Partial Preterism and dating revelation

[Hazelelponi]

As i said, I'm not arguing with you, and yes you are. your basing all of what you believe on just how literally you think those verses are supposed to pan out.

Well then you go believe whatever you like... see how that pans out for you.

 

[Biblewriter]

As i said, I'm not arguing with you, and yes you are. your basing all of what you believe on just how literally you think those verses are supposed to pan out.

Well then you go believe whatever you like... see how that pans out for you.

Taking the prophecies literally is not "interpretation." it is simply believing what God said. Saying they do not actually mean what they explicitly say is interpretation. This is undeniable fact.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Taking the prophecies literally is not "interpretation." it is simply believing what God said. Saying they do not actually mean what they explicitly say is interpretation. This is undeniable fact.

I'm saying they mean what the Bible says they mean. I'm using God's Word to interpret God's Word, then I'm happily living my life the way the Bible says I'm supposed do; doing my best in my daily walk with Christ and not seeking after signs. I'm seeking instead to be in communion with God, which is the point of the entire exercise from beginning to end.

 

[Biblewriter]

I'm saying they mean what the Bible says they mean. I'm using God's Word to interpret God's Word, then I'm happily living my life the way the Bible says I'm supposed do; doing my best in my daily walk with Christ and not seeking after signs. I'm seeking instead to be in communion with God, which is the point of the entire exercise from beginning to end.

NO, you are saying they mean what you interpret the Bible to say they mean, instead of what they EXPLICITLY say. But this has degenerated into a childish argument. So I will stop.

 

[Hazelelponi]

So I will stop.

Thank you...

 

[DaDad]

... A typical example of this is the first 36 verses of Daniel 11. From the beginning to the end of this passage, every act attributed to "the king of the south" was actually committed by one of the Ptolomies, ...

Bad example. First of all, this Vision STARTS in 10:1, which must be reconciled with 1:21, to ascertain the proper chronological point of reference (starting date).

Secondly, if properly reconciled, there is a quick overview of empires and then the END TIME (approximate to 1948) events begin, starting with WWI, WWII (specifically citing Hitler), etc.

But if you follow the commentators, -- all bets are off.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[Biblewriter]

Bad example. First of all, this Vision STARTS in 10:1, which must be reconciled with 1:21, to ascertain the proper chronological point of reference (starting date).

Secondly, if properly reconciled, there is a quick overview of empires and then the END TIME (approximate to 1948) events begin, starting with WWI, WWII (specifically citing Hitler), etc.

But if you follow the commentators, -- all bets are off.

Thanks,
DaDad

I personally spent well over 40 years studying ancient history. And I can assure you that EVERY DETAIL of Daniel 11:1-36 was LITERALLY fulfilled in a multi-generational war between the Ptolemaic and Selucid dynasties, which lasted from the end of the empire of Alexander the great until the Romans invaded the area.

 

[timtams]

So my question is... For those amongst us who are partial preterists or similar, is the dating of revelation a game changer? If I can't get an answer, I will rethink my doctrine for sure.

Yes, it's a game changer, but the early date is right, and that's coming from someone who isn't a preterist or partial preterist.

 

[timtams]

This is the one time I agree with preterists - that Revelation was given during Nero's reign. The proponents of the 95 AD timeframe is based on 2nd and 3rd hand information. I think Gentry makes the preterist argument. He has a you tube video on the tube.

Separate from the dating of Revelation issue, I would depart preterism for futurism. But I don't want to get into a big preterism versus futurism argument.

Me too. I'm not a preterist but that's the one thing I think they got right.
wait, nevermind, this is an old resurrected thread.

 

[timtams]

The only evidence for the late date is Irenaeus, but Gentry shows that he may have been misunderstood. Statements from Clement of Alexandria, the Muratorian Canon and the Syriac New Testament support the early date.

 

[timtams]

But a careful analysis of the statements of these various ancient writers makes it clear that they were based on an absolute minimum of four different original sources.

Which four are you thinking of?

 

[Biblewriter]

Which four are you thinking of?

Four of the writers each gave details which were given by none of the others. These details did not contradict what the others said. They were just given by no other source. So each of these four was relying on an original source that none of the others used. (I state it this way because each of the four writers whose works preserved these details, it thought to have written at a late enough fate that he could not possibly have been the "original" source if the information. Even Irenaeus, who is the earliest of those whose comments on this have been preserved, is thought to have published his book between 186 and 188 A.D., that is more than 90 years after the time of Domatian.)

I previously posted my full analysis of these documents and details at https://www.christianforums.com/thr...o-the-reign-of-domitian.7791343/#post64624806

 

[timtams]

Your sources are:
Irenaeus
Victorinus
Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John
Jerome

Irenaeus doesn't support it (Gentry explains).
Victorinus does support Domitian, though probably early in Domitian's reign (John becomes old on Patmos).
Jerome is just following Eusebius and providing his own additional information about the dating.
I haven't come across any claim for the Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John. Are you sure of the dating?

