Questions to the full Preterist

Grasshopper wrote

Then why would Jesus pray "Thy knigdom come Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven" if His will will never be done on Earth as it is in Heaven, as you suppose?

 

As I explained before, Jesus' prayer is in the context of God's eschatological activity.

Mark 1:15 and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel."

The time is fulfilled" - Time is translated kairos, which means "the strategic opportunity, the decisive time." Jesus is saying "The strategic time for the kingdom of God is now." The time appointed for sending the Messiah had come.

Did God tell His people when Messiah would come? Of course, in Daniel chapter 2 God tells about a statue that represents four kingdoms, and He says:

Daniel 2:34 "You continued looking until a stone was cut out without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them.

Daniel 2:44 "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.

Daniel said, "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom..." As he interprets Neuchadnezzar's dream, he says that Nebuchadnezzar was the first of four kingdoms. It was in the days of the kings of the fourth kingdom (Roman Empire) that the eternal kingdom, which would take in all other kingdoms, was to be set up.

Jesus said that the kingdom of God was "at hand" - The Greek word for "at hand" is eggizo : "has come near." This phrase, "at hand," introduces a state of affairs which is already beginning.

The same Greek word is used in:

Matthew 26:45-46 Then He came to the disciples, and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Behold, the hour is at hand [eggizo] and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 "Arise, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand [eggizo] notice verse 47:

Matthew 26:47 And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came up, accompanied by a great multitude with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

Jesus tells His sleeping disciples, "Rise, let us be going. See, My betrayer is at hand [eggizo]" . And "while He was still speaking," Judas came up to betray him. So "at hand" introduces a state of affairs which is already beginning.

Romans 9:6-8 I am not saying that the promise of God has failed; for not all the people of Israel are the people of God (or of Israel). 7 Nor are all of Abraham's descendants the children of God. God said to Abraham, "It is through Isaac that you will have the descendants I promised you." 8 This means that the children born in the usual way are NOT the children of God; instead, the children born as a result of God's promise are regarded as the true descendants.

"For they are not all Israel who are of Israel"

What does that mean? God never promised unconditionally to each offspring of Abraham covenantal blessings. God never intended that all of the nation Israel would be redeemed. Within national Israel is "true Israel," or "spiritual Israel." The nation was chosen to be a vehicle of blessing to the world, but not all within the nation were chosen to salvation. The nation was elected to privilege, but only individuals are elected to salvation. Most Jews believed that all who are born of Jewish blood are saved by birth. They felt secure because they were children of Abraham and therefore in the covenant of promise.

John 8:30-33 As He spoke these words, many believed in Him. 31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." 33 They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can you say, 'You will be made free'?"

34 Jesus answered them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 "And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.

Jesus is saying that only he can give them true freedom. It is a spiritual birth not a physical birth that saves (John 3:3)

37 "I know that you are Abraham's descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. 38 "I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father." 39 They answered and said to Him, "Abraham is our father." Jesus said to them, "If you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.

They were physical descendants of Abraham, but Abraham was not their father spiritually and that is what mattered. Their father was the devil not God.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, You said it. I tell you more. From this time YOU (The Sanhedrin) shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of the heavens. This was Jesus' glorious appearing and blessed hope which He predicted would happen in "This Generation".

As for the hope of the Preterist...
We get to goto Heaven as all Christians get to do over the last 2000 years nothing has changed or will change.

 

Jack

Here is a quote from a renown atheist and opponent of Christianity, Bertrand Russell in his book Why I Am Not a Christian :
"I am concerned with Christ as he appears in the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does not find some things that do not seem very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that his second coming would occur in the clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that... That was the belief of his early followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of his moral teaching."
Russell concludes that Jesus was not God but a fool or insane because His supposedly infallible prediction didn’t occur. Russell came to this conclusion primarily because of this verse (which C.S. Lewis called "the most embarrassing verse in the Bible"):
Matthew 24:34, "Verily, I say to you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled." ("All these things" refer to the events He describes in the whole chapter of Matthew 24, i.e. the end of the age, the Great Tribulation, and the Second Coming. See the context for verification).

The following question is taken from Jews for Judaism website..

Question: What does "this generation" mean in the verse, "Truly I say to you this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Matthew 24:32, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:32)?

Answer: Mark's Jesus, after listing all the tribulations that the world must endure before he returns a second time (Mark 13:3-29, see also Matthew 24:3-33) exclaims: "Truly I say to you this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Mark 13:30, Matthew 24:34, Luke 21:32). Jesus was directing this remark specifically to his contemporary generation and not to some unknown future generation. Jesus, addressing his disciples "privately" (Mark 13:3, Matthew 24:3) listed what was going to happen before his return. He then added, "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted and shall kill you and you shall be hated of all nations for my names sake" (Matthew 24:9). Concerning this, Mark's version adds, "he that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved" (Mark 13:13). Thus, it appears from this last remark that at least some of the disciples would survive and be present to witness the second coming and the end of time.

