Let us remember from the intro message, that our mission
here, is to be objective in our examination of the facts.

You see, we can make up anything to explain away things
that present problems for our doctrine, but that is not
objectivity, that is fantasy that we just invented, amen?

And besides this, this is not about protecting a doctrine,
but about examining the facts and then seeing where
that leads us and doing so objectively.

Now I admit that I hold a Preterist view. =A0However,
what people miss, is the fact that I did not know for
many years that this view even existed. =A0I was taught
the same thing you were taught. =A0That to hold any
view but the Futurist (and specifically the Dispensational
view) was blasphemy, as if that view is exactly what
Scripture said and no interpretation is necessary to
hold that view.

No interpretation??? =A0Does that claim hold water with
the fact that we are told that "arrows =3D missiles" and
"horses =3D tanks"???

And so, I am presenting the facts that changed my way
of thinking about the Scriptures and opened up a whole
new world to me!

So am I biased toward the Preterist view? =A0Absolutely!
After all, it is the view that I believe.

But what I am asking from you, is to do what I did
and put aside your own bias and review the facts
objectively. =A0I mean after all, don't you think some
of this stuff was a hard pill for me to swallow?!
So obviously I had made a decision to be objective
and I am only asking for the same from you, please.

And this means looking at all of the facts, in all the posts
I am sending on this series combined, before making a
decision. =A0So please read them all and allow yourself to
be objective. =A0Protect truth, not doctrine.

People quote the creeds and doctrines, as if they are
equal to Scripture and then criticize the Catholic Church
for doing the same. =A0Huh?

And here is one creed that they never seem to quote...

"...as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we
modestly dissent from them when they are found to set
down things differing from, or altogether contrary to,
the Scriptures.... And in the same order also we place
the decrees and canons of councils. =A0Wherefore we do
not permit ourselves, in controversies about religion
or matters of faith, to urge our case with only the
opinions of the fathers or decrees of councils; much
less by received opinions, or by the large number of
those who share the same opinion, or by the prescription
of a long time." - Second Helvetic Confession

Let's take a lesson from that, okay? :)

Anyway, on with our study regarding Revelation and
when it was written.

The Preterist point of view is that Revelation was written
prior to the Jewish War in 70 AD.

Preterists state that this is the fulfillment of Jesus'
words in the following passages:

Matthew 24:1-3,34

1) Then Jesus went out and departed from the Temple
and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings
of the Temple.
2) And Jesus said to them; Do you not see all these things?
Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here
upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3) Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples
came to Him privately, saying; Tell us, when will these
things be? =A0And what will be the sign of Your coming,
and of the end of the age?
34) Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by
no means pass away till all these things take place.

Luke 21:20-22

20) But when you see JERUSALEM surrounded by armies,
then know that ITS desolation is near.
21) Then let those who are IN JUDEA flee to the mountains,
let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not
those who are in the country enter her.
22) For these are the days of vengeance, that ALL THINGS
which are WRITTEN may BE FULFILLED.

...took place during the Jewish War of 66-70 AD,
which was when the destruction of Jerusalem took place
and it is when, historically speaking, the Temple was
burned and then each and every stone was torn apart,
to retrieve the melted gold that ran in between the stones.

Over a million Jews were slaughtered and according
to Josephus, the blood ran so freely, that it actually
put out some fires at ground level and this did occur
within the same generation and Jesus did say,
"this generation" to His disciples standing in front
of Him.

Preterists maintain that Jesus did not say, as the Futurists
claim, "The generation that sees the signs, will be the
generation that sees the signs", which is basically what
the Futurist claim boils down to and to the Preterists,
it makes Jesus out to be a babbling idiot, making a
useless, "DUH!" type of statement.

The Futurist view maintains that these events were not
the fulfillment of Jesus' words and that they have yet to
be fulfilled, because according to them, Revelation was
not written until 95-96 AD. =A0Therefore, they say, it
could not be that these events fulfilled Jesus' words.

And again, we can try to make up whatever we want
about that statement, to force our doctrine to work.
But this is about putting all of the facts together and
seeing where, objectively, it leads us in our search
for when Revelation was written.

So let us look, as I said, at a few things and see what
makes sense, since the Futurists/Dispensationalists
claim that to say that Revelation was written prior
to 70 AD, is "historically ridiculous".

First, it is instructive to note that the late dating for
Revelation (95-96 AD) is largely dependant on a single,
ambiguous statement by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons
(we must keep in mind that most of the quotes that
Futurists provide by people other than Irenaeus are
simply those people quoting Irenaeus, or at least
referring to what Irenaeus said and so, they are not
additional sources of proof for this late dating).

The reality is, that this sentence can be translated
in two ways. =A0It can be taken to mean that either:

1) The Revelation was seen toward the end of
=A0 =A0 Domitian's reign.

Or that...

2) John was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign.

It is also handy to note that one of Nero's names
was "Domitius" and he could be who Irenaeus
was referring to.

Bear in mind that Nero reigned just before the Jewish War
and ordered it and Preterists maintain that Revelation was
written somewhere between 63 & 68 AD, possibly earlier.

Regardless, the point is, that all honest Greek scholars
will admit (even if they favor the late date), that this
statement is ambiguous in the original Greek copy of
Irenaeus' writings that we have and could be taken
either way and there are a number of them that state
that the Greek is more likely to be referring to John
himself being seen at that time and not the Revelation.

Moreover, the thing that the Futurists skip over, is that
within the same volume that we find this statement in,
Irenaeus also says that Jesus was crucified at about
50 YEARS OLD!!!

The scholarly types don't broadcast this, because they
prefer the late date due to their own doctrine and the
lay person, due to not even being told about what else
is in Irenaeus' same volume that this statement is
found in.

So even if Irenaeus' statement were not ambiguous
and it definitely said that it was the Revelation that
was seen toward the end of Domitian's reign and
even if he is definitely referring to Domitian and
not Domitius (Nero), are we to count his dating as
being accurate? =A0Or should we think him to be off
in his dating, considering that he was about 20 years
off regarding when Jesus was crucified, in the very
same volume?!

In other words, can we really count on Irenaeus to
tell us when something was written, even assuming
that it is when the Revelation was seen that he was
referring to and not John himself being seen?

We must also couple this with the fact that John was
also referred to as being "so infirm, that he had to be
carried into the church and could only speak a few words
to the people" (a close paraphrase, off the top of my head)
at the time that the late date folks claim the Revelation
was written (95-96 AD). =A0Yet the Revelation says that
he still had yet to go and preach the word to kings/nations?

Huh? =A0What?

One more thing we must add, is that it is stated that
around the time the Revelation was written, John
chased a man down on horseback. =A0This obviously
cannot be at the same time that he had to be carried
into the church and therefore, it does not make sense
that the Revelation was written at the same time that
he had to be carried into the church and therefore,
it is not reasonable to assume that Revelation was
written at the later date.

More information to come...

--

Use the force, idiot!