Preterists: Did anyone SEE Jesus come again?

GW · Dec 1, 2002

By the way, I am nearly out of time for the present discussion. Busy work week ahead.

I trust that our readers here have the good sense and reading comprehension skills to see the pattern various OT apocalypses we are discussing and recognize how the apocalypse of the first century spoken of by Christ and the apostles fits perfectly within that prophetic, Hebraic context. Christ's coming at AD 66-70 was in the glory of the Father in exactly the way that the Jews understood the many comings of Yahweh in their history. They understood that, once again in their history, the day of the Lord was then at hand and they were the generation it had come upon. They fully recognized its arrival (Philippians 1:10; 1 Cor 1:7-8; Heb 10:25)!

James 5:8-9
the coming of the Lord is near...behold, the Judge is standing right at the door

1 Peter 4:7
But the end of all things is at hand

Revelation 1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Phil 4:5
The Lord is at hand

Hebrews 10:37
for yet a very very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not tarry

1 Thess 5:23
I pray God that your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Matthew 24:34
This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

The Christ is come. The Church has won the eternal victory.

OldShepherd · Dec 2, 2002

Posted by GW[/b]
While I must have missed your comments on Isaiah 34 somewhere in these threads, I can only say that this is another great example of apocalyptic language. Here we see another of Yahweh's comingsthe Day of the Lord (Isa 34:8) against all nations back in the 500s BC. The particular mention of God's sacrifice of the nations (including Edom) found in Isa 34 harmonizes with Ezekiel 25 and 26, where Edom's doom is particularly listed in Ez 25:12-14. It also harmonizes with Jeremiah 49:7-22 and the entire prophecy of Obadiah. As the prophecies said, Edom was destroyed at that time. Here again we see the usual apocalyptic metaphors: Jehovah comes down for battle to bring his sword against nations (Isa 34:5-9), the universe colapses (Isa 34:4), the destruction of these civilizations is compared to a blood sacrifice on God's alter (34:6), it's the Day of the Lord's vengeance (Isa 34:8 -- compare to the Day of the Lord's vengeance of AD 66-70 spoken of in Luke 21:20-22) and so on. We could find many more apocatlyptc metaphors by seraching the Ezekiel and Jeremiah and Obediah accounts. All this, of course, shows us how Christ's coming in the glory of the Father at AD 66-70 was precisely of the same nature as all the previous Jehovhah-comings foretold by the prophets and fulfilled in OT times.

Okay, I will help you out here is (the link) to my, verse by verse, discussion of Isaiah 34 which according to your own apocalyptic language presumption shows that Isaiah was yet future for John, no destruction of the world or cosmos language, therefore not a proof text for your presumptions concerning the coming in the cloud language in the N.T.

Evangelion · Dec 2, 2002

One thing that really bugs me about Preterism is that some parts of it are virtually identical to certain parts of JW eschatology.

GW · Dec 2, 2002

Originally posted by Evangelion
One thing that really bugs me about Preterism is that some parts of it are virtually identical to certain parts of JW eschatology.

Forgive me, Evangelion, but I have to laugh. Everyone knows that JW eschatology is pure, Jack Van Impe-styled Millennialism! Wonder why that is? JW was birthed out of the endtimes madness of dispensationalist, premillennialist evangelicals of the early 1800s. Irving, Darby, and later the Baptist minister William Miller had the evangelical Church heading for the hills and selling everything in anticipation of the Lord's return. You might be familiar with the Great Disappointment of 1844, for it's recorded in many American History books.

JWs came from this environment of endtimes folly and the attendant popular view that NEW endtimes prophets were receiving NEW revelations "in the last days." (Nevermind that the last days was 20 centuries ago, the last days of the Old Testamental Age -- Heb 1:1-2; James 5:3; 1 Peter 1:20; Acts 2:15-17; 1 Cor 10:11; Heb 9:26!) At least three major cults were born out of these "new endtimes revelations." In fact, the 7th Day Adventists were birthed entirely and specifically out of the 1844 fiasco.

