Questions about preterism

[GW]

FROST:
These two references do seem to indicate that if they repent, he will not come.

GW:
He would not remove their candlestick (i.e., punish). To the overcomers there, however, He gave them to eat of the tree of life. So, He came to all of them. Again, it's punishment vs. reward -- that's all that's conditional about the second coming of Christ. "...and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts, and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." The second coming of Christ came irrespective of whether some repented and others did not, which is a core teaching about the second coming that some here seem to be forgetting (Romans 2:5-9; Mt 25:1-13; Lk 13:24-30; 1 Cor 3:12-15).

Note that Jesus explicitly says that the Thyatria Prophetess movement chose not to repent, and that he was coming and would kill her and her "children." But to the rest at Thyatria (the faithful), they were to hold fast and had no additional burden placed upon them, for Jesus had rewards to give them as stated in Rev 2:26-28. We know that Christ came to them, for he came and killed the Prophetess and rewarded the faithful as he said. This is all first-century stuff here. No "Church Age," no "1948," no "21st century computer chips" -- the glorified Jesus knew of none of those modern speculative doctrines, and that makes them impossible doctrines, ones not found anywhere in scripture. Had any of those things been biblical doctrines, then Jesus would not be speaking to first-century churches about His second coming in Revelation 2-3 as we see Him doing.




FROST:
I tend to think of it like a computer program:

IF
you do something...
THEN
something will happen
ELSE
something else will happen.


GW:
If they repented, their candlestick would not be removed. That's the condition. Punishment vs. reward is being handed out by Jesus to each first-century Church "according to their works." Jesus is offering rewards and punishments, in keeping with the doctrine of the second coming. Jesus says: "I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts, and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." Jesus was coming to give something to "every one of them according to their works," and the timing for the return of Christ cares nothing for man's repentance or lack thereof:

Revelation 22:10-11
And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."

​

The doctrine of the return of Christ does not place its timing in the decisions of men. In fact, it fully anticipates the repentance of some and the hardness/apostasy of others, as plainly taught at Romans 2:5-9; Mt 25:1-13; Lk 13:24-30; 1 Cor 3:12-15.



FROST:
it does seem to indicate that if they repented he would not have to come and judge them.

GW:
He would judge ALL of them according to their works, and reward some of them and punish the rest. All works would be judged. Some would be punished according to their works, and some would be rewarded according to their works. Jesus offers both punishments and rewards to all of them, depending upon their works. "...and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts, and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." As Paul also said:

"...each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss" (1 Cor 3:12-15)

"all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." (2 Cor 5:10)

​

So, again, rewards vs. punishments. That's all that's conditional about the second coming of Jesus Christ.

 

[GW]

GW:
And, again, if there is any "Church Age Dispensation" or "1948" or "Computerized mark" to be found in prophetic scripture, then Revelation 2-3 clearly demonstrates that Jesus knew nothing about it! There is no way around it, Old Shep. Since Jesus was, in your view, offering a conditional second coming back in the first century, then that makes the glorified Jesus entirely ignorant of the Long Church Age Dispensation, ignorant of 1948, and ignorant of any computerized mark that is inserted into one's hand! This fact alone entirely destroys the main tenets of futurism.

OLD SHEP:
Completely ignoring the rules of grammar and twisting verses around to make them say what you want them to, destroys absolutely nothing, which the traditional church believes. The only thing it destroys is the credibility of anyone who claims that. But the scriptures twisting clearly shows the absurd lengths Preterists will go to to support their beliefs.

GW:
That is not an answer. It is a red herring. I will restate your dilemma: since Jesus was, in your view, offering a conditional second coming back in the first century, then that makes the glorified Jesus entirely ignorant of the Long Church Age Dispensation, ignorant of 1948, and ignorant of any computerized mark that is inserted into one's hand! There is no way around it. And, of course, Jesus knew nothing of those doctrines because they aren't real -- they exist only in the active imaginations of certain moderns in the Church today.




OLD SHEP:
And you completely ignore the fact that I posted OT precedents showing God deferring judgement when the people repented. See Nineveh in Jonah, for example.

GW:
The second coming of Christ is NOT A CONDITIONAL EVENT. According to scripture, the second coming of Christ was to take place irrespective of whether some repented and others did not -- in fact, the doctrine of the second coming fully and uniformly teaches that some would be faithful and others unfaithful (Romans 2:5-9; Mt 25:1-13; Lk 13:24-30; 1 Cor 3:12-15). As the angel also plainly states:

Revelation 22:10-11
And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."


​

Did you catch that? Man's repentance or lack thereof has nothing to do with the timing of the coming of Christ. Nothing whatsoever. Note also that Jesus explicitly says that the Thyatria Prophetess movement chose not to repent, and that He was coming and would kill her and her "children." But to the rest at Thyatria (the faithful), they were to hold fast and had no additional burden placed upon them, for Jesus had rewards to give them as stated in Rev 2:26-28. We know that Christ came to them, for he came and killed the Prophetess and rewarded the faithful as he said. This is all first-century stuff here. No "Church Age," no "1948," no "21st century computer chips" -- the glorified Jesus knew of none of those modern speculative doctrines, and that makes them impossible doctrines, ones not found anywhere in scripture. Had any of those things been biblical doctrines, then Jesus would not be speaking to first-century churches about His second coming as we see him doing in Revelation 2-3, where He plainly applies the doctrine to first-century people. Jesus must be right, and therefore futurism must be wrong concerning the timing of the second coming of Christ.

 

[ArtistEd]

If I may add just a little, the whole of revelation was to be sent to the seven churchs and that they are not seperate letters but seperate admonishments within the whole just like we have it today. See chapter 1. There is no condition to 1.1, in fact it says "must shortly come to pass" which is the first thing the 7 churches would read. But there is a sense of urgency, else why would the greeting to the 7 churches not come until 1:4? Then there is also the fact that John says he is in the spirit on the Lord's Day. The following are phrases found in Scripture:

The wrath of the Lord. The Lord's wrath
The vengeance of the Lord. The Lord's vengeance.
The anger of the Lord. The Lord's anger.
The Day of the Lord. The Lord's Day

No where in scripture is the first day of the week called the Lord's Day.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Hi Free,

You wrote:
As you implying that the second return of Christ is simply the meeting of Christ after we die - one at a time? And that didn't start to happen til after 70 A.D. ? That is unscriptural!
*******************

It is very nice to see someone actually print that out. You wouldn't believe the way people on these boards come up with ways to avoid this.

