Evidence for date of John's exile on Patmos

[parousia70]

Th Cross was the event where God came in judgment and switched who was in control of the vineyard literally. Why are you putting your faith and trust in the writings of Josephus?

Where have I quoted or relied on Josephus? According to Matthew 21:33-45, the coming of the Lord of the Vineyard to destroy the wicked husbandmen was not the cross, it happened after the cross.
You are rearranging the parable to suit your bias.

 

[parousia70]

What you're saying is only plain to you. The gathering of the elect by the angels clearly did not occur in 70 AD. So, your understanding of "this generation" is clearly false.

You have it exactly backwards.
Your understanding of “this generation” is false, therefore The gathering of the elect by the angels clearly happened then.

The difference is that these other passages you're referring to, such as 2 Peter 3:10, have clearly not yet occurred.

Again, I realize your doctrine is wholly dependent on there been multiple comings of Christ as a thief taught in Scripture. Unfortunately for your doctrine, they don’t exist.

The context of Revelation 3:3 is clearly different than a passage like 2 Peter 3:10-12. I truly have no idea why you can't recognize that.

How so?
Matthew 24:42-44 is exactly parallel to Revelation 3:2-4.
Matthew 24:42-44 is also exactly parallel to 2 Peter 3:10-12

I truly have no idea why you can’t recognize they all speak of the same “thief in the night” event.
wait.. yes I do have an idea why. Accepting the scriptural fact they speak of the same event, as they do, destroys your doctrine.

 

[parousia70]

Sorry for your loss.

Thank you. She was a great lady. We just marked the 10 year anniversary of her passing. Cancer sucks.

I believe this is a weak response. I don't buy this. Not only did Jesus say that no one but the Father knew the day or hour, but He also never said that He knew the approximate day or hour of His return.

Or , He did.
Matthew 24:34
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

It's funny to me how preterists (full and partial) focus so much on Revelation 1:1-3 but seem to not be aware of the existence of Revelation 1:19. Yes, some of the things John wrote were things that would soon take place. Especially some of what he wrote to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3. But, that is not all he was told to write.

Revelation 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

John was told to write about things which had already happened (for example, he wrote about some past events related to the churches in Revelation 2 and 3 and he also referenced Christ's birth and ascension in Revelation 11). He also was told to write about things which were happening at the time, and he did write about things happening at the time or that would happen soon in relation to the churches in Asia. And he was also told to write about things that would occur from that point on. From that point on until when? 70 AD? No! Until the end of time when Christ returns, the judgment occurs and the new heavens and new earth are ushered in.

Oh, I often quote Revelation 1:19 as a preterist proof text.

It Cements to the first century, the events described in the book.

`Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come after these things;
YLT

 

[Timtofly]

Where have I quoted or relied on Josephus? According to Matthew 21:33-45, the coming of the Lord of the Vineyard to destroy the wicked husbandmen was not the cross, it happened after the cross.
You are rearranging the parable to suit your bias.

How do you know anything that happened in 70AD? None of 70AD is written in Scripture. Prophecy "about", is not the same as claiming Prophecy "fulfilled".

The life of Jesus and the Cross was Prophecy fulfilled and recorded. There is no historical record of 70AD recorded in God's Word. Who inspired Josephus to be a historian? Or any other recorder of first century events?

By saying the Cross was not the point, God changed history, is rejecting God's Word, and relying solely on Josephus and the record of carnal flesh.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

How so?
Matthew 24:42-44 is exactly parallel to Revelation 3:2-4.
Matthew 24:42-44 is also exactly parallel to 2 Peter 3:10-12

I truly have no idea why you can’t recognize they all speak of the same “thief in the night” event.
wait.. yes I do have an idea why. Accepting the scriptural fact they speak of the same event, as they do, destroys your doctrine.

It's always funny when someone calls their opinion a fact. Happens far too often on this forum. If you want to think a local event involving the first century church in Sardis (Revelation 3:2-4) is the same as a global event (2 Peter 3:10-12) then I don't know what to tell you. It just makes no sense.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Thank you. She was a great lady. We just marked the 10 year anniversary of her passing. Cancer sucks.

Yes, it does. My wife has cancer, too.

Or , He did.
Matthew 24:34
Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

Of course, I disagree with you about what "this generation" means, so this point doesn't affect my view. I believe the very next verse (Matthew 24:35) indicates when "this generation" would pass away, which is when heaven and earth pass away. And heaven and earth have clearly not passed away yet.

Oh, I often quote Revelation 1:19 as a preterist proof text.

It Cements to the first century, the events described in the book.

`Write the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are about to come after these things;
YLT

Did you bother to actually look up the Greek words that were used there (translated as "hereafter" in the KJV), which are meta (Strong's G3326) and tauta (G5023)? The phrase "meta tauta" doesn't mean what you apparently think it does. That phrase does not give any indication of a duration of time as if everything happening "after these things" would have to happen shortly "after these things". It simply refers to things that would happen for an indeterminate amount of time after the current time. Some of the things could happen (or start to happen) a short amount of time later and some a long time later.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I reduce nothing.

