A Death Blow to Full (Hyper) Preterism

[asterisktom]

Grasshopper,
20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. (Revelation 22:20-21)

The Promise of Jesus--I come quickly.
The Prayer of John--For Jesus to come quickly.
The Benediction of John

This is how the Book of Revelation ends, a book written ca.98 A.D. Here Jesus promises that he is coming again, and John prays for him to come again soon. The destruction of the Temple took place almost 30 years previous to this date. Well after the destruction of the Temple John is still praying for the literal return of Christ. How do you account for this? Is John deluded?

Three times you assume what you have not proven. Change the date to the correct one - pre AD70 - and everything else fits. It is the futurists that have a hard time with John's - not to mention Jesus'! - credibility. They said "soon", "quickly" "shortly". Futurists say, "Not so, Lord."

 

[JesusFan]

Three times you assume what you have not proven. Change the date to the correct one - pre AD70 - and everything else fits. It is the futurists that have a hard time with John's - not to mention Jesus'! - credibility. They said "soon", "quickly" "shortly". Futurists say, "Not so, Lord."

What 'revelation" gave you this dating for the Book?

 

[DHK]

Three times you assume what you have not proven. Change the date to the correct one - pre AD70 - and everything else fits. It is the futurists that have a hard time with John's - not to mention Jesus'! - credibility. They said "soon", "quickly" "shortly". Futurists say, "Not so, Lord."

John was on the Island of Patmos because of the testimony of Jesus Christ (1:9). Several early church fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Irenaeus) wrote that the apostle John was exiled to Patmos by the Roman emperor Domitian about A.D. 95. Such church fathers as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen recognized the authenticity and Johannine authorship of Revelation.
It was written near the end of the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian—A.D. 95-96. John had been exiled by him during his persecution of Christians. They also report that John was released from exile and returned to Ephesus following Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. There is no evidence that he wrote at an earlier date.

 

[JesusFan]

John was on the Island of Patmos because of the testimony of Jesus Christ (1:9). Several early church fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Irenaeus) wrote that the apostle John was exiled to Patmos by the Roman emperor Domitian about A.D. 95. Such church fathers as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen recognized the authenticity and Johannine authorship of Revelation.
It was written near the end of the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian—A.D. 95-96. John had been exiled by him during his persecution of Christians. They also report that John was released from exile and returned to Ephesus following Domitian’s death in A.D. 96. There is no evidence that he wrote at an earlier date.

And IF Full preterism Does require the earlier dating for Revelation in order to be viable...

That should just about put it "down for the count"....

 

[revmwc]

Three times you assume what you have not proven. Change the date to the correct one - pre AD70 - and everything else fits. It is the futurists that have a hard time with John's - not to mention Jesus'! - credibility. They said "soon", "quickly" "shortly". Futurists say, "Not so, Lord."

Here we find quotes from early christian leaders as to authorship and dates.

http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/revelation/Introduction/

Found in the article is the followoing:

"The early church attributed authorship to the apostle John. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.) quotes John the Apostle that Jesus Christ would dwell in Jerusalem one thousand years.[1] Irenaeus (120-200 A.D.) is quoted in every chapter of Revelation. Tertullian (155-220 A.D.) also quotes from almost every chapter of Revelation and attributes John the Apostle as author. Hippolytus (170-235 A.D.) also attributed Revelation to John, he quotes Revelation chapter 17 and 18 a great deal. Clement of Alexandria ( 150-211 A.D.) and Origen (185-254 A.D.) also attribute John the Apostle as the author of Revelation. Ignatius (30-108 A.D.) writes regarding John the Apostle,

And why such facts as the following: Peter was crucified; Paul and James were slain

with the sword; John was banished to Patmos; Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews who killed the Lord? But, [in truth,] none of these sufferings were in vain; for the Lord was really crucified by the ungodly.[2]

The evidence against John the Apostle being the author is minimal, largely based on grammatical and writing style differences with the John’s Gospel.


When was the book of Revelation written?

The other issue regarding Revelation is the date of the book. External tradition places the time of Revelation to the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), brother of Titus, son of Vespation. Clement of Alexandria reports John returned to Ephesus after the death of Domitian, referred to as the “tyrant”.

the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.[3]



Eusebius (A.D. 300-340) the father of church history writes in his Ecclesiastical History about the connection between John the Apostle and Domitian.

