• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

AD66-70: The Day the Son of Man was revealed

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by parousia70, Nov 23, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
  2. Anthony

    Anthony Generic Christian

    +42
    Christian
     

    The scripture verse I quoted was from Jesus, so? Was he speaking "painly" or "apocalyptically". I would voted Jesus spoke as you said Christ plainly taught.
     
  3. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    First off, I already showed you that "seeing the son of man with the clouds of heaven" was spiritual by a simple comparison to Revelation 14:14-20. You see, St. John shows us there that he does not mean the clouds of our sky overhead, nor even of a physical event.

    We can also see that this "coming on the clouds" was some judgment that Caiaphas the High Priest would live to witness (Matt 26:63-65)--so again Jesus is speaking of something for his own generation as explicitly stated elsewhere in Matt 23:36 and 24:33-34.

    I mean, you say you believe Jesus plainly spoke, but then you reject the promise of Jesus to his apostles that they would see all those signs come to pass as well as his return in THEIR generation (Matt 24:33-34). The promise is that Christ's apostles to whom he was speaking would see all those things. The great apocalypse at hand here speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (Matt 24:2/23:34-38)
     
  4. Anthony

    Anthony Generic Christian

    +42
    Christian
    First I don't need St. John to intrepret or to give me a post play analysis of Jesus' words. Also I agree that Jesus participated in the events of 70AD. I would call myself a "partial preterist", for the record.

     
     
  5. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    Hi Anthony. I have only a couple quick questions...

    (1) Do you agree that Revelation 1:7's coming with clouds and Revelation 14:14-20 are the same event being described?

    (2) If you consider yourself a partial preterist, which verses of Matthew 24 do you claim are yet future?

    Thanks.
     
  6. Anthony

    Anthony Generic Christian

    +42
    Christian
    GW

    This is a recent topic for me, so I don't fully have my information, study, and opinions reached.

    I must say the subject is interesting to say the least. The destruction of Jerusalem, was more involved then most people think. They don't realized what started the whole mess, how the Romans did everything they could not to destory it, and how many of the people behind the walls starved to death, before the Romans even entered. Also how the in-fighting between the Jews themselves inside, caused a lot of their own problems.
     
  7. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
  8. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    I am so pleased that you posted your Preterist link to prove your Preterist doctrine and ignored my extensive post which, had you bothered to read it, was supported by pre-Christian sources, e.g. Talmud and Targums. Here are a few links which disprove your sources. Note particularly the support by early church history for the late date of John's Apocalypse and none, as in zero, for an early date.

    Revelation: Date of Writing

    According to Eusebius, Irenaeus and Jerome, the apostle John was banished to the island of Patmos during the reign of Emperor Domitian who ruled the Roman Empire from 81 - 96 A.D. Irenaeus specified further that John was banished in 95 A.D., near the end of Domitian's reign. Irenaeus was a foremost authority on John because he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of John.

    This date of the writing of the book of Revelation places the book several decades after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. This is significant for two reasons:
    1. Full Preterists claim that the book was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and that the book is primarily a prophecy of that event. They also claim that the second coming, or Parousia, occurred at that time and that there is no future second coming of Christ.
    2. Modern-day premillennialists claim that the book concerns a yet-future great tribulation and millennium, but in the historical setting at the time a futuristic interpretation would be meaningless. The early Christians were feeling intense pressure in their faith, because in the time of Domitian, there was intense persecution of Christians in the Roman Province of Asia. In addition, the Jewish War against the Romans had resulted in the destruction of the Jewish nation. It was a very distressing time to be a Christian.
    Intense persecution of Christians (atheists) by the Romans as a result of the cult of Emperor Worship began with Nero (64 A.D. until his death in 68 A.D.), intensified with the final "black years" of Domitian's reign (93-96 A.D.) when he demanded to be worshiped as Lord and God, and greatly intensified until the time of Constantine.
    One line of evidence that the book of Revelation was written after the temple was destroyed is the use of the image of Rome as the destroyer of Jerusalem. This image appeared in Jewish literature after 70 A.D.