I don't know about you, but I am altogether too happy to say that preterism destroys the entire premise and foundations of the JWs, the Mormons (i.e., the "LAST DAYS SAINTS"), and the 7th Day Adventists -- in toto! Without futurist millennial eschatology, none of these cults can even exist! These groups could not exist apart from their millennial, eschatological errors, and these errors were truly handed down to them by evangelicals Christians! We should even point out that most of the whacko religious movements of the 20th century were also born out of Christian, premillennial, endtimes madness. For sure, the futurist thesis of an unfulfilled and incompleted work of Christ (i.e., an incompleted eschaton) is the portal from which comes every deviant, twisted, and backwards teaching contrary to the revealed truth of Christ and the Church.

Again, Jesus promised his apostles that THEY would see all those things come to pass as well as His return in THEIR GENERATION:

Matthew 24:33-34
So, YOU too [the apostles], when YOU see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to YOU [the apostles], this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Future Man · Dec 2, 2002

Hello Ev and God bless-

Well I am really terribly concerned about the number of questions which remain unanswered. I seem to remember a great many other questions which remain unanswered. John 1

That was answered. You just didn't like the answer.

Nor would anyone consider that a valid answer unless they were raised a CD from birth and needed an answer- ANY answer -to hold on to their beliefs.
>
It was desperate, illogical, and based on invalid reasoning. In fact I answered every one of Fortigurn's points, including that misrepresentation of the Trinity i.e. 'Jesus would have to be the *prime* mover NOT the agent OF creation'. Hence my response from 'dia'.

the trial of Jesus

LOL! You had questions about the trial of Jesus? That's a laugh! I never got a straight one out of you on that point!

Yes, questions that nipped that little double-standard right in the bud.

Gee, ask 'em again.

John 8:58

See my answer re. John 1.

I'll dig through the rubble where it was shot down.

>

~FM

Evangelion · Dec 2, 2002

Thanks for your usual nonsense.

*snip*

I live in hope that, one day, you might understand what you're talking about.

parousia70 · Dec 2, 2002

I'm back from a lovely Thanksgiving weekend out of town with family!

Great to see so much traffic while I was away.

Originally posted by OldShepherd
         Since you got into this discussion with me I don't believe you have asked me that question. 

OK Shep, Here's the LINK to my original, and as yet unsanwered, question for your verification, and the question is quite valid.

It would appear, for you to remain consistant in your hermeneutic, you would have to assert Jesus never prophesied the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem.

Since that assertion is, once again, polar opposite to that of any reputable bible scholar or Church Historian, I have difficulty accepting you actually believe it. It seems instead that you are avoiding confirming or denying it here, for you know the damage it would do to your argument.

Why don't you just buck up and admit you believe Jesus did in fact prophesy Jerusalems 70AD destruction, provide the verses you believe were fulfilled in that event, and adhere to your own requirments of me, by proving with scripture that those prophesies were indeed fulfilled in that event.

Or, go ahead and state for the record, that you do not believe Jesus prophesied the events of 70AD at all, and instead was fortelling of some yet "future to us" desolation of Jerusalem and stone by stone dismantling of some yet "future to us" Temple. 

Either way, it's time for you to hop off the fence on this issue, so we can examine the ramifications of whichever view you actually hold.
   

 

OldShepherd · Dec 3, 2002

Originally posted by parousia70
OK Shep, Here's the LINK to my original, and as yet unsanwered, question for your verification, and the question is quite valid.

It would appear, for you to remain consistant in your hermeneutic, you would have to assert Jesus never prophesied the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem.

Please explain how you come to that conclusion.

Since that assertion is, once again, polar opposite to that of any reputable bible scholar or Church Historian, I have difficulty accepting you actually believe it. It seems instead that you are avoiding confirming or denying it here, for you know the damage it would do to your argument.

That is a nice trite little buzz phrase you keep misusing. "polar opposite" refers to the the north and south poles which are 180 degrees opposite. Other examples would be black-white up-down, left-right. You have not presented anything which is polar opposite of anything I have posted. And oh BTW I have supported everything I have posted from "reputable Bible scholars and church historians" and I have for the most part linked to my sources.

Why don't you just buck up and admit you believe Jesus did in fact prophesy Jerusalems 70AD destruction, provide the verses you believe were fulfilled in that event, and adhere to your own requirments of me, by proving with scripture that those prophesies were indeed fulfilled in that event.

