'Dispies'...well, I see the contempt. But that attitude will change the very moment Jesus returns for His bride as he promised; at the midnight hour (Matt. 25). Your attitude does nothing to engender respect for your position.
Get over yourself. I do that w/ all labels. I call myself a Calvie. Methinks your skin is quite thin.
No, that is not true. How many times must we present their views that clearly say otherwise for you to understand that they expected the coming of the Lord for his people BEFORE the terrible tribulation period to come? But that did not happen in A.D. 70 and the Jews did not repent as Paul told us they will at that time.
I see you complete missed my point about these guys. My issue with them is not what they said but the source for their writings. But you didn't address that, and I don't expect you will.
Because I quoted TWO....count them: TWO church fathers who mentioned John's death during the reign of Domitian (A.D.) --- PLUS the fact that even if John wrote Revelation during or just before A.D. 70 it doesn't help your cause. Why? Because the prophecies of Revelation were NOT fulfilled during that time. No one has yet proven in this thread that any of the 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 vials of wrath, the 3 woes, antichrist, world government, or the 666 mark of the beast has ever happened in world history, let alone the period preceding A.d. 70.
My point in the TWO guys you mentioned were that you place so much weight on them for dating, but you think they are wrong about the 7 seals, 7 trumpets, etc. You do realize that they have a different view than you do right? So my point was, why do you trust them for dating the book of Rev but not for their theology. Let me guess... you'll ignore that too.
Oh, gee, golly,...I wonder why?:thumbsup:
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:
So did the Holy Spirit inspire all scripture as Paul told us or are we all deceived into thinking that everything from Genesis to Revelation is inspired? But what you just said is the second example I have seen in this debate of the unbelief that is a common result in those who promote the preterist view.
'Seems to be"? That's pitifully weak.
So "John" automatically means the apostle John??? No other Christian bore that name. I wonder if you have actually taken the time to look at the internal evidence to see if it is consistent with the other Johannine writings. This isn't a matter of question inspiration. That piety doesn't get you anywhere. This is about being fair with the text. The text does not require that this is John the apostle. So until you prove FROM THE TEXT that this is John the apostle, then my comments stand. Therefore, I take inspiration more seriously than you do b/c I'm not willing to go beyond the text.
And if me being gracious by saying "seems to be" rather than the pontification that you talk, then I choose to err on the side of grace. I don't know... silly me.
By whose rule? Should we believe John or should we believe you? His word on this matter is NOT obscure:
..."the words of the prophecy of this book." vs 10
By the rules of literature. Here is what kills me, you think your view is so right that you put it on par w/ John. However, before v. 10 and the word "prophecy" the word "apocalypse" is used. And perhaps you weren't aware, but there is this ancient genre of literature called apocalyptic. Revelation is an apocalyptic work. It certainly has elements of prophecy in it, I'll grant. But prophecy is rarely forecasting the future like you want it to be. It is mainly preaching covenantal faithfulness. Rev. also exhibits the genre of epistle in some places. But the overriding genre is an apocalyptic. And I'd say the first word of the book trumps whatever you think. So, yes we should believe John when he says he wrote an Apocalypse of Jesus Christ.
So? Apocalypse means 'a revealing'. How does that help you? How does that negate what John said about the prophecy in the last chapter? Quite frankly, your position is dishonest and it amounts to unbelief.
As for the apocalypse thing, see my comments above.
As for calling what I believe dishonest and unbelief, that is borderline, sir. You can be banned for comments like that. Me being sensitive to the genre of literature that Rev is as well as see that in the very first word of the text helps me a great deal. That is not unbelief or dishonesty. Again, I am treating the text in the highest of regard. So disparage my view all you like. But do not bring my faithfulness to the text into question. That is low, sir. Show some class.
No, it is the direct, plain-spoken words of the apostle John that determine such things. Not your 'interpretation'.
And your interpretation is valid because...
ex cathedra? If you look at it, we are both arguing for a genre based on a word from the text. My word just happens to be the very first word of the book and consequently the title. So my "interpretation" has good footing. Again, I'll grant you the prophetic element in Rev as long as you acknowledge that the majority of the prophetic genre is about the proephet's present day situation. Like Jeremiah or Isaiah or Elijah or Haggai or Zechariah or any other prophet.
You and those of your persuasion are without understanding on this matter. You were told by John what the book is and warned not to add nor to subtract from the prophecies he wrote....but you do it anyway.
Yes, we are all dullards. Thank you for saving us from our stupidity.
So like I said, yes, John told us what the book is "An Apocalypse of Jesus Christ."
The deuteronomistic call to not add or subtract, however, has nothing to do with this discussion. You are confusing one thing with something else. That was not a statement about interpretation. And if you are so certain that yours is right, then we are seeing pontification once again.
Just in case, you do understand what I meant by the phrase "pontification" and ex cathedra right? That means you are speaking on the same authority as the pope. Just checkin'
I have both read them and preached on them for over three decades. I love those prophecies and look forward to their fulfillment with joy.
Four times in the last chapter John tells us that what he wrote is prophecy (vss 9,10, 18,19)and yet you still don't believe it.
I'm glad you have dedicated 30 years of your life to this. Great!
But that doesn't give you the right to be a donkey and write off everyone you disagree with. Feel free to substitute "donkey" with another word. I, like Paul and Luther, am not opposed to strong language.
All of it is future...with the exception of the first four chapters.
That was said of the prophets under the discussion of the genre of prophecy. So no they are not all future. Surely you know that much. Maybe 5% is future in the prophets. But most of it is simply preaching covenantal fidelity.
The whole key to this matter is in the throne of David, the promise that Messiah will sit upon the throne of David some day and rule with a government that will have NO END...but... that during that time there will be death, curses, old age, and famine. Isaiah 65, 66, Zechariah 12, & 14. THAT is the death knell to preterism because Jesus has never yet sat on the throne of David in Jerusalem and the fact is that in heaven there is no death, curses, old age, and famine. Therefore, Christ sitting upon the throne of David must be (1) on earth...and (2) yet future.
This is beyond the scope of Rev and I think you ought to make a separate thread.
All I will say in response is that Rev. 5 sees Jesus as already victorious and enthroned. To say otherwise goes against the grammar of the passage. So if he is enthroned and victorious, then the Kingdom has come. I do not believe it is consummated yet. But it has certainly come. Thank you, Lord Jesus!
