Posted on 02/03/2020 7:09:40 PM PST by grumpa
www.ProphecyQuestions.com
The date is important.
If the date is early, then Revelations regards the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, in turn implying the partial preterists are correct.
bkmk
Thanks for sharing this.
Mark Hitchcock - A.D. 95 - Defending the Traditional Date of Revelation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgYvh0dtCO0&t=333s
Free Download
Dr. Mark Hitchcock’s PhD dissertation on the date of the Book of Revelation.
(It’s AD 95 !!!)
https://www.pre-trib.org/media/k2/assets/Documents/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf
And your evidences also rely on varying degrees of ambiguity and or interpretation. Regardless, are you saying that all of what Revelation predicts has been fulfilled, and if not, what is left to be so?
I don’t worry too much about interpreting prophecy.
As far as I am concerned, the later date leaves current events open to manipulation by the PTB (including using technology to fake the Second Coming with a false savior).
Best we can do is offer the Gospel to everyone, strive to obey God in everything in our daily lives, pray, seek His will in everything.
I have no interest in “helping” God to fix the Middle East, either.
I recently had a discussion about this with a very knowledgeable friend who is Eastern Orthodox. He’s not familiar with the Left Behind series and the Scofield modern interpretation of Revelation.
He was flabbergasted that anyone would think the Temple was to be rebuilt and destroyed again, that people were still waiting for the events of the destruction of Jerusalem to happen again, etc.
In short, he’s a partial Preterist.
He didn't say it would occur during his own generation.
Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place
means that the events will occur quickly, i.e. in a single generation. Much of that discourse doesn't make sense if interpreted as describing the events of 70 AD.
“The Lord’s wrath, promised in Revelation, would come against “the GREAT CITY Babylon” (Revelation 18:21-24), which is clearly identified as the “CITY WHERE THE LORD WAS SLAIN” (Revelation 11:8-9).”
_-_-_-———
Sorry, no, it is not.
Rome is Babylon, not Jerusalem. Look up both verse bundles.
The date of Revelation only serves to focus our attention on which historical events fulfilled Revelation. If it was early then the Roman War takes care of the details. If it was late then Eusebius was probably correct that a combination of the Roman War, the Bar Kokhba revolt, and the conversion of Rome to Christianity under Constantine takes care of the details. I think the Roman War works better, but there are no grounds for modern futurism.
I could not agree more - - Thanks!!
Cough! cough! Jesus warning in Luke 21 seems to have been a better predictor than Jesus’s prediction in Revelation of Jesus Christ by John. cough! cough!
All of the "fulfilled prophecies," for example, could simply have been tacked on after they came to pass.
Regards,
” “The date of Revelation only serves to focus our attention on which historical events fulfilled Revelation””
And according to Evangelists it dates the end of the Bible by making it so God will not give any new written Word.
You must have a large inventory of books still to sell.
Sigh, Grumpa is at it again, pushing preterism.
Strangely the post-apostolic writings, including people like Hermas of Rome, Clement of Rome, Barnabus, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc., who lived almost two thousand years closer to the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD than we do, said nothing at all about the Olivet discourse of Jesus, and all that is prophesied in Revelation, had been fulfilled in their recent memory...they living not that long after that event.
In fact, they said just the opposite, for whenever they commented on what Jesus foretold in his Olivet disourse, or on Revelation, they interpreted it in the future...and they lived AFTER the fall of Jerusalem.
Enter Grumpa and the preterists, some two thousand years later claiming they know more these who lived two thousand years closer to the actual event.
If what the preterists claim were true, it would be a very great prophetic thing indeed to the post-apostolic writers mentioned above. The fact that they DID NOT interpret 70AD as modern preterists do, means only one thing, their doctrine is utterly bogus.
No. Not when you analyze the writing styles, if that was tacked on later you’d see clear changes between authors’ grammatical styles.
What non-Catholics you're familiar with have chosen to ignore isn't proof that every word Christ said would happen in the life time of some of those who were present when he spoke didn't happen happened exactly when He said it would.
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.