When was the Book of Revelation written?

[David Kent]

I have studied ancient documents for about 45 years, including about ten years devoted specifically to the writings of ancient Christians. And I can tell you with absolute assurance, that the early Christian writers were most absolutely futurists. In fact, Jerome, writing in the fifth century, called futurism “the traditional doctrine of all the writers of the Christian church.” They taught that prophecy would be fulfilled in the earth’s six thousandth year. As the text they were using was the Septuagint, that meant they were expecting a fulfillment at around the year 450. Many today make the same error, so they expeced a fulfillment a few years ago.

But the Bible simply does not say that the Lord will come in the earth’s six thousandth year.

And as a side note, aside from the assumption made by some (not all) of them, that the Roman Empire was the “let,” the scenario you described is indeed taught in classical Didpensationalism.

And the early “church fathers” often used the word “dispensation “ for an age, they often insisted on the importance of interpreting Bible prophecy literally, they often taught a future prophetic program for “the Jews,” and some of them explicitly taught and futur vonversion of all Jews, as well as a future fulfillment of Daniel’s seventieth week, and even a rapture before the great tribulation. I have thoroughly documented all of this in my forthcoming book, “Ancient Dispensational Doctrine.”

Many people in the past mentioned dispensations but that doesn't mean the were what are called today "dispensationalists". They seemed to mean the old dispensation, the OT and the current dispensation, from the NT onwards. They were mostly Millenialists,

Historicists also taught that such as E B Elliott and Henry Grattan Guinness.

How can the early writers be literalists when many taught that the temple in Revelation was the church?

 

[Biblewriter]

Many people in the past mentioned dispensations but that doesn't mean the were what are called today "dispensationalists". They seemed to mean the old dispensation, the OT and the current dispensation, from the NT onwards. They were mostly Millenialists,

Historicists also taught that such as E B Elliott and Henry Grattan Guinness.

How can the early writers be literalists when many taught that the temple in Revelation was the church?

“Since, then, we prove that all things which have already happened had been predicted by the prophets before they came to pass, we must necessarily believe also that those things which are in like manner predicted, but are yet to come to pass, shall certainly happen. For as the things which have already taken place came to pass when foretold, and even though unknown, so shall the things that remain, even though they be unknown and disbelieved, yet come to pass.” (“The First Apology of Justin,” by Justin Martyr, chapter 52.)

“If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. For example: ‘When the cities’ of the Gentiles ‘shall be desolate, so that they be not inhabited, and the houses so that there shall be no men in them and the land shall be left desolate.’ ‘For, behold,’ says Isaiah, ‘the day of the Lord cometh past remedy, full of fury and wrath, to lay waste the city of the earth, and to root sinners out of it.’ And again he says, ‘Let him be taken away, that he behold not the glory of God.’ And when these things are done, he says, ‘God will remove men far away, and those that are left shall multiply in the earth.’ ‘And they shall build houses, and shall inhabit them themselves: and plant vineyards, and eat of them themselves.’ ” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXXV, paragraph 1.)

“But I will set before you more literal points. ‘He shall have dominion,’ says the Psalmist, ‘from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.’ To Christ alone was this given; whilst Solomon reigned over only the moderately-sized kingdom of Judah. ‘Yea, all kings shall fall down before Him.’ Whom, indeed, shall they all thus worship, except Christ? ‘All nations shall serve Him.’ To whom shall all thus do homage, but Christ? ‘His name shall endure for ever.’ Whose name has this eternity of fame, but Christ’s? ‘Longer than the sun shall His name remain,’ for longer than the sun shall be the Word of God, even Christ. ‘And in Him shall all nations be blessed.’ In Solomon was no nation blessed; in Christ every nation. And what if the Psalm proves Him to be even God? ‘They shall call Him blessed. (On what ground?) Because blessed Is the Lord God of Isreal, who only doeth wonderful things.’ ‘Blessed also is His glorious name, and with His glory shall all the earth be filled.’ ” (“The Five Books Against Marcion,” by Tertullian, book 5, chapter 9, Translated by Dr. Holmes, from “The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. 3, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, as found in its American edition ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe)

“For just as upon Sodom when their transgressions were fulfilled, immediately fire descended upon them and they were destroyed, in this way it will be even now, when lawlessness multiplies in the world and the present iron beast is divided into ten horns and anarchy occurs and discord, while others from here and there rend the kingdom, then the end shall come upon them.” (“Commentary on Daniel,” by Hippolytus, book 2, chapter 6, paragraph 4, from the forthcoming translation by T. C. Schmidt.)

