Revelation.. replied by PreteristView @ Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:40:11 -0000

PreteristView — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:40:11 -0000

I still believe that the promises Christ made to His contemporaries and to that generation were fulfilled just as He said they were going to be.

I am still not entirely convinced that the revelation and vision he referenced were not about John. If you read the entire chapter, he goes on about his weaknesses and infirmities – it seems disjointed for he himself not to know details of his own vision and experience.

As for the rest…I haven’t heard any argument, as to why there is evidence for the prophecies of Revelation already being fulfilled.

Revelation.. replied by Arandur @ Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:09:37 -0000

Arandur — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 22:09:37 -0000

Sorry, Preterist. I wasn’t trying to say that this point about Paul was in contradiction to your interpretation of Revelation, just that I was taken aback by your timeline and the attribution of Paul’s vision to John instead. I do believe, though, that just as most OT prophecies related specific warnings to people of all times and outlined various aspects of human nature and historical patterns, so does Revelation. In that way, some prophecies apply many times.

I don’t think we’re really in disagreement about much, and I didn’t mean to come across so vehemently about Paul’s vision.

Revelation.. replied by PreteristView @ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:58:28 -0000

PreteristView — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:58:28 -0000

I have just researched four Bible commentaries that state that letter (2Corinthians 12:2) was written between 55-57 A.D.

While at this time I am not completely convinced that this revelation was solely given to him, or that it was not in regard to Revelation itself, it is a moot point, unless there is irrefutable evidence to show otherwise.

Revelation.. replied by PreteristView @ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:34:27 -0000

PreteristView — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:34:27 -0000

I have searched 5 different historical timelines and still not found one that is correlating with the other.

Revelation is very specific to that time. While the messages and lessons regarding evil, yes, they can be warnings to us all – but it does not apply as an actual prophecy given to this modern age.

Revelation was included because it was inspired, just as all the books in the compilation of the Bible are, unless you would argue about the book of Esther. Considering that the entire Bible is compiled of testimony of what has already taken place, why would Revelation be any different or not included?

The time line that I have found:

c.5 – Birth of Paul

15-20 School of Gamaliel

31 – a pharisee

32 – Present at Stephen’s stoning

33-34 – Persecutor

34 – Conversion on the Road to Damascus

34/35- Arabia

37 Returns to Damascus

37- Jerusalem

38 – Tarsus

And….

Where I obtained the dating of the year 37 was that the time line was including (2 Corinthians), and why I included the stipulation of whether the reference was correct or not.

I have yet to find an accurate time line for 2 Corinthians. If you have an on site time line, could you post it for me, please?

My library is still unpacked, and I cannot access my hard copy references at this time.

Even most historical time lines, as I stated previously, have a three year margin of error.

So, at this point – I am going to wait until I can find a more accurate resource regarding the historical timeline.

Regardless if whether or not Paul is referencing himself, or someone else as the man isn’t the only significant detail of the pre- 70 A.D. dating of Revelation as I posted above, but it does seem to a momentary error that you are capitalizing upon.

I will have time this weekend, hopefully to get my reference books out and will try to find a more accurate dating of life of Paul, but until then we can focus on the other points of Biblical reference I gave to as evidence to pre 70 A.D. reception of Revelation.

Revelation.. replied by Arandur @ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:57:14 -0000

Arandur — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:57:14 -0000

So we’re in more agreement than not so far about the meanings of the Bible.

The letters to the seven churches and other parts of Revelation can easily be taken as warnings to the rest of the faithful.

Why do you think Revelation was included in the Bible?

Do you still think 2 Corinthians was written in 39 AD, dating his spiritual experience to 25 AD, five years before Christ began his ministry?

Revelation.. replied by PreteristView @ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:20:54 -0000

PreteristView — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 03:20:54 -0000

Approximations…I thought that was rather clear, and the statement about whether or not the referred timeline was even correct.

There is a bout a three year differentiation, a margin of error in all the time lines. I already referenced what scholars stated as what they believed was Paul was speaking in third person out of humility…I would appreciate your presenting other Scriptures where speaking in third person about one’s self was common place.

Revelation reinforces that the Herodian temple was still standing, so there is no possibility of a post 70 A.D. reception.

I believe I already established in a previous discussion that there are multiple applications to Scripture. Literal, symbolic, prophetical, ethereal, apocryphal…figurative, etc..

However when dealing with a prophecy given to a specific generation it applies specifically to the generation it was given…Not to a generation over 2000+ years in the future, otherwise it would not have been a legitimate prophecy.

The prophecies of Christ, the prophecies of Daniel specified the number of generations or weeks in years until its fulfillment. There was no such specification with Revelation. With all other prophecies the seals were to be sealed until the time of their fulfillment but the prophecy in Revelation was told to remain unsealed for it was at hand.