Yes, that would be exactly it. (altho some saw Jesus before 70 AD for special reason it appears)And it isn't simply a meeting, it is the judgment and hopefully the admittance into the promised heavenly eternal life which is what the Holy Bible is all about.

Where is unscriptural?

I have been working long hours and have been unable to get on this mb for awhile. Just saw this tonight.

It is very unscriptural. 1)Jesus didn't say it would be in 70 A.D. 2) Revelation was not written until 95 A.D. 3) While we spiritually meet Jesus after death - if we are believers!!! - there is still the matter of physical resurrection! AND after death, nonbelievers are not taken into the presence of Jesus. Ttheir judgement is reserved to the Great White throne judgement after the 1000 years. See Rev. 20.


Regarding the verses:
REV 1:7
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.

Yep, when He returns as described in Rev. 19, and in Matthew 24 - every eye will see Him, even the Jews! And this definitely did not happen in 70 A.D. for ALL of Christiandom missed it, and the rest of the world too!

Plus everybody dies.

According to I thes 4 - some do NOT die!

1 Thess 4

15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

It fits here because after the parousia mankind can go directly to eternal/heavenly/invisible/spiritual life with Christ. Prior to that the physically dead only slept in the dust conscious of nothing.

I absolutely reject the concept of soul sleep - a concept with spotty acceptance at best. I do not believe it is a Biblical teaching at all!

17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

This describes those that are living being caught up to Christ at the Rapture. This did not occur in 70 A.D.

Being with Christ in the clouds forever in a physical state would tax the law of gravity wouldn't it? In the clouds in a spiritual state(heavenly) is quite understandable.

puh-lease! Are you now denying the existence of heaven?? Are you denying the physical resurrection of believers?

Ecclesiastes 12:7

and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.


And this is a verse that I believe contradicts soul sleep!

And your quotes from Corinthians are lacking some important verses! Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection - are you denying that He was physically raised from the dead?
Go on down to I Cor. 15:50 -58. We are changed, and become imperishable.
And check these verses:
Romans 8: 11 "But if the Spirit of Him who reaised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you."

Romans 8:23 "And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of the body."



John 11
25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

Don't you see how well this verse backs up I Thes. 4, and I Cor. 15 in that those who die before the Rapture will be physically resurrected, and those who are alive at the Rapture will be changed to imperishable bodies? Fits extremely well in my view, and with Romans 8. And it did not happen in 70 A.D..

Jesus alone judges...
John 5
Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,

Then how do you explain -
I Cor. 6:2-3 "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we willl judge the angels?..."

When do receive our judgment?
Hebrews 9
27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

The church faces the judgement seat of Christ while the world is in the Great Tribulation. After the Second Coming, the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev. 20), and the those who had been beheaded for Christ are 'made alive'. Satan is bound for 1000 years. After the 1000 years, the "rest of the dead" are raised to face the Great White Throne judgment of God (Rev. 20:7-15).

How do I know that the meeting with Jesus after death is an ongoing situation?

Again you need to read Romans 8 for you are ignoring the physical resurrection here. And misapplying scripture, imho.

For being unscripural it fits word for word with a lot of verses don't you think?

No, not as you interpret it.

 

[Justme]

Hi Free,

You wrote:

I absolutely reject the concept of soul sleep - a concept with spotty acceptance at best. I do not believe it is a Biblical teaching at all!
*****************
Soul sleep is the term the WatchTower uses.

What I am talking about is not soul sleep.
Prior to the sacrifice(simple explanation) of Christ mankind was not eligble(generally speaking) for eternal life.Therefore when a human died they simply laid in the dust conscious of nothing, there was no eternal life until sometime after Jesus died on the cross..

There was not a promise of eternal life prior to Christ.


Biblical support for 'sleeping' in the dust.

Daniel 12
2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

Well, actually I'm not going to produce any more verses, if this doesn't get thru forget it.

If people don't want to read scripture that's their business. If you understand this bit , we'll go on, if not have fun.

Justme

 

[FreeinChrist]

FREE:
Nobody earlier than 550 A.D. wrote that it was under Nero. And all the ECF believed in a future Second Coming, and not a wone taught that it already occurred.

GW:
The Muratorian Canon of AD170 demonstrates that it was written before Paul's death, and the book of Revelation itself demands the early date.

OS already addressed this, but when Paul is referred to as writing to 7 churches like his predessor John - it simply means that John was an apostle first. That's all. Why? Because of the timing of Paul's letters.

(1) The Temple and city of Jerusalem are under siege at the time John wrote (Rev 11:1-2; 11:13)

Sorry, but this is in reference to a future temple. Exactly HOW did the Gentiles trample the temple underfoot for 42 months?
And who were the 2 witnesses who were killed by the beast out of the abyss, and who were raised again after 3 1/2 days, accompanied by an earthquake that killed 7,000 ( vs 13)? Verse 13 does not fit a seige.

(2) the Jewish persecution against the Church was still in force but about to end (Revelation 2:9; 3:9).

"those who say they are Jews..." So have you heard about the Hebrew Roots movement? Ever run into folks who believe we have to obey the rituals of the Law? And claim to be Christian? Judaizers are still around under various names.

(3) The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance.

Did you know there were large Jewish populations in Northern Africa and other places who were unaffected by the events of 70 A.D.? And the time statements refer to impending events - they still are impending. AND there are other time statements that preterism must spiritualize in order for the view to fit - like 1000 years, 3 1/2 days. And other clearly stated events that must be spritualized.

If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time that could even remotely fit.

That's because it is future. And the earliest documentation is that it was written in about 95 A.D.

If, however, it was before 70 AD, then the destruction of Jerusalem rises to the occasion as both Jewish and cataclysmic. The time statements demand we look here, and there is no historic support for a persecution of the Church under Domitian in the 90s.

It is an imcomplete fulfillment at best.

FREE:
Nero did not banish Christians, he killed them. Roman historians do not record Nero banishing Christians, but they do record it of Dominitan.

GW:
George E. Ladd (1972)
"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)

Yes, there was. Dominitan, the last of the Flavian line, caused the first Roman persecution of Asia, where those churches are situated. And, there is documentation that he banished Christians - not burned them as torches like Nero. The persecution from Nero was in Rome only, not empire wide.