According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus expected the tribulation period to occur before the last of his generation died out. Thus, a limit is given within which the prophecies are to be fulfilled. It should be noted that these "tribulations" were not fulfilled in the events of the years 66-73 C.E., the period of the First Jewish- Roman War. Jesus' own statement shows that the culmination of the "tribulation period" was to see the parousia, the second coming of Jesus (Mark 13:26; Matthew 24:3, 30), which certainly did not occur during the war nor subsequently. (It did not occur to them because they are looking for a physical return with a physical kingdom. Luke 17:20-21 the kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or Lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you)

All of Jesus' contemporaries died without seeing the fulfillment of his tribulation prophesy. As a result, Jesus' words, especially the expression, "this generation" have undergone reinterpretation. Nevertheless, the translation of genea is "generation" or as Thayer explains it, giving Matthew 24:34 and Mark 13:30 as examples, "the whole multitude of men living at the time . . . used especially of the Jewish race living at one and the same period" (Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979, p. 112). G. Abbott-Smith writes that the Greek word genea means "race, stock, family," but in the New Testament always "generation" (G. Abbott-Smith, Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed., Edinburgh: T.&T. Clarke, 1923, p. 89). Arndt and Gingrich note that the term means "literally, those descended from a common ancestor," but "basically, the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time, generation, contemporaries" (W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957, p. 153).

There is no need to interpret the verse, "Truly I say to you this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" otherwise than that Jesus was speaking here of his contemporary generation. The expression "this generation" appears fourteen times in the Gospels and always applies to Jesus' contemporaries. That generation passed away without Jesus returning. Therefore, we are confronted by another unfulfilled promise by Jesus. Jesus did not return during the period he himself specifically designated. Some commentators are of the opinion that "this generation" means the generation alive when this prophecy comes to pass, which they believe has yet to occur. However, the text shows that Jesus was not speaking to an unspecified future generation; he was speaking to his contemporary disciples and directed this prophecy to them personally.

As you can see modern "Jews" and even atheists can interpret the Bible "literally" how would you respond to these critics? What are you going to say to them? Are you going to say Jesus is "coming quickly".

Well here is what modern "Jews" have to say about
"coming quickly"

To God, a thousand years is like an earthly day that has already passed (Psalms 90:4). It is a fleeting moment for God relates to the concept of time in eternal terms. Man could not relate to a day of a thousand years; but he can relate to one of twenty-four hours. As a result, "quickly" used as a promised time interval, must be understood in its simplest earthly definition as occurring in the near future otherwise it is used deceptively. Jesus did not come back "quickly," as promised, to judge mankind. The time has long past that one can claim Jesus will come back "quickly." Thus, what we have in Revelation 22:20 is a false prophecy.

Want more well here you go, straight from their website...

Question: How can we be sure that Jesus' promises to return are false prophecy?

"Answer: Jesus, it is claimed, prophesied that certain unspecified individuals would not die until they would see either "the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28), or "see the kingdom of God after it has come with power" (Mark 9:1), or see the "kingdom of God" (Luke 9:27).

Jesus, addressing his disciples "privately" (Mark 13:3, Matthew 24:3) listed what was going to happen before his return. He then added, "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted and shall kill you and you shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake" (Matthew 24:9). Concerning this Mark's version adds, "he that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved" (Mark 13:13). Thus, it appears from this last remark that at least some of the disciples would survive and be present to witness the second coming and the end time.

The Synoptic Gospels while in basic agreement on the wording of the first part of their respective verses differ on the wording of the second part. Mark 9:1 is the most informative. It reads in the full literal verse: "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death at all until they see the kingdom of God having come [that is, after it has come] with power." Apparently, the early Christian community was convinced of the imminent return of Jesus, as the Messiah, and the inauguration of the kingdom of God. It never happened.

Matthew's Jesus makes an explicit statement as to his expectation of returning within the lifetime of many of his contemporaries. He declares, "But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for truly I say to you, you shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, until [heos, that is, "up to the time"] the Son of Man comes" (Matthew 10:23). From this verse we see that Matthew's Jesus promised to return before the apostles visited all the cities of Israel. Jesus commissions the twelve apostles to be missionaries to the Jewish people. The author of Matthew comments, "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying 'Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans do not enter. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand'" (Matthew 10:5-7). Here Jesus commands the twelve apostles to proclaim it exclusively to the Jewish people. Jesus then tells the apostles that "the Son of Man" is scheduled to arrive before they accomplish the visitation of all "the cities of Israel." This is the third time the immediacy declaration "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" is used in the Gospel of Matthew. The first time was by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:2). Then, Jesus used it as his opening proclamation (Matthew 4:17). The imminent coming of the Son of Man to usher in the kingdom of heaven is expressed as being "at hand." "Is at hand," is one word, engiken. It has the meaning of "near," in relation to either place or time.

The forthcoming return of Jesus, the Son of Man, is to come rapidly as promised. This never occurred. Moreover, fulfillment of Matthew 10:23 would have had to occur, at the latest, by the time the last of the original band of apostles died. That event has long since past. Indeed, all of Jesus' contemporaries are dead (Mark 9:1) and his promise remains unfulfilled.

