Josephus & Tacitus: "armies in the sky"

[Pate]

"It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates." And the four angels who had been kept ready were released to kill a third of mankind. The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number."
(Rev. 9:14-16)


Josephus writes:
"A certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities." (Wars 6.5.3)

and Tacitus writes:
"In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour" (Histories 5.13)


I guess that from a Preterist perspective, it would also be completely legitimate to interpret the mentioned Revelation passage as a metaphor of the military defeat of Jews against the overpowering opponent, but given that both Josephus and Tacitus record a scene like this, could it actually be that these appearances were the angels mentioned in the book of Revelation, so that there was also a more literal element in the fulfilment of this Rev. passage?


As an additional note, this Josephus passage has been a popular example among sceptics who try to show that Christians are using a double standard when they accept Biblical miracles, but tend to reject those that are mentioned outside of the Bible, even if they're reported in a generally reliable source. My preferred explanation for this Josephus passage so far (I hadn't heard of the Tacitus passage until recently) has been just that they probably saw "something unusual", and the rest would be explained by the combined effect of extreme stress during the siege and their wild imagination, or something to that effect. But if one could include these passages to the general Preteristic interpretation of Revelation, that would completely dissolve the force from the sceptic's objection about double standards. So what do you think about this issue?

PS. Can you think of any motivation for Josephus, Tacitus or their sources to fabricate a report of an event like this?

[studyhound]

Today @ 07:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154431#post154431)
Pate:


"It said to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates." And the four angels who had been kept ready were released to kill a third of mankind. The number of the mounted troops was two hundred million. I heard their number."
(Rev. 9:14-16)


Josephus writes:
"A certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities." (Wars 6.5.3)

and Tacitus writes:
"In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour" (Histories 5.13)


I guess that from a Preterist perspective, it would also be completely legitimate to interpret the mentioned Revelation passage as a metaphor of the military defeat of Jews against the overpowering opponent, but given that both Josephus and Tacitus record a scene like this, could it actually be that these appearances were the angels mentioned in the book of Revelation, so that there was also a more literal element in the fulfilment of this Rev. passage?


As an additional note, this Josephus passage has been a popular example among sceptics who try to show that Christians are using a double standard when they accept Biblical miracles, but tend to reject those that are mentioned outside of the Bible, even if they're reported in a generally reliable source. My preferred explanation for this Josephus passage so far (I hadn't heard of the Tacitus passage until recently) has been just that they probably saw "something unusual", and the rest would be explained by the combined effect of extreme stress during the siege and their wild imagination, or something to that effect. But if one could include these passages to the general Preteristic interpretation of Revelation, that would completely dissolve the force from the sceptic's objection about double standards. So what do you think about this issue?

PS. Can you think of any motivation for Josephus, Tacitus or their sources to fabricate a report of an event like this?

Pate,

Reading Josephus was the turning point for me becoming a pret.

Having just gone through rev. and Matt. 24 with a dispy pastor and just not seeing the copters and the cruise missles and the microchips. I went looking for something else and being a history fan I found Ol' josephus. The parallels were just so striking that to me they could not be ignored.

With rev. fresh in my mind I saw things from a whole new light. I kept it under my hat. Thinking I might be a heretic, :eek: not knowing there was a whole understanding that was not DF.

Josephus has been a blessing to my faith and has bosted my willingness to go outside of the bible to find an explaintion not given directly in the Bible.

[Cleombrotus]

Yesterday @ 07:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154621#post154621)
studyhound:



Pate,

Reading Josephus was the turning point for me becoming a pret.

Having just gone through rev. and Matt. 24 with a dispy pastor and just not seeing the copters and the cruise missles and the microchips. I went looking for something else and being a history fan I found Ol' josephus. The parallels were just so striking that to me they could not be ignored.

With rev. fresh in my mind I saw things from a whole new light. I kept it under my hat. Thinking I might be a heretic, :eek: not knowing there was a whole understanding that was not DF.

Josephus has been a blessing to my faith and has bosted my willingness to go outside of the bible to find an explaintion not given directly in the Bible.

[Cleombrotus]

[QUOTE]Yesterday @ 07:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154621#post154621)
studyhound:



Pate,

Reading Josephus was the turning point for me becoming a pret.



I am curious as to how Josephus convinced you that Jesus has already returned? Or am I misunderstanding what it means to be a Preterist?

[studyhound]

Today @ 05:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154864#post154864)
Cleombrotus:

[QUOTE]Yesterday @ 07:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=154621#post154621)
studyhound:



Pate,

Reading Josephus was the turning point for me becoming a pret.



