When was the Book of Revelation written?

[David Kent]

What I posted conclusively proved that these writers were futurists, not historicists.

No it didn't, only in your imagination.

 

[Biblewriter]

So let's break down the verse of Matthew 24

1.) Matthew 24:30 (a) “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven.
What is the sign of the son man, and can people from earth, see it in heaven?

2.) Matthew 24:30 9 (b) And then all the peoples (φυλαὶ) of the earth (γῆς)c will mourn
Note, that all the peoples of the earth can be translated as all the tribes of the land. In the Septuagint, the greek root words for 'land/earth' and 'peoples/tribes/families' found in zechariah 12, are from the same greek root words used in matthew 24:30

Zechariah 12:12 καὶ κόψεται ἡ γῆ κατὰ φυλὰς φυλάς· φυλὴ οἴκου Δαυὶδ καθ᾿ ἑαυτὴν καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες αὐτῶν καθ᾿ ἑαυτάς, φυλὴ οἴκου Νάθαν καθ᾿ ἑαυτὴν καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες αὐτῶν καθ᾿ ἑαυτάς,

And the land shall lament in separate families, the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves;

So it is definitely appropriate to interpret this as all the families/tribes of the land, specifically, Israel, as Jesus is drawing from this prophecy.

3.) Matthew 24:30 (c) when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory
The definition of the greek word for see is: 3708 horáō – properly, see, often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception). It can mean: I see, look upon, experience, perceive, discern, beware.


A better translation of Matthew 24:30 would be:

"Then will appear the sign of the son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes/families of the land (of Israel) will mourn when they perceive/understand/spiritually discern, the son of man coming on the clouds with power"


It is also important that we understand the OT language of the coming of God in order to understand that by Jesus saying he was coming on the clouds, he is proclaiming that he is God:



Did God literally part the heavens, come down with his feet on the clouds, mount on a cherubim, and fly around earth when he delivered David from his enemies and from the hand of saul?

2 Samuel 22:1, 10-11
David sang to the Lord the words of this song when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul.
He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under his feet. He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soaredd on the wings of the wind.

As I said at the beginning of this discussion, the only way you can get around the many prophecies about the future coming of the great conquering Messiah deliverer, is to pretend that the Holy Spirit simply did not mean what He explicitly said, in clear, plain, words.

 

[claninja]

As I said at the beginning of this discussion, the only way you can get around the many prophecies about the future coming of the great conquering Messiah deliverer, is to pretend that the Holy Spirit simply did not mean what He explicitly said, in clear, plain, words.

Which words were pretended to mean something that the Holy Spirit did not mean? I am honestly interested in what you mean by this.

It would be helpful if you addressed the issues specifically.

In clear plain words, scripture explicitly states that all the families/tribes of the land will mourn. This is clearly pulling from Zechariah 12, which very clearly uses the same greek root words of families/tribes and land, in the septuigent, when discussing Israel.

 

[Biblewriter]

Which words were pretended to mean something that the Holy Spirit did not mean? I am honestly interested in what you mean by this.

It would be helpful if you addressed the issues specifically.

In clear plain words, scripture explicitly states that all the families/tribes of the land will mourn. This is clearly pulling from Zechariah 12, which very clearly uses the same greek root words of families/tribes and land, in the septuigent, when discussing Israel.

Yes, Zechariah 12 states this in clear, plain, language. But you are neglecting what that same passage says about what they will be mourning about.

First verse 10 says that the Lord will pour upon them “the spirit of grace and supplications.” This shows a holy mourning, that is, one of repentance, not simply one of sorrow.

It goes on to very clearly state what the mourning will be about. It does not say they will mourn “because of” him, but “for him.”

So it is manifestly ridiculous to even pretend that this passage was speaking of Judah’s mourning over the punishment inflicted through the Romans.

This is just one more demonstration of what I have been saying all along. In almost every case, the Preterist position is based on simply ignoring the details of whatever prophecy they are currently claiming has already been fulfilled.

 

[claninja]

Yes, Zechariah 12 states this in clear, plain, language. But you are neglecting what that same passage says about what they will be mourning about.

First verse 10 says that the Lord will pour upon them “the spirit of grace and supplications.” This shows a holy mourning, that is, one of repentance, not simply one of sorrow.

It goes on to very clearly state what the mourning will be about. It does not say they will mourn “because of” him, but “for him.”

So it is manifestly ridiculous to even pretend that this passage was speaking of Judah’s mourning over the punishment inflicted through the Romans.

This is just one more demonstration of what I have been saying all along. In almost every case, the Preterist position is based on simply ignoring the details of whatever prophecy they are currently claiming has already been fulfilled.

I agree that they are mourning for whom they had pierced with sorrow and repentance. So not sure what details are ignored.

