Featured Papias Quote and Early Date of Revelation

Ok

 

Well, according to F.F. Bruce (The Spreading Flame, Paternoster Press, 1958), Because the Christians in Judea refused to support Bar-Kokhba in the second Jewish War of 132-135 because of his messianic claims, they suffered 'considerable persecution.'
So any claim that AD 70 was the end of Jewish persecution of Christians is incorrect.

 

What does this prove except that you were probably mistaken before you became a Hyper-Preterist as well as afterward?. My point still stands. It is unwise to take a theological position that is dependent upon extra-biblical writings.

And this is very easy and cheap to say. My theological stance is based on the Bible. It is fine tuned by those here whose Scriptural acumen is apparent in their writings, usually not by those whose theological system is based on an insatiable desire for novelty.

And Hyper-Preterism is still entirely refuted by Acts of the Apostles 1:11.

 

I’m not interested in their view of inspiration, but considered the view of dating the writing credible and the reliance upon accurate documentation of historical facts.

 

there is no internal evidence of an early date of revelation.

 

Dating of a writing is not a “inspiration” dependent matter.

The writer of the Revelation gives his name and the place of writing. Historical records of rulers and times can validate the accuracy of when that writer wrote. One does not even have to read and believe the account, but can investigate the veracity of the writer’s own date and place of writing to see if they are truthful.

Now, I in no means am stating the Revelation is without the inspiration of God, but that is a theology question, not one of archeology, and historical records.

 

A faulty view of salvation is also a major issue. Have you yet asked your friend from the OP, the Church of Christ preacher, if he believes in baptismal regeneration?

Folks, I'm sure Tom has me on ignore now, but I simply had to post this. He thinks a faulty view of inspiration is bad, but seems to think a faulty view of how to get saved is okay. Plus, he never answered my substantive reply to his OP, but preferred to get all hot and bothered that I thought his source might be a heretic, calling it a "vicious smear" even though I did not accuse but only brought up the subject.

Okay. carry on.

 

Don't forget Stephen.

 

The symbolic form of 1000 years is the Lord's Day. Since John did not use the phrase Lord's Day in Revelation 20, 6 times, but the term 1000, it is safe to say 1000 was not intended as a symbolic term in this case.

Now one can argue was John caught up by the Spirit during this 1000 years, as he used the symbolic phrase Lord's Day in Revelation 1:10. If you think that was just symbolic of the first day of the week, then 1000 can only be symbolic of 1000, because there is no indication that what he witnessed was not literal events. He only used symbolic terms for what the literal events were. If you saw the history of 1000 years unfold, what symbolic term would you use that would explain a literal 1000 years, other than the word 1000 which is what John literally saw.

So you accept John was only writing his thoughts with symbols? He was not seeing symbols in his head? He witnessed literal events, but only wrote them down using symbolism? Because one does not have to use symbols for everything. When people were killed, they were literally killed. That does not need symbolism. When Jesus Christ was unsealing the literal Lamb's book of life, it was a literal book in heaven. The GWT is a literal Great White Throne. A literal God sits on that literal throne. Heaven and earth are literal places, not symbolic references to other places. The humans are literal humans. The dead are literally dead, not just symbolically dead. John does not symbolize every thing John witnessed. In fact John literally witnessed the actual events. In one place, he was literally writing things down, when the angel literally told him to stop literally writing. Would John use literal actions to symbolize a symbolic event? Highly unlikely, and it is highly unlikely 1000 is a symbolic term for some other time frame. There is already a symbolic way of saying 1000 years, and it is the Day of the Lord. A Day with the Lord is the symbolic way to state 1000 years.

 

Had the kingdom already started before John was on the isle of Patmos?

Why are there firstfruits written about for a future Millennial Kingdom? Why did John not just give us the firstfruits from when Jesus was back on earth in the late 20's? There are no new additions during this future 1000 year reign, other than by new human births. Right now physical death is the point we fully enter the Kingdom of Christ. On earth we are only aliens and Ambassadors of the Kingdom of Christ. One has to be born again, spiritually, not physically to enter the Kingdom of Christ. Why are we Ambassadors of heaven and not another current Nation? If we were actual citizens, it would be on earth, but we are citizens of Paradise, not earth. And being an Ambassador indicates the whole earth is not one nation controlled by Jesus Christ. Why would Christ have Ambassadors in His own kingdom, which also entails many separate Nations, not one single Kingdom?

 

So does the book have symbols about literal events? Or did John put literal words in describing symbolic scenes? Either way, 1000 is still 1000. John either literally saw this 1000 years, and for lack of better symbolism put 1000 years, exactly as he saw that 1000 years, or John saw a symbol, and still declared 1000 years, instead of the symbolism.

If John saw 1000 years in some symbolic form, ie a picture, he did not give us that picture or symbol. He still went with 1000 years, instead of some obscure symbolism. We already have the symbolism of the Day of the Lord equating to 1000 years. Do we need another added form of symbolism? Why write an exact amount, as a form of symbolism for anything? That is as misleading as claiming Satan did not show up at Armageddon, thus Armageddon was not when Satan was bound and placed in the pit.

 

This may have been true 100 years ago. But after 1948 we now have another apostate sovereign nation of Israel. While they currently do not martyr Christians at a tribulation level, there is still going to be a similar tribulation period that resembles Revelation even closer than 1st century Judaea. Is Jerusalem still not the same Jerusalem that Jesus wept over? Not the same Jerusalem that killed the prophets? None of those facts have changed locality. Israel is even more "in bed" with pagan governments than even before. What is even more fantastic, is they have set up and ready to go, the exact same religious system as did the first century Jerusalem. That does not mean God is going to implement man's choice of worship, but it is the same "lack of God" form of religion Revelation talks about.

The biggest differences is Revelation does not obliterate Jerusalem in the process, but actually extends control for 1000 years. In the first century, Jerusalem was obliterated, and desolate for centuries. Revelation 20 does not resemble the aftermath of 70AD at all. That is why some must symbolize the chapter to make it fit the last 1900 years.

 

Neither would most sources of the first and second century on those grounds. All had some issues or another, except perhaps Justin Martyr.

 

One point the Revelation does destroy is any corporate election which is tied into prevenient grace thinking.

In my opinion, I find it fascinating to consider the 120,000 Jewish evangelicals are possibly already born and serving time learning at the feet of unbelieving rabbis sort of like Saul did as he grew and went to a famous school taught by Gamaliel.

However, the Lord may not return for another 1000 years.

 

Amil and postmil have had 2 millennia. Now the pre-mill will have theirs.