Revelation.. replied by Arandur @ Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:36:30 -0000

Arandur — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:36:30 -0000

34 AD? 1 year after Christ’s death? I doubt. 2 Corinthians 5-6 years after Christ’s death? Again, I doubt. For one thing, by your own dates, this Revelation (ascribed normally to whatever John was exiled on Patmos while he was there, by his own words) would have occurred some 10 years before Christ even began his ministry. That’s obviously wrong.

I have 56 AD for 2 Corinthians, and either 70 AD or 96 AD for Revelation. Testimony of the early fathers tends to reinforce the latter.

“odd as it may be” that Paul referred to himself in the third person? That was common back then. I believe he has done it elsewhere. He does it out of humility, and to stress the otherworldliness of the experience.

“Revelation was a letter written specifically to the “Seven Churches of Asia” not modern Christians living over two thousand years in the future.”

One of the first principles of Biblical understanding is that there are usually many meanings, especially for the important things. What many Protestants and post-Protestants have gotten lost on is this idea of single interpretations of passages from the Bible, that only one can be true. The depth of Scripture suggests otherwise. It suggests that you can achieve greater understanding and know with more accuracy which interpretations are true by relying on a “Both-And” formula.

Revelation was both and initially referring to times at hand, AND giving guidance to future Christians. One simple proof of the latter is that it was included in the Bible canon, for all Christians of all times. For even the fulfillment of OT prophecies in the Jews’ time was not just to provide evidence that God fulfills prophecies, but to help them understand God better and how they ought to live. The same goes for Revelation.

Revelation.. replied by PreteristView @ Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:45:42 -0000

PreteristView — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:45:42 -0000

Since I realize that the interpretation of 2 Corinthians 12 has predominantly been agreed as Paul speaking of himself in third person – odd as it may be, I thought I would share some other significancies:

John was told that there would be another prophesy to be given:

Revelation 10:11
And he said unto me, Thous must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.

Revelation was a letter written specifically to the “Seven Churches of Asia” not modern Christians living over two thousand years in the future.

It was the Herodian temple referenced, and it was still standing:

Revelation 11:1-2
And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

“Nero was the “sixth king” that gave the order for Jerusalem to be destroyed. The order of the Roman emperors was as follows: 1. Julius Caesar, 2. Augustus, 3. Tiberius, 4. Gaius (Caligula), 5. Claudius, 6. Nero (54-68)”* _{Quote from Planet Preterist}

Revelation.. replied by PreteristView @ Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:53:44 -0000

PreteristView — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:53:44 -0000

Approximately 34 A.D. for his conversion. The account of 2 Corinthians (when it occurred) is set on a timeline of approximately 4-5 years after his conversion – If the sources are correct.

Revelation.. replied by Arandur @ Wed, 19 Dec 2007 06:49:23 -0000

Arandur — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 06:49:23 -0000

What date do you give for the writing of 2 Corinthians and the conversion of Saul?

Revelation.. replied by PreteristView @ Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:53:59 -0000

PreteristView — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:53:59 -0000

“Yeah, haven’t looked up the texts yet, sorry. I thought Paul was talking about himself, though, during that time after he was knocked off his horse and before he started preaching. I thought most Bibles assumed that in their footnotes and titling of Ch. 12.”

Yes, most scholars believe(d) that he was speaking about himself in third person, in humility, but fourteen years earlier was 11 years prior to his conversion. Would he himself be having visions and Revelations prior to his conversion? Since it was John received the knowledge of the Revelations of Christ, and since John was receiving from the angel during his time while sharing the Gospel, healing, and being witness during Saul’s persecution of the believers – it stands to reason that the vision of the Third Heaven was known by Paul, but not given directly to him.

During the time of his blindness he had not yet received the Holy Spirit. It wasn’t until Annais laid hands upon him that he received both his sight and the Holy Spirit.

Revelation.. replied by Arandur @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:24:18 -0000

Arandur — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:24:18 -0000

Yeah, haven’t looked up the texts yet, sorry. I thought Paul was talking about himself, though, during that time after he was knocked off his horse and before he started preaching. I thought most Bibles assumed that in their footnotes and titling of Ch. 12.

Revelation.. replied by PreteristView @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:11:50 -0000

PreteristView — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:11:50 -0000

::crickets::

Revelation.. replied by PreteristView @ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:06:24 -0000

PreteristView — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:06:24 -0000

“I’m pretty sure I’ve seen multiple dates proposed. Are you sure it was composed before 70 AD?”

2 Corinthians 12:2-(6)

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago — whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows — was caught up to the third heaven …

The prophecy was given prior to 70 A.D. – When it was composed isn’t as relevant as when it was received.

