Post-mil is right

[kyredneck]

There you have it. With turkey sandwich in hand and mouth, this fearless Bible scholar has just made one of the most precise summaries ever: defining biblical Christianity as Jesus would have us live it.

I do feel the author left out one minor comfort, however.

I don't just want cable........I WANT MY MTV!

17 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Say unto thy brethren, This do ye: lade your beasts, and go, get you unto the land of Canaan;
18 and take your father and your households, and come unto me: and I will give you the good of the land of Egypt, and ye shall eat the fat of the land. Gen 45

 

[Luke2427]

There you have it. With turkey sandwich in hand and mouth, this fearless Bible scholar has just made one of the most precise summaries ever: defining biblical Christianity as Jesus would have us live it.

I do feel the author left out one minor comfort, however.

I don't just want cable........I WANT MY MTV!

As a matter of fact, the Gospel does beat back hunger and enhance the quality of life in whatever land it overtakes. Only a fool in the highest degree would argue that what has made America great was not the Christian principles upon which she was founded.

The fact that Christian pilgrims and Puritans tamed this wild land, the fact that Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield and others preached the Gospel and thereby sparked a Great Awakening so that the vast majortiy of the nation consisted of devout Christians when this nation was founded has EVERYTHING to do with why this nation became so great.

 

[kyredneck]

Ahh Luke, you're preaching to the choir here.

 

[percho]

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. Matt 16:28 17:2,4,9

Has this vision of the glorified Son of man with his face shining as bright as the sun coming in his kingdom taken place? When? I guess the only ones who were able to see this coming were the ones born again? I guess the ones born again yesterday must have seen the coming metaphorically?

What do the tabernacles have to do with the kingdom of God? Are tabernacles referenced here a reference to the feast of tabernacles?


In the parable of Luke 19 exactly when did Jesus go to a far country to receive a kingdom and return? When did he go? Where did he go? When did he return? What are the pounds he gave his servants. Could it be the firstfruits of the Spirit. Gifts to men.

Are firstfruits of the Spirit still being given out or has he returned and called for an accounting?

 

[Iconoclast]

QUOTE=preachinjesus;2019851]Icon, thanks for the thoughtful posts. My tone here is always one of friendship and congeniality.

Edwards is an outstanding theologian to read and his coherency is a hallmark of his robust theological prolegomena. Granted, I entirely disagree with his reformed position and his eschatology, but I can appreciate his system and contribution.

At another time we will discuss this:laugh: Not here however

Well, let me recommend a host of better theologians to present the premillennial position. We can start with GE Ladd and then swing over to Carl FH Henry.

I have read a bit by Ladd....historic premill does not bother me as much.

Now this is interesting, because my study on the Kingdom of God is that it is only truly ushered in at the eschaton.

When we are told that men have been translated "into" the kingdom...how can you support your idea?

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

That God brings His final eschatological Kingdom is not something mankind is able to produce by good works here on Earth.

No one teaches that we produce the Kingdom by good works.

The incarnation did not usher in the Kingdom of God but inaugurated the era of the New Covenant (sealed at the Cross) which fulfilled the prophecies and commitments of the older covenants.

The new testament language indicates both are true now...the new covenant,and the Kingdom. How else can you read this???

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.

27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear:

29 For our God is a consuming fire.

The incarnation is extraordinarily significant for the world. Yet saying the Kingdom of God is in the world now seems to discount the role and ministry of the Holy Spirit to aid believers. If the Kingdom was established (I guess we'd have to choose between the Resurrection, Pentecost, or AD 70) why does the Holy Spirit still have a ministry among us?

The Holy Spirit empowers us for Kingdom service through the word in this age and that which is to come.

Isn't it interesting that most premillennialists are highly involved in society, politics, and staying within the culture to present Christ?

That is not what I have seen or heard.

I don't see a mad rush to ecclesiological bomb-shelters to pray for the rapture and let the world go to hades in a handbasket.

I have heard those kind of sermons.....not in awhile,and not worded that way.The idea is lets save a few souls before it gets really bad.

I can probably list a half dozen reasons why Revelation 5-18 is futurist and depicts future coming events. Again, this conversation does come down to how one approaches Revelation and the other passages within the NT.

Yes I believe it was written mostly to warn them what was to come upon them.

The entire argument of the postmillennialist (and preterist) rests on an early dating to Revelation. However, given the internal and external data we have it isn't possible to date Revelation prior to AD 70. So what happens to the postmillennialist position if Revelation is written after AD 70?

