Christians the End of days for us is Around the Corner

reply to post by NOTurTypical

OK, found the quote.
Ireneaus, Against heresies, book 5, chapter 30, end of section 3.
www.newadvent.org...

What Irenaeus seems to be saying is that what John saw as to who the antichrist was, he did not have to say because it came about shortly after he predicted it, in the end of Domitian's reign.
So Irenaeus is not saying the vision was given at the end of Domitian's reign, but that it was fulfilled then.

"For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

This clearly blows apart your YouTube video theology theory, once you see it without the hocus pocus.
Look at the word "since" at the end of the first clause. Since . . what? Since the vision was given.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

John died at the end of the 1st century, are you saying the church was absolutely clueless to where he was laid to rest only 200 years prior?

What I am saying is there is no preserved written record of it.
It could be that much later a mythology came into existence to explain it but it would have been guessing, and as the info was passed on, from one person to the next, the prestige of the person they quoted added an air of authority to it.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

OK, found the quote.
Ireneaus, Against heresies, book 5, chapter 30, end of section 3.
www.newadvent.org...

What Irenaeus seems to be saying is that what John saw as to who the antichrist was, he did not have to say because it came about shortly after he predicted it, in the end of Domitian's reign.
So Irenaeus is not saying the vision was given at the end of Domitian's reign, but that it was fulfilled then.

"For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign."

This clearly blows apart your YouTube video theology theory, once you see it without the hocus pocus.
Look at the word "since" at the end of the first clause. Since . . what? Since the vision was given.

No, if you go back from the last personal pronoun used in the last sentence "that" the previous noun used was "vision", So the last sentence is talking about John's "apocalyptic vision".

Irenaeus is saying John's "apocalyptic vision" was seen "at the end of Domitian's reign". Which would have been in 96 AD. If that's not yet enough, READ PAST THAT SENTENCE TO PART 4.

4. But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit. For if it had been declared by Him, he (Antichrist) might perhaps continue for a long period. But now as "he was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the abyss, and goes into perdition," Revelation 17:8 as one who has no existence; so neither has his name been declared, for the name of that which does not exist is not proclaimed. But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that "many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Matthew 8:11

That's what he also says in "Against Heresies", showing tat his mentor Polycarp, and his mentor the apostle John all didn't take 70 AD as the fulfillment of Revelation, they (especially Irenaeus above) looked for a future event and fulfillment from his day. (130 - 202 AD)

reply to post by NOTurTypical


None of that in section 4 has anything to do with the meaning of the last line in section 3.
The earlier part is about the identity, and the point is, it became know at that time mentioned.
Part 4 is about what it will do.
The significance of this whole exercise is to date the writing of Revelation.
It is not about what some other people thought it meant, a hundred years later.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

None of that in section 4 has anything to do with the meaning of the last line in section 3.

You're right, I was highlighting a different belief of the very early church. John to Polycarp to Irenaeus.

The earlier part is about the identity, and the point is, it became know at that time mentioned.

The personal pronoun "that' correlates to the previous noun used which was "vision", Irenaeus siad the vision happened at the end of Domitian's reign.

Part 4 is about what it will do.

This shows John, and Polycarp, and Irenaeus were looking forward to the stuff written in Revelation. He speaks about it in the future tense.

The significance of this whole exercise is to date the writing of Revelation.

Which Irenaeus says "that vision" happened at the "end of Domitian's reign".

It is not about what some other people thought it meant, a hundred years later.

You're right, you're forgetting about Polycarp, Irenaeus' mentor and John's disciple. Irenaeus said he got the information from Polycarp, who personally got it from John. He was imprisoned under Domitian, Revelation was written in 95-96 AD. I told you, Preterism went belly up after WW1 and WW2. Part 4 of chapter 30 above shows Irenaeus was taught, believed in, and told others about the events of Revelation being yet future, not some 100 years prior. (177 AD)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

This shows John, and Polycarp, and Irenaeus were looking forward to the stuff written in Revelation. He speaks about it in the future tense.

Irenaeus already explained that the one he is talking about is the one who was and is not and will be.
So he makes an appearance to identify what its nature is, then comes back later.
What already happened was it being identified, by fulfilling the type of action attributed to what this entity is.

Originally posted by DISRAELI

But it is interesting that the date is all around Dec 21.

That is one of the things that worries me.
21/12/2012 is a date which has been selected as significant by a sort of coalition of non-Christian religions.
That is a very good reason for Christians not to be jumping on the band-wagon.

It may be a good reason, but it is typical none the less for christianity to rape the belief systems of others and claim them for themselves.

reply to post by Majiq1

I am saying that Christians ought not to be jumping on the December 21st bandwagon.
You are saying, if I understand you correctly, that Christians ought not to be jumping on the December 21st bandwagon.
So we agree with each other.
(As far as I can tell, the churches are keeping away from it, so that ought to please you as much as it pleases me)

You might be interested in the thread on the subject I wrote for the Prophecies forum;
Revelation versus "2012"; the great divide

reply to post by DISRAELI


Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you that they shouldn't jump on the bandwagon. I don't think that anyone should jump on that bandwagon. No ancient people that I have seen have ever predicted that anything other than a calender would come to an end on 12/21/12

Hello All

Things may get interesting soon since there are at least 6 people on you tube predicting CA getting hit with devastating earthquakes and or tsunamies in April. We will see. I believe that SHTF before mid-July.

take care