Featured Preterism...A Pox Upon Baptists & other denoms

You are clueless in this matter.

 

I have already answered this. The question is: How can you not see racism??

As I remember, that was the dog's name.
It also has nothing to do with dispensationalism.

Do you follow this thread or not. If you are not going to read the posts then why not bow out. I shouldn't have to repeat everything just for you.
1. It wasn't just me that was offended. I wasn't even alerted to this situation, nor would be posting here, except for others who complained about the racist remarks that offended them.
2. It has nothing to do with liberalism; it has to do with decency and your conversation. Is there a need to be crude in speech and deliberately offend others when there is no need to?

 

No, I am not. But we have been over this before. And if that is the best that you can come up with now then it only demonstrates you don't have much--probably less then you did the last time we debated it.

 

At least I am educated on the subject, you either are not or you intentionally lied when you made this statement:

No conservative scholar of this day believes in an early date of the Book of Revelation.

So which is it?

Those who have studied this subject know the truth.

 

It is very frustrating. I cannot reach many of my German news sites. Also, like you, many of my Christian sites are blocked. I hope this govenrment miff proves to be temporary.

Because of what happened in some provinces here in China - and notably HK - the govt is over-reacting big time. I had been told last month by my employers that none of us teachers were to "talk about God".

 

This is totally beside the point of my quote. Either obvious obfuscation on your part or a rudimentary inability to follow along on the intent of the poster of an oppsing view.

I assume that this parses down to:
Anyone who does not have my particular dispensational views is not a scholar.

 

I never said that. I was 'critical' of the term "critical scholars."

The above quote is from John MacArthur in his commentary.
He, at least, is a Calvinist to be somewhat objective, and is known to be a scholar. He does his homework.

 

You are misreading a modern slant on the word "critic" that is not quite the same as Schaff's usage. But to know that you would perhaps have to have read much of Schaff. This is not meant as a slam, but just an observation. At any rate you are focusing on the wrong thing.

Your quoting Mac underscores my earlier point (thank you!) that the only early source to that later date is indeed Irenaeus - who was not really that early. If Irenaeus was wrong, it matters not the least whether ten or ten thousand other later sources erroneously hitch their presumptive wagons to his foundational blunder. MacArthur is just one of the more recent hitchers.

"He does his homework". Good. I do my homework too. All homework has to be checked. This is all I am saying.

 

MacArthur referenced Irenaus as an early writer. But he didn't say that he was the only early writer. I don't know if he was or not. I am not going to assume that.
Far more damming than that is the internal evidence that he gave:
--the spiritual condition of the seven churches at the time of Paul.
--the existence of the Nicolatians in Revelation but not in Acts or in the epistles.

 

But he (born around AD 130) was the only "early" writer. There is none earlier who wrote of Revelation having that later date. His "proof" is the slender thread upon which all later late-date elaborations for Revealtion hangs.

This is rather weak. I'm not sure of what you mean. There is not that much difference between the church picture in the epistles vs. that of Revelation. At any rate your second point is arguing from silence. Also it is very possible that that the Nicolaitans had their founder mentioned in the Book of Acts, the last mentioned of the deacons in Acts 6. Like other listings in the Bible, an infamous person is mentioned last (as Judas was). But this is not a hill I would plant my flag on.

The point is that MacArthur's - and your - conclusions are much more presumption-powered than proof-based.

 

You do realize I was in support of Ky and was questioning DHK's accusation of racism right?

You do know that preterism, typically, does not say that there was a physical visible coming in 70AD. Partial preterism still looks forward to a future physical advent.

I don't see any racism there at all. I would suggest that those who did see it are wrong and need to stop assuming definitions that are not accurate. If anyone was offended by some supposed "racism" (I really doubt that, I think more likely they didn't like that their pet doctrine was under fire.) then I suggest they get over it, because what KY said was not racist. Politically incorrect maybe, but not racist.