    The destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Romans provides the backdrop for the book of Revelation and is significant for these reasons:
    • The destruction of Jerusalem clearly signaled to the church that the Church was the New Israel. When Israel was taken away to captivity by the Assyrians and the Babylonians, God promised that they would return after 70 years. There was no such promise to the Jews by a contemporary prophet regarding a restoration after the destruction in 70 A.D.
    • At first the Christians were considered by both the Romans and the Jews to be merely a sect of Judaism. But the Jews quickly stopped thinking about them in these terms and the Romans soon targeted Christians as a separate group for persecution under Nero in 64 A.D.

    http://www.northforest.com/kingisrael/h006h003d000.html#date


    External evidence to the dating of John's Revelation comes from writings from early church fathers and historians. There are no second or third century writings which mention or even point to a dating of Revelation during the reign of Nero. There are however, several extant writings which support the later writing, during Domitian's reign. The statement of St. Irenaeus is the primary and earliest support.

    It is not surprising that Praeterists, having no strong witnesses of their own, must discount Irenaeus' statement. However, they do not stop there, but also subtlely attack his character by implying that he might not have known what he talking about and, further, allows this mistake to be recorded. Elliott thinks highly of St. Irenaeus as a scholar and church father as he states in the following passage:

    http://www.historicist.com/articles/revdate_4.html

    It is not that Preterists read this short excerpt from Irenaeus and believe that the traditional interpretation is impossible or even implausible. Rather, what the Preterists have done is to go into this text and find a loophole, a loophole without which their entire theory could not survive.

    And the solution to their problem was easy enough to find, simply change the pronoun "that" from a reference to the vision and make it instead a reference to John himself. In this sense, we can see that Preterists are not primarily concerned with how Irenaeus SHOULD be read but instead with how Irenaeus CAN be read. The reason they are focused on the versatility of the meaning of "that" is simply because it is the only available loophole to keep Preterism alive in the face of the Traditional model.

    http://www.geocities.com/biblestudying/rev-date.html

    Revelation Date Written - A.D. 95

    The book of Revelation was written during a period of severe persecution. There are two major period of persecution in the Early church the first is under the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68). The other period was under the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) Most scholars agree that the persecution addressed in Revelation was during the reign of Domitian placing the date of composition around A.D. 95.

    http://www.abu.nb.ca/ecm/Rev00d.htm
     
  9. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    Old Shepherd Said:
    According to Eusebius, Irenaeus and Jerome, the apostle John was banished to the island of Patmos during the reign of Emperor Domitian who ruled the Roman Empire from 81 - 96 A.D. Irenaeus specified further that John was banished in 95 A.D., near the end of Domitian's reign. Irenaeus was a foremost authority on John because he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of John.


    GW Replies:

    (1) Papias (first century)
    "Because of a statement by Papias, an early church father, that John the Apostle was martyred before a.d. 70, the Johannine authorship has been questioned." (John F. Walvoord on the Date of Revelation - The Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 925)

    (2) Eusebius didn't believe St. John wrote Revelation

    (3) Epiphanies (315-403)
    States Revelation was written under "Claudius [Nero] Caesar." (Epiphanies, Heresies 51:12)

    (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)

    (5) George E. Ladd (1972)
    "The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)




    OLD SHEPHERD:
    Full Preterists claim that the book was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and that the book is primarily a prophecy of that event. They also claim that the second coming, or Parousia, occurred at that time and that there is no future second coming of Christ.

    GW:
    The internal evidence demands the early date. Here are a few points to note:

    * The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here, and there is no historic support for a persecution of the Church under Domitian in the 90s.

    * According to the epistles to the churches, there were still Judaizers (Revelation 2:9; 3:9) presenting problems in the churches. This, would be ridiculous after 70 AD

    * The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation 11, because John is sent to measure them. This would not be possible after 70 AD. And if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple and city in 70 AD is deafening.

    * There were "other apostles" still around according to Revelation 2:2. Tradition has it that all the apostles were dead before 70 AD and John was the only original surviving past that time.

    * Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.

    * Nearly all scholars believe Revelation is inextricably linked to the Olivet Discourse. Since the best commentaries on the Olivet show it is speaking of the events leading up to AD 70, so must Revelation be speaking of the same events.



    OLD SHEPHERD:
    External evidence to the dating of John's Revelation comes from writings from early church fathers and historians. There are no second or third century writings which mention or even point to a dating of Revelation during the reign of Nero. There are however, several extant writings which support the later writing, during Domitian's reign.

    GW:

    Epiphanies (315-403)
    States Revelation was written under "Claudius [Nero] Caesar." (Epiphanies, Heresies 51:12)


    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. "

    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.



