Posted on 02/22/2014 10:53:16 AM PST by PhilipFreneau
He who would understand the prophets had better begin with Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, where he will find that the Church is one in the Old Testament and New, and the New Testament Church is the fulfillment of all prophecy, the very last phase of God’s redemptive work on earth.
He will discover in Galatians who the true Israel is, to whom the promises are made and that there is no other Israel, and no further fulfillment of prophecy.
The problem of the Galatian believers was the conspiracy to impose upon them Jewish interpretations of prophecy, and to claim over them a Jewish priority or privilege. Paul repulses this conspiracy with unparalleled severity...
(Excerpt) Read more at graceonlinelibrary.org ...
>>>Reconstructionts maintain a strong belief that the Bible is true and inerrant. <<<
Now, that is scary stuff!
>>>There is a debate among some Christian reconstructionists on whether or not slavery should be reinstituted; not all are in agreement.<<<
Which ones are in agreement, Cynical Bear?
>>>Christians are the new chosen people of God, replacing national Israel. <<<
Is that a good thing, or a bad thing, Cynical Bear? A little scripture supporting your opinion, either way, would be appreciated.
Philip
>>>Since Revelation was written by John in 95 AD, it could not be a prophesy of events 25 years before that.<<<
Who said the Revelation was written in AD 95?
>>>Your entire theological system crmubles to dust unless Revelation was written in AD66.<<<
Actually, I believe it was written aroun 62 AD when there were exactly seven churches in Asia.
>>>Hitchcock dealt the deathblow to Gentry’s work 10 years ago.<<<
Mark Hitchcock? ROFL! I thought you were being serious until you wrote that. ROFL! That is the funniest thing I have read in quite a while.
Philip
>>>Wait? The SECOND COMING OF CHRIST was in 70AD??? wow ... we’re way beyond mere theological error here.<<<
You have my “ear.” Show me...
Philip
Seriously?
Almost all scholars support the Domitian date. You are in the vast minority and the burden of proof is on you. Only preterism requires the early date.
Actually, I believe it was written around 62 AD when there were exactly seven churches in Asia.
You are even out of the mainstream of the best scholarship among those who espouse your own position. Gentry dates it no earlier than 65AD.
Mark Hitchcock? ROFL! I thought you were being serious until you wrote that. ROFL! That is the funniest thing I have read in quite a while.
Like I said ... preterism is the easiest to dispense with ... but they scream the loudest.
You are claiming that Rev. 19 was fulfilled in 70AD. Rev. 19 is the second coming of Jesus Christ.
You are making the extraordinary claim that the second coming of Christ occurred in 70 AD.
Could you show me where Josephus (since he lived in 70AD) wrote that he saw the second coming of Christ. After all, EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM ...
I really don't expect a cogent answer ...
>>>Almost all scholars support the Domitian date.<<<
On what historical information do those “scholars” base their support?
Philip
I am not making a claim at all. I am telling you that Christ came for those of his FIRST resurrection around A.D. 70, during the exact generation HE (CHRIST) said he would.
>>>Could you show me where Josephus (since he lived in 70AD) wrote that he saw the second coming of Christ. After all, EVERY EYE SHALL SEE HIM ...<<<
That is a fair question. But before I answer this second question from you; please answer a first question from me. First, some background . . .
Recall that Jesus gave these instructions to his disciples:
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." (Mat 24:14 KJV)
"And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15 KJV)
And much later Paul made these statements:
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world." (Rom 10:17-18 KJV)
"For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth:" (Col 1:5-6 KJV)
"If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;" (Col 1:23 KJV)
Do those statements by Paul mean that Jesus' instructions in Matthew 24:14 and Mark 16:15 were fulfilled?
Philip
>>>Wait? The SECOND COMING OF CHRIST was in 70AD???
wow ... we’re way beyond mere theological error here.<<<
You dismissed my first response to your outrageous claim, as if a reply would be somehow beneath you. That kind of response generally means one has no answers, only opinions.
When you show me my theological error—in the scriptures—then we can have further debate.
Philip
Correct, and not only that; their definition of this generation does not fit the number of years that elapsed. Caiaphas probably died in 36AD and Annas in 40 AD. Mothers had their children fairly young. While I grant the godly could live a long life, that would not logically apply to the scenario of the preterist having a generation for judgment in 70AD. Although it is possible some of the Sanhedrin that tried Yeshua could have been alive in 70AD (the youngest member may have been about 40 in 33AD/CE), it is unlikely that very many would have lived that long unless perhaps they had become believers. The more daunting bar to their 70AD/CE date is the Bar Kochba Revolt and this prophecy. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
None of those who knew of Jesus in 33AD would have been alive in 132-135 AD/CE. It was that revolt which separated the Jews who believed in Jesus as Messiah from those who did not (because they believed in Simon as Messiah) and led to the expulsion of Jews from the land of Israel for almost two millenia. Somehow that prophecy and the fulfillment of the other prophecy of expulsion and diaspora are just brushed over because they don't fit their timeline. Not to mention the other problems they have with the abandonment of the Gentile believers when all the Jewish saints were supposedly raptured in 70AD
>>>Almost all scholars support the Domitian date. You are in the vast minority and the burden of proof is on you. Only preterism requires the early date.<<<
All Scholars support the Domitian Date Theory, except the following:
Firmin Abauzit
Jay E. Adams
Luis de Alcasar
Karl August Auberlen
Greg L. Bahnsen
Arthur Stapylton Barnes
James Vernon Bartlet
Ferdinand Christian Baur
Albert A. Bell, Jr.
