An early date for Revelation Fits: Pre-AD70, not 90s. Here is why...

[JesusFan]

Actually I don't think "Jesus and His Apostles" only used a "literal" (whatever that means) hermeneutic. Given their exposure to Jewish Midrashism, and examples throughout the NT, they have a mix of allegorical, literal, symbolic, hyperbolic approaches to Scripture.

In essence you can't delimit Jesus' method to your own, it is broader than your scope allows.

that is why I have stated that there are indeed figures of speech used in the Bible, as we would see metaphors different than allogory, literal, hyperbolic etc

Seeing it as through the lense of plain and literal truth meaning of the scriptures does not mean that ALL verses are to be interpreted as that meaning, BUT that unless they fall into a special type of meaning, would be best viewed that way!

 

[JesusFan]

Where is your Biblical warrant for this man-made rule? It originated from a BJU grad in the 60s, not from Scripture.

IF a verse in the Bible is NOT a special form such as hyperbolic/symbolic/allogorical etc, than what other way other then the plain and literal meaning intended for the text?

IF we dont adhere to that, we would be ending up with the bible saying anything, as all would become open to "spitualizing"

 

[OldRegular]

Get into trouble taking literal intended passages and force a spiritual/metaphorical intent on them!

That is true. Consider all the trouble dispensationalists cause by not interpreting John 5:28, 29 in the obvious way it should be, Literally.

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
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.

I have posted the above passage dozens of times on this Forum yet dispensationalists always refuse to believe that the Word of God teaches a General Resurrection and General Judgment!

Sometimes I wonder if dispensationalists are more Zionist than the Zionists are.

 

[OldRegular]

Must take the plain, literal meaning of the passage, unless obvious figures of speech being used, such as metaphor/allogory etc.

Do you take John 6:53-56 literally? The Jews who heard Jesus Christ did!

John 6:48-56
48. I am that bread of life.
49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

 

[JesusFan]

Do you take John 6:53-56 literally? The Jews who heard Jesus Christ did!

John 6:48-56
48. I am that bread of life.
49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Again, that passage needs to be intepreted in the style that was spoken by Jesus...

RCC take this as being "literal", but Dispy would see it as being another type of figure of speech!

 

[JesusFan]

That is true. Consider all the trouble dispensationalists cause by not interpreting John 5:28, 29 in the obvious way it should be, Literally.

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
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.

I have posted the above passage dozens of times on this Forum yet dispensationalists always refuse to believe that the Word of God teaches a General Resurrection and General Judgment!

Sometimes I wonder if dispensationalists are more Zionist than the Zionists are.

Bible teaches us that there is a first resurrection that has different aspects to us , such as the rapture of the Church age saints, and those after the reign of Christ, while there is indeed a second one "General resurrection" of the lost to the great white throne judgement and the second death!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Do you take John 6:53-56 literally? The Jews who heard Jesus Christ did!

John 6:48-56
48. I am that bread of life.
49. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

Response Posted by Jesus Fan
RCC take this as being "literal", but Dispy would see it as being another type of figure of speech!

WHY???? The Jews who heard Jesus Christ took it literally!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
That is true. Consider all the trouble dispensationalists cause by not interpreting John 5:28, 29 in the obvious way it should be, Literally.

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
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.

I have posted the above passage dozens of times on this Forum yet dispensationalists always refuse to believe that the Word of God teaches a General Resurrection and General Judgment!

Sometimes I wonder if dispensationalists are more Zionist than the Zionists are.

Response Posted by Jesus Fan
Bible teaches us that there is a first resurrection that has different aspects to us , such as the rapture of the Church age saints, and those after the reign of Christ, while there is indeed a second one "General resurrection" of the lost to the great white throne judgement and the second death!

I show Scripture teaching a General Judgment and a General Resurrection if taken at "face value" as dispensationalists like to say.

Show me Scripture that teaches a pre-trib rapture and a post 1000 year resurrection.

Show me Scripture that teach a

"General resurrection" of the lost to the great white throne judgement and the second death!

Show me Scripture that show mortals can live in the presence of the Glory of the returning Lord.

 

[JesusFan]

I show Scripture teaching a General Judgment and a General Resurrection if taken at "face value" as dispensationalists like to say.

Show me Scripture that teaches a pre-trib rapture and a post 1000 year resurrection.

Show me Scripture that teach a

Show me Scripture that show mortals can live in the presence of the Glory of the returning Lord.

When jesus raptures out His Church, those saints receive their glorified bodies at that time, and when jesus returns to earth, their will be those who survived the Tribulation will be on earth and that will be the people that Jesus rules over in His Millinium!

 

[asterisktom]

IF a verse in the Bible is NOT a special form such as hyperbolic/symbolic/allogorical etc, than what other way other then the plain and literal meaning intended for the text?

IF we dont adhere to that, we would be ending up with the bible saying anything, as all would become open to "spitualizing"

But here is the rub: There is no such thing as an "allegorical form". Or a metaphorical form. If there were, the Jews wouldn't have been so quick to misconstrue Christ's pronouncements in John 6.

