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 ...
What makes you think His throne will be dusty?
Good point ...
I have read preterists claim that their view was the view of the early church ...
The chiliastic view of the early church is well documented ... even by those who reject the view.
How about Clement of Alexandria. Are you claiming he is a late-dater?
You know that almost all (if not all) late-daters jumped on the Irenaeus bandwagon in one manner or another, with complete disregard for other evidence. I don't recall any other "evidence" being presented. Can you think of any?
BTW, how many different "Antichrist's" have been named over the centuries? I can think of many just in my lifetime, including one Reformed Presbyterian minister whose crime was, most likely, criticizing the doctrine of dispensationalism. LOL!
Who was the first one? A pope, maybe? LOL!
Now, if it is that difficult to figure out who the so-called "antichrist" is, with all those clues in the book of the Revelation; doesn't that place all related interpretations by a particular sect in question?
>>>I hope you looked at some of the bios on your list. A large German JEDP population there.<<<
I gave you a list of scholars who did not endorse a late, Domitian-era dating of the Revelation? Are you implying they did not? Or are you trying to cast aspersions to misdirect the reader away from the fact that your original claim was pure, unadulterated hogwash!
>>>The first one I recognize is FF Bruce, who certainly did not espouse what you are claiming.<<<
LOL! You do recall making that rebuttal to my claim in your post #159, don't you? Read the first chapter in this commentary by Bruce:
http://www.full-proof.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/F.F.-Bruce-Revelation-excerpt-from-NIBC.pdf
Philip
>>>>As stated earlier...Even if Irenaeus believed Revelation was written before 70 AD does it make a difference of 20 or so years for a document to be deemed ancient? The same use of “ancient” can mean the oldest known copies of a document. The importance of his writings is he was convinced the prophecies of Matthew 24, Paul and Revelation were yet future to his time.<<<<
I’ll agree that Irenaeus did not understand the scriptures. He was far removed from the time period (a century or more,) and he did not have the benefit of any Christian writings from after the destruction: from after 70AD; to assist in his interpretation.
Philip
Sorry, redleghunter,
That last part should have been for dartuser. This part:
>>>The first one I recognize is FF Bruce, who certainly did not espouse what you are claiming.<<<
LOL! You do recall making that rebuttal to my claim in your post #159, don’t you? Read the first chapter in this commentary by Bruce:
http://www.full-proof.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/F.F.-Bruce-Revelation-excerpt-from-NIBC.pdf
Philip
>>>What makes you think His throne will be dusty?<<<
There is dust everywhere.
Are we even reading the same things here ????
We can agree on that.
That really is an absurd assertion. It is THE source by 99% of scholars for the late date.
Greek grammar rules in this case ... I'll go with that 99% that view the nearest anticedent as the determining factor ... not the unlikely choice required by a theological position.
Actually, I asked for ANY source ... Christian or otherwise ... as an eye-witness to the second coming.
The resurrected Christ was seen by only a few hundred people ... and we have several written accounts. I would think an event that the whole world witnessed would have at least 1 written eyewitness source. There is none.
It's ok ... I know I'm asking the impossible.
I decide for me. And when I find a scholar who proves reliable, I generally assume his recommendations of the scholarly are valid, and so on.
Who decides for you?
>>>I can acknowledge that your list has many good scholars, but let's face it ... even among your list of scholars, their views would not be completely congruent.<<<
Scholars rarely agree on the Bible. I have commentaries galore, and on the tough passages I go to them to see if they can shed any light. Some major "successes" were with Daniel 9:24-27, and Daniel 11 and 12; and even then 10 out of 9 commentators didn't agree with each other! LOL!
>>>Where they diverge where do you drop the label of scholar for one of them? Scholars disagree all the time.<<<
When I am absolutely convinced they are wasting my time, I move them to the bottom of the list.
LOL! Just kidding. I am certain you are just like I am. I tend to rely on some, more than others. Maybe their doctrine confirms my belief more than others, or maybe with some, like Moses Stuart, I get the occasional eye-opener. Some are boring as heck, and just as unorganized: but I rely on them, like Matthew Henry. I also like John Gill and Adam Clarke. I don't agree with everything they write, but even that knowledge is beneficial more often than not.
One of my favourite authors, Philip Mauro, did not have the normal credentials of a biblical scholar. But his writing is very clear and well-founded in the scripture.
By the way, I excluded Mauro and Gentry from the list. They are also early-daters.
