1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Continuing the eschatology

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by prophecy70, Oct 11, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. prophecy70

    prophecy70 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2017
    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    79
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I believe jesus came In judgement in AD 70. Thats what the whole topic was about the apostate jews. To read anything else into that is taking it to far. God came on the clouds many times in the OT. This generation will not pass.. You can't take one use of generation and say it means something else, when the rest of the whole time he spoke he was talking about the present generation. Why in one verse just to fit your view does the word change? Every eye is literal but generation is something else?

    Jesus prediction was right. The world saw the SIGN of the son of man in the heaven, and the "whole world" saw the coming of Jesus in judgement on Jerusalem.. No SCIFI Horses and meteors, no Beasts. No StarWars type stuff, It hasn't happened before it won't happen in the future.

    Futurists have been spreading the same stuff for years, and all have failed. And the books they write are ridiculous, ufos, armageddon, the birth of Israel, rapture to happen before 1988. Its all lunacy. Its why there is a book out called "why I'm not a Christian". Its preconceived knowledge to fit a understanding. I was there once, have all the left behind movies, all the books. It was interesting to me because I was into that SCIFI stuff. Until I realized wow, unless I believe the antichrist in Daniel 9:27, it really does not say that. Even the K&D commentary admits that clearly.

    I feel a lot better now, knowing Jesus is already victorious, we don't need to wait until Hell on earth is unleashed for him to win, he already did, satan is powerless against us.

    Im not a newspaper christian anymore, waiting for a firecracker to go off in the middle east, and getting the Bible out saying here it is. Its been like that since futurism was around.

    No one is going to convince me otherwise, just like I won't convince you otherwise. But we can still continue the conversations, Even if my lack of earthy "degrees" is questioned. Since being on here Ive learned more then I have in a long time. So thank you all, Even JOJ for the commentary that fits my view :)


    So please by all means, someone else get a topic/verse going to discuss. I don't want my uneducated Millennial problems (right JOJ?) to get in the way here. And for heaven sake, please don't let this topic be 38 posts of how to define star, or it will be 38 posts on the history of the western wall, and how it was not the western wall of the temple. :Wink
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  2. JoChris

    JoChris New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
  3. prophecy70

    prophecy70 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2017
    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    79
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Oh no, I am not a hyperpreterist, I believe in the final resurrection, Im not even sure on my position on revelations. Im leaning preterist, but historicism makes good points as well. But thanks for your concernment. (honestly not sarcastically) I can guarantee I do not support hyperpreterism. The most of my concernment was the Olivet discourse, I believe thats all in the past yes.
     
  4. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,802
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    IMO, what it comes down to is just how factual does one take Revelation? If there is any book specific about the end, it is that book.

    All of John’s other writings show word choice was very specific, and purpose carefully thought through.

    Why some do not hold John’s writing to that same standard in Revelation is puzzling.

    If anything, at least the Second coming and millennium are literal, and there is no historical anecdotal evidence of such already having happened.
     
  5. robycop3

    robycop3 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    8,154
    Likes Received:
    36
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The ONLY return Jesus mentioned is His coming back in great power and glory, seen by all, when He comes to take over David's throne & rule the world. The only prophetic things that happened in 70 AD was the destruction of J & the temple. The rest of the eschatological events have simply not yet happened.

    Yes, Jesus is with us SPIRITUALLY, as He said that wherever/whenever two or more are gathered in His name, He will be there. But that's NOT His prophesied return, of course.

    Again, there are NO SUBSTITUTES for the actual occurrences of the prophesied events themselves, and it's very-obvious they have NOT yet happened!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. JoChris

    JoChris New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Perhaps you do not believe you have that belief system.

    However to my understanding Hyperpreterism is the end destination of believing prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD.
     
  7. prophecy70

    prophecy70 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2017
    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    79
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A quick Google search will show that's incorrect.

    Full preterism differs from partial preterism in that full preterists believe that the destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled all eschatological or "end times" events, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming, or Parousia, and the Final Judgment.

    I do not believe the ressurection happened yet obviously.
     
  8. prophecy70

    prophecy70 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2017
    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    79
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I am amillennial


    Read your PM and get back to me.
     
