Preterism & the Date of the Apocalypse (Revelation)

PFRS ^ | 10/03 | Tim Warner

[jo kus]

Once again, this (Is 7:14) is another matter where Christian interpretation of the Old Testament is shown to be dependant upon the New Testament's guidence

Yup. If you want more, read Irenaeus' Proof of Apostolic Preaching. Lots and lots of OT quotes that are read through the Christian proclamation. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho is pretty good, as well.

Regards

[HarleyD]

BTW-I'm skimming through Iraeneus tonight to verify some of these statements. Given that Iraeneus lived after John and had no direct contact with John, most of what Iraeneus has to say about John is hearsay at best. However there was a very interesting quote from Iraeneus that discusses the Nicolaitane followers:

"3. The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practise adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.”"

Chapter XXVI.—Doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites, and Nicolaitanes.

Please note this is consistent with what is stated in the article in #123 about the Nicolaitanes. If we accept what Iraeneus states here, then Nicolas was one of the first people in the church directly appointed by the apostles. The rise of the heresy springing from Nicolas would have been early and put down at the Jerusalem council as is stated in the article and scripture. Thus, for it to be mentioned in Revelations most likely places the date of early, not late as is stated, giving credence to the article in 123.

[xzins]

We don't arbitrarily create these things. That is true. They are the product of your theology. Which is product of your misguided interpretive method.

Wrong.

Each item I mentioned appears in scripture. We don't create them.

You can say that how we interpret them disagrees with how you interpret them, but you cannot say they don't appear.

[xzins]

banned....

weird assertion -- when did that ever happen???

[jo kus]

I would say "conditional salvation" in the parlance of FR is "do this and then you'll earn salvation."

I see. WHO on FR actually believes that salvation is earned? I have posted over 1200 times in 7 months and I don't recall anyone claiming that their religious tradition includes earning one's salvation.

Maybe the Moonies? I don't know who you might be refering to...By the way, I agree with everything in your last paragraph. Just curious to know who believes in earning their salvation.

Regards

[jo kus]

If you can't see that from the words themselves, I can't help you with the interpretation

Proof postive that I should read the Scripture in its context BEFORE I type...

Sorry

[xzins]

That entire post was shown erroneous by this thread.

[xzins]

the reference is rather to a coming in terms of the events of his providence in judgment against his enemies and in deliverance of his people.

Do I understand by the above that you think the 2nd coming has already taken place?

[xzins]

I believe you missed the point.

If John wrote 666 and knew the person who fulfilled it, and it was in his own era, then why did he not just say, "It was so and so."

Then we wouldn't have all these Christians of his era and that immediately afterwards going around wondering who the Anti-Christ WOULD BE WHEN he got around to showing up some day in the future.

[HarleyD]

I'm not sure if post #120 is correct. I'm more interested in post #123 which builds a case of the dating of Revelation to the mid to late 60AD based upon the Nicolaitanes as discussed in the scriptures. The scriptures and historical fact seems to support this conclusion.

After looking through this (somewhat) the church fathers mentioned in your article is inconclusive. For example John could have been a "feeble, old man" at the age of his mid-sixties just as well as mid-eighties given the living conditions. Since Iraeneus or others never met John, most of what is presented is hearsay.

The Nicolaitanes are however talked about in a number of places in scripture either directly or indirectly-especially in Revelation dating the book much earlier than 95AD. I've tried to find a rebuttal to this veiw but have not been able to. Iraeneus seems to support it indirectly as well.

[P-Marlowe]

The Nicolaitanes are however talked about in a number of places in scripture either directly or indirectly-especially in Revelation dating the book much earlier than 95AD. I've tried to find a rebuttal to this veiw but have not been able to.

What scriptures are you referencing?

The ONLY reference to the Nicolaitanes are in Revelation 2:6 and 2:15.

Do you have some scriptures that I don't have?

[topcat54]

Do I understand by the above that you think the 2nd coming has already taken place?

No. The reference is to "a coming" not the second coming. Jesus came in judgment against Israel as He foretold.

