Thursday, September 16, 2010

He Lives: I'm so glad I missed the Battle of Armageddon

David Heddle had a very interesting post on his blog where he explains the dispensational view that the Armageddon described in Revelations already happened and that the book was really written before 70 AD. The view is that the devastation Israel experienced is referring to the Romans destroying Israel as a nation in 70 AD. I'm not sure I agree. I know that isn't the way I've been taught to look at Revelations, but on the other extreme the "Left Behind" version has many, many problems. I don't quibble much on eschatology because in the final sense it's moot. Either you are saved and going to heaven or you are going to hell and nothing but Jesus can change the fact no matter who is right.

He Lives: I'm so glad I missed the Battle of Armageddon
Enhanced by Zemanta

11 comments:

  1. David's right. The beast was Nero. And do you honestly believe there's was a herd of daemonic pigs named "Legion"?

    ReplyDelete
  2. And of course, most scholars date it from 69-95 CE. So if it's describing events in 70 CE, then The Book Revelation is not all that revelatory.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Revelations predicts the fall of Jerusalem before 70 AD then it was revelatory. IF it's talking about something else then that is a different story. I happen to not see why Revelations talking about Nero and 70 AD is against accepting the demons being casted into the heard of pigs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So the pundits who correctly predicted Obama's win or the analysts who correctly predicted that we'd invade irag were all receiving revelations.

    You see what you want to see.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No...that wasn't prophecy. If they had predicted Obama would have won in 2008 back in 1963....that would be a prophecy in lines of what Biblical prophecy is like.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 69 is not to 70 as 1963 is to 2008. Just FYI.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes it is. In 1963 there as still segregation and a Black man could not even expect to walk around in some regions in this country without fear of being lynched. No way would anyone had thought a black man could be President. I'm still shocked.

    At the time Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem it was unimaginable that the temple could ever be destroyed or such a horror could ever happen. I should have used 1824 in my example. There is no way they could have even conceived the thought of a Black president of the United States. If Obama or I had been born then we would have most likely been born slaves like my Great-great-grandmother Mary Lucas was. Do you think she could have ever imagined a Black President of the United States? I couldn't and it's happened in my lifetime. That's how jarring Jesus' prediction would have been to the people who heard it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, we don't know that Jesus actually made those predictions, just that annoymous authors said he did, most of them after the fact.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Many agree that Mark was written 70 AD. It's talked about in Mark 13. Regardless if you want to dispute if Jesus actually said it you can't argue that it was after the fact. Quit dodging.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Um, 70 CE would be the fall of Jerusalem. That's journalism, not prophesy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I misspoke. I meant Mark was written prior to 70 AD maybe even as early as 40 AD. That's not journalism. That's prophesy. And you are still dodging.

    ReplyDelete