  9. Covenanter

    Covenanter Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2017
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    159
    Faith:
    Baptist
    From the previous thread -

    As the events prophesied in Revelation must shortly come to pass .... for the time is at hand, & are for the blessing of those who read, hear & keep what is written, the probability is that the prophecy concerns the AD 70 destruction, & the events prophesied occurred during the siege.

    Stars/meteors & massive hail stones could refer to the projectiles & sling stones thrown by the Romans. Also a plague of hail, as against the Egyptians, falling on Egypt but not Goshen.

    You've been discussing the 6th seal, & we need to bear in mind that Jesus has been opening the seals, as it were a video picture book, showing the days of vengeance prophesied by the Lord.

    When we realise that the prophecy concerns the LAND (of Israel) rather than the whole earth (same word in Greek, understood by context) the scale of the judgments, deaths, etc, is local.

    Ezekiel prophesied in 14:21-23
    21 For thus says the Lord God: “How much more it shall be when I send My four severe judgments on Jerusalem—the sword and famine and wild beasts and pestilence—to cut off man and beast from it? 22 Yet behold, there shall be left in it a remnant who will be brought out .....
    which compares with Revelation 6:8
    8 So I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him. And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth.

    The remnant who will be brought out would refer to the redeemed 144,000 firstfruits who were sealed before the angels released the four winds.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    13,538
    Likes Received:
    515
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Please answer the question I asked on the other thread, which no preterist has ever answered for me. If all of the prophecies of Christ's first coming, the incarnation, were fulfilled literally (Bethlehem house of David, etc.), why must the prophecies of the 2nd Coming be fulfilled "spiritually"?

    And another question I asked that was never answered: where is the evidence that Jesus came in AD 70? Give one single quote from an early Christian which says so. Otherwise you, along with other preterists, are making up things.
    You would be much more convincing if you quit reading junk theology such as what you've mentioned, and read serious stuff from the premil side: Things to Come by Pentecost, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy by J. Barton Payne (historical premil), Dispensationalism by Ryrie, Revelation by Walvoord, and other important works.

    Simply because you never went to college does not mean you cannot get a serious education in eschatology through self study, something you've not yet done.
    And though you deny it, all scholars agree that futurism has been around since the first centuries of Christianity. "Even so, come, Lord Jesus."

    So much for the claim that you're here to learn. :Rolleyes

    Again, you sadly misinterpret my mention of degrees. I nowhere attacked you for your lack of degrees. I have known some great Christians with only a high school diploma. My point (and that of Dr. Cassidy) was to give credence to my position as one that is well thought out and valid, just as Paul did when he disclosed to a Jewish audience his training under Gamaliel, the greatest scholar of the Jewish law of the whole first century (Acts 22:5).

    And for the record, Keil and Delitzsch were not preterists, so you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented their position.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    13,538
    Likes Received:
    515
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Then declare plainly that you believe that Jesus will bodily come to earth in the future. You have never yet done this. If you do not believe in a future, physical Second Coming of Christ, you are a full preterist, a hyper preterist.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    17,031
    Likes Received:
    2,585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    J. Barton Payne's "Theology of the Older Testament" was our primary textbook for OT Theology when I was working on my Th.M. It was what started me thinking about Dispensational Theology and nudged me more toward Historic Premillennialism as opposed to Dispensational Premillennialism. But I am sure you will forgive him for that, :D

    PS, the man was a prolific writer. He published dozens of works, not one of which was a "pop psychology" exercise in shallowness. At least three that I know of were published in "Bibliotheca Sacra" (The publishing Journal for Dallas Theological Seminary) and at least ten were published in the "Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society."

    Of great interest as it pertains to this discussion is "The Goal of Daniel's Seventy Weeks" as published in the Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society. It can be found here:

    http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/21/21-2/21-2-pp097-115_JETS.pdf
     
  13. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,802
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Part of the problem must be about WHEN John wrote the Revelation.

    The isolation to Patmos probably ended with the emperor change in 96 AD. At that time, John would have been able to deliver the letter to the seven churchs which took it throughout the empire.

    John lived to nearly the turn of the first century. He is the only Apostle that died of natural causes and one can visit his grave in Ephesus.

    There is no account that John was caught up into the air to return in perfect new body to the earth prior to his death.

    Polycarp, one of John’s disciples and took over the Ephesian church when John died, lived nearly as long as John, which takes the church to the middle of the 150’s AD. He was martyred in 155 AD.