I have not stated a position on this point therefore I have no obligation to defend it with scripture. On the other hand you have made many statements and I have asked for scriptural support for those statements. Anything that I have posted I will be glad to provide scriptural support for.

And Oh BTW I'm still waiting for an answer to my Isa 34 post. Which I think preceded your 70 AD post.

OldShepherd · Dec 3, 2002

Posted by GW:
I hope you will enjoy this good scholarship on this matter, and reform your views accordingly:

(#1) "'I know that my redeemer lives' are familiar words to the Christian because of their adaptation to Christ in several hymns. However, the sense here is different from that which is usually understood when applied to Christ. The Christian idea of "Redeemer" is of one who is deliverer from sin. The Hebrew word "go'el" (#1350) should more appropriately be translated "Vindicator," i.e., one who delivers from affliction and wrong which is NOT due to sin. Job, unable to convince his friends of his innocence, was leaving it in God's hands to prove to them that he was NOT guilty of the sin of which they accused him. This is the high point in Job's stated trust in God and dependence upon him." (from Hebrew/Greek Key Study Bible -- editor: Spiros Zodhiates, p. 689)

Posted by EV
Ow, that's gotta hurt.

I am curious to know if Shepherd can somehow prove that Zodhiates, Bruce and Dummelow have got it all wrong. They are, of course, some of the most respected names in textual criticism and systematic theology.

This quoted from my copy of the Hebrew Greek Study Bible. Oops, wait a minute this is not what GW said. Now, I wonder why, whenever I check any resource that GW mentions, it does not say what he claims it does?

19:25 This verse mentions several important words and phrases. The word Redeemer pertains to the concept of the kinsman-redeemer (Job 16:19; see note on Ruth 4:1-8). Job sought for one who would redress his wrong and avenge his injuries. In this verse, he acknowledges that God alone can be this Redeemer. In admitting this fact, Job recognized more fully that he was serving the living God. By this, Job did not mean that God merely existed, or that God may have been realized on a conscious level; but Job believed that God was alive and concerned with his individual life, unlike the pagan idols who never answered the worship they were given. Knowing that his Redeemer was living and could vindicate him, Job uses the phrase at the latter day to refer to the time when his name would be cleared. It is debated whether Job hoped for vindication in his lifetime (at the conclusion of the time of his suffering) or at some time after his death, God would clear him of any wrong.

The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, Spiros Zodhiates, Ed., AMG International Inc. 1991, pg. 687

Evangelion · Dec 3, 2002

You're looking at the wrong page.

GW cited 689. You've referenced 687.

Future Man · Dec 3, 2002

You know Ev, you CAN wear out a smilie using it so much.

GW · Dec 3, 2002

Old Shepherd, here's my source, again:

The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (NASB), Spiros Zodhiates, Ed., AMG International Inc. 1990, pg. 689

The inherent virtue in the interpretation of Job 19:25-27 which I have listed is self-evident to anyone who has read the story. Job's skin was destroyed by his boils from satan that covered his body from head to toe (Job 2:7; Job 30:30), and at the end of the story Job's Vindicator did "rise upon the dust" and Job saw Him as he hoped would happen (Job 38:1 and Job 42:5). His vindicator (Go-el) came and vindicated Job's cause (Job 42:7-10). Job's hope was for a day within his lifetime when God would vindicate and deliver him (Job 10:9; 23:10; 17:9; 23:10; 19:25-27). Job stated by faith that even once the burning boils had removed his skin he would see his vindicator with his eyes and be vindicated. This, of course, is exactly what happens at the end of the book.

All those interpretations of 19:25-27 that ignore the very storyline of the book are untenable and ill advised.

I'm outa time. Forgive if I don't post anymore for a couple weeks.

Blessings in Christ,
GW

parousia70 · Dec 3, 2002

Originally posted by OldShepherd
P70:It would appear, for you to remain consistant in your hermeneutic, you would have to assert Jesus never prophesied the 70AD destruction of Jerusalem.

OS: Please explain how you come to that conclusion.

Sure thang.

It's quite simple really. Since you have stated, in no uncertain terms, that I must be able to show scriptural record of fulfillment of the prophesies I assert were fulfilled in 70AD, you therefore are asserting, by default, that you have no basis to believe Jesus ever prophesied the 70AD desolation of Jerusalem and dismantling of the temple, for you yourself cannot show from scripture any record that those events were indeed fulfilled in 70AD.

