Poster | Thread | ccchhhrrriiisss Member

Joined: 2003/11/23 Posts: 4779
| Re: | | Hi Todd,
Quote:
This answers your question, at least for me.
Thanks for your clarification; however, please let me know if I am interpreting your view correctly: Daniel's "abomination that causes desolation" is referring to General Titus (or the Roman army) in 70 A.D. but NOT Antiochus Epiphanes in 156 B.C.
Correct me where I'm wrong, but I understand that you're NOT a futurist both here and even with most of what's written in John's Revelation. However, I just strongly believe that THE anti-Christ mentioned in Revelation has not yet been revealed.
John had his revelation while banished on the island of Patmos. This dates it to around 95 A.D. -- 25 years after Titus's destruction of the Temple and 14 years after Titus's death in Rome (in 81 A.D.). It's also 27 years after the suicidal death of Nero (in 68 A.D.). The "beast" is apprehended at the end of the Revelation (chapter 19) and thrown "ALIVE" into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 19:20).
Remember: John wrote of the anti-Christ elsewhere in 1 John chapters 2 and 4. Written between 85-95 A.D. (or possibly later), it states "antichrist is coming" but that "many antichrists have come" (1 John 4:18).
My own view (more of a contemplation) is that the spirit of the antichrist -- an abomination that causes desolation -- is in the world and has taken many forms. This includes Antiochus Epiphanes, Titus, Nero and, ultimately, THE anti-Christ of the time of the end. Daniel referred to the spirit of the anti-Christ which took all of these forms. _________________ Christopher
|
| 2023/9/22 11:04 | Profile | TMK Member

Joined: 2012/2/8 Posts: 6650 NC, USA
| Re: | | I think Jesus was talking about the Roman armies in 70 AD. Since Jesus references Daniel, to be consistent Daniel must have been referring to 70 AD unless Jesus was mistaken, which I kind of doubt.
I question a literal future global leader called Antichrist as portrayed in end times novels. I will not say it’s 100% impossible I just don’t believe it strongly.
_________________ Todd
|
| 2023/9/22 11:16 | Profile | ccchhhrrriiisss Member

Joined: 2003/11/23 Posts: 4779
| Re: | | Hi Todd,
Thanks for the reply (and clarity). I suppose that the thing that makes me think otherwise (to this only-in-70A.D.-interpretation) is that the disciples asked:
1.) When will these things be? 2.) What will be the sign of your coming? 3.) What will be the sign of the end of the age?
The disciples were aware that the Lord's "second coming" would be different from his first. While I agree that the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. is included here, I feel that Jesus also shared things about his "coming" (i.e., second coming) and "the sign of the end of the age."
In fact, while the disciples were aware of the Lord's subsequent (second) coming, I believe that they tied it together with all of the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah that were NOT fulfilled with Jesus's first coming.
Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees, Sadducees and Teachers of the Law were not expecting a Messiah to be a humble servant who would suffer and give up his life for us. I believe that this is why Jesus, as he was dying, said "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" He was quoting Psalm 22 -- a very clear prophecy by David that his Messianic descendant would die.
In fact, when Jesus was about to ascend into Heaven, his disciples asked, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel" (Acts 1:7)?
They were still expecting a Messiah-ruled KINGDOM of Israel.
Jesus replied, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth."
My biggest issue with the "70 A.D.-only" interpretation is that it assumes that a prophecy cannot be overlapping -- covering two or more individuals or events. Moreover, the beast and the false prophet (according to Revelation 19) are alive at the Second Coming and will be taken ALIVE into the Lake of Fire.
Personally, I feel strongly that this is NOT merely figurative language. John talked about anti-christs (plural) that have come while THE anti-christ is "coming" (in 1 John). Plus, early church leaders (including a couple who knew John in his old age) wrote about the Lord's return as a literal event.
With what I wrote earlier, this is merely my view (and as close to allowing myself to be labeled as a "dispensationalist" as I feel comfortable). However, I do think that the imagery of Daniel (let the reader understand) could refer back to Antiochus Epiphanes AND Titus AND Nero AND the future final antichrist. I'm not given to the various end-time novels either (they are often cringeworthy); but, I do think that this is a very distinct possibility.
With much love and respect, -Christopher _________________ Christopher
|
| 2023/9/22 21:45 | Profile | TMK Member

