Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have done some research and have seen here or there that most Biblical scholars hold that John did not write it. They listed several reasons:
1. For John to have written Revelations he would have been 100 years old, or more likely dead.
2. John wrote fluently in Greek, however, the Greek in Revelations was atrocious, not to mention the writing was not characteristic of John.
Does it actually pertain to the "future"?
Is the "anti-Christ" going to come or has he already been and has already died. Or was is possibly he was already alive during and before the writing of Revelations as some scholars would point out?
Questions, comments?
One comment, yes. To put it simply, your research turned-up faulty results. "Most Bible scholars" actually do not disbelieve that John wrote the book of Revelation. It's quite the opposite. Whatever John's age was, even when he was on the Isle of Patmos, there were scribes utilized. And the Greek language from the original book of Revelation wasn't atrocious. Never in all of my studies, which I have been doing for a lot and long time, have ever even suggested such a thing.
Who are your sources for this misinformation? No offense intended, but it sounds like you read a website and called that your research. Research would indicate several major sources that reveal the same information.
And yes, the book of Revelation is about future events, although some of them have already occurred.
One comment, yes. To put it simply, your research turned-up faulty results. "Most Bible scholars" actually do not disbelieve that John wrote the book of Revelation. It's quite the opposite. Whatever John's age was, even when he was on the Isle of Patmos, there were scribes utilized. And the Greek language from the original book of Revelation wasn't atrocious. Never in all of my studies, which I have been doing for a lot and long time, have ever even suggested such a thing.
Who are your sources for this misinformation? No offense intended, but it sounds like you read a website and called that your research. Research would indicate several major sources that reveal the same information.
And yes, the book of Revelation is about future events, although some of them have already occurred.
Simple Living: Yes, the Book of Revelation is about future events--events future to John's day but events which were to SHORTLY take place in his day. It is interesting that there is no account of the Olivet Discourse in John's Gospel. A strong case can be made that Matthew, Mark and Luke were merely given the outline but John was given the whole story! Matthew, Mark and Luke said "This generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" and John was shown the things which were THEN to SHORTLY take place. It all happened pre-A.D. 70! Future to those first-century pre-A.D. 70 saints but not future to us!
There will forever be willful ignorance about some of these facts. Many do not want to be confused by them because they have already made up their mind, DESPITE THE EVIDENCE right in the book, that indicates the book was written for a time long past NOT far in the distant future.
Simple Living: Yes, the Book of Revelation is about future events--events future to John's day but events which were to SHORTLY take place in his day. It is interesting that there is no account of the Olivet Discourse in John's Gospel. A strong case can be made that Matthew, Mark and Luke were merely given the outline but John was given the whole story! Matthew, Mark and Luke said "This generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" and John was shown the things which were THEN to SHORTLY take place. It all happened pre-A.D. 70! Future to those first-century pre-A.D. 70 saints but not future to us!
Preterist
I see where you're coming from, but I think a second look might clear up any possible misinterpretations. Take into account the subject as a whole, rather than considering the single verse from each book.
You're referring to Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32. "this generation" is referring to the generation living during the end times that witness the signs and events leading to the return of Christ. It can't be referring to the generation that was alive during the time of Christ because "all these things" did not take place in their lifetime.
"all these things" include;
- the abomination of desolations (Matthew 24:15)
- the persecutions and judgments (vs. 7-22)
- the false prophets (vs. 23-26)
- the signs in the heavens (vs. 27-29)
- Christ's final return (vs. 30)
- the gathering of the elect. (v.31)
It seems best to interpret Jesus' words as a reference to the generation alive at the time when those final hard labor pains begin. This would fit with the lesson of the fig tree, which stresses the short span of time in which these things will occur. (When the fig tree "puts forth leaves," only a short time remains until summer. Likewise when the final labor pains begin, Christ's return "is near; it is at the doors!")
Look at verse 14 in Matthew 24: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come."
Despite all the tribulations that would come (the deception of false teachers, the wards, persecutions, natural disasters, defections from Christi, and all the obstacles to spreading the gospel), the message ultimately reaches and penetrates every part of the globe. God is never without a witness and would proclaim the gospel from heaven Himself if necessary! "the end" refers to the final, excruciating birth pangs described in verse 8. This is how Jesus describes the Great Tribulation in verse 15, (the abomination of desolation), which reflects John's words in Revelation 13:14-15, when the antichrist sets up an image in the temple during the future tribulation.
I don't expect you and I to see eye-to-eye on any of this, Preterist, simply because I'm not a preterist and I doubt your views will change due to anything anyone has to say. So, at that juncture, all that's left is arguing and debating and I'm not one for that. Allow me to give my views on preterism and I'll read your response and then we can just agree to disagree.
Preterism is wholly inconsistent in its interpretation of the book of Revelation. Why? Because preterists believe that chapters 6-18 of Revelation are symbolic and allegorical, not describing literal events. However, chapter 19, according to preterism, is to be taken literally. Jesus Christ will literally and physically return.
Then, chapter 20 is again interpreted allegorically. Then, chapters 21-22 are understood at least partially literally, that there will truly be a new heaven and new earth.
I think we all agree that Revelation contains incredible and sometimes confusing visions. No one denies that Revelation describes some things figuratively. However, to arbitrarily deny the literal nature of select portions of Revelation results in having no basis to interpret any of Revelation literally.
If the seals, trumpets, bowls, witnesses, 144,000, beast, false prophet, Millennial Kingdom, etc., are allegorical or symbolic, what basis is there on the claim that the second coming of Christ and the new earth are literal? That is where preterism fails. It leaves the interpretation of Revelation to the opinions of the interpreter. Instead, we're to read it, believe it, and obey it, literally and exactly.
However, I don't believe that having the book of Revelation and our end times doctrine completely figured out is essential to our salvation. One this is for sure, when Jesus does return, everyone's end time theology will be PERFECT! Every question about it will have been answered by unfolding before our eyes! This is why I think the more important things, like spreading the gospel, reaching the lost, maintaining a personal, daily, one-on-one intimate relationship with Jesus and remaining in and obeying His Word are the more important things. Don't you, brother?
These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons....For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
I don't expect you and I to see eye-to-eye on any of this, Preterist, simply because I'm not a preterist and I doubt your views will change due to anything anyone has to say. So, at that juncture, all that's left is arguing and debating and I'm not one for that. Allow me to give my views on preterism and I'll read your response and then we can just agree to disagree.
Preterism is wholly inconsistent in its interpretation of the book of Revelation. Why? Because preterists believe that chapters 6-18 of Revelation are symbolic and allegorical, not describing literal events. However, chapter 19, according to preterism, is to be taken literally. Jesus Christ will literally and physically return.
Then, chapter 20 is again interpreted allegorically. Then, chapters 21-22 are understood at least partially literally, that there will truly be a new heaven and new earth.
I think we all agree that Revelation contains incredible and sometimes confusing visions. No one denies that Revelation describes some things figuratively. However, to arbitrarily deny the literal nature of select portions of Revelation results in having no basis to interpret any of Revelation literally.
If the seals, trumpets, bowls, witnesses, 144,000, beast, false prophet, Millennial Kingdom, etc., are allegorical or symbolic, what basis is there on the claim that the second coming of Christ and the new earth are literal? That is where preterism fails. It leaves the interpretation of Revelation to the opinions of the interpreter. Instead, we're to read it, believe it, and obey it, literally and exactly.
However, I don't believe that having the book of Revelation and our end times doctrine completely figured out is essential to our salvation. One this is for sure, when Jesus does return, everyone's end time theology will be PERFECT! Every question about it will have been answered by unfolding before our eyes! This is why I think the more important things, like spreading the gospel, reaching the lost, maintaining a personal, daily, one-on-one intimate relationship with Jesus and remaining in and obeying His Word are the more important things. Don't you, brother?
Simple Living: I don't know where you got your understanding of preterism, but I for one do NOT believe that Jesus came physically? I believe that He came in judgment just as God "came" in the OT and punished Israel through the instrumentality of other nations. This is where futurism fails. Few understand the connection between the Old Testament and the New. That is why many cannot accept that "this generation" of Matthew 24 and elsewhere refers to that first-century, contemporary-to-Christ generation. When seen in the light of prophetic imagery, which any Jew would have understood (as did those disciples standing right there with Christ on the Mount of Olives!), the ALL things of Matthew 24 are not difficult to recognize as having been accomplished.
First of all, IF "this generation" of Matthew 24:34 does not mean those contemporaneous to Christ, then it is the ONLY time that expression is used that way. Jesus ALWAYS used that expression to refer to those of His generation. Here are ALL the uses of that expression in the NT:
Matthew 11:16; 12:41-42, 45; 23:36
Mark 8:12, 38; 13:30
Luke 7:31; 11:29-32, 50-51; 17:25; 21:32
Acts 2:40
All except Acts 2:40 are spoken by Jesus. Of great significance in this expression is the demonstrative pronoun "this." It is a pointer and a definer. It is not any other generation except "this generation." That is key. Had Jesus wanted to convey some other generation, He could have and would have used a different demonstrative pronoun or pointer!
EVERY time Jesus used that expression he was referring to His contemporaries. It is interesting to me that many futurists will take other passages in which Jesus spoke these words and readily acknowledge that He was talking about the people of His day, yet when they come to Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32, it suddenly means a different generation. Why is this done? Because they have not even tried to take it at face value by trying to understand how the ALL things of the Olivet Discourse could possibly have taken place within that generation.
Did not Jesus just use this expression when pronouncing His woes upon THAT generation of Jews? To what generation was He referring when He told THOSE Jews "Assuredly, I say to YOU, ALL THESE THINGS will come upon THIS generation" (Mat. 23:36). Do you believe that all those things came upon that generation? Were they not sent prophets, wise men and scribes? Did they not kill, crucify and scourge some of them and persecute some from city to city? The "all things" of Matthew 23 happened to that generation just as Jesus predicted it would. And the "all things" of Matthew 24 happened just as Jesus predicted they would.
Another enligthenment comes from the more than 20 personal pronouns YOU in Matthew 24. WE are not the YE! Anyone who had never read the Bible and had never read Matthew 24 when reading it for the first time would clearly recognize that Jesus was speaking directly to His disciples right there with Him about things that were going to happen to THEM. This is a very natural and normal use of language. Note:
THEY were not to be deceived (vs. 4).
THEY were to hear of wars and rumors of wars and THEY were not to be
troubled by it (vs. 6).
THEY were to be delivered up to tribulation, killed and hated for His name's
sake (vs. 9).
THEY were to see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the
prophet (vs. 15).
THEY were to pray that THEIR flight would not be in winter or on the
Sabbath (vs. 20).
THEY were not to believe it when anyone said "Look, here is Christ!"
(vs. 23).
THEY were told by Jesus beforehand (vs. 25).
THEY were not to believe it or go out when people said "Look, He is in the
desert!" or "Look, He is in the inner rooms!" (vs. 26).
THEY were to learn the parable of the fig tree (vs. 32).
THEY recognized that summer was near by its putting forth of its leaves
(vs. 32).
THEY (as easily as THEY saw the signs of the coming of summer) were to
know that His coming was NEAR--at the doors--when THEY saw
ALL these things (vs. 33).
THEY were told that "this generation will not pass away till ALL these things
take place" (vs. 34).
I do agree that sharing the Gospel and cultivating our own personal relationship with the Lord is extremely important and essential. But I also think that the Church must not be content to simply agree to disagree when we are dealing with the very words of God given to us. This issue is very important because it deals with the veracity of God's Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, and Christianity as a whole. If Jesus, the apostles, and the Bible all declare that He "came" in the first century, but the Church today denies that, do we not make of Jesus a false prophet, the inspired writers false teachers, and Christianity a false religion before a lost world?
Perhaps you could point out specific things which you do not believe could have possibly taken place in the first century and we can go from there. Otherwise, this is going to get much too long!
These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons....For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matthew 10:5-7, 23b
yydanay515: Thank you for bringing up this passage which corresponds very well with the content of Matthew 24. The things Jesus predicted would happen to His contemporary disciples here in Matthew 10 are the very same things He predicted would happen to that same contemporaneous generation of Matthew 24.
Both predict a first-century, pre-A.D. 70 "coming" of Christ!
These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as you go, preach, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons....For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
Matthew 10:5-7, 23b
And He did come for them, He did not come in all of His power and in His kingdom.
Thank you for clearing up your views, Preterist. As I said, I'm not one to debate and this is the wrong thread to continue our discussion, I think. The preterist beliefs I mentioned are understood to be the general beliefs of preterists. Granted, as with any sect, not every preterist may believe all of the same things. Thanks for reminding me of that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
