OldRegular
Well-Known Member
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How Many Resurrections In Revelation?
- Thread starter Darrell C
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
He came into His kingdom before that generation passed away. You're told that repeatedly in the Book.
Wrong. Late date theory is a house of cards when brought under scrutiny; to quote Robert Young:
"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.
Also, there is compelling internal evidence within the book itself that much of it is concerned with the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem:
And I saw another sign in heaven....and them that come off victorious from the beast... they sing the song of Moses the servant of God....Rev 15.1-3
The song of Moses is being sang in heaven in the 15th chapter of Revelation, which is very significant when you consider that the song of Moses had only one purpose and time, and that was to 'testify before Israel as a witness against them' when they had utterly corrupted themselves and evil had befallen them in the 'latter days':
16 And Jehovah said unto Moses.....this people will rise up, and play the harlot ...and break my covenant which I have made with them.
17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day.....and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?
18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evil which they shall have wrought.....
19 Now therefore write ye this song for you...... that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
21....when many evils and troubles are come upon them, that this song shall testify before them as a witness.....
29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do that which is evil in the sight of Jehovah, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.
30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the assembly of Israel the words of this song, until they were finished. Dt 31
The Song of Moses is quoted from by both Christ and the Apostles in reference to 'that evil generation' of Jews of their day in the gospels and the epistles.
And concerning the external evidence that the book was written prior to 70 AD, there is just as much or more that points to the earlier date:
http://www.eschatology.org/index.ph...-revelation-guest-article&catid=40&Itemid=211
The generation in view are those who experience the events, not the audience hearing the teaching.
And we again see a Catholic tradition...placing what men say in later dates as more authority than the testimony of those closer to the events themselves.
Show me Revelation in the oldest Syriac versions. Tell me why Young knew more than Eusebius and Hegesippus.
Revelation is just one of five books added in the fifth century.
And you talk of disinformation? lol
But more importantly, tell me why you drag your Catholic Tradition into this thread?
How does any of that change that there are three clearly distinct resurrections in Revelation?
God bless.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Thank GOD I have not been seduced by John Nelson Darby's false doctrine of pre-trib-rapture-ready-"snatching away" of the "parenthesis" Church-dispensationalism invented 1800 years after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ who shed His blood for HIS Bride the Church. He did not shed HIS Blood for a "parenthesis" but for HIS Bride, the Church!there is where you eschatology is off. Again a chronology of events. Christ made short term prophecies as well as long term. The short term is He would suffer and die, He would be raised, then He said the Temple would be destroyed. Short term prophecy must be fulfilled to prove that the Prophet is true. He gave long term prophecy following the destruction of the Temple. That has not yet been fulfilled, but it will, because the short term was.
Actually the verses you quote from Matthew 24 are about the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 AD just as Jesus Christ promised in Matthew 24:1, 2.
Well, you can spiritualize the return the disciples asked about, but what do you do with the end of the world? The end Christ spoke of showed Him returning in glory following judgement.
Are you saying Roman persecution was the judgement the Lord equates to the Flood? lol
BR said:So you agree that the Book of Revelation is not chronological since you are talking about the birth of Jesus Christ from Revelation 12. But if the woman fled into the wilderness after she gave birth to Jesus Christ she has been there much longer than 3.5 years, closer to 2000 years!
It will be a literal 3 1\2 years as it is written.
Just as there will be three Resurrections within the timeframe spoken of as it is written.
God bless.
Thank GOD I have not been seduced by John Nelson Darby's false doctrine of pre-trib-rapture-ready-"snatching away" of the "parenthesis" Church-dispensationalism invented 1800 years after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ who shed His blood for HIS Bride the Church. He did not shed HIS Blood for a "parenthesis" but for HIS Bride, the Church!
Not sure that would be worse than being Catholic without even knowing it, lol.
At least other Catholics can tell us why they choose a Catholic view.
God bless.
You don't believe what Paul clearly taught of a church being caught away or as it says caught up, to meet Him in the air. Nor Jesus saying He would keep those who have overcome from the time of Testing that is coming upon the whole earth. Or His teaching of a rapture followed by the Tribulation in Matthew 24. I'll pray that the Holy Spirit leads you to the truth of scripture.Thank GOD I have not been seduced by John Nelson Darby's false doctrine of pre-trib-rapture-ready-"snatching away" of the "parenthesis" Church-dispensationalism invented 1800 years after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ who shed His blood for HIS Bride the Church. He did not shed HIS Blood for a "parenthesis" but for HIS Bride, the Church!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
That is utter nonsense!You don't believe what Paul clearly taught of a church being caught away or as it says caught up, to meet Him in the air.
Nor Jesus saying He would keep those who have overcome from the time of Testing that is coming upon the whole earth.
John 16:33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
More nonsense! Boy you just do not understand Scripture!Or His teaching of a rapture followed by the Tribulation in Matthew 24.
That is as hypocritical as DC's God Bless!I'll pray that the Holy Spirit leads you to the truth of scripture.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Roman Catholics put the words of the pope and teaching magisterium way above Scripture!
Some 'pre-trib-"snatching away" of the "parenthesis" Church' as taught by John Nelson Darby put his teaching way above of Scripture.
