Featured Some Objections to AD70 Rapture Answered

No. The whole world - all seven continents - were not involved. in that judgment.

Another issue. I had answered your post concerning historical backing for an early date for Revelation but received no response, either from you or John of Japan. It is post 55.

 

What I should do maybe is just write to your Thomas Ice and leave you out, seeing that you apparently do not have an answer to my post.

BTW, I am very familiar with TI. I wanted an answer from you about the comments concerning Papias. Thomas Ice did not even mention Papias. Why not? Presumably because it does not fit his narrative.

 

Sorry. I seem to have overlooked this, John. It is on page 653 of his first volume, 3rd edition. Here is an excerpt:

THE TIME OF COMPOSITION.

The traditional date of composition at the end of Domitian’s reign (95 or
96) rests on the clear and weighty testimony of Irenaeus, is confirmed by
Eusebius and Jerome, and has still its learned defenders,1257 but the internal

evidence strongly favors an earlier date between the death of Nero (June 9,
68) and the destruction of Jerusalem (August 10, 70).1258 This helps us at

the same time more easily to explain the difference between the fiery
energy of the Apocalypse and the calm repose of the fourth Gospel, which
was composed in extreme old age."

Now notice (and this is where I would disagree, of course) Schaff goes on to say that he also wrote the Gospel "in extreme old age. I am convinced that, on that latter point, Schaff is overly swayed by tradition, by external and much later sources, ignoring internal evidence. Judging by his comments in his history he was especially influenced on this point by adherents of the Tübingen School. An interesting verse is John 5:2.

"Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes."

He uses the present tense, as if the pool was still there. But the gate and pool were both demolished in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Some had said that John was using dramatic present, as if to make the scene more vivid to his readers. But this is unlikely because all of the other parts of the tale - that would have well lent themselves to such a device - were left in the past tense. It makes much more sense that John was describing a part of Jerusalem, gate and pool, that still existed. And this points to a pre-70 AD date for his Gospel.

1257 The great majority of older commentators, and among the recent ones Elliott, Alford, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Lange, Hofmann, Godet, Lee,
Milligan, and Warfield (in Schaff’s “Encycl.” III. 2035). I myself
formerly advocated the later date, in the Hist. of the Ap. Church
(1853), pp. 418 sqq

1258 The early date is advocated or accepted by Neander, Lücke, Bleek, Ewald, DeWette, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, Düsterdieck, Renan, Aubé,
Stuart, Davidson, Cowles, Bishop Lightfoot, Westcott, Holtzmann,
Weiss; and among earlier writers by Alcasar, Grotius, Hammond,
Abauzit, and John Lightfoot

 

You really ought to read more about Papias before you comment further. And you won't get it from Ice.

 

Fair enough.

 

The Scripture is in there, alluded to but not directly cited.

"Pap. 6:3 For Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, who had seen him with his own eyes, claims in the
second book of the Sayings of the Lord that John was killed by Jews, thus clearly fulfilling,
together with his brother, Christ’s prophecy concerning them and their own confession and
agreement about this.
Pap. 6:4 For when the Lord said to them, “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?” and they
eagerly assented and agreed, he said: “You will drink my cup and will be baptized with the
baptism with which I am baptized.” "

Matthew 20:22-24:
22Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers.

See also Mark 10:39

 

What kind of evidence are you looking for? What evidence there is would not convince you. The actual phenomena around this event are well documented by Josephus, Taciitus, and others. I already explained earlier why the actual rapture would not be reported. And those who understood best what was happening, the living Christians, were taken away.

Which do you value more: Scripture or fallible history? I have already given Scriptural evidence that should have been sufficient. What contemporary historical proof do we have - outside the Bible - for the resurrection of Christ? None. Yet we believe it on the basis of the Word of God.

 

Who would that be. Some versions of Joseph allude to this, but not found in more correct recensions.