Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Eric Stahl

Can You Explain This?

Recommended Posts

Except the vial had been poured out already. Notice "HAD the seven vials" He recognized him from his handling of a vial, now he was talking to him after it was all said and done-the verses here since at least Rev 19 have been timelined-happening in order-there's nothing to indicate it suddenly went back, especially since the New Jerusalem had not come down yet until the new heaven and new earth. John never mentions it as having seen it beforehand. He sees it when it comes down from heaven, apparently for the first time, since its the first time its mentioned.

 

If I said to you, "Hey! I remember you-you had the big bucket full of fish guts! How's it going?" Obviously I am referring to a time I had seen you before, not that you still have a bucket full of fish guts.

 

Isaiah 60:1-7

1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.

2For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

3And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

4Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.

5Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.

6The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries

of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD.

7All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.

 

In the kingdom age the Gentiles will come to Israel to look up and see the glory of Jesus in the New Jerusalem above the hills of Israel.

 

Micah 4

1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

 2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Edited by Eric Stahl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isaiah 60:1-7

1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.

2For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.

3And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

4Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.

5Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.

6The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries

of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD.

7All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory.

 

In the kingdom age the Gentiles will come to Israel to look up and see the glory of Jesus in the New Jerusalem above the hills of Israel.

 

Micah 4

1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

 2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

I agree the Gentiles will come before Christ in the kingdom age-I just believe it will be in natural Jerusalem. NEW Jerusalem will come from the NEW Heaven onto the NEW Earth. See the pattern? "I make all things NEW."  We will be in our new bodies on a new earth under a new heaven from which comes a new Jerusalem. There is no place on this old sin-filled earth for the new Jerusalem.

 

BUt as I said, this is going nowhere-you are taking verses and interpreting them to say something that isn't there. Rev makes it clear the New Jerusalem will be on the new Earth. No twisting will change that.

 

Zechariah 14:8-11

"And it shall be in that day, [that] living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and [from] the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

And [men] shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited." 

 

Notice the original landmarks are mentioned as being there-this will be the same Jerusale and Judah as are here today.

 

 

As I said I'm done here, for real this time.

Edited by Ukulelemike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr James,

 

Revelation 14:14-20

14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

 16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.

19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

 

Fire doesn't cause bleeding but swords will. I believe Psalm 149 is talking about Armageddon because its saint in heaven who are given swords to kill the heathen as it is written.

 

Habakkuk 3:11-13

11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.

12 Thou didst march through the land in indignation, thou didst thresh the heathen in anger.

13 Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed(((Saints))); thou woundedst the head out of the house of the wicked, by discovering the foundation unto the neck. Selah. 1

Being trodden on by horses makes you bleed, too :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being trodden on by horses makes you bleed, too :)

 

The thought that we will have a two-edged sword and have to kill the heathen at Armageddon is repulsive now. Maybe after we have our sin nature removed we will see things different.

If it happens soon, we could see people there that we know now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the Gentiles will come before Christ in the kingdom age-I just believe it will be in natural Jerusalem. NEW Jerusalem will come from the NEW Heaven onto the NEW Earth. See the pattern? "I make all things NEW."  We will be in our new bodies on a new earth under a new heaven from which comes a new Jerusalem. There is no place on this old sin-filled earth for the new Jerusalem.

 

BUt as I said, this is going nowhere-you are taking verses and interpreting them to say something that isn't there. Rev makes it clear the New Jerusalem will be on the new Earth. No twisting will change that.

 

Zechariah 14:8-11

"And it shall be in that day, [that] living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and [from] the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

And [men] shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited." 

 

Notice the original landmarks are mentioned as being there-this will be the same Jerusale and Judah as are here today.

 

 

As I said I'm done here, for real this time.

 

Mike,

 

Don't go yet. I think we agree more then you think.

 

When eternity starts after the kingdom age John saw the New Jerusalem and God coming down to earth that has been repaired or made as new.

 

Revelation 21:1-4

1 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.

2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*The Laodiceans are prospersous in Rev 3:17. Laodecea was destroyed by an earthquake in AD 61, it is highly unlikely that they recovered to such economic prosperity in only 9 years.

*The church of Smyrna was not in existence prior to AD 70. It is only mentioned by John in Rev 1:11 and 2:8.

The Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation Were Not Fulfilled in AD 70

Preterists in particular lay heavy emphasis on the term “shortly come to pass” in Matthew 24 and Revelation 1:1 that shows the events described by Christ and John would have an immediate fulfillment. However, they are inconsistent in their application of these passages as Revelation 22:6, the counterpart to Rev 1:1 also states that the events the 3 views DO believe are yet future will also come to pass shortly. Furthermore, Paul states in Romans 16 that Satan would be bruised under our feet “shortly”. That has obviously not occurred. Therefore “shortly” is clearly not used to define an immediate fulfillment, at least from man’s perspective, but is a statement of an expecation of immanency.

Much of the futurist view and those who hold to a future fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week are objected to by the other views as being fulfilled in Titus. It is almost a blasphemous interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 where the text is clear that the “prince to come” is referring to the antichrist, and not Jesus (Not only is this fact clear in the text of Daniel 9, but also in Daniel 11:16-32). The other views attempt to squeeze Jesus baptism (which is not mentioned in Daniel), His ministry and crucifixion all in the final week of Daniel. However, Daniel makes it clear that the Messiah is “cut off” (crucified) BEFORE the one week is confirmed.

The other views attempt to allegorize the text claiming that Jesus rendered the oblations and sacrifices ineffective instead of as the text says, the prince would cause to cease. It is clear that the oblations and sacrifices did not cease until 40 years after Christ ascended, but their interpretation would require them to have ceased at Christ’s crucifixion if said event was the culmination of Daniel’s 70th week.

The other views point to the Olivet discourse where Jesus states “when ye see the armies compass Jerusalem about, flee into the mountains”. That never occured in AD 70. Titus surrounded Jerusalem and nobody was permitted exit from the city. What did happen in AD 70 after Titus regrouped was that the Jews were scattered throughout the world (“The Diaspora”), that is not quite the same as fleeing to the mountains “where the woman hath a place prepared of God that they shoud feed her a thousand two hundred and threescore days” Rev 12:6.

Other events that never occurred are as follows:

*Jesus never returned to the earth in VISIBLE fashion. Rev 1:7 (“every eye shall see him”).

*Nobody was subjected to the mark of the beast, or the number of his name. Although the other views attempt to ascribe this to Nero, 2 Thess makes it clear that the antichrist is destroyed by the brightness of Jesus’ coming, Nero committed suicide. Nero could only be considered a type of antichrist, but does not meet the requirements to be THE antichrist of Revelation 13, and Nero never had an image made that was to be worshipped and given life to (Rev 13:15). There is no historical evidence that anyone under Nero or Titus was prevented from buying or selling unless they had the mark of the beast or the number of his name, and there is no evidence that anyone was martyred because of rejecting such (Rev 15:1-3).

*The mount of olives did not split in two. Zechariah 14:4. Also, Revelation 6:14-15 states that every mountain and island were moved out of their places, and the heaven departed as a scroll.