John was told to measure the temple...that would be easier if it was still standing.


I don't completely agree here, because you have to reconcile the language being used with contexts that escape the content of Revelation (even if you read it prior to AD 70.) The scenes depicted and the events unraveled appear to defy contextualization within the history of Israel, be those prior to the Second Temple or prior to AD 70. The language of Revelation is predictive insofar as it anticipates, along with other NT eschatological passages an eventual return beyond the present age.

When we move to that larger perspective of the NT's treatment of eschatology there are some passages that need to be reconciled such as:

Matthew 24 - Several of the marks of the end of the age are the proliferation of natural disasters, disease, persecution, and false teachers. If these things all happened prior to AD 70, then why is the highest mark of false teachers and persecution of the Church after AD 70?

The warning was to come upon....that generation,and it did.


[

b]Matthew 24:21[/b]As well in the Olivet Discourse, Jesus notes that there will be suffering like to no other time? How is this aligned with a psotmillennial view that things are going to get better prior to Jesus return?

Because it took place already.

Mark 13:26-35 point out that Jesus' second coming is brought with great power and glory, vanquishing the wicked. If this has already happened, when did those in the first century all see Jesus return during AD 70?

It was not a physical return...He came in judgement upon that generation as He told them He would.

Parables of Return - there are bunch of parables about the return of Jesus Christ and being ready. Within them there is an element of sinfulness along with holiness. The larger idea is that when Jesus returns it is visible and not cloaked in spirituality. It is a literal return. Postmil position seems to obscure this.

I think they speak directly to Kingdom responsibilities.....the first Israel failed.....the Christian Israel does not fail.

1 Corinthians 4:5 Paul points out that in Jesus' return darkness will still exist in the world, he contrasts Jesus' coming with bringing light. If the postmil position is correct, and we are in an increasingly better age, why is there still darkness at Jesus return?

No scheme has a sinless scenerio.All hold to a final cleansing.

Jude 14f Jude protrays the eschatological return of Christ to judge false teachers and sinners who "In the endtime...walking according to their own ungodly desires." (Jude 18) If this is a glorious Kingdom age where the Gospel is established and God's Kingdom is here, why is such a picture painted in Jude of despair and sinfulness?

Notice the angelic beings sort out all who offend;They were in the Kingdom but yet in rebellion.


41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Canonically we see that the second coming of Christ carries an expectation of it occurring amid turmoil, cf. Daniel 7:13, Zechariah 14:5

.

Daniel 7 is when Jesus ascended, not the second coming.

I think these are a handful of many other passages that describe the challenge of consistent interpretation of a postmillennailist position.

I understand what you are saying.

When reading the Bible in a straightforward, plain text way understanding its context and literary functions, you have to suddenly shift to allegory and symbolism to achieve a postmillennial perspective. I don't see that as a consistent hermeneutic, nor as a consistent prophetic approach.

Postmill lets the bible interpret itself,with the language it uses.
If the symbols were literally fulfilled with Israel, why is there, in light of these passages, still a need for their continued, future fulfillment?

I'll respond more completely below, but the position of the postmillennialist is that things have been getting better and will continue to do so. I don't know how, after 2000 years we can still be in the early church stage. We clearly seem to have progressed outside of that. And I don't know any serious historian or theologian that would say that we are still in the early church stage.

If the number of the redeemed is more than the stars,and the sand of the sea....it will take a long time.

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.

Even if we say Jesus isn't returning for thousands of years (which is completely possible) we can't push out the timeline so long that we obscure or dismiss the ongoing troubles, travails, and persecutions of our day and before. That isn't a consistent position.

You are assuming mt 24 is for our day.

So are all the prophecies already fulfilled or will some more need to be fulfilled? I'm a bit confused. But maybe its because its Monday.

Many are and some are still to happen.

 

[kyredneck]

So prophecy is almost never literal.

No, prophecy is almost never understood until after the fact.

