Preterism is a Better View of the Bible than Futurism for Someone Suffering

[Logos1]

Why is it that no language is normal language in the future code?

You are all talk and no debate. I'm done. I can't debate thin air.

LOL—must be a futurist thing that no language means what you think it would mean based on its common every day usage. Here I thought John was done, but he keeps popping up with stuff about perverted scripture, righteous indignation, and Buddhists.

I’m thinking of making this a catch all thread so John can check in everyday with whatever is on his mind since he seems to need interaction with me on some level.

The Force is strong with this young Padawan.

Therefore, I think I should be patient with John because there is hope for him yet converting to Preterism. Sometimes it’s the ones who are the biggest opponents that come to the enlightenment of Preterism. I’d give him a few years and—well you never know.

But of course in heaven I think everyone will come to Preterists beliefs.

 

[revmwc]

And getting back on topic of Preterism being more comforting to those suffering, distressed, or in need of care etc.. Preterism is more consistent with the notion of community missions, evangelism, care for the needy, and the general notion of bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to earth.

In futurism there is the ever present overhang of the Lord’s return, speculation about the antichrist, watching the news for the fulfillment of biblical prophecies, etc, but Preterism has put all that in the past.

With Preterism the return of Christ is in the past which allows focus on other matters that make the world a better place.

Indeed if you think the world is about to end there is no need to undertake projects with long-term schedules since you don’t think you will be around to finish the work. Preterism embodies the concept of a world without end that allows long-term projects to be started that may not even be completed in the same generation.

Kingdom work such as building facilities for the needy, church planting and planning, and providing training for missionaries are the focus here not speculation about the latest news involving Israel.

Getting past the second coming of Christ and realizing that we are living in the day as spoken of in Romans 13:13. The “in the day” is a reference to the period of time after Christ has returned. He is exhorting them to live Godly lives in their present time not wait for the return of Christ, but to start right then to live as they should live in the period after Christ has returned.

This is a reference to life in the period after Christ’s return.

Hence going about the Lord’s work makes Preterism a better view of eschatology for those who need comfort, assistance, and support from the church.

So Paul says in 1 Thessollians that Christ return and the dead in Christ rising first amd to compfrt one another with theses is as you "In futurism there is the ever present overhang of the Lord’s return, speculation about the antichrist, watching the news for the fulfillment of biblical prophecies, etc, but Preterism has put all that in the past." All in past, I suppose you think is foolishness and just shouldn't be in the Bible since it will never take place.
This portion of scripture needs to be discounted also:
1 Corinthians 15: 47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

The word for grave in verse 55 is of course Hades: Home > Lexicons > Greek Lexicon > hadēs

The New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 86 encodedOriginalWord
Original Word Word Origin
ᾅδης from (1) (as negative particle) and (1492)
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
hadēs hah'-dace
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Location 1:146,22
Definition
1.name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions

2. Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead
3. later use of this word: the grave, death, hell

Since the first use in the verse is Death, that would leave the second to means grave or hell. Since hell is the torments abode it would seem unusal for the rising of Believers to mean hell. So grave is a better translation. So the grave gives up the dead, those who are dead in Christ will be raised from the corruption of death and the grave to a new incorruptable body, Comfort one another with these Words as Paul commanded in 1st Thessallonians.

Of you think Paul's teaching is foolish since He said for the believer the Grave is conquered.

 

[Logos1]

And that's a good plan?

All in past, I suppose you think is foolishness and just shouldn't be in the Bible since it will never take place.

Hmmm, it was in the future to Paul writing it…past to us. Seems pretty obvious.

It is difficult to follow what you are saying in this post. I don’t think I can answer in a direct way. I’ll just comment that Christ has achieved victory over death and this is a reference to sin death—separation from God—not physical death.

This victory would have been complete in 70 AD.