Leonhard Bertholdt
Willibald Beyschlag
Charles Bigg
Friedrich Bleek
Charles E. Blumenthal and Conway P. Wing
Heinrich Bohmer
Wilhelm Bousset
Frederick F. Bruce
Rudolf Bultmann
Christian Karl Josias Bunsen
W. Boyd Carpenter
Samuel Cheetham
David Chilton
Adam Clarke
William Newton Clarke
Henry Cowles
W. Gary Crampton
Berry Stewart Crebs
Karl August Credner
Samuel Davidson
Edmund De Pressense
P. S. Desprez
W. M. L. De Wette
Friedrich Dusterdieck
K. A. Eckhardt
Alfred Edersheim
George Edmundson
Johann Gottfried Eichhom
G. H. A. Ewald
Frederic W. Farrar
Grenville O. Field
George P. Fisher
J. A. Fitzmeyer
J. Massyngberde Ford
Hermann Gebhardt
James Glasgow
Robert McQueen Grant
James Comper Gray
Samuel G. Green
Hugo Grotius
Heinrich Ernst Ferdinand Guenke
Henry Melville Gwatkin
Henry Hammond
Harenberg, Erkianmg
H. G. Hartwig
Karl August von Hase
Bernard W. Henderson
Hentenius
Johann Gottfried von Herder
J. S. Herrenschneider
Adolf Hilgenfeld
David Hill
Hitzig
Heinrich Julius Holtzmann
F. J. A. Hort
John Leonhard Hug
William Hurte
A. Immer
Theodor Keim
Theodor Koppe
Max Krenkel
Johann Heinrich Kurtz
Victor Lechler
Francis Nigel Lee
Joseph B. Lightfoot
Gottfried C. F. Lucke
Christoph Ernst Luthardt
James M. Macdonald
Frederick Denisen Maurice
John David Michaelis
Charles Pettit M’Ilvaine
A. D. Momigliano
Theodor Mommsen
Charles Herbert Morgan
York: Eaton and Mains
C. F. D. Moule
John Augustus Wilhelm Neander
Sir Isaac Newton
Bishop Thomas Newton
A. Niermeyer
Alfred Plummer
Edward Hayes Plumtree
T. Randell
James J. L. Ratton
Ernest Renan
Eduard Wilhelm Eugen Reuss
Jean Reville
J. W. Roberts
Edward Robinson
John A. T. Robinson
J. Stuart Russell
Philip Schaff
Johann Friedrich Schleusner
J. H. Scholten
Albert Schwegler
J. J. Scott
Edward Condon Selwyn
Henry C. Sheldon
William Henry Simcox
D. Moody Smith
Arthur Penrhyn Stanley
Rudolf Ewald Stier
Augustus H. Strong
Moses Stuart
Milton S. Terry
Friedrich August Gottreu Tholuck
Charles Cutler Torrey
Cornelis Vanderwaal
Gustav Volkmar
Foy E. Wallace, Jr.
Arthur Weigall
Bernhard Weiss
Brooke Foss Westcott
J. J. Wetstein
Karl Wieseler
Charles Wordsworth
Herbert B. Workman
Robert Young
C. F. J. Zullig
This is only a cursory list of those who support the early date theory: those who dismiss the Domitian date theory. There are others.
Philip
What times were worse than 70 A. D.? I will assume from your understanding of history that you have read eyewitness reports, or have some sort of way to "scale" events to back up your claim. What is your historical evidence?
Keep in mind this statement by Jesus before you answer:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Mat 10:28 KJV)
When was there a time when Satan destroyed more souls than he did in A.D. 70?
Philip
I am no victim, Boatbums. God has blessed my life in ways I could have never imagined.
I do object to false witnessing. Have you made any false witnesses against anyone recently?
>>>Anyone who imagines they must insult, accuse, defame, slander, patronize, LIE or degrade instead of engaging in a discussion on FACTS, demonstrates an inability to defend their position against others who clearly hold to a more Biblical hermeneutic.<<<
I agree 100%.
BTW, do you recall that you claimed that Elijah was the "voice of him crying in the wilderness;" but you also seemed to emphatically deny in a previous thread that John the Baptist was Elijah? And do you recall that earlier you also implied that John the Baptist was the "voice of him crying in the wilderness?"
Were you being hermeneutically consistent? You do remember that, don't you?
Philip
I have to agree with you on that one. I would argue against that from a historical perspective; but nearly all (if not all) late date adherents (those who believe the Revelation was written after AD 70) have it "locked up" with this "crystal clear" statement by Irenaeus, as follows:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign." [Vol 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.3]
If that is not "crystal clear," what is?
Just kidding. Does anyone have any idea what Irenaeus was trying to say?
