When in the 1st century did two witnesses for Jesus get murdered, their bodies lay dead in the street for 3 1/2 days, and then suddenly have life return to them and they stand on their feet again while "terror struck those who saw them"? (REV 11:8-11). WHen did that happen in the 1st century? When, at the VERY HOUR this was happening, did a great earthquake destroy a tenth of Jerusalem? (rev 11:13)
You responded
The "two witnesses" are an allegory for the law and the prophets, who witness against the apostate Judaism of AD 70. If you look at the plagues they invoke -- calling down fire from heaven, turning the water to blood, etc. -- they correspond directly to those invoked by Moses and Elijah.
HUH???? This "allegory" is your own invention that does not address any of the text in Revelation that I quoted. You do not address the earthquake issue, because NO EARTHQUAKE EVER DESTROYED A TENTH OF JERUSALEM in the 1st century AD. (Or EVER, to my knowlege -- this is because it will happen in the future) The Bible says this earthquake happened AT THE EXACT HOUR that the two witnesses came back to life and "struck terror in those who saw them". You can't answer me so you just don't address the little inconvenience of the killer quake that hasn't yet happened.
Then you say you don't believe Revelation was written in 95 AD even though your own Roman Catholic Encyclopedia ADMITS IT WAS!!!!!!!!! But it's inconvenient for your belief-system so you disavow the reality of Revealtion's written date.
It's fascinating to me that Catholics want to "allegorize" away reams and reams of Bible scripture that refutes their made-up theology, but they demand world authority because of one comment Jesus made to Peter about "a rock". Oy. God bless ya and good luck campion.
No, it isn't.
You do not address the earthquake issue, because NO EARTHQUAKE EVER DESTROYED A TENTH OF JERUSALEM in the 1st century AD.
Why do you insist on interpreting things hyper-literally when they support your view, and interpreting them away completely when they don't (cf Rev. 1:1), and then have the temerity to accuse me of "not debating honestly"? Pot ... kettle ... black ...
The geopolitical earthquake called "General Titus" destroyed a lot more than a tenth of Jerusalem. 50 years later, after a second Jewish rebellion, the Romans razed Jerusalem to the ground, and replaced the ruins of the Temple with a pagan temple to Jupiter. According to your view, these earthshattering events were completely ignored by Revelation in favor of a series of events which weren't to happen for another 1900 years.
Then you say you don't believe Revelation was written in 95 AD even though your own Roman Catholic Encyclopedia ADMITS IT WAS!!!!!!!!!
You seem to not get it. Let me try one more time. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a compendium of infallible dogma. It reflects the scholarship of its day -- and that's over 80 years ago. The Church has never taught definitively that Revelation was written in 95 AD, or 35 AD, or any other year within the Apostolic age: I am free to hold to an early date of composition if I like. In fact, my teacher in this matter, Professor Scott Hahn at Franciscan U. of Steubenville, is on one of the few Catholic theology faculties that take the oath of obedience to the Holy See. If you want to claim that I'm a heretic, you need to claim that he's a heretic, and you ought to bring it to his attention, and that of his superiors. Understand?
However, the fact that the CE adheres to the late date of composition theory belies your continued subtle hints that those of us who hold to a preterist viewpoint are "covering something up" or that Catholics are "afraid" of a futurist interpretation of Revelation, or similar silliness.
But it's inconvenient for your belief-system so you disavow the reality of Revealtion's written date.
And it's inconvenient for you to admit that Rev 1:1 can't just be "allegorized" away into nothingness.