Here is the relevant snippet again:

The bible proves there is no literal earthly "millennium." Once we understand the plain truth of this, we can turn our efforts to understanding the apostolic teaching of the "thousand years" as a typological symbol--one of many in John's highly typological and symbolic vision.

What is it a Typological Symbol of?
The Thousand years is a typological reference to the length of the Davidic Monarchy, from David, the first King in the line, to Christ, the Final, and Completion/Restoration of the Line, which is a period of...

wait for it......

1000 LITERAL years!

The "Thousand years" shows that Christ fulfilled the hopes of the Davidic Monarchy that Christ would fill David's office as King (Luke 1:68-69; Acts 2:30-36; 1 Timothy 1:17; Mark 11:10; ) and restore the tabernacle of David (Acts 15:16-17) so that all the gentile nations could join in to the true worship of Jehovah. The 1000 years shows a completed Monarchy instead of the fact that the Monarchy had fallen into ruin in the 500s BC via the Babylonian captivity.

David and Christ being the only 2 Kings in the line that matter, David the type, Christ the antitype, or fulfillment.

Christ fulfilled what all other kings in the line failed to do, thus bringing completion to, and fulfilling the purpose for, the Davidic monarchy, which was the "1000 year reign". LITERALLY.

This is totally nonsensical. The millennium starts with an identifiable event (the resurrection of Jesus – the first resurrection) and ends with an identifiable event (the one final future coming of the Lord to resurrect mankind and judge them). This has absolutely nothing to do with David. You force that into the text.

Rev 20 is not typology but biblical prophecy being fulfilled. Full (extreme) Preterism explains away NT facts to justify its heretical denial of a future coming of Christ and the physical resurrection/judgment. As Spiritual Jew states: this is the most farfetched explanation possible of Rev 20 and a sign of how bereft Preterism really is of evidence and its knowledge of unfolding history. For Preterists, the coming of Titus and 70 AD "is the most significant event in our history." For the rest of us, we are obsessed with Christ's sinless life, atoning death and victorious resurrection. The cross is at the center of our faith. It is the most significant event in our history.

What or who is the "first resurrection"?

 

[sovereigngrace]

The Bible itself proves there is no literal, FUTURE, earthly millennium. The "evidence" is in the apostolic eschatological doctrine that prohibits any view of the "millennium" that portrays it as a future, literal, earthly epoch. A simple examination of the NT epistles shows that there is no future historical "thousand-years" period. We know this with certainty, for the apostles explicitly identified the precise timing of the resurrection, the judgment, and the New Heaven/Earth -- they all occur at the coming of Jesus Christ, thus proving that there is no literal "thousand years" that separates these events out over time.

(1) The resurrection occurs at the coming of Christ (1 Cor 15:23)

(2) The judgment occurs at the coming of Christ (2 Tim 4:1; Rev 11:15-18)

(3) The "New Heavens/Earth" occurs at the coming of Christ -- i.e., the "thief's coming," the "day of the Lord" (2 Peter 3:10/1 Thessalonians 5:2, Revelation 3:3)

These key eschatological events all occur at the precise moment of the coming of Jesus Christ. THEREFORE, as the apostles themselves understood, there is no literal, historic millennium separating them.

Are you saying the coming of Christ, the physical resurrection and the judgement have already occurred? Are you saying we are now in the new heavens and new earth?

 

[claninja]

Rev 20 is not typology but biblical prophecy being fulfilled. Full (extreme) Preterism explains away NT facts to justify its heretical denial of a future coming of Christ and the physical resurrection/judgment. As Spiritual Jew states: this is the most farfetched explanation possible of Rev 20 and a sign of how bereft Preterism really is of evidence and its knowledge of unfolding history. For Preterists, the coming of Titus and 70 AD "is the most significant event in our history." For the rest of us, we are obsessed with Christ's sinless life, atoning death and victorious resurrection. The cross is at the center of our faith. It is the most significant event in our history.

Wow, another strawman....... Not surprised, I guess.

What or who is the "first resurrection"?

Christ.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Wow, another strawman....... Not surprised, I guess.



Christ.

So how can you relate it to David?

 

[claninja]

So how can you relate it to David?

Your strawman was that preterism believes "the coming of Titus and 70 AD "is the most significant event in our history."

I know of no preterist doctrine that teaches that. If there is, I would completely disagree with it.

Preterism agrees with " For the rest of us, we are obsessed with Christ's sinless life, atoning death and victorious resurrection. The cross is at the center of our faith. It is the most significant event in our history."

So, it would be greatly appreciated if you avoided arguing in logical fallacies.


Now, The first resurrection is Christ.

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in Me will live, even though he dies.

Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent.

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.

1 corinthians 15:20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.

Acts 26:23 that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”

And so you ask how can you relate this to David? Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection, is the fulfillment of the oath made to David that one of His descendants would sit on his throne.

Acts 2:30-32. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that He would place one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, to which we are all witnesses.

 

[sovereigngrace]

Your strawman was that preterism believes "the coming of Titus and 70 AD "is the most significant event in our history."