Any pastor telling the family of a loved one that their deceased is in heaven is taking a Preterist approach. Otherwise you would have to tell them they won't be in heaven till Christ returns at some point in the future--which of course just never comes so you are left hanging forever waiting for it.

And that's a good plan?

As Hannibal Hayes use to say in Alais Smith and Jones

 

[revmwc]

Hmmm, it was in the future to Paul writing it…past to us. Seems pretty obvious.

It is difficult to follow what you are saying in this post. I don’t think I can answer in a direct way. I’ll just comment that Christ has achieved victory over death and this is a reference to sin death—separation from God—not physical death.

This victory would have been complete in 70 AD.

Any pastor telling the family of a loved one that their deceased is in heaven is taking a Preterist approach. Otherwise you would have to tell them they won't be in heaven till Christ returns at some point in the future--which of course just never comes so you are left hanging forever waiting for it.

And that's a good plan?

As Hannibal Hayes use to say in Alais Smith and Jones

Their soul and Spirit are in heaven as Paul taught, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, simple scripture. The events Paul describres as future, Christ meeting His church in the air and the dead in Christ rising first as 1 Thessalonians clealry states would mark the end of the church and as the bride in heaven being prepared for the marriage feast. 1st Corinthians 3 the rewards received taking place happens when the church is taken out and the the hour of tempatation (triblation) spoken of by Jesus in Revelation 3:10 "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." occurs. Until then Christ return is still emminent and I will continue to look for it and in the end receive a crown of righteousness for those who love (look) for his appearing. You can lose your crown of righteousness if you choose I choose to believe scripture and that He will return forst for His bride the church and second to restore Israel and set up His Kingdom for 1000 years.

You say it is in the past, which means we are in the 7 years of tribulation spoken of by John, wait 70 A.D. to 2011 that doesn't add up to 7 years unless we take what Peter said 2 Peter 3: 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Then we are only in the second day of the 1000 years, and Christ will then come and rule on the earth as the Bible tells us.

Genesis 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.
13And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;
14And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

This can then be fulfilled, as the messengers of God ascend and descend during Christ Kingdom. The descendents of Isarael (Jacob) will spread all over the land that he laid on.
All nations will be blessed by his seed (Jesus) reigning on the earth. As we are blessed by Him today so will they be even more with Him living in His ressurected Body amoung them.

 

[annsni]

Any pastor telling the family of a loved one that their deceased is in heaven is taking a Preterist approach. Otherwise you would have to tell them they won't be in heaven till Christ returns at some point in the future--which of course just never comes so you are left hanging forever waiting for it.

I will also disagree with this. Scripture clearly states that we will be with the Lord after death. It's just that our bodies will be reunited with us at a later time.

If you believe that Christ came back already, why are there bodies in the grave? I have seen many people who are dead and their bodies are clearly still here.

 

[thomas15]

Um, quick to anger you are. Um Preterist training you need. Only a fully trained Preterist Master can control his temper when the heat turned up it is on the BB.

I feel no anger John. Accustomed I am to insults, false comparisons, inaccurate quotes, and accusations of heresy, etc., etc. Tougher skin you need.

Only a fully trained Preterist can remain cool on the BB. Much to learn you still have.

Use the Force John. But beware of the dark side.

You forget the exception clause for asterisktom who is allowed unlimited hissyfits if he doesn't get his preterist way.

But, the question has to be asked, if Jesus returned in AD 70 and is now seated on his throne ruling the Kingdom, which according to Rev 19 he rules with an iron septor and has the devil chained in the pit, why is there so much sin in the world and why are the churches (covenant theology teaches the church is the kingdom) so unkingdom like? Do not the churches, preterist included run the risk, based on current behavorial trends, of that of the Nation of Israel and have those grafted branches removed from the tree trunk? And if we were to show up for Sunday worship at Logos1 church will we see what the kingdom of Christ is about? All the blessings of Jehovah pouring out on the people?

 

[Logos1]

Their soul and Spirit are in heaven as Paul taught, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, simple scripture.

