When was Revelation Written? The Fatal Flaw in Preterism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 июл 2024
- Preterism posits that most, if not all, of the events in the Book of Revelation occurred by 70 AD. However, if Revelation was authored after this date, it fundamentally challenges the Preterist view. In this video, we delve into the methodology for dating ancient texts and thoroughly evaluate the external evidence to determine whether Revelation was written in the early or late first century. In this video, we discuss the implications of Revelation's dating on the Preterist interpretation.
Time stamps:
00:00 Introduction
03:09 The Two Dating Options
06:15 Important Definitions
16:30 Internal and External Evidence
24:12 Foundational Principles for a Working Methodology
32:43 Clarifications about Kinds of Arguments for Dating Revelation
37:28 The Majority of Church History Evidence
49:22 Discussion of Why 1850-1900 Prioritized 70 AD
54:45 The Earliest Sources Supporting a Late Date of Revelation
1:04:47 The Evidence of Irenaeus, Victorinus, and Jerome
1:22:12 Addressing Objections to the External Evidence
Shepherds Theological Seminary (where Peter Goeman teaches): shepherds.edu/
The Bible Sojourner Audio podcast: anchor.fm/the-bible-sojourner
More About The Bible Sojourner Host, Peter Goeman: petergoeman.com
Don't forget to check out the discussion of the internal evidence in Revelation! --> ruclips.net/video/onh2whFS1Dg/видео.html
As a preterits realized millennialist, I Agree 100% (@35:25) that Matthew 24's meaning does not and cannot force the early dating of Revelation.
The help that Matthew 24 gives is that it provides us with the category of a "historical judgment coming" for the parousia (presence of Jesus) in the clouds directly tied to Jerusalem's fall. So when we read that Jesus says he is "coming" to the churches in Revelation with the "sword of his mouth" (2:16) and and is going to throw Jezebel on a bed of sickness and destroy her children (2:22), and that they are to hold on until he comes" (2:25), it allows us to see that "coming" in scripture cannot be limited to only the return of Christ at the end of the present age.
"Coming on the clouds" has a special meaning from the OT (e.g. Ps. 18 and Isa. 19) and this sort of providential judgment coming needs to be considered as distinct from the physical descent and return of Christ which is taught in other passages (Acts 1:11 and 3:18-20, 1 Thess. 4:13-18, and Rev. 20:9). But this multiplicity of meanings for "coming" has huge consequences for potentially taking the events of Revelation up through chapter 20 as actually "soon" in the literal sense.
That is the significance of Mat. 24 for Revelation: it rips open the hermeneutical overton window.
Great discussion. Saved to watch again. I look forward to the internal evidence discussion. I have wanted to do a full research about Antipas of pergamum and when he lived.
Glad to hear it was helpful! Hoping to put out some of the internal evidence videos over the Summer. We will see--got a lot on the plate! :)
One of the best channels I have listened to.
I find everything so easy to follow as someone like me who is just starting out on the subject of Eschatology.
Thank you! I truly appreciate your efforts.
That's very encouraging. I appreciate you sharing that. May God bless the pursuit of the knowledge of His Word!
You ever listen to Don k Preston . He does an extremely thorough, detailed work on every aspect of eschatology. I tried proving him wrong for about 5 years and he definitely taught me a lot
I'm not upset at all😊. Excellent analysis, looking forward to your next installment👍.
Appreciate the encouragement my friend!
Looking forward to watching this!
Looking forward to your thoughts.
This was fair, accurate, and very objective. Thank you for all the time and hard work you put into the content you share with us. I found the 3 hour debate between Dr Hitchcock and Hank Hanagraph to absolutely dispell pretty much every argument the preterism view espouses. It is well woth the 3 hours of time for anyone who is interested in the date of Revelation.
I appreciate the feedback and thoughts, my friend. And I couldn't agree more that the debate between Hanagraph and Hitchcock is very eye-opening indeed.
I didn’t know this debate existed, thanks for mentioning it.
Thanks for the awesome walk through of the evidence! As someone who just studies the Bible in his free time I really appreciated all the breakdowns
So glad to hear it is encouraging and helpful for you. Praise God!
ThanI you Peter, so,glad you tackled this and such a great job
Thanks for the encouragement, Daniel. So glad the Lord can use it!
As i begin the video, I'm quite thoroughly convinced that the apocalypse was written pre 70ad. That is my position of after a couple years of researching and thinking in it as best i could.
Let's see where i end up by the end of the video! Looking forward to it.
Well now we all want to know what you thought! Granted, this video doesn't talk about the internal evidence. But Lord willing in the near future.
Thank you for covering so much. Do you have a video on the discussion of the Olivet Discourse?
Glad you found it helpful. No videos on the Oliver Discourse yet. But Lord willing in the future!
@hillvolfan. Might I humbly suggest a video I put together discussing Luke 21, mark 13, and Matt 24. I discuss these conversations to suggest a timeline. I try to take a balanced approach and explain how much of Luke 21 is 70 ad, but most of Matt 24 is future.
@@kolanwright1868 - thanks … I will take a look. Much appreciated.
And thank you for your understanding and Christian attitude
Regarding the dating on the book of revelation picture chart this leaves out some early church preterists such as Eusebius and Clement. Or is this because they don’t specifically say when the text was written?
Appreciate the interaction my friend! Correct, Clement is not included in the chart because of some ambiguity in his testimony. For example, Clement says, “When after the death of the tyrant he removed from the island of Patmos to Ephesus…” and the key phrase, “death of the tyrant” is often taken to refer to Nero or Domitian. Since both are called Tyrants in history, it is a little too ambiguous to say it definitively refers to either. I personally think Clement most likely refers to Domitian by that phrase, and Eusebius actually says that Clement was referring to Domitian (3.23.1-2.).
Regarding Eusebius, he is actually a strong source for the late date of Revelation. He doesn’t ever note any other view on the date of Revelation (at least to my knowledge). Hengstenberg writes about Eusebius: "Never once does Eusebius point, by so much as a single syllable, to any other view regarding the author of John's exile, and the time of the composition of the Apocalypse. So that there must then in this respect have been perfect unanimity in the church."
Great stuff. I agree with many recent pastors and theologians who have shown that Christian faith and practice needs to begin with the Book of Revelation. Once we have that wonderful book in place, the rest of the dispensational program of God's redemption follows naturally. But starting with theology will skew our view of both the Book of Revelation and the rest of the Bible simultaneously. Since theology is a self-enclosed system of thought, it also doesn't answer to historical data! But starting with the Scripture gets us to both theology and history. This talk is what every church needs.
Sadly Revelation is often ignored by many Christians... but it is an important part of our holistic faith. Great point!
@@thebiblesojourner Well, you have one minister who is dedicated to bringing back God's book of promised blessing to the church! And with it, we will bring revival to this land before Jesus stands from His throne and commands us home! Amen.
It seems to me that "starting with the book of Revelation" is what forces so many private interpretations of the prophecies in the Book. I think it best to know the books of the prophets before tackling the book of Revelation. Of course that is after fully understanding Paul's doctrine for the Body of Christ Church and how it differs from Israel's doctrine.
Thank you for this!
It is a privilege to serve!