*The Euphrates river was not dried up. Rev 9:14-15Rev 16:12

*The number of the armies in Rev 9:16 (200 million) far exceeds any amount of any army in existence at the time of Nero. Even today, the only army that could possibly fit that number would be China which fits Daniel and Revelation’s claim that this army comes from the East. This also brings up another fact that the armies gathered against Israel partly come from the East, Rome is WEST of Jerusalem. Therefore Titus and Nero could not possibly have fulfilled Daniel or Revelation.

*In AD 70, only ONE army attacked Jerusalem (Rome). Scripture indicates that God gathers ALL NATIONS against Jerusalem. Zech 12:314:2.

*The amount of the world’s population that is killed by the judgments never occurred in AD 70. Rev 6:8Rev 8:11Rev 9:15-20.

*The amount of physical destruction to the earth never occurred in AD 70. Rev 8:8-12.

Not only did these events not occur in AD 70, they have never occurred at any time since then. Historicists and some Covenanters attempt to explain they gradually occurred  through out history, but that is not only a gross interpretation of Scripture, but it defies all of the timelines given in Revelation that make it clear all of these events occur within a 7 year period. Rev 8:111:312:61413:5.

There are many more examples, but these should be enough to prove that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation (among others) were not fulfilled in AD 70, nor at any other time in history to date.

 

Covenanter,

 

You answered Dr. James clearly concerning your disdain for the Early Church Fathers, but you completely failed to respond to the rest of his post. How were all the above points satisfied in AD 70?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikado:

You answered Dr. James clearly concerning your disdain for the Early Church Fathers, but you completely failed to respond to the rest of his post. How were all the above points satisfied in AD 70?

Comments in red

 

But since the issue has been raised again, I will post the response I gave to this from our website:

 

The Date of the Book of Revelation

Of the many objections I have against the 3 views, the early dating of the book of Revelation seems to me a blatantly dishonest and inconsistent interpretation of history and the Bible’s internal evidence for a late date (i.e. AD 95). Preterists such as Hank Haneggraff cherry-pick historians in that the “early fathers” are useful in supporting some of their apologetic claims for the validity of the Bible and early developed doctrines, but disgard them as reliable when their writings are in contradistinction to their eschatology.

ALL should be read as potentially useful within their scope, but none should be considered authoritative.

 

If Revelation was written after AD 70, that destroys all eschatological views that view Daniels 70th week, Jesus Olivet discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and Revelation 1-19 as having been fulfilled in AD 70 and demonstrates that all of Revelation is yet future.

That is an IF that needs to be proved, by reference to Scripture. A 95 date for Revelation does not refute the AD 70 fulfilment of Jesus' Olivet prophecies, nor the 70 weeks fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy, nor does it demonstrate that Revelation is yet future to us. Only that a fulfilment after about AD 100 is indicated.

 

Evidence For the Late Date of  Revelation

*Iraneus (AD 120-202)who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. Iraneus holds that John wrote Revelation during the end of the reign of Domitian who did not begin his reign until 81 AD and was killed in AD 96.

*Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), Tertullian (AD 160-220), Victorinus (AD 304), Eusibius (AD 260-340), Jerome (AD 340-419).

Although these men were not always doctrinally correct, their citations of John writing Revelation while on the Isle of Patmos under Domitians reign is a matter of recorded history not doctrinal exegesis.

*The Laodiceans are prospersous in Rev 3:17. Laodecea was destroyed by an earthquake in AD 61, it is highly unlikely that they recovered to such economic prosperity in only 9 years.

*The church of Smyrna was not in existence prior to AD 70. It is only mentioned by John in Rev 1:11 and 2:8.

 

You might be more convincing if you found what Irenaeus (& the others) actually wrote. I think you will find that the relevant paragraph is ambiguous, & is only known in Eusibius' quotation translated from Greek to Latin.

The other events do not prove a late date, & Smyrna could be represented by a family. It certainly existed when John had his vision.
 

The Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation Were Not Fulfilled in AD 70

Preterists in particular lay heavy emphasis on the term “shortly come to pass” in Matthew 24 and Revelation 1:1 that shows the events described by Christ and John would have an immediate fulfillment. However, they are inconsistent in their application of these passages as Revelation 22:6, the counterpart to Rev 1:1 also states that the events the 3 views DO believe are yet future will also come to pass shortly. Furthermore, Paul states in Romans 16 that Satan would be bruised under our feet “shortly”. That has obviously not occurred. Therefore “shortly” is clearly not used to define an immediate fulfillment, at least from man’s perspective, but is a statement of an expecation of immanency.

Much of Daniel refers to the years between the Testaments - the succession of empires is clear. The accuracy of these prophesies, particularly relating to Antiochus, is so accurate that modernist claim Daniel was a 2nd C historian writing pseudepigraphs. 

It is of course transparently obvious that Rev. 1 was written for the encouragement of John's first readers - his companions in tribulation - & they would have expected a fulfilment in their lifetime.

Rev. 22:And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

 

22:6 is no problem - the prophesied destruction was even more imminent by the end of the Revelation. We need to deal with the references to Jesus "coming." We tend to assume that that means his final coming for resurrection & judgement. (Or for all the fantastic events of the the PTR & millennium.) Did Jesus himself speak of "coming" to destroy those Jews who rejected him? YES!

Mat:21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

Luke 20:15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?

16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

 

 Clearly there is a sense in which Jesus came in AD 70 to fulfil his own prophecy. The Jewish leaders understood exactly what he meant. Why do you not understand?

 

 

Much of the futurist view and those who hold to a future fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week are objected to by the other views as being fulfilled in Titus. It is almost a blasphemous interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 where the text is clear that the “prince to come” is referring to the antichrist, and not Jesus (Not only is this fact clear in the text of Daniel 9, but also in Daniel 11:16-32). The other views attempt to squeeze Jesus baptism (which is not mentioned in Daniel), His ministry and crucifixion all in the final week of Daniel. However, Daniel makes it clear that the Messiah is “cut off” (crucified) BEFORE the one week is confirmed.

The other views attempt to allegorize the text claiming that Jesus rendered the oblations and sacrifices ineffective instead of as the text says, the prince would cause to cease. It is clear that the oblations and sacrifices did not cease until 40 years after Christ ascended, but their interpretation would require them to have ceased at Christ’s crucifixion if said event was the culmination of Daniel’s 70th week.

 

The other views point to the Olivet discourse where Jesus states “when ye see the armies compass Jerusalem about, flee into the mountains”. That never occured in AD 70. Titus surrounded Jerusalem and nobody was permitted exit from the city. What did happen in AD 70 after Titus regrouped was that the Jews were scattered throughout the world (“The Diaspora”), that is not quite the same as fleeing to the mountains “where the woman hath a place prepared of God that they shoud feed her a thousand two hundred and threescore days” Rev 12:6.

 

You need to understand opposing views before you dismiss them. The details of the final rebellion of the Jews, the deliverance of the believers & the destruction are not recorded in Scripture, but are prophesied & generally agreed from contemporary writers. The Romans besieged the city & withdrew, at which point the defenders pursued them while the Christians fled from the city, taking Jesus words on Olivet as their warning. That was 3 1/2 years (1260 days) before AD 70. Titus then returned for the final siege, resulting in the destruction of the city & temple, also as Jesus prophesied on Olivet. 

 

A literal reading of the 70 weeks prophecy sees Messiah anointed (at his baptism) at 69 weeks. AFTER 69 weeks he will be cut off, & the city & sanctuary will be destroyed. 