I am curious as to how Josephus convinced you that Jesus has already returned? Or am I misunderstanding what it means to be a Preterist?

Hyper/full/complete preterist believe in Christ’s returning in a.d. 70 and all prophecy was fulfilled then.

Me I am an orthodox preterist, Christ came and judged Jerusalem, ala Matt. 24 and Rev. Christ will return in the future and Judge the living and the dead ala John 6:39 (raise us up on the last day) and 1st Corinthians 15.

What it convinced me of was that when Jesus said that "This generation" I could take him at his word and also that history (Josephus) confirms the events that Jesus gave us.

[Cleombrotus]

Not meaning any disrespect but my reaction to Preterism has always been the same as it is today: "so what?"

Why the need to believe that Jesus returned in 70A.D.? What useful purpose does it serve the Faith?

If, as you say, you can now take Jesus at His Word, what were you doing before your venture into Preterism?

[studyhound]

Today @ 01:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155094#post155094)
Cleombrotus:

Not meaning any disrespect but my reaction to Preterism has always been the same as it is today: "so what?"

Why the need to believe that Jesus returned in 70A.D.? What useful purpose does it serve the Faith?

If, as you say, you can now take Jesus at His Word, what were you doing before your venture into Preterism?

"So what?" That's most people response to Bible prophecy but that just shows how they lack understanding on the topic. Nearly 1/3 of the bible deals with some sort of prophesy. So are you going to disregard 1/3 of the whole bible?

Well why the need to believe in the virgin birth, why the need to believe in the second coming, why the need to believe in any thing Jesus said or anything in the bible? Have you ever study history in relation to the bible? Ever seen the beauty that when you read a passage of scripture you can see that played out in history, especially prophecies? There is Old Testament prophecy that we can see fulfilled in history that the bible never returns to and shows its fulfillment.

What was I doing before I "ventured" into preterism? Being lead astray by ever doctrine that men taught me. Preterism was the first area that I studied letting no one drag me by the nose telling me this was true. Instead I became a student of the Bible and compared scripture to scripture and to what history says. This gave me the courage to believe the Bible. I have grown More and more in ways of believing in God, like it says in Romans 10 “ So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.”

[Cleombrotus]

Yesterday @ 06:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155368#post155368)
studyhound:



"So what?" That's most people response to Bible prophecy but that just shows how they lack understanding on the topic. Nearly 1/3 of the bible deals with some sort of prophesy. So are you going to disregard 1/3 of the whole bible"



But surely you must understand that not every Christian accepts the theory that Jesus returned in 70AD, no? Your response assumes that to disagree with Preterism is to disagree with 1/3 of the Bible. It is not an established doctrine. It is controversial at best.










"Well why the need to believe in the virgin birth, why the need to believe in the second coming, why the need to believe in any thing Jesus said or anything in the bible? Have you ever study history in relation to the bible? Ever seen the beauty that when you read a passage of scripture you can see that played out in history, especially prophecies? There is Old Testament prophecy that we can see fulfilled in history that the bible never returns to and shows its fulfillment."


The virgin birth is both established and necessary for the equipment of Faith, as is the Second Coming. We know of what use they are for the Faith, not so with the idea that Jesus returned in 70AD. I wanted to know why you think Preterism is necessary to the point that you have adopted this new teaching into your own faith and equated it with the virgin birth and The Second Coming?.










"What was I doing before I "ventured" into preterism? Being lead astray by ever doctrine that men taught me. Preterism was the first area that I studied letting no one drag me by the nose telling me this was true. Instead I became a student of the Bible and compared scripture to scripture and to what history says. This gave me the courage to believe the Bible. I have grown More and more in ways of believing in God, like it says in Romans 10 “ So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.”

Well, this is what I am trying to find out: HOW did believing that Jesus returned in 70 AD accomplish what other Christians seem to do without believing such? Could you explain some ways in which you have grown since accepting this belief that one cannot without it?

[studyhound]

[qoute]what other Christians seem to do without believing such?[/quote]

Well from my experience most thinking Christians have a point were they are faced with a point of believing, either in the resurrection, the virgin birth or some other supernatural event. They are pressed by skeptics or non-believers. If you have not then you are truly lucky. I guess I have a little Thomas in me. :D


Could you explain some ways in which you have grown since accepting this belief that one cannot without it?

Well I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but here’s one. Not so much being a preterist but the change my life took after leaving the dispensational camp was huge. I was convinced that I would not see my18th b-day, and then the church would be raptured off the earth by the year 2000.

