issues of Canon came about as a result of Pseudonymous writings, such as the gospel of Peter, and writings of those who were not apostles, such as the Shepherd of Hermes. These wouldn't have become issues until after the death of each apostle and would most likely not have become a church wide issue until these writings began to circulate widely.

Thus, the authority of the living apostle was sufficient authority while he lived, but canonicity became an issue after they died.

Michael

[Lost]

I think you're confusing two different things. John was clearly an apostle, so his writings would have been authoritative by those who read it, regardless of any "canonical" concerns.

I imagine that issues of Canon came about as a result of Pseudonymous writings, such as the gospel of Peter, and writings of those who were not apostles, such as the Shepherd of Hermes. These wouldn't have become issues until after the death of each apostle and would most likely not have become a church wide issue until these writings began to circulate widely.

Thus, the authority of the living apostle was sufficient authority while he lived, but canonicity became an issue after they died.

Michael

I don't think it is that clear that the disciple John was the author and in any case there is little reference to those letters to the churches in any other early writing which is a little strange given their importance.

[themuzicman]

Well, if John's Revelation was written as prophecy for AD70, then we wouldn't expect much to be written about them.

MIchael

[Lost]

Well, if John's Revelation was written as prophecy for AD70, then we wouldn't expect much to be written about them.

MIchael

Why not? I would expect plenty to be written about such important letters.

[themuzicman]

Because after AD70, it was pretty much finished. The ECFs weren't into writing history.

[timspong]

There has been a HUGE effort to try and early date revelation to before 70ad. As the most likely date of 92-95ad would debunk the preterist, amill and partial preterist views being after their supposed "great tribulation" of 70ad. Despite there being a ton of prophesy concerning the great tribulation that has obviously not been fulfilled yet and debunks those views anyway.

The RCC is very keen on early dating it also. This is because the great prostitute in Chapter 17 is undeniably Rome (as admitted by the RCC) i.e. the city on 7 hills. So if it can't attribute it to secular Rome and Nero, then the most obvious contender would become the RCC itself.

Therefore there is a lot riding on the dating of revelation and if it was not for all the ulterior motives the actual date of 90's ad would never have been brought into question.

[Littlejoe9763]

There has been a HUGE effort to try and early date revelation to before 70ad. As the most likely date of 92-95ad would debunk the preterist, amill and partial preterist views being after their supposed "great tribulation" of 70ad. Despite there being a ton of prophesy concerning the great tribulation that has obviously not been fulfilled yet and debunks those views anyway.

The RCC is very keen on early dating it also. This is because the great prostitute in Chapter 17 is undeniably Rome (as admitted by the RCC) i.e. the city on 7 hills. So if it can't attribute it to secular Rome and Nero, then the most obvious contender would become the RCC itself.

Therefore there is a lot riding on the dating of revelation and if it was not for all the ulterior motives the actual date of 90's ad would never have been brought into question.

How can Vatican City be the great prostitute? It doesn't sit on 7 hills. Just because it's near Rome doesn't qualify it as such does it?

LJ

[timspong]

How can Vatican City be the great prostitute? It doesn't sit on 7 hills. Just because it's near Rome doesn't qualify it as such does it?

LJ

It is actually in the middle of Rome. I am just suggesting what would be the most likely candidate for the whore in chap 17 if the "great tribulation" happened today. Of course many things could happen between now and the great tribulation. There are many other pointers also, not just the hills reference.

God has no problem referring to israel as a whore, so why would you think it strange for Him to refer to the RCC in the same way. It has had a very colorful history to say the least and has definitely been in bed with various kings and world leaders.

Also in rv 18.4 God is calling His people out of her. Read ch. 17 & 18 and I don't think you will find it too much of a stretch.

[Littlejoe9763]

Well, logically we have two options. Either Revelation was written in the late 60's AD or as Tim says, early 90's AD. If the later date is true, and as Tim points out the tribulation hasn't happened, then we have a problem of whether is is canonical or not. It would seem that John who was supposedly writing under the Holy Spirit says things that are obviously false. i.e. Revelation 1:1-3 states:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near."

Then in vs 7: "7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen."
The ones who "pierced" him were the Jews and Romans of his day.

Then in vs 9: " 9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."
John claims to be a fellow sufferer in the tribulation.

He again makes a similar statement of the impending tribulaiton in Rev 2:11: "Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.

Therfore, we would have to conclude that John got the timing completely wrong and this is a false vision.

Or the we would have to conclude that John was given a vision of the impending destruction of Jerusalem that was coming (and did happen).


LJ

[eschaton]

Why not? I would expect plenty to be written about such important letters.

Is Revelation less alluded to than other NT scriptures by the ECF?

[timspong]

Well, logically we have two options. Either Revelation was written in the late 60's AD or as Tim says, early 90's AD. If the later date is true, and as Tim points out the tribulation hasn't happened, then we have a problem of whether is is canonical or not. It would seem that John who was supposedly writing under the Holy Spirit says things that are obviously false. i.e. Revelation 1:1-3 states:

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near."

Then in vs 7: "7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen."
The ones who "pierced" him were the Jews and Romans of his day.

Then in vs 9: " 9 I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."
John claims to be a fellow sufferer in the tribulation.

He again makes a similar statement of the impending tribulaiton in Rev 2:11: "Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.

Therfore, we would have to conclude that John got the timing completely wrong and this is a false vision.

Or the we would have to conclude that John was given a vision of the impending destruction of Jerusalem that was coming (and did happen).


LJ

The subjective time related terms like, the time is near, coming quickly etc are too ambiguous to be conclusive. Especially as Paul also often used this same kind of language to describe the 2nd coming of Christ that he thought was going to be within his lifetime.

The greek word for tribulation used in rv 1.9 is Thlipsis which can mean persecution, affliction, trouble etc etc. He doesn’t use the term Megas Thipsis which of course is the “great tribulation”

So we are left with the pierced argument, which according to Zechariah is referring to the house of David and is quite clear that it will be a day of victory for Jerusalem not defeat as you seem to suggest if you relate this event to the fall of Jerusalem in 70ad.

Zechariah 12:6 – 13.1 (selected)
6 "On that day I will make the leaders of Judah like a firepot in a woodpile, like a flaming torch among sheaves. They will consume right and left all the surrounding peoples, but Jerusalem will remain intact in her place.
8 On that day the LORD will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the Angel of the LORD going before them.
9 On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem.
10 "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced , and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
13:1 "On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity.

There are literally hundreds of prophecies from all the prophetic books that have yet to be fulfilled and the scriptural descriptions of the great tribulation are quite distinct and can never be attributed to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70ad. Eschatological theology that dates the great tribulation to 70ad is not worth more than a cheap paperback novel IMO.

[eschaton]

Is Revelation less alluded to than other NT scriptures by the ECF?

I find the only NT books with more scriptures referenced than Revelation by the Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (ANF01) are Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians. I would say that Revelation was referred to fairly often by the early fathers.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

The subjective time related terms like, the time is near, coming quickly etc are too ambiguous to be conclusive.
What? The word used in Revelation "tachy" is quickly. It means without delay. It is hardly ambiguous!!!
Especially as Paul also often used this same kind of language to describe the 2nd coming of Christ that he thought was going to be within his lifetime.

1. Paul never used the word "tachy".
2. I did a fairly complete online search of 5 or so of the most popular English translations, and did not find one instance of Paul using "near" "soon" "at hand" or "quickly" to describe anything that could be considered the Second coming. (I may have missed the verses you are referencing, if so, please provide a site).
3. There are a few non-Pauline epsitles that do use "near" language in verses that could be about the second coming, but that assumes a non-preterist interpretations of those verses. (which would make your position a circular argument). and none of those use "tachy" either!


Regarding my point #2, I would love to see what verses you had in mind, I am not saying that they do not exist, but I was unable to find them.

[eschaton]

The book of Revelation is full of symbols. It was "signified" (semaino:G4591) (Rev 1:1) by the angel. I don't take the thousand years literally. I don't feel a need to take any of the "timing" statements literally.

[timspong]

What? The word used in Revelation "tachy" is quickly. It means without delay. It is hardly ambiguous!!!


1. Paul never used the word "tachy".
2. I did a fairly complete online search of 5 or so of the most popular English translations, and did not find one instance of Paul using "near" "soon" "at hand" or "quickly" to describe anything that could be considered the Second coming. (I may have missed the verses you are referencing, if so, please provide a site).
3. There are a few non-Pauline epsitles that do use "near" language in verses that could be about the second coming, but that assumes a non-preterist interpretations of those verses. (which would make your position a circular argument). and none of those use "tachy" either!


Regarding my point #2, I would love to see what verses you had in mind, I am not saying that they do not exist, but I was unable to find them.

To be honest I didn't have any verse in mind, just the general idea of Paul expecting the 2nd coming to happen within his lifetime. I don't really have the time right now to dig into specific verses. However, it is pretty pointless, as I said before, this time related language is highly ambiguous and if Paul thought the 2nd coming was going to happen in his lifetime, I am sure John may well have felt the same way about the great tribulation. It proves nothing and certainly not enough to hang your eschatological theology on.

