post or pre 70 AD?

[John]

This is a debate on the date of revelation. was it before or after the destruction of the temple?


post your thoughts.


NOTE: some earlier comments on this are found in 'authority or not' and may help you guys understand the basis of this thread.


shalom- john

[Jonatan]

John wrote his Revelation in his 80-ties or 90-ties, it corresponds to some year after 70 AD, so it mean that the temple mentioned in vision in his 11.Chapter should not refer to the second temple destroyed by Romans, but the third temple waiting to be built. Otherwise, Gentilic rule over the courtyard would be only 42 months, which is 3 and half years. But Gentiles ruled over Israel whole two milleniums. from detruction of 2nd temple to 1948, restoration of Yisrael.
I condemn 'allegorical interpretation only' - it just cannot be true - otherwise we may allegorize just everything. 42 months, 1260 days, or 3 and half years, or Daniel's hebrew expression 'time and times and half-time' (which can also be found in Revelation Ch.12) [glow=red,2,300]ARE LITERAL!!![/glow]

[John]

i agree.--- we should not allegorize everything by any means. i agree with the jewish hermeneutical practice: see 'jewish hermeneutics'... i think that the temple is heavenly, or the third temple that is built- it may refer to two different temples. i havent read revelation in a while, and exchatology is not my fav subj. now... but i will read some and post my interpretations verse by verse. maybe i will believe something different. since the last time that i read revelation i have changed much in my theology.


shalom- john

[anochria]

jonatan wrote:

I condemn 'allegorical interpretation only' - it just cannot be true - otherwise we may allegorize just everything. 42 months, 1260 days, or 3 and half years, or Daniel's hebrew expression 'time and times and half-time' (which can also be found in Revelation Ch.12)

john wrote:

i agree.--- we should not allegorize everything by any means.

Who said anything about "allegorical interpretation only"? I don't hold to an Idealist perspective on Revelation but to a Partial Preterist perspective on Revelation which takes Revelation quite literally on many points- even the 3 1/2 years.

We should not hold to a rigid "literal-only" or "allegorical-only" interpretation of Scriputre simply because certain passage of Scripture were intended to be read literally and others figuratively. The debate often certain around how to read certain passages.

Are either of you familiar with the Partial Preterist perspective on Revelation/ eschatology?

As to the date of Revelation, I will grant that Irenaeus comments about John are good evidence for a date after AD 70. However, they can also have meant simply that John lived until after AD 70. (It centers on whether Iraeneus says that John was seen during Domitians reign, or whether he saw his vision during Domitians reign).

I think the mention of the Temple, without reference to the destruction of the 2nd Temple, is still a strong evidence for a pre-70 date.

Also, all the references to Yeshua' soon-coming judgment on the nation of Israel are also strong indicators that the subject matter of Revelation concerned a time near at hand rather than some far off future events.

Have you ever seen a thorough explanation of how Revelation chapters 1-19 comport with history up to AD 70?

[John]

again, i agree with you on the hermeneutical aspect.


i am aware of the preterist theology and think that it is a bunch of lies... again, nothing to you personally, but i dont w=support the doctrine at all.

[itiswritten]

Some food for thought....


Revelation 2:10
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Do you all think that those "ten literal days" have already passed or are they still ahead?

Revelation 3:18
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

Can someone tell me what stores sell this particular gold that Y'shua is selling as well as a place to purchase this type of eyesalve?


Hosea 6:2
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

Although that one isn't from Revelation, I was wondering if those "three literal days" are past or are they future?

[John]

just bacause there are some allegorical aspects of scripture doesnt mean that the whole of scripture is allegorical. i think that we should follow the jewish hermeneutical values (SEE "JEWISH HERMENEUTICS" !!!) and for the peshat we should interpret through the grammatical historical method. we should always be careful when using sod but when you use it i think it is the most helpful in building a relationship with YHVH. the drash not be used to build doctrines, but to teach lessons. the remez should always be taken into account- but it has to be something that the writer hinted at himself.

shalom- john


i am getting off subject, but i thought i should add such.

[anochria]

just bacause there are some allegorical aspects of scripture doesnt mean that the whole of scripture is allegorical.

Just want to make this abundantly clear- I never said that the whole of Scripture is allegorical. Did you think I did?

Furthermore, the preterist understanding of Revelation isn't that it's allegorical. It is that it that most of the book is focused on the events surrounding AD 70 and that much symbolism is used to convey the events that transpired then.

That Revelation is full of symbols I think none of us would disagree with.

I hope to add some thoughts about the Jewish hermeneutical method.

[John]

that post wasnt directed toward you...

and i know the preterist idea. i have already studied it. but note that before the mellinium there will be a ressurection--- sso your idea that we are living in the mellinium is kindof ignorant (not stupid, ignorant).

now, back to the debate. anochria- do you have any sites of books that supoprt what you are presenting as your view?

[anochria]

The view would be ignorant if I was unaware of a pre-millenial resurrection and didn't havce a response to that. But, since that's not the case, don't be so hasty to label it as ignorant. It's off-putting.

Is there a place to discussion views of the millenium?


I'll be back with a link or two for you.

(trying to keep all the threas I'm working on straight )

[Jonatan]

Both interpretations are important! Even if we don't live in times of the many events happened before, whole scripture is actual today for us, either in literal or spiritual or allegorical or figurative) sense. One is, however, important! Neither of the interpretations must deny the literal historical sense as true. Otherwise it is one of the hardest heresies, such as Catholic Replacement Theology - if we analyse it, it was clearly based on allegorical interpretation, while literal fundament was denied. So it came that this way the catholic 'eucharistia' was developed - by denying one true sacrifice of Yeshua (and there's no need of any other sacrifices), by "copying" idea of Old Testamental continual sacrifices of animals, being replaced by such an abomination as magic with "bread and wine" that are "transformed". Next heresy is the idea of millenial kingdom yet come in form of Pope state - Vatican. By this, RCC has stolen the scripture from Israel saying he has been condemned by his Lord, wanting all the blessings of Israel for herself.
I agree with John that the every interpretation is for each other matter - history(together with eschatology) and teaching for everyday-life are two different things.
- everyone who wants to interpret eschatology and prophecies allegoricaly, take an example of that above where it may lead.

Know what I am talking about cos eschatology is my domain. Revelation is chronological into future. None of the things in Revelation could yet happen literally, maybe except of the 7 letters sent to 7 congregations in Asia. The things described in the Revelation are not just 'common events that took place in history' - it's something different - all the famines, pestilence, third parts of world afflicted - it says about conclusion of this Aion of Lord's Mercy for Gentiles. These things mentioned in Revelation have all more merit than just age we live in, cos they all are visible start of God's wrath and judgement, and why would Lord start to do it unless gospel is spreaded into uttermost parts of the Earth?

Now about 'post or pre 70 AD' - well I don't know. I just cannot stand that temple in Chapter 11 would refer to second temple which has been destroyed in the past. There must be another - third temple where the abominable idol will be placed. It doesn't refer to the second - Zerubabbel's temple. Well, just that interpretation is correct which fit together with other parts, just as puzzle. And if it's on two or three witnesses - then no doubts.

btw. I don't know what's 'preterist idea'
Shalom

[John]

i have noticed that jonatan is probably the expert on eschatology here.

is this what you plan on getting into most jonatan?

[Jonatan]

You've got it - that's it. I feel it to be most important now (at least for me) as for it has not happened yet, but will soon, it's very actual and I hope Lord will grant me the mercy and grace to know the things from His Word before they happen, so that many may be prepared.
Sh'lom!

[anochria]

Jonatan,

You're not really saying that everything in Revelation is to be taken in a woodenly literal sense (in addition to the spiritual and symbolic) are you?

For instance, do you think the reference to the "dragon" is literal or symbolic? Do you think satan is a literal dragon? If so, how can he also be a serpent? And if these are indeed symbols, on what basis can you say for certain other elements of Revelation aren't symbolic?

I think there is often a good evidential case to be made for whether a particular phrase is literal, symbolic, or both.

btw. I don't know what's 'preterist idea'

Jonatan,

If you aim at being an expert on eschatology, I really think you should become conversant with all of the major viewpoints (Futurist, Idealist, Historicist, Preterist), whether you agree with them or not, if only for the sake of being able to answer critics.

Test all things, hold on to the good...., etc..

Shalom and thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate it.

[NOTE FROM JOHN: see the rule on double posting please ]

[Jonatan]

May 18, 2009 19:14:04 GMT -5 anochria said:

Jonatan,

You're not really saying that everything in Revelation is to be taken in a woodenly literal sense (in addition to the spiritual and symbolic) are you?

For instance, do you think the reference to the "dragon" is literal or symbolic? Do you think satan is a literal dragon? If so, how can he also be a serpent? And if these are indeed symbols, on what basis can you say for certain other elements of Revelation aren't symbolic?

I think there is often a good evidential case to be made for whether a particular phrase is literal, symbolic, or both.

Well, that's one of the things I am searching. It is VERY INTERESTING WHY the serpent and the dragon are considered synonymes. Sometimes as I have read Bible, even in OT, the dragon was the synonym for serpent. Even the serpent, whose tail Moses touched, turned into 'serpent' - or into 'dragon' as I have read in some translations. It seems to be the synonym in hebrew.

One theory I do have here - but should be found in other Scriptures, whether Biblical books or extra-biblical. That serpent/dragon formerly had wings and he lost it when he was cursed by God in Genesis 3:

14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

It believe it to be Satan whom the prophecy was told about as it refers here in Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

But as well as Satan, serpents as animals also carry that curse to move on their bellies.

VERY INTERESTING WHY some false religions have deities as Dragon or Serpent (Dragon - China, Serpent - Ancient Indians). Sounds like from the world before flood and after it in Babylon there has been worship of Satan by many false religions. How did they get their false gods? I believe through heathen traditions of Nephilim and other phenomena from the old world before the global flood.
That may be the answer why to study Enoch or some else texts saying about those times - there must exist somewhere texts that would say about it, it cannot be only fantasy. I believe fallen angels and Nephilim might have change their shapes whenever they wanted.
If Nephilim looked like dragons such as Satan would (inspired by his appearance), it would give reasons why there were that what is called 'dinosaurs'. Many of the bones, remains of 'dinosaurs' look as though it may have been dragons - as we see in fantasy or in heathen mythologies - it must be somehow true. No man would imagine anything like that - the only problem with supernatural is - wheter it is from God or from Satan.

Tell me anyone if you know something about the theory I have that dragon without wings is a serpent and serpent with wings is dragon. Am I the first with this idea or were there anyone before me according this?

Jonatan,

If you aim at being an expert on eschatology, I really think you should become conversant with all of the major viewpoints (Futurist, Idealist, Historicist, Preterist), whether you agree with them or not, if only for the sake of being able to answer critics.

Test all things, hold on to the good...., etc..

Shalom and thanks for the dialogue. I appreciate it.

Uh, well, yes. I won't make any conclusions considering me expert on eschatology, cos I have only some pieces of it revealed. And it most posssibly may take some time to reveal more and more.
Maybe it is because I do not study theology yet, I just put together parts in Bible without knowledge of former theological opinions. When I start study theology, I guess I will learn more things, even these ideas, but now, I search it without the ideas of men, without philosophy, without allegorical and other interpretations, just as it is written - that is, I believe, the will of God, to study his Word plainly and without scope of men that do philosophying and do not look at prophecies in faith - they try to allegorize it, because they don't believe it could happen literally.

Ezekiel 20:45 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
46 Son of man, set thy face toward the south, and drop thy word toward the south, and prophesy against the forest of the south field;
47 And say to the forest of the south, Hear the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burned therein.
48 And all flesh shall see that I the LORD have kindled it: it shall not be quenched.
49 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! they say of me, Doth he not speak parables?

Is it parable or not? - just trying your faith in prophecies

[John]

shaul used allegory alot jonatan... you cannot dismiss allegory as an interpretation, just keep the rule that nothing can contradict the peshat.

shal0m-john

[itiswritten]

Good points John. Allegory is used a lot. Sometimes scripture can be interpreted on the pashat level and sometimes not. For example the scriptures below.


John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

John 6:56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

-----------------------------------------------

Here is a clear example that Shaul gives that is an allegory.

Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
----------------------------------------------
Here are just a few examples of symbolic language:


Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.


seven stars= Seven angels
seven candlesticks = Seven churches

Revelation 19:8
And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

fine linen=righteousness of saints


Revelation 17:9
And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

seven heads=seven mountains

12 nd the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

ten horns=ten kings

15 nd he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

waters=peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues

18 nd the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

woman= that great city

The writers do not always interpret every symbol for us. Sometimes we actually have to do some study in order to understand the symbols being used.

Also we we take many passages literally we would be expecting beasts to emerge from the seas and earth. To demand adherance to a literal interpretation of all of the scripture is to force an interpretation that was not intended.

[itiswritten]

Apr 29, 2009 3:37:34 GMT -5 Jonatan said:

John wrote his Revelation in his 80-ties or 90-ties, it corresponds to some year after 70 AD, so it mean that the temple mentioned in vision in his 11.Chapter should not refer to the second temple destroyed by Romans, but the third temple waiting to be built. Otherwise, Gentilic rule over the courtyard would be only 42 months, which is 3 and half years. But Gentiles ruled over Israel whole two milleniums. from detruction of 2nd temple to 1948, restoration of Yisrael.
I condemn 'allegorical interpretation only' - it just cannot be true - otherwise we may allegorize just everything. 42 months, 1260 days, or 3 and half years, or Daniel's hebrew expression 'time and times and half-time' (which can also be found in Revelation Ch.12) [glow=red,2,300]ARE LITERAL!!![/glow]

That's your opinion Jonatan. It's also the opinion of most prophecy teachers. Are the time frames below also LITERAL? If not, on what basis do you interpret them as not literal?

Revelation 2:10
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Hosea 6:2
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

[Jonatan]

Well, I know, now you are catching me on my statements, because I've condemned allegory and promoted literal meaning too much. I know that true christians/messianics mean it different way and that both literal, allegorical and symbolical senses take place in Bible.
On the other hand, I have had terrible experience saying to atheists about Word of God that it's true, persuading them with all the miracles of the Lord.
You may guess what did they told me on it - "You must not take it literally!"

May 20, 2009 17:15:49 GMT -5 itiswritten said:

Apr 29, 2009 3:37:34 GMT -5 Jonatan said:

John wrote his Revelation in his 80-ties or 90-ties, it corresponds to some year after 70 AD, so it mean that the temple mentioned in vision in his 11.Chapter should not refer to the second temple destroyed by Romans, but the third temple waiting to be built. Otherwise, Gentilic rule over the courtyard would be only 42 months, which is 3 and half years. But Gentiles ruled over Israel whole two milleniums. from detruction of 2nd temple to 1948, restoration of Yisrael.
I condemn 'allegorical interpretation only' - it just cannot be true - otherwise we may allegorize just everything. 42 months, 1260 days, or 3 and half years, or Daniel's hebrew expression 'time and times and half-time' (which can also be found in Revelation Ch.12) [glow=red,2,300]ARE LITERAL!!![/glow]

That's your opinion Jonatan. It's also the opinion of most prophecy teachers. Are the time frames below also LITERAL? If not, on what basis do you interpret them as not literal?

Revelation 2:10
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

Hosea 6:2
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.

I do interpret it both ways. I believe Revelation 2:10 was clearly historical matter, that there WERE disciples in the past, in times of John to whom he has written the letters. - And they had tribulation for literal ten days - yet for us, into future, it may be allegorical or symbolical.

About Hosea 6:2 - I don't know yet - you do know?

Good points John. Allegory is used a lot. Sometimes scripture can be interpreted on the pashat level and sometimes not. For example the scriptures below.


John 6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

John 6:56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

-----------------------------------------------

Here is a clear example that Shaul gives that is an allegory.

Gal 4:23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
----------------------------------------------
Here are just a few examples of symbolic language:


Revelation 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.


seven stars= Seven angels
seven candlesticks = Seven churches

Revelation 19:8
And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

fine linen=righteousness of saints


Revelation 17:9
And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

seven heads=seven mountains

12 nd the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

ten horns=ten kings

15 nd he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

waters=peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues

18 nd the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

woman= that great city

The writers do not always interpret every symbol for us. Sometimes we actually have to do some study in order to understand the symbols being used.

Also we we take many passages literally we would be expecting beasts to emerge from the seas and earth. To demand adherance to a literal interpretation of all of the scripture is to force an interpretation that was not intended.

It's all correct! I do not attack your opinion.
Just want to say that there must be interpretations GIVEN ALREADY BY THE WORD. Word interprets itself. It cannot be such difficult and philosophical for us to understand. Lord forbid it!
Let our Almighty God, Author of it all say the last word. Let Him interpret it and let us submit to it.

Just want to say that if John explained (or angel that was interpreting his vision) that seven stars = Seven angels, they are 7 angels literally, seven candlesticks = Seven churches literally, fine linen = righteousness of saints literally, seven heads = seven mountains literally, ten horns = ten kings literally! And we may proceed further and further.

If there are some symbols we don't understand yet, it must be in the Scripture, maybe formerly mentioned or later.
Before God, in Lord's eyes, no man is allowed to interpret the word by his own philosophy or opinions and to be correct. Word of God has been given to humble who take it in faith - as children and not as 'wise of this world' - cos wisdom of this world is foolishness and abomination in Lord's eyes.

In fact, people who do not take Lord's word literally, UNLESS HE SAY it's some symbol OR THAT HE EXPLAIN IT OTHER WAY, they're not believing it to be undeniable truth. That atheists do also.

Red Sea was cleaved asunder literally as it is in Exodus! All the miracles are literal just as they are written in Bible. Let us rather believe the Word than modern science, scientists, materialists or compromisers.
Even heaven and earth may pass away, BUT NEVER THE WORD OF GOD!
Otherwise, you're implying that our Lord is not that Almighty!

[John]

this is a good discussion. keep it up. it will help us on our quest for interpreting revelation, but not here; this is a place for the date of revelation, and the interpretation of it can be discussed elsewhere, or if you want to discuss interpretation as a whole post under 'hermeneutics'.

shalom and thank you- john