The Synoptic Apocalypse (Olivet Discourse)

**Rose** · 01-25-2010, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Pop

In answer to my debating full preterists, I am a member of Planetpreterist.com since 2006. There is where I held most of my debates with them. Like this site, they allow different camps to discuss scripture.

I have found in doing so, that it is best not to just begin a discussion by just throwing out a few scriptures in the "middle" of some context being discussed, but rather start from the beginning. Or rather the thread that holds one's paradigm together. That in my view would be the dating of the book of Revelation. For it is the "glue" that holds one's doctrine (whether preterist or futurist) all together. It connects Exekiel, Daniel, the Olivet Discourse, and the Epistles, with its prophetic passages together with Revelation. This is my feelings on it, would you agree?

Pop

Hi Pop,

Looks like we're in for some very good conversations...

The dating of Revelation is extremely important to being able to fully understand how the whole picture fits together. The one big problem is that most Futurists start with an assumption that Revelation was written around AD 95 because of an ambiguous passage in the writings of Irenaeus, in so doing there whole perspective becomes distorted.

As you said "Revelation is the glue", whereas I would say Revelation is the Capstone that finishes off the building tying the whole structure together. It is from the rest of the Bible that we find the dating of Revelation, not from one lone extra-Biblical source.

With that said....

let the discussions begin.

God Bless,

Rose

**Pop** · 01-25-2010, 11:29 AM

Rose said,

Hi Pop,

Looks like we're in for some very good conversations...

The dating of Revelation is extremely important to being able to fully understand how the whole picture fits together. The one big problem is that most Futurists start with an assumption that Revelation was written around AD 95 because of an ambiguous passage in the writings of Irenaeus, in so doing there whole perspective becomes distorted.

As you said "Revelation is the glue", whereas I would say Revelation is the Capstone that finishes off the building tying the whole structure together. It is from the rest of the Bible that we find the dating of Revelation, not from one lone extra-Biblical source.

With that said.... let the discussions begin.

God Bless,

Rose

Speaking for myself, I don't start with the "assumption that Revelation was written around AD 95 because of an ambiguous passage in the writings of Irenaeus,---." I have studied the external and internal evidence to find if indeed whether it was written pre 70 A.D. or post 70 A.D. My studies brought me to the conclusion that the book of Revelation was written post 70 A.D. and had nothing to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

I have written a 30 page article on it. It's not a full blown thesis, that will come later. I believe this is the first step necessary to debating the position of preterism vs. futurism. For as you know, if preterists can prove beyond a doubt that it is a pre 70 A.D. dating, then their paradigm remains solid. And the futurists would have to review their paradigm. Other wise, if it can be proven beyond doubt that it is a post 70 A.D. dating then the preterists will have to review their paradigm. But not to conform with "particular camps," but to conform to "God's Word," and camp only; the Camp of the Saints.

If you wish to view and study my evidence I can give it to you and your readers. In the same way I hope that you also have an article or writings that you can present to me to study as well. This would be a good and proper start on discussing scripture, and no time is wasted "running around in circular reasoning" on passages already discussed ad infinitum.!

Pop

**Rose** · 01-25-2010, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Pop

Speaking for myself, I don't start with the "assumption that Revelation was written around AD 95 because of an ambiguous passage in the writings of Irenaeus,---." I have studied the external and internal evidence to find if indeed whether it was written pre 70 A.D. or post 70 A.D. My studies brought me to the conclusion that the book of Revelation was written post 70 A.D. and had nothing to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

I have written a 30 page article on it. It's not a full blown thesis, that will come later. I believe this is the first step necessary to debating the position of preterism vs. futurism. For as you know, if preterists can prove beyond a doubt that it is a pre 70 A.D. dating, then their paradigm remains solid. And the futurists would have to review their paradigm. Other wise, if it can be proven beyond doubt that it is a post 70 A.D. dating then the preterists will have to review their paradigm. But not to conform with "particular camps," but to conform to "God's Word," and camp only; the Camp of the Saints.

If you wish to view and study my evidence I can give it to you and your readers. In the same way I hope that you also have an article or writings that you can present to me to study as well. This would be a good and proper start on discussing scripture, and no time is wasted "running around in circular reasoning" on passages already discussed ad infinitum.!

Pop

I think the perfect place to start would be with your article, presented one point at a time in its own thread, so myself and others here can respond to and discuss your evidence for a late dating (post AD 70) of Revelation.

I don't have a single article on the dating of Revelation per-say, but rather many posts scattered about the Forum all pointing to a mid AD 60's dating.

If you desire to discuss this topic, please start a thread and let the discussions begin....

Rose

**Richard Amiel McGough** · 01-25-2010, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Pop

Speaking for myself, I don't start with the "assumption that Revelation was written around AD 95 because of an ambiguous passage in the writings of Irenaeus,---." I have studied the external and internal evidence to find if indeed whether it was written pre 70 A.D. or post 70 A.D. My studies brought me to the conclusion that the book of Revelation was written post 70 A.D. and had nothing to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

I have written a 30 page article on it. It's not a full blown thesis, that will come later. I believe this is the first step necessary to debating the position of preterism vs. futurism. For as you know, if preterists can prove beyond a doubt that it is a pre 70 A.D. dating, then their paradigm remains solid. And the futurists would have to review their paradigm. Other wise, if it can be proven beyond doubt that it is a post 70 A.D. dating then the preterists will have to review their paradigm. But not to conform with "particular camps," but to conform to "God's Word," and camp only; the Camp of the Saints.

If you wish to view and study my evidence I can give it to you and your readers. In the same way I hope that you also have an article or writings that you can present to me to study as well. This would be a good and proper start on discussing scripture, and no time is wasted "running around in circular reasoning" on passages already discussed ad infinitum.!

Pop

Hey Pop! I agree with Rose - it would be great if you started a thread on Dating the Book of Revelation and presented your understanding point by point. I am eager to review your research because I have done a similar study and come to the opposite conclusion. This means that we have a great opportunity for mutually sharpening our iron!

All the best,

Richard

**Pop** · 01-25-2010, 02:55 PM

Hey Pop! I agree with Rose - it would be great if you started a thread on Dating the Book of Revelation and presented your understanding point by point. I am eager to review your research because I have done a similar study and come to the opposite conclusion. This means that we have a great opportunity for mutually sharpening our iron!

All the best,

Richard

I first need to know how much character space am I allowed on one post. I looked at the forum rules and could not find anything on this. The reason I ask is because if not enough space is allowed it would be fruitless to start. It would take to long and we'd lose focus on the whole of the context totaling many pages.

Pop

**Richard Amiel McGough** · 01-25-2010, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Pop

I first need to know how much character space am I allowed on one post. I looked at the forum rules and could not find anything on this. The reason I ask is because if not enough space is allowed it would be fruitless to start. It would take to long and we'd lose focus on the whole of the context totaling many pages.

Pop

You are allowed 20,000 characters per post. Is that enough? I would certainly hope so, since otherwise it's pretty unlikely that anyone would try to read them anyway.

Does your article naturally divide into smallish sections? It seems like that would be the best way to present it.

Also, you could just attach the whole document to your first post, and folks could download it and read it on their computers and then comment on the sections as they see fit. What is the format of the doc (word, txt ...)?

Let me know what you need and I will do what it takes to make this work.

All the best,

Richard

**Pop** · 01-26-2010, 05:54 AM

http://www.twospiritshendora.com/Dat...20Expanded.pdf

**TheForgiven** · 01-26-2010, 05:57 PM

We had a thread discussing the dating of Revelation. I'm not sure if it's still in existence.

Brother Richard, let me know if you plan on starting a new thread on this discussion....this is one of my favorites ones....but I won't get in your way bro.

I don't want to work in another mans field.

Joe

**Richard Amiel McGough** · 01-26-2010, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by TheForgiven

We had a thread discussing the dating of Revelation. I'm not sure if it's still in existence.

Brother Richard, let me know if you plan on starting a new thread on this discussion....this is one of my favorites ones....but I won't get in your way bro.

I don't want to work in another mans field.

Joe

Hey bro!

Don't worry about getting in my way. I think we know how to work "shoulder-to-shoulder."

Have you noticed the new tag system? This was added when I upgraded the software recently. If you click on Search on the menu bar at the top you will see an option called "Tag Search." Click on that and you will see all the articles that have been tagged. One of them is called "dating revelation." I clicked on it and found this old thread that you had started:

Dating the Book of Revelation

I think we'll probably start a new thread to review Pop's doc.

Talk more soon,

Richard

**Pop** · 01-27-2010, 08:33 AM

You are allowed 20,000 characters per post. Is that enough? I would certainly hope so, since otherwise it's pretty unlikely that anyone would try to read them anyway.

Does your article naturally divide into smallish sections? It seems like that would be the best way to present it.

Also, you could just attach the whole document to your first post, and folks could download it and read it on their computers and then comment on the sections as they see fit. What is the format of the doc (word, txt ...)?

Let me know what you need and I will do what it takes to make this work.

All the best,

Richard

The article can be divided into smaller sections to be discussed.
I'd be happy to attach the document here if you want. This way it can be read on one's leisure then comment later.

Since you are the Administrator, and know how to set up these things, I'll just attach the document here, and you take it from there, okay? I'll wait for you're answer.

Here's the link: http://www.freewebs.com/twospirits/D...lation%201.pdf

Pop