Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

[Josheb]

Ok. Let's back up. CPlease clarify for me the point here:

Josheb said:
When prophesies are fulfilled in the NT it is noted. How then would the fulfillment of Jerusalem's destruction not be noted if the scriptures were written after those prophecies were fulfilled?

When you speak of prophecies 'fulfilled in the NT', do you mean prophecies fulfilled while the NT is still being written in the 1st century AD?

Sometimes the New Testament simply witnesses a fulfillment of OT prophecy without explicitly labeling the fulfillment. There were hundreds of prophecies about the coming Messiah, all of which are fulfilled by Jesus. In that regard every single Christian on the planet is a Christological preterist. They may not be eschatological preterists but we're ALL Christological preterists. Jesus, and Jesus alone is the prophesied Messiah, and there will be no other. All those prophecies are fulfilled..... whether the New Testament explicitly mentions every single one of the many hundred prophecies or not.

That's not the same as when the NT does explicitly state an OT prophecy has been fulfilled. When the NT states, "This was done to fulfill the prophecy (and the text mentions the OT prophecy) , then we KNOW that prophecy has been fulfilled because God said so through the divinely inspired author.

Matthew 1:22
Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ...............................

Matthew 2:15
He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called My son.....

Matthew 2:17
Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ..................................

Luke 4:21
And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.


There are more than fifty examples of this in the New Testament!

Such as the coming and virgin birth of Christ. His rejection by His own people. The slaughter of innocents by Herod. His death by crucifixion. Etc...

Yes.

But there are also occasion when a New Testament writer is less explicit, less specific, or uses different wording, such as...

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

There Paul was less explicit and less specific (more implicit and general). A series of loosely identified events were said to be relevant and applicable to the New Testament era. His pointing to the time in which he was living was the only specificity he stated. The ends of the ages had come, and the prophetic significance of what - at the time of the original occurrence - did not seem prophetic, his spiritualized allegorizing of the exodus episodes was revealed to have eschatological significance. This, presumably, was disclosed to Paul by God for God's people living in the first century. Those aspects of the exodus were prophetic, and their prophetic value was fulfilled at that time when the ends of the ages had come. Even less explicit is the necessary implication that all OT prophecies related to the ends of the ages was being fulfilled back then in the first century.

Let me be clear: This is not to say all OT (or NT) prophecy has been fulfilled. Only that which the NT reports being fulfilled can be known to be fulfilled and we have surety to that effect because of the New Testament witness.

How does that apply to dating Revelation?

Well...... one example is that pesky little verse at Revelation 1:19. That verse reports some of the events in Revelation had already been seen by John; they'd already occurred in John's life and he, personally, had seen it. Some of the events were stated to be happening at the time the revelation was revealed to John. They were present tense in the first century. Lastly, some of the events were said to come after what had been seen and what is. That's the portion of Revelation that was future to John and the New Testament era Christians. A lot of debate has occurred over the last two millennia over what transpired in the first century after John wrote Revelation and what is going to happen in the 10th, 16th, 19th, 21st, 434rd centuries.

For example, Revelation 1:9 states,

I, John, your brother and fellow participant in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

John partook in the tribulation. Not "a" tribulation, but "the" tribulation. The verse also states he partook in the kingdom - the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance. Are these all one single event? Three conditions of the same event? The KJV translates this as the tribulation, kingdom and perseverance of Jesus, not in Jesus. John was there during the tribulation of Jesus and that happened long before Revelation was penned - wither it was penned at a late date or an early date. If the "of" is correct, then it's not much help dating Revelation BUT if the "in" is correct and the tribulation in question is the destruction of Jerusalem related persecution of Christians, then that's proof (not merely evidence) of an early date.

Matthew 24:9
Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name.

The "you" in that sentence is the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking that evening sitting atop the Mount of Olives. Jesus told them they would be handed over to tribulation. Peter and all the other disciples were dead by the late date. If the late date is correct then there's a problem reconciling a late-date future to the late date tribulation but, conversely, if the tribulation in question did happen with the disciples being delivered to it then that's proof (not merely evidence) of an early date.

Either way, the necessary implication of Revelation 1:9 & 19 is that much of Revelation transpired before or during the writing of Revelation AND, therefore, all of the Old Testament prophecies related to those events are also fulfilled. It has to be that way. Revelation 1:19 does not detail every OT prophecy fulfilled but, logically, anything in Revelation that was part of the "things which you have seen and things which are," that was first prophesied in the OT - it's all fulfilled. OT prophecies John had seen fulfilled are fulfilled. Some of them we know were Christological. Some of them we know were soteriological. Some of them we, likewise, know were eschatological.

Josheb said:
When prophesies are fulfilled in the NT it is noted. How then would the fulfillment of Jerusalem's destruction not be noted if the scriptures were written after those prophecies were fulfilled?

Do you mean that since other fulfilled prophecies are noted in the NT, that during the time of NT writing, all fulfilled prophecies ought be noted?

No. I am simply pointing out the fact the New Testament tells That Old Testament prophesies were coming true during the New Testament era. Some, not all.

So, that we would wonder why NT Scriptures written after Jerusalem's destruction, do not note it?

Not exactly. I am not saying, "Because the New Testament ALWAYS tells us when an Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled the New Testament must therefore state Jerusalem was destroyed." That is NOT what I am saying. I do NOT believe that is correct. The New Testament does not always announce fulfilled prophecy BUT it does do so quite often (more than fifty times it does so explicitly).

What I and others are asserting is that the destruction of Jerusalem and the deaths of Paul and Peter would have been of so much importance they would have been mentioned by someone - anyone! - if those events had occurred prior to the writing of late date books. Since the supposedly late date books make absolutely no mention of those events having occurred, we must conclude either those events were not important enough to mention (hard to imagine that being the case) or the late dates are incorrect and the books in question were written much earlier. They were written prior to the death of Paul, the death of Peter, and the destruction of Jerusalem. Jerusalem's destruction was a matter of prophecy. We're supposed to believe a pile of OT prophecy related to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled, and no one mentioned ANY of it?

 

[Ghada]

Sometimes the New Testament simply witnesses a fulfillment of OT prophecy without explicitly labeling the fulfillment. There were hundreds of prophecies about the coming Messiah, all of which are fulfilled by Jesus. In that regard every single Christian on the planet is a Christological preterist. They may not be eschatological preterists but we're ALL Christological preterists. Jesus, and Jesus alone is the prophesied Messiah, and there will be no other. All those prophecies are fulfilled..... whether the New Testament explicitly mentions every single one of the many hundred prophecies or not.

That's not the same as when the NT does explicitly state an OT prophecy has been fulfilled. When the NT states, "This was done to fulfill the prophecy (and the text mentions the OT prophecy) , then we KNOW that prophecy has been fulfilled because God said so through the divinely inspired author.

Matthew 1:22
Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: ...............................

Matthew 2:15
He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called My son.....

Matthew 2:17
Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ..................................

Luke 4:21
And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.


There are more than fifty examples of this in the New Testament!

Yes.

But there are also occasion when a New Testament writer is less explicit, less specific, or uses different wording, such as...

1 Corinthians 10:11
Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

There Paul was less explicit and less specific (more implicit and general). A series of loosely identified events were said to be relevant and applicable to the New Testament era. His pointing to the time in which he was living was the only specificity he stated. The ends of the ages had come, and the prophetic significance of what - at the time of the original occurrence - did not seem prophetic, his spiritualized allegorizing of the exodus episodes was revealed to have eschatological significance. This, presumably, was disclosed to Paul by God for God's people living in the first century. Those aspects of the exodus were prophetic, and their prophetic value was fulfilled at that time when the ends of the ages had come. Even less explicit is the necessary implication that all OT prophecies related to the ends of the ages was being fulfilled back then in the first century.

Let me be clear: This is not to say all OT (or NT) prophecy has been fulfilled. Only that which the NT reports being fulfilled can be known to be fulfilled and we have surety to that effect because of the New Testament witness.

How does that apply to dating Revelation?

Well...... one example is that pesky little verse at Revelation 1:19. That verse reports some of the events in Revelation had already been seen by John; they'd already occurred in John's life and he, personally, had seen it. Some of the events were stated to be happening at the time the revelation was revealed to John. They were present tense in the first century. Lastly, some of the events were said to come after what had been seen and what is. That's the portion of Revelation that was future to John and the New Testament era Christians. A lot of debate has occurred over the last two millennia over what transpired in the first century after John wrote Revelation and what is going to happen in the 10th, 16th, 19th, 21st, 434rd centuries.

For example, Revelation 1:9 states,

I, John, your brother and fellow participant in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

John partook in the tribulation. Not "a" tribulation, but "the" tribulation. The verse also states he partook in the kingdom - the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance. Are these all one single event? Three conditions of the same event? The KJV translates this as the tribulation, kingdom and perseverance of Jesus, not in Jesus. John was there during the tribulation of Jesus and that happened long before Revelation was penned - wither it was penned at a late date or an early date. If the "of" is correct, then it's not much help dating Revelation BUT if the "in" is correct and the tribulation in question is the destruction of Jerusalem related persecution of Christians, then that's proof (not merely evidence) of an early date.

Matthew 24:9
Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name.

The "you" in that sentence is the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking that evening sitting atop the Mount of Olives. Jesus told them they would be handed over to tribulation. Peter and all the other disciples were dead by the late date. If the late date is correct then there's a problem reconciling a late-date future to the late date tribulation but, conversely, if the tribulation in question did happen with the disciples being delivered to it then that's proof (not merely evidence) of an early date.

Either way, the necessary implication of Revelation 1:9 & 19 is that much of Revelation transpired before or during the writing of Revelation AND, therefore, all of the Old Testament prophecies related to those events are also fulfilled. It has to be that way. Revelation 1:19 does not detail every OT prophecy fulfilled but, logically, anything in Revelation that was part of the "things which you have seen and things which are," that was first prophesied in the OT - it's all fulfilled. OT prophecies John had seen fulfilled are fulfilled. Some of them we know were Christological. Some of them we know were soteriological. Some of them we, likewise, know were eschatological.

No. I am simply pointing out the fact the New Testament tells That Old Testament prophesies were coming true during the New Testament era. Some, not all.

Not exactly. I am not saying, "Because the New Testament ALWAYS tells us when an Old Testament prophecy is fulfilled the New Testament must therefore state Jerusalem was destroyed." That is NOT what I am saying. I do NOT believe that is correct. The New Testament does not always announce fulfilled prophecy BUT it does do so quite often (more than fifty times it does so explicitly).

What I and others are asserting is that the destruction of Jerusalem and the deaths of Paul and Peter would have been of so much importance they would have been mentioned by someone - anyone! - if those events had occurred prior to the writing of late date books. Since the supposedly late date books make absolutely no mention of those events having occurred, we must conclude either those events were not important enough to mention (hard to imagine that being the case) or the late dates are incorrect and the books in question were written much earlier. They were written prior to the death of Paul, the death of Peter, and the destruction of Jerusalem. Jerusalem's destruction was a matter of prophecy. We're supposed to believe a pile of OT prophecy related to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled, and no one mentioned ANY of it?

 

[Ghada]

That's not true. Everyone the disciples and Christ raised from the dead remained alive (as well as those three examples back in the OT).

Then the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead was not the first, and therefore not so remarkable.

They already had OT witness of resurrection of the dead with immortal bodies, including Lazarus with their own eyes.

So Jesus was just another in line...

No Scripture speaks of anyone being resurrected from the dead, until Jesus Christ. Raised and resurrected from the dead are not the same.

It isn't even possible for anyone to die twice (even the wicked) as "it is appointed unto men ONCE to die"

Once to die and then the judgment. That death is an appointment no man escapes.

Scripture never says that Christ was the first one to come out of the grave in an immortal body. But He WAS the first one to ascend to the Father in heaven in a glorified, immortal body. This is what gave Jesus the title of "the First-born", as the first to ascend to the Father and become the "First-begotten from the dead" to appear in heaven.

Thanks. Another new twist away from the truth, that I've never heard before.


Jesus Christ is the first begotten and firstfruits from the dead by resurrection, not by ascension.

This is not just a play on words. It is what the Father said to the newly-ascended Son on the day of His appearing in heaven in that resurrected state when He consecrated Him as our Great high priest king on God's holy hill of Zion (Psalms 2:6-8).

Now you want to change Jesus Christ being the firstbegotten and only begotten Son of God on earth?

Heb 1:6
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

This day have I begotten thee on earth, and I will be a Father to Him, and He will be a Son to me, and let all the angels of God worship Him:

Which they did at night before the shepherds.

The Matthew 27:52-53 saints never died again.

Not the second death, being justified and resurrected at the judgment seat of Christ.

The physical bodies of the wicked dead never rise bodily from the grave.

The rest of the dead do after the first resurrection of the saints, and they are judged according to their works.

Just as Scripture says.

They physically die once only like everyone, but in their case, their physical bodies are destined to be left to perish in the grave, as Christ taught.

Ha! The old torment in hell is just a parable gambit. The wicked dead bodies, and souls, remain dead unto oblivion only...

