Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Interplanner · Jan 8, 2014

BW, there's no Rom 9 without Rom 4. It's called backstory. 4:16+. If God wants to call things that are not as though they were, that's His call. They are "not only of the law, but those who are of the faith of Abraham" (followed by the 100th quote of Gen., 17:5 this time).

That is the "interp" that EbedM is properly giving. It's what the text says. It just doesn't happen to show in Scofield margin notes!

ebedmelech · Jan 8, 2014

Biblewriter said:
Indeed it is. But the real pride is attributing more authority to your interpretation of the meaning of one scripture that to the explicit statement of another.

Biblewriter, I've said this to you many times...what you say is "explicit" is based on you "theological construct". It is explicit within that construct, but that doesn't mean it's explicit to me or others.

In this case what you think is explicit is explicit error...and I will hold to my view.

Biblewriter said:
You continue to flatly refuse to admit that what you are talking about is an interpretation of what the scriptures mean and what I am talking about is what they say.

I have had enough of this childishness. Signing off for now.

Well understand this: You're not a scriptural authority around here, and you're definitely not an apostle or the Holy Spirit.

The fact that I don't accept your view doesn't make me childish, instead it has brought forth your frustration because I defend my position and do so scripturally.

So at this point...I'll say it's been a good exchange, but it hasn't caused me to question my position whatsoever.

Thanks for the debate...the Lord keep you...

Interplanner · Jan 8, 2014

If this is not what Paul means, what is BWs version of the motivation to the mission to the nations? I mean, actually using the apostles' words?

Interplanner · Jan 8, 2014

Interplanner · Jan 8, 2014

What I meant to put here was: doesn't BW see that Rom 9-11 was meant to answer why so few Jews believe? If he could see that, he wouldn't be so concerned about trying to keep Paul speaking only about Jews, which he is not. 11 makes clear that any ethnos may sin, be arrogant, take God for granted, etc. The conclusion of 11 is that all men are bound to sin (by the events of the Gospel) and all may recieve mercy in it (the same Gospel).

Interplanner · Jan 8, 2014

And there's this: the "us" in Romans generally, is to Gentiles (see end of ch 4)!

shturt678s · Jan 8, 2014

ebedmelech said:
No Jack that's not the case at all. "According to the flesh", it is about physical descendants...true enough. However, Paul is interpreting what the promise is in Galatians 3:15, 16! He has made the point "THE SEED IS CHRIST" and it is through Him all the nations of the earth will be blessed.

The quote is specific to Genesis 22:18 ONLY...after Abraham was about to offer up Isaac in obedience to God:
18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.

What's more astonishing is the Word keeps TKOing you, yet you still get up for another round, ie, you sure don't have a glass jaw.

Text my true friend, ie, Text: Gen..22:18, Contextual rendition: and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves (Hithbarakhu is of the Hithpael stem therefore reflexive - only basic Hebrew by Mr. Alan Ross - 1st Semester only) by the descendants, (not "Seed" nor "seed") because thou didst hearken unto My voice."

Always use other renditions with our good ol' A.V., and in this way don't have to keep getting off the mat before the 10 count. The above former means that when "all the nations of the earth" discern how great the blessing is that Israel enjoys, namely in the Messiah, then everyone "shall bless himself by thy descendants," ie, he shall invoke upon himself the blessings that Abraham's children have in the Christ.

This is what the apostle is quoting and it is NOT collective! This is the significance of why the apostle choose that verse over the other verses where he promised to bless Abraham's "descendants"....

This is truly Paul's insight in the scriptures...simply POINT ON AMAZING!

Fire your corner man and bring me aboard, ie, hate to see you take such a beating. :o

Old Jack with the towel

ebedmelech · Jan 8, 2014

shturt678s said:
What's more astonishing is the Word keeps TKOing you, yet you still get up for another round, ie, you sure don't have a glass jaw.

Text my true friend, ie, Text: Gen..22:18, Contextual rendition: and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves (Hithbarakhu is of the Hithpael stem therefore reflexive - only basic Hebrew by Mr. Alan Ross - 1st Semester only) by the descendants, (not "Seed" nor "seed") because thou didst hearken unto My voice."

He sold you a bum steer Jack!

He can't trump the apostle. He ALREADY interpreted the verse at Galatians 3:16. I don't need to do anything but read it. THE SEED IS CHRIST...no further interpretation or definition required. DONE DEAL my friend.

I've got your point...but you miss the object! They bless themselves through "THE SEED" which is Christ!! HE DOES THE BLESSING AND IS THE SOURCE OF ALL BLESSING.

The word is SEED...an individual, who is Jesus Christ...you can't bless yourself without Him Jack!

So once again you're not gaining ground...you're actually drifting further back!