    Now, if the Lord had returned, wouldn’t both John and Polycarp, who was most certainly pre-millennial as were nearly all earliest church members, been aware of it, and stated so?

    Not a single writer expresses the Lord returned.

    Even the oldest known written account in her own hand of a woman martyr (diary of Perpetua murdered in 202-3 in Carthage) shows the Lord did not return.

    The preterist scheme fails to present the whole truth, and relies upon manipulation of dates that were not in dispute by the earliest students of the apostles.

    How can they deny the facts of history?
     
  14. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    17,031
    Likes Received:
    2,585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Simple. The argument is not an argument of facts but an argument of emotion. They know what they know and refuse to be confused by the facts.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. asterisktom

    asterisktom Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,569
    Likes Received:
    89
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Prophecy70, for the most part I have agreed with your posts. I would suggest that the distinction between full and partial preterism is not quite as cut-and-dried as you quoted. For the most part, for instance, I would call myself Full Preterist (some here enjoy labeling it "hyper- or full-blown Preterist!). But I still believe there are future things. Most importantly, everyone living still has to meet God. That is necessarily future. Also I believe that what the seven thunders uttered most likely concerns events of the future.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  16. asterisktom

    asterisktom Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,569
    Likes Received:
    89
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Talk about a loaded question.

    Even a cursory examination of the subject of dating Revelation (which I doubt you have done) would show that many people have dated that book in the 60s (The church historian Schaff, to name just one). The other Christian writers like Clement of Rome and the writer/s of the Didache were also pre-Parousia - that is before the events of Revelation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    17,031
    Likes Received:
    2,585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes, even a cursory examination of the subject would show that
    Irenaeus a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30).

    Clement of Alexandria

    Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

    Moses Stuart

    Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

    Victorinus

    Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

    When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

    Jerome

    Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said, "In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse" (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  18. asterisktom

    asterisktom Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    2,569
    Likes Received:
    89
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Why must the return of Christ have to accommodate to your understanding, John? How many times have we read in the NT about the spiritual nature of the coming Kingdom (it doesn't come with observation, not eating and drinking but righteousness,peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, etc.)? First the natural, then the spiritual. (I'll let you find the references0

    This is another question that I have answered many times - and on this board too. And yet someone like you comes up and acts as if you shut our mouths. Here it is - again:
    1.Many of the supposedly post AD70 writers were actually preAD70 . Clement of Rome and the writer/s of the Didache come on this category.

    Besides, I am not sure what you would accept as evidence.

    2. There were a couple writers who did say He came then. If I thought you actually either (a) cared or (b) will remember it then I will dig that file up in its entirety and share it with you.


    "Don't read that junk. Read our junk!" Let's focus on the Bible, shall we and not rely on Drs. XYZ.

    Much of the problem of modern Christianity is that we really too much on Bible commentaries and not enough on the Bible itself. At the very least, when we read all these "helps" (with or without quotes) we should be wide-ranging in our study, considering the insight from various ages and backgrounds of Christianity - not just the last century or two. I know for a matter of fact that much of what I believe I believed late in life merely because I was not aware of other options. You read those folks you quote above and you will get basically minor variations on the same narrow eschatological bandwidth.

    And a wrong one at that.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    5,802
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The writing took place on Patmos, that is fact.

    John was exiled to Patmos just prior to his death in Ephesus, that is fact.

    The emperor change occurred in approximately 96AD, that is fact.

    Neither John or the writings of Polycarp embrace the preterist scheme of the Lord having returned, that is fact.

    Those historical facts alone would show the failure of such thinking that the full preterist folk hold.

    Yet, preterist thinking persist in ignoring history trying to invent an alternate set of undocumented and non-documentable “facts” to bolster there view.

    It is the same with all false views.

    Does not Scripture declare that two angles stood by as the crowd gathered watching the Lord ascend into the clouds?