Outstanding! Thank you. Fantastic channel.
Question…reference Daniel’s 70th week, what is your position/where do you place the Parousia?
Please, not another pretribber. Kidding 😊
Would you be willing to debate Don Preston on this
Glad to see a scholarly Dispensational channel. Very good presentation!! Looking forward to any future discussion, if warranted, addressing the ‘argument from silence’ why if the Gospels were written after 70AD, none of the writers give even one mention of Jerusalem’s fall, further verifying Jesus as a genuine prophet of God. This omission from the Gospels and epistles to my limited understanding is similar to writing a recent history of the USA and completely omitting any mention of 9/11. But I also understand that if the Holy Spirit chose to not discuss it, no further ponderings on my part are necessary or fruitful.
Appreciate the thoughtful interaction my friend. I do plan on doing some discussion on those kinds of subjects as they pertain specifically to Revelation. But yes, so many fruitful topics to pursue! May God give grace and energy to slowly pursue many of them.
I too have a limited understanding of this, but I heard it argued that John was instructed to write a book of prophecy, not a book of history.😉
@@ethicsexistentialism4191 Rev 1:19 Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.
Revelation isn't just a book about the future, but it's about the past, the present and the future, and if John has been instructed to write about the past and doesn't mention the greatest catastrophe to ever hit Jerusalem, that is truly strange indeed.
If we could establish with certainty WHEN Saint Antipas died in Pergamum, we can surely have some indication if Saint John wrote the revelation of Christ before 70 AD or after 90 AD?
Very good point! Perhaps one day we might find more evidence on Antipas, but I'm currently not aware of anything definitive talking about when he died.
Have you read Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.'s dissertation on this issue? It is free as a PDF on line. Proverbs 18:17
Yes, I believe Gentry is considered (rightfully so) as the primary authority on defending the early Neronic date. If you find time, please post a link to the PDF so people can have access to that resource as well. It is important to compare the evidence. The response to Gentry is Hitchcock's dissertation at DTS in 2005.
Thanks; i posted it.
@@thebiblesojourner Did YT take down my link to "Before Jerusalem Fell"?
@@markrademaker5875 I'm not sure. I never actually saw it originally when you posted it (thought you might have done a new thread or something). So maybe it didn't go through?
@@thebiblesojourner Hitchcock can't argue against the scholars that held to the early date.
As Historic Premil, I have no problem affirming Idealism in the middle chapters of Revelation.
I think there is room to engage with such a viewpoint. But whatever viewpoint we use, it must engage in a consistent framework.
Mathew McGee did a great paper on reasons for the early date scenario !
Feel free to link to it if RUclips lets you-always appreciate when people have access to those resources! Thanks for the tip.
@@thebiblesojourner, I tried , but YT didn’t’ allow , I guess ! John ps . You could go to Safari and type in Paper on the Early Date of the book of Revelation by same name , that’s how I retrieved it today !
@@johnharrington6122 YT is weird about links sometimes, but thanks for the search instructions! Almost just as good.
Apologies for clogging up the comments! I have a cold today and so some free time, and this is an area I really enjoy thinking about.
Regarding the "majority of Church evidence" (@39:00) for the late date of Revelation, I think it is very important to distinguish the issue of how Revelation is interpreted from how the church has dated the book. I think there is a tendency here to collapse the two issues into one. As if a futurist reading of parts of Revelation show that the book is dated late. The latter does not at all follow from the former.
Many of the persons in your list are very likely dependent upon Irenaeus and provide no additional basis for their knowledge of why revelation was written in Domitian's time. And in the case of Victorinus, his commentary on Revelation, the earliest that we have, is more historicist in its orientation. It even interprets sections of the trumpets as having to do with the fall of Jerusalem. This just goes to shows that one cannot use the dating of Revelation as a blanket dismissal of various ways of interpreting the book (including preterist). Nor can one ignore the strong internal evidences for an early date just because Irenaeus may (and this is not certain) have dated the vision to Domitian's time.
Additionally, your list does not include a potentially strong early date proponent. There is no mention of Clement of Alexandria who is a contemporary of Irenaeus, and he says that John was exiled during the reign of the tyrant. And there is strong evidence in Clement's own writing that this was a reference to Nero, who was also the Archetype tyrant in the broad literature of the time. If Irenaeus is ambiguous but leans toward Domitian, then Clement, while admittedly ambiguous, leans toward Nero and the early date.
Finally, strong appeal is made to Irenaeus having known Polycarp, who knew John. But I would ask if this is overplaying the futurist's hand. Irenaeus was a mere boy when Polycarp was martyred. It shows historical proximity, but not direct discipleship, especially on matters like eschatology. To depend upon this connection to bolster Irenaeus' Apostolic bonfieds is not safe. The arguments that Irenaeus actually makes on the millennium, for example, don't cite ancient teaching but only the scriptures themselves.
All of Irenaeus' arguments on the matter, even the meaning of the number of the beast's name, show that Irenaeus had no special insight from the Apostles. He, like the rest of us, was dependent upon interpreting scripture as best he could. This weakens any appeal to Irenaeus' historical connects to bolster his views on eschatology as "likely correct."
We really should not privilege Ireneaus or the churches variant readings of scripture (much of which supports the Amil view as you would point out) as determinative of anything.
It is to scripture we must look. The fathers are very helpful, but in this area of eschatology especially, they are as fallible as any of us.
Respectfully, Your foundational ‘facts’ may be Objectively False (asserting Irenaeus was ‘just a boy’) . Irenaeus was born some time between 120 AD and 140 AD, while Polycarp died 155 AD. So, Irenaeus could have been 35 years old when Polycarp died, and any scholarly 15-year old is capable of learning & remembering teaching from a man who was literally discipled by Apostle John. A good children’s Bible program can teach hundreds of 9-year olds to memorize entire chapters of the Bible, plus hundreds of Bible verses.
@@CC-ii3ij, I do my best to be factual as I can be. We don't know when Polycarp was martyred, nor exactly when Irenaeus was born. You give Polycarp a generous martyrs date at 155 as it could have been as late as 167 (which would help your case). To refine my point, I was intending to convey what we do know from Irenaeus himself who says that he saw Polycarp "in his early youth" and then goes on to describe his martyrdom. (Against Heresies 3.3.4).
We also have a fragment of a letter to a youthful acquaintance of Irenaeus, a Florinus, who seems to have come under the influence of the Gnostic Valentine. Irenaeus appeals to Florinus' common knowledge of the things taught by Polycarp, "when I was a boy" and Florinus was with Polycarp, trying to gain his esteem. (Eusebius' Eccl. History, 5.20.4).
So what you say is possible, but in both places Irenaeus only claims to have heard Polycarp speak in his youth.
I acknowledge Irenaeus as familiar with Polycarp and that his knowledge even as a young man quite valuable.
My central point was simply to point out the "record of his youth" that we know and clarify that, while having heard Polycarp teaching and affirming it was strong in disagreement with the Gnostics, we have no reason to call Irenaeus a direct "disciple" of Polycarp's eschatology as such.