Spiritualizing is a good thing. We learn this from our Lord Himself.

 

[JesusFan]

But here is the rub: There is no such thing as an "allegorical form". Or a metaphorical form. If there were, the Jews wouldn't have been so quick to misconstrue Christ's pronouncements in John 6.

Spiritualizing is a good thing. We learn this from our Lord Himself.

Are you saying that the Bible did not have either metaphorical/allogorical language within it?

 

[asterisktom]

Are you saying that the Bible did not have either metaphorical/allogorical language within it?

I am not saying that at all. Far from it. But I am saying that metaphorical language does not have any particular form. It needs to be discerned by context and by a working knowledge of the rest of Scripture.

 

[asterisktom]

I gave quotations from the 1st-century, various original sources. Added to this were my own comments.

You gave modern quotes from Thomas Ice - with only one ancient quote. But it is mainly Ice.

Do you see an inequity here?

NOTE from 1/26/13: This is a mistake on my part. As was pointed out, none of the authorities I quoted were from the 1st centuries (perhaps I was confusing this thread with another one I was also participating in).

But this does not detract from my point, namely, that there were many witnesses to this earlier dating of Revelation, not some imagined agreement on that later date that eventually became the majority consensus.

 

[kyredneck]

"It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young.”

In other words Young says it's a 'stupid mistake' by Sulpicius Severus and others that has resulted in A DOMINO EFFECT of bad information concerning the dating of Revelation down through the centuries.

 

[OldRegular]

So someone explain how the dating of Revelation has anything to do with the validity of Full Preterism. There are several modes of the interpretation of Revelation. Only by insisting that the Apostle John is writing about the future destruction of Jerusalem can the timing of Revelation be a factor in the validity of Full Preterism. At least that is the way it appears to me.

Jesus Christ had already prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD so why is John expanding on that prophecy? I don't believe that he is. It seems to me that making that argument would require a one to one correspondence of the Olivet discourse and the 22 chapters of Revelation.

I would also note that I do not take the futurist mode of the interpretation of Revelation.

 

[HisWitness]

So someone explain how the dating of Revelation has anything to do with the validity of Full Preterism. There are several modes of the interpretation of Revelation. Only by insisting that the Apostle John is writing about the future destruction of Jerusalem can the timing of Revelation be a factor in the validity of Full Preterism. At least that is the way it appears to me.

Jesus Christ had already prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD so why is John expanding on that prophecy? I don't believe that he is. It seems to me that making that argument would require a one to one correspondence of the Olivet discourse and the 22 chapters of Revelation.

I would also note that I do not take the futurist mode of the interpretation of Revelation.

Matthew 24 completly explains all that was going to happen in their generation including the destruction of jerusalem--death of the disciples-great tribulation-coming of the lord--its all there as Jesus told the disciples when YE see,hear,and so forth

 

[Bronconagurski]

That is true. Consider all the trouble dispensationalists cause by not interpreting John 5:28, 29 in the obvious way it should be, Literally.

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
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.

I have posted the above passage dozens of times on this Forum yet dispensationalists always refuse to believe that the Word of God teaches a General Resurrection and General Judgment!

Sometimes I wonder if dispensationalists are more Zionist than the Zionists are.

I read all these arguments about preterism and calvinism that are never ending, and I can not help to wonder if we spent half as much time trying to evangelize and disciple people like we should be doing, instead of debating over issues that have no real winner, nor any saving value, then maybe our country would not be in the shape it is in. Just a thought. I am gonna try and rectify that in my life. Good day.

 

[thomas15]

Matthew 24 completly explains all that was going to happen in their generation including the destruction of jerusalem--death of the disciples-great tribulation-coming of the lord--its all there as Jesus told the disciples when YE see,hear,and so forth

All of the Bibles in my collection in Mat ch 24 talk about the destruction of the Temple buildings, not the city of Jerusalem. Then there is all the chatter about details such as those spoken by Daniel which did not happen in AD70. There are many other details in mat 24-25 that didn't happen in AD70 but this is no problem for the preterist who simply ignore both the Scriptures and history but instead pat themselves on the back and convince themselves that they have the intellectual solution to all matters of theology.

 

[DHK]

Matthew 24 completly explains all that was going to happen in their generation including the destruction of jerusalem--death of the disciples-great tribulation-coming of the lord--its all there as Jesus told the disciples when YE see,hear,and so forth

Completely explains??
Then why do you have such a hard time explaining Mat.24:30,31?
You haven't explained it once even though asked many times.
Here, try again:

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[asterisktom]

Jesus Christ had already prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD so why is John expanding on that prophecy? I don't believe that he is. It seems to me that making that argument would require a one to one correspondence of the Olivet discourse and the 22 chapters of Revelation.

I would say that Revelation is John's Olivet Discourse. His Gospel noticeably lacks one.