• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
I
asterisktom said:
I have answered this many times, yet these answers don't seem to make any difference to you. Why should I repeat myself?
And they are tenets you are presenting, based on a basic misunderstanding of apocalyptic language.
Click to expand...
If the events described in Scripture had happened, it would not only be Christians that would take notice. The whole world would have noticed, it is not a secret coming.
 
asterisktom

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed1689 said:
I

If the events described in Scripture had happened, it would not only be Christians that would take notice. The whole world would have noticed, it is not a secret coming.
Click to expand...

No. The whole world - all seven continents - were not involved. in that judgment.

Another issue. I had answered your post concerning historical backing for an early date for Revelation but received no response, either from you or John of Japan. It is post 55.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
S
asterisktom said:
What I should do maybe is just write to your Thomas Ice and leave you out, seeing that you apparently do not have an answer to my post.

BTW, I am very familiar with TI. I wanted an answer from you about the comments concerning Papias. Thomas Ice did not even mention Papias. Why not? Presumably because it does not fit his narrative.
Click to expand...
So someone with a direct line to John vs someone who does not?
 
John of Japan

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
asterisktom said:
I am still waiting for a reply to my post 55. John of Japan and two others have asked for historical proof for an early date of Revelation and I provided, if not ironclad proof, at least something worthy of consideration,
Click to expand...
Haven't had time yet, but I will look at it. The thread will be over by then, though.
 
37818

37818

Well-Known Member
asterisktom said:
I believe there are parallels in the Old Testament (Zech. 2:1-5, Amos 7:7-9). Measuring seems to imply both preservation and destruction, which is what happened in AD 70 to Jerusalem. The godly remnant were saved out of it, but those who were destroyed were those who were, in the phrase from Rev. 11:2 "outside the temple".

Not only the temple but, strangely to our way of thinking, the people also were to be measured. But not those outside the temple.
Click to expand...
Your answer re: Revelation 11:2 presupposes your conclusion. I am understanding John's vision was in around the mid 90's something.
 
timtofly

timtofly

Well-Known Member
asterisktom said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can you provide the Scripture part of this argument? All I see here are human recollections, which are guesses at best.
 
asterisktom

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John of Japan said:
Anyway, can you give a quote from Schaff about dating Revelation?
Click to expand...

Sorry. I seem to have overlooked this, John. It is on page 653 of his first volume, 3rd edition. Here is an excerpt:

THE TIME OF COMPOSITION.

The traditional date of composition at the end of Domitian’s reign (95 or
96) rests on the clear and weighty testimony of Irenaeus, is confirmed by
Eusebius and Jerome, and has still its learned defenders,1257 but the internal

evidence strongly favors an earlier date between the death of Nero (June 9,
68) and the destruction of Jerusalem (August 10, 70).1258 This helps us at

the same time more easily to explain the difference between the fiery
energy of the Apocalypse and the calm repose of the fourth Gospel, which
was composed in extreme old age."

Now notice (and this is where I would disagree, of course) Schaff goes on to say that he also wrote the Gospel "in extreme old age. I am convinced that, on that latter point, Schaff is overly swayed by tradition, by external and much later sources, ignoring internal evidence. Judging by his comments in his history he was especially influenced on this point by adherents of the Tübingen School. An interesting verse is John 5:2.

"Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes."

He uses the present tense, as if the pool was still there. But the gate and pool were both demolished in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Some had said that John was using dramatic present, as if to make the scene more vivid to his readers. But this is unlikely because all of the other parts of the tale - that would have well lent themselves to such a device - were left in the past tense. It makes much more sense that John was describing a part of Jerusalem, gate and pool, that still existed. And this points to a pre-70 AD date for his Gospel.

1257 The great majority of older commentators, and among the recent ones Elliott, Alford, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Lange, Hofmann, Godet, Lee,
Milligan, and Warfield (in Schaff’s “Encycl.” III. 2035). I myself
formerly advocated the later date, in the Hist. of the Ap. Church
(1853), pp. 418 sqq

1258 The early date is advocated or accepted by Neander, Lücke, Bleek, Ewald, DeWette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Düsterdieck, Renan, Aubé,
Stuart, Davidson, Cowles, Bishop Lightfoot, Westcott, Holtzmann,
Weiss; and among earlier writers by Alcasar, Grotius, Hammond,
Abauzit, and John Lightfoot
 
asterisktom

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
timtofly said:
Can you provide the Scripture part of this argument? All I see here are human recollections, which are guesses at best.
Click to expand...

The Scripture is in there, alluded to but not directly cited.

"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.” "

Matthew 20:22-24:
22Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers.

See also Mark 10:39
 
asterisktom

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Reformed1689 said:
What @asterisktom has failed to adequately answer is, if this actually happened (it didn't), why is there zero evidence of it in history?
Click to expand...

What kind of evidence are you looking for? What evidence there is would not convince you. The actual phenomena around this event are well documented by Josephus, Taciitus, and others. I already explained earlier why the actual rapture would not be reported. And those who understood best what was happening, the living Christians, were taken away.

Which do you value more: Scripture or fallible history? I have already given Scriptural evidence that should have been sufficient. What contemporary historical proof do we have - outside the Bible - for the resurrection of Christ? None. Yet we believe it on the basis of the Word of God.
 
Reformed1689

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
asterisktom said:
Which do you value more: Scripture or fallible history? I have already given Scriptural evidence that should have been sufficient. What contemporary historical proof do we have - outside the Bible - for the resurrection of Christ? None. Yet we believe it on the basis of the Word of God.
Click to expand...
What Scriptural proof have you given for your position? Perhaps I missed it but I do not believe it exists.
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
John of Japan said:
The only real scholar to advocate strongly for an AD 70 or earlier date was a flaming liberal.
Click to expand...

Robert Young was a 'flaming liberal'?:

"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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top