When was the Book of Revelation written?

[Biblewriter]

They didn't mention 'tribulation saints' in any writings I have seen.

The fact that you have not seen such writings does not even imply that they were not made. All it means is that your investigation was faulty. This was clearly taught by John Browne in 1654, on page 7 of his book titled, "a Brief Survey of the Prophetical and Evangelical Events of the Last Times."

It was again taught by John Birchensha in 1660 on page 83 of his book "The History of the Scripture."

These are just two such places that I found in a quick search.

 

[David Kent]

OK, so at least one person does not think that Eusebius thought the end of the Roman Empire was the fulfillment of Revelation. That is what one would expect. One would not expect all who lived agreed since they do not all agree today.

I don't think anyone has said it did.

 

[David Kent]

You simply cannot let hold of this now totally discredited story. Futurism was the standard doctrine of the church, from the oldest known Christian writings on the subject, and continuing until the church was at least 400 years old. And it was revived by many Protestant writers in the 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s, long before Irving was even born. The fact that you insist upon crediting it to the Jesuits is nothing but stubbornness.

You have said all that before, but not one of those you listed were in any way futurists. They all taught that the let and hindrance were the Emperor and the Empire as you know full well.

There is no evidence that any in the church taught the Holy spirit and we only know because Chrysostom rejected it. He said "some indeed say, the Grace of the Spirit." But he continues "Wherefore, If he meant the Holy Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely but plainly."

Alternatively if Paul meant the Empire there was good reason not to write is, as to say that the everlasting city would be overthrown would bring persecution on the church, but Paul said he had told them privately.

You Catholics have always tried to undermine history and scripture.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I don't think anyone has said it did.

Bible writer insists that all the church fathers agreed on the interpretation of Revelation. Astounding as that was, that was what was said....they all greed. Seems a childish way of insisting one what thinks is right as though the majority determines truth. Good luck trying to get any openness of mind there.

On an interesting note, in the last forum I joined, I noticed that the posters who chose the more high faluting names were less likely to be open to learn and thought very highly of their own opinions. The ones who chose simple names that are names were less likely to be so haughty. A kind of heads up on who one is dealing with. The more proud the name, the less likely openess to the ideas of others is going to occur. Just a tendency I noticed.

 

[Biblewriter]

You have said all that before, but not one of those you listed were in any way futurists. They all taught that the let and hindrance were the Emperor and the Empire as you know full well.

There is no evidence that any in the church taught the Holy spirit and we only know because Chrysostom rejected it. He said "some indeed say, the Grace of the Spirit." But he continues "Wherefore, If he meant the Holy Spirit, he would not have spoken obscurely but plainly."

Alternatively if Paul meant the Empire there was good reason not to write is, as to say that the everlasting city would be overthrown would bring persecution on the church, but Paul said he had told them privately.

You Catholics have always tried to undermine history and scripture.

It is a blatant lie to call me a Catholic.

It is also a blatant lie to claim that all the ancient Christian writers "taught that the let and hindrance were the Emperor and the Empire." I challenge you to provide a verifiable quotation from even one of them, other than Chrysostom, that taught this.

You are simply being stubborn when you insist that these writers were not futurists, but were actually historicists.

Every one of them very clearly stated that these things would be fulfilled in their futures. The fact that some of them subscribed to the "earth's six thousandth year" theory did not make them historicists, even though the Old Testament translation they used wrongly stated many ages, so that made them expect this six thousandth year in only a few hundred years.

And the fact that they expected the rise of the ten kings to come immediately after the fall of the Roman empire also did not make them historicists. For not even one of the writers I quoted pointed to past events, falsely claiming they were fulfilments of Bible prophecies.

 

[Biblewriter]

Bible writer insists that all the church fathers agreed on the interpretation of Revelation. Astounding as that was, that was what was said....they all greed. Seems a childish way of insisting one what thinks is right as though the majority determines truth. Good luck trying to get any openness of mind there.