After all:

Mark 13:32
32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
NIV

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
KJV

Just one last point; I think it is safe to assume a non-preterist interpretation of any verse of the bible. Preterism is a fad and can be considered as pop theology IMO, it breaks down very quickly upon careful examination of unfulfilled prophesy.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

To be honest I didn't have any verse in mind, just the general idea of Paul expecting the 2nd coming to happen within his lifetime. I don't really have the time right now to dig into specific verses. However, it is pretty pointless, as I said before, this time related language is highly ambiguous and if Paul thought the 2nd coming was going to happen in his lifetime, I am sure John may well have felt the same way about the great tribulation. It proves nothing and certainly not enough to hang your eschatological theology on.

After all:

Mark 13:32
32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
NIV

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
KJV

Just one last point; I think it is safe to assume a non-preterist interpretation of any verse of the bible. Preterism is a fad and can be considered as pop theology IMO, it breaks down very quickly upon careful examination of unfulfilled prophesy.

OIC

[eschaton]

OIC

May I ask what is OIC?

[eschaton]

Oh I see!

[eschaton]

Oh I see!

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

:yeahthat:

[Littlejoe9763]

To be honest I didn't have any verse in mind, just the general idea of Paul expecting the 2nd coming to happen within his lifetime. I don't really have the time right now to dig into specific verses. However, it is pretty pointless, as I said before, this time related language is highly ambiguous and if Paul thought the 2nd coming was going to happen in his lifetime, I am sure John may well have felt the same way about the great tribulation. It proves nothing and certainly not enough to hang your eschatological theology on.

I just don't see how you can say that! So we have Your assertion that: it's ambiguous, that Paul thought it was coming soon, That John must have also, with absolutely no scriptural support!...Yeah I'll hang my hat on that! Of course you must take it as ambiguous otherwise the plain writing of scripture would point to the obvious. If Christ appeared to you in a vision and told you he was going to show you things "that must soon take place", would you think...huh maybe this will happen sometime in the next TWO THOUSAND years? or would you think it would be in the next two years?

After all:


Mark 13:32
32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
NIV

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
KJV

Just one last point; I think it is safe to assume a non-preterist interpretation of any verse of the bible. Preterism is a fad and can be considered as pop theology IMO, it breaks down very quickly upon careful examination of unfulfilled prophesy.
[/quote]

That depends on what "non-preterist" view you take I would think. Preterism, has been around as long as dispensational futurist theology, so they are both fads then!

LJ

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

:irony: In eschatology, I am like....go little joe...go...Tim Spong is just :ahem:...
in soteriology I am the opposite.

I love TWeb! (Group Hug Time)

[The Curtmudgeon]

Paul's "near return" language consists basically of 1 Thessalonians 4:15 & 17:
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. ... 17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The (just a drive-by contribution) Curtmudgeon

[Edited to add:] Woops, overlooked verse 15.

[timspong]

Paul's "near return" language consists basically of 1 Thessalonians 4:15 & 17:
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. ... 17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The (just a drive-by contribution) Curtmudgeon

[Edited to add:] Woops, overlooked verse 15.

I was thinking more about 1 cor 7 et al and the overall sense of hurriedness especially

1 Corinthians 7:29
29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none;

However, he qualifies this whole section by:

1 Corinthians 7:25
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

[timspong]

I just don't see how you can say that! So we have Your assertion that: it's ambiguous, that Paul thought it was coming soon, That John must have also, with absolutely no scriptural support!...Yeah I'll hang my hat on that! Of course you must take it as ambiguous otherwise the plain writing of scripture would point to the obvious. If Christ appeared to you in a vision and told you he was going to show you things "that must soon take place", would you think...huh maybe this will happen sometime in the next TWO THOUSAND years? or would you think it would be in the next two years?

After all:




That depends on what "non-preterist" view you take I would think. Preterism, has been around as long as dispensational futurist theology, so they are both fads then!

LJ

I am not trying to prove anything, I am just suggesting that the timing language at the beginning of Rv is subjective and is certainly not enough to base your eschatology on. Also, how can you seriously accuse me of ignoring the plain writing of scripture given the vulgar allegorical approach to prophesy used by the preterists.

What I mean by fad is that perterism is the current trendy eschatological view. I didn't mean to imply that it was a new concept. In fact, Paul was warns against it in 2 thessalonians.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
1Now, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him, we ask you 2not to be quickly shaken in your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by letter as from us, saying thatthe day of Christ had come. 3Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son ofdestruction, 4he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits as God in the temple of God,setting himself up as God.
WEB

Leaving the obviously subjective matter aside, the meat of this topic lies in the mass of unfulfilled prophesy that has yet to come to pass.

For an example (there are hundreds of others) but this is more or less at random and I happen to have read these verses this morning:

Isaiah 11:6-9
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
KJV

If you have ever heard a preterist interpretation of the above then you will know how untenable that position is, talk about some fancy allegorical footwork.

Here is another example I was reading today:

Ezekiel 39:12-15
12 "`For seven months the house of Israel will be burying them in order to cleanse the land.
13 All the people of the land will bury them, and the day I am glorified will be a memorable day for them, declares the Sovereign LORD.
14 "`Men will be regularly employed to cleanse the land. Some will go throughout the land and, in addition to them, others will bury those that remain on the ground. At the end of the seven months they will begin their search.
15 As they go through the land and one of them sees a human bone, he will set up a marker beside it until the gravediggers have buried it in the Valley of Hamon Gog.

This verse(s) is unquestionably very literal/physical language and nothing that can possibly lend itself to allegory.

These were chosen at random and there are literally hundreds of unfulfilled prophesies that simply cannot be allegorized away.

I think the main reason why preterism has gained so much influence recently is that many simply read over what is going on in the prophetic books and haven’t really studied eschatology in context. The perterist “cheap thrill” version of eschatology, requires no work and is just a series fancy allegories that slithers around scripture and ties in very nicely to the modern liberal consumer version of Christianity.

The language describing the millennial kingdom is truly wonderful and describes a pure holy kingdom and can NO WAY be describing our current situation.

It is a shame, as eschatological study is one of the most gratifying things I have ever done and to see how all these prophetic books perfectly tie together is a real blessing and faith builder.

P.S. Oh yea, what about the very literal physical temple described in Ezekiel that has yet to be built?

[timspong]

:irony: In eschatology, I am like....go little joe...go...Tim Spong is just :ahem:...
in soteriology I am the opposite.

I love TWeb! (Group Hug Time)

There are not many reformed pre-mills around, although there are a few of us; including Charles Spurgeon, so I am in good company. I just wish the reformed crowd used the same attention to detail and hermeneutical approach with eschatology as they do with soteriology. They go to great lengths to exegete the literal meaning of soteriological scripture but allegorize the pants off the eschatological text.

I think they are stuck in the Calvinist tradition, who incidentally, adopted the RCC version of eschatology as he was solely protesting about the RCC soteriological view. The original reformation pioneers were always reforming but for some reason we seem to have stopped and traditions have once again taken over.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

There are not many reformed pre-mills around, although there are a few of us; including Charles Spurgeon, so I am in good company. This is true, Spugeon is the bomb!

I just wish the reformed crowd used the same attention to detail and hermeneutical approach with eschatology as they do with soteriology. We do. :nana: They go to great lengths to exegete the literal meaning of soteriological scripture but allegorize the pants off the eschatological text. Because sound exegetical methods used to properly under stand scripture written in the apocalyptic literary style is different than the methods used for say, Gospels and Epistles.

...er..you left out a portion there, I added it for you in bold. No need to thank me. :wink:

I think they are stuck in the Calvinist tradition, who incidentally, adopted the RCC version of eschatology as he was solely protesting about the RCC soteriological view. The original reformation pioneers were always reforming but for some reason we seem to have stopped and traditions have once again taken over.


Yeah. For some reason we still have the RCC version of the Trinity. Man when will we learn.

[Littlejoe9763]

I am not trying to prove anything, I am just suggesting that the timing language at the beginning of Rv is subjective and is certainly not enough to base your eschatology on. Also, how can you seriously accuse me of ignoring the plain writing of scripture given the vulgar allegorical approach to prophesy used by the preterists.

What I mean by fad is that perterism is the current trendy eschatological view. I didn't mean to imply that it was a new concept. In fact, Paul was warns against it in 2 thessalonians.

2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
1Now, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him, we ask you 2not to be quickly shaken in your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by letter as from us, saying thatthe day of Christ had come. 3Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son ofdestruction, 4he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits as God in the temple of God,setting himself up as God.
WEB


Most "preterist" here at tweb, including Faramir are of the partial preterist variety. We do not believe that the final coming (Day of the Lord) has occured. This is in contrast to full Preterist who do believe this. I think that view is the one you are seemingly debating against. I would agree that The Day of the Lord (Christ) has not occured. We are not living in the millenial reign.[/

Leaving the obviously subjective matter aside, the meat of this topic lies in the mass of unfulfilled prophesy that has yet to come to pass.

For an example (there are hundreds of others) but this is more or less at random and I happen to have read these verses this morning:

Isaiah 11:6-9
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
KJV

If you have ever heard a preterist interpretation of the above then you will know how untenable that position is, talk about some fancy allegorical footwork.

