The Revealing of Jesus Christ

[Craig]

Whatever, but as you seem to think I am being disrespectful to others (no one else has said anything, I think it just your dislike for me showing up again) but just in case I'll ask them.

Let us find out, how many here are tired of having someone assume what they believe and then assign that assumption to them, but that was never what they believed to begin with? Would anyone here believe that is disrespect?

it obvious to all reading that some believe the flesh is satan and some believe satan is satan, and there is nothing wrong in pointing this out.

Of course there is nothing wrong with that, but that is NOT what people are doing.

I maybe the only one who picked up on this but you brought forth a very good point when you said that man would blame his FLESH (for she is flesh of my flesh)  for all of his folly, and this is exactly what I see happening on this thread.

There is nobody blaming their flesh for all their folly, whether Satan is the flesh or not. WHERE IN DID ANYONE HERE BLAME THE FLESH FOR THEIR FOLLY?!!?!?!?!? So what REASONING do you see EXACTLY happening in this thread, that is in disagreement to what you have stated? If you are in disagreement, and thinking that THIS IS EXACTLY what you is happening this thread but IS NOT, who here is not listening? Perhaps you are not communicating yourself properly, and maybe you are not seeing anything but what you want to see. It is still the them versus us mentality, since I still see you are applying your ASSUMPTIONS of what you think you are seeing as a reason for disagreement, than what is actually being discussed.

You really do not LISTEN or READ what I write do you, and how you get me REBUKING anyone out of anything I said just goes to show where your head is at Craig.

Do you know what a rebuke is?

Go ahead count them, for obviously by this post you have not read my replies but just skimmed through them as you are want to do when reading anything I post, not taking the time to really look at what I have said, still going by your old standard of I don't have to read everything you write in order to understand you are wrong.

Funny that you say, "understand you are wrong" instead of saying, "to understand you are correct." This shows me once again IT IS AN US VERSUS THEM MENTALITY. It shows me where YOUR heart is at, brother. Listen to the nuances of your words.

You treat everyone who disagrees with you in the same manner you treat Mr. Slick from CARM, with contempt and sarcasm and then focus on the most obtuse reasonings and use much fallacy in your rebuttal usually relying on an emotional appeal rather than reason itself for your position.

It is a MUST to be reading everything a person writes and communicates to understand if they are correct or not, this is not MY standard this is how things work in life.

Here is where my head is at. I am not a fan of hearing this rhetoric from you an others, and actually doing a disservice to the truth by introducing things that have no truth at all as you reasoning. The use of Amphibolies, Argumentum ad hominems, Argumentum ad ignorantiam, Argumentum ad logicam and such to support what you think is true. On top of this, finding fault by accusing others of lack of love, or full of pride, or other emotional appeals, just shows me where your heart is at and along with others. I just stop catering to this non-sense.

Can we not have matter of fact discussions, not speculations of what others believe in order to disagree?

As you can see at this point, I don't care if I am banned for subjective perceptions of what the 'rules' are. I don't care about how you feel about what is happening right now. At this point, I only care about what is true and untrue, and I don't see how our emotions have no relevance in that. I don't care if you disagree with that statement concerning emotion is not an indication of truth, because I have yet to see one supportive reasoning that has ever come from an emotional appeal, that could not have been found in a non-subjective reasoning.

This politically correct environment is stifling and I find does nothing but justify fallacy and destroy any accountability. I keep seeing the ones who are punished are the ones who cannot cater to this enviroment.

Anyways, this is pretty much sums up what I see happening in this forum by it's prominent 'teaching' members.

Seeya.

[just editted spelling]

[Molly]

wow! :icon_flower:

I'm actually enjoying this thread--learning a lot.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi WW...  :icon_king:

A lot of people build a whole lot on the statements in Genesis to Adam about re-plenishing the earth, as though it were being reclaimed from some great catastrophe.

Yeah, I've read quite a lot about that. Some scholars claim it is "In a beginning"
And the words creating/void was better translated as repairing damage.
According to some "re-plenshing" meant filling and not refilling at the time KJB was written. I can't verify that myself.

I can verify it bro... the word which was translated REPLENISHING actually means FILL... (MAIA #H4390 -- strongs ...to FILL or be FULL OF) Many doctrines are based on TRANSLATED WORDS instead of what the WORD actually meant...

The word translated VOID is (#H922 BOHUW  -- strongs ...to be EMPTY, a VACUITY) the word means VACUOUS or EMPTY... not something in need of "repair"...  again... people establish doctrinal views elsewhere, and then often, "adjust" the Scriptures that might be in opposition to the teaching, to fit those views...

The Dinosaur/Caveman/Earth strata trip which science requires MILLIONS, even BILLIONS of "years" to gain explanation, is simply explained with TIME PAST moving at an EXTREMELY SLOWER pace then we observe today...

Even my daughter who is half my age, is stating TIME to be moving at a much greater pace then when she was a child... and EVERY generation makes this same observance...

TIME and SPACE, though they are part of the PHYSICAL and FINITE creation, are a SPIRITUALLY controlled factor which GOD holds in His hand... That we observe our watches moving one second at a time with the very same increment of TIME for each one, does not prove that that increment is NOT increasing speed even though we are unable to detect it to be doing so...

If you watch the hands on a precision clock, they MOVE with TIME, but cannot be observed MOVING... But with "time lapse photography" the clock is seen speeding at a pace only equaled by the gasoline gauge in my car! (toward empty)

An example forya:  A train which is going 65mph, when observed in a proximity of 20 feet is WHIZZING by... but if that observation point is moved to 20 MILES away... the train appears to be almost, MOTIONLESS...

peacE...
willieH  :icon_king:

[WhiteWings]

A lot of people build a whole lot on the statements in Genesis to Adam about re-plenishing the earth, as though it were being reclaimed from some great catastrophe.

I can verify it bro... the word which was translated REPLENISHING actually means FILL... (MAIA #H4390 -- strongs ...to FILL or be FULL OF) Many doctrines are based on TRANSLATED WORDS instead of what the WORD actually meant...

I agree with the part of basing a doctrine on mistranslations. But I think that's not all that can be said about my little example.
Today replenshing means refilling. But some claim that during the time KJV was written replenishing simply had the meaning of filling.
There is also a verse in KJV that seems to say that people are stopped from ascending to heaven when called.
I can't remember the verse but I do remember the explanation. KJV did translate correctly because back then, 1611, the meaning of the word was opposite to what it means now.
So we do not only have to be on guard for mistranslations but also old translations that contain words that have changed definitions.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi-de-ho -- there... WW!  :grin:

A lot of people build a whole lot on the statements in Genesis to Adam about re-plenishing the earth, as though it were being reclaimed from some great catastrophe.

I can verify it bro... the word which was translated REPLENISHING actually means FILL... (MAIA #H4390 -- strongs ...to FILL or be FULL OF) Many doctrines are based on TRANSLATED WORDS instead of what the WORD actually meant...

I agree with the part of basing a doctrine on mistranslations. But I think that's not all that can be said about my little example.
Today replenshing means refilling. But some claim that during the time KJV was written replenishing simply had the meaning of filling.

YO!  :thumbsup:  Personally, I do not know that "replenishing" meant filling in olde English terms, but the HEBREW word means FILL... irregardless of the "olde English" meaning.

There is also a verse in KJV that seems to say that people are stopped from ascending to heaven when called.
I can't remember the verse but I do remember the explanation. KJV did translate correctly because back then, 1611, the meaning of the word was opposite to what it means now.
So we do not only have to be on guard for mistranslations but also old translations that contain words that have changed definitions.

I agree with you brother... It is up to individual student, to research all aspects of the doctrines he/she teaches or promotes, and the TRUE meanings of the verses which he/she uses to establish that teaching/promotion...

One thing to take into consideration is that DICTIONARIES are reports of the historical applied useages of a given word...  As I have previously noted -- GAY meant "happy" or "joyful" in the 1940's-50's... but today, can mean HOMOSEXUAL or LAME, which it did NOT MEAN back then...  :dontknow:

So if a youthful one, is speaking to an elderly person, and uses the word GAY... it could be easily misunderstood by the elderly... because the two can thereby be placing the SAME WORD in 2 very different CONTEXTS...  :surrender:

peacE...
willieH   :icon_jokercolor:

[martincisneros]

For those that believe that the Second Death is a mass execution, then wouldn't the "First Death" be Noah's Flood rather than either the deaths of Adam, Christ, or ourselves?

I know that some of you believe that the Second Death is the casting of Death and Hades into the Lake of Fire.  But I'm tossing a thought towards those that believe that people being cast into the Lake of Fire is the Second Death.  It's a more relevant question for them because I'm doing a 2Peter 3 comparison/contrast within the paradigm that they work with and under.

With this idea that I'm working with, then the abolishment of death wouldn't only be the swallowing up of our lower lives with the higher lives of immortality, but it would also be the abolishment of cataclysms upon/within Creation.

[Texas Son]

Greetings all!

Forgive me if this is posted in the wrong forum or is a repeat. I'm still feeling my way around.

I am a few months into the blessing of univeralism. What a weight lifted off of my heart to know that we have a God that desires that none shall perish! Even the view of preterism is new for me, as I have always been a traditionalist in church.

The question I have as I continue to study is whether the Lake of Fire is temporal in the view of preterism. Are those who are being purified by our Fathers all consuming Spirit (fire) already in the Lake of Fire for the ages, or is this yet to come? Was the Lake of Fire open for business in 70 A.D. or before?

Blessings to all!
TS

[martincisneros]

Hopefully some preterists still post around here occasionally so that you'll get some answers to this.  I'm partial preterist, personally, believing in both a past fulfillment of many of the prophesies and in future fulfillments yet to come of other prophecies.  Thomas Whittemore who was a total preterist in the early 1800s of Christian Universalist conviction was of the opinion that the Lake of Fire was the burning of Jerusalem in 70AD.  I can see that as a partial fulfillment, but I'm leaning towards an actual cleansing of the earth leading to the New Earth of the last couple of chapters of Revelation, according to 2Peter 3, which would be the "Second Death," in the Book of Revelation, in contrast with Noah's Flood having been the "First Death."

[Nathan]

I'm not a full preterist either . . .not sure what percentage I'd label myself to be.  How about a "dimensional preterist"  I see this in different levels/realms/dimensions . .whatever you call it.  In the natural, the flood of Noah did purge the earth of the evilness that had conceived through the perversions of men mixing with spirit (my opinion is all).  And I believe there isn't a need for another purging as the second death is not like the first.  One is natural, the other is spiritual.  The earth has already been purged naturally through the flood.  And . . . the second purging came via the spirit where it was "poured out" on ALL flesh . . .upper room.

As to the lake fire, there is no such place physically, but spiritually, I can see people being there right now . . .in the sense that they were born, lived, and returned to the spirit realm from which they came and if the name is not in the book of life, the cleasning of the lake is awaiting them.  For us who are alive . . .not so much . . .I'm thinking more along the lines of hell on our earths.  In the end, our hell is also purged in this refining lake . .but not us, just the soulish reality in the end, becomes totally transformed back to it's original pure self in the nature of Christ Alone.

Just some observations on the topic.

[Texas Son]

Hopefully some preterists still post around here occasionally so that you'll get some answers to this.  I'm partial preterist, personally, believing in both a past fulfillment of many of the prophesies and in future fulfillments yet to come of other prophecies.  Thomas Whittemore who was a total preterist in the early 1800s of Christian Universalist conviction was of the opinion that the Lake of Fire was the burning of Jerusalem in 70AD.  I can see that as a partial fulfillment, but I'm leaning towards an actual cleansing of the earth leading to the New Earth of the last couple of chapters of Revelation, according to 2Peter 3, which would be the "Second Death," in the Book of Revelation, in contrast with Noah's Flood having been the "First Death."

Thanks Martincisneros!

I can see the Lake of Fire being the burning of Jerusalem in 70AD. Though I lean more towards a purifying by the Lord. Is not the New Earth already present in the fact that the old heaven and earth passed away with the Old Covenant?

[martincisneros]

I can see the Lake of Fire being the burning of Jerusalem in 70AD. Though I lean more towards a purifying by the Lord. Is not the New Earth already present in the fact that the old heaven and earth passed away with the Old Covenant?

There's too many details of the last two chapters of Revelation that are not here yet:

1. There shall be no more curse.  Yet many are still hungering and thirsting, even of those that have embraced the Lordship of Jesus, and people still curse and wear curses as a garment every single day.

2. God shall wipe away ALL tears.  Presently, God is wiping away some tears but not yet all.

3. There are still Temples made with hands, which don't exist after the purging fire that takes us into the last couple of chapters of Revelation.  And some of them God is genuinely supporting, although I know what many around here would say inclusively about all of them.  But I can't negatively touch the Anointing as easily in the handful of places that I know beyond a shadow of doubt that it's what's created them for the meeting of the needs of people in desperate situations spiritually and physically.

4. People are still finding abuse, rather than TOTAL healing, through the leaves of the trees as a result of the pharmaceutical companies.

5. 1John chapters 2 and 3 indicates that on the New Earth that we'll not need anyone to teach us, but we're still currently and righteously under the administration of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Workers of Miracles, Gifts of Healings, Helps, Bishops, Administrative and Economic gifts, both private devotionally prophetic and public ministry in tongues and interpretation of tongues, and if there's any other ministry gift listed in Romans 12, 1Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4, and in the Pastoral epistles.  I've ministered [and continue to minister] in many of these gifts, personally, through the blessing of Jesus' High Priestly ministry, so I know beyond a shadow of doubt both from the Scriptures and by personal experience that that's still going on.

6. Revelation 21:3 indicates to me that Jesus is physically among us again on the New Earth.  That is not yet the case, although He's spiritually among us through the Holy Spirit, and the Bread and Cup as often as we eat and drink thereof.  We're still thereby proclaiming the Lord's death until He comes and absolutely no Christians after 70AD ceased partaking of the Bread and Cup, meaning they understood Bodily return.

7.  And I've personally seen the Holy City, New Jerusalem, on numerous occasions so that although I'm able to go along with most spiritual interpretations of each of the meticulous, meticulous details given about that city by way of explanation of our relationship with the Lord, our righteousness and holiness in Him, etc., yet I'm personally still awaiting an actual city that I've been to on numerous occasions.

8.  Currently, those of us who've received the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness are able to reign with Him to the close of the present eon; however long it is between the time that we've entered into discipleship with Christ Jesus by being very diligent doers of the Word with signs following, and the close of our life here.  But in the last couple of chapters of Revelation it says that we reign with Him to the ages of ages.  We're not there yet, and most Christians in this life shrug off their reigning responsibilities with the Word and never become victorious in every area of their lives.  Most people never even acheive the minimum spoken of in Hebrews 5:12-14 of having a physical body that knows the difference between good and evil; that rejects the evil choosing only the good.

9.  Obviously, not all of us have the rewards mentioned in the first 3 chapters of Revelation, which indicates more to come as we overcome by love, grace, truth, affirmation, blessing, faith, and fellowship.

10.  I believe in a literal immortal; bodily immortal state that we enter into according to all of St. Paul's writings.  There are hints in the New Testament that to not fully believe in that coming reality is to not yet be fully converted to Christ.  Minimally, it's called foolishness and not in a good way.

11.  Isaiah 11:1-9, Isaiah 30:23-26, Hosea 2:18, Jeremiah 31:27-28, Ezekiel 34:10, Mark 4:30-32, Romans 8:21 hasn't seen the fullest part of it's fulfillment yet.

12. The Body of Christ hasn't been completed yet in the way that Ephesians 4 anticipates, so that in one mind with both the Lord and one another they're able to set the rest of Creation free COMPLETELY.


And that's the furthest I can go and the most controversial that I can get on these boards before this Corinthians Church acts up. :icon_jokercolor:

[Texas Son]

Excellent words to study Martincisneros! I appreciate your time. You have given me much to think about.   :thumbsup:

Blessings!
TS

[DeeDee]

Thomas Whittemore who was a total preterist in the early 1800s of Christian Universalist conviction was of the opinion that the Lake of Fire was the burning of Jerusalem in 70AD.  I can see that as a partial fulfillment, but I'm leaning towards an actual cleansing of the earth leading to the New Earth of the last couple of chapters of Revelation, according to 2Peter 3, which would be the "Second Death," in the Book of Revelation, in contrast with Noah's Flood having been the "First Death."

I have to agree, I think the lake of fire is still coming. If it was Jerusalem it would make some sense except for the fact Jesus speaks of a "Lake" of fire - the burning of a city is not a burning lake so to speak.

[reFORMer]

And that's the furthest I can go and the most controversial that I can get on these boards before this Corinthians Church acts up. :icon_jokercolor:

OK!  That's enough!  I've had it!  I know you're talking about me!  Veiled references to my sojourn in exile living a dog's life attached to the temple of . . . now I can't remember . . . you know, before I came here . . . but you can be sure my mother and I will make a flambouyant kafluffle, stomping out in the middle of your oration at the next gathering if you so much as mention our sins, Mr. High-and-Mighty, Mr. Clean smarty pants.  Everybody knows we only do what comes naturally and we can't be expected to deny ourselves.  We have to be true to our nature.  You just think you can take over and run everybody else's life!  Your's is not the only mud-puddle in town.

[martincisneros]

 :icon_jokercolor: GOOFY! :laugh2: Someone actually reported this post of yours!!  They weren't sure if you were for real or not.  I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I saw that your post had gotten reported.  If my cat had been snoozing beside me, he might have needed a team of emergency vets if I'd fallen on him from the height of this chair. :bdh: What was particularly funny about them having reported it is that when I saw your post maybe 30 minutes to an hour earlier, for just a second or a second and a half, I wasn't sure if you were being serious. :eek: You and Craig are the only ones that I know (maybe WillieH) that if you're kidding, someone's liable to report it! :mock: I'm still laughing pretty hard as I'm typing this. :mrflo:

[Tony N]

Texas Son,

The Dating of the book of Revelation from Lardner's Works

Below, I have copied from Lardner's Works what I could find as to the dating of the book of Revelation. If Lardner is correct and the ancients are correct, then the modern day Preterist view that the thousand year reign began around 70 A.D. should be re-thought. If John wrote Revelation around 96 A.D. and that he was looking forward yet to the coming 1000 year reign as written in Rev.20:4-7, this would show that John knew that the 1000 year reign had not begun in his lifetime. "Domitian is computed to have died, Sept. I8, A. D. 96." It also shows the lake of fire as still future.

what follows is the dating of when Revelation was written from Lardner.

I shall therefore first put down the accounts of ancient authors, and then observe the opinions of learned men of later times.
Irenaeus says of the Revelation, "that it was seen no long time ago, but almost in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian." And thought Irenaeus does not say that St. John was then in Patmos, yet since he supposeth him to be the person who had the revelation, he must have believed him to be then in Patmos, as the book itself says, ch.1.9.
415

Clement of Alexandria, in his took, entitled, Who is the rich Man that may be saved, as cited by Eusebius, speaks of John's returning from Patmos to Ephesus, after the death of the tyrant:' by whom, It is probable, he means Domitian.
Tertullian, in his Apology, speaks of Domitian as hav­ing banished some christians, and afterwards giving them leave to return home: probably intending St. John, and some others. In another work he says,' that John having been sent for to Rome, was cast into a vessel of boiling oil, and then banished into an island" in the time of Domitian, as is most probable.
Origen, explaining Matt. xx. 23, says: 'James, the brother of John, was killed with a sword by Herod. And a Roman emperor, as tradition teaches, banished John into the island Patmos for the testimony which he bore to the word of truth. And John himself bears witness to his banishment, omitting the name of the emperor by whom he was banished, saying' in the Revelation : " I John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle of Patmos, for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ." And it seems, that the Revelation was seen in that island.'
Victorinus, bishop of Pettaw about 290, again and again says, that John was banished by Domitian, and in his reign saw the Revelation.
Eusebius, giving an account of Domitian's persecution, says : ' In this persecution, as it is said, John, the apostle and evangelist, being still living, was banished into the island Patmos for the testimony of the word of God.'

416

Epiphanius, as formerly shown, says : ' John prophesied in the isle of Patmos, in the reign of Claudius.' And in another place, then only referred to, he says: ' John wrote his gospel in his old age, when he was more than ninety years old, after his return from Patmos, which was in the time of Claudius Caesar.'
Jerom, in his book of Illustrious Men, as formerly cited, says : ' Domitian in the fourteenth year of his reign raising the second persecution after Nero, John was banished into the island Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation.' And in another work, also cited formerly, he says again; John was a prophet, as he saw the Revelation in the island Patmos, where he was banished by Domitian.' he comments upon Matt. xx. 23, where he speaks of St. John's having been banished into Patmos but does not name the emperor, by whom he was banished.
Sulpicius Severus says, ' that ' John the apostle and evangelist, was banished by Domitian into the island Patmos where he had visions, and where he wrote the book of the Revelation.'
Arethas in his commentary upon the Revelation, Supposed to be written in the sixth century, says, upon the authority of Eusebius, that John was banished into Patmos by Domitian.
Isidore, of Seville, near the end of the sixth century, says, Domitian raised a persecution against the christians. In his time the apostle John having been banished into the island Patmos saw the Revelation.'
We may now make a remark or two.
1. All these testimonies are of use, whether they name the island where John was banished, or the emperor by whom

417

he was banished, or not. They all agree that St. John was sent thither by way of punishment, or restraint, for bearing witness to the truth: which confutes the opinion of Lightfoot, ' that John travelling in the ministry of the gospel, up and down, from Asia westward, comes into the isle Patmos, in the Icarian sea, an island about thirty miles compass: and there on the Lord's day he has these visions, and an angel interprets to him all he saw.
2. All these writers, who mention the time of the Revela­tion, and of the banishment, say, it was in the time of Domitian, and that he was the emperor by whom St. John was banished: except Epiphanius, who says it was in the time of Claudius. As he is singular, it should seem that he cannot be of any great weight against so many others. Nevertheless, as some learned men, particularly Grotius have paid great regard to Epiphanius in this point, it is fit we should consider what they say.
Says Grotius in a tract, entitled, A Comment upon divers Texts of the New Testament, relating' to Antichrist: particularly upon the tenth verse of the seventeenth chapter of the Revelation: John began to be illuminated with divine visions in the island Patmos, in the time of Claudius which was the opinion of the most ancient christians. See Epiphanius in the heresy' of the Alogians. Claudius, as we learn from Acts xviii. 2, " commanded all Jews to depart from Rome." Under the name of Jews, christians also were comprehended, as has been observed by many learned men. And it cannot be doubted, but many governors of the Roman provinces followed that example. So therefore John was driven from Ephesus.'
That argument was long ago examined by David Blonde, who says, 1. It is not true, that the most ancient writers said that St. John was sent into Patmos by Claudius. It is Epiphanius only who says so: he is altogether singular. There are no ancients, either before or after him, who have said this. 2. As Epiphanius is singular, he ought not to be regarded. 3. There was no persecution of the christians in

418

the reign of Claudius. There is no proof from any ancient monuments, that christians, as such, suffered banishment under that emperor. It is allowed that Nero was the first Roman emperor who persecuted the christians. 4. The edict of Claudius only banished the Jews from Rome. It did not affect the Jews in the provinces, as appears from the New Testament itself particularly Acts xviii and xix. It is manifest from the history in the Acts, that in the reign of Claudius, in other parts of the empire out of Rome, the Jews enjoyed as full liberty as they did before. Paul and Silas, Aquila and Priscilla, dwelt quietly at Corinth; where the men of their nation had their synagogue, and assembled in it according to custom without molestation. 5. Nor could the governors of provinces banish either Jews or christians out of their governments, without order from the emperor: and that they had no such order, is apparent. Neither Jews nor christians were molested by them at Ephesus, as may be perceived from the history in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts. That they were not molested by them at Corinth, appears from the preceding chapter. 6. St. John could not be banished from Ephesus by Claudius, or the governors under him: for he was not in that city during the reign of that emperor, nor in the former part of the reign of Nero, as has been shown. He did not come thither till near the end of the reign of the last-mentioned emperor: therefore he could not be sooner banished from Ephesus.
These observations if I am not mistaken, are sufficient to confute the opinion of Grotius.
Sir Isaac Newton was of opinion, that St. John was

419

banished into Patmos, and that the Revelation was seen in the reign of Nero, before the destruction of Jerusalem.
'Eusebius,' says he, 'in his Chronicle and Ecclesiasti­cal History follows Irenaeus: (who said the Apocalypse was written in tile time of Domitian:) but afterwards in his Evangelical Demonstration he conjoins the banishment of John into Patmos, with the deaths of Peter and Paul.'
To which I answer, first, that the Ecclesiastical History was not written before the Evangelical Demonstration, but after it: for the Demonstration is referred to at the end of the second chapter of the first book of the Ecclesiastical History. Secondly, Eusebius in his Demonstration is not different from himself in his Ecclesiastical History. In his Demonstration, having spoken of the imprisonment of all the apostles at Jerusalem, and of their being beaten, and of the stoning of Stephen, the beheading of James the son of Zebedee, and the imprisonment of Peter, he adds: 'James, the Lord's brother; was stoned, Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downward, and Paul was beheaded, and John banished into an island.' But he does not say, that all these things happened in the time of one and the same emperor. It is plain, that it is not his design to mention exactly the time of the sufferings of all these persons. Nothing hinders our supposing, that the apostles Peter and Paul were put to death by order of Nero, and John banish­ed by Domitian, many years afterwards, agreeably to what himself writes in his Chronicle and History.
It follows in Sir Isaac Newton. 'And so do Tertullian, and Pseudo-Prochorus, as well as the first author, whoever he was, of that very ancient fable, that St. John was put by Nero into a vessel of hot oil.'
"...It is true, that Tertullian speaks of the death of Peter and Paul, and of John's being cast into boiling oil, and then banished, all together but he does not say, that all happened in the same reign. St. John's banish-

420

ment is the last thing mentioned by him: and, probably, it happened not till after the death of Peter and Paul. It is likely, that Tertullian supposed it to have been done by the order of Domitian; for in another place he speaks of the persecution of that emperor, as consisting chiefly in banish­ments.
'--and Pseudo-Prochorus.' What place of Prochorus, who pretended to be one of the seven deacons, and is called by Baronius himself a great liar, Sir Isaac Newton refers to, I do not know. But in his history of St. John he is entirely against him. For he particularly relates the sufferings, which St. John underwent in the second persecution of the christians, which was raised by Domitian. That emperor sent orders to the proconsul at Ephesus, to apprehend the apostle. When the proconsul had got St. John in his power, he informed Domitian of it ; who then commanded the proconsul to bring him to Rome. When he was come the emperor would not see him, but ordered him to he cast into a vessel of scalding oil, and he came out unhurt. Then Domitian commanded the proconsul to have St. John back again to Ephesus. Some time after that, by order of the same Domitian, John, and others at Ephesus, were banished into Patmos. Domitian being dead, they returned to Ephesus with the leave of his successor, who did not persecute the christians. So Pseudo-Prochorus.
Since the great Newton has been pleased to refer to such a writer, I shall take notice of another of the like sort; I mean Abdias, who assumed the character of the first bishop of Babylon. What he says is to this purpose: that John

