Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128155 | ||
Good afternoon everyone. I have read through this line of posts, and I have some questions for both sides. 1) Those arguing against the 1st century return: Jesus said his coming would be like a thief in the night, like lightning flashes from west to east, like in the days of Noah or Sodom, that they wouldn't know until it was too late. Is it possible that He came, and no one documented it because the nature of the return was such that no one but certain elect recognized it for what it was? Is it possible that He came, but no one saw it in the strictest sense as we expect because, like lightning flashes, the coming was over and done before they knew it, bringing in the New Kingdom with the destruction of Jerusalem? 2) Those arguing for a 1st century return: Do you have reasonable explanations for the post-apostolic writings that still expected His return? Besides the obvious wrath God took upon Jerusalem which is not conclusive to the return, only to judgment, do you have any other reason to believe the return took place? 3) Those arguing against a 1st century return, do you have an explanation to refute the coincidence that Nero Caesar counted in Hebrew equals 666 by the Hebrew numbering system, he persecuted the Christians for 42 full months (Dec. 64 - May 68), died by the sword, was one of seven rulers (Julius, Antony, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero), one of which was slain (Julius), that Vespasian and Titus came to make war on Israel, speaking with the authority of Caesar while not being Caesar, and all this in accordance with Rev. 13? 4) Those arguing for a 1st century return: How do you reckon the thousand year reign spoken of in the Revelation without spiritualizing it into something metaphorical (barring any obvious context to suggest it should be viewed as such)? 5) Those arguing against a 1st century return: What explanation do you have for the plain statements in Matthew posted in this thread without spiritualizing them into something metaphorical to suggest that "here now" language is intended to represent "there then" meaning without any reasonable cause outside of premillenialism theology? 6) Those arguing for a 1st century return: What is your explanation of the two witnesses in Revelation that die for 3 1/2 days and are resurrected and taken up to heaven? As this is a preliminary to the return that doesn't take place until later in the book, do you have a reasonable/historical explanation for these two persons without spiritualizing them as metaphorical to substantiate a preterist theology? 7) Those arguing against a 1st century return: Do you have an explanation for the coincidence of approximately 3 years 7 months from the beginning of the seige around the passover of 66 until the destruction of the temple and Titus standing in the Holy of Holies in Tammuz/Ab of 70, and then roughly another month until the complete taking of Jerusalem in Elul of 70, all in accordance with Daniel who described 1290 days from the ceasing of the normal sacrifice (which happened after this last passover due to famine, then destruction of the temple proper) to the abomination that makes desolate standing in the Holy Place, then another month until upper Jerusalem was taken? 8) Those arguing for a 1st century return: If the return has happened already, and we are in the kingdom of Christ on earth, can you give an explanation why there is still horrible crime, etc., when God is supposed to wipe away all tears, and that there would be no more death? Please be objective, or stop discussing the topic. Some of you are already stepping over the line into insults, and that is not becoming of Christians. Xerxes |
||||||
2 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Morant61 | 128168 | ||
Greetings Xerxes! You wrote: "was one of seven rulers (Julius, Antony, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero), one of which was slain (Julius), that Vespasian and Titus came to make war on Israel, speaking with the authority of Caesar while not being Caesar, and all this in accordance with Rev. 13?" Here is another example of the problems with numbering systems. Julius Caesar was never Emperor, so most don't count him in the list of possible matches for Rev. 13 and 17. Anthony was never Emperor, so I'm not sure why you included him in the list. The list of actual Emperors is: 1) Augustus: 27 b.c to 14 a.d. 2) Tiberius: 14 to 37 a.d. 3) Caligula: 37 to 41 a.d. 4) Claudius: 41 to 54 a.d. 5) Nero: 54 to 68 a.d. 6) Galba: 68 to 69 a.d. 7) Otho: 69 a.d. 8) Vitellius: 69 a.d. 9) Vespasian: 69 to 79 a.d. 10) Titus Flavius: 79 to 81 a.d. 11) Domitian: 81 to 96 a.d. One thing I noticed in your post is that you said Vespasian and Titus acted with the authority of Caesar, but they were not Caesar. Yet, they were! :-) The problem with trying to read these past Emperors into Rev. 13 and 17 is that none of them make complete sense. There are many problems. 1) Where do you start? 2) When did John write? If you start with Julius, then the five who have died would go up to Claudius, with Nero being the one who is. Yet, the best evidence is that John wrote during the reign of Domitian, well past 70 a.d. If you start with Augustus, the 7th and 8th rulers are of no historical consequence. Either way, the Emperor ruling during the fall of Jerusalem would be either the 9th or 10th emperor, which does not fit the supposed scheme. The best view seems to be that these passages are referring to yet future rulers. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Xerxes | 128180 | ||