Jesus is simply never returning."

Well there is your response from "God's people". Seems to me they will accept Christ "shortly".

[ November 25, 2005, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Jo$h ]

 

Jo$h.
So now you look to atheists and Jews for spiritual wisdom.

I would recommend that go and see what 1 Cor. 2:14 and Isa. 6:9-11 mean.

You might also read this:

"This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the prophecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a good warfare;
Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck:
Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." 1 Tim. 1:18-20

"And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some." 2 Tim. 17-18

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God...1 Tim. 3:3-5a

 

You did not answer the question, how would answer those that I am getting spiritual wisdom from?

I Cor 2:14

The natural man is the unsaved man; he does not have the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9 says, "Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."

Two things are true of the natural man. First of all, he does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. This man does not welcome the things of he Spirit because he considers them foolish. Secondly, the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit. He can't know them because they are spiritually discerned. The word discern is a legal term that was used for a preliminary hearing and it came to mean scrutinize, to examine, or make a judgement. The natural man has no capacity to spiritually evaluate these things because he does not have the Spirit of God. Scripture clearly teaches that until a person has been regenerated by the Spirit of God he has no capacity to understand God.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see (to perceive, notice, or discern) the kingdom of God."

If your are questioning my salvation, think again.

Heb 9:28 so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. And to those who look for Him He shall appear the second time without sin to salvation. If Jesus didn't appear a second time none of us are saved.

When are the last days?

Hebrews 1:2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;

The writer of Hebrews says that they (first century Christians) were in the last days.

There is no existing Jewish race today. Consider the following quotations:

The Encyclopedia Brittanica (1973)

The Jews As A Race: The findings of physical anthropology show that, contrary to the popular view, there is no Jewish race. Anthropornetric measurements of Jewish groups in many parts of the world indicate that they differ greatly from one another with respect to all the important physical characteristics. (vol. 12, page 1054)

Encyclopedia Judaica Jerusalem (1971)

It is a common assumption, and one that sometimes seems ineradicable even in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the Jews of today constitute a race, a homogeneous entity easily recognizable. From the preceding discussion of the origin and early history of the Jews, it should be clear that in the course of their formation as a people and a nation they had already assimilated a variety of racial strains from people moving into the general area they occupied. This had taken place by interbreeding and then by conversion to Judaism of a considerable number of communities. . . .

Thus, the diversity of the racial and genetic attributes of various Jewish colonies of today renders any unified racial classification of them a contradiction in terms. Despite this, many people readily accept the notion that they are a distinct race. This is probably reinforced by the fact that some Jews are recognizably different in appearance from the surrounding population. That many cannot be easily identified is overlooked and the stereotype for some is extended to all - a not uncommon phenomenon 1971, (vol. 3, p. 50).

Collier's Encyclopedia (1977)

A common error and persistent modern myth is the designation of the Jews as a 'race! This is scientifically fallacious, from the standpoint of both physical and historical tradition. Investigations by anthropologists have shown that Jews are by no means uniform in physical character and that they nearly always reflect the physical and mental characteristics of the people among whom they live. 1977, vol. 13, p. 573).

Today, being a Jew simply means that one is of the Judaistic religion or a convert to it, or else in a "brotherhood" of those who are. Therefore, being a Jew has nothing to do with race. We are familiar with a number of notable figures, such as Sammy Davis, Jr., Elizabeth Taylor, and Tom Arnold, in fact, who became Jews by conversion to the religion of Judaism.

There is no Jewish race or nation today. God put an end to Judaism in A.D. 70. The "last days" were the "last days" of Israel. The last days ended when the nation Israel ended.

Besides why would Timothy care about some future event 2000 years in the future anyway. The Bible is not written to us it is written for us.

It is about time you brought up Hymeaneaus..

When Jesus came proclaiming, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mark 1:15), this was nothing less than a declaration that the time for the resurrection had come. This is confirmed in the Immerser's message. He proclaimed the imminence of the kingdom (Matthew 3:2), and said the instruments of the harvest were already in Jesus' hand (Matthew 3:10f). The harvest is the time of the resurrection (Matthew 13:36-40). If Hymenaeus knew this, and how could he not, then he knew that Christ himself said that the resurrection would occur in that generation.

If the kingdom and the resurrection are related, what then is the nature of the resurrection? Is it discernible with the human eye? Why did Paul not tell Hymenaeus and the Ephesians, "My eyes are not seeing what my ears are hearing, Hymenaeus!"? Why did Paul not tell his readers to go to the cemetery and open their eyes? Because the resurrection is associated with the kingdom, it is not a visibly discernible event.

