View Poll Results: When was Revelation written?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Before 70 AD

    39 56.52%
  • After 70 AD

    27 39.13%
  • Other (although I don't see how there could be an 'other')

    3 4.35%
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 71 of 71

Revelation & Eschatology discuss Was Revelation written before 70 AD or after? in the The Scriptures forums; Originally Posted by puritan lad Originally Posted by armourbearer Tradition points towards the later date. As long as dating isn't used to manipulate the interpretation ...

  1. #41
    toddpedlar's Avatar
    toddpedlar is offline. Iron Dramatist
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,030
    Quote Originally Posted by puritan lad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armourbearer View Post
    Tradition points towards the later date. As long as dating isn't used to manipulate the interpretation of the book I don't see any difficulty in tentatively accepting traditional information.
    In actuality, there is more historical evidence for a later date. Almost all of the late date evidence is based on Irenaeus' statement.
    You meant "earlier date" above, right? - since Iranaeus's statement, as Gentry points out, is THE primary evidence quoted by 2nd century witnesses for dating the book during Domitian's era?
    Todd K. Pedlar
    member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
    My Blog: In Principio Deus
    24/7 Reformed Internet Radio: Sola5 Radio

    "As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
    John Flavel in Keeping the Heart

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

  2. #42
    turmeric's Avatar
    turmeric is offline. Megerator
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    11,409
    Blog Entries
    1
    Does anyone else see humor in a book called The Time Is At Hand being published by Timeless Books?
    The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
    Meg
    Blog
    Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  3. #43
    armourbearer is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    11,180
    Quote Originally Posted by turmeric View Post
    Does anyone else see humor in a book called The Time Is At Hand being published by Timeless Books?
    Yours sincerely,
    Rev. Matthew Winzer
    Australian Free Church,
    Victoria, Australia

    "Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

  4. #44
    armourbearer is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    11,180
    Quote Originally Posted by toddpedlar View Post
    You meant "earlier date" above, right? - since Iranaeus's statement, as Gentry points out, is THE primary evidence quoted by 2nd century witnesses for dating the book during Domitian's era?
    I was confused initially, but that's what I eventually concluded was his intention. Not that I agree with it, of course. Both the assertion and the conclusion drawn from it are false. See Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae, vol. 1, pp. 35-52. Available here: Horæ Apocalypticæ: Or, a Commentary ... - Google Book Search
    Yours sincerely,
    Rev. Matthew Winzer
    Australian Free Church,
    Victoria, Australia

    "Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

  5. #45
    KMK's Avatar
    KMK
    KMK is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,346
    Quote Originally Posted by armourbearer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by toddpedlar View Post
    You meant "earlier date" above, right? - since Iranaeus's statement, as Gentry points out, is THE primary evidence quoted by 2nd century witnesses for dating the book during Domitian's era?
    I was confused initially, but that's what I eventually concluded was his intention. Not that I agree with it, of course. Both the assertion and the conclusion drawn from it are false. See Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae, vol. 1, pp. 35-52. Available here: Horæ Apocalypticæ: Or, a Commentary ... - Google Book Search
    Audio exerpts of Elliott is available here: http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=124029164


    Village Community Church of Wrightwood

    Transformation Ministries

    "Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  6. #46
    bookslover's Avatar
    bookslover is offline. Puritanboard Postgraduate
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
    For theological reasons I say before. Why? Because the writings of the New Covenant had to be completed before the Old Covenant worship was finally and publicly abolished in 70 AD signifying the end of the period of transition between the two testaments.
    The Old Covenant worship was abolished when Jesus died on the cross and rose to life again - before there were any New Testament writings! It was the job of the New Testament writings to announce that fact. The destruction of Jerusalem was merely the coda (which our Lord Himself foretold) to this.
    Richard Zuelch
    Westminster Presbyterian Church (OPC), Westminster, CA
    www.reiterations.wordpress.com

    Blessed is the man whom Thou choosest and receivest unto Thee. He shall dwell in Thy court and shall be satisfied with the pleasures of Thy house, even of Thy holy temple. (Psalm 65.4) in Miles Coverdale's (1488-1569) translation (1539).

  7. #47
    ANT's Avatar
    ANT
    ANT is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,619
    Quote Originally Posted by bookslover View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
    For theological reasons I say before. Why? Because the writings of the New Covenant had to be completed before the Old Covenant worship was finally and publicly abolished in 70 AD signifying the end of the period of transition between the two testaments.
    The Old Covenant worship was abolished when Jesus died on the cross and rose to life again - before there were any New Testament writings! It was the job of the New Testament writings to announce that fact. The destruction of Jerusalem was merely the coda (which our Lord Himself foretold) to this.