Agreed, which is why I am not a full preterist!

Here is another example I was reading today:

Ezekiel 39:12-15
12 "`For seven months the house of Israel will be burying them in order to cleanse the land.
13 All the people of the land will bury them, and the day I am glorified will be a memorable day for them, declares the Sovereign LORD.
14 "`Men will be regularly employed to cleanse the land. Some will go throughout the land and, in addition to them, others will bury those that remain on the ground. At the end of the seven months they will begin their search.
15 As they go through the land and one of them sees a human bone, he will set up a marker beside it until the gravediggers have buried it in the Valley of Hamon Gog.

This verse(s) is unquestionably very literal/physical language and nothing that can possibly lend itself to allegory.

These were chosen at random and there are literally hundreds of unfulfilled prophesies that simply cannot be allegorized away.

I think the main reason why preterism has gained so much influence recently is that many simply read over what is going on in the prophetic books and haven’t really studied eschatology in context. The perterist “cheap thrill” version of eschatology, requires no work and is just a series fancy allegories that slithers around scripture and ties in very nicely to the modern liberal consumer version of Christianity.

The language describing the millennial kingdom is truly wonderful and describes a pure holy kingdom and can NO WAY be describing our current situation.

Again, I agree. Same answer as above!

It is a shame, as eschatological study is one of the most gratifying things I have ever done and to see how all these prophetic books perfectly tie together is a real blessing and faith builder.

I agree again. But it's really neat to see how SOME of it has already been fulfilled and how we can look forward to ther rest!

P.S. Oh yea, what about the very literal physical temple described in Ezekiel that has yet to be built?

Wasn't that the same temple built by Ezra after the Babylonian exile? In fact, wasn't Ezekiel writing to the exiles? If I remember correctly, there is never any mention of this temple being built! Just measured! The only reference to "built" in Ezekiel refers to the Altar only!

Unfortunately, I am relatively new to orthodox or partial preterism, and have just recently began to study it in earnest. There are others far better than I to debate you on these matters.

LJ

[eschaton]

Eze 43:6 And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.
7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

One thing I always like to point out about Ezekiel's temple is that it is forever. Take that however you will.

[dizzle]

Eze 43:6 And I heard him speaking unto me out of the house; and the man stood by me.
7 And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile, neither they, nor their kings, by their whoredom, nor by the carcases of their kings in their high places.

One thing I always like to point out about Ezekiel's temple is that it is forever. Take that however you will.

That is an interesting point. Are you perhaps obliquely then stating it cannot refer to a millennial temple?

[eschaton]

That's exactly right Dee Dee. The church fathers believed the OT spoke figuratively of Christ and the church.

And Ezekiel says, ‘There shall be no other prince in the house but He.’ (Ezek. xliv. 3.) For He is the chosen Priest and eternal King, the Christ, inasmuch as He is the Son of God; and do not suppose that Isaiah or the other prophets speak of sacrifices of blood or libations being presented at the altar on His second advent, but of true and spiritual praises and giving of thanks. And we have not in vain believed in Him, and have not been led astray by those who taught us such doctrines; but this has come to pass through the wonderful foreknowledge of God, in order that we, through the calling of the new and eternal covenant, that is, of Christ, might be found more intelligent and God-fearing than yourselves, who are considered to be lovers of God and men of understanding, but are not. Dialogue of Justin, Philosopher and Martyr, with Trypho, a Jew, Chapter CXVIII


Thanks for asking.

[dizzle]

I don't think I ever highlighted the "forever" portion in that way, or if I have, I forgot. Thanks, that is very helpful.

[eschaton]

I think it is also interesting that Justin Martyr is often identified as premill. He clearly didn't believe OT prophecies had to be fulfilled in a millennial kingdom as modern premill does.

[Littlejoe9763]

That's exactly right Dee Dee. The church fathers believed the OT spoke figuratively of Christ and the church.

I'm assuming that is what Timspong was refering to when he said: "If you have ever heard a preterist interpretation of the above then you will know how untenable that position is, talk about some fancy allegorical footwork."

Is this right?

LJ

[eschaton]

Maybe he was talking about this.

Rom9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (1 Cor. 10:18-21; Gal. 6:16).

[dizzle]

That Paul. What a rascal. I have often said that if Paul were to preach today he would be laughed out of town by modern hermenuetical methods.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

If Revelation wasn't accepted as canonical in the AD60's, how could it provide support to a church under attack by Nero?Nothing was "canonical" in the 60s, so it seems unreasonable to demand that the book of Revelation be canonical before it ciuld be of use. Paul's letters were not canonised at the time they were received, yet these were of use to the church, weren't they?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

To be honest I didn't have any verse in mind, just the general idea of Paul expecting the 2nd coming to happen within his lifetime.How can a "general idea" accumulate from no texts?
I don't really have the time right now to dig into specific verses. However, it is pretty pointless, as I said before, this time related language is highly ambiguousDo you have any evidence of this?
and if Paul thought the 2nd coming was going to happen in his lifetime, I am sure John may well have felt the same way about the great tribulation.But where does Paul say that he did believe this would happen in his lifetime?
Just one last point; I think it is safe to assume a non-preterist interpretation of any verse of the bible. Preterism is a fad and can be considered as pop theology IMO, it breaks down very quickly upon careful examination of unfulfilled prophesy.
Well, for one who bases important claims on "general ideas" that have no textual support, I'd be a bit more cautious about accusing other more rigorous systems of being "pop theology."

[Ted]

I think you're confusing two different things. John was clearly an apostle, so his writings would have been authoritative by those who read it, regardless of any "canonical" concerns.
I understand the difference, but if I read the history correctly, canonicity was a result of two things. First, the writing had to have an apostolic origin that was recognized. (True, Luke wasn’t an apostle, but his writings carried essentially that imprimatur.) Second, almost the same as the first, they had to embody the power of the Holy Spirit. That is, their provenance had to be sure, and the power recognized.

My question is essentially this. Is there evidence that the book of Revelation was sufficiently accepted during the Neronic persecution that it would have served its purported Preterist purpose of reassuring a persecuted church? It seems that for the early date to be meaningful, this would need to be the case.

I find the only NT books with more scriptures referenced than Revelation by the Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (ANF01) are Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians. I would say that Revelation was referred to fairly often by the early fathers.
OK. Now, do they refer to it in a way that would lend support to an early date with reassurance to the church in the Neronic era (stretch the evidence if needed), or are they generally forward looking, using bits and pieces for their own polemic needs? Or are they of some other mold? (Help us out.)

Nothing was "canonical" in the 60s, so it seems unreasonable to demand that the book of Revelation be canonical before it ciuld be of use. Paul's letters were not canonised at the time they were received, yet these were of use to the church, weren't they?
See above.

Most of the thread seems to be devolving to the old Dating Game. I didn’t really post this to be Jim Lange. Fortunately Jack Bauer has come back on point. So far, no one has offered any serious support for the idea that Revelation actually served to bring reassurance during the Neronic era. If that was its purpose, then it seems we ought to have some evidence of it.

Ted

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

See above.What? Your challenge was that the book was not canonical in the 60s. When I point out that nothing was canoical in the 60s, you say "see above," refering to this:
I understand the difference, but if I read the history correctly, canonicity was a result of two things. First, the writing had to have an apostolic origin that was recognized. (True, Luke wasn’t an apostle, but his writings carried essentially that imprimatur.) Second, almost the same as the first, they had to embody the power of the Holy Spirit. That is, their provenance had to be sure, and the power recognized.

My question is essentially this. Is there evidence that the book of Revelation was sufficiently accepted during the Neronic persecution that it would have served its purported Preterist purpose of reassuring a persecuted church? It seems that for the early date to be meaningful, this would need to be the case.
OK, so you question has nothing at all to do with canonicity then. All you're asking is whether or not the book of Revelation had the influential force to be of much use in the 60s.
Most of the thread seems to be devolving to the old Dating Game. I didn’t really post this to be Jim Lange. Fortunately Jack Bauer has come back on point. So far, no one has offered any serious support for the idea that Revelation actually served to bring reassurance during the Neronic era. If that was its purpose, then it seems we ought to have some evidence of it.

Ted
OK Ted, so can you give us some hypothetical examples of what would count as evidence that the Book of Revelation was helpful at that time? What clues would we need to find before we could make that call?

For example, consider a parallel. Consider the letter of Paul to the Galatians. Its apparent purpose was to serve as a remedy to some type of legalism in the church in Galatia. What actual evidence do we have that it turned out to have the effect?

[eschaton]

OK. Now, do they refer to it in a way that would lend support to an early date with reassurance to the church in the Neronic era (stretch the evidence if needed), or are they generally forward looking, using bits and pieces for their own polemic needs? Or are they of some other mold? (Help us out.)

Ted

I dunno. That will require some research. I simply counted the passages in the index of ANF01. I'll check into it.

[eschaton]

Of the 47 Revelation scripture references found in the index of Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1 found at ccel.org, 1 is for Ignatius, 1 is for Clement of Rome, 3 are for Mathetes, 1 is for Justin Martyr. All the rest are for Irenaeus. The references for Irenaus and Justin Martyr are clear allusions. The others aren't so clear. Both Justin and Irenaeus claim the book was written by the apostle John.

Mathetes talks about the importance of knowledge to true spiritual life.

Clement says HE forewarns us not to be lazy.

Ignatius speaks of a crown of glory.

Justin and Irenaeus are both about forward looking eschatology.

[Ted]

OK, so you question has nothing at all to do with canonicity then. All you're asking is whether or not the book of Revelation had the influential force to be of much use in the 60s.
…

OK Ted, so can you give us some hypothetical examples of what would count as evidence that the Book of Revelation was helpful at that time? What clues would we need to find before we could make that call?
You have the thrust of the question correct. But it’s not my job to suggest the proof. I’ve raised a question, based on the history of the canon, in which Revelation is questioned until quite late. While it’s not the same question, it’s a related one, and it raises doubts about whether Revelation served to reassure persecuted Christians in the Neronic era.

As for the specifics of what evidence would be sufficient, I really don’t know. But I would expect some sort of documentary evidence that someone in that era regarded the book as helpful. Now, I don’t require that documentation to be in the Neronic era. Obviously, if such evidence existed, I think that Preterists would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.

It shouldn’t really be necessary to have contemporary documents. But the writings of the ECF’s, particularly the earliest ones, should give us a hint of how the book was regarded. Was it primarily past in application, or should it be seen as future? The facile answer of “recasting their view in light of the failure of Christ to return early” (cf. 1 Thes 4, etc. in Preterist argument) is inadequate. That answer is circular. Rather, we should see some hint in the ECF writings of a past application. To date, I haven’t seen it, but I’m not an ECF scholar.

Of the 47 Revelation scripture references found in the index of Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1 found at ccel.org, 1 is for Ignatius, 1 is for Clement of Rome, 3 are for Mathetes, 1 is for Justin Martyr. All the rest are for Irenaeus. The references for Irenaus and Justin Martyr are clear allusions. The others aren't so clear. Both Justin and Irenaeus claim the book was written by the apostle John.

Mathetes talks about the importance of knowledge to true spiritual life.

Clement says HE forewarns us not to be lazy.

Ignatius speaks of a crown of glory.

Justin and Irenaeus are both about forward looking eschatology.
This appears to be the sum total of the evidence. Clement, Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus all appear to be looking forward, with the last two explicit.

Thus, it appears that the earliest traditions are forward looking, with no evidence of a backward looking view. In the absence of contemporary voices from the Neronic era, the entire Preterist position depends on a circular premise.

First, there is no direct evidence for John’s imprisonment by Nero. It is all inferred. Similarly, the Domitianic view is largely inferred, and relies mostly on a contested single statement. But the Preterists move forward, assuming a Neronic date, then force their interpretations to fit that date. I find that a bit strained at best, and poor exegesis at worst. It’s roughly equivalent to basing a doctrine on a single text, much as Mormon’s do on baptism for the dead using 1 Cor 15:29 or the Adventists on the “Investigative Judgment” using Daniel 8:14.

Now, don’t get me wrong here. I don’t have a dog in this fight. My view of Revelation is unaffected by the date of composition. But the Preterists are restrained by a tenuous claim for the date of the book. If they’re wrong, their entire end-times view falls. The thunderous silence of near-contemporary interpreters who could support the Preterist view, but don’t, speaks volumes.

Ted

[OldShepherd]

If I am out of place, please forgive me, I have had discussions with preterists over on another forum that was the largest Christian forum on the 'net but IMHO suddenly went pagan.
The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Magnesians [ca. 98 AD]
Ignatius was a disciple of John the apostle. John certainly would have taught him, if Jesus had returned 28 years earlier.

. . . He also lived a holy life, and healed every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king. He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him, and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with His Father's glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works. . .

Chap. X.--Beware Of Judaizing.

Let us not, therefore, be insensible to His kindness. For were He to reward us according to our works, we should cease to be. Therefore, having become His disciples, let us learn to live according to the principles of Christianity.[7] For whosoever is called by any other name besides this, is not of God. Lay aside, therefore, the evil, the old, the sour leaven, and be ye changed into the new leaven, which is Jesus Christ. Be ye salted in Him, lest any one among you should be corrupted, since by your savour ye shall be convicted. It is absurd to profess[12] Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace[13] Judaism, but Judaism Christianity, that so every tongue which believeth might be gathered together to God.

The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Philadelphians
Chap. VI.--Do Not Accept Judaism.

But if any one preach the Jewish law(9) unto you, listen not to him. For it is better to hearken to Christian doctrine from a man who has been circumcised, than to Judaism from one uncircumcised. But if either of such persons do not speak concerning Jesus Christ, they are in my judgment but as monuments and sepulchres of the dead, upon which are written only the names of men. . . .
The late date, for the writing of Revelation, by John, ca. 96 AD, has been argued against because it mentions Judaizers, which according to Preter. sources, “would be ridiculous after the temple was destroyed..” Yet, here Ignatius warns against Judaizers, in two of his letters, 98 AD and later.

If the “Day of the Lord” and Jesus’ return occurred in 70 AD then Justin Martyr writing about 150 AD knew nothing about it. Justin specifically states that God “has still delayed” Jesus return, following His ascension.
The First Apology Of Justin [110-165 AD]

. . .. In these books, then, of the prophets we found Jesus our Christ foretold as coming, born of a virgin, growing up to man's estate, and healing every disease and every sickness, and raising the dead, and being hated, and unrecognised, and crucified, and dying, and rising again, and ascending into heaven, and being, and being called, the Son of God. . . .

Chap. XLV.--Christ's Session In Heaven Foretold.

And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there(2) until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation--hear what was said by the prophet David. . . .
One more church father, for a third witness. Irenaeus writing also about 150 AD, also writes of the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension and also mentions only a future manifestation from heaven. Note, none of these early church fathers mention the “Day of the Lord”, the return of Jesus with all of his angels, which supposedly occurred in 70 AD.

Irenaeus Against Heresies, disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John [120-202 AD]

1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations(6) of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father "to gather all things in one,"(7) and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, "every knee should bow, of things in heaven,, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess"(8) to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send "spiritual wickednesses,"

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=502209&postcount=52
Augustin, The Enchiridion Chapter 55.-The Expression, "Christ Shall Judge the Quick and the Dead," May Be Understood in Either of Two Senses. [354-430 AD]
Now the expression, "to judge the quick and the dead," may be interpreted in two ways: either we may understand by the "quick" those who at His advent shall not yet have died, but whom He shall find alive in the flesh, and by the "dead" those who have departed from the body, or who shall have departed before His coming; or we may understand the "quick" to mean the righteous, and the "dead" the unrighteous; for the righteous shall be judged as well as others. . . .
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-03/npnf1-03-23.htm#P2444_1185381
Origen, From the Second Book of the Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew Book XII. [185-254 AD]
But when the Word comes in such form with His own angels, He will give to each a part of His own glory and of the brightness of His own angels, according to the action of each. But we say these things not rejecting even the second coming of the Son of God understood in its simpler form. . . .
But if He will render to each according to his deed, not the good deed only, nor the evil apart from the good, it is manifest that He will render to each according to every evil, and according to every good, deed. . . .
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm

Tertullian The Five Books Against Marcion. Book III [160-225 AD]

His Christ also will come, just as it is written of Him. Why did he come after the Creator, since he was unable to correct Him by punishment? . . . There is another consideration: since he will at his second advent come after Him, that as he at His first coming took hostile proceed-rags against the Creator, destroying the law and the prophets, which were His, so he may, to be sure, at his second coming proceed in opposition to Christ, upsetting His kingdom. . . .

Now these signs of degradation quite suit His first coming, just as the tokens of His majesty do His second advent, when He shall no longer remain "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence," but after His rejection become "the chief corner-stone," accepted and elevated to the top place of the temple, even His church, being that very stone in Daniel, cut out of the mountain, which was to smite and crush the image of the secular kingdom.

Then indeed He shall have both a glorious form, and an unsullied beauty above the sons of men. "Thou art fairer," says (the Psalmist), "than the children of men; grace is poured into Thy lips; therefore God hath blessed Thee for ever.

Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O most mighty, with Thy glory and Thy majesty." For the Father, after making Him a little lower than the angels, "will crown Him with glory and honour, and put all things under His feet." "Then shall they look on Him whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, tribe after tribe; " because, no doubt, they once refused to acknowledge Him in the lowliness of His human condition. He is even a man says Jeremiah, and who shall recognise Him Therefore, asks Isaiah, "who shall declare His generation? "

. . . They were of like size, and very similar in appearance, owing to the Lord's identity of aspect; because He is not to come in any other form, having to be recognised by those by whom He was also wounded and pierced. . . .
Accordingly, to this day they deny that their Christ has come, because He has not appeared in majesty, while they ignore the fact that He was to come also in lowliness.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-30.htm#P4781_1518654

[dizzle]

Good to see you Shep. If you get a chance, drop me a line, I was a bit mystified by what happened at your primary forum.

