Originally posted by GW
Apocalyptic language is a standard form of "doom language" all throughout scripture, and you are simply not taking this into account.
The fact is, Christ plainly taught that those signs as well as his return were to be seen by the apostles to whom he was speaking:
[
Originally posted by Anthony
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.
Originally posted by GW
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.
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)
Originally posted by Anthony
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.
Originally posted by GW
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.
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.Originally posted by GW
The book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. See testimony at the following link:
http://www.preteristvision.org/questions/qa_revelationdate.html
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.Posted by GW
(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)
A blatantly false statement. Here is exactly what Eusebius says about John and revelation and a link to Eusebius, Church History(2) Eusebius didn't believe St. John wrote Revelation.
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 Fathers (Here). Please feel free to provide factual information about your claims from the original sources.(3) Epiphanies (315-403)
States Revelation was written under "Claudius [Nero] Caesar." (Epiphanies, Heresies 51:12)
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 Youngs concordance, since it is so easily verifiable.(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)
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...The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date."
(Commentary on Revelation - Young's Analytical Concordance)
Originally posted by GW
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
I dont 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 dont 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.Originally posted by GW
Old Shepherd, please allow me to prove you wrong. Here goes...
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:
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)
I stand corrected Papias does mention John. Let me correct my earlier statement. Papias does not mention John and the dating of his Revelation."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)
You are misstating what Eusebius said. Here is the quote from CCEL with a link. I always like to see the exact source. Im funny that way. It keeps everyone honest. Eusebius doesnt 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:
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.
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:
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. . .
Im 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 Youngs Analytical Concordance. A concordance is not a Bible commentary. It lists and defines all the words found in the Bible. See the publishers notes.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)
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.GW:
Enjoy the volumes of preterist statements and beliefs in Church History!
Christian History and its Preterist Presuppositions
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.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.
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?Finally, I leave you with this quote from the great Church Historian:. . .
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?