And it is really the second part of my comment that is most relevant. That we notice how Irenaeus argued. Especially in the last 5 chapters of book five (which reflects a wonderfully cogent and beautiful theology of the body). He appeals to Papias' reference to the teaching of certain of the Lord's parables. Irenaeus explicates these and many other scriptures to make his eschatological points.
He does not directly appeal to Polycarp but only Papias' association with Polycarp. If Irenaeus knew of Polycarp's teaching on this matter he probably would have told us. The fact that he links the possibility by mere association shows that it is a theological argument which can at best be shown to agree with Papias. And we know from Justin Martyr that many faithful Christians did not take the Chilliast point of view. It would be wrong to say that Polycarp took this view when Irenaeus himself does not feel it is right to say as much.
I myself am not actually in much disagreement with Irenaeus (we Evangelicals are all his children as the Evening of Eschatology talk between Piper, Wilson, Storms, and Hamilton shows---with their agreement about the physicality of the new earth). I agree that there will be a period of physical blessing, and some of these OT pictures of blessing can be referred to the new heavens, and I think there is also a blessing of renewal promised to ethnic Israel today and that Jesus will be honored as their king, but these can be fulfilled in the present millennial/gospel era. Then Christ will return after the peace of Israel as it suggests in Acts 3:18-20 and in Ezek 37---the peace that leads up to Gog and Magog war in Ezek 38 and Rev. 20. I agree with many pre-mil particulars but place them in an amil kingdom framework.
I think my main point holds: that the historical arguments that depend upon Irenaeus' connection to Polycarp and thus to John are not as strong as they are painted to be. Irenaeus' actual argument don't rely upon Polycarp for his eschatology, like they do when he is refuting the Gnostics. This is significant. That is my thought for your consideration.
@@jrhemmerichThank you for your factual clarifications, quotes, and insight! My primary point of interest is the DATE of Revelation, and I am thinking Irenaeus, as an honest Christian, could not realistically be wrong on this point while writing matter-of-fact that Revelation was written near end of reign of Domitian.
I 100% agree Irenaeus' eschatology could be polar opposite of Polycarp. Your examples are great points.
I find it interesting that Preterism would say that quote from Irenaeus is ambiguous when we can simply read book 5 and see that Irenaeus himself interpreted the events of Revelation to be future to his time - i.e. his practical advice to the Church not to waste time calculating the number of rulers names, in search of the Antichrist, because even if they find a name that matches the number they’ll still need to wait and witness the events surrounding his rise and reign to accurately identify him.
Good point. Irenaeus definitely looked for future fulfillment.
Also add in the date of the writing of the Gospel of John.
Internal evidence in Revelation points to John writing the Gospel after Revelation.
Rev 1:19. "Write the things which you HAVE seen..." is possible reference to the Gospel then the rest of verse 19 being the vision of Revelation.
Interesting connection to John. I’ll have to think more on that!
Can someone please sum up for me what this guy's belief is? Is he pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, or amillennial?
In your opinion did John really write the Book of Revelation?
I have no doubts that John the Apostle wrote the book of Revelation. What do you think?
I believe John the Apostle wrote Revelation but the evidence of a second John the Elder writing the Gospel John is hard to overcome. @@thebiblesojourner
@@user-of3iz9xt7b What do you think is most compelling? It is hard for me to avoid the biographical "name dropping" of "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as being a reference of the author.
@@thebiblesojournerTough to answer that one Peter, I guess Papias witness is compelling, the fact that there were two tombs in Ephesus for "John", the author of the gospels intimate knowledge of the Sanhedrin, especially Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea and most of all, the author was known by the high priest in John 18:15 but that same high priest did not know John the Apostle in Acts 4:6-13. It also explains why Revelation is written in common Greek of a fisherman whereas John was written in pristine Greek of one highly educated.
@@user-of3iz9xt7b Thanks for the thoughts on that. I have read through the Greek of John and Revelation and tend to think they are quite similar in contrast to some of the other Greek of the NT. But I will have to look more into the other items you mention. Appreciate you mentioning them.
Peter, always enjoy your thoughtful approach.
Many of your observations about the objectivity or subjectivity of certain claims are helpful, but they seem to be related to the more or less the “direct nature” of the particular kind of evidence and not whether the evidence was “internal” or “external.”
Certain examples of the “subjectivity” of the internal interpretation were not of “direct” statements in the text, but meanings based upon beliefs grounded in ideas actually external to the text.
For example, the evolutionary progression of religion is imposed on the Genesis interpretation of Abel’s sacrifice. So it’s not really an internal argument from statements in the text.
And timing statements can be more directly stated in the text. For example, Rev. 17 says five kings of Rome (the city of seven hills) are fallen.
These might still require interpretation, but so does Irenaeus’ external statement, which directly had to do with the determining the name of the beast.
I don’t think it makes any sense to say the external evidence is objective and the internal is subjective-it all depends on the sort of statements being made in the texts or the kind of evidence given.
Good points, my friend. I agree that both internal and external evidence can possess varying degrees of objectivity and subjectivity. Certainly not all external evidence is concretely objective. But there is plenty of external evidence that is patently objective. For example, Papyri fragments of Revelation, including P18, P47, and P115, date from the third to fourth centuries. Additionally, P98 provides a fragmentary witness to Revelation 1:13-20 and might be dated as early as the late second century. These are external datamarks which give a solid benchmark about the book having to be written before then. Additionally, the very fact Irenaeus talks about the book means that it had to be written prior to his writing. I don't see how those are subjective. In contrast, the seven and five kings of Rev 17 could (and have been) interpreted various ways and would therefore provide a subjective evidence of a time period being discussed. It is certainly valuable to discuss, but is less powerful than objective data which helps us date the time of the book. Hope that makes sense.
@@thebiblesojourner, having slept on it, I would agree that certain evidences are very persuasive and on their face mean something that does not require much discursive inference ("interpretation"). Your examples of Irenaeus' reference to the book of revelation is direct evidence that the book was in existence in his time. I would call that conclusion decisive base upon that evidence.
The thing that is especially helpful about Irenaeus is that he speaks to either John's person or the revelation he received as having been seen in the time of Domitian. That is very direct evidence that Revelation is in existence at his time. But there is some ambiguity over whether it was John who was seen or if that was when the vision was given.
It would be less ambiguous evidence if Irenaeus was actually telling us when the vision was given. But that is not the question he is trying to answer. In that context he is trying to determine the identity of the beast of the sea. And he says that it is not important to know, because if it were important (at least as Irenaeus rightly or wrongly thinks about it) then John would have told people known to Irenaeus BECAUSE (and this is an important to consider what we would expect to see next): a) the vision was given recently (and this helps us know the beasts identity?) or b) John was around recently (and this could have helped us know the beast's identity because John would have been there to tell somebody).
Based upon the question being asked, it just really seems more likely that John's recent presence and not the time of when the vision was seen is what would actually have been more helpful in determining the the identity of the beast. When the vision was given is not helpful because the content of the vision remains the same, but if John was seen by people who Irenaeus could have talked to that would be very helpful. But, in fact, Irenaeus tells us that no one reports that John told them anything about this. The other thing that adds some uncertainty, is that Irenaus also makes reference to what is said in the ancient copies that they have of Revelation. It is at least a question of why he would call these copies ancient (or old) when in fact he has just said that the vision was seen recently "in our own generation".