    But ... To the Jews who had rejected Jesus as there Messiah ... The Old Covenant worship continued until the time of the destruction of the temple. No disagreeing that Jesus brought in the New Covenant which did away with the old ... but old covenant worship - The practice and sacrifices were not abolished yet ... I think that is why Daniel wrote it was "finally and publicly abolished" ... because ... even if the unbelieving Jews wanted to still maintain the sacrifices and offerings that God had perscribed for them in the Law ... now they were physically unable to do it without a temple. Hence old covenant worship is now no longer available ...
    Anthony Beadles
    Christ The King Presbyterian
    Clearwater, Florida

  8. #48
    ANT's Avatar
    ANT
    ANT is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,619
    Quote Originally Posted by tellville View Post
    Just curious, are there any major commentaries that support an early date for the composition of Revelation?

    I just finished an excellent commentary that holds to a pre-70AD dating ...


    The Days of Vengeance - An Exposition on the Book of Revelation
    By: David Chilton


    another commentary is ...


    Back To The Future - A Study in the Book of Revelation
    By: Ralph E. Bass Jr.


    I have not read this one yet, but it is in my library just waiting for me to read ...
    If anyone has read this commentary, I would love to hear what you thought about it.

    There are also a couple of really good fiction books that were put together to give readers a chance to see a preterist view of Revelation and to counter the "Left Behind" series. They are based on the early date of Revelation as well.


    They are ...


    The Last Disciple
    and ...
    The Last Sacrifice
    By: Hank Hanegraaf & Sigmund Brouwer


    I have read both of these ... I was captivated by them ... I'm not sure when/if the 3rd book is out ... but I will defenitely buy and read it!
    Anthony Beadles
    Christ The King Presbyterian
    Clearwater, Florida

  9. #49
    shackleton's Avatar
    shackleton is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,399
    Liberal commentaries say that it was written over a long period of time that is why it seems to reflect the times of both Nero and Domitian. Of course they also say that it was not even written by John the Apostle.
    Erick Bohndorf, Risen Savior, Lutheran
    http://qayaqtraveler.blogspot.com/

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pr...90&ref=profile
    Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Ecclesiastes

  10. #50
    Kevin's Avatar
    Kevin is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    6,008
    I had lunch with Craig Evans last year and he told me that he is working on a book that will argue for a much earlier date for much of the NT. I asked him about Revelation & he said that he was "becoming convinced" that much of the post 70 dates were too late by a couple of decades.

    He said that very little to no real work has been done on the dating issue and current research allows us to be much more confident then previous generations. My impression of his view was that the traditional dates have little or no empirical foundation, in most cases.

    Given that he is probably THE leading NT scholar in the world, who also is a conservative Evangelical, I think we should be prepared to hear what he has to say.

    BTW I asked him some questions about preterism & amil vs postmil as they related to the subject & he brushed them of as "not my field". His interest was only in the evidence for the dating issue itself.
    TE Kevin Rogers
    MNA Church Planter
    Redeemer Community Church
    Moncton NB

  11. #51
    Reformed Covenanter's Avatar
    Reformed Covenanter is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,869
    Quote Originally Posted by ANT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bookslover View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
    For theological reasons I say before. Why? Because the writings of the New Covenant had to be completed before the Old Covenant worship was finally and publicly abolished in 70 AD signifying the end of the period of transition between the two testaments.
    The Old Covenant worship was abolished when Jesus died on the cross and rose to life again - before there were any New Testament writings! It was the job of the New Testament writings to announce that fact. The destruction of Jerusalem was merely the coda (which our Lord Himself foretold) to this.