 

9:24 is a prophecy of Jesus saving work.

9:25 says that work effectively begins at 69 weeks

9:26 says that AFTER 69 weeks Messiah will be cut off, & that the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

How long after is not there prophesied, but we know from the Gospels that Jesus was crucified after about 3 years of ministry, & that the city would be destroyed before the generation that rejected him had died out. (Within 40 years - see Ps. 95)

9:27 speaks of Jesus confirming the covenant for one week - week 70, i.e during his earthly ministry & during the Apostolic ministry until the disbelieving Jews were declared by the Holy Spirit to be uncircumcised (Acts 7:51) & the Gospel was opened to uncircumcised Gentiles. (Cornelius)

By the cross, the sacrifices lost all purpose, but God graciously allowed them to continue as a witness until the destruction. 

 

 

Other events that never occurred are as follows:

*Jesus never returned to the earth in VISIBLE fashion. Rev 1:7 (“every eye shall see him”).

Rev. 1:7 is an exact quote from Mat. 24.

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

 

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

 

The tribes of the earth normally refers to the tribes of the land of Israel. Earth has many meanings, including soil, not necessarily the planet; likewise kindreds of the earth. This is not to correct the KJV but we looking for precise meanings. John makes it clear that the Jews who crucified Jesus looked on him whom they pierced. We have already seen that Jesus prophesied that he would come to destroy them. We don't always "see" with our eyes, but often with our understanding. They saw everything Jesus prophesied against them happening to them.

 

 

*Nobody was subjected to the mark of the beast, or the number of his name. Although the other views attempt to ascribe this to Nero, 2 Thess makes it clear that the antichrist is destroyed by the brightness of Jesus’ coming, Nero committed suicide. Nero could only be considered a type of antichrist, but does not meet the requirements to be THE antichrist of Revelation 13, and Nero never had an image made that was to be worshipped and given life to (Rev 13:15). There is no historical evidence that anyone under Nero or Titus was prevented from buying or selling unless they had the mark of the beast or the number of his name, and there is no evidence that anyone was martyred because of rejecting such (Rev 15:1-3).

*The mount of olives did not split in two. Zechariah 14:4. Also, Revelation 6:14-15 states that every mountain and island were moved out of their places, and the heaven departed as a scroll.

*The Euphrates river was not dried up. Rev 9:14-15Rev 16:12

*The number of the armies in Rev 9:16 (200 million) far exceeds any amount of any army in existence at the time of Nero. Even today, the only army that could possibly fit that number would be China which fits Daniel and Revelation’s claim that this army comes from the East. This also brings up another fact that the armies gathered against Israel partly come from the East, Rome is WEST of Jerusalem. Therefore Titus and Nero could not possibly have fulfilled Daniel or Revelation.

200 million is a plague of locusts - see Joel 2. You are further arguing from history, not Scripture, & requiring a highly literal interpretation events that are likely to be figurative, hyperbole.

 

*In AD 70, only ONE army attacked Jerusalem (Rome). Scripture indicates that God gathers ALL NATIONS against Jerusalem. Zech 12:314:2.

How many is "ALL" ? Luke 2:! all the world should be taxed. 

Roman soldiers were gathered from around the empire, which extended east of Judaea. You are desperately trying to prove a dubious case by over-literalising.

 

*The amount of the world’s population that is killed by the judgments never occurred in AD 70. Rev 6:8Rev 8:11Rev 9:15-20.

*The amount of physical destruction to the earth never occurred in AD 70. Rev 8:8-12.

Not only did these events not occur in AD 70, they have never occurred at any time since then. Historicists and some Covenanters attempt to explain they gradually occurred  through out history, but that is not only a gross interpretation of Scripture, but it defies all of the timelines given in Revelation that make it clear all of these events occur within a 7 year period. Rev 8:111:312:61413:5.

There are many more examples, but these should be enough to prove that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation (among others) were not fulfilled in AD 70, nor at any other time in history to date.

As the prophesied were specific to Judaea, the numbers of slain, & the extent of the disasters are not excessive.

 

One thing you have not considered is how the NT prophecies relate to the OT prophecies. I'll give one example:

Mat. 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

 

Compare that with:

Isa. 13:1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

.....

They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the Lord, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.

Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

.....

10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

11 And I will punish the world for their evil,....

.....

17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them,...

 

That very dramatic description of Babylon being overrun by the Medes is recorded rather more prosaically by Daniel. It happened - but you need to read Isaiah as hyperbole.

 

We do not need dubious early church fathers to interpret our Bible. We need to use the time-honoured system of reading Scripture, & comparing Scripture with Scripture, recognising when a literal meaning is required & when a figurative interpretation is expected.

 

[Haven't got time to proof read - forgive any typos - I off to bed.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MY RESPONSES TO THE RED WILL BE IN GREEN.
My original writing is in blocked gray (or gray boxes), Covenanter's Response is in RED, and my response to his response, is in green.

Comments in red

 

Dr James Ach, on 13 May 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:snapback.png

But since the issue has been raised again, I will post the response I gave to this from our website:

 

The Date of the Book of Revelation

Of the many objections I have against the 3 views, the early dating of the book of Revelation seems to me a blatantly dishonest and inconsistent interpretation of history and the Bible’s internal evidence for a late date (i.e. AD 95). Preterists such as Hank Haneggraff cherry-pick historians in that the “early fathers” are useful in supporting some of their apologetic claims for the validity of the Bible and early developed doctrines, but disgard them as reliable when their writings are in contradistinction to their eschatology.

ALL should be read as potentially useful within their scope, but none should be considered authoritative.

 

If Revelation was written after AD 70, that destroys all eschatological views that view Daniels 70th week, Jesus Olivet discourse inMatthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21, and Revelation 1-19 as having been fulfilled in AD 70 and demonstrates that all of Revelation is yet future.

That is an IF that needs to be proved, by reference to Scripture. A 95 date for Revelation does not refute the AD 70 fulfilment of Jesus' Olivet prophecies, nor the 70 weeks fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy, nor does it demonstrate that Revelation is yet future to us. Only that a fulfilment after about AD 100 is indicated.

 

There is no reason not accept the record of historical events as authoritative, especially when the overwhelming evidence in on the side of the later date for Revelation. The Preterists, Covenant and Historicist ("PCHs") all have no problem in using them as authority when used for apologetic purposes to demonstrate the historicity of Christianity, but discard them when their record of historical events is in conflict with their theology.

 

The if is rhetorical here. Can you give me a scripture that says when you wrote your response? That is erroneous to ask for a BIble verse to prove the date of Revelation because the date itself is outside of the Bible. 

 

If you are claiming that a late date for Revelation does not refute the the AD 70 view of the Olivet Discourse, then you can not claim that any part of Revelation is synonymous with Matthew 24. But the fact is is that Preterist, Covenant and Historicists alike all refer to Revelation as supplemental events to Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. They have to because there would be no possible way to explain the events of Revelation being fulfilled between AD 70 and AD 95.

 

Evidence For the Late Date of  Revelation

*Iraneus (AD 120-202)who was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John. Iraneus holds that John wrote Revelation during the end of the reign of Domitian who did not begin his reign until 81 AD and was killed in AD 96.

*Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), Tertullian (AD 160-220), Victorinus (AD 304), Eusibius (AD 260-340), Jerome (AD 340-419).

