- Jul 2, 2003
- 145,078
- 17,412
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
No, Paul was an apostle after John, and the writer of the Muratorian Canon saw the Second coming as a future event.GW:
"...Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."
Quite simply, the Canon states that Paul, in writing to seven churches, was following John's rule. There is no way around it. This supports the early-date of Revelation, and this statement was made around 170AD.
I already pointed out the reasons why Revelation was not written before Pauls letters.
1) the church in Ephesus. Paul makes no mention that the church had lost its first love. And your excuse posted farthur down of all of Asia have turned against me" does not hold. Its smoke and mirrors. You are claiming that Paul was following Johns example of writing to 7 churches (as if he read it) so if there was a problem in Ephesus, such as losing the first love or that they had turned against Paul Pauls letter to the Ephesians would have been far different!
2) Smyrna was not reached in Pauls lifetime per Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna and pupil of John. Paul wrote that the gospel as they heard was preached to every creature which is under the heaven so were the Chinese reached by 62 AD? The Aborigines in Australia were they reached? Hmmm about the tribes that lived in South America? Have they all know of Jesus of Nazareth since before 62AD? Arent they part of "every creature under the heaven"?
Instead I believe this refers to what Paul wrote about in Romans 1-2. Not as you are interpreting it.
3) Laodicea Paul does not refer to them as lukewarm, but as an active group of Christians. Paul does not write about them as if they are about to be spit out.
And yes, the Laodiceans did lose wealth from the earthquake a lot. The British Museam put out catalogs about Greek and Roman coins. There is evidence from the coinage that there was a marked lack of coin from the 60s from Laodicea. There were only 2 kinds under Vespasian. In contrast, there is lots from the period under Dominitan. The ruins of Laodicea, the great public buildings, were built after the earthquake, not finished til about 90 AD.
Now add to this that John was banished to Patmos when he wrote Revelation. There is no historical record that Nero banished anyone, or that John was banished before late 80s AD. The ONLY record we have is that he was banished under Dominitan, and that Dominitan banished people to Patmos.
No, they believed it was future because it hadnt happened yet.GW:
No one is debating that ECFs futurized the second coming (beyond what scripture allows, of course).
--COMPARE THIS--
Revelation 3:20 (Christ to the first-century Laodiceans)
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
That this is included in the letter to Laodicea shows that Christ wasnt even in their church. Hes outside, wanting to come in! . Similar to many church groups today, who have a meaningless faith. Jesus is telling them that if they open the door to Him, He will come in. The overcomers will open that door..
--TO THIS--
Luke 12:36-37
"Be like men who are waiting for their master when he returns from the wedding feast, so that they may immediately open the door to him when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes; truly I say to you, that he will gird himself to serve, and have them recline at the table, and will come up and wait on them.
And this is a different situation from Rev. 3:20, entirely. In this passage, Jesus is telling His followers to be watchful, be ready and that still stands today!
Frankly, it is bad exegesis of scripture to think these two verses are related as you put them.
In Laodicea, Jesus is asking to come in so they can be overcomers.
In Luke 12, He is saying, Be ready! Be doing My work when I come!
FREE:
Also, regarding Gentry, he quotes people in the 1800's who actually favored a postNero date for the writing. They don't really back him up at all!
GW:
There are two traditions on when Revelation was written. So...? We already establshed this. The point is that the late date is without any historical evidence. There was no persecution launched against Christianity by Domitian, and the Jewish-led persecution was still raging when John wrote (Rev 2:9; 3:9). And the Temple was still standing (Rev 11:2) and the city of Jerusalem was under attack (Rev 11:8, 13). This demands the early date.
What it shows, GW, is that Gentry was not very careful in his quotes, to use what truly supported his view. Many of the writers he quoted besides being after 1800 saw it written after Nero died.
And the late date has the historical support, which the early date is sorely missing.
ALL the ECF who see the Second Coming as future, and write that Revelation was written during the time of Dominitan.
There is history, recorded by a Roman, who writes of the freeing of those Dominitan banished from Patmos!.
There is no evidence that the persecution of Nero included banishment, or that it extended beyond the city of Rome.
History does not record an event that fits the events of Revelation no two witnesses who are resurrected. The seas did not all turn to blood. All sealife did not die. No 200,000,000 horsemen. No Wormwood fell on the earth. Nero did not fit the activities of the beast, or of Daniel 7 ..etc,. etc., etc.
All of this is fatal to the preterist view along with the rest that I presented in this thread.
BTW -
Phillip Schaff, who advocates the earlier date, calls Irenaeuss writing "clear and weighty testimony."
Upvote
0