2 Corinthians 5:8
Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Sometimes the claims of futurists seem to indicate just an innocent lack of bible knowledge and sometimes they are so far a leftfield that only willful disregard for the scripture seems to explain them. Here we have the later.
We see in the above verse that we would rather be away from the body and at home with the lord not that they ARE at that point in time. We know for certain that no one has gone to heaven yet and Paul is merely expressing a desire to be present with the Lord (Which happens at the Lord’s coming in 70 AD). So how do we know for sure that no one has gone to heaven at this point—because the bible tells us so.

John 3:13
No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

I personally find it hard to believe that any reverend worth is salt would not be familiar with such a prominent verse from the book of John.

During the period between Pentecost and 70AD they are waiting while the Lord prepares a place for them as he said he was going to do in John 14:2.
I could say I don’t get it—what was so hard about that? But of course I do get it—futurism constantly needs to distort the teachings of Christ and the apostles to keep of the pretense of a future second coming of Christ.

Of course everyday that goes by futurism looks more and more implausible and Preterism looks more and more credible. A million years from now the roles may well be reversed and futurists will be the minority. In the mean time they will keep dying out waiting.

 

[Logos1]

I will also disagree with this. Scripture clearly states that we will be with the Lord after death. It's just that our bodies will be reunited with us at a later time.

If you believe that Christ came back already, why are there bodies in the grave? I have seen many people who are dead and their bodies are clearly still here.

I continue to wish your daughter well I have been remembering you family in my prayers.

See the above verses referenced in the answer to revmwc to verify that the bible says at the time of the writing of the New Testament that no one except Christ had gone to heaven—the only event that could change that unhappy circumstance since then is the return of Christ

 

[Logos1]

But, the question has to be asked, if Jesus returned in AD 70 and is now seated on his throne ruling the Kingdom, which according to Rev 19 he rules with an iron septor and has the devil chained in the pit, why is there so much sin in the world and why are the churches (covenant theology teaches the church is the kingdom) so unkingdom like? Do not the churches, preterist included run the risk, based on current behavorial trends, of that of the Nation of Israel and have those grafted branches removed from the tree trunk? And if we were to show up for Sunday worship at Logos1 church will we see what the kingdom of Christ is about? All the blessings of Jehovah pouring out on the people?

Revelation nor any other books claims we will live in paradise after Christ’s return. In fact Revelation points out just the opposite.

Some of the very last verses in the bible tell us about those who will still be on the outside of the New Jerusalem.

Rev. 22 tells us outside are the dogs, sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.

I think you gentlemen for your three replies and have to conclude that futurism isn’t doing a very good job of leading you into the truth of God’s Word. As a futurists I never could find real answers that didn’t contradict themselves—it’s only with Preterism that the bible doesn’t contradict itself. That simple fact should lead those in need of comfort into Preterism.

 

[revmwc]

2 Corinthians 5:8
Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Sometimes the claims of futurists seem to indicate just an innocent lack of bible knowledge and sometimes they are so far a leftfield that only willful disregard for the scripture seems to explain them. Here we have the later.
We see in the above verse that we would rather be away from the body and at home with the lord not that they ARE at that point in time. We know for certain that no one has gone to heaven yet and Paul is merely expressing a desire to be present with the Lord (Which happens at the Lord’s coming in 70 AD). So how do we know for sure that no one has gone to heaven at this point—because the bible tells us so.

John 3:13
No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

I personally find it hard to believe that any reverend worth is salt would not be familiar with such a prominent verse from the book of John.

During the period between Pentecost and 70AD they are waiting while the Lord prepares a place for them as he said he was going to do in John 14:2.
I could say I don’t get it—what was so hard about that? But of course I do get it—futurism constantly needs to distort the teachings of Christ and the apostles to keep of the pretense of a future second coming of Christ.