 

D.A. Carson asserts that most scholars are inclined to follow Irenaeus on the date of Revelation at the close of the Reign of Domitian because he would have direct information.(1)


Other supporting evidence for the late date of Revelation is:

1. There is an assumption within Relvelation that worship of the emporer had become an issue. There is clear evidence that Domitian stressed his deity and ordered everyone to address him as "lord god". For him it was a test of loyalty.(2)

2. The conditions of the churches mentioned in Revelation are more compatible with a date in the 90's. (3)

_____________________________________________________________

(1). D.A.Carson, Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Grand Rapids Zondervan, 2005) 707

(2). ibid

(3). ibid 709

 

Not sure how you are defining "early":

Witnesses for the Domitian Date (A.D. 95)

Hegesippus (A.D. 150)

Irenaeus (A.D. 180)

Victorinous (c.300)

Eusebius (c. 300)

Jerome (c.400)

Sulpicius Servus (c.400)

The Acts of John (c. 650)

Primasius ( c. 540)

Orosius (c. 600)

Andreas (c.600)

Vernerable Bede (c.700)



Witnesses for the Neronic Date (A.D. 64-67)

Syriac Version of the NT (550)

Artheus (c.900)

Theophylact (d. 1107)


Tim Lahaye, Ed Hinson editors, The popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy, (Eugene, Harvest House 1995), 336

 

I would answer this, but RevMitchell already did. However, you could also read this excerpt from The Ante-Nicene Fathers. You'll find the specific quote to which I refer about a third of the way down the page.

I notice with some smug satisfaction that you've offered nothing to support your viewpoint other than quoting other preterists with the agenda of "proving" their view -- which in reality was "invented" over one hundred years ago. None in the early church held to such an interpretation. The effort to "prove" the theory is an effort at which they utterly fail -- seems to me I said that before.

The facts of the dating of The Revelation were long established, before any effort was made to push forth the false teaching of preteristic amillennialism. At any rate, arguing with your type is futile. Your head is in the sand in order that you cannot be bothered with the facts. God bless.

 

Not sure how you are defining the word "witness". A witness is a person who was present at the time. Neither Preterists nor non-Preterists have human witnesses that can be called upon. (But we do have the testimony of Scripture.)

Your long line of names - quite incomplete in the case of Preterism - means nothing. They all drew upon, and elaborated upon, Irenaeus's mistaken assertion.

Have you ever played the telepone game as a child? A message is related down the line, each person telling the next person what he heard - or thought he heard. Once the message was garbled it just gets passed on in the same - or worse - form. In this game - as in theology - the number of people who can vouch for any given message is irrelevant.

As I said, the line of writers who assert that earlier date, is grossly limited. If I thought you cared about it I would hunt for my files that have the earlier advocates. One that comes to mind is Clement of Alexandria (mid 1st century to early 200s) who wrote that all prophetic Scripture ended in the time of Nero. That would, of course, include Revelation and the Epistles of John.

If you list from LaHaye is truly in the truncated form you presented here then that man went even further down in my estimation.

 

I love it. I've been ... "blessed".

Time for bed here in China. But you can check my answer to RM for a partial answer to your question. Or you can check the archives. Many of the thhings you say I am ignoring I have already written and rewritten. But there always comes a newcomer to say the same things that you do. It gets tiresome.

Speaking of tired ...

 

It means nothing to you. However, your telephone game analogy (weak analogy fallacy) does not cut it. As time went on these other men found him credible. You imply they just took his word for it. There is no reason fro such an assumption. The list of people who found him credible adds to his credibility. Also you have not prove Irenaeus incorrect other than to just present an alternet view. I have given several reasons why he and other recent scholars like D.A. Carson find him credible as well of which you have avoided to this point.

 

You can take it at face value as intended ...

... or not. The latter tells me where your heart really is.

Those are only proof that your deeply embedded in false teaching. Why would I want to understand false teaching?

 

He did not say anything to me other than he didn't like my sources.

 

I was referring to the sources to which he referred me as argument against what I posted. :thumbsup: