Futurist vs Preterist debate
- Thread starter Kathi
- Start date
Sinthesis
Member
- Feb 23, 2009
- 5,188
- 264
That's only a problem to those who still think they're driving. Preterists know that Jesus has the wheel, and Jesus is an excellent driver.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,319
- 8,248
External Evidence
The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), 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). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.
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).
Even 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).
To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.
The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), 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). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.
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).
Even 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).
To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.
That's only a problem to those who still think they're driving. Preterists know that Jesus has the wheel, and Jesus is an excellent driver.
And even Jesus will not go against his own Word. So your point is moot.
Deborah13
Member
- Nov 30, 2012
- 14,684
- 1,936
The problem is there are not "too many ancient sources" there Is but one, Irenaeus. Eusebus, repeats what Irenaeus writes, and on it goes through the years from one writer to the next. Other than Irenaeus, no one heard what Polycarp said.
This is what Iranaeus wrote, that tells us When and under what conditions Irenaeus heard Polycarp speak about anything. In my opinion it is hardly conclusive evidence to base doctrine on.
"For while I was still a boy I knew you in lower Asia in Polycarp's house when you were a man of rank in the royal hall and endeavoring to stand well with him. I remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently, for what we learn as children grows up with the soul and is united to it, so that I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the appearance of his body, the discourses which he made to people, how he reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them, and about their miracles, and about their teaching, and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life, and reported all things in agreement with the Scriptures. I listened eagerly even then to these things through the mercy of God which was given me, and made notes of them, not on paper but in my heart, and ever by the grace of God do I truly ruminate on them, and I can bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter ....."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-eusebius.html
So what is the evidence that we do have. Irenaeus wrote, as an older, adult man about....
He was a child, listening to adult men discuss the scriptures. He said he wrote what he remembered Polycarp said on his heart. He himself was not old enough to take part in the discussions.
So was Irenaeus a student of Polycarp in the way most people would define a student? A child in a Sunday School class would be a student but what they heard would be geared to children's ears and they could take part in the discussion. So Irenaeus was not even a teenager at the time he heard Polycarp.
Could his memory have been mistaken about which ruler had sent John to the Isle of Patmos?
According to Eusebius (AD325), Irenaeus (130 - 202) said,
"We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."
What was seen, the name of the Antichrist, the vision, John, the book of Revelation itself ? What is "not so long time toward the end of Domitian's reign"
In another place, which I can find if necessary, Irenaeus speaks of it as being in 'antiquities', so he must being speaking of two different 'its'.
Is it possible that the reason John was not martyred during Nero's reign, as Peter and Paul where and James also was murdered, is because he was on the Isle of Patmos? Is it possible that this is the way the Lord preserved his life during those years of persecution?
To make a solid doctrine on one man's word about something he heard as a child is not logical or prudent.
Last edited:
You make these unsubstantiated suppositions based on your wanting the Preterist doctrine to be true... flying in the face of even one ancient account, Miss Deborah. Those who try to disprove the Bible itself as holy writ use the same tactics. I am not placing you in league with them, you understand. I am simply making you aware of it.
A former pastor friend (his doing) a preterist did not take well what I said about his defense that the parousia of Jesus in Jerusalem CE 70 was an invisible return like unto the Jehovah's Witnesses claim he did in 1914 CE in Brooklyn which is refuted by Matthew 24:26-27 / Acts 1:11, and Revelation 1:7. My only point was that anyone who must resort to these measures ought to abandon what is so clearly unbiblical.
A former pastor friend (his doing) a preterist did not take well what I said about his defense that the parousia of Jesus in Jerusalem CE 70 was an invisible return like unto the Jehovah's Witnesses claim he did in 1914 CE in Brooklyn which is refuted by Matthew 24:26-27 / Acts 1:11, and Revelation 1:7. My only point was that anyone who must resort to these measures ought to abandon what is so clearly unbiblical.
Sinthesis
Member
- Feb 23, 2009
- 5,188
- 264
That's only a problem to those who still think they're driving. Preterists know that Jesus has the wheel, and Jesus is an excellent driver.
Mat 28:18 - And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
The Father gave Jesus the keys to the car. Joyride!
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,319
- 8,248
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.
1 Corinthians 15:20-23
All those who are Christ's will be resurrected together at the same time, at His Coming.
Jesus only comes a Second Time.
28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:28
Everyone will be Resurrection at the same time, when He comes at the end of the age.
If you have not died and been resurrected from the dead, then Jesus has not come a second time.
Preterist's must ignore or try to explain away these two foundational cornerstones of the faith.
JLB
21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.
1 Corinthians 15:20-23
All those who are Christ's will be resurrected together at the same time, at His Coming.
Jesus only comes a Second Time.
28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:28
Everyone will be Resurrection at the same time, when He comes at the end of the age.
If you have not died and been resurrected from the dead, then Jesus has not come a second time.
Preterist's must ignore or try to explain away these two foundational cornerstones of the faith.
JLB
Here Jesus says touch me not cuz He had not ascended
Joh_20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Had He ascended when Thomas He ask Thomas to touch HIm..
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh_20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Had He ascended when Thomas He ask Thomas to touch HIm..
Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,319
- 8,248
so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. Hebrews 9:28
He will appear a second time...
...a second time.
JLB
- Jul 13, 2012
- 39,319
- 8,248
There is nothing in John nor any other book that can refute....
He will come a Second time.
JLB
Let's count the number of times Christ appeared after his ascension.
Acts 1:9–11 (AV)
9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
The Lord appearances to Paul were in visions (Acts 18:9).
But his actual return from heaven will be like he left...
Matthew 24:26–27 (AV)
26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Revelation 1:7 (AV)
7Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Jesus did come to Jerusalem but not in 70 CE. Rather up until his ascent in 30 / 32 CE depending on which calendar you use.
And it was for not recognizing that visitation the city was destroyed.
Luke 19:41–44 (AV)
41And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42Saying, 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.
43For 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,
44And 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.
But this has nothing to do with the second coming of Christ. And you will note a complete absence of his coming or presence (parousia or otherwise).
Acts 1:9–11 (AV)
9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
The Lord appearances to Paul were in visions (Acts 18:9).
But his actual return from heaven will be like he left...
Matthew 24:26–27 (AV)
26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Revelation 1:7 (AV)
7Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Jesus did come to Jerusalem but not in 70 CE. Rather up until his ascent in 30 / 32 CE depending on which calendar you use.
And it was for not recognizing that visitation the city was destroyed.
Luke 19:41–44 (AV)
41And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42Saying, 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.
43For 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,
44And 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.
But this has nothing to do with the second coming of Christ. And you will note a complete absence of his coming or presence (parousia or otherwise).
Similar threads