On an interesting note, in the last forum I joined, I noticed that the posters who chose the more high faluting names were less likely to be open to learn and thought very highly of their own opinions. The ones who chose simple names that are names were less likely to be so haughty. A kind of heads up on who one is dealing with. The more proud the name, the less likely openess to the ideas of others is going to occur. Just a tendency I noticed.

You have misunderstood what I said. I neither said, nor even hinted, that they all agreed on the interpretation of Revelation. In fact they disagreed about many details. What I said, and insist upon, was that futurism was the standard position of the Christian writers at least up to the fifth century.

And although I did not state it previously, both the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) and the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture, contained large sections which literally read like they might have been written last week at Liberty University, or one of the other modern Dispensational Seminaries in the United States.

 

[David Kent]

Bible writer insists that all the church fathers agreed on the interpretation of Revelation. Astounding as that was, that was what was said....they all greed. Seems a childish way of insisting one what thinks is right as though the majority determines truth. Good luck trying to get any openness of mind there.

On an interesting note, in the last forum I joined, I noticed that the posters who chose the more high faluting names were less likely to be open to learn and thought very highly of their own opinions. The ones who chose simple names that are names were less likely to be so haughty. A kind of heads up on who one is dealing with. The more proud the name, the less likely openess to the ideas of others is going to occur. Just a tendency I noticed.

Well I don't know what you think of my name? David is my name and I live in Kent also known as the Garden of England. On another site I go by the name David, and another as David 1689 because I follow the 1689 Baptist confession, and lastly Invicta, because that is the motto of our county of Kent.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Well I don't know what you think of my name? David is my name and I live in Kent also known as the Garden of England. On another site I go by the name David, and another as David 1689 because I follow the 1689 Baptist confession, and lastly Invicta, because that is the motto of our county of Kent.

I was complimenting you. I think less of those who choose lofty names that praise themselves and usually their posts show that they chose those self-praising names for a reason. (They never live up to them judging by their writing.)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You have misunderstood what I said. I neither said, nor even hinted, that they all agreed on the interpretation of Revelation. In fact they disagreed about many details. What I said, and insist upon, was that futurism was the standard position of the Christian writers at least up to the fifth century.

Well, you are leaving out the writers of the Bible, right? And no one else that I am aware of seems to be of this opinion. The others here seem to produce examples of where the writers after the 2nd century more or less did not think in those terms. What is really unpleasant and I might drop this because of it, is the labels you insist on sticking on people. No one who wrote these things that you mention would raise their hands and admit they are futurists. It is somewhat like calling the inhabitansts of the great plains in 900 AD citizens of the USA. The term doesn't mean anything and is more misleading than anything. You really like to lable people using words they themselves would not have used.

And although I did not state it previously, both the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of any significant length) and the very oldest surviving Christian commentary on scripture, contained large sections which literally read like they might have been written last week at Liberty University, or one of the other modern Dispensational Seminaries in the United States.

This is another point, you seem to think old means accurate. Did you know that there were those who taught and wrote their views in the days of the lives of the apostles who were wrong? They were considered by the apostles as false. And they were really old. Why is old = right for you? This is a singular position that a number of educated people do not hold, that old means right.

 

[David Kent]

I was complimenting you. I think less of those who choose lofty names that praise themselves and usually their posts show that they chose those self-praising names for a reason. (They never live up to them judging by their writing.)

I used the name Invicta on another site and someone recognised my name and told hem wrongly that I as a preterist and was banned after two posts, one introducing myself, and the other answering a prayer request. I told my friend who is a partial preterist, and he joined using his same name and was banned without making a post. Obviously a back slapping group.

 

[David Kent]

Well, you are leaving out the writers of the Bible, right? And no one else that I am aware of seems to be of this opinion. The others here seem to produce examples of where the writers after the 2nd century more or less did not think in those terms. What is really unpleasant and I might drop this because of it, is the labels you insist on sticking on people. No one who wrote these things that you mention would raise their hands and admit they are futurists. It is somewhat like calling the inhabitansts of the great plains in 900 AD citizens of the USA. The term doesn't mean anything and is more misleading than anything. You really like to lable people using words they themselves would not have used.
This is another point, you seem to think old means accurate. Did you know that there were those who taught and wrote their views in the days of the lives of the apostles who were wrong? They were considered by the apostles as false. And they were really old. Why is old = right for you? This is a singular position that a number of educated people do not hold, that old means right.