To my mind, this line of Irenaeus' thinking does not make this evidence DECISIVE for the dating of the book in the time of Domitian. As is stands, it is the BEST external evidence for a Domitian dating, but it is not of the level of evidence as compared with the mere fact that Irenaeus reference content in the book and so we know it was not written later or that we have manuscript evidence. I just think it is important to say, that Irenaeus's reference to Domitian is a good argument for the late date, but it's not as DECISIVE as many of your most objective examples of evidence. Sorry it takes so many words to make my point clear. I feel like I'm writing a book!
Do you think that point is agreeable? that Irenaeus is STRONG evidence for a late date, but not decisive. Or would you say it is decisive? Thanks in advance for the clarification.
@@thebiblesojourner I was thinking about your claim (@25:00) that internal and external evidence have to be cohesive. I think I hear what your are saying: in an ideal sense the evidence would be cohesive. But given that only scripture is infallible, I don't think I would grant that truth of claims in the Bible have to cohere with Irenaeus' claims (external evidence of this sort). He can just be wrong (or we are interpreting his meaning wrong, after all he could have held to an early date and still given much of it a futurist interpretation).
I think you grant this later, but here you put it so strongly here, that I just have to point it out.
Of course, it would be great if we could get them to cohere (supposing that this does not conflict with strong evidence in scripture itself that indicates to us when Revelation was written). But it really is not the case that scripture must be made to cohere with Irenaeus' external evidence. I'm hesitant to affirm that methodological point, not because of the impact on Revelation's date, but because it puts a questionable historical report of a fallible person (Irenaeus) on the level of a natural necessary truth which scripture could never come into conflict with.
I would gladly affirm consistency of inspired scripture (even to the point of saying, if it can't be logically reconciled by us, it can be by God).
The external (fallible) evidence can do a lot of work, but it can't do too much work.
Interesting investigation. Thank you. Why do the preterists need a past Revelation? I’m thinking of how reformed/covenant theology has a systematic, and then pulls from the scriptures to support the system (rather than the other way around). Is that what is happening here? Do they need a past Revelation to prop up another piece of their theology?
Is the issue not settled by simply taking what John said about his vision? 1:10 says he was in the spirit on “the Lord’s day.”
A word study in the Bible of “the day,” “that day,” “the day of the Lord” refers to the second coming of Christ when He comes to judge and reign. (If the text is not referring to the day of the Lord, it says so clearly.) John is saying that his vision is about the day of the Lord, Jesus’ coming to judge the nations and establish His earthly kingdom. And that is what is described in Revelation. The body of Christ from this “dispensation of the grace of God” will have been caught away, resuming the focus on national Israel for their 70th week. The seven “ekklesia” will be seven Jewish assemblies at that time. Examine each one closely - works, Jewish talk, Israel. Not by grace through faith.
Allowing the Bible to explain itself leads me to a completely futuristic view of Revelation with no concern for the date written. My theological system doesn’t depend upon a date, just upon what it says. Unless I’m missing something?
(As a side note for readers, “the Lord’s day” is never referred to in the Bible as Sunday. Sunday was always called the first day of the week. So, John is not saying this was on a Sunday.)
Thanks again for such a detailed review.
I’ll add, too, that 1:1 says it’s to his servants. A word study on “servants” always shows that as Israel. To them belonged the service of God (Rom 9:4). In contrast, the body of Christ is composed of sons, not servants (Gal 4:6-7).
These folks and text advocated the early date: (Epiphanies, Theophylact,
the Syriac Revelation manuscripts). Hence, in my view, there can be no serious consensus on either date. You need to go to the internal evidence and this is where it points to 70 CE or before.
My understanding is that Epiphanius believed that John was exiled under emperor Claudius who reigned from A.D. 41-54. But I am aware of no current scholars who would regard that as accurate. Do you think Revelation was written between 41-54 AD? It would indeed be difficult to fit that with the external evidence.
Theophylact, who served as the bishop of Ohrid in the 11th century A.D., mentions in the preface to his commentary on the Gospel of John that John's exile occurred during Nero's reign. However, in his commentary on Matthew 20:22-23, Theophylact refers to John's banishment under Emperor Trajan. Either way, he is a 12th century source, so certainly less valuable than the early church witnesses presented in this video.
Also, the video on internal evidence is coming out today! Don't miss it!
I think the dating of Revelation in the years just after Nero's death comes from a combination of internal and external considerations. The angel tells John that the beast, one of a sequence of kings, is "one of the seven," five of which have "fallen," i.e. died, and "is not" (17:8) and is "an eighth, and goes to his destruction" (17:10-11). This matches the fact that when John has his first vision of the beast in Revelation 13, he has a mortal wound that has been healed. In the external evidence, Nero was such an evil character that when he died, rumors circulated that he would come back from the grave. It is easy enough to imagine John being aware of that Nero mythology. For scholars looking at Revelation as essentially a political tract dressed up as a prophecy, it would be natural to think of John, in the years following Nero's assassination, using that speculation in his book. I wonder what you think of John A.T. Robinson's suggestion in Redating the New Testament that the comment that John was exiled to Patmos "under Domitian" refers to the period during which Domitian was holding down the emperor's throne while his father Vespasian and his older brother Titus were conquering Judah. It seems conceivable but hard to quantify the weight. I kind of like an early date because it puts a lot of time between John's writing of Revelation and the writing of John's Gospel. The Greek of the two books is vastly different. One can imagine John, after being released from Patmos, having two or more decades to improve his Greek, but then again, it seems clear that he also had help with the Gospel of John. Perhaps the person designated to work as John's scribe came up with the ultra-low-reading-age Greek style of the Gospel.
For years I sat under a pastor who never did a sermon on eschatology. Once I mentiioned the nature of the Millennium and his responce, 'thats an interesting perspective' raised a question in my mind as to what was his perspective.
Some time later in a sermon he said 'Nero....the 666 beast in Revelation'. The red flag 🚩 went up. Then I was talking to one of the brothers said to me, 'yeah, no wonder he gets on with pastor Fred as hes a preterist'. It was becoming harder to digest sermons from this man as I was enlightened that not only his eschatology was way off, as was also his position on Genesis was severely compromised by not believing in a literal Adam as tge first person. Which explained why he plugged NT Wright and The Bible Project. 🤔 💭
That is sad to hear, my friend. Sadly, you are not alone. I've heard such stories many a time. But thanks be to God who has given you discernment to recognize truth and error.
Thankfully I was taught (and read) sound eschatology in the couple of decades leading up to sitting under this pastor. And I wasn't the only seasoned believer who saw the same issues on quite a few doctrinal problems. Some lessons were learned. @@thebiblesojourner
Oh my, it was time to run.
So, why did Jesus say, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place? This verse has puzzled me for long.
Great question. I do plan on doing a video on this issue, Lord willing. But in the meantime I wrote a brief blog article which outlines how I think through the issue: petergoeman.com/preterism-this-generation-matt-2434/
I think it is probably referring to the generation that sees all these things, that generation shall not pass away. It is possible, that the generation is referring to the Jews, the genealogy of Jews. Jesus said, "a wicked and perverse generation requires a sign." Paul said, "the Jews require a sign." The Jews, Israel, shall not pass away, eventhough Satan has been trying to rid the earth of them since learning they are the elect of God.
