When was the Book of Revelation written?

[Dorothy Mae]

Much nearer than we are, 2 millennia away,

Doesn’t mean all who lived then knew more. The man who walks with God knows more than those who saw and heard Jesus himself but rejected his claims. Do you disagree?

 

[David Kent]

Doesn’t mean all who lived then knew more. The man who walks with God knows more than those who saw and heard Jesus himself but rejected his claims. Do you disagree?

Yes I do. Disciples followed Jesus and believed him. Over the centuries Satan has muddied the waters.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

If you read the writings of John and Paul, you will find that the waters were muddied right away. Again, being born in the first century does not give a man more insight as to the truth about God. Walking with God himself does no matter when one was born. I think that saying those living in the first century understood better is negating what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit leading those who keep his teaching into truth. Jesus did not say this to those born in his lifetime.

 

[David Kent]

If you read the writings of John and Paul, you will find that the waters were muddied right away. Again, being born in the first century does not give a man more insight as to the truth about God. Walking with God himself does no matter when one was born. I think that saying those living in the first century understood better is negating what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit leading those who keep his teaching into truth. Jesus did not say this to those born in his lifetime.

It does when Paul told them that they knew because he told them.

 

[SkyWriting]

Please state whether you believe Revelation was written either post 70 AD or Pre 70 AD.

Additionally, please provide evidence to support your belief.

In the f-f-f-future.

 

[David Kent]

In the f-f-f-future.

So you don't think it was written yet?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm sorry but why does it matter?

To the followers of Jesus it doesn't matter at all, except when they find out they have been deceived, those who were deceived that is, by some or another cult or school of thought.

The truth never changes, regardless of what any cult or school of thought claims. (the cults and other schools of thought opposed to Jesus are always wrong.)

 

[claninja]

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."

“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” is from psalm 118. Psalm 118 is part of the Hallel. Those in Jerusalem would recite it every year. Especially at Passover, Pentecost, and tabaernacles, when pilgrims would make there way to Jerusalem celebrate the feasts. Psalm 118 was recited in Jerusalem even after Jesus gave this prophecy in Matthew 23. In fact it’s stil recited today, even without the temple. So I don’t believe your interpretation is correct, otherwise Jesus would have shown up when the Jews in Jerusalem recited this psalm, saying “blesses is he who comes in the name of the Lord” during the feasts.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It does when Paul told them that they knew because he told them.

Paul didn’t tell everybody that. Not sure how this affects that fact that others living at the same time were deceived.

 

[David Kent]

Paul didn’t tell everybody that. Not sure how this affects that fact that others living at the same time were deceived.

Paul tol the Tessalonians and said they knew. Do you think they kept the information yo themselves. They shared Pauls letters and would no doubt share other information that Paul told them. "You Know.", said Paul. "We know", said Tertullian.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Paul tol the Tessalonians and said they knew. Do you think they kept the information yo themselves. They shared Pauls letters and would no doubt share other information that Paul told them. "You Know.", said Paul. "We know", said Tertullian.

They kept the letter written to them and copied it so we can know as much as they knew, no less. Living in 50 AD doesn’t mean every knew more about these things simply because they lived then. There was error and heresy and deceivers then too.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” is from psalm 118. Psalm 118 is part of the Hallel. Those in Jerusalem would recite it every year. Especially at Passover, Pentecost, and tabaernacles, when pilgrims would make there way to Jerusalem celebrate the feasts. Psalm 118 was recited in Jerusalem even after Jesus gave this prophecy in Matthew 23. In fact it’s stil recited today, even without the temple. So I don’t believe your interpretation is correct, otherwise Jesus would have shown up when the Jews in Jerusalem recited this psalm, saying “blesses is he who comes in the name of the Lord” during the feasts.

This was very helpful. So saying those words in Jerusalem didn’t bring him back. What do you think Jesus meant?

 

[David Kent]

Dorothy.
I posted this in the thread replacement theology by mistake.

Dorothy,

The early church and Historicists teach that the Let and Hindrance was the Roman Empire and the Emperor, based on Daniel 7 and other scriptures. Futurists mainly believe that is is the church and Holy spirit to be removed, based on a verse in Genesis, taken completely out of context.

What do you preterists believe it was?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy.
I posted this in the thread replacement theology by mistake.

Dorothy,

The early church and Historicists teach that the Let and Hindrance was the Roman Empire and the Emperor, based on Daniel 7 and other scriptures. Futurists mainly believe that is is the church and Holy spirit to be removed, based on a verse in Genesis, taken completely out of context.

What do you preterists believe it was?

I have no idea as to the last question.

Rome finally fell as fitting the quote you gave. Description fits as is now past. You agree.

Where is Let and Hindrance is Daniel?

 

[David Kent]

I have no idea as to the last question.