Here is the Septuagint to compare:

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the land will wailb because of (ἐπ’) him. Even so. Amen.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for (ἐπ’) him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

 

[συνείδησις]

This is just one more demonstration of what I have been saying all along. In almost every case, the Preterist position is based on simply ignoring the details of whatever prophecy they are currently claiming has already been fulfilled.

How is that different from what you do? You completely ignored every bit of solid, verifiable evidence I presented showing that Zechariah 14:5 has been fulfilled simply because you think one detail hasn't been fulfilled.

IMO ignoring all of this to protect one's position

• Linguistic evidence
• Geologic evidence
• Photographic evidence
• Historical evidence
• Archaeological evidence
• Scriptural evidence

is intellectual dishonesty and unbelief.

 

[συνείδησις]

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for (ἐπ’) him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

Didn't that happen at the crucifixion? (btw the word epi above means upon).

 

[Biblewriter]

I agree that they are mourning for whom they had pierced with sorrow and repentance. So not sure what details are ignored.

Here is the Septuagint to compare:

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the land will wailb because of (ἐπ’) him. Even so. Amen.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for (ἐπ’) him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.

And you are pretending that this happened in 70 A.D.?

 

[Biblewriter]

Didn't that happen at the crucifixion? (btw the word epi above means upon).

They indeed looked on him whom they had pierced. but there was no spirit of grace and supplication in them, and they did not mourn for him, but because they had been punished.

 

[συνείδησις]

They indeed looked on him whom they had pierced. but there was no spirit of grace and supplication in them, and they did not mourn for him, but because they had been punished.

I think Christ's followers were mourning pretty heavily for him. And there definitely was a spirit of prayer and grace poured out on Israel in those days.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

But that is directly the opposite of what the scriptures explicitly say, in clear, plain, language, again and again.

Well, I have been to Jerusalem more than once and so have a lot of people and despite the fact that you think scripture is direct opposition to the claim that the Jews firmly hold the city, they do. Not sure where scripture says they don't but I suspect it is a false translation or heavily interpreted. The Jews are holding Jerusalem and not giving it up, despite what your translation or interpretation says.

Now if that is not the point that you meant regarding the scripture not agreeing, you need to research what "coming in the clouds" means and the Jews of his day knew it meant judgement. The metaphor of him "coming in the clouds" does not mean a fluffy transportation method. It means judgement and it appears in other passages in the Bible as well as when Jesus said it to the Sanhedrin. The prophesy against Egypt was similar in metaphor:
"A prophecy against Egypt: See, the LORD rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him, and the hearts of the Egyptians melt with fear." This coming in clouds is judgement and that is what Jerusalem faced.

And Jesus did not have a good opinion of Jerusalem who rejected him. This the Bible says in plain language again and again. How more plain can it be than, "the Kingdom of God is taken away from you and given to a people bearing its fruit." Plain language.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I think Christ's followers were mourning pretty heavily for him. And there definitely was a spirit of prayer and grace poured out on Israel in those days.

No evidence of a spirit of grace and prayer poured out over Isreal in those days if you read the book of Acts. They were all scared to death and in hiding. Does not sound like any grace I ever experienced. After Pentecost then they had grace and prayer but not Israel, just the Christians.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Not just Jerome, all those before him. You shouldn't comment on prophecy unless you have thoroughly read history.
For the ten Gothic kings, Woodrow quotes the Roman historian Machiavelli but doesn't give a reference. Or you could go to a library and look up Gibbon, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I have an abridged copy and it is over 900 pages so that will keep you quiet for a while. Look in the index for Alaric, or the Goths or Huns or Aluns or any of the other ten.
The following map of AD 410 shows a number of the Gothic tribes. There were also the Ostrogoths, the Saxons and although they were not Goths the Huns took what is now Hungary. They had been latinized and the Hungarians are a nation of Latins in as sea of Slavs.

View attachment 231298

I did some research and the singular theory of Gibbons is no longer considered valid in some circles. There are no ten kings listed or known that you can present and this is vital to the match. The Pope was not king. As you admit, not every people group in Europe outside of the Italians were Goths. One man writing many centuries later is only one man. Does not carry much weight. The theories as to the fall of Roman Empire are many.

In any case, the fall of the Roman Empire has no impact upon us today. The loss of the Jerusalem and the temple worship does.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Not just Jerome, all those before him. You shouldn't comment on prophecy unless you have thoroughly read history. [/ATTACH]

The fall of Roman Empire and the triumph of the Goths had no impact on Europe some centuries later and none at all today. Those who think that was the fullment of prophesy seem to have to invent ten kings to fit. Reminds me of when people got excited when the EU had 10 members...fulfillment of prophesy...the rising of the Roman Empire again....and then they got more...gang....wrong again. Seems to be a pattern.