Of course everyday that goes by futurism looks more and more implausible and Preterism looks more and more credible. A million years from now the roles may well be reversed and futurists will be the minority. In the mean time they will keep dying out waiting.

Sometimes the claims of futurists seem to indicate just an innocent lack of bible knowledge and sometimes they are so far a leftfield that only willful disregard for the scripture seems to explain them. Here we have the later.
We see in the above verse that we would rather be away from the body and at home with the lord not that they ARE at that point in time. We know for certain that no one has gone to heaven yet and Paul is merely expressing a desire to be present with the Lord (Which happens at the Lord’s coming in 70 AD). So how do we know for sure that no one has gone to heaven at this point—because the bible tells us so..

First you say noone has gone to heaven yet and then you turn around and say it happened in 70 A.D. so which is it? If they are now in Heaven then we too have our souls and spirit go into heaven at death, unless of course you are one who believes in soul sleeping.

John 3:13
No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.

When Jesus taught this it was true they hadn't gone to heaven instead the believer went to Paradise an abode in Hades. Jesus even descended there and told the malefactor that he would be in Paradise with Him.

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.


So we know that the souls of these two went to into two very different places. When Jesus died and went to Paradise, He also asceneded as High Priest and presented the blood of the sacrifice to the Father and lead captivity captive bringing those souls out of the Paradise abode of Hades into Heaven.
Ephesians 4: 8Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Jesus went to Paradise in the inner parts of the Earth, where He preached to those souls in Prison, like the rich man in torments as we see he could hear the message from his abode when Jesus preached from Paradise. As could the angels in tartarus hear the message. 1 Peter 3:19.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need

Christ is our High Priest in heaven as both God and man, representing us to the Father. Therefore Paul could say "2 Corinthians 5:8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." Sound very much like Paul meant it would be immediately since that is what Christ told the malefactor, the eternal Home for soul and spirit would be reached immediately. Seems as if the 70 A.D. theory is just that a theory that can't be backed historically or scripturally.

Each that passes and the Lord hasn't returned we see Peter to be right when he wrote "2 Peter 3:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Scoffers findin their own teaching and their own lust to be right. Peter taught there would be a long period before the Lord returned, that it would be so long scoffers would come and out of their own lust. Just because one scoffs at seemingly long interval doesn't change the fact that He will return, too many scripures prove it. Jesus even taught it. In Gods time it has been a very very short time since Jesus "I come quickly" as 2 Peter 3:
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

To God it has only been a day and a partial day since Christ spoke those words, that is a very short time, as Christ said in Revelation 1 these things must shortly come to pass, a day and a partial day makes it shortly. But the 70 A.D. time of His return puts on man's time table instead of Gods.

 

[annsni]

I continue to wish your daughter well I have been remembering you family in my prayers.

Thank you!! I posted a link to my blog with the entire story in another thread but if you want to read it, here it is: http://lifeonthesound.blogspot.com/2011/05/solid-pseudopapillary-neoplasm.html

Lauren's doing amazingly well. You'd never know anything was wrong with her other than she's eating a lot less foods than she was before and she needs to be careful with too much fat (because of losing her gallbladder) but that part will resolve in time. She just started working full time at church for the summer which is a great blessing for her since she can't work at the grocery store yet but she needs money BADLY!! She's a young person, after all!

 

[Logos1]

Timelines 101

First you say noone has gone to heaven yet and then you turn around and say it happened in 70 A.D. so which is it?

Maybe paying just a wee bit more attention to your bible readings would clear things up for you. At the time of the writing of the NT no one except Christ has gone to heaven—what is so hard to grasp about that.

Note here is a teachable moment on how a timeline works. 70 AD is to the right of the writing of the book of John on a traditional timeline that means it came after the book of John was written.


The moral of this story – both statements are correct through the magic of linear time. First comes event A then follows event B. I know it’s a complex shift through the space time continuum for most futurists to grasp, but we should always be expanding our knowledge of the Good Book don’t you agree. One day you could make it to seminary and I know this knowledge will come in handy.