Tim, Julius, while never decreed "Emperor" of Rome, crossed the Rubicon and declared himself dictator for life. Whether formally recognized or not, he was the first, and the Jews would have recognized him. Further, this would be the rising of the beast. Antony I included because he was a legitimate ruler of Judea. After the death of Julius, Antony was given control of the East, including Judea and Egypt. From a Jewish perspective, he would have been one of the "kings," and I find it reasonable to include him in the list. Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, while recognized historically as emperors, were not in the public eye of the Jews. The Jews were busy being seiged during the time of the Roman civil war. They would have recognized the succession as being Nero to Vespasian, then to Titus, then to Domitian. Revelation 17 would actually set Vespasian as the eighth, who was in fact "an" eighth "king," but not necessarily "the" eighth king, that went forth to destruction (You may want to see if that word is an active verb; I haven't looked in the Greek), and the king that "is" is Claudius, not Nero. Paul mentions in 2 Thess 2:7-8 the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming. And also in 2 Cor 12:1 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows— was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak. Both of these things were written in the early to mid 50s AD. Claudius reigned from 41 to 54, and given a date of 41-43, the Revelation would be right on key with the line of kings, the statements of Paul, the internal evidence of the Revelation itself, etc. The dating IS a questionable issue, and there are two sides to that debate due to a translation error presented by ???? (have to get the book back from my brother to get the name) in regard to Iraeneus' statement regarding the writing of the Revelation during the time of Domitian. Even premillenialist scholars conceded to the correction in translation, and that correction threw the date back up in the air. Compare this line of kings also to Daniel's ten horns and one. Ten horns, and a little horn pushing three out of the way. Julius, Antony, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius. Ten rulers in all. Then up comes Vespasian, the eleventh horn, pushing three horns, Galba, Otho, and Vitellius out of the way. It is typically agreed that although the three were considered emperors, Otho and Vitellius were emperor at the same time as Vespasian, each on their own front, and of the three (Galba, Otho, and Vitellius), they were in truth little more than opportunists that barely held the throne. Vespasian and Titus, representing the smaller beast with two horns, were acting under the orders of Nero at first. So the two, though not yet emperors in their own right, still exercised the authority of the first beast. Now again, in relation to the number of the beast, if Nero was the one, then the number spoken of was the warning, and the wisdom of the number was given so it could be understood. If Nero fits the criteria, then there is no reason to believe he was not the one being spoken of. It does not take wild arithmetic to determine the number. Each character has a value. Add them up, and there you go. In the forties, John's primary audience would have been Jewish, so the Hebrew spelling of the pronunciation is not only reasonable but probable, as opposed to Greek. The questions to be considered are: COULD Nero have been the one of whom the number spoke? COULD this line of kings have been the line? COULD the persecution of Rev. 13 have been the one under Nero that lasted the appointed time? The answer to these questions is yes. These things COULD have been the ones spoken of, and they therefore bear consideration. Xerxes |
||||||
4 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Morant61 | 128181 | ||
Greetings Xerxes! You have just proven my point my friend! Everything is so subjective. You count some who were not actually Emperors, but ignore others who actually were to arrive at the answer you have already determined. The same thing with the numbering system for the mark. Why add? Why not subtract, multiply, or even divide? Why use the Hebrew numbering (misspelled at that) of a Greek transliteration based upon a Latin word? :-) We can make anything fit if we can follow any procedure we choose! That is why I simply don't put any faith in these elaborate numbering schemes. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Stultis the Fool | 128186 | ||
Morant61... I would like to point out that there is nothing more "subjective" than trying to interperate the future! I will add that the point Xerxes makes is that based on various evidence, it must be accepted that a preterist view is possible. Wether we choose to accept it, deny it, or remain undecided is really irrelavant to the point at hand. I am not advocating the belief, but I too must concede that it is a possibility. If a debate of such things as "millenialism" and "end-times prophecy" is to persist to its conclusion, I advocate reading as much information as is humanly possible regarding all aspects of the subject, both those to which we agree and disagree. |
||||||