Except for:
- the virgin birth
- the crucifixion on a tree
- sold for 30 pieces of silver
- betrayed by a friend
- accused by false witnesses
- disciples forsaking him
- Jesus being beaten and spat upon
- Jesus' silence before his accusers
- the piercing of Jesus' hands and feet
- Jesus being crucified with thieves
- Jesus ridiculed
- His cloak was gambled away
- Jesus' words from the cross
- Bones not broken
- Heart broken and side pierced
- Darkness over the land
- Buried in a rich man's tomb
- Jesus had a forerunner in John the Baptist
- Where he was born
- When he was born
- How he was born
- His escape into the Egypt
- Jesus' resurrection
- Jesus ascension
- From the line of Abraham and household of David
- From the tribe of Judah
- Called Immanuel
- Would be a Nazarene of Galilee
- Would be given vinegar to drink on the cross

All of which was assimilated/comprehended 'after the fact'.

"In the New Testament prophecies are not made to point to facts, but facts to point back to prophecies." Alfred Edersheim

 

[kyredneck]

Mystery Babylon no mystery

And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. Rev 17:15

Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven… Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judaea and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, in Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians…Acts 2:5-11

For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath. Acts 15:21

...- The lack of complete destruction of Judaism in AD 70, destroying the Temple doesn't equal destroying Judaism ...

...I might come back to this later; frankly I don’t understand what your hang up on this is. It’s quite clear that the Harlot was not destroyed but left to be tormented by the seventh head w/ten horns of the beast. Edersheim delves somewhat into Judaism AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem, and how Babylon (imagine that) replaced Jerusalem as the epicenter of their religion.....

Excerpts from ‘The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah’- Edersheim:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.vi.i.html

“…the Palestinian Jews …. were now a minority. The majority of the nation constituted what was known as the dispersion… absence from Palestine was now entirely voluntary…as Josephus reminded his countrymen, there was ‘no nation in the world which had not among them part of the Jewish people,’ since it was ‘widely dispersed over all the world among its inhabitants… A century and a half before our era comes to us from Egypt - where the Jews possessed exceptional privileges …from the Jewish Sibyl, this lament of Israel -

Crowding with thy numbers every ocean and country -

Yet an offense to all around thy presence and customs!19

….. Strabo bears the like witness to their presence in every land….. Philo tells….of his countrymen as in ‘all the cities of Europe, in the provinces of Asia and in the islands,’ he describes them as, wherever sojourning, having but one metropolis - not Alexandria, Antioch, or Rome - but ‘the Holy City with its Temple, dedicated to the Most High God.’ A nation, the vast majority of which was dispersed over the whole inhabited earth, had ceased to be a special, and become a world-nation. Yet its heart beat in Jerusalem, and thence the life-blood passed to its most distant members. And this, indeed, if we rightly understand it, was the grand object of the ‘Jewish dispersion’ throughout the world….”

“…the division of the ‘dispersion’ into two grand sections - the Eastern or Trans-Euphratic, and the Western or Hellenist…. Pharisaism, in its pride of legal purity and of the possession of traditional lore, with all that it involved, made no secret of its contempt for the Hellenists, and openly declared the Grecian far inferior to the Babylonian ‘dispersion….the estimate in which the Babylonians were held by the leaders of Judaism. Indeed, according to one view of it, Babylonia, as well as ‘Syria’ as far north as Antioch, was regarded as forming part of the land of Israel. Every other country was considered outside ‘the land,’ as Palestine was called, with the exception of Babylonia, which was reckoned as part of it. For Syria and Mesopotamia, eastwards to the banks of the Tigris, were supposed to have been in the territory which King David had conquered, and this made them ideally for ever like the land of Israel. But it was just between the Euphrates and the Tigris that the largest and wealthiest settlements of the Jews were, to such extent that a later writer actually designated them ‘the land of Israel.’…”

“…it is of the greatest importance to remember in regard to this Eastern dispersion, that only a minority of the Jews, consisting in all of about 50,000, originally returned from Babylon, first under Zerubbabel and afterwards under Ezra. Nor was their inferiority confined to numbers. The wealthiest and most influential of the Jews remained behind. According to Josephus, with whom Philo substantially agrees, vast numbers, estimated at millions, inhabited the Trans-Euphratic provinces….A later tradition had it, that so dense was the Jewish population in the Persian Empire, that Cyrus forbade the further return of the exiles, lest the country should be depopulated. So large and compact a body soon became a political power. Kindly treated under the Persian monarchy, they were, after the fall of that empire, favoured by the successors of Alexander. When in turn the Macedono-Syrian rule gave place to the Parthian Empire, the Jews formed, from their national opposition to Rome, an important element in the East. Such was their influence that, as late as the year 40 a.d., the Roman legate shrank from provoking their hostility…..”