 

[Logos1]

The Most Inspiring Post I have ever Read on the BB

Thank you!! I posted a link to my blog with the entire story in another thread but if you want to read it, here it is: http://lifeonthesound.blogspot.com/2011/05/solid-pseudopapillary-neoplasm.html

Lauren's doing amazingly well. You'd never know anything was wrong with her other than she's eating a lot less foods than she was before and she needs to be careful with too much fat (because of losing her gallbladder) but that part will resolve in time. She just started working full time at church for the summer which is a great blessing for her since she can't work at the grocery store yet but she needs money BADLY!! She's a young person, after all!

Thank you annsni for the update. I rejoice with you in the wonderful news--that was truly inspiring to read. I admit that I’m surprised at how quickly such a remarkable recovery came about. It is a powerful testimony for the power of prayer, the healing power of God, and a reminder that the things that unite us on the BB are greater than the things that divide us.

Too often we lose site of the big things and quarrel over the small things.

Hope Lauren has a great summer!

 

[revmwc]

Maybe paying just a wee bit more attention to your bible readings would clear things up for you. At the time of the writing of the NT no one except Christ has gone to heaven—what is so hard to grasp about that.

Note here is a teachable moment on how a timeline works. 70 AD is to the right of the writing of the book of John on a traditional timeline that means it came after the book of John was written.


The moral of this story – both statements are correct through the magic of linear time. First comes event A then follows event B. I know it’s a complex shift through the space time continuum for most futurists to grasp, but we should always be expanding our knowledge of the Good Book don’t you agree. One day you could make it to seminary and I know this knowledge will come in handy.

Paul made it real clear the believer's desire, His desire was to be absent from the Body and Present with the Lord. He said
2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

Notice first verse 6 while we live we are absent from the Lord, but when we die Verse 8 tells us we can be confident that we will be present with the Lord.

Verse from the Interlinear: havING-COURAGE THEN always AND HAVING-PERCEIVED that IN-PUBLIC-ING IN THE BODY WE-ARE-OUT-PUBLIC-ING FROM THE Master
verse 8, WE-ARE-havING-COURAGE YET AND WE-ARE-WELL-SEEMING RATHER TO-OUT-PUBLIC OUT OF-THE BODY AND TO-IN-PUBLIC TOWARD THE Master.
The context of the word absent (ekdemoumen) ek -out from or to cobined wit the root (demos) people or public as we get the English Democracy from it, means to be out-from the body and at home with God. We are present (endemeo) (en- in) (demos) with God when we are absent eikdhmeNw which means to go abroad, emigrate, depart or to be or live abroad, Paul made it very clear to be absent, departed from the body we are dwelling in our own country, as citzens of heaven. Fairly clear with the original. It was an immediate transfer. Somewhere the transfer had taken place, between His death and the final ascension. When many believe the morning of ressurection between when He told Mary touch me not and the next appearance. Those souls were transfered from the Paradise abode to Heaven and so Paul said to be Absent from the Body is to be at Home with God. Very good time for Bible study.

 

[revmwc]

Maybe paying just a wee bit more attention to your bible readings would clear things up for you. At the time of the writing of the NT no one except Christ has gone to heaven—what is so hard to grasp about that.

Note here is a teachable moment on how a timeline works. 70 AD is to the right of the writing of the book of John on a traditional timeline that means it came after the book of John was written.


The moral of this story – both statements are correct through the magic of linear time. First comes event A then follows event B. I know it’s a complex shift through the space time continuum for most futurists to grasp, but we should always be expanding our knowledge of the Good Book don’t you agree. One day you could make it to seminary and I know this knowledge will come in handy.

So for the book of Revelation to have been written before 70 A.D. we now must rewrite history books correct?

