Revelation was written around 96AD and he was writing about things that will come. When did "every eye" see Jesus coming? When did all those on earth marvel at the beast? When did the whole world see Jesus coming in the clouds? When did the whole world bow down to Him? Where is your "new heaven and new earth?
>>all things written were fulfilled<<
Why would you change the words of scripture like that? It says that all things will be fulfilled. It doesn't say they have already been fulfilled.
>>And please, let’s keep John’s words in context. He also wrote that they were living “in the last hour.”<<
I thought you said that what John wrote we hyperbole? Now you say parts are not? Who decides which are and which are not?
>>If they were living in the last hour, we cannot also be living in the last hour.<<
So you take that literally but not other parts? I suppose it is only you Preterists that will decide which is which?
Preterists have a huge problem with most of scripture and much of history. All of which proves them in error.
“Revelation was written around 96AD...”
It was written no later than 68 AD, but that will be an argument for another time.
“It says that all things will be fulfilled. It doesn’t say they have already been fulfilled.”
To the writers of the New Testament, the coming of Christ in judgment hadn’t happened yet. The Temple was still standing. When Luke writes “will be fulfilled” he does so knowing that it hasn’t happened yet, but expecting it to happen in his lifetime.
What was future to them is past to us.
“I thought you said that what John wrote we hyperbole? Now you say parts are not? Who decides which are and which are not?”
Context and precedent. You should try them.
“Preterists have a huge problem with most of scripture and much of history. All of which proves them in error.”
I’ve demonstrated my scholarship on the issue with my very first post that started this thread. Futurists, on the other hand, seem to excel at chest-thumping and fist-pumping for little or no reason at all. It’s certainly not warranted by the amount of “thought” you’ve displayed in your posts, CB.
I certainly concur. One of the most damnable heresies of our times.
I can remember, back before the rise of preterism, evangelicals (except for a few historicists here and there) interpreted NT prophetic scriptures, Matt. 24 to Revelation, futuristically. The great tribulation with its antichrist and mark of the beast, Armageddon, the 2nd coming, resurrection and rapture, and the millennial kingdom, had not taken place yet. Enter the preterists, making their appearance right on cue to be chief doctrinal representatives of the falling away, or apostasia, of 2 Thess. 2:3.
I've watched Christians getting carried away by these charlatans, the thing that always bugs me, why would anybody buy into such a theory in the first place? To be "one up" on everybody else? Do such things as a future antichrist and mark of the beast trouble them, so they cast about trying to find something that will ease their little troubled minds? They surely hit the jackpot when they find preterism!
I mean, one has to jump through hoops to make the NT a preterist document. One has to read into the scripture - and history - their theory. The NT doesn't naturally read that way, so they have to MAKE IT read that way.
Take Matt. 24:29-31 for example. We read of the sun and moon darkened, stars falling from heaven, the powers of the heavens shaken in conjunction with the coming of Jesus Christ. Now, last time I looked out the window, the sun, moon, and stars look like they did when Jesus uttered the words of Matt. 24. Enter the preterists: oh, no, you shouldn't read it that way, it doesn't mean what it appears to mean. And then they proceed to tell us all this happened in 70 AD...and with a straight face.
And lets not forget, that none of the ECF interpreted Matt. 24 as they do. And they lived almost two thousand years closer to the actual event (the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD) than these modern preterists. Like I said, history refutes them, not just Revelation being written in 96 AD, but the ECF also.
“Revelation was written around 96AD...”
Revelation was written no later than 68 AD, and here’s why:
“This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while. Revelation 17:9-10
Jerusalem, kike Rome, is a city built on seven hills. But that’s not really relevant to the dating of the book. This, however, is:
“They are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; but when he does come, he must remain for only a little while.”
The progression of the Roman Caesars is as follows:
1. Julius
2. Augustus
3. Tiberias
4. Caligula
5. Claudius
6. Nero (under whom Christians were first persecuted by Rome)
7. Galba (whose reign lasted only 7 months and 7 days.)
John wrote that the “sixth is”, meaning that Nero was still alive: the same Nero who had Paul beheaded and Peter crucified upside down.
Now, some will argue that John was on Patmos under Domitian’s reign. Robert Young, cited below, argues otherwise.
Robert Young, author of Young’s Analytical Concordance, wrote a commentary on Revelation published prior to 1885 wherein he makes the following statement: “It was written in Patmos about A.D. 68, whither John had been banished by Domitius Nero, as stated in the title of the Syriac version of the book; and with this concurs the express statement of Irenaeus in A.D. 175, who says it happened in the reign of Domitianou - i.e., Domitius (Nero). Sulpicius, Orosius, etc., stupidly mistaking Dimitianou for Domitianikos, supposed Irenaeus to refer to Domitian, A.D. 95, and most succeeding writers have fallen into the same blunder. The internal testimony is wholly in favor of the early date.”
http://www.preteristcentral.com/Dating%20the%20Book%20of%20Revelation.html
Now, what was Nero’s given name?
Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, the future Nero, was born on 15 December 37 in Antium (modern Anzio and Nettuno[11]), near Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero
The belief that Domitian placed John on Patmos in the mid-90’s ultimately boils down to the similarity between the names Domitious and Domitian, and a typo. Nero placed John there.