Fear of Preterism

Status
Not open for further replies.

kern

Miserere Nobis
Apr 14, 2002
2,171
7
43
Florida, USA
Visit site
✟3,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Parousia:

Re the date of Revelation, you have set up a false dilemma -- the entire book of Revelation need not have been written at the same time. Every scholarly opinion I have read of Revelation's date says that parts of it were possibly composed before 70 AD but that the final form of the book is 90+. It seems that you require an early date on Revelation for preterism to be valid at all (although I might be wrong on this), so you would have a vested interest to ignore opinions to the contrary. You will understand if I don't take your word about the dating.

-Chris
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Kern,

ALL proponents of the "Late Date" base their premise on one questionable statement by Ireneaus.

He is the ONLY source for the Late date.

Since He was wrong about so much else,(Jesus lived to be 50 and was never crucified) You will understand if I don't take his word about the dating of Revelation.
 
Upvote 0

Mike Beidler

Evolutionary Creationist
May 31, 2002
90
0
Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain
Visit site
✟7,786.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by parousia70
Kern,

ALL proponents of the "Late Date" base their premise on one questionable statement by Ireneaus. He is the ONLY source for the Late date. Since He was wrong about so much else,(Jesus lived to be 50 and was never crucified) You will understand if I don't take his word about the dating of Revelation.

Parousia70 is right.

However, it's also important to point out that the statement by Irenaeus is a "second generation" quote. Irenaeus' statement that John's vision was seen during the reign of Domitian only exists in Latin and not the original Greek. Most scholars, totally apart from any eschatological argumentation, state that the Latin text is either poor in quality or corrupt. The liklihood is great that Irenaeus was speaking of John (not his vision) being seen during the reign of Domitian. Not only does this work better in context, but it is also supported by Irenaeus' statement that John lived to the time of Traijan, who was emperor after Domitian. A "reconstruction" of the Greek text from the Latin can allow for the change of subject from "it" to "him."

Thus, scholars of futurist bent are relying on a corrupt quote. That, or Irenaeus was just stupid. There are many things in his writings that contradict themselves.

Anyhoo, Irenaeus also stated that the canon of Scripture was completed during the reign of Nero. That would support the early date of Revelation's composition.
 
Upvote 0

Mike Beidler

Evolutionary Creationist
May 31, 2002
90
0
Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain
Visit site
✟7,786.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by Mike Beidler


Parousia70 is right.

However, it's also important to point out that the statement by Irenaeus is a "second generation" quote. Irenaeus' statement that John's vision was seen during the reign of Domitian only exists in Latin and not the original Greek. Most scholars, totally apart from any eschatological argumentation, state that the Latin text is either poor in quality or corrupt. The liklihood is great that Irenaeus was speaking of John (not his vision) being seen during the reign of Domitian. Not only does this work better in context, but it is also supported by Irenaeus' statement that John lived to the time of Traijan, who was emperor after Domitian. A "reconstruction" of the Greek text from the Latin can allow for the change of subject from "it" to "him."

Thus, scholars of futurist bent are relying on a corrupt quote. That, or Irenaeus was just stupid. There are many things in his writings that contradict themselves.

Anyhoo, Irenaeus also stated that the canon of Scripture was completed during the reign of Nero. That would support the early date of Revelation's composition.

It's been several days since my last posting and no one's refuted me yet! Dang, I'm good. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Mike Beidler

Evolutionary Creationist
May 31, 2002
90
0
Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain
Visit site
✟7,786.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um


Must be that Jedi Knight thing.:D

:help:

:::Mike waves his hand:wave:::: "You are a preterist ..."
:::Mike waves his hand again:wave:::: "You believe the Second Coming is a past event ..."
:::Another subtle wave:wave:::: "Josephus is Scripture ..."
 
Upvote 0

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by Auntie_Belle_Um
:D rofl :D

Auntie has invisible sheild, which protects her from all preterist persuasion....hee hee. :D

An invidsible sheild that protects you from the truth of scripture?

I have an atheist friend that claims to have one of those too!

hehehe, preterism is proving to be the 'pinhole' in that balloon however.........
 
Upvote 0

kern

Miserere Nobis
Apr 14, 2002
2,171
7
43
Florida, USA
Visit site
✟3,249.00
Faith
Catholic
Originally posted by parousia70
Kern,

ALL proponents of the "Late Date" base their premise on one questionable statement by Ireneaus.

He is the ONLY source for the Late date.

Not according to what I've read. But I will admit that discussion on this point is futile. You're not about to accept a late date for Revelation unless you also somehow accept that John was writing about already fulfilled events.

-Chris
 
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

parousia70

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow
Supporter
Feb 24, 2002
15,533
4,826
57
Oregon
✟794,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally posted by kern


Not according to what I've read. But I will admit that discussion on this point is futile. You're not about to accept a late date for Revelation unless you also somehow accept that John was writing about already fulfilled events.
-Chris

I'll accept ANY date for Revelation that carries with it a preponderance of evidence, and that is why I accept the early date, at this time. I believe the weight of evidence for a pre 70Ad date is overwhelming, however, I am more than willing to be proven wrong.

Perhaps you would care to share some of what you have read about the late date that dosen't use Ireneaus as a source.
I would be most interested.

P70
 
Upvote 0

Mike Beidler

Evolutionary Creationist
May 31, 2002
90
0
Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain
Visit site
✟7,786.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Originally posted by prodigal
Bump? Bump what? There is nothing else to talk about, preter is wrong, period.

Eh, you're just afraid of the monster called Proper Hermenuetic that's making noise under your bed at night when you begin drifting into half-awake dreams about the world ending before another day begins. ;)
 
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

gwyyn

Well-Known Member
May 24, 2002
632
1
46
Texas
Visit site
✟16,071.00
Faith
Christian
:::Another subtle wave::: "Josephus is Scripture ..."


tell me you don't really believe this guys interpretation over what the bible sais!!! :confused:

Josephus was not even a christian. Yea he was for the Jews until they lost, and then he goes and lives the with roman royality! He even adopted a Roman name.

http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/josephus.html

this is where i got my reading to assume my opinion :eek:
 
Upvote 0

Auntie

THANK YOU JESUS!!
Apr 16, 2002
7,624
657
Visit site
✟27,878.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by gwyyn



tell me you don't really believe this guys interpretation over what the bible sais!!! :confused:

Josephus was not even a christian. Yea he was for the Jews until they lost, and then he goes and lives the with roman royality! He even adopted a Roman name.

http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/josephus.html

this is where i got my reading to assume my opinion :eek:


Gwyyn,

I think Mike was just joking, kidding around because I joked about the "Jedi Knight" thing.

This forum is so serious, sometimes it's nice to laugh for a minute.:)

...Okay, back to your regularly scheduled forum.:D
 
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.