Old doesn't mean right, of course.

Martin Luther was told by the pope that he couldn't interpret the bible apart from the unanimous consent of the fathers. Luther soon discovered that the Fathers were not unanimous on anything. He was wrong n one thing that they were almost unanimous on the Let and the Hindrance being the the emperor and the Empire. Why would they do that? Because Paul said that he had told the Thessalonians and they knew. They would have passed the knowledge to other churches and the early Church it would have been common knowledge.. "You know", said Paul. "We know," said Tertulian.

After Constantine, the RCC began to get power and gradually knowledge was suppressed and we then soon had the "dark ages." when practically all knowledge was banned, The RCC banned the bible and in particular the book of Revelation, bdecause they knew t was about them.

 

[Biblewriter]

Well, you are leaving out the writers of the Bible, right? And no one else that I am aware of seems to be of this opinion. The others here seem to produce examples of where the writers after the 2nd century more or less did not think in those terms. What is really unpleasant and I might drop this because of it, is the labels you insist on sticking on people. No one who wrote these things that you mention would raise their hands and admit they are futurists. It is somewhat like calling the inhabitansts of the great plains in 900 AD citizens of the USA. The term doesn't mean anything and is more misleading than anything. You really like to lable people using words they themselves would not have used.
This is another point, you seem to think old means accurate. Did you know that there were those who taught and wrote their views in the days of the lives of the apostles who were wrong? They were considered by the apostles as false. And they were really old. Why is old = right for you? This is a singular position that a number of educated people do not hold, that old means right.

They would not have called themselves futurists because no other system of interpretation had had been invented. But almost all of them took the position that is today called futurism. And no, I do not allege any authority whatsoever to these writers. I have already clearly stated, right in this thread, that they made many errors. I pointed out what they said for the sole purpose of disproving the false claim that futurism was first invented by the Jesuits.

And the scriptures themselves are clearly futuristic. For there are many things prophesied in the scriptures which have unquestionably never happened, even to this day. If the God who cannot lie said they would happen, and we know they have not happened, then we know they will happen in a future day.

 

[David Kent]

They would not have called themselves futurists because no other system of interpretation had had been invented. But almost all of them took the position that is today called futurism. And no, I do not allege any authority whatsoever to these writers. I have already clearly stated, right in this thread, that they made many errors. I pointed out what they said for the sole purpose of disproving the false claim that futurism was first invented by the Jesuits.

And the scriptures themselves are clearly futuristic. For there are many things prophesied in the scriptures which have unquestionably never happened, even to this day. If the God who cannot lie said they would happen, and we know they have not happened, then we know they will happen in a future day.

Nonsence

The early writers taught tings that were future to them but are history to us.

That doesn't make them futurists unless they throw everything into the distant future, which they didn't.

By the way, I did start reading the book you mentioned by Way. It is extremely repetitive and very boring. He seems to be mainly concerned with the restoration of Israel, I didn't disagree with that.

The only dispensations that I saw he mention was the dispensation of the latter days,(that is scriptural; and the dispensation of the church, presumably the same thing as the dispensation of Grace, then it is unbiblical, the only dispensations mentioned in scripture are :

• 1 Corinthians 9:17For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
• Ephesians 1:10That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
• Ephesians 3:2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
• Colossians 1:25Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

I then went to the last pages to see, f it was any better at the end and I didn't find it so.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I used the name Invicta on another site and someone recognised my name and told hem wrongly that I as a preterist and was banned after two posts, one introducing myself, and the other answering a prayer request. I told my friend who is a partial preterist, and he joined using his same name and was banned without making a post. Obviously a back slapping group.