If we read the passage with the preterist assumption we will reason that the error of Hymeneus and Philetus was that they were teaching that the Resurrection was realized under the Law (I Tim. 1:8; Titus 1:10; 3:9). We will reason that they were teaching that “the Hope of Israel” (Acts 23:6; 24:15, 21; 28:20) was already fulfilled and that there would therefore never be a Parousia of Christ to bring about a termination of the old-covenant age (II Tim. 4:8; II Peter 3:4). We will conclude that their error implied that fleshly Israel had inherited the Kingdom and would remain God’s nation forever.

If the Resurrection was fulfilled and the old-covenant kingdom continued, that meant that the apostate, reprobate, authority-reviling, Gentile-excluding and saints-persecuting enemies of Christ, and their spiritual ancestors, were revealed to be the true sons of God. Thus the doctrine of a pre-A.D.-70 Resurrection was anti-Gospel, anti-grace and anti-Christ. It was without a doubt a faith-overturning blasphemy (I Tim. 1:20; II Tim. 2:18).

When Paul discussed the resurrection change from the outward man that was perishing to the inner man, "not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" in 2 Corinthians 4-5, he said, "we do not look on the things that are seen, but at the things that are unseen" (2 Corinthians 4:16f). This is an emphatic declaration that the resurrection was not to be a visibly discernible event. This is confirmed by Paul's trial and conflict with the Pharisees in Acts 23,24.

Hymenaeus imho proves that resurrection is not visible and if he "overthrew the faith of some" how is that possible if all they had to do was look outside and see, no earth shattering, sun darkening, heavens shaking catacylsmic event, and no dead rising from their graves?

 

To further answer your question on I Cor 2:14,

Here is what Virklers book on hermenutics has to say on the subject...

According to Scripture, persons do not truly posses knowledge unless they are living in the the light of that knowledge. True faith is not only knowledge about God (which even the demons possess) but knowledge acted on. The unbeliever can know (intellectually comprehend) many of the truths of Scripture using the same means of interpretation he would use with nonbiblical texts, but he cannot truly know (act on and appropriate) these truths as long as he remains in rebellion.... Thus the truth principles in Scripture, available through application of the same skills of textual interpretation used with nonbiblical texts, become less and less clear to one who continually rejects those truths. Thus unbelievers do not know the full meaning of scriptural teaching, NOT BECAUSE THAT MEANING IS UNAVAILABLE IN THE TEXT, BUT BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO ACT ON AND APPROPRIATE SPIRITUAL TRUTHS FOR THEIR OWN LIVES.

Anyone can read the words shorty, quickly, at hand, near, and soon and understand what they mean

For example here is what the word shortly means..

Romans 16:20 And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

The KJV uses the word "bruise" instead of "crush." The Greek word used here is suntribo, it means: "to crush completely, i.e. to shatter".

When is it that Satan is to be crushed completely? Paul said here to the Roman Christians that it would happen "shortly". The Greek word translated "shortly"' is tachos. According to Arndt and Gingich Lexicon, tachos is used in the LXX and certain non-canonical writings to mean: "speed, quickness, swiftness, haste." Paul uses this same word in:

Philippians 2:19 But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, that I also may be encouraged when I know your state.

Paul says that he hopes to send Timothy "shortly." How soon is "shortly"? If you look at verse 23 he tells us:

Philippians 2:23 Therefore I hope to send him at once, as soon as I see how it goes with me.

The Bible says that Paul will send Timothy "shortly." Are you excited about Timothy's soon arrival? Why not? I don't know of any Christians that are looking for Timothy to arrive soon. We understand that Paul was speaking to the Philippians in the first century when he said this. They don't understand the "shortly" to be to them but to the Philippians of the first century. Why then, when it comes to the crushing of Satan, is Satan not crushed "shortly" in its first century context?

 

Let's see. The destruction of Jerusalem was in A.D. 70. Did not the apostle John receive the Revelation on or after A.D. 90? This was after the destruction.

Was John having a vision of things that had already just recently passed, or was he having a Revelation of the future as the text suggests?

 

Jo$h.
When I mentioned 1 Cor. 2:14 I was not talking about your discernment or salvation, but that of Bertrand Russell that you quoted and chose to use as a commentary on Scripture.

And I disagree with Virkler on this "Thus unbelievers do not know the full meaning of scriptural teaching, NOT BECAUSE THAT MEANING IS UNAVAILABLE IN THE TEXT, BUT BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO ACT ON AND APPROPRIATE SPIRITUAL TRUTHS FOR THEIR OWN LIVES."

Not so. They don't know because they are spiritually blind and the Holy Spirit has not chosen to reveal these truths to them through regeneration. They can understand the Gospel, but not the deeper things of Scripture. 1 John 2:20; 4:6.

And why do you suppose that Satan was crushed at the siege of Jerusalem in 70AD when he himself loved what was happening?

And if Satan is crushed, or dead, then why were there more Christians martyred in the 20th century than in the 19 previous combined?

 

Was John having a vision of things that had already just recently passed, or was he having a Revelation of the future as the text suggests? </font>[/QUOTE]We don't usually bring this up because Preterists wrongly insist that Revelation was written sometime before 70AD. They have to against all evidence or else their whole view on escatology falls like a house of cards. And yet...

