Dating Revelation - combined internal evidences for AD 60

[3 Resurrections]

It is needed. The reason John doesn't tell us who the person is, because they weren't alive yet. However, once he comes on the scene, here is how you can recognize him. You don't understand that what you are saying it is, in no way gives any recognition at all to who the person will be. (And it is a person.) And again, even you stated, that this is all an amalgamation of the four beasts, which means the person came AFTER all of these, not before. Consider the statue that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed about. Five parts. Gold, Silver, bronze, iron, clay and iron. Four parts and a fifth. and the fifth is an amalgamation of iron and clay. The iron is Rome. Perhaps, coincidentally, ten horns... ten toes. And again, a link to Nebuchadnezzar's statue, trying to change the dream he had from God by making the whole statue of gold.

The reason why John describes this Sea Beast without specifically naming this Sea Beast was because the Roman empire would have taken this as a sign of revolt against their governing control. You didn't insult the governing powers without getting arrested for it in Roman times, if you were a Jew. The symbolism John used was a necessary protection for the believers to avoid bringing more persecution upon themselves in those days. Paul was also warning the believers in those years, "Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." (1 Cor. 10:32).

Nebuchadnezzar was the name of the one at the beginning of the Sea Beast's existence who originated all the pagan empires' control of Jerusalem and Judea's people who sent them into exile. This was a humiliating episode burned into the memory of everyone who had any remote idea of Israel's history. It would not have taken much wisdom for an Israelite to count backward those 666 years and recognize the one who had begun all that amalgamated history of pagan empires controlling their people.

If the Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week at 33AD, then the end of the 70th week MUST BE 40 AD, and cannot be 37 AD. God was very clear to Daniel.

This is a rabbit trail off the OP. It is also mistaken. The Messiah was cut off "AFTER 69 weeks" - not at the very end of the 69th. Sometime during the 70th week, Messiah was cut off. Daniel 9:27 identifies that particular time as "in the MIDST of the week" when Messiah the Prince that would come would "cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease". Those Old Covenant sacrifices and oblations were no longer needed under the New Covenant in Christ's blood. If the crucifixion was at Passover in AD 33, that was in the very middle of the last, 70th week, which ended in AD 37. Christ as the "messenger of the covenant" confirmed that covenant with many of Daniel's people for that 70th week starting in AD 30. After that, the emphasis of evangelism was concentrated mainly on the Gentiles, a ministry launched by God commissioning Paul's apostleship to the Gentiles in his temple vision (Acts 22:21).

Except Jesus doesn't say anything about those who pierced him here. That is solely in Zechariah's prophecy. And we know that deals with Jesus because John shows that Jesus being pierced by the Romans makes Jesus the one who was pierced in the prophecy in Zechariah. BTW, please tell us when Jesus 3rd coming will be.

Zechariah 12-14:15 predicted the siege of Judea and Jerusalem, and the bitter mourning of Israel's various tribes in Jerusalem seeing Christ's bodily return in AD 70. This was the generation which Christ personally spoke to in Matthew 16:27-28, of which some would not have died before His bodily return to the Mount of Olives. This first-century generation was the one which the martyr Stephen accused of being "the betrayers and murderers" of the Just One. And I'm not sure how a statement of Christ's third coming is on topic here, but that will come at the close of the 7th millennial age of human history in AD 3033 at the time of year the Feast of Tabernacles would have ordinarily been celebrated under the OC. That's why Zechariah only mentions this single FOT for all the nations to remember in the "year to year" history (Zech. 14:16-19) following Christ's second coming in Zechariah 14:4-5.

 

[TMSO]

The reason why John describes this Sea Beast without specifically naming this Sea Beast was because the Roman empire would have taken this as a sign of revolt against their governing control. You didn't insult the governing powers without getting arrested for it in Roman times, if you were a Jew. The symbolism John used was a necessary protection for the believers to avoid bringing more persecution upon themselves in those days. Paul was also warning the believers in those years, "Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God." (1 Cor. 10:32).

Nebuchadnezzar was the name of the one at the beginning of the Sea Beast's existence who originated all the pagan empires' control of Jerusalem and Judea's people who sent them into exile. This was a humiliating episode burned into the memory of everyone who had any remote idea of Israel's history. It would not have taken much wisdom for an Israelite to count backward those 666 years and recognize the one who had begun all that amalgamated history of pagan empires controlling their people.

No.

This is a rabbit trail off the OP. It is also mistaken. The Messiah was cut off "AFTER 69 weeks" - not at the very end of the 69th. Sometime during the 70th week, Messiah was cut off.

Yet the 70th week is counted as a full week, and the Messiah being cut off is not a part of it. When the Messiah is cut off, the people of the prince that is to come destroys the city. Then the price makes a covenant for a week... that is the 70th week.

Daniel 9:27 identifies that particular time as "in the MIDST of the week" when Messiah the Prince that would come would "cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease". Those Old Covenant sacrifices and oblations were no longer needed under the New Covenant in Christ's blood. If the crucifixion was at Passover in AD 33, that was in the very middle of the last, 70th week, which ended in AD 37. Christ as the "messenger of the covenant" confirmed that covenant with many of Daniel's people for that 70th week starting in AD 30. After that, the emphasis of evangelism was concentrated on the Gentiles launched by Paul's apostleship to the Gentiles.

But, the people of the prince who is to come destroys the city before the prince (the he of that last week) comes on the scene. That means that the reason why it says after 69 weeks, and not during the 70th week is because it is before the 70th week happens.

Zechariah 12-14:15 predicted the AD 70 siege of Judea and Jerusalem, and the bitter mourning of Israel's various tribes in Jerusalem seeing Christ's bodily return at that time. This was the generation which Christ personally spoke to in Matthew 16:27-28, of which some would not have died before His bodily return to the Mount of Olives. This first-century generation was the one which the martyr Stephen accused of being "the betrayers and murderers" of the Just One. And I'm not sure how a statement of Christ's third coming is on topic here, but that will come at the close of the 7th millennial age of human history in AD 3033 at the time of year the Feast of Tabernacles would have ordinarily been celebrated under the OC. That's why Zechariah only mentions this single FOT for all the nations to remember in the "year to year" history (Zech. 14:16-19) following Christ's second coming in Zechariah 14:4-5.

wow, you really do add a lot to scripture. Why does it say that ALL of Israel will mourn? What about the rivers of repentance, which make it clear that this is the salvation of the remnant that remained? Why don't we see this today? The reason that it is not on topic is that there is no third coming. There is only the second coming.

 

[3 Resurrections]

wow, you really do add a lot to scripture. Why does it say that ALL of Israel will mourn? What about the rivers of repentance, which make it clear that this is the salvation of the remnant that remained? Why don't we see this today? The reason that it is not on topic is that there is no third coming. There is only the second coming.

There are no "rivers of repentance" for salvation predicted in Zechariah 14. This was the episode of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" going on for those who had eaten and drunk in Christ's presence, and who had Him teach in their own streets back in the first century. Yet Christ would tell them "I never knew you" in the sense of salvation.

 

[TMSO]

There are no "rivers of repentance" for salvation predicted in Zechariah 14. This was the episode of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" going on for those who had eaten and drunk in Christ's presence, and who had Him teach in their own streets back in the first century. Yet Christ would tell them "I never knew you" in the sense of salvation.

Zechariah 12-13. Where does all this hate come from?

"10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. 11 In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of [c]Megiddo. 12 And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves; 13 the family of the house of Levi by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of Shimei by itself, and their wives by themselves; 14 all the families that remain, every family by itself, and their wives by themselves."

“In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.

2 “It shall be in that day,” says the Lord of hosts, “that I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, and they shall no longer be remembered. I will also cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to depart from the land. 3 It shall come to pass that if anyone still prophesies, then his father and mother who begot him will say to him, ‘You shall not live, because you have spoken lies in the name of the Lord.’ And his father and mother who begot him shall thrust him through when he prophesies.

