• 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. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    _________You are not paying attention. Try reading my posts. I posted three sources, Irenaeus was only one of those. And no it isn't, it is all much later. nd has yet to be disproved.
    _________This is the next sentence from your Catholic Encyclopedia quote. Your selective quote is certainly reliable.

    • It is not possible that Papias should really have said this, otherwise Eusebius must have quoted it and Irenaeus could not have been ignorant of it. There is certainly some error in the quotation. Either something has been omitted, or St. John Baptist was meant.
    _________And this is from your link to the so-called Papias fragment.

    • If these two pieces of data are in fact from Papias (as Swete, Lightfoot,33 and other competent scholars are inclined to believe), they provide for those who hold to the Apostolic authorship of Revelation strong external evidence for a pre-A.D. 70 composition of Revelation. In that the excerpts, however, are not indisputably genuine, they cannot be reckoned conclusive. They serve merely as probable indicators – indicators that fit well with the mass of evidence to come.

      http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/kgbj/KGBJ-109.html
    _________Putting words in my mouth again. I claimed that Eusebius supported a late date for Revelation. And whether it was John the beloved or John the Presbyter is irrelevant.
     
  2. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    OLD SHEPHERD:
    I posted three sources, Irenaeus was only one of those. And no it isn't, it is all much later. and has yet to be disproved.

    GW:
    All late date testimony rests squarely on the shoulders of one solitary statement by Irenaeus, and it is disputed as to what it even says (was John seen? --or-- was the Revelation seen? -- who knows what Irenaeus said). Even Eusebius rejects Irenaeus testimony and prefers that a different John (John the Presbyter) wrote the book, not the apostle, as Irenaeus believes. This is important, and for certain, the late date folks that came after were merely basing their opinions on Irenaeus! Scholars agree that Irenaeus' statement is questionable at best, and it contradicts other things Irenaeus said about "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation (Eusebius: Ecc History: 5:8:5-6; see also Against Heresies 5:30:1,3). The notion of "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation cannot be reconciled with the proposition that Revelation was seen "almost in Irenaeus' generation" -- however it could be reconciled with the view that Irenaeus actually stated that JOHN was seen in Domitian's reign, not the vision. Then again, Irenaeus also claimed Jesus lived to be over 50 years old! "

    ...after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord's disciple...."(Against Heresies 2:22:5)


    So, we must not uncritically swallow Irenaeus historic testimony. Scholars admit that Irenaeus' quote concerning Revelation is all the evidence there is for a late date, and that his quote is inconclusive as to even what it means:

    Daniel Denham (1979)
    "The testimony of Irenaeus is considered the bastion of the evidence for the Late Date...The obscurity of the testimony, as it has come down to us, must be considered as weak and inconclusive to demand the Late Date." (Date of the Book Of Revelation"; H. Daniel Denham, Part 1, 1979)

    Steve Gregg
    "Since the text is admittedly "uncertain" in many places, and the quotation in question is known only from a Latin translation of the original, we must not place too high a degree of certainty upon our preferred reading of the statement of Irenaeus." (Revelation: Four Views, p. 18)



    OLD SHEPHERD:
    It is not possible that Papias should really have said this, otherwise Eusebius must have quoted it and Irenaeus could not have been ignorant of it. There is certainly some error in the quotation. Either something has been omitted, or St. John Baptist was meant.

    GW:
    Popycock. That is reasoning based on nothing more than a presupposition that the Irenaeus quote is the only correct view and that statements that contradict Irenaeus shouldn't be accepted. Yet we know that even Eusebius REJECTS Irenaeus' testimony concerning who wrote the book of Revelation!

    The statement by Papias clearly makes the late date tradition impossible, and the Church's testimony strongly favors the Neronic persectution as the correct time the book was written.


    OLD SHEPHERD:
    If these two pieces of data are in fact from Papias (as Swete, Lightfoot,33 and other competent scholars are inclined to believe), they provide for those who hold to the Apostolic authorship of Revelation strong external evidence for a pre-A.D. 70 composition of Revelation. In that the excerpts, however, are not indisputably genuine, they cannot be reckoned conclusive. They serve merely as probable indicators – indicators that fit well with the mass of evidence to come.