“But Palestine owed, if possible, a still greater debt to Babylonia….Jewish theology divided into two branches: the Halakhah and the Haggadah. The former (from halakh, to go) was, so to speak, the Rule of the Spiritual Road, and, when fixed, had even greater authority than the Scriptures of the Old Testament, since it explained and applied them. On the other hand, the Haggadah59 (from nagad, to tell) was only the personal saying of the teacher, more or less valuable according to his learning and popularity, or the authorities which he could quote in his support….strange as it may sound, almost all the doctrinal teaching of the Synagogue is to be derived from the Haggadah - and this also is characteristic of Jewish traditionalism. But, alike in Halakhah and Haggadah, Palestine was under the deepest obligation to Babylonia. For the father of Halakhic study was Hillel, the Babylonian, and among the popular Haggadists there is not a name better known than that of Eleazar the Mede, who flourished in the first century of our era.”

“…‘when the Law had fallen into oblivion, it was restored by Ezra of Babylon; when it was a second time forgotten, Hillel the Babylonian came and recovered it; and when yet a third time it fell into oblivion, Rabbi Chija came from Babylon and gave it back once more…”

“…after the destruction of Jerusalem the spiritual supremacy of Palestine passed to Babylonia, and that Rabbinical Judaism, under the stress of political adversity, voluntarily transferred itself to the seats of Israel's ancient dispersion, as if to ratify by its own act what the judgment of God had formerly executed. But long before that time the Babylonian ‘dispersion’ had already stretched out its hands in every direction….”

 

[preachinjesus]

I'll come back later to answer more completely, but first kyredneck...

You're really relying on Erdesheim's work, which is odd, since he was born about 200 years ago. His data on the nature of first century Judaism was helpful in the 1800s when he did his scholarship.

However, the amount of scholarship that has occurred over the past 50 years has improved upon and, in more than a few cases, shown some of his conclusions to be incorrect.

If you can find a better scholar we might be able to take your points more seriously, but he isn't a credible source for this discussion since his material is very out of date.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'll come back later to answer more completely, but first kyredneck...

You're really relying on Erdesheim's work, which is odd, since he was born about 200 years ago. His data on the nature of first century Judaism was helpful in the 1800s when he did his scholarship.

However, the amount of scholarship that has occurred over the past 50 years has improved upon and, in more than a few cases, shown some of his conclusions to be incorrect.

If you can find a better scholar we might be able to take your points more seriously, but he isn't a credible source for this discussion since his material is very out of date.

Think that the Kingdom of Christ to be fully established over all the earth as envisioned by BOTH the prophets/Apostles would reuire more than the church going acroos the world, but would need the King Himself to achieve that, by His coming to earth!

 

[kyredneck]

Think that the Kingdom of Christ to be fully established over all the earth as envisioned by BOTH the prophets/Apostles would reuire more than the church going acroos the world, but would need the King Himself to achieve that, by His coming to earth!

The King did come as He said He would, but as is the norm with 'you people' you refuse to accept the plain time referents that have been given us.

Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Mt 16:28

Note, in the above He is 'coming into His kingdom; below He has reigned already and is delivering up the kingdom:

….Christ`s, at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 1 Cor 15:23-26

 

[Yeshua1]

The King did come as He said He would, but as is the norm with 'you people' you refuse to accept the plain time referents that have been given us.

Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Mt 16:28

Note, in the above He is 'coming into His kingdom; below He has reigned already and is delivering up the kingdom:

….Christ`s, at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 1 Cor 15:23-26

true, Jesus must reign in his kingdom here on Earth, and that happens at His Second Coming! after that period of time, he hands it over to the Father, and the Eternal stae begins!

 

[percho]

The King did come as He said He would, but as is the norm with 'you people' you refuse to accept the plain time referents that have been given us.

Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Mt 16:28*

Note, in the above He is 'coming into His kingdom; below He has reigned already and is delivering up the kingdom:

….Christ`s, at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 1 Cor 15:23-26

*Post 104 questions this.

 

[percho]

Deu. 32:26 I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men:

Jews at the time of Christ were scattered over the known world. Did the people of those areas know who the Jews were?
How did Hitler know who the Jews were to put them in the camps?

Who has God caused the remembrance of to cease?

Hosea 2:11 I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.

Are the days and feasts she established in contrast to the days and feasts that God established?

And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land: And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all: Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant [shall be] king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. Ezek 37:21-24

Does that above sound a lot like the following?

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, (flock) [and] one shepherd.