I have not stated a position on this point therefore I have no obligation to defend it with scripture.

Click to expand...

It is your very lack of a position I am challenging you to defend. Again it would seem that you are purposely not taking a position because you know the damage it would do to your stated interpratative method, whichever position you take.

Under the circumstances, I suppose I can understand your reluctance to take a stand.

And Oh BTW I'm still waiting for an answer to my Isa 34 post. Which I think preceded your 70 AD post.

Click to expand...

You can think that if you wish but, as long as we're nitpicking, my 70AD post pre-dates your Isaiah 34 post by 2 days. (Nov 25th*mine, vs Nov 27th*yours)

Evangelion · Dec 3, 2002

AV -

You know Ev, you CAN wear out a smilie using it so much.

Who says I'm smiling?

It could just be an evil grin...

OldShepherd · Dec 13, 2002

GW,
Lets revisit your so-called evidence, posted at your website and quoted, bits and pieces, in this thread.

posted by GW
4) Robert Young (1885)
"[Revelation] was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitious Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D.175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou -- ie., Domitious (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domition, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Commentary on Revelation - Young's Analytical Concordance)

First (deliberate?) falsehood. Youngs concordance is just that a concordance. It is not a commentary and contains no commentary. It lists all the English words, which occur in the Bible, the original Hebrew/Greek of those words, and the verses where they occur in the Bible. No commentary! And the final section is approximately twenty pages, The Canon of Scripture This section was written, not by Young, but by Professors R. K. and Everett F. Harrison, and has no commentary as to the dating of any original manuscripts.

Irenaeus in A.D.175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou -- ie., Domitious (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domition, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The second point. This sentence was not written by Robert Young, one of the most renowned Biblical language scholars of the 19th century, nor any other Greek scholar! A first year Greek student would not contradict Greek grammar as this statement does!

In Greek, the third person masculine, singular (3ms), genitive case, i.e. possessive, is expressed by changing the noun ending to ou. The first name here, Domitianou would be Greek for [something] of Domitian. As I said before I do not have the time or the inclination to educate you, this can be verified by going to your browser thingy and typing Greek grammar.

The reign of Domitian would be written in Greek, égemonias Domitianou. This exact construction occurs in Luke 3:1, The reign of Tiberias Caesar. Tiberias, written in the genitive/possessive is Tiberiou

Luke 3:1 hgemoniaV tiberiou kaisaroV/égemonias tiberiou kaisaros

The 3ms genitive/possessive of the second name Domitious would be written Domitiou. This can be easily verified by comparing the name Jesus in the N.T., whenever Iesous is in the genitive/possessive, the sigma/s, is dropped and it is written Iesou. The third false name listed is Domitianikos. The genitive/possessive of this would be Domitianikou, so there is absolutely no way possible that a Greek scholar wrote this or that any Greek scholars made the absurd errors alleged, stupidly mistaking Domitious or Domitianou for Domitianikos.

The next falsehood/misrepresentation is an out-of-context quote from the Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown commentary. To demonstrate how it was deliberately and dishonestly manipulated, to make it appear to say exactly the opposite of what the authors intended, I will add the beginning of the paragraph and a following sentence, which were deliberately omitted. The original quote, posted by GW, in blue, and the omitted material shown in red. Note the JFB thesis, the best authorities!

