Preterism's Achilles Heel

Post by **_Allyn** » Wed Sep 13, 2006 3:07 pm

That's my take on it as well Christopher

Post by **_Super Sola Scriptura** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:02 am

Recall that the church in Jerusalem received a prophetic word, allowing them to escape. Letter not needed.

BTW, I find it curious that you so loudly proclaim that the book *could not* have been written before 70A.D. Umm...why exactly? 2000 years later, seems like it'd be hard to pin down the date of publication. What method did you use to date it?

WHEN did the church in Jerusalem receive this word??? If you say Matt 24--when was THAT written??? And where in the 20 year history of the book of Acts do you see anyone preaching this, and warning for 70AD???

As for the dating of Revelation, numerous treatises have been written on this. The book LAST DAYS CONTROVERSIES by Ice and someone else(can't remember) has a great chapter on it and shows that the pre-70AD idea is a farce. Such a date is promoted by an a priori assumption of Preteristic viewpoints and therefore DEMANDS a pre-70AD writing. The actual evidence historically and fromt the book itself reveals otherwise.

Again, to have a book about 70AD is pointless. All the warning necessary could have been written in one chapter. Revelation covers the entire times of the Gentiles, it gives the history of demonic Kingdoms right up to the Return of the Lord. It specifically covers tha last 42 months of this age, and the rule of the Son of perdition. Anyone can see this. it then covers the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth and then the eternal age. 70AD my foot!

The fact that the church in Jerusalem received no letter argues very convincingly against your views. Why write to churches, some of whom are quite far away, and give all these mysterious details about something that, by the time they get the letter, if at all, and can actually decifer it, the things already happened and are over??? How IRRELEVANT!

I suggest getting the above mentioned book and reading it. I believe they did a great job demolishing preterism Scripturally and historically.

Post by **_Sean** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:14 am

Super Sola Scriptura wrote:
As for the dating of Revelation, numerous treatises have been written on this. The book LAST DAYS CONTROVERSIES by Ice and someone else(can't remember) has a great chapter on it and shows that the pre-70AD idea is a farce. Such a date is promoted by an a priori assumption of Preteristic viewpoints and therefore DEMANDS a pre-70AD writing. The actual evidence historically and fromt the book itself reveals otherwise.

Why would it be surprising that a book by a futurist would give a late date to the book of revelation? It would pay to also read the preterist side as well like the book BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Dating the Book of Revelation by Kenneth Gentry. Not that I agree with everything in the book, but it will give another perspective to the dating of Revelation. There have been those throughout the ages that have given different dates to the book of Revelation.

Super Sola Scriptura wrote:
Again, to have a book about 70AD is pointless. All the warning necessary could have been written in one chapter. Revelation covers the entire times of the Gentiles, it gives the history of demonic Kingdoms right up to the Return of the Lord. It specifically covers tha last 42 months of this age, and the rule of the Son of perdition. Anyone can see this. it then covers the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth and then the eternal age. 70AD my foot!

The fact that the church in Jerusalem received no letter argues very convincingly against your views. Why write to churches, some of whom are quite far away, and give all these mysterious details about something that, by the time they get the letter, if at all, and can actually decifer it, the things already happened and are over??? How IRRELEVANT!

I suggest getting the above mentioned book and reading it. I believe they did a great job demolishing preterism Scripturally and historically.

The book of Revelation is not only about 70AD, but also the Roman empire is mentioned. Although I don't see enough content in Revelation to cover much more than this, it may very well contain other information about the church age.

The letters to the churches were to inform them of the termoil that was about to come on not only Jerusalem but the entire Roman empire. This affected many Christians. To put it as being written in ~95AD would make no sense since it warns that these things were about to take place.

Also, I don't see where it says Jesus will reign on earth for 1,000 years.

Post by **_Sean** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:14 am

Duplicate post.

Post by **_Allyn** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:05 am

Most of us here are not full preterists so we do not consider the second coming of Christ to have occurred as yet.

Post by **_rvornberg** » Fri Nov 03, 2006 11:30 am

I've got a couple question for those that see an early dating of REV.

1. Why didn't any of the church fathers mention the return of Christ as something that has already occurred?

Polycarp
Iranaeus
Clement of Alexandria
Tertullian
Victorinus
Eusebius
Jerome

SSS, I for a long time now have been wondering the same thing about the distance. Why was a letter written to churches about 500 miles away from the center of destruction. In those days, that was a world apart.
Nobody has been able to give a decent answer yet.[/quote]