Posted on 01/15/2011 8:05:51 AM PST by topcat54
"The Roots of Fundamentalism," by Ernest R. Sandeen, in discussing the history of the Brethren, says that [John Nelson] Darby introduced the idea of a secret rapture of the church and a gap in prophetic fulfillment between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel. These beliefs became basic to the system of theology known as dispensationalism.
From 1862 to 1877, Darby lived in and traveled throughout the United States and Canada, spreading his message. He was a very appealing speaker and also intolerant to criticism. At first he tried to win members of existing Protestant congregations to his sect, but met with little success. He then spread his end-times message to influential clergymen and laymen in churches in major cities without insisting they leave their denominations.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed-theology.org ...
bfl
I always wonder how anything dreamed up in the past 170 years could be taken as gospel......
“Incidentally, those who read the Bible in one hand and the Newsweek in the other should know that historically, many have believed that the book of Revelation was John’s message of warning to the Christians of his day of horrible impending persecution from Nero (whose name in Hebrew is 666) and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70A.D. and has therefore largely been fulfilled.”
I know some folks believe that. But this has never seemed very credible to me. Although the destruction of the Temple was a pretty big deal to the Jews, it was a little tiny event in world affairs. It’s really hard to reconcile the earth shattering and very specifically described events related in Revelation to anything that has happened to date in world history—the Black Death is pretty much the closest event (high percent of world population dying). But it was not preceded or followed by anything remotely resembling the other events of Revelation.
And if you think the tribulation has already occurred, that means the millenial reign started sometime soon after that. If that’s the case, does this world for the past two thousand or so years look like Christ and the martyrs are ruling it in justice?
So either you toss out most of the Book of Revelation, you strain to apply it to events to which it has no obvious application, or you conclude the tribulation hasn’t started yet. I have a hard time with the notion that Revelation describes anything recognizable sequence of events that has occurred since it was written. So much of the Jewish prophecy is the type of thing you read and say (in retrospect), “duh, of course that’s what he meant.” Isaiah was describing the crucifixion of Jesus, duh. How come the Jews of the pre-Christian and early Christian era didn’t figure that out? Similarly, the Apostles clearly expected the second coming DURING THEIR LIVES, but modified that as their lives went along. My suggestion in that regard is that religions get stuck in early attempts to overfit prophecy to events and can’t see outside the box once they are stuck there. Revelation is so specific and describes events so huge that we are all going to say “duh, of course” when the events transpire. Either that, or Revelation should not be in the Bible. If we have to strain to interpret it and apply it to events, the events haven’t happened. So unlike the apostles, it doesn’t seem to me that the early interpretations of Revelation have adjusted their interpretation to reality. They have stayed stuck there for a long time.
As to Nero, is there any documentation of him dying and being resurrected three days later—Revelation kind of requires that or you need to toss that part of Revelation. And who were the two witnesses Nero killed whose death and resurrection were witnessed live by the entire world—I can’t find them in the History books. If the black death was one of the events described in Revelation, it is on the wrong timeline with Nero’s death and “resurrection” both in the “before and after” sense and in 1300 years rather than maximum of seven years Revelation confines one to. What was the mark without which noone could conduct commerce?
This is not meant as a polemic. This is just a small part of the thinking I was forced to when I studied Revelation. I do data analysis and modeling for a living. Attempts to apply the second part of Revelation to known world events strike me as being less credible than the strained man-made global warming models desperately trying to fit their models to the data and then adjusting the data when it doesn’t. We call that overfitting in the modeling world. To date, I have seen nothing to suggest anything other than that the early Church got stuck in a badly overfit model of Revelation to reality.
But I’d be interested in literature that presents a non-overfit case for Nero being the anti-christ and documents his name being 666 and how the other events of Revelation (including the woes and the millenial reign) fit events that we know have occurred. I got to say though, the case that we have gone thru a thousand years when Christ and the martyrs reigned in justice is going to be hard to make. That’s not the world I see around me.
Pre-Tribulation Rapture persists in the theme that there are no consequences for those that believe.
C. S. Lewis, in “The Screwtape Letters” makes the point that the most important idea Satan can spread, is that he and his minions don't exist.
If we ignore consequence, we risk managing our behavior.