I remember the angel telling Daniel that one of the end results of the end of the 70th week is basically, the end of prophecy. Prophecy being sealed up. And, here you have... the end of prophecy. The long part below is just the passage from Zechariah. You will notice that it speaks of Jesus second coming, because it speaks of a day only known to the Lord, which, this being this being the Old Testament, would be understood to be God. And God isn't telling Zechariah when it will be.

And Zechariah 14?
"Then the Lord will go forth
And fight against those nations,
As He fights in the day of battle.
4 And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives,
Which faces Jerusalem on the east.
And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two,
From east to west,
Making a very large valley;
Half of the mountain shall move toward the north
And half of it toward the south.
5 Then you shall flee through My mountain valley,
For the mountain valley shall reach to Azal.
Yes, you shall flee
As you fled from the earthquake
In the days of Uzziah king of Judah.
Thus the Lord my God will come,
And all the saints with [c]You.
6 It shall come to pass in that day
That there will be no light;
The [d]lights will diminish.
7 It shall be one day
Which is known to the Lord—
Neither day nor night.
But at evening time it shall happen
That it will be light.
8 And in that day it shall be
That living waters shall flow from Jerusalem,
Half of them toward [e]the eastern sea
And half of them toward [f]the western sea;
In both summer and winter it shall occur.
9 And the Lord shall be King over all the earth.
In that day it shall be—
“The Lord is one,”
And His name one.
10 All the land shall be turned into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem. [g]Jerusalem shall be raised up and inhabited in her place from Benjamin’s Gate to the place of the First Gate and the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the king’s winepresses.

11 The people shall dwell in it;
And no longer shall there be utter destruction,
But Jerusalem shall be safely inhabited."

 

[3 Resurrections]

“In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.

This is a blurred translation. The LXX more accurately reflects the sense that Zechariah intended, which is...

"In that day, every place shall be opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for removal and for separation."

This phrase "removal and separation" should tell you that the entire city of Jerusalem was going to be considered a place of "removal and separation", such as the removal in unclean separation of a woman during her monthly menses under OC law. Bloodshed in Jerusalem during the AD 66-70 siege period would be so prevalent and overwhelming an unclean condition that the entire city would be considered as a place for separation and removal. This is why there is repeated emphasis on the wives and husbands of every family in Zechariah 12:11-14 mourning apart from each other in removal and separation. They were all rendered unclean by the bloody conditions in the city during those years when so many died or were murdered within the city of Jerusalem.

Zechariah 12-14 is a description of God getting rid of the nations (the Zealots from Galilee of the Gentiles) fighting in Old Jerusalem during those AD 66-70 years. God fought against those nations for the favored New Jerusalem which is from above and has come down to earth, which is the mother of all the saints, from whatever ethnic background.

 

[TMSO]

This is a blurred translation. The LXX more accurately reflects the sense that Zechariah intended, which is...

"In that day, every place shall be opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for removal and for separation."

This phrase "removal and separation" should tell you that the entire city of Jerusalem was going to be considered a place of "removal and separation", such as the removal in unclean separation of a woman during her monthly menses under OC law. Bloodshed in Jerusalem during the AD 66-70 siege period would be so prevalent and overwhelming an unclean condition that the entire city would be considered as a place for separation and removal. This is why there is repeated emphasis on the wives and husbands of every family in Zechariah 12:11-14 mourning apart from each other in removal and separation. They were all rendered unclean by the bloody conditions in the city during those years when so many died or were murdered within the city of Jerusalem.

Zechariah 12-14 is a description of God getting rid of the nations (the Zealots from Galilee of the Gentiles) fighting in Old Jerusalem during those AD 66-70 years. God fought against those nations for the favored New Jerusalem which is from above and has come down to earth, which is the mother of all the saints, from whatever ethnic background.

י וְשָׁפַכְתִּי עַל-בֵּית דָּוִיד וְעַל יוֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלִַם, רוּחַ חֵן וְתַחֲנוּנִים, וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַי, אֵת
אֲשֶׁר-דָּקָרוּ; וְסָפְדוּ עָלָיו, כְּמִסְפֵּד עַל-הַיָּחִיד, וְהָמֵר עָלָיו, כְּהָמֵר עַל-הַבְּכוֹר.

"10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born."

בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, יִהְיֶה מָקוֹר נִפְתָּח, לְבֵית דָּוִיד, וּלְיֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִָם--לְחַטַּאת, וּלְנִדָּה.
"1 In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for purification and for sprinkling."

For the LXX, you missed the other translation :"ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἔσται πᾶς τόπος διανοιγόμενος ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ ΔαυιδZec 13:1In that day every place shall be opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for removal and for separation.
¶“In that day there will be a spring opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness."

From the Orthodox Jewish Bible " In Yom HaHu there shall be a makor (fountain [see Tehillim 36:10 (9)]) opened to the Bais Dovid and to the inhabitants of Yerushalayim for sin and for niddah (impurity, i.e., used figuratively but refers especially to untouchability of women during menstruation and other kinds of uncleanness)."

Wow, perhaps if you stuck to the context of Zechariah 12-14 you might be able to link it to Revelation 19-20 where it belongs.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Wow, perhaps if you stuck to the context of Zechariah 12-14 you might be able to link it to Revelation 19-20 where it belongs.

But I agree. These Zechariah 12-14 chapters and Revelation 19-20 both include descriptions of the same first-century great tribulation and return of Christ back in AD 70.

 

[TMSO]

But I agree. These Zechariah 12-14 chapters and Revelation 19-20 both include descriptions of the same first-century great tribulation and return of Christ back in AD 70.

Except that Jesus has not returned yet. If this had happened, Josephus most certainly would have recorded it, as would many writers. (Between the tears they mourn at seeing His return, as we see in Matthew 24.) And all the elect would have been gathered together, from one end of heaven to the other. There would be no Christians left.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Except that Jesus has not returned yet. If this had happened, Josephus most certainly would have recorded it, as would many writers. (Between the tears they mourn at seeing His return, as we see in Matthew 24.) And all the elect would have been gathered together, from one end of heaven to the other. There would be no Christians left.

It is enough that God preserved Jesus's own prediction of His coming return to that first-century generation. To demand more proof by multiple writers testifying after the fact only insults Jesus's prediction as not being good enough for you. Besides, you do not know conclusively that such records were not made. Archaeology is not a finished endeavor. And library and book burnings are a frequent historical habit of those who want to suppress uncomfortable truths.

As to the elect being gathered, this was the righteous dead being gathered from the entire globe, along with the patriarchs and the prophets. Those Christians who had not died yet had fled the country in obedience to Christ's warning. These remained on earth to continue building the kingdom of God. You are mistaken that those who had not died yet would be taken to heaven at that point. Why else would Christ have warned them to flee from Judea and Jerusalem to the mountains to avoid the plagues that were coming? If they were only going to be "raptured", it wouldn't have made a difference what location they were at, so there would have been no reason to flee to the mountains from Judea and Jerusalem. God intended the Christian influence to continue in the world after the AD 70 return of Christ and rapture of the dead saints to heaven with Christ.

 

[TMSO]

It is enough that God preserved Jesus's own prediction of His coming return to that first-century generation.

Except Jesus said that He doesn't know when He is returning. Peter even understood that when He said that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.

To demand more proof by multiple writers testifying after the fact only insults Jesus's prediction as not being good enough for you. Besides, you do not know conclusively that such records were not made. Archaeology is not a finished endeavor. And library and book burnings are a frequent historical habit of those who want to suppress uncomfortable truths.

Here is the thing. It is your interpretation, against the historically held position, and the historical interpretation that says that John's Revelation is what Jesus is speaking of. (And Paul, who also saw the Kingdom, though he was VERY humble about it, and did not mention himself but in the third person.) I'm sure if it was someone, that Paul would have mentioned it, and be pouring out praise to God, and what this person saw. He was humble about a lot of things that he saw or did.

As to the elect being gathered, this was the righteous dead being gathered from the entire globe, along with the patriarchs and the prophets. Those Christians who had not died yet had fled the country in obedience to Christ's warning. These remained on earth to continue building the kingdom of God. You are mistaken that those who had not died yet would be taken to heaven at that point. Why else would Christ have warned them to flee from Judea and Jerusalem to the mountains to avoid the plagues that were coming? If they were only going to be "raptured", it wouldn't have made a difference what location they were at, so there would have been no reason to flee to the mountains from Judea and Jerusalem. God intended the Christian influence to continue in the world after the AD 70 return of Christ and rapture of the dead saints to heaven with Christ.

Um, why are you constantly reading things in. Jesus did not say that. And yes, since this is the end of the tribulation, it is Jesus gathering all the elect. To Jerusalem, where He will reign with His elect for 1000 years. At the end of the millennium, Satan will gather up the nations of the world and surround the camp of the saints, and the beloved city (Jerusalem.) Jesus will destroy him, death and hades at this time. Yes, death is finally defeated, which means... NO MORE DYING. Yet, what are we still good at? Dying.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Except Jesus said that He doesn't know when He is returning.

Not quite. Jesus said at the time that He did not know the day or the hour, but that has nothing to do with the season or time period of His return, which Jesus did say He knew. In fact, He scolded the Jews for being hypocritical for not being able to discern those times approaching His return when He would send fire on the earth, though they were able to tell the signs of the weather on sky and earth changing (Luke 12:54-59).

Here is the thing. It is your interpretation, against the historically held position,

What you mean is that this interpretation is against your own, which you consider to be "historical".

Um, why are you constantly reading things in. Jesus did not say that. And yes, since this is the end of the tribulation, it is Jesus gathering all the elect. To Jerusalem, where He will reign with His elect for 1000 years. At the end of the millennium, Satan will gather up the nations of the world and surround the camp of the saints, and the beloved city (Jerusalem.) Jesus will destroy him, death and hades at this time. Yes, death is finally defeated, which means... NO MORE DYING. Yet, what are we still good at? Dying.

John's writing tells us that the millennium had already ended before he was writing Revelation. This was at the time of Christ the First-fruits "first resurrection" event in AD 33. And death was defeated for all the saints who were resurrected from Creation forward until AD 70. No more dying for them ever again.

There are too many side trails you are trying to pursue. Too much bouncing around all over the place.

 

[TMSO]

Not quite. Jesus said at the time that He did not know the day or the hour, but that has nothing to do with the season or time period of His return, which Jesus did say He knew. In fact, He scolded the Jews for being hypocritical for not being able to discern those times approaching His return when He would send fire on the earth, though they were able to tell the signs of the weather on sky and earth changing (Luke 12:54-59).

Please explain where Jesus says that here: (I'll give you the passage)

"36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of [f]heaven, but My Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 40 Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. 42 Watch therefore, for you do not know what [g]hour your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what [h]hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into. 44 Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect."

You will notice that there is not a single sign given here. Just that life will be going on as it always has, like in the days of Noah, and then... it's over. No warning, no signs, no nothing. And He even says why. If we knew when Jesus was coming, we would just wait until that time, and be waiting, after doing whatever we please. So, Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. (Is that speaking of a literal hour, or does it encapsulate even seasons?)

What you mean is that this interpretation is against your own, which you consider to be "historical".

Um, I said it is against your interpretation, which you consider to be historical.

John's writing tells us that the millennium had already ended before he was writing Revelation. This was at the time of Christ the First-fruits "first resurrection" event in AD 33. And death was defeated for all the saints who were resurrected from Creation forward until AD 70. No more dying for them ever again.

If you read I John, which was written in 100AD, or as early as 95AD, he clearly states that Jesus has not returned. Not only can the millennium not be over, it hadn't even started, because it starts with the return of Jesus. And the defeat of death is a universal defeat of death. The only reason Jesus has not yet returned the universal Kingdom to the Father. He has yet to utterly defeat death in the creation. Death has no power over believers in that we are not separated from God. Our spirit is alive in us, it is no longer dead in treaspasses and sins. But death is still all around us. If you can't recognize that God is not a God of sin, but that His creation was good, and there was no death or corruption within, and that that is what God is going to do after this age ends (the age of Adam, from Adam until final judgement), at which time we enter the eternal kingdom, you need to read Revelation again. The scroll with seven seals is God's will and testament for His Son. The title deed to all creation. This is God taking back His creation through Jesus.