GW:
The text says "the things that are about to come after these things." That is a time statement. Those things which were yet future were about to happen, and SOON, for the time was at hand when John wrote (Rev 1:1-3). Sorry, but there is no way around it.

There is no way around the fact that 1000 years is 1000 years, a far more definite time statement that preterism denies, along with others.

FREE:
I do not believe tradition trumps scripture either - nor the writings of men like Young and other preterists, or amils or anyone else. Or Josephus.

GW:
Very good. Then I resubmit that the scripture teaches a first-century return of Jesus Christ, and that Jude is preterist concerning the last-days apostasy and that St. John is preterist about the "final hour antichrist" (1 Jn 2:18-19) and about Christ's return to then-contemporary Asia Minor Churches (Rev 2-3). And I resubmit that all the NT writings show a first-century timeframe for Christ's return and that they learned this from the Master who promised them, saying, "Behold, I have told you in advance...So, you, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

And I still want to see any scripture that shows that the Second Coming had come - as you claimed scripture said. It is all future in my Bible.
And despite repeating yourself about Rev. 2-3, what you cannot answer is the 'if' statements as brought up by OS. Or that the letters show a definite return first century. You are adding your view into the scripture to get that.

And I already addressed the statements about James.
What I find interesting is that you insist that it would happen in the lifetimes of the apostles - yet by 68 AD, James the brother of John, Peter, Paul, were already dead.

Brings up another problem - if Nero is the beast, how do you explain that he is dead (suicide as a result of loss of power) in 68A.D. and Jerusalem didn't fall til 70 A.D.? That goes against Revelation 16 - 19.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Hi Free,

You wrote:

I absolutely reject the concept of soul sleep - a concept with spotty acceptance at best. I do not believe it is a Biblical teaching at all!
*****************
Soul sleep is the term the WatchTower uses.

What I am talking about is not soul sleep.
Prior to the sacrifice(simple explanation) of Christ mankind was not eligble(generally speaking) for eternal life.Therefore when a human died they simply laid in the dust conscious of nothing, there was no eternal life until sometime after Jesus died on the cross..

There was not a promise of eternal life prior to Christ.

I still have problems with that. You are still talking a abou the soul sleep idea of the JW, and SDA church . "Abraham believed and was accounted righteous" - checked how many times that phrase is used in the NT. And read Hebrews 11.
I believe that when Jesus told the story of the rich man and Abraham's bosum, that He referred to an actual place. And that Christ's resurrection - which was physical, He took the souls of the OT saints with Him to heaven.

But this is off topic.

Biblical support for 'sleeping' in the dust.

Daniel 12
2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

That is a reference to physical resurrection - not soul consciousness from unconsciousness
.
I have researched ALL the references to death, sleep and grave, etc in the Bible, in Hebrew and Greek - and you will not change my mind on this.

 

[Justme]

Hi Free,

You wrote:
That is a reference to physical resurrection - not soul consciousness from unconsciousness
******************
In the verse from Daniel 12,:
Do you see the 'sleep in the dust' part?
Where is the 'physical' part?

These people once lived a physical, natural life on earth. These people died sometime in the distant past.

We have two choices in biblical terminolgy, the physical and the heavenly.

Those people who died and slept in the dust were prior to the saving work of Christ on the cross and whatever else He considered necessary for personal salvation of mankind.

Therefore they were not eligble for eternal life at the time of their death, because they died before Christ. They would be raised at the time of the great ribulation, according to Daniel 12, some to good things and some raised to be condemned.

Those being raised to the good life would be the heavenly group where they would spend eternity with Jesus.

17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

After the parousia there is no need to 'sleep in the dust' as mankind will pass from physical to spiritual without the need to 'sleep in the dust'.

You may be of the opinion that there is no more physical death on earth after the parousia, but that is biblically incorrect.

Rev 14 verse 13 to end of chapter.
Justme

 

[Justme]

Hi Free,

While we spiritually meet Jesus after death - if we are believers!!! - there is still the matter of physical resurrection! AND after death, nonbelievers are not taken into the presence of Jesus. Ttheir judgement is reserved to the Great White throne judgement after the 1000 years. See Rev. 20.

We agree that we meet Jesus after death. However, non believers meet Jessus as well after death. If not what's to judge? There are verses to show this, but it's not important.

Yep, when He returns as described in Rev. 19, and in Matthew 24 - every eye will see Him, even the Jews! And this definitely did not happen in 70 A.D. for ALL of Christiandom missed it, and the rest of the world too!

Actually this is a thread on preterism and you mention Matthew 24. That is about all we need to cover. If the preterist point about Matthew 24 being a past event is proveable ,the rest of your post would be incorrect because you see things as future , and visa versa of course.

So maybe a quick jog thru the Olivet Discourse is in order.

Jesus makes a prophecy that the temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed.

Luke 21
6 As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.

Jesus is asked:
7 Teacher, they asked, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?

Jesus discussed many 'things that would happen before THIS generation would pass away.

Some of the things were:

1) obviously the temple would be destroyed, but Jesus lists other THINGS
2)abomination would be seen in the holy place
3) flight of the people to avoid the
4) great tribulation which is followed immedieately by
5) a light show that includes the parousia

It is a historic fact that the temple was indeed destroyed.

There WAS a holy place for the A of D to appear in...Hebrews 9
2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place.

There is no holy place for an abomination to appear in now...
Hebrews 9
11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.
12 He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption.

People were told to flee from Judea.....this is what the Catholic encyclopedia says about Judea...
......it returned to the procurators until A. D. 66; and in A. D. 70 Judea disappeared as an individual district............

The biggest argument against Jesus not returning in 70 AD is that nobody saw Him. Well, actually lot's saw Him, but it was in the spiritual realm when they saw Him. They were dead when they saw Him and dead people don't report back to earth from Heaven. (unless you want to count NDE's)

Hebrews 9
27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Nobody saw Him as Luke tells us:
Luke 17
21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you.

Heaven is eternal and nobody sees the eternal because:
2 Cor
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

Of course nobody talked about it. Jesus Himself tells us:
Matthew 24
23 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.

How can Jesus be dead sure of this? Didn't news spread about Him the first time?
The reason is Jesus is seen only in the spiritual realm, people are dead when they experience the second coming, the raising of the dead occurs only in the spiritual realm, not the physical earthly setting.

2 Cor 5
Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

If we are with Jesus forever in the air that more or less rules out forever on earth.
The sequence of events concerning Rev 20 that have been discussed lately, totally rule out a 1000 yeer physical reign on earth as well.