Joined: 2012/2/8 Posts: 6650 NC, USA
| Re: | | Chris-
I definitely believe the Second Coming is a literal yet future event. I am not a full preterist who believes even that occurred in the first century AD.
As to the “end of the age” the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and ergo temple worship WAS the end of the age- the age of temple worship which has not returned to this day- God forbid it should ever return.
There is also lots of evidence for an earlier date for the writing of Revelation. I know 95 ad is the traditionally accepted date but there are lots of problems with that. Don’t won’t to debate about it though. _________________ Todd
|
| 2023/9/23 8:13 | Profile | ccchhhrrriiisss Member

Joined: 2003/11/23 Posts: 4779
| Re: | | Hi Todd,
Thanks again for the clarity about your position. To be clear: I've never really paid very much attention to the various nomenclature regarding eschatology or dispensationalism (which is why I don't like to be labeled or categorized by any such terms). I've probably learned most of it here on SermonIndex than from independent study. In fact, I'm not very well-read in books on doctrine, eschatology or end-times fiction either.
I do see prophecy as fluid truths according to how the Spirit gave utterance. Old Testament prophets sometimes went from prophesying the birth, life and death of the Lord before moving on to end-times utterances. This is why I believe that many (if not most) of the Jews were awaiting a "conquering" Messiah -- the Son of David who would restore the Kingdom lost following the sins and death of Solomon and the two branches progression into captivity.
With those prophecies, it was difficult for first century Jews to accept a Messiah who was: A.) Humble; B.) A servant; C.) A gentle, teaching shepherd; D.) Not involved in earthly politics or leading a revolution; and, E.) One who would die for the sins of the world.
Yet, oddly enough, Jesus proved himself through his life -- including his miracles, teachings, parables, prophecies and, of course, sacrificial death. Some Jews saw him for who He was. Others didn't want to believe that the Messiah would come in such a way. They had their hearts set on a conquering king rather than a sacrificial lamb. They couldn't fathom TWO comings of the Messiah for which he would accomplish both.
I get what you're saying about the "end of the age." However, I think that "age" isn't an entirely accurate English word used for this term. The Greek word used is "aiōn" -- which is often translated in different ways. The King James Version translated it as "world." Most English translations use "world" or "age" for this particular passage. This is likely because "aiōn" is different from "epoch" (which would indicate the closing of an era rather time itself).
After all, this word (i.e., "aiōn") is taken from the root "aei" usually translated as "always" or "ever." In fact, the same word is used as a more ultimate "end" and finality elsewhere in Scriptures. It's used when it talks about how those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this "aiōn" or in what's to come (Matthew 12:32). It's also used in Matthew 13 when Jesus mentions the end of this world -- where God's judgment is accomplished.
So, I'm inclined to think of the "end of the age" more as, well, the end of the "ever" of this world. I imagine that the disciples who asked Jesus these questions were perplexed -- particularly given the idea that the Temple would be destroyed. I wonder if any of them at that time understood that it would happen within their lifetimes (and just 40 years later).
As for the dating of Revelation's writing (although you said that you don't really want to debate it, please allow me to share a quick personal reasoning for its date): I've read a bit about the early-pen hypothesis. I just don't think that it fits within the timeline of the New Testament. In particular, the messages to the churches speaks of persecution that they were enduring. Nero's persecution of the Christians was limited more to Rome. He had already begun an attempt to quell the rising Jewish revolt in Israel.
However, while Nero eventually cracked down on Christians in Rome, the churches in Asia -- at least toward the end of Paul's life -- were enjoying good spiritual health and relative peace (*at least as evidenced in Paul's final epistles). The fact that John was EXILED to Patmos shows an extent of persecution over years (or decades) rather than something that happened early on.
Moreover, early writers were confident in dating John's exile to Patmos as happened during the reign of Emperor Domitian (the emperor AFTER the death of Titus). The most viable of these would be Irenaeus -- who knew John's disciple Polycarp. Irenaeus wrote that Revelation was written by John just a short time earlier and "toward the end of Domitian's reign." Domitian's reign extended from 81 to 96 A.D. So, this is one example why most scholars believe that the "~95 A.D." estimate is accurate. In fact, Eusebius, Victorinus and others all mentioned this (and not really as something that was even in question).
The dating of John's Revelation of Jesus Christ is important because of what Jesus tells John in Revelation 1:19: "Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and THOSE THAT ARE TO TAKE PLACE AFTER THIS."
Moreover, I find that it also makes me consider the closing of John's Revelation -- where Jesus said, "Surely I am coming soon" (Revelation 22:18-21). When you consider the question of the disciples in Matthew 24 (i.e., "What will be the sign of your coming?"), he answers the question in both Matthew 24-25 and, subsequently, in Revelation. _________________ Christopher
|
| 2023/9/23 12:51 | Profile | TMK Member

Joined: 2012/2/8 Posts: 6650 NC, USA
| Re: | | Hey Chris-
I am not saying you may not be correct. My wife and probably every Christian I know personally is in your camp.
I just have become convinced over the last 15 years or so that Revelation was written in highly symbolic (coded) and apocalyptic style to encourage real Christians at that time who were undergoing intense persecution and who would be in a much better position to understand the symbolism therein than we. The book was an epistle, after all. I think it is a mistake, and perhaps a dire mistake, to try to force its highly figurative language into some future fulfillment.
You know as well as I do that almost every phrase in Revelation has been subject to rather tortured futuristic interpretations that change with the flavor of the day (eg the stinging locusts from the bottomless pit are genetically engineered creatures; the false prophet is AI, etc). _________________ Todd
|
| 2023/9/23 17:11 | Profile | docs Member

Joined: 2006/9/16 Posts: 2753
| Re: | | The final tribulation ends with the resurrection of the dead.
What figure is slain by the brightness of Christ's coming? A figurative figure?
This present evil age did not end in 70 AD. When does it end and how?
_________________ David Winter
|
| 2023/9/23 20:20 | Profile | passerby Member

Joined: 2008/8/13 Posts: 742
| | 2023/9/24 0:19 | Profile | staff Member

Joined: 2007/2/8 Posts: 2227
| Re: | | Hi all I noticed that some post tribbers have said that they were previously "pre tribbers".Is the reasoning behind their change experential?It seems so to me.They listen to people like Zac Poonen who base their doctrine on experience and then use scripture to back up their doctrine.
Their is also a huge double standard applied by Zac Poonen supporters.They allow Zac Poonen to put experience first and then then build a scriptural arguement around that experience but hold themselves up as being scripturally solid. Zac Poonen is a very poor teacher of the end times. Their may be a good arguement for the Post Tribulation view but Zac Poonen has fallen well short of that but because he is a Post Tribulation believer he is given a free pass on his dodgy exegesis by some SI believers, urs staff
|
| 2023/9/24 12:52 | Profile | TMK Member

Joined: 2012/2/8 Posts: 6650 NC, USA
| Re: | | //I noticed that some post tribbers have said that they were previously "pre tribbers"//
The plain and obvious reason for this is that 99.9% of evangelical churches teach pre-trib only so it is the only thing folks hear growing up in the great majority of evangelical churches.
I didn’t even know a different view could be supported by scripture until I was well into my 30s and didn’t change my view until my 40s. And I didn’t hear the arguments in church. _________________ Todd
|
| 2023/9/24 14:04 | Profile |
|