AD 66 – Definitive Date of Preterism

[robycop3]

Right - Jesus never mentioned two comings. In Matthew 24:30, Jesus told His disciples that "the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven". This does not say that Christ came back at that time, but they would see a sign. A sign is not the same thing as the object the sign points toward. What will it take to show you that this is not the 2nd Coming? The Days of Vengeance were the judgment Jesus spoke of in the Olivet Discourse.

No one has yet seen that sign, which will appear seconds before He begins His visible descent Jesus spoke of the sign and His return together.

You are wasting your time by just repeating your claim that Gentry, DeMar, et al are quacks. You have made your views very plain, but you do not provide support for your argument. All you have ever done is present your opinion. Gentry, et al provide plenty of support from Scripture and from the history of the Jewish Wars to convince the reader with an open mind that the Olivet Discourse and most of Revelation point to the end of the Old Covenant age, and not to the literal end of the world.[/quote]
They speak of things which are yet to occur as if they've already occurred. That's a sign of a quack.

You will probably never agree, and I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you. Your mind is made up, but recognize that my mind is also made up. I write for the benefit of those who are willing to take an objective look for themselves.

And I write for the benefit of other Christians, lest they become caught up in the same folly YOU have. I provide FACTS, which can easily be verified; YOU provide GUESSWORK, which can't be verified at all.

 

[Lodic]

The best I could find.
The two dates, 95 AD and 65 AD.
Domitian 95 AD. Under Domitian claimed from as early the 2nd century.
Nero 65 AD. Under Nero claimed from the early 6th century.
Source: The Date of the Book of Revelation – Christopher L. Scott

Good article. I really like Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell". Long book, but great support for early date authorship.

 

[Lodic]

Speaking of confirmation bias.

I can see where you might call my view confirmation bias. However, I believe it's an objective view based on arguments presented by supporters of both views. IMHO, Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" presents the strongest view for an early date writing by far.

 

[robycop3]

For you prets, here's a little article I wrote a few yearl ago:

Many preterists believe Nero was the "beast/antichrist/that Wicked/son of perdition/man of sin".

But they're WRONG !

Why?

1.) The beast will commit the AOD by entering the temple, setting up his statue in it, which the FP will supernaturally cause to speak, declare himself to be God, & demand that he & his statue be worshipped. Nero was never in Jerusalem, so he couldn'ta done those things.

2.) The beast will overthrow three other kings or rulers to attain his full power. Nero was APPOINTED Caesar by the Senate & Claudius, his grand-uncle & stepfather.

3.) The main "beast" will have another "beast" as his deputy who will be a miracle-working false prophet. Nero had no deputy at all, let alone one who could work miracles!

4.) No man can overcome the "beast". Nero was overthrown by the revolts of General Galba .

5.) Nero never issued, nor ordered to be issued, any "mark of the beast". To say his image on Roman coins was that mark is more-than-absurd & ridiculous!

6.) The Revelation plainly sez that the beast and false prophet will be cast alive into the lake of fire at Jesus' return, but Nero DIED by having his secretary Epaphrodatus stab him. Galba's men, who'd come to arrest Nero, tried to save his life, but he died in fronta them.

Thus, while Nero was a pretty evil person, he was NOT the great antichrist "beast". The REAL "beast MUST fulfill EVERY prophecy about him EXACTLY, TO THE LETTER. Sorry, prets, you're gonna hafta find another candidate to be your beast!

Yes, Nero failed to meet many of the Scriptural criteria for the beast, and so has everyone else so far. NNE since the time of Jesus has entered the temple in Jerusalem accompanied by a miracle-working false prophet, set up a statue of himself, & declared himself to be God. This didn't occur in the old temple, & the new one hasn't been built yet.

The precedent for the "abomination of desolation" was in the 160s BC when Antiochus Epiphanes conquered Jerusalem, entered the temple, set up a statue of Zeus in it, & sacrificed a pig on the altar. The coming beast will do similar, except he will stop the sacrifices altogether, be accompanied by a miracle-working false prophet, set up a statue of himself, as he won't recognize any god but himself, & have the false prophet issue the "mark of the beast".