You know what names remind me of? When you see leaders of nations meet, the smallest and most insignificant leaders wear military uniforms with all the medals and gold braid and fringes that fit on the jacket. The ones who are really powerful wear a business suit. On a different site I found that those with the most understanding had chosen normal names. Those who were puffed up chose names like "Stones of fire" or "Lightbearer" or "Prophet" or something that sounds impressive. I began to see it was like the leaders of small nations. They had to "wear" impressive coverings because what they really had to share was not at all impressive.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

They would not have called themselves futurists because no other system of interpretation had had been invented. But almost all of them took the position that is today called futurism. And no, I do not allege any authority whatsoever to these writers. I have already clearly stated, right in this thread, that they made many errors. I pointed out what they said for the sole purpose of disproving the false claim that futurism was first invented by the Jesuits.

And the scriptures themselves are clearly futuristic. For there are many things prophesied in the scriptures which have unquestionably never happened, even to this day. If the God who cannot lie said they would happen, and we know they have not happened, then we know they will happen in a future day.

OK, you love your labels. It is clear to me and the people I have heard whose understanding is very impressive see most of the prophesy as past. Surly most Christians from the Resurrection onward see most prophesy as past and most of it concerned Jesus and that is past. So as much as you wish the scriptures are and remain futuristic no matter what happens, it is a singular position. Most of the prophesies in the Bible are now past and that understanding is a great blessing to see. But you like your labels and like to think that you are in good company. Jesus, by the way, was not a futurist. He kept talking about how the scripture was being fulfilled before them or was already fulfilled on the road to Emmaeus. He is not in your group.

 

[Biblewriter]

OK, you love your labels. It is clear to me and the people I have heard whose understanding is very impressive see most of the prophesy as past. Surly most Christians from the Resurrection onward see most prophesy as past and most of it concerned Jesus and that is past. So as much as you wish the scriptures are and remain futuristic no matter what happens, it is a singular position. Most of the prophesies in the Bible are now past and that understanding is a great blessing to see. But you like your labels and like to think that you are in good company. Jesus, by the way, was not a futurist. He kept talking about how the scripture was being fulfilled before them or was already fulfilled on the road to Emmaeus. He is not in your group.

Actually, your position that most of prophecy is past was not even invented until many centuries after the church was formed. Neither Historicism not Preterism came along before the church was nearly one and a half thousand years old. But that is a side detail.

As to your claim the Jesus was not a futurist, notice the following:

Jesus said:

“37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Matthew 23:37-39)

And:

“34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Luke 13:34-35)

We need to notice what Jesus was addressing here. These words were not addressed to the individuals standing around. Nor were they addressed to the priests that had rejected Him. Nor to the Pharisees and Sadducees. They were addressed, and specifically addressed, to a city, Jerusalem. Jesus said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!” (And in both passages, the wording of this sentence is identical.) The fact that Jesus accused Jerusalem of killing “the prophets” and of stoning “those who are sent to her,” Jesus was unquestionably addressing the city of Jerusalem in a multi-generational sense.

Why is this important? Because Jesus did not say that Jerusalem would see Him no more “unless” they said “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” He said it would see Him no more “till” or “until” until it said this. The Greek word translated “till” in Matthew 23:39 is the same one translated “until” in Luke 13:35. This is the Greek word “heos” (word number 2193 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary.) In the KJV, this Greek word is translated “till” 39 times, “until” 25 times, “unto” 27 times, and “to” 16 times. This Greek word does not imply that the event referred to “might” happen. It implies that the event “will” eventually happen. This is not interpretation. It is the basic meaning of the Greek word used in these two scriptures. So Jesus was unquestionably saying that there was a time coming, in which this wicked and rebellious city would finally say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!”