PLACE AND TIME OF WRITING.-The best authorities among the Fathers state that John was exiled under Domitian (Irenaeus, 5, 30; Clement of Alexandria; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3, 30). Victorinus says that he had to labour in the mines of Patmos. At Domitians death, 95 AD, he returned to Ephesus under the emperor Nerva. Probably it was immediately after his return that he wrote, under Divine inspiritation, the account of the visions vouchsafed to him in Patmos (ch. 1, 2, 9). However ch. 10 seems to imply that he wrote the visions immediately after seeing them. Patmos is one of the Sporades. Its circumference is about thirty miles. It was fitting that when forbidden to go beyond certain bounds of the Earths lands, he was permitted to penetrate the secrets of heaven.[Bede, Explan. Apocalypse on ch. 1.]
"The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) Eusebius [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero. (2) Clement Of Alexandria's story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. (3) Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event. So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Caesar. (4) Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64)...(5) Cerinthus is stated to have died before John; as then he borrowed much in his Pseudo-Apocalypse from John's, it is likely the latter was at an earlier date than Domitian's reign. See Tilloch's Introduction to Apocalypse. But the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero." * * *
Three schools of interpreters exist: (1) the Preterists, who hold that almost the whole has been fulfilled. (2). The Historical Interpreters, who hold that it comprises the history of the church from St. Johns time to the end of the world, the seals being chronologically succeeded by the trumpets, and the trumpets by the vials. The futurist, who consider almost the whole as yet future, and to be fulfilled immediately before Christs second coming. The first theory [Preterism] was not held by any of the earliest Fathers, and is only held now by rationalists, who limit Johns vision to things within his own horizon, Pagan Romes persecutions of Christians, and its consequently anticipated destruction. Commentary on the Whole Bible,Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, Zondervan Publishing, 1871, pp. 548-9

The above quote, in blue, was posted by GW, a Preterist, to attempt to prove that JFB supported an early date for Revelation and thus Preterism. However, JFB rejects this view and states even in the portion quoted out-of-context, the Pauline benediction (Re 1:4) implies it was written after Paul's death under Nero.", then goes on to say none of the earliest church fathers were Preterists. It is strange that this doctrine, if it is true, was not held by any of the immediate followers of the Lords apostles, such as Polycarp, Ignatius, disciples of John, and Barnabas, disciple of Paul, or their immediate followers, such as Irenaeus, Origen, Mathetes, Justin, etc.
And yet another false citation posted by GW.

GW:
Old Shepherd, here's my source, again:

The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (NASB), Spiros Zodhiates, Ed., AMG International Inc. 1990, pg. 689

The inherent virtue in the interpretation of Job 19:25-27 which I have listed is self-evident to anyone who has read the story. Job's skin was destroyed by his boils from satan that covered his body from head to toe (Job 2:7; Job 30:30), and at the end of the story Job's Vindicator did "rise upon the dust" and Job saw Him as he hoped would happen (Job 38:1 and Job 42:5). His vindicator (Go-el) came and vindicated Job's cause (Job 42:7-10). Job's hope was for a day within his lifetime when God would vindicate and deliver him (Job 10:9; 23:10; 17:9; 23:10; 19:25-27). Job stated by faith that even once the burning boils had removed his skin he would see his vindicator with his eyes and be vindicated. This, of course, is exactly what happens at the end of the book.

All those interpretations of 19:25-27 that ignore the very storyline of the book are untenable and ill advised.

Click to expand...

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=478163&highlight=Youngs#post478163

However, when I check the quote in my Zodhiates Study Bible, 1991, it is totally different! I doubt very seriously that Zodhiates made a complete turnaround in only one year. And since I know what my Zodhiates Bible says, I can safely assume that GWs quote is a complete fabrication.

19:25 This verse mentions several important words and phrases. The word Redeemer pertains to the concept of the kinsman-redeemer (Job 16:19; see note on Ruth 4:1-8). Job sought for one who would redress his wrong and avenge his injuries. In this verse, he acknowledges that God alone can be this Redeemer. In admitting this fact, Job recognized more fully that he was serving the living God. By this, Job did not mean that God merely existed, or that God may have been realized on a conscious level; but Job believed that God was alive and concerned with his individual life, unlike the pagan idols who never answered the worship they were given. Knowing that his Redeemer was living and could vindicate him, Job uses the phrase at the latter day to refer to the time when his name would be cleared. It is debated whether Job hoped for vindication in his lifetime (at the conclusion of the time of his suffering) or at some time after his death, God would clear him of any wrong.

The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, Spiros Zodhiates, Ed., AMG International Inc. 1991, pg. 687

To Be Continued

OldShepherd · Dec 13, 2002

GW,
You asked, What about the Muratorian canon? Good question, what about it?

The Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)
"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."
"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. " (ANF 5:603)

Note on the Muratorian Canon: Sometime between A.D. 170 and 200, someone drew up a list of canonical books. This list, known as the Muratorian Canon, is the oldest Latin church document of Rome, and of very great importance for the history of the canon. The witness of this manuscript, which is from the very era of Irenaeus and just prior to Clement of Alexandria, virtually demands the early date for Revelation. The relevant portion of the document states that "the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name" and "John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all." The writer of the Canon clearly teaches that John preceded Paul in writing letters to seven churches. Yet, church historians are agreed that Paul died before A.D. 70, either in A.D. 67 or 68.

You are to be commended for your honesty, finally correctly and accurately quoting a source, belated as it is. However does this quote virtually demand that Revelation was written before Pauls church epistles? That is one possible, but very unlikely, interpretation and it is not proof! Note, if the canons are telling us that John wrote Revelation first then it is very strange that it lists all the church epistles of Paul first, and specifically notes their chronological order, first, second, etc., then the canon lists the Apocalypse after Pauls epistles. Since the writer of the canon took particular note of the chronological order of Pauls epistles, several times, then it is highly unlikely that he listed Johns Apocalypse after Pauls epistles, if it was written before!

Objection anticipated, But the passage says, the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name. What the passage says is, John, not the Apocalypse, was Pauls predecessor, which is supported by scripture, and both Paul and John followed a similar rule, writing to only seven churches. But, but, but. . . No buts, there is scriptural precedent for this, Noah observed the law of Moses, the commandments of clean and unclean, many, many years before God wrote them on stone and gave them to Moses.

3. As to the epistles(13) of Paul, again, to those who will understand the matter, they indicate of themselves what they are, and from what place or with what object they were directed. He wrote first of all, and at considerable length, to the Corinthians, to check the schism of heresy; and then to the Galatians, to forbid circumcision; and then to the Romans on the rule of the Old Testament Scriptures, and also to show them that Christ is the first object(14) in these;--which it is needful for us to discuss severally,(15) as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, it is yet shown--i.e., by this sevenfold writing--that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey.
III.--Canon Muratorianus.(1) (In Muratori, V. C. Antiq. Ital. Med. av., vol. iii. col. 854.)

The argument, citing the Muratorian canon, whether Revelation was written; early, before 70 AD or; late, after 96 AD, is an attempt to prove that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans, ca. 70 AD, was the Second Advent or Day of the Lord, prophesied by both Jesus and John. But if the canon is reliable as to the dating of Revelation, then it is equally reliable as to the dating of Jesus second advent. Note that according to these same Muratorian canons, the second advent did not occur in 70 AD, but was yet future from 170 AD, or later.

1. those things at which he was present he placed thus.(2) The third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, the well-known physician Luke wrote in his own name(3) in order after the ascension of Christ, and when Paul had associated him with himself(4) as one studious of right.(5) Nor did he himself see the Lord in the flesh; and he, according as he was able to accomplish it, began(6) his narrative with the nativity of John. The fourth Gospel is that of John, one of the disciples. When his fellow-disciples and bishops entreated him, he said, "Fast ye now with me for the space of three days, and let us recount to each other whatever may be revealed to each of us." On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that John should narrate all things in his own name as they called them to mind.(7) And hence, although different points s are taught us in the several books of the Gospels, there is no difference as regards the faith of believers, inasmuch as in all of them all things are related under one imperial Spirit,(9) which concern the Lord's nativity, His passion, His resurrection, His conversation with His disciples, and His twofold advent,--the first in the humiliation of rejection, which is now past, and the second in the glory of royal power, which is yet in the future.

Another early church father Cyprian, writing 256 AD, agrees that the second advent was still future. Did the entire early church get it wrong?

Cyprian Treatise IX. On The Advantage Of Patience.(2) A.D. 256.[/I]

23. But who is this that says that he has held his peace before, and will not hold his peace for ever? Surely it is He who was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb before its shearer is without voice, so He opened not His mouth. Surely it is He who did not cry, nor was His voice heard in the streets. Surely He who was not rebellious, neither contradicted, when He offered His back to stripes, and His cheeks to the palms of the hands; neither turned away His face from the foulness of spitting. Surely it is He who, when He was accused by the priests and elders, answered nothing, and, to the wonder of Pilate, kept a most patient silence. This is He who, although He was silent in His passion, yet by and by will not be silent in His vengeance. This is our God, that is, not the God of all, but of the faithfull and believing; and He, when He shall come manifest in His second advent, will not be silent.(11) For although He came first shrouded in humility, yet He shall come manifest in power.