[Jezz]

There has been a HUGE effort to try and early date revelation to before 70ad. As the most likely date of 92-95ad would debunk the preterist, amill and partial preterist views being after their supposed "great tribulation" of 70ad.
Dating Revelation after AD 70 would not debunk the partial preterist view. It would simply mean that the prophecy was written after the fact, and hence not predictive.

(indeed, this is one of the reasons that liberals would give for dating it after AD 70.)

[Zguy28]

Dating Revelation after AD 70 would not debunk the partial preterist view. It would simply mean that the prophecy was written after the fact, and hence not predictive.

(indeed, this is one of the reasons that liberals would give for dating it after AD 70.)And yet if it was written after 70AD, which I believe it was IMHO, then the Scripture contradicts your assertion.
"Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this."Emphasis mine.

Scripture cannot be broken. Partial Preterism hangs on an early date.

[eschaton]

I think Jezz is saying that a liberal might dismiss the prophecy as written after the fact, and not literally a prophecy in the true sense of the word. If it isn't a true prophecy, then it doesn't matter what Revelation says about itself, even if it literally said it was written before 70AD. If that is the case then it really doesn't matter if it says "after this" or not.

Some people believe that Revelation is a document that is the product of the mind of an ancient writer without any divine or supernatural inspiration. He was simply influenced by the cultural and politcal situation surrounding him. He used allusions to other scriptures to illustrate the relatively recent events in his world.

Don't get me wrong. I know this isn't what we believe, but is what many modern scholars believe. I'm not saying all preterists believe this either, but someone could call themself a preterist, and also not believe the book is in anyway supernatural.

[Zguy28]

I think Jezz is saying that a liberal might dismiss the prophecy as written after the fact, and not literally a prophecy in the true sense of the word. If it isn't a true prophecy, then it doesn't matter what Revelation says about itself, even if it literally said it was written before 70AD. If that is the case then it really doesn't matter if it says "after this" or not.

Some people believe that Revelation is a document that is the product of the mind of an ancient writer without any divine or supernatural inspiration. He was simply influenced by the cultural and politcal situation surrounding him. He used allusions to other scriptures to illustrate the relatively recent events in his world.

Don't get me wrong. I know this isn't what we believe, but is what many modern scholars believe. I'm not saying all preterists believe this either, but someone could call themself a preterist, and also not believe the book is in anyway supernatural.True. I was working from the framework of Inspiration. I should have noticed that he threw in the word "liberal". Liberal theologians like Schleiermacher or Brunner definitely could take that view.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[TyRockwell]

Hi, Zguy28, eschaton, DX, OS, and Jack, and timspong, and others.

Oh how I would have loved to have been a twebber from the start of this thread! It touches on so many of the aspects of prophecy that I am interested in discussing. Alas, though, I only became a member on 9-22-07.

I think I now know what 'preterist' means, and I know that I am not of that persuasion. I agree with much of what timspong has stated,as well as eschaton, Zguy and Old Shepherd.

Some things that I have not seen, and would like to put forth for consideration, are these:

1) In dating the time of the Revelation, would it be relevant to the 7 churches of asia minor, what might have been done in Jerusalem in 70 AD, or in Rome at the time of Nero and later in Rome? And that a post-70 AD writing may account for a no direct, or clear reference to the events of 70 AD?

2)Was there not a mention in the "Book of the Martyrs" of John's writing of Revelation on the isle of Patmos, and his release and travels back through the 7 churches?

3) Most relevant to its interpretation, in light of the name of the book, inferring the whole word of God, as he mentions, "from before the foundation of the world," that it could be that the Revelation covers, all of the written word, from before the foundation of the world to the future eternal kingdom?

4)In the case that (3) is true, that the words, "soon," "quickly," and "suddenly" might make the events of the book applicable to whomever, in time, might be reading the book, giving the reader a hint that he must discover what prophesies have become fulfilled in history, in order to know which ones are future and what role the church must act out in fulfilling her purpose, since Jesus intentionally did things in order to fulfill what had to happen in his day?

[Jezz]

And yet if it was written after 70AD, which I believe it was IMHO, then the Scripture contradicts your assertion.
"Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this."Emphasis mine.

Scripture cannot be broken. Partial Preterism hangs on an early date.
Ok, but I fail to see how this proves that Revelation couldn't have been written after the fact. For Scripture to have been broken, it would require that the stuff after Rev 4:1 happened before the stuff prior to Rev 4:1. I'm not claiming that - I'm merely claiming that it is possible that Revelation was written after the event it was prophesying.

[Jezz]

I think Jezz is saying that a liberal might dismiss the prophecy as written after the fact, and not literally a prophecy in the true sense of the word. If it isn't a true prophecy, then it doesn't matter what Revelation says about itself, even if it literally said it was written before 70AD. If that is the case then it really doesn't matter if it says "after this" or not.
Small point of clarification: "prophecy" in the true sense of the word does not mean to speak about the future - it means "to proclaim". It may or may not speak/warn about the future, but if it is the word of God then it is a prophecy of God in the true sense. The literal meaning of "prophet" is something like "spokesperson". Whether the prophet speaks about the past, the present or the future, what he says is still prophecy. Of course, if he is speaking about the past, then it isn't a predictive prophecy.

Consider, for example, that the books of 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings (among others) are what we would consider "historical" books (they are written after the fact), however traditionally in the Hebrew canon they are grouped with the books of prophecy.

Some people believe that Revelation is a document that is the product of the mind of an ancient writer without any divine or supernatural inspiration. He was simply influenced by the cultural and politcal situation surrounding him. He used allusions to other scriptures to illustrate the relatively recent events in his world.

Don't get me wrong. I know this isn't what we believe, but is what many modern scholars believe. I'm not saying all preterists believe this either, but someone could call themself a preterist, and also not believe the book is in anyway supernatural.
I think that this is a false dichotomy too. It is possible to believe that the book had late authorship, and believe that it was divinely inspired. After all, the five books of the Pentateuch were nearly all written after the fact, and we consider them divinely inspired, don't we? Likewise for the Gospels?

Even assuming a preterist perspective and assuming that Revelation was written after the fact, it is possible to consider it divinely inspired. The interpretation and cosmic importance that it puts on the events of the day is at least as important as the possibility that the prophecy was predictive. It tells us that the author believed the events of AD 70 to be the fulfilment of the prophecy he was writing.

Personally, I would lean to an earlier date, but what I'm saying is that in the end the precise dating doesn't affect my interpretation of it all that much. I think that an AD 70 fulfilment (or thereabouts) is fairly obviously in mind in Revelation, regardless of whether or not the book was written before or after that time. While I believe that the book may indeed have been a predictive prophecy, I don't see the need to insist that it must have been. Christ still rose from the dead even if Revelation was written after the events it describes! :smile:

[eschaton]

Small point of clarification: "prophecy" in the true sense of the word does not mean to speak about the future - it means "to proclaim". It may or may not speak/warn about the future, but if it is the word of God then it is a prophecy of God in the true sense. The literal meaning of "prophet" is something like "spokesperson". Whether the prophet speaks about the past, the present or the future, what he says is still prophecy. Of course, if he is speaking about the past, then it isn't a predictive prophecy.

Consider, for example, that the books of 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings (among others) are what we would consider "historical" books (they are written after the fact), however traditionally in the Hebrew canon they are grouped with the books of prophecy.


I think that this is a false dichotomy too. It is possible to believe that the book had late authorship, and believe that it was divinely inspired. After all, the five books of the Pentateuch were nearly all written after the fact, and we consider them divinely inspired, don't we? Likewise for the Gospels?

Even assuming a preterist perspective and assuming that Revelation was written after the fact, it is possible to consider it divinely inspired. The interpretation and cosmic importance that it puts on the events of the day is at least as important as the possibility that the prophecy was predictive. It tells us that the author believed the events of AD 70 to be the fulfilment of the prophecy he was writing.

Personally, I would lean to an earlier date, but what I'm saying is that in the end the precise dating doesn't affect my interpretation of it all that much. I think that an AD 70 fulfilment (or thereabouts) is fairly obviously in mind in Revelation, regardless of whether or not the book was written before or after that time. While I believe that the book may indeed have been a predictive prophecy, I don't see the need to insist that it must have been. Christ still rose from the dead even if Revelation was written after the events it describes! :smile:


I'm sorry if I presumed too much about what you were saying, and you're right about prophecy. I also guess I read too much into "liberal."

The book does say "the time is at hand." I don't think this means it has already happened. If it is about former events I think verses like Rev 1:1 and Rev 1:19 appear a little deceptive.

[eschaton]

Hi, Zguy28, eschaton, DX, OS, and Jack, and timspong, and others.

Oh how I would have loved to have been a twebber from the start of this thread! It touches on so many of the aspects of prophecy that I am interested in discussing. Alas, though, I only became a member on 9-22-07.

I think I now know what 'preterist' means, and I know that I am not of that persuasion. I agree with much of what timspong has stated,as well as eschaton, Zguy and Old Shepherd.

