Few Questions - Re:70AD

[Lloyd]

Ok,

It's my understanding that the preterist type view is that the majority of the book of Revelation took place during the siege of Jerusalem in 70AD - am I right in thinking that?

If so, then I have a few questions if that's ok, in particular about the second coming of Christ at that time...

Why is there so little recorded evidence of his coming at that time period? I believe there may be a few reports of sightings in clouds (based on what I've read from people on this site anyway), but no real, substantial evidence or support of such an event.

I can't personally see why that would be the case, considering it would undoubtedley be THE biggest single event of all time. Even if we spiritualise the entire event, it is still alongside the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ, one of the biggest and crucial events in the Bible.

As Christians, we can pretty much agree on a few things, one being the birth of Christ, the other being the resurrection of Christ, yet we have massive disparity on his second coming? I don't see how such an event would go so quietly, it doesn't make any sense for it to do so. Why would God leave the 'piece de resistance' (for want of a better phrase) with so much uncertainty or with so many unanswered questions, yet allow us perfect clarity on other events of His Son?

These are just my views of course and I would appreciate your thoughts...

 

[reba]

It ended the whole way of temple life for the Hebrews. When reading the OT that ending seems like a big deal...

 

[Lloyd]

Hi Reba,

Sure, I guess it all depends on whether you view the book of revelation as only applicable to Israel or the whole world?

Thanks for the response...

 

[Ed the Ned]

There are different levels of preterist views. I personaly don't believe in Pretersim and believe in a future event of Christs return. Some mild preterist believe that as well.

 

[Hitch]

Ok,

It's my understanding that the preterist type view is that the majority of the book of Revelation took place during the siege of Jerusalem in 70AD - am I right in thinking that?

Yes

If so, then I have a few questions if that's ok, in particular about the second coming of Christ at that time...

The Apocalypse is cheifly concerned with the judgement/destruction of apostate first century Israel . review verse one chapter one

Why is there so little recorded evidence of his coming at that time period?

See above

I believe there may be a few reports of sightings in clouds (based on what I've read from people on this site anyway), but no real, substantial evidence or support of such an event.

I can't personally see why that would be the case, considering it would undoubtedley be THE biggest single event of all time. Even if we spiritualise the entire event, it is still alongside the birth and resurrection of Jesus Christ, one of the biggest and crucial events in the Bible.

Its not a matter of spiritualizing anything, its a matter of missed perception. The work is and always was about the destruction, the Second Advent is scarcely if at all mentioned.

As Christians, we can pretty much agree on a few things, one being the birth of Christ, the other being the resurrection of Christ, yet we have massive disparity on his second coming? I don't see how such an event would go so quietly, it doesn't make any sense for it to do so. Why would God leave the 'piece de resistance' (for want of a better phrase) with so much uncertainty or with so many unanswered questions, yet allow us perfect clarity on other events of His Son?

You will do just as well searching Exodus for the account of David's kingdom as you will expecting to find the Second Advent in the Apocalypse, and dont forget, verse one chapter one.

These are just my views of course and I would appreciate your thoughts...

 

[Hitch]

Hi Reba,

Sure, I guess it all depends on whether you view the book of revelation as only applicable to Israel or the whole world?

Thanks for the response...

The writer of Hebrews chose his words through the unction of the Holy Spirit;


For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

God uses a representatvie structure. We are represented in Adam, as sinners, just as we who are his, are represented in Christ as righteous. God's representative nation was Israel and she was made an example specifically for the manner in which she greeted the Land Owner's Son.

 

[Lloyd]

Thanks Hitch...

I will do some reviewing and get back to you...

Cheers...

 

[Lloyd]

Yes The Apocalypse is cheifly concerned with the judgement/destruction of apostate first century Israel . review verse one chapter one See above Its not a matter of spiritualizing anything, its a matter of missed perception. The work is and always was about the destruction, the Second Advent is scarcely if at all mentioned. You will do just as well searching Exodus for the account of David's kingdom as you will expecting to find the Second Advent in the Apocalypse, and dont forget, verse one chapter one.

Hey Hitch...

So verse 1, Chapter 1:

1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

So, reading that, it's clear what you're referring to is the words 'soon take place' and the 'time is near', right?

Ok.. so if we did a similar thing with another verse, let's say Matthew 5, I guess none of that applies to us as Jesus was addressing the multitudes of THAT time right? Or could it be that the Word of God actually transends time and could quite possibly be applicable to us as well?

How about the letters of Paul? All of them are specifically addressed to people other than us, Romans, Galations, Thessalonians, etc etc. I guess we can discount them aswell, as they wern't written for us right?

Maybe Jesus should have said to John in Revelation, "Actually John, in 10,000 years all of this will come to pass, so just inform the Christians being persecuted to do what they can for now, I'll see them another day" - or maybe, just maybe, the Revelation of Christ was written to provide comfort for ALL Christians at WHATEVER point in time, looking to a future hope.


We can further discuss many points of Revelation if you want to do a verse-by-verse? As I stated before, I appreciate your responses and welcome a healthy, respectful discussion.