So once again I would like people to point out the verses that would lead us to believe there is a third bodily form for mankind...there is the earthly natural form, then there is the spiritual, heavenly form and where is the biblical evidence that the spiritual that MUST follow the natural becomes some physical earthly form again.

Justme

 

[GW]

FREE:
OS already addressed this, but when Paul is referred to as writing to 7 churches like his predessor John - it simply means that John was an apostle first.

GW:
You couldn't be more wrong. The Muratorian Canon of AD 170 says that Paul, in writing to only seven churches, was following a rule set by John. For Paul to be following a rule set by John about writing to only seven churches, Paul had to know that John wrote to seven churches -- and this requires that Paul knew about Revelation 2-3 before his martyrdom.



FREE:
Sorry, but this is in reference to a future temple. Exactly HOW did the Gentiles trample the temple underfoot for 42 months?

GW:
Rev 11:1-2 is a reference to the Jerusalem Temple of St. John's day which was then under seige. It is also important to note that Rev 11:2 is parallel to Luke 21:20-23, which is plainly about AD 70:

--COMPARE THIS AD 70 REFERENCE--

Luke 21:20, 23-24
"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near...there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people...and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles...


--TO THIS PARALLEL REFERENCE--

Rev 11:1-2
...measure the temple of God and the altar, and those who worship in it... it has been given to the nations; and they will tread under foot the holy city for forty-two months.


​

John was commanded to measure the Jerusalem Temple that was being given over to the nations for them to trample it down. That speaks of AD 67-70. The city of Jerusalem is shown to be in process of falling a few verses later in Rev 11, and the desolation of it by the Roman Beast is mentioned again at Rev 17:16-17

Rev 17:16-17
the beast [Ancient Rome of John's time]... will hate the harlot [Jerusalem of John's time] and will make her desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. For God has put it in their hearts to execute His purpose by having a common purpose...until the words of God will be fulfilled.


​

FREE:
And who were the 2 witnesses ...?

GW:
St. John tells us here:

Revelation 11:4
These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth





GW
the Jewish persecution against the Church was still in force but about to end (Revelation 2:9; 3:9).


FREE:
"those who say they are Jews..." So have you heard about the Hebrew Roots movement? Ever run into folks who believe we have to obey the rituals of the Law? And claim to be Christian? Judaizers are still around under various names.

GW:
Rev 2:9 and 3:9 show that the Church was still under a raging Jewish persecution including martyrdom at the time John is writing. That demands a pre-AD 70 date. The violent persecution of the Church by the Jews was ended AD 70--the headquarters of that persecution was Jerusalem, and Jerusalem was turned to rubble and its power destroyed. The Jewish persecution against the Church ended at that time.





GW:
The time statements refer to soon events of cataclysmic Jewish importance.

FREE:
And the time statements refer to impending events - they still are impending.

GW:
The events of Revelation which St John said "must take place soon for the time is at hand" are still impending two thousand years later??? If true, then John erred in saying they "must take place soon for the time is at hand." There's no way around it.





GW:
If it was written in 96 AD, there are no events soon from that time (Rev 1:1-3; 22:6-7) that could even remotely fit.

FREE:
That's because it is future.

GW:
Nothing cataclysmic took place in the "soon future" from AD 96, meaning that the early date must be the correct date. For John says: "God gave him [the Revelation] to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place...for the time is near" (Rev 1:1-3). That only fits an AD 60s date.





GW:
George E. Ladd (1972)
"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)

FREE:
Yes, there was. Dominitan, the last of the Flavian line, caused the first Roman persecution of Asia, where those churches are situated.

GW:
Steve Gregg (1997)
"Many scholars, including those supportive of a late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domitian's reign." (Revelation: Four Views, p.16)





FREE:
And I still want to see any scripture that shows that the Second Coming had come - as you claimed scripture said. It is all future in my Bible.

GW:
It is NOT all future in your bible. Jude says the last-days apostasy was then taking place in the 60s AD, and Jude learned about such a last days apostasy from Paul at 2 Thess 2:3 where Paul says: "Let no one in any way deceive you, for [the Day of Christ] will not come unless the apostasy comes first." So, in Jude's mind, the Day of Christ was then in play when he is writing his letter. No surprise there, for St. John confirms that the "final hour antichrist" had arrived (1 Jn 2:18-19)!

And, finally, Jesus Christ applies his second coming to the seven churches of Asia Minor in Revelation 2-3. Jesus had earlier promised the apostles that THEY would see all those things (Matt 24:33). I will forever cling to the clear teachings of Jude, John, and Jesus about this matter and reject all futurist inventions to the contrary. I recommend that you should too. This is, after all, the Word of God.





FREE:
And despite repeating yourself about Rev. 2-3, what you cannot answer is the 'if' statements as brought up by OS. Or that the letters show a definite return first century.

GW:
I have answered OS "conditional second coming" theory here at #222. And, as Artist Ed also pointed out, St. John said it "must shortly come to pass" (Rev 1:1). No conditionality.



FREE:
And I already addressed the statements about James. What I find interesting is that you insist that it would happen in the lifetimes of the apostles - yet by 68 AD, James the brother of John, Peter, Paul, were already dead.

GW:
Jesus explicitly taught the apostles that some of them would be dead by the second coming (Luke 21:16), but that St. John would not yet have died by then (Jn 21:22) -- along with a few other apostles who would not yet have died by then (Matt 16:27-28).

Christ's blessings.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Hi Free,

You wrote:
That is a reference to physical resurrection - not soul consciousness from unconsciousness
******************
In the verse from Daniel 12,:
Do you see the 'sleep in the dust' part?
Where is the 'physical' part?

These people once lived a physical, natural life on earth. These people died sometime in the distant past.

We have two choices in biblical terminolgy, the physical and the heavenly.

Disagree here, Justme. Scripture needs to be interpreted by other scripture.
If you take the time to look at every verse in context in regards to death, hades, Sheol, hell, grave, etc. - and all the verses regarding resurrection - then this verse will be much clear. Add to that all the scripture regarding soul, spirit, and body. In Hebrew and Greek.

Romans 8 discusses the resurecction of the body.
Revelation 20 discusses that there is a resurrection and jusgement at the Great White throne after 1000 years. ( A specific time measurement that preterism has to ignore for their view to begin to work.)