So from these two passages alone, we know that Jesus said that there will be a day when Jerusalem will say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” This would be plain even if no other passage spoke of it. But that is not all we see in these passages. We also see, in the words of our Lord Jesus himself, that although Israel is now rejected, that rejection is only temporary, and will end when they finally say “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”

Again, Jesus said:

“24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:24)

The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is “achri.” (word number 891 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary) In the KJV, this word is translated “until” 16 times, “unto” 13 times, “till” 6 times, and “even to” 2 times. (It is also translated “while” 2 times, but only if accompanied by the Greek word “hos,” word number 3739 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary, which means “who,” “which,” “what,” or “that.”)

But again, we need to notice the subject of this pronouncement. It is, as in the first two passages we noticed, about the city of Jerusalem. Now some want to pretend that the words, “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,” refer to the events of A.D.70, when the Romans sacked Jerusalem. There can be zero doubt that the entire preceding part of this paragraph referred to this time. For it says:

“20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles.” (Luke 21:20-24a)

But we need to notice that the time specified by the words “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” does not end at the fall of Jerusalem. Instead of ending at that time, it begins at that time, running forward to an undefined later time. (I speak here only of the specific wording of this sentence. For the ending of that time is indeed specified, and clearly specified, in other scriptures.) So again this statement, which speaks of the city of Jerusalem over a period of time that is not defined in this passage, is again speaking of that city in a multi-generational sense.

So there can be zero doubt that Jesus himself clearly and specifically said that there would be a time when Jerusalem would say, "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."

 

[David Kent]

And the scriptures themselves are clearly futuristic. For there are many things prophesied in the scriptures which have unquestionably never happened, even to this day. If the God who cannot lie said they would happen, and we know they have not happened, then we know they will happen in a future day.

Futurism is throwing most of the book of Revelation into the future leaving a giant gap in prophecy. The ECW taught an orderly historic fulfillment, beginning with the removal of the Roman Empire.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Actually, your position that most of prophecy is past was not even invented until many centuries after the church was formed. Neither Historicism not Preterism came along before the church was nearly one and a half thousand years old. But that is a side detail.

As to your claim the Jesus was not a futurist, notice the following:

This is the problem I have with your insisting on labels. Jesus told his disciples over and over the prophesies that were fulfilled already and those being fulfilled before their eyes. That is past the day after they were fulflled. But for you, you have decided the labels and that is that. You look at the few prophesies that were not yet fulfilled in his day and given Jesus the label ignoing the Bible writers that said about the prophesies. What is the use talking about it? But I will address these:

Jesus said:

“37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! 38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; 39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Matthew 23:37-39)

That generation is all dead so the verbal response they needed to give their either did or did not but that is no longer future. That message was not to Jerusalem forever more.

And:

“34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! 35 See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’ ” (Luke 13:34-35)

Same as above. Jerusalem will not be saying the magic words and Jesus will appear.

We need to notice what Jesus was addressing here. These words were not addressed to the individuals standing around. Nor were they addressed to the priests that had rejected Him. Nor to the Pharisees and Sadducees. They were addressed, and specifically addressed, to a city, Jerusalem. Jesus said, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her!” (And in both passages, the wording of this sentence is identical.) The fact that Jesus accused Jerusalem of killing “the prophets” and of stoning “those who are sent to her,” Jesus was unquestionably addressing the city of Jerusalem in a multi-generational sense.

No, they killed John the Baptist and James and Jesus himself. He was certainly addressing the people living in that day. The city was left desolate in the past and will now remain so.

Why is this important? Because Jesus did not say that Jerusalem would see Him no more “unless” they said “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” He said it would see Him no more “till” or “until” until it said this. The Greek word translated “till” in Matthew 23:39 is the same one translated “until” in Luke 13:35. This is the Greek word “heos” (word number 2193 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary.) In the KJV, this Greek word is translated “till” 39 times, “until” 25 times, “unto” 27 times, and “to” 16 times. This Greek word does not imply that the event referred to “might” happen. It implies that the event “will” eventually happen. This is not interpretation. It is the basic meaning of the Greek word used in these two scriptures. So Jesus was unquestionably saying that there was a time coming, in which this wicked and rebellious city would finally say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!”