I do NOT ignore the Love and forgiveness of Christ, but am mindful of my obligations, which include living a life that reflects my belief in Christ and his salvific acts. (Scourging and Crucifixion are multiple acts)
keep for later
I suggest you read Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation by Kenneth Gentry. It's addresses most of your issues/objections.
One friendly suggestion: make sure you are looking at the world through eyes informed by the Bible, not by human understanding of what the end times ought to look like.
"Actually, I"m pan-Trib" he answered.
"Pan-Trib? What's that?" they asked.
"It'll all pan out in the End" he answered.
He got the call.
I take it that you are one of those who believe that once you are saved, if you sin, you can lose your salvation. I hate to throw a wet blanket here but you are going to sin today. In all of history there is only ONE PERSON who did not sin. By grace we are saved and even that is a gift from God. When you appear in front of the throne you will not be asked anything about “sin”. The only question will be, “what did you do with/about MY SON? Sins count for nothing as they were hung on the cross and paid for with blood. forever/future, not just that one you did today. And guess what, the one you will do tomorrow is already paid for.
“I suggest you read Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation by Kenneth Gentry. It’s addresses most of your issues/objections. One friendly suggestion: make sure you are looking at the world through eyes informed by the Bible, not by human understanding of what the end times ought to look like.”
Thanks for the link. I will read it. As to your suggestion, it is appreciated—that’s what I think I am trying to do. The text of Revelation is, well, pretty apocalyptic. For example, does Gentry address the “well, then why haven’t times ended and where is the New Jerusalem” question? And if the answer is, “they are already here,” that’s a pretty big fizzle for the hope Paul expresses for the physical resurrection of his body.
Again, I don’t mean to be polemic, but if the events of revelation have already occurred, then somewhere, someone should have noticed the disappearance of the entire universe and the descent of New Jerusalem from Heaven. Either that or the thousand year reign and the destruction and remaking of the cosmos are entirely odd and obscure metaphors concealed in pretty clear text.
I’ve written too much already on this thread that I doubt anyone is interested in. Thank you for your response.
Fish Hawk, I take it you are one of those who read none of the passages I referenced, or you wouldn’t charge the conclusions just cited.
Further, you seem take comfort in the term “Salvation” with no apparent understanding of it’s meaning.
We can do nothing to reverse the effects of Original Sin.
Christ’s sacrifice provided Salvation, “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from you; it is the gift of God.”
As humans we are quite capable of rejecting this gift!
“faith without love is nothing”
“if you love me, keep my commandments”
“if you wish to enter into life, keep my commandments”
AND, Heb 10:26-30
“If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgement and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.
Anyone who rejects the law of Moses is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace? We know the one who said: “Vengenance is mine; I will repay,” and again: “The Lord will judge his people.”
Rather a “tissue” than a “wet blanket”, I’d say.....
“but if the events of revelation have already occurred,”
Very complex, requiring a separate response:
As with many elements of the Bible, the events of Revelation occur more than once in history.
This doesn’t extend to the Second coming of Christ.
Anti-Christ is not a single figure in history, rather recurring servants of Satan, appearing through the ages.
In the last 150 years, most books and commentary on Revelation have focused on Catholic bashing.
Many Catholic publications on the subject are unsatisfying in their conclusion that 90% of the events occurred in the 1st century and we’re simply waiting for the 2nd coming of Christ.
Finally, I was presented with “The Apocalypse Explained”, by H.M Feret, O.P., translated in 1942 by Elizabethe Corathiel.
It is a complex read that doesn’t begin to satisfy until half-way through.
The world has much to endure before Christ’s return and many faithful will endure persecution in the times ahead.
“There will be a vast increase of the diabolical malignance of error and deceit toward the end.”
Beans!
Post #33 was meant for you.
Thank you for your response. I’ll try to find that reference.
I forgot about the pre-trib as soon as I realized that the midtrib, posttrib or prewrath raptures are the more Biblical possibility.
Good for you. God bless and peace.
Let me explain. In Revelation 19, it is said that the marriage of the Lamb has come. All orthodox Christians agree that this is none other than Christ’s marriage to the church. But Paul equates this marriage to the glorification of believers. See Ephesians 5: 27. Moreover, he says: “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife: and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery. But I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Ephesians 5: 31-32).