 

[συνείδησις]

No evidence of a spirit of grace and prayer poured out over Isreal in those days if you read the book of Acts. They were all scared to death and in hiding. Does not sound like any grace I ever experienced. After Pentecost then they had grace and prayer but not Israel, just the Christians.

AS I read the text of Zechariah 12:10 there is nothing in the syntax that requires the pouring out of the spirit of grace and prayer to happen at the exact same time as the mourning. In fact, the former occurs first in that passage, which easily corresponds with Jesus' ministry. Then the next sentence speaks of his mourning. Even if the pouring out of spirit refers to Pentecost, that is only a little over 50 days from the crucifixion.

 

[Biblewriter]

I think Christ's followers were mourning pretty heavily for him. And there definitely was a spirit of prayer and grace poured out on Israel in those days.

Most definitely not on "all the families that remain," as the passage explicitly states.

 

[Biblewriter]

Well, I have been to Jerusalem more than once and so have a lot of people and despite the fact that you think scripture is direct opposition to the claim that the Jews firmly hold the city, they do. Not sure where scripture says they don't but I suspect it is a false translation or heavily interpreted. The Jews are holding Jerusalem and not giving it up, despite what your translation or interpretation says.

I never said anything about the Jews holding the city. What I was referring to is the fact that the scriptures clearly and explicitly say that there is coming a day when an enemy that it calls "the Assyrian" will attack the land. It goes so far as to explicitly define the daily progress of his advance. And it is known that no ancient attacker ever invaded the land by following the route specified.

It says that two-thirds of all the people in the made will be killed, but that the Lord will bring one third of them through that time, and will then restore that third, both physically and spiritually.

And it says that when the Lord returns, he will destroy that attacker in a specifically named valley, in a battle that has never taken place.

Ant it explicitly says that "all the house of Israel, all of it" will again inhabit "the mountains of Israel," with "the hills," "the rivers," and "the valleys," "the desolate wastes," and "the cities that are forsaken." The fact that there are Jews in other parts of the world is proof that this has not happened.

These prophetic scriptures go so far as to explicitly define the future borders of the land, so precisely that you can draw them on a map, and to specify how that specific plot of land of land will be divided among the twelve tribes. All this has most unquestionably never happened. But the scriptures explicitly say it will.

 

[συνείδησις]

Most definitely not on "all the families that remain," as the passage explicitly states.

All doesn't necessarily mean every. I'm sure we can find examples in the bible where it says all Israel did something in which we can reasonably know that everyone in Israel wasn't present. Also, Zechariah 12:14 can simply mean all tribes that remain.

Also, the word all is not in verse 10; it's in verse 14. You're putting a restriction on exegesis that would invalidate Jesus' statement that Zechariah 13:7 was fulfilled during his betrayal and arrest. Otherwise explain how verses 6 and 8 were fulfilled then, not to mention the whole chapter.

 

[Biblewriter]

All doesn't necessarily mean every. I'm sure we can find examples in the bible where it says all Israel did something in which we can reasonably know that everyone in Israel wasn't present. Also, Zechariah 12:14 can simply mean all tribes that remain.

Also, the word all is not in verse 10; it's in verse 14. You're putting a restriction on exegesis that would invalidate Jesus' statement that Zechariah 13:7 was fulfilled during his betrayal and arrest. Otherwise explain how verses 6 and 8 were fulfilled then, not to mention the whole chapter.

Verse 14 is most certainly the last sentence of the statement that included verse 10. It was all one coherent statement. Beginning, by the way with the sentence that "it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." Zechariah 12:9

The armies that came later were the Lord's armies, sent to punish Jerusalem for its wickedness. And the Lord most certainly did not seek to destroy them.

You are trying to extract a very small part of the overall statement, and claim that it has been fulfilled, while ingnoring the fact that the details contained in the rest of the statement were plainly not fulfilled.

 

[Biblewriter]

You are entirely correct that all does not necessarily mean every. But it does most certainly mean "the bulk of," or "most of." And we know of a certainty that most of Jerusalem and Judea did not turn to the Lord, and thus did not have the spirit of grace and supplication poured out on them, and did not mourn in repentance for what they had done. They only mourned in sorrow for the punishment they received.

Verse 14 is most certainly the last sentence of the statement that included verse 10. It was all one coherent statement. Beginning, by the way with the sentence that "it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." Zechariah 12:9

The armies that came later were the Lord's armies, sent to punish Jerusalem for its wickedness. And the Lord most certainly did not seek to destroy them.

You are trying to extract a very small part of the overall statement, and claim that it has been fulfilled, while ingnoring the fact that the details contained in the rest of the statement were plainly not fulfilled.