"The date of the writing of Revelation is as well attested to, if not better attested to, than any other book in the Bible. The earliest and best known statement is that of Irenaeus, who lived about 120-205 A.D. In Book V, Chapter 30, Paragraph 3 of his famous work "Against Heresies," he says of John that he "beheld the apocalyptic vision... almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." Since Domitian died in 96 A.D., that would put the writing of Revelation at 95 or 96 A.D., only about 25 years before Irenaeus' birth."

http://insight2bp.homestead.com/files/080.html

I would say that anytime between 90-96AD would fit. But the preterist view of 68AD for the writing of Revelation is nonsense.

 

If you would do your own study instead of pasting someone elses, you will find that that is an interpretation of Irenaeus' statement. At least be honest and quote the actual text.

Irenaeus also said Jesus taught into His 50's, believe that also?

Philip Schaff (1877)
"On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

"The early date [of Revelation] is now accepted by perhaps the majority of scholars." (Encyclopedia 3:2036.)

Greg Bahnsen (1984)
"A partial list of scholars who have supported the early date for Revelation, gleaned unsystematically from my reading, would include the following 18th and 19th writers not already mentioned just above: John Lightfoot, Harenbert, Hartwig, Michaelis, Tholuck, Clarke, Bishop Newton, James MacDonald, Gieseler, Tilloch, Bause, Zullig, Swegler, De Wett, Lucke, Bohmer, Hilgenfeld, Mommsen, Ewald, Neander, Volkmar, Renan, Credner, Kernkel, B. Weiss, Reuss, Thiersch, Bunsen, Stier, Auberlen, Maurice, Niermeyer, Desprez, Aube, Keim, De Pressence, Cowles, Scholten, Beck, Dusterdiek, Simcox, S. Davidson, Beyschlag, Salmon, Hausrath. Continuing on into the 20th century we could list Plummer, Selwyn, J.V. Bartlet, C.A. Scott, Erbes, Edmundson, Henderson, and others. If one's reading has been limited pretty much to the present and immediately preceding generations of writers on Revelation, then the foregoing names may be somewhat unfamiliar to him, but they were not unrecognized in previous eras. When we combine these names with the yet outstanding stature of Schaff, Terry, Lightfoot, Westcott, and Hort, we can feel the severity of Beckwith's understatement when in 1919 he described the Neronian dating for Revelation as "a view held by many down to recent times."[40] By many indeed! It has been described, as we saw above, as "the ruling view" of critics," by "the majority of modern critics," by "most modern scholars," and by "the whole force of modern criticism." The weight of scholarship placed behind the Neronian option for the dating of Revelation has been staggering. In our won day it has gained the support of such worthies as C.C. Torrey, J.A.T. Robinson, and F.F. Bruce and has been popularized by Jay Adams.[41] In 1956 Torrey could write about the number 666, "It is now the accepted conclusion that the beast is the emperor Nero."[42]" (Historical Setting for the Dating of Revelation)

Perhaps Jack can give us this overwhelming "evidence" of a late-date authorship. So Jack, any evidence? Or is a misquote of Irenaeus all you have?

 

Grasshopper.
You wrote:

And then you right out and paste someone else's work. (Rom. 2:1) Smooooothe.

I too could compile an impressive list of scholars that list a latter date such as:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/revelation.html

But instead I will ask you who it was that confined John to Patmos, Nero or Domitian? And why did Irenaeus say that it was in the time of Domitian and not Nero? And why lie and say and say that it is a misquote of Irenaeus'?

 

Aresman

Time-Frame References in Revelation
Shortly, quickly
1:1
2:16
3:11
22:6
22:7
22:20
Near, at hand
1:3
22:10
About to, on the point of
1:19
3:10

Seems like to me John was having a vision that would happen "soon, quickly, at hand, about to, and shortly"

As for the date of Revelation I will answer that question "shortly"

Jack,
fair enough thank you for your answers

Mark 21-23 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things pass out from inside and defile the man.

"The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: Who can know it?"
—Jeremiah 17:9

"If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... If they persecuted Me they will persecute you... for they do not know the One who sent Me." John 15:19-21

People need no help from Satan to persecute Christians.

We often talk about him tempting us as if he can be everywhere at once. There is, however, only one being who can be everywhere at once; God.

Jeremiah 23:24 Can anyone hide himself in secret places, So I shall not see him?" says the LORD; "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" says the LORD.

Psalms 139:7-8 Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? 8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.

God is omnipresent - all of God is in every place. All other beings known to man, including angels and demons, are restricted to a given place at a given time. When they are here, they are not there.

Satan is neither omnipotent nor omnipresent. We might be tempted to think of Satan on the same level as Jesus, but the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Creator and Satan is a created being.

A commonly held view in modern christendom is that Satan is behind all the destructive and bad things that happen to us. But we already saw that God is sovereign and whatever happens in the universe happens because God wants it to:

Psalms 115:3 But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases.