“We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor.” (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” by Jerome, pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., pub. by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

 

[claninja]

This is so typical of the claims of Preterists.

And this is a typical response from a dispensationalist. Ignore the questions asked, and say, 'well what about this?' So I will ask again, did the disciples' generation live through wars and rumor of wars, earthquakes, famines, pestilence, false prophets, persecution, the temple destruction?

"all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." (Matthew 24:6) Plus the one event that all agree took place, and completely ignore the rest of the prophecy. The details you have ignored are:

I agree that all those things must come to pass before the end is not yet.

Just because I interpret them differently than you does not mean I am ignoring the rest of the prophecy. We just disagree. So instead of saying 'what about this', I will address the objections you presented.

First, that "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14 ) The gospel has not, even yet, reached the entire world.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world.

Colossians 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.

Second, the words "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath." (Matthew 24:15-20) A few posts back, you tried to pretend that the armies of Rome were the "abomination of desolation." But the prophetic instruction was to flee with great haste when they saw the "abomination of desolation" standing in the the holy place. By the time the armies of Rome arrived at the holy place, it was far too late to flee. So that could not even possibly be what this prophecy was speaking of.

Matthew 24:15-16 So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

Luke 21:20-21 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,

Those in Judea who saw the abomination of desolation, which according to Luke consisted of armies surrounding Jerusalem, were to flee.

Jerusalem is not Judea. Jerusalem is a city in the region of Judea. Obviously, if Jerusalem was surrounded by armies, it would be difficult to flee from Jerusalem. However, Jesus tells those in Judea to flee when they see Jerusalem surrounded by armies. Thus it was not impossible for those who were in Judea, not necessarily exactly inside Jerusalem, to flee to the mountains when they saw jerusalem surrounded by armies.

Third, the words "unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved." (Matthew 24:22) A war so terrible that it would literally kill everything, not just every human, was unthinkable until our generation. But it is common knowledge today that an all out nuclear exchange would literally kill all flesh on this earth.

Don't forget the rest of the verse: Matthew 24:22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

The context is the destruction of Jerusalem. If God did not shorten those days, all of those in Jerusalem would have been destroyed. But as it is, God cut those days short for the benefit of the elect. Even Paul prophesied that only a remnant would be saved while the rest became like sodom and gomorrah:

Romans 9:27-29 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israelc be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” And as Isaiah predicted,

“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.”

Forth, the words "For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matthew 24:27) It is irrational to even try to pretend that the Lord himself appeared in any such way that all people saw Him, at any time since these words were spoken.

Not following you here. A Lighting flash is quick. If you blink, you will miss it. A lightning flash is also local and not seen over all the world. If Jesus is comparing his coming to a lightning flash, then I'm not understanding what you mean here.

Fifth, the words "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (Matthew 24:30) Since these words were spoken, there has never been a time when "all the tribes of the earth" saw the Son of Man coming, and mourned when they saw Him.

Matthew 24:30 Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will mourn on account of him. Even so. Amen.

**The greek word for earth in Matthew 24:30 and Revelation 1:7 can mean earth, land, country, world.
Is Jesus pulling from any old testament prophecies? Yes, he is pulling from Zechariah 12:

Zechariah 12: 10-14 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land shall mourn, each familya by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself, and their wives by themselves; and all the families that are left, each by itself, and their wives by themselves.

**The hebrew word for land in zechariah 12 can mean land, earth country, world.

**The context of the olivet discourse, is again, the destruction of Jerusalem. All the tribes of the earth refers to all of the tribes of the land of Israel as listed in zechariah 12.

Sixth, the words "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." (Matthew 24:31) you pretend that this was fulfilled in the gospel going out. But the agency used of God to spread the gospel is mankind, not angels.

I don't believe angels are the agency used by God to spread the gospel. So I don't really know what you are talking about. I believe this is talking about the resurrection.

While the temple stood, symbolically, this meant the way to heaven was not yet open.

Hebrews 9:8 By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first tabernacle is still standing (which is symbolic for the present age).

Seventh, the words "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.

I don't think any preterist claims to know the exact day or hour of the coming. However, when a woman is pregnant, one knows that baby will be born in around 9 months (give or take as long as the pregnancy is healthy), but the woman does not know the exact day or hour of when the baby will be born only that it will be roughly within 9 months. As it is, the disciples knew 'all these things' would occur in their generation, but they did not know the day or hour.

Seventh, the words "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." (Matthew 24:36-44) The Roman destruction of the land and then the city and temple came on slowly and inexorably. All knew it was coming, and there was plenty of warning, so much so that the Christians withdrew before it came. So these words cannot even possibly be referring to that event.

To the Christians who knew ahead of time to flee, the destruction was not sudden. Just as in the days of Noah, Noah knew well in advance that the flood was coming, but the wicked did not. As it is, for the Jews who did not believe in Christ, the destruction came suddenly. They believed they would crush the romans and reign over the earth, and they fought till the end, believing God on their side, until suddenly the romans entered Jerusalem, slaughtering any who opposed them and overturning the temple, leaving not one stone atop another.

For what Jesus actually said was, "Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near--at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."

I agree that Jesus actually said this and he was speaking directly to the apostles. How many times did Jesus say 'you' throughout the olivet discourse? A lot.

Jesus was saying that the generation that saw it all begin to happen, would see it all completed.

Yes, I agree.

You appeal to the words "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matthew 24:34) As proof of your notion. But you have neglected the context of these words.

Nope, I definitely left them in context. The disciples throughout the NT believed and taught they were living in the last days (acts 2:16-17), at the end of the age (1 corinthians 10:11), and that it was the last hour (1 John 2:18). Why did they believe that? because Jesus told them.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This could hardly be more in error. Historicism was mot invented until much later. Almost all of the early church writers were decided and outspoken futurists. And even as late as the fifth century, Jerome said "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that" and then went on to describe a futurist interpretation. (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

Interesting that he did not insist that we concur with what the writers of the Bible had to say about interpreting the Bible. I cannot recall that any of them said that majority opinion ought to be the measure.

In any case, Jerome, and I guess all of the commentatory of the Christian church in his day were wrong in their interpretation. Might have been a lack of knowledge of what transpired in 70 AD.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

“We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor.” (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” by Jerome, pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., pub. by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

It needs to be pointed out that Jerome was dead wrong. The end of the world did not occur when the Romans Empire was destroyed. There were no ten kings who partitioned of the Roman world amongst themselves. There was no significant 11th king. The whole description above did not happen. So Jereome might have insisted everyone follow all the commentors of the Bible but if they were like him, they were all wrong. The blind leading the blind and insisting all the people follow the blind leaders since they were unified and no other views should be tolerated. This intolerance alone ought to awaken doubt in the heart of those who believe the Bible interprets the Bible, not commentators.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

This is a total misrepresentation of what I said. 100% of all Biblical prophecies are supportable. But almost 100% of the Preterist and Historicist claims that these prophecies have already been fulfilled are unsupportable.

Very few of these claims are based on historical records that match more than 20% of the details of the prophecies claimed to have already been fulfilled

Your post is a 100% mistrepresentation of what I said. For example, no one who is a believer refutes that 100% of the Biblical prophesices are supportable. What you left out in your statement of what I said, changing the meaning entirely, is that there are some who thought none of the Biblical prophesies ABOUT JESUS were not supportable. You left out "about Jesus" which is dishonest. All I said, and it is 100% true, that even though prophesies were fulfilled before their very eyes, there are those and were those who denied they were. They simply did not see the fulfillment of the prophesy that was there before them. That is all I said. It is to shed some perspective on those who insist the fall of Jeruslame was not the fullfillment of prophesy. This is not a new position and people in Jesus' day thought his life was also not fulfilling the Bible prophesies.

The really interesting part is that those who denied Jesus fulfilled the Bible prophesies had the same eschatology and those today who do not see the fall of Jerusalem as fulfilling Bible prophesy and that is, when the Messiah comes, he will set up a Messianic kingdom by force and rule the world from Jerusalem. He will come with troops and take over and reign from the capitol of the Jews. That is what they thought as well. Your position is the same one as held by the scribes and pharasees which prevented them from seeing the fullfillment of prophesy when it happened then too.