 

[Biblewriter]

Your sources are:
Irenaeus
Victorinus
Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John
Jerome

Irenaeus doesn't support it (Gentry explains).
Victorinus does support Domitian, though probably early in Domitian's reign (John becomes old on Patmos).
Jerome is just following Eusebius and providing his own additional information about the dating.
I haven't come across any claim for the Acts of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John. Are you sure of the dating?

Gentry's claims about Irenaeus are manifestly incorrect, and were all answered in my paper. Jerome and Eusebius may have been using the same source material. But that source was obviously different from either Irenaeus or Victorinus. For "his own additional information" had to have come from somewhere. No one imagining himself to be a responsible writer would ever simply "make up" alleged facts. Those who do this kind of thing are being wilfully dishonest. And I doubt that you desire to accuse either Eusebius or Jerome of willful dishonesty.

I do not allege any expertise in dating, other than my research into what various writers said about when certain events took place. I simply give those dates that are normally alleged for the various papers I cite. That is why I avoid saying things like, "was written in...," preferring to say something like "is thought to have been written between..."

 

[timtams]

Gentry's claims about Irenaeus are manifestly incorrect, and were all answered in my paper. Jerome and Eusebius may have been using the same source material. But that source was obviously different from either Irenaeus or Victorinus. For "his own additional information" had to have come from somewhere. No one imagining himself to be a responsible writer would ever simply "make up" alleged facts. Those who do this kind of thing are being wilfully dishonest. And I doubt that you desire to accuse either Eusebius or Jerome of willful dishonesty.

I do not allege any expertise in dating, other than my research into what various writers said about when certain events took place. I simply give those dates that are normally alleged for the various papers I cite. That is why I avoid saying things like, "was written in...," preferring to say something like "is thought to have been written between..."

I've read your arguments on Gentry and we'll have to disagree as it's clear to me that you don't understand how Greek works and that you haven't understood them, so they aren't really hold any value. Anyone that understands the issues surrounding the Greek that Gentry raises will see through your arguments there immediately. Gentry quotes classicists in support of his view, but a reader would have to understand Greek to follow them.

You dated the Acts of the Holy Apostle in the second century. I'm sure if there was such early evidence, someone would have mentioned it before. On what basis do you place it in the second century?

 

[timtams]

For "his own additional information" had to have come from somewhere. No one imagining himself to be a responsible writer would ever simply "make up" alleged facts. Those who do this kind of thing are being wilfully dishonest. And I doubt that you desire to accuse either Eusebius or Jerome of willful dishonesty.

What I mean is, he has correlated the date when Eusebius placed John's return from exile with Roman dating based on consuls. You're suggesting that he had a source that placed John's exile in Pertinax's office, but this is conjecture.

 

[timtams]

I do not allege any expertise in dating, other than my research into what various writers said about when certain events took place. I simply give those dates that are normally alleged for the various papers I cite. That is why I avoid saying things like, "was written in...," preferring to say something like "is thought to have been written between..."

Does your silence mean you don't know when the Acts of the Holy Apostle is dated and that you have no basis for claiming that it's from the second century?

 

[DaDad]

I personally spent well over 40 years studying ancient history. And I can assure you that EVERY DETAIL of Daniel 11:1-36 was LITERALLY fulfilled in a multi-generational war between the Ptolemaic and Selucid dynasties, which lasted from the end of the empire of Alexander the great until the Romans invaded the area.

Sure, I believe everything you say, even over History and Scripture, because I BELIEVE YOU! -- NOT.

There are so many historical inconsistencies (lies) regarding the Prophecies of Daniel, they could fill a BOOK.

So if you're so sure about your "interpretations", then let's start with Daniel 1:21 & 10:1 just to make sure we know where the "starting point" really is.

Thanks,
DaDad

 

[Davy]

Basically the following:

1. Jesus' death on the Cross means Salvation for all - the Church
2. Jesus is seated at God's right hand and is reigning over all creation. This is the millennium
3. We are now in the Last Days and have been in the Last Days for the last 2000 years
4. We are to expect persecution in the Last days
5. Jesus will return to judge all people on the Last Day, once all people whose names are in the book of life have repented
6. There will be a new heavens and a new earth

I honestly can't see the futurist viewpoint as being very strong. I am open to convincing though - hence me starting this thread.

Open to convincing, or just looking for a debate platform to sell Preterism?

It's kind of funny, but actually sad, a lot of folks think I'm a Futurist simply because I recognize God's Word about Jesus' future return. Then another group thinks I'm pre-trib simply because I see no evidence for Dan.9:27 being fulfilled in 70 A.D.

I'm not a Dispensationalist.
I do not adhere to Pre-trib Rapture doctrines.
I am not a Futurist.

I simply take God's Holy Writ as it is written, and let the chips fall where they may.

Those who think they must follow a seminary category of man are wasting their time, and will never come to understanding God's Word as it is actually written.

 

[Biblewriter]

Does your silence mean you don't know when the Acts of the Holy Apostle is dated and that you have no basis for claiming that it's from the second century?

I means that ALL of my statements on when various ancient documents were written are based ENTIRELY on dates alleged by those that claim to be experts in such things. As I have ZERO direct knowledge of the subject, I give dates I find online or elsewhere, but at least TRY to ALWAYS include the mini-disclaimer " 'is thought to' date from...".