Although these men were not always doctrinally correct, their citations of John writing Revelation while on the Isle of Patmos under Domitians reign is a matter of recorded history not doctrinal exegesis.

*The Laodiceans are prospersous in Rev 3:17. Laodecea was destroyed by an earthquake in AD 61, it is highly unlikely that they recovered to such economic prosperity in only 9 years.

*The church of Smyrna was not in existence prior to AD 70. It is only mentioned by John in Rev 1:11 and 2:8.

 

You might be more convincing if you found what Irenaeus (& the others) actually wrote. I think you will find that the relevant paragraph is ambiguous, & is only known in Eusibius' quotation translated from Greek to Latin.

The other events do not prove a late date, & Smyrna could be represented by a family. It certainly existed when John had his vision.

 

No problem, here's what Iraneus said:

 

"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 Revelation. For (‘he’ [John] or ‘it’ [Revelation]) was seen  not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3.)

 

 

Since we know that Domitian ruled from AD 81-96, John could not have possible written Revelation before AD 70, even if the language was ambiguous as to just exactly what would be considered "the end" of Domitian's reign since it didn't START until AFTER AD 70.

 

And Smyrna represented as a family??????? Then why didn't any of John's statements say "To the angel of the FAMILY in Ephesus...To the angel of the FAMILY in Pergamos....To the angel of the FAMILY". The word family is used one time in the NT, and it is used to described all of those who belong to heaven under a Father in Eph 3:15. Not once is "patsia" (family) ever used to describe a church, nor is the ekklesia (church) ever used to describe a family. The scripture says to the CHURCH in Smyrna, not the "family". There is no "could be" to it, that is poor hermeneutics and blatant eisegesis.

 

It existed when John had his vision because Revelation was written at a later date. That's why it was used to prove the point of a later date for Revelation.


The Prophecies of Daniel and Revelation Were Not Fulfilled in AD 70

Preterists in particular lay heavy emphasis on the term “shortly come to pass” in Matthew 24 and Revelation 1:1 that shows the events described by Christ and John would have an immediate fulfillment. However, they are inconsistent in their application of these passages as Revelation 22:6, the counterpart to Rev 1:1 also states that the events the 3 views DO believe are yet future will also come to pass shortly. Furthermore, Paul states in Romans 16 that Satan would be bruised under our feet “shortly”. That has obviously not occurred. Therefore “shortly” is clearly not used to define an immediate fulfillment, at least from man’s perspective, but is a statement of an expecation of immanency.

Much of Daniel refers to the years between the Testaments - the succession of empires is clear. The accuracy of these prophesies, particularly relating to Antiochus, is so accurate that modernist claim Daniel was a 2nd C historian writing pseudepigraphs. 

 

Irrelevant and non sequitur here because we are referring to the parts of Daniel that were clearly meant for fulfillment that addressed the time of Christ and beyond.

 

It is of course transparently obvious that Rev. 1 was written for the encouragement of John's first readers - his companions in tribulation - & they would have expected a fulfilment in their lifetime.

Rev. 22:And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

 

22:6 is no problem - the prophesied destruction was even more imminent by the end of the Revelation. We need to deal with the references to Jesus "coming." We tend to assume that that means his final coming for resurrection & judgement. (Or for all the fantastic events of the the PTR & millennium.) Did Jesus himself speak of "coming" to destroy those Jews who rejected him? YES!

Mat:21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

Luke 20:15 So they cast him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them?

16 He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others. And when they heard it, they said, God forbid.

 

 Clearly there is a sense in which Jesus came in AD 70 to fulfil his own prophecy. The Jewish leaders understood exactly what he meant. Why do you not understand?

 

The Bible also spoke of the coming of Christ in and bruising of Satan's head in Genesis, one event which did not happen for 4000 years, and the other still to come (Romans 16:20)

 

And speaking of Romans 16:20 (which you ignored), this is also another passage that uses the term "shortly" and it is clear that that event has not occurred yet because Satan has not been bruised under our feet.

 

However, all 3 positions (PCH) believe that even though they claim Revelation has been fulfilled in part, still believe that Revelation 19-22 is still future. Therefore it is wholly inconsistent that you would claim that there is still a future kingdom to which Revelation 22:6 is referring to, and then still attempt to show that the "shortly come to pass" in Revelation 1 means means an immediate fulfilling.

 

But this also contradicts your opening statement that a late date of Revelation does not refute the AD 70 Olivet View and this is exactly why it does because you are using Matthew to attempt to explain Revelation 22:6 but if Revelation was written after AD 70, then "shortly" can not mean the same thing in Matthew as it does in Revelation. Now, since we can prove that Revelation WAS written after AD 70, then that means Revelation 22:6 which must still be future, can shed light on how "shortly" is used in Matthew 24.

 

Your usage of Matthew 21 has absolutely nothing to do with the fulfillment of Daniel or the Olivet Discourse. The Kingdom of God being handed over to the Gentiles was/is TEMPORARY (Romans 9-11) and the Gentiles were grafted in. Romans 11:17 (and the Kingdom of Heaven is yet future (unless you can tell me when the New Jerusalem came down from heaven to replace the old one).

 

Paul makes it perfectly clear that God has not cast away his people which he foreknow (Rom 11:2) And, he is not talking about a Gentile church which He foreknow, he said his kinsmen "according to the flesh" Rom 9:3. Paul says that Israel will be raised from the dead (Rom 11:15, Ezekiel 37). 

 

Revelation makes it clear that there will be an Israelite revival. The church is praised for trying JEWS in Rev 2:2, 9, and 3:9. There are 144,000 JEWS sealed in Revelation 7 [and if you somehow think that applies to the Gentile church, please tell us which of the 12 tribes you belong to. And if this was fulfilled in AD 70, please show me where 12 tribes were separated to be witnesses, when all of Israel scattered in AD 70]. Two witnesses preach who are killed in JERUSALEM (Rev 11:7-11)

 

Not only is your veiled explanation to erase Israel from future prophecy erroneous, but reliance in Matthew 21 is totally off the mark on this.

 

 

 

 

Much of the futurist view and those who hold to a future fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week are objected to by the other views as being fulfilled in Titus. It is almost a blasphemous interpretation of Daniel 9:26-27 where the text is clear that the “prince to come” is referring to the antichrist, and not Jesus (Not only is this fact clear in the text of Daniel 9, but also in Daniel 11:16-32). The other views attempt to squeeze Jesus baptism (which is not mentioned in Daniel), His ministry and crucifixion all in the final week of Daniel. However, Daniel makes it clear that the Messiah is “cut off” (crucified) BEFORE the one week is confirmed.

The other views attempt to allegorize the text claiming that Jesus rendered the oblations and sacrifices ineffective instead of as the text says, the prince would cause to cease. It is clear that the oblations and sacrifices did not cease until 40 years after Christ ascended, but their interpretation would require them to have ceased at Christ’s crucifixion if said event was the culmination of Daniel’s 70th week.

 

The other views point to the Olivet discourse where Jesus states “when ye see the armies compass Jerusalem about, flee into the mountains”. That never occured in AD 70. Titus surrounded Jerusalem and nobody was permitted exit from the city. What did happen in AD 70 after Titus regrouped was that the Jews were scattered throughout the world (“The Diaspora”), that is not quite the same as fleeing to the mountains “where the woman hath a place prepared of God that they shoud feed her a thousand two hundred and threescore days” Rev 12:6.

