- Jan 3, 2019
- 230
- 58
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What didn't happen in 70 AD debunks Preterism.
None of the Church fathers, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Tertullian, Polycarp, etc. ever mentioned Christ’s Second Coming as having already occurred. There is zero indication from the church fathers that anyone understood the New Testament prophecies from a preterist perspective.
Preterism has perverted so much of our bible, over 1,000 verse, entire chapters, nearly the entire book of Revelation and much of Daniel, that one would think that if it was all fulfilled by 70 AD, I would think God would have given us some indication or at least one written record of it's fulfillment.
Christians living during 70 A.D., as well as the church fathers, believed the Second Coming was a future event. They never referred to the Second Coming as a past event, over and over they referred to it as future event.
The Didache, a first century document every Christian should read, was lost for centuries and rediscovered in Constantinople in 1873. This document proves that those who lived through the events of A.D. 70 regarded the events of Matthew 24-25 as unfulfilled.
This Didache mentions the Antichrist, (and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God,) the great tribulation and the Second Coming of Christ as unfulfilled events. The Didache is a good piece of evidence from the very believers who lived through the events surrounding A.D. 70 that the Preterism is false.
In addition to the Didache, early church fathers like Irenaeus, Papias, Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr, wrote of a future Second Coming.
Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyons, wrote at length about the Antichrist toward the end of the second century. He was a student of Polycarp.
Justin the Martyr was a Christian apologist (defender of the faith), born in Rome, who wrote about the middle of the second century. He had been a pagan philosopher who converted to Christianity. According to tradition, he was martyred for his faith. Justin clearly believed that Christians would be persecuted by the Antichrist.
Hippolytus, a leader of the church at Rome who was martyred for his faith, wrote about the Antichrist in the early third century in a document titled Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.
Who would know better as to whether Jesus came back in A.D. 70? Those who were alive in A.D. 70 and the years immediately following? Or modern day preterists writing 2,000 years later?
I’ll side with those who lived closer to the events.
For the Preterist view to work, the Book of Revelation has to have been written sometime prior to A.D. 70, otherwise it's debunked from the get go.
There is compelling evidence in the writings of the church fathers that the Book of Revelation was written approximately 25 years after the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Irenaeus lived from A.D. 120–202. He was the bishop in the city of Lyons in modern day France. He grew up in Smyrna, one of the cities where the Book of Revelation was first circulated (Rev. 2:8). He was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of Revelation).
So get this in your mind...Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John (the author of the Book of Revelation) and Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. If anyone knew when the Book of Revelation was penned, it would have been Polycarp or Irenaeus!
In Irenaeus’s work titled, Against Heresies (13:18), he tells us when John had his apocalyptic vision. He says…
“We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him [the apostle John] who beheld the apocalyptic vision.
Irenaeus (AD 120-202) believed that the “Antichrist” had not been revealed. That throws a wrench in the preteristic viewpoint because most Preterists, including Hank Hanegraaff and R.C. Sproul believe that the first century Caesar, Nero, was the Antichrist.
That’s not what Irenaeus thought. Notice when he says John the apostle had his apocalyptic vision…
“...For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
Irenaeus says John had his “apocalyptic vision (the things he writes about in the Book of Revelation) towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
Who was Domitian? Domitian was a Roman Emperor near the end of the first century.
Domitian’s reign did not even begin until A.D. 81. His reign ended with his assassination on September 18th, A.D. 96.
Irenaeus places the date of the authorship of the Book of Revelation sometime around A.D. 95 (“towards the END of Domitian’s reign”), long after the events of A.D. 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. This statement by Irenaeus is devastating to the preterist position.
Just pointing out that John was called into heaven and given the privilege of having a ring-side seat to watch future events on earth as they were actually happening -- in God's own outside-of-time time.For the writer to be told to write "the things which thou hast seen" by necessity rules out any idea that the Revelation is entirely future.
The Christian Age comes to an end? Can you show us a passage to verify that? What the Scriptures say is that God is glorified in the church forever.The events of AD 70-135 simply do not correlate to what is described in Revelation, or the over 100 other Bible prophesies that tell us about the last few years of this Christian age.
However most preterists do not say that Jesus has already Returned, they believe that glorious event is still future, but they place most or all of the other things prophesied to happen before the Day, as past events, even though the historical record does not support it.
This belief, I see as a denial of the facts, for their personal reasons.
Just pointing out that John was called into heaven and given the privilege of having a ring-side seat to watch future events on earth as they were actually happening -- in God's own outside-of-time time.
That's why Revelation is such a reliable prophecy ... it wasn't just John dreaming up some kind of vision, open to interpretation. He was actually present in heaven watching and recording those future events in real (God) time.
To deny this is to make oneself subject to the curse of Rev 22:19. That's pretty serious stuff.
Where did I say the Christian age ends? I said this age of the Church will end, when Jesus Returns to take up His Kingdom.The Christian Age comes to an end? Can you show us a passage to verify that? What the Scriptures say is that God is glorified in the church forever.
To him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. (Eph 3:21)
Have you and/or others look at preteristarchive.comRevelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass
A Hell of a Lot of Confusion
Some good facts for you.
If you accept the premise that John was in heaven witnessing future, world-wide cataclysmic events, as God says he was in Rev 4:1, and by John's own statements throughout preceded with "I saw," and "I beheld," etc., then it proves he did not plagiarize Josephus, and that those events were still in the future.So how does that disprove anything I have had to say?
Have you and/or others look at preteristarchive.com
It has extensive studies concerning fulfilled eschatology [and yes, even "dispensationalism"], including views from the early centuries church........
If your new to this site, be prepared to be "overwhelmed" at the vastness of it.
Hope this helps......
https://www.preteristarchive.com/?s=revelation+and+70ad&id=m
https://www.preteristarchive.com/dating-of-the-apocalypse/?highlight=revelation and 70ad
Date of John’s Apocalypse
Early Date Advocates
https://www.preteristarchive.com/2015_gibb_book-of-revelation-was-written-before-ad-70/?highlight=revelation and 70ad
Although ‘The Revelation’ is the last book in the Bible, it does not mean it was the last book written. It is important to take this into consideration when studying the ‘last days’.
In my opinion, John received the Revelation prior to AD 70, to encourage and prepare the Church for the events leading to the vision’s imminent fulfillment............
=========================================
.
View attachment 248738
I read this in the link and I'm very impressed you fell for it...
The temple and the city were apparently still standing in Revelation 11, because John is sent to measure them. This would not be possible after 70 AD. And if John is referring to some rebuilt temple in the far distant future, and he is writing in 96 AD, then his complete silence about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD is deafening!
_______________________________-
You've already been told that John is viewing this from heaven. Besides that he's instructed to NOT measure the outer court because it was given over to the gentiles. If it was given over to the gentiles that means the Temple was not standing! There's an anti-Christ monument, and abomination, that stands upon it. See it above.
Did you accidentally quote someone else? My reply puts John at 95AD in heaven viewing future cataclysmic events yet to transpire on the earth. I've held that interpretation for all of the 40 years or so that I've been a born-again Christian.Sorry bro but that comment makes no sense.
The first time I read the Bible thru in 2003 when I became born again, I viewed 1st century Jerusalem as that great City. It was then that the Lord led me to study the Greek and Hebrew.Did you accidentally quote someone else? My reply puts John at 95AD in heaven viewing future cataclysmic events yet to transpire on the earth. I've held that interpretation for all of the 40 years or so that I've been a born-again Christian.
I guess I don't understand what doesn't make sense to you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?