Christ's 2nd Coming was in the 1st Century -- 7 Proofs

Status
Not open for further replies.

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by GTX
Actually, lets make that between 80 and 95 AD. You don't discount the book of revelation do you?

OK GTX, time to tune up your "automator" and provide scriptural evidence that Revelation was written when you contend it was. Heck, I'll make it even easier....the evidence doesen't need to be scriptural, any evidence will do.

Are you up to the challenge?
Can you back up your assertion with facts?

I eagerly await in joyful anticipation for your scholarly, if automated, response.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by GTX
Not you npetreley, you are not a Transmillenialist (preterist) are you?

40%? I can get a better deal! ;)

No, I am not a preterist. I do believe that the most popular interpretations of prophecy (particularly pre-trib rapture and possibly even the postponement of Daniel's 70th week) have many problems, however.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by parousia70

I eagerly await in joyful anticipation for your scholarly, if automated, response.

I know you weren't asking me, but here's an interesting essay.

http://www.covenanter.org/Postmil/AntiPreterist/ponddate.htm

There's a lot there, but this is what I find particularly interesting. You may not give weight to such things, so perhaps you won't find it as interesting.

The testimony of the Fathers on the point before us is just what, in view of the facts above detailed, we might expect. With few exceptions, it is unanimous in ascribing the exile of John, and the writing of the Apocalypse, to the time of Domitian. We commence with Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in Gaul. He had been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. He must have been familiarly acquainted with the circumstances of John's banishment, with the time of it, and the person by whom it had been decreed. He could not have been mistaken on these points, nor is there any mistake or ambiguity in his testimony. 'The Apocalypse,' he tells us, was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, near the end of the reign of Domitian.'[9] This testimony has never been set aside, and never can be. It is enough of itself, considering the circumstances, to decide the question before us.


But this testimony does not stand alone. It is concurred in by nearly all the more distinguished Fathers. Victorinus says repeatedly, that John was banished by Domitian, and in his time saw the Revelation. Hippolytus speaks of John as having been exiled to Patmos under Domitian, where he saw the Apocalypse.[10] Eusebius, speaking of the persecution, says: 'In this persecution, John the apostle and evangelist, being still alive, was banished into the isle of Patmos.'[11] Jerome, in his book of illustrious men, says: 'Domitian, in the fourteenth year of his reign, raised the next persecution after Nero, when John was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation.' In another work, he says: 'John was a prophet. He saw the Revelation in the isle of Patmos, where he was banished by Domitian.'[12] Sulpicius Severus says, that 'John, the apostle and evangelist, was banished by Domitian to the isle of Patmos, where he had visions, and where he wrote the Revelation.'[13]


It would be needless to multiply quotations like these, and pursue them to a later period. It has been said that these testimonies are of little value, since they are all based one upon another, and ultimately upon that of Irenaeus. But this is not true; at least, no one has any right or reason to affirm that it is true. They go to show what was the settled conviction of the Church on the point before us, from the second century to the sixth,-the very time when the question could best be settled; and, in the judgment then formed, and so unanimously expressed, it becomes us of the nineteenth century to acquiesce. It cannot be reversed but upon vastly weightier reasons than any that have yet been urged.

By the way, I didn't notice the "AntiPreterist" in the URL at first. But I don't get the impression that it was written for that purpose. (In fact, I don't even know if preterism was around in 1871 when this was written.)
 
Upvote 0

GTX

<font size=1><font color=gray><b>Rapid Transit Aut
Nov 24, 2001
1,037
1
✟1,444.00
Originally posted by parousia70


OK GTX, time to tune up your "automator" and provide scriptural evidence that Revelation was written when you contend it was. Heck, I'll make it even easier....the evidence doesen't need to be scriptural, any evidence will do.

Are you up to the challenge?
Can you back up your assertion with facts?

I eagerly await in joyful anticipation for your scholarly, if automated, response.

I will try to make it as automated as possible.

The strength of the late '60's date rests on the popular myth of that period that the deranged emperor Nero would be revived. This myth parallels much of the imagry of chapter 13's reference to "the temple of God" and the "alter" in Jerusalem, which were both destroyed in 70 AD, also supports the earlier dating.

But the later date, near the end of Domitians reign as emperor [81-96 AD], is far more likely. The picture of suffering seen in Revelation seems closer to what is known of the persecution under Domitian. There is also the statement of Irenaeus, in about 185 AD, that John wrote Revelation at the close of Domitians reign. This would be around 95 AD.

Also you are discounting the literal scripture of bodily resurrection as clearly described by Job.
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟793,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by GTX


I will try to make it as automated as possible.

The strength of the late '60's date rests on the popular myth of that period that the deranged emperor Nero would be revived. This myth parallels much of the imagry of chapter 13's reference to "the temple of God" and the "alter" in Jerusalem, which were both destroyed in 70 AD, also supports the earlier dating.

That's an interesting theory, but my question was about the evidence for the "late date".
We can get into the early date evidence next ;)

Originally posted by GTX But the later date, near the end of Domitians reign as emperor [81-96 AD], is far more likely. The picture of suffering seen in Revelation seems closer to what is known of the persecution under Domitian. There is also the statement of Irenaeus, in about 185 AD, that John wrote Revelation at the close of Domitians reign. This would be around 95 AD.

So, your "evidence" that it was written post 70AD is:
A) it seems more likely to you.
B) Ireneaus said it was

If you'd like to add anything else, please go ahead, and then we can add up the evidence, scriptural and otherwise, for the early date, and compare side by side.

Originally posted by GTX
Also you are discounting the literal scripture of bodily resurrection as clearly described by Job? [/B]

I've addressed that question of yours in another thread, and it can be found here:
http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=223481#post223481

God Bless
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by GTX


I will try to make it as automated as possible.


But the later date, near the end of Domitians reign as emperor [81-96 AD], is far more likely. The picture of suffering seen in Revelation seems closer to what is known of the persecution under Domitian.

You are going to run into problems with that kind of statement. 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. :eek:

[automator disengaged]
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70


You are going to run into problems with that kind of statement. 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. :eek:

[automator disengaged]

From the essay linked above:

Jerome, in his book of illustrious men, says: 'Domitian, in the fourteenth year of his reign, raised the next persecution after Nero, when John was banished to the isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation.'
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Originally posted by Manifestation1*AD70

That is not recorded as a fact.

Huh? Unless you were there at the time, then all we have to rely on are historical records. Jerome, Irenaeus, and others said that there was such a persecution. I wasn't there, so I can't say for sure, but the fact that these people lived fairly close to the times of the events certainly bolsters the credibility of their statements.
 
Upvote 0

ArtistEd

Junior Member
Apr 19, 2002
38
1
75
SoCal
✟891.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by GTX


I will try to make it as automated as possible.

The strength of the late '60's date rests on the popular myth of that period that the deranged emperor Nero would be revived. This myth parallels much of the imagry of chapter 13's reference to "the temple of God" and the "alter" in Jerusalem, which were both destroyed in 70 AD, also supports the earlier dating.

But the later date, near the end of Domitians reign as emperor [81-96 AD], is far more likely. The picture of suffering seen in Revelation seems closer to what is known of the persecution under Domitian. There is also the statement of Irenaeus, in about 185 AD, that John wrote Revelation at the close of Domitians reign. This would be around 95 AD.

Also you are discounting the literal scripture of bodily resurrection as clearly described by Job.


Hi GTX,
thought you might find this interesting.

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)

Ed
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by ArtistEd

Hi GTX,
thought you might find this interesting.

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)

Ed

What he says is possible, but it assumes that Sulpicius and others based their information on what Irenaeus wrote. I don't know if that is a fair assumption. Based on what I've read, some scholars feel it is not a reasonable assumption, but some think it is. I don't have an opinion either way - I'd have to study the works of the contemporaries of Irenaeus to form an opinion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.