The Rapture
- Thread starter 2nicee
- 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.
There is an identified method used by Preterists and others . It is called eisegesis. It works by taking a plainly understood piece of text or a passage and adding an interpretation to make it fit into a pre conceived set of ideas. By adding other verses and twisting their meaning a completely false doctrine can be produced. Cults like the Jehovah Witnesses are experts at it.
Last edited:
I covered this at length in a previous post awhile back. None who know John placed the writing of Revelation in 96 AD. That is a lie. None of the ones who knew John personally date his writing at all. The evidence is overwhelming that John wrote Revelation near the end of Nero's reign. He wasn't freed from Patmos until 96 AD so he must have been exiled there around 30 years.
Kenneth Gentry does a good job of establishing the date of the book revelation - here's a link to a free pdf - it's worth a read:
https://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.pdf
https://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1989_gentry_before-jerusalem-fell.pdf
[h=3]Irenaeus[/h]Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.
[h=3]Clement of Alexandria[/h]Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).
Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.
[h=3]Victorinus[/h]Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:
[h=2]Internal Evidence[/h]The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.
The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.
The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).
Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.
Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).
Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.
The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.
Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).
[h=2]Arguments for the Early Date Answered[/h]In the absence of external evidence in support of an early date for Revelation, preterists generally rely on what they perceive as internal support for their view.
[h=3]Writing Style Differences[/h]It is contended that the Gospel of John has a much smoother style of Greek than does the Apocalypse. Thus, the latter must have been written many years prior to the fourth Gospel—when the apostle was not so experienced in the literary employment of Greek.
In answer to this argument, we cite R. H. Gundry:
Finally, as McClintock and Strong point out:
In response we note the following points.
First, if John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century.
However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalem’s destruction in 11:8, where “the great city,” in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem), is called Sodom—not merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil (Zahn 1973, 306).
Second, the contention that the literal city and temple were still standing, based upon chapter eleven, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is:
To come up with such an interpretation one must:
Additionally, Leon Morris has pointed out that Irenaeus discussed a number of possibilities for deciphering the 666, but he did not even include Nero in his list, let alone regard this as a likely conjecture (1980, 38). Noted critic Theodor Zahn observed that Nero was not even suggested as a possibility until the year 1831 (447).
In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it.
-from
[FONT="]Jackson, Wayne. "When Was the Book of Revelation Written?" ChristianCourier.com. Access date: July 25, 2017. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written[/FONT]
[h=3]Clement of Alexandria[/h]Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).
Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.
[h=3]Victorinus[/h]Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:
When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).
[h=3]Jerome[/h]Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,
In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).
To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.
[h=2]Internal Evidence[/h]The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.
The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.
The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).
Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.
Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).
Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.
The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.
Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).
[h=2]Arguments for the Early Date Answered[/h]In the absence of external evidence in support of an early date for Revelation, preterists generally rely on what they perceive as internal support for their view.
[h=3]Writing Style Differences[/h]It is contended that the Gospel of John has a much smoother style of Greek than does the Apocalypse. Thus, the latter must have been written many years prior to the fourth Gospel—when the apostle was not so experienced in the literary employment of Greek.
In answer to this argument, we cite R. H. Gundry:
Archaeological discoveries and literary studies have recently demonstrated that along with Aramaic and Hebrew, Greek was commonly spoken among first century Palestinians. Thus John must have known and used Greek since his youth (1970, 365).
B. B. Warfield contends that:
the Apocalypse betrays no lack of knowledge of, or command over, Greek syntax or vocabulary; the difference lies, rather, in the manner in which a language well in hand is used, in style, properly so called; and the solution of it must turn on psychological, not chronological, considerations (Schaff and Herzog 1891, 2036).
R. H. Charles, author of the commentary on Revelation in the International Critical Commentary series, and perhaps the greatest expert on apocalyptic literature, regarded the so-called bad grammar as deliberate, for purposes of emphasis, and consistent with the citation of numerous Old Testament passages (Gundry, 365). It might be noted that in the 404 verses of Revelation, Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament gives over five hundred references and allusions to the Old Testament.
Finally, as McClintock and Strong point out:
It may be admitted that the Revelation has many surprising grammatical peculiarities. But much of this is accounted for by the fact that it was probably written down, as it was seen, “in the Spirit,” while the ideas, in all their novelty and vastness, filled the apostle’s mind, and rendered him less capable of attending to forms of speech. His Gospel and Epistles, on the other hand, were composed equally under divine influence, but an influence of a gentler, more ordinary kind, with much care, after long deliberation, after frequent recollection and recital of the facts, and deep pondering of the doctrinal truths which they involve (1064).
[h=3]No Mention of Jerusalem’s Destruction[/h]It is claimed that Revelation must have been penned before A.D. 70 since it has no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem; rather, it is alleged, it represents both the city and the temple as still standing.