    But ... To the Jews who had rejected Jesus as there Messiah ... The Old Covenant worship continued until the time of the destruction of the temple. No disagreeing that Jesus brought in the New Covenant which did away with the old ... but old covenant worship - The practice and sacrifices were not abolished yet ... I think that is why Daniel wrote it was "finally and publicly abolished" ... because ... even if the unbelieving Jews wanted to still maintain the sacrifices and offerings that God had perscribed for them in the Law ... now they were physically unable to do it without a temple. Hence old covenant worship is now no longer available ...
    Ant has basically clarrified what I was saying further. After the death and resurrection of Christ there was a period of transition for the Jews in which they could still go to the temple and observe the ceremonies - even though these things had been fulfilled in the death of Christ - this came to an end in 70 AD. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the NT books must have been completed prior to Jerusalem's destruction.
    Daniel
    RPCI
    Northern Ireland
    "May that happy period soon arrive when the unclouded glory of divine revelation will shine from pole to pole; when men every where will see eye to eye, in all things that are connected with divine glory, and with their own eternal felicity." William Stavely (Irish Covenanter), An appeal to light (1796), pp 143-4

  12. #52
    KMK's Avatar
    KMK
    KMK is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ANT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bookslover View Post

    The Old Covenant worship was abolished when Jesus died on the cross and rose to life again - before there were any New Testament writings! It was the job of the New Testament writings to announce that fact. The destruction of Jerusalem was merely the coda (which our Lord Himself foretold) to this.

    But ... To the Jews who had rejected Jesus as there Messiah ... The Old Covenant worship continued until the time of the destruction of the temple. No disagreeing that Jesus brought in the New Covenant which did away with the old ... but old covenant worship - The practice and sacrifices were not abolished yet ... I think that is why Daniel wrote it was "finally and publicly abolished" ... because ... even if the unbelieving Jews wanted to still maintain the sacrifices and offerings that God had perscribed for them in the Law ... now they were physically unable to do it without a temple. Hence old covenant worship is now no longer available ...
    Ant has basically clarrified what I was saying further. After the death and resurrection of Christ there was a period of transition for the Jews in which they could still go to the temple and observe the ceremonies - even though these things had been fulfilled in the death of Christ - this came to an end in 70 AD. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the NT books must have been completed prior to Jerusalem's destruction.
    'Reasonable' inference is just shy of 'necessary' correct? Couldn't one also point to tradition and state, "Hence, it is reasonable to infer that Rev must have been completed after Jerusalem's destruction?"

    For me, because there is no 'necessary' inferences to be made on any side, I am compelled to side with tradition. However, I certainly would not make any authoritative statements on the issue from the pulpit.


    Village Community Church of Wrightwood

    Transformation Ministries

    "Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  13. #53
    Civbert's Avatar
    Civbert is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,874
    What are the implications of Revelation being written before or after AD 70?
    R. Anthony Coletti
    Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
    Jonesborough, TN
    [i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

  14. #54
    puritan lad's Avatar
    puritan lad is offline. Puritanboard Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by toddpedlar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by puritan lad View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armourbearer View Post
    Tradition points towards the later date. As long as dating isn't used to manipulate the interpretation of the book I don't see any difficulty in tentatively accepting traditional information.
    In actuality, there is more historical evidence for a later date. Almost all of the late date evidence is based on Irenaeus' statement.
    You meant "earlier date" above, right? - since Iranaeus's statement, as Gentry points out, is THE primary evidence quoted by 2nd century witnesses for dating the book during Domitian's era?
    Correct. It's been a long week

  15. #55
    Reformed Covenanter's Avatar
    Reformed Covenanter is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,869
    Quote Originally Posted by KMK View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ANT View Post


    But ... To the Jews who had rejected Jesus as there Messiah ... The Old Covenant worship continued until the time of the destruction of the temple. No disagreeing that Jesus brought in the New Covenant which did away with the old ... but old covenant worship - The practice and sacrifices were not abolished yet ... I think that is why Daniel wrote it was "finally and publicly abolished" ... because ... even if the unbelieving Jews wanted to still maintain the sacrifices and offerings that God had perscribed for them in the Law ... now they were physically unable to do it without a temple. Hence old covenant worship is now no longer available ...
    Ant has basically clarrified what I was saying further. After the death and resurrection of Christ there was a period of transition for the Jews in which they could still go to the temple and observe the ceremonies - even though these things had been fulfilled in the death of Christ - this came to an end in 70 AD. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the NT books must have been completed prior to Jerusalem's destruction.
    'Reasonable' inference is just shy of 'necessary' correct? Couldn't one also point to tradition and state, "Hence, it is reasonable to infer that Rev must have been completed after Jerusalem's destruction?"