Some things that I have not seen, and would like to put forth for consideration, are these:

1) In dating the time of the Revelation, would it be relevant to the 7 churches of asia minor, what might have been done in Jerusalem in 70 AD, or in Rome at the time of Nero and later in Rome? And that a post-70 AD writing may account for a no direct, or clear reference to the events of 70 AD?

2)Was there not a mention in the "Book of the Martyrs" of John's writing of Revelation on the isle of Patmos, and his release and travels back through the 7 churches?

3) Most relevant to its interpretation, in light of the name of the book, inferring the whole word of God, as he mentions, "from before the foundation of the world," that it could be that the Revelation covers, all of the written word, from before the foundation of the world to the future eternal kingdom?

4)In the case that (3) is true, that the words, "soon," "quickly," and "suddenly" might make the events of the book applicable to whomever, in time, might be reading the book, giving the reader a hint that he must discover what prophesies have become fulfilled in history, in order to know which ones are future and what role the church must act out in fulfilling her purpose, since Jesus intentionally did things in order to fulfill what had to happen in his day?

1) I think that's a good point.

2) Here's what I found in Fox's Book of the Martyrs, which was written in the 1600's.

The "beloved disciple," was brother to James the Great. The churches of Smyrna, Pergamos, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, and Thyatira, were founded by him. From Ephesus he was ordered to be sent to Rome, where it is affirmed he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation. Nerva, the successor of Domitian, recalled him. He was the only apostle who escaped a violent death.

3) Another good point.

4) It can also be seen on an idealistic level and applied to the spiritual life of the believer. Such verses as Luke 17:21 Luke 10:9-11 and Mat 12:28 infer that the coming of the kingdom is spiritual. Early church fathers referred to this idea as the continual coming of Christ in the church.

[Jezz]

I'm sorry if I presumed too much about what you were saying, and you're right about prophecy. I also guess I read too much into "liberal."
No problem.

You didn't read too much into "liberal", btw - the point I was trying to make is that liberals must date it late (because they deny the possibility of predictive prophecy) whereas conservatives could accept an early or a late date.

The book does say "the time is at hand." I don't think this means it has already happened. If it is about former events I think verses like Rev 1:1 and Rev 1:19 appear a little deceptive.
That is an excellent point, I had forgotten about those verses. I think you are right that these verses do virtually force a preterist to accept an early date for Revelation, as it does indicates that the book was written before the events that it depicts. At the very least, it indicates that the vision was given to St John from God before the events took place, along with the command to write it down - assuming that St John obeyed this command, we can assume that it was written before the events... :smile:

[Zguy28]

No problem.

You didn't read too much into "liberal", btw - the point I was trying to make is that liberals must date it late (because they deny the possibility of predictive prophecy) whereas conservatives could accept an early or a late date.


That is an excellent point, I had forgotten about those verses. I think you are right that these verses do virtually force a preterist to accept an early date for Revelation, as it does indicates that the book was written before the events that it depicts. At the very least, it indicates that the vision was given to St John from God before the events took place, along with the command to write it down - assuming that St John obeyed this command, we can assume that it was written before the events... :smile:That's kind of what I was getting at...:shrug:

[TyRockwell]

I think that the Rev 1:19 reference:

Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; means,

That which thou hast seen = past (up to the command to John to write)

The things that are = present (to John)

The things which shall be hereafter = future (to John)

My view is that he was taken through time, from before the foundation of the world to the future, the closing words of Revelation.

[Jezz]

That's kind of what I was getting at...:shrug:
Undoubtedly. :smile: It's not that I have anything against you - I just happen to think that Ty selected more convincing verses to prove the point. I did not (and still don't) find the verse that you cited convincing.

[Ted]

The late date, for the writing of Revelation, by John, ca. 96 AD, has been argued against because it mentions Judaizers, which according to Preter. sources, “would be ridiculous after the temple was destroyed..” Yet, here Ignatius warns against Judaizers, in two of his letters, 98 AD and later.

If the “Day of the Lord” and Jesus’ return occurred in 70 AD then Justin Martyr writing about 150 AD knew nothing about it. Justin specifically states that God “has still delayed” Jesus return, following His ascension.

I've been away for a while. These are telling arguments. The quotes from Irenaeus, Augustine, and Tertullian are similarly powerful.




Dating Revelation after AD 70 would not debunk the partial preterist view. It would simply mean that the prophecy was written after the fact, and hence not predictive.
This raises a huge question about the authenticity of the apocalypse. It presents itself as prophecy, but if written vaticinia ex eventu, it's not prophecy in the sense that the apocalypse presents itself.




In dating the time of the Revelation, would it be relevant to the 7 churches of asia minor, what might have been done in Jerusalem in 70 AD, or in Rome at the time of Nero and later in Rome? And that a post-70 AD writing may account for a no direct, or clear reference to the events of 70 AD?

Another powerful question.

At this point I see a lot of questions, but no adequate answers. All of the evidence so far proffered supports a late date in the minds of the ancient writers, since none so far have even hinted at the events in AD70 in Jerusalem or used the Neronic persecution as a reason for presenting the apocalypse to reassure the church.

Ted

[TyRockwell]

I agree with your reasoning, Ted. The majority position is that Revelation was written about 95 AD. At least that is what I've seen for many years.

The idea that it was written before 70AD has little to back it up; mostly it is speculation.

[prewrathrap]

Actually the harlot riding the beast may be Jerusalem itself - It is also a city of seven hills - which increases to eight hills when Jesus returns from the spot he left.

shalom
Mark

[TyRockwell]

Mark: Actually the harlot riding the beast may be Jerusalem itself - It is also a city of seven hills - which increases to eight hills when Jesus returns from the spot he left.

shalom
Mark

When you lift the reference out of the grande scheme of things, it could be several things that people have guessed at. But biblically, a false religion, such as idol worship, or demonic rituals to other 'deities' is what God called, 'playing the harlot.' A city is not a religion.

A 'beast' in Bible prophecy texts always refers to an evil spirit entity that is controlling, or trying to control, an empire or an alliance of governments. Jerusalem is not mentioned in that passage, but here is Rev. 17:18, "And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth." The woman is a false (harlot) religion AS government. At the time of the Revelation, Jerusalem had already been destroyed, and Rome would appear to be the most likely example, but the Roman government was not a religion, even though the caesars were considered 'gods.' You could call the Roman empire the 'template', but catholics, and catholic detractors go too far in jumping to the wrong conclusions here.

You can't forget the 'Babylon' aspect that references back to the three combined beasts in Rev. 13, that were originally seen in Daniel 7. The fourth beast, Rome, is specifically excluded, because that beast was slain after Jesus resurrection, Dan. 7:11.

The way Babylon's religion, AND government comes into play is easy to see in the geopolitical headlines of our time, when more and more governments are being influenced, or forced, to submit to some form of Islamic law. That is the picture: Babylonian religion riding on government, even many governments, causes a unity, a very imperfect unity, under that demonic spirit.

Of course, western civilized governments will hate that attempt to impose Islamic law over its people, and will have to fight the whore and the beast she rides. We are at that point, now.

Ty

[John Goddard]

Of course, western civilized governments will hate that attempt to impose Islamic law over its people, and will have to fight the whore and the beast she rides. We are at that point, now.

I basically answered in the other thread but for clarity, Muslims were never married to God that they could play harlot, Jews were.

Jeremiah 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Ezekiel 23:17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.

They were also carried away to Babylon by their Babylonian lovers, and destroyed by them in the end like the Beast does with the whore in Revelation.

Ezekiel 23:22 Therefore, O Aholibah, thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will raise up thy lovers against thee, from whom thy mind is alienated, and I will bring them against thee on every side;

Today many Christians swear allegiance to Israel, even though it and most every Jew in the world rejects Jesus as their king, and prophecy says only Messiah is supposed to restore Israel.

This is a baffling situation, why do Christians want to help build a kingdom of Jews, Judaism, and Israel that explicitly rejects Jesus as Messiah, and instead prepares for another Messiah?

Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Matthew 24:25 Behold, I have told you before.

[TyRockwell]

Originally posted by TyRockwell
Of course, western civilized governments will hate that attempt to impose Islamic law over its people, and will have to fight the whore and the beast she rides. We are at that point, now.

John G: I basically answered in the other thread but for clarity, Muslims were never married to God that they could play harlot, Jews were.

So you think that only 'Jews' or Christians can 'play the harlot.' Foolish. God is the only one true God. Anyone who goes after a false god and worships a false religion is playing the harlot.

John G: Today many Christians swear allegiance to Israel, even though it and most every Jew in the world rejects Jesus as their king, and prophecy says only Messiah is supposed to restore Israel.

They are as deceived as you are, to think that being a fleshly descendant of Jacob makes one Israel, or a Jew. There is a reason Jacob's name was changed, but whenever his progeny got into error they were again called 'Jacob.'

Jesus already restored true Israel according to the Spirit.

[John Goddard]

Originally posted by TyRockwell
Of course, western civilized governments will hate that attempt to impose Islamic law over its people, and will have to fight the whore and the beast she rides. We are at that point, now.

John G: I basically answered in the other thread but for clarity, Muslims were never married to God that they could play harlot, Jews were.