Philip
With the exception of a few, most of your listed authors were late 19th and early 20th century theologians. A good many who doubted the historical claims of the OT and NT to include the accuracy of Luke's historical claims. Such are of the JEDP persuasion and liberal theologians of the era.
How about Clement of Alexandria. Are you claiming he is a late-dater?
Are you willing to hang your hat on Clement of Alexandria to support your external evidence? It was Clement of Alexandria who repeated this account in "Who is the Rich Man That Shall be Saved?":
XLII. And that you may be still more confident, that repenting thus truly there remains for you a sure hope of salvation, listen to a tale, which is not a tale but a narrative, handed down and committed to the custody of memory, about the Apostle John. For when, on the tyrant's death, he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos, he went away, being invited, to the contiguous territories of the nations, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole Churches, there to ordain such as were marked out by the Spirit.
Some facts to review. If indeed Clement of Alexandria establishes "the tyrant" is Nero and that upon Nero's death John returned to Ephesus from Patmos, then Revelation is hardly prophecy. Nero "the tyrant" and according to your independent study is the "beast of Revelation" died by all historical accounts in June 68 AD well into the rebellion fighting in Judea. Perhaps you see a different Roman Emperor after Nero as the "beast of Revelation." I will note well some of the preterist websites 'see' this conflict when leaning on Clement of Alexandria and have shifted their belief in Vespasian as the beast of Revelation. Which causes its own problems given his armies were never defeated and Vespasian was not thrown into the Lake of Fire with the false prophet. However, truly this poses no problems to preterists given the shifting between the literal and allegory as seems fit.
FF Bruce
Yes I do know of FF Bruce and why I said you had some solid theologians on the list. Thanks for the link to his Revelation commentary. Did you by chance read it? Not a very good reference for you. This is what FF Bruce says in his introduction to Revelation (link you posted):
The Book of the Revelation—or, as it might well be called, the book of the triumph of Christ—was composed and sent to seven churches in the Roman province of Asia at some point between A.D. 69 and 96 to encourage them, and their fellow-Christians everywhere, with the assurance that, despite all the forces marshalled against them, victory was theirs if they remained loyal to Christ.
So...Revelation cannot be prophecy with fulfillment ca. 70 AD IF the earliest date given by FF Bruce is 69 AD. Under the first chapter FF Bruce confirms the claims of Eusebius without offering a potential alternate timeline:
the island of Patmos: A small island in the Aegean Sea, some 37 miles WSW of Miletus. because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus: This could mean that he had gone to Patmos to receive the revelation (cf. verse 2), or to preach the gospel, but its traditional, and much more probable, meaning is that he had been banished to Patmos because of his Christian witness—perhaps under the process called in Roman law relegatio, passed by the proconsul of Asia. Eusebius (HE iii. 20. 9) states, on the authority of ‘the account given by men of old among us’, that he was released from his banishment under Nerva (emperor A.D. 96–98) and took up his abode in Ephesus.
So much for FF Bruce being a good source for an earlier date. He gives a timeline of 69-96 AD as quoted previously. Always check sources before posting them:) Full disclosure is important as well. FF Bruce was not a dispensationalist. By what I have read of him, he was clearly open to many views but if had to labeled he was a-Mill in his thinking.
Another point in researching your references should whether the theologians in question believe John the apostle actually penned Revelation.
Agree ... Gentry = scholar ...
But I would also hold him as a scholar with a theological position whose foundation stone is the date of a book of the Bible. It was his dissertation because he recognized that his whole theology would crumble if Rev was written in 95 AD.
Necessity is truly the mother of invention ...
Another theologian from your list of "late daters." Do you agree with Ewald when he said this?:
‘That the Apocalypse was not written by the same hand which wrote the Gospel and the Epistle, is clear as the light of the sun.’--G.H.A Ewald
Ewald et. al. from your list also cast into doubt that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, nor Daniel his prophecies, nor the Evangelists the Gospels.
I am sure you do not agree with them, however, you must see a motivation.
On the contrary, observation shows he clearly had a large portion of what became known as the NT canon available to him. What Christian writings after 70AD would have swayed Irenaeus to a different interpretation?