    For me, because there is no 'necessary' inferences to be made on any side, I am compelled to side with tradition. However, I certainly would not make any authoritative statements on the issue from the pulpit.
    If the books of the NT were not completed prior to 70 AD then when were they completed?
    Daniel
    RPCI
    Northern Ireland
    "May that happy period soon arrive when the unclouded glory of divine revelation will shine from pole to pole; when men every where will see eye to eye, in all things that are connected with divine glory, and with their own eternal felicity." William Stavely (Irish Covenanter), An appeal to light (1796), pp 143-4

  16. #56
    AV1611 is offline. Puritanboard Senior
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    2,791
    Quote Originally Posted by Davidius View Post
    I chose "other" because I have no idea.
    Richard
    CofE
    UK

  17. #57
    KMK's Avatar
    KMK
    KMK is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KMK View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post

    Ant has basically clarrified what I was saying further. After the death and resurrection of Christ there was a period of transition for the Jews in which they could still go to the temple and observe the ceremonies - even though these things had been fulfilled in the death of Christ - this came to an end in 70 AD. Hence, it is reasonable to infer that the NT books must have been completed prior to Jerusalem's destruction.
    'Reasonable' inference is just shy of 'necessary' correct? Couldn't one also point to tradition and state, "Hence, it is reasonable to infer that Rev must have been completed after Jerusalem's destruction?"

    For me, because there is no 'necessary' inferences to be made on any side, I am compelled to side with tradition. However, I certainly would not make any authoritative statements on the issue from the pulpit.
    If the books of the NT were not completed prior to 70 AD then when were they completed?
    I was simply pointing out that you shy from stating that the inference of an early date is 'necessary'. Can either side really make a 'necessary' inference?


    Village Community Church of Wrightwood

    Transformation Ministries

    "Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  18. #58
    Reformed Covenanter's Avatar
    Reformed Covenanter is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,869
    Quote Originally Posted by KMK View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KMK View Post

    'Reasonable' inference is just shy of 'necessary' correct? Couldn't one also point to tradition and state, "Hence, it is reasonable to infer that Rev must have been completed after Jerusalem's destruction?"

    For me, because there is no 'necessary' inferences to be made on any side, I am compelled to side with tradition. However, I certainly would not make any authoritative statements on the issue from the pulpit.
    If the books of the NT were not completed prior to 70 AD then when were they completed?
    I was simply pointing out that you shy from stating that the inference of an early date is 'necessary'. Can either side really make a 'necessary' inference?
    I think we can for the reasons stated above; although its not something I would be contentious about.
    Daniel
    RPCI
    Northern Ireland
    "May that happy period soon arrive when the unclouded glory of divine revelation will shine from pole to pole; when men every where will see eye to eye, in all things that are connected with divine glory, and with their own eternal felicity." William Stavely (Irish Covenanter), An appeal to light (1796), pp 143-4

  19. #59
    KMK's Avatar
    KMK
    KMK is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KMK View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post

    If the books of the NT were not completed prior to 70 AD then when were they completed?
    I was simply pointing out that you shy from stating that the inference of an early date is 'necessary'. Can either side really make a 'necessary' inference?
    I think we can for the reasons stated above; although its not something I would be contentious about.
    So you are saying it is 'necessary' to infer an early date. Am I understanding you correctly?


    Village Community Church of Wrightwood

    Transformation Ministries

    "Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  20. #60
    Reformed Covenanter's Avatar
    Reformed Covenanter is offline. Puritanboard Doctor
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,869
    Quote Originally Posted by KMK View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KMK View Post

    I was simply pointing out that you shy from stating that the inference of an early date is 'necessary'. Can either side really make a 'necessary' inference?
    I think we can for the reasons stated above; although its not something I would be contentious about.
    So you are saying it is 'necessary' to infer an early date. Am I understanding you correctly?
    Yes. By what the WCF calls "good and necessary consequence".
    Daniel
    RPCI
    Northern Ireland
    "May that happy period soon arrive when the unclouded glory of divine revelation will shine from pole to pole; when men every where will see eye to eye, in all things that are connected with divine glory, and with their own eternal felicity." William Stavely (Irish Covenanter), An appeal to light (1796), pp 143-4

  21. #61
    JOwen's Avatar
    JOwen is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,217
    after
    Pastor Jerrold H. Lewis. (Dipl. IT; Assc. A; B.Th; M.Th Candidate, PRTS)
    Pompton Plains NJ, Free Reformed Church
    "A hot iron, though blunt, will pierce sooner than a cold one, though sharper."