421

who survived the other apostles, lived to the time of Domitian, preaching the word to the people in Asia. When Domitian's edict for persecuting the christians was brought to Ephesus, and John refused to deny Christ, or to give over preaching, the proconsul ordered that he should be drowned in a vessel of boiling oil: but John presently leaped out unhurt. The proconsul would then have set him at liberty, if he had not feared to transgress the emperor's edict. He therefore banished John into Patmos, where he saw and wrote the Revelation. After the death of Domitian, his edicts having been abrogated by the senate, they who had been banished, returned to their homes: and John came to Ephesus, where he had a dwelling, and many friends.
Then follows an account of St. John's visiting the churches in the neighborhood of Ephesus. Where is inserted also the story, formerly taken notice of concerning the young man, as related by Eusebius from Clement of Alexandria: and as happening, not after the death of Nero, but of Domitian.
Newton proceeds: 'as well as the first author, whoever he was, of that very ancient fable, that John was put by Nero into a vessel of hot oil, and coming out unhurt, was banished by him into Patmos. though this story be no more than a fiction, yet it was founded on a tradition of the first churches, that John was banished into Patmos in the days of Nero.' Who was the first author of that fable, I do not know But it does not appear, that Tertullian, the first writer who has mentioned it, thought it to be in the time of Nero. He might mean, and probably did mean, Domitian, the same who banished John into an island: as did also the two writers just taken notice of, Prochorus and Abdias to whom we were led by Sir Isaac. Jerom, who in his books against Jovinian, mentions this story, as from Tertullian,

422

according to some copies, says, it was done at Rome, according to others, in the time of Nero. However in the same place, as well as elsewhere, Jerom expressly says, that John was banished into Patmos by Domitian. And in the other place, where he mentions the casting St. John into boiling oil, he says: 'and presently afterwards he was banished into the island Patmos.' Therefore that other trial, which St. John met with, was in the same reign, that is, Domitian's. And indeed Jerom always supposes St. John's banishment to have been in that reign: as he particularly relates in the ninth chapter of his book of Illustrious Men. Let me add, that if the story of St. John's being put into a vessel of scalding oil be a fable and a fiction, it must be hazardous to build an argument upon it.
It follows in Newton: 'Epiphanius represents the gospel of John as written in the time of Domitian, and the Apocalypse even before that of Nero.' I have already said enough of Epiphanius in considering the opinion of Grotius. However, as one would think, Sir Isaac Newton had little reason to mention Epiphanius, when he does not follow him. He says, that St. John was banished into Patmos in the time of Claudius: Sir Isaac, not till near the end of the reign of Nero.
'Arethas,' says Sir Isaac, ' in the beginning of his commentary quotes the opinion of Irenaeus from Eusebius, but does not follow it. For he afterwards affirms, that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and that former commentators had expounded the sixth seal of that destruction.'
To which I answer. Arethas does indeed say, that some interpreters had explained things under the sixth seal, as relating to the destruction of Jerusalem by Vespasian: but they were some only, not the most. Yea, he presently afterwards says, that the most interpreted it otherwise. Nor does he say, that any of. those commentators were of opinion, that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Arethas seems to have been of opinion, that things, which had come to pass long before, might be represented in the Revelation. Therefore immediately before

423

that passage, explaining Rev. vi. 12, 13, he says : ' What is the opening of the sixth seal? It is the cross and death of the Lord, followed by his resurrection, desirable to all faithful and understanding men. And lo, there was a great earthquake." Manifestly denoting, says he, the signs that happened during the crucifixion, the shaking of the earth, the darkness of the sun, the turning the moon into blood. For when it was full moon, being the fourteenth day, how was it possible, that the sun should be eclipsed by its interposition?'
However, I must not conceal what he says afterwards, in another chapter of his Commentary. He is explaining Rev. vii. 4-8. ' These, says he who instructs the evan­gelist, will not partake in the calamities inflicted by the Romans. For the destruction caused by the Romans had not fallen upon the Jews, when the evangelist received these instructions. Nor was he at Jerusalem, but in Ionia, where is Ephesus: for he stayed at Jerusalem no more than fourteen years.--And after the death of our Lord's mother, he left Judea, and went to Ephesus: as tradition says: where also, as is said, he had the revelation of future things.' But how can we rely upon a writer of the sixth century for these particulars ; that John did not stay at Jerusalem more than fourteen years: that he left Judea upon the death of our Lord's mother, and then went to Ephesus: when we can evidently perceive from the history in the Acts, that in the fourteenth year after our Lord's ascension, there were no christian converts at Ephesus: and that the church at Ephesus was not founded by St. Paul, till several years afterwards? What avails it to refer to such passages as these? Which, when looked into and examined, contain no certain assurances of any thing. And Sir Isaac Newton himself says 'It seems to me, that Peter and John stayed with their churches in Judea and Syria, till the Romans made war upon their nation, that is, till the twelfth year of Nero,' or A. D. 66.
We proceed with this great man's arguments, who adds: With the opinion of the first commentators agrees the tradition of the churches of Syria, preserved to this day in the title of the Syriac version of the Apocalypse, which title is this: "The Revelation, which was made to John the

(continued)

[Tony N]

424

evangelist by God in tile island Patmos, into which he 'was banished by Nero Caesar." ' But how comes it to pass, that the tradition of the churches of Syria is alleged here, when the Apocalypse was not generally received by them? Moreover in the titles of the books of the New Testament received by them, there are manifest errors. Nor can we say when the Syriac version of the Apocalypse was made: nor is it impossible that the authors of that title might mean Domitian by Nero. It is not a greater error, than that of supposing the epistle of James to have been written by James the son of Zebedee.
Again, says the celebrated Newton : 'That same is confirmed by a story told by Eusebius out of Clemens Alexandrinus, and other ancient authors, concerning a youth, whom St. John, some time after his return from Patmos, committed to the care of the bishop of a certain city. This is a story of many years, and requires, that John should have returned front Patmos rather at the death of Nero, than at that of Domitian.'
But, first, if this be only a feigned story, or apologue, as some have thought it, contrived to convey moral instruction; circumstances ought not to be strained, nor the truth of history be founded upon it. Secondly, we must take the story, as it is related by Clement, and other ancient authors. Clement placeth it after the death of the tyrant, by whom John had been banished: and Eusebius supposeth him to mean Domitian. Thirdly, if St. John lived in Asia two, or three, or four years after his return from Patmos, that is time enough for the events of this story.
Sir Isaac adds in the same place : ' And John in his old age was so infirm, as to he carried to church, dying' above ninety years old: and therefore could not be then supposed able to ride after the thief.'
Nevertheless in the original account, which we have of
425