    OLD SHEPHERD:
    It is not surprising that Praeterists, having no strong witnesses of their own, must discount Irenaeus' statement. However, they do not stop there, but also subtlely attack his character by implying that he might not have known what he talking about and, further, allows this mistake to be recorded.

    GW:
    Irenaeus also believed Jesus lived to be over 50 years old. BTW, it is unclear what Irenaeus even said. Many scholars recognize this.


    OLD SHEPHERD:
    The book of Revelation was written during a period of severe persecution. There are two major period of persecution in the Early church the first is under the reign of the Roman Emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68). The other period was under the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) Most scholars agree that the persecution addressed in Revelation was during the reign of Domitian placing the date of composition around A.D. 95.

    GW:
    George E. Ladd (1972)
    "The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)


    Steve Gregg (1997)
    "Many scholars, including those supportive of a late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domitian's reign." (Revelation: Four Views, p.16)
     
  10. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    This is the logical fallacy commonly called argumentum ad ignorantium, the argument to ignorance. Whether through design or lack of knowledge the arguer presents a list of “authorities” to prove their argument, which the audience accepts, without verification, because they sound so impressive.

    At this (Link) are all the known writings of Papias. There is no reference to John in those writings!

    A blatantly false statement. Here is exactly what Eusebius says about John and revelation and a link to Eusebius, Church History

    • Eusebius, Church History Bk III
      Chapter XVIII. The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.
      1 It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.151

      2 Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John,152 speaks as follows concerning him:153

      3 "If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian."

      4 To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it.154

      5 And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian155 Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome,156 was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.

      155 We learn from Suetonius (Domit. chap. 15) that the events referred to by Eusebius in the next sentence took place at the very end of Domitian's reign; that is, in the year 96 a.d., the fifteenth year of his reign, as Eusebius says. Dion Cassius also (LXVII. 14) puts these events in the same year.

      http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1790_827335
    False! No such work among the known writings of the early church. Three ECF wrote works with “Heresies", in the title, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, but none of the works makes this statement. Link to Early Church Father’s (Here). Please feel free to provide factual information about your claims from the original sources.
    I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you are quoting some other source which makes this false statement. The alternative is you deliberately posted information you knew to be false. But, here is what Irenaeus actually said with a link to his works. I doubt very seriously if this quote is in Young’s concordance, since it is so easily verifiable.

    • ”We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.

      http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-63.htm#P9394_2754595
    As I said before the information I post, proves your sources to be wrong. You can go back and research all your so-called sources and correct them or I can embarrass you further. I venture to say that virtually anything you post in support of preterism can be proven to be false because I never heard of it until a few months ago. And I should have, because I have degrees in the appropriate fields.

    If preterism is not just another latter day heretical religious group, ala JW, LDS, WWCG, etc., there should be an extensive history of their beliefs and practices. The book stores and libraries should be full of well documented, and researched books supporting these beliefs.

    Matthew 16:18 upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Where are those books? Where is that history? Why is it that the only “proof” for these beliefs are a few demonstrably false, inadequate, misquotes and fabricated sources and quotes?
     
  11. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    Old Shepherd, please allow me to prove you wrong. Here goes...

    OS SAID:
    At this (Link) are all the known writings of Papias. There is no reference to John in those writings!

    GW:
    Not only does John Walvoord assert that Papias testified to this as I listed before, but so also does New Advent.org assert this:

    "A fragment is, however, attributed to Papias which states that "John the theologian and James his brother were killed by the Jews". (Chapman, John. St. Papias. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI [Online Edition 2002]. Retrieved November 29, 2002 from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11457c.htm)


    OS SAID:
    A blatantly false statement [that Eusebius didn't believe St. John wrote Revelation.].

    GW:
    Wrong again. Eusebius believed that Revelation was written by a John the Presbyter, not the apostle. Eusebius says:

    "This confirms the truth of the story of those who have said that there were two of the same name in Asia, and that there are two tombs at Ephesus both still called John's. This calls for attention: for it is probable that the second (unless anyone prefer the former) saw the revelation which passes under the name of John." (Ecc History 3:38:5; 3:29:1,2,5,6)

    So while Eusebius knew of Irenaeus' attribution of the book to St. John the apostle, Eusebius disagrees with that citation and attributes the writing of the book of Revelation to another John--namely, John the Presbyter.