Very well. Christ is now at seated at the right hand of the Father. According to the ecumenical creeds, He will not leave His Father until He returns to judge the quick and the dead. Then He will be joined unto His wife; and they two shall be “one flesh” — that is, they will be glorified together, via physical resurrection. See Philippians 3: 20-21.
For Preterists to say that the marriage occurred in A.D. 70, is to imply that either — 1): the physical resurrection of believers took place in the first century; 2): there was no physical resurrection, and that therefore the bride and Bridegroom did not become “one flesh;” which would mean that the marriage was never consummated; or 3): if they did become one flesh, apart from physical resurrection, then the physical resurrection of believers is not necessary.
Modern Preterists who affirm that the Apocalyptic prophecies have already been fulfilled, teach that the 7th trumpet has already sounded, therefore implying that the dead have already been judged (Rev. 11: 18). Paul corroborates the Apocalypse, saying that the resurrection of believers will happen at this “last trump” (1 Corinthians 15: 52). And since the last trumpet sounds at the close of the 42 months of Great Tribulation, it must be parallel to that resurrection mentioned in Daniel 12: 2.
But here’s the rub. Both Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry state that the resurrection of Daniel 12: 2 happened in A.D. 70. And both of them make it a spiritual (non physical) resurrection. So what they are really teaching, is that some entered into eternal life, and others into eternal contempt, without resurrection bodies! My only question: If that be the case, what theological necessity is there for the raising of dead bodies??
The dispute over the date of the composition of Revelation is a crucial one. If it was composed by John after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, preterism is at once refuted. Revelation is a prophetic book, predicting the coming of Christ in the future. A post- AD70 date makes equating the coming of Christ with the destruction of Jerusalem utterly impossible.
There is no question that Revelation was written while John was a prisoner of the Roman state, exiled to the prison island of Patmos. That much can be gathered from the first chapter of Revelation. "I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ."
There were only two Roman emperors who persecuted Christians on a large scale in the first century, Nero and Domitian. The other Emperors were either indifferent to Christianity, or did not consider it a serious threat to Rome. The first Roman persecution under Nero took place in the decade of the 60s, just before the fall of Jerusalem. Nero was responsible for the deaths of both Peter and Paul in Rome in AD 67, Peter by crucifixion, and Paul by being beheaded.
There is no record of Nero's banishing Christians to Patmos, only his brutality against the Christians of Rome. It was Nero who made a sport of throwing Christians to the lions for the entertainment of the crowds, and who burned many at the stake along the road leading to the Coliseum merely to light the entrance.
After Nero's death Rome left the Christians alone until the rise of Domitian to power in AD 81. Although not as cruel and insane as Nero, Domitian had many Christians killed, the property of Christians confiscated. Scriptures and other Christian books were burned, houses of Christians were destroyed, and many of the most prominent Christians were banished to the prison island of Patmos.
All ancient sources, both Christian and secular, place the banishment of Christians to Patmos during the reign of Domitian (AD81-96). Not a single early source (within 500 years of John) places John's banishment under the reign of Nero, as preterists claim. All modern attempts to date Revelation during Nero's reign rely exclusively on alleged internal evidence, and ignore or seek to undermine the external evidence and testimony of Christians who lived about that time, some of whom had connections to John. Eusebius the Christian historian, living only two hundred years after Domitian's reign, gathered evidence from both Christian and secular sources that were still extant at the time (some of which are no longer extant today). All of the sources at Eusebius' disposal placed the date of John's Patmos exile during the reign of Domitian. Eusebius' earliest source was Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John. But he also used other unnamed sources both Christian and secular to place the date of the Patmos exile of Christians during Domitian's reign (AD 81-96).
"It is said that in this persecution [under Domitian] the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: 'If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the Revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.' To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it. And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ."
