Could Barak Obama be the Anti Christ?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Deacon Blues

Dan I have much more to my life than to exhaust the subject of 70 AD

Did I miss something here, or did someone else?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Can you name any credible scholarship that dates Revelation before 70 AD? I have never heard until now that ANYONE dated Revelation pre-70 AD. I can certainly see why you all would have to do that because it would topple the whole house of cards, regardless of all the other interpretations in other books.

Why the silence about my response showing scholars through the centuries who propose an early date? Just wondering. I mean, after you accuse us of looking for what we want the bible to say when you make this request, I would think you would respond and thank us that we proved you incorrect.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Dan I have much more to my life than to exhaust the subject of 70 AD and frankly I've never talked to preterists before so I am still educating myself about what they believe and how they interpret scripture. These guys have built their identity around this stuff, its only a side issue to me. They still haven't adequately in my mind answered the fact that Peter identifies the "coming" as the transfiguration. Pretty plain and clear. Cutting and pasting their talking points from what I am sure are volumes and volumes of debaties online don't impress me, they still can't make it all fit the 70 AD paradigm. They have to prove it all fits into that model and they haven't and can't.

I disagree Deac ... they have proven time and time again that the bible does not speak of a man ... but rather the spirit of Antichrist ....I don't care about either paradigm ... what this thread is about is whether the teaching of the Antichrist proposed by futurists is valid ... or if Obama is that anti-christ ....It becomes circular if we try to get either side to prove w/o a shadow of a doubt that their paradigm is rock solid ... in totality I think both have HUGE HOLES.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I disagree Deac ... they have proven time and time again that the bible does not speak of a man ... but rather the spirit of Antichrist ....I don't care about either paradigm ... what this thread is about is whether the teaching of the Antichrist proposed by futurists is valid ... or if Obama is that anti-christ ....It becomes circular if we try to get either side to prove w/o a shadow of a doubt that their paradigm is rock solid ... in totality I think both have HUGE HOLES.

Check out this thread and the posts by Parson.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ead.php?t=9119

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Why the silence about my response showing scholars through the centuries who propose an early date? Just wondering. I mean, after you accuse us of looking for what we want the bible to say when you make this request, I would think you would respond and thank us that we proved you incorrect.

You proved nothing. I said I had never heard of anyone dating Revelation before 70 AD, so when I saw you all saying so, it was strange to me. You list scholars who propose an early date. So what? I can provide scholars who say you evolved from a monkey. I would say they weight of scholarship leans toward a later date for Revelation.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You proved nothing... I would say they weight of scholarship leans toward a later date for Revelation.

You would say? How about what the Bible says? Can you reconcile these verses with your above statement?

Originally Posted by TK Burk

The best "scholarship," and evidence, comes from its own writer, John. Ironically we do not have to look very far to find evidence for the time of Revelations' writing. Within its own pages are found all the evidence we need to determine its timeframe. The first of these is in it very first verse.

Revelation 1:1
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

All the understanding a person needs to properly interpret Revelation starts with this scripture; for it shows that the focus of Revelation is Jesus Christ, and not the antichrist, and it shows that it was written about “things which must SHORTLY come to pass.” This timeframe told its readers its prophecies were to come to pass “shortly,” and not in some distant time.

Other Translations for Time Language of Revelation 1:1

The use of the word “soon” in Revelation 1:1 was put there by the translators of the King James Bible, yet it isn’t an old archaic wording that has since been out dated in other translations. When we look this scripture up in newer Bible translations we find that the translators use the same type language to convey the same type of expectancy as is found in the King James. The following is a sample of several of these:

• NASU…the things which must SOON take place;
• NIV…what must SOON take place.
• TLB…the future activities SOON to occur
• NKJV…things which must SHORTLY take place.
• TEV …what must happen VERY SOON.
• RSV …what must SOON take place;
• NAS …the things which must SHORTLY take place;
• J. B. Phillips …must VERY SOON take place
• Moffat …what must come to pass VERY SOON
• Amplified …must SHORTLY AND SPEEDILY come to pass
• BBE …things which will QUICKLY take place:
• CEV…what must happen SOON.
• DRB …the things which must SHORTLY come to pass:
• GNB …what must happen VERY SOON.
• GW …the things that must happen SOON.
• MKJV …things which must SHORTLY come to pass.
• Webster …things which must SHORTLY come to pass;

If Revelation 1:1 is not the only scriptural witness that indicates a pre-AD70 date. It also contains additional scriptures that similarly explain an expectancy to see its prophecies fulfilled during the generation during which it was written. This is that list:

Revelation 1:3
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

Revelation 1:19
Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

Revelation 2:16
Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

Revelation 3:11
Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Revelation 22:6
And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

Revelation 22:7
Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

Revelation 22:10
And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

Revelation 22:12
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

Revelation 22:20
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

This same “soon coming” language is consistent throughout the book of Revelation. The only way to get around its clear straight forward language of expectancy is to spiritualize each of these passages. This is what Dispensationalists do to make these passages fit their futurist’s end time scenarios. The problem is that Revelation gives us no indication that this type of interpretation is necessary, because its message is very clear—expect that these things will soon come to pass! This “soon” means during the generation in which Revelation was written. The Bible’s time texts all agree that these things were to “soon come to pass.” This was fulfilled during that generation when Jerusalem fell in the AD70 siege.

Revelation 22:10 is another scripture that is a key to understanding that Revelation’s prophecies were "soon" to be fulfilled. This verse deals with whether the apostle John should or should not seal Revelation’s message from his readers.

Revelation 22:10
And he saith unto me, SEAL NOT THE SAYINGS OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK: FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND.

John is told by Jesus not to seal his words because their fulfillment is “at hand.” This wording is similar to that we find in the book of Daniel. There Daniel was told to seal his prophetic message because its fulfillment was to be delayed until a later time when his 70th week would be completed.

Daniel 12:4
But thou, O Daniel, SHUT UP THE WORDS, AND SEAL THE BOOK, EVEN TO THE TIME OF THE END: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Where Daniel and John differs is in the fact that God told Daniel his prophecies were for a later time, but He told John that his were for a time that was soon to come. This soon coming scenario was possible during the generation of John since, by the time of Revelation’s writing, the 70 weeks of Daniel were completed, and the prophecies concerning Jesus “coming” in judgment against those who rejected His New Covenant were “soon” to take place.

Together these scriptures confirm the Book of Revelation was penned pre-AD70.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You proved nothing. I said I had never heard of anyone dating Revelation before 70 AD, so when I saw you all saying so, it was strange to me. You list scholars who propose an early date. So what? I can provide scholars who say you evolved from a monkey. I would say they weight of scholarship leans toward a later date for Revelation.

What?? So now textbooks and opinions can also prove what the Bible says? Is that what you are saying?

Deacon, there is NO EVIDENCE in the Bible for Revelation being written post-AD70. As a matter of fact, there is no early history for it either. Those who adhere to a late date for the writing of the Book of Revelation do so primarily through the external evidences derived from the words of one man, Irenaeus. He lived 130-202 AD, and was said to have been a friend to Polycarp who reportedly had personally known the Apostle John.

Irenaeus’ made a statement around 180-190 AD that seems to stop all Dispensationalists from going any further in their pursuit of this date. This one quote that all late date setters use to “prove” their position is the following: “We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For THAT was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.”

The problem with this quote lies in the fact that Irenaeus does not explain what he meant by “that.” Was he saying that “he,” as in “John” was seen, or was he saying “it,” as in “Revelation” was seen? Also was he saying that John’s “vision” took place “during” the reign of Domitian, which would give it a later date? Or was he saying that “John,” who lived into the time of Domitian’s reign, “was seen” at that late date? Without knowing to what he was referring on these points makes his quote very questionable, and certainly not stable enough to base an entire belief or a biblical interpretation upon.

Many interpreters site that the above text should read, “for he (St. John the writer) was seen…almost in our generation toward the end of the reign of Domitian,” and not that the “apocalyptic vision was seen toward the end…”

The most important point to remember here is that every scholar after Irenaeus that believed in a post-AD70 writing of Revelation used his quote as their basis, but prior to this lone statement, those alive during the time of Jesus’ Apostles did not agree with his statement or his date.

To add to this quagmire, there is a chance that Irenaeus has been misquoted.

Some Greek scholars have suggested that there is a possibility that Irenaeus wasn’t referring to Domitian but to the first name of Nero, which was very similar. Irenaeus could easily have substituted the name of one emperor for another’s since he wrote his work a century after the fact.

This name change could also have happened due to the nature of the Latin version in which Irenaeus’ quote originates. The translator of Irenaeus could have mistaken one emperor’s name for another in his effort to translate his statement from its original Greek text into Latin.

Also the Latin translations of Irenaeus we have today are not the originals. Many scholars of today and the past have called their accuracy into question. One church historian said that those Latin copies, “have reached us merely through the medium of a wretchedly barbarous and obscure Latin translation.” The Ante-Nicene Fathers add that, “the Latin version adds to these difficulties of the original, by being itself of the most barbarous character…Its author is unknown, but he was certainly little qualified for his task.” Plus the fact is these writings of Irenaeus are NOT God inspired writings at all! They were merely historical accounts that came from a man’s knowledge of the church as he knew it. Since they are only man’s words, they cannot and should not be used as the final authoritative source to date God’s inspired book of Revelation.

From that First Century on we find doctrines that taught that the Apostle John was NOT the writer of Revelation, that there were three gods instead of one, that it was necessary to baptize infants and to change the biblical mode of baptism from immersion to sprinkling, and many others doctrines that were not founded upon the biblical witness of the Bible. This leaves us with the conclusion that many of the extra-biblical historical teachings about Church history are lacking when speaking of infallibility.

There is only one source we can look to that is infallible, the Bible. So how about it Deacon, can you provide evidence from within your Bible that shows Revelation was written post-AD70?

[Falla39]

God never leaves Himself without witness. Man may not know it at the time, but God
will have a witness somewhere in the "shadows" whom He will bring forth at the proper
time. God reveals the TRUTH of the matter in His own good time! He is the One who
hides the truth from the wise and prudent and reveals it to babes. (Lk.10:21)
He reveals the truth by His Spirit. He opens to those who will humble themselves
as a little child.

Not intended to offend.

Blessings,

Falla39

[jdm05]

I do not think Obama is the anti christ. However, I do think that Obama will have a part in ushering in the anti christ.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

You proved nothing. I said I had never heard of anyone dating Revelation before 70 AD, so when I saw you all saying so, it was strange to me. You list scholars who propose an early date. So what? I can provide scholars who say you evolved from a monkey. I would say they weight of scholarship leans toward a later date for Revelation.

You said you wanted a list of scholars who show an early date, while using a comic that implied preterists cannot accept what the bible alone teaches. You made it appear that without scholarly witness to an early date we are pretexting all our biblical views. Maybe that is not what you intended, but it looked that way.

"SO WHAT?" We gave you what you asked for. What do you mean "So what?" lol

So I gave you the witness, and you say I did not prove anything? What did you want us to prove by showing you the list of early date scholars?? Can anything please you?