 

[David Kent]

“Since, then, we prove that all things which have already happened had been predicted by the prophets before they came to pass, we must necessarily believe also that those things which are in like manner predicted, but are yet to come to pass, shall certainly happen. For as the things which have already taken place came to pass when foretold, and even though unknown, so shall the things that remain, even though they be unknown and disbelieved, yet come to pass.” (“The First Apology of Justin,” by Justin Martyr, chapter 52.)

“If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]. For example: ‘When the cities’ of the Gentiles ‘shall be desolate, so that they be not inhabited, and the houses so that there shall be no men in them and the land shall be left desolate.’ ‘For, behold,’ says Isaiah, ‘the day of the Lord cometh past remedy, full of fury and wrath, to lay waste the city of the earth, and to root sinners out of it.’ And again he says, ‘Let him be taken away, that he behold not the glory of God.’ And when these things are done, he says, ‘God will remove men far away, and those that are left shall multiply in the earth.’ ‘And they shall build houses, and shall inhabit them themselves: and plant vineyards, and eat of them themselves.’ ” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, book V, chapter XXXV, paragraph 1.)

“But I will set before you more literal points. ‘He shall have dominion,’ says the Psalmist, ‘from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.’ To Christ alone was this given; whilst Solomon reigned over only the moderately-sized kingdom of Judah. ‘Yea, all kings shall fall down before Him.’ Whom, indeed, shall they all thus worship, except Christ? ‘All nations shall serve Him.’ To whom shall all thus do homage, but Christ? ‘His name shall endure for ever.’ Whose name has this eternity of fame, but Christ’s? ‘Longer than the sun shall His name remain,’ for longer than the sun shall be the Word of God, even Christ. ‘And in Him shall all nations be blessed.’ In Solomon was no nation blessed; in Christ every nation. And what if the Psalm proves Him to be even God? ‘They shall call Him blessed. (On what ground?) Because blessed Is the Lord God of Isreal, who only doeth wonderful things.’ ‘Blessed also is His glorious name, and with His glory shall all the earth be filled.’ ” (“The Five Books Against Marcion,” by Tertullian, book 5, chapter 9, Translated by Dr. Holmes, from “The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers,” vol. 3, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, as found in its American edition ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe)

“For just as upon Sodom when their transgressions were fulfilled, immediately fire descended upon them and they were destroyed, in this way it will be even now, when lawlessness multiplies in the world and the present iron beast is divided into ten horns and anarchy occurs and discord, while others from here and there rend the kingdom, then the end shall come upon them.” (“Commentary on Daniel,” by Hippolytus, book 2, chapter 6, paragraph 4, from the forthcoming translation by T. C. Schmidt.)

“We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor.” (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” by Jerome, pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., pub. by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

Of course none of that disproves anything that I posted, in fact only confirms what I said.

The only thing that futurists would use against historicists is "“If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize" We don't allegorise, we use symbols and maily only symbols that are used elsewhere in scripture. The ECW recognised the symbols. The 10 horns were 10 kings". The little horn was an insignificant king at first ut grew to great power.

As I have said before and you can check it from history, Ten kings did overthrow the Roman Empire. The breakup of the Roman Empire took place over a period of time. The removal of the capital to the East in AD 330was the beginning. The Bishop of Rome became the most powerful man in the west. Cardinal Manning said "The possession of the Pontiffs commences with the abandonment of Rome by the emperors," Quoted by Clarence H Hewitt in The Seer Of Babylon, page 113.

In AD 476 the last Roman western Caesar, Augustulus, was forced out of of power by the Goths, the restraint was now fully "Out of the way". I have shown before that there were ten Gothic Powers which overthrew the empire, the papacy arose from among them and subdued three taking their lands which became known as the Papal states. As I remarked previously he kept those till 1870.

 

[David Kent]

@Biblewriter

Who and what do you believe the let and hindrance are in 2 Thess 2.?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Of course none of that disproves anything that I posted, in fact only confirms what I said.

The only thing that futurists would use against historicists is "“If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize" We don't allegorise, we use symbols and maily only symbols that are used elsewhere in scripture. The ECW recognised the symbols. The 10 horns were 10 kings". The little horn was an insignificant king at first ut grew to great power.

As I have said before and you can check it from history, Ten kings did overthrow the Roman Empire. The breakup of the Roman Empire took place over a period of time. The removal of the capital to the East in AD 330was the beginning. The Bishop of Rome became the most powerful man in the west. Cardinal Manning said "The possession of the Pontiffs commences with the abandonment of Rome by the emperors," Quoted by Clarence H Hewitt in The Seer Of Babylon, page 113.