@@bugsocsollie1694 Yes, thanks, possibly could be the Jews. However, the audience of Matthew 24 sermon, His disciples, were convinced that Jesus referred to them in Matthew 24:34 because they were expecting Jesus to return in their day because they interpreted "this generation" to be referring to them. Obviously, that didn't happen in their lifetime.
@poplap9241 Yes but then the unexpected happened. The Dispensation of Grace for the Gentiles came instead of Israel's 70th week because Israel rejected their Messiah and their kingdom. They fell and diminished. Romans 11:11-12, and Ephesians 3:1-2
@@bugsocsollie1694 Agree, the unexpected happen, and Saint Paul was well aware that this dispensation of grace to the Gentiles has arrived as God sent him to proclaim the gospel to the Gentiles. In Saint Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18) he encouraged fellow Christians to have hope and faith in Christ’s return within their generation. This letter was meant to encourage the believers in Thessaly who may have been questioning why Christ has not yet returned. So it is therefore evident that the believers of that day were expectantly watching and preparing for the return of Christ.
I think we know when John was on the island of Patmos. He was already out of Jerusalem, for The Lord never mentioned the Church in Jerusalem , but the 7 churches in Asia. Gotta say a lot. Jerusalem had fallen?
Very well done. Preterism is not valid but is popular. A literal reading of the text doesn’t allow for Preterism.
Appreciate the encouragement. And I agree that the popularity of Preterism doesn't validate it. The details of the text matter.
Why are you reading “literal”?
@royalpriest89 what good is prophecy if it's not literal? Anyone can make it mean anything, and can make anything into a prophetic fulfillment. I mean, the moon is literally turning to blood as we speak. Who would have thought...?
Orrr you could see how the rest of the Bible interprets the symbols. None of it is “literal”. Verse 1 of the book tells you that.
@royalpriest89 Revelation 1:1 the Angel being sent with the Revelation is the sign. It doesn't make allowance for everything to be made a sign and symbol. Scripture is pretty good a telling us when it's speaking symbolically.
I am called a preterist by my fellow believers, as I beleive the teaching of Jesus regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the exile of the remnant , was fulfilled in 70 AD -73 AD .. as foretold inEzekiel 5 and Daniel 8 and 9. Quite frankly, I didn't know what a preterist was. So for this view, I am called a preterist.
However, Jesus did not come back at that time , as Paul and the other Apostles thought He would in their day... I think the expectation of the Church was all things would be fulfilled in that generation . In hindsight, it is evident Jesus was referring to the Temples' destruction and the beginning of Israels' 20 century exile. That generation would not pass until His word upon Jerusalem and the Temple were to be fulfilled and is being fulfilled...for the Lord said Jerusalem shall be under Gentile occupation untill the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled..so we see the Lords word covers Jerusalem's desolation and the regathering and restoration of the exiled remnant .
Thanks for sharing! There is certainly room for seeing many prophecies fulfilled at the first coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. But we are in trouble if we think the majority of texts have been completely fulfilled.
You rely upon Irenaeus as a reliable source. Yet in Against the Heresies, Book II, chapter 22, Irenaeus makes the case that Jesus was almost 50 years old when he died and that his ministry was 15 years. Irenaeus explicitly based this erroneous view upon tradition from John, and the Apostles and others. He claimed that this is what they taught.
This undermines your case because, like everyone else, you correctly disagree with Irenaeua in light of the strength of the internal evidence.
Did you watch the video where I talk about that issue in John? What do you think of my response to your argument?
@@thebiblesojourner Yes, I did. I felt that you slightly downplayed this problem. Irenaeus not only claimed the authority of John, but the Apostles, and others. He even asked, "Whom then should we rather believe?"
Irenaeus writing in AD 180 has been proven to have misued tradition. We are right to give more weight to the internal evidence than to him. The internal evidence is based on inspired words.
Let me know if I am missing something here.
@@theophilusmann7869 Thanks for watching and the feedback! Seems a bit different for someone to get a Bible passage wrong vs. relate a historical fact that had been passed down to him. For example, was Jesus crucified in 30 AD or 33 AD? There is a huge divide among scholars on those dates based on how they interpret the biblical evidence... but just because I disagree with someone taking the 30 AD date doesn't mean their relating historical facts is now incorrect. We could never live that way. Irenaeus was certainly correct in reading John 8:57 -- the Jews DID say Jesus was not yet 50 years old. But his application of that text is incorrect. But that doesn't disqualify him from relating other facts.
@@thebiblesojourner I appreciate the response, but my point is different. Did Irenaeus incorrectly claim the authority of apostolic tradition to argue for something that we know is wrong based on internal evidence?
@@theophilusmann7869 If we grant your assertion (that Irenaeus was primarily mistaken on apostolic tradition and not his interpretation of John 8), which I am find with granting for sake of the argument, the assertion is still a very egregious logical fallacy.
Because A is wrong on one thing, A is wrong on all things? But in this case, the argument is actually worse. Because A is wrong on one thing, A and the unanimous opinion of the first 5-6 centuries is also wrong. You understand why that appears less than convincing to a rational individual and shows preterists to be a little unhinged?
I will have some videos, Lord willing, talking about the internal evidence soon. I've never felt it is on the preterist side.
Revelation 11
1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, *_Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein._*
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; *_for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months._*
Why did you leave out verse 2? It clearly says the Gentiles will trample the city for 42 months, which has been fulfilled in history.
Very good point
REVELATION 2:17, I RECEIVED A WHITE STONE, IT JUST MYSTERIOUSLY APPEARED IN MY KJV BIBLE, SHALOM
😲Don't sell it!
I DID NOT KNOW OF SCRIPTURE AT THE TIME I RECEIVED, SO I PUT IT IN MY WATCH POCKET OF MY BLUE JEANS with wonder, I ONLY HAD IT FOR A COUPLE DAYS, THEN I REMEMBERED THAT SATAN OFFERED IMMANUEL JESUS STONE, SO I TOOK IT OUT OF MY POCKET AND THREW IT OVER THE BACKSIDE FENCE AT THE HOUSE I WAS LIVING AT;) SHALOM
The arguments which lay preterism to rest. Great bible teacher: Martin Zender. Four 25 minute RUclips videos. Warning: he throws some arrogance back at arrogant preterists. MZTV 336 and MZTV 1137-39. The good news? The funeral is to die for.
Thanks for the heads up on Zender! I’ll check it out. Appreciate your pun 😜
Rev 1:1 ISV This is the revelation of Jesus the Messiah, which God gave him to show his servants the things that must happen soon. He made it known by sending his messenger to his servant John,
Rev 1:7 ISV Look! He is coming in the clouds. Every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of him. So be it! Amen.
HOW DOES THE PEOPLE WHO PIERCED HIM SEE HIM ARE THEY STILL ALIVE WAITING TO SEE HIM OR DID THEY SEE HIM WHILE THEY WERE ALIVE IF SO WHEN?
Paul, our apostle says in Romans 1:15 KJB
So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
(Then he follows up with the gospel)
Starting with sin as in a court of law and we are found guilty.