    JOHN FLAVEL

    Free Reformed Church of Pompton Plains HERE
    The Puritans on Google+

  22. #62
    DMcFadden's Avatar
    DMcFadden is offline. Meum cerebrum nocet
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    9,753
    Quote Originally Posted by shackleton View Post
    Liberal commentaries say that it was written over a long period of time that is why it seems to reflect the times of both Nero and Domitian. Of course they also say that it was not even written by John the Apostle.
    Erick,

    One need not be liberal to accept the Domitian date as normative. Afterall, it has been the position of the church for most of our history. Conservatives (at least the non-amill/postmill ones) seem to settle for 90-95. During the last half of the 19th century and more recently, we have seen scholars (both liberal and conservative) rise up with arguments for an earlier date. Since conservatives generally ascribe the book to John the Apostle in a.d. 90-95 (wigth a strong minority upholding the pre-70 date, I don't see any reason why he could not have been responsible for writing it (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) before a.d. 70 and completing it in a.d. 90-95.

    Ivanhoe (aka Jacob), for example, is hardly a liberal and he said "both" dates yesterday in this thread.

    I have always held to the traditional dating but am quite open to any arguments Evans might make. I also took advantage of downloading Gentry and can't wait to dig into it.
    Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
    Atherton Baptist Homes, Alhambra, CA, President/CEO
    Emmanuel Lutheran Church, LCMS

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  23. #63
    armourbearer is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    11,180
    Quote Originally Posted by bookslover View Post
    The Old Covenant worship was abolished when Jesus died on the cross and rose to life again - before there were any New Testament writings! It was the job of the New Testament writings to announce that fact. The destruction of Jerusalem was merely the coda (which our Lord Himself foretold) to this.
    My personal opinion is that a thorough examination of the passages recording the Olivet discourse should lead to the conclusion that these are fulfilled in the rejection and death of Christ. There is really no reason for considering any part of the NT to speak anything concerning the events which took place around AD 70.
    Yours sincerely,
    Rev. Matthew Winzer
    Australian Free Church,
    Victoria, Australia

    "Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

  24. #64
    shackleton's Avatar
    shackleton is offline. Puritanboard Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,399
    My point was just that they believe it was written over a period of time, it was added to. That is their view of a lot of scripture.
    Erick Bohndorf, Risen Savior, Lutheran
    http://qayaqtraveler.blogspot.com/

    http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pr...90&ref=profile
    Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one’s labor in which he toils under the sun during the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward. Ecclesiastes

  25. #65
    biblicalthought is offline. Inactive User
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    103
    Pretty wierd. I just logged on and saw that this post had 666 views...
    Stephen
    Reformer, SBC
    Faith Defenders
    Anaheim, CA
    [URL="http://biblicalthought.com"]biblicalthought.com[/URL]

    "Resolved, never to give over, nor in the least to slacken, my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be." --Jonathan Edwards, The Resolutions, #56

  26. #66
    Ivan's Avatar
    Ivan is offline. Pastor
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    11,321
    Quote Originally Posted by biblicalthought View Post
    Pretty wierd. I just logged on and saw that this post had 666 views...
    And it doesn't anymore...
    [FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=black]Ivan Schoen ~ [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=black]The Church in [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=black]Poplar Grove, IL[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
    [SIZE=2][FONT=Book Antiqua][COLOR=black]=================================[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]
    [LEFT][SIZE=2][FONT=Book Antiqua][COLOR=black][SIZE=2][FONT=Book Antiqua][COLOR=black]"As a single footstep will not make a path on the earth, so a single thought will not make a pathway in the mind. To make a deep physical path, we walk again and again. To make a deep mental path, we must think over and over the kind of thoughts we wish to dominate our lives." ~ Henry David Thoreau[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=2][FONT=Book Antiqua][COLOR=black][/LEFT]
    [/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

  27. #67
    toddpedlar's Avatar
    toddpedlar is offline. Iron Dramatist
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    8,030
    Quote Originally Posted by JOwen View Post
    after
    GREAT avatar, Jerrold!
    Todd K. Pedlar
    member, First Congregational Church, (CCCC) Cresco, IA
    My Blog: In Principio Deus
    24/7 Reformed Internet Radio: Sola5 Radio

    "As God did not at first choose you because you were high, He will not now forsake you because you are low."
    John Flavel in Keeping the Heart

    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Joining PB's Politics & Government Forum