Since this is true, then God is responsible for the destructive and painful things that happen in our lives, not Satan. Do we charge God with wrong when we say this?

Job 1:11-12 "But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!" 12 And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person." So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.

Satan asks God to stretch out his hand against Job. God responds by giving Job over to Satan's power. Notice what happens:

Job 1:19 "and suddenly a great wind came from across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people, and they are dead; and I alone have escaped to tell you!"

Who caused this wind that killed these young people? The text doesn't tell us who caused the wind to blow, but Job does:

Job 1:21 And he said: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, And naked shall I return there. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; Blessed be the name of the LORD."

What had the "Lord" taken away? Well, for one thing, his children. Job says that God was responsible for the death of all his children. Was Job wrong in making this statement? Was it sin for Job to blame God for this? God's Word answers this question in the very next verse:

Job 1:22 In all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong.

The Bible clearly teaches that God, and not Satan, has power over life and death:

1 Samuel 2:6 "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up.

We want to blame everything that we feel is "bad" on Satan. But Scripture teaches that God controls everything, including sin:

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create (evil) calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.'

Satan himself was "loosed from his prision for a little while" to decieve the nations against Jerusalem vs 9 in Revelation says they surround the "beloved city", which is Jerusalem, and Jerusalem is destroyed.

What was Christ's purpose in becoming a man to die for our sins? Was it to restore man to the original garden paradise? Was His purpose to restore man in a perfect physical state free from disease and death? No! Christ's mission was a spiritual one that restores man to his relationship with God by making provision for sin and eternal death. So when we read in Rev 21 that the new heaven and new earth have come down and God dwells in the midst of it, we are reading about the completion of Christ's work for us. The real paradise of God has been restored. No sin is there; the blood of Christ covers it. No death is there; all things are made new. Those who are in Christ Jesus today have entered into this new relationship.

People are unable to accept that the Kingdom of God is a present reality. They look at the physical and think that Satan still exists. But in reality, Satan has been crushed. Satan has no power in the New Covenant, he is in the Lake of fire.

 

But I have actually spent a considerable amount of study on my own in this area.

Perhaps you should study in other areas than just this:

http://insight2bp.homestead.com/files/subject.html

Nero.

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown (1871)
"The following arguments favor an earlier date, namely, under Nero: (1) EUSEBIUS [Demonstration of the Gospel] unites in the same sentence John's banishment with the stoning of James and the beheading of Paul, which were under Nero.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA'S story of the robber reclaimed by John, after he had pursued, and with difficulty overtaken him, accords better with John then being a younger man than under Domitian, when he was one hundred years old. Arethas, in the sixth century, applies the sixth seal to the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), adding that the Apocalypse was written before that event . So the Syriac version states he was banished by Nero the Cæsar . Laodicea was overthrown by an earthquake (A.D. 60) but was immediately rebuilt, so that its being called "rich and increased with goods" is not incompatible with this book having been written under the Neronian persecution (A.D. 64).

Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero ." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

We do not know to what Irenaeus was referring. Is Irenaeus the authority? If so, then you must also believe Jesus lived into His 50’s.

Irenaeus
"For how had He disciples, if He did not teach? And how did He teach, if He had not a Master’s age? For He came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old; (for so Luke, who hath signified His years, bath set it down; Now Jesus, when He came to Baptism, began to be about thirty years old and He preached for one year only after His Baptism: completing His thirtieth year He suffered, while He was still young, and not yet come to riper age. But the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord’s disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things unto them: for he abode with them until the times of Trajan. And some of them saw not only John, but others also of the Apostles, and had this same account from them, and witness to the aforesaid relation. Whom ought we rather to believe? These, being such as they are, or Ptolemy, who never beheld the Apostles, nor ever in his dreams attained to any vestige of an Apostle? (Against Heresies, 2:22:5)

I guess Jesus lived into his 50’s because Irenaeus says so.

From Greggs Book on the four views of Revelation:

"The meaning of Irenaeus' statement has been debated. What was seen toward the end of Domition's reign? Was it the vision which John "beheld"? or was it the apostle himself, who was "seen... face to face" by those who testify? The phrase "that was seen..." may be a corruption of an original that read, "He was seen..." If this is true, then it only proves that John lived into the reign of Domition, though he may have written the Apocalypse much earlier." (Revelation, p.17)

"Those who originally translated Irenaeus' work into English complained of the poor condition of the manuscript evidence for his work. They wrote: 'The great work of Irenaeus, now for the first time translated into English, is unfortunately no longer extant in the original. It has come down to us only in an ancient Latin version, with the exception of a greater portion of the first book, which has been preserved in the original Greek, through means of the copious quotations made by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The text, in both Latin and Greek, is often most uncertain." (Revelation, p.17-18)

Is this your evidence?

Here is what you said:

"Against Heresies," he says of John that he " beheld the apocalyptic vision... almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

Here is the actual quote:

"We are not bold enough to speak confidently of the name of Antichrist. For if it were necessary that his name should be declared clearly at the present time, it would have been announced by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen, not long ago, but almost in our generation, toward the end of the reign of Domitian."