"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)

"Jesus said to him, 'It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.'" (Matt. 26:64)

"I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (Dan. 7:13,14)

Jesus will come again in body at the end to judge the wicked and reward the righteous. That is yet future.

[topcat54]

Ever been to raptureready.com?

[blue-duncan]

"I've tried to find a rebuttal to this view but have not been able to. Iraeneus seems to support it indirectly as well."

If the heretical cult was such a threat to the churches in Asia Minor (Ephesus and Pergamos) why didn't Paul or Peter write about it to the churches? They covered other heresies but no mention of this one. Paul in his letter to Ephesus, writing around 61-62 A.D., one of the churches mentioned by John that was actively fighting the heresy, never mentions this. Yet when John writes it is threatening enough to get mentioned to two churches.

[topcat54]

If John wrote 666 and knew the person who fulfilled it, and it was in his own era, then why did he not just say, "It was so and so."

Ummm, because that's what Jesus wanted him to write? I'm sure we can all think of a lot of "better" things to say in the Bible than what's there. Funny thing is, we're not God.

Besides, it's not clear that the prophets always understood what God was telling them in their dreams and visions. It's quite possible that John did not recognize Nero as the beast until quite late in life, if ever. And we have no record that he ever told anyone about anything in the vision.

But we're back to speculating about things we don't know.

[topcat54]

Each item I mentioned appears in scripture. We don't create them.

The items may be in Scripture, it's the interpretation that is in question. Previously you wrote:

You know that the Ezekiel Temple is in the context of the Davidic King sitting on the Davidic Throne.

Jesus is the Davidic king (Matt. 1:1) and He is seated on the throne of David (Acts 2:29-36; Heb. 12:2).

You know that the premil's don't just create things like the 1000 year reign....they appear in scripture.

But premils assert that the number 1000 is to be taken literally when it appears in a book full of symbols. A book full of nice round perfect numbers.

You know that the question of the apostles to Jesus about the restoration of the kingdom CAN BE seen easily (if not best) from this perspective.

That is an assertion. It only apparently fits "best" because of your presupposition that the kingdom will be restored to national Israel in the future. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever taught that.

[57chevypreterist]

I would say that scripture teaches a second coming ("the Parousia") and that that "appearing" coincided with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, just as Jesus taught in the Olivet Discourse. I cannot find where the Scriptures teach a future-to-us "Third Coming".

Link to article: http://ourworld.cs.com/preteristabcs/id79.htm

"The more I pondered the awesome implications of Jesus’ words, the more I realized their truly revolutionary significance for eschatology. Without exception, every event foretold by the Biblical prophets was fulfilled within that generation, as Jesus said....Scripture foretells a Second Coming - not a third!" (~David Chilton, Foreword to What Happened in AD 70? By Ed Stevens, 1997)

[blue-duncan]

"I would say that scripture teaches a second coming ("the Parousia") and that that "appearing" coincided with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, just as Jesus taught in the Olivet Discourse. I cannot find where the Scriptures teach a future-to-us "Third Coming"."

Well, I guess that settles it, move along folks, nothing more to look forward to or hope for. This is all there is, but boy, did he leave a mess when He came the last time.

[jude24]

I'd rather have a sharp stick in my eye than be a full preterist.

Anyone who tells you Christ already returned is simply wrong. This world is just too messed up for that to have occured.

[P-Marlowe]

Anyone who tells you Christ already returned is simply wrong. This world is just too messed up for that to have occured.

So obviously you don't believe we are in the Millenial Kingdom and you don't believe that Satan is bound?

My position is that at some point in the future Christ is coming FOR his church (and we will be caught up) and then a short time later he will return WITH his church (Behold he cometh with clouds and every eye shall see him).

He will return bodily only once and that is when he returns with his Church to set up his millenial kingdom.

IMO anyone who believes he already set up his kingdom and that he has bound Satan for 1000 (well... 2000 now) years needs to get out more. Satan is not bound right now.