Cheers,
Lloyd

 

[Lehigh3]

Lloyd said,

Maybe Jesus should have said to John in Revelation, "Actually John, in 10,000 years all of this will come to pass, so just inform the Christians being persecuted to do what they can for now, I'll see them another day" - or maybe, just maybe, the Revelation of Christ was written to provide comfort for ALL Christians at WHATEVER point in time, looking to a future hope.

I'm not sure I understand how you mean this. Are you disappointed that John was told "here is the patience of the saints" in parts of Revelation? That was the equivalent of telling those believers who were in the "patience & tribulation" of Christ's kingdom the imminent fulfillment of hope.
And why look to Revelation & prophecy for "future hope?" The only hope I see is in Rev.22:14, 14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

Isn't salvation (soteriology) found much more in the gospels & epistles apart from prophecy/ eschatology? To me it brings peace. Peace knowing that the emergent church sacrificed so much so that Christianity could cover the earth.
Any & everything in Revelation was to "soon take place." Not just the wrath upon the harlot Jews.
Rev.22:6,7.
6 The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.†7 “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scroll.â€


Rev.1 & 22 are bookends that say the things in the book would soon take place.

 

[Hitch]

Hey Hitch...

So verse 1, Chapter 1:

1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

So, reading that, it's clear what you're referring to is the words 'soon take place' and the 'time is near', right?

Ok.. so if we did a similar thing with another verse, let's say Matthew 5, I guess none of that applies to us as Jesus was addressing the multitudes of THAT time right? Or could it be that the Word of God actually transends time and could quite possibly be applicable to us as well?

OK so when are you going to attack the Phillistines ? I can quote THE WORD OF GOD saying to go up against them . You ready?

Since you're not that foolish (right ?) how about you explain why the accounts of King David have nothing that applies to us? I wonder should every woman named Mary expect her first child through the Holy Spirit? Have you chosen a partner to go out twoXtwo to preach in Judea? Have you sold everything and given the money to the poor?

Its all silly and it is all as sensible as your ' I guess none of that applies to us as Jesus was addressing the multitudes of THAT time.' Guessing less and not wishing Jesus had said something other than what is recorded might prove helpful.

How about the letters of Paul? All of them are specifically addressed to people other than us, Romans, Galations, Thessalonians, etc etc. I guess we can discount them aswell, as they wern't written for us right?

Ask me after you have sold everything and given the money to the poor ,or at least collected 100 foreskins of the Philistines .

Maybe Jesus should have said to John in Revelation, "Actually John, in 10,000 years all of this will come to pass, so just inform the Christians being persecuted to do what they can for now, I'll see them another day" - or maybe, just maybe, the Revelation of Christ was written to provide comfort for ALL Christians at WHATEVER point in time, looking to a future hope.

There is no 'maybe' about it. Rev one-one is plain and to the point and I reckon the obvious flaws in your argument, mocked above, show that you already understand that and its giving you trouble. As for me and EVERY believer I find great comfort in the fact that a certain virgin Mary did conceive and bear a son 2,000 years ago. Fulfilled prophecy is comforting in the extreme

We can further discuss many points of Revelation if you want to do a verse-by-verse?

What ever you like ,but I have no interest in any variant of the moldy 'Could God make a rock so big He himself couldnt lift it' nonsense ;

As I stated before, I appreciate your responses and welcome a healthy, respectful discussion.

Cheers,
Lloyd

Now you have some questions to answer.

 

[jasoncran]

Hey Hitch...

So verse 1, Chapter 1:

1 The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.

So, reading that, it's clear what you're referring to is the words 'soon take place' and the 'time is near', right?

Ok.. so if we did a similar thing with another verse, let's say Matthew 5, I guess none of that applies to us as Jesus was addressing the multitudes of THAT time right? Or could it be that the Word of God actually transends time and could quite possibly be applicable to us as well?

How about the letters of Paul? All of them are specifically addressed to people other than us, Romans, Galations, Thessalonians, etc etc. I guess we can discount them aswell, as they wern't written for us right?

Maybe Jesus should have said to John in Revelation, "Actually John, in 10,000 years all of this will come to pass, so just inform the Christians being persecuted to do what they can for now, I'll see them another day" - or maybe, just maybe, the Revelation of Christ was written to provide comfort for ALL Christians at WHATEVER point in time, looking to a future hope.


We can further discuss many points of Revelation if you want to do a verse-by-verse? As I stated before, I appreciate your responses and welcome a healthy, respectful discussion.

Cheers,
Lloyd

while i am not of the preterist camp.

the verses in the bible have to be taken for the time they are written in.

common sense and exegesis. we get whacky if we dont at least consider that.

 

[Lloyd]

OK so when are you going to attack the Phillistines ? I can quote THE WORD OF GOD saying to go up against them . You ready?

Since you're not that foolish (right ?) how about you explain why the accounts of King David have nothing that applies to us? I wonder should every woman named Mary expect her first child through the Holy Spirit? Have you chosen a partner to go out twoXtwo to preach in Judea? Have you sold everything and given the money to the poor?