Those people who died and slept in the dust were prior to the saving work of Christ on the cross and whatever else He considered necessary for personal salvation of mankind.

Yes, Christ provided the sacrifice....but was Christ telling a fairy tale about the rich man and the begger and where they end up after death?? Or was He referencing a real place? In all of Christ's teachings, I cannot come up with an example of when He referred to a nonexistent place.
The souls of the OT saints were in Abraham's bosum until the resurrection, then taken to heaven. They will be bodily resurrected 'the last day ' at the Rapture (IMHO). The 'aakening' in Daniel 12 refers to the bodily resurrection.

17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

This didn't happen in 70 A.D. The bodily resurrection and the changing of the bodies of the living happens at the Rapture.

You may be of the opinion that there is no more physical death on earth after the parousia, but that is biblically incorrect.

You need to go back and read what I wrote again, because you are misunderstanding my position.
Yes there is physical death in the millenial kingdom (the 1000 years). Isaiah writes that those who die at 100, though, are thought accursed. Apparently man will live for much longer. And at the end of the 1000 years, Satan will be loosened and will stir the nations against God, but his rebellion will be put down and Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire.
THEN. the wicked, unsaved will be resurrected to face the Great White throne judgement.
Read Rev. 20.

Rev. 14:13 - Doesn't change anything. They are those who die in the tribulation BEFORE the Second coming.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Hi Free,
We agree that we meet Jesus after death. However, non believers meet Jessus as well after death. If not what's to judge? There are verses to show this, but it's not important.

Yes, but not until the 1000 years are over. READ REVELATION 20.

Actually this is a thread on preterism and you mention Matthew 24. That is about all we need to cover. If the preterist point about Matthew 24 being a past event is proveable ,the rest of your post would be incorrect because you see things as future , and visa versa of course.

It isn't provable. EVERY eye did not see the Lord at 70 A.D.
And Matthew 24 has the answer to 2 out of 3 questions that are asked - what is the sign of Your coming, and what are the signs of the end of the age.
The question regarding the temple is not answered in Matthew 24, but is in the Luke account, Luke 21:20 - 24. It ends with the phrase "Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." The times of the Gentiles BEGAN with the fall of Jerusalem. THAT is when the Gentiles began to trample Jerusalem. Luke 21:25 begins the account of when Christ returns. It was not fulfilled in 70 A.D.
"And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." - If this happened in 70 A.D. ALL of Christiandom, all of the Roman Empire missed it! Not a single Christian writer wrote of a past Second coming until it was suggested in 1600's. Even then, it was not the preterism that is touted today.

The powers of the heavens were not shaken in 70 A.D. Nor were there signs in the sun, moon and stars, and the roaring of the waves.
Going on this Revelation, the seas did not turn into blood and all sealife die. Darkness did not come on the throne of the beast - which is before the Second coming. The beast/man of lawlessness did not sit in the temple of God and declare himself God. The two Zealots mentioned by GW do not fit. The beast is a man, not a group, and those two may have declared rulership, but not that they wre the Messah. Josephus did not get along with the one (hated each other) and Joe would have called him on being blasphemous. They did not cause a mark to be given on the right hand or forehead, or make images of themselves and set them up in the temple. Nero didn't either. Nor did Titus.

Jesus discussed many 'things that would happen before THIS generation would pass away.

That would be the generation to see the things regarding the Second Coming, or that the 'race' (jews) would not pass away.

There WAS a holy place for the A of D to appear in...Hebrews 9
2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place.

And effort is im place by Israel to rebuild the temple again. The Abomination of Desolation, as spoken oif by Daniel, did not occur in 70 A.D. Nero did not place his stature or his self in the temple, the people did not all worship Nero in Jerusalem, the 2 Zealots did not do that.

The Abomination of Desolation and the events of the Second Coming are all future.

People were told to flee from Judea.....this is what the Catholic encyclopedia says about Judea...
......it returned to the procurators until A. D. 66; and in A. D. 70 Judea disappeared as an individual district............

And that proves...??? Nothing.
The nation of Israel did not exist for ~1800 years. Jerusalem was not on maps 100 years ago. That has changed, hasn't it.

The biggest argument against Jesus not returning in 70 AD is that nobody saw Him. Well, actually lot's saw Him, but it was in the spiritual realm when they saw Him. They were dead when they saw Him and dead people don't report back to earth from Heaven. (unless you want to count NDE's)

That is just plain unscriptural, and just plain human reasoning. Several verses in the NT refer to looking up for our Saviour from heaven. And that we will be with Him when He comes.
Jesus states clearly that every eye will see Him. NOT everyone died in 70 A.D. There were Jewish survivors and Roman soldiers. Josephus missed it, and so did Titus.

Fact is, no one saw Jesus return in 70 A.D. because He didn't return in 70 A.D. The entire church beleived the Second Coming was future for the centuries that followed, including the pupils of John the Apostle.
A basic form of preterism appeared in the 1600's, and expanded later by a person who wanted to address the 'higher criticism' group. It is all human reasoning, and not scriptural.

Hebrews 9
27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

And I already dealt with that one several times for you. It doesn't say when. READ REV. 20.

Nobody saw Him as Luke tells us:
Luke 17
21 nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you.

WOW - are you ever taking this out of context!!!! Terribly! This is not referring to the Second Coming, but the spiritual kingdom of God that is within us, and began with the Resurrection!
It has absolutely nothing about His Second coming, about which Christ says, "and every eye shall see" . He says this in Matthew and in Revelation. Do you think He is lying?? He doesn't say, "and the eyes of the dead will see" . yikes!

Jesus Himself tells us:
Matthew 24
23 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.

More very bad interpretation!! He is referring to the false Christs that will appear BEFORE the Second coming, and have been appearing for 1900 years! He is NOT contradicting Himself by claiming that noone will see Him!!!!!!!!!

He also said 'all the tribes of the earth" (ge) "will mourn".
This didn't happen in 70 A.D.


I'm sorry, Justme, but your 'interpretation' and application of scripture makes me want to cry, because it is not right. That we strive for what is unseen is in regards to our life now - we strive for heavenly treasures, not earthly. But this does Not change anything about Christ's return. Or change anything regarding our future bodily resurrection, or 'changing' at the rapture.

Jesus did not say, "Every eye will see me spiritually" or 'every eye of the dead will see Me".. He didn't lie.
He said, "every eye shall see..."
Obviously He did not come, for His whole church missed it! For many, many centuries!