There are too many side trails you are trying to pursue. Too much bouncing around all over the place.

That is how much stuff you have completely discarded of what scripture has to tell us.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If you read I John, which was written in 100AD, or as early as 95AD, he clearly states that Jesus has not returned.

You are slapping your own date on the composition of 1 John and then trying to make a point by that presumption. Not going to work. I John 2:18 wrote that "it is the LAST HOUR". What do you think matches up with that "LAST HOUR" if it was taking place in either AD 95 or AD 100? This date is prophetic no-man's-land. Nothing of that level of significance in the world was going on in AD 95-100. What do you think ended in AD 95-100? Because John wrote of something that was definitely coming to an end.

1 John 2:18's "LAST HOUR" matches up with 1 Peter 4:7, saying "But the END OF ALL THINGS IS AT HAND". These were written concerning the same time period. And we know that 1 Peter was written just after Nero had begun his "fiery trial" (1 Peter 4:12) of persecution launched against the Christians after the AD 64 fire at Rome which was blamed on the Christians.

1 Peter 5:1 also wrote to the elders with encouragement in their duties, speaking of "the glory which is about to be revealed" at a time when "the Chief Shepherd shall appear", when they would "receive a crown of glory that would not fade away".

None of this matches up with a date of AD 95-100, but it does match up with the tumultuous times approaching the AD 70 period, and a bodily return of Christ in that first-century generation, as He promised in Matthew 16:27-28.

 

[TMSO]

You are slapping your own date on the composition of 1 John and then trying to make a point by that presumption.

Actually, no. I looked it up. Just as 2 Peter is from right around 68AD. And then Jude is assumed to be either pre-70AD or some time in the second century, due to terms and ideas used that were apparently foreign to the first century. (That is according to textual critics.)

Not going to work. I John 2:18 wrote that "it is the LAST HOUR". What do you think matches up with that "LAST HOUR" if it was taking place in either AD 95 or AD 100? This date is prophetic no-man's-land. Nothing of that level of significance in the world was going on in AD 95-100. What do you think ended in AD 95-100? Because John wrote of something that was definitely coming to an end.

The last 60 minutes, right? What did Peter say about the long wait? To God a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. What was Peter saying? We don't know when. God may take a long time, He may not, but He is not being slack. He has His purpose, which is beyond us. You say that the millennium, that is supposed to start at Jesus second coming started over 1000 years before He was born. And then, the end of the millennium, that is supposed to be the end of death as a universal enemy (no more dying), which is shown by death being thrown into the lake of fire, isn't actually that, which changes things that Paul said. You are causing the Bible to implode under the weight of your changes.

I don't think anything ended between 95-100 AD, and I think that God is still waiting for His elect to come in. II Peter. If everything had ended then, then all the elect that came after would have technically, perished. Jesus would have lost them. God is longsuffering. We have rightfully been told that the end is at any time, any moment, no signs of its coming. We are to be watching and waiting, ready for His return. If God said, it's going to be thousands of years before the end comes... imagine how many fall away.

1 John 2:18's "LAST HOUR" matches up with 1 Peter 4:7, saying "But the END OF ALL THINGS IS AT HAND". These were written concerning the same time period. And we know that 1 Peter was written just after Nero had begun his "fiery trial" (1 Peter 4:12) of persecution launched against the Christians after the AD 64 fire at Rome which was blamed on the Christians.

You need to rethink your position. If dates on books are going to completely undermine your belief, consider that your belief has issues. I'm not sure if I Peter was written with Nero, possibly. We do understand that II Peter was written after, because he says that he is about to die. And even in II Peter, he is clear it hasn't happened yet. He doesn't say, look to what John has said, but to what Paul has said. And that Paul's writings are difficult to understand. If Revelation had been written before 68AD, why didn't Peter say, read John's revelation? The reason Peter was writing about these things was that he was about to die. He wanted to leave guidance for the church.