Its all silly and it is all as sensible as your ' I guess none of that applies to us as Jesus was addressing the multitudes of THAT time.' Guessing less and not wishing Jesus had said something other than what is recorded might prove helpful. Ask me after you have sold everything and given the money to the poor ,or at least collected 100 foreskins of the Philistines . There is no 'maybe' about it. Rev one-one is plain and to the point and I reckon the obvious flaws in your argument, mocked above, show that you already understand that and its giving you trouble. As for me and EVERY believer I find great comfort in the fact that a certain virgin Mary did conceive and bear a son 2,000 years ago. Fulfilled prophecy is comforting in the extreme What ever you like ,but I have no interest in any variant of the moldy 'Could God make a rock so big He himself couldnt lift it' nonsense ; Now you have some questions to answer.

Hey Hitch - not sure about the giving me trouble part but the rest of your response is on point.

You're right that we have to read the Bible and obviously realise who it's addressed to, and I guess my candid remarks were a bit foolish, so apologies.

However I do feel with Revelation there isn't a clear distinction, otherwise we'd all agree on it? If you're correct in your thinking that all passed in 70AD, then why doesnt everyone agree wih it, or nearly everyone? If we mentioned the accounts of King David (since you used it as your example), I'm sure there would be clarity and agreement as to who and what the events referred to. The reason there isn't clarity with Revelation is because it's not clear, and you, like me and anyone else will draw a conclusion on what they THINK is correct.

You can speak with bold confidence on Revelation but the bottom line is, you could actually be way off and wrong. Just like I can. So quoting verses, and specific passages to highlight your view point doesn't actually make you right, it just makes your version of events correct.

I will do some more reading on Revelation and if its cool, we can discuss some other parts of it? I would be interested to hear your views.

 

[Hitch]

Hey Hitch - not sure about the giving me trouble part but the rest of your response is on point.

You're right that we have to read the Bible and obviously realise who it's addressed to, and I guess my candid remarks were a bit foolish, so apologies.

I figured its was just a knee jerk reaction.

However I do feel with Revelation there isn't a clear distinction,

The word for 'near' used in v3 is often translated 'nigh', I suggest a look into NT uses of the term.

otherwise we'd all agree on it? If you're correct in your thinking that all passed in 70AD, then why doesnt everyone agree wih it,

The Reformation springs to mind, lots of folks didnt agree with that

or nearly everyone?

In case you really want to know; Its based in the natural human fear of death. Once a way around death ( through rapture ?) can be integrated into a religious system the defenses come down and the blinders go up, and the error gets further off the mark while becoming ever more entrenched.

If we mentioned the accounts of King David (since you used it as your example), I'm sure there would be clarity and agreement as to who and what the events referred to. The reason there isn't clarity with Revelation is because it's not clear, and you, like me and anyone else will draw a conclusion on what they THINK is correct.

The only block to clarity wrt R1;1-3 is preconceived notions. Take two minutes, pretend that you have never heard any pre-millennial eschatology, I know its like un-ringing a bell but give it a try, now take two translations and read R1;1-3.

You can speak with bold confidence on Revelation but the bottom line is, you could actually be way off and wrong.

While that holds for the stranger areas of the Apocalypse it is not true of the opening three verses, and no amount of wishful thinking can make it so

Just like I can.

If you could have honestly ,with confidence and certainty placed this in the future I reckon you would have, without a hedge or a guess so .

So quoting verses, and specific passages to highlight your view point doesn't actually make you right, it just makes your version of events correct.

I will do some more reading on Revelation and if its cool, we can discuss some other parts of it? I would be interested to hear your views.

Thats fine with me, rest assured the onus to overcome a first century time frame will be applied to you.

 

[reba]

However I do feel with Revelation there isn't a clear distinction, otherwise we'd all agree on it?

Sheesh Lloyd folks dont agree on what John 3:16 says, or about baptism, or the Holy Spirit...or when is Christmas

 

[Stormcrow]

Sheesh Lloyd folks dont agree on what John 3:16 says, or about baptism, or the Holy Spirit...or when is Christmas

I draw the line at the existence of Santa. None of that other stuff matters anyway.

 

[Sinthesis]

Sheesh Lloyd folks dont agree on what John 3:16 says, or about baptism, or the Holy Spirit...or when is Christmas

Christian Christmas or Pagan Christmas?:

 

[reba]

The birth of Christ you DORKS!

 

[jasoncran]

for the so called cowgirls and rednecks. why on the Gods good earth would you feed sheep in snow?

that negates the idea of december for the birth of the lord.

 

[tig]

for the so called cowgirls and rednecks. why on the Gods good earth would you feed sheep in snow?

Because they are hungry?

that negates the idea of december for the birth of the lord.

Do sheep not eat when it snows? Or are you saying that there is always snow in December near Bethlehem? Just askin!

 

[jasoncran]

Because they are hungry?



Do sheep not eat when it snows? Or are you saying that there is always snow in December near Bethlehem? Just askin!

one keep the sheep inside during the winter and one can feed them by hay or other means. and it gets cold in bethelem this time of year. remember sheep can survive in that weather but if you shear them then they have no protection.