As, so all that needs to be done is get all the citizens of Jerusalem gathered together and have them say the magic words suggested here? There is no global repentance. The individuals admit He is the Messiah and not a few priests did this. They said this and "saw" him. And you forget that the kingdom of God is permanently taken away from Israel and given to a people producing the fruit thereof. No word that God is taking it away from them and giving it back to Israel. Sorry, that covenant is over. God is divorced them. Now they can be grafted into Jesus same as Gentiles. But this theology that says the Jews will all come to Christ, at least those living then, and the Messiah will rule the world from Jerusalem is what the scribes and pharisees believed which is why they rejectede Jessus. He did not do that. He never will.

So from these two passages alone, we know that Jesus said that there will be a day when Jerusalem will say, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” This would be plain even if no other passage spoke of it. But that is not all we see in these passages. We also see, in the words of our Lord Jesus himself, that although Israel is now rejected, that rejection is only temporary, and will end when they finally say “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord”

Some did so and "saw" him. That is past now.

Again, Jesus said:

“24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” (Luke 21:24)

Happened in 70 ad. Will not happen again.

The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is “achri.” (word number 891 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary) In the KJV, this word is translated “until” 16 times, “unto” 13 times, “till” 6 times, and “even to” 2 times. (It is also translated “while” 2 times, but only if accompanied by the Greek word “hos,” word number 3739 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary, which means “who,” “which,” “what,” or “that.”)

But again, we need to notice the subject of this pronouncement. It is, as in the first two passages we noticed, about the city of Jerusalem. Now some want to pretend that the words, “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled,” refer to the events of A.D.70, when the Romans sacked Jerusalem. There can be zero doubt that the entire preceding part of this paragraph referred to this time. For it says:

“20 But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. 24 And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles.” (Luke 21:20-24a)

But we need to notice that the time specified by the words “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled” does not end at the fall of Jerusalem. Instead of ending at that time, it begins at that time, running forward to an undefined later time. (I speak here only of the specific wording of this sentence. For the ending of that time is indeed specified, and clearly specified, in other scriptures.) So again this statement, which speaks of the city of Jerusalem over a period of time that is not defined in this passage, is again speaking of that city in a multi-generational sense.

This is really stretching the thing and forcing into a prechosen position. Those living there knew that was the time spoken of. It is only those who invented a escatology later who think Jesus jumped around from millennia to millenia in the same breathe. They knew it was that day and the events match it.

So there can be zero doubt that Jesus himself clearly and specifically said that there would be a time when Jerusalem would say, "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."

Some did. They saw. And they left when the city was surrounded by armies. They knew it was being fulfilled in their lifetimes. They were lucky as futurism had not been invented so they were able to see the prophesies be fulfilled and act accordingly. Good thing or they would have died horribly as did most of the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Old doesn't mean right, of course.

Martin Luther was told by the pope that he couldn't interpret the bible apart from the unanimous consent of the fathers. Luther soon discovered that the Fathers were not unanimous on anything. He was wrong n one thing that they were almost unanimous on the Let and the Hindrance being the the emperor and the Empire. Why would they do that? Because Paul said that he had told the Thessalonians and they knew. They would have passed the knowledge to other churches and the early Church it would have been common knowledge.. "You know", said Paul. "We know," said Tertulian.

After Constantine, the RCC began to get power and gradually knowledge was suppressed and we then soon had the "dark ages." when practically all knowledge was banned, The RCC banned the bible and in particular the book of Revelation, bdecause they knew t was about them.

I am not much interested in reportedly what was supposed to be passed on but merely assumed. I am interested in knowing God and understanding truth and do not think those who heard Jesus or the apostles live were automatically closer to the truth and these guys you speak of were centuries away. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. When you lived does not ensure you know more.

 

[David Kent]

I am not much interested in reportedly what was supposed to be passed on but merely assumed. I am interested in knowing God and understanding truth and do not think those who heard Jesus or the apostles live were automatically closer to the truth and these guys you speak of were centuries away. God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. When you lived does not ensure you know more.

Much nearer than we are, 2 millennia away,