    Did they not say, “what are you doing standing around here looking up? This same Jesus is coming back just as He was taken up (in physical form). Get on now, you got a job to do.” (Agedman’s paraphrased version).
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. kyredneck

    kyredneck Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    11,538
    Likes Received:
    515
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "....Those who support the “late” date of its writing (92-96 A.D.) seem to base their belief on the grounds of a solitary quote of Irenaeus who lived from 125-202 A.D. The late Foy E. Wallace Jr. (who supported the “early” date of its writing), in his book titled, “The Book of Revelation,” quotes that statement by Irenaeus. It reads as follows:

    “If it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the Apocalypse; for it was not a great while ago that (it or he-emphasis by FEW) was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian’s reign,” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3, quoted in, The Book of Revelation, Foy E. Wallace Jr., p. 25).

    As we can see here, the key phrase in Irenaeus’ statement is, “that was seen!” The question then becomes: Was it 'he' (John?) or 'it' (Revelation?) that was seen? In the

    English, it could be either one! Then there other scholars who comment on both Irenaeus and also his statement:

    D. Ragan Ewing writes:
    “The difficulty arises in Irenaeus’ statement, as translated, “… that was seen …” The Greek text simply reads eJwravqh. The subject of the statement is simply subsumed in the verb, and there is therefore no grammatical indicator as to the referent; it could be the Apocalypse, or it could be John himself. In other words, the English could just as easily be, “… he was seen …”

    Ewing further writes:
    “Nevertheless, there remains another problem with the Irenaean witness. To what extent are we to take as trustworthy Irenaeus’ historical claimsIn one place he portrays James the Apostle as the same person as the brother of the Lord, and in another, he astonishingly informs us that Jesus lived to be between forty and fifty years old! Lapses like these have understandably led to assessments such as Guthrie’s caution that Irenaeus’ historical method is “uncritical,” as well as Moffatt’s comment, “Irenaeus, of course, is no great authority by himself on matters chronological.” Such being the case, should we really place the great confidence in this testimony that many scholars have?”

    Kenneth Gentry quoting Irenaeus:
    Irenaeus said of the age of Jesus, “but the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness…” (Quoted in Before Jerusalem Fell, Kenneth L. Gentry, p. 63) Can we trust the testimony of a man that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died? Yet, it is largely his testimony alone, for the latter date!

    Burton Coffman writes:
    His (Eusebius’) quotation (of Irenaeus’ statement) does not even mention “the writing” of Revelation, but refers solely to the time when certain unnamed persons are alleged to have seen either the apostle or the prophecy, nobody knows which. This proves nothing. Besides that: If he meant the Apocalypse was seen, and if it had been originally composed in quotation, could have reference to the Greek translation, if indeed it referred to the Revelation at all. There goes the whole case for the latter date,” (Commentary on Revelation, Burton Coffman, p 4).

    William Bell writes:
    “Concerning the above statement (Irenaeus’ statement), scholars have long recognized that it is not possible to determine whether Irenaeus meant to say John was seen by Irenaeus’ tutor, Polycarp, or that “the Apocalypse” was seen toward the end of Domitian’s reign. Such ambiguity destroys this argument as evidence. Even Eusebius, who recorded this statement, doubted that John, the apostle, even wrote the book of Revelation. The point here is this, if the statement was not strong enough to convince Eusebius that John even wrote Revelation, why do so many think today that it is strong enough to convince one that the apostle saw it (the Apocalypse) during Domitian’s reign (A.D. 95)? It is weak to say the least.”

    Finally, is support of the “early” day of the Apocalypse, are the words of Robert Young, author of “Young’s Analytical concordance of the New Testament,” and “Young’s Literal Translation of the Holy Bible.” In his remarks, you will see that he contends that a mistake has been made on the part of other early writers who quote Irenaeus’ statement. As you will see, it is his belief that the other early writers actually (mis)quote Irenaeus as to the name of the Roman Emperor who was ruling at the time of his statement, and succeeding writer simply followed their lead!

    Robert Young (late 1800s) writes:
    "It was written in Patmos about A.D.68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the Book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus (A.D.175), who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou, ie., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius Severus, Orosius, &c., stupidly mistaking Domitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the earlier date." (Concise Critical Comments on the Holy Bible, by Robert Young. Published by Pickering and Inglis, London and Glasgow, (no date), Page 179 of the "New Covenant" section. See also: Young's Concise Critical Bible Commmentary, Baker Book House, March 1977, ISBN: 0-8010-9914-5, pg 178.)..."

    The Dating of Revelation: Guest Article
     
    #20 kyredneck, Oct 12, 2017
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017
    • Winner Winner x 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...