A T Robertson concerning flock above: Christ‘s use of “flock” (ποιμνη — poimnē) here is just another metaphor for kingdom (βασιλεια — basileia) in Matthew 8:11 where the children of the kingdom come from all climes and nations.

 

[kyredneck]

I'll come back later to answer more completely, but first kyredneck...

You're really relying on Erdesheim's work, which is odd, since he was born about 200 years ago. His data on the nature of first century Judaism was helpful in the 1800s when he did his scholarship.

Odd? He was raised and educated a Jew, and was probably the foremost authority on Judaism of his day. Odd?

However, the amount of scholarship that has occurred over the past 50 years has improved upon and, in more than a few cases, shown some of his conclusions to be incorrect.

To quote from post #93:

"I'll look forward to precise answers on those."

Now that you've subtlety smeared the man in order to discredit the history he gave concerning the collaboration between Babylonian and Palestinian Jewry. You're disappointing me.

If you can find a better scholar we might be able to take your points more seriously, but he isn't a credible source for this discussion since his material is very out of date.

No, you back up your smear and come up with scholar(s) that disputes/refutes the history he gave concerning the collaboration between Babylonian and Palestinian Jewry. If you don't I'll have to conclude that this is simply a false claim and dirty tactic on your part.

 

[kyredneck]

My apologies to you PJ for using the word 'smear' in the above post; it puts you in a bad light and I should've said it another way. It frustrates me that when the heat is on with some of you higher educated types that you are quick to resort to discrediting the source instead of addressing whether what's been presented is truth or not. I'm also sure that you would not intentionally make a false claim. Please forgive me.

 

[kyredneck]

And I know you're a busy man and pressed for time to devote to this thread, so, take your time :

...The entire argument of the postmillennialist (and preterist) rests on an early dating to Revelation. However, given the internal and external data we have it isn't possible to date Revelation prior to AD 70. So what happens to the postmillennialist position if Revelation is written after AD 70?....

On the contrary, 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...on/889-the-dating-of-revelation-guest-article

And 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.

 

[preachinjesus]

My apologies to you PJ for using the word 'smear' in the above post; it puts you in a bad light and I should've said it another way. It frustrates me that when the heat is on with some of you higher educated types that you are quick to resort to discrediting the source instead of addressing whether what's been presented is truth or not. I'm also sure that you would not intentionally make a false claim. Please forgive me.

No worries. Sometimes the approach of scholarship evokes different reactions.

Odd? He was raised and educated a Jew, and was probably the foremost authority on Judaism of his day. Odd?

His day was 150 years ago. Which is fine, 150 years ago. While Edersheim has contributed to the present day studies, his conclusions are not as helpful as other, more recent archeological and Judaic studies voices.

If for no other reasons than:
1) Ugaritic hadn't been discovered yet. This linguistcal discovery has yielded substantial content that has advanced present day understandings of the first century context and Second Temple Judaism beyond what scholars had any knowledge of in Edersheim's day.
2) The Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran were unknown. The greatest archeological discovery of last century has changed what we know about the context and setting of the first century Judeo-Palestinian life.
3) The bulk of contemporary archeology has improved on his conclusions. Since we've been making substantial discoveries since 150 years ago, the entire affair has changed.
4) All of this together has brought together a substantially more informed picture than anyone could have imagined or cobbled together 150 years ago.

Now that you've subtlety smeared the man in order to discredit the history he gave concerning the collaboration between Babylonian and Palestinian Jewry. You're disappointing me.

No, you back up your smear and come up with scholar(s) that disputes/refutes the history he gave concerning the collaboration between Babylonian and Palestinian Jewry. If you don't I'll have to conclude that this is simply a false claim and dirty tactic on your part.

I didn't take time to produce actual scholarship because I've honestly hadn't the time to go and dig up the stuff and also, as we've already seen this thread, substantial interaction on this board is usually mocked and often ignored so I'm challenged to take a lot of time to create higher level posts.

That said, my points about Edersheim aren't that he's a bad person (I have no clue) or was a bad scholar (he clearly was influential in his times) but that given his field of work is limited to what happened 150 years ago, he isn't as valuable a source as more contemporary works.

A couple of things that I'll add, specifically, to that list I just mentioned.