    OS SAYS:
    False! No such work among the known writings of the early church [speaking of Epiphanius, Heresies, 51:12]. Three ECF wrote works with “Heresies", in the title, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Irenaeus, but none of the works makes this statement.

    GW:
    Ouch, you continue to hurt yourself over and over. Epiphanius of Salamis (315-403) wrote explicitly that John was banished under Nero. One of two of his specific lines on this subject reads:

    "[John], prophesied in the time of Claudius [Nero]...the prophetic word according to the Apocalypse being disclosed."

    This is from his Heresies 51:12,33. You claim this work does not exist, but you are in error. The work is known as the "Panarion," and each heresy Epiphanius addresses is numbered in order; hence it is customary to quote the "Panarion" as follows: Epiphanius, Haer. N (the number of the heresy)--which I have listed as Heresies 51:12,33


    OS SAID:
    I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you are quoting some other source which makes this false statement. The alternative is you deliberately posted information you knew to be false. But, here is what Irenaeus actually said with a link to his works. I doubt very seriously if this quote is in Young’s concordance, since it is so easily verifiable.

    ”We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign.


    GW REPLIES:
    And, again, here is Robert Young's comment on Irenaeus' quote:

    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)



    OS SAID:
    If preterism is not just another latter day heretical religious group, ala JW, LDS, WWCG, etc., there should be an extensive history of their beliefs and practices. The book stores and libraries should be full of well documented, and researched books supporting these beliefs. Where are those books? Where is that history?

    GW:
    Enjoy the volumes of preterist statements and beliefs in Church History!

    Christian History and its Preterist Presuppositions
    http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/index.html


    OS:
    Why is it that the only proof for these beliefs are a few demonstrably false, inadequate, misquotes and fabricated sources and quotes?

    GW:
    I have demonstrated that you spoke in ignorance. It is you that has put forth the fabrications and misquotes. My sources are vindicated, and you were in error.

    Finally, I leave you with this quote from the great Church Historian:

    Philip Schaff (1877)
    "On two points I have changed my opinion--the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)."
    --(Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

    "The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Enyclopedia 3:2036)
     
  12. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    Now, Old Shepherd, remember Robert Young's claim:
    Like so many great scholars, Robert Young believes Revelation was written during Nero's reign and he claims that the internal testimony of the book is wholly in favor of this early date. I now post again the overwhelming INTERNAL evidence:

    * The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance. If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit. If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here, and there is no historic support for a persecution of the Church under Domitian in the 90s.

    * According to the epistles to the churches, there were still Judaizers (Revelation 2:9; 3:9) presenting problems in the churches. This, would be ridiculous after 70 AD

    * The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation 11, because John is sent to measure them. This would not be possible after 70 AD. And if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple and city in 70 AD is deafening.

    * There were "other apostles" still around according to Revelation 2:2. Tradition has it that all the apostles were dead before 70 AD and John was the only original surviving past that time.

    * Caesar Nero's name in Hebrew gematria adds up to 666. Since this was written about soon events, no other person can be found within this time scope whose name fits this requirement and description. Especially none can be found in the soon future of 96 AD.

    * Nearly all scholars believe Revelation is inextricably linked to the Olivet Discourse. Since the best commentaries on the Olivet show it is speaking of the events leading up to AD 70, so must Revelation be speaking of the same events.

    * The 6th king in Revelation 17 is the one that persecutes the saints. The Roman emperors as listed by Josephus and Tacitus are (1) Julius, (2) Augustus, (3) Tiberius, (4) Caligula, (5) Claudius, then (6) Nero. Nero was the first and only Roman Caesar of the Julian line to persecute Christians. Nero's death ended the Julian dynasty. The one ruling after him reigned only a little while.. . Galba, for 6 months. If the 6th king is indeed Nero, he would be the one that "now is" according to the prophecy, and this would date the writing before 68 AD when Nero supposedly committed suicide. Nero also persecuted Christians for 42 months as is stated in the prophecy.


    The internal evidence of the book of Revelation demands the Neronic date. Robert Young was right: "The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date."



    Finally, in response to your statement that no second or third century writings point to a dating of Revelation during the reign of Nero, I remind you again of the Muratorian Canon:

    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. "


    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. And, church historians are agreed that Paul died before A.D. 70, either in A.D. 67 or 68. Therefore, the book of Revelation with its letters to seven churches was known by Paul before Paul's death, according to the Muratorian Canon.
     