IT is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: a “If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”[4]"


It appears the 95 to 96 A.D. writiting of the book of revelation is accurate if you believe the writings of these men who live in the 100 and 200 A.D. time period.



[1] Justin Martyr [2] Ignatius [3] is from Clement of Alexandria,[4] is Eusabias.

 

[asterisktom]

What 'revelation" gave you this dating for the Book?

What revelation gave you the later date?

 

[asterisktom]

Here we find quotes from early christian leaders as to authorship and dates.

http://www.truthnet.org/Christianity/revelation/Introduction/

Found in the article is the followoing:

"The early church attributed authorship to the apostle John. Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.) quotes John the Apostle that Jesus Christ would dwell in Jerusalem one thousand years.[1] Irenaeus (120-200 A.D.) is quoted in every chapter of Revelation. Tertullian (155-220 A.D.) also quotes from almost every chapter of Revelation and attributes John the Apostle as author. Hippolytus (170-235 A.D.) also attributed Revelation to John, he quotes Revelation chapter 17 and 18 a great deal. Clement of Alexandria ( 150-211 A.D.) and Origen (185-254 A.D.) also attribute John the Apostle as the author of Revelation. Ignatius (30-108 A.D.) writes regarding John the Apostle,

And why such facts as the following: Peter was crucified; Paul and James were slain

with the sword; John was banished to Patmos; Stephen was stoned to death by the Jews who killed the Lord? But, [in truth,] none of these sufferings were in vain; for the Lord was really crucified by the ungodly.[2]

The evidence against John the Apostle being the author is minimal, largely based on grammatical and writing style differences with the John’s Gospel.


When was the book of Revelation written?

The other issue regarding Revelation is the date of the book. External tradition places the time of Revelation to the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), brother of Titus, son of Vespation. Clement of Alexandria reports John returned to Ephesus after the death of Domitian, referred to as the “tyrant”.

the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant’s death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.[3]



Eusebius (A.D. 300-340) the father of church history writes in his Ecclesiastical History about the connection between John the Apostle and Domitian.

IT is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: a “If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.”[4]"


It appears the 95 to 96 A.D. writiting of the book of revelation is accurate if you believe the writings of these men who live in the 100 and 200 A.D. time period.



[1] Justin Martyr [2] Ignatius [3] is from Clement of Alexandria,[4] is Eusabias.

An interesting phenomenon happens to the majority report. As the popularity of a certain view grows the number of authorities to the view likewise grow. Thus there is a seeming weight to the view itself but which is really due, not to argument, but to mere numbers, later writers merely following after those few earlier ones. It is not surprising that, as the eschatology itself changed, the view of the date of Revelation (and John) would likewise accommodate.

This eschatological downgrade should not seem surprising. This "ology" disintegrated along with ecclesiology (church power structure already forming - Ignatius's "Do nothing without your bishop!"), views on virginity, relics, etc.

Originally the later date view had only Irenaeus and Eusebius as advocates. But later others added their voice - but only on the basis of these two. But over against this view is the internal evidence itself, which I already presented earlier. Also some of your sources for a later date are rather suspect. For instance, you seem to imply that Cement of Alexandria was a late-dater. He wasn't. He also wrote this in his "Stromata":

""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."

Now notice what is written here. If John was seen as an apostle - and surely he was - and if his teaching ministry was in the 90s, as your position requires, then we have a glaring omission here.

Here is the Muratorian Fragment:

"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

Tertullian
“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.”

Others can be adduced, but hopefully this is enough for one to see that there is a good case for this earlier date, not only on the basis of internal indications, but external, historical witness.

 

[asterisktom]

And IF Full preterism Does require the earlier dating for Revelation in order to be viable...

That should just about put it "down for the count"....

Now that is just silly. I don't feel "down for the count".

 

[DHK]

Now that is just silly. I don't feel "down for the count".

You should. You have provided virtually no evidence. You have one source, and even that source is not dogmatic on an earlier date. Your evidence is left wanting.

 

[asterisktom]

What 'revelation" gave you this dating for the Book?