 

[FreeinChrist]

FREE:
OS already addressed this, but when Paul is referred to as writing to 7 churches like his predessor John - it simply means that John was an apostle first.

GW:
You couldn't be more wrong. The Muratorian Canon of AD 170 says that Paul, in writing to only seven churches, was following a rule set by John. For Paul to be following a rule set by John about writing to only seven churches, Paul had to know that John wrote to seven churches -- and this requires that Paul knew about Revelation 2-3 before his martyrdom.

Sorry, GW, but you are wrong. And many, many scholars agree with me.
The person who wrote lines 47-59 in the Muratorian Canon simply referred to Paul being an apostle after John, John being the predessor.
Paul wriote his last epistle by 62 A.D. IF he already knew about Revelation, then Revelation would have to have been written by 60 A.D. (He wrote Phillippians, the last, about 60 - 62.)
Your buddy, Kenneth Gentry, claims Revelation could not have been written before November of 64 A.D. (gasp!!)
The church of Smyrna did not exist in 62 A.D.
Laodicea was in ruins.
So no, the Muratorian Canon does not prove an earlier date for Revelation. Just that the writer was not very clear.

I will have to address the rest later. Must go to sleep, because I have a big work day tomorrow

escept this:

FREE:
And who were the 2 witnesses ...?

GW:
St. John tells us here:

Revelation 11:4
These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth

ahh, a cop out. Who were the 2 lampstands, then?
They witness in Jerusalem for 1260 days (a specific time reference), then are killed by the beast out of the abyss, people in Jerusalem dance and celebrate over their bodies, and then they are resurrected in front of them and taken up to heaven. And there is an earthquake that kills 7000 that same hour.

nite...

 

[Justme]

Hi Free,

And Matthew 24 has the answer to 2 out of 3 questions that are asked - what is the sign of Your coming, and what are the signs of the end of the age.

Here is the question in Mark:

4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"

Here is a part of the answer that Mark records:

26"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

Mark also records Jesus saying:

0I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

How can Mark be correct in how he worded these verses.
There is only one way Mark can be correct. The coming was one of the 'things' that would happen in connection with the destruction of the temple.

Your arguments about Luke being the only one talking about the temple and 'genre' meaning race are lame to the point of being outright comical, sorry. I've heard them before, they are spawned from desperation.

WOW - are you ever taking this out of context!!!! Terribly! This is not referring to the Second Coming, but the spiritual kingdom of God that is within us, and began with the Resurrection!

Actually that is the way I like to word it as well. I prefer the Kingdom of God to be equated with the coming of the son of man because that is hw the bible does it.

Matthew 16
28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Compare:
Mark 9
1And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

The two terms are used interchangably.

The kingdom of God is within us.......

If you would look again at Matt 16:28 and Mark 9 again, we see another hint to back up my interpretation.

Jesus makes a point of telling the deciples that SOME who stand here will not die before they SEE the coming. Why would it be necessary to say that if SOME would not be DEAD when they saw it?

As you read thru the Olivet DIscourse there are many references to 'you' by Jesus.

6YOU will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that YOU are not alarmed.
9"Then YOU will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and YOU will be hated by all nations because of me.
15"So when YOU see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,
20Pray that YOUR flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath
25See, I have told YOU ahead of time.

Jesus was speaking to the people of that time in the conversation and telling THEM to flee the great tribulation which iis followed immediately by..............and so on.

That should be enough to tell you the story, but let's see who you feel the 'you' would represent in today's world.

Justme

 

[parousia70]

Free, while browsing, I came across the following statement and wondered if you'd elaborate:

The souls of the OT saints were in Abraham's bosum until the resurrection [of Christ], then taken to heaven

What scriptures support this teaching of yours?

At what point were they taken to heaven by Christ?
The 3rd day?
The ascention?
Somewhere inbetween?


Also, are these saints currently disembodied spirits, or do they each have a body of some kind?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Hi Free,
Here is the question in Mark:

4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"

Justme, If all three accounts are about the Olivet discourse, then I see Matthew's as more complete regarding the question.

Mark had a brief style of writing. Luke was not a witness to the discourse, but wrote from the memory of the apostles. matthew was there and is more detailed in his account.
When interpreting the Olivet discourse, though, I rely on all three.

Here is a part of the answer that Mark records:

26"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

Men will see, and in Matthew 24:30 says, "...and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory."
Rev. 1:7 "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who peirced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. Even so. Amen."

Let scripture interpret scripture. And don't try to fit prophecy into historical events if it doesn't fit. IF the Second coming occurred in 70 A.D., then it was missed by all of Christiandom, and Rome, and Jerusalem.

Mark also records Jesus saying:

0I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

How can Mark be correct in how he worded these verses.
There is only one way Mark can be correct. The coming was one of the 'things' that would happen in connection with the destruction of the temple.

This has been beat to death in this thread. It is the generation that sees the signs that will not pass away before those things occur, or it means tha the 'race' will not pass away.
The destruction of the Temple did not fulfill all the events of Revelation, of I Thes. 4 or Zechariah 12-14, or Isaiah in many chapters, or Daniel 7 or 12, etc. Not by a long shot.

Did all the seas turn to blood and all sealife die? (Rev. 16:3)?
Did darkness come on the kingdom of the beast, which preterists believe is Nero, and sores come on all who worshipped the beast? (Rev. 16)
Who were the 200,000,000 horsemen?
Who were the two witnesses?

If Nero is the beast, how can you reconcile the fact that he died by suicide, having had his power removed and made an outlaw, with Rev. 16:13-21, and Rev. 20? The beast is captured and thrown alive into the lake of fire AFTER the battle. Nero died in 68 AD and Jerusalem fell in 70 AD. AND Jerusalem was not totally defeated, because it rose again enough to regain some independence and to force Hadrian to come in 137 AD. I wonder why preterism leaves that out.

Your arguments about Luke being the only one talking about the temple and 'genre' meaning race are lame to the point of being outright comical, sorry. I've heard them before, they are spawned from desperation.

Sorry, Justme, but is a view held by a great many scholars in Biblical prophecy and Greek, who have shown me far more ability to correctly interpret scripture than what I have seen here. And it is only Luke 21:20 -24 that deals with the temple.

Now why don't you try to address my comments about the 'times of the Gentiles.."? Ever read Romans 11:25 -29? Exactly when were the times of the Gentiles completed? Jerusalem was overrun for centuries and centuries.