this affair, St. John is expressly called an old man: Sir Isaac therefore has no right to make him young; for that would be making a new story. If a man allows himself so to do, and argues upon it; the necessary consequence is, that he deceives himself and others.
Upon the whole, I see not much weight in any of these arguments of Sir Isaac Newton; and must adhere to the common opinion, that St. John was banished into Patmos, in the reign of Domitian, and by virtue of his edicts for persecuting the christians, in the latter part of his reign. Says Mr. Lampe : ' All ' antiquity is agreed, that St. John's b banishment was by order of Domitian.'
VI. We should now inquire, when St. John was released, or how long his banishment lasted. According' to Tertullian, Domitian's persecution was very short, and the emperor himself before he died, recalled in those whom he had banished. Hegesippus likewise says, of that Domitian by an edict put an end to the persecution which he had ordered. Eusebius says, ' that after the death of Domitian, John returned from his banishment.' And before, in another chapter of the same book, he said move largely: 'After Domitian had reigned fifteen years, Nerva succeeded him and the Roman senate decreed, that the honourable titles bestowed upon Domitian should be abrogated, and moreover, that they who had been banished by him might return to their homes, and repossess their goods, of which they had been unjustly deprived. This we learn from such as have written the history of those times. Then therefore, as our ancestors say, the apostle John returned from his banishment, and again took up his abode at Ephesus.'
Jerom, in his book of Illustrious men, says: ' When Domitian had been killed, and his edicts had been repealed by the senate, because of their excessive cruelty, John returned to Ephesus, in the time of the emperor Nerva.' I place below a passage of the martyrdom of Timothy

426

in Photius, and another of Suidas, saying, that after Domitian's death, when Nerva was emperor, St. John returned from his banishment. This is also agreeable to the general accounts in Dion Cassius, and the author of the Deaths of Persecutors. Indeed, Hegesippus and Tertullian, as before observed, intimate, that the persecution of Domitian ended before his death. But it is very remarkable, that Eusebius having quoted both of them, gives a different account, as we saw just now. And, as learned men have observed, it is a great prejudice to their authority in this point, that Eusebius does not follow them, but presently afterwards differs from them.
It seems probable therefore, that St. John, and other exiles, did not return from their banishment, until after the death of Domitian: which is the opinion of Basnage, and likewise of Cellarius. Domitian is computed to have died, Sept. I8, A. D. 96, after having reigned fifteen years, and some days. Nerva died the 27th day of Jan.98, after having reigned one year, four months, and nine days. Therefore Trajan began his reign, Jan.27, A. D. 98.
If the persecution of Domitian began in the fourteenth year of his reign, and St. John was sent to Patmos that year, and restored in the beginning of the reign of Nerva, his exile could not last more than two years, perhaps not much above a year. If St. John's life reached to the third year of the reign of Trajan, which is the opinion of Cave and many others, he

427

lived three years after his return from Patmos: if it reached to the fourth year of Trajan, as Basnage thought, he must have lived four years after his return.
Or, in other words: if St. John returned about the end of the year 96, or the beginning of 97, and did not die till the year 101, he lived four years in Asia, after his return from Patmos. If he died in the year 100, he lived three years after his return.

[Doc]

There's some good stuff on dating Revelation on www.tektonics.org
He does a really good job on the (partial) preterism stuff, but unfortunately he's an "eternal separationist"

It seems the evidence overall leans slightly in favor of an early dating of Revelation (Pre-AD 70).

[Tony N]

I went to a link Zeek provided in another post where he stated concerning Revelation:

Not necessarily to you Tony, as u are quite sure you have the "sane" TRUTH, but to any others open to other views, check out

http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/studyIndex.php

eschatology articles.

So I went there and went to the link under Preterism (that should tell you it won't be biased :) ) to the link: Introduction to Revelation Part 1

The person wrote in that link this:

The text of Revelation provides a self-witness for the date it was written.

Revelation 11:1-2 (NKJV) Then I was given a reed like a measuring rod. And the angel stood, saying, "Rise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there. 2 "But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.

These verses refers to a temple standing in a city called the `holy city'. Based upon Old Testament Scripture, we can surmise that a Christian Jew such as John would have had the historical Jerusalem in mind when he spoke of the holy city.

This person believes the above internal evidence supports an early date writing for Revelation prior to 70 A.D.

But let's look at some internal evidence the writer left out (probably because it was too embarrassing or he didn't understand what John said):

"I came to be, in spirit, in the Lord's day . . ." (Rev 1:10)

The Lord's day is yet future. The KJV improperly says "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day" making the reader think John was in spirit on Sunday since Sunday in merry ole England in 1611 was supposedly "the Lord's Day" when everyone went to church.

Since John was in spirit IN the Lord's day, and he went to Jerusalem to do some measuring, he did so in the future day of the Lord.

When John was in spirit ON the new earth in Revelation he saw the holy city New Jerusalem being measured as well. So if the measuring of the city took place while John was on Patmos then this should tell us we are on the new earth since the measuring of the New City Jerusalem took place while John wrote Revelation. Makes perfect sense to me. Not.

Do you see the problem?
The Berean writer, who is an unbiased? Preterist (I guess) says that if John measured the temple of God that he must have done this while the temple was still standing before 70 A.D. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Since the New City Jerusalem was measured and John saw it being measured (Rev.21), then Revelation was written after the earth was destroyed by fire and after the new earth came. So that puts the dating of Revelation waaaay late. Either that, we are living on the new earth and have been since John wrote Revelation (even though no one knew we've been living on the new earth, not even Jesus and His church knew. But I bet some are reading this know.

The dating of Revelation is very important. If Revelation was written after 70 A.D. (which I believe it was) and since John was still looking forward to the Lord's return and looking forward to the setting up of His millennial reign, it is a nail in the coffin of Preterism.

O.K. so that is my beginning salvo. Let's keep it friendly  :handshake:

Tony

[Texas Son]

Interesting! This will be fascinating to watch as I am just coming to grasp with the preterist view and have found merit in it.

I am eager to see the discourse on this subject.

One question I do have: How would we know whether "the Lord's day" was meant to be Saturday or Sunday for John? Might John have had another significance for the day of the Lord? Resurrection day?

[Tony N]

Interesting! This will be fascinating to watch as I am just coming to grasp with the preterist view and have found merit in it.

I am eager to see the discourse on this subject.

One question I do have: How would we know whether "the Lord's day" was meant to be Saturday or Sunday for John? Might John have had another significance for the day of the Lord? Resurrection day?

Hi Texas Son,
The day of the Lord, otherwise known in the Old Testament as "the day of Yahweh" is what Isaiah wrote about and which Christ reiterated:

Isa 13:6 Howl! For near is the day of Yahweh! As devastation from Him Who-Suffices shall it come.
Isa 13:7 Therefore all hands shall be slack, and every mortal's heart shall melt"
Isa 13:8 and be flustered. Throes and cramps shall take hold of them. As a bearing woman shall they travail. A man at his associate shall be amazed, and as a facade of blazes are their faces."
Isa 13:9 Behold! The day of Yahweh has come, cruel, with rage and hot anger, to make the entire earth a desolation, and its sinners is He exterminating from it."
Isa 13:10 For the stars of the heavens are not appearing, and their constellations are not irradiating their light. Dark is the sun in its faring forth, and the moon is not brightening with its light."

Jesus Christ:
Mat 24:29 Now immediately after the affliction of those days the sun shall be darkened and the moon shall not be giving her beams, and the stars shall be falling from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken."
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Mankind in heaven, and then all the tribes of the land shall grieve, and they shall see the Son of Mankind coming on the clouds of heaven with power and much glory."

This was in answer to the disciple's request:

Mat 24:3 ". . . the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what is the sign of Thy presence and of the conclusion of the eon?

So when the Lord comes again it is known as "the Lord's day" and "the day of Yahweh" or "Yahweh's day" (same thing).

And John the revelator was in spirit in that future day of the Lord:

Rev 6:12-14  And I perceived, when It opens the sixth seal, and a great cataclysm occurred, and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole moon became as blood,  (13)  and the stars of heaven fall on the earth as a fig tree is casting its shriveled figs, quaking under a great wind."  (14)  And heaven recoils as a scroll rolling up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place."

[Zeek]

There is enough out there for anyone to come up with their own belief, but here is two things interesting:

http://www.newjerusalemcommunity.net/?c=54&a=1921


and

i've been told, but don't have proof that

The Syriac Pecrapto (Murdock's version) opens Revelation, "The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor."

[Zeek]

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jewishtemple.htm


Dan 9:26  And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

Rev 18:2  And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Mat 24:34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Luk 21:33  Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

[Zeek]

Zec 14:1  Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

Zec 14:2  For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Zec 14:3  Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

Zec 14:4  And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Zec 14:5  And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee.

Zec 14:6  And it shall come to pass in that day, that the light shall not be clear, nor dark:

Zec 14:7  But it shall be one day which shall be known to the LORD, not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light.

Zec 14:8  And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.

Zec 14:9  And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one.

Zec 14:10  All the land shall be turned as a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem: and it shall be lifted up, and inhabited in her place, from Benjamin's gate unto the place of the first gate, unto the corner gate, and from the tower of Hananeel unto the king's winepresses.

Zec 14:11  And men shall dwell in it, and there shall be no more utter destruction; but Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited.

Zec 14:12  And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

Zec 14:13  And it shall come to pass in that day, that a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; and they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbor, and his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbor.

Zec 14:14  And Judah also shall fight at Jerusalem; and the wealth of all the heathen round about shall be gathered together, gold, and silver, and apparel, in great abundance.

Zec 14:15  And so shall be the plague of the horse, of the mule, of the camel, and of the ass, and of all the beasts that shall be in these tents, as this plague.

Zec 14:16  And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Zec 14:17  And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.

Zec 14:18  And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Zec 14:19  This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.

Zec 14:20  In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD's house shall be like the bowls before the altar.

Zec 14:21  Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

[Zeek]

Mat 24:16  Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains


"Josephus tells us that when Cestius Gallus had earlier come with his army against Jerusalem, after some time he raised the siege. After he had left, many of the oldest of the Jews went out from Jerusalem as from a sinking ship. He says that a few years later, when Vespasian come with his troops against Jerusalem, a great multitude fled from Jerusalem to the mountains for security. It is reasonable to suppose that some Christians were among these. When Jerusalem was surrounded, the Christians were to think of their safety, and seize the first opportunity for flight. Jesus had warned them when these things started happening to flee into the mountains."

http://latter-rain.com/ot/jewar.htm