Here is an interesting web site I just now came across that has plenty of quotes for the earlier date:
http://www.preteristvision.org/questions/qa_revelationdate.html

Warning: This is a Preterist site. So all their evidence here is the grasping for straws by desperate men who absolutely must have that earlier date.:laugh:

 

[asterisktom]

You should. You have provided virtually no evidence. You have one source, and even that source is not dogmatic on an earlier date. Your evidence is left wanting.

Umm. look around. I wrote other posts here. Sheesh...:tonofbricks:

Also, I wouldn't call the Bible itself "no evidence".

 

[JesusFan]

Now that is just silly. I don't feel "down for the count".

just a few questions please...

WHEN did the physical, bodily resurrection of all the sainnt who died in Christ, and those who were alive, occur in History?

WHO recorded it happening, as the World would have gotten notice of that Event

Are we right NOW under the full reign of messiah on earth, this NOW His kingdom on earth?

if yes, why is there SO much suffering/sin/rebellion still going on?

 

[asterisktom]

just a few questions please...

WHEN did the physical, bodily resurrection of all the sainnt who died in Christ, and those who were alive, occur in History?

WHO recorded it happening, as the World would have gotten notice of that Event

Are we right NOW under the full reign of messiah on earth, this NOW His kingdom on earth?

if yes, why is there SO much suffering/sin/rebellion still going on?

I don't believe in a bodily physical resurrection of saints. So you are asking the wrong person. I do believe in the bodily physical resurrection of Christ.

 

[revmwc]

An interesting phenomenon happens to the majority report. As the popularity of a certain view grows the number of authorities to the view likewise grow. Thus there is a seeming weight to the view itself but which is really due, not to argument, but to mere numbers, later writers merely following after those few earlier ones. It is not surprising that, as the eschatology itself changed, the view of the date of Revelation (and John) would likewise accommodate.

This eschatological downgrade should not seem surprising. This "ology" disintegrated along with ecclesiology (church power structure already forming - Ignatius's "Do nothing without your bishop!"), views on virginity, relics, etc.

Originally the later date view had only Irenaeus and Eusebius as advocates. But later others added their voice - but only on the basis of these two. But over against this view is the internal evidence itself, which I already presented earlier. Also some of your sources for a later date are rather suspect. For instance, you seem to imply that Cement of Alexandria was a late-dater. He wasn't. He also wrote this in his "Stromata":

""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."

Now notice what is written here. If John was seen as an apostle - and surely he was - and if his teaching ministry was in the 90s, as your position requires, then we have a glaring omission here.

Here is the Muratorian Fragment:

"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name."

Tertullian
“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.”

Others can be adduced, but hopefully this is enough for one to see that there is a good case for this earlier date, not only on the basis of internal indications, but external, historical witness.

Thev only thing I said was here is an article and gave the web address. From that point on the " " signs signify that these were from the article.

 

[Amy.G]

I don't believe in a bodily physical resurrection of saints.

What do you call this?

Matthew 27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Were they ghosts?

 

[DHK]

I don't believe in a bodily physical resurrection of saints. So you are asking the wrong person. I do believe in the bodily physical resurrection of Christ.

Yes, but do you believe in the literal physical return of Christ?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I don't believe in a bodily physical resurrection of saints. So you are asking the wrong person. I do believe in the bodily physical resurrection of Christ.

wow, just...wow. That to me is such a patent denial of plain Scripture and the Gospel itself...I am actually beside myself.

Who else in the full preterist camp holds these beliefs? Who are the leaders of this teaching?

 

[JesusFan]

wow, just...wow. That to me is such a patent denial of plain Scripture and the Gospel itself...I am actually beside myself.

Who else in the full preterist camp holds these beliefs? Who are the leaders of this teaching?

IF you deny that jesus is returning in his physical form at a Second Coming, and that the saints will nOT be having a physical resurrection at that time...

Doesn't those "truths" place one outside "pale of orthodoxy?"

 

[ReformedBaptist]

What do you call this?

Matthew 27:52-53 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


Were they ghosts?

Moreover,

Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. Romans 8:23

1 Cor 15
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

John 5:29
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

How anyone can deny the bodily resurrection of the just and unjust is beyond my understanding.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

IF you deny that jesus is returning in his physical form at a Second Coming, and that the saints will nOT be having a physical resurrection at that time...

Doesn't those "truths" place one outside "pale of orthodoxy?"

A denial of those doctrines is a denial of the Gospel itself. It is rank heresy.