    GW:
    Scholars can reason any way they please. Fact is, there is a legitimate fragment attributed Papias that says what it says. The quote from Irenaeus is considered to be weak and inconclusive, and it can even read that JOHN was seen in the reign of Domitian. (Robert Young even thinks NERO was intended, which would fully accord with Irenaeus statement about the "ancient copies" of the book of Revelation.)


    OLD SHEPHERD:
    Putting words in my mouth again. I claimed that Eusebius supported a late date for Revelation. And whether it was John the beloved or John the Presbyter is irrelevant.

    GW:
    It is not irrelevant. For Eusebius must have REASONS to reject Irenaeus' testimony as he does concerning the author. Eusebius does not accept Irenaeus' testimony as accurate on the matter, and this is important to note. If Eusebius doubts Irenaeus, we can be sure he had good reasons, for he knew Irenaeus' view and rejects it in favor of another John.

    Finally, are you forgetting Arethas, the Muratorian Canon, Clement of Alexandria, the Syriac Vulgate?????? -- all these statements I have cited require an early date. And you haven't even touched the internal evidence of the book, which entirely demands that the vision speaks of a soon catastrophe of grave Jewish importance, which historically cannot fit any time but 66-70 AD. The book of Revelation is the prophecy of the catastrophy of the downfall of Israel and the avenging of the blood of the apostles and prophets.
     
  3. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    As long as you were selectively quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it seemed to support you, it was fine but when the next sentence contradicts your assertion then its “poppycock”. If the sentence I quoted from the same article is poppycock then the entire article is unreliable. Now do you have any more sources for the so-called Papias fragment?
    Another case of selective quoting. As long as some part of the article seems to support you, fine, but when it is shown to be questionable then its wrong. Once again if that portion I quoted is unreliable then the entire article is. Now you have absolutely no sources for the Papias article.

    And as for what Robert Young thought you don’t have a clue. You are just blindly cutting and pasting your argument from the Pre-T site you linked earlier. I have already presented evidence that the Young quote is garbage.

    “
    Fact is, there is a legitimate fragment attributed Papias that says what it says.” This is absolutely ridiculous. The source that you yourself posted as “proof” questioned the authenticity of the fragment, “In that the excerpts, however, are not indisputably genuine, they cannot be reckoned conclusive.” But you are going to contradict your own source and say that it is genuine.

    After I challenged it, you claimed to have copied this quote from Young’s Analytical Concordance, yourself. Seems very strange that this exact quote is at the link you posted earlier supporting the early date for Revelation, the link is below. Care to explain that? I will repeat my earlier statement Robert Young, nor any other knowledgeable Greek scholar, wrote this statement!

    • Robert Young (1885)
      "It 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)
      http://www.preteristvision.org/questions/qa_revelationdate.html
    False, Irenaeus, Jerome, and Eusebius.
    False! Already refuted but you ignored my response.
    Big contradiction. Elsewhere you posted so-called “proof” that all the apostles died before 70 AD, so how could John be seen in Domitian’s reign which began in 81 AD? Try to remember what you post.
     
  4. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS, to which eschatological position do you subscribe? :cool:
     
  5. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Why? Read the thread, I think its clear. Here I am simply pointing out a contradiction in GW's cut and paste.
     
  6. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS -

    No particular reason. I'm just curious.

    If I thought it was clear, I wouldn't be asking! Are you a Futurist?

    Well, that's fine, but it doesn't answer my question.
     
  7. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    Testing...1,2,3. I think I'm back up and running.
     
  8. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    OS:
    As long as you were selectively quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it seemed to support you, it was fine but when the next sentence contradicts your assertion then its “poppycock”. If the sentence I quoted from the same article is poppycock then the entire article is unreliable. Now do you have any more sources for the so-called Papias fragment?

