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 ...
LOL Thanks for the work and posting those redleghunter. How easily the Preterist beliefs fall.
Maybe you should consider a different perspective. What does it really mean for "every eye" to see him? Who is every eye? And if all "kindreds" or "tribes" of the earth mourn, who are those tribes? The old Testament indicated the word "kindreds" is another word for the twelve tribes, or, in Abraham's case, a word for those of the same race or clan.
Therefore, I personally have dropped any pretense that "every eye" means every eye on earth.
There are further considerations. The question I asked you earlier about the gospel being preached in the "whole world" and to "every creature" was not a trick question; but one that had made me reconsider things when I first put that particular "two and two" together. I saw that the "whole world" in the New Testament was, in general, another term for the Roman Empire, like in this verse:
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." (Luke 2:1 KJV)
Eventually I whittled everything away that didn't fit, and was left with the judgement against Jerusalem. The term "coming in clouds" is a type of old testament imagery for the Lord coming in judgement. I believe that is why Caiaphas got so bent out of shape:
"And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?" (Mark 14:60-63 KJV)
I believe Caiaphas understood, from his study of the old testament, that Jesus was claiming to be the Lord and he was coming in the clouds of judgement. Those "clouds" in Revelation 1 and 14, and in Matthew 24; the "flood" in Daniel 9; and the "overflowing scourge" in Isaiah 28, I believe were all referring to the Roman armies sent by the Lord in judgement against Israel and Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70.
You mentioned Josephus earlier. There were some very strange coincidences and phenomena recorded by him. This is one from Barnes Notes on Matt 24:4:
"The Messiah was expected at that time [in history], Mt 2:1,2. Many would lay claims to being the Messiah, and, as he was universally expected, many would easily be led to believe in them. There is abundant evidence that this was fully accomplished. Josephus informs us that there were many, who pretended to Divine inspiration, deceived the people, leading out numbers of them into the desert. "The land," says he, "was overrun with magicians, seducers, and impostors, who drew the people after them in multitudes into solitudes and deserts, to see the signs and miracles which they promised to show by the power of God."
Note the references to the desert, and recall:
"Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not." (Matt 24:26)
There was also a long period of peace in those days lasting from about 17AD until about 60AD. Therefore a meaningless statement to us ("ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars") meant a lot to people of those days.
Philip
>>>The dude did not even think Revelation should be in the canon:<<<
Eusebius was also not so hot on including the Revelation; nor was anyone that mattered for about 1000 years.
What’s your point. This discussion was about Domitian-era dating. Do you have any proof that Firmin Abauzit was not an early dater?
Is this just another example of bio-reader pretending to be a historical scholar? When is the last time you read anything about C.I. Scofield? LOL!
Philip
>>>Charles Cutler Torrey seems to have rewritten a good portion of the Bible of sorts.<<<
How so? Give us a demonstration, not aspersions!
BTW, was he a late-dater?
LOL!
Are you sure you want to go there? He also wrote this in 1754:
"…none of our Saviour's prophecies are more remarkable than those relating to the destruction of Jerusalem, as none are more proper and pertinent to the design of these discourses: and we will consider them as they lie in the twenty-fourth chapter of St. Matthew
Isn't the 24th Chapter of St Matthew supposed to be predicting some sort of futurist event?
On second thought, maybe you should read his work. You might learn something new.
Was he a late-dater? LOL!
Philip
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Christian_Baur<<<
redleghunter, how long are you going to continue with this drivel from sources like Wikipedia? Can’t you do a just a wee little bit of scholarly research?
Why not do us all a favour and post everything you know about C.I. Scofield and John Nelson Darby? You should know everything about them; and everyone should be wise on the tactics of those charlatans, before they get suckered in by them.
BTW, was Baur a late-dater?
LOL!
Philip
>>>On the contrary, observation shows he clearly had a large portion of what became known as the NT canon available to him. <<<
Why bother making that statement. This is what I wrote.
“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.”
>>>What Christian writings after 70AD would have swayed Irenaeus to a different interpretation?<<<
How about something like, “Hey, we have been resurrected! That is why we wrote nothing after the destruction of Jerusalem! Not even a “We Told You So!””
Something like that.
Philip
>>>It was his dissertation because he recognized that his whole theology would crumble if Rev was written in 95 AD.<<<
I am glad to hear you have finally realized the Revelation was not written after the destruction of Jerusalem.
Now watch dispensationalism and futurism crumble.
LOL!
Philip
What’s interesting is you posted a laundry list of theologians thinking it to add a quantitative effect. You have a host of JEDP liberal theologians from the late 19th century who spent their careers trying to prove the Bible a work of fiction or error. It was the age of skepticism and you seemed to pick some ripe adherents.
So yes, I question the motives of theologians who put the writing of the Gospels in the second century but Revelation before AD 70. Most of your authors don’t even think the NT is apostolic.
"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
I really don't know that much about the debate. I know from the beginning there were questions about the authorship of the Revelation. It seems an entire industry has sprung up around the Johannine Authorship debate; though not nearly as large as the "Who Will Be The Next Antichrist?" debate that has created the massive Dispensational Industrial Complex, with their incredible book and movie sales.
Philip
Yes Baur is a late dater for every NT book but Revelation. He believed most of the Pauline epistles and the Gospels were written later in the second century. So yes he is a late dater but with the wrong books.
Which don’t exist because it has not happened yet.
Well another dodge. You posted these guys as evidence but don’t seem to know “why” and for what motives they hold to an earlier date.
You know you need to post the link to where each one listed an early date. I ask because for some of these German dudes there are only German websites. So please send us a link so we can investigate your sources.
>>>You see the remainder of Isaiah 61 as not a literal fulfillment but one of allegory or spiritualization.<<<
Try not to read my mind. We are too dissimilar.
All I was implying was the Prophecy of Isaiah on that issue was fulfilled, as was all other O.T. prophecy, by the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Only the antichristian Talmudic/Pharisaic Jews and their tagger-alongers, or those who have been deceived by them, believe Jesus was misspeaking or lying in Luke 21:22 about the O.T being fulfilled.
Philip
A source for this list please.
>>>A source for this list please.<<<
I’ll let you do your own research. Hint: it was not Wikipedia. LOL!
Philip
>>>Well another dodge. You posted these guys as evidence but don’t seem to know “why” and for what motives they hold to an earlier date.<<<
And you have yet to post much of anything outside of Wikepedia in your lame attempts to smear them.
Philip
>>>What’s interesting is you posted a laundry list of theologians thinking it to add a quantitative effect<<<
Come on, Redleg, get up to speed. The issue required a laundry list of scholars not adhering to the late-date theory. Have you been that much in the dark about this? Is that why you posted all that Wikipedia drivel?
Philip
>>>>Well another dodge. You posted these guys as evidence but don’t seem to know “why” and for what motives they hold to an earlier date.<<<<
How was that a dodge of your question? Did you forget what you asked me?
Philip
Yeah I understand Wikipedia is not so great but you did not even provide a link to where you found this list. If it was through independent research then you know your list is riddled with liberal theologians who are scriptural skeptics.
It is interesting most put Revelation before or at around 70 AD but question the authenticity of the remainder of the NT canon. To you Ireneaus is a terrible theologian but he clearly believed Paul wrote his epistles and the Gospel writers were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Some of your sources question apostolic authorship of the NT.
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.