I'd say that to see the improvement on some of Edersheim's works you need to check out guys like:

Robert Hayward (specifically his discussion about Memra cf. Edersheim)
James DG Dunn
Yitzhaq Baer (here the work on Bar Kokhba as it relates to our line of inquiry)
David Goldblatt
EP Sanders
Jacob Neuser

There are lots of ways to show how Edersheim's thoughts have been improved upon, and that isn't to say he's a poor historian or theologian. It is to say there are better sources with more informed content.

Hope this helps. I'm always happy to engage at a deeper level.

 

[kyredneck]

.....I'd say that to see the improvement on some of Edersheim's works you need to check out guys like:

Robert Hayward (specifically his discussion about Memra cf. Edersheim)
James DG Dunn
Yitzhaq Baer (here the work on Bar Kokhba as it relates to our line of inquiry)
David Goldblatt
EP Sanders
Jacob Neuser

There are lots of ways to show how Edersheim's thoughts have been improved upon, and that isn't to say he's a poor historian or theologian. It is to say there are better sources with more informed content.

Hope this helps. I'm always happy to engage at a deeper level.

Whew, that's about an hour of my life I'll never get back..........

 

[Iconoclast]

Fro...Ken Gentry...He Shall have Dominion-
Paul speaks to the Colossians in a way quite agreeable to this view of
the coming of the kingdom: “giving thanks to the Father, who has
qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. For He
delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the
kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col 1:12, 13). Inarguably, he is speaking of
Christ’s kingdom for he calls it “the kingdom of his dear Son.” Just as
clearly he considers this transferring to the kingdom as a past act (nearly
2,000 years ago now), not a future prospect. Paul uses aorist tense verbs
when he speaks of their being “delivered” and “transferred”; he does the
same in 1 Thessalonians 2:12. He even speaks of his ministry “for the
kingdom of God” (Col 4:11).
John follows suit in Revelation 1:6 and 9: “And [Christ] hath made us
kings and priests unto God and his Father. . . . I, John, who also am your
brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience
of Jesus Christ.” In these verses John speaks of first century Christians
(Rev 1:4, 11; 2–3) as already “made” (aorist tense) to be “a kingdom”
(literally). In fact, John is already a fellow with them in the “kingdom”
(Rev 1:9).
The Building of the Kingdom
In light of the above, Christians now rule and reign with Christ in the
world. Ephesians 1:3 declares we are blessed “in heavenly places.”
Ephesians 2:6 specifically teaches that he “raised us up with Him, and
36. See: Mt 27:29, 37; Mk 15:12, 26; Lk 23:3; Jn 18:33; 19:12, 15, 21.
37. Ro 10:9; 1Co 12:3; Php 2:11. See discussion of the creed-like status of this
declaration in: Gentry, Nourishment from the Word, 4–6.
268 He Shall Have Dominion
seated us with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus.” In God’s eyes
we sit with Christ in heavenly places (which, in essence, is the idea of Rev
20:4–6), i.e., in regal position.
Interestingly, the Epistle to the Ephesians can serve virtually as an
anti-dispensational polemic from the Apostle Paul. Notice how Ephesians
contradicts dispensational doctrines: Christ is presently a kingly Lord (Eph
1:19–22) and we are now sitting with him (1:3; 2:6). Paul applies “the
covenants [plural] of the promise” to Gentiles in the church (2:10–12). He
emphasizes the removing of the Jew / Gentile distinction (2:12–19). He
portrays the church’s building up as the building of the temple
(2:20–22 ). He notes that 38 the Old Testament teaches the New Testament
phase of the church, although not with the same fullness and clarity
(3:1–6).39 The pouring out of spiritual gifts at Pentecost celebrates Christ’s
kingly enthronement (4:8–11), while expecting the church’s historical
maturation (4:12–14). He speaks of the kingdom in a way that indicates
its spiritual rather than political nature (5:5).
In 1 Corinthians 3:21–22 Paul presents the noble status of Christians
in the world: “For all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or
Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to
come; all are yours.” Elsewhere we see the present kingly status of
Christians (e.g., Ro 5:17; Col 3:3; 1Ti 2:11, 12).
The initial excitement at Christ’s first kingdom proclamation sees
men and women crowding their way into it. “From the days of John the
Baptist until now the kingdom of Heaven has been taken by storm and
eager men are forcing their way into it” (Mt 11:12, J. B. Phillips’ translation).
Calvin understood this as saying “so many sought it with burning
zeal.”40

 

[thomas15]

We tend to be critical of the public education system for it's lack of focus with respect to math and sciences. But equal to that is the lack of focus in reading comprehension and simple word meaning.