    GW:
    The point I made was that the fragment DOES EXIST and that it is attributed to Papias, and that it says John died in the last days of Jerusalem. You denied such a fragment existed, remember? Now, having established the fact that such a statement exists, commentators may choose to say whatever they want about it! Obviously, people who have not weighed all the evidence and such as read Ireneaus uncritically would NOT be inclined to accept Papias' statement. However, there is much good evidence to accept the statement of this fragment, and that's where the debate comes in to play.


    OS:
    Another case of selective quoting. As long as some part of the article seems to support you, fine, but when it is shown to be questionable then its wrong.

    GW:
    The reasoning given at New Advent.org for rejecting Papias' statement is based on the presupposition that any statements contradicting Irenaeus cannot be correct. That, of course, must first be proven and not just blindly asserted. The fact that Eusebius rejects Irenaeus' testimony should be enough to give pause to late date advocates. Irenaeus discussion of "ancient copies" of Revelation should give even more reason to pause to anyone that believes Irenaeus meant that Revelation was seen "almost in his day"--both statements cannot be reconciled. Also, Robert Young's assessment that Nero was the intended subject (Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus), and that the copyists erred, also is important. Finally, the testmony of the Muritorian Canon that Paul was following JOHN'S LEAD by writing to seven Churches demands that the Revelation was written by the time of Paul's death. The Syriac Vulgate and Arethas' commentary also demand that the book was written under Nero's reign. Epaphanius said it was written under Claudius Nero. Clement claims that the ministry of the apostles ended in Nero's reign. There's just no logical way to accept the late date as valid.

    OS:
    And as for what Robert Young thought you don’t have a clue. You are just blindly cutting and pasting your argument from the Pre-T site you linked earlier.

    GW:
    That citation is legitimate, and I checked it myself. I do not own that work in my library at present. I don't sit around and make stuff up, as I have so clearly demonstrated.


    OS:
    The source that you yourself posted as “proof” questioned the authenticity of the fragment

    GW:
    The reasons given for rejecting this fragment of Papias always go back to a PRESUMPTION that Irenaeus' solitary statement is holy writ and must not be questioned. Jerome and other early writiers simply cite Ireneaus uncritically, as do many in our times. The entire case for the late date is only as strong as Irenaeus' quote!

    My source [Swete] admits that there are two separate manuscripts from the 7th to 9th centuries that contain the statment by Papias. My source then concludes: "with this testimony before us, it is not easy to doubt that Papias made some such statement." This commentator then does what many others do--they pit Irenaeus against Papias and choose to believe that Papias made an error. Had they looked first at the evidence for the Neronic date, they would quickly dismiss their late date preferences.


    OS:
    After I challenged it, you claimed to have copied this quote from Young’s Analytical Concordance, yourself. Seems very strange that this exact quote is at the link you posted earlier supporting the early date for Revelation, the link is below. Care to explain that?

    GW:
    Sure. It's my website. I had been told the quote existed a while back, and I verified it and posted it. I do not own Young's work.

    Finally, I did not ignore your response over Eusebius. At best, Eusebius doubts Irenaeus, and at worse, he thinks Irenaeus was in error. Eusebius prefers that a John the Presbyter wrote Revelation.

    And, while the fragment of Irenaeus can surely read that John was seen almost in Irenaeus day, I share the opinion of Robert Young: namely, Nero was intended, and the copyists misunderstood. (We don't have the original.) Irenaeus' own discussion of "ancient copies" of Revelation cannot be reconciled with the belief that Irenaeus had stated that the book was originally written almost in his own time. And surely, "ancient copies" are not even as old as the original, which really makes a late date unlikely to be the view Irenaeus held. There is so much good external and internal evidence to support the Neronic date of the book--and, nothing but Irenaeus' solitary quote supports the late date position. Irenaeus' solitary quote doesn't hold a candle to the mounds of early date evidence.

    I assert that the following book settles this question once and for all, and that you should read it:

    Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation
    by Dr. Kenneth Gentry


    read ABOUT IT at amazon.com

    READ IT FOR FREE HERE.
     
  9. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    BTW, I am running low on time as I have a busy work week ahead.

    OS, I highly recommend you read Gentry's book Before Jerusalem Fell. It is the definitive book on this topic of the dating of Revelation.