 

You need to understand opposing views before you dismiss them.

 

The article itself address facts germaine to all 3 views (Preterism, Historicism, and Covanent Theology). But for the most part, I guess I'm so stupid that I just read material that I don't understand.

 

The details of the final rebellion of the Jews, the deliverance of the believers & the destruction are not recorded in Scripture, but are prophesied & generally agreed from contemporary writers.

 

Scripture and verse please for a prophecy about the "final rebellion of the Jews".

 

And I could really care less about what any contemporary writer says (especially since you didn't name them. You could be referring to Joseph Smith and Charles Russell for all I know). Contemporary writers are not my final authority. Plus, I'm a contemporary writer and I disagree.

 

The Romans besieged the city & withdrew, at which point the defenders pursued them while the Christians fled from the city, taking Jesus words on Olivet as their warning. That was 3 1/2 years (1260 days) before AD 70. Titus then returned for the final siege, resulting in the destruction of the city & temple, also as Jesus prophesied on Olivet. 

 

Fleeing FROM the city is not the same as fleeing TO THE MOUNTAINS. Matt 24:15 is a direct correlation to Revelation 12:6 where God prepares a place for the Jews to flee during the tribulation. In Matt 24, they are all told to go to one place. In AD 70, they were scattered all throughout the world which is why the event is called "The Diaspora". And as was stated, when Titus first seiged Jerusalem, the Jews did not have a chance to flee because he had garrisons surrounding the city. Your response does not address this point at all that shows the clear contradiction between  the PCH interpretation of it and the historical events that took place. and the BIble.

 

Furthermore, PCHs attempt to use this "3 1/2 years" to describe the seige by separating the "confirmed week" of Daniel and splitting it in 2, 40 years apart from each other. The prince that "causes oblations to cease" does so in the MIDST OF THE WEEK, not 40 years later after Christs resurrection.

 

 

 

A literal reading of the 70 weeks prophecy sees Messiah anointed (at his baptism) at 69 weeks. AFTER 69 weeks he will be cut off, & the city & sanctuary will be destroyed. 

 

9:24 is a prophecy of Jesus saving work.

9:25 says that work effectively begins at 69 weeks

9:26 says that AFTER 69 weeks Messiah will be cut off, & that the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary

How long after is not there prophesied, but we know from the Gospels that Jesus was crucified after about 3 years of ministry, & that the city would be destroyed before the generation that rejected him had died out. (Within 40 years - see Ps. 95)

9:27 speaks of Jesus confirming the covenant for one week - week 70, i.e during his earthly ministry & during the Apostolic ministry until the disbelieving Jews were declared by the Holy Spirit to be uncircumcised (Acts 7:51) & the Gospel was opened to uncircumcised Gentiles. (Cornelius)

By the cross, the sacrifices lost all purpose, but God graciously allowed them to continue as a witness until the destruction. 

 

If Jesus is the one that confirmed the covenant for one week, then how to PCH's get 3 years for Jesus ministry and crucifixion and then then the other 3/ 1/2 years 40 years later with Titus destroying Jerusalem? Again, the events that the prince that shall come causes to occur happen IN THE MIDST OF THE WEEK, meaning that the 7 year period is a continuous 7 year period.

 

Furthermore, it was not Christ that confirmed the covenant:

 

"Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries. And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant. And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people." Daniel 11:20-23

 

 

Jesus did not cause the sacrifices and oblations to cease because they were still being practiced long after resurrection and ascension. Paul was still attending the feasts (Acts 18:21; 20:16) and circumcision was still being practiced (Gal 2:3) And it says caused to CEASE, not be "rendered ineffective" as PCH's erroneously attempt to explain this away. The reason they are ceased is because the beast causes all to worship him when he is ruler of the world during the tribulation (Rev 13:11-18) and practice any Jewish ritual, oblation or otherwise will result in death.

 

Furthermore, TItus did not do such from the desolation TO THE CONSUMMATION. Moreover, "the end thereof shall be with a flood"

 

"And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth." Revelation 12:15-16

 

And the gospel was not "opened up" to the Gentiles with Peter in Acts 10. You can not use one isolated incident to prove this because Jesus saved Gentiles during His ministry (Matthew 15:26, John 4:7). God's purpose was to show Peter that the gospel was not limited to Jews which Peter still demonstrated issues with. Gal 2:11. The gospel did not OFFICIALLY open up to the Gentiles until Paul. Romans 15:16, Romans 11:13, Acts 26:17, and even then, Paul was not finished with the Jews until long after his ministry began. Acts 28:28.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other events that never occurred are as follows:

*Jesus never returned to the earth in VISIBLE fashion. Rev 1:7 (“every eye shall see him”).

Rev. 1:7 is an exact quote from Mat. 24.

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

 

30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

 

The tribes of the earth normally refers to the tribes of the land of Israel. Earth has many meanings, including soil, not necessarily the planet; likewise kindreds of the earth. This is not to correct the KJV but we looking for precise meanings. John makes it clear that the Jews who crucified Jesus looked on him whom they pierced. We have already seen that Jesus prophesied that he would come to destroy them. We don't always "see" with our eyes, but often with our understanding. They saw everything Jesus prophesied against them happening to them.

 

Scripture and verse please where "Tribes of the earth" "normally" refers to the tribes of the land of Israel. And WOW, really? Getting semantic about the definition of earth?

 

Every reference in the NT that uses earth is used to describe locations all over the globe, not just an isolated place of tribes in Israel:

 

Matt 5:13, 6:10, 19; 11:25, 12:40, 42; 13:5, 14:24; 16:19; 17:25; 18:18, 19; 23:25; 24:30; 28:18, and those are just the ones I remember from Matthew.

So when Jesus said whatever Peter bound on EARTH meant that he could only bind what was in the tribes of Israel? Thy will be done in EARTH means God's will is only done in the tribes of Israel?

 

And when John says "every eye shall see him" that is not some allegorical meaning that implies understanding because it not only says that they saw with their eyes, but it describes the OBJECT THAT THEY SAY ("whom they have pierced"). And if you want to be technical, using your logic, it wasn't Israel that pierced Christ, IT WAS ROME! John 19:34.

 

When Jesus told the high priest that they would see Him coming in the clouds of heaven (Matt 26:64) He did not mean that it would saw with "understanding". When passages are meant to be symbolic THEY SAY SO. Matthew 13:13.

 

 

*Nobody was subjected to the mark of the beast, or the number of his name. Although the other views attempt to ascribe this to Nero, 2 Thess makes it clear that the antichrist is destroyed by the brightness of Jesus’ coming, Nero committed suicide. Nero could only be considered a type of antichrist, but does not meet the requirements to be THE antichrist of Revelation 13, and Nero never had an image made that was to be worshipped and given life to (Rev 13:15). There is no historical evidence that anyone under Nero or Titus was prevented from buying or selling unless they had the mark of the beast or the number of his name, and there is no evidence that anyone was martyred because of rejecting such (Rev 15:1-3).

*The mount of olives did not split in two. Zechariah 14:4. Also, Revelation 6:14-15 states that every mountain and island were moved out of their places, and the heaven departed as a scroll.