Seventh Day Adventists put the teaching of Ellen G. White on par with Scripture!
Mormons put the teaching of Joseph Smith on par with Scripture!
Some 'pre-trib-"snatching away" of the "parenthesis" Church' as taught by John Nelson Darby put his teaching way above of Scripture.
Seventh Day Adventists put the teaching of Ellen G. White on par with Scripture!
Mormons put the teaching of Joseph Smith on par with Scripture!
That is utter nonsense!
John 16:33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
More nonsense! Boy you just do not understand Scripture!
That is as hypocritical as DC's God Bless!
So you wouldn't pray for someone you disagree with?
That is utter nonsense!
John 16:33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.
More nonsense! Boy you just do not understand Scripture!
That is as hypocritical as DC's God Bless!
Bless you, my son.
God bless.
Roman Catholics put the words of the pope and teaching magisterium way above Scripture!
Some 'pre-trib-"snatching away" of the "parenthesis" Church' as taught by John Nelson Darby put his teaching way above of Scripture.
Seventh Day Adventists put the teaching of Ellen G. White on par with Scripture!
Mormons put the teaching of Joseph Smith on par with Scripture!
My, my, the kettle doth speak, yet speaketh not of yon pot, but revilest yet more kettles...
Let's look at the public record. Who quotes men more often?
Who teaches a catholic Doctrine?
Who is afraid to answer simple questions.
Yup...that dern kettle.
God bless.
Last edited by a moderator:
So you wouldn't pray for someone you disagree with?
I'm thinking he prays to St.Darby.
God bless.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Fot the ignorant and unlearned, even the stupid:
catholic: adjective
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catholic
Fot the ignorant and unlearned, even the stupid:
Yeah, some of us understand that. Why do you think I'm trying to help you out of the doctrinal fantasyland you've embraced, lol.
You don't have to remain an advocate of the Doctrine of Catholicism.
God bless.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
I repeat for those slower than normal.
catholic: adjective
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catholic
That is like saying "my authorities are better than your authorities.He came into His kingdom before that generation passed away. You're told that repeatedly in the Book.
Wrong. Late date theory is a house of cards when brought under scrutiny; to quote Robert Young:
But you just quoted one authority. The majority think it is a later date.The Book of Revelation was written in A. D. 96. The writer was the Apostle John. He was told to write the things which he "saw" and "heard." The Book therefore is a divinely given book, and is the "Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Re 1:1) and not of John.
Larkin
St. John was banished to Patmos in the latter part of the reign of Domitian, and he returned to Ephesus immediately after the death of that emperor, which happened in the year 96; and as the Apostle states, that these visions appeared to him while he was in that island, we may -consider this book as written in the year 95 or 96.
Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary
Eusebius, in summing up the tradition of the Church on this subject, assigns John's exile to Patmos, and consequently the composition of the Apocalypse, to the latter part of the reign of Domitian (81-96 AD). ISBE
Date.—Although the fixing of the date of Revelation presupposes conclusions as to its composition and purpose, it may here be said that in all probability the book reached its present form in the latter part of the reign of Domitian (a.d. 81–96).
James Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Simply an opinion.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.
No there isn't. The book is applicable to every age.Also, there is compelling internal evidence within the book itself that much of it is concerned with the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem:
You have given nothing here--no evidence at all--that indicates that the book should have an early date. So it has the Song of Moses in it? How does that affect the date? It doesn't it! The book was written by John, inspired by God, and written at the end of the first century. Most agree on that.And I saw another sign in heaven....and them that come off victorious from the beast... they sing the song of Moses the servant of God....Rev 15.1-3
The song of Moses is being sang in heaven in the 15th chapter of Revelation, which is very significant when you consider that the song of Moses had only one purpose and time, and that was to 'testify before Israel as a witness against them' when they had utterly corrupted themselves and evil had befallen them in the 'latter days':
16 And Jehovah said unto Moses.....this people will rise up, and play the harlot ...and break my covenant which I have made with them.
17 Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day.....and many evils and troubles shall come upon them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?
18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evil which they shall have wrought.....
19 Now therefore write ye this song for you...... that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.
21....when many evils and troubles are come upon them, that this song shall testify before them as a witness.....
29 For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do that which is evil in the sight of Jehovah, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.
30 And Moses spake in the ears of all the assembly of Israel the words of this song, until they were finished. Dt 31
The Song of Moses is quoted from by both Christ and the Apostles in reference to 'that evil generation' of Jews of their day in the gospels and the epistles.
And concerning the external evidence that the book was written prior to 70 AD, there is just as much or more that points to the earlier date:
http://www.eschatology.org/index.ph...-revelation-guest-article&catid=40&Itemid=211
I repeat for those slower than normal.
Well, yes, it is true, this tablet does slow things down.
But you have the wrong dictionary. Let me help you out:
http://www.thesacredheart.com/dictnary.htm
Scroll on down to the Cs.
God bless.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You have given nothing here--no evidence at all--that indicates that the book should have an early date. So it has the Song of Moses in it? How does that affect the date? It doesn't it! The book was written by John, inspired by God, and written at the end of the first century. Most agree on that.
Frankly I think the date when the Book of Revelation was written, before 70AD or after 70 AD is irrelevant. But I understand where KY is coming from.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.