Romans 3:21 But now! Paul explains how we receive justification in the eyes of God.
God imputes his righteousness unto us when we believe in Jesus and have faith in his blood. Romans 3:24-26 KJB
Believe as Abraham did, fully persuaded.
Romans 4:21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Consider reading Romans 1-4 KJB for justification, then the rest of Romans is for sanctification (holy living) Death, burial and resurrection is what we remember for sanctification.
5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Although I’m not sure what the verses contribute to the topic of discussion, nevertheless, thanks for sharing them! Really appreciate those verses!
This video perfectly covered factors on why I concluded the timing of Revelation at about 90 AD. I was challenged by an Amillennial friend to read Riddlebarger a couple of months ago and I keep thinking of the knowledge of the destruction of the Temple as fulfillment never declared by Ireneaus and states quite the opposite. Also, the rebukes to the seven churches seem way too soon coming about 8-10 years after its establishment. There is no such pattern of rebuke in the Old Testament. Now you would see such an admonishment to the next generation of believers which also fit into the Domitian dating. The other thing and I have always heard Nero's persecution was limited to Rome. Domitian did indeed engage in a lot of persecution of the saints in Asia Minor. The other reason I have to assert premillennial view, unless you're using a strange application of the theory of relativity, I have yet heard any protestant amill and postmillennial explain in the course of human history as to when the 1000 of Christ occurred. Now if you are Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholic you might be able but not in the stream of true Protestant narrative and actually are selling your Protestant birthright. Just saying. 🫤
I think it is pretty standard for amil and postmil to make the 1000 years a current spiritual experience now. But that is, in my opinion, a very subjective standard.
Multiple Second Coming Visions in Revelation: (book not in chronological order )
Christ returns one time in the future. However, there are several different visions of His return shown from different perspectives in the Book of Revelation.
Christ returns at the end of Revelation chapter 6, with signs in the sun, moon, and stars, as are found in the Olivet Discourse.
Those at the end of the chapter are hiding from the wrath of the Lamb.
Why would they be hiding if Christ is not present?
The "kings", "captains", "might men", "free", and "bond" are also found in chapter 19 at the return of Christ.
He returns at the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible, and the time of the judgment of the dead in Revelation 11:15-18.
The beginning of chapter 12 is a history lesson containing the fall of Satan, and the birth and death of Christ, who is the seed promised to crush the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15.
The Second Coming is found in the "harvest" of chapter 14, which is related to the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew chapter 13.
He comes as a thief at Armageddon, and we find the greatest earthquake in history in chapter 16. This occurs when the 7th angel pours out his vial. How powerful is an earthquake which moves islands and destroys the mountains? What is happening to the planet?
He comes on a horse in chapter 19, right after the Marriage Supper of the Lamb.
Chapter 20?
Does He come with the fire, and the judgment of the dead at the end of chapter 20, which agrees with what Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and 2 Timothy 4:1?
(The time of the judgment of the dead is also found in Revelation 11:18.)
There are no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Matthew 25:31-46.
Why does an angel come down from heaven with a key to unlock the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-2, if the pit was not already locked before that time? Are there wicked angels in the pit in Rev. 9:11? If the beast "ascends" from the pit in Rev. chapter 11, where was the beast before that time?
Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness?
Revelation 9:14 proves some of the angels were previously bound in some manner.
Because the two witnesses were bodily resurrected from the dead in Revelation 11, the "first resurrection" at the beginning of Revelation 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the book.
The principle of "Recapitulation" means there are multiple visions of His return.
I’m having a difficult time tracking with your comment, sorry. Everyone (I think) agrees there are places which have recapitulation in Revelation. The real question is how do we discern differences and understand the book holistically and structurally. We need a methodology.
@@thebiblesojourner
A Millennium Puzzle to solve… Will Christ be conducting funeral services for mortals killed in accidents 500 years after His Second Coming?
The “first resurrection” in Rev. chapter 20 is not the first bodily resurrection in the Book of Revelation, because the two witnesses are resurrected from the dead in chapter 11. There are two different types of resurrection in John chapter 5. There is a spiritual resurrection from the dead in John 5:24, and a bodily resurrection from the dead in John 5:28-29.
Does your view of the Millennium agree with what Paul said in 2 Thess. 1:7-10, when Paul said Christ returns in "flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not obey the Gospel? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:10-13, when Peter said this earth is going to burn and "dissolve" when He comes as a thief on the day of the Lord? The fire comes at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Paul said in 2 Tim. 4:1, when Paul said both the living and the dead will be judged at His appearing? The time of the judgment of the dead, with reward for some and destruction for others is found in Rev. 11:18, right after the 7th trumpet, which is the last trumpet in the Bible. (This verse also proves the Book of Rev. is not in chronological order.) The judgment of the dead is also found at the end of Rev. chapter 20.
Does your view agree with what Jesus said in Matt. 25:31-46, where He described the judgment of the sheep and goats, which leaves no mortals alive on the planet at the end of the passage? There are also no mortals left alive on the planet at the end of Rev. chapter 19.
Does your view agree with Peter in 2 Pet. 2:4, and Jude in Jude 1:6, when they both said wicked angels are already in chains of darkness?
Does your view agree with what John recorded in Rev. 9:1-2, when an angel comes down from heaven with a key to unlock the pit, which means the pit was locked before that time? Are there wicked angels already in the pit in Rev. 9:11? John recorded angels already "bound" in Rev. 9:14. The beast "ascends" out of the pit in Rev. chapter 11, which means the beast was in the pit before that time.
Take all of the above and compare it to the symbolic language found in Rev. chapter 20, and the fact the Book of Revelation is not in chronological order, and you will have the truth.
If I may add to the last comment, if this is literal, then was the key literally metal?
Does the pit have a metal or wood door, and was the lock made of literal steel? Can you keep a spirit in a pit with a physical door and lock?
The apocalyptic language was the Jewish language, so we cannot understand this from our modern world terms. They invented the language around 200 years before Christ and used it until 200 years after. That tells us a lot as well. Why was it written in a highly symbolic language was they would revert to it in times of persecution as these precious Christians were under. If a Roman soldier stopped them and read this letter he would say, what is all of this giberous, go your way.
There is a huge key to understanding the setting of Revelation and who it was for in that one fact. If it was for our day then why not just write it with their normal language, a Roman soldier could not understand our modern equipment for war, planes, drones, nukes etc and yes they may not have had the words in their language for our world but John would speak much more about things flying, many wheels, loud noises, he had enough language that would make more sense to us today if it was for us because remember the referent of Revelation was to tell of things shortly to come, therefore it would be where we could read, understand it so we know whats about to come.
Rev 1:3
Audience Relevance is an all-important rule in hermeneutics; what relevance was the entire book of Revelation to these 7 Churches that it was handed too?
Note also Rev 1:3 these Churches were told to
Read and hear, which implies understanding and told to keep it. We are reading their mail.
Note that items of war, horses, Chariots, swords, hailstones, etc.
the list goes on, including oil, famine, etc.
What I am saying is there is no modern-day language anywhere, it was written to, for, and given to them.
They read it ,understood what was being said, and lived by it; it prepared them for what was about to be upon them.
Rev1:1 He tells them the things that were shortly to come. Ch 2-3 were to prepare your house for this, what needed correcting and Ch 4 as some suggest could not be moved to another time because He hadn't told them the things that were about to come yet. So 5-22 was theirs just as 1-4 were.
Lastly, and so much we could talk about, but to show that it was for them and that they were to understand it, if there was anything that they could possibly get lost on, as say, the woman and beast notice what He did, rev 17:7 He says come, and I will show you the mystery. It ended up so detailed by John that they could not miss the fact, it was Jerusalem that was the woman, the Beast was Nero the 6th, and Vespasian was the 8th, which finished the job.
People could debate that like everything else, but I have a question: Do you know anyone with his eye on the 6th and 8th today? It was a warning for things about to come, meaning we must understand it to be ready for that 8th person. Of course, we don't, and we never hear anything about the 6th and 8th because it cannot be interpreted today. It could be a million fantasies trying to come up with someone. Here is a key, let's say it was for these Churches How many people could they see that fit the bill? They knew exactly who John was speaking of, and that's why He gave them a way to interpret what might be a mystery.
When we take a book out of its historical setting it opens the door to endless ideas and thoughts but left where it should stay makes interpretation so much easier.
@@dougwest1164 Are you a "Full-Preterist"?
It seems that with any other book of the Bible, there would be zero debate about its dating if it had all the external evidence that Revelation has.
Another interesting thing to consider concerning partial preterism in general is their lack lack of any, or hardly any passages that actually speak to the yet future bodily coming of Christ. Of the 200 plus passages concerning the second coming, the partial preterists struggle to find hardly any texts that actually speak about His physical second coming.
Excellent point. And once 70 AD is the key to understanding, one can use that as the magic wand to interpret any passage. It is a genuinely slippery slope from partial preterism to full preterism.
@@thebiblesojourner That's a great video idea for you... ;) the slippery slope from partial to full preterism. It's a dangerous reality of the system and sadly is very common. We will see more and more FP over the years because of it.
@@Brian-tk5vt Haha, giving me more to do! I love it!
And you also
What does the scripture say,
Rom3:4
Let every man be a liar but God be true.
1 Peter 1:20
no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation
With this as the foundation of what I will comment from, it should be, the only foundation that any Christian builds their beliefs from.
If Paul said we are to count “all” men as liars and only the scriptures true, and Peter said that “no part” of scripture is where we ourselves cannot understand it.
Then my question is, what men said, and what they thought they may have meant by something they said, is not a case to build upon, none.
I had every issue as a premillennialist
that you could have yourself with preterism.
I studied day and night for years trying to see are they right or not. After 5yrs I have come to the conclusion that their teaching is more faithful to the scriptures than the futurist were. Try for yourself, it’s public knowledge, they have videos on every subject you could dream of and you will never hear them talk about what man says,only scriptures ,
context and hermeneutics.
I do want to address one thing, Irenaeus. Only reason is all the Church fathers used his statement, if you drill down on, what they are basing it off of yourself, you’ll see it all derives from Irenaeus, try it. In his one statement, it is very vaguely put. “For it was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”
What is “it”, John or the Revelation, he was speaking of both, which one was he referring too ? So, that’s it??
Secondly just to show you, he was human, he said, he thought Jesus was 50yrs old when He died.
All to say, we need to build upon, what saith the scriptures.
Please research for yourself.
Don K Preston sold me after 5yrs of study. Also he is a great debater and that can be set up with anyone you would like to see Him debate. I hope No offense taken I am just sharing what I learned myself.
No offense taken my friend. Thankful that you’ve shared what you’ve studied and learned. I do talk about some of the issues you raised on the video (namely how Irenaeus is relatively clear on the issue). Appreciate your gentle demeanor! God bless your journey through scripture.
Revelation shouldn’t be in the canon. From its beginning it was disputed and all through its history in the first 5+ centuries of Christianity. It has many problems, which is why it was never readily or widely accepted. I would replace Rev. with the Epistle of Barnabas.
Thanks for interacting. I love reading Barnabas but wouldn't be convinced it should be accepted into the canon. Have you read Kruger on Revelation's reception history? Here is his abbreviated blog post on it (he has written more detailed academic treatments): michaeljkruger.com/the-book-of-revelation-how-difficult-was-its-journey-into-the-canon/
People just need to believe the bible and not pay attention to you. 😅😅😅
💯! A slogan I completely endorse.
I believe in a literal hermeneutic Jesus has Seven Eyes, Seven Horns, and is Bleeding and rides a white horse, not a Mercedes… The Syrian Bible has orthodox preterist approach what did they miss with modern evangelicals. The red herring the early church missed it, they missed justification for virtually 1500 see Alister McGrath… So not a great argument
Well, just for clarification, the argument I want to get across is not that preterism is impossible, but that if it is so persuasive on the internal evidence (as is often claimed), then why did the early church miss it? It’s a different argument. It is helping see that the internal evidence can likewise be taken multiple ways and has been done so effectively.
PRETERISTS are taking away from the worst horror the world will see, when the earth shakes to and fro like a drunkard, as the pit is opened.
John received the book of Revelation.
Yet, he was told that he would be coming back at the end.
Revelation 10:11 And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy AGAIN before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.
The angel of the Church of Philadelphia has been given Daniel's sealed scroll, unsealed.
That revelation (given within the past 2 decades):
I am knee deep study of eschatology. I was futurist but the full Preterist have really been making sense. I haven't made a decision yet. They teach that as for as shaking the earth, its just Jewish language always highly dramac Like when God said the mountains would melt before the Day of the Lord in the OT yet there is no place recorded in history where a mountain melted same with the sun moon and stars Ps. 68:2; Micah 1:4) they were used as subjects that God would do things to them before that Great Day yet again no where recorded afterwards .Mountains all can be seen throughout the Old Testament as the most power and strongest things they could see The purpose of the imagery is to show the power of the strongest things we know (mountains) sun, moon stars what are they compared to the power of the Lord. In our wildest imagination we cannot comprehend the power of the God.
On John they said it Revelation was written in the 90’s and John didn't not get off Patmos until 94, 95 the last records of Him was seen in 98 having to be helped walk into the Church I believe the Ephesian church. So they say if it was written in ad 66-67 John had years left to see and preach in Nations but late date would have given him any time or maybe a year?
Sorry for the rough flow of words it is hard to see the words on my phone lol
@@dougwest1164
Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
This is the revelation given to angel of Church of Philade,lphia:
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
I guess I missed that one . Please no offense when I ask for little elaboration ?
What did that have to do with the subject at hand ? And where in the Word do you get all of that ? And what is the context ?
Again with all due respect I ask
@@dougwest1164
Preterists claim everything happened in the past (around 70AD when the temple was destroyed).
Revelation 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
When was the mystery of God declared ?
So preterists know they are fallen angels trapped in Satan's DNA chains of darkness.
As I mentioned that revelation was only given in the last two decades. Which means Revelation 10 was a future event.
Sorry to ruin your parade. Do you know that the latter part of Revelation 20 is the Bar Kochba Revolt? An early date or a late date doesn't destroy Preterism. The burden of proof falls on you why these two wars aren't what Jesus has predicted.
Actually I am really glad to hear you being that up thank you! Do you have a source I could read more on that? I’ve been looking for someone who had a good academic defense of that view.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels.
They made man in their image.
Man is an idol, a trap for angels.
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of ELOHIM(gods).
REPENT FALLEN ANGELS.
Thanks for the contribution. Where do you see Lucifer and the fallen angels in Genesis 1? It seems difficult to say we are the fallen angels. 1 Cor 6 states that we are going to judge angels one day. That would seem to indicate a difference there.
@@thebiblesojourner
YT blocks comments.
Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and SEAL UP THE BOOK, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
This is Daniel's sealed scroll, unsealed.
Genesis 1 is Lucifer and the fallen angels making man in their image. Man is an idol, a trap for angels. (tares)
Genesis 1 only uses the word ELOHIM.
Genesis 2:7 the Lord God forms His representative in THEIR system. (wheat)
Genesis 2:4 is where the word Lord God (YHWH ELOHIM) is found.
Exodus 20:4 YHWH ELOHIM forbids idols and likeness (embodiment = human host body)
Jesus called you a god/angel.
John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
What law?
Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods (H430); and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
Strongs H430 Elohim = angels, gods (little g).
Right there, he called you a god (angel) that shall die like man, and fall. A fallen angel.
Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
No mention of unrepentant man in Matthew 25:41.
Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
I'll turn your challenge right back at you. You say "this generation has to mean". What do you mean "has to mean"? You were just talking about objectivity vs. subjectivity and that resonates, because I am a radical objectivist. "This generation" does not "have to mean", it _means_. It means _that_ generation. That's just about the least subjective thing in the text and should not be a point of debate at all. There's nothing dangerous or irresponsible about that. To read any other meaning into it than that Jesus is predicting those things to happen within ~40 years of when He spoke those words is agenda driven hermeneutics: "that can't be, because that would mean I'm wrong". That's what dangerous and irresponsible. There's no precedent whatsoever that permits the reading of that text in the way futurists do. And when that's established, I'm sorry, but it certainly does affect the book of revelation also. Or else a very strong case should be presented that the Olivet Discource and the Book of Revelation have nothing to do with each other.
Furthermore regarding objectivity: there are all these signs that are said to being fulfilled right in front of our eyes. I recognize that's seen as pop-dispensationalism, but nonetheless it is unescapable that we should be witnessing external signs of the end-of-days reality. John MacArthur said in a Q&A session of Strange Fire that he believes signs and wonders will come back in the future, when Joel's prophecy is fulfilled. There are those in the charismatic movement, who say: "exactly, and that's being fulfilles right in front of our eyes"; John dismisses that. He said he does not see it as measuring up to the biblical standard. I can not accept that, because I am a radical objectivist. I do not believe anyone post-apostolic has the authority to declare any prophecy as fulfilled. If revelation has ceased, all prophecy has fulfilled also. The only caveat I leave is the resurrection and Jesus' return, because I'm not hyper and at that point we are no longer dependent on current revelation anyway.
So, what, they're going to build a temple? Okay, I won't believe that, because I have a better explanation for the temple visions. But whatever, let's say they actually really build the temple. You come to me and say: "see? They built it! Do you believe now?" And I won't, because there's no objective source of authoritative revelation, that declares that the temple they built really is _that_ temple. Does that make sense? I'm happy for every sick person who is healed and God answers prayer and we can't always explain how someone got heaeled. But does that compel me to believe it was a miracle? No, because there is no authoritative and objective source of revelation that absolutely proves that the laws of nature were suspended and the healing did not happen by God-ordained natural processes, or that there was a misdiagnosis or that the sickness was psychosomatic or whatever. Same principle. Hopefully this is helpful.
Have you considered the reestablishment of Israel as a nation after 2,000 years? It has never happened before in all of human history, a nation being conquered and dispersed for two millennia and then return intact, so it stands a miracle in modern day history that can’t be explain naturally….and it connects the story of the Bible and the God of the Bible to real world events.
Don’t you think it’s rather meaningful that none of the prophecies regarding Christ’s first coming are allegorical? It’s one of the major aspects of what makes the Word of God so prolific in an unbelieving world…now why would we think the prophecies concerning His second coming wouldn’t follow suite in their literal fulfillment?
The generation that sees those things come to pass will not pass from the scene until all those things are fulfilled. The prophecies he gave were for the people of the time of the end before the millennial kingdom where Jesus reigns physically in person on the current Earth
@@educational4434 That's not what the text says.
@@SimonJification Prove your claim. Beyond what you wrote above
The Apocalypse is a mix of litetalism and sumbolism. The task of the interpretor is to know when the text differentiates between the two.
It is crucial that the Apocalypse is not interpreted as an isolated book but one that must be understood by measuring against and in light of the analogy of faith and scripture.
We must compare the spiritual by the spiritual of comparing scripture with scripture which is the only safe guide in all things practical. The Apocalypse is first and foremost meant to be a practical book with a practical outlook. The interpretor must also avoid being lured and tempted to seek the sensational and prophetic fulfillment of many of the types and symbols that dominate much of the visions John is given that one can never be precisely sure of.
Dilligent Prayer for illumination and understanding must be sought every step of the way to rightly expounding the basic theme and content of the book the Lord Jesus intends for his church and bride in every generation to believe and put into practice until he returns to receive them in glory at the second advent. The interpretor must also to be careful not to rely to heavily on profane history in order to unfold the meaning of any particular passage. He must also realize that the Apocalypse is not Chronological as each section has its own relevance and spiritual significance in the immediate context. Here especially when the symbols are not clear the whole of scripture must be employed to shed meaning on the text rather than mete speculation. If the interpretor is not sure about certain aspects then humility requires that we do not go beyond what may be safely drawn from the passage. The interpretor must also recognize that it is directly by the Holy Spirit that John writes what he sees. The Apocalypse is unlike the letters written by John and other infallible authors it is a fresh, real and powerful revelation by the Spirt himself. John himself was probably quite perplexed by what he saw and heard. It is not as if John is writing with or by his own understanding and now it id left to the readers to figure what John meant by anything he was guided to write. John is being moved and directed in the same way prophets of old were experiencing powerful and real visions. The whole book is entirely a revelation of the mind of God by the Holy Spirit. The one who has ears to hear let that one hear what the Spirit says to the Churches of which John was a part. I would also say that the interpretor ought to avoid seeking precision in every point of any given passage. A general and again practical understanding and application is whats most important and of immediate concern for all who wixh to hear the prophecy of this book. There are more guidlines of courde that can be laid before the interpretor but it is whats most instructive, edifying and practically consistent with the dictrine of Christ, the gospel and all that the new covenant theologically lays before the believer and his life as a faithful disciple of his or her Master that is of the utmost of importance. Find the practical and what is absolutely essential and consistent with the Christian faith and the interpretor walks on solid ground. A safe and reliable guide for the people of God indeed. Theology, sound hermeneutics and exegesis and prayer are the fundamental tools for the proper interpretation of every book of holy scripture. The Apocalypse is no different.
How do you believe on the first rule of Hermeneutics, Audience Relevance ?