While Eusebius quoted Irenaeus' statement, notice that he also indicated that other secular histories at his disposal accurately indicated the banishment of Christians to Patmos occurred during Domitian's reign. Eusebius continues: "Tertullian also has mentioned Domitian in the following words: 'Domitian also, who possessed a share of Nero's cruelty, attempted once to do the same thing that the latter did. But because he had, I suppose, some intelligence, he very soon ceased, and even recalled those whom he had banished.' But after Domitian had reigned fifteen years, and Nerva had succeeded to the empire, the Roman Senate, according to the writers that record the history of those days, voted that Domitian's horrors should be cancelled, and that those who had been unjustly banished should return to their homes and have their property restored to them. It was at this time that the apostle John returned from his banishment in the island and took up his abode at Ephesus, according to an ancient Christian tradition.” Here again Eusebius mentioned an ancient Christian tradition, but did not quote his sources, that placed John's return from exile on Patmos after Domitian's fifteen year reign, and Nerva's rise to power (AD 96).
There is more early evidence, both explicit and implicit, from other early writers prior to Eusebius. Victorinus, bishop of Pettaw (Italy), agreed with Irenaeus. That Victorinus did not rely on Irenaeus for his information is clear from the fuller details of his statement not referenced by Irenaeus.
"'And He says unto me, Thou must again prophesy to the peoples, and to the tongues, and to the nations, and to many kings.' He says this, because when John said these things he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the labor of the mines by Caesar Domitian. There, therefore, he saw the Apocalypse; and when grown old, he thought that he should at length receive his quittance by suffering, Domitian being killed, all his judgments were discharged. And John being dismissed from the mines, thus subsequently delivered the same Apocalypse which he had received from God.” A little farther, Victorinus again made the same claim.
"The time must be understood in which the written Apocalypse was published, since then reigned Caesar Domitian; but before him had been Titus his brother, and Vespasian, Otho, Vitellius, and Galba.”
Clement of Alexandria (AD150-220) recounted a story about John shortly after his return from exile, while a very old man.
“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.”
The expression “the tyrant's death” can only refer to the death of either Nero or Domitian, the only two “tyrants” that ruled in the first century. Eusebius related that upon the death of Domitian, the Roman senate voted to release those exiled by Domitian. This seems to parallel Clement's statement above. However, the above statement could refer to Nero, except for one fact. In the story that Clement related, he clearly stated that John was a very old and feeble man. John was still relatively young when Nero died.
The story is about a young new convert whom John entrusted to a certain elder to disciple in the Faith. The man had formerly been a thief and robber. Upon John's return from exile on Patmos, he heard that this young man had returned to his old life of crime. Upon hearing this, he sharply rebuked the elder in whose custody he had left him. John immediately set out for the place where this robber and his band were known to lurk. Upon reaching the place, he was assaulted by the band of robbers. He demanded of them to take him to their leader. They brought John to the very man whom John had formerly won to Christ, and left in the custody of the elder. When the young man saw John approaching, he began to run away. John began to run after him, calling, “Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me.”
John then explained to him that forgiveness and restoration was still possible. Clement then stated, "And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Savior, beseeching and falling on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by repentance, led him back to the church."
From this account we see that upon John's release from exile on Patmos, he was a feeble old man. John was most likely in his teens or early twenties when Jesus called him. He and his brother James were working with their father as fishermen (Matt. 4:21-22). Assuming John was in his twenties, he would have been in his eighties in AD 96. If he was in his teens when Jesus called him, he would have been in his seventies at the end of Domitian's reign. However, if the “tyrant” referred to by Clement was Nero, then John would have still been fairly young by the time of Nero's death, perhaps in his forties or early fifties. He would hardly be spoken of as a feeble old man by Clement. That John lived until after the reign of Domitian is also shown by Irenaeus' repeated references to his own mentor, Polycarp, being John's disciple.
Polycarp was born in AD65, and died in AD 155. He was five years old when Jerusalem was destroyed. He was two years old when Nero died. His being tutored by John therefore must have been at least a decade after the destruction of Jerusalem, and more likely two or three decades afterward. More than one early writer mentioned the persecution of the Apostles under Nero. They spoke of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, but made no mention of John's exile during this persecution. As is obvious to the unbiased reader, the early external evidence that Revelation was written under the reign of Domitian is indisputable. No evidence exists, from the first three centuries of Christian tradition, placing the composition of Revelation during the reign of Nero. Nor is there any evidence (Christian or secular) that Nero exiled any Christians to Patmos.
does this mean you accept St Iraneus and St Clement as Christians?
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.