The Emporer Domitian exiled John to Patmos, Domitian (born Oct. 24, AD 51 — died Sept. 18, 96, Rome) Roman emperor (81 – 96). The son of Vespasian, he succeeded his brother Titus, whom he probably had killed. His administration was ostensibly egalitarian and based on precedent, but his laws were severe. Defeats in Britain and Germany undid his successes, though increased pay for the army kept it loyal. From 89 he became crueler, imposing a reign of terror over prominent senators and confiscating his victims' property to cover imperial expenses. The group that killed him included his wife and possibly his successor, Nerva

History

1) The island of Patmos is seldom mentioned by ancient secular authors:
a) Patmos is mentioned by:
i) Thucydides (iii.33);
ii) Pliny (NH, iv.23);
iii) Strabo (x.5).
2) As for the Churchmen, the apostle John’s exile to Patmos under the emperor Domitian was testified to by:
a) Clement of Alexandria (Rich Man 42).
b) Tertullian:
“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!”
c) Eusebius:
“The Apostle John and the Apocalypse. IT is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: ‘If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.’”
d) Jerome:
“In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the tithe of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia.”
e) “According to several early church fathers (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius), John was sent to this island as a prisoner following his effective pastorate at Ephesus.”
f) “Victorinus, the first commentator on the Book of Revelation, stated that John worked as a prisoner in the mines on this small island.”


9) John’s exile:
a) In A.D. 95, according to Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome and others, the Evangelist, Theologian and Apostle John was exiled to Patmos (in the 14th year of the reign of Domitian).
b) John was banished for preaching the Gospel at Ephesus and (probably) refusing to worship the emperor.
c) “When the Emperor Domitian died in A.D. 96, his successor Nerva let John return to Ephesus. During John’s bleak days on Patmos, God gave him the tremendous revelation embodied in this final book of the Bible.”
d) As a result of John’s exile there, the island of Patmos became the center of the Orthodox Religion.
e) During his exile, John lived in a grotto (a small cave) that today is called simply, “Apokalypsis.” It was in this cave that John is said to have seen his visions. The cave is still pointed out to travelers today.
f) A text entitled, Voyages and Miracles of St. John the Theologian, written by his disciple Prochoros, was embraced by the Byzantine tradition and by the Christians in Patmos.

That would fairly well place the time of writing of Revelation around 90 to 96 A.D. so the book would have been written by historic accounts during the time of Domitians reign, which is after 70 A.D. so the events John writes about in Revelation are yet future from 90 to 95 A.D. and therefore Christ will return for to set up a kingdom.

 

[asterisktom]

So for the book of Revelation to have been written before 70 A.D. we now must rewrite history books correct?

The Emporer Domitian exiled John to Patmos, Domitian (born Oct. 24, AD 51 — died Sept. 18, 96, Rome) Roman emperor (81 – 96). The son of Vespasian, he succeeded his brother Titus, whom he probably had killed. His administration was ostensibly egalitarian and based on precedent, but his laws were severe. Defeats in Britain and Germany undid his successes, though increased pay for the army kept it loyal. From 89 he became crueler, imposing a reign of terror over prominent senators and confiscating his victims' property to cover imperial expenses. The group that killed him included his wife and possibly his successor, Nerva

History

1) The island of Patmos is seldom mentioned by ancient secular authors:
a) Patmos is mentioned by:
i) Thucydides (iii.33);
ii) Pliny (NH, iv.23);
iii) Strabo (x.5).
2) As for the Churchmen, the apostle John’s exile to Patmos under the emperor Domitian was testified to by:
a) Clement of Alexandria (Rich Man 42).
b) Tertullian:
“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!”
c) Eusebius:
“The Apostle John and the Apocalypse. IT is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: ‘If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.’”
d) Jerome:
“In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the tithe of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia.”
e) “According to several early church fathers (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius), John was sent to this island as a prisoner following his effective pastorate at Ephesus.”
f) “Victorinus, the first commentator on the Book of Revelation, stated that John worked as a prisoner in the mines on this small island.”