Revelation.. replied by Arandur @ Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:50:58 -0000

Arandur — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:50:58 -0000

Thanks for the clarification!

Revelation.. replied by Satolkin @ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:53:02 -0000

Satolkin — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:53:02 -0000

“Satolkin, I’ve gathered that your belief system doesn’t take the Bible as much of a foundation other than as a literary commentary, sometimes wandering away from the reality your systems describe.”

No, no…big mistake; maybe I’m not being clear. I believe the Bible to be a text revealing on some respects, but veiling in other respects, the Word of G-d. It’s important, and not just literary commentary.
But I don’t worship it, if ye ken the difference. I don’t mean that as an insult, I just believe too many Christians spend too much time revering a book, rather than their Creator.

” I’m assuming this would be true with the whole Creation story where God declared that all of His creation was good, including the flesh? And this combined with the NT belief in bodily resurrection because the body is still good and part of our ultimate identity as humans? I say this because your earlier post implied that flesh was bad, a prison, and that the spiritual is the good part (we could do without all that physical stuff, in other words).”

No, not in my belief system. I mentioned that only because it is a somewhat common belief in some Gnostic systems, as well as in most Eastern mysticism. G-d made this physical world, and that’s good enough for me. My job, while in it, is to do the best I can for myself and others, and try to come to a closer union with G-d by working hard to understand Him and His Creation. Faith isn’t good enough for me; I’m motivated by a search for an ultimate Truth that I’m not going to fully find while here. But I can find glimpses.

Revelation.. replied by Arandur @ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:40:37 -0000

Arandur — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:40:37 -0000

Koo, I really don’t know what to do about abusive, fraudulent preachers and charlatans other than to identify them as such whenever we get the opportunity. Christians are too divided now to effectively publicly decry or otherwise reign in the frauds outside of their denominations. And so many new sects spring up around “non-denominational” banners or around charismatic preachers that it has been accepted as commonplace. That’s another one of the problems arising out of the modern adolescent rebellion against “organized religion.” We “organized” churches were better able to denounce and keep your favorite brand of faith-healer hack in check.

Revelation.. replied by Arandur @ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:38:15 -0000

Arandur — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:38:15 -0000

Satolkin, I’ve gathered that your belief system doesn’t take the Bible as much of a foundation other than as a literary commentary, sometimes wandering away from the reality your systems describe. I’m assuming this would be true with the whole Creation story where God declared that all of His creation was good, including the flesh? And this combined with the NT belief in bodily resurrection because the body is still good and part of our ultimate identity as humans? I say this because your earlier post implied that flesh was bad, a prison, and that the spiritual is the good part (we could do without all that physical stuff, in other words).

Preterist, I think it’s because many people believe Revelation (thanks Swiss for catching my plurality error :) ) was written more around AD 90 or even after 100. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen multiple dates proposed. Are you sure it was composed before 70 AD?

Revelation.. replied by FiNiX @ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:15:40 -0000

FiNiX — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:15:40 -0000

SwisCelt, that’s an interesting point.

Revelation.. replied by SwissCelt @ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:10:19 -0000

SwissCelt — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:10:19 -0000

Preterist, I think that’s because it’s a lot easier to scare people into submission with the spectre of things to come than with what happened 1,937 years ago.

Revelation.. replied by ratboy @ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:02:16 -0000

ratboy — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:02:16 -0000

Which calendar are we using for the prophesy…?

Revelation.. replied by PreteristView @ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:53:31 -0000

PreteristView — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 16:53:31 -0000

It’s really difficult to deny the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. – so why do so many people do it? Was it not one of the prophecies of Christ? I find that incredibly interesting and terribly overlooked by modern evangelic ministers.

Revelation.. replied by kookookachoo @ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:17:17 -0000

kookookachoo — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:17:17 -0000

Ministers often twist Revelation to their own purposes, and other books of the bible, too, sorry I went so-off-topic…

Revelation.. replied by PreteristView @ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:55:40 -0000

PreteristView — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:55:40 -0000

Revelation was given before the 70 A.D. destruction of the Herodian temple. The Judgment occurred in 70 A.D. as recorded by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews, and prophecied in Daniel’s 70 weeks, and as promised to Christ’s contemporaries during that generation that He would come quickly and not one stone would stand upon another at His return.

Revelation.. replied by Satolkin @ Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:44:21 -0000

Satolkin — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:44:21 -0000

“But where Gnosticism has moved toward Jungian belief in the Divine as consisting of archetypes, I don’t see that in either Mandaeanism (which is heavily influenced by Islam) or Marcionism.”

Ah…. got ya. Thanks.

Recent Posts in 'Revelation..' | GOD STILL LOVES US