So, are you a JW or some other kind of created christ believer too? Is that why you try to change the firstbegotten Son of God on earth, into something else?

Was the Word God?

 

[3 Resurrections]

No Scripture speaks of anyone being resurrected from the dead, until Jesus Christ. Raised and resurrected from the dead are not the same.

Of course Scripture speaks of people being resurrected from the dead before Jesus Christ. Being raised physically from the dead and being resurrected are the exact same thing. "He being raised from the dead DIETH NO MORE - DEATH HATH NO MORE DOMINION OVER HIM". It's the same process taking place. It takes the power of the Holy Spirit to restore the spirit and soul of a person back to a dead body form. This is accompanied by changing that saint's body into the immortal and incorruptible state. You might as well say you can kill the Holy Spirit as to say that a resurrected / raised person can die again for a second time. If that were true, then we will be in danger in the eternal state at having to forfeit our resurrected status in heaven.

Now you want to change Jesus Christ being the firstbegotten and only begotten Son of God on earth?

Heb 1:6
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

This day have I begotten thee on earth, and I will be a Father to Him, and He will be a Son to me, and let all the angels of God worship Him:

Which they did at night before the shepherds.

You are goofing up the context of this declaration to the Son when God said "THIS DAY have I begotten thee". It was on this occasion when God told the Son "Ask of me and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession" It was the very same time when God said "Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion". God enthroned Christ on THIS DAY when He was begotten. It was not the day of Christ's birth as an infant. It was the day when Christ was enthroned as our Great High Priest in heaven. The Hebrews 1:6 context goes on to confirm this. Hebrews 1:8, "But unto the Son he saith, THY THRONE O God, is for ever and ever : a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

The rest of the dead do after the first resurrection of the saints, and they are judged according to their works.

No, the physical bodies of the wicked dead never rise from the dust of the grave. Isaiah 26:14 confirms this about the wicked dead, saying, "They are dead, they shall NOT live; they are deceased, they shall NOT RISE. Therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish." Christ called it "the resurrection to destruction" for the wicked. Their soul and spirit only stand in the judgment and are likewise destroyed by this. We are to fear Him who has the power to destroy both soul and body in the grave, since this is exactly what happens to the wicked in the judgment.

Not the second death, being justified and resurrected at the judgment seat of Christ.

The "second death" / aka, the "Lake of Fire" was the second time the city of Jerusalem was destroyed by fire. The first time was the Babylonian invasion in 586 BC when "Death" and "Hell" overcame the city and the rulers of the people in Jerusalem, as promised by God in Isaiah 28:14-19. Death and Hell were thrown into that Lake of Fire in Jerusalem again for the city's "Second Death" in the siege period ending in AD 70, when the city was again burned down - this time, never to emerge from the sea into which the angel threw that great city Jerusalem / Babylon the Great. This "Second Death" was not of people dying for a second time - which is not even possible according to Hebrews 9:27. We are all appointed to die the one time only - NOT twice. Scripture does not contradict itself.

Jesus Christ is the first begotten and firstfruits from the dead by resurrection, not by ascension.

The title of the "First-fruits" (PLURAL PEOPLE) is not the same as the title of the "First-begotten" (SINGLE PERSON). Christ shared the title of the "Firstfruits" with the 144,000 First-fruits of Revelation 14:4. They were all raised as the "First-fruits' from the dead on the very same day, which makes these 144,000 First-fruits the Matthew 27:52-53 resurrected saints.

But Christ was the only one to have the unique title of the "First-born" and the "First-begotten". He was the very first bodily-resurrected person to ascend to the Father in that glorified, resurrected state. No one had ever done that before then. Christ as the "First-born" had to "open the matrix" for all the rest of His siblings to be able to follow Him to heaven's realm after Him. Until He was inaugurated as our Great High Priest in heaven that morning, there was no way that any resurrected person could ascend to the Father and be accepted. The legal terms of our justification had to be established in heaven FIRST by Christ as our Mediator and representative High Priest that morning. This was the significance behind all the emphasis on the "First-born" children born under the Old Covenant. Every first-born son was a symbol representing the coming "First-born" Son of God who would ascend to heaven that resurrection morning and become our Great High Priest for all time.

And no, I am not a JW.

 

[Ghada]

What I and others are asserting is that the destruction of Jerusalem and the deaths of Paul and Peter would have been of so much importance they would have been mentioned by someone - anyone! - if those events had occurred prior to the writing of late date books

And who is that someone-anyone! Men or Christ?

2Ti 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2 Peter
{1:21} For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

Is it men who decide what to record in Scripture, of Christ? Is it men who have right to judge by their own understanding, what is chosen to be recorded in God's Scriptures or not?

Num 16:28
And Moses said, Hereby ye shall know that the LORD hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind.

(hard to imagine that being the case)

Now that we know who Anyone! is, can you now at all imagine, that the Lord does not conform to your judgment of what ought be in His Scriptures?

Or, do you and others say Christ certainly must record such events 'of so much importance' to you and others?

We see how the argument is no longer just about dating Scripture, but judging what Christ are to write into His own Scriptures at any date.

We see such an error comes from a carnal reading of the Bible, as though such arguments are between men of like understanding, and not against the Lord Himself:

Job 38:1
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

The sole authority of Christ to choose when and what to give as Scripture on earth, includes how much Scripture to write, and when to cease doing so.

Rom 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Who is any man created in the image of God, to tell Him what He ought record in His own Book or not?

What you and others are saying, is that proof of Scripture no longer being written on earth, is by what you and others say ought be recorded therein. You and others are saying Christ cannot write any Scripture on earth at any time, without your approval of what is included or not.

Blessedly, personal anecdotal report is not proof of anything. I might just as readily say my personal experience has been different and then where would that get us? Competing opinions?

By your own competing opinion against the Lord, He cannot write any Scripture on earth at such a time, without recording what you judged must be written: He must agree and conform to your poersonal experince in such things.

Rom 2:21
Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?

Was John also dead before such a time? Could not the Lord raise up another holy writer to record such events, if He chose them important enough to do so?

Luk 3:8
and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Gen 18:14
Is any thing too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.

Whether John were dead or alive, the Lord could have easily appointed another to write Scripture recording the destruction of the 2nd temple, if He judged the same as you and others, that it were so important for Him to do so.

He could have written for the world another letter of woe for the fall of Jerusalem and it's temple.

But He did not. Why? Obviously He does not agree the destruction of Herod's den of theives and self-glorying idol of false leaders and priests, deserves even passing mention in His own everlasting Scriptures.

Let men of like understanding do that, if they think it's so important.

Luk 9:60
Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

Whther Jesus has written Scripture on earth at that time or not, has nothing to do with the judgment of men, that such heaps of vile rubbish 'deserves' to be recorded by Him.

 

[Ghada]

Jerusalem's destruction was a matter of prophecy. We're supposed to believe a pile of OT prophecy related to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled

A pile of OT prophecy? Other than Jesus' specific prophecy of the 2nd temple, there is no sure pile of prophecy about Jersualem's sacking in 70 AD.

Jesus' prophecy was specific about the stones that His disciples were ogling at.

The prophecies of Jersualem's ruin after the first sacking by Babylon, can apply to the future. And according to those few prophecies, 70AD doesn't fulfill them, because Zerusalem and the cities of Judea were not laid waste without inhabitant.

Jer 34:22
Behold, I will command, saith the LORD, and cause them to return to this city; and they shall fight against it, and take it, and burn it with fire: and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation without an inhabitant.

Rome did plow Carthage, not Jerusalem.

Only that which the NT reports being fulfilled can be known to be fulfilled

Not true. Jesus' prophecy of 2nd temple destruction is known to be fulfilled in 70 AD. And it is not recorded in any Scripture.

Since you say there is no rule of prophecy, that all fulfilled prophecy must be written in Scripture, then it's back to speculation of dates.

Well...... one example is that pesky little verse at Revelation 1:19. That verse reports some of the events in Revelation had already been seen by John; they'd already occurred in John's life and he, personally, had seen it. Some of the events were stated to be happening at the time the revelation was revealed to John. They were present tense in the first century.

True. And many things happening in the first century were not recorded, such as the temple's destruction.

The fact that the temple was destroyed proves He was a true prophet.

The fact that He did not record shows it was not so important an event to His Scripture, as some think it must be. If the Lord wanted it recorded in Scripture, He would have had Scripture written to do so.

wither it was penned at a late date or an early date. If the "of" is correct, then it's not much help dating Revelation

Once again, none of these things date Revelation's writing. They are only things that happen before, during, and after Jesus Christ Revelation is given to John to write.

BUT if the "in" is correct and the tribulation in question is the destruction of Jerusalem related persecution of Christians,

Destruction of cities and dirths in the land are tribulations to every person suffering from it.

The tribulation John was companion to was persecution for having and keeping the faith of Jesus, which is why he was on Patmos.

 

[Ghada]

A lot of debate has occurred over the last two millennia over what transpired in the first century after John wrote Revelation and what is going to happen in the 10th, 16th, 19th, 21st, 434rd centuries.

Including the teaching of doctrine and prophecy being cyclic in nature.

Rev 1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

This says 2 things: Revelation is for doctrine to be kept, as well as prophecy to be revealed. It includes all readers of Revelation yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Therefore, those things written therein are important for us to know and to do. Such as the works of the churches judged by Jesus. Those are generationally repetitive to one degree or another. Names, dates, and details change, but not the jdugment of such works.

Rev 1:19
Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

This can certainly mean there are events and deeds of the same nature, that have been done, are being done, and shall be done.

That includes no only the works of the church generations, but also the works of false antichrists, aposltes, prophets, and teachers, coming and going, rising and falling.

2Pe 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

1Jo 2:18
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Mat 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

That which was, now is, and shall be. Names, dates, and locations change, but not the coming and going of such things from generation to generation.

It is still the last days, with the same repeats of works the churches, both good and bad, and works of ministry in the churches, whether to edify or destroy.

Therefore, partial preterism is obvious pertaining to works and ministries of the churches of Christ. Revelation teaches their manner, as well as revealing their end at the Lord's return.

These are things affecting all saints in Christ Jesus from the beginning, that we are blessed to understand and keep, while watching unto the hour of the Lord's coming again.

Specific names, dates, and events only matter to them affected at the time.

For example, Revelation 1:9 states,

I, John, your brother and fellow participant in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

John partook in the tribulation. Not "a" tribulation, but "the" tribulation.

True. The same tribulation in those last days, as any other godly saint enduring trials and persecution in our own last days. These last days end with the Lord's return, to first divide in His churches between His wheat and hypocrite tares, and then divide among the nations between of good sheep and unfeeling goats.

These last days with tribulations began with the resurrection of the Lord from the grave, and will only end with His coming again on earth.

Act 14:22

Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

Mat 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

1Pe 4:12
Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

1 Peter 1:6
Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

then that's proof (not merely evidence) of an early date.

Only proof of when such common tribulation of all saints in Christ began.

Such fiery trials of tribulation and perscuation for the godly members of Christ, have not ended.

1Pe 4:12
Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.

Blessed are still the readers, believers, and keepers of the doctrine and prophecy of Christ in the NT.

Matthew 24:9
Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of my name.

The "you" in that sentence is the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking that evening sitting atop the Mount of Olives.

As well as His disciples reading and hearing Him at His feet today, just as Mary yesterday.

Jhn 20:29
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

2Co 5:7
For we walk by faith, not by sight.

 

[Josheb]

A pile of OT prophecy? Other than Jesus' specific prophecy of the 2nd temple, there is no sure pile of prophecy about Jersualem's sacking in 70 AD.

I did not specify 70 AD in prophecy. Stop putting words in my posts I did not write and stop moving the goalposts. Engage and discuss what is actually posted. OT prophecy promised and predicted the destruction of Israel if the did not keep God's covenant.

 

[Josheb]

And who is that someone-anyone! Men or Christ?

?????

Why would Christ be the antichrist? Why would a non-human be an antichrist John's original readers were awaiting? That content makes no sense.

 

[Josheb]

Including the teaching of doctrine and prophecy being cyclic in nature.

Not a single verse just quoted states prophecy is cyclic.

 

[Ghada]

I did not specify 70 AD in prophecy. Stop putting words in my posts I did not write and stop moving the goalposts. Engage and discuss what is actually posted. OT prophecy promised and predicted the destruction of Israel if the did not keep God's covenant.

The whole context of about 70 AD.

We're supposed to believe a pile of OT prophecy related to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem was fulfilled, and no one mentioned ANY of it?

You've already started getting personally indignant, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Stick to the argument by first refreshing yourself about what you are saying.

 

[Ghada]

?????

Why would Christ be the antichrist? Why would a non-human be an antichrist John's original readers were awaiting? That content makes no sense.

It's either over your head, or you're ducking the reproof.

Only a carnal reading of the Bible would suggest it's a question between men, about what ought be recorded in Scripture or not.

Christ is the sole Author and judge of what He puts in Scritpure, who to write it, when to write it, and how much to write on earth.

No matter what some readers may reason among themselves about the 'much' importance of some events on earth, Christ's decision not to record them in Scripture of God, has nothing to do with when He had His last verse of Scripture written on earth.

If Christ wanted Herod's rock pile to be recorded in Scripture, He would have made Scripture to do so. Whether through John or some other holy saint on earth.

Christ did not run out of Scripture before 70 AD, and then smack Himself on the head for stopping to soon. Especially not because some great thinkers on earth think He should have recorded it in eternal Scripture.

As to why He didn't choose to record it, I'm thinking not so much as a mention in Scripture says plenty about something 'of so much importance' to some men.

Not a single verse just quoted states prophecy is cyclic.

Not a single word here states any understanding of what was said.

Ecc 1:9
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

I'm thinking over your head is the thing. To be charitable.

 

[Ghada]

That's not true. Everyone the disciples and Christ raised from the dead remained alive (as well as those three examples back in the OT).

If your handle means there are three resurrections, then you would need to increase the number. But since we don't know how man saints came out of their graves to walk the streets of Jerusalem, then the number of resurrection events can't be numbered.

In the meantime there are three resurrection events: Jesus Christ. The first resurrection of His saints at His return. And the rest of the dead after His millenium expires.

It isn't even possible for anyone to die twice (even the wicked) as "it is appointed unto men ONCE to die" - and once only,

Once to die before their judgment. None of them raised from the dead were immediately judged by their works. Not by Jesus at His return, nor by the Lord at the GWT.

There is one final death of the body before judgment.

just as Christ died only once (Heb. 9:27-28). For those worthy to attain heaven's realm in that resurrected state, "Neither CAN they die anymore, but are as the angels..." (Luke 20:35-36).

This is resurrection from the righteous dead bodily.

Scripture never says any of them raised from the dead on earth were resurrected from the dead.

Many have been raised from the dead to live again, and all will be resurrected from the dead unto judgment of their lives.

Scripture never says that Christ was the first one to come out of the grave in an immortal body.

Scripture never says there were any before His resurrection.

His is the first known bodily resurrection from the dead in the Bible.

But He WAS the first one to ascend to the Father in heaven in a glorified, immortal body.

Then you must apply the same rule to His resurrection. Nothing is said about what happened to the others raised from the dead before and after His resurrection and ascension.

 

[Mr GLee]

This is blatantly false. When Christ told John in Revelation 1:3 & 19 that the visions of things that were "about to be hereafter" were then "at hand", this meant that those prophecies were starting their fulfillment and were presently starting to take place at the time John received those visions.

The words "AT HAND" in Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 do not apply to any and every generation that ever exists. That is a joke. God explicitly defined what he meant by an "AT HAND" prophecy back in Ezekiel 12:21-28. That kind of prophecy is not "prolonged" into "times that are far off". Instead, they are fulfilled "in your days" for those who are first receiving that prophecy. God both "speaks" the word of prophecy and then "performs" it in the same time frame for an "at hand" prophecy.

This means that the visions of future things that were then "at hand" in John's days would be fulfilled in their days - not "prolonged" into distant times that were "far off" (such as our generation).

Now, if you are going to insist that John was writing Revelation in the 90's, then you are obligated by God's own Ezekiel 12:21-28 definition of what an "at hand" prophecy is to determine when Revelation's cataclysmic events have unfolded back in the 90's.

I am patiently waiting for your own explanation of when in the 90's all of John's visions have occurred...

I would offer one ressurection . When Jesus said it is finished the vail representing the ressurection gate opened all the old testament saints arose It will close on the last day under the Sun when the transition is made

 

[Josheb]

It's either over your head, or you're ducking the reproof.

Baseless and fallacious ad hominem noted. Let me know when you're ready and able to stick to the topic and address the facts of scripture.

 

[CrowCross]

But since we don't know how man saints came out of their graves to walk the streets of Jerusalem, then the number of resurrection events can't be numbered.

We don't know how many there were...who they were...and what happened to them.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If your handle means there are three resurrections, then you would need to increase the number.

Nope. We are talking about three GROUP resurrections, scheduled to take place on the same time of year that the Passover, Pentecost, and Feast of Tabernacles resurrections used to take place. Those who were raised to life again in the OT and the NT on an individual basis had to wait for the rapture on Pentecost day in AD 70 to be taken to heaven with Christ with the group resurrected at that time.

It isn't good enough for the physical dead bodies of the saints just to get above ground in an incorruptible, immortal condition. Our inheritance is to be "presented faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy" (Jude 24). A restored, face-to-face intimate fellowship with our Creator in a perfected, immortal body is the full spectrum of our salvation inheritance. Nothing less than that. This is what Hebrews 11:35 and 40 called "the better resurrection" and the "better thing". All the saints who had been resurrected before Christ were waiting on that coming ascension with the next resurrection event which was going to take place in AD 70. Together, they would meet the Lord in the clouds and all together be raptured to heaven with Christ.

Scripture never says there were any before His resurrection.

His is the first known bodily resurrection from the dead in the Bible.

Of course there were bodily resurrections recorded in scripture which took place before Christ was raised from the dead. You are really deluded on this point. Christ was unique in that He was the first to ascend to heaven in that glorified, resurrected state. No man ascended to heaven in that condition before Christ did this on the morning after His resurrection.

Then you must apply the same rule to His resurrection. Nothing is said about what happened to the others raised from the dead before and after His resurrection and ascension.

No, that isn't required. Just because Christ was the first to ascent to heaven does not make it necessary that He be the first to be resurrected. And this is not true that nothing is said about what happened to the others raised from the dead before and after Christ's resurrection and ascension. You just haven't done any research on this yet, apparently.

There is one final death of the body before judgment.

There is only one single physical death experience for the body that mankind ever passes through - NOT TWO DEATHS before judgment. You are inventing a second physical death for the body which Scripture denies utterly. And you are inventing a ridiculous distinction between being "raised from the dead" and being "resurrected from the dead". They are the same thing.

 

[Mr GLee]

It's either over your head, or you're ducking the reproof.

Only a carnal reading of the Bible would suggest it's a question between men, about what ought be recorded in Scripture or not.

Christ is the sole Author and judge of what He puts in Scritpure, who to write it, when to write it, and how much to write on earth.

No matter what some readers may reason among themselves about the 'much' importance of some events on earth, Christ's decision not to record them in Scripture of God, has nothing to do with when He had His last verse of Scripture written on earth.

If Christ wanted Herod's rock pile to be recorded in Scripture, He would have made Scripture to do so. Whether through John or some other holy saint on earth.

Christ did not run out of Scripture before 70 AD, and then smack Himself on the head for stopping to soon. Especially not because some great thinkers on earth think He should have recorded it in eternal Scripture.

As to why He didn't choose to record it, I'm thinking not so much as a mention in Scripture says plenty about something 'of so much importance' to some men.

I would offer Christ our Holy Father has lovingly has given us "two witnesses " to protect the integrity of the living ,abiding word that works in the heart of a believer . The living word did not die when he sealed any possibilities of new prophecy . Sealed it with seven seals till the end of time

The first witness is in respect to "one word " One word ,change the meaning change the author .You could say spiritual plagiarism violated the first commandment The warning do not add ws broken with Satan .. . ."neither shall you touch it" as false prophecy The cause of the fall .

Deuteronomt4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word (singular) which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it,(singular) that ye may keep the commandments ( All) of the Lord your God which I command you.

The second loving law Revelation 22 do not add or subtract form the perfect , both working as one protecting integrity of the Author .

Satan is free today to add with all power to deceive through lying signs to wonder after.

2 Thessalonians2 :9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

Mankind confusion wondering seeking as if it was future prophecy I think Jesus used Nicodemus a sign and wonder seeker in regard to the most greatest miracle eternal life .He lovingly commanded "marvel "not but rather believe

 

[3 Resurrections]

I would offer one ressurection . When Jesus said it is finished the vail representing the ressurection gate opened all the old testament saints arose It will close on the last day under the Sun when the transition is made

The "it is finished" cry of Christ was Him confirming that He had just finished the "one sacrifice for sins forever". It was not until Christ's resurrection and ascension that same day that the souls of the dead and dying saints could "from henceforth" be admitted to heaven (Paul's "absent from the body...present with the Lord"). Those souls of the righteous dead were the ones dwelling in heaven in Revelation 12:12 who were rejoicing that salvation had then been accomplished with the Lamb's blood sacrifice having been offered to God in heaven on their behalf.
But no bodily resurrected humans were admitted to heaven's temple until all the 7 plagues had been poured out according to Revelation 15:8. Not even Enoch or Elijah had yet ascended to heaven's temple before then.

 

[Ghada]

We don't know how many there were...who they were...and what happened to them.

True. But we do know who they were: OT Saints.

Mat 27:52
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,