  13. danrobinson_92562

    danrobinson_92562 New Member

    22
    +0
    I haven't had a chance to read all the replies. But it talks about this in Daniel 9:24-27(Seventy Weeks of Daniel). Sixty-nine weeks have been determined from the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem to the time the Messiah shall come. Of course, we should know that each week is seven years. Read Genesis 29, the story about Jacob, Laban and Rachel.
    Anyway, if each week is 7 years, then the 69 weeks equals 483 years or 173,880 days. The command to rebuild Jerusalem was given on March 14, 445 BC. 173,880 days later, on April 9, 32 AD, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey while the crowd was waving palm branches. There are other passages that desribe this event. This is the day I believe Jesus revealed himself to humanity.

    Please bear in mind, that when a king rides into a city on a donkey, it means he is coming in peace. This just tells me that either the Jews didn't know the scriptures that well, or they were blind to the fact that the Messiah had come.
     
  14. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    Hi Dan Robinson, and God bless.

    Just some food for your thinking:

    (1) The historic Church has believed that the 70 weeks contain no mysterious "gaps," and that those weeks ran successively back to back from 457 BC through the final 70th week at AD27-34. The 70 weeks of Daniel were fulfilled long ago, and Jesus was cut off "AFTER 69 weeks"--i.e., DURING week No. 70.

    (2) This view has been the majority view of Christianity until the dispensationalists invented a new and strange teaching in the 1800s that there is a mysterious "gap" of hundreds of "weeks" between week 69 and week 70. Such a view is foreign to scripture, and surely Christ and the apostles had no such knowledge of this mysterious "gap."

    (3) Futurists and preterists can agree fully on this matter that the 70 weeks of Daniel were fulfilled by Jesus. I highly recommend that you read this great study on the 70 weeks and their fulfillment back in the 1st century by a futurist Website:


    The 70th Week: how Jesus fulfilled Daniel 9:24-27
    http://notdeceived.net/seventieth_week.shtml
     
  15. Phoenix

    Phoenix Senior Member

    520
    +11
    Christian
    Hey GW :wave:

    Glad to see you posting again.

     
     
  16. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    Nice to see you here too, Phoenix. Hail, hail, the gang's all here.

    God bless,
    GW
     
  17. judge

    judge Regular Member

    153
    +0
    Christian
     

    Hi All! :clap:

     

    It seems that Augustine of hippo held to this interpretation as well. And that it was commonly held in his time. See the following quote.

    "Daniel even defined the time when Christ was to come and suffer by the exact date. It would take too long to show this by computation, and it has been done often by others before us."

    What else could he be referring to but daniels 70 weeks???

    taken from..chapter 34

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120118.htm
     
  18. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    Hi Judge. Good to see ya.

    And also...

    Origen (2nd Century)
    "The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled" (Principles, 4:1:5).
     
  19. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    I don’t care how many phony, so-called sources you post, swearing to what Papias allegedly said. I posted a link to all of Papias’ known writings. Do you understand the word “all”? You have posted this twice, show me da evidence, the exact fragment which makes the statement you claim. I don’t want to hear third party opinions. Your blind insistence on this in the face of irrefutable evidence now is in the realm of deliberate falsehood.
    I stand corrected Papias does mention John. Let me correct my earlier statement. Papias does not mention John and the dating of his Revelation.
    You are misstating what Eusebius said. Here is the quote from CCEL with a link. I always like to see the exact source. I’m funny that way. It keeps everyone honest. Eusebius doesn’t appear to be offering an opinion either way but presenting two possibilities. And this is irrelevant anyway, it does not prove when Revelation was written.

    • 6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, si called John's.389 It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John390
      http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1497_696002
    OK, one error. You appear to be correct. However, since the work does not appear among the Early Church Fathers at CCEL, I could not find it or verify it, but here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says on the matter. So what we have is one early church writer, in opposition to the entire church. Very convincing.