In AD 476 the last Roman western Caesar, Augustulus, was forced out of of power by the Goths, the restraint was now fully "Out of the way". I have shown before that there were ten Gothic Powers which overthrew the empire, the papacy arose from among them and subdued three taking their lands which became known as the Papal states. As I remarked previously he kept those till 1870.

Who were the ten kings who overthrew the Roman Empire? Who says the capital was removed to the east? Did the Italians acknowledge this? Since Justin thought this was the end of the world, what exactly ended besides the Roman Empire? Never heard that ten Gothic kings defeated the Roman Empire. That the Germanic/Goth/Vandals attacked and sacked Rome and/or the Romans is history. Ten kings? This is new so let's have some adequate references please. One guy is not enough. Needs to be acknowledged by historians has having happened. Been doing some looking and did not find any ten kings mentioned. Sounds to me like forcing history to meet the interpetation of Jerome whether it does or not. We have had this kind of thinking in the 21st century as well.

But in any case, does not seem like the expected end of the age occured at the time as Jerome predicted. Unless you can explain how the end of the age happened and in addition, that event is now over so no future event is to be expected. Do not see any of this as matching revelation but it is not my position so i don't have to do so.

 

[Biblewriter]

Your post is a 100% mistrepresentation of what I said. For example, no one who is a believer refutes that 100% of the Biblical prophesices are supportable. What you left out in your statement of what I said, changing the meaning entirely, is that there are some who thought none of the Biblical prophesies ABOUT JESUS were not supportable. You left out "about Jesus" which is dishonest. All I said, and it is 100% true, that even though prophesies were fulfilled before their very eyes, there are those and were those who denied they were. They simply did not see the fulfillment of the prophesy that was there before them. That is all I said. It is to shed some perspective on those who insist the fall of Jeruslame was not the fullfillment of prophesy. This is not a new position and people in Jesus' day thought his life was also not fulfilling the Bible prophesies.

The really interesting part is that those who denied Jesus fulfilled the Bible prophesies had the same eschatology and those today who do not see the fall of Jerusalem as fulfilling Bible prophesy and that is, when the Messiah comes, he will set up a Messianic kingdom by force and rule the world from Jerusalem. He will come with troops and take over and reign from the capitol of the Jews. That is what they thought as well. Your position is the same one as held by the scribes and pharasees which prevented them from seeing the fullfillment of prophesy when it happened then too.

Thank you for your clarification. But the Bible presents two comings of Messiah. The ancient Jews only saw one. He is still coming as the mighty warrior, and will still deliver Jerusalem.

 

[Biblewriter]

@Biblewriter

Who and what do you believe the let and hindrance are in 2 Thess 2.?

The Holy Spirit.

 

[Biblewriter]

Of course none of that disproves anything that I posted, in fact only confirms what I said.

The only thing that futurists would use against historicists is "“If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize" We don't allegorise, we use symbols and maily only symbols that are used elsewhere in scripture. The ECW recognised the symbols. The 10 horns were 10 kings". The little horn was an insignificant king at first ut grew to great power.

As I have said before and you can check it from history, Ten kings did overthrow the Roman Empire. The breakup of the Roman Empire took place over a period of time. The removal of the capital to the East in AD 330was the beginning. The Bishop of Rome became the most powerful man in the west. Cardinal Manning said "The possession of the Pontiffs commences with the abandonment of Rome by the emperors," Quoted by Clarence H Hewitt in The Seer Of Babylon, page 113.

In AD 476 the last Roman western Caesar, Augustulus, was forced out of of power by the Goths, the restraint was now fully "Out of the way". I have shown before that there were ten Gothic Powers which overthrew the empire, the papacy arose from among them and subdued three taking their lands which became known as the Papal states. As I remarked previously he kept those till 1870.

What I posted conclusively proved that these writers were futurists, not historicists.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Thank you for your clarification. But the Bible presents two comings of Messiah. The ancient Jews only saw one. He is still coming as the mighty warrior, and will still deliver Jerusalem.

