So does almost everyone. The only real scholar to advocate strongly for an AD 70 or earlier date was a flaming liberal. The only reason for a conservative to advocate for a 70 date is full preterism.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Some Objections to AD70 Rapture Answered
- Thread starter asterisktom
- Start date
- Status
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
Um...Scripture please?
It probably does. And that is sad. You apparently relish argument over discussion.
asterisktom has the position of full preterism--the view that all remaining prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Welcome to the wild and wooly world of BB theology.
Last edited:
I had not heard it for many years. But when it was presented to me, with biblical backing, I finally saw the point. But Wow is right. It is a radical change of view.
And you apparently like judging motives.
astericktom has the position of full preterism--the view that all remaining prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Welcome to the wild and wooly world of BB theology.
I am actually in the smaller group of full preterists that disagrees with the main FP (Don K. Preston, Max King, Bell) group belief in AD 70 being merely a covenantal change. They do not believe in the rapture of individuals. I do.
Point out where I did that. I think you have your ouch filter set too high. I guess that is judging motives too.
OK ... so what strain of Baptist understands this? I kinda felt like I was being disingenuous claiming Baptist ... but attending a church with elders and no committees. This??? whoa.
And given the destruction of Jerusalem happened almost 2000 years ago ... what have we been doing since? That can't be "the millennium."
It's OK ... I'm not gonna chase this very far because I am persuaded that the events of the last couple of years, to include the Rev 12 reproduction in the stars (for sign/season) on 23 Sep 17 tells me ... I'd better get my house in order before "the shaking begins." some have already been shaken, literally, "... in various places."
How could John have written anything in the 90s when he had already been dead two or three decades earlier? He was killed by the Jews, just like his brother was.
Give me a source on this. The normal church history narrative is that John survived being boiled in oil (Tertullian), and was the only one of the 12 who died a non-violent death.
Hyppolytus said John died in Trajan's time, which puts John's death at AD 96-98. The only historical reason to argue for your date is to fit it to a preterist narrative.
Last edited:
not only that ... but in John 21, Peter asks about John's death after the resurrected Jesus had just told Peter about his demise.
Jesus replies ~"what is that to you ... even if John should live until I return." While that doesn't provide the Gregorian calendar date for John's death, it sure does seem to indicate John was gonna be around for a while. Jesus wasn't finished with him, for he had another book to write "on the island of Patmos" .
John may not have known where Patmos WAS at the event described in John 21. The apostles had to "fan out" (Matt 28) and spread the Gospel.
Of course, if the church rapture happened in 70AD ... who are we & what is our status?
I wish I had a dollar for every time JoJ has whined and made this accusation here on the BB.
The best and earliest source would probably be Papias, AD 130, about 50 years before Irenaeus.
Here is a quote from Ed Stevens on this subject (underlining mine):
"
• Notice what Eusebius and Irenaeus (late second century) said about Papias in relation to the apostle
John and his martyrdom [Source: Eusebius (ca. 260– 340), Chronicle. Text: A. Schöne, Eusebi
Chronicorum canonum quae supersunt, vol. 2 (Berlin: Weidemann, 1866), 162.] :
Pap. 5:5 Papias says in his second book that John the Theologian and James his brother were
killed by Jews.
Pap. 6:3 For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, who had seen him with his own eyes, claims in the
second book of the Sayings of the Lord that John was killed by Jews, thus clearly fulfilling,
together with his brother, Christ’s prophecy concerning them and their own confession and
agreement about this.
Pap. 6:4 For when the Lord said to them, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?” and they
eagerly assented and agreed, he said: “You will drink my cup and will be baptized with the
baptism with which I am baptized.”
Pap. 6:5 And this is to be expected, for it is impossible for God to lie.
Pap. 6:6 [Eusebius said later] Moreover the encyclopedic Origen also affirms in his interpretation of
the Gospel according to Matthew that John was martyred, indicating that he had learned this
from the successors of the apostles [i.e., possibly referring to Papias].
• Papias claimed that John was killed by the Jews, evidently at a time when they still had the ability
and opportunity to do so. This would point to the Neronic persecution (AD 64), until it was cut short
by the outbreak of the Jewish revolt (AD 66). It would not have been easy for them to do much
against Christians after the war began, and especially not after the war ended.
• The Jews had no political or judicial power to kill anyone after 70. It clearly points to a time before 70
when the Jews would have had the authority, opportunity, and means by which to do it. The
Neronic persecution fits that description well, since that is when the Jews were in their most
powerful position against the Christians."
This is from pages 56-57 of his free PDF book, Final Decade Before the End.
BTW I heartily recommend this PDF. It is easy to find on the Internet. If not I will gladly send anyone a copy. A lot of research went into this. John, you would do well to take a look at this as well. It might help you to much better understand, not only this particular topic, but Full Preterism, what it is and is not.
Of course, if the church rapture happened in 70AD ... who are we & what is our status?
We are Christians, having been born again by the living Word of God. For God this is as easy as 1,2,3. 1st Peter 1:23.
Judging motives. But I guess you can do that. Oh well, no biggie.
Like I have written several times over the years here - and I guess you chose not to remember this - I was convinced of the earlier date long before I became even partial preterist. I was convinced by Phillip Schaff. Perhaps the "flaming liberal"
you alluded to elsewhere?
And it is always true. And Jesus commanded us to confront people when they are offensive.
37818
Well-Known Member
Orthodox perterists would disagree. Anyway the literal understanding of the texts regarding Christ's second appearing rules out the perterist views all together.
Even so, I am still willing to discuss the orthodox perterist view for their benefit. Not that it will change the perterist mind. But they cannot change their view without understanding the view they do not hold. Same with any of us.
I apologize. I did not mean my statement to be about motive but about intent.
Actually, Schaff was somewhat liberal, but not the man I meant.
But no, it is not that I chose not to remember anything about you. I have not interacted with you for a long time about your full preterism, so there is much about your view that I have forgotten.
Anyway, can you give a quote from Schaff about dating Revelation?
- Status