WOW - are you ever taking this out of context!!!! Terribly! This is not referring to the Second Coming, but the spiritual kingdom of God that is within us, and began with the Resurrection!

Actually that is the way I like to word it as well. I prefer the Kingdom of God to be equated with the coming of the son of man because that is hw the bible does it.

No it doesn't. The kingdom of God began with the Ascension of Christ and the coming of the Comforter, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to be more specific. It didn't wait til 70 AD!!! And the Kingdom of God will continue to be within us until the the Second Coming, when Christ will reign on earth for 1000 years, then Satan has his moment again, then Satan is thrown into the lake of fire.

So have you read Rev. 20 yet?

Matthew 16
28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

'coming' in this verse is 'erchomai', not 'parousia'.
And it is a present participle, meaning continuous action, passive in that those who 'see' will receive action, and in middle voice, that the Jesus will be the one doing the giving.
Without expanding furthur, suffice it to say that it is in regards to the coming of the kingdom of God, which is in us via the Holy Spirit. (Judas didn't see it). It is NOT about the parousia, the Second coming.

Compare:
Mark 9
1And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

And the indwelling of the Holy Spirit brought power, in that the disciples wee able to perform miracles and signs. Were given tongues.

But it isn't about the Parousia.

And the references to 'you' - do you think that Jesus was speaking only to the disciples? Not to all of us? The disciples were to pass on the witness of Christ and what He said. And they did.

What you cannot show me is the fulfillment of the books listed about with 70 A.D., or answer the questions I posed above.

That should be enough to tell you the story, but let's see who you feel the 'you' would represent in today's world.

Justme

In Matthew, the audience is the Jews. And I believe there is prophetic significance in the reestablishment of Israel.
I believe the church will be gone before the tribulation starts.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Free, while browsing, I came across the following statement and wondered if you'd elaborate:
What scriptures support this teaching of yours?

At what point were they taken to heaven by Christ?
The 3rd day?
The ascention?
Somewhere inbetween?
Also, are these saints currently disembodied spirits, or do they each have a body of some kind?

I don't believe there is any bodily resurrection until the Rapture, then only of believers. The unbelievers will be after 1000 years, as described in Rev. 20.

Regarding the OT saints, read Luke 16:19-31. Jesus tells a story about the rich man who dies and ends in torment, and the poor man who goes to Abraham's bosum. I don't believe that Jesus would reference this place if it did not exist. Those that believe in soul sleep try to claim that Jesus was referring to the Hellenistic beliefs of some Jews regarding the afterlife. But I believe Jesus stuck with truth at all times.

Also, Jesus said "He is not the God of the dead but of the living." Matt. 22:32

And, since I tend to believe that the OT saints are not resurrected til the Second Coming, I believe the souls under the alter are them.


Rev 6:9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;
Rev 6:10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"
Rev 6:11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until {the number of} their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.

It states "because of the word of God" but doesn't mention Jesus like in other places. And the "How long O Lord.." is a VERY OT lament.

As to when, I am not dogmatic about that. I thought it must have been after the Resurrection that God receives their immortal souls.

Since Paul refers to Christians as partakers of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and Christ was bodily resurrected, I don't see what problem some folks have with bodily resurrection.

 

[FreeinChrist]

GW:
George E. Ladd (1972)
"The problem with this [Domitian date] theory is that there is no evidence that during the last decade of the first century there occurred any open and systematic persecution of the church." (George E. Ladd, A Commentary on Revelation - Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972, p. 8.)
GW:
Steve Gregg (1997)
"Many scholars, including those supportive of a late date, have said that there is no historical proof that there was an empire-wide persecution of Christians even in Domitian's reign." (Revelation: Four Views, p.16)

that's nice that you found writers that said that in 1972 and 1997.

Look what I found and the dates:

Regarding Domintan and persecution, and when John receieved the Revelation:

From Victorinus, (about 300 AD) Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John, regarding chapter 10:
11. "And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings."] He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labour of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.



From Eusebius (260 – 340 A.D), Church History, book 3:
Chapter XVII. The Persecution Under Domitian.
Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his. hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us,(149) although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.(150)
Chapter XVIII. The Apostle John and the Apocalypse.
1 It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word.(151)
2 Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John,(152) speaks as follows concerning him
3 "If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian." (note – Iraneaus, pupil of Polycarp, who was a pupil of John himself.)

And:
10 But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years,(167) and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days,(168) voted that Domitian's honors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time 11 that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.(169)



Jerome ( 340 – 419),Lives of Illustrious men 9:6 :
In the fourteenth year then after Nero(65) Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax(66) and continuing there until the tithe of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia, and, worn out by old age, died in the sixty-eighth year after our Lord's passion and was buried near the same city.

Sulpicius Severus (c. 400), Sacred History Book 2, chapter 31
“Then, after an interval, Domitian, the son of Vespasian, persecuted the Christians. At this date, he banished John the Apostle and Evangelist to the island of Patmos. There he, secret mysteries having been revealed to him, wrote and published his book of the holy Revelation, which indeed is either foolishly or impiously not accepted by many.”



Though I disagree with John Calvin’s eschatology, he recognized who banished John.
From the commentary to the Geneva Bible:
“97 AD The seven churches are admonished of things present, somewhat before the end of Domitian his reign, and are forewarned of the persecution to come under Trajan for ten years, chapter 2,3.”


From John Wesley’s commentary, about 1765 :
‘I was in the island Patmos’ - In the reign of Domitian and of Nerva. And there he saw and wrote all that follows.


From John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, regarding Rev. 1:7:
“Behold he cometh with clouds…
John carries on the account of Christ in his kingly office, one branch of which is to execute judgment; and describes him by a future coming of his, which cannot be understood of his coming to take vengeance on the Jews, at the time of Jerusalem's destruction, though that is sometimes expressed in such language, and with such circumstances, as here; see (Matthew 24:30) (26:64) ; because if this revelation was made to John, in the latter end of Domitian's reign, as is commonly reported by the ancients, and in the year 95 or 96, as chronologers generally place it, it must be upwards of twenty years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and therefore cannot relate to that; nor to his coming in a spiritual sense to convert the Jews in the latter day; for this coming is personal, and with clouds, when he will be seen by every eye;”

And I could find more....

 

[Justme]

Hi Free,

Justme, If all three accounts are about the Olivet discourse, then I see Matthew's as more complete regarding the question.

The prophecy of the Olivet is the destruction of the temple.