This is what the pharisees thought too. Today Jerusalem is firmly in the hands of the Jews and there is no indication it will ever change. I find it odd that Jesus is coming to deliver Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jews. I think Jesus came in 70AD in judgement over Jerusalem. That was not in body same as the other references to "coming in the clouds" does not mean bodily appearance but judgement. Jesus did not have a good opinion of Jerusalem at the end of his ministry and no promise to come and deliver them but instead judge them. That he did. That is my view.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

As formidable as the Roman Empire was, it does not seem to be very pivotal in the mind of God. So I have a hard time believing its fall was the end of an age in the teaching of Jesus. Jerusalem and the Mosaic law was very pivotal in the plan of God. Jesus never spoke of the end of the Roman empire. He did speak of the end of the temple and the fulfillment of the Mosaic law. Odd that no Bible writer spoke of the Roman Empire as being so pivotal.

 

[David Kent]

First, that "this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14 ) The gospel has not, even yet, reached the entire world.

Scripture disagrees with you.
Acts 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Romans 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
Romans 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Second, the words "Therefore when you see the 'abomination of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath." (Matthew 24:15-20) A few posts back, you tried to pretend that the armies of Rome were the "abomination of desolation." But the prophetic instruction was to flee with great haste when they saw the "abomination of desolation" standing in the the holy place. By the time the armies of Rome arrived at the holy place, it was far too late to flee. So that could not even possibly be what this prophecy was speaking of.

The Christians did flee in haste when they saw the Roman abomination, the armies surrounding Jerusalem Eusebius says not one believer was killed in that tribulation. How did they escape? Josephus records that on the point of taking the city, cestius suddenly "without a reason in the world" withdrew his troops. They did have time to return as the Jews defeated the fleeing Roman army and it was obvious the Nero would soon send a more powerful general to defeat the city.

If the abomination was to be an idol in some supposed future temple, the city would already have fallen and if the holy place was the holy of holies only the high priest would see it only only then if he had not been killed first. And as dispensationalists believe that Christians will already have been raptured they would not see it and be able to flee. Your teaching falls on all points.

Third, the words "unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved." (Matthew 24:22) A war so terrible that it would literally kill everything, not just every human, was unthinkable until our generation. But it is common knowledge today that an all out nuclear exchange would literally kill all flesh on this earth.

You should remember that the prophecy was about the temple and the fall of Jerusalem.
No flesh would have been saved in Jerusalem and Judea if the war had not been suddenly ended by the legionaires of Cyrus disobeying his command not to attack the temple. Had that no happened no Jew in the country would have been saved. The end is the end was the end of those troubles. Fulfilling all or most of the curses in Deut. 28.

Fifth and sixth points. Matthew says "Then" but he doesn't say how long after the "Then" would be.

Seventh, the words "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only. But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." (Matthew 24:36-44) The Roman destruction of the land and then the city and temple came on slowly and inexorably. All knew it was coming, and there was plenty of warning, so much so that the Christians withdrew before it came. So these words cannot even possibly be referring to that event.

The BUT begins an answer to Matthew's last question.
and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
This was nothing to do with the previous discussion, except in the disciples thinking Remember they got many things wrong before Pentecost

For what Jesus actually said was, "Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near--at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." (Matthew 24:32-34) Jesus was saying that the generation that saw it all begin to happen, would see it all completed. But the only events that were seen by that generation were some concerning which Jesus explicitly said, "all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet." (Matthew 24:6)

The end that was to come was the end of the Temple and the Jewish economy. When they saw the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem (Luke) that is

• 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
• 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

And Mark.

• 14 ¶ But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:

In all three accounts the command was to flee Jeusalem when they saw this. What was it that the abominable Roman armies were to desolate?

• Luke 21:20 ¶ And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Josephus records two desolations of Jerusalem in his short history of Jerusalem, one by Nehadnezzar and the other by Titus.

The Jews would have known full well what the AoD was from Daniel 11.

 

[David Kent]

I assume you are speaking of The Antiquities of the Jews, by Josephus, book 13, chapter 3, sections 1-4.

According to Josephus, a temple in Egypt was indeed built. But section 4 of this chapter clearly describes a revolt, even among those who claimed to be worshiping the true God, much less an even partial fulfillment of the Isaiah passage in question, which reads:

"In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border. And it will be for a sign and for a witness to the LORD of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the LORD because of the oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them. Then the LORD will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the LORD in that day, and will make sacrifice and offering; yes, they will make a vow to the LORD and perform it. And the LORD will strike Egypt, He will strike and heal it; they will return to the LORD, and He will be entreated by them and heal them." Isaiah 19:19-22

The account by Josephus contains no cry to the Lord, no savior sent by Him, it does not list even one Egyptian that came to know the Lord, and does not record any event which even resembles the last verse of this prophecy, "And the LORD will strike Egypt, He will strike and heal it; they will return to the LORD, and He will be entreated by them and heal them."
.