Plainly, those events HAVEN'T YET OCCURRED! There hasn't been a temple for them to occur in ! But there will be, & those events WILL occur.

Sorry, preterists; your doctrine is false. The eschatological events are still future !

 

[Lodic]

No one has yet seen that sign, which will appear seconds before He begins His visible descent Jesus spoke of the sign and His return together.

You misunderstand the sign. The 1st Century Christians & Jews saw (i.e. understood) the sign of the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem, destruction of the Temple, etc. as Christ "coming" in judgment.

They speak of things which are yet to occur as if they've already occurred. That's a sign of a quack.

You "futurists" speak of things that have already happened as if they are in our future. Isn't that a sign of a quack?

And I write for the benefit of other Christians, lest they become caught up in the same folly YOU have. I provide FACTS, which can easily be verified; YOU provide GUESSWORK, which can't be verified at all.

Turn that around and you would have it right. I've provided easily verifiable facts while you have provided nothing more than your opinions. We can keep this circular argument up until after the cows come home.

 

[Lodic]

For you prets, here's a little article I wrote a few yearl ago:

Many preterists believe Nero was the "beast/antichrist/that Wicked/son of perdition/man of sin".

But they're WRONG !

Why?

1.) The beast will commit the AOD by entering the temple, setting up his statue in it, which the FP will supernaturally cause to speak, declare himself to be God, & demand that he & his statue be worshipped. Nero was never in Jerusalem, so he couldn'ta done those things.

2.) The beast will overthrow three other kings or rulers to attain his full power. Nero was APPOINTED Caesar by the Senate & Claudius, his grand-uncle & stepfather.

3.) The main "beast" will have another "beast" as his deputy who will be a miracle-working false prophet. Nero had no deputy at all, let alone one who could work miracles!

4.) No man can overcome the "beast". Nero was overthrown by the revolts of General Galba .

5.) Nero never issued, nor ordered to be issued, any "mark of the beast". To say his image on Roman coins was that mark is more-than-absurd & ridiculous!

6.) The Revelation plainly sez that the beast and false prophet will be cast alive into the lake of fire at Jesus' return, but Nero DIED by having his secretary Epaphrodatus stab him. Galba's men, who'd come to arrest Nero, tried to save his life, but he died in fronta them.

Thus, while Nero was a pretty evil person, he was NOT the great antichrist "beast". The REAL "beast MUST fulfill EVERY prophecy about him EXACTLY, TO THE LETTER. Sorry, prets, you're gonna hafta find another candidate to be your beast!

Yes, Nero failed to meet many of the Scriptural criteria for the beast, and so has everyone else so far. NNE since the time of Jesus has entered the temple in Jerusalem accompanied by a miracle-working false prophet, set up a statue of himself, & declared himself to be God. This didn't occur in the old temple, & the new one hasn't been built yet.

The precedent for the "abomination of desolation" was in the 160s BC when Antiochus Epiphanes conquered Jerusalem, entered the temple, set up a statue of Zeus in it, & sacrificed a pig on the altar. The coming beast will do similar, except he will stop the sacrifices altogether, be accompanied by a miracle-working false prophet, set up a statue of himself, as he won't recognize any god but himself, & have the false prophet issue the "mark of the beast".

Plainly, those events HAVEN'T YET OCCURRED! There hasn't been a temple for them to occur in ! But there will be, & those events WILL occur.

Sorry, preterists; your doctrine is false. The eschatological events are still future !

Once again, you've done nothing but provide your opinion of how the "End Times" events will play out. You are inserting your views and making up support for them instead of an unbiased study of prophecy to see what Christ said would happen. This made up scenario might work for the "Left Behind" books, but doesn't fit what actually happened in AD 66-70.

 

[Silverhair]

I can see where you might call my view confirmation bias. However, I believe it's an objective view based on arguments presented by supporters of both views. IMHO, Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" presents the strongest view for an early date writing by far.

