Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

[ebedmelech]

My "assumption" is that when the Bible explicitly says anything will happen, it means exactly what it says. (Allowing, of course, for the use of everyday figures of speech, which all writing uses.)This is backed up by the fact that every one of them that has already been fulfilled has been fulfilled literally, down to the tiniest detail. As an example, Daniel 11:5-32 is so precisely accurate that unbelievers claim its very accuracy is proof that it could not have been written until after it happened. And well over fifty prophecies about our Lord's first coming were fulfilled literally, including absolutely unbelievable details, such as that He would be born of a virgin.

Who has a problem with that Biblewriter? Matthew gives several prophecies literally fulfilled in his gospel. What's your point?

Your "assumption" is that none of these prophecies actually means what it says, even though it is explicitly stated. You assume, without a shred of evidence, that these prophecies actually mean something entirely different from what they say. The fact that there is no Biblical basis for this assumption makes it a "rank assumption."

Can you quote me saying as much? I don't think you can.

This is based on an interpretation of the meaning of a prophecy. But that interpretation directly contradicts many other scriptures.

Frankly, I don't get where you're going...so show an "explicit" example of something I said is fulfilled, and we can go from there. At this point you're assuming a lot, or attributing something you think I said to me.

So once again, my position is based on what the scriptures actually say, and your position is based on assumptions about what those words mean.

Once again...it's based on what you think they say. Take the "Israel of God for example..that's pretty "explicit", but because you believe there's a literal restoration of Israel...you can't see it.

 

[ebedmelech]

Without your unprovable assumption that the "Revelation is about the climactic judgment of Jerusalem/Israel and removing any sign of God's covenant He had with Israel," there is absolutely nothing here to "deal with."

I stress this again and again because absolutely all of your alleged "internal evidence" is based on this rank assumption.

Actually it isn't.

*Is there a temple in Jerusalem?

*Was the temple removed just as Jesus said in Matthew 24?

*Was Israel once again dispersed off the land?

So far my view is holding...while you're looking for a temple to be built, that *probably* will not be built.

So no...you have nothing.

 

[shturt678s]

Irenaeus is a liar. Irenaeus claims the Antichrist is from the tribe of Dan, the reason why the tribe of Dan isn't listed among the 144,000 saints in Revelation. He states this in Against Heresies book V, chapter 30, paragraph 2. He also claims the "Beast/Antichrist" is Satan in human form. He claims they are one entity, and not that the Beast is a separate entity that gets his power from Satan as Revelation states.

Most of these so-called "early church fathers' are liars. You're putting your trust on these sources not knowing the facts.

One of the better responses, ie, thank you again. I'm a very very conservative confession Lutheran being a Sola Scrptural 100% I only appropriate secondary sources to shed more light that may or may not be credible. However when two or more 'liars' say the same thing then I put more crediblity to it.

He interprets this as meaning the Antichrist is from the tribe of Dan when it's really about Nebuchadnezzar during his invasion of Israel. There's nothing in the context of the verse that hints of the Antichrist.

The way to find out who is not a liar is to test eliminating those that fail resulting in the one truth, ie, syllogistic reasoning - from the general to the specific.

Let's say I just happen to pretty much know who the antichrist is in IIThess.2:3 construed with v.4 and would ask you to ask your scholar the interpretation; however always have enjoyed you and your words thus what is the interpretation of an easy one - IIThess.2:10-12 summarized? Your non-lying scholar or scholars should know this one, ie, a walk in the park.

Jack

 

[Biblewriter]

Actually it isn't.

*Is there a temple in Jerusalem?

*Was the temple removed just as Jesus said in Matthew 24?

*Was Israel once again dispersed off the land?

So far my view is holding...while you're looking for a temple to be built, that *probably* will not be built.

So no...you have nothing.

So, because what Jesus prophesied actually, literally, happened, you assume that this is the subject of the Revelation? You are using the unquestionable fact that one prophecy was literally fulfilled, exactly as stated, as proof that a completely different prophecy is only symbolic, and does not mean what it says. That is an unbelievably weak argument.