    The late date really has no case whatsoever.
     
  10. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    GW,
    You wanted a response to Zechariah 9:14? Here it is.

    Zech 9:14
    And the LORD shall be seen over them, and his arrow shall go forth as the lightning: and the Lord GOD shall blow the trumpet, and shall go with whirlwinds of the south.
    15 The LORD of hosts shall defend them; and they shall devour, and subdue with sling stones; and they shall drink, and make a noise as through wine; and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altar.

    This is another one of those “proof texts” which, according to the pre-T play book, supposedly proves that God uses “apocalyptic” language to describe His actions, which are actually fulfilled by humans, in His stead. This supposedly proves that “coming in the clouds” in the N.T. does not literally mean coming in the clouds.

    By whom will the LORD be seen? Those whom the people of God “shall devour, and subdue with slingstones!” In other words those who will see the Lord will die, in accordance with scripture. What does “His arrow” mean in verse 14, a literal arrow with a stone or metal arrowhead and feather stabilizers, or is it colorful figurative language used to describe “lightning” as God’s arrows, as Zech 9:14 clearly shows, and as the two following passages also show?

    • 2 Sam 22:15 And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and discomfited them.

      Ps 144:6 Cast forth lightning, and scatter them: shoot out thine arrows, and destroy them.
    Or how about blow the “shophar” in vs. 15? Is the only possible interpretation that God actually blew, through his lips, sounding a horn made from a ram’s horn? Note the definition of the word translated “blow”, “taqa”, means to “sound.” I wonder if God can cause the “sound of a trumpet”, without lips or even a trumpet and does this verse refer to an actual “shophar” or to the sound of the whirlwinds of the south?

    Notice that in every “proof text” you have posted the passages clearly show the fulfillment is not to be understood as human armies representing God in the clouds, etc. Therefore Zech 9:14 is irrelevant to, and proves absolutely nothing about, the “coming in the clouds” passages in the N.T.

    • 08628 &#1514;&#1511;&#1506; taqa‘ taw-kah’
      a primitive root; TWOT - 2541; v
      1) to blow, clap, strike, sound, thrust, give a blow, blast
      1a) (Qal)

    Since you like to compare O.T. verses to N.T. verses, lets compare Zechariah 14:1-9 to Acts 1:8-11.


    • Zech 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
      2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
      3 Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
      4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
      8 And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.
      9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

      Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
      9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
      10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
      11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

    Was Zechariah 14 and Acts 1 fulfilled in 66-70 AD? Where is any record, scriptural or otherwise, of this occurring? Where is your “proof text” for the fulfillment of Zech 14? Where is your scriptural or historical proof that Jesus returned to Jerusalem, the mount of olives, in the same manner as He departed, i.e. in the clouds.

    Note that the Jews, who actually read the original languages, interpreted Zechariah 14 as a literal messianic prophecy, not some figurative, spiritual, allegorical, fulfillment by human armies.

    • The Jews say {m}, that

      “when the dead shall live, the Mount of Olives shall be cleaved asunder, and all the dead of Israel shall come out from under it; yea, even the righteous which die in captivity shall pass through a subterranean cavern, and come out from under the Mount of Olives.”
      {m} Targum in Cant. viii. 5.

      Messianic Texts in the O.T.
      Zech. Xiv. 2 will be readily understood to have been applied to the wars of Messianic times, and this in many passages of the Midrashim, as, indeed, are verses 3, 4, 5, and 6.
      Verse 7. The following interesting remark occurs in Yalkut on Ps. cxxxix. 16, 17 (vol. ii. p. 129 d) on the words 'none of them.' This world is to last 6,000 years; 2,000 years it was waste and desolate, 2,000 years mark the period under the Law, 2,000 years that under the Messiah. And because our sins are increased,they are prolonged. As they are prolonged, and as we make one year in seven a Sabbatic year, so will God in the latter days make one day a Sabbatic year, which day is 1,000 years - to which applies the verse in Zechariah just quoted. See also PirqîUe R. Eliez. c. 28.
      Verse 8 is Messianically applied in Ber. R. 48. See our remarks on Gen. xviii 4, 5.
      Verse 9 is, of course, applied to Messianic times, as in Yalkut i. p. 76 c, 266 a, and vol. ii. p. 33 c, Midr. on Cant. ii. 13, and in other passages.
      The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Albert Edersheim
     
  11. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    Now, that was a very well written post, OS. Kudos for using Edersheim. :cool:
     
  12. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Quick someone dial 911, I'm going into cardiac arrest. I'm fading, fading, fading
     
  13. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    LOL! :D

    Hey, I always give credit where credit is due - regardless of my personal beliefs.

    Did that surprise you, OS? :)
     
  14. GW

    GW Veteran

    +59
    Christian
    I'm smack out of time, for now. I'll try to make this my final post in this discussion:

    I have read through your discusssion of Zechariah 9 three times now, and I still can't find your point and precise interpretation. Sorry to say. Assuming that you and I both agree the passage is fulfilled, I ask you, in what way? What was the nature of the fulfillment? Was Yahweh SEEN doing any of those things as the passage literally reads?


    OLD SHEPHERD:
    This is another one of those proof texts which, according to the pre-T play book, supposedly proves that God uses apocalyptic language to describe His actions, which are actually fulfilled by humans, in His stead.

    GW:
    Much of the history of the Jews reads precisely in this manner. When Joshua chased out the seven nations from the territory promised to the sons of Abraham, who did it? Apocalyptically speaking, Yahweh showed up and did it:

    Psalm 44:1-3
    O God, we have heard with our ears, Our fathers have told us the work that You did in their days, In the days of old. YOU WITH YOUR OWN HAND DROVE OUT THE NATIONS; Then YOU planted them; YOU afflicted the peoples, Then YOU spread them abroad. For by their own sword they did not possess the land, And their own arm did not save them, But YOUR right hand and YOUR arm and the light of YOUR presence

    This is classic apocalyptic/prophetic understanding common in the writings of the Hebrews. The passage tells us that the Jews did not drive out the heathen nations back in the book of Joshua ("they did not possess the land by their own sword"). God himself came down and did it. Jehovah was the mighty warrior who drove out the nations. Of course, we know that Jehovah never OPTICALLY showed up and did this thing attributed to him here.


    Here is another classic apocalyptic account of Yahweh's comings in Israel's PAST, but this time by Habakkuk:

    Habakkuk 3:3-16
    God came from Teman, The Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, And his praise filled the earth. His splendor is like the sunrise. Rays shine from his hand, where his power is hidden. Plague went before him, And pestilence followed his feet. He stood, and shook the earth. He looked, and made the nations tremble. The ancient mountains were crumbled. The age-old hills collapsed. His ways are eternal. I saw the tents of Cushan in affliction. The dwellings of the land of Midian trembled. Was Yahweh displeased with the rivers? Was your anger against the rivers, Or your wrath against the sea, That you rode on your horses, On your chariots of salvation? You uncovered your bow. You called for your sworn arrows. Selah. You split the earth with rivers. The mountains saw you, and were afraid. The tempest of waters passed by. The deep roared and lifted up its hands on high. The sun and moon stood still in the sky, At the light of your arrows as they went, At the shining of your glittering spear. You marched through the land in wrath. You threshed the nations in anger. You went forth for the salvation of your people, For the salvation of your anointed. You crushed the head of the land of wickedness. You stripped them head to foot. Selah. You pierced the heads of his warriors with their own spears. They came as a whirlwind to scatter me, Gloating as if to devour the wretched in secret. You trampled the sea with your horses, Churning mighty waters. I heard, and my body trembled. My lips quivered at the voice. Rottenness enters into my bones, and I tremble in my place, Because I must wait quietly for the day of trouble, For the coming up of the people who invade us.


    Now, OS, I could go line by line through this passage and point out that this apocalyptic language is NOT to be read literally as if Habakkuk means Yahweh was seen OPTICALLY doing any of these things at the time of the exodus and the conquest of Canaan. Do you understand? Yet, again, note all the common apocalyptic metaphors. I should write a book that identifies and defines their use. However, I suppose Milton Terry already wrote the book on it: "Bibilcal Apocalyptics" .




    OLD SHEPHERD:
    Was Zechariah 14 and Acts 1 fulfilled in 66-70 AD? Where is any record, scriptural or otherwise, of this occurring? Where is your “proof text” for the fulfillment of Zech 14?

    GW:
    As for Zechariah 14, I offer this short paper:

    Zechariah 14 & the Coming of Christ
    http://www.americanvision.org/page.asp?id=28

    It is also interesting to note Matthew Henry's or Adam Clarke's comments on Zechariah 14:1-4.

    Furthermore, I should add that the prophet Micah uses virtually identical prophetic language to describe God's judgment -- by means of the Assyrian army -- against Samaria and Israel in the 8th century B.C.: "Look! The Lord is coming from his dwelling place; he comes down and treads the high places of the earth. The mountains melt beneath him and the valleys split apart, like wax before the fire, like water rushing down a slope" (Micah 1:3-4; emphasis added). Thus Micah's prophecy describes an apparent physical descent of God, along with the phenomena of mountains melting and valleys splitting, yet that prophecy was fulfilled in Micah's lifetime when the Assyrians destroyed Samaria and took Israel captive in 722-721 B.C.



    OLD SHEPHERD:
    Where is your scriptural or historical proof that Jesus returned to Jerusalem, the mount of olives, in the same manner as He departed, i.e. in the clouds.

    GW:
    Christ's ascension in glory (Acts 1) was in the shekinah cloud:

    Daniel 7:13-14
    I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him



    It also should be no surprise that a variety of divine theophanies did accompany the fall of Jerusalem during AD 66-70:

    TACITUS:
    "In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightening flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure"
    (Tacitus - Histories, v. 13)



    JOSEPHUS:
    ...a few days after that feast, on the one-and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities...

    "Thus also, before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eight day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day-time; which light lasted for half an hour, and was so interpreted by the sacred scribes as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it."
    (The Wars of the Jews Book VI, Chapter 6, Section 3)



    Finally, Old Shepherd, during Judah's apostasy, the prophet Ezekiel saw the Glory Cloud depart from the Temple and travel east, to the Mount of Olives (Ezek. 10:18-19; 11:22-23); later, in his vision of the New Jerusalem, he sees the Glory-Cloud returning to dwell in the new Temple, the Church (Ezek. 43:1-5). This was fulfilled when Christ, the incarnate Glory of God, ascended to His Father in the Cloud from the Mount of Olives (Luke 24:50-51), and sending His Spirit to fill the Church at Pentecost. There was a later image of this transfer of God's Glory to the Church when on Pentecost of AD66, as the priests in the Temple were going about their duties, there was heard "a violent commotion and din" followed by "a voice as of a host crying, 'We are departing hence!'" [see Josephus quote I listed above]. This departure of the Deity from the temple at Pentecost of AD 66 was exactly 36 years (to the very day) after the Holy Spirit was first given in power to the apostles and the others at the first Christian Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter 2. And now, on the same Pentecost day, the witness was given that God himself was abandoning the Temple at Jerusalem. This meant that the Temple was no longer a holy sanctuary and that the building was no more sacred than any other secular building. Remarkably, even Jewish records show that the Jews had come to recognize that the Shekinah glory of God left the Temple at this time and remained over the Mount of Olives for 3.5 years. During this period a voice was heard to come from the region of the Mount of Olives asking the Jews to repent of their doings (Midrash - Lam. 2:11). This has an interesting bearing on the history of Christianity because we know that Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected from the dead on the Mount of Olives -- the exact region the Jewish records say the Shekinah glory of God remained for the 3.5 years after its departure from the Temple on Pentecost, AD66. The Jewish reference states that the Jews failed to heed this warning from the Shekinah glory (which they called Bet Kol - the voice of God), and that it left the earth and retreated back to heaven just before the final seige of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD70.

    From Pentecost AD 66, no thinking person among the Christians, who respected these obvious miraculous signs associated with the Temple, could believe that the structure was any longer a holy sanctuary of God. Josephus himself summed up the conviction of many people who came to believe that God "had turned away even from his sanctuary" (Wars, 2.539), that the Temple was "no more the dwelling place of God" (Wars, 5.19), because "the Deity has fled from the holy places" (Wars, 5.412).


    Sadly, I may not be able to post much more in response. I have been enjoying our discussion. God's blessings to you, OS.

    GW
     
  15. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    Hello GW and God bless you!-

    I'm a little tired right now, but I believe I am seeing a double standard. Yes, Zech14 was fulfilled in Micah, but this line of reasoning bites back in that the very "virgin birth prophecy" was initially fulfilled in 2Kings [I believe that is where anyhow], and later applied to Jesus in the NT.

    God bless--FM
     
  16. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    Yes Yahweh was literally seen and then He destroyed the pagan nations. It was accomplished exactly as Isa 19:2 says. God said He would set brother against brother, kingdom against kingdom, etc. There is the problem you said you have read it three times and you can't comprehend what the verse actually, literally says, in plain English.
    And I offer this quote from the middle of that site. Note the writer, as did you, starts with the assumption, without any proof whatsoever, that God did not literally appear.

    • And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south (Zech. 14:4).

      It is this passage that dispensationalists use to support their view that Jesus will touch down on planet earth and set up His millennial kingdom. Numerous times in the Bible we read of Jehovah "coming down" to meet with His people. In most instances His coming is one of judgment; in no case was He physically present. Notice how many times God's coming is associated with mountains:
    Now let's hear from the real Jewish viewpoint, which has been totally ignored. The pre-Christain Jews believed that the Messiah would actually, literally touch down on the mount of olives, and the mountain would actually and literally split open. When one presumes to speak for a people, i.e. the Jews, don't you think it prudent to actually consult their writings on the matter, rather than just keep repeating the same ol', same ol' assumptions and presumptions?

    • The Jews say {m}, that

      “when the dead shall live, the Mount of Olives shall be cleaved asunder, and all the dead of Israel shall come out from under it; yea, even the righteous which die in captivity shall pass through a subterranean cavern, and come out from under the Mount of Olives.”
      {m} Targum in Cant. viii. 5.

      Messianic Texts in the O.T.
      Zech. Xiv. 2 will be readily understood to have been applied to the wars of Messianic times, and this in many passages of the Midrashim, as, indeed, are verses 3, 4, 5, and 6.

      Verse 7. The following interesting remark occurs in Yalkut on Ps. cxxxix. 16, 17 (vol. ii. p. 129 d) on the words 'none of them.' This world is to last 6,000 years; 2,000 years it was waste and desolate, 2,000 years mark the period under the Law, 2,000 years that under the Messiah. And because our sins are increased,they are prolonged. As they are prolonged, and as we make one year in seven a Sabbatic year, so will God in the latter days make one day a Sabbatic year, which day is 1,000 years - to which applies the verse in Zechariah just quoted. See also PirqîUe R. Eliez. c. 28.

      Verse 8 is Messianically applied in Ber. R. 48. See our remarks on Gen. xviii 4, 5.

      Verse 9 is, of course, applied to Messianic times, as in Yalkut i. p. 76 c, 266 a, and vol. ii. p. 33 c, Midr. on Cant. ii. 13, and in other passages.
      The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Albert Edersheim
    Note, this book available several places online. Edersheim was an orthodox Jew who became a messianic in the 19th century.
     
  17. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    "The Love Team Motto."

    I am still scratching my head over that one. :confused:
     
  18. OldShepherd

    OldShepherd Zaqunraah

    +165
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    :confused: Me too. That's what it was when I got here. Or maybe this is the answer you are looking for. All the staff are assigned to teams, each team has a Biblical characteristic name, faith, hope, love, etc. and each team has a motto. That's ours down there.
     
  19. Future Man

    Future Man Priest of God and the Lamb

    245
    +0
    Calvinist
    :bow: :priest: :pray: :scratch: :sigh: You gotta love the smilies too!
     
  20. Evangelion

    Evangelion <b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>

    +0
    OS -

    Ah, that explains it. Thanks. :cool:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...