From what I have read in this thread there seems to be a lot of confirmation bias going around. That is one reason that I do not get to concerned about it.

 

[robycop3]

I can see where you might call my view confirmation bias. However, I believe it's an objective view based on arguments presented by supporters of both views. IMHO, Gentry's "Before Jerusalem Fell" presents the strongest view for an early date writing by far.

Your main prob-believing Gentry and other quax insteada reading some tho

Once again, you've done nothing but provide your opinion of how the "End Times" events will play out. You are inserting your views and making up support for them instead of an unbiased study of prophecy to see what Christ said would happen. This made up scenario might work for the "Left Behind" books, but doesn't fit what actually happened in AD 66-70.

I made nothing up. I expounded the FACTS in some detail, and the simplest, most-obvious fact is that the eschatological events have NOT yet occurred; the world is pretty much the same as it was in 66. 70, & 71 AD except for the advances of man.

OTOH, you & other prets have added to God's word by inserting man-made meanings to many passages, and reduced many of them to "figurative/symbolic" status in your minds.

You say I don't provide proof? I provided facts above about Nero that are easily verified in any good encycloprdia & prove he could,'ta been the beast.

 

[robycop3]

From what I have read in this thread there seems to be a lot of confirmation bias going around. That is one reason that I do not get to concerned about it.

Preterism is a false doctrine, proven false by Scripture and actual, unbiased, untwisted history.

 

[Silverhair]

Preterism is a false doctrine, proven false by Scripture and actual, unbiased, untwisted history.

I agree that preterism is a misunderstanding of scripture. I just do not get as caught up in this as some people do. What I know for sure is that one way or the other I will be with my Lord at a time of His choosing.

 

[robycop3]

I agree that preterism is a misunderstanding of scripture. I just do not get as caught up in this as some people do. What I know for sure is that one way or the other I will be with my Lord at a time of His choosing.

Right. But that false doctrine, so-dependant upon Scripture-twisting & misunderstanding, keeps a foot in the door to allow other false doctrines & deceiving spirits to enter.

 

[Lodic]

From what I have read in this thread there seems to be a lot of confirmation bias going around. That is one reason that I do not get to concerned about it.

For that, I must commend you. We do get way too involved in the weeds of issues that really don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Lodic]

Your main prob-believing Gentry and other quax insteada reading some tho

What problem do you see in whether or not I believe Gentry and other Biblical scholars who promote Preterism vs other authors (or even yourself) who promote the Futurist view? It doesn't change our salvation. In a response to @Silverhair, you said this view keeps a "foot in the door to allow other false doctrines & deceiving spirits to enter". Please elaborate. What other doctrines do you think Preterists believe that you do not agree with? What about other doctrines that Futurists believe? Aside from our views regarding eschatology, where have I ever disagreed with you? Where has any Preterist disagreed with you on serious doctrines?

I made nothing up. I expounded the FACTS in some detail, and the simplest, most-obvious fact is that the eschatological events have NOT yet occurred; the world is pretty much the same as it was in 66. 70, & 71 AD except for the advances of man.

While you did put in some detailed facts, you added your opinions to those facts. I respect and even admire the fact that you are quite a historian. However, you also have quite an imagination about how to read prophecy.

OTOH, you & other prets have added to God's word by inserting man-made meanings to many passages, and reduced many of them to "figurative/symbolic" status in your minds.

Which would be the greater "wrong" - to apply a figurative/symbolic meaning to a passage meant to be understood literally, or to apply a literal meaning to a passage meant to be understood symbolically? To read something "literally" is to read it according to the sense of the literature. Read historical narrative as history, read poetry as poetry. As I've explained many times, prophecy is often written in symbolic language. Do I need to provide some passages to remind you of some examples?

You say I don't provide proof? I provided facts above about Nero that are easily verified in any good encyclopedia & prove he could,'ta been the beast.

You use an encyclopedia to tell you about Biblical prophecy and who the Beast is??? Pardon me if I depend on Scripture and early historians such as Josephus.