*The Euphrates river was not dried up. Rev 9:14-15Rev 16:12

*The number of the armies in Rev 9:16 (200 million) far exceeds any amount of any army in existence at the time of Nero. Even today, the only army that could possibly fit that number would be China which fits Daniel and Revelation’s claim that this army comes from the East. This also brings up another fact that the armies gathered against Israel partly come from the East, Rome is WEST of Jerusalem. Therefore Titus and Nero could not possibly have fulfilled Daniel or Revelation.

200 million is a plague of locusts - see Joel 2. You are further arguing from history, not Scripture, & requiring a highly literal interpretation events that are likely to be figurative, hyperbole.

 

Since when did earthly locusts start breathing fire?? I'm arguing partly from history because for one, there was never a plague of 200 million locusts in AD 70, and another, the text in Revelation chapter 9 makes it clear this is army that carries out death by fire and brimstone, and it was an army of horseMEN (Revelation 9:16). The passage in Joel is describing an event where the locusts and cankerworm and caterpillar had eaten up crops (Joel 2:25). Now here's the main reason why Joel 2 locusts and Revelation 9 locusts are not the same: BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD NOT TO HURT THE GRASS OF THE EARTH, NOR ANY GREEN THING! (Rev 9:4).

 

The army from the east also corresponds with the bad news that the beast hears in Daniel 11:44.

 

*In AD 70, only ONE army attacked Jerusalem (Rome). Scripture indicates that God gathers ALL NATIONS against Jerusalem. Zech 12:314:2.

How many is "ALL" ? Luke 2:! all the world should be taxed. 

Roman soldiers were gathered from around the empire, which extended east of Judaea. You are desperately trying to prove a dubious case by over-literalising.

 

Whatever attempt you try to make to explain away "ALL" you forget the fact that NATIONS is plural. Therefore ALL NATIONmeans more than just Rome. There is no "over-literalizing", I'm stating exactly what the Bible says. If God meant only Rome was going to attack Jerusalem, there would be no reason to use ALL NATIONS to describe who is involved in the attack.

 

*The amount of the world’s population that is killed by the judgments never occurred in AD 70. Rev 6:8Rev 8:11Rev 9:15-20.

*The amount of physical destruction to the earth never occurred in AD 70. Rev 8:8-12.

Not only did these events not occur in AD 70, they have never occurred at any time since then. Historicists and some Covenanters attempt to explain they gradually occurred  through out history, but that is not only a gross interpretation of Scripture, but it defies all of the timelines given in Revelation that make it clear all of these events occur within a 7 year period. Rev 8:111:312:61413:5.

There are many more examples, but these should be enough to prove that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation (among others) were not fulfilled in AD 70, nor at any other time in history to date.

As the prophesied were specific to Judaea, the numbers of slain, & the extent of the disasters are not excessive.

 

The verses I quoted are NOT referring to Judaea, they are UNIVERSAL STATISTICS:

 

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth." Rev 6:8

 

"And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men" Rev 9:15

 

Furthermore, not one time have you or any of the Preterist, or Covenant or Historicist crowd ever claimed that the purpose of Titus destroying Jerusalem was at tribulation period to bring repentance. All of the events in Revelation chapter 9 end with:

 

"And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts."

 

 

If all prophecy culminated in Titus destroying Jerusalem, then why the concern over whether "the rest" not repenting?

 

 

One thing you have not considered is how the NT prophecies relate to the OT prophecies. I'll give one example:

Mat. 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

 

Compare that with:

Isa. 13:1 The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.

.....

They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the Lord, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land.

Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

.....

10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

11 And I will punish the world for their evil,....

.....

17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them,...

 

That very dramatic description of Babylon being overrun by the Medes is recorded rather more prosaically by Daniel. It happened - but you need to read Isaiah as hyperbole.

 

We do not need dubious early church fathers to interpret our Bible. We need to use the time-honoured system of reading Scripture, & comparing Scripture with Scripture, recognising when a literal meaning is required & when a figurative interpretation is expected.

 

I am well aware of how to compare OT with NT, and know when scripture is using hyperbole or idioms, and when it is not, and even when hyperbole is used, it is still emphasizing a literal meaning of the events it is describing or foretelling. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't know the difference between allegory and literalism. I certainly know the difference between the earth and soil. I know when Jesus says "God so love the world" it didn't mean that God so loved the gardens.

 

I do not rely on "church fathers" for anything but historical events (even though you yourself quoted "many contemporary writers" agree with some of your versions scripture). I rarely, IF EVER quote from anyone when writing my opinions. I rely on what the Holy Spirit has taught me through many years of memorization and studying the Bible. And it is ironic that any Preterist, HISTORICIST, or Covenant Theologist would claim to abscond from history when their entire eschatology system rests and falls on the events of history. If you disagree: you claim prophecy has been fulfilled. Compared to what? What is it that verifies that prophecy has been fulfilled? EVENTS that become HISTORY after they happen.

Edited by Dr James Ach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also waiting for someone to bring this passage up because I know it's familiar to everyone, but:

 

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:" 2 Thess 2:8. 

 

 

I would have to say this verse with Rev 19 is pretty clear and shows that Psalm 149 is a different context.

The Lord will take out the Antichrist himself but the saints of God are still an army and an army does battle (Joel 2).

 

The "new song" of Psalm 140:1 is the song of Revelation 14:3.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Habakkuk 3:11-13

11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.

12 Thou didst march through the land in indignation, thou didst thresh the heathen in anger.

13 Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed(((Saints))); thou woundedst the head out of the house of the wicked, by discovering the foundation unto the neck. Selah. 1

 

The context of Habakkuk is the warning of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. In Hab. 3, he is expressing his confidence in God (the just shall live by faith) & is remembering the PAST works of God for his people. The sun DID stand still for Joshua. That chapter has NOTHING to do with "end times" but everything to do with maintaining our confidence - our joy in the LORD in times of trouble. Most of the prayer is referring in the past tense to events of the exodus & settlement.

O Lord, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy.

God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.

.....

17 Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls:

18 Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.

19 The Lord God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds' feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places. To the chief singer on my stringed instruments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James, I note you accept the ambiguity of Irenaeus' quotation:

No problem, here's what Iraneus said:

 

"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 Revelation. For (‘he’ [John] or ‘it’ [Revelation]) was seen  not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3.)

 

.....it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ‘he’ was seen  not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian."

 

"He" follows logically from "him who beheld."

 

Obviously if the name of antichrist were known or knowable at that time, but kept secret by the cryptic reference, the antichrist prophecy (only in 1 John) then it's a prophecy for the time, not the distant future. Especially as:

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

By "contemporary" I obviously meant historians who recorded the events of the destruction.

 

You use :20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. to prove time texts in Scripture are meaningless:

The Bible also spoke of the coming of Christ in and bruising of Satan's head in Genesis, one event which did not happen for 4000 years, and the other still to come (Romans 16:20)

 

And speaking of Romans 16:20 (which you ignored), this is also another passage that uses the term "shortly" and it is clear that that event has not occurred yet because Satan has not been bruised under our feet.

 

What is the meaning of that verse? Why did Paul use "shortly" when writing to the Roman Christians, if the event was distant future, & nothing to do with his readers? Is the event something that was prophesied to take place "shortly" in their lifetime. If it is, then it is the destruction of the great enemies of the Gospel - the Jews who opposed them at every turn.