    • TIME AND PLACE
      The Seer himself testifies that the visions he is about to narrate were seen by him whilst in Patmos. "I John . . . was in the island which is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus" (i. 9). Patmos is one of the group of small islands close to the coast of Asia Minor, about twelve geographical miles from Ephesus. Tradition, as Eusebius tells us, has handed down that John was banished to Patmos in the reign of Domitian for the sake of his testimony of God's word (Hist. Eccl., III, 18). He obviously refers to the passage "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus" (i, 9). It is true that the more probable meaning of this phrase is, "in order to hear the word of God", etc., and not "banished because of the word of God", etc., (cf. i. 2). But it was quite natural that the Seer should have regarded his banishment to Patmos as prearranged by Divine Providence that in the solitude of the island he might hear God's word. The tradition recorded by Eusebius finds confirmation in the words of the Seer describing himself as "a brother and partaker in tribulation" (i, 9). Irenaeus places the Seer's exile in Patmos at the end of Domitian's reign. "Paene sub nostro saeculo ad finem Domitiani imperii" (Adv. Haer., V. 4). The Emperor Domitian reigned A.D. 81-96. In all matters of Joannine tradition Irenaeus deserves exceptional credit. His lifetime bordered upon the Apostolic age and his master, St. Polycarp, had been among the disciples of St. John. Eusebius, chronicling the statement of Irenaeus without any misgivings, adds as the year of the Seer's exile the fourteenth of Domitian's reign. St. Jerome also, without reserve or hesitation, follows the same tradition. "Quarto decimo anno, secundam post Neronem persecutionem movente Domitiano, in Patmos insulam relegatus, scripsit Apocalypsim" (Ex libro de Script. Eccl). Against the united testimony of these three witnesses of tradition the statement of Epiphanius placing the Seer's banishment in the reign of Claudius, A.D. 41-54, appears exceedingly improbable (Haer., li, 12, 33).
    I’m so glad you reposted this I was thinking about your earlier post and two thoughts struck me. There are two distinct things about this quote which point to it being false. First it quotes Young’s Analytical Concordance. A concordance is not a Bible commentary. It lists and defines all the words found in the Bible. See the publisher’s notes.

    • Publisher's Notes: A standard Biblical concordance, Young’s casts all words in the Bible into alphabetical order and arranges them under their respective original words. This helps the reader to analyze more accurately the various uses of the original Hebrew and Greek words. Includes over 300,000 biblical references.

      http://www.trinitybookservice.org/06291.html
    Therefore it would not have a “commentary” on Revelation and it would not list the names Domitian or Irenaeus, which do not occur in the Bible.

    Second, and most important, Robert Young was one of the most renowned Biblical language scholars of the 19th century. Whoever wrote this sentence was abjectly ignorant of the Greek language and its rules.

    • ”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.”
    I do not have the time or the inclination to educate you but I will state this one point. The genitive case in Greek, which expresses the possessive, is indicated by changing the noun ending to “ou.” “the reign of Domitian”, the name would be written in Greek, “Domitianou” The identical structure can be clearly seen in Luke 3:1, “the reign of Pontius Pilate” is written hgemoneuontoV pontiou pilatou. “Pontius Pilato", since it is the Genitive, i.e. possessive, it is written “Pontiou Pilatou” A first year Greek student would not make the mistake above, and one of the most renowned Greek scholars of the 19th century would never have written that.
    I have reviewed a few of the links. I may have to have a Pre-T play book to help me twist them to make them say what you want. One preliminary comment, I would expect the majority of the ECF to support this view, not just one or two.
    Have you now? Where is this demonstration? I have misquoted nothing. I have fabricated nothing. I did overlook one sentence in Papias, which was irrelevant anyway, and was unable to locate and verify one of your sources, Epiphanius, but that does not constitute fabrication or misquoting. On the other hand I am still waiting for you to verify your previous post.
    Irrelevant. I want “proof” not opinions. So far you have produced only one factual source, Epiphanius. When do you plan to show that I spoke in ignorance?

    Meanwhile I leave you with this from the International Encyclopedia of the Bible.

    • REVELATION OF JOHN
      III. Date and Unity of the Book.

    • 1. Traditional Date under Domitian: Eusebius, in summing up the tradition of the Church on this subject, assigns John's exile to Patmos, and consequently the composition of the Apocalypse, to the latter part of the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD). Irenaeus (circa 180 AD) says of the book, "For it was seen, not a long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian" (Adv. Haer., v.30, 3). This testimony is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria (who speaks of "the tyrant"), Origen, and later writers. Epiphanius (4 th century), indeed, puts (Haer., li.12, 233) the exile to Patmos in the reign of Claudius (41-54 AD); but as, in the same sentence, he speaks of the apostle as 90 years of age, it is plain there is a strange blunder in the name of the emperor. The former date answers to the conditions of the book (decadence of the churches; widespread and severe persecution), and to the predilection of Domitian for this mode of banishment (compare Tacitus, History i.2; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 18).
      (from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Electronic Database Copyright (c)1996 by Biblesoft)
     
  20. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    OLD SHEPHERD:
    I posted a link to all of Papias’ known writings. Do you understand the word “all”? You have posted this twice, show me da evidence, the exact fragment which makes the statement you claim.