One thing is for certain: Irenaeus made it clear that the event he was referring to happened "almost in his day."
Now we have something to work with: something happened almost in Irenaeus' day, which he labelled as "that [which] was seen." Many historians and researchers have assumed the "apocalyptic vision" from the previous clause was what Irenaeus was referring to in his statement, "that [which] was seen."
I admit: that is a very reasonable assumption.
But then, there is this statement by Irenaeus only two paragraphs earlier:
"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six;" [Vol 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.1]
How can it be that an "apocalyptic vision" that happened "almost in Irenaeus' day," and was THEN written in a book, copied several times, and "approved," would be considered, by the same Irenaeus, in an earlier part of his book, as being "ancient?"
That just doesn't happen, folks. Don't believe it, for a minute.
Philip
I have to agree with you on that one. I would argue against that from a historical perspective; but nearly all (if not all) late date adherents (those who believe the Revelation was written after AD 70) have it "locked up" with this "crystal clear" statement by Irenaeus, as follows:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign." [Vol 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.3]
If that is not "crystal clear," what is?
Just kidding. Does anyone have any idea what Irenaeus was trying to say?
One thing is for certain: Irenaeus made it clear that the event he was referring to happened "almost in his day."
Now we have something to work with: something happened almost in Irenaeus' day, which he labelled as "that [which] was seen." Many historians and researchers have assumed the "apocalyptic vision" from the previous clause was what Irenaeus was referring to in his statement, "that [which] was seen."
I admit: that is a very reasonable assumption.
But then, there is this statement by Irenaeus only two paragraphs earlier:
"Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six;" [Vol 1, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V.30.1]
How can it be that an "apocalyptic vision" that happened "almost in Irenaeus' day," and was THEN written in a book, copied several times, and "approved," would be considered, by the same Irenaeus, in an earlier part of his book, as being "ancient?"
That just doesn't happen, folks. Don't believe it, for a minute.
Philip
You have civil liberty to start any new teaching, sect, denomination, or religion in this country based on your opinion and private interpretations. However, he warns you in the last paragraph. Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.
The early Church father is clearly teaching you that the prophecies in Revelation had not happened yet (Against Heresies by St. Irenaeus). The Catholic Church does not teach what you teach, nor do the vast majority of other Orthodox, Fundamentalist, or Evangelical churches. Does that not make you a bit nervous ?. Some of the Presbyterian churches apparently do. It is the church denomination most closely associated with this new movement of Preterism, partial or otherwise.
Consider its fruit.
Those Presbyterian churches apparently hate Zionism. I would not be surprised should they favor reconsideration of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (adopted on November 10, 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". The vote took place approximately one year after UNGA 3237 granted the PLO "observer status", following Yasser Arafat's "olive branch" speech to the General Assembly in November 1974. The resolution was passed with the support of the Soviet bloc and other then Soviet-aligned nations, in addition to the Arab and Islamic majority countries. The resolution was revoked in 1991 with UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86, shortly following the end of the Cold War.).
I hinted at one already. The second coming of Christ is a global event ... every eye will see Him ... point me to any historical source which describes the second coming of Christ as occurring in 70 AD.
There would have to be at least three things in any citation:
1. Recognition of the visible Christ coming in the clouds of heaven. (Rev 19, Matt 24, Acts 1). The best sources would be from outside Jerusalem as these would verify that the second coming was indeed a global event.
2. Recollection of the killing of all the kings of the earth who arrayed themselves against Christ (Rev 19)
3. Witness to the casting of the beast and false prophet into the lake of fire (Rev 19).
4. Repentance of the nation of Israel. (Rev 1, Matt 23, Zech 12) This event still hasn't happened.
Further, the vision in Daniel 2 shows that the kingdom of God will not co-exist with any earthly kingdoms (wind blew away the dust, then the stone became a mountain). Since there is at least one nation on earth that still calls itself a kingdom, this "church age" that you object to is NOT the kingdom of God.
And if this present age IS the kingdom of God ... I am sorely disappointed. I see no righteous king ruling over the earth. I see corrupt nations under the control of the god of this age, which would certainly be in contradiction to Rev 20:1-3.
I'll let you search for that citation ...
Bottom line ... please remove any in your list who places a range of dates for Revelation that include both 60s and 90s ... then send it again.
It will be considerably smaller.
I suspect that will require a lot of work on your part, to procure the commentaries from the people you listed ... but that is what Biblical studies is about ... not posting lists from the internet ... check all of them out yourself.
There is also another exercise you can do ... find any early church writings that claim the second coming was a past event. Should have some of the other items in the list in my other post. Global event, kings destroyed, beast and false prophet, Israel converted, set foot on the mount of Olives, etc.
However, there is a strong Scriptural argument for interpreting this generation as having applied to 70AD/CE that just dawn upon me. Forty hears after Yeshua's ministry began would be about 70AD/CE. This generation could have meant all those who were of the age twenty and upwards on or about 30AD/CE and had the opportunity to hear the Gospel. Forty years elapsed until 70AD/CE when they had either endured to the end in faith or perished in the First Jewish-Roman War. That generation of forty years was judged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.