So you think that only 'Jews' or Christians can 'play the harlot.' Foolish. God is the only one true God. Anyone who goes after a false god and worships a false religion is playing the harlot.

There are two natures to the False Prophet, Beast Gentile Iron and Harlot Jewish Clay. Jews are universally known as God's Chosen People because they claim special marriage to God through Torah observance. Everyone else is a Gentile.

John G: Today many Christians swear allegiance to Israel, even though it and most every Jew in the world rejects Jesus as their king, and prophecy says only Messiah is supposed to restore Israel.

They are as deceived as you are, to think that being a fleshly descendant of Jacob makes one Israel, or a Jew. There is a reason Jacob's name was changed, but whenever his progeny got into error they were again called 'Jacob.'

Jesus already restored true Israel according to the Spirit.

The State of Israel is a different issue.

In Judaism, a Jew is one born to a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism. Biblically, a Jew is one who observes Torah. Realistically, one is a Jew who claims to be a Jew.

If being an Israelite has nothing to do with descent why are there 12,000 from Tribes in the 144,000 of Revelation. Gentiles can be grafted into Israel as sojourners but they are not from a Tribe.

If you follow Jesus do you ever actively claim to be a Jew or an Israelite?

[TyRockwell]

John G: There are two natures to the False Prophet, Beast Gentile Iron and Harlot Jewish Clay.

You are making the all too common mistake of forwarding the iron and clay of the two feet and toes of the image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream into the future. It was the TIME of the iron, Roman occupation of Israel, the clay, in the time of Jesus. Traditional interpretation of Daniel finds no evidence of the ministry years of Jesus and the results of his work. This is a gross error.

The only parts of Daniel that extend beyond 70 A.D are the growing mountain of the kingdom of God in chapter 2, and the unsealing of the book in our time, Dan.12:4.


Jews are universally known as God's Chosen People because they claim special marriage to God through Torah observance. Everyone else is a Gentile.

Gentiles are the nations. Israel is a nation, they are Gentiles. They are not the people of God, Christians are. Christians are Jews according to the Spirit, and Spiritual Israel.

If being an Israelite has nothing to do with descent why are there 12,000 from Tribes in the 144,000 of Revelation. Gentiles can be grafted into Israel as sojourners but they are not from a Tribe.

The descendants of Jacob are no longer the people of God. The 12,000, from each of the twelve tribes of Israel was a first century, i.e., early church situation, before the Gospel was begun to be proclaimed to the gentiles. It was that time of transition. Gentiles are gradted into the group of Jews who made the transition from old covenant to new, in Christ. The Rev. 7 tribes, the 144,000 should not be projected into the future, which is the common fallacy of interpreting Revelation, as well as Daniel.

If you follow Jesus do you ever actively claim to be a Jew or an Israelite?

Yes. I claim to be a Jew, in Christ, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and I am in the Israel of God.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

It is tiring to have to continually point out to misinformed people with an axe to grind against preterism that preterists do not say that the return of Christ has already occurred.

In light of this fact, how is it fruitful to appeal to a theologian who says that Christ is tarrying in his return as evidence that he opposes preterism? This type of blatant misrepresentation is coming from people who know better.

[John Goddard]

John G: There are two natures to the False Prophet, Beast Gentile Iron and Harlot Jewish Clay.

You are making the all too common mistake of forwarding the iron and clay of the two feet and toes of the image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream into the future. It was the TIME of the iron, Roman occupation of Israel, the clay, in the time of Jesus. Traditional interpretation of Daniel finds no evidence of the ministry years of Jesus and the results of his work. This is a gross error.

The only parts of Daniel that extend beyond 70 A.D are the growing mountain of the kingdom of God in chapter 2, and the unsealing of the book in our time, Dan.12:4.

If you can look around to see a powerful Gentile Kingdom like Rome which preaches Libertas and Justitia for all, and a State of Israel without Jesus ruling with that Roman power, we aren't done yet.

Jews are universally known as God's Chosen People because they claim special marriage to God through Torah observance. Everyone else is a Gentile.

Gentiles are the nations. Israel is a nation, they are Gentiles. They are not the people of God, Christians are. Christians are Jews according to the Spirit, and Spiritual Israel.

Maybe, maybe not.

Romans 11:23-24 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

Remember we have Messianic Jews who both believe in Jesus and observe Torah.

If being an Israelite has nothing to do with descent why are there 12,000 from Tribes in the 144,000 of Revelation. Gentiles can be grafted into Israel as sojourners but they are not from a Tribe.

The descendants of Jacob are no longer the people of God. The 12,000, from each of the twelve tribes of Israel was a first century, i.e., early church situation, before the Gospel was begun to be proclaimed to the gentiles. It was that time of transition. Gentiles are gradted into the group of Jews who made the transition from old covenant to new, in Christ. The Rev. 7 tribes, the 144,000 should not be projected into the future, which is the common fallacy of interpreting Revelation, as well as Daniel.

The 144,000 come from all over the world having been scattered to the Gentiles long before the first century, so that interpretation doesn't really fly.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

If you follow Jesus do you ever actively claim to be a Jew or an Israelite?

Yes. I claim to be a Jew, in Christ, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and I am in the Israel of God.

I wouldn't be comfortable calling myself a Jew without trying to observe all Torah, I think Messianic Jews rather deserve that title. Until I did I would call myself a righteous Gentile. But to each his own.

[TyRockwell]

John G: The 144,000 come from all over the world having been scattered to the Gentiles long before the first century, so that interpretation doesn't really fly.

It plainly says, in Rev. 7:4, that the 144,000 were from every tribe of the sons of Israel. Location had nothing to do with it. On the day of Pentecost there were people in Jerusalem from many places: "Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven."

The Rev. 7:9 multitude is distinguished from the Rev, 7:4-8 group. As you quoted, AFTER these things, a different group is seen, "which no man could number" in a different setting. Obviously the 144, 000 could be numbered.

I wrote: The only parts of Daniel that extend beyond 70 A.D are the growing mountain of the kingdom of God in chapter 2, and the unsealing of the book in our time, Dan.12:4.

Your response had nothing to do with what I said. Do you understand what I said?

[John Goddard]

John G: The 144,000 come from all over the world having been scattered to the Gentiles long before the first century, so that interpretation doesn't really fly.

It plainly says, in Rev. 7:4, that the 144,000 were from every tribe of the sons of Israel. Location had nothing to do with it. On the day of Pentecost there were people in Jerusalem from many places: "Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven."

The Rev. 7:9 multitude is distinguished from the Rev, 7:4-8 group. As you quoted, AFTER these things, a different group is seen, "which no man could number" in a different setting. Obviously the 144, 000 could be numbered.

I wrote: The only parts of Daniel that extend beyond 70 A.D are the growing mountain of the kingdom of God in chapter 2, and the unsealing of the book in our time, Dan.12:4.

Your response had nothing to do with what I said. Do you understand what I said?

It doesn't say a different group was seen, you just added that in there. He sees them sealed before the earth was hurt, and then after they have been martyred.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

Also the whole earth is kept from damage until the servants are sealed, which indicates they are from all over the earth.

Revelation 7:1-3 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

The following happens when Jesus returns and the coalition of Jews and Gentiles ruling together as a kingdom is smashed:

Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

Jews were ruling with Rome as a state of Rome in the first century, and they are again, so it's not over yet.

[TyRockwell]

John G: It doesn't say a different group was seen, you just added that in there. He sees them sealed before the earth was hurt, and then after they have been martyred.

It certainly IS a first group, second group scenario, except, the first group is also among the second group; but the 144,00 are dealt with first, because Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, who the 144,000 are.

John heard their number, Rev. 7:4, and he knew who they were. He knew without being told, they were of the 12 tribes of Israel.

But in Rev. 7:13-14, an elder asks John, "Who are those before the throne?" but John did not know.

Revelation 7:9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;

You are getting the sequences mixed up. You put Rev. 7:9 before Rev. 7:4-8. You are very mixed up!

John G: Also the whole earth is kept from damage until the servants are sealed, which indicates they are from all over the earth.

Revelation 7:1-3 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

Again, this introduces the 144,000. That the four winds are held back, to cause no harm, covers the time: "until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads." It is another reference that distinguishes the first saved as being of those twelve tribes.

John G: The following happens when Jesus returns and the coalition of Jews and Gentiles ruling together as a kingdom is smashed:

Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

Jews were ruling with Rome as a state of Rome in the first century, and they are again, so it's not over yet.

They are teaching you total dung. It isn't even in the future! Why jump from the time of Rome, in Daniel 2, without mentioning Jesus coming as savior, in the time of the Gospels? You can't answer that. All you do is spout some interpretation that ignores the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. Why do you do that?

Rome was ruling in the first century, but what of Jesus? Didn't he live and work and die and rise from the dead in the first century? It is right there in Daniel, if you are willing to learn.

[John Goddard]

John G: It doesn't say a different group was seen, you just added that in there. He sees them sealed before the earth was hurt, and then after they have been martyred.

It certainly IS a first group, second group scenario, except, the first group is also among the second group; but the 144,00 are dealt with first, because Jesus was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, who the 144,000 are.

