The Rapture

[Wordsmith]

I think there’s too much internal evidence to refute the later date writing. The Olivet Discourse and Revelation go hand in hand. Plus, Josephus‘ writings support much of what transpired.

Some things seem to fit others not so much any many try to put the square peg in a round hole. There are other prophetic passages that absolutely do not fit the preterist claims.

 

[Marilyn C]

The Church is the city Abraham was looking for, its a heavenly City Heb 12:22-23

but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Its the great gathering of the people, Jacob knew about it Gen 49:10


The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Actually the city is for the OT saints, (the just/righteous men and women of Heb. 11 & 12: 23 b)

Mount Zion (heavenly) is where the Lord is King, (Ps. 2: 6) and where the B/C will rule with Him. (Rev. 3: 21)

 

[Deleted member 6]

Some things seem to fit others not so much any many try to put the square peg in a round hole. There are other prophetic passages that absolutely do not fit the preterist claims.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.[Rev. 1:1-3]

There is no way that 'soon' and/or 'near' can mean two, three millennia later. The events recorded were fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Now, I'm an orthodox preterist, not a full preterist. If you read the Olivet Discourse and Revelation, you see them as one and the same.

 

[armylngst]

I think there’s too much internal evidence to refute the later date writing. The Olivet Discourse and Revelation go hand in hand. Plus, Josephus‘ writings support much of what transpired.

Here is the external evidence for 96AD:

Irenaeus​

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria​

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus​

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).

Jerome​

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).

To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates."

(https://christiancourier.com/articles/when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written)

Internal evidence
"The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446)."

(same source as above)

Apparently, there are those who used to support the earlier date, who are realizing that they don't have much of anything in the way of support.

 

[Deleted member 6]

Here is the external evidence for 96AD:

Irenaeus​

Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria​

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus​

Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

Jerome​

Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,


To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates."

(https://christiancourier.com/articles/when-was-the-book-of-revelation-written)

Internal evidence
"The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446)."

(same source as above)

Apparently, there are those who used to support the earlier date, who are realizing that they don't have much of anything in the way of support.

And yet I will go with what scripture says over these men.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.[Rev. 1:1-3][/I]

Why would John need to write this letter, a letter that was to be read throughout all of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), that meets its fulfillment millennia later? I know God doesn't do this, but for argument's sake, He shows me in a vison that 2,000 from now, where you live at will be nuked. Why would I need to write you a letter to get out of there if that were to take place two millennia later? There is zero doubt in my mind that the pre-70 AD date is the accurate timing of the writing of Revelation. The Olivet Discourse and Revelation go hand-in-hand.

 

[brightfame52]

Actually the city is for the OT saints, (the just/righteous men and women of Heb. 11 & 12: 23 b)

Mount Zion (heavenly) is where the Lord is King, (Ps. 2: 6) and where the B/C will rule with Him. (Rev. 3: 21)

The City is Both OT,NT Saints hence Heb 11:40

God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

The OT Saints are Heirs of the Same Promise as the NT Heirs,

Heb 11:9

9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise

Heb 1:14

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?
Heb 6:17

. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

 

[armylngst]

And yet I will go with what scripture says over these men.

Understand that I am going to bring up things as pointers and warnings. On the people you would put up as liars, above scripture that does not tell us when it was written, a quick overview. Polycarp was a disciple of John, and the bishop of Smyrna to whom Jesus had John write that letter towards the beginning of the book of Revelation. Papias heard John, and was a companion of Polycarp. Irenaeus was a student/pupil of Polycarp, who is the one who basically said that the book was written in 95 AD. Polycarp, Papias, and Irenaeus were premillennialists. So John's disciple, who learned from him, was a premillennialist. If you want to be blessed and find solace in a true man of God who in the face of death said “Fourscore and six years have I served him, and he has never done me injury; how then can I now blaspheme my King and savior?”, read about Polycarp. Supposedly when he was burned at the stake, the flames avoided his body and eye witnesses claim that his body glowed like gold. A soldier ran him through to kill him. [I write this to encourage you in life, to see the greatness that is our God, for whom Polycarp gladly laid down his life. You may not need it, but we should be encouraging each other, even if discussing things that get a little rough.]

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near[/u][/b].[/ii][Rev. 1:1-3]

Why would John need to write this letter, a letter that was to be read throughout all of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey), that meets its fulfillment millennia later? I know God doesn't do this, but for argument's sake, He shows me in a vison that 2,000 from now, where you live at will be nuked. Why would I need to write you a letter to get out of there if that were to take place two millennia later? There is zero doubt in my mind that the pre-70 AD date is the accurate timing of the writing of Revelation. The Olivet Discourse and Revelation go hand-in-hand.

I will not claim to know the mind of God. I would ask why anyone in all of Asia Minor wants to here about Jerusalem? You do understand that Revelation was meant for the whole church, and not just this group of people, right? So understand that the purpose and what it was written for may be a bit beyond our ability to understand/comprehend. We have it, so we should use it. I think we would get more out of this if the prophecies were actually discussed and reflected upon. I mean, if premillennialists are right, we need to be moving and preparing. And most of all, remember and living by... "Occupy until I come." The best way to understand that is the parables that Jesus gave after He gave some end time prophecies. The one where He says that when the master returns, he should find his servant laboring away, doing what he is supposed to be doing, not partying and wasting time doing nothing, believing that the master won't return for an extended period of time.

 

[armylngst]

All of which aren't biblical authority. I have books on the early date also but to me history proves the truth.

You do know that Polycarp was John's disciple right? You also know that he was the Bishop of Smyrna to whom Jesus told John to write the letter in Revelation right? Papias heard John and was also a student of Polycarp. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. All three were premillennialists. Ireneaus was the one who said that John wrote Revelation at the end of the reign of Domitian. Eusebius was the one who actually named Domitian. Also, scholarship has shifted to the majority of scholars today believe it was 95 AD. The evidence is direct. For more indirect, consider that Smyrna did not have a church, and that Smyrna was not evangelized until after 61AD. That is according to Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna. Consider that Laodicea was mostly destroyed (almost completely) by an earthquake in 60 AD. It took 30 years to rebuild the city. I always pause when it seems that God has created situations in ways that appear to exist simply to frustrate the will of men.

 

[Wordsmith]

If you read the Olivet Discourse and Revelation, you see them as one and the same.

I disagree!
Matthew 24:1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
This is most likely a reference to 70AD.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? The disciples ask 3 questions . 1. When shall these things be? Jesus had just referenced the temple’s destruction. It was destroyed in 70 AD, 2.What shall be the sign of thy coming? This did not happen in 70 AD! Just because some claimed to have seen unusual things in the sky in 70 AD does not mean that what ever they saw was the coming of the Lord! 3.Question 3 was about “the end of the world “. That absolutely did not happen in 70AD.

 

[Deleted member 6]

I disagree!
Matthew 24:1And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
This is most likely a reference to 70AD.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? The disciples ask 3 questions . 1. When shall these things be? Jesus had just referenced the temple’s destruction. It was destroyed in 70 AD, 2.What shall be the sign of thy coming? This did not happen in 70 AD! Just because some claimed to have seen unusual things in the sky in 70 AD does not mean that what ever they saw was the coming of the Lord! 3.Question 3 was about “the end of the world “. That absolutely did not happen in 70AD.

The world translated “world” is not kosmos but aion which means “age”.

 

[Wordsmith]

The world translated “world” is not kosmos but aion which means “age”.

What "age "ended in 70 AD and where is the returned Jesus? Jesus promised to return. Scripture tells us He will return in the same manner He left and every eye will see. Nowhere does scripture speak of a sneak peak over Jerusalem only visible to that one locality. Claims of unusual sightings in the sky in 70 AD in no way fulfill His promised return. You ignore discussion of the return of Jesus that did not happen in 70 AD, why is that?

 

[Deleted member 6]

What "age "ended in 70 AD and where is the returned Jesus? Jesus promised to return. Scripture tells us He will return in the same manner He left and every eye will see. Nowhere does scripture speak of a sneak peak over Jerusalem only visible to that one locality. Claims of unusual sightings in the sky in 70 AD in no way fulfill His promised return. You ignore discussion of the return of Jesus that did not happen in 70 AD, why is that?

Jesus came in judgment over israel.

“But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.[Matthew 24:29-31]

He said this after saying the above…Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.[vs 34]

 

[Deleted member 6]

The oracle concerning Egypt.

Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; The idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, And the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.[Isaiah 19:1]

Jesus didn’t literally come on a swift cloud to execute judgment upon Egypt, but this apocalyptic language expressed His coming upon them in judgment.

 

[Wordsmith]

There is no way that 'soon' and/or 'near' can mean two, three millennia later.

Why not?

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

What time limit do you put on soon or quickly?


Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5034: τάχος

τάχος, τάχους, τό, from Homer down, quickness, speed: ἐν τάχει(often in Greek writings from Aeschylus and Pindar down), quickly, shortly, Acts 12:7; Acts 22:18; (); Romans 16:20; speedily, soon(German in Bälde), Luke 18:8; 1 Timothy 3:14 L Tr WH; Revelation 1:1; Revelation 22:6.

 

[Deleted member 6]

God’s Wrath against Nations

Draw near, O nations, to hear; and listen, O peoples! Let the earth and all it contains hear, and the world and all that springs from it. For the LORD’S indignation is against all the nations, And His wrath against all their armies; He has utterly destroyed them, He has given them over to slaughter. So their slain will be thrown out, And their corpses will give off their stench, And the mountains will be drenched with their blood. And all the host of heaven will wear away, And the sky will be rolled up like a scroll; All their hosts will also wither away As a leaf withers from the vine, Or as one withers from the fig tree.[Isaiah 34:1-4]

The sky did not literally roll up like a scroll, but more apocalyptic language used to show His judgment being executed. Where else do we read And the sky will be rolled up like a scroll;?

Oh, here…The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.[Rev. 6:14]

 

[Deleted member 6]

Why not?

2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

What time limit do you put on soon or quickly?


Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 5034: τάχος

τάχος, τάχους, τό, from Homer down, quickness, speed: ἐν τάχει(often in Greek writings from Aeschylus and Pindar down), quickly, shortly, Acts 12:7; Acts 22:18; (); Romans 16:20; speedily, soon(German in Bälde), Luke 18:8; 1 Timothy 3:14 L Tr WH; Revelation 1:1; Revelation 22:6.

Because it was to be read to them at that time, and they weren’t being warned of destruction that was to be millennia later.

 

[Wordsmith]

The oracle concerning Egypt.

Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; The idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, And the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.[Isaiah 19:1]

Jesus didn’t literally come on a swift cloud to execute judgment upon Egypt, but this apocalyptic language expressed His coming upon them in judgment.

And this has what to do with His promised return in like manner as He left in which every eye will see?

 

[Deleted member 6]

And this has what to do with His promised return in like manner as He left in which every eye will see?

It was the same exact apocalyptic languages used in the OT and those readers would know that judgment was soon to take place, not warning them of judgment millennia later.

 

[Wordsmith]

Because it was to be read to them at that time, and they weren’t being warned of destruction that was to be millennia later.

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

In the Book of Revelation John wrote of things in his real time past, his realtime present and future to the day in which he wrote them.

 

[Deleted member 6]

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

In the Book of Revelation John wrote of things in his real time past, his realtime present and future to the day in which he wrote them.

Of course hereafter, as the destruction of Jerusalem hadn’t happened yet.