Outer darkness: A thousand years? or for eternity?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 and the Book of Revelation were fulfilled in 70 AD.

John wrote Revelation some 20 years after it was fulfilled?

Some of Mark 13 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 26-27 were not.

Some of Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 27-30 were not.

Some of Luke 21 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 27 was not.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Ohio

John wrote Revelation some 20 years after it was fulfilled?

Some of Mark 13 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 26-27 were not.

Some of Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 27-30 were not.

Some of Luke 21 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 27 was not.

Ohio: I have never been unkind to you or any other poster. Why you had to adopt this tone of superiority towards me, I do not know.

You apparently determined to be facetious and to belittle me, hence your statements.

Let us forget about your remarks regarding Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 but let us consider the other remark about the time of writing of Revelation. (By the way, I reject your remarks about Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.)

Traditionally, it is stated that Revelation was written around 95-96 AD, during the reign of Domitian.

Here is my challenge to you: provide me with one (yes, only ONE) external piece of evidence that any date after 70 AD is correct (external: from history or whatever). Also, provide me with one (yes, only ONE) piece of internal evidence (internal: from within the 22 chapters of Revelation) that John wrote it around 95-96 AD.

I wait in great anticipation.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Then about a century ago there came a man with a dishonorable personal history, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, who published the Scofield Bible, incorporating all the Brethren teachings and leading millions astray.

Then came Witness Lee… (and many other Dispensationalists) teaching all this grandiose nonsense.

And in the process the Bible and the teachings of God’s Word have become secondary even if none of these teachings make sense.

Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 and the Book of Revelation were fulfilled in 70 AD.

Originally Posted by Ohio

John wrote Revelation some 20 years after it was fulfilled?

Some of Mark 13 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 26-27 were not.

Some of Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but vv 27-30 were not.

Some of Luke 21 was fulfilled in 70 AD, but v 27 was not.

Originally Posted by Friedel

Ohio: I have never been unkind to you or any other poster. Why you had to adopt this tone of superiority towards me, I do not know.

You apparently determined to be facetious and to belittle me, hence your statements.

Let us forget about your remarks regarding Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 but let us consider the other remark about the time of writing of Revelation. (By the way, I reject your remarks about Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.)

Traditionally, it is stated that Revelation was written around 95-96 AD, during the reign of Domitian.

Brother Friedel, this must be some misunderstanding here. This last post of mine was not unkind, nor did it have a tone of superiority towards you. Read my short post again. It was only an honest negation into your statement that those chapters and the book of Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70. There was nothing in my tone that was either facetious or belittling towards you.

That said, you have stated some extreme views which I have every right to challenge, or at least question on an open forum. If another poster disagrees with any or all of your views, please don't take it personally.

[Elden1971]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Brother Friedel, this must be some misunderstanding here. This last post of mine was not unkind, nor did it have a tone of superiority towards you. Read my short post again. It was only an honest negation into your statement that those chapters and the book of Revelation were fulfilled in AD 70. There was nothing in my tone that was either facetious or belittling towards you.

That said, you have stated some extreme views which I have every right to challenge, or at least question on an open forum. If another poster disagrees with any or all of your views, please don't take it personally.

Bro. Freidel I must agree with Ohio. His comments are just factual. The preterist viewpoint which you espouse is simply not defensible. Scofield incidentally did not do any of the prophetic footnotes in the Scofield Bible ...all were done by Arno Gaebelein and I personally find him to be one of the most sound prophetic teachers ever that always leads you to Christ in all his writings.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Elden1971

Bro. Freidel I must agree with Ohio. His comments are just factual. The preterist viewpoint which you espouse is simply not defensible. Scofield incidentally did not do any of the prophetic footnotes in the Scofield Bible ...all were done by Arno Gaebelein and I personally find him to be one of the most sound prophetic teachers ever that always leads you to Christ in all his writings.

Terry: Let us stay with facts then. I have stated that I am not a preterist but I believe in fulfilled prophecy. You say it is not defensible? The truth of the Bible is not defensible? May I take the liberty then to tell you that the defense of modern-day Israel is unBiblical and indefensible. It has no scriptural grounds.

As far as Arno Gaebelein goes: you are entitled to your opinion. However, I never mentioned Gaebelein but Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, after whom the Scofield Bible was named. He led a shameful life.

[Friedel]

I initially honestly tried to present a positive post and and it caused a stir. It never was my intention to cause a furor or to stir up controversy. I say that with all honesty.

It was not my intention to hurt the feelings of anyone although I spoke straightforwardly. I confess to a total absence of malice towards everyone.

I leave you now. I derive no pleasure from all this unpleasantness.

Delighting in the good, acceptable and perfect will of God.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

question: IF the book of Revelation is historical (already fulfilled), then what does the future hold for humanity and for the earth? What is the promise and what is our hope? Please explain with Scripture.

Originally Posted by Friedel

I leave you now. I derive no pleasure from all this unpleasantness.

Typical Preterist!

Why do these people NEVER answer a straight forward question? How do they expect their views to be taken seriously?!

Link

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Friedel

You say it is not defensible? The truth of the Bible is not defensible? May I take the liberty then to tell you that the defense of modern-day Israel is unBiblical and indefensible. It has no scriptural grounds.

And these are your parting words? After which you decide to graciously keep the peace and depart to the good and acceptable, perfect will of God?

As far as "defending" modern day Israel, God Himself seems to be doing quite well. Have you ever read of all the miraculous stories of His protective sovereignty over Israel since they became a nation?

Anyways, brother Freidel, you sure have some interesting ideas.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Friedel

You say it is not defensible? The truth of the Bible is not defensible?

Interesting way to phrase your opinion so that it is presented as fact.

The truth of the Bible is always defensible. But as has already been pointed out to you, declaring something to be the truth of the Bible does not mean that it is. You have simply pulled the "my truth is from the Bible" card and said that your interpretation is correct and all others wrong without further discussion.

That is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple. It does not make your position wrong. But neither does it prove it. Your take on what it says is interpretation, at best. So you cannot simply claim that it is a settled fact from the Bible and dismiss everything that disagrees. You need to actually defend your position with something more than "I like my claims and dismiss anything that is said contrary to it."

And if you don't think that is exactly what you have done so far, then it is more than evident why you hold the view you are pushing. (And it has nothing to do with evidence.)

[Elden1971]

Originally Posted by Friedel

Terry: Let us stay with facts then. I have stated that I am not a preterist but I believe in fulfilled prophecy. You say it is not defensible? The truth of the Bible is not defensible? May I take the liberty then to tell you that the defense of modern-day Israel is unBiblical and indefensible. It has no scriptural grounds.

As far as Arno Gaebelein goes: you are entitled to your opinion. However, I never mentioned Gaebelein but Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, after whom the Scofield Bible was named. He led a shameful life.

You apparently have read the slanderous works of the preterist poster child Joseph Canfield. You claim not to be a preterist, but you rely on preterist sources. You might want to do a little more research before making such accusations.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Friedel

(By the way, I reject your remarks about Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21.)

Don't wish to jump in the middle of this tussle but I'm itchin' to know why you reject Ohio's remarks.

Humor me please ....

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by awareness

Don't wish to jump in the middle of this tussle but I'm itchin' to know why you reject Ohio's remarks.

Humor me please ....

Awareness:

I responded to remarks by Ohio, not by you. So I will not humor you.

I respectfully decline your invitation.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Friedel

provide me with one (yes, only ONE) external piece of evidence that any date after 70 AD is correct (external: from history or whatever)

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.

Internal Evidence

The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.


The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.
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).


Evidences provided by author of this article, Wayne Jackson - "When was the book of Revelation Written?" www.christiancourier.com

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast

Irenaeus

NFNL: Thank you for the laborious quote by Wayne Jackson, which I am familiar with. Irenaeus usually crops up due to an obscure and ambiguous piece he wrote in Greek 100 years+ after the death of John. Then it survived in Latin and was eventually translated back into Greek (how well, I do not know). Anyway, it proves nothing. Regarding Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Jerome … nah. Like Ireneaus they prove nothing (even though Wayne Jackson did his utmost). So you have provided not a single piece of external evidence for a late date. 0/10.

Regarding your attempts to prove Internal Evidence. I am prepared to fail you with 0/10.

Sorry.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Friedel

NFNL: Thank you for the laborious quote by Wayne Jackson, which I am familiar with. Irenaeus usually crops up due to an obscure and ambiguous piece he wrote in Greek 100 years+ after the death of John. Then it survived in Latin and was eventually translated back into Greek (how well, I do not know). Anyway, it proves nothing. Regarding Clement of Alexandria, Victorinus, Jerome … nah. Like Ireneaus they prove nothing (even though Wayne Jackson did his utmost). So you have provided not a single piece of external evidence for a late date. 0/10.

Regarding your attempts to prove Internal Evidence. I am prepared to fail you with 0/10.

Sorry.

Likewise, brother Freidel, we can also fail you 0/10 with any attempts you make to prove your Preterist views, either internal or external.

Some internal negations to your views would be the verses I quoted before, i.e. Mark 13.26-27; Matt 24.27-30; and Luke 21.27.

[NeitherFirstnorLast]

Originally Posted by Friedel;32326[B

] 0/10..... 0/10... [/b]
Sorry.

Really?

You know what really gives me a distaste for Preterism? Preterists.

It seems that every Preterist I've met (and I've met several) seems to take the stance that everyone who isn't a Preterist is an idiot who can't read Scripture. They get absolutely vociferous about it.

Sir, you asked for evidence. I gave you evidence. You asked for ONE piece of evidence, and I gave you several. You can choose to refute the evidence, but to say that there's no evidence with this "0/10" garbage is intellectually dishonest. You might not like it, but there is strong evidence for a 90-95 AD date of writing for the Book of Revelation; and if that's true and we are right, then it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Preterist interpretation is wrong. Preterism NEEDS an early date for the Book of Revelation. The burden of proof lies on you.

Seriously now, I've tried to understand Preterism. I know Preterists, and when I ask them questions to understand their viewpoint, I always get very cryptic answers. If you want to be understood, then please let me ask you to speak for your fellow Preterists and answer this question: IF the book of Revelation is historical (already fulfilled), then what does the future hold for humanity and for the earth? What is the promise and what is our hope? Please explain with Scripture.