9) John’s exile:
a) In A.D. 95, according to Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome and others, the Evangelist, Theologian and Apostle John was exiled to Patmos (in the 14th year of the reign of Domitian).
b) John was banished for preaching the Gospel at Ephesus and (probably) refusing to worship the emperor.
c) “When the Emperor Domitian died in A.D. 96, his successor Nerva let John return to Ephesus. During John’s bleak days on Patmos, God gave him the tremendous revelation embodied in this final book of the Bible.”
d) As a result of John’s exile there, the island of Patmos became the center of the Orthodox Religion.
e) During his exile, John lived in a grotto (a small cave) that today is called simply, “Apokalypsis.” It was in this cave that John is said to have seen his visions. The cave is still pointed out to travelers today.
f) A text entitled, Voyages and Miracles of St. John the Theologian, written by his disciple Prochoros, was embraced by the Byzantine tradition and by the Christians in Patmos.

That would fairly well place the time of writing of Revelation around 90 to 96 A.D. so the book would have been written by historic accounts during the time of Domitians reign, which is after 70 A.D. so the events John writes about in Revelation are yet future from 90 to 95 A.D. and therefore Christ will return for to set up a kingdom.

The key word here is "Domitianou" or "Domitius" (referring to his entire family), as in "Nero". Not Domitian, the later Emperor.

This is a case of one historical blunder being committed, and others following along like lemmings. I like Young's comment (author of Young's Concordance):

"[The Book of Revelation] 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. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)"

For more historical corroboration, for those who are truly interested in history, take a look at this listing:
http://preteristchurch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56:dating-the-book-of-revelation&catid=65reterism&Itemid=69


Because I know that many will not look at this link (who really should) I will paste just a line or two from the article. This point is just one of many that merit closer study:

"(2) According to the epistles to the churches, the Judaizers were persecuting the churches (Revelation 2:9; 3:9). This assigns the book to the pre-AD 70 era, for the Jewish persecution of the Church dissolved at AD 70."

The very fact that Judaizers are mentioned in Revelation shows that it could not have been product of the 90s. It would have been an anachronism.

 

[annsni]

Thank you annsni for the update. I rejoice with you in the wonderful news--that was truly inspiring to read. I admit that I’m surprised at how quickly such a remarkable recovery came about. It is a powerful testimony for the power of prayer, the healing power of God, and a reminder that the things that unite us on the BB are greater than the things that divide us.

Too often we lose site of the big things and quarrel over the small things.

Hope Lauren has a great summer!

Thanks. One thing we can certainly say in this: only One gets the glory for her healing!! There's no question where it came from. :godisgood:

 

[revmwc]

The key word here is "Domitianou" or "Domitius" (referring to his entire family), as in "Nero". Not Domitian, the later Emperor.

This is a case of one historical blunder being committed, and others following along like lemmings. I like Young's comment (author of Young's Concordance):

"[The Book of Revelation] 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. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)"

For more historical corroboration, for those who are truly interested in history, take a look at this listing:
http://preteristchurch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56:dating-the-book-of-revelation&catid=65reterism&Itemid=69

I guess you missed this in Jerome's writing:
d) Jerome:
“In the fourteenth year then after Nero Domitian having raised a second persecution he was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse, on which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus afterwards wrote commentaries. But Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty, having been annulled by the senate, he returned to Ephesus under Pertinax and continuing there until the tithe of the emperor Trajan, founded and built churches throughout all Asia.”

John returned from Patmos to Ephesus when the Emporer Trajan replaced Domitian. This dates his exile to at least 96 A.D. then his return to Ephesus. Pertinax was a later ruler in Rome.