In response we note the following points.
First, if John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century.
However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalem’s destruction in 11:8, where “the great city,” in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem), is called Sodom—not merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil (Zahn 1973, 306).
Second, the contention that the literal city and temple were still standing, based upon chapter eleven, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is:
difficult to understand how anyone could have imagined that the vision represents the temple as still standing. For the whole scene is laid in heaven, and the temple that is measured is the heavenly temple (11:19; 15:5). We have only to compare this vision with the parallel vision of a measuring-reed seen by Ezekiel (ch. 40), in which the prophet is commanded to measure—surely not the city which it is stated had been demolished fourteen years previously, but the city of the future seen by the prophet in vision (1904, 238).
[h=3]Nero Associated with 666[/h]Some argue for an early date of the Apocalypse by asserting that the enigmatic 666 (13:18) is a reference to Nero. This is possible only by pursuing the most irresponsible form of exegesis.
To come up with such an interpretation one must:
- add the title “Caesar” to Nero’s name;
- compute the letter-number arrangement on the basis of Hebrew, whereas the book was written in Greek; and
- alter the spelling of “Caesar” by dropping the yodh in the Hebrew.
Additionally, Leon Morris has pointed out that Irenaeus discussed a number of possibilities for deciphering the 666, but he did not even include Nero in his list, let alone regard this as a likely conjecture (1980, 38). Noted critic Theodor Zahn observed that Nero was not even suggested as a possibility until the year 1831 (447).
In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it.
-from
[FONT="]Jackson, Wayne. "When Was the Book of Revelation Written?" ChristianCourier.com. Access date: July 25, 2017. https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1552-when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written[/FONT]
Then there are those who take the rantings of a demon possessed 19th century British woman and manufacturer a new doctrine from it. You are a bright guy who has more truth than most on here. I would urge you to refrain from throwing those Satan accusations around so loosely. Some of us are also students of history as well as the Bible. The more history you know, the more fulfillment you find.
Never met John. Was born over 30 years after John died. His is the strongest evidence of a 96 AD writing although he gets his information second hand and may simply have mis- understood Polycarp.
Agreed John returned from Patmos in the late first century. Clement makes no mention of when John actual got his vision or wrote Revelation. Since Peter and Paul were both killed by Nero's Rome around 68 AD, it is reasonable to assume this was when John was exiled.
Too far removed to have any first hand knowledge. It would be like me speaking as an authority about George Washington.
The rest of your evidence is weak and not worthy of a response. Once one understands the seals, trumpets and bowls, one sees they are all about the destruction of Jerusalem and surrounding towns. There would be no need to rehash events if they were 25 years old.
Agreed John returned from Patmos in the late first century. Clement makes no mention of when John actual got his vision or wrote Revelation. Since Peter and Paul were both killed by Nero's Rome around 68 AD, it is reasonable to assume this was when John was exiled.
Too far removed to have any first hand knowledge. It would be like me speaking as an authority about George Washington.
The rest of your evidence is weak and not worthy of a response. Once one understands the seals, trumpets and bowls, one sees they are all about the destruction of Jerusalem and surrounding towns. There would be no need to rehash events if they were 25 years old.
Yet John was told that 5 were(past tense) one is(you say Nero) and one would come(Galba?) and the ten had received no kingdom as yet(Marcus Aurelius or Lucius Verus?) and then the 8th (Commodus) in ad192 ? Revelation 17 8-12 ,,,but if Nero is the beast how is it that he was in the pit in Revelation 17:8?
I don't have an answer for every verse - but I think the goat nation was apostate Judah/Israel that rejected the gospel.
In effect the old nation was no longer God's "set apart" nation - the Gentile nations became Christ's as inheritance through Abraham (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations - Rom 4:17)
See also Gal 4:17 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
We see that the nations became Christ's after the casting out of the whore (aka apostate Judah/Israel):
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
The above is related to where John proclaims there is no more sea in the new heavens and earth - the sea representing the Gentile nations:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
This was the promise of the Gospel, no more distinction between "Jew" and Gentile.
In effect the old nation was no longer God's "set apart" nation - the Gentile nations became Christ's as inheritance through Abraham (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations - Rom 4:17)
See also Gal 4:17 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
We see that the nations became Christ's after the casting out of the whore (aka apostate Judah/Israel):
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
The above is related to where John proclaims there is no more sea in the new heavens and earth - the sea representing the Gentile nations:
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
This was the promise of the Gospel, no more distinction between "Jew" and Gentile.
hmm lets see, the apostles said honour those as ordained by God and pay the dues tribute Romans 13;1-7 (so if Nero is the beast then bow use his money?) and the Jews at the same time refused to bow and revolted and minted their own coins and didn't use Nero’s and were killed. But then if that's the case with Revelation 13:15 then we have the wrong mark's on all the wrong foreheads right?