Dating Revelation

I agree too. Shame on Tim Lehaye and Hal Lyndsey...

Joseph Botwinick

 

I think the problem is that you are conflating thing. "Soon" refers to the Rapture. There is nothing that has to happen before then, even the destruction of Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem had to happen, but not to allow the rapture. Therefore, it was not an "intervening event." That's not dismissive; it is an explanation that is confusing to you because of your insistence that the second coming and the rapture are the same thing when indeed they are not.

For the sake of this discussion, you don't have to agree with my position on the rapture and second coming, but place yourself in my shoes with regard to this topic. Then you should be able to see why there is nothing that has to happen for the rapture, even though the destruction of Jerusalem had not yet happened.


[qutoe]To simplify it as a logic problem:

Prophecy A: Jerusalem will be destroyed

Prophecy B: The "rapture" could happen at any time with no need for any further prophecies to be fulfilled.

Conclusion: Until Jerusalem was destroyed, Prophecy A still needed to be fulfilled, so Prophecy B had to be written AFTER Prophecy A was fulfilled.[/quote]The problem is that prophecy B does not have reference or relation to prophecy A.

Either that or don't conflate things that Scripture separates ... Seriously, your hang up is your failure to separate the rapture from the second coming. That distinction removes this problem.

 

Pastor Larry,
It is the historical context of scripture that causes your definition of "soon" to be illogical, it doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs.

Before 60 AD, James wrote that the Lord was coming in judgment soon. Yet certainly he was aware that the Lord gave instructions for Christians when Jerusalem was being surrounded by the armies of Rome(Luke 21:20,21). So obviously the Christians couldn't be "raptured" until AFTER that event had taken place. Otherwise, that prophecy and warning given by Christ would be meaningless. That was an "intervening event". It related because it was scheduled on God's timetable and it involved Christians--they had to be there.

So we are left with the question, what did James' prophecy of a soon coming mean? You say He didn't mean soon in the normal sense of the word. I proven that he couldn't mean that no other events awaited fufillment first. So what definition for "soon" ("draws near" in James5:8) can there be that is not entirely misleading?

I can't believe that God's Spirit would allow the writers of scripture to mislead their readers so. How does that verse go?--"Fool me once, shame on you . . . "(Hezekiah 16:7). God isn't in the business of fooling us, in order to test us.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Tim,

You just don't get it yet. I hope you will continue to study and put these notions behind you. They are not problems. I don't have the time to participate here right now in this discussion. These problems have been worked through so many times and shown to be non-issues for our position. It is a topic of great interest to many and people have been told things that simply are not true. They just never bothered to really check them out. I believe this is true on all sides of this discussion. I have found the explanations of the "problems" to be satisfactory to my conscience. Perhaps if there is time later, I will return to this. Right now, I have other pressing matters. Please forgive me.

the simple answer, at face value of the text, is that the "coming in judgment" did not have to wait until after the destruction of Jerusalem. That could have been the "coming in judgment" and in fact, the preterists believe this to be the case. (I don't for numerous reasons.) And pretribs, contrary to some people's delusions, do not deny that there will be Christians on the earth during the Tribulation. The Bible is clear that there will be. What we believe is that those Christians are saved after the Rapture since all Christians prior to the Rapture are a part of the church which has been taken out in accord with the teaching of Scripture. In other words, you keep reading the destruction of Jerusalem into all these passages when it is necessary only to support your view, not to exegete the text. That is why I am not compelled to read the destruction into these passages.

 

Pastor Larry,

I appreciate the time you've spent on the discussion. Perhaps we've simply come to an impasse and will both have to bow out. But I honestly don't think you've fully understood my argument yet. It seems like you've switched gears in some of your responses--basically not staying consistently in the scriture-writer's historical context (James in the last few posts). Sometimes it seems you're reading these scriptures as if they were specifically written to our generation of Christians, rather than his (pre 70 AD) generation. The "rapture" could not have been imminent for them as long as prophecies remained to be fulfilled in which Christians would take a part. So he could not have intended such a definition for the "soon" terminology he used.

Anyway, I won't hold your commitment to other priorities against you. Blessings, Pastor Larry. I'm sure we'll cross paths (or should I say butt heads?) again!

In Christ,

Tim

 

The early date before AD 70 seems to be built on too few of sources. The later date of AD 90-98 during the time of Domitian seems to be the safest view. There seems to be widespread persecution of the Churches in Rev. 2-3 and the early date of Nero's reign the persecution seems to be primarily local. It is believed Domitian's persecution of the Church fits in better plus it is the opinion of many that the False Prophet in Revelation 13 represented the Emperor Cult that was known for it's sorcery, deception and persecution of Christianity during the later half of the 1st century.

 

Kiffin,
What are the sources for what you are saying? I would like to read it myself.

 

Date 2 Cor 12:1-5 and then go back 14 years and you will have the Revelation. (Rev 10:4) I believe with all my heart that Paul was writing about John and not doing a slick 'umble thang as some teach. Just because John wrote about last things doesn't mean he has to be the last to write.