 

Note that there was a time interval between Jesus' defeat of Satan at Calvary, & the destruction of those who rejected both Jesus & the Apostolic Gospel. God IS gracious & longsuffering. See Heb. 3 & 2 Pet. 3.

 

While the temple existed, the rituals of the Old Covenant continued, with an obvious rival claim to the New Covenant Gospel. The Gospel claim was that the OC prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, & the OC Jews were opposing the God they claimed to worship. Moreover, they persuaded the Gentiles to persecute Christians:

1 Thes. 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

17 But we, brethren, being taken from you for a short time in presence, not in heart, endeavoured the more abundantly to see your face with great desire.

18 Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us.

19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?

20 For ye are our glory and joy.

It would shortly be apparent to all that these enemies, the Jews, would be disowned by the God they claimed all rights to. These agents of Satan would shortly be crushed, spiritually under their feet. I cautiously suggest that this relates to the binding of Satan in Rev. 20, (AD 70) as with Satan bound the Gospel would go out to the nations unhindered by Jesus' Satanic rivals. That did not mean a millennium of perfect peace with no persecution - martyrs are still suffering & John sees their SOULS living with Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Habakkuk 3:11-13

11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.

12 Thou didst march through the land in indignation, thou didst thresh the heathen in anger.

13 Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed(((Saints))); thou woundedst the head out of the house of the wicked, by discovering the foundation unto the neck. Selah. 1

 

The context of Habakkuk is the warning of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. In Hab. 3, he is expressing his confidence in God (the just shall live by faith) & is remembering the PAST works of God for his people. The sun DID stand still for Joshua. That chapter has NOTHING to do with "end times" but everything to do with maintaining our confidence - our joy in the LORD in times of trouble. Most of the prayer is referring in the past tense to events of the exodus & settlement.

 

O Lord, I have heard thy speech, and was afraid: O Lord, revive thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of the years make known; in wrath remember mercy.

God came from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens, and the earth was full of his praise.

.....

17 Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls:

18 Yet I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.

19 The Lord God is my strength, and he will make my feet like hinds' feet, and he will make me to walk upon mine high places. To the chief singer on my stringed instruments.

 

 

Covenanter,

 

The kingdom of antichrist is Babylon and it will be destroyed in Revelation 16:19 at the time of the 7th vial. Notice that the Lord will come with his anoited saints to save Israel. At the time of the first Babylon attack, God was for Babylon.

 

Habakkuk 3:11-13

11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.

12 Thou didst march through the land in indignation, thou didst thresh the heathen in anger.

13 Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, even for salvation with thine anointed(((Saints))); thou woundedst the head out of the house of the wicked, by discovering the foundation unto the neck. Selah. 1

 

Habakkuk 2:2-5

2 And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it.

 3For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.

 

 

4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.

 

5 Yea also, because he(((666))) transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and is as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people:

Edited by Eric Stahl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James:

If you are claiming that a late date for Revelation does not refute the the AD 70 view of the Olivet Discourse, then you can not claim that any part of Revelation is synonymous with Matthew 24. But the fact is is that Preterist, Covenant and Historicists alike all refer to Revelation as supplemental events to Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. They have to because there would be no possible way to explain the events of Revelation being fulfilled between AD 70 and AD 95.

You've misunderstood. Mat. 24 & Jesus related prophecies clearly refer to the AD 70 destruction. The date of Revelation does not affect that. However, The time indicators in Rev. 1 show that the prophecy is for the blessing of he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. That statement precludes any yet future "end times" fulfilment. The end times the Apostles were concerned about were completed with the end of all the "trappings" of the old covenant which Jesus prophesied on Olivet.

 

You seem to be challenging Preterist, Covenant and Historicists but these "systems" of understanding Scripture are all valid as they seek to apply the Scripture to real people, not an invented dispensational future.

 

I'll ask about Covenant theology versus dispensational theology.

 

"Covenant" occurs over 300 times in Scripture, & the whole Bible is divided into two testaments covenants, old & new. "Dispensation" is used only once in a time sense, only in reference to a future, glorious age. Covenant theology is therefore vital in understanding Scripture.

Heb. 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

 

 

Edited by Covenanter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comments in red

So basically the scripture really don´t say what they say, but mean what you want them to mean. Wow. Every argument of yours is a denial of simple English.

 

I´m good., please do not respond. Not looking to argue with you, only noticing that you often say, Earth can mean this, nations can mean this, but apparently they don´t mean every eye or nation like we really mean every eye and nations...??

 

So in the final analysis, to take your position, I must accept your views as authoritative and look to you for what the word nations really means or what the word Earth really means or any other such text.... wow is all I can say.

 

Wow... (shaking head)

 

God bless,

calvary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically the scripture really don´t say what they say, but mean what you want them to mean. Wow. Every argument of yours is a denial of simple English.

 

I´m good., please do not respond. Not looking to argue with you, only noticing that you often say, Earth can mean this, nations can mean this, but apparently they don´t mean every eye or nation like we really mean every eye and nations...??

 

So in the final analysis, to take your position, I must accept your views as authoritative and look to you for what the word nations really means or what the word Earth really means or any other such text.... wow is all I can say.

 

Wow... (shaking head)

 

God bless,

calvary

Hey bro! You still laboring in Mexico?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've misunderstood. Mat. 24 & Jesus related prophecies clearly refer to the AD 70 destruction. The date of Revelation does not affect that. However, The time indicators in Rev. 1 show that the prophecy is for the blessing of he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand. That statement precludes any yet future "end times" fulfilment. The end times the Apostles were concerned about were completed with the end of all the "trappings" of the old covenant which Jesus prophesied on Olivet.

 

You seem to be challenging Preterist, Covenant and Historicists but these "systems" of understanding Scripture are all valid as they seek to apply the Scripture to real people, not an invented dispensational future.

 

I'll ask about Covenant theology versus dispensational theology.

 

"Covenant" occurs over 300 times in Scripture, & the whole Bible is divided into two testaments covenants, old & new. "Dispensation" is used only once in a time sense, only in reference to a future, glorious age. Covenant theology is therefore vital in understanding Scripture.

 

Heb. 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

 

 

 

You still haven't responded to all the evidence I gave that shows that Matt 24 is yet future, and how that it does not apply to AD 70 completely.

 

If the statements of John implied that all of Revelation "precludes any future 'end time' fulfillment", then that means Jesus is never coming back. But, if you claim that the end of Revelation is yet to occur, then you are back at square one with reconciling Rev 1:4 and 22:6 not to mention  to divide Revelation as such would be dispensational! Other than that, you would be forced to take the Catholic Dominion or Kingdom Now theology which says that Jesus is ruling right here and now, and considering Israel doesn't even have total control over Jerusalem as its own capitol let alone any evidence that the world is being ruled from there, you'd be hard-pressed to prove that Jesus is currently ruling.

 

Just because the word "covenant" appears in the scripture does not mean that it was intended to be used as a device for interpreting the Bible (anymore than the appearance of the word dispensation which opponents of dispensational interpretation wrongfully attribute as a system of theology rather than a rule of hermenuetics). Dispensational interpretation does not rely on it's method of rightly dividing scripture based on the appearance of the word 'dispensation' in Ephesians, it uses the term dispensation because it is descriptive on the proper method of interpretating the various economies throughout the Bible.