Well both have come and gone and I was sitting on “the coin I buried”, I was of no use to anyone especially God. So as I started to study the bible and let God lead me not men I was lead out of DF and in to a useful member of the kingdom of God. Now instead of a dead-beat Jesus freak, I am a father and a Husband and plan to see my house follow God through my children and grandchildren.

My ability to honestly look at scripture and not have a preconceived grid of theology to strain it through allows me to look at the bible with new eyes. Most people I talk with say something like “I believe so-and-so theology because my pastor, youth leader, best selling author says so”. I was like that, letting the likes of Jack van Impe, Tim Lahaye, John Hagee, Hal Lindsey and the rest steer my theology.

Hope this isn’t as clear as mud!
:tongue:

[Cleombrotus]

I can certainly understand your growth through anxious toil and wrong theology into grace, having made the same journey. However, I am still confused as to how 70 AD figures in. How is it necessary? That is what I mean by "so what?" It was not meant to be flippant or derisive.

Also, I am unclear as to what "DF" means, or "the dispensational camp". I have never been one for labels. For example, I still don't know what a Calvinist is, nor do I care to.
I think labels disguise and distort the nature of heresies. It might be better if you simply articulated the erroneous teaching.

[studyhound]

Today @ 07:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=155754#post155754)
Cleombrotus:

Ican certainly understand your growth through anxious toil and wrong theology into grace, having made the same journey. However, I am still confused as to how 70 AD figures in. How is it necessary? That is what I mean by "so what?" It was not meant to be flippant or derisive.

Also, I am unclear as to what "DF" means, or "the dispensational camp". I have never been one for labels. For example, I still don't know what a Calvinist is, nor do I care to.
I think labels disguise and distort the nature of heresies. It might be better if you simply articulated the erroneous teaching.

Hope you don’t mind I’ll take your second comment first. People use terms like Calvinist, dispensational, preterist, et al, to explain a larger idea. Just like people in all walks of life do. Lawyers, construction workers, doctors, computer geeks, ect, all have specialized words to explain complex or lengthy ideas.

For example, eschatology, when some one says this, the other person understands what they are talking about. Rather than a 3 or 4 paragraph of history, definitions, and examples to explain what can be said in one word. So labels are a necessity of conversation, mostly to save time.

If you need me to define a word just ask. :smile:


However, I am still confused as to how 70 AD figures in. How is it necessary?

If you have ever read or seen the Left behind series, this is a revile understanding of what is taught there. Preterist means (simply) past fulfillment. So a preterist sees the events that Jesus talks about in Matt. 24 and in the book of Revelation Fulfilled in part or in full at the time of 70 ad.


How is it necessary?

I am still not sure what you mean by this? Necessary to us today? Necessary to the whole of the body of Christ over the last 2000 years? Necessary in the bible?


I am still confused as to how 70 AD figures in.

In 70 ad Titus, a Roman general who later became Ceaser, came to Israel, and laid siege Jerusalem destroying it especially the temple fulfilling Jesus words that one stone will be left upon another and many other passages.


Peace <><

[Cleombrotus]

My question concerning 70 AD is not with the obvious connection with what we know empirically about that date, i.e, the destruction of the Temple by Titus, as per Jesus' predictions, but rather with the less than empirical belief of the Preterist, that Jesus returned on that date, since that is the point of controvery, including the idea that all prophecy has been fulfilled at that time.

You seem to be avoiding dealing with this point although I have been upfront and straightforward in my inquiry.

By "necesssary" I am trying to get at the heart of the matter. "Yes" to all of your stipulations. It is "necessary" to believe that Jesus is returning as He explicitly said, for that is our hope and the consumation of our Faith; it is "necessary" to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin for His nature as a human is contingent upon this fact and His expiation is dependent upon it; it is "necessary" to believe in His fulfillment of the hundreds of prophecies in His lifetime since that is one of the two witnesses that He Himself appealed to as His credentials, and which establish His authenticity and thereby His authority. If any person claims the title of follower of Christ and does not adhere to these principles, it is doubtful that he/she is, in fact, a believer in Christ.

But please explain, if you can, how a believer who is assured of these things and understands them both intuitively and through study of Scripture in the building up of his/her Faith, then needs to understand that all prophecy has been fulfilled in 70AD and specifically that Jesus Himself has already returned on that date.

I don't think I can make my request any clearer than that.

[studyhound]

Ahh I see. I don't see ALL prophecy fulfilled in 70 ad(HYPER/FULL/PRETERIST). see post 5.

[studyhound]

Here is a article on Full preterism.

http://tektonics.org/hythere.html