So I stand by my statement that you quoted an interpretation of Irenaeus not the actual quote. Keeping in mind what Gregg said:

'The great work of Irenaeus, now for the first time translated into English, is unfortunately no longer extant in the original. It has come down to us only in an ancient Latin version, with the exception of a greater portion of the first book, which has been preserved in the original Greek, through means of the copious quotations made by Hippolytus and Epiphanius. The text, in both Latin and Greek, is often most uncertain ."

So one of us is trying to decieve, I'll let the readers decide who.

I don't see a list of late date advocates.

 

Jo$h.
Concerning Satan...

If he is done away with as you suppose, then why are there Satan worshipers, and where do they and witches get there power?

I would suggest that you read "Spirit of the Rainforest" by Mark Andrew Ritchie. You will see then that you are clearly wrong. (and it's a great read too.)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0964695235/002-0976718-9630443?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

And why does Scripture say that the nations will not be deceived by Satan any more after he is done away with in Rev. 20:3?

If that were so then there wouldn't be so many false cults and religions. But of course Jesus' prophesy in Mt. 24:5 & 11 is more true in the last 200 years with JW's, Mormons, etc coming on the scene.

As for Satan, this is still true today. Why is he is dead?

"In whom the God of this world (Satan) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 2 Cor. 4:4

 

Grasshopper.
Even if Nero was the one that confined John to Patmos as you suppose in 64 AD, how can you prove that Revelation was writen in the next five years before 70AD?

 

Jack,

Satan is never called the god of the kosmos. He is only called the god of the aion (mosaic age)

2 Cor 4:4 in whom the god of this age did blind the minds of the unbelieving, that there doth not shine forth to them the enlightening of the good news of the glory of the Christ, who is the image of God;

When the Lord returned; the Old Covenant ended, Satan and death were destroyed, and the New Covenant is fully consummated:

Revelation 21:1-3 (NKJV) Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.

God himself tells us that the New Jerusalem is the New Covenant:

Galatians 4:24-26 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar; 25 for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children; 26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Until the redemptive work of Christ was accomplished, Satan's purpose against men could not be thwarted. As long as there was a basis for his accusation against men, he could not be "destroyed," or rendered impotent. Satan was the accuser of the brethren but since the Old Covenant ended, he can bring no charge against God's elect.
Satan was still able to decieve nations until the Old Covenant ended.

Endtimes apocalyptic hysteria and cults that follow it have been going on in the church since 165 AD, date setting goes back to 221 AD. For more info on apocalyptic hysteria and date setting refer to this site.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/apocalypse/etc/cron.html

False cults and false religions are nothing new. Men do not seek after God.

Psalm 53:2 God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God.

 

Prove that it wasn't.

 

Prove that it wasn't. </font>[/QUOTE]You have only about a five year window for your eschatology to stand. On the other hand I have about a 28 year window (70AD-98AD) for John to have written Revelation for mine to stand. And Nero was not known to send Christians to exile. He killed them and burnt some to use as lights in his garden.

Here we have another Early Church Father refuting your time frame:

"According to Eusebius, John was sent to Patmos in the year 95 by the Roman emperor Domitian (see New Testament Roman Emperors), but was released less than 2 years later."

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/patmos.htm

Here we even have the Catholic Church, who are quite preterist in there eschatology, stating that John was released from Patmos by Domitian:

"However, this does not mean that John was sent to Patmos at the very beginning of Domitian's reign.

According to Eusebius, the persecutions and martyrdoms reached their height near the end of Domitian's reign. They also indicated the precise date, noting that in the fifteenth year of Domitian, Flavia Domitilla, who was a niece of Flavius Clemens, one of the consuls at Rome that year, was with many others, because of the testimony to Christ, taken to the island of Pontia as a punishment.

Though Eusebius claims this was the
15th year of Domitian, the consulship of Flavius Clemens is generally placed in the 14th year of Domitian ( A.D. 95 in the usual chronology; A.D.
82 in my revised chronology).

And this may be the reason that Jerome associates the exile of John to Patmos with the 14th year, though it was Domitian's 14th year, not the 14th year after Nero. Therefore, the most likely year that John was sent to Patmos, given the above evidence, is the 14th year of Domitian, A.D. 82, the same year that many others were also sent into exile on an island.
Domitian's reign ended with his death the following year, in September of
A.D. 83, the 15th calendar year of his reign and just over 15 years after the death of the previous emperor, Titus.

After the death of Domitian, John was released from Patmos and allowed to return to Ephesus. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax [the emperor Nerva Pertinax] and continuing there until the tithe of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia . John's stay on Patmos lasted perhaps two years; he arrived on Patmos sometime during Domitian's 14th year (
A.D. 82), Domitian died during the 15th year of his reign (A.D. 83), and John was released under the reign of the very next emperor, who ruled for only a little more than a year (late A.D. 83 to Jan. A.D. 85). . Still, it is possible that John was sent into exile earlier than Eusebius indicates, for the persecution of Christians under Domitian did begin earlier than Domitian's 14th year.