I know of no preterist doctrine that teaches that.

Preterism agrees with " For the rest of us, we are obsessed with Christ's sinless life, atoning death and victorious resurrection. The cross is at the center of our faith. It is the most significant event in our history."

So, it would be greatly appreciated if you avoided arguing in logical fallacies.

You totally ignored my question.

Anyway, your partner in arms Freedm stated that earlier in the thread. He only stated what the rest of us have observed. Where is David mentioned in Rev 20?

 

[claninja]

You totally ignored my question.

Anyway, your partner in arms Freedm stated that earlier in the thread. He only stated what the rest of us have observed. Where is David mentioned in Rev 20?

You didn't ask me where is David mentioned in Revelation 20. You asked how can you "relate" it to David. To which I did answer. Please avoid argumentative fallacies. David is not mentioned in revelation 20, does that mean the oath made to David has no relation to the resurrection of Christ?

Do you deny the resurrection of Christ, which is the first resurrection, is related to the fulfillment of the promise made to David?

Acts 2:30-32. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that He would place one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, to which we are all witnesses.

 

[sovereigngrace]

You didn't ask me where is David mentioned in Revelation 20. You asked how can you "relate" it to David. To which I did answer. Please avoid argumentative fallacies. David is not mentioned in revelation 20, does that mean the oath made to David has no relation to the resurrection of Christ?

Do you deny the resurrection of Christ, which is the first resurrection, is related to the fulfillment of the promise made to David?

Acts 2:30-32. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that He would place one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, to which we are all witnesses.

You and your extreme Preterist colleagues make Revelation 20 a typological OT-type chapter instead of being a current unfolding of NT end-time events. Because the duration (a thousand years) exposes Full Preterism, which is captivated with making all prophecy fulfilled, Preterist has to dismiss the relevancy of the period to a by-gone age. The fact is: this has nothing to do with David. David is not even mentioned. This is spiritualization gone crazy. Origen did the same and discredited the veracity and inerrancy of Scripture.

 

[claninja]

You and your extreme Preterist colleagues make Revelation 20 a typological OT-type chapter instead of being a current unfolding of NT end-time events. Because the duration (a thousand years) exposes Full Preterism, which is captivated with making all prophecy fulfilled, Preterist has to dismiss the relevancy of the period to a by-gone age.

That's quite the "irrelevant conclusion fallacy" to my question.

The fact is: this has nothing to do with David. David is not even mentioned. This is spiritualization gone crazy. Origen did the same and discredited the veracity and inerrancy of Scripture.

Now, I answered your first question, as to how the first resurrection relates to david by quoting Acts 2:30-32.

Acts 2:30-32. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that He would place one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, to which we are all witnesses.

I also answered your 2nd question in that no, David is not mentioned in revelation 20.

Now, should I assume you believe the first resurrection, which is Christ's resurrection, has nothing to do with the promise made to david? Or do you agree that Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection, is a fulfillment of the oath made to david?

 

[sovereigngrace]

That's quite the "irrelevant conclusion fallacy" to my question.



Now, I answered your first question, as to how the first resurrection relates to david by quoting Acts 2:30-32.

Acts 2:30-32. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that He would place one of his descendants on his throne. Foreseeing this, David spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that He was not abandoned to Hades, nor did His body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, to which we are all witnesses.

I also answered your 2nd question in that no, David is not mentioned in revelation 20.

Now, should I assume you believe the first resurrection, which is Christ's resurrection, has nothing to do with the promise made to david? Or do you agree that Christ's resurrection, which is the first resurrection, is a fulfillment of the oath made to david?

The first resurrection is the start of the events in Revelation 20. Those who experience that partake in that resurrection spiritually rule and reign for a thousand years. This cannot relate to David or a period before Christ. That would be nonsensical. It has to relate to a period after - namely the-here-and-now.

 

[claninja]

The first resurrection is the start of the events in Revelation 20. Those who experience that partake in that resurrection spiritually rule and reign for a thousand years. This cannot relate to David or a period before Christ. That would be nonsensical. It has to relate to a period after - namely the-here-and-now.

Up to this point in this thread, I have not been arguing what the 1,000 years time period is. Neither have I correlated those that partake in the first resurrection to David.

I’m simply asking if you believe Christ’s resurrection fulfilled the oath made to David?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Up to this point in this thread, I have not been arguing what the 1,000 years time period is. Neither have I correlated those that partake in the first resurrection to David.

I’m simply asking if you believe Christ’s resurrection fulfilled the oath made to David?

Of course I do. I have said that many times. You know that.

So, where do you place the thousand years?

 

[claninja]

Of course I do. I have said that many times. You know that.

If you believe Christ is the first resurrection, which fulfilled the oath made to David, then your argument against @parousia70 , that “this has nothing to do with David” doesn’t work, and is an illogical argument, contradictory to your own position.

So, where do you place the thousand years?

At the resurrection and is followed by satans “little” season.

 

[Hank77]

I'm not saying it is! You wasted all that time creating your post (much of which I didn't bother quoting) arguing against something that I'm not even saying.

Not wasted, I read every word of it.