On 18 September, A.D. 96, Domitian was assassinated and was succeeded on the very same day by M. Cocceius Nerva, a senator and one of his amici. The sources are unanimous in stressing that this was a palace plot, yet it is difficult to determine the level of culpability among the various potential conspirators.[[23]]
In many ways, Domitian is still a mystery - a lazy and licentious ruler by some accounts, an ambitious administrator and keeper of traditional Roman religion by others.[[24]] As many of his economic, provincial, and military policies reveal, he was efficient and practical in much that he undertook, yet he also did nothing to hide the harsher despotic realities of his rule. This fact, combined with his solitary personality and frequent absences from Rome, guaranteed a harsh portrayal of his rule. The ultimate truths of his reign remain difficult to know.

Here is what Jerome said about the Domitian of which He refered,
"Domitian having been put to death and his acts, on account of his excessive cruelty" notice above Domitian that ruled until 90 A.D. was assinated.

Trajan (Latin: Marcus Ulpius Nerva Trajanus Augustus;[1] 18 September 53 – 9 August 117), was Roman Emperor from 98 to 117 AD. Born into a non-patrician family in the province of Hispania Baetica,[2] Trajan rose to prominence during the reign of emperor Domitian. Serving as a general in the Roman army along the German frontier, Trajan successfully put down the revolt of Antonius Saturninus in 89. In September 96, Domitian was succeeded by Marcus Cocceius Nerva, an old and childless senator who proved to be unpopular with the army. After a brief and tumultuous year in power, a revolt by members of the Praetorian Guard compelled him to adopt the more popular Trajan as his heir and successor. Nerva died on 27 January 98, and was succeeded by his adopted son without incident.

Now Nero as you say as in "Nero". Not Domitian, the later Emperor.

Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (December 15, 37 C.E. – June 9, 68 C.E.), born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, also called Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus, was the fifth and last Roman Emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty (54 C.E. - 68 C.E.). Nero became heir to the then emperor, his grand-uncle and adoptive father Claudius. As Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus he succeeded to the throne on October 13, 54 C.E., following Claudius's death. In 66 C.E., he added the prefix imperator to his name. In the year 68 C.E., at 31 years old, Nero was deposed. His subsequent death was reportedly the result of suicide assisted by his scribe Epaphroditos.

Died in 68 A.D. of an assisted suicide doesn't fit what Jerome stated.
"With his death, the Julio-Claudian dynasty came to an end. Chaos ensued in the Year of the Four Emperors."
Vespian was ruler from 69 to 76 A.D. so John would not have been coming out of exile under Nero as Nero died in 68 A.D. and Trajan as we are told by Jerome came to power and marked John's return from Exile and he became ruler in 96 A.D. Your Nero as the emporer John came out exile under doesn't fit the time line. Vespian was emporer in 70 A.D. and John was exiled by Domitian. Just doesn't fit historic facts.

 

[asterisktom]

I guess you missed this in Jerome's writing:
...

I didn't say that all agreed with the early date. Jerome has little credibility here. Or what credibility he has must be weighed against the other authorities Mike Loomis cited, many of these centuries before Jerome.

Shall we do a side study on the errors of Jerome?
There were 17 cited whose information point to an earlier date for Revelation. Jerome (and Sulpicius Severus and Orosius) being alone on the other side.

Did you look at that site?

 

[revmwc]

I didn't say that all agreed with the early date. Jerome has little credibility here. Or what credibility he has must be weighed against the other authorities Mike Loomis cited, many of these centuries before Jerome.

Shall we do a side study on the errors of Jerome?
There were 17 cited whose information point to an earlier date for Revelation. Jerome (and Sulpicius Severus and Orosius) being alone on the other side.

Did you look at that site?

There is still the fact that Nero died in 68 A.D. and yet John seems not to have been exiled during that period. Vespasian was ruler following him. All writings mention Domitan as the emporer who exiled John, he didn't come to power before 70 A.D. None set a date prior to 70 A.D. so why not set a seperate post to challenge, Eusabias and Iraneneus and Clement and extra biblical history on when John was exiled to Patmos and when he came out of exile.