If this was the case, then John's stay on the island of Patmos could have been somewhat longer than three years."

http://www.visionwebhosting.net/catholic-web-hosting/Catholic-Hosting-Dates0169.htm

As for a list of scholars that agree with my time frame, I would suggest that look at these web sites...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=john+released+patmos

...and look at any number of Bibles and see when they list the date when Revelation was written. You will no doubt find that you are in the vast minority.

 

Jo$h.
I think that you are dreaming if you think that Satan is dead and gone from this world. 2 Cor. 4:4 is about Satan being the god of this world. See Acts 26:18. And also Eph. 6:11-17 about the whole armor of God.

Do you think that all of the demons are dead and gone as well along with Satan?

 

Irrelevant.

Nice, you blast Josh:

Jo$h.
So now you look to atheists and Jews for spiritual wisdom.

But you go to the Catholic Church for your spiritual wisdom.

Are those notes inspired? The Scofield Bible nor the LaHaye Prophecy Bible matter to me.

Mine(Reformation Study Bible) actually allows for the early dating as do more and more.

I think what you will find is that the view of the late date advocates can be traced back to that one statement by Irenaeus. By the way you never answered, was Irenaeus also correct when saying Jesus lived into His 50’s? If not, he seems to have a credibility problem

When I first started studying this topic I was most astounded not at the evidence for an early date, which there is plenty, but the lack of evidence for the late-date.

You can keep repeating it but it doesn't make it true.

I think once again you have no idea what you are talking about and have not studied the issue or you would not assume very few hold to the early view.


F.W. Farrar (1886)
"there can be no reasonable doubt respecting the (early) date of the Apocalypse." (The Early Days of Christianity; NY, NY: A.L. Burt, 1884; p. 387)

"We cannot accept a dubious expression of the Bishop of Lyons as adequate to set aside an overwhelming weight of evidence, alike external and internal, in proof of the fact that the Apocalypse was written, at the latest, soon after the death of Nero." (The Early Days of Christianity; NY, NY: A.L. Burt, 1884; p. 408)

The reason why the early date and mainly contemporary explanation of the book is daily winning fresh adherents among unbiased thinkers of every Church and school, is partly because it rests on so simple and secure a basis, and partly because no other can compete with it. It is indeed the only system which is built on the plain and repeated statements and indications of the Seer himself and the corresponding events are so closely accordant with the symbols as to make it certain that this scheme of interpretation is the only one that can survive. (The Early Days of Christianity; NY, NY: A.L. Burt, 1884; p. 434)


Moses Stuart (1845)
”A majority of the older critics have been inclined to adopt the opinion of Irenaeus, viz., that it was written during the reign of Domitian, i.e., during the last part of the first century, or in A.D.95 or 96. Most of the recent commentators and critics have called this opinion in question, and placed the composition of the book at an earlier period, viz., before the destruction of Jerusalem .” (A Commentary on the Apocalypse, 2 vols; Andover, MD: Allen, Morrill, and Wardwell, 1845; p. 1:263)

“The manner of the declaration here seems to decide, beyond all reasonable appeal, against a later period than about A.D.67 or 68 , for the composition of the Apocalypse.” (A Commentary on the Apocalypse, 2 vols; Andover, MD: Allen, Morrill, and Wardwell, 1845; p. 2:326)

Milton Terry (1898)
"the trend of modem criticism is unmistakably toward the adoption of the early date of the Apocalypse." (p. 241n.)

J. A. T. Robinson (1976)
"It is indeed generally agreed that this passage must bespeak a pre-70 situation. . . . There seems therefore no reason why the oracle should not have been uttered by a Christian prophet as the doom of the city drew nigh." (Redating the New Testament pp.. 240-242).

"It was at this point that I began to ask myself just why any of the books of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70. As one began to look at them, and in particular the epistle to the Hebrews, Acts and the Apocalypse, was it not strange that this cataclysmic event was never once mentioned or apparently hinted at (as a past fact)? (Redating, p. 10).

"One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period — the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 — is never once mentioned as a past fact. . . . [T]he silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark". (Ibid., p. 13.)

Epiphanies (A. D. 315-403)
States Revelation was written under "Claudius [Nero] Caesar." (Epiphanies, Heresies 51:12,)
Philip Schaff (1877)

"On two points I have changed my opinion -- the second Roman captivity of Paul (which I am disposed to admit in the interest of the Pastoral Epistles), and the date of the Apocalypse (which I now assign, with the majority of modern critics, to the year 68 or 69 instead of 95, as before)." (Vol. I, Preface to the Revised Edition, 1882 The History of the Christian Church, volume 1)

I do not deny there are many scholars on both sides of the issue. But to say very few hold to an early date is laughable and made from ignorance not study. Not to mention the “minor” detail that the angel told John when these events would occur:

Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass ; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Might want to check the greek word for “world” in those passages.