  28. #68
    py3ak's Avatar
    py3ak is offline. They're stalling and plotting against me
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    12,687
    Quote Originally Posted by armourbearer View Post
    My personal opinion is that a thorough examination of the passages recording the Olivet discourse should lead to the conclusion that these are fulfilled in the rejection and death of Christ. There is really no reason for considering any part of the NT to speak anything concerning the events which took place around AD 70.
    Mr. Winzer,

    Could we get a sample explanation to clarify how this might work out? For instance, from Luke 19:41-44 (following closely upon the heels of the Olivet discourse) there is this statement:

    And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
    Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
    For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
    And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
    Does not the phrase "the days shall come upon thee" seem to be a reference to the future? Can you offer an explanation of how this text would be a reference to the events surrounding the death of our Lord rather than to the destruction of Jerusalem?

    And that would tie in well with what I read this morning in Luke 23:27-31:

    And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him.
    But Jesus turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children.
    For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.
    Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
    For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?
    Thank you.
    Ruben: Administrator
    F.P.C.Indianapolis

    ...analogy does not mean identity. When we make a comparison we do not make an equation. -John Murray

    Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

    Teología en Mexico
    The Howling Wilderness

  29. #69
    armourbearer is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    11,180
    Quote Originally Posted by py3ak View Post
    Does not the phrase "the days shall come upon thee" seem to be a reference to the future? Can you offer an explanation of how this text would be a reference to the events surrounding the death of our Lord rather than to the destruction of Jerusalem?
    Ruben, good question. It seems to be a matter of approach. Some approach our Lord's words with an event-driven hermeneutic. They take it as a bare prediction of the future; as such they look for a fulfilment of the prediction in terms of historical events, and of course AD 70 is the closest they can find so they pitch on it. But our Lord is not speaking of future events, but of covenant curses. The significance of Jerusalem lying in ruins is not the destruction of a great city but the forsaking of a "holy" city. Our Lord was effectively telling them in the language of the prophets that their rejection of Him was a rejection of God which would lead to a rejection of them.

    Jesus Christ is the true temple. They abandoned Him. They destroyed Him. But He built it again in three days. The carnal Jews applied the temple-language to the physical building instead of understanding it correctly to speak of their Messiah. Our Lord rejected their carnal interpretation. How could the building of Herod be regarded as the house of God? The Lord Himself is the far more glorious second temple. Regrettably many Christian expositors interpret the temple language in the same manner as the carnal Jews.
    Yours sincerely,
    Rev. Matthew Winzer
    Australian Free Church,
    Victoria, Australia

    "Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

  30. #70
    KMK's Avatar
    KMK
    KMK is offline. Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,346
    Quote Originally Posted by armourbearer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by py3ak View Post
    Does not the phrase "the days shall come upon thee" seem to be a reference to the future? Can you offer an explanation of how this text would be a reference to the events surrounding the death of our Lord rather than to the destruction of Jerusalem?
    Ruben, good question. It seems to be a matter of approach. Some approach our Lord's words with an event-driven hermeneutic. They take it as a bare prediction of the future; as such they look for a fulfilment of the prediction in terms of historical events, and of course AD 70 is the closest they can find so they pitch on it. But our Lord is not speaking of future events, but of covenant curses. The significance of Jerusalem lying in ruins is not the destruction of a great city but the forsaking of a "holy" city. Our Lord was effectively telling them in the language of the prophets that their rejection of Him was a rejection of God which would lead to a rejection of them.

    Jesus Christ is the true temple. They abandoned Him. They destroyed Him. But He built it again in three days. The carnal Jews applied the temple-language to the physical building instead of understanding it correctly to speak of their Messiah. Our Lord rejected their carnal interpretation. How could the building of Herod be regarded as the house of God? The Lord Himself is the far more glorious second temple. Regrettably many Christian expositors interpret the temple language in the same manner as the carnal Jews.
    If I could thank you twice for these words I would, Rev Winzer!


    Village Community Church of Wrightwood

    Transformation Ministries

    "Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

  31. #71
    PuritanCovenanter's Avatar
    PuritanCovenanter is offline. The Norseman Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    17,580
    Blog Entries
    89
    I noticed some mentioned Irenaeus as a source for reference in determining the date after. Is he really reliable in this? Didn't he also believe Jesus was crucified in his 50's?

    Norseman Moderator

    Randy Martin Snyder
    RPCNA Covenanter's Blog

    "Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
    William Symington


    RSI FacebookReformation Society of Indiana
    Twitter RPCNACovenanter
    Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? -- Joining PB Politics and Government Forums

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72