Luke was not a witness to the discourse,

So is the bible-ALL the bible- not the inspired word of God, whether Luke was 'there' or not?

Let scripture interpret scripture. And don't try to fit prophecy into historical events if it doesn't fit.

The destruction of the temple was predicted by Jesus Christ in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21....it happened...it fits.

IF the Second coming occurred in 70 A.D., then it was missed by all of Christiandom, and Rome, and Jerusalem.

Well, John the beloved knew, Paul knew and both of them wrote about it. Jesus explained to John that he would live until He returned. John 21:22
Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?

Then I'll show you later where over a million people saw the coming!!!!!!!!!! Stay tuned.

The destruction of the Temple did not fulfill all the events of Revelation, of I Thes. 4 or Zechariah 12-14, or Isaiah in many chapters, or Daniel 7 or 12, etc. Not by a long shot.

Did the destruction of the temple fulfill the prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of the temple? If it did, it was one of the 'things' spoken of in Matthew 24:34 and it occured within THIS generation.

Did all the seas turn to blood and all sealife die? (Rev. 16:3)?
Did darkness come on the kingdom of the beast, which preterists believe is Nero, and sores come on all who worshipped the beast? (Rev. 16)
Who were the 200,000,000 horsemen?
Who were the two witnesses?

Well, which would you like to be wrong. Your interpretation of a symbolic book written from an angels point of view from Heaven or would you like Jesus to be a false prophet?

I want to tell you about the 200 million horseman.

If we march these horseman say 50 to a row there would be a column about 5000 miles long. For a meal you would need over 4000 fatted calves to feed the boys. If the group moved at say a 6 mile an hour trot the first guys would have a burger at the cookshack and it would be about 70 days before the last guys got there.

Then some people want to trade the horses for tanks!!!!!!!!!!!Does anyone ever think these things thru and guess that maybe some of these things in the Book of Revelation are a bit beyond this world???

Forget literal multi million armies and blood as high as the bridles and on and on...
People insist on the sea being blood, but oh, no Jesus sure never meant He would return before the twelve went thru the cities. Matthew 10:23.

If Nero is the beast, how can you reconcile the fact that he died by suicide, having had his power removed and made an outlaw, with Rev. 16:13-21, and Rev. 20?

If it doesn't reconcile who cares, all Nero is is man's guess at the beast, fit in a pope if you like, it changes nothing.

And it is only Luke 21:20 -24 that deals with the temple.

Strange that the flight of the people is the same, the once in creation great tribulation is the same and the parousia all happen in the same generation which awile ago you said was 'race' or some future generation, now it is back to the time of the temple.

Exactly when were the times of the Gentiles completed?

Luke 21
24They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

It wasn't Jews destroying the temple so it must have been gentiles. I thought that riot was over in 70 AD.

The kingdom of God began with the Ascension of Christ and the coming of the Comforter, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, to be more specific.

I agree. Well, the kingdom had it's for-sure beginnings with those, however:
31Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.

Note: theres that interchangable term again, I just threw it in for effect.

And the Kingdom of God will continue to be within us until the the Second Coming, when Christ will reign on earth for 1000 years, then Satan has his moment again, then Satan is thrown into the lake of fire.

Actually your next question is "have you read Rev 20 yet?" And yes I have and if you had you wouldn't have wrote what I quote:

The 1000 year reign with Christ is BEFORE the parousia, satan is canned BEFORE the parousia, the 1000 year reign can not possibly be on earth. Read Rev 20 again and then look at 1 Thess 4:15.

Concerning Matthew 16:28 and Mark 9:1. It is about the transfiguration. What is the transfiguration?

And the references to 'you' - do you think that Jesus was speaking only to the disciples? Not to all of us? The disciples were to pass on the witness of Christ and what He said. And they did.

Well, if Jesus is telling me to flee from Judea when I see the abomination in the holy place I hope He understands my problems with that.. there is neither a Holy Place for the abomination to appear in or a Judea to flee from.
But that isn't what I was after. Remember that million people I told you about that saw the 'coming' back in 70 AD. It was "THEY."

27At that time THEY will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

The YOU had fled to the mountains with the help of the prayers that Jesus asked for them.

You have mentioned I didn't answer some of your questions before. I think I got all this time, but you missed one of mine. I copied it below:
************
So once again I would like people to point out the verses that would lead us to believe there is a third bodily form for mankind...there is the earthly natural form, then there is the spiritual, heavenly form and where is the biblical evidence that the spiritual that MUST follow the natural becomes some physical earthly form again.
**********************

Justme

 

[parousia70]

Regarding the OT saints, read Luke 16:19-31. Jesus tells a story about the rich man who dies and ends in torment, and the poor man who goes to Abraham's bosum. I don't believe that Jesus would reference this place if it did not exist. Those that believe in soul sleep try to claim that Jesus was referring to the Hellenistic beliefs of some Jews regarding the afterlife. But I believe Jesus stuck with truth at all times.

I find nothing to disagree with here, but I fail to see how it answers my question regarding when these souls were escorted out of Abrahams Bosom and Into Heaven By Christ.

And, since I tend to believe that the OT saints are not resurrected til the Second Coming, I believe the souls under the alter are them.


Rev 6:9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;
Rev 6:10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"
Rev 6:11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until {the number of} their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.

Since this passage only speaks of those who had been slain, am I then correct in assuming that you believe the OT saints who died of natural causes are still residing in Abrahams Bosom?

As to when, I am not dogmatic about that. I thought it must have been after the Resurrection that God receives their immortal souls.

But you are adhearing to a theory not taught in the Bible as far as I can tell. There is no mention of Christ emptying Hades (of which Abrahams Bosom was a part) prior to the 2nd coming, yet you "Thought" He must have sometime after His resurrection.

If the Bible dosen't teach it, I can't help but wonder why you'd believe it?

Since Paul refers to Christians as partakers of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and Christ was bodily resurrected, I don't see what problem some folks have with bodily resurrection.

I have no problem with a Bodily resurrection, nor does any preterist I know of. I maintain scriptuture teaches that the nature of the resurrection body is not physical, however it IS a body none the less.

Christ rose in the same physical Body he was crucified in. It was not the glorified body He has now.

Scripture teaches that christians rise immediatly in glorified spiritual bodies, not physical ones, bypassing the temporary physically resurrected body Christ once had which scripture teaches would be granted to Him alone, which He used for evedentary purposes only (wound retention).