1 Peter 5:1 also wrote to the elders with encouragement in their duties, speaking of "the glory which is about to be revealed" at a time when "the Chief Shepherd shall appear", when they would "receive a crown of glory that would not fade away".

And I John says that He hasn't appeared yet. You are beating at the walls of scripture trying to knock them down.

None of this matches up with a date of AD 95-100, but it does match up with the tumultuous times approaching the AD 70 period, and a bodily return of Christ in that first-century generation, as He promised in Matthew 16:27-28.

"28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”"

This is the book of Revelation. John saw it and told us about what it will be in the future. So, if some are standing there that will see it, and John is the only one, as he is the only one still alive at 70AD, then why did Jesus say some? John saw it. Paul tells us someone else saw it, but wouldn't tell us who, so it is inferred that he was speaking of himself. There in lies the mystery.

And again, given what is in John, the only people giving it an early date is you, and preterists, for whom a late date is the death knell of your belief. And you have a few books that have late dates. Revelation, I-III John, Jude, the gospel of John, etc. II Peter in 68AD. You have a lot of little fires to put out...

 

[donadams]

I would also like a timeline in the other New Testament writings?

Thks

 

[Mr GLee]

I would also like a timeline in the other New Testament writings?

Thks

Does the idea of timeline hide truth from one and give it to another? The closer a person becomes to it the more accurate?

Or does God live outside of time limits having finished all the work in six days and Revelation a parable a summary of the whole .

 

[3 Resurrections]

The last 60 minutes, right? What did Peter say about the long wait? To God a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day. What was Peter saying? We don't know when.

Try not to be facetious. "The last hour" was the "hour" it took to bring down Mystery Babylon / Old Jerusalem (from AD 66-70).

When Peter wrote that to God a thousand years is as a day and a day as a thousand years, he was not indicating that time is irrelevant when it comes to God.

The intention of Peter comparing a thousand years with a single day was meant to confirm that if God made a prediction one day in advance or even a thousand years in advance, He would fulfill it exactly on time in either case. God never misses the appointed time for any of His predictions, whether it was Saul and his sons dying in battle on that same day that Samuel foretold this, or whether it was the Rev. 20 thousand-year millennium coming to an end exactly at the point of the "First resurrection" event.

This is the book of Revelation. John saw it and told us about what it will be in the future.

Yep, it was future to John who was writing it sometime between late AD 59 and early AD 60. The immediate future for John. Things that were "about to be hereafter" in John's own days, which was just before the approaching Laodicean earthquake in AD 60.

 

[Mr GLee]

Try not to be facetious. "The last hour" was the "hour" it took to bring down Mystery Babylon / Old Jerusalem (from AD 66-70).

Where do yo find the prophecy that looked ahead to AD 66-70?

Jesus said no sign was given to wonder after and it was natural man that did walk by sight after the temporal corrupted things seen .

 

[3 Resurrections]

Where do yo find the prophecy that looked ahead to AD 66-70?

In Revelation 18:10, 17. We know from historical records that it took from AD 66-70 for the Roman and the Zealot armies to complete Old Jerusalem / Mystery Babylon's destruction, so that it would exist no more at all, just as the angel predicted.

This means the symbolic "one hour" lasted for 3-1/2 years. And that "last hour" John said had already arrived as he was writing 1 John 2:18. Which dates the book of 1 John to sometime within that AD 66-70 period.

 

[3 Resurrections]

If Revelation had been written before 68AD, why didn't Peter say, read John's revelation?

Peter did indicate that Revelation was already written before 1 Peter was written. He made reference to "the church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you..." (1 Peter 5:13). This reference to "Babylon" is the church that was then in Old Jerusalem, with the saints saluting those "strangers" in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia to whom Peter was writing. Peter was copying John's reference in Revelation to Old Jerusalem being Mystery Babylon.