But obviously the early church minus the writers of the NT and Historists were wrong. Rome finally fell, nothing in Dan/Rev happened.

So you don't know what you believe but you know the others are wrong? Amazing.
Who told you nothing in Dan/Rev happened? Of course the let and hindrance were removed when ten kingdoms when Odacer deposed the last western emperor. Of course Constantine removed the empire to the east. Of course Rome was conquered by 10 kings who gave power to the Papacy, Of course the papacy overthrew three of them. All fulfillment of scripture.

Who teaches you? I suggest you study history.

Having said that. On another board, Preterists and Historicists get a lot of stick from the futurists. We have our own gossip page. Although we disagree, we get on well. There are Full Preterists, Partial Preterists and me.

Dispensationalists teach that their beliefs are bible doctrine, rather than an interpretation.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

So you don't know what you believe but you know the others are wrong?

You didn’t ask what I believe.

David, I answed too quickly. Please read my answe to this as i disagreed with me. My apologies. I was thinking of something else. Yes, of course Rome was the kingdom mentioned different that all the others. But I do not see the Catholics playing an role in the matter nor Constantine. The empire was not moved to the east. There was an explansion but it still was centered in Rome, Italy under Constatine. I think you are trying to make it fit. I do not see the Papacy playing any role at all in fulfillment of scripture.

Of course the let and hindrance were removed when ten kingdoms when Odacer deposed the last western emperor. Of course Constantine removed the empire to the east. Of course Rome was conquered by 10 kings who gave power to the Papacy, Of course the papacy overthrew three of them. All fulfillment of scripture.

Having said that. On another board, Preterists and Historicists get a lot of stick from the futurists. We have our own gossip page. Although we disagree, we get on well. There are Full Preterists, Partial Preterists and me.

I haven't much use for labels.

Dispensationalists teach that their beliefs are bible doctrine, rather than an interpretation.

Yes they are quite intolerant although their history can be traced back only a century or two. A very wrong doctrine that is borderline heresy.

 

[Biblewriter]

Yes they are quite intolerant although their history can be traced back only a century or two. A very wrong doctrine that is borderline heresy.

Actually, I am in the process of publishing a book presenting hard proof that the main elements of Dispensationalism were the mainstream doctrine of the church from the earliest writings that have survived to the present time, at least down to the fifth century.

These included using the word Dispensations to describe the various ages in which God dealt with mankind in different ways, insisting that explicit statements of Bible prophecy should be interpreted literally, teaching that in the end times there would be an outstandingly evil individual called "the Antichrist," teaching that in the end times the Jews would return to their ancient homeland, teaching that the Jews would be converted in the end times, teaching that the seventieth week of Dainel's prophecy of the seventy weeks remains to be fulfilled in the future, and teaching that the church will be "suddenly caught up" before the great tribulation.

All of these were explicitly and repeatedly taught in the early centuries of the Christian church.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Actually, I am in the process of publishing a book presenting hard proof that the main elements of Dispensationalism were the mainstream doctrine of the church from the earliest writings that have survived to the present time, at least down to the fifth century.

These included using the word Dispensations to describe the various ages in which God dealt with mankind in different ways, insisting that explicit statements of Bible prophecy should be interpreted literally, teaching that in the end times there would be an outstandingly evil individual called "the Antichrist," teaching that in the end times the Jews would return to their ancient homeland, teaching that the Jews would be converted in the end times, teaching that the seventieth week of Dainel's prophecy of the seventy weeks remains to be fulfilled in the future, and teaching that the church will be "suddenly caught up" before the great tribulation.

All of these were explicitly and repeatedly taught in the early centuries of the Christian church.

Ah, a work of fiction then.

 

[David Kent]

You didn’t ask what I believe.

David, I answed too quickly. Please read my answe to this as i disagreed with me. My apologies. I was thinking of something else. Yes, of course Rome was the kingdom mentioned different that all the others. But I do not see the Catholics playing an role in the matter nor Constantine. The empire was not moved to the east. There was an explansion but it still was centered in Rome, Italy under Constatine. I think you are trying to make it fit. I do not see the Papacy playing any role at all in fulfillment of scripture.
I haven't much use for labels.
Yes they are quite intolerant although their history can be traced back only a century or two. A very wrong doctrine that is borderline heresy.

More than borderline I would say. It has a different gospel for Jews and Gentiles. It (usually) has a different resurrection for OT saints and NT saints, although the early teachers of dispensationalism taught that the OT saints will be raised at the same time as those from NT times.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

More than borderline I would say. It has a different gospel for Jews and Gentiles. It (usually) has a different resurrection for OT saints and NT saints, although the early teachers of dispensationalism taught that the OT saints will be raised at the same time as those from NT times.

I agree. It seemed kind to say "borderline." Dispensalionalism has also had very bad effects on the church as it embraced it. Taught the church to wait for the "rapture" and do little among other evils.