    GW:
    You don't accept multiple citations of scholarship to verify that such a fragment exists? Here, try these two links:

    Papias Of Hierapolis (from Before Jerusalem Fell)

    Page 92:
    http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/kgbj/KGBJ-108.html
    Page 93:
    http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/kgbj/KGBJ-109.html

    Greek fragment:
    http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/kgbj/KGBJ-108-0.jpg




    OLD SHEPHERD:
    I stand corrected Papias does mention John. Let me correct my earlier statement. Papias does not mention John and the dating of his Revelation.

    GW:
    Shepherd, if Papias is right that St. John died before the last days of Jerusalem, then Revelation was written before AD 70.


    OLD SHEPHERD:
    You are misstating what Eusebius said....Eusebius doesn’t appear to be offering an opinion either way but presenting two possibilities. And this is irrelevant anyway, it does not prove when Revelation was written.

    GW:
    You claimed Eusebius supported your view. You were incorrect. At best, Eusebius doesn't prefer that St. John the apostle wrote Revelation.


    OLD SHEPHERD:
    [concerning Ephaphinus: Heresies 51:12,33]

    OK, one error. You appear to be correct. However, since the work does not appear among the Early Church Fathers at CCEL, I could not find it or verify it, but here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says on the matter. So what we have is one early church writer, in opposition to the entire church. Very convincing.

    GW:
    Ah, but the fact remains that Epiphanius thinks John was banished under NERO. Now, the Syriac Vulgate Bible reads:

    Syriac Vulgate Bible (sixth century)
    "The Apocalypse of St. John, written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar." (Opening Title for the Book of Revelation)


    The early date evidence is just as strong if not stronger than Irenaeus solitary quote. Next, we have the commentary on Revelation by Arethas who applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event" (From Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown Commentary Critical and Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, 1871). Excerpts from his commentary:

    (On Revelation 6:12) "Some refer this to the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian."

    (On Revelation 7:1) "Here, then, were manifestly shown to the Evangelist what things were to befall the Jews in their war against the Romans, in the way of avenging the sufferings inflicted upon Christ."

    (On Revelation 7:4) "When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jews were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans."

    These comments show that Arethas thinks Revelation was written before Jerusalem fell.


    Next, we have Clement of Alexandria's statement that the ministries of the apostles ended during Nero's reign:

    Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
    "For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius,was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17)

    This argues strongly in favor of the Neronic date for the Book of Revelation. Clement argues that all revelation given through the apostles ceased under Nero. How could Clement have made this statement if John's Revelation had been written about 25 years after Nero?


    OLD SHEPHERD:
    Robert Young was one of the most renowned Biblical language scholars of the 19th century. Whoever wrote this sentence was abjectly ignorant of the Greek language and its rules. ...A first year Greek student would not make the mistake above, and one of the most renowned Greek scholars of the 19th century would never have written that.


    GW:
    I cited his words from his concordance.



    OLD SHEPHERD:
    One preliminary comment, I would expect the majority of the ECF to support this view, not just one or two.

    GW:
    A majority of ECFs that agree together on eschatology? Impossible. Also, don't forget that the Church declared Irenaeus' eschatology (Chiliasm) to be heretical.

    BTW, every NT author agreed that Christ's return was to take place in their own lifetimes. Those are the most important writers we can cite. Christ clearly places his return in his own generation (Matt 24:33-34), and to this the writers of the New Testament unanimously agree.

    BTW, I see you haven't addressed the testimony of the Muratorian Canon which claims Paul followed John's lead in writing to 7 churches. Paul died in 67-68, therefore The Muratorian Canon testifies that Paul knew of the Revelation before he died.

    And, I leave you with another comment by Philip Schaff :

    "Tertullian's legend of the Roman oil-martyrdom of John seems to point to Nero rather than to any other emperor, and was so understood by Jerome. (Adv. Jovin. 1.26) (History 1:428)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...