If I remember correctly Josephus says tha was a fulfillment of the prophecy. He would know better than you as he was a Jewish Priest.

 

[David Kent]

Who were the ten kings who overthrew the Roman Empire? Who says the capital was removed to the east? Did the Italians acknowledge this? Since Justin thought this was the end of the world, what exactly ended besides the Roman Empire? Never heard that ten Gothic kings defeated the Roman Empire. That the Germanic/Goth/Vandals attacked and sacked Rome and/or the Romans is history. Ten kings? This is new so let's have some adequate references please. One guy is not enough. Needs to be acknowledged by historians has having happened. Been doing some looking and did not find any ten kings mentioned. Sounds to me like forcing history to meet the interpetation of Jerome whether it does or not. We have had this kind of thinking in the 21st century as well.

Not just Jerome, all those before him. You shouldn't comment on prophecy unless you have thoroughly read history.
For the ten Gothic kings, Woodrow quotes the Roman historian Machiavelli but doesn't give a reference. Or you could go to a library and look up Gibbon, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I have an abridged copy and it is over 900 pages so that will keep you quiet for a while. Look in the index for Alaric, or the Goths or Huns or Aluns or any of the other ten.
The following map of AD 410 shows a number of the Gothic tribes. There were also the Ostrogoths, the Saxons and although they were not Goths the Huns took what is now Hungary. They had been latinized and the Hungarians are a nation of Latins in as sea of Slavs.

 

[David Kent]

duplicated

 

[Biblewriter]

This is what the pharisees thought too. Today Jerusalem is firmly in the hands of the Jews and there is no indication it will ever change. I find it odd that Jesus is coming to deliver Jerusalem out of the hands of the Jews. I think Jesus came in 70AD in judgement over Jerusalem. That was not in body same as the other references to "coming in the clouds" does not mean bodily appearance but judgement. Jesus did not have a good opinion of Jerusalem at the end of his ministry and no promise to come and deliver them but instead judge them. That he did. That is my view.

But that is directly the opposite of what the scriptures explicitly say, in clear, plain, language, again and again.

 

[claninja]

But that is directly the opposite of what the scriptures explicitly say, in clear, plain, language, again and again.

So let's break down the verse of Matthew 24

1.) Matthew 24:30 (a) “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven.
What is the sign of the son man, and can people from earth, see it in heaven?

2.) Matthew 24:30 9 (b) And then all the peoples (φυλαὶ) of the earth (γῆς)c will mourn
Note, that all the peoples of the earth can be translated as all the tribes of the land. In the Septuagint, the greek root words for 'land/earth' and 'peoples/tribes/families' found in zechariah 12, are from the same greek root words used in matthew 24:30

Zechariah 12:12 καὶ κόψεται ἡ γῆ κατὰ φυλὰς φυλάς· φυλὴ οἴκου Δαυὶδ καθ᾿ ἑαυτὴν καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες αὐτῶν καθ᾿ ἑαυτάς, φυλὴ οἴκου Νάθαν καθ᾿ ἑαυτὴν καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες αὐτῶν καθ᾿ ἑαυτάς,

And the land shall lament in separate families, the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves;

So it is definitely appropriate to interpret this as all the families/tribes of the land, specifically, Israel, as Jesus is drawing from this prophecy.

3.) Matthew 24:30 (c) when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory
The definition of the greek word for see is: 3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception). It can mean: I see, look upon, experience, perceive, discern, beware.


A better translation of Matthew 24:30 would be:

"Then will appear the sign of the son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes/families of the land (of Israel) will mourn when they perceive/understand/spiritually discern, the son of man coming on the clouds with power"


It is also important that we understand the OT language of the coming of God in order to understand that by Jesus saying he was coming on the clouds, he is proclaiming that he is God:



Did God literally part the heavens, come down with his feet on the clouds, mount on a cherubim, and fly around earth when he delivered David from his enemies and from the hand of saul?

2 Samuel 22:1, 10-11
David sang to the Lord the words of this song when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul.
He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soaredd on the wings of the wind.