Your only "proof" that the Revelation was written before Jerusalem was destroyed is your assumption that it is about that destruction. There is no other "proof." For I have demonstrated that every historical source previous to the sixth century, and that is both considered reliable and made an unequivocal statement about the timing, places the Revelation as being given during the reign of Domitian.

 

[ebedmelech]

So, because this happened, you assume that this is the subject of the Revelation? That is an unbelievably weak argument.

No. I don't assume anything. It has. The fact that you don't accept the symbolism of Revelation...you're pretty lost in how it applies. I can;t force you to take another look at your dispensational approach...that's the province of the Holy Spirit. It's a weak argument to you because you can't see through your literalism.

You are the one who has absolutely nothing to stand on. The claim that the Revelation is about the destruction of Jerusalem is pure interpretation.

On the contrary. I have quite a bit to stand on. Can you find Jesus or the apostles telling us a third temple will be built? NO!

However we can find Paul and Peter calling the church the temple in the NT. It's not my problem you can't see how the apostles teach these things.

It's not my problem you can't see Peter calling the church everything Israel was in the OT in 1 Peter 2:9, 10.

It's not my problem you don't get what Paul means when he says "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel"...and there's more...but I leave it there.

Your only "proof" that the Revelation was written before Jerusalem was destroyed is your assumption that it is about this destruction. There is no other "proof." Yet I have demonstrated that every historical source previous to the sixth century, and that is both considered reliable and made an unequivocal statement about the timing places the Revelation during the reign of Domitian.

No. Actually...

*I have Jesus telling me it would happen in Matthew 24

*I have Jesus telling John things that "must shortly" take place in Revelation 1:1

* I have John saying he was in "the tribulation" in Revelation 1:9.

* I have John warning 7 churches of what was coming to them.

*I have the seals of Revelation 6 right in line with what Jesus was saying in Matthew 24

These are things you don't see! You probably think literal locust and scorpions are coming in Revelation 9.

I think that's enough.

 

[shturt678s]

No. I don't assume anything. It has. The fact that you don't accept the symbolism of Revelation...you're pretty lost in how it applies. I can;t force you to take another look at your dispensational approach...that's the province of the Holy Spirit. It's a weak argument to you because you can't see through your literalism.

On the contrary. I have quite a bit to stand on. Can you find Jesus or the apostles telling us a third temple will be built? NO!

However we can find Paul and Peter calling the church the temple in the NT. It's not my problem you can't see how the apostles teach these things.

If we are unable to accomplish much today, let's realize that Paul and Peter calls the church the "Sanctuary," and not the "Temple" with all it's courtyards, and structures - however it's the little building in the center of the Temple.

It's not my problem you can't see Peter calling the church everything Israel was in the OT in 1 Peter 2:9, 10.

It's not my problem you don't get what Paul means when he says "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel"...and there's more...but I leave it there.

No. Actually...

*I have Jesus telling me it would happen in Matthew 24

*I have Jesus telling John things that "must shortly" take place in Revelation 1:1

* I have John saying he was in "the tribulation" in Revelation 1:9.

* I have John warning 7 churches of what was coming to them.

*I have the seals of Revelation 6 right in line with what Jesus was saying in Matthew 24

These are things you don't see! You probably think literal locust and scorpions are coming in Revelation 9.

I think that's enough.

Rev.6:2, ie, the power of the Word (Rom.1:18) either began at the Cross or 70 A.D., being directed at the enemies of the Son of God, and ends at Matt.24:14 loosely speaking due to this is the other side of the Gospel that continues on through even after Satan loosed (Rev.20:7) to the end (Rev.20:9, 10).

Old Jack

 

[ebedmelech]

If we are unable to accomplish much today, let's realize that Paul and Peter calls the church the "Sanctuary," and not the "Temple" with all it's courtyards, and structures - however it's the little building in the center of the Temple.

I can't because Peter call the church a "spiritual house". Paul says we're growing into holy temple in the Lord.

Rev.6:2, ie, the power of the Word (Rom.1:18) either began at the Cross or 70 A.D., being directed at the enemies of the Son of God, and ends at Matt.24:14 loosely speaking due to this is the other side of the Gospel that continues on through even after Satan loosed (Rev.20:7) to the end (Rev.20:9, 10).

Old Jack

You mean like when Jesus says "this gospel must be preached..."...

 

[Biblewriter]

No. I don't assume anything. It has. The fact that you don't accept the symbolism of Revelation...you're pretty lost in how it applies. I can;t force you to take another look at your dispensational approach...that's the province of the Holy Spirit. It's a weak argument to you because you can't see through your literalism.

So, the fact that Jesus' prophecy of Mattew 24 was literally fulfilled is proof that the Revelation is only symbolic? that is indeed a strange argument.

On the contrary. I have quite a bit to stand on. Can you find Jesus or the apostles telling us a third temple will be built? NO!

Why would Jesus or the apostles need to repeat what the Holy Spirit had already said in Ezekiel?

However we can find Paul and Peter calling the church the temple in the NT. It's not my problem you can't see how the apostles teach these things.

You are applying scriptures that are about the present to the future.

It's not my problem you can't see Peter calling the church everything Israel was in the OT in 1 Peter 2:9, 10.

Where did you get the idea that I do not see this?

It's not my problem you don't get what Paul means when he says "they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel"...and there's more...but I leave it there.

The Holy spirit explained what He meant in that statement by giving several examples. And not even one of these examples was one of someone who was not physically descended from Abraham being called the seed of Abraham. Without even one exception, every one of them was a case of some of Abraham's physical descendants being called his seed, but not all of them.

This clearly shows that anyone who imagines this means that the true Israel is something different from the physical Israel does not understand this expression. For the real meaning is that the true Israel is a subset of the physical Israel, not that it is other people.

No. Actually...

*I have Jesus telling me it would happen in Matthew 24

And this has zero bearing on the Revelation.

*I have Jesus telling John things that "must shortly" take place in Revelation 1:1

And the Holy Spirit explained this by saying that a thousand years is with the Lord as one day.

* I have John saying he was in "the tribulation" in Revelation 1:9.

That is not what John said. The word "the" is not in the Greek text here.

* I have John warning 7 churches of what was coming to them.

These churches were in Asis Minor, so their warnings have zero bearing on Jerusalem. And only one of the seven was warned of persecution.

*I have the seals of Revelation 6 right in line with what Jesus was saying in Matthew 24

There is indeed a sort of parallel to what happened. But that parallel is only generalities. There is zero reason to assume that this was speaking of the war ending in AD 70, as opposed to a different one.

These are things you don't see! You probably think literal locust and scorpions are coming in Revelation 9.

I think that's enough.

No, I do not think the locusts are literal.

 

[shturt678s]

I can't because Peter call the church a "spiritual house". Paul says we're growing into holy temple in the Lord.

Cannot get more holy than the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place (Building in the Temple) that were united at the Cross, ie, no restroom here for sure, the four courtyards are a little less holy, ie, don't forget the latrines in the four courtyards. :o

You mean like when Jesus says "this gospel must be preached..."...

The other side of the Gospel must be preached in any apostasy, ie, today, Rom.1:18. Rev.10:2, "little book" also.

Uncomfortable and inconvenient Jack

 

[ebedmelech]

So, the fact that Jesus' prophecy of Mattew 24 was literally fulfilled is proof that the Revelation is only symbolic? that is indeed a strange argument.

You said that. I said it's not my problem you cannot corrlate the symbolism of Revelation to Matthew 24.

Why would Jesus or the apostles need to repeat what the Holy Spirit had already said in Ezekiel?

The same reason many of Isaiah's prophecies are repeated by Jeremiah.

You are applying scriptures that are about the present to the future.
Where did you get the idea that I do not see this?

Not at all. However there's not a whole lot left to be fulfilled.

The Holy spirit explained what He meant in that statement by giving several examples. And not even one of these examples was one of someone who was not physically descended from Abraham being called the seed of Abraham. Without even one exception, every one of them was a case of some of Abraham's physical descendants being called his seed, but not all of them.

Correction. That is Biblewriter explaining what he thinks the Holy Spirit said. The Holy Spirit had Paul quote Hosea and Isaiah to make the point...remember? "I will call them a people who are not my people? You might want to brush up on that.

Paul also says "and if you belong to Christ YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED".

This clearly shows that anyone who imagines this means that the true Israel is something different from the physical Israel does not understand this expression. For the real meaning is that the true Israel is a subset of the physical Israel, not that it is other people.

On the contrary...it shows you can't or won't accept what they apostles say.

Paul says in Philippians 3:3:
3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

Do you need anymore?

And this has zero bearing on the Revelation.

According to you...not scripture.

And the Holy Spirit explained this by saying that a thousand years is with the Lord as one day.

Indeed the Holy Spirit did..He had Peter write in 2 Peter 3:8
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

That is not what John said. The word "the" is not in the Greek text here.

Please Biblewriter...now that is really weak.

These churches were in Asis Minor, so their warnings have zero bearing on Jerusalem. And only one of the seven was warned of persecution.

Indeed it did...how does Peter and Paul end up martyred in Rome this was a world wide persecution that included the Lord's judgement of Jerusalem. He prepared the apostles for it. Remember? "They shall persecute you and kill you..."

There is indeed a sort of parallel to what happened. But that parallel is only generalities. There is zero reason to assume that this was speaking of the war ending in AD 70, as opposed to a different one.

Actually it's not...and you'll find that out.

No, I do not think the locusts are literal.

Well...that's a good thing.

 

[ebedmelech]

Cannot get more holy than the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place (Building in the Temple) that were united at the Cross, ie, no restroom here for sure, the four courtyards are a little less holy, ie, don't forget the latrines in the four courtyards. :o

One houses the other...think about that. So saying the outer can include the inner.

The other side of the Gospel must be preached in any apostasy, ie, today, Rom.1:18. Rev.10:2, "little book" also.

Uncomfortable and inconvenient Jack

But as Paul said...nevertheless...Christ is preached...and I rejoice...

 

[Biblewriter]

Why would Jesus or the apostles need to repeat what the Holy Spirit had already said in Ezekiel?

The same reason many of Isaiah's prophecies are repeated by Jeremiah.

You ignored the word "need." Yes many of Old Testament portions were quoted for various reasons. But a failure to actually quote one of them does not negate it. If God had already said something, He did not need to repeat it for it to be true. When He did repeat things He said in the Old Testament, He repeated them for a reason. But He was under no obligation whatsoever to repeat himself every time and place a Preterist might want him to.

The Holy spirit explained what He meant in that statement by giving several examples. And not even one of these examples was one of someone who was not physically descended from Abraham being called the seed of Abraham. Without even one exception, every one of them was a case of some of Abraham's physical descendants being called his seed, but not all of them.

Correction. That is Biblewriter explaining what he thinks the Holy Spirit said.

The first of the explanations I spoke of was Romans 9:7, where we read, “nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’” This is unquestionably a case of one physical descendant of Abraham being chosen over all other physical descendants of Abraham. This is not my explaination of what it says. It is what it says.

The second explanation was, “That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.’” (Romans 9:8-9) Here again we see the same thing, that one physical descendant of Abraham was chosen over all other physical descendants of Abraham.

And the third explanation was,“And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’” (Romans 9:10-12) Here we are in the next generation, but we see the same thing again. one of the hysical descsndants of Abraham was chosen over the other physical descendant of Abraham.

This is not just what I think the Holy Spirit said. It is what He said.

I do not have time to address the rest your objections right now, except to point out that you are attempting to deflect the undeniable truth of this out by bringing up other subjects.

 

[shturt678s]

You said that. I said it's not my problem you cannot corrlate the symbolism of Revelation to Matthew 24.

The same reason many of Isaiah's prophecies are repeated by Jeremiah.

Not at all. However there's not a whole lot left to be fulfilled.

Correction. That is Biblewriter explaining what he thinks the Holy Spirit said. The Holy Spirit had Paul quote Hosea and Isaiah to make the point...remember? "I will call them a people who are not my people? You might want to brush up on that.

Paul also says "and if you belong to Christ YOU ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED".

On the contrary...it shows you can't or won't accept what they apostles say.

Paul says in Philippians 3:3:
3 for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh,

Do you need anymore?

According to you...not scripture.

Indeed the Holy Spirit did..He had Peter write in 2 Peter 3:8
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

Please Biblewriter...now that is really weak.

Indeed it did...how does Peter and Paul end up martyred in Rome this was a world wide persecution that included the Lord's judgement of Jerusalem. He prepared the apostles for it. Remember? "They shall persecute you and kill you..."

Actually it's not...and you'll find that out.

Well...that's a good thing.

Actually rendering "locusts" is liable to lead us to think of the cicada of which species we are especially acquainted with the 17 year locust. Please render this hellish monster, ie, not a good thing, "grasshoppers."

Old Jack

btw "hellish grasshoppers"? Not good.

 

[Interplanner]

BW is missing the point in Rom 9A that if Israel's level of belief is the question, then the illustrations Paul would give would be about Israel. It wouldn't help Israel to give illustrations about Zambia, at least not at first. That is why when you read later, the Gentiles who believe the same Gospel as Paul and other believing Jews are the elect, or the us, or the remnant. And to quote a celebrated writer, 'that's not me saying what the Holy Spirit says, that's what it says.'

The question of Rom 9-11 is why don't more of those in the ethnos Israel believe than do? This question perplexed the now mostly Gentile-operated groups in the area of Rome since Jews had been let back into Rome after Claudius' ban of Acts 18:1. The answer was that ethnos never does profit and never will (Jn 1). Faith alone.

So if "all Israel will be saved" means an ethnos will for some reason be put back in its historic land, then Obama is a reincarnated apostle John. All it means is that those who have had faith down through time will be saved by the Redeemer who already came to Zion and took away the debt of sin.

 

[precepts]

One of the better responses, ie, thank you again. I'm a very very conservative confession Lutheran being a Sola Scrptural 100% I only appropriate secondary sources to shed more light that may or may not be credible. However when two or more 'liars' say the same thing then I put more crediblity to it.

When two or more "liars" agree they become credible? Only a "liar" would believe that.

The way to find out who is not a liar is to test eliminating those that fail resulting in the one truth, ie, syllogistic reasoning - from the general to the specific.

Let's say I just happen to pretty much know who the antichrist is in IIThess.2:3 construed with v.4 and would ask you to ask your scholar the interpretation; however always have enjoyed you and your words thus what is the interpretation of an easy one - IIThess.2:10-12 summarized? Your non-lying scholar or scholars should know this one, ie, a walk in the park.

Jack

What does this have to do with Irenaeus being a liar, and what's the context of II Thes 2:10 in reference to those perishing because they didn't recieve the truth? Who is Paul referring to, and who didn't recieve the truth Christ brought? I ask this for the simple reason of defining the context.

Next, though not relevant, why is Judas called "the" son of perdition in Jhn 17:12?

Why is it the temple destroyed by the scriptural 8th Roman Emperor Flavius who started his own dynasty with his two sons that were plucked up by the scriptural 11th horn/emperor Nerva, who started his Antonine dynasty, beginning the "Year of the Five Good Emperors" era, proving the first scriptural 10 horns/emperors were bad/burning the city with fire as prophesied in Rev 17? Is it just a coincidence?

Is it also a coincidence that Dan 7 describes Rome, the 4th beast, as has having ten horns, of which an 11th horn plucks up three of the 10 horns, before he"s cast into the fire (lake of fire) in v. 11? Dan 7 doesn't describe the Roman beast as having 7 heads as some interpret to be 7 nations out of Rome, but as Rome itself as the 4th beast beginning with it's first horn/king/emperor Augustus Caesar, Dan 7:17.

Is it a coincidence that the "destroyer" of the temple is the scriptural 8th horn/king/Roman emperor, and I say scriptural because he's historically the 9th, declared, but also the proof of Revelation's timing during the Roman "Year of the Four Emperors;" "five are fallen and one is etc..," historically the 9th. Is this also a coincidence?

 

[Biblewriter]

BW is missing the point in Rom 9A that if Israel's level of belief is the question, then the illustrations Paul would give would be about Israel. It wouldn't help Israel to give illustrations about Zambia, at least not at first. That is why when you read later, the Gentiles who believe the same Gospel as Paul and other believing Jews are the elect, or the us, or the remnant. And to quote a celebrated writer, 'that's not me saying what the Holy Spirit says, that's what it says.'

The question of Rom 9-11 is why don't more of those in the ethnos Israel believe than do? This question perplexed the now mostly Gentile-operated groups in the area of Rome since Jews had been let back into Rome after Claudius' ban of Acts 18:1. The answer was that ethnos never does profit and never will (Jn 1). Faith alone.

So if "all Israel will be saved" means an ethnos will for some reason be put back in its historic land, then Obama is a reincarnated apostle John. All it means is that those who have had faith down through time will be saved by the Redeemer who already came to Zion and took away the debt of sin.

If that is what Romans 9-11 is about, why is that question never either stated or directly answered in that section?

 

[Interplanner]

You mean you can't tell that it is? That's what his grief is about! That's why he wants to 'spur' them to jealousy.

But someone has come along an snuck in the meaning 'the whole ethnos' when the text says Israel, when all it means is some or a token amount or a representative amount of them, as it does of any other ethnos. That is mass confusion to do that sneaking.

When 7000 were reserved who had not bowed to Baal, "70,000" had.

 

[ebedmelech]

You ignored the word "need." Yes many of Old Testament portions were quoted for various reasons. But a failure to actually quote one of them does not negate it. If God had already said something, He did not need to repeat it for it to be true. When He did repeat things He said in the Old Testament, He repeated them for a reason. But He was under no obligation whatsoever to repeat himself every time and place a Preterist might want him to.

No I didn't ignore anything. The need is always based on the "need to know". Just as Paul, Peter, and John all repeated the warning of the coming apostasy of their day.

You're assuming to be the Holy Spirit with your argument here Biblewriter. It's also pretty bad argument given the opening of the gospels to Gentiles, who had no idea of what the OT prophets wrote for the most part. There's always a need to know as the gospel spread to other regions because it's rooted in what prophets wrote...like the crucifixion.

The first of the explanations I spoke of was Romans 9:7, where we read, “nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, ‘In Isaac your seed shall be called.’” This is unquestionably a case of one physical descendant of Abraham being chosen over all other physical descendants of Abraham. This is not my explaination of what it says. It is what it says.

The second explanation was, “That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. For this is the word of promise: ‘At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.’” (Romans 9:8-9) Here again we see the same thing, that one physical descendant of Abraham was chosen over all other physical descendants of Abraham.

And the third explanation was,“And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), it was said to her, ‘The older shall serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.’” (Romans 9:10-12) Here we are in the next generation, but we see the same thing again. one of the hysical descsndants of Abraham was chosen over the other physical descendant of Abraham.

This is not just what I think the Holy Spirit said. It is what He said.

I do not have time to address the rest your objections right now, except to point out that you are attempting to deflect the undeniable truth of this out by bringing up other subjects.

Actually it's just the opposite Biblewriter. You're not dealing with the passages properly. Paul clearly said this in Romans 9:8:
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.
Now the apostle makes it real clear it's not about "THE FLESH", but about "THE PROMISE". It's very clear THE PROMISE is Christ. We know that from Galatians 3:16. However, you want to disregard how the apostle went to Hosea and Isaiah to make his point. Yet his argument doesn't end there either.

Furthermore you CANNOT deal with my objections because it is a strong one and you don't really realize what the apostle was addressing. His argument started in Romans 2 and it is consistent throughout the scriptures.

So any time you want to "address" my "objections", I'm quite prepared to defend them.

 

[shturt678s]

When two or more "liars" agree they become credible? Only a "liar" would believe that.

Math was my minor long long ago thus "lie" X "lie" = Truth, correct? lol with you.

What does this have to do with Irenaeus being a liar,

I thought defining a "lie" had all to do with it, correct?

and what's the context of II Thes 2:10 in reference to those perishing because they didn't recieve the truth?

Now, now, now, ie, I thought you didn't like lies, ie, "...perishing because they received not the agape of the truth..." This wouldn't be a white lie would it? Ie, not intending to omit agape? Makes a big big difference, correct?

Who is Paul referring to, and who didn't recieve the truth Christ brought? I ask this for the simple reason of defining the context.

Next, though not relevant, why is Judas called "the" son of perdition in Jhn 17:12?

Why is it the temple destroyed by the scriptural 8th Roman Emperor Flavius who started his own dynasty with his two sons that were plucked up by the scriptural 11th horn/emperor Nerva, who started his Antonine dynasty, beginning the "Year of the Five Good Emperors" era, proving the first scriptural 10 horns/emperors were bad/burning the city with fire as prophesied in Rev 17? Is it just a coincidence?

One of us is telling fibs, ie, Rev.17:11 The ten horn kings is all the powers of the beast, the sum total of the antichristian power. I think you're going too literal my friend - unintentional error, correct?

Is it also a coincidence that Dan 7 describes Rome, the 4th beast, as has having ten horns, of which an 11th horn plucks up three of the 10 horns, before he"s cast into the fire (lake of fire) in v. 11? Dan 7 doesn't describe the Roman beast as having 7 heads as some interpret to be 7 nations out of Rome, but as Rome itself as the 4th beast beginning with it's first horn/king/emperor Augustus Caesar, Dan 7:17.

Little more to do with the antichrist contextually, correct? :o

Is it a coincidence that the "destroyer" of the temple is the scriptural 8th horn/king/Roman emperor, and I say scriptural because he's historically the 9th, declared, but also the proof of Revelation's timing during the Roman "Year of the Four Emperors;" "five are fallen and one is etc..," historically the 9th. Is this also a coincidence?

Little more to do with the "Sanctuary" naos is always "Sanctuary," and not "Temple." Just trying to hlep you out a little sir.

...One of us has the unintentional untruth, ie, lie in the broad sense, correct? Or is this a lie? Thank you again for your feedback.

One of my better reponses, ie, thank you again,

Old Jack's opinion only

 

[Biblewriter]

You mean you can't tell that it is? That's what his grief is about! That's why he wants to 'spur' them to jealousy.

But someone has come along an snuck in the meaning 'the whole ethnos' when the text says Israel, when all it means is some or a token amount or a representative amount of them, as it does of any other ethnos. That is mass confusion to do that sneaking.

When 7000 were reserved who had not bowed to Baal, "70,000" had.

There is not even the suggestion of a question or an answer as to why the bulk of Israel had not repented. That is simply observed as a fact as the starting point of the discussion. Then the Holy Spirit says that just being a physical Israelite does nor make someone a true Israelite, and every example given to demonstrate the meaning of that statement was a part of the physical lineage of Abraham being selected, but not all of that physical lineage.