 

However, your own usage of covenant defies your own beliefs against dispensational interpretation. For Covenant Theology attempts to interpret the Bible based upon the various covenants throughout Scripture whether the Abrahamic Covenant, Davadic Covenant, or the New Testament Covenant. Covenant Theology may have different conclusions about the fulfillment of prophecies and interpretations of events, but their manner of applying the covenants to those interpretations is still dispensational. 

 

You may claim to oppose the futurist interpretation of prophecy, but your claims against dispensationalism are in conflict with your own methods of applying Covenant Theology to the scriptures.

Edited by Dr James Ach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

 

 

 

 



James, I note you accept the ambiguity of Irenaeus' quotation:

No problem, here's what Iraneus said:

 

"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 Revelation. For (‘he’ [John] or ‘it’ [Revelation]) was seen  not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3.)

 

.....it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ‘he’ was seen  not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian."

 

"He" follows logically from "him who beheld."

 

Obviously if the name of antichrist were known or knowable at that time, but kept secret by the cryptic reference, the antichrist prophecy (only in 1 John) then it's a prophecy for the time, not the distant future. Especially as:

18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

 

By "contemporary" I obviously meant historians who recorded the events of the destruction.

 

You use :20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen. to prove time texts in Scripture are meaningless:

The Bible also spoke of the coming of Christ in and bruising of Satan's head in Genesis, one event which did not happen for 4000 years, and the other still to come (Romans 16:20)

 

And speaking of Romans 16:20 (which you ignored), this is also another passage that uses the term "shortly" and it is clear that that event has not occurred yet because Satan has not been bruised under our feet.

 

What is the meaning of that verse? Why did Paul use "shortly" when writing to the Roman Christians, if the event was distant future, & nothing to do with his readers? Is the event something that was prophesied to take place "shortly" in their lifetime. If it is, then it is the destruction of the great enemies of the Gospel - the Jews who opposed them at every turn.

 

Note that there was a time interval between Jesus' defeat of Satan at Calvary, & the destruction of those who rejected both Jesus & the Apostolic Gospel. God IS gracious & longsuffering. See Heb. 3 & 2 Pet. 3.

 

While the temple existed, the rituals of the Old Covenant continued, with an obvious rival claim to the New Covenant Gospel. The Gospel claim was that the OC prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, & the OC Jews were opposing the God they claimed to worship. Moreover, they persuaded the Gentiles to persecute Christians:

1 Thes. 2:14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:

15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

17 But we, brethren, being taken from you for a short time in presence, not in heart, endeavoured the more abundantly to see your face with great desire.

18 Wherefore we would have come unto you, even I Paul, once and again; but Satan hindered us.

19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?

20 For ye are our glory and joy.

 

It would shortly be apparent to all that these enemies, the Jews, would be disowned by the God they claimed all rights to. These agents of Satan would shortly be crushed, spiritually under their feet. I cautiously suggest that this relates to the binding of Satan in Rev. 20, (AD 70) as with Satan bound the Gospel would go out to the nations unhindered by Jesus' Satanic rivals. That did not mean a millennium of perfect peace with no persecution - martyrs are still suffering & John sees their SOULS living with Christ.

Where at in the Olivet Discourse is the "binding of Satan" mentioned? Nowhere. Furthermore, Revelation makes it clear that when this happens, it lasts for 1000 years. Revelation 20:2. It would be very hard to reconcile how Satan was bound, and yet the worst period in history for persecution of believers occurred during the Dark Ages under Rome.

 

This also presents another problem, because the beast and the false prophet were put in the lake of fire BEFORE Satan is bound. Revelation 19:20. Thus, if Satan was not bound until AD 70, then how the did the beast and false prophet conduct the attacks on Jerusalem when the Bible says they were cast into the lake of fire before Satan was bound?!

 

There were several claims that you made, in which I responded to that went completely unanswered in  thus I am not going to piecemeal arguements that splinter off into new strawmen debates that leave the former questions unanswered.

Edited by Dr James Ach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all,

 

The two-edged swords will cause real bleeding!

 

Revelation 14:14-20

14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

 16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.

19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all,

The two-edged swords will cause real bleeding!

Revelation 14:14-20
14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.
15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.
16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.
17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.
18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.
20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.


Yes they will.

But please point out where this passage mentions a two-edged sword?

And the passage you quote here has the blood running after an ANGEL puts in his SICKLE.

not believers with swords.


Not that believers don't use swords, just not in this passage. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further discussion will be futile.

I disagree. I would think that their are many who do not have a clear understanding of the various interpretations presented here (myself included) and wouuld benefit from getting all the questions posed, answered. Dr. James again asked very pertinent questions/statements in posts # 67 and #68 that would seem to shake the preterist view. I would think that the only reason further discussion would be futile is because you have no answer to those questions/statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To all,

 

The two-edged swords will cause real bleeding!

 

 

Revelation 14:14-20

14 And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle.

15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud, Thrust in thy sickle, and reap: for the time is come for thee to reap; for the harvest of the earth is ripe.

 16 And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.

17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, he also having a sharp sickle.

18 And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.

19 And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.

20 And the winepress was trodden without the city, and blood came out of the winepress, even unto the horse bridles, by the space of a thousand and six hundred furlongs.

I would have no problem with the text saying a 2 edged sword, there is certainly precedent for using it as such, but we must keep the word of God in context because for whatever reason, God did not spell it out the way that you are explaining this.

 

Revelation 14 says that the sickle was used to gather the vines, but verse 20 tells you why blood came out of the winepress: because the grapes were trodden. 

 

If you have studied how wine was made in the winepresses, they gathered clusters of grapes and put them in one area and then the grapes were stomped on. This is also the meaning behind Romans 16:20, "And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly".

 

It is certainly possible that it could be both; Christ slaying them with His word, and us "trampling out the vintage", but it is Christ that uses the word, and us doing the stomping. Whatever is coming from the mouth of Christ is something that Christ has specifically prepared from Him to Satan for that occasion. 

 

We are still participating in the marriage supper of the Lamb which includes being part of the slaughter of the heathen. As long as Jesus Christ gets the credit for His part in it, I don't think it is really necessary to debate how anyone carries out any collateral damage.

Edited by Dr James Ach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. I would think that their are many who do not have a clear understanding of the various interpretations presented here (myself included) and wouuld benefit from getting all the questions posed, answered. Dr. James again asked very pertinent questions/statements in posts # 67 and #68 that would seem to shake the preterist view. I would think that the only reason further discussion would be futile is because you have no answer to those questions/statements.

While some such discussions do fall into the futile category, I do like reading and studying the differing viewponts on these matters. It helps to hear each sides view put forth and then read the questions, answers and rebuttals which follow.

 

There are some who claim their view on the matter is 100% solid, but so far I've not seen anyone who can put forth any view at 100%. There are holes, gaps and some varying possibilities involved that seem to make 100% impossible to achieve.

 

That said, I do believe one or two views come far closer to 100% than the others. Even so, I keep in mind how certain most Jews were, including the religious leaders, as to who the coming Messiah would be, what He would do, and how He would go about things. As it turned out, most were very wrong.

 

The main point of the fact Jesus will be returning soon should be as motivation for each of us to pursue growing in Christ and being about the Father's business as if we may be with Him today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 30 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...