On the continuing series of theologians who support your early date claim I offer Rudy Bultmann:
Rudolf Karl Bultmann (20 August 1884 – 30 July 1976) was a German Lutheran theologian and professor of New Testament at the University of Marburg. He was one of the major figures of early 20th century biblical studies and a prominent voice in liberal Christianity. Bultmann is known for his belief that the historical analysis of the New Testament is both futile and unnecessary, given that the earliest Christian literature showed little interest in specific locations.[1] Bultmann argued that all that matters is the "thatness", not the "whatness" of Jesus, i.e. only that Jesus existed, preached and died by crucifixion matters, not what happened throughout his life.[2][2][1] Bultmann's approach relied on his concept of demythology, and interpreted the mythological elements in the New Testament existentially. Bultmann contended that only faith in the kerygma, or proclamation, of the New Testament was necessary for Christian faith, not any particular facts regarding the historical Jesus.[3] You can read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann
Little remains of the labours of this intellectual giant, his heirs having, it is said, destroyed the papers that came into their possession, because their own religious opinions were different. A few theological, archaeological, and astronomical articles from his pen appeared in the Journal Helvetique and elsewhere, and he contributed several papers to Rousseau's Dictionnaire de musique (1767). He wrote a work throwing doubt on the canonical authority of the Apocalypse, which called forth a reply from Dr Leonard Twells, and was published in Denis Diderot's Encyclopédie.[1] He also edited and made valuable additions to Jacob Spon's Histoire de la republique de Geneve. A collection of his writings was published at Geneva in 1770 (Oeuvres de feu M. Abauzit), and another at London in 1773 (Oeuvres diverses de M. Abauzit).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmin_Abauzit
Charles Cutler Torrey, (born Dec. 20, 1863, East Hardwick, Vt., U.S.—died Nov. 12, 1956, Chicago), U.S. Semitic scholar who held independent and stimulating views on certain biblical problems. Torrey studied at Bowdoin (Maine) College and Andover (Mass.) Theological Seminary and in Europe. He taught Semitic languages at Andover (1892–1900) and Yale (1900–32), and was founder and first director (1900–01) of the American School of Archaeology (later renamed the American School of Oriental Research) at Jerusalem. Torrey’s Islāmic studies are represented by The Mohammedan Conquest of Egypt and North Africa (1901), based on the Arabic work of Ibn ʿAbd al-Hakam, of which he subsequently published an edition (1922), and by The Jewish Foundation of Islam (1933). He offered a fresh critical appraisal and rearrangement of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah in The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra-Nehemiah (1896), which was followed up by his Ezra Studies (1910) and by The Chronicler’s History of Israel (1954). In The Second Isaiah: A New Interpretation (1928), he argued that Isa. 34–35 and 40–66 should be dated c. 400 bc. His Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (1930) presents his theory that the canonical book of Ezekiel is a revision of a 3rd-century pseudepigraphon. In The Translations Made from the Original Aramaic Gospels (1912), The Four Gospels: A New Translation (1933), and Our Translated Gospels (1936), Torrey held that the four Gospels were Greek translations from Aramaic originals. The posthumous Apocalypse of John (1958) argues that Revelation was a translation of an Aramaic original written in ad 68. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/600139/Charles-Cutler-Torrey
The preservation of the Jews is really one of the most signal and illustrious acts of divine Providence... and what but a supernatural power could have preserved them in such a manner as none other nation upon earth hath been preserved. Nor is the providence of God less remarkable in the destruction of their enemies, than in their preservation... We see that the great empires, which in their turn subdued and oppressed the people of God, are all come to ruin... And if such hath been the fatal end of the enemies and oppressors of the Jews, let it serve as a warning to all those, who at any time or upon any occasion are for raising a clamor and persecution against them.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Newton
The theory is further developed in a later work (1835, the year in which David Strauss' Leben Jesu was published), Über die sogenannten Pastoralbriefe. In this Baur attempts to prove that the false teachers mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy and Epistle to Titus are the Gnostics, particularly the Marcionites, of the 2nd century, and consequently that the Pastoral Epistles were produced in the middle of the 2nd century in opposition to Gnosticism. He next proceeded to investigate other Pauline epistles and the Acts of the Apostles in the same manner, publishing his results in 1845 under the title Paulus, der Apostel Jesu Christi, sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine Lehre. In this he contends that only the Epistle to Galatians, First and Second Epistle to the Corinthians and Epistle to the Romans are genuinely Pauline, and that the Paul of the Acts of the Apostles is a different person from the Paul of these genuine Epistles, the author being a Paulinist who, with an eye to the different parties in the Church, is at pains to represent Peter as far as possible as a Paulinist and Paul as far as possible as a Petrinist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur
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.