Featured A Curious Omission

"There is no concrete and inescapable reference, in any of the New Testament books, to the destruction of Jerusalem, and is this in itself not a pretty surprising fact? Would we not expect one of these writers, particularly those of a triumphalist turn of mind, to make it clear that the very core and centre of Jewish worship had been obliterated?" - A.N. Wilson, on the reason for a pre-AD 70 dating of Revelation

Along these lines, It would be criminal to pretend the holocaust didn't happen (in Germany this is literally the case, treated as a crime). Likewise for inspired writers to neglect writing of such a spiritually significant judgment which happened in AD 70 would be unthinkable.

Thoughts?

 

Lol, yeh. But it is funny that I myself never thought of that in all those years that I believed in post 70 dates for the writings of John and also, if I remember right, the synoptics. I wish I would have come across this sooner.

 

Oh come now. We can surely chew the meat and spit out the bones. What I wrote was an appeal to common sense.

 

For many years I just thought of it as a relatively unimportant event. This was a reflection of the teaching and preaching we heard. An eye opener for me was a book I bought in the bargain bin at K Mart, Last Days Madness.

 

And .... off the rails we go.

 

The Christians in Jerusalem and elsewhere were raptured. This includes the Christians who had escaped to Pella in 62-64.

To the Christians throughout the empire the fall of Jerusalem still had great significance because it gave them relief from their persecutors, the Jews. No longer enjoying the protection of Rome throughout the Empire, the Jews in the various countries and client-states suddenly found themselves on the defensive. Wherever we find Christians throughout the Empire there had also been Jews, often with well-established synagogues. We have testimony in Acts, Romans, Thessalonians, etc. of the animosity and violence the Jews had toward the Christians.

But, ultimately, the relief for the Christians, just as Paul promised the Thessalonians, was their being raptured away. And later, when Christians again began populating the land, the relief was that their main persecutors, the Jews, were no longer in a position to harm them.

Most of the commentators of the last two centuries do place it, incorrectly, in the reign of Domitian. But they get their information from only one ancient source, Irenaeas. He was the one who made the "stupid" mistake of not knowing that "Domitianus" was also the name of Nero. (The "stupid" came from Robert Young of Concordance fame.)

The supposed refutation in Acts 1:11 is only to those readers who confuse an adverbial phrase with adjectival. See the archives for that discussion.

Preterism has precious little to say to you because you do not look at it objectively. Preterism has precious much to say to Christians today. It gives emphasis on a reigning King now. It also honors Christ by taking Him at His word when He said He would return in the very generation of those to whom He was speaking.

Amillennialism, along with many other isms, has to tweak and stretch countless passages so that they can hold onto their fantastical fictions. It has to maintain with a straight face that "the last hour" is now lasting nigh onto 2000 years, centuries longer than the whole Jewish economy.

Denying a future return of Christ is no more a heresy than, say, denying a future Virgin who will conceive, Isa. 7:14. Both that prophecy and the return of Christ passages are spoken of as future from the time written. They are not eternally future.

Preterism only seems heretical because most Christians are "carefully taught" by creeds and traditions that, in many cases, "make the Word of God of no effect".

 

He stopped writing because he was no longer on Earth. He was martyred in the 60s. And all of the other Christians who were still alive in AD 70 were raptured.

The early date solves problems, not creates. Why would you say that it creates problems.

Thank you for your response.

 

No need to go that far. Mistakes are not lies. Also, we have to distinguish between true history and the hopeful legend that various churches embraced for their own agendas.

In order for new Christians to come about it does not require personal witness. The written Word would be enough. And there were many manuscripts around.

I was saved in a village in Germany in 1975 by reading a printed prayer in the back of a Christian book that really convicted me. At the time I did not know a single Christian.

 

First of all, the words you quoted were not mine. I was quoting someone else. But I do agree with his observation.

Also, what is your rationale for such a late date for the writings of John? Certainly the deity of Jesus was a main focus but those five books have plenty of other matter, including historical references. So the point of the author of that quote stands: Why no mention of the desolation event if it was already in the past?

The answer is that those books were not in the past. This is shown both by internal evidence and by the fact that the inspired Canon also came to an end at the same time as the Parousia.