If it was a stop sign...you'd get a ticket...

shturt678s said:
Always use other renditions with our good ol' A.V., and in this way don't have to keep getting off the mat before the 10 count. The above former means that when "all the nations of the earth" discern how great the blessing is that Israel enjoys, namely in the Messiah, then everyone "shall bless himself by thy descendants," ie, he shall invoke upon himself the blessings that Abraham's children have in the Christ.

Absolutely not Jack. It is undeniable that the NASB trumps them all when it comes to literal translation!

Furthermore Romans 4 will not permit your view...read it. Scripture is consistent!

shturt678s said:
Fire your corner man and bring me aboard, ie, hate to see you take such a beating. :o

Old Jack with the towel

No fire at all brother Jack...it's the smoke from you overthinking the simplicity that is in Christ.

You're beating the air...Genesis 22:18...various translations:

NASB
18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.”

KJV
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Young's Literal
18 and blessed themselves in thy seed have all nations of the earth, because that thou hast hearkened to My voice.'

Wycliffe Bible
18 and all the folks of [the] earth shall be blessed in thy seed (and all the nations of the earth shall pray to be blessed as thy descendants be blessed/and through thy descendants I shall bless all the nations of the earth), for thou obeyedest to my voice.

ASV
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Because thou hast obeyed my voice.

It's translated SEED everytime Jack...and the SEED is the source of blessing!

No work to do. Like I said, the apostle did all the work at Galatians 3:16...various translations:

NASB
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.

KJV
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Young's Literal
16 and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, `And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, `And to thy seed,' which is Christ;

Wycliffe Bible
16 The promises were said to Abraham and to his seed; he saith not, In [the] seeds, as in many, but as in one, And to thy seed, that is, Christ.

ASV
16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

I think this is about as far as this needs to go. We will be agreeing to disagree.

Biblewriter · Jan 9, 2014

Interplanner said:
What I meant to put here was: doesn't BW see that Rom 9-11 was meant to answer why so few Jews believe?

You keep saying this, but you cannot demonstrate it, for it is not correct.

Biblewriter · Jan 9, 2014

Interplanner said:
If this is not what Paul means, what is BWs version of the motivation to the mission to the nations? I mean, actually using the apostles' words?

I don't worry about invented concepts that are not actually in the scriptures.

Biblewriter · Jan 9, 2014

ebedmelech said:
Biblewriter, I've said this to you many times...what you say is "explicit" is based on you "theological construct". It is explicit within that construct, but that doesn't mean it's explicit to me or others.

In this case what you think is explicit is explicit error...and I will hold to my view.

When the Bible says that something is going to happen, and says it in plain words. It is not a "theological construct" to say it is explicitly stated.

You do not like the word "explicit" because it exposes the poverty of your position.

But what the scriptures explicitly say is indeed explicit, whether you admit it or not.

The scriptures say, in plain words that "all the house of Israel, all of it" will again inhabit "the land of Israel," with its "mountains, hills, rivers, and valleys." (Ezekiel 36:6-10)

You can call it a "theological construct" to simply believe this clear statement of scripture. But simply believing the Bible it is not a "theological construct."

Your "theological construct" says that this, and many similar explicitly stated prophecies, are only symbolic. That is indeed a "theological construct," because the only basis for dismissing these prophecies as merely allegorical is an interpretation of the meanings of other scriptures that do not actually say what you are interpreting them to mean.

So the truth is, that you are doing exactly what you are falsely accusing me of doing, letting your "theological construct" blind your eyes to what the scriptures explicitly say. And their words are indeed explicit, whether you will admit it or not.

shturt678s · Jan 9, 2014

ebedmelech said:
He sold you a bum steer Jack!

He can't trump the apostle. He ALREADY interpreted the verse at Galatians 3:16. I don't need to do anything but read it. THE SEED IS CHRIST...no further interpretation or definition required. DONE DEAL my friend.

I've got your point...but you miss the object! They bless themselves through "THE SEED" which is Christ!! HE DOES THE BLESSING AND IS THE SOURCE OF ALL BLESSING.

The word is SEED...an individual, who is Jesus Christ...you can't bless yourself without Him Jack!

So once again you're not gaining ground...you're actually drifting further back!

If it was a stop sign...you'd get a ticket...

Absolutely not Jack. It is undeniable that the NASB trumps them all when it comes to literal translation!

Furthermore Romans 4 will not permit your view...read it. Scripture is consistent!

No fire at all brother Jack...it's the smoke from you overthinking the simplicity that is in Christ.

You're beating the air...Genesis 22:18...various translations:

NASB
18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.

KJV
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

Young's Literal
18 and blessed themselves in thy seed have all nations of the earth, because that thou hast hearkened to My voice.'

Wycliffe Bible
18 and all the folks of [the] earth shall be blessed in thy seed (and all the nations of the earth shall pray to be blessed as thy descendants be blessed/and through thy descendants I shall bless all the nations of the earth), for thou obeyedest to my voice.

ASV
18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Because thou hast obeyed my voice.

It's translated SEED everytime Jack...and the SEED is the source of blessing!

No work to do. Like I said, the apostle did all the work at Galatians 3:16...various translations:

NASB
16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, And to seeds, as referring to many, but rather to one, And to your seed, that is, Christ.

KJV
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Young's Literal
16 and to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed; He doth not say, `And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, `And to thy seed,' which is Christ;

Wycliffe Bible
16 The promises were said to Abraham and to his seed; he saith not, In [the] seeds, as in many, but as in one, And to thy seed, that is, Christ.

ASV
16 Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

I think this is about as far as this needs to go. We will be agreeing to disagree.

I stand successfully refuted here my friend, ie, you did score the knockout. I was just being lazy winging it, and not scrutinizing Scriptures, ie, thank you again.

Will be more careful next time.

Good job!,

Old Jack replacing my corner man. :o

ebedmelech · Jan 9, 2014

Biblewriter said:
When the Bible says that something is going to happen, and says it in plain words. It is not a "theological construct" to say it is explicitly stated.

You do not like the word "explicit" because it exposes the poverty of your position.

But what the scriptures explicitly say is indeed explicit, whether you admit it or not.

The scriptures say, in plain words that "all the house of Israel, all of it" will again inhabit "the land of Israel," with its "mountains, hills, rivers, and valleys." (Ezekiel 36:6-10)

You can call it a "theological construct" to simply believe this clear statement of scripture. But simply believing the Bible it is not a "theological construct."

Your "theological construct" says that this, and many similar explicitly stated prophecies, are only symbolic. That is indeed a "theological construct," because the only basis for dismissing these prophecies as merely allegorical is an interpretation of the meanings of other scriptures that do not actually say what you are interpreting them to mean.

So the truth is, that you are doing exactly what you are falsely accusing me of doing, letting your "theological construct" blind your eyes to what the scriptures explicitly say. And their words are indeed explicit, whether you will admit it or not.

No need to keep going around about this with you Biblewriter. The fact is we'll see if what you say is "explicit" is "explicit".

"Explicit" is a good word...you just overdo it.

Nothing has been dismissed...and your blindness is based on you thinking it's about the physical...when it's spiritual.

Simple as that.

Interplanner · Jan 9, 2014

It would be best to stick with the 2500 uses of the OT by the NT and what they say, than to keep quoting over and over and over one of the few about which the NT said nothing.

Biblewriter · Jan 9, 2014

I just checked, and I had to go back 95 posts in this thread to find the last comment that was even remotely connected to the OP. And before thatnexchange, I had to go back another 40 posts to fond the next one that was even remotely connected to the subject.

For some time now, this has been the standard operating procedure of the people that are trying to destroy all meaningful discussion of eschatology. They always try to derail the thread, bringing in other subjects that they imagine will disprove eschatology in general, without even addressing the OP.

Unfortunately, I have allowed them to lure me down rabbit trails that have zero bearing on the subject of the thread.

So let's get back to the subject at hand, which is why historians as a whole date the Revelation to plus or minus a few tears from 95 A.D.

Interplanner · Jan 9, 2014

But it is not accepted. The gravitational pull of the other view is a more coherent picture. You always have the option of not exchanging out 'in the open' where people disagree.

Interplanner · Jan 9, 2014

What is more interesting is the lack of attention to Holford. It seems to hit with such overwhelming force that it doesn't generate argumentation.

Biblewriter · Jan 9, 2014

Interplanner said:
What is more interesting is the lack of attention to Holford. It seems to hit with such overwhelming force that it doesn't generate argumentation.

It is quite legitimate for you and your cohorts to post threads attacking the concept of eschatology in general. But it is a violation of forum rules for all of you to continually attempt to derail every thread with your anti-eschatology views.

If you have something to say that applies directly to the subject of the thread, say it. But I am going to start reporting attempts to derail threads.

ebedmelech · Jan 9, 2014

Biblewriter said:
It is quite legitimate for you and your cohorts to post threads attacking the concept of eschatology in general. But it is a violation of forum rules for all of you to continually attempt to derail every thread with your anti-eschatology views.

If you have something to say that applies directly to the subject of the thread, say it. But I am going to start reporting attempts to derail threads.

I'm going to go back in this thread and show that you are just as responsible for derailing it as anyone.

It's also disingenuous of you to accuse me of collusion to derail this thread.

I'll leave it there.

Biblewriter · Jan 9, 2014

ebedmelech said:
I'm going to go back in this thread and show that you are just as responsible for derailing it as anyone.

It's also disingenuous of you to accuse me of collusion to derail this thread.

I'll leave it there.

Biblewriter said:
Unfortunately, I have allowed them to lure me down rabbit trails that have zero bearing on the subject of the thread

I did not accuse you of collusion. I simply said that all of you do this repeatedly.

Why Historians Date the Revelation to the Reign of Domitian

Newbie

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

My dog Micah in the pic

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

My dog Micah in the pic

Newbie

Senior Member

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Member

My dog Micah in the pic

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency