The absurdity and heresy of Preterism
- Thread starter Nehemiah6
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
if we use Church Fathers Iraneaus and Eusebius: He claims Domitian put John into exile around 95 AD
forums.catholic.com/t/when-was-john-exiled-to...
The early church fathers (Ireneaus and Eusebius) state that John was exiled to Patmos in the mid-to-late nineties.
www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1528-Was...
This kind of ties into the Dating of Revelation debate. One of the main arguments used by late daters (AD95) is that John was "banished" to Patmos by Domitian. (Mainly based on Iraneaus' arguably criptic quote.)
forums.catholic.com/t/when-was-john-exiled-to...
The early church fathers (Ireneaus and Eusebius) state that John was exiled to Patmos in the mid-to-late nineties.
www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1528-Was...
This kind of ties into the Dating of Revelation debate. One of the main arguments used by late daters (AD95) is that John was "banished" to Patmos by Domitian. (Mainly based on Iraneaus' arguably criptic quote.)
Really?
I am copying her words and pasting them to which I specifically replied towards:
the same period Nero had Christians killed to include Paul and Peter. That’s a fact.
^
In my view of this statement, she is claiming Nero had Christians killed and it is a fact. But then she makes ONE EXCEPTION for her argument, he did not kill John because he put John in Patmos.
In my profession, if that is not rotten baloney, NOTHING IS!
S
External Evidence:
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus (A.D. 120- 202) around A.D. 180).
Irenaeus was from Asia Minor. The Apostle John was an elder in Ephesus in Asia Minor. Irenaeus was discipled in the faith by Polycarp who was discipled by the Apostle John. Thus, there is a direct link between the one who wrote Revelation and Irenaeus. This strongly supports the credibility of Irenaeus and his statement.
Significantly, no other tradition relating to the date of Revelation developed or gained a following in this part of the world. This is the very area to which the Revelation was given. Later, other traditions developed in the territories of Christendom of a different time of the writing of Revelation. However, these were areas where Revelation was not taken as literally as in Asia Minor. It appears logical that if the theory teaching an earlier date of Revelation were genuine, then it should have had a witness to it in Asia Minor and would have begun earlier than the fifth and sixth centuries. If the early date were really true, then it would have had a 30-year head start to establish itself within early church tradition. However, that is not what happened. Such reality argues against the early date view and is a strong support for the late date view. (Thomas D. Ice Liberty University)
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign." (Irenaeus (A.D. 120- 202) around A.D. 180).
Irenaeus was from Asia Minor. The Apostle John was an elder in Ephesus in Asia Minor. Irenaeus was discipled in the faith by Polycarp who was discipled by the Apostle John. Thus, there is a direct link between the one who wrote Revelation and Irenaeus. This strongly supports the credibility of Irenaeus and his statement.
Significantly, no other tradition relating to the date of Revelation developed or gained a following in this part of the world. This is the very area to which the Revelation was given. Later, other traditions developed in the territories of Christendom of a different time of the writing of Revelation. However, these were areas where Revelation was not taken as literally as in Asia Minor. It appears logical that if the theory teaching an earlier date of Revelation were genuine, then it should have had a witness to it in Asia Minor and would have begun earlier than the fifth and sixth centuries. If the early date were really true, then it would have had a 30-year head start to establish itself within early church tradition. However, that is not what happened. Such reality argues against the early date view and is a strong support for the late date view. (Thomas D. Ice Liberty University)
-
1
- Show all
Let's be real: there is no way John was NOT exiled from Jerusalem around 70ad. I don't care how you slice it. Jerusalem was levelled in 70ad, and the Diaspora happened. Even if John was not killed by the Romans, he would have been killed by the Jews long before that. The Olivet Discourse specifically says you have to flee to the hills, and clearly that is what John did; or he would not still be alive. Granted, nothing says that John had to be exiled specifically by a Roman emperor, or specifically to Patmos at that time. But he WAS exiled, and likely to Patmos.
Anyway, a subject header such as "The absurdity and heresy of Preterism" is a good example if precisely what I would NOT allow in my own Revelation study.
Anyway, a subject header such as "The absurdity and heresy of Preterism" is a good example if precisely what I would NOT allow in my own Revelation study.
S
Further support for Irenaeus' statement is seen in some of the early enemies of Irenaeus' interpretation of Revelation. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius, to name just a few, support Irenaeus' statement of a Domitian date. They did not believe that the statement of Irenaeus was not clear and should be doubted, as many contemporary preterists desperately contend. Yet all the ancients who were on record concerning this mater accept our understanding of Irenaeus, as do modern translators. It is also not true that early date support goes back to a single individual (although there would be nothing wrong with that since the truth of a matter is often traced back to a single source), since Hegesippus’ (A.D. 150) testimony pre-dates Irenaeus.3 “The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the Neronic date is a one-line subscription in the Syriac translation of the New Testament in a.d. 550,” notes Mark Hitchcock. “Only two other external witnesses to the early date exist: Arethas (c. 900) and Theophylact (d. 1107).” This is scant “evidence,” needless to say, upon which to draw such dogmatic conclusion, as is often done by many Preterists. On the other hand, Hitchcock notes that the late date “has an unbroken line of support form some of the greatest, most reliable names in church history, beginning in A.D. 150. . . . The external evidence from church history points emphatically to the a.d. 95 date for the composition of Revelation.”4 (Thomas D. Ice Liberty University)
S
The church of Laodicea would not have had time to develop into the church described in Revelation 3:14–22 if the early date is the true one. An earthquake devastated the city in A.D. 60. History tells us that it took them 25 years to rebuild. Only the late date view makes sense of Christ’s statement to church that says, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17). Ten years would have been enough time for such a condition to develop, but it could not have been said of them when they were in the early stages of rebuilding.
-
1
- Show all
S
Many Preterists contend that there are two major reasons from the Book of Revelation itself that provide proof for their earlier date. First, they argue that since John refers to a Temple in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-2), then it must have been standing at the time of writing. If still standing, then Revelation was written before the Temple's destruction in A.D. 70. Next they contend that the seven kings of Revelation 17:1-16 refer to a succession of Roman kings in the first century. Preterists contend that “one is” (Rev. 17:10) would be a reference to Nero Caesar and “the other is not yet come” (Rev. 17:10) would be Galba. Thus, while John wrote, Nero was still alive and Galba was looming in the near future. This would mean, according to Preterists, that Revelation was written while Nero was still alive. In rebuttal to the first Preterists argument, it must be remembered that in the Book of Revelation John is receiving a vision about future things. He is transported in some way to that future time in order to view events as they will unfold. The word "saw" is used 49 times in 46 verses in Revelation because John is witnessing future events through a vision. It does not matter at all whether the Temple is thought to be standing in Jerusalem at the time that John sees the vision since that would not have any bearing upon a vision. John is told by an angel to “measure the temple” (Rev. 11:1). Measure what Temple? He is to measure the Temple in the vision. Even if there were a temple still standing in Jerusalem, John was on the Island of Patmos and would not have been allowed to go and measure that Temple. Ezekiel, during a similar vision of a Temple (Ezek. 40—43) was told to measure that Temple. When Ezekiel saw and was told to measure a Temple there was not one standing in Jerusalem (Preterists agree). Thus, there is no compulsion whatsoever to conclude that just because a temple is referenced in Revelation 11 that it implies that there had to be a physical Temple standing in Jerusalem at the same time
-
1
- Show all