John heard their number, Rev. 7:4, and he knew who they were. He knew without being told, they were of the 12 tribes of Israel.

But in Rev. 7:13-14, an elder asks John, "Who are those before the throne?" but John did not know.

He heard the number for each tribe, that's how he knew that. If they serve God day and night they enter through the twelve pearly gates named for each tribe, what tribal gate do you enter if you aren't from a tribe?

Revelation 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

John G: Also the whole earth is kept from damage until the servants are sealed, which indicates they are from all over the earth.

Again, this introduces the 144,000. That the four winds are held back, to cause no harm, covers the time: "until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads." It is another reference that distinguishes the first saved as being of those twelve tribes.

Yeah, from all over the earth.

John G: The following happens when Jesus returns and the coalition of Jews and Gentiles ruling together as a kingdom is smashed:

Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

Jews were ruling with Rome as a state of Rome in the first century, and they are again, so it's not over yet.

They are teaching you total dung. It isn't even in the future! Why jump from the time of Rome, in Daniel 2, without mentioning Jesus coming as savior, in the time of the Gospels? You can't answer that. All you do is spout some interpretation that ignores the time of Jesus' earthly ministry. Why do you do that?

Rome was ruling in the first century, but what of Jesus? Didn't he live and work and die and rise from the dead in the first century? It is right there in Daniel, if you are willing to learn.

Jesus didn't smash those kingdoms for good at that time, he does in the end as the rock from Heaven. There is no evidence they became as chaff and blew away, all evidence says they are still around.

[TyRockwell]

J.G: He heard the number for each tribe, that's how he knew that. If they serve God day and night they enter through the twelve pearly gates named for each tribe, what tribal gate do you enter if you aren't from a tribe?

You still missed the fact that he, John, didn't know who were the multitude that no man could count, before the throne. He had to be told. Neither did you recognize that 144,000 is not a number that no man can count. The fine point is that the 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes were the first people saved, before the rest of the gentile world. This establishes a transition time. You know there was a time before the gospel was opened to the gentiles.

The 'gates' idea is pointless. Many who are not from Jacob's line are before the throne, because of the fact that they, "come boldly to the throne of grace, that you may obtain mercy and find grace in the time of need." Hebrews 4:16

That the 144,000 came from more places than just Roman occupied Israel in no way changes the time frame, nor the fact that they were first century Jews who made the transition into Christ.

J.G.: Jews were ruling with Rome as a state of Rome in the first century, and they are again, so it's not over yet.

Wrong. The jews were being oppressed and persecuted. As Daniel said, Rome, especially Caesar, was waging war against the saints and defeating them, until the Ancient of Days, (God), pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, (through Jesus' redemption by the cross) and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom." They possessed the kingdom in Jesus' time, for he said, "I confer on you a kingdom..." and also, "The kingdom of heaven IS within you."

The 'Jews' as you perceive them are not 'ruling again.' The rule that Jesus got from Rome and satan was spiritual authority, and Jesus rules as Lord. The Roman principality was slain through the cross, and it is all over for him, Dan.7:11.

Jesus' acquisition of ALL authority, was the stone striking the authority of empires' principalities on their feet, spiritually, and it began the church, the mountain that has been growing and is filling the earth. The Holy Spirit is working through the church until the generation comes that will blow away the kingdoms of this world, Rev. 11:15.

Your position, again denies the work of Jesus, and does not even see Jesus' coming in the flesh in Daniel 2, and 7, and 9. If you refuse to see Jesus in Daniel, it is the same thing as to, "not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" according to 1st John 4:2-3, and is of the spirit of antichrist.

[John Goddard]

J.G: He heard the number for each tribe, that's how he knew that. If they serve God day and night they enter through the twelve pearly gates named for each tribe, what tribal gate do you enter if you aren't from a tribe?

You still missed the fact that he, John, didn't know who were the multitude that no man could count, before the throne. He had to be told. Neither did you recognize that 144,000 is not a number that no man can count. The fine point is that the 12,000 from each of the twelve tribes were the first people saved, before the rest of the gentile world. This establishes a transition time. You know there was a time before the gospel was opened to the gentiles.

Firs he heard the number of them, then he saw them:

Revelation 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

And then again:

Revelation 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

So then it is these:

Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Revelation 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

The 'gates' idea is pointless. Many who are not from Jacob's line are before the throne, because of the fact that they, "come boldly to the throne of grace, that you may obtain mercy and find grace in the time of need." Hebrews 4:16

He's talking about here and now praying for forgiveness, not about the literal throne of God.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

That the 144,000 came from more places than just Roman occupied Israel in no way changes the time frame, nor the fact that they were first century Jews who made the transition into Christ.

You haven't established that it happened in the first century yet.

J.G.: Jews were ruling with Rome as a state of Rome in the first century, and they are again, so it's not over yet.

Wrong. The jews were being oppressed and persecuted. As Daniel said, Rome, especially Caesar, was waging war against the saints and defeating them, until the Ancient of Days, (God), pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, (through Jesus' redemption by the cross) and the time came when the saints possessed the kingdom." They possessed the kingdom in Jesus' time, for he said, "I confer on you a kingdom..." and also, "The kingdom of heaven IS within you."

The Jews were still ruling through Herod and the Temple.

The 'Jews' as you perceive them are not 'ruling again.' The rule that Jesus got from Rome and satan was spiritual authority, and Jesus rules as Lord. The Roman principality was slain through the cross, and it is all over for him, Dan.7:11.

What do you call the people who run the State of Israel, without Jesus?

Jesus' acquisition of ALL authority, was the stone striking the authority of empires' principalities on their feet, spiritually, and it began the church, the mountain that has been growing and is filling the earth. The Holy Spirit is working through the church until the generation comes that will blow away the kingdoms of this world, Rev. 11:15.

When Jesus returns the kingdoms will be broken, now they are intact, most glaringly with the secular State of Israel that denies Jesus.

Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

Your position, again denies the work of Jesus, and does not even see Jesus' coming in the flesh in Daniel 2, and 7, and 9. If you refuse to see Jesus in Daniel, it is the same thing as to, "not acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" according to 1st John 4:2-3, and is of the spirit of antichrist.

Jesus came in the flesh but he destroys the Beast and binds Satan when he returns. When there is a cease of evil on earth for 1000 years then we can talk about the Beast being smashed.

[TyRockwell]

J.G.: First he heard the number of them, then he saw them:

Revelation 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

Ty: No, you've not seen that the first 144, 000 were First, the saved of Israel's twelve tribes. The text clearly says: "AFTER THIS I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no man count, From every nation,and tribe, and peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb."

1.)It would have no meaning to say that the 144,000 were a multitude that no man could number. They were specified as of the twelve tribes of Israel. They still knew what tribe they were of in the first century. Which answers your statement that I haven't established it happened in the first century. Sure it did. It is the whole reason for specifying the saved of the twelve tribes of Israel.

2.) From every ethnic group, "ethnos", nation, expands the crowd from the 144,000 of only the tribes of Israel.

3.)'Nations' is not about location.

JG: Revelation 7:15Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.

Ty: This verse establishes they are Christians, and that they live in God's presence. Your mistake is to assume that it can only mean, 'literally in heaven.'

JG: And then again:

Revelation 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

Ty: This group of 144,000 is not the same group of people as in chapter 7. Here they are not 'saved Jewish evangelists,' as you have been told. And, they appear after the mark of the beast.

Then you jump through time, again:

JG: Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Ty: These are Christians at the start of the 1000 year reign of Jesus, after his return. You are jumping forward in time for no reason, with no discernment.

You don't take a simple spiritual principle and see it in Revelation.
Regarding Hebrews 4:16, which I referenced to the innummerable multitude in Rev. 7:9 and 15, you said:

JG: He's talking about here and now praying for forgiveness, not about the literal throne of God.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Ty: You are quite willing to see this as figurative. We don't actually ascend to heaven every time we need to obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

But you don't see Rev. 7:9 and 15 in that same figurative sense. You missed that.

BTW, Heb. 4:16 encompasses more than praying for forgiveness, especially if you are forgiven already, and are in need, you would be more bold.

J.G.: Jews were ruling with Rome as a state of Rome in the first century.
The Jews were still ruling through Herod and the Temple.

Ty: No, they absolutely were not. To you, everything in Bible prophecy is a 'conspiracy theory.' Rome invaded. From 164 BC to 63 BC, when Rome invaded, Israel was a free and independant state and grew to the size of the empires of David and Solomon. Look up the Hasmonean Dynasty.

Rome set up 'puppet kings' over the people to give them the 'sense' that they were governing themselves but these 'tetrarchs' answered to Rome, and the Jews still wanted to revolt. Which fullfilled Daniel 2:44 "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."

JG: When Jesus returns the kingdoms will be broken, now they are intact, most glaringly with the secular State of Israel that denies Jesus.

Jesus rose from the dead with all authority, then he left. Do you say he only uses that authority when he returns, and he did not take authority away from the earthly kingdoms, and was made Lord of Lords and King of Kings? You'd be wrong. He broke the author