24. Let us wait for Him, beloved brethren, our Judge and Avenger, who shall equally avenge with Himself the congregation of His Church, and the number of all the righteous from the beginning of the world. Let him who hurries, and is too impatient for his revenge, consider that even He Himself is not yet avenged who is the Avenger. God the Father ordained His Son to be adored; and the Apostle Paul, mindful of the divine command, lays it down, and says: "God hath exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things heavenly, and things earthly, and things beneath."(1) And in the Apocalypse the angel withstands John, who wishes to worship him,(2) and says: "See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren. Worship Jesus the Lord."(3) How great is the Lord Jesus, and how great is His patience, that He who is adored in heaven is not yet avenged on earth! Let us, beloved brethren, consider His patience in our persecutions and sufferings; let us give an obedience full of expectation to His advent; and let us not hasten, servants as we are, to be defended before our Lord with irreligious and immodest eagerness. Let us rather press onward and labour, and, watching with our whole heart, and stedfast to all endurance, let us keep the Lord's precepts; so that when that day of anger and vengeance shall come, we may not be punished with the impious and sinners, but may be honoured with the righteous and those that fear God.

GW · Dec 13, 2002

Nice try, Old Shepherd.

I own the Zodhiates Greek Hebrew Study bible and I have it right here in front of my face as I type. The quote is right in front of me, as stated.

Next, nice fudge on the Muratorian Canon which mandates the early date. Paul was, according to the Canon, "following the rule of his predecessor John" by writing to no more than seven Churches. This means John had set this precedent of writing to 7 Churches BEFORE Paul finished his writings.

You're a funny bird, OS. After all, you've stonewalled me on nearly every quote I've given, accusing me of drumming up false sources. Yet I've been vindicated time and time again. You have the audacity to accuse me, and based on what? Nothing more than your presumption that the late date should be assumed correct and all other sources that argue the contrary must not be admitted. What hubris.

Finally, I'll leave our readers with another eminent scholar who has searched this issue and come to his judgment:

-----------------------------------------

F.W. Farrar (1886)

"there can be no reasonable doubt respecting the (early) date of the Apocalypse."

"We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero."

"The reason why the early date and mainly contemporary explanation of the book is daily winning fresh adherents among unbiased thinkers of every Church and school, is partly because it rests on so simple and secure a basis, and partly because no other can compete with it. It is indeed the only system which is built on the plain and repeated statements and indications of the Seer himself and the corresponding events are so closely accordant with the symbols as to make it certain that this scheme of interpretation is the only one that can survive."

GW · Dec 13, 2002

OS SAID:
Another early church father Cyprian, writing 256 AD, agrees that the second advent was still future. Did the entire early church get it wrong?

GW:
Only one way to find out...

--COMPARE THIS--

(A.D. 256)
Cyprian Treatise IX. On The Advantage Of Patience.

"although He was silent in His passion, yet by and by will not be silent in His vengeance. This is our God, that is, not the God of all, but of the faithfull and believing; and He, when He shall come manifest in His second advent, will not be silent."

--TO THIS--

(A.D. 29-30)
Jesus Christ: to his Holy Apostles on the Time of His Return to them and the Signs They Would See Come to Pass

Matthew 24:33-34
"So, YOU too, when YOU see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say TO YOU, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

--AND TO THIS--

(A.D. 60-63)

James 5:8-9
the coming of the Lord is near. Do not complain, brethren, against one another, so that you yourselves may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing right at the door.

--AND TO THIS--

(A.D. 66-68)

Revelation 1:1,3
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place..Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it for the time is at hand.

Yes, Cyprian missed it. He missed it by about 200 years and by about five generations beyond the one Christ specifically marked out for his return. St. James, St. John, and St. Peter understood just fine, however:

(A.D. 64-66)

1 Peter 4:7,17
The end of all things is at hand...For it is time for judgment to begin

Preterists: Did anyone SEE Jesus come again?

Veteran

Zaqunraah

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Veteran

Priest of God and the Lamb

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Zaqunraah

Zaqunraah

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Priest of God and the Lamb

Veteran

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

Zaqunraah

Zaqunraah

Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads