shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
I have just read J Stewart Russell's book "The Parousia" and find the evidence, at least that Revelation pertains to the judgment of the Jews and Jerusalem, very compelling. The writings of Josephus seem to back it up, it is almost like Josephus was spared just to show how all the events prophesied in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation were fulfilled up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem. The problem is the majority of scholars today say it has a late date and pertains to Rome an
The problem I have with this is that they seem to take all of the first century meaning out of the prophesies made by Jesus and by doing this everything becomes "spiritualized." It is like they are allegorizing bible prophecy and a late date for Revelation helps takes away the meaning it has in pertaining to Jerusalem and can therefore be made to say anything.
Any thoughts? I know Russell was a full-preterist I am not pushing for this, just for the true hermeneutical interpretation of scripture especially in light of what history tells us. Basically wondering why so many scholars can just dismiss the evidence in Josephus and early Roman historians?
( I was going to make this a poll but did not know how)
The problem I have with this is that they seem to take all of the first century meaning out of the prophesies made by Jesus and by doing this everything becomes "spiritualized." It is like they are allegorizing bible prophecy and a late date for Revelation helps takes away the meaning it has in pertaining to Jerusalem and can therefore be made to say anything.
Any thoughts? I know Russell was a full-preterist I am not pushing for this, just for the true hermeneutical interpretation of scripture especially in light of what history tells us. Basically wondering why so many scholars can just dismiss the evidence in Josephus and early Roman historians?
( I was going to make this a poll but did not know how)